Why did Fauci denounce Hydroxychloroquine?

[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.

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.

It's not about disproving anything. It's about identifying what is and isn't strong evidence. Show me one of those peer reviewed studies. Pick one. Any one. Pick the strongest paper you think you have. I'll tell you exactly why it's methodology is weak.

 

[Nostra]

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?

Here is your quote, Clown.

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

 

[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.

It's not about disproving anything. It's about identifying what is and isn't strong evidence. Show me one of those peer reviewed studies. Pick one. Any one. Pick the strongest paper you think you have. I'll tell you exactly why it's methodology is weak.

Links have been provided, Clown. And it is about disproving something when you claim a study is not good. PROVE IT.

That's how it works. Nobody takes what you say seriously. Nobody, 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?

Here is your quote, Clown.

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

This quote doesn't say what you claim it says.

 

[Nostra]

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?

Here is your quote, Clown.

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

This quote doesn't say what you claim it says.

Sure thing, Clown.

 

[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.

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.

It's not about disproving anything. It's about identifying what is and isn't strong evidence. Show me one of those peer reviewed studies. Pick one. Any one. Pick the strongest paper you think you have. I'll tell you exactly why it's methodology is weak.

Links have been provided, Clown. And it is about disproving something when you claim a study is not good. PROVE IT.

That's how it works. Nobody takes what you say seriously. Nobody, Clown.

And I provided links to the best possible evidence which all shows that there is no benefit.

 

[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?

Here is your quote, Clown.

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

This quote doesn't say what you claim it says.

Sure thing, Clown.

You guys are delusional.

Peer review and study methodology are not the same topic. You didn't want to acknowledge that.

You only see what you want to see. Sad.

 

[Nostra]

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?

Here is your quote, Clown.

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

This quote doesn't say what you claim it says.

Sure thing, Clown.

You guys are delusional.

Peer review and study methodology are not the same topic. You didn't want to acknowledge that.

You only see what you want to see. Sad.

Nobody said they were the same thing, Clown.

We correctly pointed out that peer review looks at the methodology.

 

[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.

It's not about disproving anything. It's about identifying what is and isn't strong evidence. Show me one of those peer reviewed studies. Pick one. Any one. Pick the strongest paper you think you have. I'll tell you exactly why it's methodology is weak.

Links have been provided, Clown. And it is about disproving something when you claim a study is not good. PROVE IT.

That's how it works. Nobody takes what you say seriously. Nobody, Clown.

And I provided links to the best possible evidence which all shows that there is no benefit.

Your opinion, Clown.

 

[colfax_m]

We correctly pointed out that peer review looks at the methodology.

And I never said they don’t look at methodology.

I kept saying that weak studies are weak because their methodology is weak. You kept bringing up “peer review” as if that somehow changed the strength of the conclusions. It doesn’t. That’s why you constantly bringing up peer review is irrelevant.

 

[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.

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.

It's not about disproving anything. It's about identifying what is and isn't strong evidence. Show me one of those peer reviewed studies. Pick one. Any one. Pick the strongest paper you think you have. I'll tell you exactly why it's methodology is weak.

Links have been provided, Clown. And it is about disproving something when you claim a study is not good. PROVE IT.

That's how it works. Nobody takes what you say seriously. Nobody, Clown.

And I provided links to the best possible evidence which all shows that there is no benefit.

Your opinion, Clown.

I posted large multicenter randomized clinical trials. That’s the strongest possible evidence.

What could be better?

 

[bodecea]

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.

Have you taken yours today?

 

[Nostra]

We correctly pointed out that peer review looks at the methodology.

And I never said they don’t look at methodology.

I kept saying that weak studies are weak because their methodology is weak. You kept bringing up “peer review” as if that somehow changed the strength of the conclusions. It doesn’t. That’s why you constantly bringing up peer review is irrelevant.

Once again you demonstrate you have no clue what peer review does, Clown.

If the review shows poor methodology, it says so. Show us the studies out of the 219 you claim to have read where the review states the study has poor methodology.

 

[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.

It's not about disproving anything. It's about identifying what is and isn't strong evidence. Show me one of those peer reviewed studies. Pick one. Any one. Pick the strongest paper you think you have. I'll tell you exactly why it's methodology is weak.

Links have been provided, Clown. And it is about disproving something when you claim a study is not good. PROVE IT.

That's how it works. Nobody takes what you say seriously. Nobody, Clown.

And I provided links to the best possible evidence which all shows that there is no benefit.

Your opinion, Clown.

I posted large multicenter randomized clinical trials. That’s the strongest possible evidence.

What could be better?

Your opinion, Clown.

 

[Rigby5]

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.

It's not about disproving anything. It's about identifying what is and isn't strong evidence. Show me one of those peer reviewed studies. Pick one. Any one. Pick the strongest paper you think you have. I'll tell you exactly why it's methodology is weak.

Links have been provided, Clown. And it is about disproving something when you claim a study is not good. PROVE IT.

That's how it works. Nobody takes what you say seriously. Nobody, Clown.

And I provided links to the best possible evidence which all shows that there is no benefit.

That is ridiculous.
HCQ has to have some benefit because it is a proven immuno suppressant of the cytokine storm, and if nothing else is regularly used to treat fevers, which are useless to stop a bat virus.

It is the methodology of your test attempting to prove no benefit that is so obviously flawed.
If you randomly pick test subjects, very few will even get infected, very few of the infected will get serious symptoms, and those helped by HCQ will then be smothered over by noise.
That is obviously incorrect methodology.

A correct methodology would be to look at those already taking HCQ, like Lupus patients, and to see if there has been any effect.
And there clearly has, with the same expected percentage getting infect, but almost no one getting the serious cytokine storm symptoms.

Anyone should see this. It is obvious. To claim proof of HCQ ineffectiveness is just absurd.
The most anyone can say is that other immuno suppressants like fluvoxamine appear to be even better.

 

[colfax_m]

We correctly pointed out that peer review looks at the methodology.

And I never said they don’t look at methodology.

I kept saying that weak studies are weak because their methodology is weak. You kept bringing up “peer review” as if that somehow changed the strength of the conclusions. It doesn’t. That’s why you constantly bringing up peer review is irrelevant.

Once again you demonstrate you have no clue what peer review does, Clown.

If the review shows poor methodology, it says so. Show us the studies out of the 219 you claim to have read where the review states the study has poor methodology.

Your confusing poor methodology with weak methodology. They're not the same thing.

 

[colfax_m]

It is the methodology of your test attempting to prove no benefit that is so obviously flawed.
If you randomly pick test subjects, very few will even get infected, very few of the infected will get serious symptoms, and those helped by HCQ will then be smothered over by noise.
That is obviously incorrect methodology.

That just means that you need to recruit more participants for your randomized trial, or people at higher risk of getting COVID. A good study does a power analysis and can show before they start the trial how they chose how many people to recruit.

A correct methodology would be to look at those already taking HCQ, like Lupus patients, and to see if there has been any effect.
And there clearly has, with the same expected percentage getting infect, but almost no one getting the serious cytokine storm symptoms.

Problem is that you're introducing other variable. Who are you going to compare these Lupus patients to and how are you going to be sure that other confounding factors are equivalent between the two groups?

 

[Nostra]

We correctly pointed out that peer review looks at the methodology.

And I never said they don’t look at methodology.

I kept saying that weak studies are weak because their methodology is weak. You kept bringing up “peer review” as if that somehow changed the strength of the conclusions. It doesn’t. That’s why you constantly bringing up peer review is irrelevant.

Once again you demonstrate you have no clue what peer review does, Clown.

If the review shows poor methodology, it says so. Show us the studies out of the 219 you claim to have read where the review states the study has poor methodology.

Your confusing poor methodology with weak methodology. They're not the same thing.

You have shown neither, Clown.

 

[irosie91]

We correctly pointed out that peer review looks at the methodology.

And I never said they don’t look at methodology.

I kept saying that weak studies are weak because their methodology is weak. You kept bringing up “peer review” as if that somehow changed the strength of the conclusions. It doesn’t. That’s why you constantly bringing up peer review is irrelevant.

Once again you demonstrate you have no clue what peer review does, Clown.

If the review shows poor methodology, it says so. Show us the studies out of the 219 you claim to have read where the review states the study has poor methodology.

Your confusing poor methodology with weak methodology. They're not the same thing.

You have shown neither, Clown.

Fauci denied nothing------he just SPIT IT OUT-----too damned bitter

 

[Rigby5]

Judicial Watch Obtains Records Showing NIAID under Dr. Fauci Gave Wuhan Lab $826k for Bat Coronavirus Research From 2014 to 2019 - Judicial Watch

Looks like we have the smoking gun. It was the United States that was
financing gain of function research on bat viruses in Wuhan.


This is the right wing "Judicial Watch", but they claim to be quoting reliable documents.