Coronavirus (COVID-19 Outbreak) (65 Viewers)
- Thread starter Bjerknes
- Start date
https://www.cidrap.umn.edu/news-per...dexamethasone-not-hydroxychloroquine-covid-19
Another nail in the coffin for Hydroxychloroquine, and more evidence that Trump and the sycophantic morons propping him up are completely full of shit.
Another nail in the coffin for Hydroxychloroquine, and more evidence that Trump and the sycophantic morons propping him up are completely full of shit.
"The authors note that the results are limited by the fact that only 58% of the participants received testing for SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID-19, because of testing shortages at the time of enrollment."
You were probably too angry to read what you posted, also take a look at their underwriters
I'm sure gilead has no stake in this, definitely no conflict of interest.
I looked at those tweets and didn't understand much. Do you have a recent scientific paper that points out that reinfection is impossible? Please don't throw tweets at me if you don't have.
There is no evidence that you can't get reinfected. Reports are coming that people get reinfected. And it is unknown so far what type of immunity the T-cells give. Time will tell but it won't be a surprise if this is a virus that you can get infected 3 times per year. We don't know yet. Nothing like that is being debunked.
There is no evidence that you can't get reinfected. Reports are coming that people get reinfected. And it is unknown so far what type of immunity the T-cells give. Time will tell but it won't be a surprise if this is a virus that you can get infected 3 times per year. We don't know yet. Nothing like that is being debunked.
Last edited:
"The authors note that the results are limited by the fact that only 58% of the participants received testing for SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID-19, because of testing shortages at the time of enrollment."
You were probably too angry to read what you posted, also take a look at their underwriters I'm sure gilead has no stake in this, definitely no conflict of interest.
You were probably too angry to read what you posted, also take a look at their underwriters
I'm sure gilead has no stake in this, definitely no conflict of interest.
keep drinking that koolaid, braski.
ps. You were clearly too biased to read that it was two studies, not one, finding it ineffective.
- - - Updated - - -
Meanwhile, here’s your “genius” and his “study” that started all this nonsense, getting trashed again by peer review. “Gross methodological shortcomings.”
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0924857920302338#!
I’m sure you shall come up with some conspiracy theory. Like hurr durr “Gilead and commies.”
Last edited:
keep drinking that koolaid, braski.
ps. You were clearly too biased to read that it was two studies, not one, finding it ineffective.
- - - Updated - - -
Meanwhile, here’s your “genius” and his “study” that started all this nonsense, getting trashed again by peer review. “Gross methodological shortcomings.”
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0924857920302338#!
I’m sure you shall come up with some conspiracy theory. Like hurr durr “Gilead and commies.”
Here's article form July 2
Hydroxychloroquine lowers COVID-19 death rate, Henry Ford Health study finds
I wouldn't bet my chips that HCQ is useless vs COVID-19.
I don’t think it’s out of the question that some sort of benefit is found, but the non-peer reviewed studies, such as the observational one in the link above don’t tell us a whole lot. Just like the observational studies that said it had zero effect and even heightened death rates don’t tell us a whole lot. We don’t know what other elements skew those Observational studies for or against it. We don’t know what other treatments were used alongside it in the one above. Some patients were also treated with dexamethasone, which is a drug that’s actually been shown to be effective. 10% of patients were left out of the final results as they hadn’t yet been discharged from hospital, etc.https://wdet.org/posts/2020/07/15/8...roxychloroquine-study-methodology-conclusion/
https://www.deadlinedetroit.com/art...roit_s_henry_ford_health_may_have_been_flawed
It could well have a use in the end, but until proper studies have been done and not just slipshod ones or observational ones that go against what double blind, placebo controlled studies have shown, it’s just speculation.
keep drinking that koolaid, braski.
ps. You were clearly too biased to read that it was two studies, not one, finding it ineffective.
- - - Updated - - -
Meanwhile, here’s your “genius” and his “study” that started all this nonsense, getting trashed again by peer review. “Gross methodological shortcomings.”
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0924857920302338#!
I’m sure you shall come up with some conspiracy theory. Like hurr durr “Gilead and commies.”
Beats going apeshit about stuff just coz trump endorses it
https://apnews.com/30225f1c11cb40fd...AP&utm_source=Twitter&utm_campaign=SocialFlow
- - - Updated - - -
#ShaqAttack
- - - Updated - - -
#ShaqAttack
I think my roommate might have Coronavirus. He is getting tested in 30 minutes 
The narrative is it's science, it's data, it's complicated, and it's not black or white.
But just because we don't have conclusive evidence of the prevalence of reinfection doesn't mean it doesn't exist either.
