Posted on 03/23/2020 7:35:54 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
Deep state traitor!
"What’s cool with Trump, is fine by me."
I agree 100%.
Have you recovered from the coronavirus? How are you feeling? Did your temperature come down?
Are you still stuck in Paris? How is the medical care there?
I dont understand why you continue to spread this misinformation?
Do you get off on doing this?
it is sick
There are major flaws in the French study. The “control group” was not drawn from the same population as the treatment group. The control group and treatment group were not randomized. At least three very ill patients were dropped from the treatment group. The “100% cure” group consisted of only six patients.
The people who performed the study did not try to hide any of these shortcomings. These defects all contribute to a possibility that the study is not reproducible by others. Having a correct conclusion from an incorrect process is not scientific.
And why do you support websites that are trying to torpedo President Trump’s efforts to bring us thru this? That’s just sick.
Take it up with Fauci . he is the one that agreed to do the interview with a SCIENCE site and these are his words
i think the MedCram Dr said that double bind studies are important because you may give better care to one set etc..
He did a great video to explain the idea of the Zinc transporter.
I have the zinc..I just want a natural way to try to do the same thing without a prescription.
“I just tested positive in France, I am a US citizen. How do I come home?? ‘We are not putting them on planes if they test positive”
And these are your exact words. So take your coronavirus infection up with YOU!
I really want to know what you are trying to accomplish. You are KNOWINGLY misleading people right now.
It is sick
I shouldnt have to keep repeating and repeating and repeating something so people dont get mislead by your post.
ONCE AGAIN. I MADE IT CLEAR IT WAS A HYPOTHETICAL WHILE DISCUSSING A SITUATION
STOP YOUR NONSENSE
it is really sick to keep doing this..something is really wrong with you
So “only” 6 patients were cured? Tell me how many DIED because of the treatment? I read none.
So without debating you on what you have said because I have not looked into it (you provided no link....very strange) although I suspect it will itself be flawed, why shouldn’t we try this treatment.
Of course my question is rhetorical because in fact we ARE using this medication and that has nothing to do with the French study.
I tried to find the report of “major flaws in French study” you referred to and was unable to do so.
How about a link to the information you sourced to slam the French study.
It’s also important that the patient not know whether he is getting a placebo or not. The principles behind doing scientific studies have been around for awhile. Political polls, for example, typically include statements about margin of error. I’m not sure but I think these margins are calculated based on 95% confidence level. That would mean that, if the poll was repeated, the result would be expected to be outside the error margins one time out of twenty.
By allowing large margins, pollsters are able to publish what amounts to lies, given that most people don’t appreciate the fine print.
Go the the Medcram video on this topic and you will see a reponse that talks about the problem with the study.
Too scientific for me to understand. Medcram responded to the comment
Secondly, my source is the paper itself. The authors made no attempt to hide any of this. I got the link to the paper from a prior FR thread. I’ll let you hunt it down since I’m on my tablet and it’s a lot of work using this one finger keyboard.
My recollection is that six people were dropped from the treatment group and that three were in critical condition. The study did not follow up on those. Focusing on the six who were “cured” while not knowing the fate of these other six is a serious shortcoming.
To paraphrase what I posted earlier, getting the right result is not a substitute for scientific rigor. The authors of the study are well aware of its limitations.
bkmk
I read the study and the fact remains 6 of 24 were “cured” and it is actually 6 of 23 since 3 dropped out. Dropping out does not indicate a failure simply because they dropped out. The question is why did they drop out.
Then the results of success were compared with the control group and the results are proof enough the treatment will have a positive effect.
It is evidence such as this along with the extraordinary number of what you would call anecdotal evidence but when it is available in such large numbers it becomes something more.
In any case the answer will be forthcoming soon because NY will begin using the drugs on Chinese Virus victims tomorrow and within a week we will have an answer.
My guess is the treatment will be further used all over the country and this ridiculous media induced panic will be over.
It will be most satisfying to watch the many Trump hating naysayers squirm and attempt to weasel out of there desperate “the sky is falling” claims of only days ago.
That claim is a far cry from, "The combination of hydroxychloroquine and azithromycin cures 100% of cases."
Another way of looking at this study is to ask yourself whether anyone would ever attempt to replicate this study. The answer is absolutely not. Nobody with adequate resources would fail to randomize, choose such a small sample, exclude treatment patients without a pre-determined protocol, choose a control group from a different population, etc.
I didn't bother to find out who actually sponsored this study. I would imagine that it was motivated by someone who was convinced by anecdotal evidence and who wished to immediately convince others to study the matter sooner rather than later. If that was their intention then they have succeeded. Trump took the same approach.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.