Trump Admits He Takes Hydroxycloroquine

a reply to: whereislogic

Yeah. Youtube.

Remember 2012? That was awesome.


Raoult. Right. But Dr Oz thinks he's awesome, so he must be.
www.bfmtv.com...

originally posted by: Phage
That "find it yourself" schtick is pretty weak.

Only for the weak-minded. Are you seriously gonna throw around one- and two-liners on a subject you haven't researched? Why, yes, yes it seems you are. Not biting your rancid bait---there's been links in this thread.

Like I said, if it was hard to find I'd help a disingenuous old coot out, but...

a reply to: The GUT

I am familiar with the ongoing, real studies. None with any published results.

I am also familiar with the crap. Controls? Who needs 'em? Blinds? meh.

Show me what you got or shut up.

So, taking a drug for preventative measure, but then still getting sick, makes one an “idiot”

What about wearing a mask, which definitely doesn’t prevent a virus from infecting you, and still getting sick? Still an idiot?

What about washing your hands and still getting sick? Idiotic?

If the President contracts this innocuous virus, it just means the drug did not work as a preventative measure.

No loss on his behalf at all and he most definitely has NOT put ANY lives on the line whatsoever. That’s just a pathetic thing to say.

But hey guys, wear that mask. It’ll save your life!

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: The GUT

I am familiar with the ongoing, real studies. None with any published results.

Show me what you got or shut up.

Double-blind...you mean like they do with Evolution...oh wait. I've already acknowledged the efficacy rate isn't confirmed, but that it has some efficacy of action isn't up for debate. Unless you know better?

Certainly more than Remdesivir, but...Fauci.

a reply to: The GUT

Where can I find the rest of those vids

a reply to: The GUT

Double-blind...you mean like they do with Evolution.

No. There isn't much call for experiments on the efficacy of evolution.

but that it has some efficacy of action isn't up for debate.

Again. Show me.
Show me a controlled study which shows better than a coin flip.

Without controls you got nothing. Some people get better no matter what you do. Some people don't no matter what you do. Without controls you have no way of knowing if a treatment is effective or not.

originally posted by: Breakthestreak
So, taking a drug for preventative measure, but then still getting sick, makes one an “idiot”

What about wearing a mask, which definitely doesn’t prevent a virus from infecting you, and still getting sick? Still an idiot?

What about washing your hands and still getting sick? Idiotic?

If the President contracts this innocuous virus, it just means the drug did not work as a preventative measure.

No loss on his behalf at all and he most definitely has NOT put ANY lives on the line whatsoever. That’s just a pathetic thing to say.

But hey guys, wear that mask. It’ll save your life!

No dog in this fight, but can you really compare taking a drug, that like any, has potential side effects..to washing hands?

I really have no idea on the drug.

a reply to: Phage
Town down the arrogance level a notch one day, perhaps it will help you see some new useful things. Dr. Raoult is a highly respected researcher of contagious diseases in France in charge of a whole team of researchers and physicians taking care of Covid-19 patients. Who are you again to discredit him just because Dr. Oz interviewed him once (or twice?)?

Yes, youtube can contain the same type of information you find on wikipedia and other similar sources looked at derisively by those with a questionable mental compass for useful knowledge/science. It may not be always easy to find, but it helps if you know what you're looking for and how to distinguish what is right/true from what is wrong/false.

With a working mental compass it can do no more harm than watching the news, on any mainstream channel. And it's easier to find something actually useful than when using google (which will give you mostly results from political websites or marketing/sales-pitch reports sold under the marketingbanner "Science" or as scientific studies or publications, such as the so-called "VA study" and the marketing/sales-pitch report on Remdesivir discussed in the 2 videos with Dr. Raoult in my first comment here, the former appropiately labeled as "scientific fraud" by Dr. Raoult but counts just as much for the latter).

a reply to: vonclod

Like you said, ALL drugs have side effects and this particular drug has been in use for decades

But all of sudden, it’s dangerous

a reply to: whereislogic

Dr. Raoult is a highly respected researcher of contagious diseases in France in charge of a whole team of researchers and physicians taking care of Covid-19 patients

A researcher who disdains experimental controls? That seems odd.
He's not really that well respected, actually.
Use Google translate on the article Iinked.

But many scientists argued this Saturday that it was impossible to draw this conclusion on the basis of this study alone, because of the way it is drawn up. Their main criticism: the study does not include a control group, that is to say patients to whom the study treatment is not administered, and it is therefore impossible to establish a comparison to determine whether it is is the treatment which is at the origin of the improvement.

originally posted by: Breakthestreak
a reply to: vonclod

Like you said, ALL drugs have side effects and this particular drug has been in use for decades

But all of sudden, it’s dangerous

Under a doctors direction, I imagine it's as safe as many other things, just probably not a great idea to wing it.

It certainly is more dangerous than washing your hands, or wearing a mask.

a reply to: Phage
All already responded to in the 2 videos with Dr. Raoult's commentary in them. You're not going to address anything he says in those videos are you?

Stop wasting my and everyone else's time please, repeating Big Pharma's talking points and arguments. Or at least get some money from Big Pharma or the Health Care Sector (anyone working on vaccins and other treatments or making some significant money off this pandemic) directly for it if you're going to advertise their arguments and talking points with a strong marketing motive against HCQ.

a reply to: whereislogic

Did he use experimental controls?
If not, how does he know that chloroquine had any effect at all?

repeating Big Pharma's talking points and arguments.

Right. Forget science. That's just bull#. Let's just try stuff and guess about what happened. Let's go back to the middle ages and alchemy and stuff. That's the ticket.

Most people recover from COVID19. The vast majority of them do. With or without treatment. Without controls there is no way to know if any treatment has any effect.

originally posted by: Phage

Show me a controlled study which shows better than a coin flip.

We've already established that everyone is waiting for more studies. What's not debatable is that Hydroxychloroquine shows clinical promise and has known action---and that's what we--or I anyway--have been talking about.

Primates and In Vitro: Chloroquine is a potent inhibitor of SARS coronavirus infection and spread

Humans: Sequential CQ / HCQ Research Papers and Reports
January to April 20, 2020


That's just scratching the surface. So, more than anecdotal, but not proven. You admit that it shows promise I'm assuming?

Moreso than Remdesivir? We know Hydroxychloroquine is a relatively safe drug and we also know it's being used as an assumed--based on the science to date--prophylaxis in India, So. Korea, etc.

Hydroxychloroquine Has about 90 Percent Chance of Helping COVID-19 Patients, States Association of American Physicians and Surgeons (AAPS)

Peer-reviewed studies published from January through April 20, 2020, provide clear and convincing evidence that HCQ may be beneficial in COVID-19, especially when used early, states AAPS.

a reply to: Phage
How predictable, quick quick, switch to talking about chloroquine instead of hydroxychloroquine (or the actual treatment Dr. Raoult has already used to help over 3000 patients together with his team and the rest of the hospital staff including expert advice by cardiologists at IHU concerning QT prolongation).

a reply to: whereislogic

You really don't understand?

It doesn't matter what the treatment is. It could be chlorox. It could be tequila.
Without controlled experiments there is no way to know if a treatment is effective.

originally posted by: Phage

Most people recover from COVID19. The vast majority of them do. With or without treatment. Without controls there is no way to know if any treatment has any effect.

So, in light of your statement, this lockdown stuff is an overblown disaster I guess you'd say. Time to open America for business again!

The fact you state may lower total efficacy of H+Z+Z but it's still pretty clear it's an advantageous treatment.

a reply to: The GUT

That wasn't so hard now, was it?

1) In vitro, in monkeys, is far from evidence of efficacy in humans, in vivo.

2) Oh look the same list which is linked in the article about AAPS. So is your first link part of that list.

Is AAPS the extent of your "research?" Or have you also considered other studies which may contradict those.

The association is generally recognized as politically conservative or ultra-conservative, and its publication advocates a range of scientifically discredited hypotheses, including the belief that HIV does not cause AIDS, that being gay reduces life expectancy, that there is a link between abortion and breast cancer, and that there is a causal relationship between vaccines and autism[citation needed].

en.wikipedia.org...

originally posted by: hopenotfeariswhatweneed
a reply to: The GUT

Where can I find the rest of those vids

Part 1 is in the following playlist somewhere:

Link