Jump to content
To change color scheme, click on themes at bottom of page ×
RightNation.US
Sign in to follow this  
kestrel

There are consequences if the left is wrong about Hydroxychloroquine

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

kestrel
Posted (edited)

How many dead?....because of politics and or Money (same same I know) or the people and Companies that stand to make a lot of money from a Vaccine (not too mention how much money that has been scooped up by the Hospital Establishment for Infamous COVID-19 "Deaths")

Kestrel...

 

noqreport.com

There are consequences if the left is wrong about Hydroxychloroquine

by Lorie Wimble

July 29, 2020

Cancel culture isn’t behind the recent quashing of America’s Frontline Doctors. The group that had their video taken down across Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube for touting Hydroxychloroquine while panning the coronavirus lockdown didn’t fall victim to the usual suspects of social justice warriors calling for their heads. Instead, it was Big Tech who took the first swing and then called on cancel culture to back their play.

Now, they group of doctors face a new challenge after being cancelled by their website host.

This is scientific discrimination. If you’re unfamiliar with the phenomenon, ask climate scientists who question man-made global warning. They know all about it. Ask energy scientists who promote nuclear power. Ask psychologists who believe gender and sex are connected. Scientific discrimination is rampant, though not as common among medical doctors until now.

In the latest episode of NOQ Report, JD examines the consequences of either side of the Hydroxychloroquine debate being wrong. If the doctors touting the drug as a treatment for COVID-19 are wrong, the consequences are minimal, nearly non-existent. Since there are no suitable treatments that Hydroxychloroquine would block, allowing doctors to prescribe the drug to patients will at worst have litle effect. The same cannot be said if political scientists denouncing Hydroxychloroquine are wrong. Their choice to block the drug as a treatment could cost people their lives.

Whether to hurt President Trump, promote a vaccine, or both, the motives for suppressing a potentially life-saving treatment are heinous. The left often says we should listen to doctors, but what they mean is we should listen to doctors who back their agenda.

 

LINK:https://noqreport.com/2020/07/29/there-are-consequences-if-the-left-is-wrong-about-hydroxychloroquine/

Edited by kestrel

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
kestrel
13 minutes ago, gravelrash said:

I never get a flu shot. I will certainly not for some harried vaccine with who knows what side effects will show up years down the road.  And, I hate to be a broken record, but if Wuhan flu had not been loosed upon the world, the Democrats would have concocted another virus because Orangemanbad. Conspiracy? Yes, this campaign against our rights, our freedoms, our economy, and our country was plotted, planned, and accelerated during the 0bama regime.

I can't disagree I would just add that they are so incompetent  that they even screwed up their own plot!

K...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
gravelrash
1 minute ago, kestrel said:

I can't disagree I would just add that they are so incompetent  that they even screwed up their own plot!

K...

They did. Nutsy Pelosi, Chuck U. Schumer, and that confused, tired, racist old sack of a Presidential nominee believe blaming PRESIDENT Donald J. Trump for  "white supremacy" is swaying voters to their side.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
kestrel
7 minutes ago, gravelrash said:

They did. Nutsy Pelosi, Chuck U. Schumer, and that confused, tired, racist old sack of a Presidential nominee believe blaming PRESIDENT Donald J. Trump for  "white supremacy" is swaying voters to their side.

This is an excellent summation of what went on..its just about five min's and very interesting..enjoy!

https://twitter.com/i/status/1288149916502679553

Kestrel...

 

  • Agree (+1) 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Timothy

If you want people to take you seriously don't put front and center a women who believes that many gynecological problems stem from people having sex with demons.

And the idea that there's no potential downside is wrong.  There are significant side effects.

  • Disagree (-1) 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
kestrel
6 minutes ago, Timothy said:

If you want people to take you seriously don't put front and center a women who believes that many gynecological problems stem from people having sex with demons.

And the idea that there's no potential downside is wrong.  There are significant side effects.

I really don't care if "People" especially "people" like you take me seriously..and by the bye, how are you familiar with whether people have sex with demons?...do you deny the existence of Demon's? (think leftist's or ex-wives) Jesus Christ seemed to know something about them..maybe you should look into the Nephilim...as to your opinion regarding the "significant side effects." I say "GROOVY Dude" lets have all the info we can get, unless of course it goes against whatever Facebook/google/youtube and certain other vested interests decrees, and should not be silenced because You/They don't like President Trump...if you're planning to make a career out of ad hominem attacks? Keep practicing and maybe think about getting a refund from whatever institute of Higher Learning (emphasis on Higher) you went to for all those years.

Kestrel...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Severian

Lysenkoism is never, ever a good thing, no matter who decides and enforces the orthodoxy.

  • Agree (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
gravelrash
1 hour ago, Timothy said:

If you want people to take you seriously don't put front and center a women who believes that many gynecological problems stem from people having sex with demons.

And the idea that there's no potential downside is wrong.  There are significant side effects.

You sheltered in place long before Covid-1984.

  • Haha (+1) 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
MontyPython
5 hours ago, Timothy said:

If you want people to take you seriously don't put front and center a women who believes that many gynecological problems stem from people having sex with demons.

And the idea that there's no potential downside is wrong.  There are significant side effects.

I posted this in another thread, but you didn't respond. Therefore presuming you must not have seen it, I'll post it again HERE.

Click it and read about 7 well-known geniuses (Pythagoras, Lord Byron, Tycho Brahe, Michelangelo, Nikola Tesla, Empedocles, and Yukio Mishima), who were clearly nuts as well as brilliant. My point is that genuine intelligence is not necessarily impaired by crazy personal/religious/philosophy/beliefs.

Are this doctor's personal beliefs nutso? Yeah, I'd say at least some of them are. By no stretch does that suggest flaws in her scientific assertions re: the 'ronas.

B)

 

  • Agree (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Howsithangin
Posted (edited)
8 hours ago, Timothy said:

If you want people to take you seriously don't put front and center a women who believes that many gynecological problems stem from people having sex with demons.

And the idea that there's no potential downside is wrong.  There are significant side effects.

:yawn:

HDQ is considered safe by the CDC, and has been  safety available for 50 years.  Is it applicable to all? No.  What drug is?  Can come have bad side effects? Yup.  What drug doesn't? There is no such drug

Everything in life poses risks. Life is a series of trade-offs. Nothing in life is risk-free, a fact of life that lefties refuse to face, which is why they're continually looking for the gummint to protect them  To accept that life consists of trade-offs, of choices, puts some burden, some responsibility on protecting oneself on the individual, and responsibility is the one thing that lefties will not accept.

Edited by Howsithangin
  • Agree (+1) 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Severian
10 hours ago, MontyPython said:

I posted this in another thread, but you didn't respond. Therefore presuming you must not have seen it, I'll post it again HERE.

Click it and read about 7 well-known geniuses (Pythagoras, Lord Byron, Tycho Brahe, Michelangelo, Nikola Tesla, Empedocles, and Yukio Mishima), who were clearly nuts as well as brilliant. My point is that genuine intelligence is not necessarily impaired by crazy personal/religious/philosophy/beliefs.

Are this doctor's personal beliefs nutso? Yeah, I'd say at least some of them are. By no stretch does that suggest flaws in her scientific assertions re: the 'ronas.

B)

 

Add Isaac Newton to that. The majority of his work was not physics or mathematics, it was religious ramblings on Christianity. The world needed less of that and more of science at the time, there was plenty of religious pontification going on.

  • Agree (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
zurg
17 hours ago, Timothy said:

If you want people to take you seriously don't put front and center a women who believes that many gynecological problems stem from people having sex with demons.

And the idea that there's no potential downside is wrong.  There are significant side effects.

Did you read on in the study? It was done (literally) on guinea pigs. 

Their claim then is that “we saw arrhythmia from HCQ in small hearts, it would be worse with bigger hearts”. And they don’t detail out whether the relevant dosing was correct. 

Sorry, this is BS, compared to decades of actual use of HCQ. Remember, CQ is the one with more side effects, HCQ fixes a lot of them, and reduces the incidence of those side effects that still exist. 

Finally, we recently had a thread on a large study that showed HCQ actually is helpful in treatment of covid. Cure for all? No. Helpful for many or even most? Indisputably. 

  • Agree (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
MontyPython
1 hour ago, Severian said:

Add Isaac Newton to that. The majority of his work was not physics or mathematics, it was religious ramblings on Christianity. The world needed less of that and more of science at the time, there was plenty of religious pontification going on.

Yup, I just posted the one article listing those 7, but while looking for a good article on the subject I ran across many more before selecting that one. There's Vincent Van Gogh, Friedrich Nietzsche, John Nash, Georg Cantor, Chess Master Bobby Fisher, Arthur Schopenhauer, and far too many more to list them all here.

In fact, one of the most brilliant minds of all time, none other than Aristotle himself, said "No great mind has ever existed without a touch of madness".

I tend to agree.

:yes: 

 

  • Agree (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
zurg
2 hours ago, MontyPython said:

Yup, I just posted the one article listing those 7, but while looking for a good article on the subject I ran across many more before selecting that one. There's Vincent Van Gogh, Friedrich Nietzsche, John Nash, Georg Cantor, Chess Master Bobby Fisher, Arthur Schopenhauer, and far too many more to list them all here.

In fact, one of the most brilliant minds of all time, none other than Aristotle himself, said "No great mind has ever existed without a touch of madness".

I tend to agree.

:yes: 

 

Shall we start quoting 

“minds with a touch of madness think alike”

from now on then?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Natural Selection
2 hours ago, MontyPython said:

In fact, one of the most brilliant minds of all time, none other than Aristotle himself, said "No great mind has ever existed without a touch of madness".

Great quote. So many examples to back it up.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
mjperry51
Posted (edited)

If it were up to people like Timmy we would never have gone to the moon. . .

ETA:
 

Quote

 

You see things; and you say “Why?” But I dream things that never were; and I say “Why not?”

George Bernard Shaw

 

.

Edited by mjperry51

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
MontyPython
18 minutes ago, zurg said:

Shall we start quoting 

“minds with a touch of madness think alike”

from now on then?

 

Works for me!

 

6 minutes ago, Natural Selection said:

Great quote. So many examples to back it up.

 

Yeppers.

 

3 minutes ago, mjperry51 said:

If it were up to people like Timmy we would never have gone to the moon. . . .

 

Probably true.

:confused:

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
kestrel
7 hours ago, Severian said:

Add Isaac Newton to that. The majority of his work was not physics or mathematics, it was religious ramblings on Christianity. The world needed less of that and more of science at the time, there was plenty of religious pontification going on.

Sez you..you sinner!..how can you not want Newtons theory on how many Angels can dance on the head of a pin!...or how does one discern a Witch?..(are they made of wood?)

Kestrel...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Severian

Can bridges not be made of stone?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
MontyPython
46 minutes ago, Severian said:

Can bridges not be made of stone?

:giggle: 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Timothy
On 7/30/2020 at 12:46 AM, MontyPython said:

I posted this in another thread, but you didn't respond. Therefore presuming you must not have seen it, I'll post it again HERE.

Click it and read about 7 well-known geniuses (Pythagoras, Lord Byron, Tycho Brahe, Michelangelo, Nikola Tesla, Empedocles, and Yukio Mishima), who were clearly nuts as well as brilliant. My point is that genuine intelligence is not necessarily impaired by crazy personal/religious/philosophy/beliefs.

Are this doctor's personal beliefs nutso? Yeah, I'd say at least some of them are. By no stretch does that suggest flaws in her scientific assertions re: the 'ronas.

B)

 

I agree that having strange/eccentric beliefs on some subjects doesn't mean you can't be a genius in others.

In all of the examples in the article you linked, the subjects that these famous people were well known for had little overlap with the subjects where they went off the deep end.  Pythagoras was a brilliant mathematician, where he stood on religion hardly changes that.  They are different fields.

The reason the doctor's quaky beliefs are relevant is because they are in the same field as the issue in question, medicine.

On 7/30/2020 at 3:26 AM, Howsithangin said:

:yawn:

HDQ is considered safe by the CDC, and has been  safety available for 50 years.  Is it applicable to all? No.  What drug is?  Can come have bad side effects? Yup.  What drug doesn't? There is no such drug

Everything in life poses risks. Life is a series of trade-offs. Nothing in life is risk-free, a fact of life that lefties refuse to face, which is why they're continually looking for the gummint to protect them  To accept that life consists of trade-offs, of choices, puts some burden, some responsibility on protecting oneself on the individual, and responsibility is the one thing that lefties will not accept.

I agree with you about life and risks.  "Safe" is relative.  We accept the side effects of drugs because the benefits generally outweigh the side effects.

And that's where I think the article gets things wrong.  "If the doctors touting the drug as a treatment for COVID-19 are wrong, the consequences are minimal, nearly non-existent."  In general some people promoting this drug have made the argument that there is "nothing to lose" by using.  That isn't true.  The fact that there are risks doesn't mean we should automatically rule it out, of course.  But it needs to demonstrate that the benefits outweigh the risks before put into widespread use.

22 hours ago, zurg said:

Did you read on in the study? It was done (literally) on guinea pigs. 

Their claim then is that “we saw arrhythmia from HCQ in small hearts, it would be worse with bigger hearts”. And they don’t detail out whether the relevant dosing was correct. 

Sorry, this is BS, compared to decades of actual use of HCQ. Remember, CQ is the one with more side effects, HCQ fixes a lot of them, and reduces the incidence of those side effects that still exist. 

Finally, we recently had a thread on a large study that showed HCQ actually is helpful in treatment of covid. Cure for all? No. Helpful for many or even most? Indisputably. 

That "decades of use" was and is to treat cases where there are clear benefits that outweigh the risks.  That doesn't mean that there aren't risks, or that it couldn't lead to worse health outcomes when used to treat conditions where it doesn't actually help.

Here's a good point by point rebuttal of Dr Immanuel's claims: https://www.youcanknowthings.com/post/fact-check-dr-stella-immanuel-s-hydroxychloroquine-cure

  • Disagree (-1) 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...