Texas Nursing Home Patients Test Coronavirus Drug, Hydroxycholoroquine

Hotair ^ | 04/08/2020 | Karen Townsend

[itsahoot]

Badly done science doesn't become well done science simply by getting the right conclusion.

Do you think dead people really care about the science? Yeah me neither.

[itsahoot]

I would think there would already be a write up to that effect

Who would publish it Fauci?

[Basket_of_Deplorables]

Good question. And side effects are being lied about. They are actually virtually unheard of, in dosages prescribed for Lupus patients. Dr. Oz had Dr. Daniel Wallace on yesterday. He said zero hospitalizations from it, no heart issues, they don’t do EKGs prior to use. Zero eye probs at 5 YEARS continuous use. 1% at 10 years. Etc.

He should know. #1 Rheumatolgy guy in US, 40 years in biz, millions of doses prescribed, thousands of patients.

P.s. sign the petition!!!

https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/allow-us-individuals-use-hydroxychloroquine-preventative-covid-19-open-country-and-go-back-work

[William Tell]

"Do you think dead people really care about the science?"

They can't. But all the live people should.

We seldom hear of blood-letting anymore. Animal entrails are not consulted for medical advice. There are few doctors who believe that bacteria are the result of disease rather than the cause. I think the lack of good science caused that result to take 70 years. How many people died because there was no hunt for anti-biotics? Hopefulness is not a substitute for discipline.

I would bet that one can still obtain diet pills that are nothing more than diuretics. Baldness cures that don't cure. Male potency concoctions that do nothing but drain people's resources.

Science is hard. It doesn't care what you want or what you need. I've explained before that I support Trump. I'm a firm believer in the Second Amendment and will never vote for a Democrat. I was very concerned that Trump may have risked too much in his support of the efficacy of hydroxychloroquine. I think it remains to be seen whether Trump's pills help him get re-elected or help defeat him.

I would never have risked what Trump risked to support that drug. But, as we all know, Trump must be Trump.

[William Tell]

"Seriously though, any on strict DNR’s could be considered part of a control group of sorts."

Interesting idea. Unfortunately, I think a DNR probably expects that no ventilator would be used. The results would be confused by any in the treatment group who ended up on ventilators.

When I was on a ventilator the chances of surviving were about a coin toss. Anecdotal information might indicate that 86% don't survive COVID-19. Perhaps all use of a ventilator could be considered a treatment failure endpoint.

[itsahoot]

Science: It doesn't care what you want or what you need.

Neither does the Chicom-virus. Live people do care, that is why the are taking the nearly 100 year old drug, they want to keep living, they would rather not die to let you attempt to prove a point at their expense.

[William Tell]

"... although I did assume that he had a valid reason to do so ..."

The doctor did a pretty good job of describing and owning up to some of the shortcomings of his study. A key error he made was reporting the one group as "100%". That number should have triggered skepticism on his part.

In my opinion, he should have reported each of his results as a range of values, calculated by including the omitted patients in each of the groups.

If all six of the omitted patients were included in the group that received HCQ and Z-pack, then the range would have become 6 to 12 out of 12. In that case the worst case number for the HCQ/Z-pack group would have been lower than the best case for the HCQ alone group. That would have meant that the study makes only a very weak case that the Z-pack made a difference.

Allowing himself to put "100%" into his report caused an unjustified focus on his work. Given the other weaknesses in the study, his work is very poor. If HCQ/Z-pack is proved to be a superior treatment, then the doctor deserves to be called a successful propagandist. If HCQ/Z-pack turns out to be only minimally valuable, then the doctor is deserving of criticism for an unwarranted interference in the search for the truth.

[William Tell]

"... rather not die to let you attempt to prove a point at their expense."

Proving my point doesn't change the science nor does it change any particular doctor's treatment.

If the best that doctors can do is use unscientific claims, then they are fully empowered to do that, at least as far as I am concerned.

My attempt to say what constitutes good science in no way affects what, in fact, constitutes good science. It is what it is. I think that history proves that the average patient is much better served by observing scientific methods whenever possible. This in no way addresses what to do for a patient who is otherwise going to die.

Let me ask you; if a COVID-19 patient's doctor wishes to dunk his patient into ice water for an hour in an attempt to improve his patient's outcome, do you support that?

[Svartalfiar]

This flu season: 39 million INFECTIONS, 400K hospitalizations, and 24K deaths from the flu. Fatalities as a % of those infected from the flu = 0.06%.

Close, but no cigar. CDC has confirmed barely 250M infections, out of 1.3MM tests. Only 20% of people who think they have the flu bad enough to actually test, even have it.

CDC has just under 20M lab-confirmed influenza-associated hospitalizations. And if you're bad enough to be hospitalized, then the doc should probably be running a test to confirm that it is, in fact, influenza. I doubt there's another 380,000 people in the hospital with "the flu" who didn't so much as get tested.

Deaths are hard to actually confirm, because CDC fudges the numbers several different ways, and as much as they can. I don't have time nor do I care enough to spend days digging into CDC datasheets and 50 States worth of reporting, so I'll just go with what I have from CDC's basic info. pulling info from week 32 (August) through current week 12 (end of March). Their P&I Mortality chart gives a total of 110M deaths due to Pneumonia and Influenza. Broken into 103M Pneumonia, and only 6500 from the flu. They do not specify how many of those pneumonia deaths are related to the flu, but either way, these numbers' scale tells me they are using CDC guesstimate deaths here, not actual confirmed cases. But hell, we'll stick with 6459 as the actual flu deaths number.

So all you can really pull from that is that confirmed Flu deaths for this year are, like usual, barely a couple thousand, if that. Not 60M-80M like is commonly mentioned.

So, the best guess for fatality rate based on real CDC numbers is 6459 / 246,842, which comes out to 2.6%.
If you want a legitimate, accurate number, well then CDC has to make influenza a reported disease, and get real data, instead of guesstimating a couple hundred/few thousand into tens of thousands.


https://www.cdc.gov/flu/weekly/index.htm

[Lions Gate]

I said the TOTAL NUMBER OF INFECTIONS not just POSITIVE SPECIMENS (a much smaller number). BIG DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE TWO.

2.6% death rate from the flu??? What planet are you living on? You’re sadly mistaken.

Here is the USA Influenza data from the CDC - estimates since 9/29/2019:
Number of specimens tested = 1.2M
Number of positive specimens = 242K
Number of deaths = 24K
Fatalities as a % of positive specimens = 10%
Number of people infected = 39M
Fatalities as a % of those infected = 0.06%

We know that MILLIONS of people have CV and are asymptomatic. This will bring the REAL CV DEATH RATE AS A % OF INFECTIONS DOWN SIGNIFICANTLY.

Yesterday Germany released a preliminary antibody study in a hard-hit area of NW Germany and discovered the CV fatality rate as a % of those infected was 0.37% (about 4x higher than the flu). The more these numbers come out we can stop the media-driven panic and reopen the economy.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2020/04/08/coronavirus-latest-news-2/#link-2H64MNBNRVCWJPBJQTVLVHCZ4E

[Svartalfiar]

I said the TOTAL NUMBER OF INFECTIONS not just POSITIVE SPECIMENS (a much smaller number). BIG DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE TWO.

And you HAVE NO IDEA how many TOTAL INFECTIONS there are from influenza ANY YEAR. The only REAL numbers we have are confirmed cases - and somehow, CDC manages to make that number into a massive one WITH NO LINK to reality. How does 250M CONFIRMED CASES turn into 39MM? That's a 156x multiple. 99.4% of cases are going UNDETECTED?

Even if you accept that, how do you explain that only 20% of tests are positive? (Assuming none of those are a second test to confirm the positive.) That means that about 80% of people who think they have the flu - DID NOT HAVE IT.

CDC's site gives us 6500 deaths from the flu (the rest of the P&I deaths are attributed to pneumonia). How does that turn into 24M deaths? That's only a 3.7x multiplier. If they used the same 150x as the infections, you'd estimate almost 1MM deaths.

Why isn't this consistent over the years? confirmed deaths vs CDC guesstimates vary from a low multiple to huge multiples. Why?

[itsahoot]

My attempt to say what constitutes good science in no way affects what, in fact, constitutes good science.

Can't you find a global warming thread to harass? No one here wants to hear your version of science according to Fauci. He is a deep state hack that hates Trump and that influences his version of science.

[Lions Gate]

I’m just telling you what the CDC estimate is for flu infections as of 9/29/2019. If you don’t like the CDC estimates you can take it up with them.

How many people who get sick with the flu even go to a doctor? The vast majority don’t and recover at home. Even fewer people who go to their doctor pay the $50 to get a flu test and just get a z-pack.

My point is you can’t determine the flu death rate with confirmed cases as the denominator anymore than you can use CV confirmed cases as the denominator to determine the CV death rate. The numbers will be way off and massively overstated if you do this.

[Svartalfiar]

How many people who get sick with the flu even go to a doctor? The vast majority don’t and recover at home. Even fewer people who go to their doctor pay the $50 to get a flu test and just get a z-pack.

No one knows. But given that only 20% of people tested for flu actually have it, then of those that don't get tested, the percentage is likely even lower, as a doc can rule out influenza before testing, that an Average Joe just assumes is "the flu". There's hundreds of other things that cause the same symptoms as flu, especially the common cold. But unless CDC makes influenza reporting mandatory, or someone develops a $5 flu test over-the-counter (that allows for a cheap doc visit to get your prescription), no one will really know and just take CDC's inflated estimate at face value. All I'm saying is that it's doing everyone a great disservice, exactly the same as we're doing now for the Wuhan Virus.


My point is you can’t determine the flu death rate with confirmed cases as the denominator anymore than you can use CV confirmed cases as the denominator to determine the CV death rate. The numbers will be way off and massively overstated if you do this.

Yup, half of our argument is us agreeing. This is my main point, the only difference is that Wuhan Virus isn't being officially inflated like influenza.

[Lions Gate]

I don’t know how the CDC is coming up with the 39M. Perhaps they are doing sample antibody testing. We don’t know if the CV numbers are inflated or not. A MN doctor shared some guidance from the state health dept to list some cause of deaths as CV when they were questionable.

[Svartalfiar]

I don’t know how the CDC is coming up with the 39M. Perhaps they are doing sample antibody testing. We don’t know if the CV numbers are inflated or not. A MN doctor shared some guidance from the state health dept to list some cause of deaths as CV when they were questionable.

CDC just pulls it out of their ass. They take actual tested deaths/confirmed cases, decide how fear-mongering they want to be this year, then come up with as big or as little a number as needed. Take a look at confirmed cases and their estimates year-over-year. Confirmed cases/deaths stays pretty consistent based on testing, while their estimates vary from 10x that number to 60x for deaths, or 10sx to 156x the number of cases.

As for the Wuhan Virus, without any set standards specifically for the virus already in place, they vary widely depending on the needs of the country/State. Some places like China/Iran/NK want to show how awesome they are, so they fake lower numbers. Some want to be seen as the victims and get as much free help as possible, (or in the case of Dem States, make Trump look bad) so Italy/NY/any Dem State tend to add anyone who was in the same room as the virus as part of its numbers.