But you never answered my question about acceptable sources...did those meet your high standards of journalistic excellence?Is the Deep State somehow censoring this vital reporting from being translated into public health policy? If so, I'm concerned.
You mean like the ground-breaking Lancet study that everyone used to justify the discontinued use of HCQ because it jived with their politics? The one that was retracted? Link to the retracted study below; screenshot at the bottom. For twitter users, Dr. James Todaro has been following this from day one.The problem with a lot of the media's technical reporting on medical studies these days is they often cherry pick ones that haven't been peer-reviewed yet. (There is good reason for the medical research community to freely publish draft reports of the latest stuff, but they're not doing it for the benefit of the talking heads or the 24 hour news cycle.)
It's a lot like when the media comes out with a technically intensive story about aviation- half the time what ends up on the front page is the media talking out their ass.
But you never answered my question about acceptable sources...did those meet your high standards of journalistic excellence?
So the local Fox and NBC stations in Detroit don’t mean anything to you? (Just in case you were wondering, the Henry Ford Hospital is IN Detroit. That’s why they’re covering the story.)Actually, I have confidence in our public health establishment. As long as they are allowed to to do their job.
I give 2 shits about what the Epoch Times reporting says about your HCQ jihad.
So in your opinion, what was the major reason that Hydroxychloroquine was so widely dismissed as a treatment option?The study looks legit. Peer reviewed.
Finally someone said it. An important facet of science is repeatability. You can find a single study to claim almost anything.The problem with a lot of the media's technical reporting on medical studies these days is they often cherry pick ones that haven't been peer-reviewed yet. (There is good reason for the medical research community to freely publish draft reports of the latest stuff, but they're not doing it for the benefit of the talking heads or the 24 hour news cycle.)
Right. But if a published, peer-reviewed clinical study shows that a drug regimen can reduce mortality rates by 50%, I think the medical community would be quite remiss for dismiss it offhand.Finally someone said it. An important facet of science is repeatability. You can find a single study to claim almost anything.
On topnof that, every analysis right now is performed on incomplete data for a pandemic in its very early stages. There won't be meaningful consensus on this pandemic until about two years from now.
So in your opinion, what was the major reason that Hydroxychloroquine was so widely dismissed as a treatment option?
See I’m fascinated that if this was known back in May, how come these two articles from CNN that were published in June, (of which there are several more by the way), are so highly critical of HCQ treatment?I’m not that well read on it. No political reason.
The paper being cited isn’t a randomized controlled study, it is a retrospective look at the treatment of a bunch of patients that doctors chose to try HCQ in. I noted nearly all of the patients were overweight.
They cite ongoing randomized studies that will be the gold standard.
The paper was released as a pre-print back in May, so the results in it aren’t a surprise. It certainly suggests the drug as a treatment path to try.
These were actually randomized trials. The Detroit thing wasn’t. From an article you cited...See I’m fascinated that if this was known back in May, how come these two articles from CNN that were published in June, (of which there are several more by the way), are so highly critical of HCQ treatment?
The trial enrolled more than 470 adults patients hospitalized with coronavirus, or in an emergency department with anticipated hospitalization. The study found that those patients who were randomly assigned to receive the hydroxychloroquine treatment didn't benefit from the drug, compared to those in the placebo group.