there has to be consequences

a reply to: underpass61

So a 2005 study about using a different drug to treat a different disease in animals is proof that HCQ can treat COVID?

It certainly provided the impetus for studies that looked into the effectiveness of HCQ for treating COVID. Unfortunately, those studies were inconclusive at best.

So why should HCQ have been pushed as the primary treatment when the evidence to support its effectiveness just isn't there?

originally posted by: Xcalibur254
a reply to: underpass61

So a 2005 study about using a different drug to treat a different disease in animals is proof that HCQ can treat COVID?

It certainly provided the impetus for studies that looked into the effectiveness of HCQ for treating COVID. Unfortunately, those studies were inconclusive at best.

So why should HCQ have been pushed as the primary treatment when the evidence to support its effectiveness just isn't there?

Wow . How many more people do you want to die?

They had frontline doctors saying it worked banned from youtube banned from FB banned from twitter.

You should be ashamed of yourself. You were and are wrong just effing admit it

So you dont look like such a heartless clown

a reply to: Xcalibur254
That's right, go down swinging bro. Never admit defeat.

a reply to: Xcalibur254

Lmaoooo you got all the big brain questions huh. Bwahahaha

Pathetic.

Still no evidence it works.

www.cochrane.org...

a reply to: inosomthingudontno

There's a reason why anecdotal evidence is not sufficient when it comes to medical studies (or any scientific research.)

How do those frontline doctors know it was the HCQ that worked and not another treatment? How do they know that it was a case that was going to become severe if it hadn't been for HCQ?

The reason why anecdotal evidence is not sufficient is because there's no control over all the variables. It also doesn't look at a large enough percentage of the population. Just because it may have worked in a handful of patients doesn't mean it works in all or even most.

When scientists actually did perform studies where variables were controlled and a large sample size was used it was found that HCQ's effectiveness on COVID was inconclusive at best.

Sorry but that's how science works.

a reply to: underpass61

Says the person relying on a 2005 study that used a different drug to treat a different disease in a different species. Meanwhile, I can point to studies done in the last year that looked into the effectiveness of HCQ on COVID in humans.

originally posted by: Xcalibur254
a reply to: inosomthingudontno

There's a reason why anecdotal evidence is not sufficient when it comes to medical studies (or any scientific research.)

How do those frontline doctors know it was the HCQ that worked and not another treatment? How do they know that it was a case that was going to become severe if it hadn't been for HCQ?

The reason why anecdotal evidence is not sufficient is because there's no control over all the variables. It also doesn't look at a large enough percentage of the population. Just because it may have worked in a handful of patients doesn't mean it works in all or even most.

When scientists actually did perform studies where variables were controlled and a large sample size was used it was found that HCQ's effectiveness on COVID was inconclusive at best.

Sorry but that's how science works.

WOW because they are medical professionals you clown.... Didnt you just say in this very thread to believe the doctors and the medical pros.?

Or only just the doctors that perpetuate the lie??

a reply to: ScepticScot

Really?

Countries that use Hydroxychloroquine may have 80% lower Covid death rates

originally posted by: underpass61
a reply to: ScepticScot

Really?

Countries that use Hydroxychloroquin may have 80% lower Covid death rates

He does not care about facts this is his job.. lOL

I was looking at last stand flags and such.

originally posted by: underpass61
a reply to: ScepticScot

Really?

Countries that use Hydroxychloroquine may have 80% lower Covid death rates

That isn't evidence as it ignores all other factors that influence death rates, even your link acknowledges this.

This is not proof that HCQ works — because it neglects differences in infection rates — but it is very suggestive.
[quote]

a reply to: inosomthingudontno

There has to be consequences, they have to pay.!!!!!

LMAO I thought everyone understood by now that this is the
impossible dream. Bless your heart! But you have a ways to
go before you're back in Kansas.

a reply to: inosomthingudontno

I'm in no way diminishing the work being done by those on the frontlines. But that doesn't change the fact that a doctor's office or hospital doesn't operate under laboratory conditions.

Were the doctors that were seeing positive results also prescribing anny other treatments at the same time? If so, how do they know that wasn't what was effective? How do they know the patient wasn't self-medicating in some way? As I asked before, how do they know how severe the case was going to become before treating with HCQ?

These are all variables, among countless others, that simply can't be accounted for on a case-by-case basis in the wild. That's why we actually need to look a large scale studies that seek to minimize these variables. When we do that the effectiveness of HCQ on COVID just isn't there.

As I said before, this is just how science works. Anecdotal cases can certainly guide us toward avenues of research but that's all they can really do.

originally posted by: Xcalibur254

Sorry but that's how science works.

LOL,
you are spot on. Science now says that if Trump says something, the opposite is true, even if he's right, because reasons.
How long were the studies on HCQ?

If they didn't get those experimental "vaccine" bucks as well as the option to turn the entire planet into willing lab rats this could have been prevented.

Once they realized they could, as well as push many agendas important to them... Let's just say it became a virologist, eugenist, political, and NWO wet dream come true.

a reply to: underpass61

Any first year student in a research discipline can tell you the first rule of statistical analyses, correlation does not imply causation. Your own article seems to state pretty much the same at the end.

originally posted by: ScepticScot
Still no evidence it works.

www.cochrane.org...

Still no evidence the effing vaccine works but you guys love to push that...

i hope people wake up and realize that you want as many people to die as possible