Yes they were lost for various reasons like dying and moving to ICU. Add those 6 back and the outcome of the trial becomes almost random chance at 53% (14 out of 26) and not the purported 70% (14 from 20). Even the choice of who to administer the drugs to and including control patient from other hospitals makes the whole outcome highly questionable. Using stories like this, that seems you arent even adequately familiar with the details of, is why you are guilty of peddling a dangerous narrative The drug may yet turn out to be effective but there is no justification to be anymore optimistic of it at this point than of me selling you an elixir of eternal youth.
If you don't like debate go to the hangout. Not sure why you'd want to live in a world with kid gloves where everyone agrees with you.
This goes back to small sample size. There are two other studies I know of that show reason to be optimistic. And yes dying and going to ICU disqualifies you because you no longer can be compared because they ceased taking the medicine in the ICU and the one that died, guess what... was PCR negative. So even then there is silver lining. Still, if you don't complete your meds then we can't determine the effectiveness for the survey, which I know is a bit odd since how can they not include the dead guy? This wasn't a study on people who take one pill though and I still see reason to be optimistic considering the results. And you can't add them back to the results. That's unscientific and actually damages the survey results. They were left out for good measure. Your playing with the numbers is pure peddling yet again. Seriously you are so off in this it's not even funny. Comparing this to a magic elixir is insane and it shows just how biased you are. For you there is a personal agenda is there not? So far I have given a fair critique and that is sample size, of course maybe it is time to say that across these studies, the sample size is rising and giving even more reason for optimism. Still too small in my book but definitely the optimism should be growing past that of a magic elixir. No one claims it is magical or going to cure all, but help it likely does. You should research why it is effective in the ailments is treats and then use your brain and put two and two together as to why doctors have gone to this.
What a piece of ****. . Why the **** didn't this get done last week? Does Trump want to not just lose but get a Nuremberg trial? Because that is the way he is heading to.
Wrong - if the patient ends up in the ICU or dead after taking the drug, the right conclusion is that the drug was (at the least) ineffective as the patient condition worsened. If one followed your logic, then if all the patients except one died, you would have claimed 100% effectiveness! (BTW testing PCR negative before dying does not mean the patient was cured. Patients were testing on and off even in the control group e.g. 1/16 tested negative on day 3 in the control, 4/16 on day4 then 3/16 on day 5 and 2/16 on day 6. So either the test are highly inaccurate or the pateinet were getting reinfected) Each of the purported trials only try to reinforce the preceeding one (China -> Italy - France) as opposed to objectively investigating the matter. When a proper study is conducted, even with a small sample size, only then can one have an substantiated opinion. Since you don't have the expertise, then wait for those that know what they are doing to give their opinions (or do you think you know better than experts in the field). Peddling nonsense like you are doing puts the life of less knowleagble people at risk. Anyone with a coscience would not do that.
You are a moron really. And a rude one. No one here is peddling lol. You are also skewing the results and deviating from the study's intent.
It's really up in the air - one study on animals showed that while it worked with human coronaviruses, there wasn't an effect with sars-covid viruses. (https://aac.asm.org/content/53/8/3416) So right now taking it as a prophylactic doesn't make sense and it's probably just a last ditch effort you can use in severe cases for the elderly - people hoarding this drug are just taking it away from people who need it for other purposes. With small trials, the results really can't be used - there's just too much statistical variation and you can easily get a false positive
I know you know this, but... because doing something a liberal suggests would be “losing” for his paper-thin ego.
Skewing the result is including the outcome of their own study? The study's intent should be to investigate the effectivemess of Chloroquine on the virus and to that end any patient that has been treated with Chloroquine should be included. But self serving idiots like you and the publishers of those papers only want to include the selective results that pushes your fake narrative, which is obviously the realintent of the 'study'. Since you are so optimistic, I hope that when someone vulnerable that is dear to you is infected with the virus, that they are treated with the chloroquine that you are so optimistic about.
I don't know if I'd want to openly wish him dead bc he'd take care away from someone else. I do think it's pretty clear that if we invoked the 25th Amendment now we'd be better off as a country
I'm pretty sure that getting clowned by Pritzker, the Scion of a successful hotel dynasty (Hyatt) who actually treats public service and philanthropy as a duty rather than an opportunity to raid the treasury, normalize corruption, and to hock fake degrees and other garbage to rubes, really grates on Donald John Hoover. Good to see his positive head space
I hope you find the right meds one day to fix whatever is going on with your personality. Keep seeing what you want to see.
