Hydroxychloroquine WILL Save US

FredHayek wrote: Good to see the press apologize for their earlier articles against HQ. I wonder how many people died because the press wanted to make President Trump look like he was advocating dangerous treatments.

Where did you see that?

Blazer Bob wrote:

FredHayek wrote: Good to see the press apologize for their earlier articles against HQ. I wonder how many people died because the press wanted to make President Trump look like he was advocating dangerous treatments.

Where did you see that?

"Journalists" rarely ever apologize for any of their bullshit they get wrong.

Oops, Fauci wrong again and Trump got it right.

Study shows hydroxychloroquine and zinc treatments increased coronavirus survival rate by almost three times

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.

The study adds, “By using causal analysis and considering of weight-adjusted cumulative dose, we prove the combined therapy, >3 g HCQ and > 1g AZM greatly increases survival in Covid patients on IMV and that HCQ cumulative dose > 80 mg/kg works substantially better. These data do not yet apply to hospitalized patients not on IMV. Since those with higher doses of HCQ had higher doses of AZM, we cannot solely attribute the causal effect to HCQ/AZM combination therapy. However, it is likely AZM does contribute significantly to this increase in survival rate. Since higher dose HCQ/AZM therapy improves survival by nearly 200% in this population, the safety data are moot.”

The study was conducted by Saint Barnabas Medical Center in New Jersey on 255 patients.

news.yahoo.com/study-shows-hydroxychloro...ments-210300816.html

For some reason most of the leftist media doesn't seem interested in this one.

There is an excellent, in my opinion, article in today's WSJ that discusses the origin of the Wuhan virus. Within the article is this comment:

The most significant problem came from the scientific community. “Some of the scientists in this area very quickly closed ranks,” she says, and partisanship wasn’t their only motive: “Like most things in life, there are power plays. There are agendas that are part of the scientific community. Just like any other community, there are strong vested interests. There were people that did not talk about this, because they feared for their careers. They feared for their grants.”

Ms. Lentzos counsels against idealizing scientists and in favor of “seeing science and scientific activity, and how the community works, not as this inner sacred sanctum that’s devoid of any conflicts of interests, or agendas, or any of that stuff, but seeing it as also a social activity, where there are good players and bad players.”

Take Peter Daszak, the zoologist who organized the Lancet letter condemning lab-leak “conspiracy theories.” He had directed millions of dollars to the Wuhan Institute of Virology through his nonprofit, EcoHealth Alliance. A lab mistake that killed millions would be bad for his reputation. Other researchers have taken part in gain-of-function research, which can make viruses deadlier or easier to transmit. Who would permit, much less fund, such research if it proved so catastrophic? Yet researchers like Marion Koopmans, who oversees an institution that has conducted gain-of-function research, had an outsize voice in media. Both she and Mr. Daszak served on the World Health Organization’s origin investigation team.
A scientific consensus isn’t always true, and peer review can look like peer pressure. “How do we know what we know? Well, the way we know in science is you provide references to everything, all the claims that you make, and you can trace it back,” Ms. Lentzos says. The lab-leak theory began to be treated “like an attack on science, the sciences. And so the scientists were like, ‘Well, I trust other scientists,’ without actually doing the groundwork.” Few nonscientists, including journalists and social-media executives, even have the capacity to do the groundwork. “For many,” she says, “it was a shortcut. ‘Yeah, scientists are saying this and we also believe in those scientists.’ ”

www.wsj.com/articles/a-scientist-who-sai...od=opinion_lead_pos5

I am not sure whether a subscription to wsj.com is needed to access the article. My point of posting is that "peer review" is subject to the same pressures of being part of the consensus as is any other process that involves human interaction.

Robert Fraina
8 hours ago
Lancet published a "peer-reviewed" article about a Hydroxychloroqine trial involving 96,000 patients in 671 hospitals around the world showing the drug didn't work against COVID, that it actually killed patients. Except, the trial never happened. It was concocted and published in a two week period. The journal had to retract the article and apologize 10 days later when doctors at hospitals that allegedly participated starting calling, reporting their facility was not involved in the trial. NONE of them were. It was fake.

Lancet admitted that the authors had refused to show them their data, claiming they were forbidden to so because it was proprietary data subject to a 3rd party contract. But Lancet published the fake results anyway. The "scientific community" which pushed and supported all the false narratives needs to do some serious soul searching. So does the media, which intimidated people into silence.

Another comment: Tom Williams wsj.com 6/12/21

"There are 2 ways for a scientist to be wrong:
1) an honest mistake due to bad data, a flawed experiment or some other misunderstanding of the facts available.
2) a dishonest mistake due to some level of fraud, ranging from allowing their biases to make the decision despite the facts (intellectual fraud) to outright fraud for personal gain (or to avoid personal loss).

Every scientist who went public should be asked to explain why they were wrong, and if they do not give an adequate explanation it was an error of the first type, then also why they should ever be trusted again. If they claim they did not have all the necessary facts then they should explain why they were so confident on incomplete data."

I apologize for the lengthy posts but I would like those who cannot access wsj.com to have a notion of what the article states.

ScienceChic wrote: the search for the truth needs to stop being politicized. It doesn't help when known liars and conspiracy theorists make wild claims or accusations without evidence, but it also doesn't help when clear data are ignored due to biases.

I fully agree SC, but that standard has to be used for all sides. This country was put through three years of the Russia investigation where the theory being pushed by Democrats and the media was that Trump colluded with Russia to steal the election. Adam Schiff said many times that he had absolute evidence but he never presented it and the media never demanded that he deliver it.

Just because Trump said a drug was a viable help for helping Covid patients, that's not a good enough reason to discount it as a stupid theory. There was a lot of evidence that it worked, but it was quickly pushed aside and even banned in many instances. The same thing happened with the covid origin question. Common sense should have made everyone look at the lab since the lab was studying and experimenting with those viruses. But, just like the drug, the lab theory was quickly "debunked" because Trump said it was the likely source.

Journalists failed us, plain and simple. If the press follows the narratives of politicians and even scientists without looking for other answers, then they are not worth the money they are being paid. I think most people had a lot of trust in doctors and scientists prior to the pandemic, but now that trust has been damaged because of politics and really bad journalism. I keep hoping that 'we' as a society learn something and demand real journalistic investigations, but I think at this point it probably is just hopeless.

"most people had alot of trust in doctors and scientist" before the pandemic. My belief is, the TRUST had
been going down hill rapidly for a very long time. The pandemic only exacerbated the scenario.

In today's society,with social media and retweets,WHO really trusts what is being put out there?? As whole,I think the percentage of the populace is becoming jaded. I am, but then, I ALWAYS attempt to question.
It is verify and then TRUST.

homeagain wrote: "most people had alot of trust in doctors and scientist" before the pandemic. My belief is, the TRUST had
been going down hill rapidly for a very long time. The pandemic only exacerbated the scenario.

In today's society,with social media and retweets,WHO really trusts what is being put out there?? As whole,I think the percentage of the populace is becoming jaded. I am, but then, I ALWAYS attempt to question.
It is verify and then TRUST.

Excellent, we agree. Why did so many people trust one of our greatest threats (China) to be truthful? Is it because the W.H.O. trusts what China says and we are supposed to trust the W.H.O.? Fauci said it would be in China's best interest to find the source... that ignorant statement alone is enough to prove that we can never trust Fauci again.