"E. PETERSEN/SCIENCE Many scientists citing two scandalous COVID-19 papers ignore their retractions
Whether HCQ is in fact useful seems open to question although a meta-analysis suggests a minor benefit at low dose rates."
There's criticism to be leveled at those who continue to cite those articles, but there's egg on the face of these two "elite" medical journals as well.
As the article said, Covid19 was THE HOT TOPIC and there was a rush to get articles about it published and out there.
You don't notice there's no independent or third party review of the data until after you publish. You don't wait until you've published to notice the firm which has "studied the data" and drawn these far-reaching and significant conclusions is very small and had no previous track record conducting such a large scale data analysis.
This getting in a big rush is shameful and disastrous. It is probably the result of everyone getting hustled-- into the world's greatest scam.
We're going to be seeing much, much more of this slip-shod work coming apart at the seams. What a catastrophe.
"For Steven Tong, an infectious disease physician at the Doherty Institute in Melbourne, Australia, and an investigator on a hydroxychloroquine trial—the AustralaSian COVID-19 Trial (ASCOT)—which paused last week in response to the Lancet results, the retractions have produced “a mix of frustration and anger … [and] a feeling that our system in research has let us all down, from the authors of the papers, obviously, thorough to the peer reviewers and up to the journal editors. They’ve all done a great disservice to the research world.
"ASCOT, which hadn’t started recruiting patients yet, announced today it would start back up. The trial’s institutional review board has requested the investigators add a statement to the patient consent form describing the recent issues around the publication and retraction. “I think that’s a very fair request, and probably something that patients will ask,” Tong says."
I haven't read any of the HCQ trial papers, but Dr. McCullough's point that the time of treatment is critical, seems important.
In particular, one needs to consider two phases of the disease: the early stage, when the virus is proliferating and the spike protein is causing blood clots in the vascular system of the lungs, and the late stage, when the immune system has largely eliminated the virus, but you go to hospital because blood clots in the lungs are making it difficult to breath and you are at high risk of death.
It is in the early stage that, according to McCullough, HCQ and Ivermectin are effective, i.e., they act as antiviral agents, and thus limit damage that Covid does to the pulmonary vascular system, whereas in the late stage, when the damage to the lungs has already been done and the virus has been destroyed by the immune response, anti-viral medication will be useless.
In evaluating HCQ trials, therefore, it is essential to differentiate between pointless trials on those admitted to hospital after the damage to the lungs, etc. has already been done, and those treated from the onset of symptoms, i.e., fever, headache, etc.
Excellent points. I agree entirely. You don't just rule out HCQ altogether based on unreviewed data or the results of improperly narrow studies conducted more or less ad hoc.
"The benefits of vaccination still far outweigh the risks: Experts told me they had no safety concerns about vaccinating people with weakened immune systems, who are often at higher risk of getting severe COVID-19. And in signing up for their shots, Rick and others like him can also help fill the data void that the clinical trials left, and potentially advance our understanding of how vaccines guard against the virus. Certain immunosuppressive drugs will undermine the vaccines in different ways; by pinpointing where, how, and in whom the shots most often falter, scientists might be able to discover which parts of the immune system are most essential for immunity against the coronavirus. “We still don’t understand why only certain people get so sick and die [from COVID-19],” Meena Bewtra, a clinical epidemiologist at the University of Pennsylvania who treats patients with inflammatory bowel disease, told me."
Rick and others like him can serve as lab rats to test effects of the "vaccine" which should have been tested in labs, on rats. Thanks Rick and others like you!
"Now you remember what the draft man said, Nothing to do all day but stay in bed You're in the army now, Oh-oo-oh you're in the army now You'll be the hero of the neighbourhood, Nobody knows that you've left for good You're in the army now, Oh-oo-oh you're in the army now Smiling faces as you wait to land, But once you get there no-one gives a damn You're in the army now, Oh-oo-oh you're in the army now..."
Now you remember what the draft man M.D. said, Nothing genuinely bad can go wrong, It's all good- you're a lab rat now, You're a lab rat, not a ding-dong...
"Experts told me they had no safety concerns about vaccinating people with weakened immune systems, who are often at higher risk of getting severe COVID-19. And in signing up for their shots, Rick and others like him can also help fill the data void that the clinical trials left, and potentially advance our understanding of how vaccines guard against the virus. .... by pinpointing where, how, and in whom the shots most often falter, scientists might be able to discover which parts of the immune system are most essential for immunity against the coronavirus."
How bullshit baffles brains. Or, let those who are most vulnerable die from the vaccine that we may develop a better vaccine that will protect the most vulnerable.
ReplyDelete"E. PETERSEN/SCIENCE
Many scientists citing two scandalous COVID-19 papers ignore their retractions
Whether HCQ is in fact useful seems open to question although a meta-analysis suggests a minor benefit at low dose rates."
There's criticism to be leveled at those who continue to cite those articles, but there's egg on the face of these two "elite" medical journals as well.
As the article said, Covid19 was THE HOT TOPIC and there was a rush to get articles about it published and out there.
You don't notice there's no independent or third party review of the data until after you publish. You don't wait until you've published to notice the firm which has "studied the data" and drawn these far-reaching and significant conclusions is very small and had no previous track record conducting such a large scale data analysis.
This getting in a big rush is shameful and disastrous. It is probably the result of everyone getting hustled-- into the world's greatest scam.
We're going to be seeing much, much more of this slip-shod work coming apart at the seams. What a catastrophe.
"For Steven Tong, an infectious disease physician at the Doherty Institute in Melbourne, Australia, and an investigator on a hydroxychloroquine trial—the AustralaSian COVID-19 Trial (ASCOT)—which paused last week in response to the Lancet results, the retractions have produced “a mix of frustration and anger … [and] a feeling that our system in research has let us all down, from the authors of the papers, obviously, thorough to the peer reviewers and up to the journal editors. They’ve all done a great disservice to the research world.
ReplyDelete"ASCOT, which hadn’t started recruiting patients yet, announced today it would start back up. The trial’s institutional review board has requested the investigators add a statement to the patient consent form describing the recent issues around the publication and retraction. “I think that’s a very fair request, and probably something that patients will ask,” Tong says."
I haven't read any of the HCQ trial papers, but Dr. McCullough's point that the time of treatment is critical, seems important.
DeleteIn particular, one needs to consider two phases of the disease: the early stage, when the virus is proliferating and the spike protein is causing blood clots in the vascular system of the lungs, and the late stage, when the immune system has largely eliminated the virus, but you go to hospital because blood clots in the lungs are making it difficult to breath and you are at high risk of death.
It is in the early stage that, according to McCullough, HCQ and Ivermectin are effective, i.e., they act as antiviral agents, and thus limit damage that Covid does to the pulmonary vascular system, whereas in the late stage, when the damage to the lungs has already been done and the virus has been destroyed by the immune response, anti-viral medication will be useless.
In evaluating HCQ trials, therefore, it is essential to differentiate between pointless trials on those admitted to hospital after the damage to the lungs, etc. has already been done, and those treated from the onset of symptoms, i.e., fever, headache, etc.
Excellent points. I agree entirely. You don't just rule out HCQ altogether based on unreviewed data or the results of improperly narrow studies conducted more or less ad hoc.
DeleteHere's another gem from The Atlantic:
ReplyDeletehttps://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2021/04/immunocompromised-vaccine/618596/?utm_medium=offsite&utm_source=govexec&utm_campaign=govexec
"The benefits of vaccination still far outweigh the risks: Experts told me they had no safety concerns about vaccinating people with weakened immune systems, who are often at higher risk of getting severe COVID-19. And in signing up for their shots, Rick and others like him can also help fill the data void that the clinical trials left, and potentially advance our understanding of how vaccines guard against the virus. Certain immunosuppressive drugs will undermine the vaccines in different ways; by pinpointing where, how, and in whom the shots most often falter, scientists might be able to discover which parts of the immune system are most essential for immunity against the coronavirus. “We still don’t understand why only certain people get so sick and die [from COVID-19],” Meena Bewtra, a clinical epidemiologist at the University of Pennsylvania who treats patients with inflammatory bowel disease, told me."
Rick and others like him can serve as lab rats to test effects of the "vaccine" which should have been tested in labs, on rats. Thanks Rick and others like you!
"Now you remember what the draft man said,
Nothing to do all day but stay in bed
You're in the army now,
Oh-oo-oh you're in the army now
You'll be the hero of the neighbourhood,
Nobody knows that you've left for good
You're in the army now,
Oh-oo-oh you're in the army now
Smiling faces as you wait to land,
But once you get there no-one gives a damn
You're in the army now,
Oh-oo-oh you're in the army now..."
Now you remember what the draft man M.D. said,
Nothing genuinely bad can go wrong,
It's all good- you're a lab rat now,
You're a lab rat, not a ding-dong...
"Experts told me they had no safety concerns about vaccinating people with weakened immune systems, who are often at higher risk of getting severe COVID-19. And in signing up for their shots, Rick and others like him can also help fill the data void that the clinical trials left, and potentially advance our understanding of how vaccines guard against the virus. .... by pinpointing where, how, and in whom the shots most often falter, scientists might be able to discover which parts of the immune system are most essential for immunity against the coronavirus."
ReplyDeleteHow bullshit baffles brains. Or, let those who are most vulnerable die from the vaccine that we may develop a better vaccine that will protect the most vulnerable.