bluefrogguy

Coronavirus (COVID-19) Discussion

Recommended Posts

8 minutes ago, jfazz23 said:

another good article refuting what people like Dr Fauci is saying. it also cites another source from one of the more prestiguos science journals in the world. (https://www.nature.com/articles/s41422-020-0282-0) and this from belgium (https://epidemio.wiv-isp.be/ID/Documents/Covid19/COVID-19_InterimGuidelines_Treatment_ENG.pdf)  

 

again, im not trying to pick a fight.  i just want to get the point across that there is WAAAAY too  much politics and money involved with this virus.  just because someone with a PhD says something doesnt mean they are correct.  just think.  [...] edit: it wasnt politics it was proving my point.  

edit2:  i believe people like Fauci, similar to Krugman, have other motives.  i believe Fauci wants to make money for himself and the people who pay him.

https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2020/03/fda_must_approve_hydroxychloroquine_now.html

Just saying man, probably shouldn't cite a letter to the editor as your source.  

  • Haha 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, jfazz23 said:

 

take everything the WHO says with a grain of salt.  they are more of a political organization than a health organization.

It's the health authority of the ENTIRE United Nations.  It's literally governed by 192 nations lol.  If it were purely political, it would be all over the place about everything.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For the Nth time, Fauci is not saying the drug has not shown promise in limited testing -- he's saying that it has not been the subject of randomized controlled studies, which are the only standard of evidence that is acceptable.  Neither of those links, nor your previous to the French trial, meet this standard of evidence.

Believe me, I want HCQ and Azithromycin to work as much as anyone, and we'll find out soon enough if it does.  But all of this conspiracy theorizing about people trying to make money by stopping a drug that could be saving lives is irresponsible and shameful.  Let the science come in.

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, daynlokki said:

Just saying man, probably shouldn't cite a letter to the editor as your source.  

 

the AT article?  its an opinion sure, but it cites 3 or so scientific sources...  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, jfazz23 said:

 

the AT article?  its an opinion sure, but it cites 3 or so scientific sources...  

It's still an opinion piece.  I could site 3 articles about Mike Trout and make him out to be a complete bust in an opinion piece.  Just the fact it's not peer reviewed already means it's worth nothing in scientific circles.  

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, tonycpsu said:

For the Nth time, Fauci is not saying the drug has not shown promise in limited testing -- he's saying that it has not been the subject of randomized controlled studies, which are the only standard of evidence that is acceptable.  Neither of those links, nor your previous to the French trial, meet this standard of evidence.

Believe me, I want HCQ and Azithromycin to work as much as anyone, and we'll find out soon enough if it does.  But all of this conspiracy theorizing about people trying to make money by stopping a drug that could be saving lives is irresponsible and shameful.  Let the science come in.

 

i believe you that you want it to work.  my point is that it has and IS working and Fauci's (and FDA head) rhetoric is that of someone who has motives outside of helping people.  again, compare this to his reaction to H1N1 during the previous admin...https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2020/03/what_did_dr_fauci_have_to_say_in_2009_about_the_deadly_h1n1_pandemic.html

 

i guess lets just agree to disagree and wait until NY starts using/testing it on tuesday and hope its very effective

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, daynlokki said:

It's still an opinion piece.  I could site 3 articles about Mike Trout and make him out to be a complete bust in an opinion piece.  Just the fact it's not peer reviewed already means it's worth nothing in scientific circles.  

 

uh....im not citing the opinion piece....i was citing what was in it.  i thought i made that clear.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, daynlokki said:

It's the health authority of the ENTIRE United Nations.  It's literally governed by 192 nations lol.  If it were purely political, it would be all over the place about everything.

 

UN is also useless and a left wing political organization.  its obvious where you and Tony sit politically

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, jfazz23 said:

 

uh....im not citing the opinion piece....i was citing what was in it.  i thought i made that clear.

So you're not citing the opinion piece by citing just a portion of what was in the opinion piece?  So basically you're not citing it by citing it?  Good to know.

 

1 minute ago, jfazz23 said:

 

UN is also useless and a left wing political organization.  its obvious where you and Tony sit politically

I'm a right-leaning Libertarian, wanna try again?

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would also like to point out that the world as a whole leans to the left.  A lot more than what people in the US believe.  Most US democratic nominees would be considered the center, not the left in most countries.  Assuming the US political landscape is the bar for left and right is pretty selfish and undermines any point you could already make involving politics as you've already biased yourself with that assumption.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, jfazz23 said:

my point is that it has and IS working and Fauci's (and FDA head) rhetoric is that of someone who has motives outside of helping people.

 

Their rhetoric is of someone who lets scientists judge efficacy based on randomized clinical trials, not isolated anecdotes and politically-motivated news outlets.  Unlike you and I, they pay a price if a rigorous trial shows they don't work.  The control group problems alone in the French study make it completely worthless.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

im gonna step out of this thread and watch a movie.  stay safe everyone.

 

^^^yet his rhetoric was SOOO much different during H1N1....hmmm.  the french study is NOT completely worthless because a couple of cherry picked doctors said so.  the results of lenox hill (and other places) are solid indicators of what this drug can do.

Edited by jfazz23

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, tonycpsu said:

 

Their rhetoric is of someone who lets scientists judge efficacy based on randomized clinical trials, not isolated anecdotes and politically-motivated news outlets.  Unlike you and I, they pay a price if a rigorous trial shows they don't work.  The control group problems alone in the French study make it completely worthless.

Fully agree.  The limited samples at best are anecdotal for ANY legitimate scientific work.  No conclusions can be made.  That'd be like polling 30 people you pulled off the street for any legitimate political poll.  The margin of error would be astronomical.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
7 minutes ago, tonycpsu said:

 

Their rhetoric is of someone who lets scientists judge efficacy based on randomized clinical trials, not isolated anecdotes and politically-motivated news outlets.  Unlike you and I, they pay a price if a rigorous trial shows they don't work.  The control group problems alone in the French study make it completely worthless.

again its not anecdotal evidence.  its been shown in scientific studies and peer reviewed publications.  the sample size IS small, but also very encouraging.

 

the standard of evidence he is requiring is NOT his job as a scientist. its a wild exaggeration unsuited for the situation.  and my contention is that he has other motives...i guess we will just wait and see until more doctors/hospitals start using it next week.  lenox hill is very promising, and the science is NOT anecdotal.

out 

Edited by jfazz23
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, jfazz23 said:

again its not anecdotal evidence.  its been shown in scientific studies and peer reviewed publications.  the sample size IS small, but also very encouraging.

 

the standard of evidence he is requiring is NOT his job as a scientist. its a wild exaggeration unsuited for the situation.  and my contention is that he has other motives...i guess we will just wait and see until more doctors/hospitals start using it next week.  lenox hill is very promising, and the science is NOT anecdotal.

out 

Small sample size in science IS anecdotal evidence.  You cannot make an actual conclusion with any basis of fact using this small of a sample size.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, daynlokki said:

It's the health authority of the ENTIRE United Nations.  It's literally governed by 192 nations lol.  If it were purely political, it would be all over the place about everything.

The WHO also parroted China's propaganda in January stating there was no evidence of human to human transmission of the coronavirus in Wuhan, so they aren't infallible. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, KCTD25 said:

The WHO also parroted China's propaganda in January stating there was no evidence of human to human transmission of the coronavirus in Wuhan, so they aren't infallible. 

 

they push chinese propaganda and people cite them....then criticize actual science French studies that have been peer reviewed....sigh

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, KCTD25 said:

The WHO also parroted China's propaganda in January stating there was no evidence of human to human transmission of the coronavirus in Wuhan, so they aren't infallible. 

Saying there is no evidence is exactly that.  At that time, they didn't know whether it was or was not transmittable human to human.  Scientific organizations won't make a definitive statement one way or the other until they have facts, not just opinions.  Saying there is no evidence is just them saying they haven't found out yet.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, jfazz23 said:

 

they push chinese propaganda and people cite them....then criticize actual science French studies that have been peer reviewed....sigh

Your opinion citation was published by Manli Wang, Ruiyuan Cao, Leike Zhang, Jia Liu, Mingue Xu, Zhengli Shi, Zhihong Hu, Wu Zhong and Gengfo Xiao.  Most work for the Wuhan Institute of Virology... where exactly do you think the Chinese propaganda would have come from?

  • Haha 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, daynlokki said:

Saying there is no evidence is exactly that.  At that time, they didn't know whether it was or was not transmittable human to human.  Scientific organizations won't make a definitive statement one way or the other until they have facts, not just opinions.  Saying there is no evidence is just them saying they haven't found out yet.  

I would think that a major health organization might put a little more effort into verifying a claim like that before repeating it, especially from a country like China. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, jfazz23 said:

^^^yet his rhetoric was SOOO much different during H1N1....hmmm. 

 

COVID-19 is many times more dangerous than H1N1. The idea that different recommendations were made for different threats constitutes some kind of global conspiracy is tinfoil hat nonsense. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, KCTD25 said:

I would think that a major health organization might put a little more effort into verifying a claim like that before repeating it, especially from a country like China. 

It's not a claim.  There was no evidence at the time to conclusively say whether it was or was not transmitted human to human.  Therefore, there is no evidence at this time is the only thing they can actually say scientifically.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If China is the only place you are getting ANY information from for something like this, you naturally have to take it with a grain of salt.  They have covered stuff up before and even did that here.  Scientifically to make claims one way or another based on ANY evidence purely from China would defeat the purpose of science completely.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, daynlokki said:

It's not a claim.  There was no evidence at the time to conclusively say whether it was or was not transmitted human to human.  Therefore, there is no evidence at this time is the only thing they can actually say scientifically.

It is a claim. The Chinese government claimed that they had no evidence of human to human transmission in January. You don't think China knew that it was being passed between humans in January, almost 2 months in with cases exploding? How did they think all those people were getting it? I guess that's possible, but we are talking about China so I'm going to guess the chances of that being true are slim. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, daynlokki said:

If China is the only place you are getting ANY information from for something like this, you naturally have to take it with a grain of salt.  They have covered stuff up before and even did that here.  Scientifically to make claims one way or another based on ANY evidence purely from China would defeat the purpose of science completely.  

That's exactly my point. I just think it was irresponsible for the WHO to repeat that claim, without the WHO independently verifying that it was true. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.