Hydroxychloroquine Still Doesn’t Do Anything, New Data Shows

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: Serdgiam

I haven't found anything that shows ECGC as a zinc ionophore.
...

If you google "egcg zinc ionophore" you get quite a few "scholarly articles" reporting on EGCG as a zinc ionophore. Did you not bother to do so or are their conclusions wrong somehow?

It gets harder to 'find' something specific when one isn't looking (very hard) for it.

The internet is such a wonderful tool to find all sorts of things quickly.

originally posted by: whereislogic
a reply to: Southern Guardian
... Typical. Reminds me of the way you use links to a news article about the retracted Lancet 'study' that still tries to use that publication as an argument against the use of HCQ in Covid-19, a.k.a. SARS-CoV-2 (official designation*). ...

Correction, it wasn't the news article that used it that way, it was you by listing this news article about the retraction in a list with news articles against the use of HCQ for Covid-19, implying some sort of related significance in that regards.

Then again, the news article only had the usual talking points of left-wing politics, making sure everyone connects HCQ to the notion of 'the drug that Trump touted' (they are especially fond of the word 'touted', you see it over and over again in propagandistic news articles, like the term "anecdotal" for all highly valuable and honest studies and related publications or reliable doctors' reports of case studies that show a benefit, to downgrade their value in determining whether or not HCQ has a benefit and promote the opinion about so-called 'gold standard' clinical trials in comparison that you expressed as a fact, in terms of their value and quality as 'evidence' compared to so-marketed 'gold standard' clinical trials). So their position on the matter shines through quite clearly, especially since they do not address the duplicit behaviour of anyone involved with the Lancet publication that was retracted and those media people that have actually 'touted' this publication as some sort of valuable data and study to determin HCQ doesn't work and causes more death.

Sunday, August 23, 2020

MAJOR ANNOUNCMENT This evening at 6pm from President Trump, regarding COVID-19.

www.foxnews.com...

a reply to: TheRedneck

So you are expert enough to decide who is and is not an expert?

You don't need to be an expert to recognize somebody like Birx, with years of medical experience and knowledge, appointed to the National Coronavirus Task Force, by POTUS himself, will have more of a valid intepretation of data and trends in comparison to a bunch of quack doctors?

Or are you talking about yourself?

Come back to me with those experts.

originally posted by: Southern Guardian
a reply to: TheRedneck

So you are expert enough to decide who is and is not an expert?

You don't need to be an expert to recognize somebody like Birx, with years of medical experience and knowledge, appointed to the National Coronavirus Task Force, by POTUS himself, will have more of a valid intepretation of data and trends in comparison to a bunch of quack doctors?

Or are you talking about yourself?

Come back to me with those experts.

Southern do you think it's more likely that Dr.Birx is the most expertly qualified doctor for the job ?

Or is it more likely that Dr.Birx was chosen for her willingness to follow the agenda and take the money ?

a reply to: whereislogic

I stand corrected. Seems EGCG is indeed a zinc ionophore.

I would thank you for the assist, but you might consider that an insult too. You seem upset enough already.

TheRedneck

a reply to: Southern Guardian

You don't need to be an expert to recognize somebody like Birx

No, I suppose not. Apparently you can just be some clueless guy on the Internet.

TheRedneck

a reply to: asabuvsobelow

Southern do you think it's more likely that Dr.Birx is the most expertly qualified doctor for the job

I think she's more than qualified. Do I think she's the top doctor above all? It's silly to make that claim about anybody. Fortunately, I'm not solely relying on her view and guidance. I'm not limited.

a reply to: TheRedneck

No, I suppose not. Apparently you can just be some clueless guy on the Internet.

I'm clueless for referring to more than qualified people on this matters, as opposed to pretending I'm an expert myself? Like you?

Alright then.

a reply to: Southern Guardian

I'm clueless for referring to more than qualified people on this matters

Nope. You're just clueless.

(Where did Serdgiam go? We actually had facts being discussed...)

TheRedneck

a reply to: TheRedneck

Nope. You're just clueless

Nope, I'm just not pretending to be a medical expert on here. You however? You fessed up eventually.

a reply to: Southern Guardian

Still throwing that line of BS, eh? Must be terrible not having enough imagination to come up with anything new.

Now, I've had my fun with you for the day. Thank you for the laughs, but I'm a bit busy waiting on someone intelligent to post.

TheRedneck

a reply to: TheRedneck

Still throwing that line of BS, eh? Must be terrible not having enough imagination

Imagination? For 30+ pages you've spent your entire time dismissing the views of those appointed to national task forces and foremost medical experts in favor for your very own personal intepretation of the medical sciences behind this virus. All speculation, might I add (it's lovely you think Zinc is the missing piece, where's the substance??). Despite 6 months on, you can't point to any proper study or actual demonstrated effectiveness of HCQ directly against COVID19. You then proceeded to purposefully be coy about your actual qualifications in real life until eventually admitted otherwise.

Pretty clear cut. But hey, I'm the one clueless about understanding medical studies and a subject that requires years of study and on the field experience to understand.

So while browsing the internet came across a little article on HCQ - it was talking about an essay.
Now I can't summarize as eloquently as the article author so

It’s the best thing I’ve read on hydroxychloroquine. But beware: The piece is long and fascinating. Once you start reading, you won’t be able to stop, and it takes a good half hour to finish.

The main point is that HCQ hasn’t received fair treatment
a point he makes is

makes a discussion of research methodology interesting. Here is a sample:

We now have studies that show one of the weaknesses of RCTs (random controlled testing) is that in the quest to eliminate confounding factors, they end up, in a majority of cases, excluding patients who are typical of those in the population. The RCT evangelist focuses only on the RCT strengths, and forgets their weaknesses. A typical RCT describes several data points about hundreds of patients. It can be helpful in determining what treatment might work for most people in a large population. A typical case history describes perhaps hundreds of data points about a single patient. Its focus might be on what treatment might work best for this patient. Sometimes we need all that information about a patient, to choose a proper treatment, because individual patients differ, often in decisive ways.e

So this should be an interesting read for all in this thread.
Article is here

Essay is here

Hopeful we can discuss the message and not the messengers / websites / TDS / etc.

a reply to: puzzled2

So while browsing the internet came across a little article on HCQ

You do understand the article the doctor refers to is actually a psychiatrist, Dr Norman Doidge.
Source

To sum up the article, people have nothing to lose in trying HCQ because it's been used for so long.

What does this have to do with it actually being effective treatment against COVID? He isn't medical doctor.

a reply to: Southern Guardian
Sorry I missing the point you're trying to make.

first no-one said he was a medical doctor, -- so why bring it up?
Second
The doctor is not saying your implied summary statement he is talking about the different bias and weakness with different study type and how repeated observational studies are just as import if not more than RCT in a pandemic because a RCT trail is not considering individual patient differences that may lead to different outcomes.

This was not a medical review on HCQ but the scientific community. he actually says in in the paper

if you’re here for a definitive answer to a narrow question about one specific drug (“does hydroxychloroquine work?”), you will be disappointed. Because what our tale is really concerned with is the perilous state of vulnerability of our scientific discourse, models, and institutions—which is arguably a much bigger, and more urgent problem,

you where probably to busy being an unqualified keyboard warrior looking at the ways to discredit him

You are guilty of the very thing he said to be aware of

So here then is a lesson: When scientific competitors, politicians, and the media, dump on a study for not showing X, make sure you know whether that study was even designed with the primary purpose of showing X to begin with.

The Essay was not design to tell what HCQ does or to take it.

So would you like to discuss some from the essay?
About RCT trails and their strengths and weaknesses perhaps.

After you've read it of course.

Perhaps it because he also reveals that a lot of the resident experts you like to quote from
are slightly financially compromised.

Investigative journalist Sharyl Attkisson looked into the financial links of the members of that group that was suddenly restricting HCQ and giving the edge to remdesivir. When she and her team examined the ties of those on the committee, she found that a large number had ties with Gilead, the company that makes remdesivir, which costs $3,500 for several days' worth, and was emerging as the chief rival to HCQ. It was not just a few members either: “We found that of 11 members reporting links to a drug company, nine of them named relationships to remdesivir’s maker Gilead. Seven more, including two of the committee’s leaders, have ties to Gilead beyond the 11 months they had to disclose. Two were on Gilead’s advisory board. Others were paid consultants or received research support and honoraria.

So the bias would rule out any statements from them against HCQ using your standard of discrediting people.

a reply to: Southern Guardian

it's lovely you think Zinc is the missing piece, where's the substance??

That would be the two studies from the NIH that you refused to even read. You know, when you admitted your own inability to read a medical report?

Nice try, though. At least you put a little thought into that retort.

TheRedneck

a reply to: puzzled2

The biasing of science is quite alive and well. It started with the Global Warming hoax, and it has gained strength now with the Kung Flu. I especially liked the same old tired "consensus" argument... like reality pays attention to a vote. That's a sure sign that the user has no inkling of how science even works... they think it's another branch of politics.

Trump announced today that the FDA has approved convalescent plasma therapy (transplanted antibodies, really) as a promising treatment. This afternoon I watched a so-called doctor excitedly explaining how the FDA trials weren't randomized, controlled, and double blinded, and therefore they are useless data. Sort of like the poster we have been laughing at. Seems a lot of people are on the Gilead payroll.

Keep up the good work! We both know one poster who won't even read your information, but I imagine there are many more reading who will find it enlightening.

TheRedneck

a reply to: TheRedneck

That would be the two studies from the NIH

That you personally interpret. Let's make that clear.

You're not in the position.