The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.
© The ConversationNew treatments for COVID-19 may stave off worst effects of the virus
By Patrick Jackson CHARLOTTESVILLE, Va©2024 GPlusMedia Inc.
10 Comments
Mr Kipling
What about the "opinions" of random wing nuts on the internet? Surely their views are as important as these "so called" experts who have spent years studying medicine.... :)
Ingvar
Three highly effective vaccines? The second most vaccinated country, Singapore which uses the 3 Big Pharma concoctions, smashed the record for daily infections yesterday. The most vaccinated country, San Marino which doesn't use any Big Pharma concoctions, had zero cases........
vic.M
It's all about the vaccines. Never mind about the 3 safe and cheap treatments available but ignored.
FizzBit
Must have Pfizer and remdesivir stock. remdesivir costs about $3000. per patient.
Antiquesaving
IngvarToday 07:55 am JST
Now for the facts.
Few of those vaccinated ended up in hospital, frewer in ICU only one has died and most of those in ICU and the one that died recieved Sinivac which the Singapore Government has now removed those that received Sinovac as being fully vaccinated.
Only those that received Moderna or Pfizer are now considered vaccinated.
AramaTaihenNoYouDidnt
Ironic...if injected with one product and turns out as a failure, you are eventually marked as not vaccinated. The message is clear: "keep experimenting!"
Raw Beer
Yes. They only mention those few RCTs that were designed to fail. Whether it's hydroxychloroquine (+ azithromycin), ivermectin, or other repurposed drugs, several studies have shown them to be very effective when given early.
Here is a good presentation on the subject by Dr Steven Hatfill at the recent International Covid Summit:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4F3uPYiRk7U
virusrex
And the better designed and controlled ones proved beyon any reasonable doubt that it is completely worthless as a treatment for the disease, no matter at what timing it was used.
Just saying that the studies that proved what you don't want to accept were "designed to fail" has no merit, that is an argument that (if true) could be proved scientifically with specific arguments about the methodology, if you don't have those arguments then the scientific community, that tooks those (and many other) studies as valid triumphs completely against your own uninformed opinion.
Strangely people keep saying that even if it is completely baseless, every time someone ask the people saying this to prove it there is no evidence provided, specially because even in the worst studies HCQ was still not comparable with the protective effect offered by the vaccines.
Raw Beer
I and others have already shown you direct quotes from the FDA's website regarding the EUA.
Actually they are better than the vaccines as their effectiveness does not wane with time or with the appearance of variants.
... except for the hundreds of peer-reviewed studies and countless testimonials from doctors who have successfully treated patients and ...
virusrex
Quotes that say that making a commitment for buying doses should be kept? that is completely different from what you said, that is absolutely no proof of the baseless accusation you made.
Nobody has shown even comparable efficacy, much less better, that is just imaginary, specially once elementary controls to eliminate bias are put in order.
That is part of what is considered in the actual, properly made metastudies, which demonstrate complete lack of effect. If doctors getting results even after doing something wrong would prove anything then antibiotics would be effective against viral infections, but obviously they are not.