Hydroxychloroquine (Plaquenil) Thread

[Fort Fun Indiana]

They are testing the Gilead drug and others against HCQuine.. That's WHY these jerks even mentioned "disqualifying" patients from clinical trials as a concern.. The big bucks are flowing in their veins

No, thats idiotic. You sound lile a moron.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Dr Stephen Smith and Dr Mehmet Oz?

Hahahaha

Oh man

Dr Oz? How embarrassing.

And stephen smith poured honey in your ears to cash a check from fox. "If it works, it could be a game changer!" Wow that's.... Deep.

Haha. Eeeeeeasy money for the good doctor....

 

[Rigby5]

So aside from 100s of testimonials?

Right, those are not informative.

These "scientists" Cum "activists in labcoats -- lose 100% of their credibility RIGHT HERE in the link..

Please, you are a nonsecientist and the biggest louodmouth of them all. You have less cred. And certainly none of them have less than this Raoult quack.

So again are you going to answer me? Or keep dodging? You’re such a coward.

There are no testimonials, much less 100% of them.
There are people who survived and believe hydroxychloroquine was responsible, when it likely was not.
Hydroxychloroquine by itself is not showing much promise at all.
The only way it is showing promise is as a transport mechanism for other things like zinc or antibiotics, and only seems to help with extreme cases where the harm it can cause no longer matters.

Just ask yourself why should anything be released to the public, when it is only the doctors who understand what and when anything like this can be helpful?

I disagree. It is likely that it WAS. So you're smarter than Dr. Stephen Smith who has treated over 100 with this medicine successfully and it has been released to the public. Millions of doses world wide. You are a consistent negative Nelly and a contrarian. Stop telling me my opinion is wrong. Opinions cannot be wrong.

No, Dr. Smith ran no tests at all.
Here is what he did:
{...
Smith, who is treating 72 COVID-19 patients, said that he has been treating "everybody with hydroxychloroquine and azithromycin [an antibiotic]. We’ve been doing so for a while.”
...}
Notice first of all he treated "everybody" the same.
That means he had no control group.
He then has no idea if anyone in such a small group would have died at all.
Remember it only has a 1.8% death rate, so one would not expect anyone to die in a group of only 72.
In order to tell what effect any particular drug has, you have to divide into 2 groups, one with and one without, and then compare. He did not do that. So has nothing to base anything on.

Second is that he is only treating people who are already in advances cases and have pneumonia, and it is then not at all surprising that giving antibiotics helps. Of course we should expect antibiotics to help with those who have advanced pneumonia. But that does not allow us to tell if hydroxychloroquine alone helps or not?

Of course opinions can be wrong when they are not based on fact, but instead on emotional reaction. Opinions based on emotions can be wrong but still useful before you have any facts. But once you have the facts, then you are supposed to re-evaluate your opinion to base it on fact instead of emotions.

And it is easy to show why it is wrong to be overly enthusiastic about hydroxychloroquine at this point. One is that already such over confidence has killed one person who over dosed on hydroxychloroquine. Second is that this over confidence is going to cause hoading of hydroxychloroquine, which will harm medical facilities that can actually use it. Third is that since it lowers the immune response of the person, it likely will increase spread if lots of uninfected people start taking it.

Why would he need a control group when it worked on 99% of his patients? He is not running an experiment, he is saving lives. Control group means you let people die.

I already explained that.
The COVID-19 only has a mortality rate of 1.8%.
So working on 99% of his patients is pretty much identical to what you would expect if you gave them just a placebo instead.
It is true that with a control group, you are not doing everything for that small test group you use as a control, but then without a control group, you have no idea if anything you did had any effect at all. The total infection period is only about 2 weeks, and the sever risk period is only about 3 days, so these patients could all just have gotten over it on their own. He and we have no way of knowing.

You just proved what a dumbass you are. Even if the mortality rate is 1.8% (extreme exaggerated), the mortality rate with medication will be fare lower because a large percentage of the people who would have died will no longer die. You have to be a real dumbass not to understand that.

If the medication were effective, that would be true, but the point is when you only medicate 72 patients, without any control group, you can't tell if you improved anything or not?
The death rate normally is too small to see any change with that small of a group.

There has never ever been any medication known to work effectively on any viruses.
All anyone has ever done in the past was just treat the symptoms and keep the person alive long enough for the body to finally win itself.
The fact they may actually be able to now discourage a virus is a totally new thing, and while encouraging, is going to be very complex, difficult, slow, and only partially helpful.
The idea there is going to be a "cure" is just totally wrong.
Natural immunity is still the main protection and always will be with viruses.

 

[jc456]

Dr Stephen Smith and Dr Mehmet Oz?

Hahahaha

Oh man

Dr Oz? How embarrassing.

 

[Rigby5]

So aside from 100s of testimonials?

Right, those are not informative.

These "scientists" Cum "activists in labcoats -- lose 100% of their credibility RIGHT HERE in the link..

Please, you are a nonsecientist and the biggest louodmouth of them all. You have less cred. And certainly none of them have less than this Raoult quack.

So again are you going to answer me? Or keep dodging? You’re such a coward.

There are no testimonials, much less 100% of them.
There are people who survived and believe hydroxychloroquine was responsible, when it likely was not.
Hydroxychloroquine by itself is not showing much promise at all.
The only way it is showing promise is as a transport mechanism for other things like zinc or antibiotics, and only seems to help with extreme cases where the harm it can cause no longer matters.

Just ask yourself why should anything be released to the public, when it is only the doctors who understand what and when anything like this can be helpful?

I disagree. It is likely that it WAS. So you're smarter than Dr. Stephen Smith who has treated over 100 with this medicine successfully and it has been released to the public. Millions of doses world wide. You are a consistent negative Nelly and a contrarian. Stop telling me my opinion is wrong. Opinions cannot be wrong.

No, Dr. Smith ran no tests at all.
Here is what he did:
{...
Smith, who is treating 72 COVID-19 patients, said that he has been treating "everybody with hydroxychloroquine and azithromycin [an antibiotic]. We’ve been doing so for a while.”
...}
Notice first of all he treated "everybody" the same.
That means he had no control group.
He then has no idea if anyone in such a small group would have died at all.
Remember it only has a 1.8% death rate, so one would not expect anyone to die in a group of only 72.
In order to tell what effect any particular drug has, you have to divide into 2 groups, one with and one without, and then compare. He did not do that. So has nothing to base anything on.

Second is that he is only treating people who are already in advances cases and have pneumonia, and it is then not at all surprising that giving antibiotics helps. Of course we should expect antibiotics to help with those who have advanced pneumonia. But that does not allow us to tell if hydroxychloroquine alone helps or not?

Of course opinions can be wrong when they are not based on fact, but instead on emotional reaction. Opinions based on emotions can be wrong but still useful before you have any facts. But once you have the facts, then you are supposed to re-evaluate your opinion to base it on fact instead of emotions.

And it is easy to show why it is wrong to be overly enthusiastic about hydroxychloroquine at this point. One is that already such over confidence has killed one person who over dosed on hydroxychloroquine. Second is that this over confidence is going to cause hoading of hydroxychloroquine, which will harm medical facilities that can actually use it. Third is that since it lowers the immune response of the person, it likely will increase spread if lots of uninfected people start taking it.

Why would he need a control group when it worked on 99% of his patients? He is not running an experiment, he is saving lives. Control group means you let people die.

I already explained that.
The COVID-19 only has a mortality rate of 1.8%.
So working on 99% of his patients is pretty much identical to what you would expect if you gave them just a placebo instead.
It is true that with a control group, you are not doing everything for that small test group you use as a control, but then without a control group, you have no idea if anything you did had any effect at all. The total infection period is only about 2 weeks, and the sever risk period is only about 3 days, so these patients could all just have gotten over it on their own. He and we have no way of knowing.

You just proved what a dumbass you are. Even if the mortality rate is 1.8% (extreme exagerated), the mortality rate with medication will be fare lower because a large percentage of the people who would have died will no longer die. You have to be a real dumbass not to understand that.

Duh....he is a real dumbass. Arguing against real doctors when he is a librarian.

Worse than that, I am not even a librarian, but a computer science MS.

But I am not arguing against any real doctors. All the real doctors are saying what I am saying because that is where I am getting what I am saying from.
Those claiming hydroxychloroquine to be a possible cure are not doctors but media figures misquoting the actual doctors.

 

[jc456]

So aside from 100s of testimonials?

Right, those are not informative.

These "scientists" Cum "activists in labcoats -- lose 100% of their credibility RIGHT HERE in the link..

Please, you are a nonsecientist and the biggest louodmouth of them all. You have less cred. And certainly none of them have less than this Raoult quack.

So again are you going to answer me? Or keep dodging? You’re such a coward.

There are no testimonials, much less 100% of them.
There are people who survived and believe hydroxychloroquine was responsible, when it likely was not.
Hydroxychloroquine by itself is not showing much promise at all.
The only way it is showing promise is as a transport mechanism for other things like zinc or antibiotics, and only seems to help with extreme cases where the harm it can cause no longer matters.

Just ask yourself why should anything be released to the public, when it is only the doctors who understand what and when anything like this can be helpful?

I disagree. It is likely that it WAS. So you're smarter than Dr. Stephen Smith who has treated over 100 with this medicine successfully and it has been released to the public. Millions of doses world wide. You are a consistent negative Nelly and a contrarian. Stop telling me my opinion is wrong. Opinions cannot be wrong.

No, Dr. Smith ran no tests at all.
Here is what he did:
{...
Smith, who is treating 72 COVID-19 patients, said that he has been treating "everybody with hydroxychloroquine and azithromycin [an antibiotic]. We’ve been doing so for a while.”
...}
Notice first of all he treated "everybody" the same.
That means he had no control group.
He then has no idea if anyone in such a small group would have died at all.
Remember it only has a 1.8% death rate, so one would not expect anyone to die in a group of only 72.
In order to tell what effect any particular drug has, you have to divide into 2 groups, one with and one without, and then compare. He did not do that. So has nothing to base anything on.

Second is that he is only treating people who are already in advances cases and have pneumonia, and it is then not at all surprising that giving antibiotics helps. Of course we should expect antibiotics to help with those who have advanced pneumonia. But that does not allow us to tell if hydroxychloroquine alone helps or not?

Of course opinions can be wrong when they are not based on fact, but instead on emotional reaction. Opinions based on emotions can be wrong but still useful before you have any facts. But once you have the facts, then you are supposed to re-evaluate your opinion to base it on fact instead of emotions.

And it is easy to show why it is wrong to be overly enthusiastic about hydroxychloroquine at this point. One is that already such over confidence has killed one person who over dosed on hydroxychloroquine. Second is that this over confidence is going to cause hoading of hydroxychloroquine, which will harm medical facilities that can actually use it. Third is that since it lowers the immune response of the person, it likely will increase spread if lots of uninfected people start taking it.

Why would he need a control group when it worked on 99% of his patients? He is not running an experiment, he is saving lives. Control group means you let people die.

I already explained that.
The COVID-19 only has a mortality rate of 1.8%.
So working on 99% of his patients is pretty much identical to what you would expect if you gave them just a placebo instead.
It is true that with a control group, you are not doing everything for that small test group you use as a control, but then without a control group, you have no idea if anything you did had any effect at all. The total infection period is only about 2 weeks, and the sever risk period is only about 3 days, so these patients could all just have gotten over it on their own. He and we have no way of knowing.

You just proved what a dumbass you are. Even if the mortality rate is 1.8% (extreme exaggerated), the mortality rate with medication will be fare lower because a large percentage of the people who would have died will no longer die. You have to be a real dumbass not to understand that.

If the medication were effective, that would be true, but the point is when you only medicate 72 patients, without any control group, you can't tell if you improved anything or not?
The death rate normally is too small to see any change with that small of a group.

There has never ever been any medication known to work effectively on any viruses.
All anyone has ever done in the past was just treat the symptoms and keep the person alive long enough for the body to finally win itself.
The fact they may actually be able to now discourage a virus is a totally new thing, and while encouraging, is going to be very complex, difficult, slow, and only partially helpful.
The idea there is going to be a "cure" is just totally wrong.
Natural immunity is still the main protection and always will be with viruses.

neither is it scientific to shut down an economy without doing some other measures first. so I can say this self isolation has failed. you have no numbers to base any success off of. right?

 

[jc456]

So aside from 100s of testimonials?

Right, those are not informative.

These "scientists" Cum "activists in labcoats -- lose 100% of their credibility RIGHT HERE in the link..

Please, you are a nonsecientist and the biggest louodmouth of them all. You have less cred. And certainly none of them have less than this Raoult quack.

So again are you going to answer me? Or keep dodging? You’re such a coward.

There are no testimonials, much less 100% of them.
There are people who survived and believe hydroxychloroquine was responsible, when it likely was not.
Hydroxychloroquine by itself is not showing much promise at all.
The only way it is showing promise is as a transport mechanism for other things like zinc or antibiotics, and only seems to help with extreme cases where the harm it can cause no longer matters.

Just ask yourself why should anything be released to the public, when it is only the doctors who understand what and when anything like this can be helpful?

I disagree. It is likely that it WAS. So you're smarter than Dr. Stephen Smith who has treated over 100 with this medicine successfully and it has been released to the public. Millions of doses world wide. You are a consistent negative Nelly and a contrarian. Stop telling me my opinion is wrong. Opinions cannot be wrong.

No, Dr. Smith ran no tests at all.
Here is what he did:
{...
Smith, who is treating 72 COVID-19 patients, said that he has been treating "everybody with hydroxychloroquine and azithromycin [an antibiotic]. We’ve been doing so for a while.”
...}
Notice first of all he treated "everybody" the same.
That means he had no control group.
He then has no idea if anyone in such a small group would have died at all.
Remember it only has a 1.8% death rate, so one would not expect anyone to die in a group of only 72.
In order to tell what effect any particular drug has, you have to divide into 2 groups, one with and one without, and then compare. He did not do that. So has nothing to base anything on.

Second is that he is only treating people who are already in advances cases and have pneumonia, and it is then not at all surprising that giving antibiotics helps. Of course we should expect antibiotics to help with those who have advanced pneumonia. But that does not allow us to tell if hydroxychloroquine alone helps or not?

Of course opinions can be wrong when they are not based on fact, but instead on emotional reaction. Opinions based on emotions can be wrong but still useful before you have any facts. But once you have the facts, then you are supposed to re-evaluate your opinion to base it on fact instead of emotions.

And it is easy to show why it is wrong to be overly enthusiastic about hydroxychloroquine at this point. One is that already such over confidence has killed one person who over dosed on hydroxychloroquine. Second is that this over confidence is going to cause hoading of hydroxychloroquine, which will harm medical facilities that can actually use it. Third is that since it lowers the immune response of the person, it likely will increase spread if lots of uninfected people start taking it.

Why would he need a control group when it worked on 99% of his patients? He is not running an experiment, he is saving lives. Control group means you let people die.

I already explained that.
The COVID-19 only has a mortality rate of 1.8%.
So working on 99% of his patients is pretty much identical to what you would expect if you gave them just a placebo instead.
It is true that with a control group, you are not doing everything for that small test group you use as a control, but then without a control group, you have no idea if anything you did had any effect at all. The total infection period is only about 2 weeks, and the sever risk period is only about 3 days, so these patients could all just have gotten over it on their own. He and we have no way of knowing.

You just proved what a dumbass you are. Even if the mortality rate is 1.8% (extreme exagerated), the mortality rate with medication will be fare lower because a large percentage of the people who would have died will no longer die. You have to be a real dumbass not to understand that.

Duh....he is a real dumbass. Arguing against real doctors when he is a librarian.

Worse than that, I am not even a librarian, but a computer science MS.

But I am not arguing against any real doctors. All the real doctors are saying what I am saying because that is where I am getting what I am saying from.
Those claiming hydroxychloroquine to be a possible cure are not doctors but media figures misquoting the actual doctors.

real doctors? like who?

 

[Rigby5]

Dr Stephen Smith and Dr Mehmet Oz?

Hahahaha

Oh man

Dr Oz? How embarrassing.

I do not totally disagree with Dr. Shiva. (sorry I don't remember how to spell his last name.)
Big pharma is a problem, and doctors are being trained to just prescribe.
He is also right that working to help control the immune system is the most important, and that the main cause of death from COVID-19 is an over active immune system that is attacking the compromised lungs.

But he admitted he is running for the senate, and that hydroxychloroquine itself is not a cure but a means of stopping the immune system from over reacting.

 

[bripat9643]

So aside from 100s of testimonials?

Right, those are not informative.

These "scientists" Cum "activists in labcoats -- lose 100% of their credibility RIGHT HERE in the link..

Please, you are a nonsecientist and the biggest louodmouth of them all. You have less cred. And certainly none of them have less than this Raoult quack.

So again are you going to answer me? Or keep dodging? You’re such a coward.

There are no testimonials, much less 100% of them.
There are people who survived and believe hydroxychloroquine was responsible, when it likely was not.
Hydroxychloroquine by itself is not showing much promise at all.
The only way it is showing promise is as a transport mechanism for other things like zinc or antibiotics, and only seems to help with extreme cases where the harm it can cause no longer matters.

Just ask yourself why should anything be released to the public, when it is only the doctors who understand what and when anything like this can be helpful?

I disagree. It is likely that it WAS. So you're smarter than Dr. Stephen Smith who has treated over 100 with this medicine successfully and it has been released to the public. Millions of doses world wide. You are a consistent negative Nelly and a contrarian. Stop telling me my opinion is wrong. Opinions cannot be wrong.

No, Dr. Smith ran no tests at all.
Here is what he did:
{...
Smith, who is treating 72 COVID-19 patients, said that he has been treating "everybody with hydroxychloroquine and azithromycin [an antibiotic]. We’ve been doing so for a while.”
...}
Notice first of all he treated "everybody" the same.
That means he had no control group.
He then has no idea if anyone in such a small group would have died at all.
Remember it only has a 1.8% death rate, so one would not expect anyone to die in a group of only 72.
In order to tell what effect any particular drug has, you have to divide into 2 groups, one with and one without, and then compare. He did not do that. So has nothing to base anything on.

Second is that he is only treating people who are already in advances cases and have pneumonia, and it is then not at all surprising that giving antibiotics helps. Of course we should expect antibiotics to help with those who have advanced pneumonia. But that does not allow us to tell if hydroxychloroquine alone helps or not?

Of course opinions can be wrong when they are not based on fact, but instead on emotional reaction. Opinions based on emotions can be wrong but still useful before you have any facts. But once you have the facts, then you are supposed to re-evaluate your opinion to base it on fact instead of emotions.

And it is easy to show why it is wrong to be overly enthusiastic about hydroxychloroquine at this point. One is that already such over confidence has killed one person who over dosed on hydroxychloroquine. Second is that this over confidence is going to cause hoading of hydroxychloroquine, which will harm medical facilities that can actually use it. Third is that since it lowers the immune response of the person, it likely will increase spread if lots of uninfected people start taking it.

Why would he need a control group when it worked on 99% of his patients? He is not running an experiment, he is saving lives. Control group means you let people die.

I already explained that.
The COVID-19 only has a mortality rate of 1.8%.
So working on 99% of his patients is pretty much identical to what you would expect if you gave them just a placebo instead.
It is true that with a control group, you are not doing everything for that small test group you use as a control, but then without a control group, you have no idea if anything you did had any effect at all. The total infection period is only about 2 weeks, and the sever risk period is only about 3 days, so these patients could all just have gotten over it on their own. He and we have no way of knowing.

You just proved what a dumbass you are. Even if the mortality rate is 1.8% (extreme exaggerated), the mortality rate with medication will be fare lower because a large percentage of the people who would have died will no longer die. You have to be a real dumbass not to understand that.

If the medication were effective, that would be true, but the point is when you only medicate 72 patients, without any control group, you can't tell if you improved anything or not?
The death rate normally is too small to see any change with that small of a group.

There has never ever been any medication known to work effectively on any viruses.
All anyone has ever done in the past was just treat the symptoms and keep the person alive long enough for the body to finally win itself.
The fact they may actually be able to now discourage a virus is a totally new thing, and while encouraging, is going to be very complex, difficult, slow, and only partially helpful.
The idea there is going to be a "cure" is just totally wrong.
Natural immunity is still the main protection and always will be with viruses.

The study involved 1061 patients, and who said there wasn't a control group?

No one said it was a "cure," whatever that means. It helps you recover from the symptoms much quicker, which is all that is needed. The claim that it's not a "cure" is a straw man argument.

 

[jc456]

Dr Stephen Smith and Dr Mehmet Oz?

Hahahaha

Oh man

Dr Oz? How embarrassing.

I do not totally disagree with Dr. Shiva. (sorry I don't remember how to spell his last name.)
Big pharma is a problem, and doctors are being trained to just prescribe.
He is also right that working to help control the immune system is the most important, and that the main cause of death from COVID-19 is an over active immune system that is attacking the compromised lungs.

But he admitted he is running for the senate, and that hydroxychloroquine itself is not a cure but a means of stopping the immune system from over reacting.

so that invalidates his credentials, huh? too funny. vitamins, which you need by going out and socializing. being a germaphobe is not a good thing. ask peanut victims.

 

[Rigby5]

So aside from 100s of testimonials?

Right, those are not informative.

These "scientists" Cum "activists in labcoats -- lose 100% of their credibility RIGHT HERE in the link..

Please, you are a nonsecientist and the biggest louodmouth of them all. You have less cred. And certainly none of them have less than this Raoult quack.

So again are you going to answer me? Or keep dodging? You’re such a coward.

There are no testimonials, much less 100% of them.
There are people who survived and believe hydroxychloroquine was responsible, when it likely was not.
Hydroxychloroquine by itself is not showing much promise at all.
The only way it is showing promise is as a transport mechanism for other things like zinc or antibiotics, and only seems to help with extreme cases where the harm it can cause no longer matters.

Just ask yourself why should anything be released to the public, when it is only the doctors who understand what and when anything like this can be helpful?

I disagree. It is likely that it WAS. So you're smarter than Dr. Stephen Smith who has treated over 100 with this medicine successfully and it has been released to the public. Millions of doses world wide. You are a consistent negative Nelly and a contrarian. Stop telling me my opinion is wrong. Opinions cannot be wrong.

No, Dr. Smith ran no tests at all.
Here is what he did:
{...
Smith, who is treating 72 COVID-19 patients, said that he has been treating "everybody with hydroxychloroquine and azithromycin [an antibiotic]. We’ve been doing so for a while.”
...}
Notice first of all he treated "everybody" the same.
That means he had no control group.
He then has no idea if anyone in such a small group would have died at all.
Remember it only has a 1.8% death rate, so one would not expect anyone to die in a group of only 72.
In order to tell what effect any particular drug has, you have to divide into 2 groups, one with and one without, and then compare. He did not do that. So has nothing to base anything on.

Second is that he is only treating people who are already in advances cases and have pneumonia, and it is then not at all surprising that giving antibiotics helps. Of course we should expect antibiotics to help with those who have advanced pneumonia. But that does not allow us to tell if hydroxychloroquine alone helps or not?

Of course opinions can be wrong when they are not based on fact, but instead on emotional reaction. Opinions based on emotions can be wrong but still useful before you have any facts. But once you have the facts, then you are supposed to re-evaluate your opinion to base it on fact instead of emotions.

And it is easy to show why it is wrong to be overly enthusiastic about hydroxychloroquine at this point. One is that already such over confidence has killed one person who over dosed on hydroxychloroquine. Second is that this over confidence is going to cause hoading of hydroxychloroquine, which will harm medical facilities that can actually use it. Third is that since it lowers the immune response of the person, it likely will increase spread if lots of uninfected people start taking it.

Why would he need a control group when it worked on 99% of his patients? He is not running an experiment, he is saving lives. Control group means you let people die.

I already explained that.
The COVID-19 only has a mortality rate of 1.8%.
So working on 99% of his patients is pretty much identical to what you would expect if you gave them just a placebo instead.
It is true that with a control group, you are not doing everything for that small test group you use as a control, but then without a control group, you have no idea if anything you did had any effect at all. The total infection period is only about 2 weeks, and the sever risk period is only about 3 days, so these patients could all just have gotten over it on their own. He and we have no way of knowing.

You just proved what a dumbass you are. Even if the mortality rate is 1.8% (extreme exaggerated), the mortality rate with medication will be fare lower because a large percentage of the people who would have died will no longer die. You have to be a real dumbass not to understand that.

If the medication were effective, that would be true, but the point is when you only medicate 72 patients, without any control group, you can't tell if you improved anything or not?
The death rate normally is too small to see any change with that small of a group.

There has never ever been any medication known to work effectively on any viruses.
All anyone has ever done in the past was just treat the symptoms and keep the person alive long enough for the body to finally win itself.
The fact they may actually be able to now discourage a virus is a totally new thing, and while encouraging, is going to be very complex, difficult, slow, and only partially helpful.
The idea there is going to be a "cure" is just totally wrong.
Natural immunity is still the main protection and always will be with viruses.

neither is it scientific to shut down an economy without doing some other measures first. so I can say this self isolation has failed. you have no numbers to base any success off of. right?

Social distancing is based on numbers.
They know isolation can easily reduce spread.
It is all in the numbers.

{...
R0 is pronounced “R naught.” It’s a mathematical term that indicates how contagious an infectious disease is. It’s also referred to as the reproduction number. As an infection spreads to new people, it reproduces itself.

R0 tells you the average number of people who will catch a disease from one contagious person. It specifically applies to a population of people who were previously free of infection and haven’t been vaccinated. If a disease has an R0 of 18, a person who has the disease will transmit it to an average of 18 other people, as long as no one has been vaccinated against it or is already immune to it in their community.
...}

What Is R0? Gauging Contagious Infections

R0 indicates how contagious a disease is. Learn how it works and the R0 values for various diseases.

www.healthline.com

I do not know if they are correct, and they likely are guessing to a degree.
But a mistake on the side of caution is better than the other way.

But I also agree economic disaster can be worse then death to some degree, and that 98% would have survived if we did nothing at all.
So I am not really arguing against your point entirely.
I can see both sides to this.

 

[jc456]

So aside from 100s of testimonials?

Right, those are not informative.

These "scientists" Cum "activists in labcoats -- lose 100% of their credibility RIGHT HERE in the link..

Please, you are a nonsecientist and the biggest louodmouth of them all. You have less cred. And certainly none of them have less than this Raoult quack.

So again are you going to answer me? Or keep dodging? You’re such a coward.

There are no testimonials, much less 100% of them.
There are people who survived and believe hydroxychloroquine was responsible, when it likely was not.
Hydroxychloroquine by itself is not showing much promise at all.
The only way it is showing promise is as a transport mechanism for other things like zinc or antibiotics, and only seems to help with extreme cases where the harm it can cause no longer matters.

Just ask yourself why should anything be released to the public, when it is only the doctors who understand what and when anything like this can be helpful?

I disagree. It is likely that it WAS. So you're smarter than Dr. Stephen Smith who has treated over 100 with this medicine successfully and it has been released to the public. Millions of doses world wide. You are a consistent negative Nelly and a contrarian. Stop telling me my opinion is wrong. Opinions cannot be wrong.

No, Dr. Smith ran no tests at all.
Here is what he did:
{...
Smith, who is treating 72 COVID-19 patients, said that he has been treating "everybody with hydroxychloroquine and azithromycin [an antibiotic]. We’ve been doing so for a while.”
...}
Notice first of all he treated "everybody" the same.
That means he had no control group.
He then has no idea if anyone in such a small group would have died at all.
Remember it only has a 1.8% death rate, so one would not expect anyone to die in a group of only 72.
In order to tell what effect any particular drug has, you have to divide into 2 groups, one with and one without, and then compare. He did not do that. So has nothing to base anything on.

Second is that he is only treating people who are already in advances cases and have pneumonia, and it is then not at all surprising that giving antibiotics helps. Of course we should expect antibiotics to help with those who have advanced pneumonia. But that does not allow us to tell if hydroxychloroquine alone helps or not?

Of course opinions can be wrong when they are not based on fact, but instead on emotional reaction. Opinions based on emotions can be wrong but still useful before you have any facts. But once you have the facts, then you are supposed to re-evaluate your opinion to base it on fact instead of emotions.

And it is easy to show why it is wrong to be overly enthusiastic about hydroxychloroquine at this point. One is that already such over confidence has killed one person who over dosed on hydroxychloroquine. Second is that this over confidence is going to cause hoading of hydroxychloroquine, which will harm medical facilities that can actually use it. Third is that since it lowers the immune response of the person, it likely will increase spread if lots of uninfected people start taking it.

Why would he need a control group when it worked on 99% of his patients? He is not running an experiment, he is saving lives. Control group means you let people die.

I already explained that.
The COVID-19 only has a mortality rate of 1.8%.
So working on 99% of his patients is pretty much identical to what you would expect if you gave them just a placebo instead.
It is true that with a control group, you are not doing everything for that small test group you use as a control, but then without a control group, you have no idea if anything you did had any effect at all. The total infection period is only about 2 weeks, and the sever risk period is only about 3 days, so these patients could all just have gotten over it on their own. He and we have no way of knowing.

You just proved what a dumbass you are. Even if the mortality rate is 1.8% (extreme exaggerated), the mortality rate with medication will be fare lower because a large percentage of the people who would have died will no longer die. You have to be a real dumbass not to understand that.

If the medication were effective, that would be true, but the point is when you only medicate 72 patients, without any control group, you can't tell if you improved anything or not?
The death rate normally is too small to see any change with that small of a group.

There has never ever been any medication known to work effectively on any viruses.
All anyone has ever done in the past was just treat the symptoms and keep the person alive long enough for the body to finally win itself.
The fact they may actually be able to now discourage a virus is a totally new thing, and while encouraging, is going to be very complex, difficult, slow, and only partially helpful.
The idea there is going to be a "cure" is just totally wrong.
Natural immunity is still the main protection and always will be with viruses.

The study involved 1061 patients, and who said there wasn't a control group?

No one said it was a "cure," whatever that means. It helps you recover from the symptoms much quicker, which is all that is needed. The claim that it's not a "cure" is a straw man argument.

it separates the virus from the immune system and allows the immune system to work.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

The study involved 1061 patients, and who said there wasn't a control group?

What do you mean by "control group"? Do you even know? Would you know what one was, for this study, if there was one?

No, there was no placebo group, if that is what you mean. No, the study has not yet been published. But they are starting to post their data, and, apparently, its a complete shitshow of errors. Do yourself a favor and dont hitch your wagon to this fraud yet.

 

[Rigby5]

So aside from 100s of testimonials?

Right, those are not informative.

These "scientists" Cum "activists in labcoats -- lose 100% of their credibility RIGHT HERE in the link..

Please, you are a nonsecientist and the biggest louodmouth of them all. You have less cred. And certainly none of them have less than this Raoult quack.

So again are you going to answer me? Or keep dodging? You’re such a coward.

There are no testimonials, much less 100% of them.
There are people who survived and believe hydroxychloroquine was responsible, when it likely was not.
Hydroxychloroquine by itself is not showing much promise at all.
The only way it is showing promise is as a transport mechanism for other things like zinc or antibiotics, and only seems to help with extreme cases where the harm it can cause no longer matters.

Just ask yourself why should anything be released to the public, when it is only the doctors who understand what and when anything like this can be helpful?

I disagree. It is likely that it WAS. So you're smarter than Dr. Stephen Smith who has treated over 100 with this medicine successfully and it has been released to the public. Millions of doses world wide. You are a consistent negative Nelly and a contrarian. Stop telling me my opinion is wrong. Opinions cannot be wrong.

No, Dr. Smith ran no tests at all.
Here is what he did:
{...
Smith, who is treating 72 COVID-19 patients, said that he has been treating "everybody with hydroxychloroquine and azithromycin [an antibiotic]. We’ve been doing so for a while.”
...}
Notice first of all he treated "everybody" the same.
That means he had no control group.
He then has no idea if anyone in such a small group would have died at all.
Remember it only has a 1.8% death rate, so one would not expect anyone to die in a group of only 72.
In order to tell what effect any particular drug has, you have to divide into 2 groups, one with and one without, and then compare. He did not do that. So has nothing to base anything on.

Second is that he is only treating people who are already in advances cases and have pneumonia, and it is then not at all surprising that giving antibiotics helps. Of course we should expect antibiotics to help with those who have advanced pneumonia. But that does not allow us to tell if hydroxychloroquine alone helps or not?

Of course opinions can be wrong when they are not based on fact, but instead on emotional reaction. Opinions based on emotions can be wrong but still useful before you have any facts. But once you have the facts, then you are supposed to re-evaluate your opinion to base it on fact instead of emotions.

And it is easy to show why it is wrong to be overly enthusiastic about hydroxychloroquine at this point. One is that already such over confidence has killed one person who over dosed on hydroxychloroquine. Second is that this over confidence is going to cause hoading of hydroxychloroquine, which will harm medical facilities that can actually use it. Third is that since it lowers the immune response of the person, it likely will increase spread if lots of uninfected people start taking it.

Why would he need a control group when it worked on 99% of his patients? He is not running an experiment, he is saving lives. Control group means you let people die.

I already explained that.
The COVID-19 only has a mortality rate of 1.8%.
So working on 99% of his patients is pretty much identical to what you would expect if you gave them just a placebo instead.
It is true that with a control group, you are not doing everything for that small test group you use as a control, but then without a control group, you have no idea if anything you did had any effect at all. The total infection period is only about 2 weeks, and the sever risk period is only about 3 days, so these patients could all just have gotten over it on their own. He and we have no way of knowing.

You just proved what a dumbass you are. Even if the mortality rate is 1.8% (extreme exagerated), the mortality rate with medication will be fare lower because a large percentage of the people who would have died will no longer die. You have to be a real dumbass not to understand that.

Duh....he is a real dumbass. Arguing against real doctors when he is a librarian.

Worse than that, I am not even a librarian, but a computer science MS.

But I am not arguing against any real doctors. All the real doctors are saying what I am saying because that is where I am getting what I am saying from.
Those claiming hydroxychloroquine to be a possible cure are not doctors but media figures misquoting the actual doctors.

real doctors? like who?

I have about 50 or so personal contact doctors I talk to, that you would not know.
And they contract hundreds of other doctors each.
So I get a pretty good summary.

 

[Rigby5]

So aside from 100s of testimonials?

Right, those are not informative.

These "scientists" Cum "activists in labcoats -- lose 100% of their credibility RIGHT HERE in the link..

Please, you are a nonsecientist and the biggest louodmouth of them all. You have less cred. And certainly none of them have less than this Raoult quack.

So again are you going to answer me? Or keep dodging? You’re such a coward.

There are no testimonials, much less 100% of them.
There are people who survived and believe hydroxychloroquine was responsible, when it likely was not.
Hydroxychloroquine by itself is not showing much promise at all.
The only way it is showing promise is as a transport mechanism for other things like zinc or antibiotics, and only seems to help with extreme cases where the harm it can cause no longer matters.

Just ask yourself why should anything be released to the public, when it is only the doctors who understand what and when anything like this can be helpful?

I disagree. It is likely that it WAS. So you're smarter than Dr. Stephen Smith who has treated over 100 with this medicine successfully and it has been released to the public. Millions of doses world wide. You are a consistent negative Nelly and a contrarian. Stop telling me my opinion is wrong. Opinions cannot be wrong.

No, Dr. Smith ran no tests at all.
Here is what he did:
{...
Smith, who is treating 72 COVID-19 patients, said that he has been treating "everybody with hydroxychloroquine and azithromycin [an antibiotic]. We’ve been doing so for a while.”
...}
Notice first of all he treated "everybody" the same.
That means he had no control group.
He then has no idea if anyone in such a small group would have died at all.
Remember it only has a 1.8% death rate, so one would not expect anyone to die in a group of only 72.
In order to tell what effect any particular drug has, you have to divide into 2 groups, one with and one without, and then compare. He did not do that. So has nothing to base anything on.

Second is that he is only treating people who are already in advances cases and have pneumonia, and it is then not at all surprising that giving antibiotics helps. Of course we should expect antibiotics to help with those who have advanced pneumonia. But that does not allow us to tell if hydroxychloroquine alone helps or not?

Of course opinions can be wrong when they are not based on fact, but instead on emotional reaction. Opinions based on emotions can be wrong but still useful before you have any facts. But once you have the facts, then you are supposed to re-evaluate your opinion to base it on fact instead of emotions.

And it is easy to show why it is wrong to be overly enthusiastic about hydroxychloroquine at this point. One is that already such over confidence has killed one person who over dosed on hydroxychloroquine. Second is that this over confidence is going to cause hoading of hydroxychloroquine, which will harm medical facilities that can actually use it. Third is that since it lowers the immune response of the person, it likely will increase spread if lots of uninfected people start taking it.

Why would he need a control group when it worked on 99% of his patients? He is not running an experiment, he is saving lives. Control group means you let people die.

I already explained that.
The COVID-19 only has a mortality rate of 1.8%.
So working on 99% of his patients is pretty much identical to what you would expect if you gave them just a placebo instead.
It is true that with a control group, you are not doing everything for that small test group you use as a control, but then without a control group, you have no idea if anything you did had any effect at all. The total infection period is only about 2 weeks, and the sever risk period is only about 3 days, so these patients could all just have gotten over it on their own. He and we have no way of knowing.

You just proved what a dumbass you are. Even if the mortality rate is 1.8% (extreme exaggerated), the mortality rate with medication will be fare lower because a large percentage of the people who would have died will no longer die. You have to be a real dumbass not to understand that.

If the medication were effective, that would be true, but the point is when you only medicate 72 patients, without any control group, you can't tell if you improved anything or not?
The death rate normally is too small to see any change with that small of a group.

There has never ever been any medication known to work effectively on any viruses.
All anyone has ever done in the past was just treat the symptoms and keep the person alive long enough for the body to finally win itself.
The fact they may actually be able to now discourage a virus is a totally new thing, and while encouraging, is going to be very complex, difficult, slow, and only partially helpful.
The idea there is going to be a "cure" is just totally wrong.
Natural immunity is still the main protection and always will be with viruses.

The study involved 1061 patients, and who said there wasn't a control group?

No one said it was a "cure," whatever that means. It helps you recover from the symptoms much quicker, which is all that is needed. The claim that it's not a "cure" is a straw man argument.

We were discussing the Dr. Smith interview which was only 72 patients, and no control group.
There are some larger tests from China, France, Brazil, etc., but from what I have seen, hydroxychloroquine by itself if not very useful and can cause harm, especially if given before there is pneumonia. It is best in very advanced cases, and even then only along with other things.

The point is that self medicating does not help, and hording would be even worse.

 

[jc456]

So aside from 100s of testimonials?

Right, those are not informative.

These "scientists" Cum "activists in labcoats -- lose 100% of their credibility RIGHT HERE in the link..

Please, you are a nonsecientist and the biggest louodmouth of them all. You have less cred. And certainly none of them have less than this Raoult quack.

So again are you going to answer me? Or keep dodging? You’re such a coward.

There are no testimonials, much less 100% of them.
There are people who survived and believe hydroxychloroquine was responsible, when it likely was not.
Hydroxychloroquine by itself is not showing much promise at all.
The only way it is showing promise is as a transport mechanism for other things like zinc or antibiotics, and only seems to help with extreme cases where the harm it can cause no longer matters.

Just ask yourself why should anything be released to the public, when it is only the doctors who understand what and when anything like this can be helpful?

I disagree. It is likely that it WAS. So you're smarter than Dr. Stephen Smith who has treated over 100 with this medicine successfully and it has been released to the public. Millions of doses world wide. You are a consistent negative Nelly and a contrarian. Stop telling me my opinion is wrong. Opinions cannot be wrong.

No, Dr. Smith ran no tests at all.
Here is what he did:
{...
Smith, who is treating 72 COVID-19 patients, said that he has been treating "everybody with hydroxychloroquine and azithromycin [an antibiotic]. We’ve been doing so for a while.”
...}
Notice first of all he treated "everybody" the same.
That means he had no control group.
He then has no idea if anyone in such a small group would have died at all.
Remember it only has a 1.8% death rate, so one would not expect anyone to die in a group of only 72.
In order to tell what effect any particular drug has, you have to divide into 2 groups, one with and one without, and then compare. He did not do that. So has nothing to base anything on.

Second is that he is only treating people who are already in advances cases and have pneumonia, and it is then not at all surprising that giving antibiotics helps. Of course we should expect antibiotics to help with those who have advanced pneumonia. But that does not allow us to tell if hydroxychloroquine alone helps or not?

Of course opinions can be wrong when they are not based on fact, but instead on emotional reaction. Opinions based on emotions can be wrong but still useful before you have any facts. But once you have the facts, then you are supposed to re-evaluate your opinion to base it on fact instead of emotions.

And it is easy to show why it is wrong to be overly enthusiastic about hydroxychloroquine at this point. One is that already such over confidence has killed one person who over dosed on hydroxychloroquine. Second is that this over confidence is going to cause hoading of hydroxychloroquine, which will harm medical facilities that can actually use it. Third is that since it lowers the immune response of the person, it likely will increase spread if lots of uninfected people start taking it.

Why would he need a control group when it worked on 99% of his patients? He is not running an experiment, he is saving lives. Control group means you let people die.

I already explained that.
The COVID-19 only has a mortality rate of 1.8%.
So working on 99% of his patients is pretty much identical to what you would expect if you gave them just a placebo instead.
It is true that with a control group, you are not doing everything for that small test group you use as a control, but then without a control group, you have no idea if anything you did had any effect at all. The total infection period is only about 2 weeks, and the sever risk period is only about 3 days, so these patients could all just have gotten over it on their own. He and we have no way of knowing.

You just proved what a dumbass you are. Even if the mortality rate is 1.8% (extreme exaggerated), the mortality rate with medication will be fare lower because a large percentage of the people who would have died will no longer die. You have to be a real dumbass not to understand that.

If the medication were effective, that would be true, but the point is when you only medicate 72 patients, without any control group, you can't tell if you improved anything or not?
The death rate normally is too small to see any change with that small of a group.

There has never ever been any medication known to work effectively on any viruses.
All anyone has ever done in the past was just treat the symptoms and keep the person alive long enough for the body to finally win itself.
The fact they may actually be able to now discourage a virus is a totally new thing, and while encouraging, is going to be very complex, difficult, slow, and only partially helpful.
The idea there is going to be a "cure" is just totally wrong.
Natural immunity is still the main protection and always will be with viruses.

neither is it scientific to shut down an economy without doing some other measures first. so I can say this self isolation has failed. you have no numbers to base any success off of. right?

Social distancing is based on numbers.
They know isolation can easily reduce spread.
It is all in the numbers.

{...
R0 is pronounced “R naught.” It’s a mathematical term that indicates how contagious an infectious disease is. It’s also referred to as the reproduction number. As an infection spreads to new people, it reproduces itself.

R0 tells you the average number of people who will catch a disease from one contagious person. It specifically applies to a population of people who were previously free of infection and haven’t been vaccinated. If a disease has an R0 of 18, a person who has the disease will transmit it to an average of 18 other people, as long as no one has been vaccinated against it or is already immune to it in their community.
...}

What Is R0? Gauging Contagious Infections

R0 indicates how contagious a disease is. Learn how it works and the R0 values for various diseases.

www.healthline.com

I do not know if they are correct, and they likely are guessing to a degree.
But a mistake on the side of caution is better than the other way.

But I also agree economic disaster can be worse then death to some degree, and that 98% would have survived if we did nothing at all.
So I am not really arguing against your point entirely.
I can see both sides to this.

They know isolation can easily reduce spread.

how?

 

[jc456]

So aside from 100s of testimonials?

Right, those are not informative.

These "scientists" Cum "activists in labcoats -- lose 100% of their credibility RIGHT HERE in the link..

Please, you are a nonsecientist and the biggest louodmouth of them all. You have less cred. And certainly none of them have less than this Raoult quack.

So again are you going to answer me? Or keep dodging? You’re such a coward.

There are no testimonials, much less 100% of them.
There are people who survived and believe hydroxychloroquine was responsible, when it likely was not.
Hydroxychloroquine by itself is not showing much promise at all.
The only way it is showing promise is as a transport mechanism for other things like zinc or antibiotics, and only seems to help with extreme cases where the harm it can cause no longer matters.

Just ask yourself why should anything be released to the public, when it is only the doctors who understand what and when anything like this can be helpful?

I disagree. It is likely that it WAS. So you're smarter than Dr. Stephen Smith who has treated over 100 with this medicine successfully and it has been released to the public. Millions of doses world wide. You are a consistent negative Nelly and a contrarian. Stop telling me my opinion is wrong. Opinions cannot be wrong.

No, Dr. Smith ran no tests at all.
Here is what he did:
{...
Smith, who is treating 72 COVID-19 patients, said that he has been treating "everybody with hydroxychloroquine and azithromycin [an antibiotic]. We’ve been doing so for a while.”
...}
Notice first of all he treated "everybody" the same.
That means he had no control group.
He then has no idea if anyone in such a small group would have died at all.
Remember it only has a 1.8% death rate, so one would not expect anyone to die in a group of only 72.
In order to tell what effect any particular drug has, you have to divide into 2 groups, one with and one without, and then compare. He did not do that. So has nothing to base anything on.

Second is that he is only treating people who are already in advances cases and have pneumonia, and it is then not at all surprising that giving antibiotics helps. Of course we should expect antibiotics to help with those who have advanced pneumonia. But that does not allow us to tell if hydroxychloroquine alone helps or not?

Of course opinions can be wrong when they are not based on fact, but instead on emotional reaction. Opinions based on emotions can be wrong but still useful before you have any facts. But once you have the facts, then you are supposed to re-evaluate your opinion to base it on fact instead of emotions.

And it is easy to show why it is wrong to be overly enthusiastic about hydroxychloroquine at this point. One is that already such over confidence has killed one person who over dosed on hydroxychloroquine. Second is that this over confidence is going to cause hoading of hydroxychloroquine, which will harm medical facilities that can actually use it. Third is that since it lowers the immune response of the person, it likely will increase spread if lots of uninfected people start taking it.

Why would he need a control group when it worked on 99% of his patients? He is not running an experiment, he is saving lives. Control group means you let people die.

I already explained that.
The COVID-19 only has a mortality rate of 1.8%.
So working on 99% of his patients is pretty much identical to what you would expect if you gave them just a placebo instead.
It is true that with a control group, you are not doing everything for that small test group you use as a control, but then without a control group, you have no idea if anything you did had any effect at all. The total infection period is only about 2 weeks, and the sever risk period is only about 3 days, so these patients could all just have gotten over it on their own. He and we have no way of knowing.

You just proved what a dumbass you are. Even if the mortality rate is 1.8% (extreme exagerated), the mortality rate with medication will be fare lower because a large percentage of the people who would have died will no longer die. You have to be a real dumbass not to understand that.

Duh....he is a real dumbass. Arguing against real doctors when he is a librarian.

Worse than that, I am not even a librarian, but a computer science MS.

But I am not arguing against any real doctors. All the real doctors are saying what I am saying because that is where I am getting what I am saying from.
Those claiming hydroxychloroquine to be a possible cure are not doctors but media figures misquoting the actual doctors.

real doctors? like who?

I have about 50 or so personal contact doctors I talk to, that you would not know.
And they contract hundreds of other doctors each.
So I get a pretty good summary.

I work at the WH and I have many more. see how that works?

 

[Rigby5]

Dr Stephen Smith and Dr Mehmet Oz?

Hahahaha

Oh man

Dr Oz? How embarrassing.

I do not totally disagree with Dr. Shiva. (sorry I don't remember how to spell his last name.)
Big pharma is a problem, and doctors are being trained to just prescribe.
He is also right that working to help control the immune system is the most important, and that the main cause of death from COVID-19 is an over active immune system that is attacking the compromised lungs.

But he admitted he is running for the senate, and that hydroxychloroquine itself is not a cure but a means of stopping the immune system from over reacting.

so that invalidates his credentials, huh? too funny. vitamins, which you need by going out and socializing. being a germaphobe is not a good thing. ask peanut victims.

It does not invalidate his credential that he is running for office, but I noticed he was selective in what he said and did not say. He did not say people should take hydroxychloroquine. He attacked Fauci, without any medical details. He implied he supported Trump, but said nothing Trump did that was positive. What he said was extremely political. Although he did not really lie. It was more by omission that he was being deceptive.

 

[Rigby5]

So aside from 100s of testimonials?

Right, those are not informative.

These "scientists" Cum "activists in labcoats -- lose 100% of their credibility RIGHT HERE in the link..

Please, you are a nonsecientist and the biggest louodmouth of them all. You have less cred. And certainly none of them have less than this Raoult quack.

So again are you going to answer me? Or keep dodging? You’re such a coward.

There are no testimonials, much less 100% of them.
There are people who survived and believe hydroxychloroquine was responsible, when it likely was not.
Hydroxychloroquine by itself is not showing much promise at all.
The only way it is showing promise is as a transport mechanism for other things like zinc or antibiotics, and only seems to help with extreme cases where the harm it can cause no longer matters.

Just ask yourself why should anything be released to the public, when it is only the doctors who understand what and when anything like this can be helpful?

I disagree. It is likely that it WAS. So you're smarter than Dr. Stephen Smith who has treated over 100 with this medicine successfully and it has been released to the public. Millions of doses world wide. You are a consistent negative Nelly and a contrarian. Stop telling me my opinion is wrong. Opinions cannot be wrong.

No, Dr. Smith ran no tests at all.
Here is what he did:
{...
Smith, who is treating 72 COVID-19 patients, said that he has been treating "everybody with hydroxychloroquine and azithromycin [an antibiotic]. We’ve been doing so for a while.”
...}
Notice first of all he treated "everybody" the same.
That means he had no control group.
He then has no idea if anyone in such a small group would have died at all.
Remember it only has a 1.8% death rate, so one would not expect anyone to die in a group of only 72.
In order to tell what effect any particular drug has, you have to divide into 2 groups, one with and one without, and then compare. He did not do that. So has nothing to base anything on.

Second is that he is only treating people who are already in advances cases and have pneumonia, and it is then not at all surprising that giving antibiotics helps. Of course we should expect antibiotics to help with those who have advanced pneumonia. But that does not allow us to tell if hydroxychloroquine alone helps or not?

Of course opinions can be wrong when they are not based on fact, but instead on emotional reaction. Opinions based on emotions can be wrong but still useful before you have any facts. But once you have the facts, then you are supposed to re-evaluate your opinion to base it on fact instead of emotions.

And it is easy to show why it is wrong to be overly enthusiastic about hydroxychloroquine at this point. One is that already such over confidence has killed one person who over dosed on hydroxychloroquine. Second is that this over confidence is going to cause hoading of hydroxychloroquine, which will harm medical facilities that can actually use it. Third is that since it lowers the immune response of the person, it likely will increase spread if lots of uninfected people start taking it.

Why would he need a control group when it worked on 99% of his patients? He is not running an experiment, he is saving lives. Control group means you let people die.

I already explained that.
The COVID-19 only has a mortality rate of 1.8%.
So working on 99% of his patients is pretty much identical to what you would expect if you gave them just a placebo instead.
It is true that with a control group, you are not doing everything for that small test group you use as a control, but then without a control group, you have no idea if anything you did had any effect at all. The total infection period is only about 2 weeks, and the sever risk period is only about 3 days, so these patients could all just have gotten over it on their own. He and we have no way of knowing.

You just proved what a dumbass you are. Even if the mortality rate is 1.8% (extreme exaggerated), the mortality rate with medication will be fare lower because a large percentage of the people who would have died will no longer die. You have to be a real dumbass not to understand that.

If the medication were effective, that would be true, but the point is when you only medicate 72 patients, without any control group, you can't tell if you improved anything or not?
The death rate normally is too small to see any change with that small of a group.

There has never ever been any medication known to work effectively on any viruses.
All anyone has ever done in the past was just treat the symptoms and keep the person alive long enough for the body to finally win itself.
The fact they may actually be able to now discourage a virus is a totally new thing, and while encouraging, is going to be very complex, difficult, slow, and only partially helpful.
The idea there is going to be a "cure" is just totally wrong.
Natural immunity is still the main protection and always will be with viruses.

The study involved 1061 patients, and who said there wasn't a control group?

No one said it was a "cure," whatever that means. It helps you recover from the symptoms much quicker, which is all that is needed. The claim that it's not a "cure" is a straw man argument.

it separates the virus from the immune system and allows the immune system to work.

No, hydroxychloroquine suppresses the immune system and stops it from attacking the compromised lungs of severely infected patients.
You can not separate the virus from the immune system, and the problem is that the immune system can kill you if it tried too fast and hard to kill an invader.
For example, fevers are caused by the immune system, and if the fever gets to high, you will die.
Slowing the immune system can buy you more time, to attack the invader more slowly over a longer time.

 

[Olde Europe]

But I also agree economic disaster can be worse then death to some degree, and that 98% would have survived if we did nothing at all.

Good job, by and large, Rigby, but here's were I think you are wrong. Doing nothing would collapse the healthcare system, and that doesn't just mean care not rendered to Covid-19 patients, but to all others who happen fall seriously ill during that time, not least because of overworked and under-equipped healthcare workers falling ill and dying. The exact number is everybody's guess, but the survival rate would have been way lower than 98%.

That's what all those who argue for "let's get through this, and aim for herd immunity" are also getting wrong, at least until there's some highly effective anti-viral cure. Reportedly, we may be seeing some of that already, as people feeling sick won't get treated for fear of being infected if they sought treatment. Mind those secondary effects.