COVID-19 Outbreak Information Updates (Reboot) [over 150.000,000 US cases (est.), 6,422,520 US hospitilizations, 1,148,691 US deaths.] (14 Viewers)

I've been looking for this information but haven't been able to find it so I turn here...

There's a website being pushed now by a lot of my conservative HCQ acolytes, c19study.com

I cannot find any information on who is behind it, or any analysis on if it is reliable. My own initial thought is that it isn't, being that is cites studies as positive when places like the NIH have ruled them inconclusive at best, and it relies a lot on statistical survey analyses or post-treatment review/study instead of actual clinical trials. However, I'm not certain and I would like to find out more information if anyone knows anything about it.
 
I've been looking for this information but haven't been able to find it so I turn here...

There's a website being pushed now by a lot of my conservative HCQ acolytes, c19study.com

I cannot find any information on who is behind it, or any analysis on if it is reliable. My own initial thought is that it isn't, being that is cites studies as positive when places like the NIH have ruled them inconclusive at best, and it relies a lot on statistical survey analyses or post-treatment review/study instead of actual clinical trials. However, I'm not certain and I would like to find out more information if anyone knows anything about it.
Maybe this will help a bit?

 
I cannot find any information on who is behind it, or any analysis on if it is reliable.

I think this tells you everything you need to know. Not a single name or institution attached to the website. But the website is littered with buttons to easily spread that anonymous propaganda on social media.

Don’t waste your time going down that rabbit hole. I guarantee you the people sharing that garbage are spending way less time reading it than you.
 
Last edited:
I have had a couple nurse friends say that misinformation about HCQ is abundant on both sides. They said if you take it early on, in a low dose, it will help mitigate it, not cure it. However, once you've past a certain point with COVID, it will not help, and in large doses it is dangerous.
 
How could this happen?

Well, you see....idiotic people exist in this world and they do idiotic things, like getting on a cruise ship in the middle of a pandemic. It's the same reasons why we have to put warning labels on bottles and such. Do stupid things, get stupid results.
 
I have had a couple nurse friends say that misinformation about HCQ is abundant on both sides. They said if you take it early on, in a low dose, it will help mitigate it, not cure it. However, once you've past a certain point with COVID, it will not help, and in large doses it is dangerous.

If who takes it early on? And at what "stage" is HCQ no longer a viable option?

Thats the reason for double-blind randomized testing. To get a better idea of who it affects/doesnt affect both positively and negatively.

The studies Risch ( the Yale doc ) point to are with selected patients. So they hand-picked the people that would receive. So while it may have some efficacy with that sub-sub group, it doesnt for the majority. And the majority may end up with side effects that linger for decades.

So more studies should be done to determine what "group" should HCQ target and dosage/time frame and and adverse side effects. Because its been shown to have ZERO efficacy on healthy people that contract COVID. Its been shown to have ZERO efficacy for those in hospital.

I have no issue with HCQ if it works for a sub sub group. Give it to em and lets move on. We need a broader therapeutic so lets keep working toward that.
 
Last edited:
I have had a couple nurse friends say that misinformation about HCQ is abundant on both sides. They said if you take it early on, in a low dose, it will help mitigate it, not cure it. However, once you've past a certain point with COVID, it will not help, and in large doses it is dangerous.
I think its a nuanced conversation that has gotten heavily politicized. My general understanding is that it was on a list of WHO emergency medicines that may be used in combination with other drugs for certain respiratory illnesses in an urgent situation. My problem is that I don't want to be in any situation where being treated in the hospital is the only option.
 
CDC's conclusion from that investigation: "This investigation adds to the body of evidence demonstrating that children of all ages are susceptible to SARS-CoV-2 infection and, contrary to early reports, might play an important role in transmission."


So much of what I have seen about the research on an alleged diminished capability of children to transmit the virus comes from several examples in Europe, early in the outbreak, where an infected student going to school didn't result in other infections. But I don't think any research physician or epidemiologist has even put forth a reasonable, physiological or virological explanation for why children would somehow be unlikely to transmit the virus as other humans do.

I was being facetious.
 

Create an account or login to comment

You must be a member in order to leave a comment

Create account

Create an account on our community. It's easy!

Log in

Already have an account? Log in here.

Users who are viewing this thread

    Back
    Top Bottom