Covid-19

  • You are viewing Orangepower as a Guest. To start new threads, reply to posts, or participate in polls or contests - you must register. Registration is free and easy. Click Here to register.

drbwh

Federal Marshal
Sep 20, 2006
10,288
3,792
1,743
In other news, new cases and hospitalizations continue to plummet.
Maybe the vaccinations are working. Unlike what one "doctor" with an agenda is pushing here.
I never said they won’t work or that people won’t get them. You people are something else. It’s like you can’t read, but can type. It’s bizarre. It just proves exactly what I have thought for years.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

drbwh

Federal Marshal
Sep 20, 2006
10,288
3,792
1,743
Even I can read. He didn't say they don't work. He said they don't know long term side effects and so he's not taking it.
Why is everyone trying to mischaracterize what he's said?

Sent from my Moto Z (2) using Tapatalk
We don't know the long-term side effects of any treatment for COVID-19, because the disease has only been known for a year. And please don't tell me about HCQ being used for decades, because it hasn't been used for COVID-19 for decades. Drugs can exhibit different adverse effects when used for different diseases because they interact pharmacologically differently with the diseases.

We do, however, know something about efficacy of HCQ (it isn't) and the vaccine (it is) in COVID-19. That makes one worth the unknown long-term adverse effects and the other not.
You are making my point. We don’t know anything. So why would anyone discourage any treatment? You are full of crap and you know it. Just parrot what your told, sheep.

Comparing HCQ to the vaccine is just stupid. That’s apples and oranges. HCQ is to treat covid not prevent it. Also, I’ll be waits for all these treatments for covid with the science behind it. So you think we should have just let everyone die like we did, because a drug may theoretically hurt them. You people are something else.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Last edited:

drbwh

Federal Marshal
Sep 20, 2006
10,288
3,792
1,743
In other news, new cases and hospitalizations continue to plummet.
Maybe the vaccinations are working. Unlike what one "doctor" with an agenda is pushing here.
Even I can read. He didn't say they don't work. He said they don't know long term side effects and so he's not taking it.
Why is everyone trying to mischaracterize what he's said?

Sent from my Moto Z (2) using Tapatalk
That’s what they have learned from the world. Rather than argue facts, when someone disagrees with you call them names and try to discredit them. It’s what happens when we are no longer free. It’s the beginning of the end.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

drbwh

Federal Marshal
Sep 20, 2006
10,288
3,792
1,743
In other news, new cases and hospitalizations continue to plummet.
Maybe the vaccinations are working. Unlike what one "doctor" with an agenda is pushing here.
Hey stalker, when are you going to answer this post from the other thread

Yes, you are absolutely correct I will reply. I think YOU need to read this and take some time to digest it.

Let’s talk about this post first. I was in a conversation with someone else that had nothing to do with you and in your typical stalker fashion, you butted in and took an opportunity to insult me again like you do in EVERY SINGLE THREAD.
Then you put doctor in quotation marks as if implying I am not one or incompetent because I don’t line up to take an EXPERIMENTAL VACCINE like you think I should and I have pointed out other ways to treat and prevent getting covid. I would be glad to PM you links to my reviews and you can see what my ACTUAL PATIENTS think of me. As long as you give me your word you won’t share my identity with anyone.

Now let’s just talk about what you have been doing in general. You have been stalking me and making slanderous accusations about my psychological health that are absolutely not true. You might want to be careful about that. I am a professional and if one person were to read that and it caused them not to see me as a professional, that could be costly for you.
I am sorry that my post “TRIGGER YOU”. That is more a reflection on your psychological health than mine. Add to that the extremely personal info you decided to share in your last post in this thread on a public forum and the fact that you seem to be stalking me on this forum, it would make some (especially healthcare professionals) wonder if you are the one with the issues you accuse me of.
I suggest you stop this behavior immediately.
That being said, do you want me to post those videos of Biden’s behavior around young girls and you can defend them? In all that BS you posted you didn’t answer the question I actually asked you.


Well, actually I guess you did answer it by not answering it. Play on, Sir.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Last edited:

RxCowboy

Has no Rx for his orange obsession.
A/V Subscriber
Nov 8, 2004
71,661
41,149
1,743
Wishing I was in Stillwater
You are making my point. We don’t know anything. So why would anyone discourage any treatment? You are full of crap and you know it. Just parrot what your told, sheep.

Comparing HCQ to the vaccine is just stupid. That’s apples and oranges. HCQ is to treat covid not prevent it. Also, I’ll be waits for all these treatments for covid with the science behind it. So you think we should have just let everyone die like we did, because a drug may theoretically hurt them. You people are something else.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Are you really that stupid?
1614090324956.png
 
May 4, 2011
2,255
1,078
1,743
Charleston, SC
We don't know the long-term side effects of any treatment for COVID-19, because the disease has only been known for a year. And please don't tell me about HCQ being used for decades, because it hasn't been used for COVID-19 for decades. Drugs can exhibit different adverse effects when used for different diseases because they interact pharmacologically differently with the diseases.

We do, however, know something about efficacy of HCQ (it isn't) and the vaccine (it is) in COVID-19. That makes one worth the unknown long-term adverse effects and the other not.
I'd add that delayed onset side effects are insanely rare with vaccines. Technically, we don't know that they don't happen, but we also have to ask ourselves, what kind of time interval are we OK with? Given the track record of vaccines, if serious side effects haven't cropped up after a few months, the chances of them cropping up are likely negligible.
 

drbwh

Federal Marshal
Sep 20, 2006
10,288
3,792
1,743
You are making my point. We don’t know anything. So why would anyone discourage any treatment? You are full of crap and you know it. Just parrot what your told, sheep.

Comparing HCQ to the vaccine is just stupid. That’s apples and oranges. HCQ is to treat covid not prevent it. Also, I’ll be waits for all these treatments for covid with the science behind it. So you think we should have just let everyone die like we did, because a drug may theoretically hurt them. You people are something else.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Are you really that stupid?
View attachment 89065
Please find where I said anything about using HCQ as a prophylactic. I will also be waiting for you to google all the scientific TREATMENTS for Covid 19 in the community. Then we can see who is stupid.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

Rack

Legendary Cowboy
Oct 13, 2004
24,444
10,192
1,743
Earth
The IRB isn't a science advisory board. It protects subjects in human research. Period. That's all it does. You are free to make whatever idiotic decisions you want to make for yourself every day. You are not free to conduct any idiotic human research you want. Research must be conducted with beneficence, justice, and respect for persons. Those are the Belmont Principles. The Belmont Report was generated in response to crimes against humanity in research in this country, by our own government.

Rejecting good science and embracing bad science because of politics is a whole 'nother level of idiocy. The science on HCQ was bad from the beginning. The original study, upon which Trump declared HCQ "a potential game changer", was "100% effective" because the researchers excluded the cases where it failed. It's easy to reach 100% efficacy if you exclude the failures. HCQ has failed in clinical trial after clinical trial. Yet, some people are still clinging to it. Why? Because Trump. Which is absolute lunacy. The whole ivermectin thing was started by the same group that was caught purposefully manipulating data out of Chicago. They had cornered the market on ivermectin in South America and were trying to create a market for it, so they rushed a couple of studies to pub where they used magnitudes of order higher concentrations in the petri dish than we could ever accomplish in humans. Yet, people want to cling to it and reject vaccines that have been well done in large numbers of patients. Why? Why embrace the bad science and reject the good?

The harm in embracing bad science and rejecting good is that people die because they waste time, money, and health on the bad therapy. It is unethical.
Who "judges" what is good and bad science when scientist and doctors and data sometimes disagree with one another? Like I said, it's a free country and the end user of healthcare get's to decide their best options for themselves in a free country. Freedom comes with some risk...Many Americans are still willing to take those risk...I'm a supporter of that personal freedom...Plus this world not being the end makes it easier to live in healthcare freedom, because death isn't the end for the believer. The marketplace will work out the issues you are addressing, as will the results. We have given over 64 million vaccines to date...Numbers of covid cases, hospitalizations, and death are all sharply down...that to me is the strongest argument to date for the vaccine. IF those numbers continue to climb and the virus is all but gone from the general population that will be the proof I personally need that the vaccine has worked.
 
Last edited:

drbwh

Federal Marshal
Sep 20, 2006
10,288
3,792
1,743
We don't know the long-term side effects of any treatment for COVID-19, because the disease has only been known for a year. And please don't tell me about HCQ being used for decades, because it hasn't been used for COVID-19 for decades. Drugs can exhibit different adverse effects when used for different diseases because they interact pharmacologically differently with the diseases.

We do, however, know something about efficacy of HCQ (it isn't) and the vaccine (it is) in COVID-19. That makes one worth the unknown long-term adverse effects and the other not.
I'd add that delayed onset side effects are insanely rare with vaccines. Technically, we don't know that they don't happen, but we also have to ask ourselves, what kind of time interval are we OK with? Given the track record of vaccines, if serious side effects haven't cropped up after a few months, the chances of them cropping up are likely negligible.
Is that why the government pays hush money to people that are injured by vaccines?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

drbwh

Federal Marshal
Sep 20, 2006
10,288
3,792
1,743
The IRB isn't a science advisory board. It protects subjects in human research. Period. That's all it does. You are free to make whatever idiotic decisions you want to make for yourself every day. You are not free to conduct any idiotic human research you want. Research must be conducted with beneficence, justice, and respect for persons. Those are the Belmont Principles. The Belmont Report was generated in response to crimes against humanity in research in this country, by our own government.

Rejecting good science and embracing bad science because of politics is a whole 'nother level of idiocy. The science on HCQ was bad from the beginning. The original study, upon which Trump declared HCQ "a potential game changer", was "100% effective" because the researchers excluded the cases where it failed. It's easy to reach 100% efficacy if you exclude the failures. HCQ has failed in clinical trial after clinical trial. Yet, some people are still clinging to it. Why? Because Trump. Which is absolute lunacy. The whole ivermectin thing was started by the same group that was caught purposefully manipulating data out of Chicago. They had cornered the market on ivermectin in South America and were trying to create a market for it, so they rushed a couple of studies to pub where they used magnitudes of order higher concentrations in the petri dish than we could ever accomplish in humans. Yet, people want to cling to it and reject vaccines that have been well done in large numbers of patients. Why? Why embrace the bad science and reject the good?

The harm in embracing bad science and rejecting good is that people die because they waste time, money, and health on the bad therapy. It is unethical.
Who "judges" what is good and bad science when scientist and doctors and data sometimes disagree with one another? Like I said, it's a free country and the end user of healthcare get's to decide their best options for themselves in a free country. Freedom comes with some risk...Many Americans are still willing to take them...I'm a support of that.
Well there are ways to examine studies to determine wether they are “good studies”. The difference here is it is a new disease so obviously there were no “good studies” to look at. The stance of the government and its parrots makes no sense unless you follow the money.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

RxCowboy

Has no Rx for his orange obsession.
A/V Subscriber
Nov 8, 2004
71,661
41,149
1,743
Wishing I was in Stillwater
Who "judges" what is good and bad science when scientist and doctors and data sometimes disagree with one another?
Read the following statement and then you tell me whether or not continuing to push ivermectin is "good science" or "bad science".
1614096371097.png


I mean, you basically have to believe that Merck is in on a conspiracy to suppress use of their own drug. It makes no sense.
 

Rack

Legendary Cowboy
Oct 13, 2004
24,444
10,192
1,743
Earth
The marketplace is absolutely the wrong place to work out the problems that I'm talking about with unethical research.
I agree with you that research should be ethical and that is why boards and oversight exist...but I also see a place for the free market to provide alternative treatments to the standardly accepted ones...we are speaking about different things... I agree unethical research OR unethical governmental / big money sponsorship should and are looked at in a free society by opposing forces...this very process of freedom is what I mean by the free "marketplace" (maybe freedom of "science" is a better term?) at work. Certainly the market can drive fraud and corruption both for a time, but it ultimately it weeds it out when free ideas on ALL sides of science and the market flow. The danger is in squelching this freedom of expression.

I'm just glad it looks like the vaccine and the number of infections that were undiagnosed along with those confirmed appears to have the virus on the ropes. I'm excited to actually be able to sit down with my parents without mask soon sense we are all vaccinated now...they got #2 of Pfizer on Saturday. :thumbup:
 
Last edited:

Rack

Legendary Cowboy
Oct 13, 2004
24,444
10,192
1,743
Earth
Read the following statement and then you tell me whether or not continuing to push ivermectin is "good science" or "bad science".
View attachment 89068

I mean, you basically have to believe that Merck is in on a conspiracy to suppress use of their own drug. It makes no sense.
Btw, that's called "CYA." Companies do that to save themselves from lawsuits...means they don't want to get sued for being in bed with those prescribing it more than anything else. However, I don't disagree with your statement.
 

RxCowboy

Has no Rx for his orange obsession.
A/V Subscriber
Nov 8, 2004
71,661
41,149
1,743
Wishing I was in Stillwater
Certainly the market can drive fraud and corruption both for a time, but it ultimately it weeds it out when free ideas on ALL sides of science and the market flow. The danger is in squelching this freedom of expression.
No, it doesn't "weed it all out". That's why the pharmaceutical market isn't free, it is the most heavily regulated market there is. We had a free and open market of pharmaceuticals once, when we had cocaine in soft drinks, and morphine in cough syrup, and patent medicines that did nothing.

It has absolutely nothing to do with freedom of expression. Sheez, you keep making your argument worse and worse. Just stop.
 

RxCowboy

Has no Rx for his orange obsession.
A/V Subscriber
Nov 8, 2004
71,661
41,149
1,743
Wishing I was in Stillwater
Btw, that's called "CYA." Companies do that to save themselves from lawsuits...means they don't want to get sued for being in bed with those prescribing it more than anything else. However, I don't disagree with your statement.
No, that isn't "CYA". Companies seek new markets for their drugs all the time. That is a company saying there is no scientific basis for the use of their drug for a particular indication.

You didn't answer my question, continuing to tout it after the company that makes it says there is no scientific basis for it, is that good or bad science?
 

Rack

Legendary Cowboy
Oct 13, 2004
24,444
10,192
1,743
Earth
No, that isn't "CYA". Companies seek new markets for their drugs all the time. That is a company saying there is no scientific basis for the use of their drug for a particular indication.

You didn't answer my question, continuing to tout it after the company that makes it says there is no scientific basis for it, is that good or bad science?
Agree, It’s not logical to continue to prescribe something that the company that makes it says is not effective. As a non scientist I can’t really speak to if it’s bad or good science but I can agree it defies logic...it also seems to be a cya statement at least in part.
 
Last edited: