• Did you read the article?! There is no data in there. Dr. Oz treated two patients, and, anecdotally, both of them survived. Wow, let's take that right to the bank! A study done in China, with no specific information given, of some number of patients, and, it is "assumed" that 100% improved! Holy crap, that sounds really not made up at all! Meanwhile, there have been real studies done with real methods and real data, and real people died for real, because an immunosurpresive drug that shuts off your symptoms has the side effect of your body no longer fighting. Here is a link to the study from the Veteran's Affairs Hospital that the dailymail article vaguely cited: to quote the conclusion from the actual source: "In this study, we found no evidence that use of hydroxychloroquine, either with or without azithromycin, reduced the risk of mechanical ventilation in patients hospitalized with Covid-19. An association of increased overall mortality was identified in patients treated with hydroxychloroquine alone" To paraphrase, they tried it, and, not only did it not work, but it killed some people. I had thought we had already had this discussion and that I got through to you that these tabloid-esque news articles are dangerous misinformation that flies in the face of actual evidence, but I guess not, because you are still posting this stuff.
    • Linda Joy
      Just because you say it doesn't make it true, or that I believe it. And I can post whatever I want. If it offends you flag it!
    • bostjan64
      Of course just saying something doesn't make the thing true. That's why I urge you to read the article you posted and look at the data rationally. If they are making sweeping claims that a drug that disables the immune system works in fighting the SARS-CoV-2 virus, despite what the more rigorous studies indicate, then it is on them to prove it. And if their proof is on the level of "15?" out of "26?" - question marks their own - showed some sort of improvement, or "100 assumed" to have improved out of "unknown" number of people tested, or that Dr. Oz said on TV that he treated two people and they both survived treatment, versus the double blind VA study that they alluded to yet downplayed, which I posted a direct link to, or the fact that Dr. Fauci, the head of the coronavirus task force, is quoted in your article saying "No. The answer is no." when asked if HCQ works, you have to call into question the logic of whoever wrote the article for the Daily Mail that you posted. I'm not offended by you, Linda, I am offended by junk science, though, and you are parroting an article by a source that is known to publish poor quality factual information. If anything, my issue is with this media outlet for their poor judgement, since it is their job to check the facts that they publish.
  • Regarding the reputation of the source you posted: "A questionable source exhibits one or more of the following: extreme bias, consistent promotion of propaganda/conspiracies, poor or no sourcing to credible information, a complete lack of transparency and/or is fake news. Fake News is the deliberate attempt to publish hoaxes and/or disinformation for the purpose of profit or influence (Learn More). Sources listed in the Questionable Category may be very untrustworthy and should be fact checked on a per article basis. Please note sources on this list are not considered fake news unless specifically written in the reasoning section for that source. See all Questionable sources." - according to one fact check done, one story was found to be "mostly false." - describes the media company as a "tabloid." Of course, I don't expect that anyone who uses that site as a source would bother to check on any of these things, since that site is very widely known and infamous for losing several libel suits, for urging parents to abort their children if they test positive for "gay genes," and generally not knowing geography by confusing several locations in their stories. In other words, if you are going to try to convince anyone of anything, never use the daily mail as a source- it's not far off from left-wing people quoting the Onion as if it were a credible source.
  • As for HCQ in general, the Center for Evidence-Based Medicine has ruled it out: It may be confusing, because two early studies were published in haste and made positive claims that the drug helps people, but in one study from France, it said right in the paper that they achieved a 100% cure rate by disregarding the patients who died during the course of the tests (duh) and the other Chinese study was exposed for having some questionable methods. A wide number of more recent studies have shown that the drug not only does not work, but actually causes more harm than good, and, as we had discussed previously, the mechanations of the drug are fairly well understood, as to how it is proposed to make cells toxic, but how its main use it to discourage the immune system. But, as the immune system is disabled, the virus can spread more easily throughout the lungs, which leads to a temporary cessation of symptoms, but ultimately kills the patient. It's another critical thinking failure for those who initially proposed it. The medical research community was sidetracked by some additional studies in April, even though the drug had already been logically ruled out by the end of March as a viable treatment option. Anyway, those studies are somewhat completed now, but the results are being delayed for political reasons. We may never publicly see the complete results, but they were not overall positive. Most researchers are trying to move on to other studies. There are a laundry list of drugs right now being looked into as treatment, and some show favourable initial results. I'm not sure why some people are insisting the HCQ and azithromycin continue to be used when doctors don't expect them to work.

Copyright 2020, Wired Ivy, LLC

Answerbag | Terms of Service | Privacy Policy