Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted
1 minute ago, oldmanfan said:

Again it has been studied in that disease and dosages are understood.  It has not been formally studied for this virus.  

 

Science people.

      So you are saying it  doesn't cause significant cardiovascular side effects in Malaria victims but it does cause them in Virus victims?  Or is it they are giving massive amounts to virus victims?

Posted
2 minutes ago, 3rdnlng said:

No, that would take a little common sense, wouldn't it?

I am a reviewer for several medical journals.  I reject probably 80% of the articles I’m asked to review precisely because of flaws in study design.

Posted
13 minutes ago, TH3 said:

Well....he has posted several thousand times about the deep state, the Clinton Dynasty, the global warming hoax, and Benghazi! ...among other things....he knows pretty much every thing....just ask him!

He knew not to ingest fish tank cleaner to cure a virus. 

  • Haha (+1) 2
Posted
1 minute ago, Greybeard said:

      So you are saying it  doesn't cause significant cardiovascular side effects in Malaria victims but it does cause them in Virus victims?  Or is it they are giving massive amounts to virus victims?

I don’t know if the dosages given to malaria patients are the same as those that are being given to the current Covid patients.  If they are the same you would presume side effects would be similar.  But again malaria is a parasitic disease and corona is a viral disease.  Different pathogens have different routes of infectivity so you cannot assume what works for one pathogen works for another.

Posted
9 minutes ago, Deranged Rhino said:

 

That's why the Friday news on Flynn and Durham are more interesting. And more important (which is also why this story blew up today, to drown those stories out). 

 

It's SOP. 


Well, the presser should be interesting. Does Trump mention the Friday paper dumps? I hope so.



 

  • Like (+1) 1
Posted
17 minutes ago, Deranged Rhino said:

 

My track record exceeds yours by miles. Go back to pushing fake news stories about fish tank cleaners. Or triple down on your Trump/Russia debacle. :lol: 

 

Gentle reminder, sir.  It is you who is on the "fake news" and "hoax" lists.  So perhaps you should practice what you preach. 

Posted
3 minutes ago, 3rdnlng said:

He knew not to ingest fish tank cleaner to cure a virus. 

But apparently injecting disinfectant is reasonable for a clinical trial.  ?

  • Like (+1) 1
Posted
7 minutes ago, SectionC3 said:

 

Gentle reminder, sir.  It is you who is on the "fake news" and "hoax" lists.  So perhaps you should practice what you preach. 

 

Gentle reminder, sir: no one gives a flying rooster of a ***** about your lists. Especially when you continually bungle your delivery of your own punchlines involving them. 

 

 

  • Thank you (+1) 1
Posted
2 minutes ago, oldmanfan said:

I am a reviewer for several medical journals.  I reject probably 80% of the articles I’m asked to review precisely because of flaws in study design.

Common sense would cause a reasonable person to assume that the people getting the drug are in more serious condition. We know, it hasn't been studied and gone through lengthy trials. I know that dosage level, frequency and the point in time to give it to a patient has not been determined yet. I also know that it has been considered safe in other uses. I also know that if the patient and their doctor think it will help that it should be given to the patient. ONE MORE POINT, WE CAME TO THIS CONCLUSION RIGHT HERE HOURS AGO. WE WERE IN AGREEMENT. WTF ARE WE REHASHING IT?

Posted
Just now, Deranged Rhino said:

 

Gentle reminder, sir: no one gives a flying rooster of a ***** about your lists. Especially when you continually bungle your delivery of your own punchlines involving them. 

 

 

Fake news.  You cared enough to respond.  

Posted
Just now, 3rdnlng said:

Common sense would cause a reasonable person to assume that the people getting the drug are in more serious condition. We know, it hasn't been studied and gone through lengthy trials. I know that dosage level, frequency and the point in time to give it to a patient has not been determined yet. I also know that it has been considered safe in other uses. I also know that if the patient and their doctor think it will help that it should be given to the patient. ONE MORE POINT, WE CAME TO THIS CONCLUSION RIGHT HERE HOURS AGO. WE WERE IN AGREEMENT. WTF ARE WE REHASHING IT?

Because some keep saying the drug saves people without any real data to support that conclusion.

  • Like (+1) 1
Posted
1 minute ago, SectionC3 said:

Fake news.  You cared enough to respond.  

 

Because mocking you is fun (and super easy) while I procrastinate from work ;) Difference. But carry on, you comedic genius. 

Posted
Just now, Deranged Rhino said:

 

Because mocking you is fun (and super easy) while I procrastinate from work ;) Difference. But carry on, you comedic genius. 

Hoax.  I’m not a comedic genius.  

Posted
2 minutes ago, oldmanfan said:

Because some keep saying the drug saves people without any real data to support that conclusion.

Ask the people it has helped. 

  • Like (+1) 1
Posted
4 minutes ago, Deranged Rhino said:

 

Eek... gonna cut into the draft. 

 

:beer: 


I'm bailing at 7. I hope he doesn't say anything "good" after that.

  • Like (+1) 1
Posted
Just now, 3rdnlng said:

Ask the people it has helped. 

You miss the point.  It may have helped some.  But it may have hurt more.  And that is why we need data and properly-conducted studies.  

Posted
4 minutes ago, Deranged Rhino said:

 

Eek... gonna cut into the draft. 

 

:beer: 

I’m going to PVR the Dr.Trump schitshow so I can laugh later. ?

×
×
  • Create New...