| Most reliable information.Covid-19 23:34 - May 20 with 20132 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 23:00 - Jun 7 with 1136 views | A_Fans_Dad |
As they were collaborating on the research perhaps they collaborated on the release as well. | | | |
| Most reliable information.Covid-19 on 20:46 - Jun 8 with 1090 views | A_Fans_Dad |
After the massive turn around in cases, hospitalisations and deaths in some states in India due to the re-introduction of Ivermectin the Indian Directorate General of Health Services (DGHS) has reversed it's decision and has now withdrawn not only HCQ and Ivermectin but even the use of doxycycline, zinc and vitamins.
The only approved medicine for mild cases are cold medicines, antipyretics such as paracetamol and inhaled budesonide.
But of course Remdesivir is stillspecified for serious cases.
No explanation was give for these changes.
But the WHO is very pleased.
Just what the hell is going on. [Post edited 8 Jun 2021 20:50]
| | | |
| Most reliable information.Covid-19 on 20:56 - Jun 8 with 1097 views | onehunglow |
| Most reliable information.Covid-19 on 23:08 - Jun 6 by Professor |
From someone so thick he quotes evidence from a source that says the opposite. Surpassed yourself there as everything your say is wrong. All conspiracy bull. You are an arrogant , dangerous
Fool
How many times do you have to be shown evidence over some nutter on social media. I give up. Thirty five years of scientific training and experience is nothing next to the polymath genius of A Fan’s Dad. You will always be right even when proven wrong over and over again. |
Paul.
Frankly,you take them too seriouly.No offence meant by saying that.
These people are unable to give us/me a response when I ask what should we have done and what should we do now.
They have no answer
Their attitudes have are and will kill. It is that serious.
Compulsory Vaccination? Too right. Everyone has a right to live whenever possible.
I have said for 18months mankind has not faced up to this covid situation. We are looking for panacea and when we find one ,it aint good enough. | |
| |
| Most reliable information.Covid-19 on 21:02 - Jun 8 with 1077 views | A_Fans_Dad |
| Most reliable information.Covid-19 on 20:56 - Jun 8 by onehunglow |
Paul.
Frankly,you take them too seriouly.No offence meant by saying that.
These people are unable to give us/me a response when I ask what should we have done and what should we do now.
They have no answer
Their attitudes have are and will kill. It is that serious.
Compulsory Vaccination? Too right. Everyone has a right to live whenever possible.
I have said for 18months mankind has not faced up to this covid situation. We are looking for panacea and when we find one ,it aint good enough. |
Why are you not telling the truth.
I have told you what should have been done.
Medication until vaccination.
Not just let people die.
So perhapps you are prepared to answer that simple question I aked you last week.
Is 3 half of 6?
Or
Is 3 equal to 6. | | | |
| Most reliable information.Covid-19 on 21:44 - Jun 8 with 1077 views | Scotia |
| Most reliable information.Covid-19 on 21:02 - Jun 8 by A_Fans_Dad |
Why are you not telling the truth.
I have told you what should have been done.
Medication until vaccination.
Not just let people die.
So perhapps you are prepared to answer that simple question I aked you last week.
Is 3 half of 6?
Or
Is 3 equal to 6. |
Why are you still banging this drum, your making yourself look daft?
You've cherry picked a small part of the results and are deliberately taking it out of context. The findings of the paper that those results are taken from are the opposite of what you claim they are. HCQ doesn't work.
Do you honestly think that you understand the results better than the scientists who undertook the research? | | | |
| Most reliable information.Covid-19 on 22:15 - Jun 8 with 1053 views | A_Fans_Dad |
| Most reliable information.Covid-19 on 21:44 - Jun 8 by Scotia |
Why are you still banging this drum, your making yourself look daft?
You've cherry picked a small part of the results and are deliberately taking it out of context. The findings of the paper that those results are taken from are the opposite of what you claim they are. HCQ doesn't work.
Do you honestly think that you understand the results better than the scientists who undertook the research? |
Simple facts.
221 were given HCQ+A and 3 of them died
The 227 control group which weren't give HCQ+A and 6 of them died.
The HCQ+A also had more not- hospitalisations 120 to 117.
How do you interpet that data?
Were the mortality rates equal?
Come on give me an honest answer.
For the sake of clarity the HCQ only arm had 7 Deaths, but that is not the recommended protocol, in fact HCQ+A is also not the recommended protocol. It should HCQ+A+Zinc. [Post edited 8 Jun 2021 22:46]
| | | |
| Most reliable information.Covid-19 on 07:47 - Jun 9 with 1029 views | Scotia |
| Most reliable information.Covid-19 on 22:15 - Jun 8 by A_Fans_Dad |
Simple facts.
221 were given HCQ+A and 3 of them died
The 227 control group which weren't give HCQ+A and 6 of them died.
The HCQ+A also had more not- hospitalisations 120 to 117.
How do you interpet that data?
Were the mortality rates equal?
Come on give me an honest answer.
For the sake of clarity the HCQ only arm had 7 Deaths, but that is not the recommended protocol, in fact HCQ+A is also not the recommended protocol. It should HCQ+A+Zinc. [Post edited 8 Jun 2021 22:46]
|
Simple facts.
You've been led by a crackpot right wing website to two results in the supplementary data contained in the appendix of a paper. Not the paper itself, you clearly didn't know that existed.
The 80 researchers who produced the paper examined all of these results and came up with a different conclusion to the cherry picked numbers the right wing conspiracy website directed you to.
Not only that. The paper containing those results and conclusions that HCQ doesn't work passed the peer review process to be published in the most respected medical journal in the world.
HCQ isn't used to treat covid because it doesn't work and is dangerous.
Unless of course you are correct based on one line in a table and the authors of the entire paper, the scientists who reviewed it, the journal that published it, the 100's of thousands of Dr's who read the paper in the NEJM and the millions of Dr's worldwide not using HCQ are wrong.
You've got a habit of posting links which contradict what you are told and believe they say, but this really is taking the mick. | | | |
Login to get fewer ads
| Most reliable information.Covid-19 on 09:29 - Jun 9 with 1021 views | Professor |
| Most reliable information.Covid-19 on 20:56 - Jun 8 by onehunglow |
Paul.
Frankly,you take them too seriouly.No offence meant by saying that.
These people are unable to give us/me a response when I ask what should we have done and what should we do now.
They have no answer
Their attitudes have are and will kill. It is that serious.
Compulsory Vaccination? Too right. Everyone has a right to live whenever possible.
I have said for 18months mankind has not faced up to this covid situation. We are looking for panacea and when we find one ,it aint good enough. |
Thanks
There is no response, as there is no other answer. | | | |
| Most reliable information.Covid-19 on 13:57 - Jun 9 with 984 views | A_Fans_Dad |
| Most reliable information.Covid-19 on 07:47 - Jun 9 by Scotia |
Simple facts.
You've been led by a crackpot right wing website to two results in the supplementary data contained in the appendix of a paper. Not the paper itself, you clearly didn't know that existed.
The 80 researchers who produced the paper examined all of these results and came up with a different conclusion to the cherry picked numbers the right wing conspiracy website directed you to.
Not only that. The paper containing those results and conclusions that HCQ doesn't work passed the peer review process to be published in the most respected medical journal in the world.
HCQ isn't used to treat covid because it doesn't work and is dangerous.
Unless of course you are correct based on one line in a table and the authors of the entire paper, the scientists who reviewed it, the journal that published it, the 100's of thousands of Dr's who read the paper in the NEJM and the millions of Dr's worldwide not using HCQ are wrong.
You've got a habit of posting links which contradict what you are told and believe they say, but this really is taking the mick. |
Look scotia lying yet again as he does so often when he cannot find the answers to the questions and refuses to answer them.
The lie for all to see "You've been led by a crackpot right wing website to two results in the supplementary data contained in the appendix of a paper. Not the paper itself, you clearly didn't know that existed. "
The link to the Supplementary data comes from the original Study paper, which is part of the meta Study that prof posted the link to, which has the study in it's list of studies and references and from the study it has a link to the supplementary data.
So the crackpot right wing website is the Fans Forum and the crackpot is the prof.
If you have a link to the right wing crackpot website you are talking about perhaps you could post it so that I can read what they have to say?
The supplementary data are their actual results and not their summary.
As I have already pointed out they did not do an Odds Ratio (OR) calculation for the deaths, which is the traditional study statistical method of deciding the efficacy of a drug compared to a control or another drug.
If they had done so they would have got the result of 1.972850679 in favour of HCQ+A, the higher the value the better.
The value of 1 is parity, from which they could then say "there was no benifit"
Instead they used the results after 15 days for IQR for which the OR was below 1 to say that "did not improve clinical status at 15 days "
So they spoke the truth, because there was little difference in IQR after 15 days.
They just ignored the fact that twice as many people died in the control group than died in the HCQ+A group, it did not even get a mention.
So are you prepared to give an honest answer to the questions?
Is 3 deaths better than 6 deaths?
Which group would you rather be in if you COVID, the control group or the HCQ+A group?
Which group would you rather your loved ones were in, the control group or the HCQ+A group? | | | |
| Most reliable information.Covid-19 on 14:29 - Jun 9 with 991 views | Scotia |
| Most reliable information.Covid-19 on 13:57 - Jun 9 by A_Fans_Dad |
Look scotia lying yet again as he does so often when he cannot find the answers to the questions and refuses to answer them.
The lie for all to see "You've been led by a crackpot right wing website to two results in the supplementary data contained in the appendix of a paper. Not the paper itself, you clearly didn't know that existed. "
The link to the Supplementary data comes from the original Study paper, which is part of the meta Study that prof posted the link to, which has the study in it's list of studies and references and from the study it has a link to the supplementary data.
So the crackpot right wing website is the Fans Forum and the crackpot is the prof.
If you have a link to the right wing crackpot website you are talking about perhaps you could post it so that I can read what they have to say?
The supplementary data are their actual results and not their summary.
As I have already pointed out they did not do an Odds Ratio (OR) calculation for the deaths, which is the traditional study statistical method of deciding the efficacy of a drug compared to a control or another drug.
If they had done so they would have got the result of 1.972850679 in favour of HCQ+A, the higher the value the better.
The value of 1 is parity, from which they could then say "there was no benifit"
Instead they used the results after 15 days for IQR for which the OR was below 1 to say that "did not improve clinical status at 15 days "
So they spoke the truth, because there was little difference in IQR after 15 days.
They just ignored the fact that twice as many people died in the control group than died in the HCQ+A group, it did not even get a mention.
So are you prepared to give an honest answer to the questions?
Is 3 deaths better than 6 deaths?
Which group would you rather be in if you COVID, the control group or the HCQ+A group?
Which group would you rather your loved ones were in, the control group or the HCQ+A group? |
So basically to answer my point, which was:-
"Unless of course you are correct based on one line in a table and the authors of the entire paper, the scientists who reviewed it, the journal that published it, the 100's of thousands of Dr's who read the paper in the NEJM and the millions of Dr's worldwide not using HCQ are wrong."
You. An unqualified, retired factory worker claim to understand more about this study and interpretation of results than the list of people I mentioned. You are right and they are wrong?
You're a deluded narcissist. | | | |
| Most reliable information.Covid-19 on 14:38 - Jun 9 with 978 views | A_Fans_Dad |
| Most reliable information.Covid-19 on 14:29 - Jun 9 by Scotia |
So basically to answer my point, which was:-
"Unless of course you are correct based on one line in a table and the authors of the entire paper, the scientists who reviewed it, the journal that published it, the 100's of thousands of Dr's who read the paper in the NEJM and the millions of Dr's worldwide not using HCQ are wrong."
You. An unqualified, retired factory worker claim to understand more about this study and interpretation of results than the list of people I mentioned. You are right and they are wrong?
You're a deluded narcissist. |
You cannot admit that 3 deaths are better than 6 deaths, no wonder you think drugs are no good for fighting COVID.
I would hate to have you as my doctor that is for sure.
You cannot even give an honest answer on anything at all where the facts disagree with you as I have shown time after time. | | | |
| Most reliable information.Covid-19 on 15:05 - Jun 9 with 970 views | A_Fans_Dad |
Perhaps you would prefer the very latest study results instead.
It is a study of 255 Mechanically Ventilated Covid Patients in the USA.
A direct quote.
"With every natural log increase in HCQ cumulative dose, patients were 1.12 times less likely to die [p<0.001]. Accordingly, 3,000 mg HCQ cumulative dose had a survival OR = 2.46.
And
"When AZM and HCQ were given together, the association with survival greater than when HCQ was given alone. We finally noticed that patients, who received cumulative doses HCQ > 3,000 mg and AZM >1,000 mg, had a much higher survival rate than all others.
37 patients received > 3g HCQ and > 1g AZM. 18 patients (48.6%) of these 37 patients survived. Comparatively, 36 patients (16.5%) of 218 patients who received either <= 3g HCQ or <= 1g AZM survived. The absolute difference (32.1%) in survival was significant [C.I = 15.9% - 48.2%; p <0.0001]. The relative difference in survival = 194.5%. "
Nope HCQ and HCQ+A doesn't work, much. [Post edited 9 Jun 2021 15:07]
| | | |
| Most reliable information.Covid-19 on 15:56 - Jun 9 with 962 views | Scotia |
| Most reliable information.Covid-19 on 14:38 - Jun 9 by A_Fans_Dad |
You cannot admit that 3 deaths are better than 6 deaths, no wonder you think drugs are no good for fighting COVID.
I would hate to have you as my doctor that is for sure.
You cannot even give an honest answer on anything at all where the facts disagree with you as I have shown time after time. |
I hate to say it but all the facts disagree with you, you've latched on to one result in a paper that you clearly haven't understood in context.
And that is par for the course. I honestly don't think you've ever made a sensible point in any exchange. You just regurgitate deluded pseudo - science from cranks that is often self contradictory. You're often too gullible or arrogant to realise it and any sensible argument falls at the first hurdle because the source is farcical.
That is exactly what has happened here. This entire debate is bonkers. You do not know more than the authors of the report, the reviewers or the readers of the NEJM.
Stay away from discussing covid. I don't think anyone takes you seriously on here but I genuinely worry for people you may know in real life. You could actually harm people.
Once covid is dealt with lets hope they develop a jab for narcissism. If welovetrump.com supported it you'd be first in line with your sleeve rolled up and then this place may be a little less bonkers. | | | |
| Most reliable information.Covid-19 on 16:11 - Jun 9 with 950 views | A_Fans_Dad |
| Most reliable information.Covid-19 on 15:56 - Jun 9 by Scotia |
I hate to say it but all the facts disagree with you, you've latched on to one result in a paper that you clearly haven't understood in context.
And that is par for the course. I honestly don't think you've ever made a sensible point in any exchange. You just regurgitate deluded pseudo - science from cranks that is often self contradictory. You're often too gullible or arrogant to realise it and any sensible argument falls at the first hurdle because the source is farcical.
That is exactly what has happened here. This entire debate is bonkers. You do not know more than the authors of the report, the reviewers or the readers of the NEJM.
Stay away from discussing covid. I don't think anyone takes you seriously on here but I genuinely worry for people you may know in real life. You could actually harm people.
Once covid is dealt with lets hope they develop a jab for narcissism. If welovetrump.com supported it you'd be first in line with your sleeve rolled up and then this place may be a little less bonkers. |
I provided you with factual data on Temperature tampering by NASA/GISS, you had no answers at all.
I have provided the link to the data, the rationale that is normally used and you have no answers.
I have provided links to studies that prove Medicines work and the only answers you have is to quote the Recovery study.
I have provided mounds of data over the last few years, none of which you accept, but cannot rebut because you do not know how.
All I get back is words of insult, containing no data whatsoever.
I ask you questions to provide sources for your statements and get nothing.
Because you have nothing.
How anyone can avoid answering the simple question on which value is higher is totally beyond all bounds of debate. [Post edited 9 Jun 2021 16:12]
| | | |
| Most reliable information.Covid-19 on 16:41 - Jun 9 with 944 views | Scotia |
| Most reliable information.Covid-19 on 16:11 - Jun 9 by A_Fans_Dad |
I provided you with factual data on Temperature tampering by NASA/GISS, you had no answers at all.
I have provided the link to the data, the rationale that is normally used and you have no answers.
I have provided links to studies that prove Medicines work and the only answers you have is to quote the Recovery study.
I have provided mounds of data over the last few years, none of which you accept, but cannot rebut because you do not know how.
All I get back is words of insult, containing no data whatsoever.
I ask you questions to provide sources for your statements and get nothing.
Because you have nothing.
How anyone can avoid answering the simple question on which value is higher is totally beyond all bounds of debate. [Post edited 9 Jun 2021 16:12]
|
All of which is irrelevant if you don't understand the data. And you don't. You don't understand science. Full stop. Not only that your links are often to people who don't understand the data either.
I don't really understand medical science. I trust those that do. Such as authors of papers in respected journals. I think they are little more trustworthy than unqualified, retired factory workers who post obvious rubbish on football fora. | | | |
| Most reliable information.Covid-19 on 22:46 - Jun 22 with 841 views | Ajack_Kerouac |
Peter Daszak has been sacked from the UN's pandemic probe.
'Dr Peter Daszak has been ousted from the UN-backed Lancet probe as he has repeatedly attempted to dismiss allegations the virus could have escaped from the Wuhan Institute of Virology (WIV).
Dr Daszak is the president of the EcoHealth Alliance — a US-based organisation that was revealed to have funneled taxpayer cash to WIV to carry out gain of function research of bat-based coronaviruses.
The 55-year-old has a close relationship with the lab's chief Dr Shi Zhengli — dubbed "Batwoman" — and was last year jovially tweeting about singing karaoke with her and "partying in a bat cave" amid the pandemic.
WIV however are the prime suspect as circumstantial evidence mounts that link the origins of the virus to a lab leak as the US ordered a "redoubled" probe.
Dr Daszak was part of the much derided WHO investigation which visited Wuhan early this year, only to have its findings dismissed as a "whitewash" and thne be undermined by WHO's director on the same day as its release.
He remains listed on the website of the The Lancet COVID-19 Commission, but his profile has been updated to reflect his departure.
Under his photo and biography it now reads "recused from Commission work on the origins of the pandemic".
No further information was given — but Daszak has been widely blasted for appearing to have a conflict of interest over his links to WIV.
He was one of 28 experts from around the world asked to probe the origins of the virus and how best to respond to a pandemic.
It was organised by the UN Sustainable Development Solutions Network, which boasts it operates "under the auspices of the United Nations to mobilize scientific and technical expertise in support of the Sustainable Development Goals".
Dr Daszak's removal from the probe comes after he helped organise a letter signed by 27 scientists denouncing the lab leak as a "conspiracy theory" and "nonscientific". |  |
| "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 14:38 - Jun 23 with 738 views | A_Fans_Dad |
Prof, will be along in 10, 9 ,8
to tell us it is all conspiracy theories and definitely came from nature via the wet market.
Despite all the evidence to the contrary.
Speaking of the Lancet there is another article on there that sheds a massive amount of light on the Establishment's misuse of words and data about Vaccine efficacy.
Very well worth a read.
https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanmic/article/PIIS2666-5247(21)00069-0/fullt | | | |
| Most reliable information.Covid-19 on 03:58 - Jun 28 with 653 views | Groo |
 |  |
| Groo does what Groo does best |
| |
| Most reliable information.Covid-19 on 09:57 - Jun 28 with 612 views | Scotia |
| Most reliable information.Covid-19 on 03:58 - Jun 28 by Groo |
|
Very sad.
Many more people will be in this situation over the coming months. | | | |
| Most reliable information.Covid-19 on 14:47 - Jun 28 with 582 views | A_Fans_Dad |
| Most reliable information.Covid-19 on 09:57 - Jun 28 by Scotia |
Very sad.
Many more people will be in this situation over the coming months. |
No sadder than this.
The latest data from the Government on the Indian/Delta variant.
Unvaccinated cases = 53,822
Single Vaccination cases = 19957
Double Vaccination cases = 7,235
Unvaccinated Mortality = 44
Single Vaccinated Mortality = 20
Double Vaccination Mortality = 50
All Vaccinated Mortality = 70
Total Mortality = 114 (+3 unknowns)
Infection Fatality Rate for Unvaccinated = 0.08
Infection Fatality Rate for Single Vaccinated = 0.10
Infection Fatality Rate for Double Vaccinated = 0.69
Percentage of overall Mortality (114)
Unvaccinated = 38.6%
Single Vaccinated = 17.5%
Double Vaccinated = 43.9%
Double vaccinated Fatality rate 8.5 times higher than Unvaccinated
Double vaccinated Fatality rate 6.9 times higher than Single Vaccinated
Those people who had been vaccinated were told that they would be safer if they were vaccinated and they would be even safer if the they had two.
What they weren't told was that if you do get infected by a new variant you are more likely to die, especially if you have two.
These numbers do not include those that died from associated symptoms from the Vaccine itself.
scotia, did you bother to read that Lancet article?
Because you should, the efficacy quoted it not what it seems, showing that the Information is not that reliable as per the OP. | | | |
| Most reliable information.Covid-19 on 14:53 - Jun 28 with 572 views | onehunglow |
| Most reliable information.Covid-19 on 09:57 - Jun 28 by Scotia |
Very sad.
Many more people will be in this situation over the coming months. |
Yep.our stupidity and arrogance is killing innocent people. | |
| |
| Most reliable information.Covid-19 on 15:23 - Jun 28 with 562 views | Scotia |
| Most reliable information.Covid-19 on 14:47 - Jun 28 by A_Fans_Dad |
No sadder than this.
The latest data from the Government on the Indian/Delta variant.
Unvaccinated cases = 53,822
Single Vaccination cases = 19957
Double Vaccination cases = 7,235
Unvaccinated Mortality = 44
Single Vaccinated Mortality = 20
Double Vaccination Mortality = 50
All Vaccinated Mortality = 70
Total Mortality = 114 (+3 unknowns)
Infection Fatality Rate for Unvaccinated = 0.08
Infection Fatality Rate for Single Vaccinated = 0.10
Infection Fatality Rate for Double Vaccinated = 0.69
Percentage of overall Mortality (114)
Unvaccinated = 38.6%
Single Vaccinated = 17.5%
Double Vaccinated = 43.9%
Double vaccinated Fatality rate 8.5 times higher than Unvaccinated
Double vaccinated Fatality rate 6.9 times higher than Single Vaccinated
Those people who had been vaccinated were told that they would be safer if they were vaccinated and they would be even safer if the they had two.
What they weren't told was that if you do get infected by a new variant you are more likely to die, especially if you have two.
These numbers do not include those that died from associated symptoms from the Vaccine itself.
scotia, did you bother to read that Lancet article?
Because you should, the efficacy quoted it not what it seems, showing that the Information is not that reliable as per the OP. |
The circumstances of double vaccinated deaths has been explained on here previously. Why anyone needs it explained is beyond me, but there we are. The key point is these stats. They also make the Lancet article sort of irrelevant.
Unvaccinated cases = 53,822
Single Vaccination cases = 19957
Double Vaccination cases = 7,235
Without vaccination the risk of death in the group that have received a double dose is massively higher due to age and other conditions. The vaccine is reducing that risk substantially.
Apparently being vaccinated reduces the substantial risk of death that a typical 80 year old would be faced with if they contracted Covid to that of a 50 year old. That is IF they caught covid at all despite being vaccinated. Those stats clearly show that is less likely too.
It is also worth clarifying these stats regarding mortality.
Unvaccinated = 38.6%
Single Vaccinated = 17.5%
Double Vaccinated = 43.9%
The unvaccinated people are those usually perceived to be not at risk. They are at risk and they do die.
Here is an article that explains it.
https://www.theguardian.com/theobserver/commentisfree/2021/jun/27/why-most-peopl
Surely those stats should convince anyone to get vaccinated. | | | |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
