Science is now cancelled? [USERS NOW BANNED FOR POLITICS]

[sk47]

Did you read the links I posted - no of course not.

From the Lancet: this large cohort study adds new information on the absence of benefit of hydroxychloroquine in preventing mortality from COVID-19. Along with these randomised controlled trials, this study provides important evidence that hydroxychloroquine does not prevent COVID-19

How clear does it have to be for you ?

If you are so certain of it's use provide the evidence of it's efficacy. Otherwise you can just post the Earth is flat and aliens caused COVID, which is about as likely.

Hello; It has been a while since I found much in the way of a proper article about hydroxychloroquine. Lets look at the excerpt you provided firs. A play on words response at best. The hydroxychloroquine was not claimed to prevent covid19 nor was it claimed to be a cure. Much like an oxygen mask or aspirin it was claimed to help a persons body deal with the infection effects. I could substitute the word "ventilator" in it's place in your excerpt and that would be just as true. A ventilator does not cure covid19, so should we stop the use of ventilators for patients having trouble breathing. Such fits the logic of your post.

Back in the pre- vaccine days a study was touted putting down the use of hydroxychloroquine. Turned out the trial use was flawed. The hydroxychloroquine was given to very sick patients already admitted to a hospital with some on a ventilator already. The flaw was that the best use idea of hydroxychloroquine was likely when given early in the infection, not late. Say when you first learned you are infected. To keep the inflammation down and help the body deal with the effects of the virus.

But the use and study of the hydroxychloroquine became another media football. Possible useful information could not be had anymore. At this point it is hard to know the truth. Sides were drawn. Even if the effects were of slight help it would seem slight help ought to be a positive.
hydroxychloroquine was fairly cheap as well. I have often wondered if being too cheap had anything to do with it.

Perhaps the more ironic thing during the time was how some talking heads started to go on about how risky the drug was and tried to play up serious side effects. Thing is the drug has been around for over 50 years the side effects ought to be well known.

My hope back then was if I caught the virus I had a doctor who had my best interest in mind and allowed the use of a well known drug as a just in case. A second ironic thing about the way the use of hydroxychloroquine became restricted was the emergency situation of the time. That emergency situation reason is good enough to vaccinate millions of people with a very new vaccine, but not good enough to use a medicine known for decades.

I await the replies.

Sponsored

 

[Burkey]

The hydroxychloroquine was not claimed to prevent covid19

Then why was the former president taking it in the absence of an infection?
I recall it being referred to as a preventative.

 

[sk47]

Then why was the former president taking it in the absence of an infection?
I recall it being referred to as a preventative.

Hello; Have to give you credit for an interesting attempt at deflection. I recall that episode also. Another example of information which may have been useful but did not make it past the US-THEM agendas of the time.

An analogy of sorts. When the vaccines were available and I started taking the moderna shots there were news stories about blood clots. I was already taking aspirin on a daily basis. I stopped a few days before the shots as suggested but did start back after. I upped the dose for a couple of weeks thinking the aspirin might be of value with potential blood clots. I did this on my own using my own reasoning as a guide. I told a few people and the response was ho-hum. Had I been in the oval office at the time then sides would have been drawn about taking aspirin is my take. We would have camps for aspirin and against aspirin. Much of the controversy was about who took the drug.

Regardless of the former president, the best use idea was to help folks deal with the symptoms of the illness and perhaps aid the body in it's fight. Much like ice packs to help with a high fever. A possible clinical treatment to help keep the ill in the fight. But the disputes put a stop to a decent look at the possibility.

 

[Burkey]

Hello; Have to give you credit for an interesting attempt at deflection. I recall that episode also. Another example of information which may have been useful but did not make it past the US-THEM agendas of the time.

An analogy of sorts. When the vaccines were available and I started taking the moderna shots there were news stories about blood clots. I was already taking aspirin on a daily basis. I stopped a few days before the shots as suggested but did start back after. I upped the dose for a couple of weeks thinking the aspirin might be of value with potential blood clots. I did this on my own using my own reasoning as a guide. I told a few people and the response was ho-hum. Had I been in the oval office at the time then sides would have been drawn about taking aspirin is my take. We would have camps for aspirin and against aspirin. Much of the controversy was about who took the drug.

Regardless of the former president, the best use idea was to help folks deal with the symptoms of the illness and perhaps aid the body in it's fight. Much like ice packs to help with a high fever. A possible clinical treatment to help keep the ill in the fight. But the disputes put a stop to a decent look at the possibility.

It wasn’t a deflection.
It was a statement of an observation. We might even call it a fact.

 

[sk47]

It wasn’t a deflection.
It was a statement of an observation. We might even call it a fact.

Hello; Very interesting that the thing you picked to respond about was my use of the term deflection. I wrote two posts with substantive points and you focus on deflection.
Just as well you are not my audience.

 

[Burkey]

Hello; Very interesting that the thing you picked to respond about was my use of the term deflection. I wrote two posts with substantive points and you focus on deflection.
Just as well you are not my audience.

Because most of your responses are gibberish.
I simply responded to the faulty premise you presented. One that was easily proven to be faulty.

 

[jtmat]

Warning: NO POLITICS

I think it is okay for the OP to talk politics and shut his own thread down... but that is me... lol

Interesting news for today:

https://www.reuters.com/

• 
  Veterans agency to require vaccinations for staff
• Mixed AstraZeneca-Pfizer shot boosts antibody level - study
• The White House is pushing for people with long-term COVID symptoms to be protected against discrimination
• New York City, California order government workers to get vaccinated

 

[K4fxd]

• Veterans agency to require vaccinations for staff
• Mixed AstraZeneca-Pfizer shot boosts antibody level - study
• The White House is pushing for people with long-term COVID symptoms to be protected against discrimination
• New York City, California order government workers to get vaccinated

But there will never be forced vaccinations LOL SMH.

It does remind me of Revelation chapter 13 verse 16 and 17.

 

[Burkey]

Warning: NO POLITICS

The post had educational value.
It wasn’t a point of view, it was highlighting the inconsistency of certain media sources (supported by facts) and how easily led some of the follower might be. The key word there being “some”.

I‘m quite sure the opposite side are more than capable of doing the same thing.

I think it is okay for the OP to talk politics and shut his own thread down... but that is me... lol

Interesting news for today:

https://www.reuters.com/

• 
  Veterans agency to require vaccinations for staff
• Mixed AstraZeneca-Pfizer shot boosts antibody level - study
• The White House is pushing for people with long-term COVID symptoms to be protected against discrimination
• New York City, California order government workers to get vaccinated

My post was a statement of facts, not political ideology.
It is factually true that many sources in the conservative media were claiming that Trumps efforts in vaccine distribution were note-worthy.
It is equally true that SOME of those sources appear to have jumped ship.

If people want to claim that I’m playing politics when I’m stating facts they don’t like, that’s on them.

The former president has gone on the record recently, telling people that they should indeed get vaccinated, that is also a fact (that he has said this) not a point of view (although it contains HIS point of view on the matter of vaccination).
It’s entirely up to the individual to decide how they feel about it, but the fact remains that this is what the former president has said.
It’s not necessarily MY opinion.

If we’ve reached a point where we can’t share facts anymore,, in case they hurt someone’s feelings, we’re doomed.

 

[Burkey]

I think it is okay for the OP to talk politics and shut his own thread down... but that is me... lol

Interesting news for today:

https://www.reuters.com/

• 
  Veterans agency to require vaccinations for staff
• Mixed AstraZeneca-Pfizer shot boosts antibody level - study
• The White House is pushing for people with long-term COVID symptoms to be protected against discrimination
• New York City, California order government workers to get vaccinated

The compulsory vaccination of staff is a particularly interesting one. I’m not sure how crazy the OHS legislation has become in the US, but here in Australia it’s pretty fierce.

At what point is the employer not obligated to provide their employees with a safe workplace?
What actually constitutes a safe workplace?
What does an employer do with a staff member who should NOT be vaccinated on medical advice?
The ethical/legal questions are quite fascinating.

Why should vaccinated workers be asked to work alongside staff who aren’t vaccinated due to medical reasons?

Why should someone who isn’t vaccinated for medical reasons, be put out of a job?

I can’t pick a side here.
Employee’s rights and freedoms vs a companies obligations….no thanks.

Also, I like the choice of Reuters as the source. Generally pretty reliable and impartial.

 

[Gregs24]

Conspiracy kooks are nothing new and come from across the political spectrum. Remember the bozos who thought the moon landing was faked? That 9/11 wasn't an al-qaeda terrorist attack but instead was carried out by the US government? ssdd

Completely agree. Political allegiance does however influence which cookie stories you are more likely to believe!

 

[Gregs24]

But there will never be forced vaccinations LOL SMH.

It does remind me of Revelation chapter 13 verse 16 and 17.

U.S. veterans agency mandates COVID-19 shots for medical staff | Reuters

Seems pretty clear that this is mandatory. If you choose not to you will not be working there.

As I said before you will be and are already restricted by not being vaccinated. It may not be something that affects you YET but it probably will at some point.

Quoting fiction again I see

 

[Gregs24]

The compulsory vaccination of staff is a particularly interesting one. I’m not sure how crazy the OHS legislation has become in the US, but here in Australia it’s pretty fierce.

At what point is the employer not obligated to provide their employees with a safe workplace?
What actually constitutes a safe workplace?
What does an employer do with a staff member who should NOT be vaccinated on medical advice?
The ethical/legal questions are quite fascinating.

Why should vaccinated workers be asked to work alongside staff who aren’t vaccinated due to medical reasons?

Why should someone who isn’t vaccinated for medical reasons, be put out of a job?

I can’t pick a side here.
Employee’s rights and freedoms vs a companies obligations….no thanks.

Also, I like the choice of Reuters as the source. Generally pretty reliable and impartial.

I agree it is a difficult area. Providing a safe workspace is one thing, but protecting those you are working with (or on) is another. I can completely understand mandating vaccination for care home staff for example. I think it comes back to the fact that the current vaccines are not sterilising vaccines and even when protected you are still able to transmit virus to others (albeit at a much reduced level).

Unfortunately somebody does have to 'pick a side' - for which they will be chastised whichever route they take!

 

[Gregs24]

My hope back then was if I caught the virus I had a doctor who had my best interest in mind and allowed the use of a well known drug as a just in case. A second ironic thing about the way the use of hydroxychloroquine became restricted was the emergency situation of the time. That emergency situation reason is good enough to vaccinate millions of people with a very new vaccine, but not good enough to use a medicine known for decades.

I await the replies.

That isn't how medicine works. Just because a medicine has been used for years doesn't mean you just randomly use it for other conditions. How about trying wart cream for HIV ? 'Just in case' is quackery not medicine.

Hydroxychloroquine was restricted (or rather more accurately not relicensed) because trials confirmed no beneficial effect. The vaccine was licensed because it did and does demonstrate beneficial effects in initial trials, large scale trials, and in the field.

The links I posted were very clear and not a play on words. here is the summary:

• Hydroxychloroquine does not reduce deaths from COVID-19, and probably does not reduce the number of people needing mechanical ventilation.
• Hydroxychloroquine caused more unwanted effects than a placebo treatment, though it did not appear to increase the number of serious unwanted effects.
• The authors do not think new studies of hydroxychloroquine should be started for treatment of COVID-19.

Misguided Use of Hydroxychloroquine for COVID-19: The Infusion of Politics Into Science | Critical Care Medicine | JAMA | JAMA Network

This paragraph from the above sums up the diabolical situation better than any I have seen before where unqualified people make what appear to be qualified statements:

Several lessons are gleaned from the experience with hydroxychloroquine in the treatment of COVID-19. First, a single report based on a small, nonrandomized study must be considered preliminary and hypothesis generating, not clinically actionable. Likewise, anecdotal case reports and case series that include several cases likewise must be considered anecdotal and preliminary. Second, US health officials, such as members of the Coronavirus Task Force, leaders from the National Institutes of Health, and officers of physician organizations and societies, who resisted being forced to promote the politically motivated use of hydroxychloroquine were correct and should be recognized for their steadfast commitment to science. Third, patients who have a potentially life-threatening disease are desperate and will accept any treatment that appears to be effective, especially when such treatment is promoted by individuals who ordinarily should be trusted, such as the US president.

This is NOT political, it is factual and the fact that some on here STILL promote the use Hydroxychloroquine even though it is proven to have no benefit demonstrates just how damaging these unqualified statements can be.

 

[Gregs24]

Then why was the former president taking it in the absence of an infection?
I recall it being referred to as a preventative.

The irony being he caught COVID and then was NOT treated with it when hospitalised because it wasn't licensed.

Sponsored