The Fourth Year of the Trump Presidency

Breeal

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 26, 2015
Messages
7,787
Two things.

1. Why the sudden appreciation of peer reviewed fully referenced studies?

2. This was from 2005 and concerns a different strain of Coronavirus. Is there follow up studies which suggest that it is effective bin treating the new strain?

In case you say anything I would love to be shown that this is a safe effective treatment for Covid 19.
Here you go.... No doubt this will be removed by the information police, if a study can't be used to make the president look bad, it generally gets pulled.


hospitalized patients, use of hydroxychloroquine alone and in combination with azithromycin was associated with a significant reduction in-hospital mortality compared to not receiving hydroxychloroquine.
 


owedtojoy

Moderator
Joined
Feb 27, 2010
Messages
53,536
Here you go.... No doubt this will be removed by the information police, if a study can't be used to make the president look bad, it generally gets pulled.


hospitalized patients, use of hydroxychloroquine alone and in combination with azithromycin was associated with a significant reduction in-hospital mortality compared to not receiving hydroxychloroquine.
The President is an ignoramus fool anyway, and the World Health Organisation have hydroxychloroquine as the lead in their Mythbusters:


FACT: Studies show hydroxychloroquine does not have clinical benefits in treating COVID-19

mb-chloroquine.tmb-1920v.png


There are treatment alternatives to hydroxychloroquine that are showing much more hopeful signs The treatment options are: Remdesivir; Lopinavir/Ritonavir; and Lopinavir/Ritonavir with Interferon beta-1a. Google them.

What you are presenting as science is an ass-covering exercise for Trump.
 

Breeal

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 26, 2015
Messages
7,787
The President is an ignoramus fool anyway, and the World Health Organisation have hydroxychloroquine as the lead in their Mythbusters:


FACT: Studies show hydroxychloroquine does not have clinical benefits in treating COVID-19

View attachment 26814

There are treatment alternatives to hydroxychloroquine that are showing much more hopeful signs The treatment options are: Remdesivir; Lopinavir/Ritonavir; and Lopinavir/Ritonavir with Interferon beta-1a. Google them.

What you are presenting as science is an ass-covering exercise for Trump.
Dear god, the WHO, I'll leave you to your orange man bad BS. NEXT!
 

shutuplaura

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 1, 2008
Messages
2,281
Here you go.... No doubt this will be removed by the information police, if a study can't be used to make the president look bad, it generally gets pulled.


hospitalized patients, use of hydroxychloroquine alone and in combination with azithromycin was associated with a significant reduction in-hospital mortality compared to not receiving hydroxychloroquine.
Well your first post appears to have been deleted, probably because it was misleading in the context here.

Thank you for the link to the much criticised Henry Does Health System research. Unfortunately it has been shown to have many flaws. If the findings are repeated in a different clinical setting it might be significant. But so far those findings have not. Which shows why the president should butt out and let the medical researchers do their thing.
 

Malcolm Redfellow

Moderator
Joined
Sep 29, 2009
Messages
4,933
Website
redfellow.blogspot.com
Twitter
mredfellow
Here you go.... No doubt this will be removed by the information police, if a study can't be used to make the president look bad, it generally gets pulled.
[...]
Gosh! Do we have to go through that one again?

The Henry Ford COVID-19 Task Force was there reporting on an 'observational study' of 2,541 in-care patients, between 10 March and 2 May 2020. It then excluded those who pegged it within 24hrs. The study was flawed for all kinds of reasons:
  • it wasn't randomised;
  • it therefore didn't fulfil the usual requirement for an 'authoritative' study;
  • the patients in the study also received other medications, including steroids (which have also been shown to assist in hospitalised patients);
  • other studies have shown hydroxychloroquine to be potentially harmful, on which the Federal Drug Administration withdrew (15 June) any recommendation for hydroxychloroquine.
For the purposes of argument along the lines Breeal seems to indicate, that study fails on one basic: it had no relevance to controlling CoVid in the community, or as a preventative (the Trump notion), but was explicitly hospital-based, with patients well advanced in CoVid symptoms. Since that 1 July publication, its authors, not retracting, have written a modifying statement.

Still, President Trump sent out his 'trade adviser' (which itself deserves N.B.), Peter Navarro, to demand the FDA issue a new recommendation. Navarro's credibility as a self-proclaimed China expert, was shot by inventing a source 'Ron Vara' (anagram): he has pushed himself on five occasions for election in San Diego, and has fallen well short each time:

His former campaign adviser, Larry Remer, said: “I wouldn’t trust him to go out to get lunch and come back with everybody’s sandwich and drink order correctly. I don’t know how he could be put in charge of logistics.
“On one level it’s amusing but on another level, it’s really dangerous,” added Remer, a San Diego political consultant.

Navarro's other involvement in CoVid was to be in charge of the purchase and supply of ventilators. A $500 million overspend remains down to Navarro's 'expertise'.

President Trump, through his family trusts, and Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross (another close connection to Navarro) have financial interests in Sanofi, the manufacturer of Plaquenil, the brand-name for hydroxychloroquine.
 

Breeal

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 26, 2015
Messages
7,787
Well your first post appears to have been deleted, probably because it was misleading in the context here.

Thank you for the link to the much criticised Henry Does Health System research. Unfortunately it has been shown to have many flaws. If the findings are repeated in a different clinical setting it might be significant. But so far those findings have not. Which shows why the president should butt out and let the medical researchers do their thing.
Incorrect, it was removed because it pointed to a potential treatment, something that is 100% worthy of discussion, it's a disgrace that it was deleted.

You asked for a more up to date study, which I provided and you dismissed because it didn't say what you wanted it to say. So when you say let the researchers do their thing, the only research you're willing to accept is research that might make the president look bad, screw the people that might have their lives saved by HDC, Orange man bad RA RA RA.
 
Last edited:

Breeal

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 26, 2015
Messages
7,787
Gosh! Do we have to go through that one again?

The Henry Ford COVID-19 Task Force was there reporting on an 'observational study' of 2,541 in-care patients, between 10 March and 2 May 2020. It then excluded those who pegged it within 24hrs. The study was flawed for all kinds of reasons:
  • it wasn't randomised;
  • it therefore didn't fulfil the usual requirement for an 'authoritative' study;
  • the patients in the study also received other medications, including steroids (which have also been shown to assist in hospitalised patients);
  • other studies have shown hydroxychloroquine to be potentially harmful, on which the Federal Drug Administration withdrew (15 June) any recommendation for hydroxychloroquine.
For the purposes of argument along the lines Breeal seems to indicate, that study fails on one basic: it had no relevance to controlling CoVid in the community, or as a preventative (the Trump notion), but was explicitly hospital-based, with patients well advanced in CoVid symptoms. Since that 1 July publication, its authors, not retracting, have written a modifying statement.

Still, President Trump sent out his 'trade adviser' (which itself deserves N.B.), Peter Navarro, to demand the FDA issue a new recommendation. Navarro's credibility as a self-proclaimed China expert, was shot by inventing a source 'Ron Vara' (anagram): he has pushed himself on five occasions for election in San Diego, and has fallen well short each time:

His former campaign adviser, Larry Remer, said: “I wouldn’t trust him to go out to get lunch and come back with everybody’s sandwich and drink order correctly. I don’t know how he could be put in charge of logistics.
“On one level it’s amusing but on another level, it’s really dangerous,” added Remer, a San Diego political consultant.

Navarro's other involvement in CoVid was to be in charge of the purchase and supply of ventilators. A $500 million overspend remains down to Navarro's 'expertise'.

President Trump, through his family trusts, and Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross (another close connection to Navarro) have financial interests in Sanofi, the manufacturer of Plaquenil, the brand-name for hydroxychloroquine.
I think studies should be scrutinized and hopefully have the results replicated, but remember, time is short. But your link stinks of a hit job, it says death rates were 50% lower in patients treated with HDC, but invalidates that because some of them may also have been receiving steroids, were none of the other 50% receiving steroids? If a 50% reduction in death rate was achieved I'd want to know what steroid is the commonality among the 50%, but it appears HDC was the commonality, the steroid claim is a vague attempt to dismiss the findings.

Also, side effects of HDC are vision problems when taken in high doses and heart disease, but this side effect is very uncommon,. The benefits certainly outweigh the risks IMHO.

Finally, but not insignificantly, there is no way in hell there is justification for keeping these studies from the public, I had a post removed from p.ie last night because it linked a study on HDC (misleading and spamming apparently). Are we not allowed discuss contradictory findings from medical experts anymore?
 

pablabel12

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 30, 2016
Messages
2,216
Incorrect, it was removed because it was pointed to potential treatment, something that is 100% worthy of discussion, it's a disgrace that it was deleted.

You asked for a more up to date study, which I provided and you dismissed because it didn't say what you wanted it to say. So when you say let the researchers do their thing, the only research you're willing to accept is research that might make the president look bad, screw the people that might have their lives saved by HDC, Orange man bad RA RA RA.
Do you have to work at being such a muppet or does it come naturally? Read the reply it is cogent, precise and to the point. It lays out the flaws of the study, who do you want to believe ? the career scientists or the snake oil salesman?
 

CatullusV

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 9, 2018
Messages
8,566
Incorrect, it was removed because it was pointed to potential treatment, something that is 100% worthy of discussion, it's a disgrace that it was deleted.

You asked for a more up to date study, which I provided and you dismissed because it didn't say what you wanted it to say. So when you say let the researchers do their thing, the only research you're willing to accept is research that might make the president look bad, screw the people that might have their lives saved by HDC, Orange man bad RA RA RA.
I must ask again whether you are fully insured in the event that your medical advice leads to negative outcomes.
 

CatullusV

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 9, 2018
Messages
8,566
I think studies should be scrutinized and hopefully have the results replicated, but remember, time is short. But your link stinks of a hit job, it says death rates were 50% lower in patients treated with HDC, but invalidates that because some of them may also have been receiving steroids, were none of the other 50% receiving steroids? If a 50% reduction in death rate was achieved I'd want to know what steroid is the commonality among the 50%, but it appears HDC was the commonality, the steroid claim is a vague attempt to dismiss the findings.

Also, side effects of HDC are vision problems when taken in high doses and heart disease, but this side effect is very uncommon,. The benefits certainly outweigh the risks IMHO.

Finally, but not insignificantly, there is no way in hell there is justification for keeping these studies from the public, I had a post removed from p.ie last night because it linked a study on HDC (misleading and spamming apparently). Are we not allowed discuss contradictory findings from medical experts anymore?
If you are going to discuss the findings of a peer-reviewed paper, you are going to have to dissect the methodologies, the data, and by extension the conclusions drawn. Nothing you have cited in support of Hydroxy carries any weight of statistical analysis and blinding of trials. Still, if you wish to discuss stats, you have had that invite open for months now.
 

Breeal

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 26, 2015
Messages
7,787
Do you have to work at being such a muppet or does it come naturally? Read the reply it is cogent, precise and to the point. It lays out the flaws of the study, who do you want to believe ? the career scientists or the snake oil salesman?
Shsshh now, the grown ups are talking.
 

Malcolm Redfellow

Moderator
Joined
Sep 29, 2009
Messages
4,933
Website
redfellow.blogspot.com
Twitter
mredfellow
Also, side effects of HDC are vision problems when taken in high doses and heart disease, but this side effect is very uncommon,. The benefits certainly outweigh the risks IMHO.
On the other hand, 'IMHO', that minimises the risks associated with hydroxychloroquinine. It is a potentially lethal drug, and although rare, hydroxychloroquine cardiotoxicity can be fatal. That is why the FDA has warned against its use outside of the hospital setting or a clinical trial.
 

Breeal

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 26, 2015
Messages
7,787
On the other hand, 'IMHO', that minimises the risks associated with hydroxychloroquinine. It is a potentially lethal drug, and although rare, hydroxychloroquine cardiotoxicity can be fatal. That is why the FDA has warned against its use outside of the hospital setting or a clinical trial.
Both links appear to be anecdotal, which also tends to reinforce the notion that serious side effects are very rare, the overall benefits certainly outweigh the risks.
 

shutuplaura

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 1, 2008
Messages
2,281
Incorrect, it was removed because it pointed to a potential treatment, something that is 100% worthy of discussion, it's a disgrace that it was deleted.

You asked for a more up to date study, which I provided and you dismissed because it didn't say what you wanted it to say. So when you say let the researchers do their thing, the only research you're willing to accept is research that might make the president look bad, screw the people that might have their lives saved by HDC, Orange man bad RA RA RA.
I didn't dismiss it. I said it needs to be repeated because there was issues with the study. You really need to believe this...I just want an effective treatment found.
 

amsterdemmetje

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 14, 2011
Messages
19,177
I didn't dismiss it. I said it needs to be repeated because there was issues with the study. You really need to believe this...I just want an effective treatment found.
I don't think you or i have to remind anyone that we want an effective treatment found especially to the likes of someone like Breal whos been caught here telling porkies about almost everything from the death rate, to quotes people didn't say ,to fake memes. His dishonesty is well and truly proven beyond doubt .
 

Breeal

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 26, 2015
Messages
7,787
I didn't dismiss it. I said it needs to be repeated because there was issues with the study. You really need to believe this...I just want an effective treatment found.
An effective treatment has been found, 50% reduction in death rate, the problem with the study at worst mean it might be slightly less effective than 50%. The side effects can be serious but extremely rare, there is no medical reason not to use this drug, or at least offer its use as an option to the patient, you say you want to find a treatment, I believe you, but only if that treatment can't be attributed to the president. TDS really has got you guys in terrible state.
 


New Threads

Most Replies

Top Bottom