Hydroxychloroquine Still Doesn’t Do Anything, New Data Shows

a reply to: Southern Guardian

I'm coming in a tad late.

But show me one of your gold standard study that says that Hydroxychloroquine is totally useless please.

originally posted by: Fallingdown
a reply to: Southern Guardian

I'm coming in a tad late.

But show me one of your gold standard study that says that Hydroxychloroquine is totally useless please.

Just go back through the forum Southern has Copy/Pasted the same studies no less than 100 times.

originally posted by: Southern Guardian
a reply to: puzzled2

Haven't given expert analyst

You've insisted upon your own intepretations of studies above those of Birx and others, hence, for example, you insistance upon the effectiveness of Zinc as an addition. Pretty clear cut.

gave expert's views of studies

Like Simone Gold? Who has clear history of partisanship to the right, has yet to actually demonstrate any findings, and a participant of the Frontline doctors presentation alongside Demon seed lady?

These aren't experts. These are voluntary fronts pushing an agenda you support.

Is there a Gold standard randomized trials stating HCQ does not improve symptoms of coronavirus

The clear onus is on those touting HCQ as an effective COVID-19 treatment to demonstrate this. You continue to repeat this fallacy, and I'll continue to throw it right back.

Fallacy: Shifting the burden of truth

The source of the fallacy is the assumption that something is true unless proven otherwise. The person making a negative claim cannot logically prove nonexistence. And here's why: to know that a X does not exist would require a perfect knowledge of all things (omniscience).

So again, and I will repeat this back to you, where's your study demonstrating HCQ's effectiven treatment against COVID-19?

'Gold Standard' Clinical Trial Finds Hydroxychloroquine Won't Prevent COVID-1

Unlike some prior studies, this new trial was a "gold standard" prospective, randomized clinical trial. It found that hydroxychloroquine could not prevent COVID-19 any better than a sugar pill.

Worse, 40% of those taking hydroxychloroquine developed side effects including nausea, upset stomach or diarrhea. Fortunately, no serious side effects or heart problems occurred in the study

Is this his gold standard study ?

It's not a study it's an opinion article with no link to the actual study .

SG how about a link to the actual study ?

a reply to: asabuvsobelow

Was my last post it ?

I think I found the study and if so now we know why it wasn't linked .

It's a editorial .

Geeeez

a reply to: asabuvsobelow

You've demonstrated that Dr Anthony Fauci '' your messiah "

Your brain washed

Mate you could be sick near death with damn virus and administered HCQ and make a full recovery

Could you say?

This is what I'm here for. This is why I stick around this forum. You keep solidifying the OP and my position.

As stated prior, unreliable studies, online expertise, ad hominems, games. That's it thus far.

Any actual substantive evidence of HCQ being effective against COVID-19? None. 40+ pages on. You even admitted this indirectly by using the term could. I'm glad you have this magical confidence asabuvsobelow but excuse me, we're 6+ months into this pandemic and people need more than just your beliefs. That goes for the others as well.

originally posted by: Southern Guardian
a reply to: asabuvsobelow

You've demonstrated that Dr Anthony Fauci '' your messiah "

Your brain washed

Mate you could be sick near death with damn virus and administered HCQ and make a full recovery

Could you say?

This is what I'm here for. This is why I stick around this forum. You keep solidifying the OP and my position.

As stated prior, unreliable studies, online expertise, ad hominems, games. That's it thus far.

Any actual substantive evidence of HCQ being effective against COVID-19? None. 40+ pages on. You even admitted this indirectly by using the term could. I'm glad you have this magical confidence asabuvsobelow but excuse me, we're 6+ months into this pandemic and people need more than just your beliefs. That goes for the others as well.

HCQ is not a cure nor a 100% treatment , It is an effective therapy especially when combined with Erythromycin and Zinc , Just like the Ivermectin triple therapy .

Now you say in over 40+ pages nothing of substance has been given to prove Effectivness of HCQ , then we agree to disagree . And I say that in 40+ pages you have presented nothing that says HCQ isn't an effective treatment for Covid-19 .

It is clear that you have failed to read the links you so carelessly throw around .

a reply to: Southern Guardian


www.youtube.com...

Just watch this mate , and then come back at me with your lefty response.

www.pennmedicine.org...

When that ^ study is completed you will be eating some crow my friend.

originally posted by: Southern Guardian
a reply to: puzzled2

Never said that

Then what was the point of that comment?

"Thought you would sign up 1st to prove your commitment to the in your words "world's foremost medical experts" advice."

As southern can only comprehend 1 line I have had to repeat the information he was given. Which is a clear indication of his failure to understand anything but the headlines in the MSN. So now you know to ignore his squawking.

a reply to: puzzled2

So you won't explain the point of that comment? Once again cowardly.

originally posted by: Southern Guardian
a reply to: puzzled2

So you won't explain the point of that comment? Once again cowardly.

It was a jab at your unwavering obedience to Dr.Fauci , did you actually have trouble seeing that or are you just being condescending .

either answer says something about you.

a reply to: Southern Guardian

LOL - WHAT COMMENT DO YOU NEED EXPLAINING?

a reply to: Fallingdown

I'd be more worried about the behaviour of those referring to a supposed 'study' as "Gold Standard" that was reportedly done entirely over the internet with self-professed 'patients/participants' mailing everything in based on their own supposed 'judgement' (almost no tests, almost no hospitalizations**, and no treating physicians involved in the whole process). It's beyond outrageous to refer to such a 'study'* as "Gold Standard". (*: and I'm being generous with the word "study", see my earlier explanations on ATS about marketing/sales-pitches; **: or no tests and no hospitalizations if you don't count some random person on the internet claiming he was tested positive or hospitalized, which I don't in a proper clinical trial, then again, I don't count someone like that claiming to have had Covid-19 reportedly according to him/her based on whatever symptoms they think they have or had, that's ridiculous in a clinical trial; the researchers collecting this data didn't even see a single supposed 'patient/participant'!)

Besides, HCQ did exactly what it's supposed to do* according to these dubious e-mails and filled in internet surveys, prevent hospitalization and helping your immune system fight the disease and develop antibodies without having the disease do too much damage. Something that won't happen if you don't get infected. It worked beautifully if any of the e-mails are to be believed, which could have come from anyone, even just one hacker or Gilead employee making up patients'/participants' stories and signing up for the trial, sending all those e-mails and filling in all the internet surveys. Anyway, the lack of actual PCR-testing to confirm the presence of Covid-19 makes the term "Gold Standard" rather outrageously propagandistic already (marketing the study as something valuable in determining the truth/reality concerning HCQ, talking it up, making it look way better or more impressive than it is in reality; again, it's just one more sales-pitch against HCQ, even the word "study" is hardly appropiate, let alone "Gold Standard Clinical Trial").

*: what HCQ is supposed to do:

Don't miss the crucial point made at 11:14 in relation to the sales-pitch I was responding to that focuses on the subject of 100% prevention (which would prevent the all-important infection and consequent development of antibodies discussed there). A similar point is made at 8:25, it all ties back into what he mentions in the introduction and at 11:14.

Context:

COVID-19 Hydroxychloroquine Mechanism of Action, Functions & Effects as an immune system enhancer (playlist)

a reply to: whereislogic

Your forgot Southern's golden tactic look at the Author -- Gilead funded. but not declared as a conflict.

a reply to: asabuvsobelow

I don't care for youtube. Don't care for your narrative driven videos. Proper source thanks.

As for the below;

Penn Launches Trial to Evaluate Hydroxychloroquine to Treat

The article and study is back from April this year, when the study had only been launched. What we're concerned with here are the outcomes.

Do you have a later source on where that study is at?

a reply to: puzzled2

It's fairly simple.

Why did you feel the need to comment about this vaccine?

Not too hard to answer.

originally posted by: Fallingdown
I think I found the study and if so now we know why it wasn't linked .

It's a editorial .

Geeeez

Btw, that's still not a link to the actual 'study' (original sales-pitch publication as published by the NEJM), discussed in more detail and linked in some of my commentary in this subforum months ago. When some people on ATS were already linking those publications for the same purpose as Southern Guardian did with his news article about it (it might have been Southern Guardian himself, or Phage).

Reminds me of the behaviour of certain 'scientists' ignoring the proper and most relevant critique of their publications and supposed 'evidence' for their philosophies and biased unsupported assertions that won't be challenged by their collegues that are of the same mind and part of the same clique of con-artists making money from publishing the same pseudoscience. And then keep on dredging up the same crap as supposed 'peer reviewed science', because their collegues and editors at publishing houses/companies make their money from producing or publishing the same pseudoscientific crap, so it won't be retracted, no matter how crappy it is.

A common occurance on the "Origins and Creationism" forum here as well.

“There is a generation that is pure in its own eyes; but has not been cleansed from its filth.*” [Lit., “excrement.” Urban English: “crap.”] (Pr 30:12) 2 Peter 2:22: What the true proverb says has happened to them: “The dog has returned to its own vomit, and the sow that was bathed to rolling in the mire.” “Like a dog that returns to its vomit, the stupid one repeats his foolishness.” (Pr 26:11)

a reply to: Southern Guardian

I don't care for youtube. Don't care for your narrative driven videos. Proper source thanks.

As for the below;

Penn Launches Trial to Evaluate Hydroxychloroquine to Treat

The article and study is back from April this year, when the study had only been launched. What we're concerned with here are the outcomes.

Do you have a later source on where that study is at?

More hilarity. Your link is not to a study. It's to a news piece about a study.

Proper sources, please.

TheRedneck

originally posted by: Southern Guardian
a reply to: whereislogic

]Despite the suspicion that you'll just dismiss it for being non-randomized or not 'gold standard' or some other proposed justification for dismissing the numbers, the cold hard facts

The cold hard fact is that they mean nothing in way of the proper, randomized, Gold Standard studies out there.

You don't set the rules here.

Cold hard facts.

Did everyone notice this comment came 2 comments after Southern Guardian linked a news article that referred to supposed statistics from a supposed collection of supposed e-mails and supposedly filled in internet surveys as a "Gold Standard Clinical Trial"?

But the high quality and most importantly, honest, French study that I linked isn't good enough cause it's not "proper, randomized, Gold Standard", not only that, it doesn't even count at all, "they mean nothing" apparently, and that's supposed to be a "cold hard fact"? It's almost as if he's doing it on purpose, laying it on thick. Just like the news article he linked.

For a recap (and the link to the French study, the actual study):

originally posted by: Southern Guardian
a reply to: puzzled2

Argument from Ignorance

Description: The assumption of a conclusion or fact based primarily on lack of evidence to the contrary. Usually best described by, “absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.”

Where are these studies that prove HCQ as an effective treatment against COVID-19?

originally posted by: whereislogic

Despite the suspicion that you'll just dismiss it for being non-randomized or not 'gold standard' or some other proposed justification for dismissing the numbers, the cold hard facts that are unambiguous regarding the question of whether or not HCQ helps in viral reduction, here's the study that matters most:

Hydroxychloroquine and azithromycin as a treatment of COVID-19: results of an open-label non-randomized clinical trial (the French study where D. Raoult was involved)

That study already shows enough. Mind you, regarding the part that is non-randomized, the treated patients were actually more sick than those untreated that were used for comparison. So pointing out that it's non-randomized, is not helping as an argument that somehow these results are giving the wrong picture because it's non-randomized, or are of lesser value, or some other reason to downplay them. If it was randomized, it would show an even greater benefit for HCQ and HCQ + Azithromycin; that's what these results demonstrate (in particular the detail about the treated patients being more sick).

The essay that puzzled2 linked in this thread about the psychology involved in this whole HCQ debate (for which the writer is eminently qualified to speak on), goes into the attacks and arguments raised against the usefulness of this study. It may be prudent for anyone who is inclined to raise the same arguments against its validity, to read up on that first, cause it also responds to these. So one can skip a few steps in the debate and not dawdle around on the surface of 'the pond' (an issue like this) throwing stones to see how often you can make them skip. An appropiate metaphor for the behaviour of some people and their choice of arguments (often repetitive in their essential meaning*) to attack the validity of the evidence in favor of HCQ (the stones they are throwing), never really getting to the bottem of the matter, playing on people's indoctrinated superficial view of these matters, or conditioned behaviour that encourages people to be satisfied with a superficial view while trusting untrustworthy 'experts' to honestly provide such a view in an accurate manner; which these latter 'experts' are happily taking advantage of for their own, often financial or reputational, benefit. (*: like the RCT fundamentalism described in the essay)

The “understanding heart is one that searches for knowledge”; it is not satisfied with a mere superficial view but seeks to get the full picture. (Pr 15:14) Knowledge must become ‘pleasant to one’s very soul’ if discernment is to safeguard one from perversion and deception.​—Pr 2:10, 11; 18:15. Understanding must be based on knowledge, and it works with knowledge, though it is itself more than mere knowledge. The extent and worth of one’s understanding is measurably affected by the quantity and quality of one’s knowledge. Knowledge is acquaintance with facts. Or essentially, knowledge means familiarity with facts/truths/certainties/realities acquired by personal experience, observation, or study, or basically things that are factual/true/certain/absolute/conclusive/correct, without error. “Science” comes from the Latin scientia meaning knowledge.

Knowledge and understanding together bring wisdom, which is “the prime thing,” the ability to bring a fund of knowledge and keen understanding to bear on problems with successful results. (Pr 4:7) The person who is rightly motivated seeks understanding, not out of mere curiosity or to exalt himself, but for the very purpose of acting in wisdom; ‘wisdom is before his face.’ (Pr 17:24; see WISDOM.) He is not like those in the apostle Paul’s day who assumed to be teachers of others but were “puffed up with pride, not understanding anything,” unwisely letting themselves become “mentally diseased over questionings and debates about words,” things that produce disunity and a host of bad results.​—1Ti 6:3-5.

Source: Understanding (Insight on the Scriptures)

And... since we're going to do the "proper sources" dance... I went back through the last three pages of Southern Guardian's posts and looked at his "proper sources."

Not a single source was to a study! Not one! In three freakin' pages of links!

Here they are:

• Dr. Birx: Randomized trials show benefit for remdesivir, but not hydroxychloroquine
  
  linked from this post; A news article from Fox News... that is not a study.
  
  
• Dr. Fauci says all the ‘valid’ scientific data shows hydroxychloroquine isn’t effective in treating coronavirus
  
  linked from this post; Another news article from CNBC this time. Not a study.
  
  
• The World Health Organisation: Studies show hydroxychloroquine does not have clinical benefits in treating COVID-19
  
  linked from this post; A statement from the World Health organization. Not a study.
  
  
• WHO says trials show malaria and HIV drugs don't cut Covid-19 hospital deaths
  
  linked from this post; A news article from the Guardian. Not a study.
  
  
• [url=https://www.npr.org/sections/coronavirus-live-updates/2020/06/20/881260031/nih-halts-hydroxychloroquine-study-says-unlikely-to-help-covid-19-] NIH Halts Hydroxychloroquine Study; Says 'Unlikely' To Help COVID-19 Patients
  
  That's weird... try it again:
  
  NIH Halts Hydroxychloroquine Study; Says 'Unlikely' To Help COVID-19 Patients
  
  linked from this post; An NPR news article. Not a study.
  
  Looks like even the website is getting disgusted with your propaganda.
  
  
• Brit ish Heart Foundation: Why hydroxychloroquine isn't a "miracle cure" for coronavirus
  
  linked from this post; A statement from the British Heart Foundation... editorialized, no less. Not a study.
  
  
• Do not use hydroxychloroquine for COVID: National Taskforce (Australia)
  
  linked from this post; An impressive-looking news article about statements made by a member of the Australian Covid-19 Task Force. Not a study, though.
  
  
• Stella Immanuel - the doctor behind unproven coronavirus cure claim
  
  Linked from this post; An editorial "hit piece" from the BBC. Not a study.
  
  
• F auc i: Henry Ford Health's hydroxychloroquine study 'flawed'
  
  Linked from this post; A news article from the Detroit News. Not a study.
  
  Repeated in this post. I guess for emphasis?
  
  
• Fauci Leads Trump by 26% in Coronavirus Response Rating: Poll
  
  Linked from this post; A political article from Newsweek this time. Still not a study.
  
  
• Dr. Anthony Fauci first-pitch baseball card breaks Topps record for sales in just 24 hours
  
  Linked from this post; Oh, a human interest article from USA Today about the worst pitch known in the history of mankind. Definitely not a study.
  
  
• source
  
  Linked from this post; A Wikipedia page about a personality! Not a study.
  
  
• A flawed Covid-19 study gets the White House’s attention — and the FDA may pay the price
  
  Linked from this post; This is a new one... STAT. Still not a study.
  
  
• Penn Launches Trial to Evaluate Hydroxychloroquine to Treat
  
  Linked from this post; At least this time it's a medical news article. Written by a reporter, not a medical professional. Not a study.

There's your 14 most recent links (one of them twice!), spanning three pages and 30 hours, and not a single one of them go to any study whatsoever. Southern Guardian, you've got a lot of nerve now complaining about needing "proper sources." How about YOU provide some "proper sources" to support YOUR position. No one cares, especially no one who has more than two neurons operating at the moment, what reporters think.

This is ATS, not Twitter. We have standards.

TheRedneck