Quantcast

Hydroxychloroquine . . .

The Rocketry Forum

Help Support The Rocketry Forum:

Status
Not open for further replies.

Ez2cDave

Well-Known Member
TRF Supporter
Joined
Jan 18, 2009
Messages
3,774
Reaction score
1,009
I am only interested in the data generated by scientific studies, regarding the effectiveness of Hydroxychloroquine . . .

Politics are not part of this discussion.

Dave F.
 

Ez2cDave

Well-Known Member
TRF Supporter
Joined
Jan 18, 2009
Messages
3,774
Reaction score
1,009
Posts that don't will be reported . . .
 

RainierWolfcastle

Well-Known Member
Joined
May 24, 2017
Messages
95
Reaction score
39
There's a Mountain of Evidence That Hydroxychloroquine Is an Effective Treatment for COVID-19

https://pjmedia.com/news-and-politi...s-an-effective-treatment-for-covid-19-n763953

Please leave "Politics" out of your responses and focus on the scientific evidence.

Dave F.
Probably not the correct article, author or media source to start with if you’re looking to keep politics out of it. That article is full of cherry picked data and graphs that mistake correlation with causation as well as sweeping political statements and attacks.

Until the COPCOV trial has some useful data it’s unknown if HCQ can reduce rates of infection, but current evidence from other studies is strongly suggesting that it has no positive effect on recovery once infected.
 

Joshua F Thomas

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jun 4, 2019
Messages
552
Reaction score
275
When reading any source I'm not familiar with, I start with "who is this source, and what is their bias, if any?".

PJ Media from it's about page: "Since its inception in 2005, PJ Media has been focused on the news from a center-right perspective– from the insightful commentary provided by our all-star lineup of columnists to our writers’ quick takes on breaking news and trending stories. ... In March 2019, PJ Media was acquired by Salem Media Group and became part of the Townhall Media family. "

Heading over to Media Bias Fact Check, and searching for 'PJ Media': https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/pj-media/

Source is rated as: Extreme Right, Propaganda, Conspiracy, Poor Sourcing, Failed Fact Checks
 

Joshua F Thomas

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jun 4, 2019
Messages
552
Reaction score
275
Other Salem Media Group publications:

RedState: we rate RedState borderline Questionable and strongly Right Biased, based on story selection that always favors the right and use of emotionally loaded (sensationalized) headlines. We also rate them Mixed for factual reporting due to poor sourcing of information and a few failed fact checks.

TownHall: Overall, we rate Townhall Right Biased based on story selection that always favors the right and denigrates the left. We also rate them Mixed for factual reporting due to the use of columnists that have poor fact check records.

BearingArms: Overall, we rate Bearing Arms as right biased and mixed for factual reporting due utilizing sources that are also mixed for factual reporting.

Twitchy: Overall, we rate Twitchy Right Biased based on story selection that always favors the Right. We also rate them Mixed for factual reporting due to the use of Twitter sources that frequently post false information.

--

I must conclude that PJ Media and the Salem Media Group sites are not reliable reporting sources and should not be considered reliable or truthful.
 

Joshua F Thomas

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jun 4, 2019
Messages
552
Reaction score
275
Someone is going to claim that Media Bias Fact Check is "a tool of the left" and "biased itself", and I'm going to point you to their conclusion about the news site AlterNet:

Overall, we rate AlterNet far Left Biased based on story selection and wording that always favors the left. We also rate them Mixed for factual reporting due to a few failed fact checks as well as the promotion of pseudoscience.


 

Joshua F Thomas

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jun 4, 2019
Messages
552
Reaction score
275
For those using Chrome or Firefox, Media Bias Fact Check has an handy extension which will display an icon showing you the relative bias for any news source that it has in it's database.

 

cwbullet

Obsessed with Rocketry
Staff member
Administrator
TRF Lifetime Supporter
Global Mod
Joined
Jan 24, 2009
Messages
25,372
Reaction score
3,328
Location
Glennville, GA
I think I have now reviewed most of the research. The medication is safe when used with the right patient for the right disease. It has not been proven effective for COVID early or late in COVID. It has not been shown effective for prophylaxis. The research is inconclusive either way.

In medicine, we have to show the benefit outweighs the risk and HCQ is just not there yet. Maybe the next study might reach that level of evidence. There is way too much smoke and mirrors with this medication. If you get you medical advice from Huffington Post, CNN, FoxNews, or MSNBC, you a fool. Discuss your question with a reputable physician that does not have a history of suggesting COVID and other illness are a result of Alien DNA. The best way to tell if it is good medical advice is to see what most clinicians are taking. I for one will not be taking HCQ for COVID any time soon because there is not enough evidence to show it works.
 

Ez2cDave

Well-Known Member
TRF Supporter
Joined
Jan 18, 2009
Messages
3,774
Reaction score
1,009
When reading any source I'm not familiar with, I start with "who is this source, and what is their bias, if any?".
Every source has "bias" . . . ALL of them !

People always start complaining whenever a cited source is not Left-oriented.

Frankly, people just pick whatever "source" agrees with their personal beliefs, in the end.

Ask yourself this, who "fact-checks" those "fact-checkers" ?

Even the data from the vaunted CDC "waffles" back and forth, continually . . . Fauci is like a sailboat without a center-board, going wherever the wind blows..

It is readily apparent to me that no one truly knows and that science is only being used as a tool to support agendas, not fins real solutions.

Dave F.
 

Ez2cDave

Well-Known Member
TRF Supporter
Joined
Jan 18, 2009
Messages
3,774
Reaction score
1,009
I must conclude that PJ Media and the Salem Media Group sites are not reliable reporting sources and should not be considered reliable or truthful.
I must conclude the same about all Leftist reporting sources, as well, then.

See what I mean ? In the end people only listen to what they agree with, whether Left or Right.

Obviously, this thread, against my wishes, is devolving into a "pissing contest" between the agendas, not the science !

Dave F.
 

Ez2cDave

Well-Known Member
TRF Supporter
Joined
Jan 18, 2009
Messages
3,774
Reaction score
1,009

cerving

Owner, Eggtimer Rocketry
TRF Sponsor
TRF Supporter
Joined
Feb 3, 2012
Messages
3,708
Reaction score
941
Some scientific-based evidence...




 
  • Like
Reactions: BDB

Ez2cDave

Well-Known Member
TRF Supporter
Joined
Jan 18, 2009
Messages
3,774
Reaction score
1,009
Joshua, you are the one who decided to turn things into the "battle of the sources".

I merely want to discuss the scientific studies surrounding the use of Hydroxychloroquine. Since many of these studies have been conducted in other countries, I seriously doubt that they are Democrats or Republicans.

What I am most curious about is how is it possible, in a world of theoretically unbiased Science, is it possible to have such diametrically-opposed findings, regarding the effectiveness of Hydroxychloroquine ?

The "Science", for the most part, appears to be well-researched. BUT, once the data reaches the USA, it is instantly turned into "political weapons", by both sides.

They can't "have it both ways" . . . Either, it works or it doesn't. I want to know the truth !

Dave F.
 
Last edited:

rklapp

NAR# 109557
TRF Supporter
Joined
May 8, 2020
Messages
638
Reaction score
414
Location
Oahu, Hawaii
In all seriousness, I worked on the lab study in the early 90s for 4 years on HCQ medicinal effects on rheumatoid arthritis patients. This was based on previous research so it was more than 4 years. Anything less is speculation.

 
  • Like
Reactions: BDB

BDB

Absent Minded Professor
Joined
Aug 22, 2015
Messages
2,076
Reaction score
364
There’s one clear way to find out if HCQ is a benificial treatment...run a double-blind clinical trial.

The Swiss data cited in the OP’s linked article is intriguing, but a population study can’t account for all of the variables that might be I play. Thus far, several double-blind studies have been performed—and they show no benefit to HCQ, compared to placebo.

If there is data from a double-blind study to the contrary, please provide a reference. I’d honestly be interested in reading it.
 

steveh.jae

Well-Known Member
TRF Supporter
Joined
Feb 23, 2020
Messages
128
Reaction score
40
Joshua, you are the one who decided to turn things into the "battle of the sources".

I merely want to discuss the scientific studies surrounding the use of Hydroxychloroquine. Since many of these studies have been conducted in other countries, I seriously doubt that they are Democrats or Republicans.

What I am most curious about is how is it possible, in a world of theoretically unbiased Science, is it possible to have such diametrically-opposed findings, regarding the effectiveness of Hydroxychloroquine ?

The "Science", for the most part, appears to be well-researched. BUT, once the data reaches the USA, it is instantly turned into "political weapons", by both sides.

They can't "have it both ways" . . . Either, it works or it doesn't. I want to know the truth !

Dave F.
Scientifically Dave, we would nominally rely on the advice of MD’s & the MD-Ph.D.’s for guidance. I am ALWAYS inclined to be suspicious when the levers of mass media communications are skewed to squelch a particular point of view with such immediacy, intensity and tenacity given decades of none-such. MMC has proven itself (IMO) to skew (hard) left given the instant and frightening removal of material from the net of ‘dissenting’ opinions such that they are strangen verboten. Sadly, this medication/treatment has become inextricably spliced at the molecular level with politics and will remain so ‘till 11/4. It is perhaps telling that until this month, pharmacists were rarely given the authority to overrule physicians.

Unfortunately I am reminded of Lawrence Peters’ (Ph.D) maxim. “A censor is the man who knows more than he thinks you ought to.”
 

Attachments

Last edited:

cwbullet

Obsessed with Rocketry
Staff member
Administrator
TRF Lifetime Supporter
Global Mod
Joined
Jan 24, 2009
Messages
25,372
Reaction score
3,328
Location
Glennville, GA
There’s one clear way to find out if HCQ is a benificial treatment...run a double-blind clinical trial.

The Swiss data cited in the OP’s linked article is intriguing, but a population study can’t account for all of the variables that might be I play. Thus far, several double-blind studies have been performed—and they show no benefit to HCQ, compared to placebo.

If there is data from a double-blind study to the contrary, please provide a reference. I’d honestly be interested in reading it.
BINGO. There are a few pending.

Frankly, people just pick whatever "source" agrees with their personal beliefs, in the end.
That is not entirely true. If you are enlightened enough, you know your biases and will listen to others. Age, in many, grants enough wisdom to see past your own bias. With HCQ, I see a potential train wreck cause by the need in many to see it fail or succeed that I am not willing to jump to conclusions without a peer-reviewed double-blind placebo-controlled trial.
 

Ez2cDave

Well-Known Member
TRF Supporter
Joined
Jan 18, 2009
Messages
3,774
Reaction score
1,009
That is not entirely true. If you are enlightened enough, you know your biases and will listen to others. Age, in many, grants enough wisdom to see past your own bias. With HCQ, I see a potential train wreck cause by the need in many to see it fail or succeed that I am not willing to jump to conclusions without a peer-reviewed double-blind placebo-controlled trial.
Chuck,

My "Politics" are no secret and neither are my Religious beliefs ( I'm 59 ) . . . November is coming and I am rock-solid on my voting choices, For obvious reasons, I won't go into detail here. But, if anyone is interested, send me a PM and you will be told the "whole story", in detail. NOTE : If you are easily triggered, easily offended, or are a "woke" individual, you might want to pass on that invitation . . . You won't like what you hear, in private !

I attempted to "see past my biases". I posted an article ( not from a Left-leaning source ), making it clear that I wanted to only discuss the scientific evidence of the studies it mentioned. I am curious how Scientists, studying the same drug, in use against the same illness, can come up with such widely varying results.

However, I was immediately subjected to harassment and ridicule, rather than an objective discussion of the subject at hand. In a typical example of Alinsky tactics, the thread immediately came under attack, in order to discredit both myself and the sources cited. That is all counterproductive and clearly shows the mindset of those who participated in those actions.

Speaking of bias, explain this about the testing of Hydroxychloroquine . . . Why are all of the sources, that cite negative results, connected to Leftist sources and any source that shows positive results is instantly attacked and labelled as being a Right-Wing lie? That is NOT Science . . . Rather it is "Political Bias", pure & simple !

Dave F.
 

steveh.jae

Well-Known Member
TRF Supporter
Joined
Feb 23, 2020
Messages
128
Reaction score
40
Chuck,

My "Politics" are no secret and neither are my Religious beliefs ( I'm 59 ) . . . November is coming and I am rock-solid on my voting choices, For obvious reasons, I won't go into detail here. But, if anyone is interested, send me a PM and you will be told the "whole story", in detail. NOTE : If you are easily triggered, easily offended, or are a "woke" individual, you might want to pass on that invitation . . . You won't like what you hear, in private !

I attempted to "see past my biases". I posted an article ( not from a Left-leaning source ), making it clear that I wanted to only discuss the scientific evidence of the studies it mentioned. I am curious how Scientists, studying the same drug, in use against the same illness, can come up with such widely varying results.

However, I was immediately subjected to harassment and ridicule, rather than an objective discussion of the subject at hand. In a typical example of Alinsky tactics, the thread immediately came under attack, in order to discredit both myself and the sources cited. That is all counterproductive and clearly shows the mindset of those who participated in those actions.

Speaking of bias, explain this about the testing of Hydroxychloroquine . . . Why are all of the sources, that cite negative results, connected to Leftist sources and any source that shows positive results is instantly attacked and labelled as being a Right-Wing lie? That is NOT Science . . . Rather it is "Political Bias", pure & simple !

Dave F.
Ya’ ask for two aspirin and you get a bicycle-riding fish. I suspect we are 2 birds of a feather
 

Funkworks

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jul 28, 2018
Messages
819
Reaction score
412
There's a Mountain of Evidence That Hydroxychloroquine Is an Effective Treatment for COVID-19

https://pjmedia.com/news-and-politi...s-an-effective-treatment-for-covid-19-n763953

Please leave "Politics" out of your responses and focus on the scientific evidence.

Dave F.
I wasn't 5 words into the article that it was already about "leftists" and "Trump". Therefore, in order to "leave politics out of my response", I'll "leave" this thread. That first sentence, attacking a political class, indicates the article is biased, so no, it doesn't qualify as something I'd read to get scientific information (which by definition is unbiased, i.e. a measured altitude of 1000 ft is neither leftist, populist, fascist, capitalist, communist, it's just 1000 ft period.).
 
Last edited:

steveh.jae

Well-Known Member
TRF Supporter
Joined
Feb 23, 2020
Messages
128
Reaction score
40
I wasn't 5 words into the article that it was already about "leftists" and "Trump". Therefore, in order to "leave politics out of my response", I'll "leave" this thread. (that first sentence clearly indicated to me the article was biased, so no, I didn't read the rest).
That was helpful
 

UhClem

Well-Known Member
Joined
Feb 6, 2009
Messages
1,610
Reaction score
156
I am curious how Scientists, studying the same drug, in use against the same illness, can come up with such widely varying results.
I am reading this article you linked to. Here is what I see. First up are a couple of anecdotes. The plural of anecdotes is not data. Then it whines about studies which show it is ineffective getting too much coverage. No other studies are mentioned. There is a complaint about a number of studies but I have no idea what they are because they aren't listed.

As for good information, I prefer Derek Lowe. Came for the chlorine triflouride and stayed for the rest.

HCQ is worse than useless. As for how scientists can come to different results, it is all about the methods. As Feynman famously said, the easiest person to fool is yourself.
 

steveh.jae

Well-Known Member
TRF Supporter
Joined
Feb 23, 2020
Messages
128
Reaction score
40
I am reading this article you linked to. Here is what I see. First up are a couple of anecdotes. The plural of anecdotes is not data. Then it whines about studies which show it is ineffective getting too much coverage. No other studies are mentioned. There is a complaint about a number of studies but I have no idea what they are because they aren't listed.

As for good information, I prefer Derek Lowe. Came for the chlorine triflouride and stayed for the rest.

HCQ is worse than useless. As for how scientists can come to different results, it is all about the methods. As Feynman famously said, the easiest person to fool is yourself.
That was also helpful
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Latest posts

Top