The American Medical Association Is Very Quietly Trying To Change Their Position On Hydroxychloroquine To Treat COVID-19

[colfax_m]

#114 has a compound problem: diversity of particularizations and roulette of the H. sapiens genome coupled to ivermectin’s origin in nature in precise proximity to a suspected C-19 reservoir. As in the Raoult protocol using only two agents, the msm gestapo swiftly dismissed it due to lack of numbers. The pathology is seeing the cup half-empty rather than half-full, Western medicine cock-sure ro come up with a once-and-for-all authoritarian answer to viral evolution. For the ivermectin-Neophocaena assemblage, none have yet scrutinzed the connection.

Jabberwocky.

 

[badger2]

#121 has problems processing the mother-tongue. We can take it one word at a time, Einstein, in front of the people.

 

[DBA]

It is my understanding that the cocktail of zinc, azithromycin and HCQ is effective when used early on, not once they have progressed to a point they need to be hospitalized. Those patients will not respond to HCQ. Out patient physicians were not given access to HCQ as early as March. In fact, pharmacy’s begin NOT filling prescriptions shortly after Trump mentioned the drug. Hospital pharmacies were filling those prescriptions but obviously for patients who had already progressed to the point of hospitalization, where we know that HCQ is ineffective. We should have been and currently should be prescribing HCQ in an out-patient setting along with zinc and azithromycin when patients are positive and symptomatic. This is being done around the world and has been effective. Most of the studies I have read have been focused on giving the drugs when they have progressed well passed the time for them to be effective.

Again, this is all from my understanding and it is obviously second hand information.

Article below states my point.

Study shows hydroxychloroquine may be effective for outpatients with COVID-19

You should notice how the efficacy of HCQ is a constantly moving target. At first it was a good treatment for COVID, so we tried it in hospitals and it didn't work. Then it was that the dose too low. Then it was that the dose is too low. Then you had to add azithromycin. Then you had to add zinc. Then you needed to use it in outpatients. Then you needed to use it in people without severe symptoms. Every time a study shows it fails, then the parameters for which it works changes slightly so that people can continue to claim it's effective. This in itself should give you some skepticism about it's efficacy and skepticism of the quality of people pushing it.

Know why outpatient physicians weren't given access? Because we thought it was effective for inpatients and we wanted to use the supply for the people who were sick. Not to mention a bunch of unscrupulous physicians were prescribing large supplies for themselves and their friends because they thought it was going to be a cure as well. Now it's just not used to supply issues aren't a big problem anymore but there was a supply problem for a while, early on.

I just actually read this study from the world famous Zelenko, the guy no one ever heard of because he's not an academic, he's just some community doctor who got internet famous for saying the right things. As I've stated before, the media is a garbage place to get scientific information because the vast majority of journalists (or bloggers or whoever) are barely scientifically literate enough to do justice to these complex issues. This article is actually better than most but still focuses far too much on the media controversy.

The study itself is absolute garbage. The comparison group is some amorphous "public reference data" and does basically no explanation of where the data came from. Furthermore, the reference group has zero characteristics outside the fact that they were diagnosed with COVID and were hospitalized. We don't know their age, comorbid conditions, or even where they presented. It's an absolute joke to even try to use this as a comparison tool. This article is going to be ignored for good reason, it's such low quality that it's absolutely useless to draw any conclusions from. Not to mention it's published in a really obscure journal.

What I know is that countries that and have been using it as a prophalactic tend to be doing better than the US. Physicians, while knowledgeable, don’t have the time to actually do ressearch. They can only rely on the results being fed to them by supposedly trustworthy sources. Since we haven’t really used HCQ as a prophlactic here in the US on a wide scale, there isn’t a large set of out-patient physicians who can speak from experience. What we get are hospitalists opinions that it doesn’t work with their patients, which we already know. Doctors are left to read studies and trust the results. The AMA has already been caught mis-representing the dangers of HCQ. It isn’t a stretch that other agencies and studies are also a bit biased. The best case study by far is examining the countries who have been using it as it is intended.

It is unfortunate, but a hard truth that medical “science”, just like intelligence agencies, can be politically tainted but these are our only real sources for information.

 

[Lesh]

REJECTED by the AMA

 

[colfax_m]

What I know is that countries that and have been using it as a prophalactic tend to be doing better than the US. Physicians, while knowledgeable, don’t have the time to actually do ressearch. They can only rely on the results being fed to them by supposedly trustworthy sources. Since we haven’t really used HCQ as a prophlactic here in the US on a wide scale, there isn’t a large set of out-patient physicians who can speak from experience. What we get are hospitalists opinions that it doesn’t work with their patients, which we already know. Doctors are left to read studies and trust the results. The AMA has already been caught mis-representing the dangers of HCQ. It isn’t a stretch that other agencies and studies are also a bit biased. The best case study by far is examining the countries who have been using it as it is intended.

It is unfortunate, but a hard truth that medical “science”, just like intelligence agencies, can be politically tainted but these are our only real sources for information.

Do you actually know that? Question your assumptions and the sources of data here. For starters, do you actually know how much hydroxychloroquine is being used in these other countries? Do you think there could be some other reason a country like Uganda may not have the same COVID effect as other countries? Can you even trust the data from Uganda or at the very least, is it as high quality as our data? There's monumental problems with these assumptions because you're trying to use this data, which is better than nothing but not by much, to form your opinion while disregarding high quality data that contradicts it. Deciding a study is politically biased is just a way to weasel out of accepting conclusions you don't want to accept. It's not based on any information other than your desire for it to not be true.

 

[DBA]

What I know is that countries that and have been using it as a prophalactic tend to be doing better than the US. Physicians, while knowledgeable, don’t have the time to actually do ressearch. They can only rely on the results being fed to them by supposedly trustworthy sources. Since we haven’t really used HCQ as a prophlactic here in the US on a wide scale, there isn’t a large set of out-patient physicians who can speak from experience. What we get are hospitalists opinions that it doesn’t work with their patients, which we already know. Doctors are left to read studies and trust the results. The AMA has already been caught mis-representing the dangers of HCQ. It isn’t a stretch that other agencies and studies are also a bit biased. The best case study by far is examining the countries who have been using it as it is intended.

It is unfortunate, but a hard truth that medical “science”, just like intelligence agencies, can be politically tainted but these are our only real sources for information.

Do you actually know that? Question your assumptions and the sources of data here. For starters, do you actually know how much hydroxychloroquine is being used in these other countries? Do you think there could be some other reason a country like Uganda may not have the same COVID effect as other countries? Can you even trust the data from Uganda or at the very least, is it as high quality as our data? There's monumental problems with these assumptions because you're trying to use this data, which is better than nothing but not by much, to form your opinion while disregarding high quality data that contradicts it. Deciding a study is politically biased is just a way to weasel out of accepting conclusions you don't want to accept. It's not based on any information other than your desire for it to not be true.

Yes, we know that many other countries use it extensively. India for example. Once again, you are making the assumption that the data you are being fed is accurate. The simple fact that the leading medical association in the world was caught, at the very least, embellishing certain aspects of HCQ which just happens to align with a political agenda, makes me just a tad skeptical. It should make everyone skeptical, but we seem to be at the point where there is a portion of our society that believes whatever they are told and reasonable skepticism is frowned upon.

 

[colfax_m]

What I know is that countries that and have been using it as a prophalactic tend to be doing better than the US. Physicians, while knowledgeable, don’t have the time to actually do ressearch. They can only rely on the results being fed to them by supposedly trustworthy sources. Since we haven’t really used HCQ as a prophlactic here in the US on a wide scale, there isn’t a large set of out-patient physicians who can speak from experience. What we get are hospitalists opinions that it doesn’t work with their patients, which we already know. Doctors are left to read studies and trust the results. The AMA has already been caught mis-representing the dangers of HCQ. It isn’t a stretch that other agencies and studies are also a bit biased. The best case study by far is examining the countries who have been using it as it is intended.

It is unfortunate, but a hard truth that medical “science”, just like intelligence agencies, can be politically tainted but these are our only real sources for information.

Do you actually know that? Question your assumptions and the sources of data here. For starters, do you actually know how much hydroxychloroquine is being used in these other countries? Do you think there could be some other reason a country like Uganda may not have the same COVID effect as other countries? Can you even trust the data from Uganda or at the very least, is it as high quality as our data? There's monumental problems with these assumptions because you're trying to use this data, which is better than nothing but not by much, to form your opinion while disregarding high quality data that contradicts it. Deciding a study is politically biased is just a way to weasel out of accepting conclusions you don't want to accept. It's not based on any information other than your desire for it to not be true.

Yes, we know that many other countries use it extensively. India for example. Once again, you are making the assumption that the data you are being fed is accurate. The simple fact that the leading medical association in the world was caught, at the very least, embellishing certain aspects of HCQ which just happens to align with a political agenda, makes me just a tad skeptical. It should make everyone skeptical, but we seem to be at the point where there is a portion of our society that believes whatever they are told and reasonable skepticism is frowned upon.

Yes, I am assuming the data I’m being fed is accurate. If you want me to believe it isn’t, you’d first have to know what you’re accusing people of doing. It is extraordinarily far fetched that this much data could be faked simultaneously in so many centers, where people would be risking entire careers for what? Just to get Trump?

Absolutely ridiculous.

Like I said, we were prescribing gobs of HCQ early on. If doctors were all so political that they’d be falsifying data that would haven’t have happened. It was pretty far fetched this would have any impact in the first place. Rarely does the first thing we try ever work. It was worth doing, but when something fails, the only ethical thing to do is move on because there’s opportunity costs here.

If all you have is suspicions and skepticism borne out of a personal political view of persecution and bias, then that’s not going to get you very far in the face of a mountain of data opposing you.

 

[DBA]

What I know is that countries that and have been using it as a prophalactic tend to be doing better than the US. Physicians, while knowledgeable, don’t have the time to actually do ressearch. They can only rely on the results being fed to them by supposedly trustworthy sources. Since we haven’t really used HCQ as a prophlactic here in the US on a wide scale, there isn’t a large set of out-patient physicians who can speak from experience. What we get are hospitalists opinions that it doesn’t work with their patients, which we already know. Doctors are left to read studies and trust the results. The AMA has already been caught mis-representing the dangers of HCQ. It isn’t a stretch that other agencies and studies are also a bit biased. The best case study by far is examining the countries who have been using it as it is intended.

It is unfortunate, but a hard truth that medical “science”, just like intelligence agencies, can be politically tainted but these are our only real sources for information.

Do you actually know that? Question your assumptions and the sources of data here. For starters, do you actually know how much hydroxychloroquine is being used in these other countries? Do you think there could be some other reason a country like Uganda may not have the same COVID effect as other countries? Can you even trust the data from Uganda or at the very least, is it as high quality as our data? There's monumental problems with these assumptions because you're trying to use this data, which is better than nothing but not by much, to form your opinion while disregarding high quality data that contradicts it. Deciding a study is politically biased is just a way to weasel out of accepting conclusions you don't want to accept. It's not based on any information other than your desire for it to not be true.

Yes, we know that many other countries use it extensively. India for example. Once again, you are making the assumption that the data you are being fed is accurate. The simple fact that the leading medical association in the world was caught, at the very least, embellishing certain aspects of HCQ which just happens to align with a political agenda, makes me just a tad skeptical. It should make everyone skeptical, but we seem to be at the point where there is a portion of our society that believes whatever they are told and reasonable skepticism is frowned upon.

Yes, I am assuming the data I’m being fed is accurate. If you want me to believe it isn’t, you’d first have to know what you’re accusing people of doing. It is extraordinarily far fetched that this much data could be faked simultaneously in so many centers, where people would be risking entire careers for what? Just to get Trump?

Absolutely ridiculous.

Like I said, we were prescribing gobs of HCQ early on. If doctors were all so political that they’d be falsifying data that would haven’t have happened. It was pretty far fetched this would have any impact in the first place. Rarely does the first thing we try ever work. It was worth doing, but when something fails, the only ethical thing to do is move on because there’s opportunity costs here.

If all you have is suspicions and skepticism borne out of a personal political view of persecution and bias, then that’s not going to get you very far in the face of a mountain of data opposing you.

Opposing studies were quickly shot down. Other countries have conducted studies with different results, but they are quickly dismissed. It isn’t necessarily that all studies are biased, it is that only the studies with the desired outcome are disminated while others are discredited by those with an agenda. If the media only reports one side, then it is not difficult to sway public opinion or the opinion of the medical community, particularly if the “reputable” agencies like the AMA are willing to embellish. Yes, doctor’s and scientists can be duped too. It isn’t that difficult.

 

[colfax_m]

What I know is that countries that and have been using it as a prophalactic tend to be doing better than the US. Physicians, while knowledgeable, don’t have the time to actually do ressearch. They can only rely on the results being fed to them by supposedly trustworthy sources. Since we haven’t really used HCQ as a prophlactic here in the US on a wide scale, there isn’t a large set of out-patient physicians who can speak from experience. What we get are hospitalists opinions that it doesn’t work with their patients, which we already know. Doctors are left to read studies and trust the results. The AMA has already been caught mis-representing the dangers of HCQ. It isn’t a stretch that other agencies and studies are also a bit biased. The best case study by far is examining the countries who have been using it as it is intended.

It is unfortunate, but a hard truth that medical “science”, just like intelligence agencies, can be politically tainted but these are our only real sources for information.

Do you actually know that? Question your assumptions and the sources of data here. For starters, do you actually know how much hydroxychloroquine is being used in these other countries? Do you think there could be some other reason a country like Uganda may not have the same COVID effect as other countries? Can you even trust the data from Uganda or at the very least, is it as high quality as our data? There's monumental problems with these assumptions because you're trying to use this data, which is better than nothing but not by much, to form your opinion while disregarding high quality data that contradicts it. Deciding a study is politically biased is just a way to weasel out of accepting conclusions you don't want to accept. It's not based on any information other than your desire for it to not be true.

Yes, we know that many other countries use it extensively. India for example. Once again, you are making the assumption that the data you are being fed is accurate. The simple fact that the leading medical association in the world was caught, at the very least, embellishing certain aspects of HCQ which just happens to align with a political agenda, makes me just a tad skeptical. It should make everyone skeptical, but we seem to be at the point where there is a portion of our society that believes whatever they are told and reasonable skepticism is frowned upon.

Yes, I am assuming the data I’m being fed is accurate. If you want me to believe it isn’t, you’d first have to know what you’re accusing people of doing. It is extraordinarily far fetched that this much data could be faked simultaneously in so many centers, where people would be risking entire careers for what? Just to get Trump?

Absolutely ridiculous.

Like I said, we were prescribing gobs of HCQ early on. If doctors were all so political that they’d be falsifying data that would haven’t have happened. It was pretty far fetched this would have any impact in the first place. Rarely does the first thing we try ever work. It was worth doing, but when something fails, the only ethical thing to do is move on because there’s opportunity costs here.

If all you have is suspicions and skepticism borne out of a personal political view of persecution and bias, then that’s not going to get you very far in the face of a mountain of data opposing you.

Opposing studies were quickly shot down. Other countries have conducted studies with different results, but they are quickly dismissed. It isn’t necessarily that all studies are biased, it is that only the studies with the desired outcome are disminated while others are discredited by those with an agenda. If the media only reports one side, then it is not difficult to sway public opinion or the opinion of the medical community, particularly if the “reputable” agencies like the AMA are willing to embellish. Yes, doctor’s and scientists can be duped too. It isn’t that difficult.

They weren’t dismissed without good reason. They were dismissed because of methodological problems, some avoidable and some unavoidable. Performing retrospective analysis is always prone to errors, and there were as many positive as negative studies which when combined in meta-analysis resulted in the benefit being wiped out.

So what do you do with this ambiguity? You do randomized clinical trials. To my knowledge, there were in the neighborhood of nearly a dozen RCTs done in different countries and systems and not a single one showed benefit.

So you call it an agenda, but when you look at the facts, it was scientific method. The problem is more with your personal bias than that of the medical community.

I’ll say it again because it bears repeating. The medical community doesn’t give a damn what the media says when it comes to something like this. Never has. Never will (hopefully).

 

[DBA]

What I know is that countries that and have been using it as a prophalactic tend to be doing better than the US. Physicians, while knowledgeable, don’t have the time to actually do ressearch. They can only rely on the results being fed to them by supposedly trustworthy sources. Since we haven’t really used HCQ as a prophlactic here in the US on a wide scale, there isn’t a large set of out-patient physicians who can speak from experience. What we get are hospitalists opinions that it doesn’t work with their patients, which we already know. Doctors are left to read studies and trust the results. The AMA has already been caught mis-representing the dangers of HCQ. It isn’t a stretch that other agencies and studies are also a bit biased. The best case study by far is examining the countries who have been using it as it is intended.

It is unfortunate, but a hard truth that medical “science”, just like intelligence agencies, can be politically tainted but these are our only real sources for information.

Do you actually know that? Question your assumptions and the sources of data here. For starters, do you actually know how much hydroxychloroquine is being used in these other countries? Do you think there could be some other reason a country like Uganda may not have the same COVID effect as other countries? Can you even trust the data from Uganda or at the very least, is it as high quality as our data? There's monumental problems with these assumptions because you're trying to use this data, which is better than nothing but not by much, to form your opinion while disregarding high quality data that contradicts it. Deciding a study is politically biased is just a way to weasel out of accepting conclusions you don't want to accept. It's not based on any information other than your desire for it to not be true.

Yes, we know that many other countries use it extensively. India for example. Once again, you are making the assumption that the data you are being fed is accurate. The simple fact that the leading medical association in the world was caught, at the very least, embellishing certain aspects of HCQ which just happens to align with a political agenda, makes me just a tad skeptical. It should make everyone skeptical, but we seem to be at the point where there is a portion of our society that believes whatever they are told and reasonable skepticism is frowned upon.

Yes, I am assuming the data I’m being fed is accurate. If you want me to believe it isn’t, you’d first have to know what you’re accusing people of doing. It is extraordinarily far fetched that this much data could be faked simultaneously in so many centers, where people would be risking entire careers for what? Just to get Trump?

Absolutely ridiculous.

Like I said, we were prescribing gobs of HCQ early on. If doctors were all so political that they’d be falsifying data that would haven’t have happened. It was pretty far fetched this would have any impact in the first place. Rarely does the first thing we try ever work. It was worth doing, but when something fails, the only ethical thing to do is move on because there’s opportunity costs here.

If all you have is suspicions and skepticism borne out of a personal political view of persecution and bias, then that’s not going to get you very far in the face of a mountain of data opposing you.

Opposing studies were quickly shot down. Other countries have conducted studies with different results, but they are quickly dismissed. It isn’t necessarily that all studies are biased, it is that only the studies with the desired outcome are disminated while others are discredited by those with an agenda. If the media only reports one side, then it is not difficult to sway public opinion or the opinion of the medical community, particularly if the “reputable” agencies like the AMA are willing to embellish. Yes, doctor’s and scientists can be duped too. It isn’t that difficult.

They weren’t dismissed without good reason. They were dismissed because of methodological problems, some avoidable and some unavoidable. Performing retrospective analysis is always prone to errors, and there were as many positive as negative studies which when combined in meta-analysis resulted in the benefit being wiped out.

So what do you do with this ambiguity? You do randomized clinical trials. To my knowledge, there were in the neighborhood of nearly a dozen RCTs done in different countries and systems and not a single one showed benefit.

So you call it an agenda, but when you look at the facts, it was scientific method. The problem is more with your personal bias than that of the medical community.

I’ll say it again because it bears repeating. The medical community doesn’t give a damn what the media says when it comes to something like this. Never has. Never will (hopefully).

Why do you not engage Badger2? He appears to have a good understanding of microbiology and disagrees with you.