MWP won’t like this hydroxychloroquine study

Source: https://www.msn.com/en-us/health/hea...ifu?li=BBnb7Kz

Key phrase: “Our results do differ from some other studies," Zervos told a news conference. "What we think was important in ours ... is that patients were treated early. For hydroxychloroquine to have a benefit, it needs to begin before the patients begin to suffer some of the severe immune reactions that patients can have with Covid," he added.“

It’s what many people have been saying, you must take hydroxychloroquine early. Timing is everything.

Well, I guess that Mickey has most of us blocked, and, is now on some sort of weird autopilot, without instruments, in the dark. Maybe, he can't see when others have already brought up the same topic.

Anyway, the above study is being debunked. Along with this, apparently, the British already did the conclusive study on it, with over 11,000 patients. HCQ is, for all intents and purposes, a non-starter, again.

Incidentally, a woman on CNN just compared Trump's latest travel excursions to "Jonestown on a national level". Sound familiar? Trump wants you to shoot yourself, drink that Kool-Aid. Now I wonder what will become of all the Republicans on here when "all hell breaks loose". Ha, let alone after old Trump acquires sudden infant death syndrome in the next election.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LMR

Well, I guess that Mickey has most of us blocked, and, is now on some sort of weird autopilot, without instruments, in the dark. Maybe, he can't see when others have already brought up the same topic.

Anyway, the above study is being debunked. Along with this, apparently, the British already did the conclusive study on it, with over 11,000 patients. HCQ is, for all intents and purposes, a non-starter, again.

Incidentally, a woman on CNN just compared Trump's latest travel excursions to "Jonestown on a national level". Sound familiar? Trump wants you to shoot yourself, drink that Kool-Aid. Now I wonder what will become of all the Republicans on here when "all hell breaks loose". Ha, let alone after old Trump acquires sudden infant death syndrome in the next election.

---

Conclusive? Oh please.

I studied inferential statistics at the graduate level. It’s very hard to show conclusive in these types of studies because you have to be able to explain both or different outcomes. You have to understand logic: There is a root cause aka causation. So the question is why does hydroxychloroquine work some of the time, but doesn’t work the rest of the time.

A significant number of studies show using hydroxychloroquine early on in the treatment had an effect, e.g. the effect is material and statistically sound. The British study does not refute this phenomenon.

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. We don’t have a theory that can explain both phenomena yet you naively believe the results are conclusive.

Note that I applied the word, apparently. The stronger word, as better tip-off, supposedly, I didn't apply, because, well, I don't out of hand disagree with the particular British study.

_____________________________________

ap·par·ent·ly

adverb

As far as one knows or can see. "The child nodded, apparently content with the promise"

sup·pos·ed·ly

adverb

According to what is generally assumed or believed (often used to indicate that the speaker doubts the truth of the statement). "There were rumors of a rift between him and his colleagues, supposedly because they were jealous of his relationship with the Duchess"

_______________________________

I have little interest in trying to peer review the HCQ studies. I have little interest in explaining this. Less interest in what these studies refute, or not. Can you spell, a convoluted waste of time and effort? With stuff like evolution, I will come right out, and call it fact. People question this. I ignore their questions. Look, just because it's a Goddamn fact doesn't rule out creationism, a god, or whatever. Stuff like the nature of reality, logic, or whatever, hinges on a theory of everything. Do this first, then, come back to argue, with me, what is fact.

Anyway, here is another write-up, for you. Yes, the earlier that something is treated, however, the better the outcome. But, this is always the case, except specifically for cataracts, and the like, unless you render diagnosis as part of the treatment.

Quote:

---

On Wednesday, another group of researchers released results from another randomized study, testing whether giving people hydroxychloroquine shortly after they have been exposed to someone with Covid-19 could prevent disease transmission. That study also showed no benefit, thought some researchers, including Gellad and Califf, say some effect is still possible.

"It could still have an effect given very early in disease, although less and less likely every day that passes," Gellad said.

---

Anyway, in the other thread, where Mickey wrote of the same, if I recall, Henry Ford hospital article, the few details of the article, itself, just seem confounding.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LMR

Note that I applied the word, apparently. The stronger word, as better tip-off, supposedly, I didn't apply, because, well, I don't out of hand disagree with the particular British study.

_____________________________________

ap·par·ent·ly

adverb

As far as one knows or can see. "The child nodded, apparently content with the promise"

sup·pos·ed·ly

adverb

According to what is generally assumed or believed (often used to indicate that the speaker doubts the truth of the statement). "There were rumors of a rift between him and his colleagues, supposedly because they were jealous of his relationship with the Duchess"

_______________________________

I have little interest in trying to peer review the HCQ studies. I have little interest in explaining this. Less interest in what these studies refute, or not. Can you spell, a convoluted waste of time and effort? With stuff like evolution, I will come right out, and call it fact. People question this. I ignore their questions. Look, just because it's a Goddamn fact doesn't rule out creationism, a god, or whatever. Stuff like the nature of reality, logic, or whatever, hinges on a theory of everything. Do this first, then, come back to argue, with me, what is fact.

Anyway, here is another write-up, for you. Yes, the earlier that something is treated, however, the better the outcome. But, this is always the case, except specifically for cataracts, and the like, unless you render diagnosis as part of the treatment.

Quote:

---

On Wednesday, another group of researchers released results from another randomized study, testing whether giving people hydroxychloroquine shortly after they have been exposed to someone with Covid-19 could prevent disease transmission. That study also showed no benefit, thought some researchers, including Gellad and Califf, say some effect is still possible.

"It could still have an effect given very early in disease, although less and less likely every day that passes," Gellad said.

---

Anyway, in the other thread, where Mickey wrote of the same, if I recall, Henry Ford hospital article, the few details of the article, itself, just seem confounding.

---

Opinions are not facts.

You are entitled to your opinion of “apparently” regarding a “conclusive” study.

I was addressing the conclusive part that you used.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LMR

Anyway, here is another write-up, for you. Yes, the earlier that something is treated, however, the better the outcome. But, this is always the case, except specifically for cataracts, and the like, unless you render diagnosis as part of the treatment.

---

You committed another fallacy.

First the Wuhan Virus is not like cataracts (for starters you don’t die from cataracts like Wuhan Virus and cataracts aren’t contagious or infectious).

Second, as of now, there is no known cure of the Wuhan Virus. That is to say we have no known anti-viral medicine that can cure mass infections of the Wuhan Virus victims. Again, cataracts is a just a dumb analogy ... one can get cataract surgery.

If you understand logic and understand THERE IS NO KNOWN CURE ... then early treatment SHOULD NOT WORK (at the most basic level, the two statements contradict each other ... per logic if early treatment works, then OBVIOUSLY early treatment is a cure! Duh!!)

In plain English, if we looked at markers say gender and age, we could on a apriori basis (ahead of time), predict or form expectations about survival rates based on established data. For example, someone who is male and in his 80’s has a 15% probability of dying. A male in his 70’s might have 10%, etc. So if you take a study with 500 people and those that took hydroxychloroquine early had results that were MATERIALLY different than expectations, then something about the timing of hydroxychloroquine is important. Per logic, hydroxychloroquine is NOT A CURE because sick patients still died, but something about taking it early interferes with the Wuhan Virus’ ability to kill quickly or as deadly.

Third, if you took your “apparently” conclusive British study, then it doesn’t matter if you took hydroxychloroquine early. So using this study refutes your assertion.

Therefore, IT IS ***NOT*** ALWAYS the case.

Separately all you have to do is read research on Native American population, e.g. how they were devastated from European infections diseases like measles, smallpox, etc. for which the Natives had no immunity.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nati..._and_epidemics

Again, the Natives were treating the sick *early* but could not stop the onslaught of death from these deadly diseases. It is a fallacy to believe early treatment ***always*** works as in the earlier the treatment, the better the outcome scenario. I researched this and could list tribe after tribe after tribe after tribe where early treatment DID NOT work. When you have an infection disease and no known cure, it’s not a good situation.

Trying using logic for a change.

Don't be so Goddamn stupid.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LMR

Don't be so Goddamn stupid.

---

Maybe it’s you.

1. You wrote: “... the British already did the conclusive study on it...”. You chose the word conclusive but instead want to debate your caveat “apparently”. I don’t recall the British study was “conclusive”.

2. You then wrote: “Yes, the earlier that something is treated, however, the better the outcome. But, this is always the case, ...”

If something is *always* the case, then why have exceptions?

Again, I am reading what you wrote.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LMR

Don't be so Goddamn stupid.

---

Don’t be logic challenged in general and falsifiability-challenged specifically. You can’t say some always works and then proceed with an exception ... that is really dumb. At a minimum, you are self-contradicting yourself. You got the proverbial foot in mouth disease: Opens mouth and immediately inserts foot.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falsifiability

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ex-AP

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LMR

Don't be so Goddamn stupid.

---

Don’t be logic challenged in general and falsifiability-challenged specifically. You can’t say some always works and then proceed with an exception ... that is really dumb. At a minimum, you are self-contradicting yourself. You got the proverbial foot in mouth disease: Opens mouth and immediately inserts foot.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falsifiability

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by monet

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ex-AP

1. Thanks for confirming you are a hypocrite.

2. You might want to work on your math skills; I have less than 300 posts and you read say 10 of them which makes it incongruent with your 98% claim.

3. You obviously have boundary problems with your Facist-oriented thread policing mentality. You might want to work on that.

---

You win.
I promise never to read another post by you or reply to any post you are involved in.

---

This is like responding to Monet, without responding to Monet.

Taking a page from LMR

Definition of always

1 : at all times : INVARIABLY
always smiling

2 : FOREVER
will love you always

3 : at any rate : in any event
You can always try again if it doesn't work this time.

Source: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/always

LMR is “so Goddamn stupid“ for not able to use always correctly.