Covid and Didier Raoult (supporter of hydroxychloroquine): analyzes on the pandemic

[VetusLignum]

A little reading for those who are bored

[Obamot]

ABC2019: You still haven't “photographed” me in any of your nicknames groups, still looking ...

Personally, I am NOT for HCQ + Az but so that everyone can work on their own immunity while having an appropriate lifestyle, using medication is for lack of anything better (I am definitely not “for ”). So I am not part of your target / group ... And I was never able to say it because with the intoxication that you developed, the debate could never start: congratulations, it's a frank “Success” for the pro Gilead / Pharma group

why are you writing this in illegible color?
I just asked if you thought the HCQ + AZ combination had a significant, measurable effect on Covid mortality, or not.

No that's not what you asked for, you were talking about pro Raoult vs anti, then pro HCQ, vs anti (you embroider every time you put your nose in your pee, like a kitten when you want it go defecate elsewhere ) that's another question. I can answer you that “low on mortality”, Since in the population, there were only 0,0000xxx people who took it ... you should have said lethal (you're still wrong ... it's still crazy! ) ... but I will not dodge, I will answer you later ...

If you answer yes, you are in the first group, and if you answer no, you are in the second, so here it is, it's not complicated.

You did not read my posts well, there is only one group, the one that you defined among those who behave as lobbyists, and besides in the pseudo group that you consider “opposed”, why not did you not put Remundo and Christophe?

I think everyone in the second group thinks the first is incorrectly applying scientific principles,

See Remundo's answer, I found it very suitable.

and that if we apply them correctly, we reach their conclusion; that there is no measured effect. This does not mean that there is no effect, but that it is too weak to have been measured.

You just gave the tip of how to bias a study by arranging (deliberately or not) so that there is no significant result, thank you ...!
And you don't give a damn about people's heads, because that has already been answered.

It is less clear for what the people of the first group think (you, Adrien, Guy, Vetuslignum etc ...) compared to the second: do they ALSO think that the second poorly applies scientific principles while themselves apply them well? or on the contrary do they not deny that the second group applies scientific principles well but that they consider that they are not appropriate?

Your second group can only be the first in your chronology, and this since those who make it up (which you yourself listed as: Izentrop, Pedro, sicetaitsimple, you, etc.) practice “pro-industry” lobbying by reflex (or paid) for years ... And that the other is not a "body constituted" what you admitted!

depending on the reactions, I hesitate between the two, but those of the first group could give their opinion, which is actually not necessarily homogeneous. The dilatory responses and the lack of response are rather the sign for me that it is the b ... in their head

I hope you talk about Izentrop de Pedro, sicetaitsimple and you there ... Or you put Remundo and Christophe with, who are both in your category of “pro-HCQ / Raoult”

and that they would rather be in an attitude of systematic protest but without great logic, in the genre of a somewhat lasting adolescent crisis ...

Phew, I was afraid ... So it's your group, whose fine psychology we finally understand, which notwithstanding the “spotty” aspect clings to the word “science” to give itself the illusion of being adults CQFD.

[Obamot]

ABC2019: You still haven't “photographed” me in any of your nicknames groups, still looking ...

Personally, I am NOT for HCQ + Az but so that everyone can work on their own immunity while having an appropriate lifestyle, using medication is for lack of anything better (I am definitely not “for ”). So I am not part of your target / group ... And I was never able to say it because with the intoxication that you developed, the debate could never start: congratulations, it's a frank “Success” for the pro Gilead / Pharma group

why are you writing this in illegible color?
I just asked if you thought the HCQ + AZ combination had a significant, measurable effect on Covid mortality, or not.

No that's not what you asked for, you were talking about pro Raoult vs anti, then pro HCQ, vs anti (you embroider every time you put your nose in your pee, like a kitten when you want it go defecate elsewhere ) that's another question. I can answer you that “low on mortality”, Since in the population, there were only 0,0000xxx people who took HCQ / CQ ... you should have said lethal (you're still wrong ... it's still crazy! ) ... but I will not dodge, I will answer you later ...

If you answer yes, you are in the first group, and if you answer no, you are in the second, so here it is, it's not complicated.

You did not read my posts well, there is only one group, the one that you defined among those who behave as lobbyists, and besides in the pseudo group that you consider “opposed”, why not did you not put Remundo and Christophe?

I think everyone in the second group thinks the first is incorrectly applying scientific principles,

See Remundo's answer, I found it very suitable.

and that if we apply them correctly, we reach their conclusion; that there is no measured effect. This does not mean that there is no effect, but that it is too weak to have been measured.

You just gave the tip of how to bias a study by arranging (deliberately or not) so that there is no significant result, thank you ...! And you don't give a damn about people's heads, because that has already been answered.

It is less clear for what the people of the first group think (you, Adrien, Guy, Vetuslignum etc ...) compared to the second: do they ALSO think that the second poorly applies scientific principles while themselves apply them well? or on the contrary do they not deny that the second group applies scientific principles well but that they consider that they are not appropriate?

Your second group can only be the first in your chronology, and this since those who make it up (which you yourself listed as: Izentrop, Pedro, sicetaitsimple, you, etc.) practice “pro-industry” lobbying by reflex (or paid) for years ... And that the other is not a "body constituted" what you admitted!

depending on the reactions, I hesitate between the two, but those of the first group could give their opinion, which is actually not necessarily homogeneous. The dilatory responses and the lack of response are rather the sign for me that it is the b ... in their head

I hope you speak well of Izentrop de Pedro, sicetaitsimple and you there ... Or you put Remundo and Christophe with, who are both in your category of “pro-HCQ / Raoult”

and that they would rather be in an attitude of systematic protest but without great logic, in the genre of a somewhat lasting adolescent crisis ...

Phew I was afraid ... So it's your group, whose “fine psychology” we finally understand, whose members are so immature (according to what you describe) that they need to feel integrated into ... a ... group, (for reassurance ...) and that notwithstanding their appearance “spotty”, Clearly need - for the same reason - to cling to the word“ science ”to give themselves the illusion of being“ adults ”: and as Remundo suggests, 370 pages have not yet been enough. .CQFD.

[ABC2019]

ABC2019: You still haven't “photographed” me in any of your nicknames groups, still looking ...

it's up to you to say, do you think that there is a treatment based on HCQ + variants whose effectiveness in reducing the lethality of Covid-19 has been demonstrated or not? if so, you are in the first group, if not, in the second (change the numbers if you like, it does not matter).

Personally, I am NOT for HCQ + Az but so that everyone can work on their own immunity while having an appropriate lifestyle, using medication is for lack of anything better (I am definitely not “for ”). So I am not part of your target / group ... And I was never able to say it because with the intoxication that you developed, the debate could never start: congratulations, it's a frank “Success” for the pro Gilead / Pharma group

why are you writing this in illegible color?
I just asked if you thought the HCQ + AZ combination had a significant, measurable effect on Covid mortality, or not.

No that's not what you asked for, you were talking about pro Raoult vs anti, then pro HCQ, vs anti (you embroider every time you put your nose in your pee, like a kitten when you want it go defecate elsewhere )

not at all, it is you who have badly read

good then without classifying for good or bad, and saying who is right or wrong, do you agree that overall there is a group made up in particular of you, adrien, guy, vetus lignum, who is not 'agreement with another group including me, pedro, izentrop, perseus (I was also thinking of putting sicetaitsimple in this group but it's up to him to say who he feels closest to), and that these two groups do not generally agree on the conclusions to be drawn from studies on the effectiveness of treatments based on HCQ with variants (AZT, zinc etc ...)?

There is not even the name of Raoult in this post, I made it clear that the groups stood out on the opinion on the effectiveness of the treatments .. no need to stick your nose in your pee, you do. do very well yourself!

depending on the reactions, I hesitate between the two, but those of the first group could give their opinion, which is actually not necessarily homogeneous. The dilatory responses and the lack of response are rather the sign for me that it is the b ... in their head

I hope you talk about Izentrop de Pedro, sicetaitsimple and you there ... Or you put Remundo and Christophe with, who are both in your category of “pro-HCQ / Raoult”

no I think that those you quote have a clear position, they really think that those who do not belong to their group have an unscientific attitude and make rather gross errors of reasoning. It is rather the position of the others which is not clear, do they think the same thing about Izentrop, Pedro, etc ... or not?


otherwise it is not me who places people, it is people who place themselves there by themselves according to what they believe: it is up to Remundo and Christophe to say if they think there has been studies proving the effectiveness of a treatment using HCQ, and if applicable, also taking a position on whether they think that those who do not believe in it make scientific errors, than those who do not do believe in it.

and that they would rather be in an attitude of systematic protest but without great logic, in the genre of a somewhat lasting adolescent crisis ...

Phew, I was afraid ... So it's your group, whose fine psychology we finally understand, which notwithstanding the “spotty” aspect clings to the word “science” to give itself the illusion of being adults CQFD.

[/ Quote]
so your position is indeed that it is "my group" which does not have a correct scientific attitude, while "the other" (the one defined by the fact of not belonging to the first ", him, has a scientific attitude correct?

it's just a question, my question was about knowing your opinion, I'm not saying you're right or wrong.

[Obamot]

What is this delirium! ??

How can you place yourself as “as referee”While you are yourself game

You have a hell of a bias in your pants anyway!

You're really bloated as a scientific error ( )

[ABC2019]

What is this delirium! ??

How can you place yourself as “as referee”While you are yourself game

You have a hell of a bias in your pants anyway!

I have an opinion, the same as those of "my group": that does not prevent me from being interested in the opinion of the other group.

Of which I can only note that no member dares to answer clearly to the question asked (namely, I recall: do they think to be "more scientific" than those with whom they do not agree, or not ? )

[Obamot]

Well, I'm sorry, I have the humility to think that I can't claim to be in any band.

... ”That does not prevent me from being interested in the opinion of” those who would be part of such or such a “group” if it exists!

[ABC2019]

Well, I'm sorry, I have the humility to think that I can't claim to be in any band.

it is logically impossible, any set E is the union of two disjoint subsets, that of its elements which verify property P, and that of the elements which do not verify it, there is no place between the two. The only way not to belong to this group would be not to be in the set E, but since it is the set of participants in this forum (let's restrict it to participants in this thread), you belong there.

But I note that you state that you do not want to belong to the group that thinks that the effectiveness of treatment with HCQ has been proven then?
Otherwise how does it bother you to publicly maintain that you have a more scientific attitude than those with whom you do not agree?

(something that in my opinion does not bother anyone in the other group !!)

[Obamot]

I already answered you ... I must be the “dark matter” group then?

And NO, in fact I was just “not opposed"When taking HCQ + AZ, it's not the same (depending on the case, it remains to be determined for which bet / s and you're not a doctor or a teacher ... so make" groups " ) that does not mean that I was “for”, since I am for other approaches in immunology, this is what you skipped in your approach ...binary.

On this bye-bye ...

I have something else to f ... than to converse with someone who wants to remain “pimply” at all costs to have the last word, which I will gladly leave to you.,.

[pedrodelavega]

Is the list of studies mentioned exhaustive? Are the studies mentioned equal? (Are these clinical trials? Case studies? Others?)
In short, this kind of thing, to check if the conclusions they give are reliable or not.
Is this site reliable for you?
https://c19study.com/

Ah ok
The site gives the links to studies ... which most of us know from having already posted them here.

It's not all about giving the links, you have to see what's inside and what they conclude.

This site is obviously not very reliable:

"- This site mixes anything and everything: News, polls, in vitro studies
- Some studies have nothing to do here
- Some studies have no data
- Many studies do not have a comparison
- Some studies have changed conclusions
- Some "negative" studies for HCQ are missing
- The endpoint changes depending on the study chosen
- Treatment changes depending on the study chosen
- The early vs. late is false "

Details here
https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1284 ... 41024.html