Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : President Joe Biden -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: i-node who wrote (355)	1/31/2021 10:11:31 PM
From: bentway	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 12185

You should let OK know they can sell their HCQ in India!

To: i-node who wrote (355)	1/31/2021 10:19:31 PM
From: Sam	2 Recommendations Recommended By bentway Terry Maloney Respond to of 12185

Oh good grief, your article pretends that the Detroit study was definitive but guess what, it wasn't. A flawed Covid-19 study gets the White House’s attention — and the FDA may pay the price By Matthew Herper @matthewherper July 8, 2020 excerpt: At the root of the conflict is the fundamental principle that the FDA uses to evaluate drugs. Decisions are based almost entirely on what is known as a randomized controlled trial, in which patients are randomly assigned to receive a treatment or not. Other types of studies have, again and again, failed to deliver accurate information about medicines’ benefits and risks, and are used sparingly in making medical decisions. Three randomized studies have now shown no benefit for hydroxychloroquine in hospitalized patients. The study that sparked the latest controversy was anything but randomized. Not only was it not randomized, outside experts noted, but patients who received hydroxychloroquine were also more likely to get steroids, which appear to help very sick patients with Covid-19. That is likely to have influenced the central finding of the Henry Ford study: that death rates were 50% lower among patients in hospitals treated with hydroxychloroquine. more at statnews.com You complained before that others were using unscientific articles. That's all you got--anecdotal, unscientific articles. And flawed studies. I posted upthread the results of yet another randomized trial that of course you ignored. Just as you will pretend that this article doesn't exist. You are worse than a moron. You are a moronic asshole. If anyone is responsible for hundreds of thousands of deaths, it is Trump and his merry maskless followers. Like you.

To: i-node who wrote (355)	1/31/2021 10:25:26 PM
From: Sam	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 12185

Here is a real randomized trial of HCQ: A Randomized Trial of Hydroxychloroquine as Postexposure Prophylaxis for Covid-19 List of authors. David R. Boulware, M.D., M.P.H., Matthew F. Pullen, M.D., Ananta S. Bangdiwala, M.S., Katelyn A. Pastick, B.Sc., Sarah M. Lofgren, M.D., Elizabeth C. Okafor, B.Sc., Caleb P. Skipper, M.D., Alanna A. Nascene, B.A., Melanie R. Nicol, Pharm.D., Ph.D., Mahsa Abassi, D.O., M.P.H., Nicole W. Engen, M.S., Matthew P. Cheng, M.D., Derek LaBar, Pharm.D., Sylvain A. Lother, M.D., Lauren J. MacKenzie, M.D., M.P.H., Glen Drobot, M.D., Nicole Marten, R.N., Ryan Zarychanski, M.D., Lauren E. Kelly, Ph.D., Ilan S. Schwartz, M.D., Ph.D., Emily G. McDonald, M.D., Radha Rajasingham, M.D., Todd C. Lee, M.D., M.P.H., and Kathy H. Hullsiek, Ph.D. Conclusions After high-risk or moderate-risk exposure to Covid-19, hydroxychloroquine did not prevent illness compatible with Covid-19 or confirmed infection when used as postexposure prophylaxis within 4 days after exposure. (Funded by David Baszucki and Jan Ellison Baszucki and others; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT04308668. opens in new tab.) more at nejm.org

To: i-node who wrote (355)	5/26/2021 10:30:39 PM
From: Thomas M.	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 12185

MIT researchers infiltrated a Covid skeptics community and found that skeptics place a high premium on data analysis and empiricism. "Most fundamentally, the groups we studied believe that science is a process, and not an institution." "Indeed, anti-maskers often reveal themselves to be more sophisticated in their understanding of how scientific knowledge is socially constructed than their ideological adversaries, who espouse naïve realism about the “objective” truth of public health data." "For these anti-mask users, their approach to the pandemic is grounded in more scientific rigor, not less." arxiv.org Tom