StnCld316 Posted June 3, 2020 Share Posted June 3, 2020 10 minutes ago, Ridgerunner said: Maybe if China and the WHO had informed everyone sooner of how dangerous the virus was nations would have acted sooner. This thing was in the News way back in December and January. If Leaders of each Country would have followed it more closely they would have figured it for themselves that they were in for big problems. You don't have to wait for China and the WHO to call it a Pandemic before making decisive actions. Economies could have been shuttered back in January - February for 4 to 6 weeks but they all waited till March - April when it was already in full blown action. Now they got a a problem where there is no end in sight until a Vaccine is in place which could take another 12 to 18 Months or longer. Maybe they might not even find a vaccine at all one never knows. In the meantime Thousands are dying each day. They can take all their Maps & Curves and stick them up their arse because they don't mean shit. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thestarider Posted June 3, 2020 Author Share Posted June 3, 2020 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
happyone Posted June 3, 2020 Share Posted June 3, 2020 1 hour ago, StnCld316 said: Every Country made errors and failed miserably. They all downplayed the COVID19. Had they all acted a lot sooner things wouldn't be in the fucked up mess they are all facing now. The experts have stated a Second Wave of COVID19 is inevitable. In just a few short months we'll all go through the same thing again except the Second Wave will be more deadlier than the first. Until a Vaccine is found and approved we're all up the creek without a paddle. 25 minutes ago, StnCld316 said: This thing was in the News way back in December and January. If Leaders of each Country would have followed it more closely they would have figured it for themselves that they were in for big problems. You don't have to wait for China and the WHO to call it a Pandemic before making decisive actions. Economies could have been shuttered back in January - February for 4 to 6 weeks but they all waited till March - April when it was already in full blown action. Now they got a a problem where there is no end in sight until a Vaccine is in place which could take another 12 to 18 Months or longer. Maybe they might not even find a vaccine at all one never knows. In the meantime Thousands are dying each day. They can take all their Maps & Curves and stick them up their arse because they don't mean shit. The so called experts have not done a very good job of predicting, so with the first red highlighted comment--it appears you are believing what they predict. But in the second red highlighted comment you apparently have regained your sanity. 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ridgerunner Posted June 4, 2020 Share Posted June 4, 2020 I would think that people would be happy for any drug that might work against covid-19. But it seems that the news media, Democrats, and people on this forum are actually hoping that hydroxychloroquine does not work. Why? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nagachilli2 Posted June 4, 2020 Share Posted June 4, 2020 6 hours ago, Ridgerunner said: I would think that people would be happy for any drug that might work against covid-19. But it seems that the news media, Democrats, and people on this forum are actually hoping that hydroxychloroquine does not work. Why? I'd prefer one that did work...safely... 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ridgerunner Posted June 4, 2020 Share Posted June 4, 2020 34 minutes ago, nagachilli2 said: I'd prefer one that did work...safely... Me too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
happyone Posted June 4, 2020 Share Posted June 4, 2020 Here is an example of the hypocrisy of the left----Mayor Eric Garcetti, a Democrat, in his televised speech, in order to justify his shut down order said this" LA Mayor, Eric Garcetti "I started with the premise tonight that human life is precious. If we don’t start there, I don’t know where we ever start." Los Angeles Mayor Eric Garcetti appeared on ABC's Good Morning America Friday to discuss the unprecedented "Safer at Home" Emergency Order that went into effect for Los Angeles, as well as the entire state of California, after midnight in an attempt to slow the spread of the coronavirus (COVID-19). "I think we all fantasize that our city, our state, our country, has a protective moat. If we can just keep those people out, if we can somehow have a bubble around us, it's not coming," said Garcetti. "But the history is clear and this disease is clear: we have to take steps early. None of us have the adequate infrastructure for this and our best shot is to push this out. And these are acts of love for the people and precious lives we want to protect." He is admittedly pro choice on abortion--so if all life is precious according to him, why does he believe in abortion or belong to the Democratic Party that passed this into law-- Abortion is legal in California, both for teens and adults. You have the right to get an abortion for any reason until approximately 6 months after you become pregnant. After that, if the pregnancy puts your health or life at risk you can still get an abortion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
happyone Posted June 4, 2020 Share Posted June 4, 2020 On 5/28/2020 at 6:08 PM, happyone said: Hydroxychloroquine Lancet study of 96,000 Covid patients ignores Zinc, wasn’t randomized, has 12% death rate A new study came out last night in the Lancet which is being used to call for the end of doctors using Choloroquine and Hydroxychloroquine to treat Covid patients without them being enrolled in a clinical trial. Some of the claims about “no chance of any benefit” seem a bit premature given the limits of this kind of study:Superficially, it looks large and comprehensive but there are three obvious problems with it – 1. It ignores zinc entirely. There is not even a mention of the essential mineral, despite Chloroquine being a well known zinc ionophone (something that pumps a mineral across a cell membrane) and intracellular zinc being identified as a useful anti-viral. 2. It’s not randomized. If doctors are prescribing these drugs to sicker patients or patients with a certain (unknown) genetic risk factor that selection bias (there we go again) could neutralize the entire result. We just don’t know. 3. These were sick people. The total mortality in this whole group was almost 12%. This trial tells us nothing about using these drugs as preventative measures in mild or moderate cases. It doesn’t tell us whether people had symptoms for a week before getting to hospital — and presumably if people saw a doctor early on, used HCQ and zinc, and then didn’t go to hospital at all (because they recovered) then they won’t be counted at all. So this trial successfully filters and removes the success stories (whatever they are) from early HCQ treatment. HCQ is meant to be used with Zinc, so it is surprising that the medical researchers did not even mention it. Or in this politicized new world of medicine, perhaps it isn’t? They obtained data from 671 hospitals in many countries and control for obvious factors, and a stack of co-morbidities and demographics. Two thirds of the patients are from the US. They only include patients that are diagnosed, and start one or the other chloroquine type drug within 48 hours of diagnosis (but that may be quite some time after they first got sick). The groups are split into HCQ, or CQ, paired with or without Azithromycin (Az). But both the antimalarial and the antibiotic are known to affect something called the QT interval. Obviously patients who have long QT’s or heart arrhythmia would be at higher risk. Docs would know. We note that HCQ is not a big money-spinner for large pharmaceutical companies, being an old cheap out-of-patent drug, and that some of these authors do work sometimes with Big Pharma: Prof Mandeep R Mehra, (MRM) Brigham and Women's Hospital Heart and Vascular Center and Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA 02115, USA Sapan S Desai (SSD) Founder of Surgisphere Corporation, Chicago, IL, USA Frank Ruschitzka Affiliations University Heart Center, University Hospital Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland Amit N Patel (ANP) Affiliations Department of Biomedical Engineering, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, UT, USAHCA Research Institute, Nashville, TN, USA Contributors--Initials of the persons in the study are shown below (see above for who they are) The study was conceived and designed by MRM and ANP. Acquisition of data and statistical analysis of the data were supervised and performed by SSD. MRM drafted the manuscript and all authors participated in critical revision of the manuscript for important intellectual content. MRM and ANP supervised the study. All authors approved the final manuscript and were responsible for the decision to submit for publication. Authors Declaration of interests MRM reports personal fees from Abbott, Medtronic, Janssen, Mesoblast, Portola, Bayer, Baim Institute for Clinical Research, NupulseCV, FineHeart, Leviticus, Roivant, and Triple Gene. SSD is the founder of Surgisphere Corporation. FR has been paid for time spent as a committee member for clinical trials, advisory boards, other forms of consulting, and lectures or presentations; these payments were made directly to the University of Zurich and no personal payments were received in relation to these trials or other activities. ANP declares no competing interests. Acknowledgments The development and maintenance of the Surgical Outcomes Collaborative database was funded by Surgisphere Corporation (Chicago, IL, USA) So there is a question about the accuracy of this study, in addition to the above commentary there is also this published by The Guardian: Read the article and you will see the discrepancies in the data reported in the study. And you can connect the dots .What is interesting to note is who funded the study, who collected data for the study, and the various financial links of those involved. Questions raised over hydroxychloroquine study which caused WHO to halt trials for Covid-19 | Science | The Guardian WWW.THEGUARDIAN.COM Exclusive: Australian researchers query origin of data used for Lancet study, but stress there is no evidence drug is a safe or effective treatment Questions raised over hydroxychloroquine study which caused WHO to halt trials for Covid-19 Read the article and you will find errors made by the researchers with the data On 6/3/2020 at 12:08 PM, moos54 said: WHO resumes testing on hydroxychloroquine The World Health Organization (WHO) announces the resumption of clinical trials on hydroxychloroquine, nine days after having suspended them following the publication of a study in the prestigious medical journal The Lancet. After analysis of "available data on mortality", the members of the Safety and Monitoring Committee considered "that there is no reason to modify the protocol" of clinical trials, announced the Director-General of WHO , Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, during a virtual press conference. The United Nations agency had suspended its large study on the antimalarial drug to treat Covid-19 because of fears that it would increase death rates and irregular heartbeats in patients. My research into the subject shown above did cast doubts on the legitimacy of the testing which was posted in The Lancet-yet no one even commented on the post (except Ridgerunner ) and I suspect it is because President Trump had supported the drug. Covid-19: Lancet retracts paper that halted hydroxychloroquine trials | World news | The Guardian WWW.THEGUARDIAN.COM Retraction made after Guardian investigation found inconsistencies in data The Lancet study had a dramatic impact on attempts to find out whether the antimalarial drug hydroxychloroquine, and its older version, chloroquine, could help treat patients with Covid-19. The US president, Donald Trump was among those who backed the drug before any high-quality trial evidence had been published. The World Health Organization and several countries suspended randomised controlled trials that were set up to find an answer. Those trials have now been restarted. Many scientists were angry that they had been stopped on the basis of a trial that was observational and not a “gold standard” RCT. 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
moos54 Posted June 5, 2020 Share Posted June 5, 2020 On 6/4/2020 at 4:28 PM, Ridgerunner said: I would think that people would be happy for any drug that might work against covid-19. But it seems that the news media, Democrats, and people on this forum are actually hoping that hydroxychloroquine does not work. Why? Maybe that's why "No beneficial effect" of hydroxychloroquine, according to a major clinical trial Hydroxychloroquine shows "no beneficial effect" for Covid-19 patients, according to officials of the British clinical trial Recovery who announced in a press release the "immediate" cessation of the inclusion of new patients for this treatment. Recovery, a major clinical trial whose results were eagerly awaited, was one of the only ones not to have suspended its tests on hydroxychloroquine after a controversial study of the Lancet, since withdrawn, which pointed to the ineffectiveness even harmful effect of the controversial molecule. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nagachilli2 Posted June 5, 2020 Share Posted June 5, 2020 10 minutes ago, moos54 said: Maybe that's why "No beneficial effect" of hydroxychloroquine, according to a major clinical trial Hydroxychloroquine shows "no beneficial effect" for Covid-19 patients, according to officials of the British clinical trial Recovery who announced in a press release the "immediate" cessation of the inclusion of new patients for this treatment. Recovery, a major clinical trial whose results were eagerly awaited, was one of the only ones not to have suspended its tests on hydroxychloroquine after a controversial study of the Lancet, since withdrawn, which pointed to the ineffectiveness even harmful effect of the controversial molecule. You beat me to it Moos...This was a large trial run by University of Oxford... 1 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ridgerunner Posted June 5, 2020 Share Posted June 5, 2020 1 hour ago, moos54 said: Maybe that's why "No beneficial effect" of hydroxychloroquine, according to a major clinical trial Hydroxychloroquine shows "no beneficial effect" for Covid-19 patients, according to officials of the British clinical trial Recovery who announced in a press release the "immediate" cessation of the inclusion of new patients for this treatment. Recovery, a major clinical trial whose results were eagerly awaited, was one of the only ones not to have suspended its tests on hydroxychloroquine after a controversial study of the Lancet, since withdrawn, which pointed to the ineffectiveness even harmful effect of the controversial molecule. Sounds like you are happy. You just proved my point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
moos54 Posted June 5, 2020 Share Posted June 5, 2020 Just now, Ridgerunner said: Sounds like you are happy. You just proved my point. What your point? I just put the summary of an article from a study done in England Two days before I read another study saying the same thing from the United States which does not come from The Lancet it's a shame that you can't see the truth about this drug, most studies tend to say that this drug has the same effect as a placebo Now if you prefer to believe that taking this medicine can save your life, good to you, take it and walk around as you wish while hoping that it will be effective but without having any real guarantees, because that is what the most important end is having the guarantee of having a drug that can save lives, see all lives 2 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts