Hey folks - as a member of the DawgNation community, please remember to abide by simple rules of civil engagement with other members:
- Please no inappropriate usernames (remember that there may be youngsters in the room)
- Personal attacks on other community members are unacceptable, practice the good manners your mama taught you when engaging with fellow Dawg fans
- Use common sense and respect personal differences in the community: sexual and other inappropriate language or imagery, political rants and belittling the opinions of others will get your posts deleted and result in warnings and/ or banning from the forum
- 3/17/19 UPDATE -- We've updated the permissions for our "Football" and "Commit to the G" recruiting message boards. We aim to be the best free board out there and that has not changed. We do now ask that all of you good people register as a member of our forum in order to see the sugar that is falling from our skies, so to speak.
- Please no inappropriate usernames (remember that there may be youngsters in the room)
- Personal attacks on other community members are unacceptable, practice the good manners your mama taught you when engaging with fellow Dawg fans
- Use common sense and respect personal differences in the community: sexual and other inappropriate language or imagery, political rants and belittling the opinions of others will get your posts deleted and result in warnings and/ or banning from the forum
- 3/17/19 UPDATE -- We've updated the permissions for our "Football" and "Commit to the G" recruiting message boards. We aim to be the best free board out there and that has not changed. We do now ask that all of you good people register as a member of our forum in order to see the sugar that is falling from our skies, so to speak.
COVID-19 Check-in 2.0
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
We enrolled 821 asymptomatic participants. Overall, 87.6% of the participants (719 of 821) reported a high-risk exposure to a confirmed Covid-19 contact. The incidence of new illness compatible with Covid-19 did not differ significantly between participants receiving hydroxychloroquine (49 of 414 [11.8%]) and those receiving placebo (58 of 407 [14.3%]); the absolute difference was −2.4 percentage points (95% confidence interval, −7.0 to 2.2; P=0.35). Side effects were more common with hydroxychloroquine than with placebo (40.1% vs. 16.8%), but no serious adverse reactions were reported.
These are the results. It is sad that you have to resort to lying and distorting data just to try and win an argument. Not all of them were tested because they were at high risk of exposure because they lived with people who had already tested positive. If you live with someone who tested positive and develop COVID-19 symptoms, you probably have covid.
Edit: this is also one of many RCTs that show HCQ is not an effective treatment for COVID-19. I understand your political views are influencing how you look at things but this is just sad. It's time to move on and stop believing in a grand global conspiracy.
Did you seriously just imply that Texas is part of the south? You've been there long enough to know that Texas is not "part" of anything. It's TEXAS. 😬
Just wondering what you guys/gals think about this video, there's gotta be an reason Facebook and Youtube keep deleting it....
My mother in law's doctor definitely believes in HCQ
And my buddies that are physicians seem to believe in it. They must not have access to your large trials and are just going off their real world experiences.
A "certain" part of the population has been against HCQ since the start of this virus. Way before any of these large trials could take place.
I'm no scientist....heck.....I'm really not very smart. But I do know scientists can run trials to try and discover a truth......or try to prove a "truth". I learned that from my 10th grade science teacher.
And.....I understand the importance of having lab scientists.....I really do. But in a situation like this......with a virus like this......I tend to want to rely on those doctors that have the stresses of trying to keep their patients alive....over those that lock up the lab at 5pm.
And I mean no disrespect to those talented and very vitale research doctors.
Totally agree and I stand corrected
It’s used as a partisan attack tool. If you can discredit or vilify one thing you can then make statements like “has been wrong before” and continue with being sanctimonious towards others that you consider a political enemy. “Resist by any means necessary.....”.
The real problem with the Risch article is that he cited studies utilizing little to no control groups, and involved regular doctors who weren’t affiliated with a large tax payer funded grant upon which these academic types rely to earn a living.
The difference is a regular doctor, such a Dr Zelenko, has an ethical creed to follow. They aren’t going to create a “control group“ among patients because the control is really just a group of people they give a placebo. Experimental Medicine hangs the control group out to fend for themselves and likely die. An experimental treatment is then deemed a success if significantly fewer people die than the poor people who drew the control group card.
Think about that for a minute! That’s the HIGH ETHICAL GOLD STANDARD of the RCT so touted by academics - they just let people die in the name of medicine.
So because Dr Zelenko attempted to save the lives of all of his patients (and did), he is now considered a fraud by the academic community.
That’s really messed up. It might be a justifiable necessity, but still messed up Especially for this situation where the virus is likely to die off on its own or weaken to the point of no longer being the same threat to life.
In the history of medicine, I wonder how many millions of people have been killed as a result of simply being unfortunate enough to draw “control group?”
This is incredibly wrong. If a new drug shows strong signs of working as in saving lives or dramatically increasing quality of life the control group is ended immediately and given the new drug instead of a placebo. Time and time again you show that you don't know what you are talking about. You then default to conspiracies around academia and government funded grants which essentially means almost all research is worthless.
Edit: there was also talk around the ethics of having HCQ control groups at the beginning of the trials because they were worried about people dying unnecessarily, but it ended up not mattering.
Nice try. Read the whole thing this time.
16 PCR positive test results. 11 in the HCQ side.
And that debunks 2 dead out of 1234.
Seriously?
Now you are just lying to yourself.
Why would it not matter?
Because HCQ didn't work
I've read it. You're intentionally misrepresenting results to fit an agenda. You know what a fraud does.
It didn't work or it don't work?
It has been shown not to work in several large clinical trials and is not an effective treatment for COVID-19 in any context. That is as unambiguous as I can say it.
You say that if someone lives with someone that tests positive for covid and experiences symptoms......that everyone in the household probably has covid......
My son tested positive and experienced very mild symptoms...... if congestion for 2 days is really a symptom......
Since last Monday I've had 2 fast tests.....both negative......my wife has had a fast test which was negative......and my wife, daughter and I had the PCR test on Saturday and they came back negative.
Maybe everyone living with a positive doesn't get it.
Health care workers are constantly around it......and some certainly get it........but many never do.
So how can we just assume that one household positive means everyone is positive?