Trump follows and endorses crazy Doctor

[shunyadragon]

sure. whatever. I did not see where you listed missing studies or where you identified errors in the analyses. You are not offering anything into the discussion but your opinions, your doubts.

Have you found a study that was not listed on c19study.com that you think is important?

I'm not sure what you are doing here if you don't want to provide evidence for your opinions. But it would be nice if you participated in the research. One bit of information I have not seen pertains to the reason that the failing hospital studies keep providing patients with an overdose of HCQ of 1600mg. Can you find some justification for giving 8 times more of the cure than successful uses recommend?

Risch is a competent scientis, and yes there have been some positive results of using HCQ in combination with azithromycin.The article goes over different research, and the limited positive results. It empasises that the previous reasearch is without control and good randomized studies. One with a good research design showed decidedly negative results,

Name droping without the details is not an adegaute response,

Source: https://www.medpagetoday.com/infectiousdisease/covid19/87844

In the Newsweek editorial and in the later journal submission, both of which were published following three highly publicized randomized trials that reported no benefit from HCQ, Risch did not address or even acknowledge them.

In a statement posted on Yale's website, Sten Vermund, MD, PhD, dean of the Yale School of Public Health, distanced himself from Risch's papers.

"My role as Dean is not to suppress the work of the faculty, but rather, to support the academic freedom of our faculty, whether it is in the mainstream of thinking or is contrarian," Vermund wrote.

"Yale-affiliated physicians used HCQ early in the response to COVID-19, but it is only used rarely at present due to evidence that it is ineffective and potentially risky."

© Copyright Original Source

Again failure to respond.

[mikewhitney]

This video is important for showing the evil done in NYC and to show doctors who found HCQ+Zinc as the best option

http://153news.co.uk/153News_files/v...ndemic%209.mp4

The video is mainly the testimony of a nurse who went to Elmhurst hospital in NYC to handle the numerous hospitalizations. She testifies to the success of the HCQ+Zinc in her home state. Plus there are additional video clips of doctors speaking of their success with HCQ+Zinc. One doctor reminds people that Zinc is critical to make this work.

[shunyadragon]

This video is important for showing the evil done in NYC and to show doctors who found HCQ+Zinc as the best option

http://153news.co.uk/153News_files/v...ndemic%209.mp4

The video is mainly the testimony of a nurse who went to Elmhurst hospital in NYC to handle the numerous hospitalizations. She testifies to the success of the HCQ+Zinc in her home state. Plus there are additional video clips of doctors speaking of their success with HCQ+Zinc. One doctor reminds people that Zinc is critical to make this work.

It remains at best a limited treatment in conjunction with other meda and treatments. Anecdotal claims is not research. Zinc only is effective againsst viruses in small doses. This has neen known for a very long time.

[Roy]

I can't believe you actually spoke in such blindness. (You must not have looked at any of the competent sites I listed, nor did you provide alternative studies of any substance.) I am getting this material from established scientists and doctors.

No, you're getting it from the anonymous website at c19study.com.

[mikewhitney]

No, you're getting it from the anonymous website at c19study.com.

ok. I ask again (sorry if it was a different thread). What studies are missing from that site? What do you want to add or remove from that information? I just have not heard any other rejection of the actual studies listed there. All I heard is crickets on this point. Go figure the idleness of people to investigate anything.

We hear little chirps from Shuny, but these lack research and don't have common sense.

[shunyadragon]

ok. I ask again (sorry if it was a different thread). What studies are missing from that site? What do you want to add or remove from that information? I just have not heard any other rejection of the actual studies listed there. All I heard is crickets on this point. Go figure the idleness of people to investigate anything.

We hear little chirps from Shuny, but these lack research and don't have common sense.

I gave a specific article listing the research, and yu fail to respond.

[mikewhitney]

I gave a specific article listing the research, and yu fail to respond.

I read it again. The argument is that the randomized studies showed no benefits from use of HCQ. I examined and discussed the results of one of these "proof" studies. It had used detrimental overdoses of HCQ without Zinc supplement. An overdoes certainly is not expected to have good results. The other problem is in waiting until a patient is severely ill before starting treatments -- this goes beyond the scope of the Zelenko Protocol. The study I looked at then was designed to show a failure for HCQ. It is far from being a rational randomized study -- it is a killer study designed to have the results that it got.

You never explained why the killer dosage represents a good study.

It is like we have a study on red apples but someone picked up oranges and said these failed the study and that most apples are bad because they are orange and too juicy. In reality, they were testing the wrong thing.

[mikewhitney]

You can look at some of the comments that reveal weaknesses of the Boulware study. One is by JOHN GRAHAM, MD
https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa2016638

Unbelievably weak study methodology rife with result-canceling issues

It’s interesting that the authors refer to the construct of this study as “pragmatic” because recruitment was secured via social media. To anyone that’s spent a nanosecond on Twitter or Facebook it’s painfully obvious that it’s a cesspool of bias. Hydroxychloroqine is irrefutably political. Those that support the idea of its efficacy are usually Trump supporters, while those that claim HCQ is worthless are notably #NeverTrumpers. The likelihood of selection bias by the investigators is not addressed in the publication, nor is the bias of individuals knowing that this is an HCQ study, blinded or not. While not surprising, it’s disappointing that this study was accepted for publication by the reviewers and the editorial staff. Bank on the fact that the anti-Trump media will grasp the dubious results and conclusions with both hands and sing it’s praises. That alone is confirmation of the bias that’s inherent in this study.

The other Yale professors relied in part on this flawed Boulware study.
https://medium.com/@gregggonsalves/s...9-47d0dee7b2b0 The Boulare study is the link in this text

In fact, rigorously-conducted clinical trials have found that HCQ is not effective as an early prophylactic therapy in preventing illness due to COVID-19 in people exposed to the virus.

It was not rigorous by any standards since it was a survey to different medical groups with no real oversight of how people were assessed. It was basically self-assessment.

[mikewhitney]

You can look at some of the comments that reveal weaknesses of the Boulware study. One is by JOHN GRAHAM, MD
https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa2016638

Unbelievably weak study methodology rife with result-canceling issues

It’s interesting that the authors refer to the construct of this study as “pragmatic” because recruitment was secured via social media. To anyone that’s spent a nanosecond on Twitter or Facebook it’s painfully obvious that it’s a cesspool of bias. Hydroxychloroqine is irrefutably political. Those that support the idea of its efficacy are usually Trump supporters, while those that claim HCQ is worthless are notably #NeverTrumpers. The likelihood of selection bias by the investigators is not addressed in the publication, nor is the bias of individuals knowing that this is an HCQ study, blinded or not. While not surprising, it’s disappointing that this study was accepted for publication by the reviewers and the editorial staff. Bank on the fact that the anti-Trump media will grasp the dubious results and conclusions with both hands and sing it’s praises. That alone is confirmation of the bias that’s inherent in this study.

The other Yale professors relied in part on this flawed Boulware study.
https://medium.com/@gregggonsalves/s...9-47d0dee7b2b0 The Boulare study is the link in this text

In fact, rigorously-conducted clinical trials have found that HCQ is not effective as an early prophylactic therapy in preventing illness due to COVID-19 in people exposed to the virus.

It was not rigorous by any standards since it was a survey to different medical groups with no real oversight of how people were assessed. It was basically self-assessment.

[shunyadragon]

You can look at some of the comments that reveal weaknesses of the Boulware study. One is by JOHN GRAHAM, MD
https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa2016638


The other Yale professors relied in part on this flawed Boulware study.
https://medium.com/@gregggonsalves/s...9-47d0dee7b2b0 The Boulare study is the link in this text.

I did not see this text in the box cited in the source. Where does the citation come from?

It was not rigorous by any standards since it was a survey to different medical groups with no real oversight of how people were assessed. It was basically self-assessment.

Your now a medical expert over Yale?

[mikewhitney]

I did not see this text in the box cited in the source. Where does the citation come from?

I'm glad to see you finally are examining relevant information.

You have to expand the comments section at the bottom.

Your now a medical expert over Yale?

I can often see stupidity when the data goes against a view. Mind you, there is no consistent singular view at Yale on this.

[shunyadragon]

I'm glad to see you finally are examining relevant information.

You have to expand the comments section at the bottom.

Cite the reference specifically and properly or you are breaking forum rules.

I can often see stupidity when the data goes against a view. Mind you, there is no consistent singular view at Yale on this.

Not sufficient, but this claim can put you on a par with Dr. Emmanuel.

[mikewhitney]

Cite the reference specifically and properly or you are breaking forum rules.

I led the blind there eventually. That is the only thing necessary.

Not sufficient, but this claim can put you on a par with Dr. Emmanuel.

You can handle the truth. I'm not sharing this for my glory. I'm sharing it to help people. But people do not have to accept the help they need. They can keep walking blindly and hope for the worst to come. You keep denying the cure. This makes you part of the problem, a contributor to a pandemic that did not need to happen.

[shunyadragon]

I led the blind there eventually. That is the only thing necessary.

Cite the reference specifically and properly or you are breaking forum rules.

[Whateverman]

I can often see stupidity when the data goes against a view.

If you had an inkling of how much this claim indicts your posts in this thread, you never would have made it.