there has to be consequences

originally posted by: inosomthingudontno

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

Which vaccine? You do know there is more than one don't you? All the ones that have been approved have evidence they work, unlike HCQ.

originally posted by: inosomthingudontno

originally posted by: Xcalibur254
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.

Prove to me it doesnt work ..... How about that.. bet ya cant...

Shills gonna shill though

Prove to me puncing yourself repeatedly in the gonads doesn't cure covid.

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: inosomthingudontno

originally posted by: Xcalibur254
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.

Prove to me it doesnt work ..... How about that.. bet ya cant...

Shills gonna shill though

Prove to me puncing yourself repeatedly in the gonads doesn't cure covid.

Brainwashing is complete. LMAO

a reply to: inosomthingudontno

The first rule of science in general, you can't prove a negative. I could show you study after study that fails to find HCQ is an effective treatment for COVID.

Does that mean it doesn't work? No. It just means we don't have evidence that shows it works. For all we know all those studies just happened to use participants where that didn't react to HCQ the same way as the rest of the population. Or maybe there's a lurking variable that wasn't accounted for.

That said, we can't start prescribing a drug as a treatment when there's insufficient evidence to suggest it works.

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: inosomthingudontno

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

Which vaccine? You do know there is more than one don't you? All the ones that have been approved have evidence they work, unlike HCQ.

All of them Nemo..

a reply to: inosomthingudontno

You mean evidence like this?
Safety and Efficacy of Single-Dose Ad26.COV2.S Vaccine against Covid-19

a reply to: inosomthingudontno

Prove to me it doesnt work ..... How about that.. bet ya cant...

Coronavir us (COVID-19) Update: FDA Revokes Emergency Use Authorization for Chloroquine and Hydroxychloroquine
Dated: June 15, 2020, as in during Trump administration.

Based on its ongoing analysis of the EUA and emerging scientific data, the FDA determined that chloroquine and hydroxychloroquine are unlikely to be effective in treating COVID-19 for the authorized uses in the EUA. Additionally, in light of ongoing serious cardiac adverse events and other potential serious side effects, the known and potential benefits of chloroquine and hydroxychloroquine no longer outweigh the known and potential risks for the authorized use.
...
“While additional clinical trials continue to evaluate the potential benefit of these drugs in treating or preventing COVID-19, we determined the emergency use authorization was no longer appropriate. This action was taken following a rigorous assessment by scientists in our Center for Drug Evaluation and Research,” said Patrizia Cavazzoni, M.D., acting director of the FDA’s Center for Drug Evaluation.

There is additional info in the FAQ link: Frequently Asked

Q. Why was the Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) for hydroxychloroquine sulfate (HCQ) and
chloroquine phosphate (CQ) revoked?
A. ...Based on FDA’s continued review of the scientific evidence available for hydroxychloroquine sulfate (HCQ) and chloroquine phosphate (CQ) to treat COVID-19, FDA has determined that the statutory criteria for EUA as outlined in Section 564(c)(2) of the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act are no
longer met. Specifically, FDA has determined that CQ and HCQ are unlikely to be effective in treating COVID-19 for the authorized uses in the EUA. Additionally, in light of ongoing serious cardiac adverse events and other serious side effects, the known and potential benefits of CQ and HCQ no longer outweigh the known and potential risks for the authorized use. This conclusion warrants revocation of the EUA for HCQ and CQ for the treatment of COVID-19.

FDA’s review of the available scientific evidence determined:

• The suggested dosing regimens for CQ and HCQ as detailed in the Fact Sheets are unlikely to produce an antiviral effect.
• Earlier reports of decreased viral shedding with HCQ or CQ treatment have not been consistently replicated and recent data from a randomized controlled trial assessing probability of negative conversion showed no difference between HCQ and standard of care alone.
• Current U.S. treatment guidelines do not recommend the use of HCQ or CQ in hospitalized patients with COVID-19 outside of a clinical trial, and the NIH guidelines now recommend against such use outside of a clinical trial.
• Recent data from a large randomized controlled trial showed no evidence of benefit of HCQ treatment in hospitalized patients with COVID-19 for mortality or other outcomes such as hospital length of stay or need for mechanical ventilation.

originally posted by: inosomthingudontno

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: inosomthingudontno

originally posted by: Xcalibur254
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.

Prove to me it doesnt work ..... How about that.. bet ya cant...

Shills gonna shill though

Prove to me puncing yourself repeatedly in the gonads doesn't cure covid.

Brainwashing is complete. LMAO

Thanks for your status update, but I think it's pretty clear from your posts a whole lot of washing wasn't required.

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: inosomthingudontno

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: inosomthingudontno

originally posted by: Xcalibur254
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.

Prove to me it doesnt work ..... How about that.. bet ya cant...

Shills gonna shill though

Prove to me puncing yourself repeatedly in the gonads doesn't cure covid.

Brainwashing is complete. LMAO

Thanks for your status update, but I think it's pretty clear from your posts a whole lot of washing wasn't required.

I wonder if you guys can still grow a conscience. I think its to late though.

a reply to: Xcalibur254

The reason why anecdotal evidence is not sufficient is because there's no control over all the variables.

So where is this control over the variables in regards to the vaccine?
And what would make any person that isn't a psychopath ban the use
of potential treatment when it was approved for use seventy five
years ago?

The first rule of science in general, you can't prove a negative.

Rubbish

If the goal was to eliminate as many people as possible than the government is more ineffective than I previously knew them to be.

a reply to: Randyvine

Please refer to the article I previously posted. The nice thing about research articles is they have a whole section telling you how they went about designing their experiment.

originally posted by: Xcalibur254
a reply to: inosomthingudontno

You're a troll. Got it. Thanks for letting me know I don't need to waste my time responding to you.

because you are losing very bad..

You have been called out and you have nothing but more lies. You should be ashamed.. you are still pushing the hydro lie.

Why?? it reads like you actually want more people to die...

originally posted by: Randyvine
a reply to: Xcalibur254

The reason why anecdotal evidence is not sufficient is because there's no control over all the variables.

So where is this control over the variables in regards to the vaccine?
And what would make any person that isn't a psychopath ban the use
of potential treatment when it was approved for use seventy five
years ago?

The first rule of science in general, you can't prove a negative.

Rubbish

Large scale tests with control groups were conducted for all the approved vaccines.

a reply to: Xcalibur254

So do masks now. Since you are so convinced of the science, lets see what ya got on the science behind the masks.The scientist don't get to pick and choose what is science. It seems more like they suppressed research into hydroxchloroquine than anything else. That pesky financial stake seems to be a heavy deciding factor.

originally posted by: inosomthingudontno
They knew from day 1 Hydroxychloroquine and Ivermectin worked.

Well you need to stop right there... We still have 90%+ of the liberals still saying it doesn't work, all evidence is pure anecdotal evidence, zero substance so on and so forth... Even looking at what India has done with it their narrative WILL NEVER CHANGE, because Trump originally said it would work.

Same for the whole "it came from the lab" that Trump pushed...The left said well it isn't our fault that Fauci lied over and over, we just could not believe Trump or anyone else. From day one a number of us were like really???? It came from a wet market and a block away is a designated Biosafety Level 4 (BSL-4) Wuhan lab that had the world's most dangerous pathogens at maximum biocontainment levels?????? And it came from a pesky little bat...OK....