Trump Admits He Takes Hydroxycloroquine

a reply to: The GUT

So, in light of your statement, this lockdown stuff is an overblown disaster I guess you'd say.

No, I wouldn't say that. I would say that it has been highly successful in reducing the numbers of people requiring hospitalization as well as the number of deaths.

originally posted by: Phage
Or have you also considered other studies which may contradict those.

Yeah, I've read a lot more, but now it's your turn---Link, please...to something other than that woefull, inadequate disgrace of a VA "study" and with some o' them double-blinds?

originally posted by: Phage
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.

I do not agree with the bolded sentence. Besides, the term "controlled experiments" can be loosely interpreted and is dubiously interpreted by those promoting Remdesivir and other treatments instead, where suddenly double standards are applied regarding toxicity, side effects and the protocols for treatment with Remdesivir vs HCQ and related studies and publications. All nicely brought out with the 2 main examples in the 2 videos with Dr. Raoult that demonstrate a pattern for both types of marketing/sales-pitch reports published as supposed "scientific studies". A pattern closely followed by other publications on the subject of so-called "controlled experiments" or "gold standard clinical trials". Neither of which are the only means to determin the effectiveness of a treatment when you already have thousands of case studies and statistics concerning actual Covid-19 patients treated with HCQ+Azithromycin, and the national statistics or hospital statistics of patients not receiving that treatment to compare with:

COVID-19 – IHU

a reply to: The GUT

Cheers

a reply to: The GUT

Yeah, I've read a lot more

Yeah. That's why your list was so redundant.

Like I said, I'm waiting the results from better studies.

a reply to: whereislogic

Besides, the term "controlled experiments" can be loosely interpreted

Not really.
It means, basically, that you give some patients the treatment and some you don't. You then compare the results. If the treatment does better than the non-treatment, you might have something.

Of course, there are measures that need to be taken to ensure the validity of the testing. That's where randomization and blinding come into it.

and the national statistics or hospital statistics of patients not receiving that treatment to compare with

Where can these statistics be found?

a reply to: Phage
You may want to acknowledge something from the 2nd Dr. Raoult video after 7:14 before continuing your whole spiel concerning "controlled experiments".

For your and everyone else's convenience:

a reply to: whereislogic

No thank you. I prefer the written word to youtube when it comes to science. Please do your best to tell me what is said. Or better yet, provide what he has published.

originally posted by: The GUT

originally posted by: Phage
Or have you also considered other studies which may contradict those.

Yeah, I've read a lot more, but now it's your turn---Link, please...to something other than that woefull, inadequate disgrace of a VA "study" and with some o' them double-blinds?

Oh no, they're not getting off that easy. Anyone promoting vagueness/ambiguity as to the subject of whether or not HCQ has been "absolutely proven effective" against Covid-19 (hopefully quoting the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons correctly, that terminology was used in a letter quoted in a news report video that was removed), will need to address the duplicity and deceitfulness of reports motivated, affected and/or influenced by marketing-concerns like the so-called "VA study", cause the pattern is not limited to only that publication. And others have a much better appearance of professionality and scientific integrity, but contain the same deception*, much better hidden (*: hiding the marketing influence and how it shapes how things are phrased and made to appear more ambiguous, obscured). And even better deceitful marketing/sales-pitch reports will come out in the future, none of those should matter if it has already been proven conclusively that HCQ+Azithromycin (+additional targeted care in the form of supplements or other useful drugs) has great beneficial effects regarding Covid-19 (15% fatality rate vs 0.5% fatality rate for example to get an idea how "great" this beneficial effect is, 12 days of fever, fever gone in one day, 11 days of fever, fever gone in one day, etc.; see case studies from Dr. Ban. It's all very obvious).

The writing has been on the wall for a while now.

a reply to: whereislogic

15% fatality rate vs 0.5% fatality rate

That is quite impressive. From what study do you get this statistic?

a reply to: Phage
Figure it out yourself, I know your game. Did I mention anything regarding a "study" in relation to those numbers? Or did I use the phrase "for example to get an idea how "great" this beneficial effect is, 12 days of fever, fever gone in one day, 11 days of fever, fever gone in one day, etc.; see case studies from Dr. Ban."

You wanna trap me into saying:

"my own"?

So you can make fun of it and pretend that me doing my own research regarding the matter is no good reason to mention those numbers as an example to get an idea how "great" this beneficial effect is? Dicrediting those numbers from well-reported and comparable statistics for the HCQ+Azithromycin treatment administered to over 3000 positively tested patients at IHU (Marseille hospital, or hospitals, not sure how many buildings they have) compared to the national figures for the whole of France?

Which I already shared the link for before as well as the justification for making that comparison and drawing conclusions from it.

originally posted by: Phage

Without controlled experiments there is no way to know if a treatment is effective.

originally posted by: whereislogic... A pattern closely followed by other publications on the subject of so-called "controlled experiments" or "gold standard clinical trials". Neither of which are the only means to determin the effectiveness of a treatment when you already have thousands of case studies and statistics concerning actual Covid-19 patients treated with HCQ+Azithromycin, and the national statistics or hospital statistics of patients not receiving that treatment to compare with:

COVID-19 – IHU

a reply to: whereislogic

So, there is no study.
You made those numbers up.

originally posted by: troubleshooter

This all day long.WWG1WGA

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: whereislogic

No thank you. I prefer the written word to youtube when it comes to science. Please do your best to tell me what is said. Or better yet, provide what he has published.

Spoken like a Natural Born Disinformation Spin-Doctorr...not saying...just saying if it walks like a Duck and talks like a Duck.....

originally posted by: whereislogic
a reply to: Phage
Figure it out yourself, I know your game. Did I mention anything regarding a "study" in relation to those numbers? Or did I use the phrase "for example to get an idea how "great" this beneficial effect is, 12 days of fever, fever gone in one day, 11 days of fever, fever gone in one day, etc.; see case studies from Dr. Ban."

You wanna trap me into saying:

"my own"?

So you can make fun of it and pretend that me doing my own research regarding the matter is no good reason to mention those numbers as an example to get an idea how "great" this beneficial effect is? Dicrediting those numbers from well-reported and comparable statistics for the HCQ+Azithromycin treatment administered to over 3000 positively tested patients at IHU (Marseille hospital, or hospitals, not sure how many buildings they have) compared to the national figures for the whole of France?

Which I already shared the link for before as well as the justification for making that comparison and drawing conclusions from it.

originally posted by: Phage

Without controlled experiments there is no way to know if a treatment is effective.

originally posted by: whereislogic... A pattern closely followed by other publications on the subject of so-called "controlled experiments" or "gold standard clinical trials". Neither of which are the only means to determin the effectiveness of a treatment when you already have thousands of case studies and statistics concerning actual Covid-19 patients treated with HCQ+Azithromycin, and the national statistics or hospital statistics of patients not receiving that treatment to compare with:

COVID-19 – IHU

Good call....the Disonfo people always try to lure you to the Peer Approved Published data....because it is bastarised to fit their chosen perspectives....its just a BriarPatch they know well.

Fear not the majority of readers fall on your side of this point....if there was ever going to be a time when attempting to toss disinformation or static into a truthfull well intended conversation would turn you into a Pink Elephant in the Room it is right now today.

Carry on,good job.

originally posted by: whereislogic
...
hydroxychloroquine Dr. Raoult

Make sure that with the last one it's actually a video that has Dr. Raoult in it saying something of relevance. The media likes to discredit him without quoting or interviewing him, but just talking about him or showing him without him saying anything or translating what he's saying. Or do the trick again with leaving out anything inconvenient he might have said if they report on him in the first place. ...

This video is a prime example of a news channel muting Dr. Raoult because they want to make their own arguments and distract you from what Dr. Raoult actually has to say:

It's a repeating pattern amongst news reports about HCQ again. The emphasis lies on arguments of the nature 'it isn't clear yet if it works' ('it isn't proven conclusively', it's only "promising", 'it may be quite harmful', "possible dangerous side effects", the evidence in favor of HCQ is "anecdotal", "not conducted in a scientific way", etc.; the last few were quotations from the video above, except for "anecdotal", that is Fauci's and other people's favorite word to downplay and discredit the evidence we do have). If they show Dr. Raoult saying anything at all, they still steer it back in that direction of ambiguity/vagueness again, downplaying the evidence by not going into detail about it, then quickly repeating the same set of arguments and talking points that I just described again (so it's the last thing and impression that remains in the minds of the audience, they're pushing buttons people):

Note the sneaky subject switch at 0:20 from HCQ to CQ that Phage also repeated (possibly not knowing any better as to why that may be important when used in upcoming counterarguments against the use or proven effectiveness of HCQ). CQ is less effective and more toxic than HCQ. It has also gotten a bad rep by what looks like an intentional overdosed treatment protocol that was used for a while in Brazil, that has been extensively used to exaggerate the toxicity and supposed harmful nature of using HCQ in the treatment of Covid-19, another deception.

a reply to: whereislogic

Im not sure why everyone is making a big deal out of it. I got a perscription for 4 months to prevent malaria. In fact if your going to a country with malaria its recomended to start treatment 2 weeks prior.

For some reason a realitively safe drug has become evil. Any drug taken in large quantities can cause problems. There are people that die from ibuprofen. Which is considered safe and given to children.

a reply to: dragonridr

dose taken for prophylactic treatment of malaria is different than dose suggested for Corona. Increased dose = increased risk for side effects