Reply To: Yale hydroxy

Home Forums Decaffeinated Coffee Yale hydroxy Reply To: Yale hydroxy

#1888089
charliehall
Participant

” the risks were rare (though real) and it is worth a shot”

And I agreed with that. And the shot failed. Those who continue to promote it are promoting medicine that is opposed by the science.

The truth is that there never was any real evidence in its favor; anecdotes without comparison populations aren’t evidence and neither are studies so flawed as to be useless. It was the flawed French study that got Donald Trump (no epidemiology training), Peter Navarro (an arrogant epidemiologist who falsely claimed he understood how to read medical journal articles), and Rudy Giuliani (an arrogant lawyer whom I actually use as an example in my classes of someone who misunderstands epidemiology from the time when he falsely claimed that you have a better chance of surviving prostate cancer in the US than in the UK).

“ignore studies that show vastly reduced rates of morbidity among hcq takers this is not science”

There are no such studies, at least any such studies without flaws. Well, correct that. There might be one — the Henry Ford Health System study. But all other studies that are of good enough quality to matter show otherwise. More importantly, now that we have data from clinical trials, the observational studies don’t matter.

What YOU claim is not science.

” i don’t know if i believe rhey can have ahonest view of hqc, but i also know thst there has never been any reason to question their integrity as doctors or their intelligence regarding their area of expertice.”

You just attacked my integrity on Tisah B’Av. I am one of the few folks here who posts under my real name. I have a professional reputation.

The doctors such as Dr. Zelenko who have been promoting HCQ do NOT have expertise in epidemiologic research and have refused to subject their protocols to the rigors of a clinical trial. Promoting unproven treatment is pure medical quackery, especially when the treatments have been shown NOT to be effective in the most rigorous research.

Is there anyone else in this chat room who actually does epidemiologic research for a living?