Ya know, Jim, you seem to have trouble distinguishing from credible sources and quacks, so let me offer some advice: Oz is a discredited quack. Almost any doctor who’s not a discredited quack will tell you so. Here’s one:
But I forced myself, for your sake, to watch the Daniel Wallace interview. Wallace, who is NOT, as Oz gushes, a “foremost authority” says that the incidence of toxic retinopathy for patients on HCQ for 5 years is zero. Not true, but close. But for any MD to consent to an interview with another MD as discredited as Oz is suspect in an of itself. So here are some experts who really are experts:
…
I’m sure it’s tempting to believe whatever you find that bolsters your hope, however unscientific. Try to put that aside and look at the data from true experts that don’t corroborate what you want to believe. You’ll be better off, and so will the rest of us.
“Credible Source” vs. “Quack” is not as useful a dichotomy as you seem to think it is, and I think it is leading you astray here. It is actually a trend in responses on this message board: people will write that they won’t even read or listen to a source (for example, Dr. Oz here) because they consider them a quack, and seem to sometimes go to the extreme of therefore automatically believing the opposite of what the supposed “Quack” says. (I guess people attracted to a message board promising the “Straight Dope” tend to give more weight to sources deemed an authority by group consensus than folks do elsewhere.) I think “Credible Source” vs. “Quack” can save time, as one can rule out looking at a source when trying to get at some truth, from past experience of the source being wrong. But I recommend being open to going back to a source one considers a “Quack” and evaluating their new message without bias from prior experience. And certainly don’t dismiss a source on someone else’s word that the source is a “Quack”, without having ever considered the source, which I suspect some people do as well.
All I see here are people going back to the source – the French study, which has since been disavowed by the publisher. What source would Dr. Oz lead me to? Does he provide cites with his videos? In other words, WTF are you talking about?
If a doctor often pushes discredited ideas, it’s pretty safe to ignore him and go to real research scientists instead, right?
In this instance I was directly responding to someone’s expressed fears of heart side effects of Hydroxychloroquine, by providing a link to Dr. Oz interviewing a Dr. Wallace, wherein Dr. Wallace gave his assessment of the heart risks as being, as I interpreted it, not so scary.
You do realize that the link I posted in post 59 completely and fully refutes the supposition that people that take Hydroxychloroquine don’t get COVID-19, right?
The links you posted are all from people I consider to be disreputable but that’s not the primary reason they are bullshit. They are bullshit because it only takes me a few minutes on line to refute them.
Viruses have confounded medical scientists for decades. They aren’t like bacterial infections, which are frequently treated very successfully. To date, the best anti-virals available do nothing but slow down viral reproduction and the only cure is time.
I see the whole “Do Lupus patients have a lower incidence of serious Covid infections?” as a different debate. The Dr. Oz video I posted a link to does discuss that, but my purpose in posting the link was to give another poster a chance to listen to Dr. Wallace’s assessment of the heart side effect danger of Hydroxychloroquine, independent of Lupus. I haven’t looked at all the Lupus links people are posting. That issue is lower down in my stack of things I want to learn about than a lot of other stuff. But I have the suspicion there is an issue with whether the patients were also getting enough zinc. The “Trump Pills”, the last time I checked, were: Hydroxychloroquine + ZInc + Azithromycin. A Dr. Cardillo argues the necessity of zinc here:
(The azithromycin is an antibiotic, and my inference is that it is part of the drug cocktail in order to treat secondary bacterial infections.) If Lupus patients are having serious enough Covid infections to be included in these studies (assuming they don’t count asymptomatic infections), then I would ask “are they getting enough zinc?” But again that is lower down in my stack of things to read about.
The “source” is Dr. Cardillo. Do you think he is a “Quack”? I guess you don’t like the particular Youtube channel the clip is from? An ABC new’s Youtube channel has the same clip:
Does ABC, a mainstream media outlet, as the hosting channel make it a credible enough source?
No, I’m saying a random doctor on a television show is not a source. He is saying it’s a miracle cure – very sick people he’s given it to were symptom-free in hours. Seriously, Jim, is there any way that that’s true? No one else has tried this miracle cure?
Jesus Christ, use your brain.
Anyway, I watched the whole video and saw no references to any scientific cites. He said his results were in line with the French study (which has been withdrawn), but that’s a lie – they didn’t see those kinds of results.
Your ‘sources’ are simply not reliable, in fact they are not sources at all because they are not published, nor are they peer reviewed - they are simply words on a video without any context or methodology.
They are actually not sources at all.
Do you need to have a definition of a ‘source’ in the scientific community sense of the word rather than just some people making their opinions known.
You have not linked to any source - please remember that - you have not linked to any source.
The word ‘source’ in the scientific sense has a specific meaning - you have not linked to a source
I see now, many people define a “source” as a “peer reviewed scientific publication”. I do not require that stamp of approval in order to admit some evidence into my assessment of a situation. And no, Dr. Cardillo is not the only doctor saying this. Google Dr. Zelenko, who credits doctors in France, South Korea, and China for inspiring his treatment approach. In this case, the world doesn’t have time for a formal scientific study to play out.
The world has plenty of time. This is an overblown run of the mill virus, no? Why should we throw out science because you decided to be in a rush? Relax.
We don’t need ‘inspired’ treatment approaches, we need scientifically verified ones. To do otherwise is like having a flat earther taking on rocket science.
You do if you want to be taken seriously. These doctors aren’t much different from random street kooks if they are pushing nonsense like this. You’ve been wrong pretty much on every single piece of information you’ve posted here on Covid-19. But as we know, past performance is no guarantee of future results. The 45th try is almost always the one that succeeds.
So, do you think Cardillo was truthful when he was saying that, when he gave his mixture to very sick patients, they were symptom-free in 8-12 hours?
Dr. Zelenko is a family medicine doctor from upstate NY. If I can get my family doctor to say he’s spouting bullshit, would we call it a tie?
On edit, feel free to ignore my second question, but I’d an answer to the first – do you think this mixture is a miracle cure that cures very sick patience to the point of having no symptoms within 12 hours?
I expect when the dust settles people will ask “Why were the Chinese freaking out?” My guess is vape lung, which I think you are referring to. There will probably be many who say “it wasn’t so bad because shutting the economy down worked” when this is all over instead. That is a debate for the future though. If the Trump Pills work, we can open the economy back up though, regardless of why the Chinese freaked out.
The world has plenty of time. This is an overblown run of the mill virus, no? Why should we throw out science because you decided to be in a rush? Relax.