Why did Fauci denounce Hydroxychloroquine?

[AntonToo]

Why did Fauci denounce Hydroxychloroquine?​

He didn't "denounce it", he stated facts: studies didn't show it particlarly effective against Covid-19 DUH.

 

[jc456]

What makes you think I'm the one making the call?

then post a link saying it was a bad study.

 

[jc456]

Why did Fauci denounce Hydroxychloroquine?​

Because it didn't work dummy.

sure it did. You should log into google and look up Hydroxychloroquine and it's success stories. Are you saying that didn't happen?

 

[colfax_m]

tell us what you mean?

I've been saying it repeatedly during this thread.

Observational, cohort, or anything retrospective is a weaker study than a prospective randomized trial.

The randomized clinical trials have not shown benefit of hydroxychloroquine. The strongest possible study has been 100% consistent. It doesn't work. Observational trials are all prone to biases and confounders which cannot be corrected for or eliminated. That's just reality.

 

[AntonToo]

View attachment 497257

Aaaand? Fauci played a big role in public policy and development of drugs against HIV.

 

[jc456]

219 peer reviewed studies all showing the efficacy of HCQ. I've already cited them several times, but you keep lying because facts somehow impugn your filthy Reich.

All suffering from the same issues of poor quality.

I think I said this already, but poor quality data doesn't become high quality by virtue of volume. The best data fails to show any benefit. These are facts.

Did he hate Trump so much he wanted people to die? Is he just a cold blooded killer? Is he just an ignorant boob? Could he make more money by pushing something else? Personally, i think its all of the above but i want to hear from all of you.

Dr. Mengele denounced Hydroxychloroquine because it runs about a dollar a dose. NO ONE is buying a mansion on the coast from a drug that costs a dollar a dose. The Fauci virus was his chance to cash in - BIG TIME.

Plus an immediate solution could not be allowed to appear before the election.

You're embarrassing yourself.

What's that?

{

There are currently 292 studies, including 219 peer-reviewed studies (as of May 15, 2021) showing that hydroxychloroquine is highly effective for treating both early and late stage COVID patients. It is also effective as a prophylaxis. The drug is very cheap to manufacture.​

See the data here. More data here.}​

Fucktard fraud.

Account Suspended

Colfax will be along shortly to tell us those studies are no good cuz he was told by his handlers they didn't do them right.

BAM!

Nailed it!

**** me for being consistent, right?

You still haven't answered if you have the ability to tell the difference between good studies and bad studies.

But I think we both know the answer.

Of course you are consistent. You repeat anything your handlers tell you.

You are a good lil Sheeple.

My handlers? You mean the doctors and scientists that taught me to critically evaluate medical literature over the course of greater than 10 years of formal post-secondary education?

No, the ones who tell you to say every study that contradicts your political views are no good.

Those handlers.

Those are your handlers. The ones who don't bother to tell you what the study says, just hands it to you and expect you to believe it without asking questions. You don't read the studies. You don't read the studies that contradict those studies. You just believe and repeat things like "well there's 219 studies" without understanding if or why that matters.

Me on the other hand actually read the literature, as much as we can, and realize that the best data shows it doesn't work.

You didn't read 219 studies, Dumbass. Nobody believes that lie.

They are peer reviewed, which is what you clowns claim is the Gold Standard.

Oh, Nostra. The quality of a study goes well beyond peer review.

Didn't you know that?

Not what you MMGW Cultists have been saying since you switched from the impending ice age to we are all gonna die because of MMGW.

We are talking about medical literature, silly.

Did you know that different studies have different methodologies and that those methodologies make the study stronger or weaker?

We were talking "peer reviewed" Dumbass.

Please try to keep up.

You're talking about peer reviewed. I'm talking about study methodology.

You don't want to talk about methodology because you don't know anything about it. Do you?

I see, you are ignorant of what peer review means. It looks at the methodology to ensure accurate conclusions were made.


Within the scientific community, peer review has become an essential component of the academic writing process. It helps ensure that papers published in scientific journals answer meaningful research questions and draw accurate conclusions based on professionally executed experimentation. Submission of low quality manuscripts has become increasingly prevalent, and peer review acts as a filter to prevent this work from reaching the scientific community. The major advantage of a peer review process is that peer-reviewed articles provide a trusted form of scientific communication.

I'm well aware of peer review.

Peer review doesn't take weak studies and make them stronger.

Studies based on weak methodology will always be weak.

Do you understand that methodologies impact the strength of those conclusions?

peer review

evaluation of scientific, academic, or professional work by others working in the same field.

what do you think they look at if not methodology?

 

[colfax_m]

what do you think they look at if not methodology?

They look at methodology. What's your point?

 

[jc456]

Observational, cohort, or anything retrospective is a weaker study than a prospective randomized trial.

and who gets to make that as gospel? Again, it seems you feel only you are allowed to determine methodology. Again, Peer review does that. I know, you don't think so, but you don't offer what you feel it does work off of.

 

[jc456]

what do you think they look at if not methodology?

They look at methodology. What's your point?

dude, you posted Peer review didn't use methodology. fk, there you go again saying you didn't say something when you did. it's fking every thread with your sorry ass.

219 peer reviewed studies all showing the efficacy of HCQ. I've already cited them several times, but you keep lying because facts somehow impugn your filthy Reich.

All suffering from the same issues of poor quality.

I think I said this already, but poor quality data doesn't become high quality by virtue of volume. The best data fails to show any benefit. These are facts.

Did he hate Trump so much he wanted people to die? Is he just a cold blooded killer? Is he just an ignorant boob? Could he make more money by pushing something else? Personally, i think its all of the above but i want to hear from all of you.

Dr. Mengele denounced Hydroxychloroquine because it runs about a dollar a dose. NO ONE is buying a mansion on the coast from a drug that costs a dollar a dose. The Fauci virus was his chance to cash in - BIG TIME.

Plus an immediate solution could not be allowed to appear before the election.

You're embarrassing yourself.

What's that?

{

There are currently 292 studies, including 219 peer-reviewed studies (as of May 15, 2021) showing that hydroxychloroquine is highly effective for treating both early and late stage COVID patients. It is also effective as a prophylaxis. The drug is very cheap to manufacture.​

See the data here. More data here.}​

Fucktard fraud.

Account Suspended

Colfax will be along shortly to tell us those studies are no good cuz he was told by his handlers they didn't do them right.

BAM!

Nailed it!

**** me for being consistent, right?

You still haven't answered if you have the ability to tell the difference between good studies and bad studies.

But I think we both know the answer.

Of course you are consistent. You repeat anything your handlers tell you.

You are a good lil Sheeple.

My handlers? You mean the doctors and scientists that taught me to critically evaluate medical literature over the course of greater than 10 years of formal post-secondary education?

No, the ones who tell you to say every study that contradicts your political views are no good.

Those handlers.

Those are your handlers. The ones who don't bother to tell you what the study says, just hands it to you and expect you to believe it without asking questions. You don't read the studies. You don't read the studies that contradict those studies. You just believe and repeat things like "well there's 219 studies" without understanding if or why that matters.

Me on the other hand actually read the literature, as much as we can, and realize that the best data shows it doesn't work.

You didn't read 219 studies, Dumbass. Nobody believes that lie.

They are peer reviewed, which is what you clowns claim is the Gold Standard.

Oh, Nostra. The quality of a study goes well beyond peer review.

Didn't you know that?

Not what you MMGW Cultists have been saying since you switched from the impending ice age to we are all gonna die because of MMGW.

We are talking about medical literature, silly.

Did you know that different studies have different methodologies and that those methodologies make the study stronger or weaker?

We were talking "peer reviewed" Dumbass.

Please try to keep up.

You're talking about peer reviewed. I'm talking about study methodology.

You don't want to talk about methodology because you don't know anything about it. Do you?

 

[colfax_m]

Observational, cohort, or anything retrospective is a weaker study than a prospective randomized trial.

and who gets to make that as gospel? Again, it seems you feel only you are allowed to determine methodology. Again, Peer review does that. I know, you don't think so, but you don't offer what you feel it does work off of.

I’m not the one who determined that some study methodology is stronger than others. Its apparent to anyone who knows what they’re talking about.

 

[jc456]

I’m not the one who determined that some study methodology is stronger than others.

then who does?

 

[Nostra]

219 peer reviewed studies all showing the efficacy of HCQ. I've already cited them several times, but you keep lying because facts somehow impugn your filthy Reich.

All suffering from the same issues of poor quality.

I think I said this already, but poor quality data doesn't become high quality by virtue of volume. The best data fails to show any benefit. These are facts.

Did he hate Trump so much he wanted people to die? Is he just a cold blooded killer? Is he just an ignorant boob? Could he make more money by pushing something else? Personally, i think its all of the above but i want to hear from all of you.

Dr. Mengele denounced Hydroxychloroquine because it runs about a dollar a dose. NO ONE is buying a mansion on the coast from a drug that costs a dollar a dose. The Fauci virus was his chance to cash in - BIG TIME.

Plus an immediate solution could not be allowed to appear before the election.

You're embarrassing yourself.

What's that?

{

There are currently 292 studies, including 219 peer-reviewed studies (as of May 15, 2021) showing that hydroxychloroquine is highly effective for treating both early and late stage COVID patients. It is also effective as a prophylaxis. The drug is very cheap to manufacture.​

See the data here. More data here.}​

Fucktard fraud.

Account Suspended

Colfax will be along shortly to tell us those studies are no good cuz he was told by his handlers they didn't do them right.

BAM!

Nailed it!

**** me for being consistent, right?

You still haven't answered if you have the ability to tell the difference between good studies and bad studies.

But I think we both know the answer.

Of course you are consistent. You repeat anything your handlers tell you.

You are a good lil Sheeple.

My handlers? You mean the doctors and scientists that taught me to critically evaluate medical literature over the course of greater than 10 years of formal post-secondary education?

No, the ones who tell you to say every study that contradicts your political views are no good.

Those handlers.

Those are your handlers. The ones who don't bother to tell you what the study says, just hands it to you and expect you to believe it without asking questions. You don't read the studies. You don't read the studies that contradict those studies. You just believe and repeat things like "well there's 219 studies" without understanding if or why that matters.

Me on the other hand actually read the literature, as much as we can, and realize that the best data shows it doesn't work.

You didn't read 219 studies, Dumbass. Nobody believes that lie.

They are peer reviewed, which is what you clowns claim is the Gold Standard.

Oh, Nostra. The quality of a study goes well beyond peer review.

Didn't you know that?

Not what you MMGW Cultists have been saying since you switched from the impending ice age to we are all gonna die because of MMGW.

We are talking about medical literature, silly.

Did you know that different studies have different methodologies and that those methodologies make the study stronger or weaker?

We were talking "peer reviewed" Dumbass.

Please try to keep up.

You're talking about peer reviewed. I'm talking about study methodology.

You don't want to talk about methodology because you don't know anything about it. Do you?

I see, you are ignorant of what peer review means. It looks at the methodology to ensure accurate conclusions were made.


Within the scientific community, peer review has become an essential component of the academic writing process. It helps ensure that papers published in scientific journals answer meaningful research questions and draw accurate conclusions based on professionally executed experimentation. Submission of low quality manuscripts has become increasingly prevalent, and peer review acts as a filter to prevent this work from reaching the scientific community. The major advantage of a peer review process is that peer-reviewed articles provide a trusted form of scientific communication.

I'm well aware of peer review.

Peer review doesn't take weak studies and make them stronger.

Studies based on weak methodology will always be weak.

Do you understand that methodologies impact the strength of those conclusions?

If you knew what peer review was, you would know it weeds out the weak studies. Kinda the whole point, Dumbass.

 

[colfax_m]

dude, you posted Peer review didn't use methodology. fk, there you go again saying you didn't say something when you did. it's fking every thread with your sorry ass.

You're very confused. I can't really figure out what this word salad is trying to claim.

 

[colfax_m]

If you knew what peer review was, you would know it weeds out the weak studies. Kinda the whole point, Dumbass.

No it doesn't. It determines if the study was conducted appropriately. You get weak conclusions from studies with weak methodologies. That doesn't change just because it's peer reviewed.

And weak studies with weak methodologies are still useful at providing initial evidence which is later confirmed or denied by future stronger studies. That's how medicine works. That's how it worked for hydroxychloroquine.

 

[jc456]

You're very confused. I can't really figure out what this word salad is trying to claim.

so you didn't read your own quotes? seems you are still confused.

 

[colfax_m]

so you didn't read your own quotes? seems you are still confused.

I know what I wrote and you seem to be very confused by what it means because you seem to be claiming I said things I never said.

Hence your confusion.

 

[jc456]

It determines if the study was conducted appropriately.

what do you think that means?

 

[jc456]

so you didn't read your own quotes? seems you are still confused.

I know what I wrote and you seem to be very confused by what it means because you seem to be claiming I said things I never said.

Hence your confusion.

then you know you stated Peer review doesn't look at methodology in the quoted piece? Why did you then a few post later say it did? That makes you confused, dude, hilarious.

 

[Nostra]

If you knew what peer review was, you would know it weeds out the weak studies. Kinda the whole point, Dumbass.

No it doesn't. It determines if the study was conducted appropriately. You get weak conclusions from studies with weak methodologies. That doesn't change just because it's peer reviewed.

And weak studies with weak methodologies are still useful at providing initial evidence which is later confirmed or denied by future stronger studies. That's how medicine works. That's how it worked for hydroxychloroquine.

You are a clown. That's all one can say at this point.

You have brought nothing to disprove any study. You think for some reason you can just proclaim from on high that all 219 peer reviewed studies are no good and expect people to take you seriously. Nobody does, Clown.

 

[colfax_m]

then you know you stated Peer review doesn't look at methodology in the quoted piece

In what post do you think I claimed that peer review doesn't look at methodology?