Corona virus, China major city lockdowns, etc.

[kfcSmitty]

I'm not sure what you mean by "but he did turn out to be right". The FDA revoked the Emergency Use Authorization. We ended up dumping it all on Brazil

Maybe you are not aware of the latest "tell all" by Woodward. It just came out. It is Trump speaking, not some anonymous person. It was some nine hours of interviews over 18 or so meetings. He admits he knew how dangerous the virus was and deliberately down played it. He actually states that! Now seeing how it is coming directly from Trump it probably is mostly lies.

Nope, never heard of the new book, it was more of a general statement.

However, FDA revoking it in the US does look bad, but the rest of the world is still using HCQ with success. Dil actually linked this video in another post I believe: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2uzXHnUViro . Dr. Campbell has been pretty level headed since the beginning of the pandemic. He was definitely more doom and gloom in the beginning, but as more evidence has come up he has adjusted his views and admitted where he went wrong.

Relevant part is at 1:20, but he does give a breakdown in his notes.

[TysonLPrice]

Nope, never heard of the new book, it was more of a general statement.

However, FDA revoking it in the US does look bad, but the rest of the world is still using HCQ with success. Dil actually linked this video in another post I believe: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2uzXHnUViro . Dr. Campbell has been pretty level headed since the beginning of the pandemic. He was definitely more doom and gloom in the beginning, but as more evidence has come up he has adjusted his views and admitted where he went wrong.

Relevant part is at 1:20, but he does give a breakdown in his notes.

If you are saying "but the rest of the world is still using HCQ with success" when it is used for the things it was developed for, I agree. I don't believe anyone but Trump, little Brazilian Trump, and republicans actually thinks it works for Covid-19.

[kfcSmitty]

If you are saying "but the rest of the world is still using HCQ with success" when it is used for the things it was developed for, I agree. I don't believe anyone but Trump, little Brazilian Trump, and republicans actually thinks it works for Covid-19.

Nope, he is showing their trials show that HCQ works for covid19. However, he does say he thinks it is odd that the US went with such high doses, and I don't agree with that. In the response I made to Dil I linked several sources showing that the amounts they gave them were completely normal for people, and that the low dosages are usually preventative.

The video from 1:20 and on for only a few minutes does a better job explaining it than I can. Specifically he links:

https://www.sciencedirect.com/scienc...817?via%3Dihub
https://www.ijidonline.com/article/S...534-8/fulltext

He doesn't deny the risks with HCQ, but he says they're so risky in the US because those tests went with too high of a dose.

[TysonLPrice]

Nope, he is showing their trials show that HCQ works for covid19. However, he does say he thinks it is odd that the US went with such high doses, and I don't agree with that. In the response I made to Dil I linked several sources showing that the amounts they gave them were completely normal for people, and that the low dosages are usually preventative.

The video from 1:20 and on for only a few minutes does a better job explaining it than I can. Specifically he links:

https://www.sciencedirect.com/scienc...817?via%3Dihub
https://www.ijidonline.com/article/S...534-8/fulltext

He doesn't deny the risks with HCQ, but he says they're so risky in the US because those tests went with too high of a dose.

Both of those have been discredited for one reason or another. I knew what was in them before I opened them. It may be the only two that people who push that drug can reference.

[kfcSmitty]

Both of those have been discredited for one reason or another. I knew what was in them before I opened them. It may be the only two that people who push that drug can reference.

Can you show me where they've been discredited? John usually talks about that if it has happened, but he hasn't. Not denying there are other studies that show differeing results, but most seem to use larger doses like this one: https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa2019014


*edit* So doing some more digging, here are current papers citing the first paper I linked: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/art...15163/citedby/

Some of them do indeed find differing results, and some match the results, but I still can't find that the papers have been retracted or discredited.

[TysonLPrice]

Can you show me where they've been discredited? John usually talks about that if it has happened, but he hasn't. Not denying there are other studies that show differeing results, but most seem to use larger doses like this one: https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa2019014

Just look them up for yourself. Off the top of my head the European one was not peer reviewed and there was also something suspicious about the Ford one. If you really believe any serous medical institutions are pushing that drug you should really look into it - it just isn't true. It was just another Trump lie. Did you know that a Fox news corespondent convinced Trump to promote it? Just like his pillow guy friend is pushing oleander extract:

https://www.webmd.com/lung/news/2020...id-treatment#1

[kfcSmitty]

Just look them up for yourself. Off the top of my head the European one was not peer reviewed and there was also something suspicious about the Ford one. If you really believe any serous medical institutions are pushing that drug you should really look into it - it just isn't true. It was just another Trump lie. Did you know that a Fox news corespondent convinced Trump to promote it? Just like his pillow guy friend is pushing oleander extract:

https://www.webmd.com/lung/news/2020...id-treatment#1

I have looked any can't find anything. At least not for the papers linked in his video... it hardly seems scientific to discredit all papers that show an outcome you don't agree with because other papers that showed the same result were discredited.

I've literally taken the exact name and added "retracted" or "discredited" to it and nothing comes up that is relevant. I will, however, concede that the one paper at least is verified as not peer-reviewed yet, but that doesn't mean it's invalid; time will tell that.