Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
There is a lot of confusion in this thread
“Obergefell v. Hodges (2015), Lawrence v. Texas (2003),” will no be overturned, and there wont even be cases brought (to the supreme court) to overturn them.
” and Roe v. Wade (1973)”
Doubtful it will be overturned.
Though even if it is, keep in mind it will still be up to states. In most states it will remain legal in a few states it might be curtailed.“I’ve Posted this Before – with Modern Medicine – there is No Such Thing!”
This is pure ignorance. To use the least controversial example tubal pregancy.
“Even before Roe v Wade mother’s whose lives were endangered were permitted to abort to save their lives. Reversing Roe v. Wade would not change that.”
Who decides what constitutes “lives were endangered” ?To be clear
it is a free country and you have the right to announce your preference for whatever you please. And of course a sign on a lawn is more limited than a parade driving throughout the city.But the underlying motivation behind them are the same
commonsaychel
meh
You’d be hard pressed to convince me (or anyone) that you put up a Trump sign on your lawn simply as a matter of taste. Ie you find it aesthetically pleasing like you do your rose bushes
It is pretty clear that the sign is there to announce and publicize your political preference. Granted the announcement is limited to your neighbors and whoever passes by but it is the same announcement made by the parade to non-neighbors in Manhattan.
I’m not sure why owning the house is relevant, I’m pretty sure all thoe Trump flags where on cars owned by their owners too.
“was it to be in your face? ”
Yes. Obviously
Though isn’t that sort of the point of lawn signs. nobody says “i’m not sure who to vote for, let me see who common saychel has a sign for that’s how I choose”
Obviously lawn sign is less “in your face” than a parade in Manhattan but its the same ideaBy what measure did you declared that Yitzchok Dovid Smith is a “very smart person”? That he sounds smart?”
No that is definitely not the reason
Always
“So, you are not above manipulating voters if needed, ”
You mean like encouraging chants of “lock her up” or “MExico will pay for that wall” when obviously neither will happen?
I’ve learned to live with it. thats politics today. So be it, you want Democrats to be the better ones and stop? pass.
And nobody is being manipulated. If having a candidate who promises he wont pack the court is important to you. Then don’t vote biden. thats fine.
“and you are not really outraged by R- senate,”
I am, but outrage doesnt mean, I dont want the democrats to respond in kind. Im am outraged that Republ;icans are changing their tune to “steal” a seat. BUT once it happens it is fine for the other team to do the sam.
Say we play a gam, you get caught cheating, I say “hey dotn cheat, that isnt fair” and you cheat anyway. Then next time I cheat, it is silly for you to say “Ha you dont mind cheating” I do! but if you cheat I will do the same
” I don’t think this is a great place to get extra votes for your candidate,”
not looking to.
“what is it about R- and D- judges? beyond political preferences, this seems to be an argument between “originalists” and “live constitution”.”
THIS is an empty talking point. (Not blaming it on you, people have been saying it for years) For example Obviously “or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press;” did not include the internet. Yet nobody (to the best of my knowledge) argues it should be interpreted as originally intended and doesn’t imply to typed speech online. The only question is how broadly to interpret the constitution. does freedom of speech/the press apply to internet speech? Does it apply to campaign finance? NOBODY says it ONLY applies to spoken word and literal press.
So in reality originalists ARE a bit “stubborn outliers who try to reach out back to outdated time” whol like liberal justices are motivated by their biases. They DO expand the constitution when it suits them. Perhaps a better example is bush V Gore when the Equal protection clause was expanded to suit the “originalists” desire. and so much for States rights…
As for the Torah.
Lehavdil elef alfei havdolos. Torah lechol hadeos is “living” As even Justice Scalia noted “A Talmudic maxim instructs with respect to the Scripture: “Turn it over, and turn it over, for all is therein.” 8 e Babylonian Talmud: Seder Nezikin, Tractate Aboth, Ch. V, Mishnah 22, pp. 76-77 (I. Epstein ed. 1935). (footnote omitted). Divinely inspired text may contain the answers to all earthly questions, but the Due Process Clause most assuredly does not.” (Capperton V A.T. Massey)always
what is your view on the updated Biden’s position on packing – he will tell us some time before election. That is, he can’t say he will not to lose one group of voters, he cannot tell us he won’t not to lose another group and, well, he apparently cannot say nothing as he is losing a third group …
maybe we can find his positions on Hunter’s Mac?Love his position.
I personally hope we will pack the court. However as it would scare some people away, I dont want him to lose votes over it. And I dont feel strongly enough about it that his not willing to pack the court would make me vote against him (hard to imagine any such person)
So not saying anything is the perfect strategy.Avi
No the democrats are being (more) consistent. Their position is simply: follow precedent
in 2016 the precedent was to nominate and hold hearings even in an election year.
Then it changed that we no longer do that.
So Democrats say ok, fine follow the new precedentRepublican’s are now saying No we changed outr minds again, “Do what you can changing the rules as you go.”( my choice C above, As always grants) Democrats will know once again follow this precedent Ok do what yu want to get ahead, this includes court packing.
Always
Simple question what is the republican view on holding confirmation hearings in an election year?
A. Hold them
B. Dont hold them
C. Do what you can changing the rules as you go.“We are not talking hasidut, just plain din: …”
I’m not saying what Mcconell did was illegal. but again it cant’ work both ways. If all that matters is “din” then there is no reason not to pack the court . Which you grant “re: packing. It is justifiable,”
as to whther it carries a heavier political price. you are probably right, time will tell (though obviously thats why he is not giving a straight answer)“Part of that rejection means – in plain language – Senate is in R- hands and they have power to withhold consent”
Again, that’s not what happened. Mcconell didn’t even hold hearings. He didnt allow the senate to consent or reject. Mcconell isnt “the senate” he is but one of 100.
“. I think the future court packing part of the argument is more interesting”
Its not. It is 100% justifiable based on Republicans actions.
Simple question what is the republican view on holding confirmation hearings in an election year?
A. Hold them
B. Dont hold them
C. Do what you can changing the rules as you go.Right now Republicans opted for c. You should expect the dems to follow suit doing what they can to get ahead
always
this wasn’t ancient history
So did they consent? We will never know because the issue never came up. Mcconell chose to ignore it. Never bringing the nominee to the senate for its “advice and consent”
please don’t rewrite history
Mcconell and Grasley wrote an oped explaining their position “McConnell and Grassley: Democrats shouldn’t rob voters of chance to replace Scalia”
At no point in their op ed did they mention this distinction they said simply
“Given that we are in the midst of the presidential election process, we believe that the American people should seize the opportunity to weigh in on whom they trust to nominate the next person for a lifetime appointment to the Supreme Court. ”now they changed their mind
1
“They didn’t confirm the communist judge that Obama appointed ”Except that isnt what happened.
Republicans didnt hold any hearings because they said “no nominations in an election year”
Now they changed their mind, because, by definition, Republicans are liars .
If they held a hearing and didn’t confirm him because he “was a communist judge” THAT would not be inconsistent (unless today they did confirm a “communist judge” )
but that isn’t what happened. Stop lying, you sound like a republican chas veshalom
Read every word
““providing all people of the united states with – (i) high-quality health care; (ii) affordable, safe, and adequate housing; (iii) economic security; and (iv) access to clean water, clean air, healthy and affordable food, and nature.” ”
Each word sounds glorious! sign me up
Are you sure you arent campaigning for Biden?
Also, how do you keep bringing up “clean water clean air” Is that really controversial now? Does Trump oppose access to clean water and clean air? I know he opposes providing all with high-quality l healthcare , but I was not aware that clean water was controversial too . Interesting
som1
“here’s just a few parts of the green new deal thats not “standard in the civilized world…”
so sorry youve been tricked and lied to by republicans“(i) high-quality health care; ” – standard
“(iv) access to clean water, clean air, healthy and affordable food, and nature.” – standard (surprised this is even controversial really your opposed to clean water and air now?)
” (ii) clean, affordable, and accessible public transportation; ” standard
“iii) high-speed rail. ” standard
and of the other items listed. although not (yet) standard all seem like excellent ideas and goals. Granted not feasible, but neither was a border wall with mexico. At least these are worthy goals.
“FYI it seems you didn’t learn this in first grade but the government can’t just print out trillions of dollars it just doesn’t work like that”
Mexico will pay for it.For space force, you found money in the budget but for “clean water” (your post) thats where you draw the line? spare me
“So my question to our chavarim on the other side of the isle is;”
Here to answer all your questions!
” do you support all this?”
no of course not. I doubt anybody has ever supported “All” a politicain represents or supports.” Do you support the burning looting and destruction that has taken over some cities?”
no” Have you donated to the Minnesota Freedom Fund(bailing out the violent thugs who have been “peacefully protesting” in riots across the country) promoted by Kamala Harris?”
no” Do you support the Democrats abusing their power to pack the courts and add states for senators?”
Yes. After the blatant hypocrisy displayed by the Republicans in first saying Presdients shouldnt nominate (and refusing to hold a hearing for Garland) To quote Graham “”I want you to use my words against me. If there’s a Republican president in 2016 and a vacancy occurs in the last year of the first term, you can say Lindsey Graham said, ‘Let’s let the next president, whoever it might be, make that nomination,’ “” after that blatant hypocritical power grab anything goes. abuse of power is a two way street.” Are you ready to usher in the New Green Deal?”
Yes. Much of this is standard in the civilized world.Let me know if you have any other questions
Syag
Here is your question”
“I myself saw the wire under his jacket and piece in his cuff. I refuse to accept the words of trolls at face value. If it isn’t something that wasn’t supposed to be there, than what was it?”
The answer is straight forward. If you look at clear image it is a crease. THAT is the answer to your original question
I too love understanding different views. So help me understand yoru view
If I ask ” Why would someone support Trump if he refuses to condemn white supremacists”
In your view replying “What do you mean he did condemn them, he said “sure” when asked to condemn”
Isnt answering the question since the question was really “what would someone who sees no wrong in Trump think if they hear something odd” Not did he condemn or not. Is that correct?“Not only did i answer your irrelevent question,”
I’m so sorry, I cant find your reply. Do you mind pointing me in the direction.
My question again:
Did you get a chance to look at the clearer images? do you still think it was a wire?“i told you i wasn’t curious about the wire”
Yes I know you dont care about the faulty premise of your question. But please oblige me for old time’s sake“My questions are usually about the emotional or psychological mechanics behind the posters words. Is that odd? probably, but my friends in real life are used to it. Here, most people can’t hear a sound beyond those they expect to hear so they start shoving content at me and all i wanted to know was their motives for taking the side they take, or for chosing to express it in the way they do.”
Not odd at al!
In fact we are a bit similar in that regard.
Originally the only topics I got involved in where ones such as these. I dropped out a bit lately (except for HCQ though eve there most of my comments were limited to one study which said x and a person insisting it said y and that x meant 7) ) for the same reason, these topics are boring and repetitive.
This was interesting to me though (which is why I commented) . when a person maintains a crease is a wire, would they be willing to look at evidence to the contrary? would they still insist it was a wire? would they change the subject and say oh I don’t really care about wires?
I may be odd too but THIS is the stuff I find fascinating
lol syag.
Long megilla little substance.
Did you get a chance to look for clearer images?
Do you still think it was a wire?(“will they entertain the idea that maybe it was a wire? ” while not geared to me, to satisfy your curiosity I did think it was a wire so looked for clearer images since it didn’t seem likely )
Syag
‘I asked her because all i wanted was a thoughtful answer, not a megilla on related political topics, no offense”No mt offended at all.
This is a new tactic (over past months) of yours you ask a loaded question and when people point out the premise is incorrect you get annoyed thst they aren’t answering your question.
I’m not cutting and pasting from Google. Im directing you to a clearer image thst shows what you (and I) thought was a wire is more likely a crease.
This isn’t a long megillah, nor hock of the day. It is a direct and concise answer to your question. Namely that your premise is likely mistaken . I pointed you to clearer pictures, from your comments it doesn’t sound like you looked (hence ”
. I don’t know if you decided i am not flexible because you witnessed me not convinced by unconvincing arguments)“but i will always seek more opinions on something”
Did you seek out clearer images of the “wire”?Syag
”
Ubiq- now you know why i didn’t ask you but rather asked her.”No I don’t.
And at any rate I know you dont like googling, and you don’t like changing your mind once it’s made up.
But as a yom tov treat, can you make this exception?Could you look for cleanrer images (or video where you can see the “wire” dissolve into his shirt, though i guess that just means he switched to a wireless transmitter )
There are some available in site i mentioned.
I’m curious if after looking at clearer images you still think was wireSyag
“I thought i saw something pretty clearly and asked a sincere question.”And I give you a sincere reply. Here is is again: That what you “though you saw pretty clearly” (and I did as well) was more likely a crease.
Now obviously why would you believe me? SO I directed you to a clearer image, hence google (I cant post the link to image here)“Why google when you can look at something and just give me your assessment?”
Because eyes can be deceived. It DID look like a wire no argument there.
We can’t always give an assessment just based on how things seem. Eyes can be deceived . Still images can appear to move, creases can look like wires. Just looking at one (blurry) image doesnt always give a full picture)So I looked for more images. and it looks pretty clearly like a crease and not a wire.
I’m not sure why this isnt satisfying.
Im directing you to a clearer picture where it looks like a crease and not a wire“When i asked you covid questions you answered from your heart and brain.”
Only if I new the answer. IF I didn’t, Of course I googled, if I wasn’t sure. And sorted through the responses“And your end with a request to google trump, as if that has any shaichus to my question,”
It does it shows that pictures can be deceiving.
syag
Its usually a cigarWhile I too was sure I saw a wire, sometimes we see wrong. I Am certain the image in my kids optical illusion book is moving, but it isn’t even though I saw it move.
Google “Fact check: False ‘evidence’ of Biden being wired or using earpiece ”
where they have clearer images where it does in fact look like a crease .If you really want to go down the rabbit hole , search for images of Donald Trump’s neural stimulator nutty conspiracy theories aren’t limited to one side.
“Why are massive protests okay, but davening in a minyan is not?”
simple. they aren’t ok. That’s it end of discussion
someone in Monsey
you are not the first to say that. since its inception, Nasser, Arafat, Kohmeini all vowed that the State will “disappear”.
It is still here it outlasted them all it will outlast you too” Read Perfidy by Ben Hecht.”
Ben Hecht was a Zionist
“he explained properly why
yes he did”Replied already
“and the death rate is high”
Replied already
“and
that’s right
‘“Interesting that it helped hospitalized patients’”Not sure what you are adding
But ill bet I Replied alreadyIf you have any lingering questions, I. Happy to answer. No need to repeat the sane incorrect debunked statements over and over
“The expert I referred to above in a youtube video explained properly why Dr. Zelenko’s stats have been unfairly diminished, as his patients were all in the high-risk groups.”
No he didn’t. As I explained several times.
Stick to the mashal with fruits its easier to understand“Ubi writing about hydroxychloroquine-”
I was writing about the Belgium study.“Further, the death rates have been much higher than reported as the way deaths are attributed to the different diseases on death certificates obscures the fact that if not for COVID, those people would still be alive.”
Usually I hear the opposite from your crowd. That anyone who dies they just write covid
(sorry “Compared to these other fruits that I sprayed and 2 days later a few were spoiled.”
should be “compared to these other fruits I DIDN’T spray…” )
ready
“ubi said ‘We don’t know ANYTHING about the other participants. not their age, not their comorbidities, nothing. Maybe they are all younger maybe all older maybe a mix. We don’t know.’”
Yes this is an objective fact. Acknowledged by Dr. Zelenko “Only outcome data of the untreated control group of the same community based on public reference was available but no other patient characteristics, clinical symptoms, etc”
Ready
“me -I think that patients are “random” according to their staus, just people with heads attached to bodies., sufficiently valid for comparison.”
i’m sorry I don’t know what this means. Which study are you referring to? and which patients are random? Random means random it isnt just a magic word you can say about a study to make it “sufficiently valid for comparison”
though worth noting, while randomized studies are better, not all non-random studies are worthless. It introduces bias, something to be wary of but if patients are otheriwse similar conclusions can still be valid.
The problem with Dr. Zelenko’s study isnt that it isnt random (which it isnt obviously people chose to go to him) the problem is we don’t know how they compare to the untreated (control) group.I gave an example of detergent. Lets try another.
I have a magic spray that keeps fruit fresh outside of a fridge. Look I spray 500 apples keep them out of fridge and 2 days later all are still fresh Compared to these other fruits that I sprayed and 2 days later a few were spoiled.Would you buy my spray?
The first thing you should ask is what other fruits were they? how ripe were they?
If I compared to to 500 very ripe strawberries. you would be a lot less impressed with my spray. If they were SIMILAR fruits in SIMILAR condition THAT would be meaningful.SURE it would be MORE impressive if we randomly assigned fruit to receive the spray or not . But even if not random, if they were similar enough that would still be meaningful but if the fruit are different OR if we don’t know anything about the unsprayed fruit, the study is worthless
The group Dr. Zelenko is comparing to how do they compare to his treatment group A (which are younger and healthier than average > 60 year old)? We simply don’t know They may be the same,
they may be Healthier or sicker.“ALco the point is if you agree that hydroxychloroquine did help as you have admitted,”
I never agreed to that, though I never disagreed either. There is conflicting data I’m not convinced one way or the other. I would err on the side of giving since the risk is so small (though not zero)
2sents
Yeah they lost me with “We used multivariable Cox proportional-hazards regression models with inverse probability for treatment weighting by propensity scores, with the addition of subgroup analyses.”
and that was in the abstract!2scents
“I have not really been following this thread”
good . don’t.Thanks for sharing
Interesting that it helped hospitalized patients where common refrain had been that it is too late, and no mention of Zinc.ready
“The Zelenko study was unfavourably skewered against his proposition, as the other participants outside his study were both low and high risk, but his were all high risk,”
You said that already. Here was my reply Wiseman is wrong. We don’t know ANYTHING about the other participants. not their age, not their comorbidies, nothing. Maybe they are all younger maybe all older maybe a mix. We don’t know.
I have said this several times. It is confusing that now that you find it on youtube you suddenly accept it.Ready
I’m glad you agree
As I said “of course every life lost is a world lost”Ready
“high mortality overall for covid
But there was a high mortality overall for covid, that is the point”Yes that is what you said but
a. It isn’t true. The case fatality rate in the US is 3% in Saudi Arabia where the study was done is 1.3% (John hopkins,data) if you include mortality based on the entire population it is even lower obviously.
B. It isnt relevant to the study at hand that didn’t even look at mortalityAgain, of course every life lost is a world lost. But that isn’t shat you had saud. You said “the overall mortality” was high. This is simply a lie. You then told another lie when you said you had been talking about individuals. And now another lie though I think you are just repeating the same irrelevant falsehood, so it may not be a new lie.
Whats strange about your lies is even if I believed them, you’d still be misunderstanding the study and still be wrong.
(lol at “dispel information”, one of my more embarrassing typos)
Ready
“Not low, if you are a victim,”
no certainly not, However that istn what you said . This is what you said “But there was a high mortality overall for covid,” This is not true, please stop lying.
AND as pointed out even if it was true does not change your miisunderstaning of the Saudi Arabia study at all.“Some studies that have also used zinc, and hydroxychloroquine in the correct, not dangerous over the top doses, are available”
Yes I said that earlier. You aren’t reading my posts I see.
“You are not a politician, are you?”
nope
Just A guy trying to help dispel information. IF you have any lingering questions I’d be happy to answer. But please, read my replies., and try to lie less.“In any case, shanah tova u mesuka!”
Amen, and to all of klal yisorel“But there was a high mortality overall for covid, that is the point..”
No there wasn’t baruch Hashem the mortality rate is quite low. Though even if it WAS high that would not change the fact that million upon million of people did fine without HCQ.
“Without any comparisons being needed to be made, it is a simple statistic.”
This sentence is absurd. As I explained at length over and over. Your repeating it again, does not make it less absurd.
“New topic:
The Zelenko study was unfavorably skewered against his proposition…”not a new topic. The doctor is wrong. We don;t know ANYTHING about the other participants. not their age, not their comorbitdites, nothing. Maybe they are all younger maybe all older maybe a mix. We don’t know.
I have said this several times. It is confusing that a doctor from youtube says it, that know you suddenly accept it.A bit puzzling why te fact that he is Lubavitch is at all relevant
(oy those spelling mistakes are painful worse than usual, i was on my phone)
Just to flush out the mashal (not marshal) a bit more.
The only way to show you my detergent is any good. Would be to take two SIMILARLY dirty piles of clothing. Group A we wash with detergent+water, group B we wah with just water.
Then we compare the results. If they are similarly dirty then my detergent doesn’t do anything, IF group A is cleaner that would show my detergent works better than water alone.But just showing that my detergent on its own cleans clothing. Proves nothing! zero nada zilch bupkis * Millions of clothes get cleaned with water, how would you know my detergent changed the outcome.
Please let me know if you dont understand any of this.
Please dont repeat the same mistake again, You’ve said it several times it is irrelevant as explained above(*It could show that it doesn’t ruin clothing which is all the Sauda Arabia study claimed)
Ready
From your repeated calls to “read the study” its clear you don’t understand it. I gave this marshal before I think it may help.Imagine I want to seel you my knew detergent. I show you how I take water mix it with detergent, wash 1200 pieces of clothing and they are all clean. Would that get you to buy it?
Certainly not if millions of clothing got cleaned with water alone. Even if there are clothes that don’t get cleaned with water alone. How would you know that my detergent helped? Sure ALL 1200 clothes cleaned with ubiquitins detergent + water got clean. But millions of clothes got clean with just water!
What the experiment WOULD show is that ubiquitins detergent is not damaging to clothing (at least similar clothing) but without a comparable control group it in no way shows it helped.
The most striking thing is the Saudi study doesn’t even claim to show that
Ready
We have been over this again and again
Compared to whom?
There are millions (literally) of people who did not get hcq and did helpful? So how do yiu know the people in the study benefited from hcq.
Sure they didn’t die but neither did millions of others without hcqFurtgermore, I saw 100s of patients who got hcq and died anyway. Does that in any way show hcq is not helpful??
“read it”
I did. You didn’t (if you did you completely misunderstood it)
The study is not looking at whether they benefited from hcq. You are misunderstanding the studyTravelers bring animal products all the time, wool sweaters, leather shoes.
Ready
I am more than happy to explain this to you as long as it takesBut You have to read my posts , not just repeat the same mistaken nonsense over and over
This statement “ALL PEOPLE WHO HAD HYDROXYCHLOROQINE DID NOT DIE,” is simply a bald faced lie. I know of literally dozens of patients who died in spite of hcq. Many had taken it as soon as symptoms started.
Please don’t repeat lies over and over.I couldn’t agree more
Though this isnt new to 2020 this brain addled character who cant handle questions has been in office for almost 4 years!
and this will really blow your mind but people still support him!ready
There have been over 25 million Covid cases world wide There have been less than a million deaths.
24 million people survived Covid.Even if we assume that half of them got HCQ (a very generous assumption not at all grounded in reality) then 12 million people survived Covid without HCQ
With me so far?
So As I said “Most people who had Covid did not die” out of 24 million people who had it 850,000 is not most.
“That includes people who did not get HCQ.”
Even if you assume NONE of the 850,000 people received HCQ that is still not most of the (at least) 12 million people who didnt get it.Anyway you slice it the vast majority of people survived COVID without HCQ.
So how do you know that these 1200 or so people survived thanks to HCQ.And ask yourself this, if the study in any way showed what you mistakenly concluded, why did nt the authors write that? why bury the more remarkable conclusion “between the lines” ?
ready
Again. Most people who had covid did not die .
That includes people who did not get HCQ.How do you know they’re having taken HCQ had anything to do with it
“10% is a very huge number. Agreed?”
sure! Even less than that is very significant.
“The idea is to put patients on Dr. Zelenko’s protocol to reduce the death rate.”
That would be great!
However Dr. Zelnko’s study did not show a statisticly significant reduction in the death rate.
and The Saudi Arabia study didnt even look at death rate.That isnt to say there are no studies that showed a reduction in death rate. but reports studies accuratly dont claim they show things that they didnt (and that they dont even claim to)
Ready
I am not asking for forgiveness. I’ve explained this over and over, it is hard to imagine your misunderstanding isnt deliberate at this point.“Can you just look below the surface? They did not die.”
Again. Most people who got covid did not die. And when I say most it isnt like 51%. It is over 95%. The vast majority of those did not get hcq.
Thats why any study needs to be carefully conducted.I had covid and bh did fine, without hcq, so fod my neighbors. Does that prove hcq isnt helpful? If course not. Not in the slightest. Another neighbor had covid and hcq and did fine. Foes that prove it us helpful? Again of course not.
Just looking at people and seeing how they do doesnt tell us anything.
The only way to get meaningful information is to take 2 SIMILAR groups, whered you expect a similar outcome, one gets (or got) the investigational therapy the other dorsnt, and see if they have a different outcome. Just looking at individuals (even thousands) who got hcq and lived doesn’t tell us anythimg. Millions (literally) did not get hcq and did fine.“Do you not think the aim of the study was not written with that in the back of the study’s
methodologist’s minds?”No o dont think. I’m certain. That’s not what the study looked at. I read it. The study is not about how effective the treatment is. Not at all.
If it was what’s the control group? Granted none died. Compared to whom?Ready now,
againPlease google the study. IT doesnt seem like you did
Here is the goal of the study “This study aimed to assess the safety outcome and reported adverse events from hydroxychloroquine use among suspected COVID-19 patients”
They did not look at whether there was benefit from HCQ. That is NOT what the study was looking at. You are confused.
Here is the conclusion
” Conclusion: In our study, results show that the use of hydroxychloroquine for COVID-19 patients in mild to moderate cases in an outpatient setting, within the protocol recommendation and inclusion/exclusion criteria, is safe, highly tolerable, and with minimum side effects”verbatim.
Again, It did not look as to whether they benefited from HCQ. The study looked at whether it was tolerated. And it showed that it was. Please keep the studies straight.
This has little to do with Dr. Zelnko’s study whre he looked if theire was benefit from HCq/Zinc/Z\azithro And showed there was benefit with hospitalization, but could not show mortality benefit.
tHe Saudi Arabia study looked at whether the treatment was safe/tolerable.
You dont have to read thw whole thing, just read the abstract (sort of a summary)ready
that isn’t what the study looked at.
We dont even know if they ad covid .Ready
The Saudi Arabia study did not look at survival.The seal of Hashem is emes. You pretend to care about Hashem, stop lying and misrepresenting studies
n0m
“As such, they could not have received any medication etc…”
anything is possible. you said originally “no treatment” that could mean a lot of things. “no medications” is a bit narrower.
As for ventilation, the vast majority of those hospitilized where no ventilated