Scientists Uncover Biological Signatures of the Worst Covid-19 Cases

Scientists Uncover Biological Signatures of the Worst Covid-19 Cases - The New York Times



That is rather interesting. So, essentially, the worst hit cases have bacterial and parasite immune responses that never shut off because COVID-19 is neither, and its continued existence continues to push stronger responses.

And, I well set off another screaming match... but this would also explain why Hydrochloroquine could be effective since its primary purpose is to fight the deadly symptoms of Malaria, a parasitic infection. So hydrocholoroquine would be effective if the patient's immune response is incorrectly responding to parasitic infection, rather than viral infection.

jmotivator said:

Scientists Uncover Biological Signatures of the Worst Covid-19 Cases - The New York Times

"Although the delineations aren’t always clear-cut, the immune system’s responses to pathogens can be roughly grouped into three categories: type 1, which is directed against viruses and certain bacteria that infiltrate our cells; type 2, which fights parasites like worms that don’t invade cells; and type 3, which goes after fungi and bacteria that can survive outside of cells. Each branch uses different cytokines to rouse different subsets of molecular fighters.

People with moderate cases of Covid-19 take what seems like the most sensible approach, concentrating on type 1 responses, Dr. Iwasaki’s team found. Patients struggling to recover, on the other hand, seem to be pouring an unusual number of resources into type 2 and type 3 responses, which is kind of “wacky,” Dr. Iwasaki said. “As far as we know, there is no parasite involved.”

It’s almost as if the immune system is struggling to “pick a lane,” Dr. Wherry said.

This disorientation also seems to extend into the realm of B cells and T cells — two types of immune fighters that usually need to stay in conversation to coordinate their attacks. Certain types of T cells, for instance, are crucial for coaxing B cells into manufacturing disease-fighting antibodies."​

That is rather interesting. So, essentially, the worst hit cases have bacterial and parasite immune responses that never shut off because COVID-19 is neither, and its continued existence continues to push stronger responses.

Click to expand...

COVID-19 does seem to trick the immune system into bad responses that can potentially be more dangerous than the virus itself.

And, I well set off another screaming match... but this would also explain why Hydrochloroquine could be effective since its primary purpose is to fight the deadly symptoms of Malaria, a parasitic infection. So hydrocholoroquine would be effective if the patient's immune response is incorrectly responding to parasitic infection, rather than viral infection.

Click to expand...

That's your personal opinion, which is not based on any scientific evidence.

Too bad, you were close to a sensible OP for once. :shrug:

jmotivator said:

Scientists Uncover Biological Signatures of the Worst Covid-19 Cases - The New York Times

"Although the delineations aren’t always clear-cut, the immune system’s responses to pathogens can be roughly grouped into three categories: type 1, which is directed against viruses and certain bacteria that infiltrate our cells; type 2, which fights parasites like worms that don’t invade cells; and type 3, which goes after fungi and bacteria that can survive outside of cells. Each branch uses different cytokines to rouse different subsets of molecular fighters.

People with moderate cases of Covid-19 take what seems like the most sensible approach, concentrating on type 1 responses, Dr. Iwasaki’s team found. Patients struggling to recover, on the other hand, seem to be pouring an unusual number of resources into type 2 and type 3 responses, which is kind of “wacky,” Dr. Iwasaki said. “As far as we know, there is no parasite involved.”

It’s almost as if the immune system is struggling to “pick a lane,” Dr. Wherry said.

This disorientation also seems to extend into the realm of B cells and T cells — two types of immune fighters that usually need to stay in conversation to coordinate their attacks. Certain types of T cells, for instance, are crucial for coaxing B cells into manufacturing disease-fighting antibodies."​

That is rather interesting. So, essentially, the worst hit cases have bacterial and parasite immune responses that never shut off because COVID-19 is neither, and its continued existence continues to push stronger responses.

And, I well set off another screaming match... but this would also explain why Hydrochloroquine could be effective since its primary purpose is to fight the deadly symptoms of Malaria, a parasitic infection. So hydrocholoroquine would be effective if the patient's immune response is incorrectly responding to parasitic infection, rather than viral infection.

Click to expand...

I don't follow your logic here. How would taking HCQ to fight a non existent parasite which reinforces the immune system's incorrect response to a viral infection be of benefit?

Phys251 said:

COVID-19 does seem to trick the immune system into bad responses that can potentially be more dangerous than the virus itself.



That's your personal opinion, which is not based on any scientific evidence.

Too bad, you were close to a sensible OP for once. :shrug:

Click to expand...

I wasn't aware that opinions were a bad thing on the forum.

There's very little in the entire Corona mess that is based on science.

But again that's an opinion.

jmotivator said:

Scientists Uncover Biological Signatures of the Worst Covid-19 Cases - The New York Times

"Although the delineations aren’t always clear-cut, the immune system’s responses to pathogens can be roughly grouped into three categories: type 1, which is directed against viruses and certain bacteria that infiltrate our cells; type 2, which fights parasites like worms that don’t invade cells; and type 3, which goes after fungi and bacteria that can survive outside of cells. Each branch uses different cytokines to rouse different subsets of molecular fighters.

People with moderate cases of Covid-19 take what seems like the most sensible approach, concentrating on type 1 responses, Dr. Iwasaki’s team found. Patients struggling to recover, on the other hand, seem to be pouring an unusual number of resources into type 2 and type 3 responses, which is kind of “wacky,” Dr. Iwasaki said. “As far as we know, there is no parasite involved.”

It’s almost as if the immune system is struggling to “pick a lane,” Dr. Wherry said.

This disorientation also seems to extend into the realm of B cells and T cells — two types of immune fighters that usually need to stay in conversation to coordinate their attacks. Certain types of T cells, for instance, are crucial for coaxing B cells into manufacturing disease-fighting antibodies."​

That is rather interesting. So, essentially, the worst hit cases have bacterial and parasite immune responses that never shut off because COVID-19 is neither, and its continued existence continues to push stronger responses.

And, I well set off another screaming match... but this would also explain why Hydrochloroquine could be effective since its primary purpose is to fight the deadly symptoms of Malaria, a parasitic infection. So hydrocholoroquine would be effective if the patient's immune response is incorrectly responding to parasitic infection, rather than viral infection.

Click to expand...

Malaria is a protozoan parasite, not a virus. Hydroxychloriquine interrupts the digestive process of the protozoan parasite. It also has minor immunosuppressive properties which is why it is prescribed for arthritis and lupus. I believe it suppresses Toll Like Receptor 9 (TLR9). From my reading COVID19 cytokine storms are related toTLR4. TLR9 seems to be related to virus detection and immunity, so suppressing it seems to have the potential for bad outcomes.

In any case, Hydroxychloroquine was not trialed for any of these reasons. Scientists found that if they put human cells in a test tube, added hydroxychloroquine, and then introduced COVID19 the virus had difficulty breaching the cell membrane. Remember drugs are just chemicals that physically interrupt biological processes. They aren't magic and drugs seldom perform the same in a test tube as the body. What we saw in the test tube is certainly not true in the body, hydroxychloroquine does not prevent viral infection and reproduction. This should make sense because we have no medication for other coronavirusis (ie common colds).

Zinc seems like a no brainer, same with vitamins B,C, and D. They might help and have essentially no drawbacks. Steroids obviously help to fight cytokine storms, and remdesivir might be a mediocre antiviral. But in reality your immune system is by far the best defense. So suppressing it seems kinda dumb, especially without any clear evidence that it's effective.


But I applaud the desire to find a mechanism. It's easy to tell someone why they're wrong, it's a lot harder to prove an idea correct.

jimbo said:

I wasn't aware that opinions were a bad thing on the forum.

Click to expand...

You mean, ignorant opinions.

There's very little in the entire Corona mess that is based on science.

Click to expand...

:lamo

But again that's an opinion.

Click to expand...

An ignorant one.

Mithros said:

Malaria is a protozoan parasite, not a virus. Hydroxychloriquine interrupts the digestive process of the protozoan parasite. It also has minor immunosuppressive properties which is why it is prescribed for arthritis and lupus. I believe it suppresses Toll Like Receptor 9 (TLR9). From my reading COVID19 cytokine storms are related toTLR4. TLR9 seems to be related to virus detection and immunity, so suppressing it seems to have the potential for bad outcomes.

In any case, Hydroxychloroquine was not trialed for any of these reasons. Scientists found that if they put human cells in a test tube, added hydroxychloroquine, and then introduced COVID19 the virus had difficulty breaching the cell membrane.

Click to expand...

TLR9 triggers both viral and bacterial inflammatory responses. So, in the case of COVID-19, it would be effective at reducing inflammation caused by the virus itself as well as the erroneous inflammatory response due to a false bacterial infection signal.

So it doesn't impact the parasitic response, but it reduces the inflammation in 2 of the 3 inflammatory responses.

jmotivator said:

And, I well set off another screaming match... but this would also explain why Hydrochloroquine could be effective since its primary purpose is to fight the deadly symptoms of Malaria, a parasitic infection. So hydrocholoroquine would be effective if the patient's immune response is incorrectly responding to parasitic infection, rather than viral infection.

Click to expand...

Why would Hydrochloroquine's "primary purpose is to fight the deadly symptoms of...a parasitic infection" mean that it is effective to treat COVID-19?

That doesn't begin to compute. You said "the worst hit cases have bacterial and parasite immune responses that never shut off because COVID-19 is neither, and its continued existence continues to push stronger responses."

HCQ would have to shut down the immune response to bacterial and/or parasitic immune response to be effective for the bacterial and/or parasitic immune response you say COVID triggers in the worst cases.

You don't say that. You say it's purpose is to fight symptoms of malaria, but that's not true anyway. At least look at the wiki, possibly even what it cites.

Hydroxychloroquine - Wikipedia




EDIT: Ok, well now there's post 5 that says it in much more detail.

Mithros said:

Malaria is a protozoan parasite, not a virus. Hydroxychloriquine interrupts the digestive process of the protozoan parasite. It also has minor immunosuppressive properties which is why it is prescribed for arthritis and lupus. I believe it suppresses Toll Like Receptor 9 (TLR9). From my reading COVID19 cytokine storms are related toTLR4. TLR9 seems to be related to virus detection and immunity, so suppressing it seems to have the potential for bad outcomes.

In any case, Hydroxychloroquine was not trialed for any of these reasons. Scientists found that if they put human cells in a test tube, added hydroxychloroquine, and then introduced COVID19 the virus had difficulty breaching the cell membrane. Remember drugs are just chemicals that physically interrupt biological processes. They aren't magic and drugs seldom perform the same in a test tube as the body. What we saw in the test tube is certainly not true in the body, hydroxychloroquine does not prevent viral infection and reproduction. This should make sense because we have no medication for other coronavirusis (ie common colds).

Zinc seems like a no brainer, same with vitamins B,C, and D. They might help and have essentially no drawbacks. Steroids obviously help to fight cytokine storms, and remdesivir might be a mediocre antiviral. But in reality your immune system is by far the best defense. So suppressing it seems kinda dumb, especially without any clear evidence that it's effective.


But I applaud the desire to find a mechanism. It's easy to tell someone why they're wrong, it's a lot harder to prove an idea correct.

Click to expand...

jmotivator said:

TLR9 triggers both viral and bacterial inflammatory responses. So, in the case of COVID-19, it would be effective at reducing inflammation caused by the virus itself as well as the erroneous inflammatory response due to a false bacterial infection signal.

So it doesn't impact the parasitic response, but it reduces the inflammation in 2 of the 3 inflammatory responses.

Click to expand...

You completely overlooked the word "minor" in what you quoted.

You also overlook that whether to prescribe a medicine involves a cost/benefit analysis: does it help more than it hurts? So you're ignoring the adverse effects of HCQ and ignoring the fact that HCQ only helps in a small way regarding one symptom of parasitic & bacterial immune responses: inflammation.

You also overlook that, as he explained, the cytokine storms - the really bad immune responses from COVID in simpler terms - are related to TLR4.

The mechanism of action of HCQ that reduces inflammation to a minor extent are related to TLR9. TLR9, he explained, is related to virus detection and immunity. So give someone HCQ, you get a little less inflammation from the parasitic/bacterial immune response, do nothing to stop the parasitic/bacterial immune response, and then on top suppress the body's ability to fight of the COVID virus.

Seems like a pretty bad bargain. There is a reason the FDA pulled its recommendation and it isn't some sort of deep state conspiracy to make Trump look bad.

Mr Person said:

Why would Hydrochloroquine's "primary purpose is to fight the deadly symptoms of...a parasitic infection" mean that it is effective to treat COVID-19?

Click to expand...

What appears to be killing people is their body is fighting the COVID-19 infection as a bacterial and parasitic infection on top of viral infection response, and those erroneous inflammatory responses that lack the proper off switch that a properly targeted immune response would have are what is killing people.

HCQ targets two of the three immune inflammatory responses by inhibiting TLR9 receptors.

The findings from the article above give insight into how to treat COVID-19, that doesn't mean that HCQ is the full answer to treatment, but it helps explain why HCQ might be effective in early treatment, while not effective after the patient is already experiencing severe infection.

I get the feeling sometimes like you all just don't grasp the the argument for HCQ is not at the expense of all other treatments. It could be that HCQ is effective for the reasons I explained, but that mechanism that HCQ is treating can be better treated by a different drug cocktail, but if HCQ is proven effective at reducing or slowing the patient's development of severe illness -- as 53 studies have shown -- then your white knighting the abolition of HCQ treatment costs lives while saving none.

jmotivator said:

Scientists Uncover Biological Signatures of the Worst Covid-19 Cases - The New York Times

"Although the delineations aren’t always clear-cut, the immune system’s responses to pathogens can be roughly grouped into three categories: type 1, which is directed against viruses and certain bacteria that infiltrate our cells; type 2, which fights parasites like worms that don’t invade cells; and type 3, which goes after fungi and bacteria that can survive outside of cells. Each branch uses different cytokines to rouse different subsets of molecular fighters.

People with moderate cases of Covid-19 take what seems like the most sensible approach, concentrating on type 1 responses, Dr. Iwasaki’s team found. Patients struggling to recover, on the other hand, seem to be pouring an unusual number of resources into type 2 and type 3 responses, which is kind of “wacky,” Dr. Iwasaki said. “As far as we know, there is no parasite involved.”

It’s almost as if the immune system is struggling to “pick a lane,” Dr. Wherry said.

This disorientation also seems to extend into the realm of B cells and T cells — two types of immune fighters that usually need to stay in conversation to coordinate their attacks. Certain types of T cells, for instance, are crucial for coaxing B cells into manufacturing disease-fighting antibodies."​

That is rather interesting. So, essentially, the worst hit cases have bacterial and parasite immune responses that never shut off because COVID-19 is neither, and its continued existence continues to push stronger responses.

And, I well set off another screaming match... but this would also explain why Hydrochloroquine could be effective since its primary purpose is to fight the deadly symptoms of Malaria, a parasitic infection. So hydrocholoroquine would be effective if the patient's immune response is incorrectly responding to parasitic infection, rather than viral infection.

Click to expand...

The article is interesting, thank you for posting it. As to Hydrochloroquine, there are all sorts of "plausible" treatments for various conditions that don't pan out. In the meta-analysis of studies on HCQ, it has been shown to be ineffective at best, and possibly detrimental. We have treatments that have shown effectiveness in treating Covid-19, but HCQ isn't one of them. In fact, though the overall federal public health policy response to the pandemic has been abysmal, and its largely why despite having less than 5% of the world's population and a pretty low average population density as a nation, we lead the world in Covid-19 deaths - a nation with less than 5% of the world's population accounting for at least 25% of the fatalities, which is an utter failure of federal public health policy no matter how you measure it. Just the same, our healthcare centers have done a good job in developing treatments and have kept our fatality numbers from being even higher.

Also the immune system struggling to "pick a lane" is not uncommon at all with novel viruses. It's never the virus the kills you, its the inflammatory response that does.

Mr Person said:

Why would Hydrochloroquine's "primary purpose is to fight the deadly symptoms of...a parasitic infection" mean that it is effective to treat COVID-19?

That doesn't begin to compute. You said "the worst hit cases have bacterial and parasite immune responses that never shut off because COVID-19 is neither, and its continued existence continues to push stronger responses."

HCQ would have to shut down the immune response to bacterial and/or parasitic immune response to be effective for the bacterial and/or parasitic immune response you say COVID triggers in the worst cases.

You don't say that. You say it's purpose is to fight symptoms of malaria, but that's not true anyway. At least look at the wiki, possibly even what it cites.

Hydroxychloroquine - Wikipedia




EDIT: Ok, well now there's post 5 that says it in much more detail.





You completely overlooked the word "minor" in what you quoted.

You also overlook that whether to prescribe a medicine involves a cost/benefit analysis: does it help more than it hurts? So you're ignoring the adverse effects of HCQ and ignoring the fact that HCQ only helps in a small way regarding one symptom of parasitic & bacterial immune responses: inflammation.

You also overlook that, as he explained, the cytokine storms - the really bad immune responses from COVID in simpler terms - are related to TLR4.

The mechanism of action of HCQ that reduces inflammation to a minor extent are related to TLR9. TLR9, he explained, is related to virus detection and immunity. So give someone HCQ, you get a little less inflammation from the parasitic/bacterial immune response, do nothing to stop the parasitic/bacterial immune response, and then on top suppress the body's ability to fight of the COVID virus.

Seems like a pretty bad bargain. There is a reason the FDA pulled its recommendation and it isn't some sort of deep state conspiracy to make Trump look bad.

Click to expand...

That is an excellent summation. Though, unfortunately, it's going to fall on deaf ears. I suspect that even if a drug maker were to develop a highly effective anti-viral drug that targeted Covid-19, Trump's remaining supporters would still be promoting HCQ for no other reason than Dear Leader heard about it from "many people are saying" back in April, and since the orange messenger of God is omniscient, no matter what, HCQ must be promoted.

If they were actually concerned about the lives of their fellow Americans, they would be arguing for a nationwide mask order for public indoor spaces as it would save tens of thousands of lives at a minimum.

jmotivator said:

What appears to be killing people is their body is fighting the COVID-19 infection as a bacterial and parasitic infection on top of viral infection response, and those erroneous inflammatory responses that lack the proper off switch that a properly targeted immune response would have are what is killing people.

HCQ targets two of the three immune inflammatory responses by inhibiting TLR9 receptors.

The findings from the article above give insight into how to treat COVID-19, that doesn't mean that HCQ is the full answer to treatment, but it helps explain why HCQ might be effective in early treatment, while not effective after the patient is already experiencing severe infection.

I get the feeling sometimes like you all just don't grasp the the argument for HCQ is not at the expense of all other treatments. It could be that HCQ is effective for the reasons I explained, but that mechanism that HCQ is treating can be better treated by a different drug cocktail, but if HCQ is proven effective at reducing or slowing the patient's development of severe illness -- as 53 studies have shown -- then your white knighting the abolition of HCQ treatment costs lives while saving none.

Click to expand...

Wow. Cut my post down to 1 sentence, ignoring everything that contradicts you, like you ignored everything in Mithros's post #5 that contradicted you.

Silly me, thinking that for once you were trying to have an honest discussion instead of push a stupid narrative while ignoring (and editing out) everything that contradicts that narrative.



For people actually here to debate, posts #5 and #8 show why jmotivator's theory fails.

jimbo said:

There's very little in the entire Corona mess that is based on science.

Click to expand...

uh. what?

SouthernDemocrat said:

The article is interesting, thank you for posting it. As to Hydrochloroquine, there are all sorts of "plausible" treatments for various conditions that don't pan out. In the meta-analysis of studies on HCQ, it has been shown to be ineffective at best, and possibly detrimental. We have treatments that have shown effectiveness in treating Covid-19, but HCQ isn't one of them. In fact, though the overall federal public health policy response to the pandemic has been abysmal, and its largely why despite having less than 5% of the world's population and a pretty low average population density as a nation, we lead the world in Covid-19 deaths - a nation with less than 5% of the world's population accounting for at least 25% of the fatalities, which is an utter failure of federal public health policy no matter how you measure it. Just the same, our healthcare centers have done a good job in developing treatments and have kept our fatality numbers from being even higher.

Also the immune system struggling to "pick a lane" is not uncommon at all with novel viruses. It's never the virus the kills you, its the inflammatory response that does.

Click to expand...

Well, no, the HCQ study that found HCQ to be detrimental has been retracted.

As I said in a later post, arguing against the anti-HCQ dogma isn't an argument that HCQ should be pursued at the expense of all else, or even that it will ultimately be the most effective treatment. It is just insane politics for people to deny doctors the ability to prescribe a potentially effective drug because they hate Trump. Even if the effect is only moderate, it is better than nothing. In some cases it appears to be more than moderately effective.

Maybe from this study, and how the disease hits certain individuals hardest, we will be able to create early testing to positive cases to determine who will and who won't develop severe symptoms based on how the body is responding at the early stages. Moreover, if we can target those with the indicators of a coming severe response, we can target these erroneous immune responses vigorously at the early stages and prevent them from becoming severe.

And if, for instance, HCQ proves effective as an early treatment because it inhibits the bacterial inflammatory response, then maybe there are drugs already on the market that target bacterial inflammation better than HCQ does. If so, then awesome.

jmotivator said:

Well, no, the HCQ study that found HCQ to be detrimental has been retracted.

As I said in a later post, arguing against the anti-HCQ dogma isn't an argument that HCQ should be pursued at the expense of all else, or even that it will ultimately be the most effective treatment. It is just insane politics for people to deny doctors the ability to prescribe a potentially effective drug because they hate Trump.

Click to expand...

The FDA and CDC are run by people Trump appointed himself. Tbh, at this point, this is beyond stupid. Trump makes himself look despicable, he doesn't need any help. There is no conspiracy.

https://www.accessdata.fda.gov/drug...oroquine-Cholorquine - 19May2020_Redacted.pdf
NIH halts clinical trial of hydroxychloroquine | National Institutes of Health (NIH)
Study shows hydroxychloroquine's harmful effects on heart rhythm -- ScienceDaily

jmotivator said:

Well, no, the HCQ study that found HCQ to be detrimental has been retracted.

Click to expand...

HCQ has been in use since the 1940s. We already know that HCQ can have serious side effects.

As I said in a later post, arguing against the anti-HCQ dogma isn't an argument that HCQ should be pursued at the expense of all else...

Click to expand...

This is in fact a zero-sum condition.

If you set up a study, you can't test HCQ and atovaquone and dexamethasone in the same patient. You won't get any usable results. There may also be potential drug interactions which can harm the patient.

It is just insane politics for people to deny doctors the ability to prescribe a potentially effective drug because they hate Trump.

Click to expand...

Fortunately, that's not happening. Seriously, do you think French hospitals are trying to influence the US election? Get it together.

And of course, it is insane politics for people to promote HCQ because of Trump -- and there is no doubt that happens.

Even if the effect is only moderate, it is better than nothing.

Click to expand...

No, it isn't. HCQ is not risk-free; it could interact with other possible medications; research efforts are almost certainly better off looking into more effective medications, and so on.

Maybe from this study, and how the disease hits certain individuals hardest, we will be able to create early testing to positive cases to determine who will and who won't develop severe symptoms based on how the body is responding at the early stages.

Click to expand...

Probably not.

Moreover, if we can target those with the indicators of a coming severe response, we can target these erroneous immune responses vigorously at the early stages and prevent them from becoming severe.

Click to expand...

Or, we can listen to people who have spent years (if not decades) studying biology, viruses, pharmaceuticals, epidemics...

SouthernDemocrat said:

The FDA and CDC are run by people Trump appointed himself. Tbh, at this point, this is beyond stupid. Trump makes himself look despicable, he doesn't need any help. There is no conspiracy.

https://www.accessdata.fda.gov/drug...oroquine-Cholorquine - 19May2020_Redacted.pdf

Click to expand...

It is a very small study and, while they found that 80% of all adverse heart events were due to QT prologation, you might find this to be rather conflunding to your assertion:

92 (84%) reported concomitant use of at least one other medication that prolongs the QT interval.

Hmmmmm......

The Ford Study, on the other hand, had a much larger sample and found no such correlation.

NIH halts clinical trial of hydroxychloroquine | National Institutes of Health (NIH)

Click to expand...

Again, those studies were being run on patients who were already hospitalized with the virus. Most observational studies were indicating that HCQ was effective are treating patients who were in early stage, not late.

Moreover, NIH canceling the study that it didn't even run to conclusion shouldn't be used to draw too many conclusions. They made a determination without even completing their own trial

Study shows hydroxychloroquine's harmful effects on heart rhythm -- ScienceDaily

Click to expand...

Animals aren't humans. Your own article presented you with that caveat had you chosen to read it.


Edit: Also, I might point out to you that given the low rate of potential complication from HCQ found in those studies, even taken uncritically as you have, might mean less to a 60+ year old person with COVID-19 facing far more likely adverse effects from the disease than from the proposed treatment.

And, by the way, the NIH study above found no adverse side effects from HCQ...

Mr Person said:

Wow. Cut my post down to 1 sentence, ignoring everything that contradicts you, like you ignored everything in Mithros's post #5 that contradicted you.

Silly me, thinking that for once you were trying to have an honest discussion instead of push a stupid narrative while ignoring (and editing out) everything that contradicts that narrative.



For people actually here to debate, posts #5 and #8 show why jmotivator's theory fails.

Click to expand...

It's not a theory. Hell it's not even a hypothesis. It's pure, ignorant crap.

jmotivator said:

It is a very small study and, while they found that 80% of all adverse heart events were due to QT prologation, you might find this to be rather conflunding to your assertion:

92 (84%) reported concomitant use of at least one other medication that prolongs the QT interval.

Hmmmmm......

The Ford Study, on the other hand, had a much larger sample and found no such correlation.




Again, those studies were being run on patients who were already hospitalized with the virus. Most observational studies were indicating that HCQ was effective are treating patients who were in early stage, not late.

Moreover, NIH canceling the study that it didn't even run to conclusion shouldn't be used to draw too many conclusions. They made a determination without even completing their own trial



Animals aren't humans. Your own article presented you with that caveat had you chosen to read it.


Edit: Also, I might point out to you that given the low rate of potential complication from HCQ found in those studies, even taken uncritically as you have, might mean less to a 60+ year old person with COVID-19 facing far more likely adverse effects from the disease than from the proposed treatment.

And, by the way, the NIH study above found no adverse side effects from HCQ...

Click to expand...

Debate Politics foremost epidemiologist, jmotivator, the devout subject of Dear Respected Wise and Great Leader, Stable Genius, Supreme Chairman, and His Excellency and President of the United States, his highness, Donald Trump, has decreed that he and Dear Leader are much wiser and knowledgable as to the treatment of Covid-19, or as Dear Leader has decreed it, The Kung Flu, than any mere doctor or virologist.

Therefore, he hereby decrees that the CDC, NIH, and FDA are counter-revolutionaries and enemies of the people that are only motivated by their hatred of Trump in their recommendations against HCQ as a treatment for Covid-19, or as more properly referred to, The Kung Flu. They rely upon their "science" and "studies", yet ignore Dear Leader's great and omniscient messenger, the holy and wonderful "Many People Are Saying". As such they shall forever be called "The Deep State" and their so-called statements, advisories, and guidelines are to be called the evil, "Fake News".

SouthernDemocrat said:

Debate Politics foremost epidemiologist, jmotivator, the devout subject of Dear Respected Wise and Great Leader, Stable Genius, Supreme Chairman, and His Excellency and President of the United States, his highness, Donald Trump, has decreed that he and Dear Leader are much wiser and knowledgable as to the treatment of Covid-19, or as Dear Leader has decreed it, The Kung Flu, than any mere doctor or virologist.

Therefore, he hereby decrees that the CDC, NIH, and FDA are counter-revolutionaries and enemies of the people that are only motivated by their hatred of Trump in their recommendations against HCQ as a treatment for Covid-19, or as more properly referred to, The Kung Flu. They rely upon their "science" and "studies", yet ignore Dear Leader's great and omniscient messenger, the holy and wonderful "Many People Are Saying". As such they shall forever be called "The Deep State" and their so-called statements, advisories, and guidelines are to be called the evil, "Fake News".

Click to expand...

When you can no longer argue your point you retreat to logical fallacy.

I accept your surrender.

jmotivator said:

When you can no longer argue your point you retreat to logical fallacy.

I accept your surrender.

Click to expand...

More like when you get sick of arguing with absurdity, you resort to mockery.

SouthernDemocrat said:

More like when you get sick of arguing with absurdity, you resort to mockery.

Click to expand...

Keep telling yourself that. If you are too ignorant to defend your sources you are too ignorant to pick your sources.

Good day, sir.

I said good day.

jmotivator said:

Keep telling yourself that. If you are too ignorant to defend your sources you are too ignorant to pick your sources.

Good day, sir.

I said good day.

Click to expand...

All you do is cherry-pick and ignore anything that contradicts your overarching narrative (HCQ is good).

Rogue Valley said:

All you do is cherry-pick and ignore anything that contradicts your overarching narrative (HCQ is good).

Click to expand...

No I don't. Nice try lying. Better luck next time.