| Most reliable information.Covid-19 23:34 - May 20 with 21492 views | RonaldStump |
So who is providing the most reliable information?
The so called 'Conspiracy Theorists' or the Government (Sage) and their modelling.
Since March 2020 there clearly only one winner here.
Congratulations the so called 'Consiracy Theorists'
Prove me wrong. |  |
| |  |
| Most reliable information.Covid-19 on 12:35 - Jun 3 with 1043 views | Professor |
| Most reliable information.Covid-19 on 12:25 - Jun 3 by A_Fans_Dad |
HCQ, no, because it is based on those 3 studies that I have pointed out numerous times that were designed not only to fail but were dangerous to the patients as well, using 6 times the recommended maximum dose and without Zinc.
Which you fail to acknowledge and never will. |
Cherry picking to find the answer to support your hypothesis is one of the worst things you can do as a scientist. If evidence does not support it then that's it. The data are the data.
So I take it this huge multinational effort is lies and manipulation:
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-021-22446-z
Their key finding:
We found that treatment with hydroxychloroquine is associated with increased mortality in COVID-19 patients, and there is no benefit of chloroquine
The data are overwhelming. | | | |
| Most reliable information.Covid-19 on 13:19 - Jun 3 with 1000 views | Ajack_Kerouac |
Fauci’s leaked e-mails prove that the masks were theatre and that Fauci has told lies from the beginning. |  |
| "It's what people know about themselves inside that makes them afraid" - "In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act" - "The further a society drifts from truth the more it will hate those who speak it" |
| |
| Most reliable information.Covid-19 on 13:42 - Jun 3 with 1006 views | Professor |
| Most reliable information.Covid-19 on 13:19 - Jun 3 by Ajack_Kerouac |
Fauci’s leaked e-mails prove that the masks were theatre and that Fauci has told lies from the beginning. |
No leaked but released under freedom of information.
Emails from Feb 2020 consistent with policy and best-advice at that time point. Totally consistent with what was said. Same policy as stated by CMO Chris Whitty in March 2020. You know what they got it wrong and overstated hand washing as the best control. Fauci was and is correct that most masks don’t prevent the virus, but they work to reduce transmission by stopping droplets. That became evident with better information and advice changed. | | | |
| Most reliable information.Covid-19 on 13:45 - Jun 3 with 1000 views | onehunglow |
| Most reliable information.Covid-19 on 13:42 - Jun 3 by Professor |
No leaked but released under freedom of information.
Emails from Feb 2020 consistent with policy and best-advice at that time point. Totally consistent with what was said. Same policy as stated by CMO Chris Whitty in March 2020. You know what they got it wrong and overstated hand washing as the best control. Fauci was and is correct that most masks don’t prevent the virus, but they work to reduce transmission by stopping droplets. That became evident with better information and advice changed. |
Paul.
Why are some prefering to rubbish a vaccine when one has become available.
Would it be fair to say that such a vaccine would never be trusted,ever.
What would you say is the alternative for them.
We face real problems with our mentality as a nation and it worries me. | |
| |
| Most reliable information.Covid-19 on 13:52 - Jun 3 with 1000 views | Scotia |
| Most reliable information.Covid-19 on 13:45 - Jun 3 by onehunglow |
Paul.
Why are some prefering to rubbish a vaccine when one has become available.
Would it be fair to say that such a vaccine would never be trusted,ever.
What would you say is the alternative for them.
We face real problems with our mentality as a nation and it worries me. |
Too much information and too little knowledge. | | | |
| Most reliable information.Covid-19 on 13:55 - Jun 3 with 993 views | onehunglow |
| Most reliable information.Covid-19 on 13:52 - Jun 3 by Scotia |
Too much information and too little knowledge. |
And for you ,simple too little.
I do feel blessed to be in such esteemed scientific alumni like you | |
| |
| Most reliable information.Covid-19 on 13:59 - Jun 3 with 975 views | Ajack_Kerouac |
| Most reliable information.Covid-19 on 13:42 - Jun 3 by Professor |
No leaked but released under freedom of information.
Emails from Feb 2020 consistent with policy and best-advice at that time point. Totally consistent with what was said. Same policy as stated by CMO Chris Whitty in March 2020. You know what they got it wrong and overstated hand washing as the best control. Fauci was and is correct that most masks don’t prevent the virus, but they work to reduce transmission by stopping droplets. That became evident with better information and advice changed. |
Why didn’t he inform the Trump administration about his knowledge of CDC’s funding of the lab in Wuhan into gain of function research?
The e-mails show that he knew about it and was aware of the work being related to Corona Virus...yet he publicly stated that it did not leak from a lab and neglected to inform his boss.
Why? | |
| "It's what people know about themselves inside that makes them afraid" - "In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act" - "The further a society drifts from truth the more it will hate those who speak it" |
| |
| Most reliable information.Covid-19 on 14:24 - Jun 3 with 977 views | Professor |
| Most reliable information.Covid-19 on 13:59 - Jun 3 by Ajack_Kerouac |
Why didn’t he inform the Trump administration about his knowledge of CDC’s funding of the lab in Wuhan into gain of function research?
The e-mails show that he knew about it and was aware of the work being related to Corona Virus...yet he publicly stated that it did not leak from a lab and neglected to inform his boss.
Why? |
Perhaps as there is no concrete evidence of such. And NIH, not CDC funding which was to the American group collaborating with the Wuhan Institute (as do many people around the world) which gets its funding from CSF.
As I have said before there is the chance this is a lab leak (has happened in the UK with FMD), but there is no credible genetic analysis which supports this being a 'modified virus' and certainly nothing in the emails which supports this -whatever right-wing US commentators say. Nor in that ridiculous report leaked to the Mail. And certainly not the 'SARS CoV2 recipe' in the emails, sent to Fauci from an 'independent' scientist/grifter promoting a 'cure' for Covid
Indeed the emails tend to show how remarkably honest and straight Fauci has been. I think the BBC sum it up well as you can read what you want into the emails.
That is all I am saying to you. As I know how you work and I value my mental health and happiness too much. | | | |
Login to get fewer ads
| Most reliable information.Covid-19 on 14:32 - Jun 3 with 962 views | Ajack_Kerouac |
| Most reliable information.Covid-19 on 14:24 - Jun 3 by Professor |
Perhaps as there is no concrete evidence of such. And NIH, not CDC funding which was to the American group collaborating with the Wuhan Institute (as do many people around the world) which gets its funding from CSF.
As I have said before there is the chance this is a lab leak (has happened in the UK with FMD), but there is no credible genetic analysis which supports this being a 'modified virus' and certainly nothing in the emails which supports this -whatever right-wing US commentators say. Nor in that ridiculous report leaked to the Mail. And certainly not the 'SARS CoV2 recipe' in the emails, sent to Fauci from an 'independent' scientist/grifter promoting a 'cure' for Covid
Indeed the emails tend to show how remarkably honest and straight Fauci has been. I think the BBC sum it up well as you can read what you want into the emails.
That is all I am saying to you. As I know how you work and I value my mental health and happiness too much. |
The e-mails show that Fauci knew early on that the virus looked genetically modified. | |
| "It's what people know about themselves inside that makes them afraid" - "In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act" - "The further a society drifts from truth the more it will hate those who speak it" |
| |
| Most reliable information.Covid-19 on 14:36 - Jun 3 with 974 views | Professor |
| Most reliable information.Covid-19 on 13:45 - Jun 3 by onehunglow |
Paul.
Why are some prefering to rubbish a vaccine when one has become available.
Would it be fair to say that such a vaccine would never be trusted,ever.
What would you say is the alternative for them.
We face real problems with our mentality as a nation and it worries me. |
Because people lie to believe what they want to hear and are gullible. Easy lies over difficult truths. Anti-vaxxers are well funded and use emotive tools. Few people get the difference between association and causation. People fail to understand relative risk, So it's fair to say that blood clots are a rare adverse advent to vaccines. This is unfortunate, but the risk is much lower than taking a flight, smoking or using oral contraceptives. The risk is thousands of times greater in getting blood clots in Covid.
Scotia is right-there is a lot of information out there. The majority has no filter over its quality or truthfulness. People, including posters here, are manipulated by things like social media and the idiocy we saw around the events of January 6th and equally the actions of factions of the left and BLM are testament to that. We see the moans about MSM, but here they are pretty balanced in reporting-though the BBC always favours the sitting government, but are willing to believe totally unregulated sources.
It's why science uses review processes-it's not perfect but gets rid of much of the 'bad' science.
Anyway-jobs to do. | | | |
| Most reliable information.Covid-19 on 15:21 - Jun 3 with 956 views | A_Fans_Dad |
| Most reliable information.Covid-19 on 12:35 - Jun 3 by Professor |
Cherry picking to find the answer to support your hypothesis is one of the worst things you can do as a scientist. If evidence does not support it then that's it. The data are the data.
So I take it this huge multinational effort is lies and manipulation:
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-021-22446-z
Their key finding:
We found that treatment with hydroxychloroquine is associated with increased mortality in COVID-19 patients, and there is no benefit of chloroquine
The data are overwhelming. |
Are you trying to be funny?
That so called study threw out the majority of the studies and of those that were left were dominated by?
Yes Oxford Recovery & WHO Solidarity, 2 of the most dangerous studies ever carried out.
Plus we have the Brazillian Cavalcanti study which says Quote "Among patients hospitalized with mild-to-moderate Covid-19, the use of hydroxychloroquine, alone or with azithromycin, did not improve clinical status at 15 days as compared with standard care."
And yet we look at the actual data
https://www.nejm.org/doi/suppl/10.1056/NEJMoa2019014/suppl_file/nejmoa2019014_ap
what do we see
Table S9. Primary and secondary outcomes for the intention-to-treat population*
Hydroxychloro-quine + Azithro-mycin (HCQA) - (n=217) - not hospitalized 120 (55.6) - Deaths 3 (1.4)
Hydroxychloro-quine (HCQ) - (n=221) - not hospitalized 107 - (51.5) - Deaths 7 (3.2)
Control - (n=227) - not hospitalized - 117 (51.5) - Deaths 6 (2.6)
So let me try and work this out a 50% reduction in the death rate = "did not improve clinical status at 15 days "
Well where I come from saving half of the patients lives with 2/3rds of the recommended protocol is a Major Improvement in clinical status and that is without Zinc.
Stuff your study with the rest that quote the Recovery, Solidarity and Brazillian studies. [Post edited 3 Jun 2021 15:22]
| | | |
| Most reliable information.Covid-19 on 15:36 - Jun 3 with 943 views | Professor |
| Most reliable information.Covid-19 on 15:21 - Jun 3 by A_Fans_Dad |
Are you trying to be funny?
That so called study threw out the majority of the studies and of those that were left were dominated by?
Yes Oxford Recovery & WHO Solidarity, 2 of the most dangerous studies ever carried out.
Plus we have the Brazillian Cavalcanti study which says Quote "Among patients hospitalized with mild-to-moderate Covid-19, the use of hydroxychloroquine, alone or with azithromycin, did not improve clinical status at 15 days as compared with standard care."
And yet we look at the actual data
https://www.nejm.org/doi/suppl/10.1056/NEJMoa2019014/suppl_file/nejmoa2019014_ap
what do we see
Table S9. Primary and secondary outcomes for the intention-to-treat population*
Hydroxychloro-quine + Azithro-mycin (HCQA) - (n=217) - not hospitalized 120 (55.6) - Deaths 3 (1.4)
Hydroxychloro-quine (HCQ) - (n=221) - not hospitalized 107 - (51.5) - Deaths 7 (3.2)
Control - (n=227) - not hospitalized - 117 (51.5) - Deaths 6 (2.6)
So let me try and work this out a 50% reduction in the death rate = "did not improve clinical status at 15 days "
Well where I come from saving half of the patients lives with 2/3rds of the recommended protocol is a Major Improvement in clinical status and that is without Zinc.
Stuff your study with the rest that quote the Recovery, Solidarity and Brazillian studies. [Post edited 3 Jun 2021 15:22]
|
So 80 international researchers are wrong and a bloke from Swansea looking at a single study’s supplementary data knows better. | | | |
| Most reliable information.Covid-19 on 15:46 - Jun 3 with 937 views | A_Fans_Dad |
| Most reliable information.Covid-19 on 15:36 - Jun 3 by Professor |
So 80 international researchers are wrong and a bloke from Swansea looking at a single study’s supplementary data knows better. |
Please explain in detail where my analysis of the Brazilian study data is incorrect.
Is 3 not half of 6 when there is only a difference of 4% in the sample size.
The mere fact that you as a scientist are prepared to ignore the NHS safety guidelines on HCQ maximum doses to try and make your point says it all about you. | | | |
| Most reliable information.Covid-19 on 15:52 - Jun 3 with 935 views | A_Fans_Dad |
| Most reliable information.Covid-19 on 14:32 - Jun 3 by Ajack_Kerouac |
The e-mails show that Fauci knew early on that the virus looked genetically modified. |
Prof did not bother to read the link I posted about Fauci and gain of function studies, because of he did and is prepared to defend him, NIH and the Chinese then he is a lost cause. | | | |
| Most reliable information.Covid-19 on 16:39 - Jun 3 with 933 views | Professor |
| Most reliable information.Covid-19 on 15:46 - Jun 3 by A_Fans_Dad |
Please explain in detail where my analysis of the Brazilian study data is incorrect.
Is 3 not half of 6 when there is only a difference of 4% in the sample size.
The mere fact that you as a scientist are prepared to ignore the NHS safety guidelines on HCQ maximum doses to try and make your point says it all about you. |
I suggest you actually read the paper with full analysis by qualified people, not the supplementary data.
This is the actual paper's conclusion
CONCLUSIONS
Among patients hospitalized with mild-to-moderate Covid-19, the use of hydroxychloroquine, alone or with azithromycin, did not improve clinical status at 15 days as compared with standard care.
https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/nejmoa2019014
I also posted a meta analysis with more, and far more recent data.
You are making a fool of yourself here. | | | |
| Most reliable information.Covid-19 on 17:40 - Jun 3 with 906 views | Professor |
| Most reliable information.Covid-19 on 14:32 - Jun 3 by Ajack_Kerouac |
The e-mails show that Fauci knew early on that the virus looked genetically modified. |
Perhaps looking at the twitter feed of the email's author will help explain. That was initial analysis with a small unusual section. After full analysis he came to the conclusion it was natural and published these findings in Nature. As far as I am aware all the analysis (including the 500,000 UK sequenced genomes) do not support modiication.
https://twitter.com/K_G_Andersen | | | |
| Most reliable information.Covid-19 on 18:21 - Jun 3 with 895 views | A_Fans_Dad |
| Most reliable information.Covid-19 on 16:39 - Jun 3 by Professor |
I suggest you actually read the paper with full analysis by qualified people, not the supplementary data.
This is the actual paper's conclusion
CONCLUSIONS
Among patients hospitalized with mild-to-moderate Covid-19, the use of hydroxychloroquine, alone or with azithromycin, did not improve clinical status at 15 days as compared with standard care.
https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/nejmoa2019014
I also posted a meta analysis with more, and far more recent data.
You are making a fool of yourself here. |
Is 3 a half of 6? | | | |
| Most reliable information.Covid-19 on 18:23 - Jun 3 with 894 views | A_Fans_Dad |
| Most reliable information.Covid-19 on 17:40 - Jun 3 by Professor |
Perhaps looking at the twitter feed of the email's author will help explain. That was initial analysis with a small unusual section. After full analysis he came to the conclusion it was natural and published these findings in Nature. As far as I am aware all the analysis (including the 500,000 UK sequenced genomes) do not support modiication.
https://twitter.com/K_G_Andersen |
Read the data on gain of function study papers on the link I posted. | | | |
| Most reliable information.Covid-19 on 18:36 - Jun 3 with 891 views | Professor |
| Most reliable information.Covid-19 on 18:21 - Jun 3 by A_Fans_Dad |
Is 3 a half of 6? |
I suggest you write to the authors to tell them they are wrong. | | | |
| Most reliable information.Covid-19 on 18:39 - Jun 3 with 887 views | onehunglow |
| Most reliable information.Covid-19 on 18:36 - Jun 3 by Professor |
I suggest you write to the authors to tell them they are wrong. |
Has anyone yet suggested an an alternative to what we have.
Ive yet to see any. | |
| |
| Most reliable information.Covid-19 on 18:47 - Jun 3 with 882 views | A_Fans_Dad |
| Most reliable information.Covid-19 on 18:36 - Jun 3 by Professor |
I suggest you write to the authors to tell them they are wrong. |
Is 3 a half of 6?
Yes or no? | | | |
| Most reliable information.Covid-19 on 18:48 - Jun 3 with 881 views | A_Fans_Dad |
| Most reliable information.Covid-19 on 18:39 - Jun 3 by onehunglow |
Has anyone yet suggested an an alternative to what we have.
Ive yet to see any. |
OHL, is 3 a half of 6? | | | |
| Most reliable information.Covid-19 on 00:37 - Jun 4 with 835 views | DJack |
 |  |
| It is far better to grasp the universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring. - Carl Sagan |
| |
| Most reliable information.Covid-19 on 08:48 - Jun 4 with 805 views | Ajack_Kerouac |
Scientists dishing out death threats to other scientists (when lab leak was proposed)...
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9649771/Ex-CDC-director-received-death- | |
| "It's what people know about themselves inside that makes them afraid" - "In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act" - "The further a society drifts from truth the more it will hate those who speak it" |
| |
| Most reliable information.Covid-19 on 08:50 - Jun 4 with 804 views | Ajack_Kerouac |
China refused to allow staff at the Wuhan lab to be tested for antibodies...
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9650501/China-TWICE-rejected-offer-spec | |
| "It's what people know about themselves inside that makes them afraid" - "In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act" - "The further a society drifts from truth the more it will hate those who speak it" |
| |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
