large study finds that (hydroxy)chloroquine killing more than it "cures"

gwb-trading said:
Yes... anyone who claims that hydroxychloroquine is effective as a preventative -- despite all the studies posted to ET showing it is not -- is pushing absolute bullshiat.
More...
That’s why scores of medical personnel take it as a prophylaxis.

Go petal your Big Pharma spiel somewhere else.
 
Listen to it from a practicing ER doctor treating covid patients and understand the fallacy of your negative HCQ beliefs.

HCQ is already being used around the world effectively, clinical trials here in the US are ongoing.

Links a few weeks old.


 
Wallet said:
Listen to it from a practicing ER doctor treating covid patients and understand the fallacy of your negative HCQ beliefs.

HCQ is already being used around the world effectively, clinical trials here in the US are ongoing.

Links a few weeks old.


More...
Welp this guys obviously a Trump supporting racist.
Meanwhile Destriero probably changed his Facebook profile all black today in solidarity with the people who wish he was Dead.
 
gwb-trading said:
Let's be very clear here - hydroxychloroquine -based therapy has NOT been proven to be an effective treatment of COVID-19.

Anyone who claims this needs their head examined.

Next you will be claiming that people with COVID-19 in a hospital who are given hydroxychloroquine are magically cured and the symptoms are gone within a day.
More...
That is correct. However, it was proven to be extremely effective for Covid but it hasn't been proven to be effective for covid-19.
 
Bugenhagen said:
You at least know about the need to sanatise data inputs etc.
More...
uhhhh.........I might be crazy but "serious scientific questions have been brought to our attention" doesn't sound like the data just simply needs to be sanitized. Is that what you meant when you used the word "sanatise"? I am not sure why anyone would draw that conclusion from "serious scientific questions". I agree there a possibility that the conclusion doesn't change, however, do you actually think that it is customary and normal for a statement like that to be published by a journal?

I will make it simple for you:

Sanitize data is not equivalent to Serious scientific questions. Every data scientist on the planet will agree with that statement.
 
Last edited:
WeToddDid2 said:
uhhhh.........I might be crazy but "serious scientific questions have been brought to our attention" doesn't sound like the data just simply needs to be sanitized. Is that what you meant when you used the word "sanatise"? I am not sure why anyone would draw that conclusion from "serious scientific questions". I agree there a possibility that the conclusion doesn't change, however, do you actually think that it is customary and normal for a statement like that to be published by a journal?

I will make it simple for you:

Sanitize data is not equivalent to Serious scientific questions. Every data scientist on the planet will agree with that statement.
More...

When the paper goes through review it will be the final work. If it fails and serious issues are found including any incompetence or other this will be known.

I guess you are self-taught dev and just a high school guy then. Of you had been to uni you would know the process.

Go back so sniffing your farts. Maybe methane is an ionophore for zinc.
 
Bugenhagen said:
When the paper goes through review it will be the final work. If it fails and serious issues are found including any incompetence or other this will be known.

I guess you are self-taught dev and just a high school guy then. Of you had been to uni you would know the process.

Go back so sniffing your farts. Maybe methane is an ionophore for zinc.
More...
You have taken spin and bias to stratospheric levels.

Bugenhagen said:
If it fails and serious issues are found including any incompetence or other this will be known.
More...
Yes, that is correct as I inferred in my original post and in the previous post.
 
WeToddDid2 said:
You have taken spin and bias to stratospheric levels.


Yes, that is correct as I inferred in my original post and in the previous post.
More...

This paper is just a paper, only the politically created controversy by Donny boy has the world's eyes on it.

You are seeing shadows and meaning where there is no great drama.

The dataset was partially corrupt, it was provided by a data firm. This happens. This is why we have scrutiny. Cool your boots until the paper is published.

You do understand why papers are sometimes released prior to review?

This may help :
Benefits and Best Practices of Rapid Pre-Publication Data Release
Toronto 2009 Data Release Workshop

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3073843/

"One of the significant lessons from the Human Genome Project (HGP) was the recognition that making data broadly available prior to publication can be profoundly valuable to the scientific enterprise and lead to public benefits. This is particularly the case when there is a community of scientists that can productively use the data quickly – beyond what the data producers could accomplish themselves in a similar time period, and sometimes for scientific purposes that were not anticipated at the onset of the project. "

So in this case the scientists and medics found a problem in the data. Its just what should happen.
 
Bugenhagen said:
This paper is just a paper, only the politically created controversy by Donny boy has the world's eyes on it.

You are seeing shadows and meaning where there is no great drama.

The dataset was partially corrupt, it was provided by a data firm. This happens. This is why we have scrutiny. Cool your boots until the paper is published.

You do understand why papers are sometimes released prior to review?

This may help :
Benefits and Best Practices of Rapid Pre-Publication Data Release
Toronto 2009 Data Release Workshop

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3073843/

"One of the significant lessons from the Human Genome Project (HGP) was the recognition that making data broadly available prior to publication can be profoundly valuable to the scientific enterprise and lead to public benefits. This is particularly the case when there is a community of scientists that can productively use the data quickly – beyond what the data producers could accomplish themselves in a similar time period, and sometimes for scientific purposes that were not anticipated at the onset of the project. "

So in this case the scientists and medics found a problem in the data. Its just what should happen.
More...
You are so obtuse it is really astounding.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top