A few things here.
1. You gave 3 links that all point to the same health care policy consultant's letter to an editor, and a doctor in India's opinion. And even they don't dismiss the drug's efficacy. They just don't approve of the method used to reach their conclusion. Hardly the
scathing rebuke CNN says it provided. Talk about not injecting politics into a debate over the matter. lol. Hyperbole at its finest on their part.
2. You seem rather passionate about the RDBPC method of study when it comes to this and all medical trials. Rightfully so. But what you and the other "scathing rebukers" failed to mention is that the Henry Ford study was their first step in identifying the efficacy of HCQ treatment. They admitted that their study results should be interpreted with some caution, should not be applied to patients treated outside of hospital settings and required further confirmation in prospective, randomized controlled trials.. It says as much right there in their peer review submission. Also, They're. Doing. Exactly. That. They're conducting that RDBPC right now.
[https://www.henryford.com/whip-covid-19]. And yet, before they can complete their second study, people (MSM) are rushing out to completely discredit their findings. Well, that one guy and that other guy are, but the MSM is making it out to be an avalanche of rebukers.
3. Why isn't their website being taken down? They're making the
same exact claims those 'frontline doctors' made. That's "dangerous information" according to big tech. Can't have people running around saying HCQ can save lives. Let me tell you why their website remains. Because the Henry Ford doctors aren't gathered in a presser with a Government building backdrop and people aren't spreading their video across multiple social media platforms with the same backdrop. Somebody had to put out that fire, and quick. So they did. It was their (big tech's) determination that it was dangerous information for us to have (their words). Name me one doctor at FB, Twitter or Google who conducted the studies you mentioned before they silenced those people. Just one.
Shouldn't we make our choice based on the objective data of science, and not because of our political beliefs?
You let me know when big tech follows this advice. Because as of right now, they're determining what information we can even have before we follow your preferred method of choice-making. And it sure as fuck was political on their part. Lastly, I can't take you seriously about keeping politics out of it after saying "Faux News" multiple times. How about we all just remain free to determine what we can take in as information and spit out as opinion without big tech making that decision for us.
Belatedly, a few things about your few things.
1. I actually thought the “scathing rebuke” was fairly accurate. Yes, the letters were couched in the genteel conventions of scholarly discourse. However, IMHO there was a VERY salty undertone throughout both letters. The biggest dig of all was in the conclusion of the letter from Atkinson:
“As a result of the flaws in the analysis the conclusions reached in Arshad 2020 are invalid.“
BOOM! That’s the scientist’s equivalent of Dikembe Mutimbo with a thunderous rejection of a dunk attempt, then wagging his finger and saying “Not in my house!”
“Your study is invalid” is some next-level shit.
2.THANK YOU for acknowledging and respecting my insistence on following RDBPC studies. Sheesh, this thread is supposed to be a DIALOGUE, not a shouting match. You are one of the very few posters in this debate who actually seems capable of taking in and digesting info that might be challenging to your POV.
Yeah, we’ll see what happens with the Ford RDBPC study. But as Giroir mentioned, on the RDBPC scoreboard, HCQ is losing 5-0. (That’s 35-0 for us football fans).
As for Zinc? Cripes. Okay. Haven’t gotten enough into the weeds to respond to that.
3. Why was the “Frontline Doctors” video removed? In my view, it’s simple.
Dr. Immanuel repeatedly said, “You don’t have to wear masks! We have a cure!”
IMHO that is DANGEROUS misinformation.
We all know that free speech is protected under most circumstances. But it is illegal to “falsely yell “Fire!” in a crowded theater.”
IMHO the Immanuel (Demon Jizz Lady) video was spreading dangerous misinformation to the 14 million viewers who watched it. (Please assume for the sake of argument that masks are essential for protecting people. I know the scientific data regarding modes of transmission is quite complicated and in many ways ambiguous, and I know you’ve looked into it a lot).
IMHO the Ford people and Immanuel were saying very different things.
Ford scientists: “We’ve conducted studies which give us hope that HCQ could be a promising treatment.”
Immanuel: “No need to wear masks because we have a cure!”
Yes, IMHO that hits the threshold of yelling “fire” in a crowded theater: misinformation that is dangerous.
Lastly, regarding “Faux News.” What can I say, it’s quite obvious where many of us stand on things. I hate it that ppl in this thread so cavalierly crap upon the “Mainstream Media” (or MSM, as many call it). Yeah, I think Faux News is often exactly that. Straight out lies are somewhat rare, but the GLARING omission of essential information (calling Covid a hoax, or minimizing the risks of reopening, etc. etc.) is standard operating procedure. As is the deliberate attempt to mislead.
So yeah, that’s a rabbit hole we all want to avoid, but suffice it to say that with the constant trashing of the MSM that goes on here, a little pushback against the propaganda known as Faux News seems only fair. Or, “Fair and Balanced”, as they laughably say.
Sorry to end on a touchy subject. I keep meaning to exit this thread, and hope I do some day. In the meantime, -X-, I again appreciate your attempts to keep things civil and fair. Cheers.
