Doctors are coming out in droves saying hydroxychloroquine works

[Faun]

I don’t have data. I’m going by what’s published.

can't recall, did you post a link to your data? what makes that published data any more credible?

Someone willing to publish their data is more credible than someone who won’t. Is this a serious question?

so you want to see the files of her patients that said they didnt get sicker and die,,,

thats stupid,,,why dont you prove she had patients that didnt recover???

It's her claim to prove. No one is obligated to prove her wrong when she can't even prove herself right.

 

[Faun]

Someone willing to publish their data is more credible than someone who won’t. Is this a serious question?

she gave her data, 350 patients and they all recovered 100% of them. what else do you need. There aren't any patients that received the drug and didn't recover. seems pretty clear. refute it then.

Liar, she gave no data.

 

[Faun]

I don’t have data. I’m going by what’s published.

can't recall, did you post a link to your data? what makes that published data any more credible?

Someone willing to publish their data is more credible than someone who won’t. Is this a serious question?

Not only did she publish it but she went to capitol hill had a press conference told you about it you could ask her any question you wanted.. The media silenced her.. is this the ussr?

Where was her data published?

looks like in front of a microphone. 350 patients 100% recovery. I'm still waiting on the mask's study.

That’s not how it works.

Lol free speech never works out for you

She spoke therefore she has free speech.

Are you trolling .. you lefties ripped down her speech from the Internet. You would feel a lot better if you just allow the truth into your life how do you go through life lying to yourself? Lol

Liar. Her speech is still on the Internet.

 

[Faun]

I don’t have data. I’m going by what’s published.

can't recall, did you post a link to your data? what makes that published data any more credible?

Someone willing to publish their data is more credible than someone who won’t. Is this a serious question?

Not only did she publish it but she went to capitol hill had a press conference told you about it you could ask her any question you wanted.. The media silenced her.. is this the ussr?

Where was her data published?

looks like in front of a microphone. 350 patients 100% recovery. I'm still waiting on the mask's study.

That’s not how it works.

works for me. why is your way any better than mine?

Because claims need to be verified.

how do you verify this data? explain it to me. 350 patients took the drug, they recovered all of them. what is it you need verified?

How do you know?

 

[progressive hunter]

If they had better data, they might have a point.

As we can see, anyone can claim whatever they want.

explain better data? what is it you need, I've asked you before you ignored it.

What’s better? Observational retrospective studies or prospective placebo controlled trials?

both have their place,,,

Sure do. But which is better?

that depends on a lot of factors,,,one being time when someone is dying in front of you,,,

"RIGHT TO TRY"

Nope. That is not a factor.

so death is not a factor in your book,,,
"RIGHT TO TRY"

The strength of medical literature does not depend on the condition of your patient.

we arent talking about literature,,,thats already proven it safe,,,


"RIGHT TO TRY"

Yes, we are talking about literature. You can’t follow a conversation.

youre moving the goal post again,,,


"RIGHT TO TRY"

Nope. You’re just shifting the subject because you are losing.

here’s what we are talking about:

What’s better? Observational retrospective studies or prospective placebo controlled trials?

that just [proved you moved the goal post from the OP,,,

"RIGHT TO TRY"

Nope. The topic from the get go in the OP was assessing the strength of evidence for hydroxychloroquine and my comment is precisely on point.

“right to try” is not relevant to this topic.

how is it not relevant???
its exactly what its intended for,,,

OH I get it,,you just lied again,,,

"RIGHT TO TRY"

Because it has nothing to do with whether the medication works or not.

so thats how youre twisting it now,,

sorry but there are a lot of docs using it with a high rate of success,,,

sorry that bothers you,,,

How do they know it’s successful?

oh I dont know,,,maybe its because they didnt die and recovered faster than those that didnt take it,,,

you should take some time and listen to what they said instead of ranting like a ignorant moron,,,

 

[progressive hunter]

I don’t have data. I’m going by what’s published.

can't recall, did you post a link to your data? what makes that published data any more credible?

Someone willing to publish their data is more credible than someone who won’t. Is this a serious question?

Not only did she publish it but she went to capitol hill had a press conference told you about it you could ask her any question you wanted.. The media silenced her.. is this the ussr?

Where was her data published?

looks like in front of a microphone. 350 patients 100% recovery. I'm still waiting on the mask's study.

That’s not how it works.

Lol free speech never works out for you

She spoke therefore she has free speech.

Are you trolling .. you lefties ripped down her speech from the Internet. You would feel a lot better if you just allow the truth into your life how do you go through life lying to yourself? Lol

Liar. Her speech is still on the Internet.

barely,,,

 

[colfax_m]

If they had better data, they might have a point.

As we can see, anyone can claim whatever they want.

explain better data? what is it you need, I've asked you before you ignored it.

What’s better? Observational retrospective studies or prospective placebo controlled trials?

both have their place,,,

Sure do. But which is better?

that depends on a lot of factors,,,one being time when someone is dying in front of you,,,

"RIGHT TO TRY"

Nope. That is not a factor.

so death is not a factor in your book,,,
"RIGHT TO TRY"

The strength of medical literature does not depend on the condition of your patient.

we arent talking about literature,,,thats already proven it safe,,,


"RIGHT TO TRY"

Yes, we are talking about literature. You can’t follow a conversation.

youre moving the goal post again,,,


"RIGHT TO TRY"

Nope. You’re just shifting the subject because you are losing.

here’s what we are talking about:

What’s better? Observational retrospective studies or prospective placebo controlled trials?

that just [proved you moved the goal post from the OP,,,

"RIGHT TO TRY"

Nope. The topic from the get go in the OP was assessing the strength of evidence for hydroxychloroquine and my comment is precisely on point.

“right to try” is not relevant to this topic.

how is it not relevant???
its exactly what its intended for,,,

OH I get it,,you just lied again,,,

"RIGHT TO TRY"

Because it has nothing to do with whether the medication works or not.

so thats how youre twisting it now,,

sorry but there are a lot of docs using it with a high rate of success,,,

sorry that bothers you,,,

How do they know it’s successful?

oh I dont know,,,maybe its because they didnt die and recovered faster than those that didnt take it,,,

you should take some time and listen to what they said instead of ranting like a ignorant moron,,,

How do they know they didn’t die because they took the drug? If I get COVID and I use healing crystals, can I say the crystals work if I don’t die?

Obviously not.

 

[Billy_Bob]

If they had better data, they might have a point.

As we can see, anyone can claim whatever they want.

explain better data? what is it you need, I've asked you before you ignored it.

What’s better? Observational retrospective studies or prospective placebo controlled trials?

they are equally observational.

What's hard is getting the correct set of participants. people with existing illnesses, vs people with no existing illness, age variances and many other factors.

Maybe Stella's patients fit one criteria and not a mix. I'm good with that data being published.

You got it! the variance changes how drugs react and how viruses react... This is why anecdotal evidence is so important..

Making decisions based on anecdotal evidence is not following the science.

Just stop! Your fucking clueless and promoting falsehoods...

 

[Faun]

I don’t have data. I’m going by what’s published.

can't recall, did you post a link to your data? what makes that published data any more credible?

Someone willing to publish their data is more credible than someone who won’t. Is this a serious question?

Not only did she publish it but she went to capitol hill had a press conference told you about it you could ask her any question you wanted.. The media silenced her.. is this the ussr?

Where was her data published?

looks like in front of a microphone. 350 patients 100% recovery. I'm still waiting on the mask's study.

That’s not how it works.

Lol free speech never works out for you

She spoke therefore she has free speech.

Are you trolling .. you lefties ripped down her speech from the Internet. You would feel a lot better if you just allow the truth into your life how do you go through life lying to yourself? Lol

Im sorry, I thought we were talking about free speech, not free web hosting.

no,,we are talking about free speech,, youre talking about censoring free speech,,,

You’re inventing new rights.

how so??

No right to free web hosting.

most if not all web sights pay for their presence on the web,,,

They do. Did Stella Immanuel pay for her video to be hosted on the web?

No free people decided to share her message and they were shut down..

And did those people who shared it, did they pay for it to be hosted on the web?

No they posted it to a place that’s having a discussion about a pandemic.

If they didn’t pay for it to be hosted, they have no right to complain when those that do pay for it to be hosted decide not to host it.

No ppl on the platforms requested the information than it was provided. Than they deleted it lol

It was deleted from servers by the people that own the servers. You understand the concept of personal property, right comrade?

the law says otherwise,,,

There's a law that says private companies can't regulate the data on their own servers?

 

[colfax_m]

If they had better data, they might have a point.

As we can see, anyone can claim whatever they want.

explain better data? what is it you need, I've asked you before you ignored it.

What’s better? Observational retrospective studies or prospective placebo controlled trials?

they are equally observational.

What's hard is getting the correct set of participants. people with existing illnesses, vs people with no existing illness, age variances and many other factors.

Maybe Stella's patients fit one criteria and not a mix. I'm good with that data being published.

You got it! the variance changes how drugs react and how viruses react... This is why anecdotal evidence is so important..

Making decisions based on anecdotal evidence is not following the science.

Just stop! Your fucking clueless and promoting falsehoods...

I know a lot more about this than you.

 

[colfax_m]

I don’t have data. I’m going by what’s published.

can't recall, did you post a link to your data? what makes that published data any more credible?

Someone willing to publish their data is more credible than someone who won’t. Is this a serious question?

Not only did she publish it but she went to capitol hill had a press conference told you about it you could ask her any question you wanted.. The media silenced her.. is this the ussr?

Where was her data published?

looks like in front of a microphone. 350 patients 100% recovery. I'm still waiting on the mask's study.

That’s not how it works.

Lol free speech never works out for you

She spoke therefore she has free speech.

Are you trolling .. you lefties ripped down her speech from the Internet. You would feel a lot better if you just allow the truth into your life how do you go through life lying to yourself? Lol

Im sorry, I thought we were talking about free speech, not free web hosting.

no,,we are talking about free speech,, youre talking about censoring free speech,,,

You’re inventing new rights.

how so??

No right to free web hosting.

most if not all web sights pay for their presence on the web,,,

They do. Did Stella Immanuel pay for her video to be hosted on the web?

No free people decided to share her message and they were shut down..

And did those people who shared it, did they pay for it to be hosted on the web?

No they posted it to a place that’s having a discussion about a pandemic.

If they didn’t pay for it to be hosted, they have no right to complain when those that do pay for it to be hosted decide not to host it.

No ppl on the platforms requested the information than it was provided. Than they deleted it lol

It was deleted from servers by the people that own the servers. You understand the concept of personal property, right comrade?

the law says otherwise,,,

Which law?

 

[colfax_m]

Here I thought people have a right to their property and how it’s used. You want to take away people’s property rights?

not when they're on a thing called the internet, they don't own that.

They’re on the internet because they’re stored on servers that the company owns, hooked up to electricity the company pays for, connected to the network on lines they pay for.

 

[progressive hunter]

If they had better data, they might have a point.

As we can see, anyone can claim whatever they want.

explain better data? what is it you need, I've asked you before you ignored it.

What’s better? Observational retrospective studies or prospective placebo controlled trials?

both have their place,,,

Sure do. But which is better?

that depends on a lot of factors,,,one being time when someone is dying in front of you,,,

"RIGHT TO TRY"

Nope. That is not a factor.

so death is not a factor in your book,,,
"RIGHT TO TRY"

The strength of medical literature does not depend on the condition of your patient.

we arent talking about literature,,,thats already proven it safe,,,


"RIGHT TO TRY"

Yes, we are talking about literature. You can’t follow a conversation.

youre moving the goal post again,,,


"RIGHT TO TRY"

Nope. You’re just shifting the subject because you are losing.

here’s what we are talking about:

What’s better? Observational retrospective studies or prospective placebo controlled trials?

that just [proved you moved the goal post from the OP,,,

"RIGHT TO TRY"

Nope. The topic from the get go in the OP was assessing the strength of evidence for hydroxychloroquine and my comment is precisely on point.

“right to try” is not relevant to this topic.

how is it not relevant???
its exactly what its intended for,,,

OH I get it,,you just lied again,,,

"RIGHT TO TRY"

Because it has nothing to do with whether the medication works or not.

so thats how youre twisting it now,,

sorry but there are a lot of docs using it with a high rate of success,,,

sorry that bothers you,,,

How do they know it’s successful?

oh I dont know,,,maybe its because they didnt die and recovered faster than those that didnt take it,,,

you should take some time and listen to what they said instead of ranting like a ignorant moron,,,

How do they know they didn’t die because they took the drug? If I get COVID and I use healing crystals, can I say the crystals work if I don’t die?

Obviously not.

how about we stay in reality and keep your imagination to yourself,,,


"right to try"

 

[progressive hunter]

I don’t have data. I’m going by what’s published.

can't recall, did you post a link to your data? what makes that published data any more credible?

Someone willing to publish their data is more credible than someone who won’t. Is this a serious question?

Not only did she publish it but she went to capitol hill had a press conference told you about it you could ask her any question you wanted.. The media silenced her.. is this the ussr?

Where was her data published?

looks like in front of a microphone. 350 patients 100% recovery. I'm still waiting on the mask's study.

That’s not how it works.

Lol free speech never works out for you

She spoke therefore she has free speech.

Are you trolling .. you lefties ripped down her speech from the Internet. You would feel a lot better if you just allow the truth into your life how do you go through life lying to yourself? Lol

Im sorry, I thought we were talking about free speech, not free web hosting.

no,,we are talking about free speech,, youre talking about censoring free speech,,,

You’re inventing new rights.

how so??

No right to free web hosting.

most if not all web sights pay for their presence on the web,,,

They do. Did Stella Immanuel pay for her video to be hosted on the web?

No free people decided to share her message and they were shut down..

And did those people who shared it, did they pay for it to be hosted on the web?

No they posted it to a place that’s having a discussion about a pandemic.

If they didn’t pay for it to be hosted, they have no right to complain when those that do pay for it to be hosted decide not to host it.

No ppl on the platforms requested the information than it was provided. Than they deleted it lol

It was deleted from servers by the people that own the servers. You understand the concept of personal property, right comrade?

the law says otherwise,,,

Which law?

mainly antitrust laws,,,

havent you been watching the news???

 

[Billy_Bob]

If they had better data, they might have a point.

As we can see, anyone can claim whatever they want.

explain better data? what is it you need, I've asked you before you ignored it.

What’s better? Observational retrospective studies or prospective placebo controlled trials?

both have their place,,,

Sure do. But which is better?

that depends on a lot of factors,,,one being time when someone is dying in front of you,,,

"RIGHT TO TRY"

Nope. That is not a factor.

so death is not a factor in your book,,,
"RIGHT TO TRY"

The strength of medical literature does not depend on the condition of your patient.

we arent talking about literature,,,thats already proven it safe,,,


"RIGHT TO TRY"

Yes, we are talking about literature. You can’t follow a conversation.

youre moving the goal post again,,,


"RIGHT TO TRY"

Nope. You’re just shifting the subject because you are losing.

here’s what we are talking about:

What’s better? Observational retrospective studies or prospective placebo controlled trials?

that just [proved you moved the goal post from the OP,,,

"RIGHT TO TRY"

Nope. The topic from the get go in the OP was assessing the strength of evidence for hydroxychloroquine and my comment is precisely on point.

“right to try” is not relevant to this topic.

how is it not relevant???
its exactly what its intended for,,,

OH I get it,,you just lied again,,,

"RIGHT TO TRY"

Because it has nothing to do with whether the medication works or not.

so thats how youre twisting it now,,

sorry but there are a lot of docs using it with a high rate of success,,,

sorry that bothers you,,,

How do they know it’s successful?

oh I dont know,,,maybe its because they didnt die and recovered faster than those that didnt take it,,,

you should take some time and listen to what they said instead of ranting like a ignorant moron,,,

Yep! Several hospitals have done anecdotal studies against the initial death and intubation rates where the drugs were not used. They classed them as pre and post medication interventions. When a hospital takes and implements early intervention strategies and uses the drugs early in the disease progression their mortality rates drop by over 50% and their intubations drop similarly.

But Colfax likes to lie and say these people dont matter.. He wants every one to be like Cuomo's NY and place active COVID cases into nursing homes and die..

 

[Billy_Bob]

If they had better data, they might have a point.

As we can see, anyone can claim whatever they want.

explain better data? what is it you need, I've asked you before you ignored it.

What’s better? Observational retrospective studies or prospective placebo controlled trials?

they are equally observational.

What's hard is getting the correct set of participants. people with existing illnesses, vs people with no existing illness, age variances and many other factors.

Maybe Stella's patients fit one criteria and not a mix. I'm good with that data being published.

You got it! the variance changes how drugs react and how viruses react... This is why anecdotal evidence is so important..

Making decisions based on anecdotal evidence is not following the science.

Just stop! Your fucking clueless and promoting falsehoods...

I know a lot more about this than you.

Bwhaaaaaaaa Where did you get your training, a cracker jack box? I have certifications for Bio-Level 4 containment and all the biological training that goes with it.

 

[progressive hunter]

If they had better data, they might have a point.

As we can see, anyone can claim whatever they want.

explain better data? what is it you need, I've asked you before you ignored it.

What’s better? Observational retrospective studies or prospective placebo controlled trials?

both have their place,,,

Sure do. But which is better?

that depends on a lot of factors,,,one being time when someone is dying in front of you,,,

"RIGHT TO TRY"

Nope. That is not a factor.

so death is not a factor in your book,,,
"RIGHT TO TRY"

The strength of medical literature does not depend on the condition of your patient.

we arent talking about literature,,,thats already proven it safe,,,


"RIGHT TO TRY"

Yes, we are talking about literature. You can’t follow a conversation.

youre moving the goal post again,,,


"RIGHT TO TRY"

Nope. You’re just shifting the subject because you are losing.

here’s what we are talking about:

What’s better? Observational retrospective studies or prospective placebo controlled trials?

that just [proved you moved the goal post from the OP,,,

"RIGHT TO TRY"

Nope. The topic from the get go in the OP was assessing the strength of evidence for hydroxychloroquine and my comment is precisely on point.

“right to try” is not relevant to this topic.

how is it not relevant???
its exactly what its intended for,,,

OH I get it,,you just lied again,,,

"RIGHT TO TRY"

Because it has nothing to do with whether the medication works or not.

so thats how youre twisting it now,,

sorry but there are a lot of docs using it with a high rate of success,,,

sorry that bothers you,,,

How do they know it’s successful?

oh I dont know,,,maybe its because they didnt die and recovered faster than those that didnt take it,,,

you should take some time and listen to what they said instead of ranting like a ignorant moron,,,

Yep! Several hospitals have done anecdotal studies against the initial death and intubation rates where the drugs were not used. They classed them as pre and post medication interventions. When a hospital takes and implements early intervention strategies and uses the drugs early in the disease progression their mortality rates drop by over 50% and their intubations drop similarly.

But Colfax likes to lie and say these people dont matter.. He wants every one to be like Cuomo's NY and place active COVID cases into nursing homes and die..

thats because he has severe TDS,,nothing else explains such dishonesty,,,

 

[Billy_Bob]

Even the most basic class on conduct of medical research would tell you the answer.

The gold standard in medical research is prospective placebo controlled blinded trials.

Then you shouldn't have a problem posting a paper.

Research Hub: Evidence Based Practice Toolkit: Levels of Evidence

Understanding types of resources

libguides.winona.edu

from your own link

Different types of clinical questions are best answered by different types of research studies. You might not always find the highest level of evidence (i.e., systematic review or meta-analysis) to answer your question. When this happens, work your way down to the next highest level of evidence.


This table suggests study designs best suited to answer each type of clinical question.

Your trying to teach a partisan hack this is going right over his head...

This is why multiple studies and anecdotal evidence is very important. they expose weaknesses and strengths of differing treatments that might not be seen in strictly controlled studies.

 

[colfax_m]

If they had better data, they might have a point.

As we can see, anyone can claim whatever they want.

explain better data? what is it you need, I've asked you before you ignored it.

What’s better? Observational retrospective studies or prospective placebo controlled trials?

they are equally observational.

What's hard is getting the correct set of participants. people with existing illnesses, vs people with no existing illness, age variances and many other factors.

Maybe Stella's patients fit one criteria and not a mix. I'm good with that data being published.

You got it! the variance changes how drugs react and how viruses react... This is why anecdotal evidence is so important..

Making decisions based on anecdotal evidence is not following the science.

Just stop! Your fucking clueless and promoting falsehoods...

I know a lot more about this than you.

Bwhaaaaaaaa Where did you get your training, a cracker jack box? I have certifications for Bio-Level 4 containment and all the biological training that goes with it.

Why did you get training for bio level containment and what does that have to do with treatment of disease?

 

[colfax_m]

If they had better data, they might have a point.

As we can see, anyone can claim whatever they want.

explain better data? what is it you need, I've asked you before you ignored it.

What’s better? Observational retrospective studies or prospective placebo controlled trials?

both have their place,,,

Sure do. But which is better?

that depends on a lot of factors,,,one being time when someone is dying in front of you,,,

"RIGHT TO TRY"

Nope. That is not a factor.

so death is not a factor in your book,,,
"RIGHT TO TRY"

The strength of medical literature does not depend on the condition of your patient.

we arent talking about literature,,,thats already proven it safe,,,


"RIGHT TO TRY"

Yes, we are talking about literature. You can’t follow a conversation.

youre moving the goal post again,,,


"RIGHT TO TRY"

Nope. You’re just shifting the subject because you are losing.

here’s what we are talking about:

What’s better? Observational retrospective studies or prospective placebo controlled trials?

that just [proved you moved the goal post from the OP,,,

"RIGHT TO TRY"

Nope. The topic from the get go in the OP was assessing the strength of evidence for hydroxychloroquine and my comment is precisely on point.

“right to try” is not relevant to this topic.

how is it not relevant???
its exactly what its intended for,,,

OH I get it,,you just lied again,,,

"RIGHT TO TRY"

Because it has nothing to do with whether the medication works or not.

so thats how youre twisting it now,,

sorry but there are a lot of docs using it with a high rate of success,,,

sorry that bothers you,,,

How do they know it’s successful?

oh I dont know,,,maybe its because they didnt die and recovered faster than those that didnt take it,,,

you should take some time and listen to what they said instead of ranting like a ignorant moron,,,

How do they know they didn’t die because they took the drug? If I get COVID and I use healing crystals, can I say the crystals work if I don’t die?

Obviously not.

how about we stay in reality and keep your imagination to yourself,,,


"right to try"

I’m illustrating an important point. Establishing causality is not as simple as you think.