| Booster jab 11:20 - Sep 19 with 1976 views | CountyJim |
Got mine tomorrow bit worried because I wasn't well after my second dose in march
Edit that second dose was end of February [Post edited 19 Sep 2021 11:25]
|  | | |  |
| Booster jab on 19:09 - Sep 21 with 353 views | A_Fans_Dad |
| Booster jab on 18:11 - Sep 21 by Scotia |
That's exactly the kind of research I am referring to.
To you it's just numbers. You don't even realise that understanding those numbers is more important. |
You have the nerve to talk about the "numbers" when you can't even find them let alone understand them.
I have spent years "understanding the numbers", reading papers, looking at raw data, ie hand written documents, how they are processed, how they are modifed, why they are modified, the rules of the modifications and what the outcomes of the modifications are supposed to be.
You are clueless about any of it, you cannot even recognise when the rules are being broken when they are pointed out to you.
You cannot even process that only 3 dead bodies is better than 6 dead bodies in the same sample size.
You seem to think that the study writers have some special power, statistics or other reasons for saying that there is no difference between the body counts.
You cannot imagine for even one minute that they might possibly be just plain wrong or lying for bias or financial gain, when corruption within the medical industry is rife.
You can't even do what 4 year old kids can do, tell the difference between 3 sweets and 6 identical sweets, even they know that they will get more if they choose the 6 sweets. |  | | |
| Booster jab on 19:16 - Sep 21 with 345 views | A_Fans_Dad |
| Booster jab on 18:14 - Sep 21 by Professor |
When I suggested last year that there would be a huge wave of Covid studies, some good, some bad. Some flawed simply due to limitations and awful lot of ambulance chasing, hand waving work of dubious quality to simply ride a wave you roundly criticised me for suggesting that scientists and doctors could be fraudulent. That's a changed tune.
Peer review-yes it has issues, but there is no real alternative. You never suggest one. Just like the diagnostic test..
Ever peer reviewed either journal or grant applications? Ever been a journal editor? Sat on funding panel? Ever published a peer reviewed article?
I would note one of the biggest frauds was widely publicised study on Ivermectin efficacy.
So as I see it you are like someone who thinks they can manage in the PL by playing 'Football Manager' or can command an army from being in a Sealed Knot re-enactment group.
Do you not get that senior scientists have spent perhaps 20-30 years of training and getting experience before leading major projects?
You claim something because you read it on 'welovetrump.com' or somewhere else. Have you ever read the rationale of why the HCQ dose was used in the RECOVERY study? I think not.
Putting the claim of a few scientists as evidence is just opinion. Do you know how many people are employed in the Life Sciences sector in the UK?
It's around 500,000 and I would bet that in excess of 95% would agree what you spout is dangerous, ill-informed baloney.
I could go on. I used to do dramatics as a kid, but never saw myself on Broadway. Time to grow up and leave science to the pros I think. |
You still don't det it do you, the issue of dosing is not my conclusion, it was the conclusion of those 20-30 year trained medical experts you mentioned.
The rationale given for the dose was that it was based on the dose given for another desease, which happened to be treated with a different bloody medicine with a similar name.
Whatever their supposed Medical Rationale was they still gave critically ill patients overdoses of a medicine known to be very dangerous at those levels and not recommended by the UK NHS.
Make as many excuses as you like they still did it and you still condone it. [Post edited 21 Sep 2021 19:17]
| | | |
| Booster jab on 19:36 - Sep 21 with 329 views | Professor |
| Booster jab on 19:16 - Sep 21 by A_Fans_Dad |
You still don't det it do you, the issue of dosing is not my conclusion, it was the conclusion of those 20-30 year trained medical experts you mentioned.
The rationale given for the dose was that it was based on the dose given for another desease, which happened to be treated with a different bloody medicine with a similar name.
Whatever their supposed Medical Rationale was they still gave critically ill patients overdoses of a medicine known to be very dangerous at those levels and not recommended by the UK NHS.
Make as many excuses as you like they still did it and you still condone it. [Post edited 21 Sep 2021 19:17]
|
If you read the paper in NEJM instead of regurgitating idiotic crap you read elsewhere, you would see it is actually in the range recommended for use in rheumatoid arthritis therapy in the U.K. Patients were excluded with heart conditions which could be exacerbated by HCQ. Finally, and I have told you this before, reaching a therapeutic dose in lung epithelium requires almost inevitable use of the higher end of safe doses.
This is well known-same for antibiotics (remember this is what my PhD was in). So, suggest otherwise shows your ignorance. The dose was queried and the explanation accepted.
Problem is you don’t understand or see a wider picture.
You believe what you want.
I think all apart from fools, conspiracy theorists and the mentally ill
Would never take the word of an amateur, consistently shown to lack understanding,
Over internationally recognised medical scientists | | | |
| Booster jab on 20:00 - Sep 21 with 317 views | Scotia |
| Booster jab on 19:09 - Sep 21 by A_Fans_Dad |
You have the nerve to talk about the "numbers" when you can't even find them let alone understand them.
I have spent years "understanding the numbers", reading papers, looking at raw data, ie hand written documents, how they are processed, how they are modifed, why they are modified, the rules of the modifications and what the outcomes of the modifications are supposed to be.
You are clueless about any of it, you cannot even recognise when the rules are being broken when they are pointed out to you.
You cannot even process that only 3 dead bodies is better than 6 dead bodies in the same sample size.
You seem to think that the study writers have some special power, statistics or other reasons for saying that there is no difference between the body counts.
You cannot imagine for even one minute that they might possibly be just plain wrong or lying for bias or financial gain, when corruption within the medical industry is rife.
You can't even do what 4 year old kids can do, tell the difference between 3 sweets and 6 identical sweets, even they know that they will get more if they choose the 6 sweets. |
If you have spent years reading papers and analysing numbers you've completed wasted your time. Finding them makes absolutely no difference, it's not a treasure hunt. It's about understanding them.
You rarely get anything correct on here, in fact you come across as a bit of a fool. I suspect thats why you're attempting to resort to personal insults, it won't work.
I can't believe that you are still banging on about this 3 v 6 deaths nonsense. The fact that you are speaks volumes, it's arrogance bordering on narcissism.
You, a retired factory worker with no academic qualifications. Have found a figure in an appendix to a paper published in the NEJM, that you think proves the conclusions of the paper to be wrong.
A figure that has been considered by the authors, the peer review process and all of the readers of the journal and not given any credence.
Do you honestly think that if these figures were a result of corruption they'd have been included at all?
It's laughable. | | | |
| Booster jab on 20:04 - Sep 21 with 314 views | Scotia |
| Booster jab on 18:32 - Sep 21 by howenjack |
Then why should we believe Bill Gates he's an IT entrepreneur, |
Bill Gates doesn't refer to himself as a covid researcher and attempt to analyse vaccine data. | | | |
| Booster jab on 20:24 - Sep 21 with 297 views | A_Fans_Dad |
| Booster jab on 19:36 - Sep 21 by Professor |
If you read the paper in NEJM instead of regurgitating idiotic crap you read elsewhere, you would see it is actually in the range recommended for use in rheumatoid arthritis therapy in the U.K. Patients were excluded with heart conditions which could be exacerbated by HCQ. Finally, and I have told you this before, reaching a therapeutic dose in lung epithelium requires almost inevitable use of the higher end of safe doses.
This is well known-same for antibiotics (remember this is what my PhD was in). So, suggest otherwise shows your ignorance. The dose was queried and the explanation accepted.
Problem is you don’t understand or see a wider picture.
You believe what you want.
I think all apart from fools, conspiracy theorists and the mentally ill
Would never take the word of an amateur, consistently shown to lack understanding,
Over internationally recognised medical scientists |
Yes internationally recognised medical scientists, Professors, no less.
That actually think that they new better than 100s of front line Doctors that had spent months treating actual COVID patients, developing the correct safe effective protocol for that treatment .
Ignored the use of Zinc, which practically every doctor recognised as an essential part of the treatment along with a powerful ani-biotic.
And now you are actually lying, the recommended dose for rheumatoid arthritis therapy is 200-400mg per day.
Did you think I wouldn't look it up?
https://www.nlg.nhs.uk/content/uploads/2019/11/Hydroxychloroquine.pdf?UNLID=3303
https://www.hey.nhs.uk/wp/wp-content/uploads/2016/03/hydroxychloroquine.pdf
https://www.rheumatoidarthritis.org/treatment/hydroxychloroquine/
Then of course we go right back to the BNF which I linked to when we first started discussing this subject
https://bnf.nice.org.uk/drug/hydroxychloroquine-sulfate.html
The trial’s hydroxychloroquine dosage
The high doses of hydroxychloroquine used in RECOVERY–800 mg at 0 and 6 hours followed by 400 mg at 12 hours and then every 12 hours for up to nine additional days–have raised concern among experts.
David Jayne, professor of clinical autoimmunity at Cambridge University, said that current recommended doses for rheumatologic disease are typically 300-400 mg/day and that the maximum dose for malaria has been 800 mg in the first 24 hours. “The reasons behind the dose selection in the RECOVERY trial are unclear,” he says. “Hydroxychloroquine overdose is associated with cardiovascular, neurological, and other toxicities, occurring with doses over 1500 mg, and higher doses are associated with fatality.” He is concerned that hydroxychloroquine toxicity may have contributed to the adverse outcomes and that conclusions based on these results may be unreliable.
Martin Landray, RECOVERY’s deputy chief investigator, says, “We did not choose these doses by accident. The dose comes from modelling by Nick White, professor of tropical medicine at the University of Oxford, and his team, who have extensive experience with this drug. They developed detailed pharmacokinetic models, considering the best way in which to rapidly achieve drug levels that might be high enough to kill the virus but not so high as to trigger toxicity. Their work has recently been published as a preprint on medRxiv.”
Bloody modelling instead of emperical data, the curse of modern science. | | | |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
