Will you get vaccinated against COVID once it's available?

[Peter_Spaeth]

"They."

Why don't you link to the dozens of articles and studies that concluded it wasn't a safe or effective treatment?

https://medcitynews.com/2020/08/why-...-for-covid-19/

Why hydroxychloroquine’s appeal endures despite evidence it doesn’t work for Covid-19

The drug has consistently failed to show a benefit when tested in randomized, controlled clinical trials. Social science may explain why laypeople and doctors alike continue clinging to it.

https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2020...event-covid-19
https://www.statnews.com/2020/07/16/...xychloroquine/

I could go on and on and on posting links.

The pandemic is bad enough without all the conspiracy crap piled on top of it.

[irv]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

"They."

Why don't you link to the dozens of articles and studies that concluded it wasn't a safe or effective treatment?

https://medcitynews.com/2020/08/why-...-for-covid-19/

Why hydroxychloroquine’s appeal endures despite evidence it doesn’t work for Covid-19

The drug has consistently failed to show a benefit when tested in randomized, controlled clinical trials. Social science may explain why laypeople and doctors alike continue clinging to it.

https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2020...event-covid-19
https://www.statnews.com/2020/07/16/...xychloroquine/

I could go on and on and on posting links.

The pandemic is bad enough without all the conspiracy crap piled on top of it.

So the stuff you posted is real and factual but the stuff I post is "conspiracy crap" therefore I'm a conspiracist?
You're a lawyer, aren't you, Pete? Is that how you solve cases or come to conclusions? Just debunk the stuff that doesn't fit with your ideology nor fit your agenda and choose the ones that do?

Tell me, did you fact check any of these names from my post?
Martin J Vincent 1, Eric Bergeron, Suzanne Benjannet, Bobbie R Erickson, Pierre E Rollin, Thomas G Ksiazek, Nabil G Seidah, Stuart T Nichol.

If so, do they look like conspiracy theorists to you who don't know what their talking about?

Tell me, Peter, do you think there is more money to be made with the use of hydroxychloroquine that has been around and safely used for 80 or so odd years or in these new, never used before, non approved, except for emergency use, vaccines?

Yeah, I know, just another conspiracy theory, right?

Hydroxychloroquine is Widely Used Around the Globe

"Death rates in countries that rely on hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) for the treatment of Covid-19 appear to be dramatically lower than death rates in countries that discourage the use of the drug"
https://fcpp.org/2020/11/08/hydroxyc...und-the-globe/

[vintagetoppsguy]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

"They."

Why don't you link to the dozens of articles and studies that concluded it wasn't a safe or effective treatment?

https://medcitynews.com/2020/08/why-...-for-covid-19/

Why hydroxychloroquine’s appeal endures despite evidence it doesn’t work for Covid-19

The drug has consistently failed to show a benefit when tested in randomized, controlled clinical trials. Social science may explain why laypeople and doctors alike continue clinging to it.

https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2020...event-covid-19
https://www.statnews.com/2020/07/16/...xychloroquine/

I could go on and on and on posting links.

The pandemic is bad enough without all the conspiracy crap piled on top of it.

So what do you think was the motivation of the doctor who claims to have successfully treated 350+ patients at the time? I'm sure that number has grown greatly over the last year, but I'm only going by your year old article. Financial motivation? Seeking attention? Just likes spreading false information? And what about the many, many, many other doctors who've come forward since the publishing of your year old article who also claim to have successfully treated Covid patients with hydroxychloroquine?

[irv]

Medcity news.. Sounds legit.

"Founded by veteran journalists with both health carereporting and online editorial experience, MedCity News is poised to build an innovative new-media enterprise capable of taking advantage of these converging forces while building a profitable national business and brand"
https://www.crunchbase.com/organization/medcity-news

I couldn't even find anything credible for AAS Science? What is that exactly?

And I found this about Stat news. Surprise surprise.
"These media sources have a slight to moderate liberal bias. They often publish factual information that utilizes loaded words (wording that attempts to influence an audience by using appeal to emotion or stereotypes) to favor liberal causes"

[Peter_Spaeth]

Read the randomized controlled trials. Don't shoot the messenger. Plenty of shit seems to work until it's subjected to real trials. People used to swear by bloodletting. People swear by all sorts of bogus treatments. When you run a real trial they don't hold up. That's how science goes. Anecdotes don't prove much, even lots of them. The plural of anecdote is not data. There are lots of good explanations of this online. You need to control for placebo effects, regression to the mean, other confounding factors, etc.


Who exactly is the "they" who have suppressed this treatment, Dale? And how exactly did "they" go about it? Conspiracy theory. If you want to debate the science and take issue with the trials, fine. But don't throw this conspiracy junk at us.

[Peter_Spaeth]

https://www.apa.org/research/action/...iracy-theories

[irv]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Read the randomized controlled trials. Don't shoot the messenger. Plenty of shit seems to work until it's subjected to real trials. People used to swear by bloodletting. People swear by all sorts of bogus treatments. When you run a real trial they don't hold up. That's how science goes. Anecdotes don't prove much, even lots of them. The plural of anecdote is not data. There are lots of good explanations of this online. You need to control for placebo effects, regression to the mean, other confounding factors, etc.


Who exactly is the "they" who have suppressed this treatment, Dale? And how exactly did "they" go about it? Conspiracy theory. If you want to debate the science and take issue with the trials, fine. But don't throw this conspiracy junk at us.

You're kidding again, right, Peter? You think there was no political nor their funded media interference with its use after Trump began touting it?

"Politics prevented thorough trial
There was every reason to be excited. The drug is incredibly cheap, a generic version is less than 50 cents per pill, and it has been around for more than 65 years. It has been well tolerated by millions as a treatment for various forms of arthritis and as a preventative against malaria.

"But then the bad news began to pour in. With President Donald Trump championing the drug this spring, it became a third rail political issue"

"The political fallout interfered with the science"

https://www.usatoday.com/story/opini...mn/5397728002/

Anti-Trump Democrats lie about hydroxychloroquine
https://www.galvnews.com/opinion/let...9ad12f900.html

Trump’s use of unproven drug to ward off covid-19 prompts concerns, ridicule. It’s not for the ‘morbidly obese,’ says Pelosi.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/natio...e-coronavirus/

Do you recall govn'r Whitmer threatening to fire any doctor that prescribed it, then some months later did a 180?
"Gov. Gretchen Whitmer drew fire from some on the right after the Michigan Department of Licensing and Regulatory Affairs (LARA) sent a letter last week threatening "administrative action" against doctors who prescribed two experimental drugs that could potentially help coronavirus patients"
https://www.metrotimes.com/news-hits...nd-chloroquine

Need more, Pete, or are these enough conspiracy articles for tonight?

[Peter_Spaeth]

I don't care about the left wing noise any more than the right wing noise. It's all BS if you ask me. I care about the studies. Read the studies. Again, many drugs, treatments, etc. appear at first blush to work, but don't hold up to controlled trials. As best I can tell, the controlled trials do not support the safety or efficacy of this drug for this disease. In fact some suggested it made things worse.

And you keep ducking the question Dale. Who is "they"? Don't tee up another straw man, tell me who "they" is.

[irv]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

I don't care about the left wing noise any more than the right wing noise. It's all BS if you ask me. I care about the studies. Read the studies. Again, many drugs, treatments, etc. appear at first blush to work, but don't hold up to controlled trials. As best I can tell, the controlled trials do not support the safety or efficacy of this drug for this disease. In fact some suggested it made things worse.

And you keep ducking the question Dale. Who is "they"? Don't tee up another straw man, tell me who "they" is.

You're being obtuse and becoming insufferable, Peter. If I didn't know any better, I'd think you're just looking forward to using the words conspiracy theorist and strawman any chance you get.