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

[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.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by irv

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.

You can't answer the question can you? And how many of the studies have you read? I am SURE you know better than the scientists who conducted them. Oh wait, "they" must have paid off those scientists.

[Peter_Spaeth]

This is what I was looking for, the 2021 meta analysis of the trials.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7885725/


Despite all the controversy about HCQ and CQ use for COVID-19 treatment, this meta-analysis did not show any better outcomes in patients using HCQ or CQ when compared to the control group. The results showed no statistical significance in the treatment with HCQ or CQ in achieving virological cure and faster clinical recovery.


Conclusion.

These results suggest that the use of HCQ or CQ is not associated with decreased viral load, faster clinical recovery, improved survival, decreased need for mechanical ventilation, and decreased hospitalization time for patients with COVID-19. However, it suggests that the use of HCQ or CQ can be associated with an increased risk of adverse effects.

Obtuse indeed.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Another meta analysis.

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-021-22446-z

We found that treatment with hydroxychloroquine is associated with increased mortality in COVID-19 patients, and there is no benefit of chloroquine.

[irv]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

You can't answer the question can you? And how many of the studies have you read? I am SURE you know better than the scientists who conducted them. Oh wait, "they" must have paid off those scientists.

I already did Peter, but I can't see for you if you're too blind to see for yourself.

Great links, again. Those sure prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that everything you said is 100% factual and true.
Have anymore of these links that are easily debunked?

"Is the NCBI reliable?
That question cannot be answered in general. The databases at the NCBI/DDBJ/EMBL will definitely contain errors as the data comes from various sources and most of the databases are only marginally curated. But that holds true for all big databases without manual curation (and even those are not flawless).


"Wolfgang Rumpf
Nationwide Children's Hospital
Christian is correct. The databases are in large part uncurated - while some metadata will be screened and corrected (e.g. keywords etc.), the sequences itself are definitely not - validation would require far too much time/effort/expenditure. Thus the databases rely on the submitter's information - and subsequent experimental validation if and when it happens"

Wasn't it also you that said these vaccines weren't being pushed on anyone?
Sure hope you haven't got your vaccine yet? I'd hate to see you miss out on any of these things being offered.

"‘Get a shot and have a beer’: Biden touts free brew, pro sports tickets and child care"

https://missouriindependent.com/2021...oost-vaccines/

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news...ombat-n1268048
https://www.latimes.com/california/s...id-19-vaccines

[packs]

Moderna just applied for FDA approval. If it is fully approved by the FDA are you still worried about it?