Doctors are coming out in droves saying hydroxychloroquine works

[progressive hunter]

No, it’s just gibberish because you have no idea what you’re talking about.

Ain’t playing your game alice

Stop pretending like you have the foggiest idea what you’re talking about and you might learn something.

Ain’t playing your game Alice. Refute the data or move on

Refute what data? She has presented no data.

did you call and ask her for it???

I don't have to. Competent doctors who claim to have a cure for a disease present corroborating data to support their claims.

so your just mad they didnt tell you,,,

maybe mommy can give you a cookie to shut you up,,,

LOL

Why would I be mad at some quack who believes our government has reptilians from another planet?

there are more doctors than her making the claim,,,

why are you focusing on a black women to silence her???

Why are you injecting race into this? Are you racist?

Umm democrats are attacking a black woman, and her culture.. do you know your history?

LOL

Dumbfuck racist, which culture practices replacing government officials with reptilian humanoids?

Is that a joe biden quote!? Haha

LOL

No, it's from Dr. Immanuel. I'll take your non-answer as admission there are none and that you were full of shit when you said there were.

Stick to the topic

That doctor is part of this discussion. You can't erase her simply because she spouts some freakishly outrageous stuff.

true but why are you ignoring all the other doctors making the same claim???

Oh? Name the other doctors in that video who claimed they personally saved lives with HCQ?

YOU LACK CRITICAL THINKING SKILLS,,,,

 

[progressive hunter]

If they had better data, they might have a point.

As we can see, anyone can claim whatever they want.

explain better data? what is it you need, I've asked you before you ignored it.

What’s better? Observational retrospective studies or prospective placebo controlled trials?

both have their place,,,

Sure do. But which is better?

that depends on a lot of factors,,,one being time when someone is dying in front of you,,,

"RIGHT TO TRY"

Nope. That is not a factor.

so death is not a factor in your book,,,
"RIGHT TO TRY"

The strength of medical literature does not depend on the condition of your patient.

we arent talking about literature,,,thats already proven it safe,,,


"RIGHT TO TRY"

Yes, we are talking about literature. You can’t follow a conversation.

youre moving the goal post again,,,


"RIGHT TO TRY"

Nope. You’re just shifting the subject because you are losing.

here’s what we are talking about:

What’s better? Observational retrospective studies or prospective placebo controlled trials?

that just [proved you moved the goal post from the OP,,,

"RIGHT TO TRY"

Nope. The topic from the get go in the OP was assessing the strength of evidence for hydroxychloroquine and my comment is precisely on point.

“right to try” is not relevant to this topic.

how is it not relevant???
its exactly what its intended for,,,

OH I get it,,you just lied again,,,

"RIGHT TO TRY"

Because it has nothing to do with whether the medication works or not.

so thats how youre twisting it now,,

sorry but there are a lot of docs using it with a high rate of success,,,

sorry that bothers you,,,

How do they know it’s successful?

oh I dont know,,,maybe its because they didnt die and recovered faster than those that didnt take it,,,

you should take some time and listen to what they said instead of ranting like a ignorant moron,,,

How do they know they didn’t die because they took the drug? If I get COVID and I use healing crystals, can I say the crystals work if I don’t die?

Obviously not.

how about we stay in reality and keep your imagination to yourself,,,


"right to try"

I’m illustrating an important point. Establishing causality is not as simple as you think.

never is,,,but the evidence on the ground says its having a positive effect,,,

and "RIGHT TO TRY" says its none of your business if someone wants to try it,,,

The evidence to support its positive effect is weak. The evidence against it is stronger.

opinions vary,,,

sorry but I will take a doctors advice long before I take it from some trroll on the internet,,,

Like the Infectious Disease Society of America?

opinions vary,,,

"RIGHT TO TRY"

Oh look. You’ve given up trying to make a convincing argument.

how so???

 

[progressive hunter]

I don’t have data. I’m going by what’s published.

can't recall, did you post a link to your data? what makes that published data any more credible?

Someone willing to publish their data is more credible than someone who won’t. Is this a serious question?

Not only did she publish it but she went to capitol hill had a press conference told you about it you could ask her any question you wanted.. The media silenced her.. is this the ussr?

Where was her data published?

looks like in front of a microphone. 350 patients 100% recovery. I'm still waiting on the mask's study.

That’s not how it works.

Lol free speech never works out for you

She spoke therefore she has free speech.

Are you trolling .. you lefties ripped down her speech from the Internet. You would feel a lot better if you just allow the truth into your life how do you go through life lying to yourself? Lol

Liar. Her speech is still on the Internet.

barely,,,

It's still on the Internet, available to anyone with Internet access.

barely,,,its been scrubbed from all the big sites,,,

LOLOL

No one needs access to "big" sites. It's just as easy to view those videos anywhere else on the Internet. Took me about 3 seconds to find it using Google.

and yet you cant find the names of other doctors claiming its helped,,,

so which one are you lying about???

 

[Faun]

No, it’s just gibberish because you have no idea what you’re talking about.

Ain’t playing your game alice

Stop pretending like you have the foggiest idea what you’re talking about and you might learn something.

Ain’t playing your game Alice. Refute the data or move on

Refute what data? She has presented no data.

did you call and ask her for it???

I don't have to. Competent doctors who claim to have a cure for a disease present corroborating data to support their claims.

so your just mad they didnt tell you,,,

maybe mommy can give you a cookie to shut you up,,,

LOL

Why would I be mad at some quack who believes our government has reptilians from another planet?

there are more doctors than her making the claim,,,

why are you focusing on a black women to silence her???

Why are you injecting race into this? Are you racist?

Umm democrats are attacking a black woman, and her culture.. do you know your history?

LOL

Dumbfuck racist, which culture practices replacing government officials with reptilian humanoids?

Is that a joe biden quote!? Haha

LOL

No, it's from Dr. Immanuel. I'll take your non-answer as admission there are none and that you were full of shit when you said there were.

Stick to the topic

That doctor is part of this discussion. You can't erase her simply because she spouts some freakishly outrageous stuff.

true but why are you ignoring all the other doctors making the same claim???

Oh? Name the other doctors in that video who claimed they personally saved lives with HCQ?

YOU LACK CRITICAL THINKING SKILLS,,,,

LOLOLOL

I'll accept that as you can't name one. Not one single other doctor.

 

[colfax_m]

If they had better data, they might have a point.

As we can see, anyone can claim whatever they want.

explain better data? what is it you need, I've asked you before you ignored it.

What’s better? Observational retrospective studies or prospective placebo controlled trials?

both have their place,,,

Sure do. But which is better?

that depends on a lot of factors,,,one being time when someone is dying in front of you,,,

"RIGHT TO TRY"

Nope. That is not a factor.

so death is not a factor in your book,,,
"RIGHT TO TRY"

The strength of medical literature does not depend on the condition of your patient.

we arent talking about literature,,,thats already proven it safe,,,


"RIGHT TO TRY"

Yes, we are talking about literature. You can’t follow a conversation.

youre moving the goal post again,,,


"RIGHT TO TRY"

Nope. You’re just shifting the subject because you are losing.

here’s what we are talking about:

What’s better? Observational retrospective studies or prospective placebo controlled trials?

that just [proved you moved the goal post from the OP,,,

"RIGHT TO TRY"

Nope. The topic from the get go in the OP was assessing the strength of evidence for hydroxychloroquine and my comment is precisely on point.

“right to try” is not relevant to this topic.

how is it not relevant???
its exactly what its intended for,,,

OH I get it,,you just lied again,,,

"RIGHT TO TRY"

Because it has nothing to do with whether the medication works or not.

so thats how youre twisting it now,,

sorry but there are a lot of docs using it with a high rate of success,,,

sorry that bothers you,,,

How do they know it’s successful?

oh I dont know,,,maybe its because they didnt die and recovered faster than those that didnt take it,,,

you should take some time and listen to what they said instead of ranting like a ignorant moron,,,

How do they know they didn’t die because they took the drug? If I get COVID and I use healing crystals, can I say the crystals work if I don’t die?

Obviously not.

how about we stay in reality and keep your imagination to yourself,,,


"right to try"

I’m illustrating an important point. Establishing causality is not as simple as you think.

never is,,,but the evidence on the ground says its having a positive effect,,,

and "RIGHT TO TRY" says its none of your business if someone wants to try it,,,

The evidence to support its positive effect is weak. The evidence against it is stronger.

opinions vary,,,

sorry but I will take a doctors advice long before I take it from some trroll on the internet,,,

Like the Infectious Disease Society of America?

opinions vary,,,

"RIGHT TO TRY"

Oh look. You’ve given up trying to make a convincing argument.

how so???

Because the data isn’t there to support you.

 

[progressive hunter]

If they had better data, they might have a point.

As we can see, anyone can claim whatever they want.

explain better data? what is it you need, I've asked you before you ignored it.

What’s better? Observational retrospective studies or prospective placebo controlled trials?

both have their place,,,

Sure do. But which is better?

that depends on a lot of factors,,,one being time when someone is dying in front of you,,,

"RIGHT TO TRY"

Nope. That is not a factor.

so death is not a factor in your book,,,
"RIGHT TO TRY"

The strength of medical literature does not depend on the condition of your patient.

we arent talking about literature,,,thats already proven it safe,,,


"RIGHT TO TRY"

Yes, we are talking about literature. You can’t follow a conversation.

youre moving the goal post again,,,


"RIGHT TO TRY"

Nope. You’re just shifting the subject because you are losing.

here’s what we are talking about:

What’s better? Observational retrospective studies or prospective placebo controlled trials?

that just [proved you moved the goal post from the OP,,,

"RIGHT TO TRY"

Nope. The topic from the get go in the OP was assessing the strength of evidence for hydroxychloroquine and my comment is precisely on point.

“right to try” is not relevant to this topic.

how is it not relevant???
its exactly what its intended for,,,

OH I get it,,you just lied again,,,

"RIGHT TO TRY"

Because it has nothing to do with whether the medication works or not.

so thats how youre twisting it now,,

sorry but there are a lot of docs using it with a high rate of success,,,

sorry that bothers you,,,

How do they know it’s successful?

oh I dont know,,,maybe its because they didnt die and recovered faster than those that didnt take it,,,

you should take some time and listen to what they said instead of ranting like a ignorant moron,,,

How do they know they didn’t die because they took the drug? If I get COVID and I use healing crystals, can I say the crystals work if I don’t die?

Obviously not.

how about we stay in reality and keep your imagination to yourself,,,


"right to try"

I’m illustrating an important point. Establishing causality is not as simple as you think.

never is,,,but the evidence on the ground says its having a positive effect,,,

and "RIGHT TO TRY" says its none of your business if someone wants to try it,,,

The evidence to support its positive effect is weak. The evidence against it is stronger.

opinions vary,,,

sorry but I will take a doctors advice long before I take it from some trroll on the internet,,,

Like the Infectious Disease Society of America?

opinions vary,,,

"RIGHT TO TRY"

Oh look. You’ve given up trying to make a convincing argument.

how so???

Because the data isn’t there to support you.

View attachment 369111

but the results are,,,

"RIGHT TO TRY"

 

[Billy_Bob]

If they had better data, they might have a point.

As we can see, anyone can claim whatever they want.

explain better data? what is it you need, I've asked you before you ignored it.

What’s better? Observational retrospective studies or prospective placebo controlled trials?

both have their place,,,

Sure do. But which is better?

that depends on a lot of factors,,,one being time when someone is dying in front of you,,,

"RIGHT TO TRY"

Nope. That is not a factor.

so death is not a factor in your book,,,
"RIGHT TO TRY"

The strength of medical literature does not depend on the condition of your patient.

we arent talking about literature,,,thats already proven it safe,,,


"RIGHT TO TRY"

Yes, we are talking about literature. You can’t follow a conversation.

youre moving the goal post again,,,


"RIGHT TO TRY"

Nope. You’re just shifting the subject because you are losing.

here’s what we are talking about:

What’s better? Observational retrospective studies or prospective placebo controlled trials?

that just [proved you moved the goal post from the OP,,,

"RIGHT TO TRY"

Nope. The topic from the get go in the OP was assessing the strength of evidence for hydroxychloroquine and my comment is precisely on point.

“right to try” is not relevant to this topic.

how is it not relevant???
its exactly what its intended for,,,

OH I get it,,you just lied again,,,

"RIGHT TO TRY"

Because it has nothing to do with whether the medication works or not.

so thats how youre twisting it now,,

sorry but there are a lot of docs using it with a high rate of success,,,

sorry that bothers you,,,

How do they know it’s successful?

oh I dont know,,,maybe its because they didnt die and recovered faster than those that didnt take it,,,

you should take some time and listen to what they said instead of ranting like a ignorant moron,,,

How do they know they didn’t die because they took the drug? If I get COVID and I use healing crystals, can I say the crystals work if I don’t die?

Obviously not.

how about we stay in reality and keep your imagination to yourself,,,


"right to try"

I’m illustrating an important point. Establishing causality is not as simple as you think.

never is,,,but the evidence on the ground says its having a positive effect,,,

and "RIGHT TO TRY" says its none of your business if someone wants to try it,,,

The evidence to support its positive effect is weak. The evidence against it is stronger.

opinions vary,,,

sorry but I will take a doctors advice long before I take it from some trroll on the internet,,,

Like the Infectious Disease Society of America?

opinions vary,,,

"RIGHT TO TRY"

Oh look. You’ve given up trying to make a convincing argument.

how so???

Because the data isn’t there to support you.

View attachment 369111

You keep posting up this lie and you ignore the thousands of people who are alive because of it... The papers have been published, you just CHOOSE to ignore anything that doesn't meet your agenda goals.

Your a lying piece of shit...

Have a nice day...

 

[colfax_m]

If they had better data, they might have a point.

As we can see, anyone can claim whatever they want.

explain better data? what is it you need, I've asked you before you ignored it.

What’s better? Observational retrospective studies or prospective placebo controlled trials?

both have their place,,,

Sure do. But which is better?

that depends on a lot of factors,,,one being time when someone is dying in front of you,,,

"RIGHT TO TRY"

Nope. That is not a factor.

so death is not a factor in your book,,,
"RIGHT TO TRY"

The strength of medical literature does not depend on the condition of your patient.

we arent talking about literature,,,thats already proven it safe,,,


"RIGHT TO TRY"

Yes, we are talking about literature. You can’t follow a conversation.

youre moving the goal post again,,,


"RIGHT TO TRY"

Nope. You’re just shifting the subject because you are losing.

here’s what we are talking about:

What’s better? Observational retrospective studies or prospective placebo controlled trials?

that just [proved you moved the goal post from the OP,,,

"RIGHT TO TRY"

Nope. The topic from the get go in the OP was assessing the strength of evidence for hydroxychloroquine and my comment is precisely on point.

“right to try” is not relevant to this topic.

how is it not relevant???
its exactly what its intended for,,,

OH I get it,,you just lied again,,,

"RIGHT TO TRY"

Because it has nothing to do with whether the medication works or not.

so thats how youre twisting it now,,

sorry but there are a lot of docs using it with a high rate of success,,,

sorry that bothers you,,,

How do they know it’s successful?

oh I dont know,,,maybe its because they didnt die and recovered faster than those that didnt take it,,,

you should take some time and listen to what they said instead of ranting like a ignorant moron,,,

How do they know they didn’t die because they took the drug? If I get COVID and I use healing crystals, can I say the crystals work if I don’t die?

Obviously not.

how about we stay in reality and keep your imagination to yourself,,,


"right to try"

I’m illustrating an important point. Establishing causality is not as simple as you think.

never is,,,but the evidence on the ground says its having a positive effect,,,

and "RIGHT TO TRY" says its none of your business if someone wants to try it,,,

The evidence to support its positive effect is weak. The evidence against it is stronger.

opinions vary,,,

sorry but I will take a doctors advice long before I take it from some trroll on the internet,,,

Like the Infectious Disease Society of America?

opinions vary,,,

"RIGHT TO TRY"

Oh look. You’ve given up trying to make a convincing argument.

how so???

Because the data isn’t there to support you.

View attachment 369111

but the results are,,,

"RIGHT TO TRY"

The results are the drug doesn’t work.

Dr. Fauci says all the 'valid' scientific data shows hydroxychloroquine isn't effective in treating coronavirus

White House coronavirus advisor Dr. Anthony Fauci said that all the "valid" scientific data shows hydroxychloroquine isn't effective in treating Covid-19

www.cnbc.com

 

[Jitss617]

I don’t have data. I’m going by what’s published.

can't recall, did you post a link to your data? what makes that published data any more credible?

Someone willing to publish their data is more credible than someone who won’t. Is this a serious question?

Not only did she publish it but she went to capitol hill had a press conference told you about it you could ask her any question you wanted.. The media silenced her.. is this the ussr?

Liar. She even admitted she didn't publish any relevant data.

Do you even know the ******* definition of publish

Of course. I also know when she was asked if she had published her findings, she admitted she had not.

Lol wow you don’t know the definition of publish lol

 

[progressive hunter]

If they had better data, they might have a point.

As we can see, anyone can claim whatever they want.

explain better data? what is it you need, I've asked you before you ignored it.

What’s better? Observational retrospective studies or prospective placebo controlled trials?

both have their place,,,

Sure do. But which is better?

that depends on a lot of factors,,,one being time when someone is dying in front of you,,,

"RIGHT TO TRY"

Nope. That is not a factor.

so death is not a factor in your book,,,
"RIGHT TO TRY"

The strength of medical literature does not depend on the condition of your patient.

we arent talking about literature,,,thats already proven it safe,,,


"RIGHT TO TRY"

Yes, we are talking about literature. You can’t follow a conversation.

youre moving the goal post again,,,


"RIGHT TO TRY"

Nope. You’re just shifting the subject because you are losing.

here’s what we are talking about:

What’s better? Observational retrospective studies or prospective placebo controlled trials?

that just [proved you moved the goal post from the OP,,,

"RIGHT TO TRY"

Nope. The topic from the get go in the OP was assessing the strength of evidence for hydroxychloroquine and my comment is precisely on point.

“right to try” is not relevant to this topic.

how is it not relevant???
its exactly what its intended for,,,

OH I get it,,you just lied again,,,

"RIGHT TO TRY"

Because it has nothing to do with whether the medication works or not.

so thats how youre twisting it now,,

sorry but there are a lot of docs using it with a high rate of success,,,

sorry that bothers you,,,

How do they know it’s successful?

oh I dont know,,,maybe its because they didnt die and recovered faster than those that didnt take it,,,

you should take some time and listen to what they said instead of ranting like a ignorant moron,,,

How do they know they didn’t die because they took the drug? If I get COVID and I use healing crystals, can I say the crystals work if I don’t die?

Obviously not.

how about we stay in reality and keep your imagination to yourself,,,


"right to try"

I’m illustrating an important point. Establishing causality is not as simple as you think.

never is,,,but the evidence on the ground says its having a positive effect,,,

and "RIGHT TO TRY" says its none of your business if someone wants to try it,,,

The evidence to support its positive effect is weak. The evidence against it is stronger.

opinions vary,,,

sorry but I will take a doctors advice long before I take it from some trroll on the internet,,,

Like the Infectious Disease Society of America?

opinions vary,,,

"RIGHT TO TRY"

Oh look. You’ve given up trying to make a convincing argument.

how so???

Because the data isn’t there to support you.

View attachment 369111

but the results are,,,

"RIGHT TO TRY"

The results are the drug doesn’t work.

Dr. Fauci says all the 'valid' scientific data shows hydroxychloroquine isn't effective in treating coronavirus

White House coronavirus advisor Dr. Anthony Fauci said that all the "valid" scientific data shows hydroxychloroquine isn't effective in treating Covid-19

www.cnbc.com

opinions vary,,,


"RIGHT TO TRY"

 

[Jitss617]

No, it’s just gibberish because you have no idea what you’re talking about.

Ain’t playing your game alice

Stop pretending like you have the foggiest idea what you’re talking about and you might learn something.

Ain’t playing your game Alice. Refute the data or move on

Refute what data? She has presented no data.

did you call and ask her for it???

I don't have to. Competent doctors who claim to have a cure for a disease present corroborating data to support their claims.

so your just mad they didnt tell you,,,

maybe mommy can give you a cookie to shut you up,,,

LOL

Why would I be mad at some quack who believes our government has reptilians from another planet?

there are more doctors than her making the claim,,,

why are you focusing on a black women to silence her???

Why are you injecting race into this? Are you racist?

Umm democrats are attacking a black woman, and her culture.. do you know your history?

LOL

Dumbfuck racist, which culture practices replacing government officials with reptilian humanoids?

Is that a joe biden quote!? Haha

LOL

No, it's from Dr. Immanuel. I'll take your non-answer as admission there are none and that you were full of shit when you said there were.

Stick to the topic

That doctor is part of this discussion. You can't erase her simply because she spouts some freakishly outrageous stuff.

It’s not about you opinion it’s about her results she published

LOLOL

Dumbfuck racist ... what published results? She herself admitted she published nothing regarding her self-congratulatory claims of saving 350 lives out of 350 patients with COVID-19.

I’m in awe you don’t know what publish means lol

 

[Billy_Bob]

No, it’s just gibberish because you have no idea what you’re talking about.

Ain’t playing your game alice

Stop pretending like you have the foggiest idea what you’re talking about and you might learn something.

Ain’t playing your game Alice. Refute the data or move on

Refute what data? She has presented no data.

did you call and ask her for it???

I don't have to. Competent doctors who claim to have a cure for a disease present corroborating data to support their claims.

so your just mad they didnt tell you,,,

maybe mommy can give you a cookie to shut you up,,,

LOL

Why would I be mad at some quack who believes our government has reptilians from another planet?

there are more doctors than her making the claim,,,

why are you focusing on a black women to silence her???

Why are you injecting race into this? Are you racist?

Umm democrats are attacking a black woman, and her culture.. do you know your history?

LOL

Dumbfuck racist, which culture practices replacing government officials with reptilian humanoids?

Is that a joe biden quote!? Haha

LOL

No, it's from Dr. Immanuel. I'll take your non-answer as admission there are none and that you were full of shit when you said there were.

Stick to the topic

That doctor is part of this discussion. You can't erase her simply because she spouts some freakishly outrageous stuff.

true but why are you ignoring all the other doctors making the same claim???

Oh? Name the other doctors in that video who claimed they personally saved lives with HCQ?

YOU LACK CRITICAL THINKING SKILLS,,,,

Its a problem seen in most of these regressives posing as progressives..

 

[Jitss617]

I don’t have data. I’m going by what’s published.

can't recall, did you post a link to your data? what makes that published data any more credible?

Someone willing to publish their data is more credible than someone who won’t. Is this a serious question?

Not only did she publish it but she went to capitol hill had a press conference told you about it you could ask her any question you wanted.. The media silenced her.. is this the ussr?

Where was her data published?

looks like in front of a microphone. 350 patients 100% recovery. I'm still waiting on the mask's study.

That’s not how it works.

Lol free speech never works out for you

She spoke therefore she has free speech.

Are you trolling .. you lefties ripped down her speech from the Internet. You would feel a lot better if you just allow the truth into your life how do you go through life lying to yourself? Lol

Liar. Her speech is still on the Internet.

barely,,,

It's still on the Internet, available to anyone with Internet access.

barely,,,its been scrubbed from all the big sites,,,

LOLOL

No one needs access to "big" sites. It's just as easy to view those videos anywhere else on the Internet. Took me about 3 seconds to find it using Google.

Thanks to the push back the past 12 hours and my post

 

[Billy_Bob]

If they had better data, they might have a point.

As we can see, anyone can claim whatever they want.

explain better data? what is it you need, I've asked you before you ignored it.

What’s better? Observational retrospective studies or prospective placebo controlled trials?

both have their place,,,

Sure do. But which is better?

that depends on a lot of factors,,,one being time when someone is dying in front of you,,,

"RIGHT TO TRY"

Nope. That is not a factor.

so death is not a factor in your book,,,
"RIGHT TO TRY"

The strength of medical literature does not depend on the condition of your patient.

we arent talking about literature,,,thats already proven it safe,,,


"RIGHT TO TRY"

Yes, we are talking about literature. You can’t follow a conversation.

youre moving the goal post again,,,


"RIGHT TO TRY"

Nope. You’re just shifting the subject because you are losing.

here’s what we are talking about:

What’s better? Observational retrospective studies or prospective placebo controlled trials?

that just [proved you moved the goal post from the OP,,,

"RIGHT TO TRY"

Nope. The topic from the get go in the OP was assessing the strength of evidence for hydroxychloroquine and my comment is precisely on point.

“right to try” is not relevant to this topic.

how is it not relevant???
its exactly what its intended for,,,

OH I get it,,you just lied again,,,

"RIGHT TO TRY"

Because it has nothing to do with whether the medication works or not.

so thats how youre twisting it now,,

sorry but there are a lot of docs using it with a high rate of success,,,

sorry that bothers you,,,

How do they know it’s successful?

oh I dont know,,,maybe its because they didnt die and recovered faster than those that didnt take it,,,

you should take some time and listen to what they said instead of ranting like a ignorant moron,,,

How do they know they didn’t die because they took the drug? If I get COVID and I use healing crystals, can I say the crystals work if I don’t die?

Obviously not.

how about we stay in reality and keep your imagination to yourself,,,


"right to try"

I’m illustrating an important point. Establishing causality is not as simple as you think.

never is,,,but the evidence on the ground says its having a positive effect,,,

and "RIGHT TO TRY" says its none of your business if someone wants to try it,,,

The evidence to support its positive effect is weak. The evidence against it is stronger.

opinions vary,,,

sorry but I will take a doctors advice long before I take it from some trroll on the internet,,,

Like the Infectious Disease Society of America?

opinions vary,,,

"RIGHT TO TRY"

Oh look. You’ve given up trying to make a convincing argument.

how so???

Because the data isn’t there to support you.

View attachment 369111

but the results are,,,

"RIGHT TO TRY"

The results are the drug doesn’t work.

Dr. Fauci says all the 'valid' scientific data shows hydroxychloroquine isn't effective in treating coronavirus

White House coronavirus advisor Dr. Anthony Fauci said that all the "valid" scientific data shows hydroxychloroquine isn't effective in treating Covid-19

www.cnbc.com

Tell that to the over 90,000 people who are alive because of it... LIAR!

 

[colfax_m]

If they had better data, they might have a point.

As we can see, anyone can claim whatever they want.

explain better data? what is it you need, I've asked you before you ignored it.

What’s better? Observational retrospective studies or prospective placebo controlled trials?

both have their place,,,

Sure do. But which is better?

that depends on a lot of factors,,,one being time when someone is dying in front of you,,,

"RIGHT TO TRY"

Nope. That is not a factor.

so death is not a factor in your book,,,
"RIGHT TO TRY"

The strength of medical literature does not depend on the condition of your patient.

we arent talking about literature,,,thats already proven it safe,,,


"RIGHT TO TRY"

Yes, we are talking about literature. You can’t follow a conversation.

youre moving the goal post again,,,


"RIGHT TO TRY"

Nope. You’re just shifting the subject because you are losing.

here’s what we are talking about:

What’s better? Observational retrospective studies or prospective placebo controlled trials?

that just [proved you moved the goal post from the OP,,,

"RIGHT TO TRY"

Nope. The topic from the get go in the OP was assessing the strength of evidence for hydroxychloroquine and my comment is precisely on point.

“right to try” is not relevant to this topic.

how is it not relevant???
its exactly what its intended for,,,

OH I get it,,you just lied again,,,

"RIGHT TO TRY"

Because it has nothing to do with whether the medication works or not.

so thats how youre twisting it now,,

sorry but there are a lot of docs using it with a high rate of success,,,

sorry that bothers you,,,

How do they know it’s successful?

oh I dont know,,,maybe its because they didnt die and recovered faster than those that didnt take it,,,

you should take some time and listen to what they said instead of ranting like a ignorant moron,,,

How do they know they didn’t die because they took the drug? If I get COVID and I use healing crystals, can I say the crystals work if I don’t die?

Obviously not.

how about we stay in reality and keep your imagination to yourself,,,


"right to try"

I’m illustrating an important point. Establishing causality is not as simple as you think.

never is,,,but the evidence on the ground says its having a positive effect,,,

and "RIGHT TO TRY" says its none of your business if someone wants to try it,,,

The evidence to support its positive effect is weak. The evidence against it is stronger.

opinions vary,,,

sorry but I will take a doctors advice long before I take it from some trroll on the internet,,,

Like the Infectious Disease Society of America?

opinions vary,,,

"RIGHT TO TRY"

Oh look. You’ve given up trying to make a convincing argument.

how so???

Because the data isn’t there to support you.

View attachment 369111

You keep posting up this lie and you ignore the thousands of people who are alive because of it... The papers have been published, you just CHOOSE to ignore anything that doesn't meet you agenda goals.

Your a lying piece of shit...

Have a nice day...

Do you have a RCT that shows it’s effective?

 

[colfax_m]

If they had better data, they might have a point.

As we can see, anyone can claim whatever they want.

explain better data? what is it you need, I've asked you before you ignored it.

What’s better? Observational retrospective studies or prospective placebo controlled trials?

both have their place,,,

Sure do. But which is better?

that depends on a lot of factors,,,one being time when someone is dying in front of you,,,

"RIGHT TO TRY"

Nope. That is not a factor.

so death is not a factor in your book,,,
"RIGHT TO TRY"

The strength of medical literature does not depend on the condition of your patient.

we arent talking about literature,,,thats already proven it safe,,,


"RIGHT TO TRY"

Yes, we are talking about literature. You can’t follow a conversation.

youre moving the goal post again,,,


"RIGHT TO TRY"

Nope. You’re just shifting the subject because you are losing.

here’s what we are talking about:

What’s better? Observational retrospective studies or prospective placebo controlled trials?

that just [proved you moved the goal post from the OP,,,

"RIGHT TO TRY"

Nope. The topic from the get go in the OP was assessing the strength of evidence for hydroxychloroquine and my comment is precisely on point.

“right to try” is not relevant to this topic.

how is it not relevant???
its exactly what its intended for,,,

OH I get it,,you just lied again,,,

"RIGHT TO TRY"

Because it has nothing to do with whether the medication works or not.

so thats how youre twisting it now,,

sorry but there are a lot of docs using it with a high rate of success,,,

sorry that bothers you,,,

How do they know it’s successful?

oh I dont know,,,maybe its because they didnt die and recovered faster than those that didnt take it,,,

you should take some time and listen to what they said instead of ranting like a ignorant moron,,,

How do they know they didn’t die because they took the drug? If I get COVID and I use healing crystals, can I say the crystals work if I don’t die?

Obviously not.

how about we stay in reality and keep your imagination to yourself,,,


"right to try"

I’m illustrating an important point. Establishing causality is not as simple as you think.

never is,,,but the evidence on the ground says its having a positive effect,,,

and "RIGHT TO TRY" says its none of your business if someone wants to try it,,,

The evidence to support its positive effect is weak. The evidence against it is stronger.

opinions vary,,,

sorry but I will take a doctors advice long before I take it from some trroll on the internet,,,

Like the Infectious Disease Society of America?

opinions vary,,,

"RIGHT TO TRY"

Oh look. You’ve given up trying to make a convincing argument.

how so???

Because the data isn’t there to support you.

View attachment 369111

but the results are,,,

"RIGHT TO TRY"

The results are the drug doesn’t work.

Dr. Fauci says all the 'valid' scientific data shows hydroxychloroquine isn't effective in treating coronavirus

White House coronavirus advisor Dr. Anthony Fauci said that all the "valid" scientific data shows hydroxychloroquine isn't effective in treating Covid-19

www.cnbc.com

Tell that to the over 90,000 people who are alive because of it... LIAR!

And how you know they’re alive because of hydroxychloroquine?

You don’t.

 

[Faun]

I don’t have data. I’m going by what’s published.

can't recall, did you post a link to your data? what makes that published data any more credible?

Someone willing to publish their data is more credible than someone who won’t. Is this a serious question?

Not only did she publish it but she went to capitol hill had a press conference told you about it you could ask her any question you wanted.. The media silenced her.. is this the ussr?

Liar. She even admitted she didn't publish any relevant data.

Do you even know the ******* definition of publish

Of course. I also know when she was asked if she had published her findings, she admitted she had not.

Lol wow you don’t know the definition of publish lol

LOLOL

I know she herself said she didn't publish her findings.

 

[Billy_Bob]

If they had better data, they might have a point.

As we can see, anyone can claim whatever they want.

explain better data? what is it you need, I've asked you before you ignored it.

What’s better? Observational retrospective studies or prospective placebo controlled trials?

both have their place,,,

Sure do. But which is better?

that depends on a lot of factors,,,one being time when someone is dying in front of you,,,

"RIGHT TO TRY"

Nope. That is not a factor.

so death is not a factor in your book,,,
"RIGHT TO TRY"

The strength of medical literature does not depend on the condition of your patient.

we arent talking about literature,,,thats already proven it safe,,,


"RIGHT TO TRY"

Yes, we are talking about literature. You can’t follow a conversation.

youre moving the goal post again,,,


"RIGHT TO TRY"

Nope. You’re just shifting the subject because you are losing.

here’s what we are talking about:

What’s better? Observational retrospective studies or prospective placebo controlled trials?

that just [proved you moved the goal post from the OP,,,

"RIGHT TO TRY"

Nope. The topic from the get go in the OP was assessing the strength of evidence for hydroxychloroquine and my comment is precisely on point.

“right to try” is not relevant to this topic.

how is it not relevant???
its exactly what its intended for,,,

OH I get it,,you just lied again,,,

"RIGHT TO TRY"

Because it has nothing to do with whether the medication works or not.

so thats how youre twisting it now,,

sorry but there are a lot of docs using it with a high rate of success,,,

sorry that bothers you,,,

How do they know it’s successful?

oh I dont know,,,maybe its because they didnt die and recovered faster than those that didnt take it,,,

you should take some time and listen to what they said instead of ranting like a ignorant moron,,,

How do they know they didn’t die because they took the drug? If I get COVID and I use healing crystals, can I say the crystals work if I don’t die?

Obviously not.

how about we stay in reality and keep your imagination to yourself,,,


"right to try"

I’m illustrating an important point. Establishing causality is not as simple as you think.

never is,,,but the evidence on the ground says its having a positive effect,,,

and "RIGHT TO TRY" says its none of your business if someone wants to try it,,,

The evidence to support its positive effect is weak. The evidence against it is stronger.

opinions vary,,,

sorry but I will take a doctors advice long before I take it from some trroll on the internet,,,

Like the Infectious Disease Society of America?

opinions vary,,,

"RIGHT TO TRY"

Oh look. You’ve given up trying to make a convincing argument.

how so???

Because the data isn’t there to support you.

View attachment 369111

You keep posting up this lie and you ignore the thousands of people who are alive because of it... The papers have been published, you just CHOOSE to ignore anything that doesn't meet you agenda goals.

Your a lying piece of shit...

Have a nice day...

Do you have a RCT that shows it’s effective?

You ignore anything that is posted that YOU dont like... Not going to further waste my time with you and your lies. The papers have been published GLOBALLY, The anecdotal evidence has been published GLOBALLY... You simply refuse to believe any of it because you have a goal to hurt Trump and anything he stands for or approves of...

There are nations that used HCN and the companion drugs and have over a 91% success rate because they treat it early.

Its sad that you are so blinded by hate that it consumes you...

 

[Billy_Bob]

If they had better data, they might have a point.

As we can see, anyone can claim whatever they want.

explain better data? what is it you need, I've asked you before you ignored it.

What’s better? Observational retrospective studies or prospective placebo controlled trials?

both have their place,,,

Sure do. But which is better?

that depends on a lot of factors,,,one being time when someone is dying in front of you,,,

"RIGHT TO TRY"

Nope. That is not a factor.

so death is not a factor in your book,,,
"RIGHT TO TRY"

The strength of medical literature does not depend on the condition of your patient.

we arent talking about literature,,,thats already proven it safe,,,


"RIGHT TO TRY"

Yes, we are talking about literature. You can’t follow a conversation.

youre moving the goal post again,,,


"RIGHT TO TRY"

Nope. You’re just shifting the subject because you are losing.

here’s what we are talking about:

What’s better? Observational retrospective studies or prospective placebo controlled trials?

that just [proved you moved the goal post from the OP,,,

"RIGHT TO TRY"

Nope. The topic from the get go in the OP was assessing the strength of evidence for hydroxychloroquine and my comment is precisely on point.

“right to try” is not relevant to this topic.

how is it not relevant???
its exactly what its intended for,,,

OH I get it,,you just lied again,,,

"RIGHT TO TRY"

Because it has nothing to do with whether the medication works or not.

so thats how youre twisting it now,,

sorry but there are a lot of docs using it with a high rate of success,,,

sorry that bothers you,,,

How do they know it’s successful?

oh I dont know,,,maybe its because they didnt die and recovered faster than those that didnt take it,,,

you should take some time and listen to what they said instead of ranting like a ignorant moron,,,

How do they know they didn’t die because they took the drug? If I get COVID and I use healing crystals, can I say the crystals work if I don’t die?

Obviously not.

how about we stay in reality and keep your imagination to yourself,,,


"right to try"

I’m illustrating an important point. Establishing causality is not as simple as you think.

never is,,,but the evidence on the ground says its having a positive effect,,,

and "RIGHT TO TRY" says its none of your business if someone wants to try it,,,

The evidence to support its positive effect is weak. The evidence against it is stronger.

opinions vary,,,

sorry but I will take a doctors advice long before I take it from some trroll on the internet,,,

Like the Infectious Disease Society of America?

opinions vary,,,

"RIGHT TO TRY"

Oh look. You’ve given up trying to make a convincing argument.

how so???

Because the data isn’t there to support you.

View attachment 369111

but the results are,,,

"RIGHT TO TRY"

The results are the drug doesn’t work.

Dr. Fauci says all the 'valid' scientific data shows hydroxychloroquine isn't effective in treating coronavirus

White House coronavirus advisor Dr. Anthony Fauci said that all the "valid" scientific data shows hydroxychloroquine isn't effective in treating Covid-19

www.cnbc.com

Tell that to the over 90,000 people who are alive because of it... LIAR!

And how you know they’re alive because of hydroxychloroquine?

You don’t.

Tell that to the doctors and nurses that cared for them.... You need to shut the **** up and **** off!

 

[colfax_m]

If they had better data, they might have a point.

As we can see, anyone can claim whatever they want.

explain better data? what is it you need, I've asked you before you ignored it.

What’s better? Observational retrospective studies or prospective placebo controlled trials?

both have their place,,,

Sure do. But which is better?

that depends on a lot of factors,,,one being time when someone is dying in front of you,,,

"RIGHT TO TRY"

Nope. That is not a factor.

so death is not a factor in your book,,,
"RIGHT TO TRY"

The strength of medical literature does not depend on the condition of your patient.

we arent talking about literature,,,thats already proven it safe,,,


"RIGHT TO TRY"

Yes, we are talking about literature. You can’t follow a conversation.

youre moving the goal post again,,,


"RIGHT TO TRY"

Nope. You’re just shifting the subject because you are losing.

here’s what we are talking about:

What’s better? Observational retrospective studies or prospective placebo controlled trials?

that just [proved you moved the goal post from the OP,,,

"RIGHT TO TRY"

Nope. The topic from the get go in the OP was assessing the strength of evidence for hydroxychloroquine and my comment is precisely on point.

“right to try” is not relevant to this topic.

how is it not relevant???
its exactly what its intended for,,,

OH I get it,,you just lied again,,,

"RIGHT TO TRY"

Because it has nothing to do with whether the medication works or not.

so thats how youre twisting it now,,

sorry but there are a lot of docs using it with a high rate of success,,,

sorry that bothers you,,,

How do they know it’s successful?

oh I dont know,,,maybe its because they didnt die and recovered faster than those that didnt take it,,,

you should take some time and listen to what they said instead of ranting like a ignorant moron,,,

How do they know they didn’t die because they took the drug? If I get COVID and I use healing crystals, can I say the crystals work if I don’t die?

Obviously not.

how about we stay in reality and keep your imagination to yourself,,,


"right to try"

I’m illustrating an important point. Establishing causality is not as simple as you think.

never is,,,but the evidence on the ground says its having a positive effect,,,

and "RIGHT TO TRY" says its none of your business if someone wants to try it,,,

The evidence to support its positive effect is weak. The evidence against it is stronger.

opinions vary,,,

sorry but I will take a doctors advice long before I take it from some trroll on the internet,,,

Like the Infectious Disease Society of America?

opinions vary,,,

"RIGHT TO TRY"

Oh look. You’ve given up trying to make a convincing argument.

how so???

Because the data isn’t there to support you.

View attachment 369111

You keep posting up this lie and you ignore the thousands of people who are alive because of it... The papers have been published, you just CHOOSE to ignore anything that doesn't meet you agenda goals.

Your a lying piece of shit...

Have a nice day...

Do you have a RCT that shows it’s effective?

You ignore anything that is posted that YOU dont like... Not going to further waste my time with you and your lies. The papers have been published GLOBALLY, The anecdotal evidence has been published GLOBALLY... You simply refuse to believe any of it because you have a goal to hurt Trump and anything he stands for or approves of...

There are nations that used HCN and the companion drugs and have over a 91% success rate because they treat it early.

Its sad that you are so blinded by hate that it consumes you...

You just making the same unsubstantiated claims over and over again. I’ve asked you numerous times to substantiate it, but you can’t because you don’t know what you’re talking about.

Anecdotal evidence is garbage. It doesn’t mean anything. The strongest evidence is randomized clinical trials. Those studies come up negative and it’s not just one trial. SOLIDARITY, ORCHID, RECOVERY, they were all negative trials.