Hydroxychloroquine Still Doesn’t Do Anything, New Data Shows

altcensored.com...

Ivermectin Triple Therapy, three medications .

Ivermectin, Zinc , Doxycycline . extremely similar to surprise surprise .

Hydroxychloroquine, Zinc, Erythromycin .

A combination of a Antiviral , Zinc and an Antibiotic/Antiparasitic. Hmmm sounds excatly like what we are using in the hospital I work at.

a reply to: asabuvsobelow

Got a link to his data?

a reply to: asabuvsobelow

Your source is from Skynews Australia:

Sky News Australia is an Australian 24-hour cable and satellite Murdoch-owned right-wing channel available on the Foxtel and Optus Television subscription

Come back to us when you have Professor Thomas Borody's findings, data. Be great to have them broken down and assessed by the relevant bodies.

And I quote from him; "the virus is relatively easy to cure". Fantastic, your data and studies sir.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: asabuvsobelow

Got a link to his data?

Just google ivermectin Triple Therapy .

originally posted by: Southern Guardian
a reply to: asabuvsobelow

Your source is from Skynews Australia:

Sky News Australia is an Australian 24-hour cable and satellite Murdoch-owned right-wing channel available on the Foxtel and Optus Television subscription

Come back to us when you have Professor Thomas Borody's findings, data. Be great to have them broken down and assessed by the relevant bodies.

And I quote from him; "the virus is relatively easy to cure". Fantastic, your data and studies sir.

That is my last contribution to this thread, you sir are beyond stubborn .

a reply to: asabuvsobelow

That is my last contribution to this thread

Given up? Well if you choose to return, I'll be sure to greet you again.

ACP Says Its Guidance Against Hydroxychloroquine, Chloroquine for COVID-19 Unlikely to Change

The final update to the practice points states that neither chloroquine nor hydroxychloroquine should be used as a prophylactic or treatment against COVID-19. The authors said the drugs may be used in a clinical trial setting for the treatment of patients, but only under a model of shared and informed decision-making with patients and families.

“The newly available evidence has high risk of bias and showed conflicting direction and magnitude of results, leading to unchanged conclusions from the initial review with insufficient evidence to support the effectiveness or safety of chloroquine or hydroxychloroquine alone or in combination with azithromycin for the treatment of COVID-19 in hospitalized patients,” the authors wrote.

The American College of Physicians

All the best.

a reply to: Southern Guardian

Your repeating the same stuff that people way more qualified than you are reviewing and pointing to the flaws and bias.

You need to say this whilst looking in the mirror -

as well as the fact your personal, unqualified, armed chair intepretations mean next to nothing.

The question I asked you was not based on MY interpretations I gave you the source so you could see for yourself . So stamp your feet and whine your little heart out.


Remember as Phage pointed out HCQ hasn't been Banned and the DOCTOR for the President of the USA prescribed it to him. Must be real good stuff for the leader of the free world to be prescribed it.

After all they wouldn't try to kill or incapacitate the president would they?????

a reply to: puzzled2

Must be real good stuff for the leader of the free world to be prescribed it.

His doctor prescribed it at Trump's request. I guess he likes his job. And since the president's health is closely monitored (leader of the free world, and stuff), the risk was low.

"I asked him, 'What do you think?'" Trump said, recalling the conversation. "He said, 'Well if you’d like it.' I said, 'Yeah, I’d like it. I’d like to take it.'"

thehill.com...


Have you asked your doctor to prescribe it for no particular reason? He might go for it.

a reply to: puzzled2

Your repeating the same stuff that people way more qualified than you are reviewing

More like, I'm repeating the clear views and consensus of the most qualified individuals with regards to this pandemic:

Dr. Birx: Randomized trials show benefit for remdesivir, but not hydroxychloroquine

Dr. Fauci says all the ‘valid’ scientific data shows hydroxychloroquine isn’t effective in treating coronavirus

The World Health Organisation: Studies show hydroxychloroquine does not have clinical benefits in treating COVID-19

WHO says trials show malaria and HIV drugs don't cut Covid-19 hospital deaths

NIH Halts Hydroxychloroquine Study; Says 'Unlikely' To Help COVID-19 Patients

British Heart Foundation: Why hydroxychloroquine isn't a "miracle cure" for coronavirus

Do not use hydroxychloroquine for COVID: National Taskforce (Australia)

And it goes on and on.

But according to you, I should value the keyboard warriors on here that profess to be experts and with the relevant qualifications? One of them even having made the obvious mistake that Malaria is virus (it's a parasitic infection. Even I knew that).

No thanks. But you continue ignoring the above and making excuses. By all means.

The question I asked you was not based on MY interpretations I gave you the source

The clear problem with your sources is not just the fact they originate from highly questional newsites (some with partisan histories), but that you continue to link us to individuals making proclaimations about cures or treatments, with nothing of substance to show.

Doctors aren't all drones. Some will have opposing opinions and beliefs. What it comes down to is the consensus and the actual data, study itself.

a reply to: Southern Guardian

great job avoiding again - Trying to isolate a single point -try and stay on track.

Once again -
you quoted - Do not use hydroxychloroquine for COVID: National Taskforce (Australia)
The decision made appears to be based on the studies reviewed by a team that are all Physicians and /or methodologist by training, that understand studies. They said not me low and moderate quality.

It raises questions about the validity of studies being used in decision making.
Much like the Redacted Lancet study that effected the WHO and Solidarity trials.

But if you are only able to grasp the first thought in your head and notable to research you might as well go and join the flock and have a nice day.

You can go back to bleating in Redneck's ear, because your beneath my level a Give a thought to. Bye

a reply to: puzzled2

Much like the Redacted Lancet study that effected the WHO and Solidarity trials.

Do you happen to know from whom the retraction of the study came? Do you know why it was retracted? It don't think it was Stella.

From some of SG links

Birx said that while there may be a "specific subgroup" that benefits from hydroxychloroquine, that is not seen in randomized controlled trials.
Who says
More decisive research is needed to assess its value in patients with mild disease or as pre- or post-exposure prophylaxis in patients exposed to COVID-19

Most of the articles reference the same wording - a NIH study doesn't say which 1 - "provided no additional benefit compared to placebo control for the treatment of COVID-19 in hospitalized patients" --

Great 1 trial spins 1,000 of MSM articles that all start with the comment about Trump back drug -- is a failure.... really trying to help people or influence the USA Election

Try to focus on the 21 billion dollars minimum for this covid-19 vaccine that has the chance to mutate into many many more billions.

a reply to: puzzled2

Try to focus on the 21 billion dollars minimum for this covid-19 vaccine that has the chance to mutate into many many more billions.

You can thank the administration for that.

What're they calling it? Warp Speed? Cool.
Like Reagan's Star Wars.

a reply to: Phage

So is it wrong to do it or the right thing to do?
What is your point?

Not sure which way the snark meter is swinging.

a reply to: puzzled2

I think attempting to develop a vaccine is a good thing. I think that politicizing the process (by giving it a stupid name and an absurdly optimistic timeline) is not.

Do you think that the US should do the same thing Russia is doing and short circuit the testing process?

Asked by radio talk show host Geraldo Rivera whether a vaccine could come by the election, Trump said, "I think in some cases, yes, possible before. But right around that time."

source

a reply to: puzzled2

you quoted - Do not use hydroxychloroquine for COVID: National Taskforce (Australia)
The decision made appears to be based on the studies reviewed by a team that are all Physicians and /or methodologist by training, that understand studies. They said not me low and moderate quality.

It raises questions about the validity of studies being used in decision making.

This is the fundamental problem right here Puzzled. Something the Redneck admitted earlier in this discussion. You continiously question the validity of various studies and decisions made by medical bodies. That's fine, you're more in your rights to question, but the key fact here still stands. There is no proper study out there pointing to HCQ being an effective treatment against COVID-19.

You can argue not enough studies have been done

You can argue certain studies hadn't been done properly

You may question certain things

You can question the agendas behind these various bodies,

You can argue certain additions have been neglected (i.e Zinc)

You can speculate based on your own knowledge of what's necessary

You can nit-pick anything and everything to bring up questions.

The core fact here still stands, the substance is simply not there to demonstrate HCQ is an effective treatment against COVID-19. We're over 6 months into this pandemic. Major bodies, experts have moved onto other treatments. The odd doctor still appears on local media and news sites from time to time to proclaim a miracle cure, but the real substance demonstrating actual, physical, effectiveness is still non-existent. That's the core fact when we get down to it.

Speculative thoughts, criticisms of methods won't amount to the effective eradication of COVID-19. Results will. Something you and others here have proven time and time this inability to demonstrate.

We're still here with you and others, 30+ pages in.

a reply to: Phage

I'm VERY sure that the cardiologist, and the entire infectious disease unit at the hospital, know this topic better than any of us posting here .. and certainly more than the people who are posting because of their own hyper partisan natures. The doctors, nurses, and other workers are taking it as a precaution against COVID. They say it works. They also say that if you get COVID and you take HCQ early, it helps many many people not to have such a severe case.

I'll take their word on this over anyone's spin about it here.

They work it every day. They are 'up' on the information.

a reply to: Southern Guardian

We're still here with you and others, 30+ pages in.

Probably because you're taking hydroxychloroquine.

TheRedneck

It seems to me there are people who don’t want anything to work unless it’s a major money maker for big pharma. I include Fauxci in that group. And it’s not the first time in his career he’s done that, remember AZT and how useless it was back in the late 80’s early 90’s?

I have serious doubts about a possible vaccine as well, mainly because there has never been a successful human coronavirus vaccine.

Well proof HCQ Doesn't work is not proven via a study but

Results will.
Something you and others here have proven time and time this inability to demonstrate.

As for HCQ working It is very hard to demonstrate when

You nit-pick anything and everything to bring up questions,

including searching pass posts and complain when someone calls Barry Barry -
Why you do it is because you try to discredit the messenger when you can't discredit the message.

You are constantly using "Expert Evaluators" for supporting info - Even when they have proven multiple times with multiple studies they did no evaluating. i.e Surgisphere exposed lots of accepters

To remind you once again
I am not saying anything works, I see studies, I look for peer reviews, investigative reviews - To see what are the discrepancies?

Sick of people accepting favorable results without looking at the quality of the data from either side.

Like most other humans, I would like to see the right answers not just the most profitable.

Also mentioned early by someone else research is moving on to new treatments and new chemicals. Hopefully they get proper scientific opportunity. HCQ's days maybe numbered purely because better solutions are found.

So stay safe and try to learn from science not just your political favorite mouth pieces.