HCQ….this was always going to emerge

There was too much positive evidence….now it appears we have proof:

A new study shows that the controversial drug hydroxychloroquine touted by former President Donald Trump increased the survival rate of severely ill coronavirus patients.

The observational study, published by medRxiv, found that antimalarial drug hydroxychloroquine, along with zinc, could increase the coronavirus survival rate by as much as nearly 200% if distributed at higher doses to ventilated patients with a severe version of the illness.

“We found that when the cumulative doses of two drugs, HCQ and AZM, were above a certain level, patients had a survival rate 2.9 times the other patients,” the study’s conclusion states.

…….

Notice the drug worked for patients on ventilators. The sickest and most likely to die. How many could have been saved with a more honest approach. But ‘experts’ like Fauci were pushing  Remdesivir, which has shown nothing like these results.

Shame!

Wehe . . . you can almost picture Moffie getting all indignant and saying "buh-buh-but I read it on the intenet so it MUST be true!"

The little Trumpanzees are so desperate to prove their hero right even though all other evidence confirms that Bozo was a stupid fool who was so conceited as to think he knew everything better than the experts.

You'll probably find these same brainwashed little zealots still believe the election was "stolen"! LMAO!

This is a preprint. It's part of the process of getting it reviewed. It does not mean that the article is BS, that has yet to be determined...this can still go either way.

"This article is a preprint and has not been peer-reviewed. It reports new medical research that has yet to be evaluated and so should not be used to guide clinical practice."

"Before formal publication in a scholarly journal, scientific and medical articles are traditionally certified by “peer review.” In this process, the journal’s editors take advice from various experts—called “referees”—who have assessed the paper and may identify weaknesses in its assumptions, methods, and conclusions. Typically a journal will only publish an article once the editors are satisfied that the authors have addressed referees’ concerns and that the data presented support the conclusions drawn in the paper.

Because this process can be lengthy, authors use the medRxiv service to make their manuscripts available as “preprints” before certification by peer review, allowing

other scientists to see, discuss, and comment on the findings immediately. Readers should therefore be aware that articles on medRxiv have not been finalized by authors, might contain errors, and report information that has not yet been accepted or endorsed in any way by the scientific or medical community.

We also urge journalists and other individuals who report on medical research to the general public to consider this when discussing work that appears on medRxiv preprints and emphasize it has yet to be evaluated by the medical community and the information presented may be erroneous."

Because yeah, Moz who has a math PHD, doesn't know what peer review means.

Funny stuff from the usual suspects.

ButtPlug and the Squeaky Toy seeing which one can plunge his snout the furthest up Moffie's arse and become the undisputed Alpha-Gimp.

Ugh! Truly repulsive to see such fawning and obsequious sycophants in action. Try to have just a tiny amount of self-respect, chaps.

Haha Red Nuts

Do you know of any PHDs that don't know or understand what peer review means?

Eeeewwwww!

Breath mints please, ButtPlug.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MedRxiv

medRxiv (pronounced "med-archive") is an Internet site distributing unpublished eprints about health sciences.[1][2][3][4] It distributes complete but unpublished manuscripts in the areas of medicine, clinical research, and related health sciences without charge to the reader. Such manuscripts have yet to undergo peer review and the site notes that preliminary status and that the manuscripts should not be considered for clinical application, nor relied upon for news reporting as established information.[5] Medical photographs cannot be included in preprints on medRxiv, since the editorial team does not have the resources of a journal to do thorough checks of patient consent.

Well once again I can happily say I told you all. How many articles haven't I posted saying Hydroxychloroquine, Zinc and Azithromycin work. Doctor after doctor etc.

You will recall that in countries using Hydroxy hospitalizations were reduced by 80%. The AMA now has changed its stance and says it works.

Ivermectin is also fantastic.

But here we had old Fauci the genocidal mania and others fellow killers saying it was not safe. Give us all a break you complete morons. Hydroxy has been around for some 70 years. It has been used to treat billions of people re Malaria and Lupus. It can be obtained over the counter in many countries and its CHEAP.

Fauci is now being slated for undermining these two therapeutics.

Fauci is now is very serious trouble. Its looking like he will be thrown under the bus.

And yet at this late state in the game we have the idiotic stinker group clowns still posting their utter garbage!

Their main problem of course is that President Trump recommended hydroxy and has been proven right. This has happened again and again and drives these loons every more crazy. Bwahahhahahahahahahahahahahahahhahahahahaha

Lolza

What does the word "emerge" mean to you two dumbells?

I understand it to be a transition from not being present to being present, either partially or fully. 

Quite different to appearing fully formed. In which case emerge wouldn't fit the language required.

I take the heading of the thread to mean that information on OCQ was/is emerging. 

The post drew attention to the contrast in approaches to different drugs... with the EMERGING data being a discussion point.

The person that posted it probably has a ton more experience than you two twits at processing the type of information involved here too.

But...your kneejerk reaction, again(nothing new) proves to be inaccurately critical and sends you off in the wrong direction instantaneously.

Viskop does a copy and paste and again(nothing new) trying to teach us something which we already knew about and which is only relevant if you misunderstood the aim of the post...which we didn't. 

Vissie, I think I figured you out. You have a problem recognising pertinence. Deep knowledge of a subject will cover some of the gap but unfortunately, creativity and abstract thinking are difficult traits to train oneself on. My advice - buy some LSD and build a lego castle...perhaps that will help you 

hahaha

Here’s your fake drug:

Gilead’s remdesivir, now known as Veklury, is perhaps the most successful COVID-19 drug so far. It scored a full FDA nod in October after months of emergency use and brought in $873 million last quarter as the standard of care in hospitalized patients.

But there are questions about how well Veklury works—and now, an influential European medical association says it shouldn't be used in intensive care units.

In the wake of a large World Health Organization study showing no benefit for the medicine in hospitalized patients, remdesivir is “now classified as a drug you should not use routinely in COVID-19 patients” requiring critical care, Jozef Kesecioglu, president of the European Society of Intensive Care Medicine, told Reuters. 

…..not a peep about that huh? No doubt massive pressure will  be exerted on this observational study. But it’s terms of reference are pretty definitive…..the patient lived or the patient died. Not the rubbish that was swallowed about Remdesivir reducing length of hospital stays while having no effect on the death rate.

What fools like Peeper and Sadderfan don’t get is none of these studies are mathematical proof. They meet a confidence level based on assumptions. Any study can be attacked and this one will be….it comes from a hospital focused on practice rather than research. 

Most of the peer reviewers are probably on record against HCQ by now anyway….getting a ‘fair trial’ for this drug will likely come from lesser known institutions and likely will never be accepted by the East Coast medical establishment.

But the real message is HCQ is not going away….and not because these doctors are biased. Read the comments in the link…they are thoughtful and open. Fauci’s drug by contrast is sinking like a stone.

The Washington Examiner:

In early April, a French study showed that hydroxychloroquine was safe and effective in lowering the virus count at times when used in combination with zinc. A few months later, the Henry Ford Health System published a study that showed hydroxychloroquine helped its severely ill coronavirus patients recover. Dr. Marcus Zervos, the division head of infectious disease for the hospital, said 26% of those not given hydroxychloroquine died, compared to 13% of those who got the drug. Zervos also said patients treated with hydroxychloroquine experienced very few adverse side effects, such as heart problems, which was one of the scientific community’s biggest concerns.

And in June, another study, this one claiming that hydroxychloroquine was both dangerous and ineffective, was retracted and slammed as a “monumental fraud.”

We still don’t know for sure whether hydroxychloroquine really works against COVID-19 because there’s a lot of contradictory information out there. But this uncertainty should have forced the media and the scientific community to approach the subject with a bit more nuance. Instead, they ran with the narrative that was opposite Trump’s and ignored all of the data pointing in his direction.

This irresponsibility has further undermined the credibility of the crowd of experts we once trusted. Even worse, if this latest study is right and hydroxychloroquine can actually make a difference, their negligence may have also cost people their lives. There’s nothing silly about that.