Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
When a study uses HCQ on the young, we already know the young are very resistant to this virus and bounce back quickly, so testing them and claiming proof of HCQ effectiveness is very misleading.
Then there are study where they used HCQ on elderly people in their last week of life. Expecting any drug to be effective in a miraculous recovery during the very late onset of the this disease, is flawed too.
And yet, these are some of the circumstances of studies people are using to either promote, or denounce HCQ.
BTW, have the effectiveness of masks changed again? I cannot keep track with the ever changing and erratic advise from the so called "experts."
Wow. Guess some folks just don't bother doing the math themselves, or really digging into the details.
Total deaths - countries listed as non-HCQ = 306,000. Population - 663M.
Deaths per million - 461. Not 683. That is either a) horrible math or b) a horrible chart. Since practically no nation is over the given total of 683 (at the moment, just the Belgium, and the UK) - there is NO list of countries that would make that chart make sense.
Meantime - 2B people - sure, but 1.4B of them are in India - where there are 40,000 dead, and nearly 1000 more every - single - day. No signs of slowing. In fact, it's increasing. If HCQ were so effective in India, I would expect the death rate to have tapered off by now, no? Instead, it's going the wrong way.
This chart and article are quite the cherry picked set of data. Why not use Brazil on one column or the other?
Because Brazil's using HCQ and their death rate is 500 per million...and rising. That's the very definition of cherry picking data.
There may yet be "proof" HCQ does something one way or the other - but biased (and wrong) charts like this one just make you look desperate. And not for a cure.
Of the 67, top three are: #1, not done yet. #2, inconclusive. #3, although it says "positive" - I failed to find that statement in the report itself. Many of that 67 are NOT supportive.
Meantime, people - keep this in mind. Showing that HCQ helps some people is not enough. You must demonstrate that it helps more than it hurts.
Of the 67, top three are: #1, not done yet. #2, inconclusive. #3, although it says "positive" - I failed to find that statement in the report itself. Many of that 67 are NOT supportive.
Meantime, people - keep this in mind. Showing that HCQ helps some people is not enough. You must demonstrate that it helps more than it hurts.
HCQ has been around for 65 year, yes it helps more than hurts. It's safe as Motrin and Tylenol. It's safer than peanut butter, since a significant number of children and adult have an allergic reaction, and can be in serious trouble.
People like you act as if HCQ is a new, untested drug. We know all there is about it.
Of the 67, top three are: #1, not done yet. #2, inconclusive. #3, although it says "positive" - I failed to find that statement in the report itself. Many of that 67 are NOT supportive.
Meantime, people - keep this in mind. Showing that HCQ helps some people is not enough. You must demonstrate that it helps more than it hurts.
hahahaha Show proof it hurts more than it helps. You can't so you won't.
They unreasonably villified HCQ beyond the point of suspicion. Azithro is more dangerous to the heart, but hcq was the one in their sights. Mind boggling. Evil.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.