Pandemic threat? Anyone else concerned?
- Thread starter erkme73
- Start date
mat200
IPCT Contributor
- Jan 17, 2017
- 15,112
- 25,520
Drbeen covers the topic well, for those who like to learn more on how the immune response to SARS-CoV-2 works, and thus our expectations of successful herd immunity with successful vaccinations.
Note: Drbeen is yet another channel that Youtube censored.
Drbeen Medical Lectures
Time For SARS-COV-2 To Go Away, And An Update on ARB/ACEIs
Example of the videos youtube have been censoring...
Note: Drbeen is yet another channel that Youtube censored.
Drbeen Medical Lectures
Time For SARS-COV-2 To Go Away, And An Update on ARB/ACEIs
Example of the videos youtube have been censoring...
Maximo101
Getting the hang of it
Im in victoria Australia and more concerned with the 'state of emergency' they declared which gives them the right to enforce whatever the government wants without passing legislation... putting people in jail for non compliance... it is truly an Orwellian future we heading towards
Chris Martensen's latest video exposes more of the political demonization of HCQ. Link to video below. The HCQ discussion starts at 18:34. One thing he brings up is the Henry Ford Health System study info released last month. The initial results were positive and they asked the FDA for permission to continue, which the FDA denied. The study then got slammed as being bogus for not following the golden standard study rules, which they were working toward, except the FDA says they can't continue using HCQ. Their summary is telling:
"Unfortunately, the political climate that has persisted has made any objective discussion about this drug impossible, and we are deeply saddened by this turn of events," FDA denied Henry Ford's request to continue using hydroxychloroquine for COVID-19 patients after hospital released controversial study
A second piece of info is a long list questions prepared by a group of doctors about covid treatment. The questions are structured to point out all of the downright lies and misinformation we're being fed, and how all of the trials being used to demonize HCQ have been rigged to fail. It's a long read. Martensen focused on the first list of 34 questions. Doctors Pen Open Letter To Fauci Regarding The Use Of Hydroxychloroquine for Treating COVID-19
I won't hold my breath for Dr Fauci to answer the questions. And while I won't stand up and say that HCQ works, I sure can't see how anybody without a political or big pharma agenda can stand up and say it doesn't work.
"Unfortunately, the political climate that has persisted has made any objective discussion about this drug impossible, and we are deeply saddened by this turn of events," FDA denied Henry Ford's request to continue using hydroxychloroquine for COVID-19 patients after hospital released controversial study
A second piece of info is a long list questions prepared by a group of doctors about covid treatment. The questions are structured to point out all of the downright lies and misinformation we're being fed, and how all of the trials being used to demonize HCQ have been rigged to fail. It's a long read. Martensen focused on the first list of 34 questions. Doctors Pen Open Letter To Fauci Regarding The Use Of Hydroxychloroquine for Treating COVID-19
I won't hold my breath for Dr Fauci to answer the questions. And while I won't stand up and say that HCQ works, I sure can't see how anybody without a political or big pharma agenda can stand up and say it doesn't work.
Frankenscript
Known around here
- Dec 21, 2017
- 1,288
- 1,201
The open letter is crap and has been widely picked apart, by doctors all over the world most of whom don't care about US politics. It completely ignores some of the best randomized controlled trials (RCTs) such as these:
HQ Doesn't work for COVID-19 prophylaxis
HQ Doesn't work for mild to moderate COVID-19
HQ Doesn't work for Hospitalized patients with COVID-19
More and more work is being released that shows HQ doesn't have much clinical benefit. Does it not work AT ALL? Who knows? What matters is that it doesn't work well, and other treatments out there work much better. NO RCT IN THE ENTIRE WORLD THAT OBSERVED GOOD PRACTICES EVER SHOWED A STRONG BENEFIT FROM HQ. NONE! Lots of studies now showed either no benefit or very weak benefits. Every time a study emerges that purports a big benefit from the drug, it is quickly shown to be flawed. The ones that survive dissection are the ones that actually show little or no benefit.
The Henry Ford study was the best out there but it didn't control for use of the steroids, and we now understand the strong impact those steroids have.
Doctors care about saving patients and they pick a treatment that offers the most promise. Right now it seems that other antivirals (remdesivir is one, but not the only one) plus steroids is a strongly effective treatment, with other things in the mix depending on circumstances. No magic bullets but that works much better than HQ.
Also look at places that put their faith in HQ, like Brazil. Big nightmare. If HQ had a strong signal there wouldn't be >1000 deaths per day in a country where there is a lot of pressure to use HQ.
Gosh guys, give it up.
HQ Doesn't work for COVID-19 prophylaxis
HQ Doesn't work for mild to moderate COVID-19
HQ Doesn't work for Hospitalized patients with COVID-19
More and more work is being released that shows HQ doesn't have much clinical benefit. Does it not work AT ALL? Who knows? What matters is that it doesn't work well, and other treatments out there work much better. NO RCT IN THE ENTIRE WORLD THAT OBSERVED GOOD PRACTICES EVER SHOWED A STRONG BENEFIT FROM HQ. NONE! Lots of studies now showed either no benefit or very weak benefits. Every time a study emerges that purports a big benefit from the drug, it is quickly shown to be flawed. The ones that survive dissection are the ones that actually show little or no benefit.
The Henry Ford study was the best out there but it didn't control for use of the steroids, and we now understand the strong impact those steroids have.
Doctors care about saving patients and they pick a treatment that offers the most promise. Right now it seems that other antivirals (remdesivir is one, but not the only one) plus steroids is a strongly effective treatment, with other things in the mix depending on circumstances. No magic bullets but that works much better than HQ.
Also look at places that put their faith in HQ, like Brazil. Big nightmare. If HQ had a strong signal there wouldn't be >1000 deaths per day in a country where there is a lot of pressure to use HQ.
Gosh guys, give it up.
fenderman
Staff member
- Mar 9, 2014
- 36,892
- 21,407
Take all your randomized faulty studies that you get paid for doing and shove them up your ass. You know what else is dangerous? plastic surgery and abortions. Let me and my doctor choose what is best for ME! Its is 100 percent safe - this is fact. Do i need to link the cdc pdf again for ya?
The faulty studies you cite are deliberately sabotaged to give the cocktail to those already hospitalized.
The Key to Defeating COVID-19 Already Exists. We Need to Start Using It
Contrary to what you hear, there is clear-cut medical evidence for the efficacy of hydroxychloroquine.
www.newsweek.com
Why do you lie about brazil without providing statistics on its use and data on how and when it was administered.
I am really not surprised that the studies came back with poor results when political activists like you work for these companies doing the studies. You have no problem lying about hcq so I would not be surprised if you and others altered data and or deliberately gave the meds to very ill patients.
Covid itself is overblown and is not a significant danger to those under 50. The asshole governor of NJ has had gyms closed since march. People are literally dying and their health declining as a result.Kids suffering being kept out of school despite being at almost zero risk. Businesses are reeling, millions of lives ruined over a joke of a virus.
fenderman
Staff member
- Mar 9, 2014
- 36,892
- 21,407
I will also point out that the fake study you linked to on prophylaxis did not give patients the cocktail that is required for hcq to work. No zinc, no zithro. They were given only hcq. #fakenews. Did you think we would not read the study?
The last two studies did not use zinc.
The last two studies did not use zinc.
Oceanslider
Known around here
"Those who identify as Democrats tend to mistakenly overstate the risk of death from COVID-19 for younger people much more than Republicans."
They Blinded Us from Science | Franklin Templeton
Our Fixed Income CIO Sonal Desai unveils the first insights from the new Franklin Templeton–Gallup research project on the behavioral response to COVID-19.
us.beyondbullsandbears.com
The trials that suggest a positive outcome are slammed for not being random, double-blind, and strictly following all the protocols. This one says "We acknowledge that this trial has limitations. Because of the lack of availability of diagnostic testing in the United States, the vast majority of the participants, including health care workers, were unable to access testing. ", yet its outcome is accepted and promoted in the MSM.
This one says "First, although the point estimate of effect suggests no major difference between the groups with respect to the primary outcome, the trial cannot definitively rule out either a substantial benefit of the trial drugs or a substantial harm. " No challenge in the MSM.
This one concludes "No clinical benefit from use of hydroxychlorquine in hospitalized patients with covid-19"., which is in-line with what the studies claiming a benefit say, yet it's used to discredit the studies that say the same darn thing.
THEN WHY THE HECK ARE ALL OF THE STUDIES IN THE US RIGGED TO SHOW FAILURE INSTEAD OF OBSERVING GOOD PRACTICES?
Here's an example of why I think the information we're fed is a bunch of baloney:
Texas Coronavirus Positivity Rate Plummets After Record High Set From System Error
I wonder if the press will give as much exposure to correct the bogus information as they did to scare people with it?
Texas Coronavirus Positivity Rate Plummets After Record High Set From System Error
I wonder if the press will give as much exposure to correct the bogus information as they did to scare people with it?
There are a bunch of idiot voters that think that for democracy to exist you need to be a democrat 
"Those who identify as Democrats tend to mistakenly overstate the risk of death from COVID-19 for younger people much more than Republicans."
They Blinded Us from Science | Franklin Templeton
Our Fixed Income CIO Sonal Desai unveils the first insights from the new Franklin Templeton–Gallup research project on the behavioral response to COVID-19.us.beyondbullsandbears.com
Frankenscript
Known around here
- Dec 21, 2017
- 1,288
- 1,201
Interesting how there are all these random system / reporting errors in R states like Texas and Florida that erode faith in testing and reporting. Just a coincidence? Or a plot to undermine the system?
(For the record I have no information that the mistakes are anything other than signs of incompetence, but I decided to do a Trump-tweet style post just for fun)
Sent from my ONEPLUS A6013 using Tapatalk
Chapel Hill and Notre Dame Are Just the Beginning
Both institutions have had to flip online in response to rapidly rising levels of infection. Public-health experts say other campuses will probably suffer similar fates.
www.chronicle.com
Armed&Overclocked
Pulling my weight
Couple problems with this line of logic.
First the whole purpose of RCT (Randomized controlled trials) is to reduce rigging and bias. By having it randomized it is harder for the researchers to make inferences based on their preconceived biases. Ideally the study would have a large sample size which would allow for more normalized statistical data. The original "study" that put HCQ on the map as a potential treatment, was observational with only a handful of people,some of whom were removed from the study after they took a turn for the worse.
furthermore the "its safe let me take it" is a bit short sighted. For starters just because its an FDA approved medication doesn't mean it cannot carry risks, and doctors should refrain from prescribing medication that doesnt appear effective to avoid potential side effects. There are a lot of FDA approved medications for various treatments that carry some significant side effects, but are approved because the potential positive effects generally outweigh the negative ones. For instance Chemo therapy has a large amount of negative effects, but it can be effective at killing cancer so it's approved. Also don't forget that opoid medication was originally touted by the sackler family as being a near zero risk way of combating chronic pain, and yet here we are in the midst of an opoid epidemic.
Also people peddling HCQ as a potential cure, without much efficacy to back it up, are not much different than those preachers that were saying their silver drink was a cure-all for carona, or stoners who portray marijuana as a cure-all for basically everything.
Lastly there are a lot of people that rely on HCQ for non-covid related illnesses, and when the president pushed HCQ as potential cure and advocated people "just take it"; it caused a run on supply and people with a genuine need had to wait in order to get refills. It basically mirrored the huge run on toilet paper at the start of the pandemic.
On a personal note i wish HCQ was the cure-all bloggers and media heads have touted it to be, i also wish remdesivir lives up to the potential hype. But unless the data supports either of them, from good quality studies, i am not going to hold my breath. The scientific method exist for a reason, and its already bad enough that most published studies (in general) have very low repeatability (meaning others cannot duplicate their findings with the same methods. )
fenderman
Staff member
- Mar 9, 2014
- 36,892
- 21,407
Couple of problems with your lies. The intent/purpose of RTC and the actual methods used by those conducting the study are different. Why do you think it would only be researches who are biased and not others involved in the study who can manipulate the results.
Did you NOT read the CDC pdf. Its SAFE even for pregnant women and children. This is given to folks going on pleasure trips. Nowhere in the pdf does it state, perhaps you should reconsider your african safari. Your chemo red herring notwithstanding.
Why do you lie about there not being evidence to back it up. Did you not read The key to defeating COVID-19 already exists. We need to start using it | Opinion
There is a STOCKPILE of hcq. There is no shortage. Regardless there are alternatives for folks who take it for lupus and RA, and it stays in their system for up to 40 days. They would not have died if they would have to wait a few weeks for the supply to ramp up.
My point simply is LET PEOPLE AND THEIR DOCTORS make medical decisions. STOP THE TYRANNY. You need to stop lying.
Armed&Overclocked
Pulling my weight
no i didn't read your blog post as i prefer to read the actual studies and see what the methodology was used. If you cant link that then don't bother touting it as evidence it works. Its no better than those people who link youtube videos touting the evils of GMOs by someone who is supposedly a doctor.
and yes i did read the PDF the CDC put out regarding its safety, and its use for treating malaria in regions where it would be effective. Noticeably absent was a fact sheet regarding how effective HCQ is on covid.
I did find where the FDA revoked HCQ as a potential treatment , and i also found the NIH page advocates against using HCQ as a treatment for covid Antiviral Therapy | Coronavirus Disease COVID-19. Since both of these agencies report to trump i can only assume that the president is kosher with these findings.
lastly do you have any formal training or education in statistical analysis or creating/running/analyzing the findings of a study? you call me a liar, but then proceed to make statements proving you have poor, to no, understanding of RCTs or the scientific method in general.
Here is an overview of the various types of studies that are available. Its not exhaustive, but it covers the basics. The TLDR is that RCTs are generally the most reliable; especially when studying the effects of drugs. It's not perfect (as stated by the article) but when done right it can yield quality results. This is why research papers not only have to present their methodology (so people can judge if it was done correctly, and try to repeat the study) and should be peer reviewed before being publish.
.
This is where ethical issues divide both parties (doctors and patients). Doctors are to not do harm to their patients. Even if patients want HCQ, doctors will not want to prescribe them if they suspect that it will affect the patient's health. Might as well seek another doctor in this case.
Specifically for HCQ, I've read multiple reports that its side effect risk is substantially lower than multiple OTC medications. No, I don't have medical expertise to say this as I'm just a prisoner to all of the biased information that's published. What drives my conclusion is when HCQ was considered to be one of the safest drugs out there for ~60 years then all of a sudden is dangerous when it's politically convenient, I tend to be highly suspicious of the new improved information. As one example, at the site Hydroxychloroquine Uses, Dosage & Side Effects - Drugs.com
In 2016, the Side Effects section said "When this medicine is used for short periods of time, side effects usually are rare. " This statement does not appear on the current web site. Conversely, the current Important Information section says "Hydroxychloroquine can cause dangerous effects on your heart", which it didn't say in 2016. I can't say the new info isn't true, just that its timing appears to be politically motivated.
Even Dr. Fauci said he'd prescribe it before he changed his mind.