Why did Fauci denounce Hydroxychloroquine?

[colfax_m]

Your opinion, Clown.

You don't actually know, do you?

 

[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.

You have shown neither, Clown.

I've been trying to educate you dunces but you seem resistant.

 

[Rigby5]

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?

No, adding more people does not at all help the noise ratio.
Instead you want to concentrate on only the people who do have the virus but either do or do not have HCL.
And you do not at all need any people who do not have HCL because you already know their statistics.
Their statistics are the already published norm.

Having 2 groups is wrong because each group you try to create can have an error.
If you don't create a control group but instead use the much larger, already established, statistical control group others have created for covid-19 patients, you cut your chances of error by more than a factor of 2.

It is also much better ethics to concentrate on the group already getting HCQ, like Lupus patients, since it is simply wrong to experiment on people and either give them some thing that may not work or to not give them anything else that might work, in order to prevent mixing the stats.
The kind of inhuman testing you suggest simply does not happen, since doctors, nurses, patients, and relatives will work against any such inhuman testing attempts.

 

[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.

I've been trying to educate you dunces but you seem resistant.

Once again, you have brought nothing to discredit any study. NOTHING.

You seem to be under the misguided impression anyone here actually believes any of the tripe you post. Get back to me when you can bring something that shows the studies to be flawed beyond your leftist opinion.

 

[Rigby5]

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

Yes I have heard HCQ is very bitter.
Fortunately fluvoxamine seems even more effective.

 

[WEATHER53]

Faustus had one function only.
Drag Covid on past the election while appearing to be impartial and scientific

 

[irosie91]

Faustus had one function only.
Drag Covid on past the election while appearing to be impartial and scientific

does he GET GRETCHEN?

 

[colfax_m]

No, adding more people does not at all help the noise ratio.

Absolutely it does. This results in more events and the more events you have the more likely you are to demonstrate the efficacy of the intervention.

Instead you want to concentrate on only the people who do have the virus but either do or do not have HCL.
And you do not at all need any people who do not have HCL because you already know their statistics.
Their statistics are the already published norm.

Having 2 groups is wrong because each group you try to create can have an error.
If you don't create a control group but instead use the much larger, already established, statistical control group others have created for covid-19 patients, you cut your chances of error by more than a factor of 2.

It is also much better ethics to concentrate on the group already getting HCQ, like Lupus patients, since it is simply wrong to experiment on people and either give them some thing that may not work or to not give them anything else that might work, in order to prevent mixing the stats.
The kind of inhuman testing you suggest simply does not happen, since doctors, nurses, patients, and relatives will work against any such inhuman testing attempts.

This is a lot of pseudoscientific nonsense. You don't create a control group because that's bad, but somehow you're going to use another control group which isn't bad? So you want to compare lupus patient outcomes to the general public or something even though those populations obviously have very different characteristics?

It's not inhuman to do randomized trials. We do them all the time.

 

[WEATHER53]

Faustus had one function only.
Drag Covid on past the election while appearing to be impartial and scientific

does he GET GRETCHEN?

It’s not coincidence the last names are so close plus bad results came from both Drs.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

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?

Thats NOT what you said before the number was cited

 

[jc456]

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?

Post #294

 

[jc456]

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.

That’s a fking riot

 

[jc456]

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?

We’ve learned you don’t know shit! There’s now that! Hahaha hahaha

 

[jc456]

Your opinion, Clown.

You don't actually know, do you?

Post 294

 

[jc456]

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.

Which, colfax_m , you said didn’t in post 294

 

[jc456]

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.

Projecting yet again

 

[The Original Tree]

Because he is a scumbag Globalist-Chinese-Commie puppet like Biden.

 

[jc456]

Because he is a scumbag Globalist-Chinese-Commie puppet like Biden.

Tree, tell me how you really feel!

 

[The Original Tree]

Because he is a scumbag Globalist-Chinese-Commie puppet like Biden.

Tree, tell me how you really feel!

He's Putin's Whittle Butt Plug, and Xi's Dingleberry cleaner.

 

[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?

Post #294

I don't say what you're claiming.