Why did Fauci denounce Hydroxychloroquine?

[colfax_m]

Unfortunately for you, we have your original post that backs me up.

It doesn’t and there’s no way a rational person would claim that.

Which is why you won’t explain why you believe it does.

Unfortunately for you, every rational person who has read your post says you are full of shit, Clown.

So far it’s just you and one other absolute moron who has no idea what they’re talking about.

For someone so rational, you’re incapable of explaining your rationale.

 

[Nostra]

Unfortunately for you, we have your original post that backs me up.

It doesn’t and there’s no way a rational person would claim that.

Which is why you won’t explain why you believe it does.

Unfortunately for you, every rational person who has read your post says you are full of shit, Clown.

So far it’s just you and one other absolute moron who has no idea what they’re talking about.

For someone so rational, you’re incapable of explaining your rationale.

Sez the guy who can't explain his "weak evidence" claim.............


1. You have yet to offer anything.............ANYTHING..........to back up your claim of "weak evidence"

 

[colfax_m]

Unfortunately for you, we have your original post that backs me up.

It doesn’t and there’s no way a rational person would claim that.

Which is why you won’t explain why you believe it does.

Unfortunately for you, every rational person who has read your post says you are full of shit, Clown.

So far it’s just you and one other absolute moron who has no idea what they’re talking about.

For someone so rational, you’re incapable of explaining your rationale.

Sez the guy who can't explain his "weak evidence" claim.............


1. You have yet to offer anything.............ANYTHING..........to back up your claim of "weak evidence"

It’s been explained numerous times.

Tell me why any reasonable person would consider a retrospective uncontrolled observational study to be stronger than a prospective randomized clinical trial?

They wouldn’t. At least, not if they had any idea what they’re talking about. Given you’ve demonstrated little more than abject ignorance, I think that’s an apt description.

 

[Nostra]

Unfortunately for you, we have your original post that backs me up.

It doesn’t and there’s no way a rational person would claim that.

Which is why you won’t explain why you believe it does.

Unfortunately for you, every rational person who has read your post says you are full of shit, Clown.

So far it’s just you and one other absolute moron who has no idea what they’re talking about.

For someone so rational, you’re incapable of explaining your rationale.

Sez the guy who can't explain his "weak evidence" claim.............


1. You have yet to offer anything.............ANYTHING..........to back up your claim of "weak evidence"

It’s been explained numerous times.

Tell me why any reasonable person would consider a retrospective uncontrolled observational study to be stronger than a prospective randomized clinical trial?

They wouldn’t. At least, not if they had any idea what they’re talking about. Given you’ve demonstrated little more than abject ignorance, I think that’s an apt description.

1. You have yet to offer anything.............ANYTHING..........to back up your claim of "weak evidence"

 

[colfax_m]

Unfortunately for you, we have your original post that backs me up.

It doesn’t and there’s no way a rational person would claim that.

Which is why you won’t explain why you believe it does.

Unfortunately for you, every rational person who has read your post says you are full of shit, Clown.

So far it’s just you and one other absolute moron who has no idea what they’re talking about.

For someone so rational, you’re incapable of explaining your rationale.

Sez the guy who can't explain his "weak evidence" claim.............


1. You have yet to offer anything.............ANYTHING..........to back up your claim of "weak evidence"

It’s been explained numerous times.

Tell me why any reasonable person would consider a retrospective uncontrolled observational study to be stronger than a prospective randomized clinical trial?

They wouldn’t. At least, not if they had any idea what they’re talking about. Given you’ve demonstrated little more than abject ignorance, I think that’s an apt description.

1. You have yet to offer anything.............ANYTHING..........to back up your claim of "weak evidence"

Are you going to actually respond to what I’ve written or just keep your head firmly up your own ass?

 

[Nostra]

Unfortunately for you, we have your original post that backs me up.

It doesn’t and there’s no way a rational person would claim that.

Which is why you won’t explain why you believe it does.

Unfortunately for you, every rational person who has read your post says you are full of shit, Clown.

So far it’s just you and one other absolute moron who has no idea what they’re talking about.

For someone so rational, you’re incapable of explaining your rationale.

Sez the guy who can't explain his "weak evidence" claim.............


1. You have yet to offer anything.............ANYTHING..........to back up your claim of "weak evidence"

It’s been explained numerous times.

Tell me why any reasonable person would consider a retrospective uncontrolled observational study to be stronger than a prospective randomized clinical trial?

They wouldn’t. At least, not if they had any idea what they’re talking about. Given you’ve demonstrated little more than abject ignorance, I think that’s an apt description.

1. You have yet to offer anything.............ANYTHING..........to back up your claim of "weak evidence"

Are you going to actually respond to what I’ve written or just keep your head firmly up your own ass?

Several pages back you claimed all 219 PEER REVIEWED studies you claim you read are no good because of "weak evidence'.

Time for you to back up that claim, Clown.

1. You have yet to offer anything.............ANYTHING..........to back up your claim of "weak evidence"

 

[WEATHER53]

Rule of thumb, when everyone says it, it says it

You all suffer from the same misinformation.

I was trying to explain that the studies they were quoting had weak evidence and that studies with much stronger methods were all negative. This poster kept bringing up peer review as if that mattered. It doesn't. Peer review doesn't make weak methods better. It just makes sure that the methods are followed as best as they can.

I tried explaining this but the other poster wouldn't listen. As I said in post 294, he kept talking about peer review. I'm talking about methodology. In no way does I say that peer review doesn't look at methodology. I was trying to explain that methodology is what determines the strength of a paper, not peer review.

None of you guys have the slightest inkling of what you're talking about.

This may win contrived post of the year
The old, I didn’t say what I said; you just heard it wrong

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

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

You sound utterly insane. For your sake and for the safety of those unfortunate enough to have to be near you, I hope you are simply a lying little child trolling for attention.

 

[jc456]

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

You sound utterly insane. For your sake and for the safety of those unfortunate enough to have to be near you, I hope you are simply a lying little child trolling for attention.

Not at all

 

[Uncensored2008]

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.

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?

ROFL

You mean the ones that taught you to lie for your Reich?

219 peer reviewed studies, dumbfuck. Yet you continue to lie.

How pathetic, you ignorant fool.

 

[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.

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?

ROFL

You mean the ones that taught you to lie for your Reich?

219 peer reviewed studies, dumbfuck. Yet you continue to lie.

How pathetic, you ignorant fool.

Peer reviewed? Pffft.............his handlers have told him they have "weak evidence".

 

[Rigby5]

Unfortunately for you, we have your original post that backs me up.

It doesn’t and there’s no way a rational person would claim that.

Which is why you won’t explain why you believe it does.

Unfortunately for you, every rational person who has read your post says you are full of shit, Clown.

So far it’s just you and one other absolute moron who has no idea what they’re talking about.

For someone so rational, you’re incapable of explaining your rationale.

Sez the guy who can't explain his "weak evidence" claim.............


1. You have yet to offer anything.............ANYTHING..........to back up your claim of "weak evidence"

It’s been explained numerous times.

Tell me why any reasonable person would consider a retrospective uncontrolled observational study to be stronger than a prospective randomized clinical trial?

They wouldn’t. At least, not if they had any idea what they’re talking about. Given you’ve demonstrated little more than abject ignorance, I think that’s an apt description.

That is obvious.
A randomized trial with something rare, that has even rarer side effects, that then you want to see how effectively you can treat, can not possibly be done.
If you start random, then by the time you actually find any who satisfy all the criteria, there no longer will be enough for a trial of any value.
The only way of any value to do this testing is to check the thousands of people already on HCQ, for things like Lupus.
Either that or ensure they get covid with deliberate infection.
But the trials you showed did neither, so had nothing to show, one way or the other.

 

[jc456]

Unfortunately for you, we have your original post that backs me up.

It doesn’t and there’s no way a rational person would claim that.

Which is why you won’t explain why you believe it does.

Unfortunately for you, every rational person who has read your post says you are full of shit, Clown.

So far it’s just you and one other absolute moron who has no idea what they’re talking about.

For someone so rational, you’re incapable of explaining your rationale.

Sez the guy who can't explain his "weak evidence" claim.............


1. You have yet to offer anything.............ANYTHING..........to back up your claim of "weak evidence"

It’s been explained numerous times.

Tell me why any reasonable person would consider a retrospective uncontrolled observational study to be stronger than a prospective randomized clinical trial?

They wouldn’t. At least, not if they had any idea what they’re talking about. Given you’ve demonstrated little more than abject ignorance, I think that’s an apt description.

That is obvious.
A randomized trial with something rare, that has even rarer side effects, that then you want to see how effectively you can treat, can not possibly be done.
If you start random, then by the time you actually find any who satisfy all the criteria, there no longer will be enough for a trial of any value.
The only way of any value to do this testing is to check the thousands of people already on HCQ, for things like Lupus.
Either that or ensure they get covid with deliberate infection.
But the trials you showed did neither, so had nothing to show, one way or the other.

Colfax knows it all!! Ask him! Hahaha haha hahaha

 

[Uncensored2008]

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?

You're lying about medical literature because you only care about your filthy Reich.

219 PEER REVIEWED studies, Nazi.

 

[colfax_m]

219 PEER REVIEWED studies, Nazi.

Are you referring to this website?

https://c19hcq.com/

 

[Uncensored2008]

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?

Serious question, did you make it through Jr. High?

Obviously not.

Ignorant ******* Nazi.

 

[Uncensored2008]

219 PEER REVIEWED studies, Nazi.

Are you referring to this website?

https://c19hcq.com/

I linked my citation.

 

[Uncensored2008]

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 not sure Colfax has a high school education.

 

[Uncensored2008]

​

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

Stupid ******* Nazis.

219 peer reviewed studies show it HIGHLY effective. One non-reviewed study funded by your Reich claims otherwise.

Dr. Mengele-Fauci ignored the science and promoted the politics - all because HCQ is cheap and non-formulary, and Mengele was all about stuffing his pockets with cash.

 

[colfax_m]

219 peer reviewed studies show it HIGHLY effective. One non-reviewed study funded by your Reich claims otherwise.

You think studies in the New England Journal of Medicine aren’t reviewed?

You realize that it’s probably the most prestigious medical journal in the world, right?