health

Nine in ten recovered COVID-19 patients experience side-effects: study

21 Comments
By Sangmi Cha

The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.

© Thomson Reuters 2020.

©2020 GPlusMedia Inc.

21 Comments
Login to comment

Of course the research have to be taken with a grain of salt depending how the online survey was worded. If it was just described as looking for input from "COVID recovering patients" it would be much more significative than if was titled "about presence of side effects in COVID recovering patients" because the title itself would make the people with some problems self select into replying, while those without them would simply not participate.

Still, the important part is that many people persistently focus only on deaths as if this was the only consequence of getting the disease. Actually there are many kinds of persistent problems that can reduce the health and quality of life of the people that frequently persist after recovering from the active infection. And this is a disease that only have been with us for a year, nobody knows what will be found out in the future, things like long lasting heart damage in children that were even asymptomatic may be already happening but we will find out in the future after they become evident.

8 ( +10 / -2 )

Cases of “Long COVID” are increasingly being noted in the UK. Several reports have been published. Extreme fatigue and muscle weakness are very common, similar to Chronic Fatigue Symdrome.

10 ( +11 / -1 )

Perhaps if preventive/early stage medication wasn't banned by certain governments, the number of people suffering these ongoing symptoms wall fall as well.

Some good news has been that the Walter & Eliza Hill Institute of Medical Research at the University of Melbourne is about to start a new study with hydroxychloroquine on frontline health workers as a preventive measure. Better late than never, but it's good to see that a respected institute like this is taking another look at this drug when Australian governments have banned its use in treating COVID-19 in any form.

https://www.wehi.edu.au/covid-shield-faqs

That said, the FAQs in the link say that zinc won't be used in the trial, which leaves me to wonder whether the trial is being set up to fail. Why not use zinc with some test subjects and no zinc with others (even if a separate test regime is necessary to do so)? Back when the earlier studies were being done on HCQ that claimed it was ineffective, the doses being given were far above normal doses to people with advanced COVID symptoms, and without zinc, meaning it was bound to fail - intentionally, I think, as a way to discredit it as a treatment.

Yet the Swiss have been using it with positive results.

But a cheap drug isn't much good to you-know-who because they won't make any money from it. And yes, I've heard the argument that pharma companies make far more from treatments than prevention, but in this case when relatively few people are getting seriously ill from the virus compared to those who show no or minor symptoms, there's far more to be made from a preventative vaccine than from treatment. But to get huge numbers of people to take a vaccine, they have be scared of the disease, hence the widespread lockdowns and fear campaigns in the media and by governments.

-8 ( +1 / -9 )

Perhaps if preventive/early stage medication wasn't banned by certain governments, the number of people suffering these ongoing symptoms wall fall as well.

It is not, the only things banned are those that carry risk without offering any benefit. It should not be necessary but unfortunately many doctors are not up to date with the information and end up mistreating their patients.

Better late than never, but it's good to see that a respected institute like this is taking another look at this drug when Australian governments have banned its use in treating COVID-19 in any form.

Again, current data justifies the ban, if you believe the contrary is against the best evidence up to date. And what if this new study says it is not useful? will you accept then it should not be used? or will you look for any possible excuse to keep promoting something repeatedly found to be useless?

That said, the FAQs in the link say that zinc won't be used in the trial, which leaves me to wonder whether the trial is being set up to fail. 

Well, that answers my question.

Yet the Swiss have been using it with positive results.

References needed for properly curated data, anecdotes are not proper data, instead they are the pitfall that fools a lot of professionals.

But a cheap drug isn't much good to you-know-who because they won't make any money from it.

Still nonsense, dexamethasone is dirt cheap, reduces very importantly hospital stays making "big pharma" lose a lot of money on every patient that is treated with it, but it is perfectly well recognized as an effective measure.

there's far more to be made from a preventative vaccine than from treatment. 

Still wrong, every single patient that gets symptoms means much more profit than many vaccinations, specially if it is hospitalized, requires ICU stays or gets one of the frequent long term disabilities. A vaccine makes no sense from the purely economic point of view, specially because is perfectly possible it will terminate the disease once it provides herd immunity. End of profits from covid forever.

Obscure conspiracies depending on all health workers to poison their own families and provide false evidence so good treatments are unavailable even for them are not logical, just an excuse to keep believing a lie.

7 ( +9 / -2 )

Again, current data justifies the ban, if you believe the contrary is against the best evidence up to date. And what if this new study says it is not useful? will you accept then it should not be used? or will you look for any possible excuse to keep promoting something repeatedly found to be useless?

Nonsense. If the best evidence to date says HCQ is useless, why would they be throwing good resources after bad just to confirm that something doesn't work? Why not look elsewhere?

Regarding Switzerland:

https://www.newsweek.com/key-defeating-covid-19-already-exists-we-need-start-using-it-opinion-1519535

He's far more qualified than you.

Still wrong, every single patient that gets symptoms means much more profit than many vaccinations, specially if it is hospitalized, requires ICU stays or gets one of the frequent long term disabilities. A vaccine makes no sense from the purely economic point of view, specially because is perfectly possible it will terminate the disease once it provides herd immunity. End of profits from covid forever.

Again, nonsense. The number of people with such symptoms/disabilities requiring ongoing medications and the amount of money pharma companies will make from that will be vastly dwarfed by the the money made through mass vaccination, especially if the virus hangs around and we're told annual boosters are necessary, or that the immunisation schedule requires a couple of shots. Plenty of money in it. How many billion people do they want to vaccinate?

Obscure conspiracies depending on all health workers to poison their own families and provide false evidence so good treatments are unavailable even for them are not logical, just an excuse to keep believing a lie.

You seem to enjoy misrepresenting people who disagree with you. I didn't say they're poisoning their families, and you know it. I am questioning the need for mass vaccination, lockdowns, and arrests for people who publicly question the severity of this virus. It's not your frontline medical people pushing for mass vaccination, it's the politicians, medical bureaucrats, the pharmaceutical PR machine and the like.

-9 ( +1 / -10 )

Nonsense. If the best evidence to date says HCQ is useless, why would they be throwing good resources after bad just to confirm that something doesn't work? Why not look elsewhere?

Replicability is one of bastions of science, everywhere studies are made just to confirm something found out before, sometimes even finding something new, like for example why it does not work or if it does, but damages the patients enough to offset the benefit with an even greater drawback, that way it would be justified to find something simmilar without the bad side. Nobody is throwing out good resources, it is science.

Regarding Switzerland:

https://www.newsweek.com/key-defeating-covid-19-already-exists-we-need-start-using-it-opinion-1519535

He's far more qualified than you.

People that are scientific illiterate think qualifications is all that is needed to prove something. Big surprise they are not, evidence is what is needed, and he does not have it. Without it the only thing he can recommend is to get it, Unfortunately his own study has been heavily criticized because it is based on a very strong bias that was well described even before he published, but that he choose to ignore, thus making all his conclusions invalid.

If you depend on putting the patients more likely to die because of cardiac disease in the group you are not treating it is obvious that the treated group would die less, even if the treatment does nothing.

Again, nonsense. The number of people with such symptoms/disabilities requiring ongoing medications and the amount of money pharma companies will make from that will be vastly dwarfed by the the money made through mass vaccination,

Prove it. your opinion is irrelevant for this. There is nothing that indicate the virus will hang around, since SARS and MERS are not coming back seasonally.

While you are doing it, prove it the money is also enough to bribe every single research insitute and medical professional association of the world that keep producing and defending the scientific consensus. A bribe substancial enough to make them let their own family and friends die without something that everybody supposedly knows it works but now its banned.

Also, you forgot dexamethasone, how come that medicine that saves the lives (and wallets) of huge amount of patients is not being "hidden"? it was very easy to find an example that should be impossible if your conspiracy was true. If the reason is purely economical it would not be justified to keep using it, but is universally recognized as safe and effective.

You seem to enjoy misrepresenting people who disagree with you. I didn't say they're poisoning their families, and you know it.

Of course you are, it is only that you need to think about it for a moment to realize it.

Everybody supposedly knows it works right? and can prove it publishing hundreds of small studies well controlled, but according to you they don't because they are in a conspiracy, and when their family and friends get sick the keep the secret and let them die with therapies that will do nothing or kill them faster, just so some unknown big boss can get ritcher.

So yes, your conspiracy requires everybody to sacrifice their family for money (and money for someone else).

I am questioning the need for mass vaccination, lockdowns, and arrests for people who publicly question the severity of this virus.

Then publish the data that makes it question it. Everyday there are people that publicly question the virus, but they are not arrested as long as they do not promote risky desobedience or misinformation that can easily be proved wrong. That is what gets people arrested, not their opinions but the illegal way they choose to express it.

. It's not your frontline medical people pushing for mass vaccination, it's the politicians, medical bureaucrats, the pharmaceutical PR machine and the like.

Really? read the official position of the different colleges of pediatricians, infectologists, virologists, epidemiologist, etc. They are the front line medical people and they are completely for a safe and effective vaccine to be produced as soon as validly possible.

There is a huge difference between something not happening and you not knowing about it. Ignorance is a terrible reason to say something is not being done.

4 ( +6 / -2 )

It is not, the only things banned are those that carry risk without offering any benefit.

HCQ has a long history as a safe medicine. It does carry risks if you greatly exceed the recommended doses, as some have done (intentionally?).

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2uzXHnUViro&t=153s

-6 ( +1 / -7 )

HCQ has a long history as a safe medicine. It does carry risks if you greatly exceed the recommended doses, as some have done (intentionally?).

It is safe when used appropiatedly, for COVID-19 this is not the case and its well known toxicity does not justify using it because it has not benefit.

The last time you tried to bring reports with "massive" doses it turned up there were not massive at all (and the studies were not subjected to investigation for malpractice as you said either) Why persist in something that you were demonstrated as mistaken? It does not matter how many times you repeat something you were told that was a lie, first try to read the manuscripts yourself to avoid that being repeated, and if you cannot understand them because you lack the knowledge necessary then don't use them, you risk appearing mistaken again.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2uzXHnUViro&t=153s

That is the opposite, linking to videos instead of the actual reference makes it clear that you could not understand the studies, so you depend on someone trying to misrepresent and take very limited conclusions out of context? this is the perfect example of why not understanding the science makes you unable to use it.

Guess what? all the medical professionals of the world already know those studies, and know why they are terribly weak evidence when compared with much better selected groups. Their opinion is still that HCQ is worthless for COVID, once again you depend on your magical conspiracy where they choose to sacrifice their families? it is still not credible... except maybe for people that only care for money and think is perfectly logical to let precious people die, do you think is logical?

4 ( +6 / -2 )

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2uzXHnUViro&t=153s

That is the opposite, linking to videos instead of the actual reference makes it clear that you could not understand the studies,

Yeah, the reason I provided a video instead of the links to the papers is that the last time I did that, you got the information all wrong. In the video, Dr. John Campbell shows that YOU are the one that did not understand the studies. I trust the good Dr much more than someone who is always pushing for "perfectly fine" vaccines.

-5 ( +1 / -6 )

Some good news has been that the Walter & Eliza Hill Institute of Medical Research at the University of Melbourne is about to start a new study with hydroxychloroquine on frontline health workers as a preventive measure. Better late than never,

There have been trials going on for a long time. This one, as the one in the UK, is focused on its use as a preventative medicine. It's use as a treatment has not been shown to be effective.

https://thenewamerican.com/hydroxychloroquine-trial-restarts-with-uk-regulator-approval/

That said, the FAQs in the link say that zinc won't be used in the trial, which leaves me to wonder whether the trial is being set up to fail. 

Or perhaps it's being set up by people who know what they're doing.

5 ( +6 / -1 )

Virusrex, you are clearly misrepresenting what is going on, and what I say. There is a concerted effort through political and media channels through a consistent PR campaign to vilify HCQ. If it is as useless as the WHO etc claim, why keep doing studies on it and instead focus on something else that might work? After all, if these studies on HCQ that claim it's ineffective are repeatable, and repeated experiments are showing that it's ineffective, why bother throwing lots of money away to do the same things again when expecting poor results? That major retracted study put a dent in the anti-HCQ narrative, but

It's because the original studies showing that it's ineffective and even dangerous were intentionally flawed to demonise the drug by giving it to late-stage patients at higher does than normal, and without zinc. Yet did the same people who dismissed HCQ test for efficacy at standard doses used for treating malaria and auto-immune diseases with and without zinc?

While you are doing it, prove it the money is also enough to bribe every single research insitute and medical professional association of the world that keep producing and defending the scientific consensus. A bribe substancial enough to make them let their own family and friends die without something that everybody supposedly knows it works but now its banned.

Also, you forgot dexamethasone, how come that medicine that saves the lives (and wallets) of huge amount of patients is not being "hidden"? it was very easy to find an example that should be impossible if your conspiracy was true. If the reason is purely economical it would not be justified to keep using it, but is universally recognized as safe and effective.

You seem to enjoy misrepresenting people who disagree with you. I didn't say they're poisoning their families, and you know it.

Of course you are, it is only that you need to think about it for a moment to realize it.

Everybody supposedly knows it works right? and can prove it publishing hundreds of small studies well controlled, but according to you they don't because they are in a conspiracy, and when their family and friends get sick the keep the secret and let them die with therapies that will do nothing or kill them faster, just so some unknown big boss can get ritcher.

So yes, your conspiracy requires everybody to sacrifice their family for money (and money for someone else).

You're really grasping at straws and you know that's not what I said. I think most people think they're doing the right thing and not selling out their families for a few dollars more. But like in many industries, there can be pressure to speed up development of a product for commercial reasons, or to fudge data to ensure something gets approved even if it's not ready. Especially now that there's a race on to be the first to announce they have a vaccine ready. You must be naive or dishonest if you claim that never happens. Numerous court cases and payouts are testament to that.

And why are some governments banning HCQ? If it doesn't work, like some are claiming, there should be no need to ban it because doctors would not be prescribing an ineffective drug. If it does work, HCQ is a cheap and easy drug to produce, so there wouldn't be much lag in production to keep up with demand anyway to ensure that people who rely on it for other purposes would miss out. Some companies were ramping up production of the drug months ago in anticipation of its use as a preventative or early-stage treatment.

More evidence that we're being lied to about this is that the rules foisted on us do not seem to apply to politicians and their ilk.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8779219/Liberal-Party-AGM-South-Australia-300-delegates-room-weddings-funerals-capped-150.html

No masks, social distancing etc, for them, but we're told that we have to keep 1-2 m away from others and wear masks like our life depends on it, or risk a fine and/or arrest. People being arrested for organising or reporting on socially distanced and masked protests when their opinion doesn't match the official narrative. Death rates flatlining even as the cumulative case count continues to rise, and the vast majority of people not even showing symptoms if tested randomly.

You seem either naive or unwilling to understand the scope of this issue, either politically or otherwise, beyond your own dedication to vaccine production. I'm not saying don't produce vaccines, just ensure they are safe, effective, entirely voluntary and not at the expense of other treatments.

-5 ( +1 / -6 )

Coronavirus or coincidence or because the gyms were closed along time since March as a weightlifter I have had 10 to 20% lower strength persistent joint pain and trouble sleeping.

2 ( +4 / -2 )

Coronavirus or coincidence or because the gyms were closed along time since March as a weightlifter I have had 10 to 20% lower strength persistent joint pain and trouble sleeping.

There's no reason to stop training just because the gyms are closed. Plyometrics, isometrics, yoga, body weight exercises - there are plenty of activities to keep up strength during covid that don't require a gym.

6 ( +6 / -0 )

Yeah, the reason I provided a video instead of the links to the papers is that the last time I did that, you got the information all wrong.

No, the last time I proved you got it completely wrong very easily, and your response was just to keep quiet. Putting a video is not going to improve that, it only makes it obvious you gave up from the beginning and already know it is not what you want them to be.

I trust the good Dr much more than someone who is always pushing for "perfectly fine" vaccines.

I am not the one that tested HCQ but the entire medical professional field. Trusting someone that can be proved wrong instead of the huge consensus is also an irrational thing.

Virusrex, you are clearly misrepresenting what is going on, and what I say. There is a concerted effort through political and media channels through a consistent PR campaign to vilify HCQ. If it is as useless as the WHO etc claim, why keep doing studies on it and instead focus on something else that might work?

No, I am putting it out for people like you that don't understand how science is done and that think that ignoring something is a valid reason to be able to judge it. It is not.

What makes you think that there is only one single team working on antiviral therapies for COVID? I already gave you different reasons why science is never decided by the first review on a topic and there are endless repetitions with small variations to round up and corroborate the work. At the same time other people are examining one of the literally hundreds of other drugs that have shown some efficacy on treating the disease in vitro and in vivo. Some of those drugs are also already in use for humans for a long time and are very cheap.

After all, if these studies on HCQ that claim it's ineffective are repeatable, and repeated experiments are showing that it's ineffective, why bother throwing lots of money away to do the same things again when expecting poor results?

Because in science repeating things is not a waste of money, it is an investment in corroborating results and finding out more, do you know why it does not work even when theoretically is was likely to? that is one of the reasons. A negative result is not a poor result. That is a mistaken notion from scientific illiterate people. A negative result under very specific conditions still means a lot. It could mean that not only HCQ is not working but that all the drugs based on similar mechanism of action would not work either.

That major retracted study put a dent in the anti-HCQ narrative,

That is also incorrect, first it is not a "narrative" is data. And it was never about each single study but the whole field of studies. If a study depends on putting systematically cardiac patients in the non-treated group to get marginal benefits that is still taken as evidence, if another do a better job and excludes all those patients and finds the benefit disappears then the picture is more clear, 10 or 20 studies later we end up understanding it does not work, it never did.

It's because the original studies showing that it's ineffective and even dangerous were intentionally flawed to demonise the drug by giving it to late-stage patients at higher does than normal, and without zinc.

Prove it, that is a terribly simple thing to analyze with relatively simple statistical tools, you are of course not pulling that out from the air right? you have a reference that weighted the studies and prove it so you are able to say this?

You're really grasping at straws and you know that's not what I said.

What I am telling you is that this is is what it means, what you said requires this condition to be true.

I think most people think they're doing the right thing and not selling out their families for a few dollars more. But like in many industries, there can be pressure to speed up development of a product for commercial reasons, or to fudge data to ensure something gets approved even if it's not ready.

And you think you can understand this much better than the people that dedicate decades of their lives to study and practice medical sciences? that have apparently read much more literature and are much better used to discriminate the quality of the studies? saying that all the medical associations of the world are just a collection of inept people unable to do the most basic thing of their jobs is as irrational as saying they sacrifice their family for money. All over the world they fudge data right? because letting one cheap medicine would mean ruin?

Whops, you keep trying very hard to ignore dexamethasone. It is still here, being used all over the world and proving your conspiracy is not only irrational, it is also false. It does wonders for patients, interrupts complications beautifully so patients keep their lives and stay out of the ICU, making drug companies "lose" billions in all those very expensive things that are not used. Why? simple, because it was shown to work very clearly.

And why are some governments banning HCQ? If it doesn't work, like some are claiming, there should be no need to ban it because doctors would not be prescribing an ineffective drug.

Because even if the medical field in general is very good at interpreting science and scientific results, individually there are always people that don't. Doctors with good intentions but too full of themselves to let objective data get in the way of "in my experience..." or that are desperate enough to try anything, even something that has been proved useless because it may be that for "this" patient it may work. Most doctors would not prescribe a drug shown not to work, but some do, and for those people is why a ban is necessary.

HCQ is a cheap and easy drug to produce, so there wouldn't be much lag in production to keep up with demand anyway to ensure that people who rely on it for other purposes would miss out. Some companies were ramping up production of the drug months ago in anticipation of its use as a preventative or early-stage treatment.

Well, your point is that companies are there for the bucks, so of course they will try to sell anything, working or not. That is not proof that the thing works, only that someone would make a profit selling it.

Again, dexamethasone, I know it proves all your points invalid, but pretending not being able to read this simple word is not making it disappear.

More evidence that we're being lied to about this is that the rules foisted on us do not seem to apply to politicians and their ilk. No masks, social distancing etc, for them, but we're told that we have to keep 1-2 m away from others and wear masks like our life depends on it, or risk a fine and/or arrest. People being arrested for organising or reporting on socially distanced and masked protests when their opinion doesn't match the official narrative

Irrelevant, that does nothing to prove the scientific data about HCQ inefficacy is clear. What If I put a link about some drug company donating medicines (maybe dexamethasone?) would that prove that the studies supporting HCQ are all worthless flawed bad science?

No, it would be as irrelevant as yours. Why do you think this is being reported? is it not a super world wide conspiracy involving every source of news? It would be impossible for a mayor journal to get this story right?

The reality is more simple, things are done by humans, and humans make mistakes, we as society know it is wrong and that is why it being reported. The same as arresting people for organizing illegal meetings just because they don't want to believe the science. Some people are in power and avoid the law, big news! they are still wrong and everybody can see it.

Death rates flatlining even as the cumulative case count continues to rise, and the vast majority of people not even showing symptoms if tested randomly.

Welcome to the very interesting world of emerging diseases epidemiology, where understanding a new disease makes it easier to treat better and where improved testing not only lets you know the incidence of a disease that can run asymptomatic, but also spread that way, which was why it spread so quickly. The thing is to reach a point where the risk is no longer higher thanks to this disease, even if it takes some time, but sacrificing as little vulnerable population as possible on the way.

You seem either naive or unwilling to understand the scope of this issue, either politically or otherwise, beyond your own dedication to vaccine production. I'm not saying don't produce vaccines, just ensure they are safe, effective, entirely voluntary and not at the expense of other treatments.

My dedication is to correct obvious mistakes and lies. Better treatments replace bad ones, and worthless treatments should just be discarded. Thinking that vaccines (that you again failed to prove would be more economically worth than treatments) are a reason to suppress a cheap drug is nonsense, first because cheap and effective drugs are being used, second because even with a very good treatment some people still would prefer or need a vaccine (anybody with a heart condition would not be able to be on HCQ anyway) and thrid because vaccines are not even indispensable, they are very good measure, much cheaper and risk free than what we currently are using in their place, but not the only thing. Billions are being used to develop or re-discover things that could make the pandemic as risky as a flu, and eventually we will develop herd immunity even without a vaccine.

The important thing is not to blindly persist on a belief just because you like it, specially one where you need all the professionals in medicine to be either money focused monsters or too dumb to breath on their own in order to work out.

6 months of phase III clinical trials are not a rush, vaccines used today have been put on the market with that.

2 ( +4 / -2 )

And why are some governments banning HCQ? If it doesn't work, like some are claiming, there should be no need to ban it because doctors would not be prescribing an ineffective drug.

Because even if the medical field in general is very good at interpreting science and scientific results, individually there are always people that don't. Doctors with good intentions but too full of themselves to let objective data get in the way of "in my experience..." or that are desperate enough to try anything, even something that has been proved useless because it may be that for "this" patient it may work. Most doctors would not prescribe a drug shown not to work, but some do, and for those people is why a ban is necessary.

If that's the case, why are some governments banning it, and others are not? Are they getting different information? The Walter and Eliza Hill Institute has a good name for medical research. Is this a case of them being too full of themselves or being desperate?

My dedication is to correct obvious mistakes and lies. Better treatments replace bad ones, and worthless treatments should just be discarded.

I don't doubt that. But you're not looking beyond the tunnel of your own expertise to what is going on - you're missing the bigger picture that extends past the mere medical dimension of this event. Forest, trees and all that.

-4 ( +1 / -5 )

I am not the one that tested HCQ but the entire medical professional field. Trusting someone that can be proved wrong instead of the huge consensus is also an irrational thing.

Whenever we show you proof that HCQ is beneficial, you first simply reject it, then make some faulty calculations to support your case, and when we demonstrate that your calculations are wrong, you come up with the usual but but but consensus. Strange that you're not that picky when it comes to proving vaccine safety, to you vaccines are perfectly fine long before clinical trials are completed.

-4 ( +1 / -5 )

If that's the case, why are some governments banning it, and others are not? Are they getting different information?

I don't know, because some countries educate better their doctors so the bad apples are less? because internal rules about ethical treatment of patients are enough? because they make frequent information meetings so nobody has the excuse of not knowing? Countries many times do not ban something when there is no need for banning.

The Walter and Eliza Hill Institute has a good name for medical research. Is this a case of them being too full of themselves or being desperate?

No, they are doing research, there is a huge difference between having research as the primary objective so the ethical justifications have to be weighted and another very different is to go against the scientific consensus for the purpose of treating the patients with something mistakenly believed to be effective when it is not, with increasing the data for study being a very secondary (if any) objective.

It is a good thing that you are now making questions about something that you apparently ignore so much, it is an improvement from assuming whatever vague idea you had about it must be correct.

I don't doubt that. But you're not looking beyond the tunnel of your own expertise to what is going on - you're missing the bigger picture that extends past the mere medical dimension of this event. Forest, trees and all that.

I am looking at the expertise of the professionals that deal with each topic, epidemiologists that deal with the spreading of the disease, virologists that deal with changes of the virus, immunologists that deal with the response against the infection to see if it is going to be long lasted, statisticians that are used to analyze biases on reports and the proper ways to interpret information published to see if the result are significant or not.

Against that you want others to believe in a conspiracy for which you have no proof, that is not necessary and that is illogical because it depends on all the professionals of the world to be completely inept to do their work or monsters that only care about money.

That is not seeing the forest, that is saying it is a tropical jungle even when everybody can see its a boreal forest made completely from pine trees. You want people to believe things in spite of the evidence, not to see the whole picture.

2 ( +4 / -2 )

Whenever we show you proof that HCQ is beneficial, you first simply reject it,

With perfectly valid reasons, which is what should be done, you on the contrary want people to accept anything you want to present, even if it can be easily rejected

then make some faulty calculations to support your case, and when we demonstrate that your calculations are wrong,

You never demonstrated that any calculations were wrong, the opposite, I proved that you idea about them were wrong and you just kept silent. The same as your accusation that they were being investigated for malpractice, also mistaken. Even that part where you triumphally said no vaccine for covid were ever for doses on the microgram scale, to be proved wrong with a minute of google.

Anyway, you try to can do it here, what was wrong? in which way? what would have been correct? You would have to read the reports yourself to do that so I am not expecting much but you can try.

you come up with the usual but but but consensus. Strange that you're not that picky when it comes to proving vaccine safety, to you vaccines are perfectly fine long before clinical trials are completed.

You know why is that? because vaccine safety and efficacy is also part of the consensus. I have never said that vaccines are fine without clinical trials, every single time I have said that vaccines CAN perfectly end up being fine after it, in direct contradiction with your uninformed opinion that vaccines by default can only be ineffective and dangerous no matter what.

Can you provide a quote from me saying vaccines ARE fine before trials?

2 ( +4 / -2 )

Against that you want others to believe in a conspiracy for which you have no proof, that is not necessary and that is illogical because it depends on all the professionals of the world to be completely inept to do their work or monsters that only care about money. 

That is not seeing the forest, that is saying it is a tropical jungle even when everybody can see its a boreal forest made completely from pine trees. You want people to believe things in spite of the evidence, not to see the whole picture.

No, you're looking exclusively at the medical side of things and completely ignoring the political/socio-economic context. And you see a vaccine as the only solution, not one solution of several potential ones. Do you not see politicians etc. telling us to do one thing while ignoring the same instructions themselves, and showing double standards on COVID countermeasures, depending on whether they agree with the opinions of the rule breakers?

Do you not see the economic destruction, business closures, enormous future debts incurred to pay for the welfare payouts, the disruption to distribution channels, the suppression of civil liberties, media demonisation of people who question the official narrative, high unemployment, the mental health crisis going on while we are told to wait for a vaccine that may or may not be safe and effective in the next year or two?

You might be safe and secure in your lab or PR office or wherever it is you work, but millions upon millions who are not at risk from this virus are suffering from the measures implemented by governments and bureaucracies that are far more detrimental to their lives than this virus will ever be. And what about people who can't get cancer, etc. treatment due to hospitals cutting back or out their treatments due to COVID-19-related ward closures for the flood of cases that have never eventuated? Or people who suspect they have an illness but will not go to hospital for fear of getting infected?

It's not me who's missing the bigger picture.

-2 ( +1 / -3 )

No, you're looking exclusively at the medical side of things and completely ignoring the political/socio-economic context. 

Of course not, if by the political/socio-economic side you mean the supposed conspiracy then there is no need to see it until you can prove it. What could make you take in account the possibility that pharmaceutical companies are actually investing billions so people would not vaccinate as much so they would make profits? what if it is actually a really big conspiracy so nobody has proof, but it makes really good sense so you should believe it anyway?

And you see a vaccine as the only solution, not one solution of several potential ones. 

Are you having trouble reading? I specifically said there may not even be a need for vaccine, with or without effective treatment, and that an effective treatment (like dexamethasone!!!) does not mean it will decrease the need of having a vaccine. So no, I have specifically said I do not consider vaccine the all mighty solution for everything. I know it destroys completely your strawman, but it looks terribly bad when you accuse someone of pushing for something just after they said the opposite.

Do you not see politicians etc. telling us to do one thing while ignoring the same instructions themselves, and showing double standards on COVID countermeasures, depending on whether they agree with the opinions of the rule breakers?

Irrelevant, that is not what I am defending, and that is neigher something that happens only to COVID, I criticize invalid arguments, mistakes and lies. If a politician say that they should be excepted from social distancing measures because they are fine I would also criticize this because is wrong, mistaken and false.

Do you not see the economic destruction, business closures, enormous future debts incurred to pay for the welfare payouts, the disruption to distribution channels, the suppression of civil liberties, media demonisation of people who question the official narrative, high unemployment, the mental health crisis going on while we are told to wait for a vaccine that may or may not be safe and effective in the next year or two?

That does absolutely nothing to prove what you want to defend. Everything could be worse, or solve completely tomorrow and HCQ would still be demonstrably worthless for COVID-19, there is not a single vaccine candidate in the pipeline, there are literally over a hundred candidates. Thinking one may be the exception to the rule that getting to phase III is a very good indicator of safety and efficacy when on the market may not be particularly bad (there are such exceptions, even if rare) but thinking all of them have to fail so no vaccine can be developed for next year is simply irrational. As irrational as thinking all the problems of the world relate to the efforts to produce a vaccine (that we don't even know how necessary will be).

You might be safe and secure in your lab or PR office or wherever it is you work, but millions upon millions who are not at risk from this virus are suffering from the measures implemented by governments and bureaucracies that are far more detrimental to their lives than this virus will ever be. 

Sure, do your best on proving that those people are not at risk AND that they do not put vulnerable population at risk as it happened when proper measures were not in place. But you have to put a much better effort than when you try to prove HCQ is effective based on outdated science and low quality studies that have already been contradicted by better science.

Also, it would be good if nobody finds an example like dexamethasone that proves all your theories wrong and that you have to pretend not being able to read just to persist in your beliefs on the conspiracy.

And what about people who can't get cancer, etc. treatment due to hospitals cutting back or out their treatments due to COVID-19-related ward closures for the flood of cases that have never eventuated? Or people who suspect they have an illness but will not go to hospital for fear of getting infected?

What about it, education is a perfectly good measure against fear, and how many patients have been not treated for the close of wards that remain empty? I do not know of even a single hospital where that is happening. (I do know of displacement because the hospitals were full of covid patients, which is obviously the contrary of what you are saying).

It's not me who's missing the bigger picture.

You are missing the big, the medium and the small picture, since you want to frame every single problem you can find in a supposed conspiracy that can be proved wrong with a single word (that begins with D!) and for which you have no proof and can not make it even logical or rational enough.

Of course the world have a huge lot of problems right now, that is what a dangerous pandemic does, but trying to force everything as a well orchestrated conspiracy to hide effective drugs (except when not) just to supposedly support some vaccine that would make a tiny fraction of the money spended (since you have to bribe the whole medical and scientific professional world) is what makes all your views distorted.

If you cannot accept (or even acknowledge to read) any reason that proves the conspiracy wrong, and you depend on forcing anybody against that fantasy into imaginary positions (like vaccines as the panacea that solves the world, something only you have said) you are no longer seeing reality.

0 ( +2 / -2 )

there are plenty of activities to keep up strength during covid that don't require a gym.

I agree. But the only replacement for a heavy squat is a heavy squat.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

Login to leave a comment

Facebook users

Use your Facebook account to login or register with JapanToday. By doing so, you will also receive an email inviting you to receive our news alerts.

Facebook Connect

Login with your JapanToday account

User registration

Articles, Offers & Useful Resources

A mix of what's trending on our other sites