Name:	GoneFishin -	Reply
Subject:	Is This Study Valid??????
Date:	7/19/2020 2:01:22 PM

Maybe, one of our members can help us with this study which is disappointing.

A Major Study

Name:	MartiniMan -	Reply
Subject:	In-peer reviewed prelim results..so no
Date:	7/19/2020 6:27:31 PM

You could have known that had you read beyond the title in the highly respected medical website Wired.  But no, you are the mindless rube that they count on not to read past the title.  C'mon Goofy....even you can do better than that, right?  No?!?!?

Name:	CRD -	Reply
Subject:	Is This Study Valid??????
Date:	7/19/2020 9:22:58 PM

Upon cursory review, I saw that only 58% of participants actually received SARS-CoV-2 testing.   Who knows what the other 42% had who received a placebo or HCQ.  Why could they not control that variable?  Calling this study a gold standard is a bit much to digest, were for it to be truly worthy of its conclusions, 100% would have to been tested and found positive.  Participants were enrolled presumably via internet based surveys?? 43% had ill effects from HCQ?  The drug has been around for decades, never approaching a 43% adverse effect rate.  I have my suspicions about this study, but no doubt the MSM will not ask the serious questions and run with it.  

Name:	GoneFishin -	Reply
Subject:	CRD
Date:	7/19/2020 10:08:11 PM

Thanks. Have you used the drug for treating 19 or do you know of Docs who have? How do they treat a case that does not reuire hospitalization?

Name:	MartiniMan -	Reply
Subject:	Is This Study Valid??????
Date:	7/20/2020 9:53:05 AM (updated 7/20/2020 10:38:11 AM)

This study reminds me too much of the Lancet article that had to be withdrawn.  Lots of suspect aspects to the study and the fact that it was released to the media before it was peer reviewed and very preliminary sounded far too political to me.  And I likewise thought it was very strange the lack of testing of their subjects for the virus.  Didn't notice the high rate of adverse effects but that too is very strange given that HCQ is prescribed 5 million times a year and has been around for over 40 years.  Their results are also totally at odds with other well-designed studies like the one in Michigan. 

But the title is like catnip to TDS sufferers.  I literally cannot understand the pathology of people that oppose a cheap, readily available and widely used drug that seems to work on many people.  It's almost like they wish it weren't effective for some reason.

Name:	architect -	Reply
Subject:	GF I believe it was Carlson
Date:	7/20/2020 9:58:00 AM (updated 7/20/2020 10:03:37 AM)

who posted that ''some people have made up their mind and don't want to know the truth''.  Based on the opinions on Hydroxichloriquine and masks held by most of the folks on this forum I am reminded of a friend who points out that his late mother-in-law believed that wrestling was real and the moon landing was fake.  Enough said!

Name:	CRD -	Reply
Subject:	CRD
Date:	7/20/2020 12:19:53 PM

Know many primary cares that have, with Azithromycin and Zinc.  Not by itself.  If I develop any acute symptoms that resemble COVID, that cocktail will be taken immediately.

Name:	MartiniMan -	Reply
Subject:	CRD
Date:	7/20/2020 3:06:36 PM

+1 for me as well.  That was what my internist told me he would do if he had any virus symptoms and even before he was tested.