Doctor warns about proposed Covid19 vaccine. Yikes!

[CenterField]

LOL, but somehow it is safe enough to be used for decades.
Countries around the world are using it.

There is a reason big pharma and politicians don’t want it used. $$$$

Read post #38. You may say it's too long so here is a summary of it:

Big pharma would love for the myth of HCQ against COVID-19 to continue. Big profits to be had in Africa where the HCQ price has jumped 19 times from $5 to $95. It's the opposite of what you think. Propping up remdesivir, the more expensive alternative, only benefits the small start-up Gilead Sciences, since it's under patent. All the other big pharma companies can make out-of-patent HCQ and sell it for 19 times more than its usual price, in the populous African countries and elsewhere.

Countries around the world are using it - not anymore. They are dropping out of it like flies, as their FDA-equivalents realize that the risks outweigh the benefits.

What the hell are you LOL'ing about? It's safe for malaria and lupus and RA because these diseases don't cause myocarditis so the well-known cardiac toxicity of HCQ (the FDA warning on it was issued in 2007) doesn't affect those patients, while it is not safe for COVID-19 which does cause myocarditis, amplifying the cardiac toxicity problem inherent to HCQ. Insulin is safe and helpful for diabetics, and fatal for non-diabetics (has been even used as a murder weapon before). Safety is always disease-specific.

LOL, your "evidence" is a tweet... which even lists Italy. FYI, Italy's FDA-equivalent has yanked out HCQ.

I don't doubt that there are some stupid countries that haven't caught up to the FACT (as proven by RCTs, not tweets) that HCQ has more risks than benefits in COVID-19 patients, but if their health officials are any good, little by little they will walk away from it, like it is already happening in the advanced and developed countries.

[FindersKeepers]

Read post #38. You may say it's too long so here is a summary of it:

Big pharma would love for the myth of HCQ against COVID-19 to continue. Big profits to be had in Africa where the HCQ price has jumped 19 times from $5 to $95. It's the opposite of what you think. Propping up remdesivir, the more expensive alternative, only benefits the small start-up Gilead Sciences, since it's under patent. All the other big pharma companies can make out-of-patent HCQ and sell it for 19 times more than its usual price, in the populous African countries and elsewhere.

Countries around the world are using it - not anymore. They are dropping out of it like flies, as their FDA-equivalents realize that the risks outweigh the benefits.

What the hell are you LOL'ing about? It's safe for malaria and lupus and RA because these diseases don't cause myocarditis so the well-known cardiac toxicity of HCQ (the FDA warning on it was issued in 2007) doesn't affect those patients, while it is not safe for COVID-19 which does cause myocarditis, amplifying the cardiac toxicity problem inherent to HCQ. Insulin is safe and helpful for diabetics, and fatal for non-diabetics (has been even used as a murder weapon before). Safety is always disease-specific.

LOL, your "evidence" is a tweet... which even lists Italy. FYI, Italy's FDA-equivalent has yanked out HCQ.

I don't doubt that there are some stupid countries that haven't caught up to the FACT (as proven by RCTs, not tweets) that HCQ has more risks than benefits in COVID-19 patients, but if their health officials are any good, little by little they will walk away from it, like it is already happening in the advanced and developed countries.

Are you still going on about that?

I've read your analysis and then I've read the analysis by Yale's leading epidemiologist, which ran in Newsweek just a few days ago, and he makes a lot more sense than you do.

As a professor of epidemiology at Yale School of Public Health, I have authored over 300 peer-reviewed publications and currently hold senior positions on the editorial boards of several leading journals. I am usually accustomed to advocating for positions within the mainstream of medicine, so have been flummoxed to find that, in the midst of a crisis, I am fighting for a treatment that the data fully support but which, for reasons having nothing to do with a correct understanding of the science, has been pushed to the sidelines. As a result, tens of thousands of patients with COVID-19 are dying unnecessarily. Fortunately, the situation can be reversed easily and quickly.



I am referring, of course, to the medication hydroxychloroquine. When this inexpensive oral medication is given very early in the course of illness, before the virus has had time to multiply beyond control, it has shown to be highly effective, especially when given in combination with the antibiotics azithromycin or doxycycline and the nutritional supplement zinc.

https://www.newsweek.com/key-defeati...pinion-1519535

[CenterField]

Are you still going on about that?

I've read your analysis and then I've read the analysis by Yale's leading epidemiologist, which ran in Newsweek just a few days ago, and he makes a lot more sense than you do.



https://www.newsweek.com/key-defeati...pinion-1519535

If I'm still going on about this? Seems like so are you since you've just posted about it.

Oh, good for him, impressive credentials (although he is a professor of EPIDEMIOLOGY, not virology, pharmacology, or infectious diseases).

I know you are not for credentials in an Internet anonymous board so I can't tell you about mine, but what the hell, I'm sick and tired of this crap anyway so I'll say this: they aren't a fraction of an inch below any of what this guy has (and in at least one aspect, they go above his; oh, wait, two if we look at the most accepted rankings of our respective medical schools given that I belong to the faculty of a medical school that is ranked above Yale's), and this applies to the credentials in every single line of the paragraph you've quoted (maybe trying to impress me - you failed), but I'm sure you won't believe me, so, whatever.

Oh wait, what am I saying? Professor Risch isn't even a professor at Yale's Medical School. He is from their School of Public Health. Haha. So scratch my comparison between my medical school and his, since he isn't a member of a medical school's faculty.

So, this guy has authored 300 papers... you'd be surprised at how many *I* have authored, but I'll add this: not a single one of his 300 papers addresses in any valid way as original research, VIROLOGY, PHARMACOLOGY, AND INFECTIOUS DISEASES since they don't belong to his specialty. Sure, he says he has published about this... but analyzing five other articles, that is, the work of others. Pray tell, what original research on VIROLOGY, PHARMACOLOGY, AND INFECTIOUS DISEASES has the good EPIDEMIOLOGY professor engaged in, on his own or with his team? The answer is zero. Look up his list of publications.

Now, that's not what you'd find in MY list of publications, of course... but again, feel free to not believe me.

Now, what the good EPIDEMIOLOGY professor at Yale seems to ignore, is that by now there's been not one, but TWO large randomized clinical trials disproving what he has just said, and establishing that both in early and mild cases, and as a prophylaxis, HCQ doesn't work for COVID-19. He is quoting observational studies (category of evidence #6). Even the one he disingenuously calls "matched" isn't an RCT but rather employed propensity score caliper matching, which isn't the same thing as true randomization; it's a very poor substitute that tries to mimic it. If you can even start to comprehend why, look it up (I frankly doubt it, given what I've read of what YOU have posted; a fair criticism since you've just said the same of me - you'll rarely encounter a poster who is more civil than I am, but at this point, like I said I'm sick and tired of it, so, oh hell, it's gotta be said: you are NOT an authority in these matters, lady. That's why you need to go to Newsweek and quote a self-promoting guy who doesn't know what he is saying.

Isn't it interesting that his paper (which he makes sure he touts, himself) was published in an Epidemiology journal? If he's that groundbreaking on the topic of therapeutics, we'd expect that he'd publish it in journals that are relevant to the field of therapeutics, right? Why was it so? Because he has nothing original to say of it rather than commenting on the work of others, so the true therapeutics journals wouldn't accept his "paper." Why in the hell is he babbling about how to treat a disease??? Do you happen to know what Epidemiology is and what an epidemiologist does? Hint: not therapeutics. But I bet you were impressed with the "leading Yale epidemiologist" crap, right?

I'll take the RCTs much above the good EPIDEMIOLOGY professor, as they've been researched and written by virologists, pharmacologists, and infectious diseases specialists of various other excellent medical schools, and contrary to this opinion piece, they have been peer-reviewed and published in prestigious medical journals; not Newsweek, LOL.

And I'll go with the Category #1 strength of evidence of large RCTs any day over an *OPINION* expressed in a lay-press newspaper by someone who for all I know might be fishing for visibility and self-promotion, which seems pretty clear when in his piece he begs people to go read his papers, LOL, and when he OPENS his piece by touting his own horn, double LOL; way to go as far as scientific credibility goes; that's typically NOT how scientists issue their opinions. We scientists look at peer-reviewed publications, not silly opinions issued in lay-press newspapers and magazines. Opinion, when there is consensus, is #7 in strength of evidence, and this, only when there is consensus (in this case, there isn't, so the value for strength of evidence is a round zero).

The good EPIDEMIOLOGY professor seems to ignore that this assertion "I myself know of two doctors who have saved the lives of hundreds of patients with these medications" can't be proven due to the two good doctors having no means to discern if the hundreds of patients they "saved" would have been "saved" just as well by NOT taking the medication given that this condition only kills 0.65% of patients so the odds of recovery are 99.35% regardless of treatment given. Not to forget how cringe-worthy this statement is for a man of science reading this crap. OK, so, now the good EPIDEMIOLOGY professor is for practicing science from the standpoint of anecdotes, right? He knows two doctors... great way to be scientific about it. I hope that's not the method he used when he authored his 300 papers.

Oh, Yale, huh? Well, what about Oxford University? That's a school ranked above his and even above mine. It's actually ranked the #1 in the world. OK, so, this guy knows two doctors who have saved hundreds of lives... while Oxford published a study with 11,000 patients, properly randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, prospective, done in 175 different hospitals in the United Kingdom, and the conclusion was that... HCQ doesn't work for COVID-19. Look, I'll go with the Oxford paper rather than with Professor Risch's two buddies. LOL.

My advice to the good professor is three-fold:

One: Get up-to-date. Read the latest literature in this rapid moving field.
Two: Stay on your lane.
Three: Brush up on categories of strength of evidence. It's not that difficult. I can recommend some tutorials.

-------

Now, feel free to dismiss all of the above and say you don't believe me and experts in forums are a dime a dozen. I frankly couldn't care less for your opinion of me and my credentials.

I'll say this, though. I'm getting sick and tired of this place. Call me arrogant and $#@!y all you want, but I'm starting to think that this place simply doesn't deserve me. Sure, there are many nice and intelligent posters here, but why am I putting up with this crap that you're throwing at me??? I have better things to do.

I've spent a sizable number of hours trying to educate people here on the latest sound science (and yes, I can do it, and I'm equipped for it) with ONLY the intention of being helpful like my thread about better masks, how to find them, and how to wear them (it's not self-promotion since this is anonymous, and it's not for validation like I've told you before, since I have plenty of it in my real life). But when I read posts like yours, I wonder, why in the hell am I wasting my time?

You'll probably say "good riddance." The feeling will be mutual.

You have a nice day, now.

[FindersKeepers]

Well, you are right about one thing, @CenterField, I don't believe you.

Your argument simply isn't good enough. Your preferred methodology is to attack and belittle anyone who disagrees with you but you don't seem to comprehend that Risch is suggesting the use of the medication very early on -- long before a patient can develop heart conditions from covid -- so your position is basically moot on that point. You also don't seem to comprehend that Risch, as with many others, is not suggesting the use of HCQ by itself, so you can point to tests that show the medication by itself is not helpful -- you're comparing apples to oranges.

Here we have a very distinguished Yale professor who is trying to save lives - and epidemiology does relate to disease transfer - so he's well within his area of expertise. The Oxford study did not combine HCQ as Risch said was necessary, and they studied hospitalized patients who were already well along with the disease. He specifically stated they must be treated very early.

For you not to understand what he's saying tells me you're likely an armchair "expert" with degrees that exist only in your imagination.

In my opinion, you make way too many mistakes to be an expert. And, in my experience, those who actually are experts don't go around insulting other experts, and they don't go making "settled science" proclamations. They don't need to -- their arguments are of such a high level that others sense they know what they're talking about. I personally don't care if you stay here or leave -- I suspect you'll leave since you've been exposed -- but it's your decision.

I just call it as I see it, and I see you on very shaky ground.


I don't think the "good professor" would pay much attention to your argument. I have a feeling he'd just laugh.

[carolina73]

I have a profound decision coming up.

We have an Fauci-like Infectious Disease physician as medical director of our hospital. I anticipate he will dictate that all working there will be required to take the vaccine. The alternative will be not working there. I also anticipate that all other hospitals will do the same.

I don't think it is that much of a decision though. In the end, most of those that are required will get the vaccination. The highest risk is that it is just not going to work. It could be a reason to retire if you are in that position.
The only thing, is that vaccines are not individual protection against anything. Most flu vaccines are only about 50% effective. They just speed up the herd immunity for the group. The failed flu vaccine of a couple years ago was only 20% effective. I believe we are over 20 different strains of COVID now. I also think that they are purposefully under estimating the contact spread of COVID

CDC conducts studies each year to determine how well the influenza (flu) vaccine protects against flu illness. While vaccine effectiveness (VE) can vary, recent studies show that flu vaccination reduces the risk of flu illness by between 40% and 60% among the overall population during seasons when most circulating flu viruses are well-matched to the flu vaccine.

https://www.cdc.gov/flu/vaccines-work/vaccineeffect.htm

[Calypso Jones]

Fauci says new vaccine not likely to be effective.

https://www.cnbc.com/2020/08/07/coro...not-great.html

[Calypso Jones]

https://www.technocracy.news/aaps-fd...-deaths-daily/

fda delays on HCQ outpatient approval are causing deaths daily. Why won't they allow this drug that has been around for 50 plus years and no contraindications?? POLITICS