• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Hydroxychloroquine. It’s over.

Bullseye said:
Someone is doing a double blind random test of front line medical people? :eek:
Click to expand...

Yes, e.g.

Hydroxychloroquine Chemoprophylaxis in Healthcare Personnel in Contact With COVID-19 Patients (PHYDRA Trial) - Full Text View - ClinicalTrials.gov

Brief Summary:
Triple blinded, phase III randomized controlled trial with parallel groups (200mg of hydroxychloroquine per day vs. placebo) aiming to prove hydroxychloroquine's security and efficacy as prophylaxis treatment for healthcare personnel exposed to COVID-19 patients.
Click to expand...

Here's a pretty good list of the trials underway. These are all classified as early treatment and/or preventative use studies.

Systematic review of registered trials of Hydroxychloroquine prophylaxis for COVID-19 health-care workers at the first third of 2020 - ScienceDirect

It's why Jack's sources are hacks. These studies took a minute to find, so to whine that one that involved efficacy in a hospital setting doesn't address what dozens of other studies WILL address (prophylactic and early use) is a kind of willful ignorance or dishonest hackery.
 
Last edited:
JasperL said:
Maybe, but who knows? It's a comment section, and shocking as this might be to you, sometimes people online claim credentials they do not have!!

And I know a lot of physicians and just because they have an MD doesn't mean they know anything beyond their field of practice, which is often very narrow. They're also often arrogant and believe that specialty knowledge qualifies them to opine on all kinds of stuff they know nothing at all about.

It's actually pretty easy to read and recognize informed opinion, and none of those hacks you quoted cleared the bar. Just for starters, someone who respects science doesn't dismiss a study as "politically motivated garbage" because what the study was designed to test - efficacy of HCQ in a hospital setting - isn't what they wanted the study to address, which is efficacy of HCQ in a clinic or GP setting or as a prophylactic. Anyone not an idiot can look and see those studies are ALSO being done. So these guys are idiots, or ignorant, or hacks, or all three, who cares?
Click to expand...

You're still uncomfortable with diversity.
 
Greenbeard said:
Huh, so the answer to "What have you got to lose?" is "your life."

I wonder how many folks Trump and his fellow hucksters in the rightwing infotainment industry killed by hawking an unproven treatment.
Click to expand...

Most of those dead are the MAGA cult folks. No big loss.

Why does Trump keep hawking this drug? The only likely reason is the money. Someone posted that a brother of Kushner's owns a drug making factory that puts out the drug. All in the family?
 
JasperL said:
Just contrasting hacks versus obviously informed critique. The difference is pretty stark, if you care about those things. I do but YMMV of course.
Click to expand...

Yes, you're at ease with views that conform to your own.
 
JasperL said:
The whole point of our disagreement is that who you cited, ignorant hacks with baseless critiques of the study, including moving the goal posts versus addressing what the study was INTENDED TO DO, don't actually contribute to a productive open discussion.
Click to expand...

You have no idea whether they are ignorant hacks. You only know you don't like their views.
 
Jack Hays said:
You're still uncomfortable with diversity.
Click to expand...

And you're still unable to coherently defend the hacks you cited and held up as worthwhile speakers for your BOTH SIDES!!! nonsense.

As I said, diversity isn't
1) experts publishing a peer reviewed study, and
2) online anonymous idiots posting ignorant critiques of that study.

One is not like the other. It's a shame you're unable to figure this out.
 
JasperL said:
And you're still unable to coherently defend the hacks you cited and held up as worthwhile speakers for your BOTH SIDES!!! nonsense.

As I said, diversity isn't
1) experts publishing a peer reviewed study, and
2) online anonymous idiots posting ignorant critiques of that study.

One is not like the other. It's a shame you're unable to figure this out.
Click to expand...

You have no idea whether they're hacks. You only know you don't like their views. That's the point.
 
Jack Hays said:
You have no idea whether they are ignorant hacks. You only know you don't like their views.
Click to expand...

I can only judge them by the quality of their comments which are those of ignorant hacks. Perhaps they're brilliant researchers, but if they post like ignorant hacks, then that's how they'll be judged.

I've told you why I believe it, challenged their comments on the merits, but you ignore that, because you cannot defend them on the merits. You just don't like that you cited idiots, so defend them by ignoring comments pointing out that they are idiots and WHY.
 
Jack Hays said:
You have no idea whether they're hacks. You only know you don't like their views. That's the point.
Click to expand...


Which is kind why peer review doesn't typically include anyone who signs up to comment...
 
JasperL said:
I can only judge them by the quality of their comments which are those of ignorant hacks. Perhaps they're brilliant researchers, but if they post like ignorant hacks, then that's how they'll be judged.

I've told you why I believe it, challenged their comments on the merits, but you ignore that, because you cannot defend them on the merits. You just don't like that you cited idiots, so defend them by ignoring comments pointing out that they are idiots and WHY.
Click to expand...

I don't need to defend them because I'm only defending the value of research and open discussion.
 
Jack Hays said:
You have no idea whether they're hacks. You only know you don't like their views. That's the point.
Click to expand...

No, it has nothing to do with their views.

Bottom line is I've told you WHY I believe they're ignorant or dishonest or hacks or all three, and you won't address that part of my comments, because you cannot. I'm tired of this bull**** - it's what you always do. Post people making dumb comments, ignore critiques on the merits of their comments, then one-line your way through the challenges.
 
Jack Hays said:
I don't need to defend them because I'm only defending the value of research and open discussion.
Click to expand...

You are defending them.

And I value research and open discussion, which is why I disregard as idiots the "Doctors" dismissing credible research because that study didn't examine what they wanted examined, but something else, and based on nothing dismissed the study as politically motivated "garbage." There's no value in that kind of "open discussion." That's elevating morons.
 
JasperL said:
No, it has nothing to do with their views.

Bottom line is I've told you WHY I believe they're ignorant or dishonest or hacks or all three, and you won't address that part of my comments, because you cannot. I'm tired of this bull**** - it's what you always do. Post people making dumb comments, ignore critiques on the merits of their comments, then one-line your way through the challenges.
Click to expand...

JasperL said:
You are defending them.

And I value research and open discussion, which is why I disregard as idiots the "Doctors" dismissing credible research because that study didn't examine what they wanted examined, but something else, and based on nothing dismissed the study as politically motivated "garbage." There's no value in that kind of "open discussion." That's elevating morons.
Click to expand...

You are comfortable only within the boundaries of your own prejudice.
 
Jack Hays said:
You are comfortable only within the boundaries of your own prejudice.
Click to expand...

I think he prefers peer reviewed research over unidentified internet doctors and anecdotal stories of some guy I knew said his doctor friend said....
 
JasperL said:
Yes, e.g.

Hydroxychloroquine Chemoprophylaxis in Healthcare Personnel in Contact With COVID-19 Patients (PHYDRA Trial) - Full Text View - ClinicalTrials.gov



Here's a pretty good list of the trials underway. These are all classified as early treatment and/or preventative use studies.

Systematic review of registered trials of Hydroxychloroquine prophylaxis for COVID-19 health-care workers at the first third of 2020 - ScienceDirect

It's why Jack's sources are hacks. These studies took a minute to find, so to whine that one that involved efficacy in a hospital setting doesn't address what dozens of other studies WILL address (prophylactic and early use) is a kind of willful ignorance or dishonest hackery.
Click to expand...

FYI- that study completed on May 20.

I’d imagine they’re doing the initial readout this weekend, and we should see publication in a couple weeks.

However- its a very pragmatic study so they could get data very very fast. It has a lot of limitations- no standard lab collection, no study visits- just a blinder drug sent to high risk individuals and a follow up phone call to see if they have or had symptoms or a positive test.
 
Hey, I have a Doctorate... does that qualify me?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom