TexasScientist said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

The study discusses in-hospital use of hydroxychloroquine, not outpatient prescription,

It's also a rehash of old stories.

---

May 22nd publication.

---

which rehashed old stories.

---

Study 96,032 patients, not story. Stories don't mean anything. Where is your new study in support?

---

You are really afraid of hydroxychloroquine, and all the patient it has helped.

Not a noble emotion.

Oldbear83 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

The study discusses in-hospital use of hydroxychloroquine, not outpatient prescription,

It's also a rehash of old stories.

---

May 22nd publication.

---

which rehashed old stories.

---

Study 96,032 patients, not story. Stories don't mean anything. Where is your new study in support?

---

You are really afraid of hydroxychloroquine, and all the patient it has helped.

Not a noble emotion.

---

He cited studies. No emotions involved,

quash said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

The study discusses in-hospital use of hydroxychloroquine, not outpatient prescription,

It's also a rehash of old stories.

---

May 22nd publication.

---

which rehashed old stories.

---

Study 96,032 patients, not story. Stories don't mean anything. Where is your new study in support?

---

You are really afraid of hydroxychloroquine, and all the patient it has helped.

Not a noble emotion.

---

He cited studies. No emotions involved,

---

The studies he cites are all in-hospital patients, as established several times. He ignores, as do you, the statements from doctors who treated patients without hospitalization.

Deliberately ignoring facts is beneath you quash. Or it used to be.

Oldbear83 said:

---

quash said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

The study discusses in-hospital use of hydroxychloroquine, not outpatient prescription,

It's also a rehash of old stories.

---

May 22nd publication.

---

which rehashed old stories.

---

Study 96,032 patients, not story. Stories don't mean anything. Where is your new study in support?

---

You are really afraid of hydroxychloroquine, and all the patient it has helped.

Not a noble emotion.

---

He cited studies. No emotions involved,

---

The studies he cites are all in-hospital patients, as established several times. He ignores, as do you, the statements from doctors who treated patients without hospitalization.

Deliberately ignoring facts is beneath you quash. Or it used to be.

---

The studies are limited to what they are limited to. To try and apply them beyond what they studied would be ignorant.
Note also that the studies are for the key purpose of how to help those who are most ill: hospitalized patients.

jupiter said:

---

---

Yay! Twice the benefits cost and administrative burden for half the productivity. That sounds like a brilliant idea. Who doesn't want immovable fixed costs during an economic shock?

Bearitto said:

---

jupiter said:

---

---

Yay! Twice the benefits cost and administrative burden for half the productivity. That sounds like a brilliant idea. Who doesn't want immovable fixed costs during an economic shock?

---

Could likely result in none of the benefits cost if people are no longer full-time

Thanks for admitting my point

Oldbear83 said:

---

Thanks for admitting my point

---

Whenever you want to thank me for telling you how they were, I'll accept the thanks

It's inevitable you're gonna lose it with these dimcrat useful idiots

Oldbear83 said:

---

Thanks for admitting my point

---

No, no, thank you for admitting TS's point. I can't take credit for that.

quash said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Thanks for admitting my point

---

Sorry but I cannot admit the truth directly. I can't accept that.

---

Rephrased for accuracy.

The plain fact is that the drug is effective in keeping early cases from getting worse.


Sad that you prefer to see patients get worse than use a cheap, effective treatment.

jupiter said:

---

---

Where does Taleb live?

Osodecentx said:

---

jupiter said:

---

---

Where does Taleb live?

---

I wonder as well. I would be more than willing to volunteer to help him pack his stuff so he can move to a more suitable country.

jupiter said:

---

---

We haven't spent a trillion in nuclear weapons in 40-50 years, let alone trillions. Get out of here with that idiotic ****

Oldbear83 said:

---

Thanks for admitting my point

---

Studies in contradiction to your anecdotal stories. There is no significance to anecdotal stories of non hospitalized patients.

When it was first suggested, I thought hydroxychloroquine might be a good therapeutic, because it is an ionophore. However, the studies have shown that not to be the case. You won't recognize it because it goes against what Trump has irresponsibly embraced.

Oldbear83 said:

---

quash said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Thanks for admitting my point

---

Sorry but I cannot admit the truth directly. I can't accept that.

---

Rephrased for accuracy.

The plain fact is that the drug is effective in keeping early cases from getting worse.


Sad that you prefer to see patients get worse than use a cheap, effective treatment.

---

Cite your studies that support your conclusion. Otherwise it is anecdotal hearsay, not plain fact. If they weren't sick enough to be hospitalized, they likely were going to get better without getting worse.

As I said before, I thought hydroxychloroquine being an ionophore had some merit for therapeutic treatment, but the studies don't bear that out. Once again, you can't recognize objective reality, because it contradicts Trump's contrived pronouncements.

TexasScientist said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

quash said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Thanks for admitting my point

---

Sorry but I cannot admit the truth directly. I can't accept that.

---

Rephrased for accuracy.

The plain fact is that the drug is effective in keeping early cases from getting worse.


Sad that you prefer to see patients get worse than use a cheap, effective treatment.

---

Cite your studies that support your conclusion. Otherwise it is anecdotal hearsay, not plain fact. If they weren't sick enough to be hospitalized, they likely were going to get better without getting worse.

As I said before, I thought hydroxychloroquine being an ionophore had some merit for therapeutic treatment, but the studies don't bear that out. Once again, you can't recognize objective reality, because it contradicts Trump's contrived pronouncements.

---

Not sure what it means, but scientists are voicing concerns about the Lanet study
From NYTimes on the Lancet article:
"Data from Africa indicate that nearly 25 percent of all Covid-19 cases and 40 percent of all deaths in the continent occurred in Surgisphere-associated hospitals which had sophisticated electronic patient data recording," the scientists wrote. "Both the numbers of cases and deaths, and the detailed data collection, seem unlikely."

Another of the critics' concerns was that the data about Covid-19 cases in Australia was incompatible with government reports and included "more in-hospital deaths than had occurred in the entire country during the study period."
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/05/29/health/coronavirus-hydroxychloroquine.html?algo=identity&fellback=false&imp_id=809682874&action=click&module=Science%20%20Technology&pgtype=Homepage

Oldbear83 said:

---

quash said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Thanks for admitting my point

---

Sorry but I cannot admit the truth directly. I can't accept that.

---

Rephrased for accuracy.

The plain fact is that the drug is effective in keeping early cases from getting worse.


Sad that you prefer to see patients get worse than use a cheap, effective treatment.

---

I have often asked you to quote me when you lie about what I say. Putting your words in my post is deceitful. I understand how "fify" is a joke but that is not what you are doing here. Someone just joining the thread will think I actually said that.

There are two different ways to use the drug. Texas Scientist produced a study about the ineffectiveness of the drug on hospitalized patients. You have since wasted everyone's time with your flailing attack. Not with a conflicting study. Not with any evidence at all. Just your stubborn recitation of a different use of the drug in trials on patients who are not nearly so ill.

You can have your win: in trials (not studies) some patients have responded well with the drug in an early intervention. Mostly younger patients with no co-morbidities. Take your win.

I know your tactics well, quash. Years ago I did go to the trouble to dig up proof, but you always - always - pretended it did not exist and went on to your next lie.

So I simply present plain observation, and do not give you more attention than you have earned. I only make this comment here so some of the newer members will learn to watch your tactics and see you for what you are.

Quash described your posts accurately. Follow your own advice.

TexasScientist said:

---

Quash described your posts accurately. Follow your own advice.

---

Go back to your buddy Waco and tell him you posted your predictable taunt for the day, TS.

That should free you up to study some real science for the next time you make a claim to be a scientist.

Oldbear83 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Quash described your posts accurately. Follow your own advice.

---

Go back to your buddy Waco and tell him you posted your predictable taunt for the day, TS.

That should free you up to study some real science for the next time you make a claim to be a scientist.

---

Ad hominem attacks are all you've got?

You get the response you earn, TS/Waco.

Oldbear83 said:

---

You get the response you earn, TS/Waco.

---

LOL - a little late to the party. Probably doing it to justify the riots.

riflebear said:

---

LOL - a little late to the party. Probably doing it to justify the riots.

---

How does the antibody test justify riots? Can you explain the connection you are making?

quash said:

---

riflebear said:

---

LOL - a little late to the party. Probably doing it to justify the riots.

---

How does the antibody test justify riots? Can you explain the connection you are making?

---

My point was these liberal organizations were ignoring the stats showing the virus was less dangerous than originally thought. It took the shifting narrative to the protests for them to finally admit what everyone else was already saying so now the virus isn't dangerous anymore so social distancing isn't as big a deal in these riots. My apologies, did not word it well. They never would have printed this article if the riots hadn't broken out.

Liberals are licking their chops. First the virus to blame Trump for, now the riots. Guarantee the first school shooting in Sept or Oct will be their trifecta.

Did the pandemic end?

riflebear said:

---

Did the pandemic end?

---

No. It's still here, and the riots will surely contribute to it.

Sam Lowry said:

---

riflebear said:

---

Did the pandemic end?

---

No. It's still here, and the riots will surely contribute to it.

---

Indeed they will.

And within weeks the media will renew their stories on how minorities are dying from it . Due to racism of course .