(07-08-2020, 06:16 AM)LP link Wrote:[img width=350]https://scontent-syd2-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/106223853_1409832139407256_6171250986362687545_n.jpg?_nc_cat=102&_nc_sid=ca434c&_nc_ohc=uvvbfXyESp0AX_yMvD7&_nc_ht=scontent-syd2-1.xx&oh=2ca294d10a5bccdffc146318140e3210&oe=5F29D69F[/img]

Just about sums it up!

(07-09-2020, 01:07 AM)flyboy77 date Wrote:No one has said it's not dangerous, just it needs to be put into perspective and that it doesn't warrant a closure of our economy.

Are you really unable to grasp the distinction?

Quote:Extract;

The virus also has the potential to infect the brain directly. However, most of the physical effects we’ve seen in survivors look like secondary impacts of the virus being present in the brain rather than the effects of direct infection. For example, our immune system can appropriately fight the virus, but may start to attack our own cells – including our brain cells and nerves. This may be through the actions of immune cells and antibodies via an inflammatory mechanism known as a cytokine storm, or through mechanisms we don’t yet understand.

(07-09-2020, 01:33 AM)LP link Wrote:Yet you apparently miss that your own campaign for the use of HCQ is contradictory to your claims that Big Pharma has created the COVID-19 hysteria.

Do you grasp that?

Your campaign for people to suck down HCQ, without any causal proof it does a thing, encourages and enables "Big Pharma" to make a tidy profit in the process without foundation! I gather that "Big Pharma" didn't blink at supplying the generic royalty free version of HCQ in bulk to Brazil, not that it helped much.

Will you take offence at having your own claims weighed by your own standards, or are you just wilfully oblivious because one side of the debate doesn't fit your conspiracy?

All comments have to be weigh in the same framework or else that is cherry-picking, and cherry-picking leads the community up the garden path!

I suppose if we are going to accept and publish stuff like the "Surgisphere HCQ booster theory", then we had better not pick and choose, and we should publish other correlative stuff about COVID-19 that increases it's threat to everyone! For example a new study from University College London shows that there is an increased risk of brain disease in COVID-19 patients of all ages, not just the elderly. Summarised here in plain language at The Conversation.

https://theconversation.com/how-coronavirus-affects-the-brain-141100

(07-09-2020, 03:57 AM)LP link Wrote:There are no questions to answer about these issues because they are all based on fake premises, there is no causal evidence for saving life from SARS-CoV-2 infections through the use of HCQ, so no answering the question based on a fake and fabricated premise.

You re-posting the same correlations over and over again is not offering facts or supporting evidence, and no matter how many times it gets re-posted, re-submitted or re-published by various people plagiarising the original work, won't help improve the quality of it. It's just a correlation, like The Donald claiming a thousand retweets legitimises his opinion.

So there is nothing to answer or debate, because what you are looking for doesn't exist, your language asserts causality where none exists. That is a matter for you, not me!

There are reputable journals and groups doing HCQ studies, and they do so without needing to distort the facts, and they are doing it on a scale that is relevant with thousands of patients in a double blind studies both as treatment and prophylactic . Not hand-picked small numbers of narrow band demographic already infected patients, and not in-discriminant screen scraping large scale meta-data studies like Surgisphere. It will probably be another year before the legit studies have locked down answers for any of the alternatives, bad, indifferent or good!

But I suppose the claim will be that the stuff those legitimate studies omit, generally things that they cannot prove or support from the data, will be proof of a Big Pharma conspiracy or political interference! I'd be justified to expect such a response, already we've seen a response in that manner, when a simple subset chart that uses the same basic set of figures as your preferred source allegedly omits data to "deliberately make things look worse!"

As for the other fake assertion, that of a better economic path. Sweden took the less economic damage approach for a COVID-19 strategy, regarding not taking an economic hit to control the virus, and it actually has turned out a hell of lot worse for them both from an economic and a health perspective. As reported by Sweden! Have they turned evil, has Sweden been got at, by Big Pharma perhaps? :o

If it's bogus from the start, a thousand copies of the same won't make it legitimate!

Yes the usual tactics, disparagement, smoking doesn't cause lung disease, guns don't kill people kill, vaccination kills, climate change isn't real, COVID-19 is biological warfare, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah.....! The pattern is obvious, it's a preferred tactic of the fakies, make some fake assertions and conclusions from cherry-picked data then draw in a bunch of well-meaning researchers or specialists into a debate on the premise in a hope to add legitimacy. It's a tactic that is now growing old, people across the internet are too well informed, they can see through the fakies!