Dumb Ass Trump and Hydroxychloroquine

[redietz]

https://theskepticalgambler.blogspot...wo-things.html


Statistical Note: If fatality rates are higher for Latinos and Blacks versus whites, by factors of five times to seven times, then I suppose to make a proper comparison of early HCQ use, one would have to make sure that the HCQ users mirrored the ethnicity makeup of the population in mind. In other words, if all of the people taking the HCQ are white, one would expect a remarkably lower fatality rate. But that's obvious, right?

[mickeycrimm]

https://theskepticalgambler.blogspot...wo-things.html


Statistical Note: If fatality rates are higher for Latinos and Blacks versus whites, by factors of five times to seven times, then I suppose to make a proper comparison of early HCQ use, one would have to make sure that the HCQ users mirrored the ethnicity makeup of the population in mind. In other words, if all of the people taking the HCQ are white, one would expect a remarkably lower fatality rate. But that's obvious, right?

Jesus Christ, Commie Red. If the rate of infection is that much higher in minorities then it couldn't help but be reflected in the racial makeup of the patients the stats were garnered from. Get a clue, dude.

I know what you are doing. It's called "We got to beat Trump so I'm shitting on any good news that comes out about HCQ."

There are lots of qualified doctors you could ask about covid and race on twitter. That is, if you really wanted to know the answer.

[mcap]

https://theskepticalgambler.blogspot...wo-things.html


Statistical Note: If fatality rates are higher for Latinos and Blacks versus whites, by factors of five times to seven times, then I suppose to make a proper comparison of early HCQ use, one would have to make sure that the HCQ users mirrored the ethnicity makeup of the population in mind. In other words, if all of the people taking the HCQ are white, one would expect a remarkably lower fatality rate. But that's obvious, right?

I feel obligated to correct your misinformation propoganda campaign comrade Red, I'm sure you can appreciate that as you've stated you feel the same obligation. You are doing people a dangerous disservice, if they were to take your comment at face value then it would imply for white people could assume it's equivalent to the flu or less, which I previously thought wasn't something you believed. Data shows that race has a correlation but isn't causal when adjusted for other factors. But that should be obvious, right? Thinking blacks and latinos are at more risk because of their race sounds like some sort of white supremacist bullshit.

https://www.cidrap.umn.edu/news-pers...ospital-deaths

"After adjusting for sociodemographic factors and underlying conditions, black COVID-19 patients were no more likely than white patients to die of any cause in hospitals, a retrospective study published today in JAMA Network Open has found."

"After adjusting for age, sex, insurance, underlying conditions, neighborhood deprivation, and site of care, the risk of death was not significantly different between blacks and whites (hazard ratio [HR], 0.93; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.80 to 1.09)."

"Compared with whites, blacks had higher rates of asthma (8.8% vs 4.7%), cancer (3.6% vs 3.2%), chronic kidney disease (20.5% vs 12.9%), congestive heart failure (12.5% vs 10.8%), diabetes (32.0% vs 23%), high blood pressure (30.3% vs 25.0%), obesity (32.2% vs 18.2%), and organ transplantation (0.5% vs 0.3%)."

""Taken together, these findings suggest that while Black US residents may be at higher risk of contracting COVID-19 and represent a disproportionate share of COVID-19 death, mortality for those able to access hospital care does not differ from White patients," the authors wrote."

[accountinquestion]

It has started to seem reasonable to me that perhaps HCQ has some validity. It is a shame the medical establishment got it wrong, but if we didn't have a President going around taking it as a preventative measure, then there would never have been a need to over-correct the misinformation. He's the same guy who was against testing,which is what would be needed to confirm you have early stage Covid. Lots of room for blame all about.

[redietz]

https://theskepticalgambler.blogspot...wo-things.html


Statistical Note: If fatality rates are higher for Latinos and Blacks versus whites, by factors of five times to seven times, then I suppose to make a proper comparison of early HCQ use, one would have to make sure that the HCQ users mirrored the ethnicity makeup of the population in mind. In other words, if all of the people taking the HCQ are white, one would expect a remarkably lower fatality rate. But that's obvious, right?

Jesus Christ, Commie Red. If the rate of infection is that much higher in minorities then it couldn't help but be reflected in the racial makeup of the patients the stats were garnered from. Get a clue, dude.

I know what you are doing. It's called "We got to beat Trump so I'm shitting on any good news that comes out about HCQ."

There are lots of qualified doctors you could ask about covid and race on twitter. That is, if you really wanted to know the answer.

You're missing the point. If HCQ has been found to be effective as an early prophylactic, but not in double blind clinical trials, then one has to ensure that the population being evaluated for "early use" HCQ has the same ethnic composition as the population being graded for non-early use. This is not a given. And if not stated, it's assuredly not a given. If it's just "this population used HCQ early" and "this population did not," you have to go back and control for ethnicity.

[redietz]

https://theskepticalgambler.blogspot...wo-things.html


Statistical Note: If fatality rates are higher for Latinos and Blacks versus whites, by factors of five times to seven times, then I suppose to make a proper comparison of early HCQ use, one would have to make sure that the HCQ users mirrored the ethnicity makeup of the population in mind. In other words, if all of the people taking the HCQ are white, one would expect a remarkably lower fatality rate. But that's obvious, right?

I feel obligated to correct your misinformation propoganda campaign comrade Red, I'm sure you can appreciate that as you've stated you feel the same obligation. You are doing people a dangerous disservice, if they were to take your comment at face value then it would imply for white people could assume it's equivalent to the flu or less, which I previously thought wasn't something you believed. Data shows that race has a correlation but isn't causal when adjusted for other factors. But that should be obvious, right? Thinking blacks and latinos are at more risk because of their race sounds like some sort of white supremacist bullshit.

https://www.cidrap.umn.edu/news-pers...ospital-deaths

"After adjusting for sociodemographic factors and underlying conditions, black COVID-19 patients were no more likely than white patients to die of any cause in hospitals, a retrospective study published today in JAMA Network Open has found."

"After adjusting for age, sex, insurance, underlying conditions, neighborhood deprivation, and site of care, the risk of death was not significantly different between blacks and whites (hazard ratio [HR], 0.93; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.80 to 1.09)."

"Compared with whites, blacks had higher rates of asthma (8.8% vs 4.7%), cancer (3.6% vs 3.2%), chronic kidney disease (20.5% vs 12.9%), congestive heart failure (12.5% vs 10.8%), diabetes (32.0% vs 23%), high blood pressure (30.3% vs 25.0%), obesity (32.2% vs 18.2%), and organ transplantation (0.5% vs 0.3%)."

""Taken together, these findings suggest that while Black US residents may be at higher risk of contracting COVID-19 and represent a disproportionate share of COVID-19 death, mortality for those able to access hospital care does not differ from White patients," the authors wrote."

I have no idea what you're talking about here. If people make it to the hospital AND HAVE THE SAME UNDERLYING CONDITIONS, survival rates are the same. I never argued differently. What you said has nothing to do with the Louie Gohmert quote regarding, "79% lower fatality rate" for those on HCQ, Z-Pak, and zinc, which is the discussion in the blog piece. Gohmert wasn't talking about people going to the hospital. He was talking about country-by-country alleged comparison of fatality per capita.

[LMR]

By now, HCQ must mean, Hell of a lot of Cocksucker Quacks.

[mcap]

https://theskepticalgambler.blogspot...wo-things.html


Statistical Note: If fatality rates are higher for Latinos and Blacks versus whites, by factors of five times to seven times, then I suppose to make a proper comparison of early HCQ use, one would have to make sure that the HCQ users mirrored the ethnicity makeup of the population in mind. In other words, if all of the people taking the HCQ are white, one would expect a remarkably lower fatality rate. But that's obvious, right?

I feel obligated to correct your misinformation propoganda campaign comrade Red, I'm sure you can appreciate that as you've stated you feel the same obligation. You are doing people a dangerous disservice, if they were to take your comment at face value then it would imply for white people could assume it's equivalent to the flu or less, which I previously thought wasn't something you believed. Data shows that race has a correlation but isn't causal when adjusted for other factors. But that should be obvious, right? Thinking blacks and latinos are at more risk because of their race sounds like some sort of white supremacist bullshit.

https://www.cidrap.umn.edu/news-pers...ospital-deaths

"After adjusting for sociodemographic factors and underlying conditions, black COVID-19 patients were no more likely than white patients to die of any cause in hospitals, a retrospective study published today in JAMA Network Open has found."

"After adjusting for age, sex, insurance, underlying conditions, neighborhood deprivation, and site of care, the risk of death was not significantly different between blacks and whites (hazard ratio [HR], 0.93; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.80 to 1.09)."

"Compared with whites, blacks had higher rates of asthma (8.8% vs 4.7%), cancer (3.6% vs 3.2%), chronic kidney disease (20.5% vs 12.9%), congestive heart failure (12.5% vs 10.8%), diabetes (32.0% vs 23%), high blood pressure (30.3% vs 25.0%), obesity (32.2% vs 18.2%), and organ transplantation (0.5% vs 0.3%)."

""Taken together, these findings suggest that while Black US residents may be at higher risk of contracting COVID-19 and represent a disproportionate share of COVID-19 death, mortality for those able to access hospital care does not differ from White patients," the authors wrote."

I have no idea what you're talking about here. If people make it to the hospital AND HAVE THE SAME UNDERLYING CONDITIONS, survival rates are the same. I never argued differently. What you said has nothing to do with the Louie Gohmert quote regarding, "79% lower fatality rate" for those on HCQ, Z-Pak, and zinc, which is the discussion in the blog piece. Gohmert wasn't talking about people going to the hospital. He was talking about country-by-country alleged comparison of fatality per capita.

Was simply a response to your statistical note of “if fatality rates are higher among Latinos and Blacks vs whites, at a rate of five to seven times.” I’m not clicking on or reading your blog, forgive me for assuming the blog was about the same subject as the paragraph below the link.

[mickeycrimm]

https://theskepticalgambler.blogspot...wo-things.html


Statistical Note: If fatality rates are higher for Latinos and Blacks versus whites, by factors of five times to seven times, then I suppose to make a proper comparison of early HCQ use, one would have to make sure that the HCQ users mirrored the ethnicity makeup of the population in mind. In other words, if all of the people taking the HCQ are white, one would expect a remarkably lower fatality rate. But that's obvious, right?

I feel obligated to correct your misinformation propoganda campaign comrade Red, I'm sure you can appreciate that as you've stated you feel the same obligation. You are doing people a dangerous disservice, if they were to take your comment at face value then it would imply for white people could assume it's equivalent to the flu or less, which I previously thought wasn't something you believed. Data shows that race has a correlation but isn't causal when adjusted for other factors. But that should be obvious, right? Thinking blacks and latinos are at more risk because of their race sounds like some sort of white supremacist bullshit.

https://www.cidrap.umn.edu/news-pers...ospital-deaths

"After adjusting for sociodemographic factors and underlying conditions, black COVID-19 patients were no more likely than white patients to die of any cause in hospitals, a retrospective study published today in JAMA Network Open has found."

"After adjusting for age, sex, insurance, underlying conditions, neighborhood deprivation, and site of care, the risk of death was not significantly different between blacks and whites (hazard ratio [HR], 0.93; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.80 to 1.09)."

"Compared with whites, blacks had higher rates of asthma (8.8% vs 4.7%), cancer (3.6% vs 3.2%), chronic kidney disease (20.5% vs 12.9%), congestive heart failure (12.5% vs 10.8%), diabetes (32.0% vs 23%), high blood pressure (30.3% vs 25.0%), obesity (32.2% vs 18.2%), and organ transplantation (0.5% vs 0.3%)."

""Taken together, these findings suggest that while Black US residents may be at higher risk of contracting COVID-19 and represent a disproportionate share of COVID-19 death, mortality for those able to access hospital care does not differ from White patients," the authors wrote."

I have no idea what you're talking about here. If people make it to the hospital AND HAVE THE SAME UNDERLYING CONDITIONS, survival rates are the same. I never argued differently. What you said has nothing to do with the Louie Gohmert quote regarding, "79% lower fatality rate" for those on HCQ, Z-Pak, and zinc, which is the discussion in the blog piece. Gohmert wasn't talking about people going to the hospital. He was talking about country-by-country alleged comparison of fatality per capita.

Comrade Dietz, You keep rattling on with the anti-HCQ psychobabble. You really need to take the time to research out the thousands of doctors worldwide who say HCQ is an effective treatment.

Strange, don't you think that ONLY YOU have thought about ethnicity. Or at least that's what you think. You think that none of these thousands of doctors even have a clue about it. But you damn sure think YOU know all about it.

Start researching the doctors on the front lines and forget the Fauci/FDA/WHO shysters.

[mickeycrimm]

You can't make this shit up. The Ohio Pharmacy Board banned the use of hydroxychloroquine as a treatment for Covid-19. The Ohio Medical Board fired the Pharmacy Board up with something along the lines of "Look, you ignorant bitches, you ain't fucking doctors. You're nothing but a bunch of goddam pill pushers. You don't have the right to make medical decisions so knock off the bullshit or lawsuits will be coming down."

The Ohio Pharmacy Board reversed it's decision. LOL!!!

[mickeycrimm]

"The non-use of hydroxychloroquine as a treatment for covid-19 has cost tens of thousands of lives." Harvey A. Risch, Professor of Epidemiology, Yale University.

PS: Did you know that Dr. Anthony Fauci's incompetence killed 17,000 aids patients?

[redietz]

"The non-use of hydroxychloroquine as a treatment for covid-19 has cost tens of thousands of lives." Harvey A. Risch, Professor of Epidemiology, Yale University.

PS: Did you know that Dr. Anthony Fauci's incompetence killed 17,000 aids patients?

I was very fortunate, as a young man before the internet, that I was interested in debunking the paranormal. At least 90% of all publications, books and professional journal articles alike regarding the paranormal, were pro paranormal. Therefore I had no choice but to read material with which I was in disagreement. I read much more with which I was in disagreement than that with which I agreed. This turned out to be helpful in terms of critical thinking and recognizing various strengths and weaknesses of evidence. It was also very helpful in evaluating the presenters of various arguments and their reasons for presenting x and excluding y to make their cases.

In any event, I wonder why mickey didn't also list this immediate debunking of the Risch piece, which was obviously available.

https://respectfulinsolence.com/2020...xychloroquine/

[vpbob2000]

"The non-use of hydroxychloroquine as a treatment for covid-19 has cost tens of thousands of lives." Harvey A. Risch, Professor of Epidemiology, Yale University.

PS: Did you know that Dr. Anthony Fauci's incompetence killed 17,000 aids patients?

https://medium.com/@gregggonsalves/s...9-47d0dee7b2b0

Statement from Yale Faculty on Hydroxychloroquine and its Use in COVID-19

But he (Risch) is not an expert in infectious disease epidemiology and he has not been swayed by the body of scientific evidence from rigorously conducted clinical trials, which refute the plausibility of his belief and arguments…

However, the evidence thus far has been unambiguous in refuting the premise that HCQ is a potentially effective early therapy for COVID-19…

The disproportionate focus on treatment with HCQ, in addition to the lack of a strong scientific rationale for its use and the risk of its potentially harmful effects, has major opportunity costs. In a recent analysis of COVID-19 clinical trials, one in every six studies of treatments against SARSCoV-2 was designed to study HCQ or chloroquine…

But investing our resources in HCQ after multiple studies have not shown it to be effective for COVID-19 has serious implications for more than just individual patients. The continuing advocacy on behalf of HCQ distracts us from advancing the science on COVID-19 and seeking more effective interventions in a time when more than 1000 people are dying per day of this disease…

While minority opinions, anecdotal evidence, novel interpretations and challenges to orthodoxies in a field can be important, at some point, the application of the scientific method generating evidence from multiple, well-designed clinical trials and observational studies does matter and should be heard over the noise of conspiracy theories, purported hoaxes, and the views of zealots.

Signed by 20 members of the Yale scientific and medical community.

[redietz]

"The non-use of hydroxychloroquine as a treatment for covid-19 has cost tens of thousands of lives." Harvey A. Risch, Professor of Epidemiology, Yale University.

PS: Did you know that Dr. Anthony Fauci's incompetence killed 17,000 aids patients?

I was very fortunate, as a young man before the internet, that I was interested in debunking the paranormal. At least 90% of all publications, books and professional journal articles alike regarding the paranormal, were pro paranormal. Therefore I had no choice but to read material with which I was in disagreement. I read much more with which I was in disagreement than that with which I agreed. This turned out to be helpful in terms of critical thinking and recognizing various strengths and weaknesses of evidence. It was also very helpful in evaluating the presenters of various arguments and their reasons for presenting x and excluding y to make their cases.

In any event, I wonder why mickey didn't also list this immediate debunking of the Risch piece, which was obviously available.

https://respectfulinsolence.com/2020...xychloroquine/

In my opinion, this appears to be a complete demolition of the Risch op ed. So if the Yale letter, listed above, and this rather thorough demolition were both as available as the Risch piece, the question becomes why mickey would present the Risch piece as if it had some great overall significance while ignoring the debunking of it.

And this is the problem with confirmation bias and internet algorithms that lead to more clicks because they present you with information with which one agrees. Those algorithms are amazing, really -- paid whores telling you what you think you want to know.

[mickeycrimm]

"The non-use of hydroxychloroquine as a treatment for covid-19 has cost tens of thousands of lives." Harvey A. Risch, Professor of Epidemiology, Yale University.

PS: Did you know that Dr. Anthony Fauci's incompetence killed 17,000 aids patients?

I was very fortunate, as a young man before the internet, that I was interested in debunking the paranormal. At least 90% of all publications, books and professional journal articles alike regarding the paranormal, were pro paranormal. Therefore I had no choice but to read material with which I was in disagreement. I read much more with which I was in disagreement than that with which I agreed. This turned out to be helpful in terms of critical thinking and recognizing various strengths and weaknesses of evidence. It was also very helpful in evaluating the presenters of various arguments and their reasons for presenting x and excluding y to make their cases.

In any event, I wonder why mickey didn't also list this immediate debunking of the Risch piece, which was obviously available.

https://respectfulinsolence.com/2020...xychloroquine/

In my opinion, this appears to be a complete demolition of the Risch op ed. So if the Yale letter, listed above, and this rather thorough demolition were both as available as the Risch piece, the question becomes why mickey would present the Risch piece as if it had some great overall significance while ignoring the debunking of it.

And this is the problem with confirmation bias and internet algorithms that lead to more clicks because they present you with information with which one agrees. Those algorithms are amazing, really -- paid whores telling you what you think you want to know.

Comrade Dietz, you are more full of shit than a Christmas turkey. It is your side that has the bullshit arguments. Harvey A. Risch has debunked your fucking side, ditz. Get a clue.

[mickeycrimm]

"The non-use of hydroxychloroquine as a treatment for covid-19 has cost tens of thousands of lives." Harvey A. Risch, Professor of Epidemiology, Yale University.

PS: Did you know that Dr. Anthony Fauci's incompetence killed 17,000 aids patients?

https://medium.com/@gregggonsalves/s...9-47d0dee7b2b0

Statement from Yale Faculty on Hydroxychloroquine and its Use in COVID-19

But he (Risch) is not an expert in infectious disease epidemiology and he has not been swayed by the body of scientific evidence from rigorously conducted clinical trials, which refute the plausibility of his belief and arguments…

However, the evidence thus far has been unambiguous in refuting the premise that HCQ is a potentially effective early therapy for COVID-19…

The disproportionate focus on treatment with HCQ, in addition to the lack of a strong scientific rationale for its use and the risk of its potentially harmful effects, has major opportunity costs. In a recent analysis of COVID-19 clinical trials, one in every six studies of treatments against SARSCoV-2 was designed to study HCQ or chloroquine…

But investing our resources in HCQ after multiple studies have not shown it to be effective for COVID-19 has serious implications for more than just individual patients. The continuing advocacy on behalf of HCQ distracts us from advancing the science on COVID-19 and seeking more effective interventions in a time when more than 1000 people are dying per day of this disease…

While minority opinions, anecdotal evidence, novel interpretations and challenges to orthodoxies in a field can be important, at some point, the application of the scientific method generating evidence from multiple, well-designed clinical trials and observational studies does matter and should be heard over the noise of conspiracy theories, purported hoaxes, and the views of zealots.

Signed by 20 members of the Yale scientific and medical community.

"Rigorously conducted clinical trials." Hahahahahahahahahahahaha!!!!!

"Potentially harmful effects." Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!!!!

For decades studies have shown HCQ to be well-tolerated by lupus patients who take the drug long term. With covid patients we're talking a couple of weeks of treatment.

The "clinical trials" have been shown to have flaws, one study was retracted, and one study was found to be a fraud.

The letter by the Yale faculty is nothing more than a political hatchet job. They are part of the disinformation campaign.

[mickeycrimm]

Here's Harvey A. Risch being interviewed last night by Mark Levin. Righties listen closely and lefties listen even more closely.

At the 12:00 mark Risch explains how Fauci and the FDA killed 17,000 AIDS patients in 1987.

This is one of the most interesting interviews I've seen in awhile.

[mickeycrimm]

"The non-use of hydroxychloroquine as a treatment for covid-19 has cost tens of thousands of lives." Harvey A. Risch, Professor of Epidemiology, Yale University.

PS: Did you know that Dr. Anthony Fauci's incompetence killed 17,000 aids patients?

I was very fortunate, as a young man before the internet, that I was interested in debunking the paranormal. At least 90% of all publications, books and professional journal articles alike regarding the paranormal, were pro paranormal. Therefore I had no choice but to read material with which I was in disagreement. I read much more with which I was in disagreement than that with which I agreed. This turned out to be helpful in terms of critical thinking and recognizing various strengths and weaknesses of evidence. It was also very helpful in evaluating the presenters of various arguments and their reasons for presenting x and excluding y to make their cases.

In any event, I wonder why mickey didn't also list this immediate debunking of the Risch piece, which was obviously available.

https://respectfulinsolence.com/2020...xychloroquine/

In my opinion, this appears to be a complete demolition of the Risch op ed. So if the Yale letter, listed above, and this rather thorough demolition were both as available as the Risch piece, the question becomes why mickey would present the Risch piece as if it had some great overall significance while ignoring the debunking of it.

And this is the problem with confirmation bias and internet algorithms that lead to more clicks because they present you with information with which one agrees. Those algorithms are amazing, really -- paid whores telling you what you think you want to know.

vpbob2000, welcome to VCT. And thank you. Your quote of faculty members at Yale is obviously a hit piece as their is no substance to their message. No science in their message. No studies named. All generalities. Tows the Fauci/FDA line. None of the faculty pointed themselves out as being an expert on infectious diseases.

But again thank you. You did a great job of exposing REDIETZ for an unequivocal kneejerk hard lefty. Of course, we already knew that. You made your post at 6:59 AM and at 7:12 AM, just 13 minutes later, redietz made a post in praise of your assertions about Risch the Yale faculty, and hydrozychloroquine. He didn't vet anything--Hell, he didn't have time (13 minutes)--just believed you wholeheartedly and considered it a demolition of Risch's work. You told him what he thought he wanted to know. Confirmation bias at its finest.

But he probably doesn't consider you to be a paid whore.

[redietz]

I was very fortunate, as a young man before the internet, that I was interested in debunking the paranormal. At least 90% of all publications, books and professional journal articles alike regarding the paranormal, were pro paranormal. Therefore I had no choice but to read material with which I was in disagreement. I read much more with which I was in disagreement than that with which I agreed. This turned out to be helpful in terms of critical thinking and recognizing various strengths and weaknesses of evidence. It was also very helpful in evaluating the presenters of various arguments and their reasons for presenting x and excluding y to make their cases.

In any event, I wonder why mickey didn't also list this immediate debunking of the Risch piece, which was obviously available.

https://respectfulinsolence.com/2020...xychloroquine/

In my opinion, this appears to be a complete demolition of the Risch op ed. So if the Yale letter, listed above, and this rather thorough demolition were both as available as the Risch piece, the question becomes why mickey would present the Risch piece as if it had some great overall significance while ignoring the debunking of it.

And this is the problem with confirmation bias and internet algorithms that lead to more clicks because they present you with information with which one agrees. Those algorithms are amazing, really -- paid whores telling you what you think you want to know.

vpbob2000, welcome to VCT. And thank you. Your quote of faculty members at Yale is obviously a hit piece as their is no substance to their message. No science in their message. No studies named. All generalities. Tows the Fauci/FDA line. None of the faculty pointed themselves out as being an expert on infectious diseases.

But again thank you. You did a great job of exposing REDIETZ for an unequivocal kneejerk hard lefty. Of course, we already knew that. You made your post at 6:59 AM and at 7:12 AM, just 13 minutes later, redietz made a post in praise of your assertions about Risch the Yale faculty, and hydrozychloroquine. He didn't vet anything--Hell, he didn't have time (13 minutes)--just believed you wholeheartedly and considered it a demolition of Risch's work. You told him what he thought he wanted to know. Confirmation bias at its finest.

But he probably doesn't consider you to be a paid whore.

Mickey,

If you'll notice, I included my previous post in the post regarding "the complete demolition." The previous post contained the link to https://respectfulinsolence.com/contact/

The "this" is referring to the piece included in my quote. If you take your time and read carefully, I think you'll have to agree. When I refer to "this," it's about the link INCLUDED in the post. This (and by "this" I mean the link provided in this post --- see how it works, mickey?) is a complete, almost line by line demolition of the Risch op ed. The op ed by Risch, as you probably know through careful reading of the term "op ed," was an op ed and not a peer reviewed article. The article listed in this post (previously referred to as "this") critiques the Risch op ed front, back, and sideways.

And by the way, I read the Yale letter previously. I either linked it here or at WoV. It was published at medium.com, so I caught it some time ago.

Better luck next time, mickey. Now if you had actually read my links, you'd know I linked the Yale letter previously. You would also know that the piece I linked here was more of an aggressive line by line demolition of Risch's op ed than the letter. The letter was polite.

Look, man, you are reaching for long shot bizarro interpretations of things, my posts included. You are messed up. I'm telling you this out of respect for you.

[accountinquestion]

Here's Harvey A. Risch being interviewed last night by Mark Levin. Righties listen closely and lefties listen even more closely.

At the 12:00 mark Risch explains how Fauci and the FDA killed 17,000 AIDS patients in 1987.

This is one of the most interesting interviews I've seen in awhile.

The guy seems a bit political when he rails against Fauci and doesn't just keep talking about the data like a proper scientist. He doesn't hurt his case beyond that. Digging through all this stuff is a multi-day job so hard to figure it all out and I don't begin to care enough.

So one thing we could do it look at other countries that aren't particularly anti/pro-Trump and see what they decided to do. It is one thing to complain media doesn't want Trump to get credit for HCQ, but to suggest this would have a significant impact on the decisions of scientists outside of the US in SPITE OF TRUMP is a whole different thing. (and not just a little bit tinfoil hat) I'd like to know which countries are using it.