https://twitter.com/MaggieEThornton/status/1380652509405003776
@Coyote you’re doing good work🤣 I’d join you but I’m permanently suspended from Twitter. Every time I open the app there is this big banner that says “Welcome Back” but I can’t tweet and they zero’d out my followers and followed accounts.
It's just confronting fools with their own stupidity. When both had "PhD" next to their names, and can't support a single scientific claim, it mostly says our educational system is garbage. But we all knew that... 😂
🇳🇱
I disagree.
"Its not about the research links, I have read many on both side. Its the fact that you drew and incorrect conclusion about the medication as an effective general treatment, which it is not."
You have made two false assumptions.
First. That this is about treatment. It is not. It is about government, human experimentation, and harm.
Hydroxycloroquine being proven effective or not has no bearing on why it should be ban from use by the government of any country, now to the point malaria sufferers can not obtain treatment.
It is the governmental action I object to, not advocacy of the drugs effectiveness.
Second, the vaccine has shown to kill, in thousands. And, it's it's proponants who claim it's "safe" and you need to get it to be safe, that I strongly object to. It is, in fact, still an experimental drug. It has not shown to be "as safe" as hydroxycloroquine by comparison.
So my position is, denying one, an promoting the other as safe, is hypocritical. Because, it is.
It's not about which works. It's about which one the government, and the "experts" are promoting, and what lies they tell to promote it.
If it's safe, if it works, then get it approved, and have civil and criminal liability for it's effects. Promoting, and fucking "passports," and treating human rights differently to encourage the use of an experimental drug is unethical.
What's the first rule? Do no harm?
@Coyote Hydrochloride is not banned in the USA, the FDA revoked its emergency use for COVID but it is still very much allowed to be used for malaria.
I dont argue that the vaccine is an experimental drug, so that point is moot.
Have you tried to get it? Because, there's like tons of Doctors taking to TicTok even arguing with pharmacists trying to get prescriptions filled.
It's a myth that it is "very much allowed."
It's OTC in many places in the world, but it's harder than ever to get here.
What's the moral justification for not allowing it OTC?
@Coyote I am well aware of the situation with hydrochloride. Yes it is hard to get, but not because its "banned" as you imply, but because of the sudden surge for doctors getting it trying to treat COVID rather than what it is actually used for. Even though the FDA withdrew its emergency use for COVID doctors can and still prescribe it which has caused a shortage. So not only are they killing their own patients faster but they are causing the people who actually need it to have trouble getting it due to the shortage.
@Coyote and the moral justification for not allowing it OTC is 1) there isnt enough to go around 2) the diseases it is needed for arent common in the usa and 3) it can be lethal in higher doses and people may take it in desperation in a vain attempt to treat COVID and kill themselves.
"it can be lethal in higher doses and people may take it in desperation in a vain attempt to treat COVID and kill themselves."
OMG. Really? so, people are to stupid, so we must save them.
Never bought that argument for anything, not going to start with banning a medication with a long history of safe use. I think we're done.
Hydroxycloroqine has not killed as many people as the vaccine. That's just fact. If you want to stick to your guns that it's not worth using, and vaccines are ok (which ARE killing people), I don't see how this can continue.
This is about government control, not 'rona. And now they want to tell you to not do something that probably won't harm you, because it's not "proven" effective, but want you to take an "experimental" drug and sign liability waivers. Basic logic alone is all that's needed, if one is killing people and risky, and the other isn't, you can't justify using only the deadly one because "some people might be stupid."
> OMG. Really? so, people are to stupid, so we must save them.
No you just ignored all the other points and no one point can be taken seperately..
either 1) their too stupid and will kill themselves or 2) they are smart enough not to kill themselves and will in no way benefit from the dosage
Both options make it pointless to let them have the drugs and both options mean people who actually need the drug cant get it due to a shortage...
It has only been shown to kill patients faster in LATE STAGE, where it's somewhat mild normal risk to the heart is EXTREMELY higher.
@Coyote Wrong.. it has shown to kill patients at the dosage needed to have any statistical effect on COVID.. so either you take a low dose and it has no positive or negative effect and wont kill you but will do you no good, and cause people who really need the medicine not to get it. OR you take a high dose and while it has some minimal effect on COVID it kills you with a heart attack..
So again, it should NOT be used to treat COVID for the general population, period. You can argue that the vaccine is experimental too and shouldnt be on the market, I agree, but that is no excuse to start giving people a hydrochloride and killing them either.
Let you have the last word there. I think your facts are accurate. I think you have assembled a fiction with them though. But, it's your right. We simply disagree. I do not support human experimentation and banning of what is OTC in other countries. No justification will convince me, so, I'll just say "your right, but I don't agree."
@Coyote if it werent for the fact that there isnt enough of it to go around and there is a shortage I would have no problem making it OTC.. if people want to kill themselves they should have that right. But considering there is a shortage and people are dying who actually need it as a cure then I cant justify making it OTC unless the supply can support it, and right now it cant.
@freemo @Coyote I don’t think we’re really arguing about HCQ anymore. Check your pocket for the other half of your red pill. There are 2 kinds of people. Those who still trust the “experts” and those who sprint furiously in the opposite direction. There won’t be agreement on this today and the only study that matters is the Lancet study because it exposed the bullshit shenanigans and political / media machinery behind the “science.”
@10grans tip 0.01 to @freemo @madmike
.
No hard feelings either. While I disagree on your facts and points like I said I generally agree in personal freedom and that includes the freedom to put whatever the hell you want in your body regardless of what anyone says. But as I said in this case its more a shortage issue for me than anything else so im less inclined to allow for a free for all. But with your general moral sense of "my body I can do what I want" I agree.
Source: I've traveled to India many times in the past and remember hearing something along those lines wrt anti-malarials. It's been a while so I don't remember the exact details. Basically restrictions on anti-malarials are nothing new stateside. Its been restricted to some degree since at least the 2000s, just offhand. :shrug:
They werent banned here, they just were no longer approved for treatment of covid. Moreover since doctors were using it to try to treat covd without positive effect it caused a shortage and thus can be hard to get world wide for treatment of malaria now.
But no its not banned for treating malaria, but it is no longer approved for treating COVID.
you guys think this is a fake? I don't know what to make of it yet:
https://tucson.claims/@Coyote/posts/A65YKOpo22wR41IEbI
https://shitposter.club/notice/A69qczab1i1G4HME9w
https://shitposter.club/notice/A69rdcgBn2hhG4q1TM
I mean it wouldn't be the first instance of China trying to obfuscate stuff, I can't be the only one who remembers the whole thing with China trying to pin Covid on the U.S. or something like that.
https://www.foxnews.com/health/chinese-vaccine-effectiveness-not-high
I have no way of knowing or saying if the woman is faking or telling the truth. Based ont he placement of the electrodes on her head I would say it looks legit as that does appear to be the proper placement for the electrodes.
With that said hundreds of thousands of people get anurisms every day. Start giving out a vaccine it is inevitable someone somewhere is going to have an annurism the same day as the vaccine. So in and of itself this isnt evidence that there is any connection to the vaccine, its just evidence that the world is a big place.
That said there **is** some legitimate risk of blood clot from the AZ vaccine. It isnt enough for most countries to pull the vaccine but its enough for germany to say it is no longer approved for people who arent at high risk of death from COVID, so it is a real concern. That said I havent heard anything of J&J being associated to blood clots, which could cause an aneurysm potentially. So it is at least possible that J&J vaccine caused this, but even if it did that doesnt neccesarly mean the vaccine is bad, if it is a side effect and the side effect is extremely rare it may be a reasonable risk for most people.
In the end the answer is... right now we dont have any evidence to think the J&J vaccine caused it, but its always possible, but if it turns out to be the case its likely to be extremely rare.
"In the end the answer is... right now we dont have any evidence to think the J&J vaccine caused it, but its always possible, but if it turns out to be the case its likely to be extremely rare."
Yes, about where I landed, but I guess I'm starting to think, this is a person who has came out in public, and it'd be interesting if there was a public followup of any kind, because the ban/repost was a bit of a red flag to me, so I got curious.
But, in the end, even if we did know how she was today, odds are, we still would have little to no evidence of causation, just a correlation data point.
You can almost never draw causation when it comes to medications and single cases. We just dont have the means. We do it with statistical correlation and that means looking at large groups of people.
Ideally what should happen, and what usually does happen. Is her hospital visit is flagged when it is seen it happened right after a vaccine and is added to the FDA database of all people who had serious medical issues with a potential but unknown link to the virus. Then if enough people show the same problems, enough that it is higher than the background rate, then they will usually look into it more deeply and look at better data and do better studies and either pull the vaccine or add it as a warning and a side effect.
Thats exactly how it went down with AZ, blood clots were seen to be happening at a higher rate than usual, was concluded it was due to the AZ vaccine,a nd it was added as a warning to the drug and some countries adjusted their approach to administering it as a result.
One person will never tell you anything useful though.
This is enough data for me to say, "I can stay home, wait for approval."
https://www.medalerts.org/vaersdb/findfield.php?TABLE=ON&GROUP1=CAT&EVENTS=ON&VAX=COVID19
However, if there is possible risk, personal preference should be allowed to dictate if I choose to stay home, minimize exposure and risk, and hold off on the vaccine. I don't see a need to limit my rights with a passport, or a regulation, and honestly, post covid, the mask mandate has MADE me stay home because it's hard to breath... I mean, am I no longer a citizen? That's kind of my whole scope, drilling in and out of timelines, from the science to the politics, as often as I can, to learn all I can.
Yes it's not HCQ but from my layman's understanding it's in the same "family" as other *quines
Anyways this is the extent of what I have to input on the topic, more or less
https://www.msn.com/en-us/health/medical/fda-denies-henry-ford-health-request-to-use-hydroxychloroquine-for-covid-19-patients/ar-BB17Vyp8
https://californiaglobe.com/fr/why-are-some-california-doctors-refusing-to-prescribe-certain-meds-to-covid-patients/
It's hard to get, yes, we agree. And, from a morality standpoint, why should the vaccine be easier to get?
@Coyote The vaccine shouldnt be on the market at all, it hasnt passed the safety tests we normally require of vaccines.. so we agree there...
I already explained why it should be hard to get for people with COVID.. because it kills them and causes people who actually need it not to get it.
Not really, but sort of... there is evidence if given very early on in the infection with a cocktail of other things that it can slightly improve your chance of survival IF and only if, you have an extremely high risk of dying of COVID in the first place (have many comorbidities). However for a normal healthy person taking it in the early part of the disease or otherwise poses more of a risk of you dying from the treatment than from COVID itself.
For that reason it is completely useless as both a preventative and as a treatment however for seriously ill people who contract covid and likely to die from it it **may** give them a small fighting chance. I say may because there isnt enough evidence to support that and it is still being researched, though using it on the general public has already shown to not be a viable treatment.
if we want to be absurdly pedantic there is no evidence the vaccines work either. they aren't exposure tested.
Incorrect. Peer reviewed study:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7215635/
Quoting study:
"Among patients hospitalized in metropolitan New York with COVID-19, treatment with hydroxychloroquine, azithromycin, or both, compared with neither treatment, was not significantly associated with differences in in-hospital mortality."
Furthermore in other studies at higher doses there was found to be some minor positive effect on COVID recovery, however it caused significant increase in heart arrhythmia and overall the death rate went up not down as a result. For this reason it is absolutely not effective as a general treatment.
However, as I said, if you are at extremely high risk of death from COVID then it may be a viable treatment as the risk from COVID would therefore outweigh the risk of arrhythmia. But even then your chances of surviving in general arent good.
So yea, it isnt completely not effective at all, but it is not itself or in combination with other things, an effective treatment. There are many peer reviewed studies showing that at this point.
"positive effect on COVID recovery" is meaningless. What's the test? PCR? Which by it's very nature destroys statistical significance of results?
We have no real test, we have treatments. Death rates are lower than last March. It's deadly, yes, but not as deadly. The only real data is the death rates, because "COVID" numbers are deeply manipulated, and weren't even reliable before they were distorted by the media.
@freemo @Coyote HCQ works and is safe and many many deaths would have been prevented if it were more widely used. There have been epidemiologists and virologists saying as much. They’ve been kicked off of Twitter and YouTube.