Why did Fauci denounce Hydroxychloroquine?

[Nostra]

If we let the elderly and people with low immune systems. Let the healthy lived their lives it wouldn't of been bad.

We aren’t that healthy or a country. It wouldn’t work. You can’t isolate the people with risk factors. You just can’t. It would have been horrendous.

Then why are they saying the lock downs were worse.

We did lockdowns and half a million people still died. How many more dead are you gunning for?

Show us where lockdowns lowered deaths.

 

[Nostra]

And why was risk stratification used in the treatment group?

Because that was the population they wanted to target for treatment.

I don’t know why you think this has anything to do with the criticism that the comparison group is useless. They don’t know anything about the comparison group. Nothing. Therefore you simply can’t compare anything to them.

If you can't compare anything to a comparison group, why are they called a comparison group?

Wait for the spin..............

 

[Deplorable Yankee]

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.

Billions for a fake Vax that doesn't work to big pharma

 

[colfax_m]

And why was risk stratification used in the treatment group?

Because that was the population they wanted to target for treatment.

I don’t know why you think this has anything to do with the criticism that the comparison group is useless. They don’t know anything about the comparison group. Nothing. Therefore you simply can’t compare anything to them.

If you can't compare anything to a comparison group, why are they called a comparison group?

Wait for the spin..............

Because the authors (who called it a comparison group) are hacks.

The group in that paper shouldn’t be called a comparison group. It shouldn’t be called anything. The paper shouldn’t have been written without trying to adhere to basic scientific standards.

 

[Nostra]

And why was risk stratification used in the treatment group?

Because that was the population they wanted to target for treatment.

I don’t know why you think this has anything to do with the criticism that the comparison group is useless. They don’t know anything about the comparison group. Nothing. Therefore you simply can’t compare anything to them.

If you can't compare anything to a comparison group, why are they called a comparison group?

Wait for the spin..............

Because the authors (who called it a comparison group) are hacks.

The group in that paper shouldn’t be called a comparison group. It shouldn’t be called anything. The paper shouldn’t have been written without trying to adhere to basic scientific standards.

Well, that was a feeble attempt to spin.

Please try again.

 

[Donald H]

The support for Trump is getting narrower but more vicious and frothing at the mouth by the remainder.

This bodes well for extremists resorting to gun violence when Trump's vote audits fail to give him back his job.

The amount of insanity in American politics calls for a fight on the streets and much blood before the country can come back to normal.

Can democracy in America still be saved? The rest of the world is preparing for the possibility that it can't be saved.

 

[buckeye]

And why was risk stratification used in the treatment group?

Because that was the population they wanted to target for treatment.

I don’t know why you think this has anything to do with the criticism that the comparison group is useless. They don’t know anything about the comparison group. Nothing. Therefore you simply can’t compare anything to them.

I don't know why you think that risk stratification of the treated group has nothing to do with the non treated group. The treated group were far more likely to die or have complications than the average, yet with treatment of the identified drugs and supplement actually were considerably less sick .

Sounds to me like you don't know much about scientific studies, so never mind, colfax.

As Political Chic says, "When you mix science and politics, all you get is politics."

 

[colfax_m]

I don't know why you think that risk stratification of the treated group has nothing to do with the non treated group. The treated group were far more likely to die or have complications than the average, yet with treatment of the identified drugs and supplement actually were considerably less sick .

You cannot say the treated group, even with risk stratification is far more likely to die. The very fact that these people presented to an outpatient clinic and not, say, a hospital would indicate they were not the sickest people out there.

Simply put, without knowing anything about the comparison group, you don’t know if the comparison group is average risk, above average or below average.

 

[buckeye]

And why was risk stratification used in the treatment group?

Because that was the population they wanted to target for treatment.

I don’t know why you think this has anything to do with the criticism that the comparison group is useless. They don’t know anything about the comparison group. Nothing. Therefore you simply can’t compare anything to them.

If you can't compare anything to a comparison group, why are they called a comparison group?

Wait for the spin..............

Because the authors (who called it a comparison group) are hacks.

The group in that paper shouldn’t be called a comparison group. It shouldn’t be called anything. The paper shouldn’t have been written without trying to adhere to basic scientific standards.

They did not call them a comparison group, colfax. You didn't even read this and with all due respect, you're full of shit.

 

[Nostra]

I don't know why you think that risk stratification of the treated group has nothing to do with the non treated group. The treated group were far more likely to die or have complications than the average, yet with treatment of the identified drugs and supplement actually were considerably less sick .

You cannot say the treated group, even with risk stratification is far more likely to die. The very fact that these people presented to an outpatient clinic and not, say, a hospital would indicate they were not the sickest people out there.

Simply put, without knowing anything about the comparison group, you don’t know if the comparison group is average risk, above average or below average.

I thought they weren't a "comparison group".

Your story keeps changing.

 

[colfax_m]

And why was risk stratification used in the treatment group?

Because that was the population they wanted to target for treatment.

I don’t know why you think this has anything to do with the criticism that the comparison group is useless. They don’t know anything about the comparison group. Nothing. Therefore you simply can’t compare anything to them.

If you can't compare anything to a comparison group, why are they called a comparison group?

Wait for the spin..............

Because the authors (who called it a comparison group) are hacks.

The group in that paper shouldn’t be called a comparison group. It shouldn’t be called anything. The paper shouldn’t have been written without trying to adhere to basic scientific standards.

They did not call them a comparison group, colfax. You didn't even read this and with all due respect, you're full of shit.

Was it the group that they compared their treatment arm against?

 

[colfax_m]

I don't know why you think that risk stratification of the treated group has nothing to do with the non treated group. The treated group were far more likely to die or have complications than the average, yet with treatment of the identified drugs and supplement actually were considerably less sick .

You cannot say the treated group, even with risk stratification is far more likely to die. The very fact that these people presented to an outpatient clinic and not, say, a hospital would indicate they were not the sickest people out there.

Simply put, without knowing anything about the comparison group, you don’t know if the comparison group is average risk, above average or below average.

I thought they weren't a "comparison group".

Your story keeps changing.

Jesus, it’s like I’m talking to children.

 

[buckeye]

I don't know why you think that risk stratification of the treated group has nothing to do with the non treated group. The treated group were far more likely to die or have complications than the average, yet with treatment of the identified drugs and supplement actually were considerably less sick .

You cannot say the treated group, even with risk stratification is far more likely to die. The very fact that these people presented to an outpatient clinic and not, say, a hospital would indicate they were not the sickest people out there.

Simply put, without knowing anything about the comparison group, you don’t know if the comparison group is average risk, above average or below average.

A bunch of them ended up in the hospital, which you would expect from a risk stratified group who were far more vulnerable than any average group of covid positive patients.

The key to testing these substances is EARLY treatment, as soon as a positive test is shown, a fact which continually appears to go over your head.

 

[Nostra]

I don't know why you think that risk stratification of the treated group has nothing to do with the non treated group. The treated group were far more likely to die or have complications than the average, yet with treatment of the identified drugs and supplement actually were considerably less sick .

You cannot say the treated group, even with risk stratification is far more likely to die. The very fact that these people presented to an outpatient clinic and not, say, a hospital would indicate they were not the sickest people out there.

Simply put, without knowing anything about the comparison group, you don’t know if the comparison group is average risk, above average or below average.

I thought they weren't a "comparison group".

Your story keeps changing.

Jesus, it’s like I’m talking to children.

Not my fault you can't keep up with your lies.

 

[buckeye]

And why was risk stratification used in the treatment group?

Because that was the population they wanted to target for treatment.

I don’t know why you think this has anything to do with the criticism that the comparison group is useless. They don’t know anything about the comparison group. Nothing. Therefore you simply can’t compare anything to them.

If you can't compare anything to a comparison group, why are they called a comparison group?

Wait for the spin..............

Because the authors (who called it a comparison group) are hacks.

The group in that paper shouldn’t be called a comparison group. It shouldn’t be called anything. The paper shouldn’t have been written without trying to adhere to basic scientific standards.

They did not call them a comparison group, colfax. You didn't even read this and with all due respect, you're full of shit.

Was it the group that they compared their treatment arm against?

Yes, but calling them a "comparison group" is inaccurate. They never compared the two groups, which you keep claiming as your sole reason for throwing the study out. Your choice of words is both wrong and misleading.

They compared the results of using 2 drugs and 1 supplement in a risk stratified (aka much more vulnerable than the average) treatment group to a public reference control group.

 

[colfax_m]

The key to testing these substances is EARLY treatment, as soon as a positive test is shown, a fact which continually appears to go over your head.

Yeah, there’s a problem with that. The idea that you’re only treating the “early” patients means that the risk of that specific group is already far lower than average.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

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.

Because there was zero evidence of its effectiveness or even any reason to think it might be effective. Because diverting resources to that scam diverted resources away from better efforts and diverted that medicine away from people who needed it.

In a nutshell.

 

[colfax_m]

Yes, but calling them a "comparison group" is inaccurate. They never compared the two groups, which you keep claiming as your sole reason for throwing the study out. Your choice of words is both wrong and misleading.

Of course they did! Good lord how did you miss that? It was the entire basis of their claim that hydroxychloroquine was effective in treating COVID any comparing the treated group and the untreated group from the “public data” that they know nothing about and don’t say where it even came from.

 

[buckeye]

The key to testing these substances is EARLY treatment, as soon as a positive test is shown, a fact which continually appears to go over your head.

Yeah, there’s a problem with that. The idea that you’re only treating the “early” patients means that the risk of that specific group is already far lower than average.

OF COURSE.

So your solution is to treat nobody?

 

[buckeye]

Yes, but calling them a "comparison group" is inaccurate. They never compared the two groups, which you keep claiming as your sole reason for throwing the study out. Your choice of words is both wrong and misleading.

Of course they did! Good lord how did you miss that? It was the entire basis of their claim that hydroxychloroquine was effective in treating COVID any comparing the treated group and the untreated group from the “public data” that they know nothing about and don’t say where it even came from.

Sorry but this makes no sense. Not going to try to decipher it. Rewrite it and maybe I will respond.