Playing Politics with our lives- 440,000 deaths later and now a reversal on HCQ

a reply to: ScepticScot

I have to admit I'd never heard of The Gateway Pundit before so I've just spent the last 30 minutes or so looking them up.
Granted its not enough to give a qualified opinion but it seems pretty bloody clear to me that it seems more interested in pushing a pre-determined and locked in political agenda than it is in publishing scientific data and encouraging open and honest debate.

Predictably the usual suspects lap it up because it 'confirms' their own pre-conceived bias.

Prosecute....rinse and repeat.

originally posted by: Freeborn
a reply to: ScepticScot

I have to admit I'd never heard of The Gateway Pundit before so I've just spent the last 30 minutes or so looking them up.
Granted its not enough to give a qualified opinion but it seems pretty bloody clear to me that it seems more interested in pushing a pre-determined and locked in political agenda than it is in publishing scientific data and encouraging open and honest debate.

Predictably the usual suspects lap it up because it 'confirms' their own pre-conceived bias.

Which is no different from the MSM at this point. Quite frankly, I'd trust Gateway Pundit over CNN / MSNBC.

Regardless, the source is irrelevant. They link to their sources / study to make the claim.

originally posted by: Edumakated

originally posted by: Freeborn
a reply to: ScepticScot

I have to admit I'd never heard of The Gateway Pundit before so I've just spent the last 30 minutes or so looking them up.
Granted its not enough to give a qualified opinion but it seems pretty bloody clear to me that it seems more interested in pushing a pre-determined and locked in political agenda than it is in publishing scientific data and encouraging open and honest debate.

Predictably the usual suspects lap it up because it 'confirms' their own pre-conceived bias.

Which is no different from the MSM at this point. Quite frankly, I'd trust Gateway Pundit over CNN / MSNBC.

Regardless, the source is irrelevant. They link to their sources / study to make the claim.

They provide a link.

It doesn't actually back up their claim.

originally posted by: Freeborn
a reply to: ScepticScot

I have to admit I'd never heard of The Gateway Pundit before so I've just spent the last 30 minutes or so looking them up.
Granted its not enough to give a qualified opinion but it seems pretty bloody clear to me that it seems more interested in pushing a pre-determined and locked in political agenda than it is in publishing scientific data and encouraging open and honest debate.

Predictably the usual suspects lap it up because it 'confirms' their own pre-conceived bias.

Yes, right wing sites are quick to pick up on the left wing shenanigans and vice versa..

You can look at his peer reviewed study yourself, its just the ugly truth.
www.sciencedirect.com...

Therefore, the odds of hospitalisation of treated patients was 84% less than in the untreated patients

Or review on a more liberal friendly site
finance.yahoo.com...

People are welcome to take as much HCQ as they'd like. IDC, but:

Fact Check: DID the AJM recommend HCQ?

The Facts
Dr. Joseph S. Alpert, editor-in-chief of the AJM, said the journal does not endorse HCQ treatment for COVID-19.

"This article does not mean the journal recommended this therapy," he said. "The authors recommended it just as others recommend other interventions. We just publish their findings and recommendations."

Alpert said the journal often presents multiple sides of a scientific argument.

"We have also published articles from other authorities that said don't use it [HCQ treatment]," he said. "This is still controversial with two sides saying different things. Often we have editorials that dispute the article's recommendations. We are a scientific journal and do not push or recommend any specific thing. The authors do that."

It is still inconclusive and may actually increase mortality.

a reply to: tamusan

You can review many of the studies here at c19study.com...

It is only recommended in early treatment to reduce viral load, Ivermectin is the better drug now, but the fact remains we had a pretty good winner early on. Most of the lockdown could have been completely avoided.

The FLCC was recommending Ivermectin back in October as well. The NIH still hasnt fully endorsed it despite all the studies. The least they could have done was authorize it for high risk before Thanksgiving.. They are looking to add it to their protocol next month, 200k~ deaths later.
c19ivermectin.com...

a reply to: 111DPKING111

I've read plenty of studies. I'm not going to try to change anyone's opinion. I just know that I won't be getting any HCQ myself. IDC what other people do.

Some just want one side to be heard .... Sounds about right nowadays
Worth the Listen '.....
hydroxychloroquine
Flashback - in case you miised it

December 2020 Chloroquine/hydroxychloroquine could treat COVID-19 infection

The result is consistent with the updated analysis provided in that suggests high efficacy of CQ/HCQ in early treatments and lower efficacy and controversial results only for late treatment.

Statistically, 100% of early treatment studies are positive, late treatment studies are mixed with 70% positive effects, 78% of pre-exposure prophylaxis studies are positive, and 100% of post-exposure prophylaxis studies also report positive effects.

a reply to: Kangaruex4Ewe

you're right, it wasn't missed. i remember hearing of clinics in Houston on sirius xm with 100% success rate SIX MONTHS AGO.

These "ppl" are reprehensible.

Um just gonna say: "told ya'll so"

originally posted by: 111DPKING111

originally posted by: Freeborn
a reply to: ScepticScot

I have to admit I'd never heard of The Gateway Pundit before so I've just spent the last 30 minutes or so looking them up.
Granted its not enough to give a qualified opinion but it seems pretty bloody clear to me that it seems more interested in pushing a pre-determined and locked in political agenda than it is in publishing scientific data and encouraging open and honest debate.

Predictably the usual suspects lap it up because it 'confirms' their own pre-conceived bias.

Yes, right wing sites are quick to pick up on the left wing shenanigans and vice versa..

You can look at his peer reviewed study yourself, its just the ugly truth.
www.sciencedirect.com...

Therefore, the odds of hospitalisation of treated patients was 84% less than in the untreated patients

Or review on a more liberal friendly site
finance.yahoo.com...

The paper is by the same doctor who heavily pushed the treatment (along with a fair degree of self promotion) based on his own use of it without any supporting evidence.

The paper itself is based on his own patient data.

That doesn't necessarily mean it conclusions are wrong but should be viewed with a fair degree of cynicism and questions regarding its objectivity.

I learned a long time ago how to tell when a politician is lying. Their mouth is moving. Then you have so called scientists and journalists doing the exact same thing. So I don't trust any of them.

originally posted by: schadenfreude
a reply to: Kangaruex4Ewe

you're right, it wasn't missed. i remember hearing of clinics in Houston on sirius xm with 100% success rate SIX MONTHS AGO.

These "ppl" are reprehensible.

Exactly. Love the screen name as well.

a reply to: 111DPKING111

I dont think prosecution is in order.

I disagree, looks like a good case of crimes against humanity from here. By pretending an effective treatment does not exist it has allowed pushing all kinds of harmful responses to this engineered bioweapon.

Why have some doctors lost their license in trying to prescribe HCQ with many others too scared to talk?

originally posted by: marg6043
a reply to: ScepticScot

Yes, scientist are great, but now when the funding for the programs comes also from bias sources trying to push their own agendas with the backing of scientist you can not trust.

That is another issue behind scientist, I like to read what independent studies say about issues, but many of this work is dismiss because it does not align with the status quo.

Medical experts would make a lot more money promoting an actual cure than betting everything on a half assed fix that only delays failure. It's a bit daft how many people on this forum believe there's thousands of doctors willing to throw their careers away & destroy the health of their homes and communities because politics.

a reply to: TzarChasm


In American big pharma big money has done a great job destroying cures, because is not money in cures, but is plenty on useless long treatments specially those that last a lifetime.

originally posted by: marg6043
a reply to: TzarChasm


In American big pharma big money has done a great job destroying cures, because is not money in cures, but is plenty on useless long treatments specially those that last a lifetime.

By all means don't read science abstracts, don't bother to learn that a study on a couple of hundred people isn't actually conclusive and PLEASE keep whinging about Big Pharma.

It's your actual responsibility to learn about any medicines you may need and quit relying on others. If more people did this Big Pharma would go broke. Whining about Big Pharma at this point is just propaganda for people too lazy to use brain cells.

Really.....this is about bugs and how to avoid them and if one is infected how to 86 their little harses.

Just killing tiny little jelly-bugs.

This is not a Predatory bug either....its a Cross-Dressing coward that hides in the Weeds and only fights when numbers are on its side.

Once we learn about the Bug ,like where it comes from and how it sneaks into us.....you know gather Intel.....then it becomes much easier to remediate the threat the Bug presents.

Dont Blame the Monkey.

HCQ.

Of course @ the very beginning whn it was brought into the equation.....did ANY of you here look it up?

Seriously.....your life an the lives of your Family and Global Community are in mortal DANGER RIGHT ?....SO....DID ANY OF YOU look it up ?

If you failed to research it then you are now a Passenger on this Bus for a while OK ?

If you did research it then what did you find?

I researched it....and discovered some basic things.

It kills Bugs DEAD.

Its a Synthetic Drug.

Its designed around a core molecule of Wormwood.

Wormwood is Sweet Annie.....Sweet Annie is a Remedial Plant Pioneer Women all tried to have in their Gardens.

They isolated the core molecule /s which produce the needed impacts.....they surrounded it with their own Matrix....then Patented it and sold it as a Synthetic Drug.....but @ the end of the day they are using Wormwood.

I was already researching Wormwood when HCQ was proposed....it was just another small step to research HCQ
.

We need to identify those who have had knowledge and who have tried to hide or suppress it so they could own and control it.Clearly the People who did all of this Research know the truth as we now do and they knew it a LONG time ago.

So its a Bug that Sweet Annie can Schwack huh?.....ok.....what kind of Bugs ?.... Parasites you say ?

Ok...so we research Parasites....right ?....and we learn that the evidence proves that the Symptoms of what we are calling Covid-Cold show us its NOT parasites...what ?.....ok...is there anything connected to Parasites that we missed ?.....back to Research Parasites....where we find Hulda Clark....and we find data showing Parasites carry Hitchhikers .... Bacteria.....ok.....thats cool.....so we Research Bacteria right ?.....do Bacteria fit the Symtomatic Template we have now developed from Covid-cold data ?....why yes to some degrees it fits but its not a proper fit so now we KNOW it cannot be Bacteria......our Template shows us we are looking for a Viral sized Covid-Cold Bug.....not a Bacterial sized Bug......time to dig deeper into Bacteria.....whoops....whats this ? there are things called PLEOMORPHIC BACTERIA ?.... and they can morph and change their Mass and Shape.....cool.....this Bug can exist in 3 sizes ?....Bacterial-Viral-Fungal ?....more cool....now Bacteria suddenly fit PERFECTLY ONTO OUR SYMPTOMATIC TEMPLATE.

Ok...more Research.....so what else does what HCQ does?.....what other Medicines create this Bug killing impact?

Ivermectin ?...Stromectin ?....MANY MANY OTHERS .....these are all being used for different Diseases...but they also kill Bugs dead.

More Research....how and why do these other drugs work ?....what are their "core molecules" ?....and what natural FREE PLANTS are they made from ?...how did big pharma rip off Mother Nature in each case....because once we know we have our own Remedial solutions.

Back to Hulda Clark.....Wormwood-Green Black Walnut-Cloves......do any of these things have core molecules that big pharma also ripped off from Mother Nature ?

You see before we start Witch Hunts we have to understand the Science....and once we do....then we know where to start looking.

Big pharma did not isolate these core molecules by chance...they have know all along....for a LONG LONG TIME.

Many Agencies Government and otherwise worked together to suppress this data.

This goes far beyond playing Politics....this is about Global Scale Mass Murder.

These are Crimes Against Humanity.

We need to make Nuremburg look like a Tea Party as we remediate those responsible for the smoke and static used to keep this secret suppressed and hidden.

Hundreds of Millions have died ...no BILLIONS have died who could have easily been saved had this data been shared with Humanity since its discovery.

People are responsible for all of those deaths....People who shall go down in Humanities History Book as the greatest evil Cabal ever concieved birthed and remediated.

If you want to get down to the real Nitty-Gritty....and do a little more RESEARCH.....you just might discover that this TOPIC is NOT NEW IN FACT ITS VERY VERY OLDE.....in fact its.

Biblical in size scope and lineage.

Yes...some People have known this inside out for a VERY VERY VERY LONG TIME.

a reply to: ScepticScot

The paper itself is based on his own patient data.

That doesn't necessarily mean it conclusions are wrong but should be viewed with a fair degree of cynicism and questions regarding its objectivity.

Right, if it was just him, somethings up
c19study.com...

HCQ is effective for COVID-19. The probability that an ineffective treatment generated results as positive as the 195 studies to date is estimated to be 1 in 1 quadrillion (p = 0.0000000000000009).

Early treatment is most successful, with 100% of studies(25) reporting a positive effect and an estimated reduction of 67% in the effect measured (death, hospitalization, etc.) using a random effects meta-analysis, RR 0.33 [0.25-0.43].

The disgusting part ...

There is evidence of bias towards publishing negative results. 88% of prospective studies report positive effects, and only 75% of retrospective studies do.

Studies from North America are 4.0 times more likely to report negative results than studies from the rest of the world combined, p = 0.00000005.