Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search
11 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies

brewens

(13,594 posts)
4. I never once heard one of these guys mention if the dose was the same as used for malaria.
Fri Jun 11, 2021, 05:03 PM
Jun 2021

That was the big deal I kept hearing about when they were still claiming it was an effective treatment. How we already knew it was safe because it had been used for malaria for decades.

Then, I never believed the former guy was taking it. If he had taken it, he said he stopped, but never said why. Then he gets COVID. The cult never questions their leader.

Rebl2

(13,523 posts)
7. It's used
Fri Jun 11, 2021, 05:39 PM
Jun 2021

for rheumatoid arthritis as well and it worked well for my RA for many years and then it damaged my eyes. I would not touch it now.

oasis

(49,389 posts)
9. Johnson's probably trying to unload a storage house full of hydroxyc.
Sat Jun 12, 2021, 10:56 AM
Jun 2021

He'd be the type of slime trying to corner the market back when Trump was pushing the stuff.

LetMyPeopleVote

(145,313 posts)
11. Post overstates study's '200%' finding on hydroxychloroquine's power vs COVID-19
Tue Jun 15, 2021, 01:04 AM
Jun 2021

I saw this bullshit study being cited by some low IQ TFG supporters and knew that it was bogus. This study is so bad and poorly done that only a TFG supporter who is clueless as to science and the scientific process would cite it.



For example, this is not a peer review study but was taken from a site that does not deal in peer review works

The study is posted on a website that publishes “preprints” — studies that “have not been finalized by authors, might contain errors and report information that has not yet been accepted or endorsed in any way by the scientific or medical community.”....

The study was posted May 31 on medRxiv, a website that publishes studies that have not been fully vetted. This note is posted with the study: "This article is a preprint and has not been peer-reviewed. It reports new medical research that has yet to be evaluated and so should not be used to guide clinical practice."

he website also says about its "preprint" or "unrefereed" articles: "Before formal publication in a scholarly journal, scientific and medical articles are traditionally certified by ‘peer review.’ In this process, the journal’s editors take advice from various experts — called ‘referees’ — who have assessed the paper and may identify weaknesses in its assumptions, methods and conclusions … Readers should therefore be aware that articles on medRxiv have not been finalized by authors, might contain errors, and report information that has not yet been accepted or endorsed in any way by the scientific or medical community."

The analysis concludes that this study is poorly designed and the conclusions are not supported. Politifact interviewed several real scientists who concluded that this study is flawed and should not be relied on (even by low IQ TFG supporters).

Here is the conclusion about this study
Our ruling
A widely shared social media post stated: "Study: hydroxychloroquine can boost COVID-19 survival chances by nearly 200%."

A study says a certain dosing of hydroxychloroquine and azithromycin "improves survival by nearly 200%" among hospitalized COVID-19 patients who received invasive mechanical ventilation, but the post exaggerates the finding’s significance.

The study is posted on a website that publishes studies that "have not been finalized by authors, might contain errors and report information that has not yet been accepted or endorsed in any way by the scientific or medical community." Experts told PolitiFact the study is poorly designed and that no conclusion about cause and effect should be drawn from it.

For a statement that contains only an element of truth, our rating is Mostly False.

I am amused that the RWNJ believe that this study is meaningful.
Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Senator Ron Johnson suspe...