93,000+ patients and ZERO of them with Zinc as part of the treatment. Either patients aren't getting Hydroxy + Zithromax +Zinc (They are, some of ours are on that treatment plan) or they intentionally omitted such patients.
Their wording of it in the article was very clever. “It’s based on retrospective analysis, not a controlled study—a method considered the gold standard of medicine.” I can see 80% of people skimming over that, and maybe even reading that, and taking the gold standard part to have a halo effect over the rest of it, as if it were referring to the study itself.
Science is really slow. There is little consensus on anything that matters as it is unfolding. There is certainly no consensus that HCQ is deadly. There isn’t even a consensus about facts at this point, like the death projections being off by hilarious orders of magnitude. “They weren’t wrong, it’s just that shit happened, like social distancing.” The fucking models already took that into account. “It just proves social distancing works.” In NY, the people that got it were usually the ones that stayed home. On and on. Which is fine. But if you’re discussing things in that manner and cannot be wrong, then you’re no longer speaking in scientific terms. The ‘science’ on this used to support the lockdown isn’t even wrong, which is the biggest insult something can receive in this situation.
I do a bit of speed reading on stuff, and I admit my first scan of the highlighted bit did make me think that the method used was the “gold standard”. That’s on me and I should slow down.
It’s not until I had re-read the bit after seeing your comment that I saw the spin. Very devious. If they had to include that line at all, a better way to impart the information would have been, “while this study didn’t use what is considered the ‘gold standard’ of control groups and random assignments, it did rely on retrospective data...”
Looking at it again when I checked it out after seeing it on redacted, the Post edited the article further, changing the em dash (—) to a comma before the ‘gold standard’ part. Now it looks like it says it’s the gold standard even more. The only reason to remove something like that is to decrease the emphasis on it and make everything seem more fluid. It’s definitely intentional, and the screenshot of this post proves what the original said.
On that note, redacted has a revolving door of articles now all echoing the same headlines which are all based on this one hit piece. Bad science isn’t better than no science, it’s worse.
Science and Journalism used to be pursuits of provable truth and facts. Not anymore. Grant based research and Advertising have corrupted those industries beyond repair.
It's like walking up to 5 people in Silicon Valley and asking them if they like Trump, and 4 of them say no. They'll run with "80% of people dislike Trump, poll says!"
Upon hearing the surprising results of the VA study, Dr. Raoult reviewed their findings and discovered several glaring instances of “scientific misconduct.”
The analysis of the data shows two major biases…Lymphopenia is twice as common in the HCQ groups as the non-HCQ group and there is an absolute correlation between lymphopenia and fatality rate, which is well known.”
One of the major problems Raoult found was that the HQC and the HQC/Zpak were given after the patients had been intubated. “This is unreasonable at the time of the cytokine storm [after patient is critically ill], as it is unlikely that HCQ alone would be able to control patients at this stage of the disease.”
Ingraham translates: “The later you take HCQ, the worse the outcome will be.”
Our study has several limitations. The association of decreased survival with hydroxychloroquine or chloro-quine treatment regimens should be interpreted cautiously. Due to the observational study design, we cannot exclude the possibility of unmeasured con-founding factors, although we have reassuringly noted consistency between the primary analysis and the propensity score matched analyses. Nevertheless, a cause-and-effect relationship between drug therapy and survival should not be inferred. These data do not apply to the use of any treatment regimen used in the ambulatory, out-of-hospital setting. Randomised clinical trials will be required before any conclusion can be reached regarding benefit or harm of these agents in COVID-19 patients. We also note that although we evaluated the relationship of the drug treatment regimens with the occurrence of ventricular arrhyth-mias, we did not measure QT intervals, nor did we stratify the arrhythmia pattern (such as torsade de pointes). We also did not establish if the association of increased risk of in-hospital death with use of the drug regimens is linked directly to their cardiovascular risk, nor did we conduct a drug dose-response analysis of the observed risks. Even if these limitations suggest a conservative interpretation of the findings, we believe that the absence of any observed benefit could still represent a reasonable explanation.In summary, this multinational, observational, real-world study of patients with COVID-19 requiring hospitalisation found that the use of a regimen con-taining hydroxychloroquine or chloroquine (with or without a macrolide) was associated with no evidence of benefit, but instead was associated with an increase in the risk of ventricular arrhythmias and a greater hazard for in-hospital death with COVID-19. These findings suggest that these drug regimens should not be used outside of clinical trials and urgent confirmation from randomised clinical trials is needed.
"Study says..."* . . . .
Edit I have no idea what happened to the formatting. How does one put several blank lines in between sentences?
In other news: some scientists are retarded.
Social scientists.
Good point.
WAPO loves to drop those qualifiers and let the ready jump to (incorrect) conclusions.
Political scientists.
Doctors (of Gender Studies) agree.
Paid off*
93,000+ patients and ZERO of them with Zinc as part of the treatment. Either patients aren't getting Hydroxy + Zithromax +Zinc (They are, some of ours are on that treatment plan) or they intentionally omitted such patients.
Another trick is when the headline is a question, the answer is usually “no”.
“Did Trump collude with Russia against Hillary Clinton?”
“No.”
'fears are growing' or 'calls are growing'. There's never any evidence of the claim though.
NY Slimes and Washington Compost have poisoned the well of "confidential sources" for reporters for at least a generation.
Speculation Scientists
Just look at how many sign off on global warming; That should be a good indicator.
Hard not to when your grant money depends on it. Not that that’s an excuse.
Their wording of it in the article was very clever. “It’s based on retrospective analysis, not a controlled study—a method considered the gold standard of medicine.” I can see 80% of people skimming over that, and maybe even reading that, and taking the gold standard part to have a halo effect over the rest of it, as if it were referring to the study itself.
Science is really slow. There is little consensus on anything that matters as it is unfolding. There is certainly no consensus that HCQ is deadly. There isn’t even a consensus about facts at this point, like the death projections being off by hilarious orders of magnitude. “They weren’t wrong, it’s just that shit happened, like social distancing.” The fucking models already took that into account. “It just proves social distancing works.” In NY, the people that got it were usually the ones that stayed home. On and on. Which is fine. But if you’re discussing things in that manner and cannot be wrong, then you’re no longer speaking in scientific terms. The ‘science’ on this used to support the lockdown isn’t even wrong, which is the biggest insult something can receive in this situation.
I do a bit of speed reading on stuff, and I admit my first scan of the highlighted bit did make me think that the method used was the “gold standard”. That’s on me and I should slow down.
It’s not until I had re-read the bit after seeing your comment that I saw the spin. Very devious. If they had to include that line at all, a better way to impart the information would have been, “while this study didn’t use what is considered the ‘gold standard’ of control groups and random assignments, it did rely on retrospective data...”
But that would require the Post to be honest.
Looking at it again when I checked it out after seeing it on redacted, the Post edited the article further, changing the em dash (—) to a comma before the ‘gold standard’ part. Now it looks like it says it’s the gold standard even more. The only reason to remove something like that is to decrease the emphasis on it and make everything seem more fluid. It’s definitely intentional, and the screenshot of this post proves what the original said.
On that note, redacted has a revolving door of articles now all echoing the same headlines which are all based on this one hit piece. Bad science isn’t better than no science, it’s worse.
Some. Not “majority” of scientists. I put WaPo the same place I put 99% of white papers coming out of China - trash can.
Science and Journalism used to be pursuits of provable truth and facts. Not anymore. Grant based research and Advertising have corrupted those industries beyond repair.
I have my Master's in Mechanical Engineering making me a "Science Guy," and I agree.
It's like walking up to 5 people in Silicon Valley and asking them if they like Trump, and 4 of them say no. They'll run with "80% of people dislike Trump, poll says!"
I think CNN just walks up to one person with purple hair and asks, "Do you approve of Trump?"
"No"
CNN: 100 percent of people surveyed Do Not approve of Trump!
Like that freak on Twitch acting like a deer after he got his 'you know what' removed and started callimg himself a her? What a waste of life.
https://www.redstate.com/elizabeth-vaughn/2020/04/23/french-doctor-didier-raoult-cites-flaws-scientific-misconduct-in-recent-va-study-on-hydroxychloroquine/
This is the real story.
Just when I think the American Left can get any worse.
Oh and keep in mind twitter currently has this "study" trending at the very top of their "covid news" and trending list
The same social media site claiming to be against fake covid news, actively spreading it themselves.
If hydroxychloriquine is so dangerous, they should be happy the president is taking it. But the fact is, it isn't.
TD uses a subset of markdown... it's weird.
Also, why did this study mix CQ and HCQ?
I don't know. I drank fish tank cleaner and I ascended to become a higher being.
Our your trump hating wife murdered you with fish tank cleaner and tried to blame POTUS.
Did the Devil hang you upside down in Hell?
Because it is CQ that causes problems and they want to make HCQ look bad.
And did they also take the z pack?
this is what i want to know, because supposedly its the azithro that gives the heart palpitations in some patients.
Here's the limitations section on the paper:
Source: https://www.thelancet.com/action/showPdf?pii=S0140-6736%2820%2931180-6