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.
Options
COVID-19 Check-in 2.0
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
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?
My concern is regarding why the medical community, led by the CDC, LITERALLY still has zero outpatient treatment for these people when they test positive. They just send them home and expect them to live under a rock until they need to be hospitalized. Only then do they give the steroid dexamethazone for inflammation.
However, the minute they have a vaccine every living human will be asked to take it.
Can you provide any evidence or identify who the "fanatics" are that are putting all their chips in HCQ?
How many tested positive in the trial you linked?
16
I pointed out it was only 16 and tou said you doubted it.
I quoted directly from the conclusions. I haven’t misrepresented anything.
Be honest. That’s all anyone can ask.
This is a great example to discuss (for critical thinkers). Just so everybody can follow the argument (it isn't that easy). The study enrolled 821 people who were suspected of being exposed to CV. The objective was to determine whether HCQ would prevent or minimize the disease if given early after exposure (w/i four days). They randomized and assigned about half of the people to receive HCQ and about half to receive a placebo. Then they followed them to see whether they got sick. Everything looks awesome and well designed to me to this point. It is just an HCQ arm, so they could have thrown in an HCQ+zinc arm, but we still have a great idea for a study to test HCQ as a prophylaxis.
Then, wham! They lay this little fact on you: they weren't able to test the overwhelming majority of the people with a lab test to see whether they actually got Covid! Only 20 of the 800+ people were actually tested. You've got to be kidding. They relied on symptoms instead of tests. Obviously, CV 19 has about every symptom imaginable, from none whatsoever (possibly a high percentage), to fever, cough, GI issues, and a whole bunch of other ones! The key problem is that one might expect, if HCQ were successful, that there would be a lot of asymptomatic positives. This study had no way to determine that.
It certainly doesn't mean HCQ works, but I can't find any possible use for this study. Can you? If so, why?
These attempts to discredit a well run and widely accepted study just because it doesn't support your bias are extremely pathetic. Nothing was hidden by the authors. They say at the beginning of the paper the result they were looking for was development of symptoms in line with COVID-19 with particular interest regarding those that had a confirmed high risk exposure. Almost all of the participants fit this description.
If you live with someone that has a confirmed case of COVID-19 and you develop COVID-19 symptoms, would you think you had the flu or cold?
I'd rather not bring prominent politicians into this discussion
I would go with cold, since that’s what this is for the vast majority of people. A cold.
So, are all of these doctors wrong?
If it is working the way you claim where the proportion of positives is the same but more are asymptomatic within the HCQ group, you would expect there to be a higher proportion of symptomatic people in the control group. That was not the case in this trial.
So if your spouse had a PCR confirmed case of COVID-19, and you started developing COVID-19 symptoms you wouldn't think you had COVID-19?