As usual: just wait a few weeks and it turns out he was right.

It only means mortality based decisions from that paper were based on possibility bad data, not that the drug is effective or not.

 

Here is a small study from McGill

https://montreal.ctvnews.ca/hydroxy...-virus-new-canadian-led-study-finds-1.4967662

Now, they are giving it to healthy population who are at risk. I am more curious whether the drug is effective for those who are actually vulnerable. Should that not be the question to answer?

In Canada, out of about 8000 deaths, 220 are people younger than 60. Now, imagine the future, if you can...

 

Here is a small study from McGill

https://montreal.ctvnews.ca/hydroxy...-virus-new-canadian-led-study-finds-1.4967662

Now, they are giving it to healthy population who are at risk. I am more curious whether the drug is effective for those who are actually vulnerable. Should that not be the question to answer?

In Canada, out of about 8000 deaths, 220 are people younger than 60. Now, imagine the future, if you can...

This study is nuts.

They tested whether or not HCQ prevented disease 4 days after suspected exposure, not whether or not it improved symptoms or recovery.

I don't think anyone has ever claimed that HCQ prevents infection, only that it improves recovery and reduces mortality.

Edit: My guess is that "he who shall not be named" was right, and they'll do everything they can not to admit it.

 

This study is nuts.

They tested whether or not HCQ prevented disease 4 days after suspected exposure, not whether or not it improved symptoms or recovery.

I don't think anyone has ever claimed that HCQ prevents infection, only that it improves recovery and reduces mortality.

Edit: My guess is that "he who shall not be named" was right, and they'll do everything they can not to admit it.

It might be less about "he who shall not be named" and more about the medical mafia saying 'we can't make money with this cheap drug if it proves to be effective'.

 

This study is nuts.

They tested whether or not HCQ prevented disease 4 days after suspected exposure, not whether or not it improved symptoms or recovery.

I don't think anyone has ever claimed that HCQ prevents infection, only that it improves recovery and reduces mortality.

Edit: My guess is that "he who shall not be named" was right, and they'll do everything they can not to admit it.

I think we are going to see more idiotic studies like this. The catastrophic outcome is that "scientific community" is currently destroying what was left of its credibility. This is why I am so happy with my deciaion long ago to not pursue "academic" career... It was all about chasing funding and not about chasing knowledge/answers. So sad

 

I think we are going to see more idiotic studies like this. The catastrophic outcome is that "scientific community" is currently destroying what was left of its credibility. This is why I am so happy with my deciaion long ago to not pursue "academic" career... It was all about chasing funding and not about chasing knowledge/answers. So sad

Which is why I am a scientist with little regard for "science".

Edit: @cmartinez, I suppose that makes me "anti-science", though I prefer anti-"science".

 

Which is why I am a scientist with little regard for "science".

Edit: @cmartinez, I suppose that makes me "anti-science", though I prefer anti-"science".

Errr... nope ... I've never considered you as being that way... we might have our differences in thinking, but I see you as being far from being anti-science. As you've implied before: there's science, and then there's scientists.

 

This study is nuts.

Why is that nuts? You may be looking for some result that may not be what the experiment was testing. Basic experimental technique: pick a target, do the experiment in an unbiased way, Crunch the data, answer the question, did it support your target or not?
Pretty simple except when people with other goals get involved. And since results are published as statistics that people don’t understand then politicians can spin them as they wish.

Consider the recent experiments looking for the Higgs bozon. Did they find it? On July 4, 2012 the guys at the LHC declared with 99% certainty that the elusive particle had been found. Is that good enough for you?

Let’s face it, since you don’t understand the statistics that went into to announcement, you don’t really know. But using your political views you are more than happy to argue your opinions on some random drug that our dictator is pushing. Come on people! Start using your brains Thanks.

 

Why is that nuts? You may be looking for some result that may not be what the experiment was testing. Basic experimental technique: pick a target, do the experiment in an unbiased way, Crunch the data, answer the question, did it support your target or not?
Pretty simple except when people with other goals get involved. And since results are published as statistics that people don’t understand then politicians can spin them as they wish.

Consider the recent experiments looking for the Higgs bozon. Did they find it? On July 4, 2012 the guys at the LHC declared with 99% certainty that the elusive particle had been found. Is that good enough for you?

Let’s face it, since you don’t understand the statistics that went into to announcement, you don’t really know. But using your political views you are more than happy to argue your opinions on some random drug that our dictator is pushing. Come on people! Start using your brains Thanks.

It is nuts because it is being reported that HCQ is ineffective, period.

But the study tested the question: does HCQ prevent infection 4 days after possible exposure.

I cannot remember anyone ever claiming that HCQ prevents infection, only that it improves outcomes for the infected. That is what should have been tested (hey, but with unlimited tax payer money, I guess it pays to test anything, whether or not the results would be useful).

I understand the study, and I understand the (expected) results.

It's that the report is being used as a bludgeon against us anti-"science" folk that annoys me.

And quit with the damn ad hominem attacks. Shouting louder doesn't make you right.

 

I cannot remember anyone ever claiming that HCQ prevents infection, only that it improves outcomes for the infected.

That is a good question ... I'll try to see if I can find anything from a (more or less) reliable source.

 

And quit with the damn ad hominem attacks. Shouting louder doesn't make you right.

As I just demonstrated jumping into the middle of a discussion can be a problem. I thought I knew what the study in question was but I didn't. I apologize for what you took as a personal attack. I can assure you it was not. But the point I was trying to make using the LHC as an example is that science is not very much a yes/no question anymore. Especially in biology. Most everything is reported as a statistic now. And like when the LHC reports 99% sure, is that really enough. Maybe another example, then the doctor tells you that something is 99% sure are you accepting that? We all have heard of the terminal cancer patient that recovers. Regards.

 

Which is why I am a scientist with little regard for "science".

Edit: @cmartinez, I suppose that makes me "anti-science", though I prefer anti-"science".

Can i ask in what field of study?
Note: Beerology does in fact count

 

Just found this. It seems like excellent advice. But whenever someone puts numbers on things, I'd very much like to know how they arrived at such results... unfortunately this is not the case ... but it's very illustrative, nevertheless.

View attachment 208856​

Well i wasnt sure so i decided that the best way to find out if wearing a mask is effective or not is to ask the nations leading authority, Dr Fauci. Here's a transcript...

Me: "Doctor, can you tell me, is wearing a mask effective in the prevention of the transmission of the corona virus?"
Dr. Fauci: "Yesno"
Me: "Oh thank you very much for that definitive answer now i know."

The above parody comes from him changing his mind about the effectiveness.

 

He didn't change his mind. He's a team player that's going along (like the WHO and many others that have bigger fish to fry) with a feel good (COVID-19 safety theater) measure that's marginally (better than nothing) effective as implemented by the general public's usage of ineffective virus trapping filters by asymptomatic spreaders.

 

He didn't change his mind. He's a team player that's going along (like the WHO and many others that have bigger fish to fry) with a feel good (COVID-19 safety theater) measure that's marginally (better than nothing) effective as implemented by the general public's usage of ineffective virus trapping filters by asymptomatic spreaders.

Well he did change his position on the effectiveness though first he said it was good then he said on national TV that it was not as effective as he thought because people were fiddling with the mask now and then and thus touching their face.
SO although he did not say not to wear one, he did say the effectiveness was not as good. Some people will translate that to not having to wear a mask. There is also talk about the mask actually causing more problems for a human wearer.

My own position is that if it is worse to wear one, i cant believe it entirely so i wear one and besides many stores around here have signs on the doors saying either you must wear a mask or "please" wear a mask.

I think we also have to keep in mind that we all learn as we go with this crisis so oppinions change with time.

 

What's drawn my attention is the psychology of wearing or not wearing a mask. If authorities tell me that the main reason behind wearing a mask is to protect others than myself, I am more than happy to comply. At least until the judges determine its effectiveness or not ... it's a principle of respect to our neighbors ...

I just don't understand those who refuse to wear them out of a false sense of freedom ... for me, it's idiotic to think I'm being humiliated simply because someone asks me to wear one.

 

https://nypost.com/2020/05/21/scientists-believe-cannabis-could-help-prevent-treat-coronavirus/

A miracle to pot users.

 

Can i ask in what field of study?

Mad.

 

https://www.foxnews.com/health/coronavirus-in-italy-clinically-no-longer-exists-doctor-says

This is probably another case where I'm not even close to being qualified to draw any conclusions, which happens frequently, but I've been watching the world case map based on Johns Hopkins for months and it shows approximately 40,000 active cases in Italy. The same map has shown active cases and deaths to be strikingly low in China for weeks. Obviously all locales have different latencies and degrees of accuracy in reporting these things but I can't help wonder if I've been observing a random number graphic all this time, at least to some degree, all the while trying to evaluate the danger and trajectory of this pandemic.

Perhaps the qualifier "clinically" has some special significant meaning which would clarify the doctor's statement. Admittedly, the doctor may be full of excrement as well. I didn't trust any claims at the beginning of this but increasingly I'm wondering if there has been significant willful spread of disinformation rather than an understandable lack of data for the novel virus we're experiencing.

 

The same map has shown active cases and deaths to be strikingly low in China for weeks.

Actually, months.



And I got a bridge to sell you.