- 29,418
- Glasgow
- GTP_Mars
Felipe VI, the King of Spain, has been quarantined on his private jet.
So the reign of Spain stays mainly on the plane.
So the reign of Spain stays mainly on the plane.
Trump retweeted that and it got taken down. Trump Jr. posted it and got a 12 hour ban from Twitter.Then I guess the reason why Twitter took the other video down and didn't ban Benny was that he could claim to be a *snort* accredited news source reporting on someone else's point of view while they didn't know the other source from Adam and thus for all they knew it was trying to recommend an untested cure to the public. It sounds like YouTube's approach was algorithm based and they were blocking the video across the board.
Neither platform wants to be sued if something bad happens to someone because they heard Immanuel's rant and started ingesting HCQ willy-nilly is my take.
Which probably tells you how legitimate the contents are.Trump retweeted that and it got taken down. Trump Jr. posted it and got a 12 hour ban from Twitter.
I really don't get what point you're trying to make. Which of the two categories I talked about do you think they fall into? Reporters or opinion pushers? Do you even know the difference?Trump retweeted that and it got taken down. Trump Jr. posted it and got a 12 hour ban from Twitter.
I am not really trying to make a point. I'm just stating facts.I really don't get what point you're trying to make. Which of the two categories I talked about do you think they fall into? Reporters or opinion pushers? Do you even know the difference?
As always Joey, a valuable & thankful source of info for us.She goes against everything research has found though, especially with putting her staff on Hydroxychloroquine as a prophylactic. All research to this point has found that Hydroxychloroquine does not work as a prophylactic and is potentially harmful to patients. The risks do not outweigh the non-existent rewards.
I hope the Texas Medical Board investigates her and ultimately removes her license to practice medicine. What she's doing is dangerous and borders on malpractice.
statnews.comThe study that sparked the latest controversy was anything but randomized. Not only was it not randomized, outside experts noted, but patients who received hydroxychloroquine were also more likely to get steroids, which appear to help very sick patients with Covid-19. That is likely to have influenced the central finding of the Henry Ford study: that death rates were 50% lower among patients in hospitals treated with hydroxychloroquine.
The Henry Ford Health System did a study and says hydroxychloroquine cut the death rate in half.
https://www.henryford.com/news/2020/07/hydro-treatment-study
Basically, it worked for their study, but the results of the study should not be seen as a current solution-for-all. They apparently had strict measures in place when they originally conducted their study, and it's likely, their findings so far would only really benefit those who fall within' the same variables.Dr. Marcus Zervos division head of Infectious Disease for Henry Ford Health SystemDr. Zervos also pointed out, as does the paper, that the study results should be interpreted with some caution, should not be applied to patients treated outside of hospital settings and require further confirmation in prospective, randomized controlled trials that rigorously evaluate the safety and efficacy of hydroxychloroquine therapy for COVID-19.
“Currently, the drug should be used only in hospitalized patients with appropriate monitoring, and as part of study protocols, in accordance with all relevant federal regulations,” Dr. Zervos said.
I'm likely already repeating what medical experts were asking months ago, but here's my concerns with her. Okay, so we'll accept she treated 300 patients with Hydroxy. And I think we can safely assume 99% were patients with mild cases (since a more severe case would obviously be at a hospital).
-What is the likely hood that those 300 patients would've gotten over Covid regardless of taking Hydroxy.; did it have any affect or was it more of a placebo where she & the patients believe it cured them.
But the skeptics argue "you can't prove x didn't help either!"I think that's the main issue. Person A comes in with B disease/issue. They give them C treatment. Person A recovers. Was C treatment effective in treating B disease? We don't know without a controlled study. Same goes for the other anecdotal stories in the news.
I've heard this before too. People talking about have an issue and they took x and it helped them recover, but there's no proof that x would help.
I both really hope that this is on purpose and yet also entirely accidental...
I both really hope that this is on purpose and yet also entirely accidental...
Here I might quibble a bit - I certainly wouldn't consent to HCQ if I had a severe case! Why would you when it appears to do more harm than good at that point? That said, it could well be that some of the adverse in HCQ use at that stage is from the high doses given (>1000mg per day, compared to <400mg p.d. for arthritis, and ~400mg per week as a preexposure anti-malarial).
All I'm trying to say is that overstating possible harm isn't a proper counter to people overstating possible benefits, IYSWIM.
The Henry Ford Health System did a study and says hydroxychloroquine cut the death rate in half.
https://www.henryford.com/news/2020/07/hydro-treatment-study
Simply, if you take double the tests then you would get double the number of cases(I know it's not exact, but the gist is correct).
This throws some light on why the British public has been so compliant with lockdown restrictions and are so keen on mandatory face coverings.
Needless to say, the real Covid death toll is <0.1% of the UK population.
I'm not suggesting that testing creates the virus, I can believe that you thought it though, see link below. Simply, if you take double the tests then you would get double the number of cases(I know it's not exact, but the gist is correct).
As for the link https://www.kekstcnc.com/media/2793/kekstcnc_research_covid-19_opinion_tracker_wave-4.pdf
Admittedly, Kekst only asked 89 Scots, so it’s a tiny sample, but the polling company asked 527 women across the UK the same question and they think that 9.91% of the population have succumbed to the virus. Men are less pessimistic – they believe 3.45% of the population have died – but the mean figure is 6.76%, or four-and-a-half million. And in the US, the mean is a whopping 9%! That’s twenty nine-and-a-half million.
This throws some light on why the British public has been so compliant with lockdown restrictions and are so keen on mandatory face coverings. (According to Kekst, 65% of the UK population is in favour of compulsory face masks in indoor public spaces.) They’ve effectively been completely terrorised by the Government and the mainstream media. Not bed-wetters, just hopelessly misinformed.
Needless to say, the real Covid death toll is <0.1% of the UK population.
The mortality rate isn't the biggest problem, more than one person has told you this. The bigger problem is the long term effects of COVID and what it could do to someone's respiratory, neurological, or cardiovascular system. Sure you survive COVID, but do you really want to live a life where you need to wheel around an oxygen tank?
Try Sweden then.No lockdown and lambasted by all mainstream media.
![]()
No, what I want is for the whole world to conform to my way of thinking, to keep me safe
So you want the world to turn into COVID deniers to keep you safe? I don't think I understand your reasoning here.
While I know this is completely up to the staff, constantly posting the same incorrect information after being told multiple times it's incorrect has be towing this line at some point.This isn't even remotely correct and more than one person has given you solid proof.
I'm not sure how many times people need to tell you this, but lockdowns are not there to prevent people from getting COVID or even dying. They're in place to give health systems a fighting chance at managing their patient load.
Face coverings aren't there to prevent you from getting COVID, they're there to prevent you from spreading it to others.
The mortality rate isn't the biggest problem, more than one person has told you this. The bigger problem is the long term effects of COVID and what it could do to someone's respiratory, neurological, or cardiovascular system. Sure you survive COVID, but do you really want to live a life where you need to wheel around an oxygen tank?
You will not knowingly post any material that is false, misleading, or inaccurate.
Newsweek Opinion, Harvey a. Risch, MD, PHD, professor of epidemiology, Yale School of Public Health:
I am fighting for a treatment that the data fully support but which, for reasons having nothing to do with a correct understanding of the science, has been pushed to the sidelines. As a result, tens of thousands of patients with COVID-19 are dying unnecessarily. Fortunately, the situation can be reversed easily and quickly.
I am referring, of course, to the medication hydroxychloroquine.
I'll add this also.I have seen news reports from even CNN, recently, that it is an effective treatment. If that is true, just think of the thousands of people that have died needlessly because of Trump Derangement Syndrome.
Just let that sink in.
I'll add this also.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1232869/
Oh, I had no idea you too were an epidemiologist. Maybe you should write an op-ed in Newsweek rebutting this guy.To prescribe hydroxychloroquine to any patient with COVID-19 is ignoring science. There's a scientific method that needs to be followed and have the proper research done on it. We don't know if "thousands are dying" needlessly or not because we COVID-19 hasn't been around long enough for us to fully study what works and what doesn't.
People aren't dying because of Trump Derangement Syndrome either. They're dying because Trump fumbled the pandemic badly and spouted nonsense like "it's a Democrat Hoax!"
I fully believe we should be researching drugs that are currently on the market to see how they could be repurposed to treat COVID-19. Ignoring the research stage though is dangerous and could inadvertently kill more people than it saves.
There are similarities, I assume, in Coronaviruses. That study was about SARS. It mentions the use of chloroquine, not hydroxychloroquine. I am not an epidemiologist like you, so I do not know the difference.SARS-CoV and SARS-CoV-2 are different. What works for one virus might not work for another. It does give us an idea of what we might want to research, but it's not a smoking gun that points to hydroxychloroquine being the miracle cure.
Oh, I had no idea you too were an epidemiologist. Maybe you should write an op-ed in Newsweek rebutting this guy.
There are similarities, I assume, in Coronaviruses. That study was about SARS. It mentions the use of chloroquine, not hydroxychloroquine. I am not an epidemiologist like you, so I do not know the difference.
The knowledge we currently have on SARS-CoV-2 is scarce, and most of it comes from deductions more than actual data. SARS-CoV-2 is a betacoronavirus belonging to the 2B group8 . It shares around 70-80% of its genome with SARS-CoV, but it shows to have the highest level of similarity with a horseshoe bat coronavirus1,8. Therefore, it is thought to be a recombinant virus transmitted from bats to human hosts by the mean of an intermediate host9 . Being an RNA-virus with an RNA-dependent RNA polymerase (RNRP)-based replication, mutation and recombination are not infrequent events9 . Moreover, despite the name and genetic similarities, SARS-CoV-2 shows genetic and clinical differences with SARS-CoV.