On Friday, July 31, 2020 at 3:58:02 PM UTC+2, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > > On 30 Jul 2020, at 22:59, PGC <[email protected] <javascript:>> wrote: > > > > On Thursday, July 30, 2020 at 10:52:09 PM UTC+2 Brent wrote: > >> >> >> On 7/30/2020 1:02 PM, spudboy100 via Everything List wrote: >> >> Refute this Telmo- >> https://www.henryford.com/news/2020/07/hydro-treatment-study >> >> https://www.ijidonline.com/article/S1201-9712(20)30534-8/fulltext >> >> One viewer here indicated this was not a study-but it is a study indeed >> concluding the benefits of Hydro. >> >> Now what do I think? If it works it works, and if it doesn't it doesn't. >> >> >> That's just false. Some things work on some infections in some people >> using some protocols of care. >> > > Agreed. Ongoing large scale international clinical trials are what they > are. Nobody claims that they or the papers in their wake are perfect, but > to pretend that a few tiny studies are "in need of refutation" or that the > world's epidemiological community is orchestrating conspiracies without > evidence like some on Twitter and on social media tend to peddle, is naive > or evidence of the effectivity of disinformation, *not evidence of > effectivity of medication*. > > > OK in principle. But we can also look at the map of the evolution of the > virus in country using it and not using it. My own country has used it, > France has used it, then change its mind, a number of time. > We can also take into account that the US FDA has lied about “not evidence > of effectivity of cannabis” since about a century. It is only very recently > that it has admit its effectivity for some disease in some public way (it > accepted it more discreetly for some rich patients since long though). > > > > But if Telmo and/or Mitch need, they can always get in touch with their > closest epidemiologists/docs and ask for the data and emails, and inform > the coordinating committee of their findings and worries, citing who they > wish. While data of the majority of ongoing trials and appropriate > epidemiological discourse may not be accessible on the net or published > ("ongoing" being somewhat relevant...), it isn't classified or anything. PGC > > > > I have done that a little bit, but it is hard to interpret. A biologist > friend of mine seems to believe that the Canadian studies showing that > Hydroxychoroquine is better than Remdesevir is rather serious. The amount > of money hidden in the pharmaceutical debate is so big that the > misinformation is perpetual. But you are right: it is not classified, and > even just googling on the net shows that hydroxychloroquine, when used > convenably, *might* be better than some other medication, and perhaps > cannabis is still better (as more and more studies seem to show). >
If you, Mitch, Telmo, your biologist friend, or Trump have data concerning effectiveness of HCQ with significant sample sizes in randomized placebo-controlled trials, and can demonstrate that said trials are free of epidemiologists' long lists of possible issues/bias, then the only thing stopping you guys from stepping forward and making world history as non-professionals is your own minds. PGC -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/84ac1e66-92eb-4cf8-85e7-0f9e74f1c3ceo%40googlegroups.com.
