Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
False. You did not quote my post. Apparently you misunderstood me at some point, then made up a fake quote. Go ahead, go back to the post of mine and quote it. Ya lyin little freak.That is precisely what you said.
Dead link. Post working link
Largest Statistically Significant Study by 6,200 Multi-Country Physicians on COVID-19 Uncovers Treatment Patterns and Puts Pandemic in Context
Widespread confusion, conflicting reports, inconsistent testing, and off-indication use of existing and experimental drugs has resulted in no single source of information from the frontlines. To create a centralized and dynamic knowledge base, Sermo, the largest global healthcare polling company...news.yahoo.com
Treatments & Efficacy
- The three most commonly prescribed treatments amongst COVID-19 treaters are 56% analgesics, 41% Azithromycin, and 33% Hydroxychloroquine
- Hydroxychloroquine usage amongst COVID-19 treaters is 72% in Spain, 49% in Italy, 41% in Brazil, 39% in Mexico, 28% in France, 23% in the U.S., 17% in Germany, 16% in Canada, 13% in the UK, and 7% in Japan
- Hydroxychloroquine was overall chosen as the most effective therapy amongst COVID-19 treaters from a list of 15 options. (37% of COVID-19 treaters)
- 75% in Spain, 53% Italy, 44% in China, 43% in Brazil, 29% in France, 23% in the U.S., and 13% in the UK
- The two most common treatment regimens for Hydroxychloroquine were:
- (38%) 400mg twice daily on day one; 400 mg daily for five days
- (26%) 400mg twice daily on day one; 200mg twice daily for four days
- Outside the U.S., Hydroxychloroquine was equally used for diagnosed patients with mild to severe symptoms whereas in the U.S. it was most commonly used for high risk diagnosed patients
- Globally, 19% of physicians prescribed or have seen Hydroxychloroquine prophylactically used for high risk patients, and 8% for low risk patients
Your article mentions one study of 3 dozen patients and another one of 80 patients, but it doesn't mention one of 1061 patients.First, a cirrecrion. Not retracted, but its not peer reviewed and was a prelim release. There is nothing to retract. The study has not been formally published.Please post the proof.Oh, sorry, that study doesnt meet scientific standards and was retracted by the publisher. I guess you didnt hear.Professor Didier Raoult Releases the Results of a New Hydroxychloroquine Treatment Study on 1061 Patients – COVEXIT.comWho are "they"? Was this a controlled, double blind study? Im not finding this study.They just performed a study of slightly over 1000 people and 95% of them showed dramatic improvement within hours.
Second, the original publisher issued its concerns:
Hydroxychloroquine-COVID-19 study did not meet publishing society’s “expected standard”
Didier Raoult The paper that appears to have triggered the Trump administration’s obsession with hydroxychloroquine as a treatment for infection with the novel coronavirus has received a statement …retractionwatch.com
Its not good science, apparently. Here is an explanation of why:
Journal Publisher Concerned over Hydroxychloroquine Study
The report by Didier Raoult and colleagues that examined the use of the anti-malarial drug in a small number of COVID-19 patients receives criticism from the very society that published it.www.the-scientist.com
Ah, newer study. Except nobody has seen the study. Only the abstract. We await its publishing, at this point.Professor Didier Raoult Releases the Results of a New Hydroxychloroquine Treatment Study on 1061 Patients – COVEXIT.comWho are "they"? Was this a controlled, double blind study? Im not finding this study.They just performed a study of slightly over 1000 people and 95% of them showed dramatic improvement within hours.
Then the publishers comments are meaningless. The study is good enough to justify using it. meanwhile about a dozen other studies are in progress.Ah, newer study. Except nobody has seen the study. Only the abstract. We await its publishing, at this point.Professor Didier Raoult Releases the Results of a New Hydroxychloroquine Treatment Study on 1061 Patients – COVEXIT.comWho are "they"? Was this a controlled, double blind study? Im not finding this study.They just performed a study of slightly over 1000 people and 95% of them showed dramatic improvement within hours.
Dead link. Post working linkLargest Statistically Significant Study by 6,200 Multi-Country Physicians on COVID-19 Uncovers Treatment Patterns and Puts Pandemic in Context
Widespread confusion, conflicting reports, inconsistent testing, and off-indication use of existing and experimental drugs has resulted in no single source of information from the frontlines. To create a centralized and dynamic knowledge base, Sermo, the largest global healthcare polling company...
Treatments & Efficacy
- The three most commonly prescribed treatments amongst COVID-19 treaters are 56% analgesics, 41% Azithromycin, and 33% Hydroxychloroquine
- Hydroxychloroquine usage amongst COVID-19 treaters is 72% in Spain, 49% in Italy, 41% in Brazil, 39% in Mexico, 28% in France, 23% in the U.S., 17% in Germany, 16% in Canada, 13% in the UK, and 7% in Japan
- Hydroxychloroquine was overall chosen as the most effective therapy amongst COVID-19 treaters from a list of 15 options. (37% of COVID-19 treaters)
- 75% in Spain, 53% Italy, 44% in China, 43% in Brazil, 29% in France, 23% in the U.S., and 13% in the UK
- The two most common treatment regimens for Hydroxychloroquine were:
- (38%) 400mg twice daily on day one; 400 mg daily for five days
- (26%) 400mg twice daily on day one; 200mg twice daily for four days
- Outside the U.S., Hydroxychloroquine was equally used for diagnosed patients with mild to severe symptoms whereas in the U.S. it was most commonly used for high risk diagnosed patients
- Globally, 19% of physicians prescribed or have seen Hydroxychloroquine prophylactically used for high risk patients, and 8% for low risk patients
Edit: found it
And we dint know what harm it may or may not do. Thats what scientific evidence is dor.It says "Do no harm"...
About the study at which they were directed? Uh, no. And those comments have been echoed by peers reviewing the study they talked about.Then the publishers comments are meaningless.
I edited my post and found the direct link. Settle down, son.Dead link. Post working linkLargest Statistically Significant Study by 6,200 Multi-Country Physicians on COVID-19 Uncovers Treatment Patterns and Puts Pandemic in Context
Widespread confusion, conflicting reports, inconsistent testing, and off-indication use of existing and experimental drugs has resulted in no single source of information from the frontlines. To create a centralized and dynamic knowledge base, Sermo, the largest global healthcare polling company...
Treatments & Efficacy
- The three most commonly prescribed treatments amongst COVID-19 treaters are 56% analgesics, 41% Azithromycin, and 33% Hydroxychloroquine
- Hydroxychloroquine usage amongst COVID-19 treaters is 72% in Spain, 49% in Italy, 41% in Brazil, 39% in Mexico, 28% in France, 23% in the U.S., 17% in Germany, 16% in Canada, 13% in the UK, and 7% in Japan
- Hydroxychloroquine was overall chosen as the most effective therapy amongst COVID-19 treaters from a list of 15 options. (37% of COVID-19 treaters)
- 75% in Spain, 53% Italy, 44% in China, 43% in Brazil, 29% in France, 23% in the U.S., and 13% in the UK
- The two most common treatment regimens for Hydroxychloroquine were:
- (38%) 400mg twice daily on day one; 400 mg daily for five days
- (26%) 400mg twice daily on day one; 200mg twice daily for four days
- Outside the U.S., Hydroxychloroquine was equally used for diagnosed patients with mild to severe symptoms whereas in the U.S. it was most commonly used for high risk diagnosed patients
- Globally, 19% of physicians prescribed or have seen Hydroxychloroquine prophylactically used for high risk patients, and 8% for low risk patients
Edit: found it
NOT a dead link.. I just went there.. You still on the Hasbro toy platform?
Their comments were not about the study involving 1061 patients. They are meaningless.About the study at which they were directed? Uh, no. And those comments have been echoed by peers reviewing the study they talked about.Then the publishers comments are meaningless.
So there is good reason to wait to see the new study.
Ha, no, and no scientist would agree. His first, widely panned study was ...not good. So you're going to want to keep the champagne on ice until he publishes this new study.Their comments were not about the study involving 1061 patients. They are meaningless.
You really think that something as serious as the death of hundreds of thousands, is being played with by Trump in a political way ???? Now if the Democrats are found to be doing such things, then of course Trump may respond, and when he does it's a gotcha moment for the political left who hate the man, and will attempt to set him up in every way that they can by suggesting that he is playing politics in the situation.False. he wants what is best for his re-election chances. That's why, when scientists were making recommendations about "what is best for everyone", the mentally ill president was doing his hoax tour.Your point is that Trump wants the numbers to stay low or be lowered, and he wants the best for everyone
Thanks for admitting their comments were meaningless.Ha, no, and no scientist would agree. His first, widely panned study was ...not good. So you're going to want to keep the champagne on ice until he publishes this new study.Their comments were not about the study involving 1061 patients. They are meaningless.
I edited my post and found the direct link. Settle down, son.Dead link. Post working linkLargest Statistically Significant Study by 6,200 Multi-Country Physicians on COVID-19 Uncovers Treatment Patterns and Puts Pandemic in Context
Widespread confusion, conflicting reports, inconsistent testing, and off-indication use of existing and experimental drugs has resulted in no single source of information from the frontlines. To create a centralized and dynamic knowledge base, Sermo, the largest global healthcare polling company...
Treatments & Efficacy
- The three most commonly prescribed treatments amongst COVID-19 treaters are 56% analgesics, 41% Azithromycin, and 33% Hydroxychloroquine
- Hydroxychloroquine usage amongst COVID-19 treaters is 72% in Spain, 49% in Italy, 41% in Brazil, 39% in Mexico, 28% in France, 23% in the U.S., 17% in Germany, 16% in Canada, 13% in the UK, and 7% in Japan
- Hydroxychloroquine was overall chosen as the most effective therapy amongst COVID-19 treaters from a list of 15 options. (37% of COVID-19 treaters)
- 75% in Spain, 53% Italy, 44% in China, 43% in Brazil, 29% in France, 23% in the U.S., and 13% in the UK
- The two most common treatment regimens for Hydroxychloroquine were:
- (38%) 400mg twice daily on day one; 400 mg daily for five days
- (26%) 400mg twice daily on day one; 200mg twice daily for four days
- Outside the U.S., Hydroxychloroquine was equally used for diagnosed patients with mild to severe symptoms whereas in the U.S. it was most commonly used for high risk diagnosed patients
- Globally, 19% of physicians prescribed or have seen Hydroxychloroquine prophylactically used for high risk patients, and 8% for low risk patients
Edit: found it
NOT a dead link.. I just went there.. You still on the Hasbro toy platform?
And we dint know what harm it may or may not do. Thats what scientific evidence is dor.
Well, that depends on how you mean that. Wittingly? No. Trump is a shallow moron who does not have thoughts of that depth. No, i dont think trump was originally thinkng, "its totally worth it if many die, if i get re elected"You really think that something as serious as the death of hundreds of thousands, is being played with by Trump in a political way ???
Bullshit. Take your AM radio talking points walking.ASPIRIN would NEVER be approved these days under the Precautionary Principle..
False. We dont know how it will react with various strains of the virus, and the various medicine combos along with those strains. We dont know the effects that will occur at each dosage of each medicine in the combo, along with the unique illness --and its symptoms -- that is covid19. I know you are smart enough to puzzle this out. But trump has a grip on your brain.Of course we do..
Shouldn't be him wanting to say that any harm is worth the attempt, but that the patients are the ones to make the call. Are you against that freedom or do you want to leave the call in the hands of government or scientist whom have huge liable clauses concerning their careers that keep them from quickly making judgements even if in an emergency?? Trump was right to make the call on the right to try program, and he has been right to allow the freedom to battle this enemy in the ways that him and his task force have been allowing.And we dint know what harm it may or may not do. Thats what scientific evidence is dor.It says "Do no harm"...
Again, if you want to say that any harm is worth the attempt, then say it. But you cannot yet say you know it will do more good than harm.
