Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted
7 minutes ago, Reality Check said:

 

 

Yes it does work.

 

I don't have to stick my head up a bull's ass, when I know physicians in the military that gave me advice on it and have successfully treated it with HCQ and Zinc. Zero fatalities..

 

I take their advice over the FDA any day.

 

You can blindly follow the FDA's recommendation all you want, that is absolutely your right to choose what you think is best for you.

 

I and others will do the same.

 

I wonder the Chinese are doing to treat it.

 

Being such a trusted friend, I am sure that they will continue to help us with the "pandemic" they exported to the world.

 

Hahahahahahaaaa.  I believe the word is: triggered.

 

So it DOES work now, huh?  Link?

Posted
3 minutes ago, Gene Frenkle said:

 

Hahahahahahaaaa.  I believe the word is: triggered.

 

So it DOES work now, huh?  Link?

 

 

Triggered?

 

I just calmly explained my position to you...

 

...without an attitude or insults.

 

Do what ever you like.

Posted
2 minutes ago, Reality Check said:

 

 

Triggered?

 

I just calmly explained my position to you...

 

...without an attitude or insults.

 

Do what ever you like.

 

You didn't explain anything.  It's a losing fight anyway because HCQ doesn't work at all.

Posted
6 minutes ago, Winston Zeddemore said:

 

 

Quote

 

Henry Ford Health System officials report a study done by the health system shows the controversial anti-malaria drug hydroxychloroquine helps lower the death rate of COVID-19 patients.

Heads of the Michigan health system said Thursday the study found the drug “significantly” decreased the death rate of patients.

The study analyzed 2,541 patients hospitalized among the system’s six hospitals between March 10 and May 2 and found 13% of those treated with hydroxychloroquine died while 26% of those who did not receive the drug died.

 

Quote


 

The study, published in the International Society of Infectious Disease, found patients did not suffer heart-related side effects from the drug. 

 

 

 

This is also noteworthy

 

Quote

 

We attribute our findings that differ from other studies to early treatment, and part of a combination of interventions that were done in supportive care of patients, including careful cardiac monitoring," said Zervos, division head of infectious disease for the health system. Zervos authored the study with epidemiologist Dr. Samia Arshad. 

Other studies, Zervos noted, included different populations or were not peer-reviewed.

“Our dosing also differed from other studies not showing a benefit of the drug,” he said

 

 

 

 

Two main distinctions between this and the other studies.  The criticisms of the other studies was that the dose was wrong.  This study used a different dosage from previous studies.

 

And the other distinction was that this was used in "early treatment".  Which is the other point that many had made that HCQ was better for early treatment not once they were severely ill.

 

 

  • Like (+1) 2
  • Awesome! (+1) 1
Posted (edited)
23 minutes ago, Winston Zeddemore said:

Good news.  I just threw my mask in the trash.  Gotta be like the Don.  It’s probably just illegal immigrants who are getting the virus in the south, anyways. 
 

update:  mask has been burned.  No need for it. We have this under control.  It’s going to magically go away.  

Edited by SectionC3
Posted
17 minutes ago, SectionC3 said:

Good news.  I just threw my mask in the trash.  Gotta be like the Don.  It’s probably just illegal immigrants who are getting the virus in the south, anyways. 
 

update:  mask has been burned.  No need for it. We have this under control.  It’s going to magically go away.  

 

Keep proving that you're a grade A #######

  • Like (+1) 3
Posted
19 minutes ago, SectionC3 said:

Good news.  I just threw my mask in the trash.  Gotta be like the Don.  It’s probably just illegal immigrants who are getting the virus in the south, anyways. 
 

update:  mask has been burned.  No need for it. We have this under control.  It’s going to magically go away.  

 

Masks don't work kind of like your sarcasm doesn't work.

  • Haha (+1) 2
Posted
27 minutes ago, GG said:

 

Keep proving that you're a grade A #######

 

What, you don’t believe it’s going to magically go away?  You’re the intellectual standard bearer of these parts, so I’ll follow your guidance on matters such as the question whether it’s a good idea to wear a mask during a pandemic of respiratory illness.  I know the Don thinks it’s unnecessary, but I’m curious what you have to say on the issue.  

28 minutes ago, wAcKy ZeBrA said:

 

Masks don't work kind of like your sarcasm doesn't work.

 

Hong Kong disagrees. 

Posted
13 minutes ago, SectionC3 said:

 

What, you don’t believe it’s going to magically go away?  You’re the intellectual standard bearer of these parts, so I’ll follow your guidance on matters such as the question whether it’s a good idea to wear a mask during a pandemic of respiratory illness.  I know the Don thinks it’s unnecessary, but I’m curious what you have to say on the issue.  

 

 

No, I think it's a sign of an extra potent douche to ***** on an article that described positive developments in battling a deadly virus.  

  • Thank you (+1) 4
Posted (edited)
2 hours ago, GG said:

 

No, I think it's a sign of an extra potent douche to ***** on an article that described positive developments in battling a deadly virus.  

You know what would be much, much more positive?  Not chasing a maybe marginally-effective wonder drug and instead wearing our masks! 
 

***

 

But of course the occupant of the oval can’t be bothered with that.   It’s only the silver bullet for this thing.  It’s just not manly enough for him.  Instead we’ll worry about the marginal effectiveness of HCQ.  Spend our time wringing our hands about the 4% of sick exceptionally sick people we can help instead of encouraging them to endure in the very minor inconvenience that odds overwhelmingly say would have prevented them from becoming sick in the first place.  

Edited by SectionC3
Posted
2 hours ago, GG said:

No, I think it's a sign of an extra potent douche to ***** on an article that described positive developments in battling a deadly virus.  

 

Like I said, they'd rather see people die than Trump get a victory here.  It's pathetic, but that's what the left has been reduced to.

  • Thank you (+1) 2
Posted
10 minutes ago, SectionC3 said:

You know what would be much, much more positive?  Not chasing a maybe marginally-effective wonder drug and instead wearing our masks! 
 

***

 

But of course the occupant of the oval can’t be bothered with that.   It’s only the silver bullet for this thing.  It’s just not manly enough for him.  Instead we’ll worry about the marginal effectiveness of HCQ.  Spend our time wringing our hands about the 4% of sick exceptionally sick people we can help instead of encouraging them to endure in the very minor inconvenience that odds overwhelmingly say would have prevented them from becoming sick in the first place.  

 

Or you can acknowledge the difference between prevention & cure/treatment.

 

BTW, who was the erstwhile healthcare advisor who didn't recommend wearing masks when they would have been most effective?

 

BTW, I love Fauci because as a scientist, he occasionally slips into truth mode and revealed the real reason he didn't recommend mask wearing in February.  But hey, it only cost a few thousand lives in NYS, and if the NY governor doesn't care about them, why would Fauci?

  • Like (+1) 1
Posted
29 minutes ago, GG said:

 

Or you can acknowledge the difference between prevention & cure/treatment.

 

BTW, who was the erstwhile healthcare advisor who didn't recommend wearing masks when they would have been most effective?

 

BTW, I love Fauci because as a scientist, he occasionally slips into truth mode and revealed the real reason he didn't recommend mask wearing in February.  But hey, it only cost a few thousand lives in NYS, and if the NY governor doesn't care about them, why would Fauci?

 

I appreciate the difference.  As the intellectual standard bearer of the alt wrong community, however, I'm sure that you can appreciate that focusing on a highly effective preventative measure of minimal cost, minimal intrusion, and maximum efficacy would be a much better approach than pursuing a post hoc rationalization for misplaced faith in a marginally effective treatment for a marginal number of infected persons.  

 

 

Posted
19 minutes ago, SectionC3 said:

 

I appreciate the difference.  As the intellectual standard bearer of the alt wrong community, however, I'm sure that you can appreciate that focusing on a highly effective preventative measure of minimal cost, minimal intrusion, and maximum efficacy would be a much better approach than pursuing a post hoc rationalization for misplaced faith in a marginally effective treatment for a marginal number of infected persons.  

 

 

Good, then please follow up with Fauci on why he insisted in February that masks weren't effective when that would have made a huge difference in case growth.  

  • Like (+1) 1
Posted (edited)
52 minutes ago, GG said:

Good, then please follow up with Fauci on why he insisted in February that masks weren't effective when that would have made a huge difference in case growth.  


Fauci said the reason the public was advised not to wear masks at the beginning of the pandemic was that there were too few to go around. Apparently there wasn’t enough for medical professionals on the front lines.

 

It’s really too bad Trump dismantled our pandemic infrastructure and made it even worse by ignoring his intelligence.

 

 

 

Edited by BillStime
  • Haha (+1) 1
  • Awesome! (+1) 1
Posted
11 minutes ago, BillStime said:


Fauci said the reason the public was advised not to wear masks at the beginning of the pandemic was that there were too few to go around. Apparently there wasn’t enough for medical professionals on the front lines.

 

It’s really too bad Trump dismantled our pandemic infrastructure and made it even worse by ignoring his intelligence.

 

 

 

So essentially, you're applauding a technocrat's cold-hearted calculation to preserve mask capacity, even though he knew the masks are effective in slowing down the spread and that would have been most impactful in February. 

 

But let's post a few more memes to deflect from the decisions and advice given in February.  

 

Hey everyone, go see a movie!

  • Thank you (+1) 1
Posted
13 minutes ago, GG said:

So essentially, you're applauding a technocrat's cold-hearted calculation to preserve mask capacity, even though he knew the masks are effective in slowing down the spread and that would have been most impactful in February. 

 

But let's post a few more memes to deflect from the decisions and advice given in February.  

 

Hey everyone, go see a movie!

alternatively it could of caused an even greater shortage of masks having even worse effect on the medical professionals we need during this pandemic. In the end maybe he was right maybe he was wrong but he made a choice with the information he had and when that information indicated he should change that policy he did. What difficult choice have you made in the last 6 months?

  • Awesome! (+1) 2
Posted
2 hours ago, GG said:

Good, then please follow up with Fauci on why he insisted in February that masks weren't effective when that would have made a huge difference in case growth.  

The other two guys defeated the intellectual standard bearer of the alt wrong here.  But I’ll add that two wrongs don’t make a right.  So even if Fauci erred,  that mistake is no excuse for Trump’s continued recalcitrance on the mask issue. 

×
×
  • Create New...