Announcement

Collapse

Civics 101 Guidelines

Want to argue about politics? Healthcare reform? Taxes? Governments? You've come to the right place!

Try to keep it civil though. The rules still apply here.
See more
See less

Trump claims to be taking Hydroxochloroquine

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by mikewhitney View Post
    Well. The results are still true. We will have more deaths due to shutdown than to the virus. We cannot survive well as a nation going into a depression. But the governors are willing to take this risk.
    Read a story recently that oncologists are anticipating a spike in cancer deaths in the coming months because of people who either avoided or were denied treatment because of the China flu panicdemic (misspelling intentional).
    Some may call me foolish, and some may call me odd
    But I'd rather be a fool in the eyes of man
    Than a fool in the eyes of God


    From "Fools Gold" by Petra

    Comment


    • Originally posted by mikewhitney View Post
      The hack of the DNC server had to be someone physically on location. Graham is misinformed. The media still hypes it up as Russian infiltration. Go figure.
      You don't know what the [heck] you're talking about. Simple as that. Computer Science is obviously not your lane.


      Well. The results are still true. We will have more deaths due to shutdown than to the virus. We cannot survive well as a nation going into a depression. But the governors are willing to take this risk.
      Show me the data which indicates a greater number of deaths than we would have had without shutting down (1-2 million). If you can back that up I'll support full re-opening since obviously I'd prefer to have the fewest deaths possible.

      Comment


      • well THIS is a hoot...

        https://www.theguardian.com/world/20...oxychloroquine

        At a press conference on Wednesday, the WHO announced it would resume its global trial of hydroxychloroquine, after its data safety monitoring committee found there was no increased risk of death for Covid patients taking it.
        That's what
        - She

        Without a clear-cut definition of sin, morality becomes a mere argument over the best way to train animals
        - Manya the Holy Szin (The Quintara Marathon)

        I may not be as old as dirt, but me and dirt are starting to have an awful lot in common
        - Stephen R. Donaldson

        Comment


        • Obviously we should not trust faulty trials and if further study is warranted then that should be done.

          Also dating from today is this article which reports no benefit (though no serious negative effects from H either).

          Comment


          • Originally posted by mikewhitney View Post
            The hack of the DNC server had to be someone physically on location.
            On what are you basing this claim?

            Comment


            • The medical journal Lancet has now fully retracted their prior claimed “scientific study” against the use of Hodroxychloroquine. The Lancet study was quickly and purposefully used by all major media outlets to attack President Trump for his advocacy of the drug as an effective treatment for the COVID-19 virus.

              It now appears the purpose of the fraudulent “scientific study”, conducted by a sketchy outfit called Surgisphere – who mysteriously appeared only after President Trump advocated for the treatment, was to weaponize medicine for political purposes.

              After they were exposed for their role in pushing manipulated data, Lancet has now fully retracted their study in an attempt to retain credibility.

              https://theconservativetreehouse.com...ical-purposes/
              Some may call me foolish, and some may call me odd
              But I'd rather be a fool in the eyes of man
              Than a fool in the eyes of God


              From "Fools Gold" by Petra

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post
                The medical journal Lancet has now fully retracted their prior claimed “scientific study” against the use of Hodroxychloroquine. The Lancet study was quickly and purposefully used by all major media outlets to attack President Trump for his advocacy of the drug as an effective treatment for the COVID-19 virus.

                It now appears the purpose of the fraudulent “scientific study”, conducted by a sketchy outfit called Surgisphere – who mysteriously appeared only after President Trump advocated for the treatment, was to weaponize medicine for political purposes.

                After they were exposed for their role in pushing manipulated data, Lancet has now fully retracted their study in an attempt to retain credibility.

                https://theconservativetreehouse.com...ical-purposes/
                MSM, propagating fake news once again.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by seanD View Post
                  MSM, propagating fake news once again.
                  How much would you pay me to show you untainted studies which also showed H to be ineffective?

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by DivineOb View Post
                    How much would you pay me to show you untainted studies which also showed H to be ineffective?
                    And yet they still had to propagate some fake study anyway, to make it official I guess? There's now no reason whatsoever for me not question those other studies as either bias or just outright bogus as well.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by seanD View Post
                      And yet they still had to propagate some fake study anyway, to make it official I guess? There's now no reason whatsoever for me not question those other studies as either bias or just outright bogus as well.
                      I sounds like you don't understand how research is published.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by DivineOb View Post
                        I sounds like you don't understand how research is published.
                        The thing I saw not too long ago was that fifty percent of the science research papers were not repeatable. The other thing was about medical doctors being asked to be represented as the main researcher on a research paper that was already written. There also has been selection of research only of prominent people so that there is a favoritism to promote their careers. Along this line too, there can be a tendency to publish research that is biased toward specific ends, as determined by the journals. (They are less likely to include research that counters their narrative.)

                        It would be helpful to know what people are selected to review proposed papers ... and to know what ownership and sponsorship exists for specific journals. We cannot simply assume that the publishing of a study means that that study is great stuff. Nor does it help simply to say that a journal has a great reputation -- unless it is known what that reputation is based upon realistic and verifiable evidence. It is easy for things to be corrupted in this world.
                        Last edited by mikewhitney; 06-08-2020, 01:18 PM.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by mikewhitney View Post
                          The thing I saw not too long ago was that fifty percent of the science research papers were not repeatable.
                          I'm going to need you to back that statement up. As someone who has published in top conferences and journals in my field this is total nonsense.

                          The other thing was about medical doctors being asked to be represented as the main researcher on a research paper that was already written. There also has been selection of research only of prominent people so that there is a favoritism to promote their careers. Along this line too, there can be a tendency to publish research that is biased toward specific ends, as determined by the journals. (They are less likely to include research that counters their narrative.)
                          Again, I've published and you haven't. Stay in your lane.

                          It would be helpful to know what people are selected to review proposed papers ... and to know what ownership and sponsorship exists for specific journals. We cannot simply assume that the publishing of a study means that that study is great stuff. Nor does it help simply to say that a journal has a great reputation -- unless it is known what that reputation is based upon realistic and verifiable evidence. It is easy for things to be corrupted in this world.
                          Then do research on this so you have the answers. You just don't know what you're talking about. Do you think we haven't tried to hone this process over the centuries of formal scientific investigation?

                          Comment

                          Related Threads

                          Collapse

                          Topics Statistics Last Post
                          Started by little_monkey, Yesterday, 04:19 PM
                          16 responses
                          85 views
                          0 likes
                          Last Post Mountain Man  
                          Started by whag, 03-26-2024, 04:38 PM
                          53 responses
                          281 views
                          0 likes
                          Last Post Mountain Man  
                          Started by rogue06, 03-26-2024, 11:45 AM
                          25 responses
                          109 views
                          0 likes
                          Last Post rogue06
                          by rogue06
                           
                          Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-26-2024, 09:21 AM
                          33 responses
                          195 views
                          0 likes
                          Last Post Roy
                          by Roy
                           
                          Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-26-2024, 08:34 AM
                          84 responses
                          355 views
                          0 likes
                          Last Post JimL
                          by JimL
                           
                          Working...
                          X