How low can they go?

[SkepticThinker]

Sorry - I misread who I was responding to.

No worries. Cheers!

 

[Truth in love]

I hope so.

So Doctors honoring their oath are punished for putting lives over big pharmas profits and your good with that?

 

[Truth in love]

Funny that it is only the politicians saying that.

Did you not follow the doctors being threatened and silenced for treating covid?

 

[Truth in love]

If you think that politics has more value in medical decisions than science -- well, yes, then I would certainly question your intelligence.

I don't think it should, but clearly it does.

 

[The Hammer]

So Doctors honoring their oath are punished for putting lives over big pharmas profits and your good with that?

That's always been the case, as has been pointed out by other posters.

Push dangerous and/or unfounded "cures", you lose your license.

 

[Truth in love]

What on earth are you talking about?

Never mind, but ...

... out of curiosity (or, in this case, just for laughs) how would you curate credible information? ​

Mostly by finding studies that have good methods.

 

[The Hammer]

Did you not follow the doctors being threatened and silenced for treating covid?

Treating it with unproven and dangerous methods, sure, I followed those.

 

[Truth in love]

The topic: if medical doctors spread misinformation, they should be disciplined. Potentially, they could have their license to practice removed.

This doesn't only apply to covid. It does (and should) apply to ALL medical information.

And, of course, it is the medical boards that determine what is and what is not misinformation. Again, as it should be.

Why this is controversial at all is beyond me.

We have medical boards that have liked and disliked options that are no consistent with the evidence of effective treatment.

In short a bureaucrat not your doctor will make life and death decisions for you. Is that what you want?

 

[Truth in love]

That's always even the case, as has been pointed out by other posters.

Push dangerous and/or unfounded "cures", you lose your license.

Meds approved for decades and that are over the counter in many parts of the world that were shown to work well to treat covid and you are calling dangerous and unfounded

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

So Doctors honoring their oath are punished for putting lives over big pharmas profits and your good with that?

COVID-denialist and anti-vax doctors are violating their oath, not honouring it.

 

[Truth in love]

Treating it with unproven and dangerous methods, sure, I followed those.

They worked, lives were saved. How is this bad?

 

[The Hammer]

Meds approved for decades and that are over the counter in many parts of the world that were shown to work well to treat covid and you are calling dangerous and unfounded

Approved for a particular disease, or parasite.

Not for a brand new emerging disease.

They were not shown to be effective for treatment of COVID. Specifically referring to Hydroxychloro, and Ivermectin.

 

[The Hammer]

They worked, lives were saved. How is this bad?

They didn't prove to save lives at all.

"The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has not approved the use of either hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) or ivermectin for treating or preventing COVID-19 in humans. Both drugs are FDA approved for other diseases and can be taken safely as directed by a doctor. Neither drug is an anti-viral medication."

 

[The Hammer]

They worked, lives were saved. How is this bad?

Not effective, more harm then good.

Is chloroquine or hydroxychloroquine useful in treating people with COVID-19, or in preventing infection in people who have been exposed to the virus?

Hydroxychloroquine does not benefit adults hospitalized with COVID-19

 

[The Hammer]

They worked, lives were saved. How is this bad?

"A large collaboration of clinical trialists working on ivermectin treatment for Covid-19 has conducted a meta-analysis of trials and has concluded that ivermectin did not offer a treatment benefit when trials that were considered to be of moderate or better quality were examined."

https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.10...n of clinical,or better quality were examined.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

They worked, lives were saved. How is this bad?

It's bad because they didn't work and lives were lost.

You've been duped.

 

[Truth in love]

Approved for a particular disease, or parasite.

Not for a brand new emerging disease.

They were not shown to be effective for treatment of COVID. Specifically referring to Hydroxychloro, and Ivermectin.

You got the meds right, but they worked very well (https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.03.26.21254377v1.full.pdf)

 

[Truth in love]

They didn't prove to save lives at all.

"The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has not approved the use of either hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) or ivermectin for treating or preventing COVID-19 in humans. Both drugs are FDA approved for other diseases and can be taken safely as directed by a doctor. Neither drug is an anti-viral medication."

They worked all over the world, but the CDC and FDA don't think they work in the USA.

But, the pinnies per pill vs. hundreds per shot has no baring on that decision at all right?

 

[The Hammer]

You got the meds right, but they worked very well (https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.03.26.21254377v1.full.pdf)

Again, a meta analysis of many studies including this one. Proved the exact opposite.

Meta analysis trumps one research paper every time.

 

[The Hammer]

But, the pinnies per pill vs. hundreds per shot has no baring on that decision at all right?

Lol. The shots were free for everyone in the US that wanted one. No cost, no insurance, nothing needed but show to show up for it.

Certainly it wasn't about money.