2874
Comments (168)
sorted by:
151
Shroudedf8 151 points ago

"Study says..."* . . . .

  • Not a real study.

Edit I have no idea what happened to the formatting. How does one put several blank lines in between sentences?

104
donald_zuramp 104 points ago

"Convincing to 'some scientists'."

I'm a scientist. I think WaPo is garbage.

52
ProphetOfKek 52 points ago

In other news: some scientists are retarded.

41
RespectMyNipples5 41 points ago

Social scientists.

22
chuckachookah 22 points ago

Good point.

WAPO loves to drop those qualifiers and let the ready jump to (incorrect) conclusions.

5
soyface_deluxe 5 points ago

PhD in sociology

5
GottliebPins 5 points ago

Political scientists.

3
EntilZha 3 points ago

Doctors (of Gender Studies) agree.

20
OmarsHijab 20 points ago

Paid off*

2
MedPede 2 points ago

93,000+ patients and ZERO of them with Zinc as part of the treatment. Either patients aren't getting Hydroxy + Zithromax +Zinc (They are, some of ours are on that treatment plan) or they intentionally omitted such patients.

19
donald_zuramp 19 points ago

It's funny because my years as a young angry liberal trained me to spot this bullshit propaganda poison phrase and others like it.

"Some people are saying"

"Anonymous sources report"

Etc. You can just go right ahead and assume they made this up.

"Studies show / scientists now think X may be effective at treating Y" In other words it also "may not" be effective.

Mainstream media is 100% agenda driven trash. I thought this even when I was a leftist, now I turn around and tell my lib friends hey liberal media is doing the exact same shit! And they tell me I'm "brainwashed" and a "conspiracy theorist".

The science is settled! The media all agrees! (applicable to any type of reporting too, not just science)

11
powershellder 11 points ago

Another trick is when the headline is a question, the answer is usually “no”.

“Did Trump collude with Russia against Hillary Clinton?”

“No.”

2
donald_zuramp 2 points ago

They put it as a question when they have zero evidence beyond circumstantial bullshit and a tall tale to sell you.

If they had evidence, the headline would simply be a statement: "Trump communicated with Putin on [date] about [topic]."

7
stanplank 7 points ago

'fears are growing' or 'calls are growing'. There's never any evidence of the claim though.

2
donald_zuramp 2 points ago

My favorite is "so and so Democrat calls for so and so's resignation" as a headline.

Could anything be less newsworthy?

4
EntilZha 4 points ago

NY Slimes and Washington Compost have poisoned the well of "confidential sources" for reporters for at least a generation.

1
deleted 1 point ago
14
kag-2020- 14 points ago

Speculation Scientists

12
Modern_Times 12 points ago

Just look at how many sign off on global warming; That should be a good indicator.

10
ProphetOfKek 10 points ago

Hard not to when your grant money depends on it. Not that that’s an excuse.

7
bovineblitz 7 points ago

Scientist here: can't really refute that statement.

6
montanapede 6 points ago

Climate scientists.

26
ClownTamer 26 points ago

Their wording of it in the article was very clever. “It’s based on retrospective analysis, not a controlled study—a method considered the gold standard of medicine.” I can see 80% of people skimming over that, and maybe even reading that, and taking the gold standard part to have a halo effect over the rest of it, as if it were referring to the study itself.

Science is really slow. There is little consensus on anything that matters as it is unfolding. There is certainly no consensus that HCQ is deadly. There isn’t even a consensus about facts at this point, like the death projections being off by hilarious orders of magnitude. “They weren’t wrong, it’s just that shit happened, like social distancing.” The fucking models already took that into account. “It just proves social distancing works.” In NY, the people that got it were usually the ones that stayed home. On and on. Which is fine. But if you’re discussing things in that manner and cannot be wrong, then you’re no longer speaking in scientific terms. The ‘science’ on this used to support the lockdown isn’t even wrong, which is the biggest insult something can receive in this situation.

13
bovineblitz 13 points ago

Science is really slow. There is little consensus on anything that matters as it is unfolding. There is certainly no consensus that HCQ is deadly. There isn’t even a consensus about facts at this point, like the death projections being off by hilarious orders of magnitude.

This is all true. Scientists aren't going to make a claim without objective studies being completed.

However, we obviously plan studies and propose them all the time based on evidence and logic. That's what grant proposals are, you're basically saying "I wanna do this which is a good idea because of x, y, and z, and I expect these results." That is an extremely normal scientific thing to do and when you talk about your proposals/ideas with people in your field you'll often find that they suggest you do things you're already planning to do. Obviously this means that there's some sort of "logical consensus".

In the case of quinine/chloroquine/hydroxychloroquine, we already know that it works because it helps transfer zinc into cells which disrupts viral replication. We already know that it works on all RNA viruses it's been tested on, including HIV. We already know that it works on covid-19 in cell culture. And obviously we already know its risk profile and that it's very safe, it's sold like aspirin in many parts of the world.

Given all that - the logical consensus is obviously that it's highly likely to be effective against all coronaviruses, including covid-19, as they're RNA viruses. Yes, we don't have the objective clinical trials to make a strong scientific statement, but there's already a solid case that it's going to be effective which is why it was immediately funded and pushed into phase 2 clinical trials nearly instantly.

5
MipMapp 5 points ago

I do a bit of speed reading on stuff, and I admit my first scan of the highlighted bit did make me think that the method used was the “gold standard”. That’s on me and I should slow down.

It’s not until I had re-read the bit after seeing your comment that I saw the spin. Very devious. If they had to include that line at all, a better way to impart the information would have been, “while this study didn’t use what is considered the ‘gold standard’ of control groups and random assignments, it did rely on retrospective data...”

But that would require the Post to be honest.

1
ClownTamer 1 point ago

Looking at it again when I checked it out after seeing it on redacted, the Post edited the article further, changing the em dash (—) to a comma before the ‘gold standard’ part. Now it looks like it says it’s the gold standard even more. The only reason to remove something like that is to decrease the emphasis on it and make everything seem more fluid. It’s definitely intentional, and the screenshot of this post proves what the original said.

On that note, redacted has a revolving door of articles now all echoing the same headlines which are all based on this one hit piece. Bad science isn’t better than no science, it’s worse.

1
MipMapp 1 point ago

I edit work professionally, and the aim is always to impart the information clearly so there’s no misinterpretation of what’s being said.

This one sentence seems like a critical detail to get right, and I’d have debated even adding the “gold standard” bit at all. Just detail the method used and leave it at that.

But I don’t expect WaPo to respect the intelligence of the audience.

9
TwoCurvedHollowFangs 9 points ago

Some. Not “majority” of scientists. I put WaPo the same place I put 99% of white papers coming out of China - trash can.

7
bovineblitz 7 points ago

I'm also a scientist. Nearly all journalistic articles reporting on scientific conclusions or opinions of scientists are complete and utter garbage.

3
Pickles 3 points ago

Science and Journalism used to be pursuits of provable truth and facts. Not anymore. Grant based research and Advertising have corrupted those industries beyond repair.

3
Rasterblath 3 points ago

Journalism had a golden age post ww2. That’s about it. Before and after it has always been mostly trash.

5
ADAM_SCHITT 5 points ago

I have my Master's in Mechanical Engineering making me a "Science Guy," and I agree.

5
someoldcoderguy 5 points ago

I think this is probably scientifically provable.

4
Aspielogic2 4 points ago

I'm not a scientist and I want to see the dosage levels from the studies that showed heart irregularity.

I have gone through about 50 chloroquine and hchloro studies and the dosages vary from:

100mg x 3 doses daily x 10 days

500mg x 2 doses daily x 6 days

The second study dose is 3000mg MORE, in less time than the first study. It was also Chloroquine (not the easier-on-the-body hydroxychloroquine), and has no mention of zinc.

There are only about 10 studies that used ZINC with the antiviral, even tho Chloroquine is a zinc ionophore (facilitator) My guess is no practicing Doctor would ever use the second study dose - because it's brutal.

3
Guruchild 3 points ago

So sick of pseudo intellectual idiots making science a popularity contest. It doesn't work that way.

34
MikesBigJockstrap 34 points ago

It's like walking up to 5 people in Silicon Valley and asking them if they like Trump, and 4 of them say no. They'll run with "80% of people dislike Trump, poll says!"

10
HockeyMom4Trump 10 points ago

I think CNN just walks up to one person with purple hair and asks, "Do you approve of Trump?"

"No"

CNN: 100 percent of people surveyed Do Not approve of Trump!

7
RabidZoo 7 points ago

Like that freak on Twitch acting like a deer after he got his 'you know what' removed and started callimg himself a her? What a waste of life.

33
TheCIASellsDrugs 33 points ago

Upon hearing the surprising results of the VA study, Dr. Raoult reviewed their findings and discovered several glaring instances of “scientific misconduct.”

The analysis of the data shows two major biases…Lymphopenia is twice as common in the HCQ groups as the non-HCQ group and there is an absolute correlation between lymphopenia and fatality rate, which is well known.”

One of the major problems Raoult found was that the HQC and the HQC/Zpak were given after the patients had been intubated. “This is unreasonable at the time of the cytokine storm [after patient is critically ill], as it is unlikely that HCQ alone would be able to control patients at this stage of the disease.”

Ingraham translates: “The later you take HCQ, the worse the outcome will be.”

https://www.redstate.com/elizabeth-vaughn/2020/04/23/french-doctor-didier-raoult-cites-flaws-scientific-misconduct-in-recent-va-study-on-hydroxychloroquine/

9
rootGoose 9 points ago

This is the real story.

Just when I think the American Left can get any worse.

5
Brucesky420 5 points ago

Oh and keep in mind twitter currently has this "study" trending at the very top of their "covid news" and trending list

The same social media site claiming to be against fake covid news, actively spreading it themselves.

If hydroxychloriquine is so dangerous, they should be happy the president is taking it. But the fact is, it isn't.

19
Long_time_lurker 19 points ago

TD uses a subset of markdown... it's weird.

Also, why did this study mix CQ and HCQ?

15
PurestEvil 15 points ago

I don't know. I drank fish tank cleaner and I ascended to become a higher being.

9
namechangearoo 9 points ago

Our your trump hating wife murdered you with fish tank cleaner and tried to blame POTUS.

3
rootGoose 3 points ago

Did the Devil hang you upside down in Hell?

6
Modern_Times 6 points ago

Because it is CQ that causes problems and they want to make HCQ look bad.

5
namechangearoo 5 points ago

And did they also take the z pack?

3
rooftoptendie 3 points ago

this is what i want to know, because supposedly its the azithro that gives the heart palpitations in some patients.

17
Long_time_lurker 17 points ago

Here's the limitations section on the paper:

Our study has several limitations. The association of decreased survival with hydroxychloroquine or chloro-quine treatment regimens should be interpreted cautiously. Due to the observational study design, we cannot exclude the possibility of unmeasured con-founding factors, although we have reassuringly noted consistency between the primary analysis and the propensity score matched analyses. Nevertheless, a cause-and-effect relationship between drug therapy and survival should not be inferred. These data do not apply to the use of any treatment regimen used in the ambulatory, out-of-hospital setting. Randomised clinical trials will be required before any conclusion can be reached regarding benefit or harm of these agents in COVID-19 patients. We also note that although we evaluated the relationship of the drug treatment regimens with the occurrence of ventricular arrhyth-mias, we did not measure QT intervals, nor did we stratify the arrhythmia pattern (such as torsade de pointes). We also did not establish if the association of increased risk of in-hospital death with use of the drug regimens is linked directly to their cardiovascular risk, nor did we conduct a drug dose-response analysis of the observed risks. Even if these limitations suggest a conservative interpretation of the findings, we believe that the absence of any observed benefit could still represent a reasonable explanation.In summary, this multinational, observational, real-world study of patients with COVID-19 requiring hospitalisation found that the use of a regimen con-taining hydroxychloroquine or chloroquine (with or without a macrolide) was associated with no evidence of benefit, but instead was associated with an increase in the risk of ventricular arrhythmias and a greater hazard for in-hospital death with COVID-19. These findings suggest that these drug regimens should not be used outside of clinical trials and urgent confirmation from randomised clinical trials is needed.

Source: https://www.thelancet.com/action/showPdf?pii=S0140-6736%2820%2931180-6

12
Watermelons 12 points ago

Retrospective studies can be valuable, but the news is twisting this. The general problem with retrospective studies is that the randomization is lost and you can't make statements on causality.

8
Grumpsterfire 8 points ago

Aaaaaaand...no zinc.

5
ChrisCharles 5 points ago

My aunt has been taking the stuff for years to treat another condition. Even Liberal Elites were taking it to treat the Covid infection but they still have to get that Trump bashing in.

2
rootGoose 2 points ago (edited)

This line...  

 

...that line.

Here is the solution: https://stackoverflow.com/a/28633712

1
deleted 1 point ago
1
deleted 1 point ago
0
QHero 0 points ago

Here are more real news: https://voat.co/v/politics/

2
EntilZha 2 points ago

I'd be careful of voat, that place is full of hardcore real racists...and no I'm not talking about the SJW "racists behind every potted plant" kind.

71
sustainable_saltmine 71 points ago

Doctors know all the side effects. It's been around since the 50s. That's why it's prescription because a doctor has to decide if it's safe for you to take given other physical conditions. But Liberal Governors are inserting themselves between doctor and patient on behalf of Big Pharma because there's no profit in an off-patent $20 drug that's been around forever when they can piss away billions in R&D to develop a new drug that costs $1000/dose because it's patented and can only be produced by one manufacturer

20
Keiichi81 20 points ago

Billions in R&D to develop a drug that does the same thing as a cheap generic drug we already have, but can be patented and sold for $1,000 per pill. Of course, the only way to make people agree with that nonsense is to convince them that the generic alternative doesn't work and will kill them if they try it. Which is why the MSM is so pissed that Trump admitted to taking it. If they actually thought HCQ was deadly and would kill him, every Democrat and MSM stooge would've been celebrating his announcement.

And Remdesivir is less effective than HCQ too, with equally bad side effects. Yet is touted by Fraudci as a "game changer" while he continually shits on and downplays HCQ.

2
FormerGraveheart 2 points ago

It is not about profit. It is about the crisis. They don't want the crisis to end: that's why they are trying to discredit this. If it was about profit, they would simply end the lockdowns.

48
Mexicola1976 48 points ago

They know that their retarded base only read the headlines.

28
pmurTJdlanoD 28 points ago

They always hide this shit in paragraphs 11-14, every single time.

13
SpezIsABundleOfTwigs 13 points ago

And then when they have to retract their shitty ass claims, which happens far more often than it should, they put it at the bottom of page 3 in small font.

Fuck the Lamestream media.

6
pmurTJdlanoD 6 points ago

Often they'll tweet it to nobody and no one notices (obviously) and they "count" that as an apology/retraction.

Top of the list is all the Pulitzers awarded for the Russia Hoax. 'Nuff said.

4
Dr_Falsey 4 points ago

But muh democracy dies in darkness...

14
TD_Covfefe_Crusader 14 points ago

Yep, can confirm. I follow a lot of Democrats on social media and they post up articles like this all the time to REEEEEEEEEEE with their friends about Orange Man. I often click the links and read the articles, where they debunk their own Fake News headline. None of the Democrat idiots ever read the article, because the headline confirms their Orange Man Bad programming, and that's all they care about.

36
ProphetOfKek 36 points ago

My daddy always said that figures don’t lie, but liars figure.

11
HostoryStartsAt1776 11 points ago

There are 3 kinds of lies: lies, damn lies, and statistics

~George Washington Carver

26
keepwinning 26 points ago

I am so confused. A death WITH COVID-19 sets COVID-19 as the CAUSE OF DEATH. Yet here is the press telling me that a death WITH hydroxychloroquine AND COVID-19 sets the cause of death as hydroxychloroquine?

Could the press be playing both sides? nah....

23
patslimmy1 23 points ago

"Some scientists." Wonder who those guys voted for.

14
stratocaster_patriot 14 points ago

Wonder if any of them are BIll Nye and Great Turdburglar.

7
ProphetOfKek 7 points ago

Probably Dr Antonio Fauccini and Dr Coonman Blackface.

19
CJBarnacle 19 points ago

This is one of the scariest cases of gaslighting by the media I have ever seen.

5
Kanye 5 points ago

Especially given how difficult it makes for us regular people to get this drug. Absolutely disgusting and there must be hell to pay. I am going to sue my local liberal rag once more positive evidence for hcq comes out

18
verycute 18 points ago

Some clever lawyer should figure out a way to make them monetarily responsible for all the people they injured or killed with the deliberate misinformation.

17
rbobjones69 17 points ago

I seem to recall just yesterday that Dr. Oz said that retrospective studies were not the best indicators

5
stratocaster_patriot 5 points ago

He may have but its a safe bet that those big words went right over the part of science's head and they just moved on

14
HockeyMom4Trump 14 points ago

What is the deal with the fear mongering over using HCQ? It's been used for years. People take it all the time.

If WuFlu is so deadly what would be the harm in using it? Oh, I know. It is cheap and they can't make $$$ off it and it would end this shutdown nonsense before the election. Got it.

12
Jefferson 12 points ago

Two other tidbits about the report: The authors are heart specialists, not researchers involved in treating influenza or antiviral medications. These guys are qualified to talk about the risk of irregular heartbeats, but not about the benefits of the drug. Their results showed an increase in deaths for those using HCQ, but drew know conclusions about how or why that occurred. So basically, numbers going to number.

Also, the word "zinc" is not mentioned in the entirety of the text of the report. These guys have no idea how treatment with HCQ works.

12
lateralus 12 points ago

The study only showed results when given to people with co-morbidities, not the benefits on otherwise healthy people, and it makes no reference to zinc, which is supposed to be critical to the treatment.

So, is the headline of the article should really be, Study shows hydroxychloroquine side effects that were previously known still exist.

3
HilarityComplex 3 points ago

And they were giving it to people who already had an increased risk of dying.. because they had an increased risk.

And the press (including Fox news) purposefully phrases the headline in a way that implies the link is due to the drug being dangerous.

When will these people start being ashamed of being Fake News?

Answer: Never.

They must be replaced.

11
ParticleCannon 11 points ago

retrospective analysis... the sheer size of the study was convincing to some scientists

Cool. Now do Global Warming.

4
ProphetOfKek 4 points ago

Oh no, now see that would be scientific heresy!

10
Scroon 10 points ago

This is the study referenced:

https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(20)31180-6/fulltext

As expected, it's bullshit. They selected the study vs control groups solely based on the status of quinine based treatment of those hospitalized. As we know, quinine is more often used for those in more severe conditions. They did not even attempt to statistically control for this fact in the study. (Not that you even could.)

2
RecycledHuman 2 points ago

As scientists, they would immediately recognize that this study would necessarily show a correlation. This is something anyone with a high school level understanding of science should recognize. I can't imagine any reason they would do this unless they were paid to show a certain result. At least they made it obvious what a load of crap it is.

9
ifoundtheidiot 9 points ago

“to some scientists” not the “a majority of scientists” or even “a significant amount of scientists”

8
scottcaver1 8 points ago

Or even " the right type of scientist."

5
ProphetOfKek 5 points ago

You mean we shouldn’t listen to the local anthropologist studying pederastic rituals in third world shitholes?

3
scottcaver1 3 points ago

I think his name is Reza Aslan.

3
stratocaster_patriot 3 points ago

Only need 2 for it to be some scientists. One wonders if these were political and social scientists.

8
BoughtByBloomberg 8 points ago

"This sloppy garbage mess of a study convinced some morons"

I love how they actually said that. They actually wrote down that whilst the study was BAD they made their numbers BIG and so some people were impressed.

8
FluManChu 8 points ago (edited)

I've been arguing with a friend all morning over this "study". It shows the group taking nothing died at a rate of 9% ... while the group taking HCQ died at 20%. So I am pointing out the obvious and saying they only gave the drugs to people that were having serious complications from the virus. Because there is no way the drug increases chance of death by that much ... other studies would have showed this because that is such an insanely large differential.

7
stratocaster_patriot 7 points ago

There is more than just fake news these days, there is also fake science. There are a lot of so-called scientists that aren't doing any real science. Look no further than all the fake studies that have been exposed over the last several years. Some just say whatever they feel like saying if everybody else is saying it.

6
LibertyZONE 6 points ago

LibertyZONE hates this fake news bullshit. If you want to have a scientific study it has to be a double blind RCT or quasi-experimental observational study. LibertyZONE has not seen such bullshit before.

5
chuckachookah 5 points ago

"Some scientists" implies many. It's maybe two and I guarantee they are both suffering from Level 6 TDS.

5
Tonightm01 5 points ago

It's not about fighting a virus anymore.

It's all about keeping control for as long as possible. Then go around the rule of law and to remove freedoms and destroy countries.

The end goal is to set of socialism inside a country that hasn't a socialist leader.

We all have been fooled. All over the world people have been fooled. Its all about control over peoples lives.

5
BillboDickens 5 points ago

"Convincing to some scientists" means convincing to some incompetent WaPo writer, no actual scientists.

5
Blacksunfun1 5 points ago

We need a purge. Also its fucking written by a Chinese journalist. Fuck this shit.

5
turdinthepunch 5 points ago

The claim was that you need the HCQ COMBO early, and they are using the results of people who just got the HCQ who have progressed to vents and also have co morbids. If you go on a vent, you have a 25% chance of coming off it, no matter what they give you. They might as well be giving them fish tank cleaner. This is bad science, politicized medicine and intellectual dishonesty by the media. They truly are the enemy of the people. Tar and feather them all.

5
ShiffsDeadHooker 5 points ago

Note that the headline says "is linked to increased risk of death in coronavirus patients". That is the ultimate in weasel words. OK, yes, taking HCQ does slightly increase your chance of developing an arrhythmia. Its side effects are well known. But it also REDUCES your chance of dying of the Chinese virus. And the chances of it helping is very much dependent on WHEN it is given (the earlier the better) and also that it is used with a compatible antibiotic (to limit complications of a lung infection) and also zinc. And THAT STUDY just never interests these hacks.

4
RandomBoomer 4 points ago

I understand the first amendment and fake news operating under its cover for political purposes but true information around this is literally LIFE and DEATH for people.

How can there be no consequences?

4
Watermelons 4 points ago

Those 'some scientists' are bad scientists.

3
DJTXLV 3 points ago

And at my fake news station, we were ordered to write up a summary of this story for the show. So our sheep viewers would lap it up.

3
fkn_lost_my_password 3 points ago

They are generally only giving it to the fucking sickest of the sick, so of course they're more likely to die. Slippery enemy of the people media cunts.

3
NeOmega 3 points ago

"sheer size of study" is now evidence the study is correct.

3
beta-detector 3 points ago

WAPO is filled up to the gills with Deep State CIA psyop operatives.

3
midgetpornrocks 3 points ago

As Levin calls it, "The Washington Compost."

3
PleaseHonk 3 points ago

This is political bias and TDS infiltrating the health field. This is not an op ed. This health headline will be believed as truth.

Just like CDC showing their political bias by instructing physicians to declare suspected & non tested patients as covid. Such coding is unprecedented, goes against science and taints the statistics upon which legislation is written.

3
VetforTrump 3 points ago

I think they present a clear and present danger to the Amerjvan publics health. When you lie like that you should be punished

3
sofa_king_smart 3 points ago

The reason patients "died' after taking Hydroxychloroquine was because of COVID (or another related illness). It is only given in extreme circumstances to patients who really are on their last leg. Nothing would have saved them at that point....

This article also makes claims about arrhythmia NOTE how no studies or other corroborating evidence is given.... This side-effect has only been observed in long-term users (not short term use for the treatment of COVID).

Their libtard audience will take this article at face value because they do not posses the critical thinking skills to question "medical studies".

...but Trump supporters are the dumb ones AMIRIGHT?!?!??

3
AllTheWayTrump 3 points ago

Convincing to some scientists with TDS

3
Zepature11 3 points ago

“Looks at highlighted text.” You’re kidding me, right? I’m no scientist, but one of the biggest things they hammer into you head in science class is the importance of control groups. These idiots make a mockery of ACTUAL scientists.

3
DestroyerofCobwebs 3 points ago

Let's assume that a COVID-19 vaccine would cost $50/dose. That's slightly more than the average cost of a flu shot. 50 x 325,000,000 is 16.25 billion dollars. Now let's assume that, like the flu shot, the COVID-19 vaccine is only good for a year, you need a new one every season.

Over the course of a decade, that is 162.5 billion dollars. 162.5 billion reasons for the pharma industry and all their allies and defenders in the media, academia, government, and medicine, to discredit and cast doubt upon any treatment that isn't a patented vaccine.

  • Numbers only for USA, since drug costs are handled differently in the rest of the world.
3
redstampede 3 points ago

I just saw the usual knuckleheads on Reddit going off on how this isn't a surprise, the medication is dangerous, etc., etc.

Honestly I don't know why the Lancet still enjoys a reputation as authoritative. They publish pseudoscientific bullshit like this all the time from "scientists" who think methodology is a type of acting.

3
Moviefone_Kramer 3 points ago

It's brainwashing, pure and simple. It's not just lying, not just misinformation. It's an enemy attempting to have people believe the opposite of reality.

3
Cosmic_Keys 3 points ago

"Science" is just partisan bullshit now, like every other aspect our lives has become since the election of President Trump.

3
TD_Covfefe_Crusader 3 points ago

The misleadia has resorted to flat out lying on a daily basis now. Publishing lies and misleading statements in their headlines, debunked in the same article, is one of their favorite propaganda mechanisms.

3
daflyboys 3 points ago

I remember Mad Magazine spoofing I think the NY Times' tag line at the time, changing it to: "All the news that fits, we print"

2
marsajane1949 2 points ago

oh ohohh ohh wait wait wait.... I thought stuff like this was just anecdotal??? That's from their own words over the last 2 months!! The Democrats and the MSM are straight up human scum!! They are the lowest form of human being on this planet and throughout this planet's history. Democrats and leftists have caused more pain and suffering on the people of this planet than any other group in history!

1
Lawless 1 point ago

Just spin to make a headline for low iq'ers

Fake news

1
MAGAlikeLINCOLN 1 point ago

BIASED SAMPLING

of course people who are already on other medication will be more likely to die!!! They probably are more likely to have a comorbidity.

The left has completely abandoned science. They don't understand economics and they don't understand statistics.

1
Snooptwo 1 point ago

Ill post it again. The entire Davis Drug Guide for hydroxychloroquine.

https://thedonald.win/p/FMEtDzvl/to-clear-up-misinformation--hydr/

1
MatthewUSA 1 point ago

Last I checked, the studies were saying it saved people. What study is this HMMMM

1
mercynurse 1 point ago

There has been no controlled double blind study that shows your breath smells bad after you eat giant cloves of raw garlic

That odor is strictly anecdotal

1
Pirate_Lafitte 1 point ago

There is no evidence the treatment and control groups were equivalent. In fact, they were likely unequal. Hydrochloroquine is still considered an experimental treatment, so the individuals who received it were likely in worse condition than those who weren't offered the treatment.

If I test positive, it is unlikely I would be administered the drug. Now, if my 80 year old grandma goes into the emergency room with Corona and pneumonia, they just might try it with her

1
The_PhDeplorable 1 point ago

"Some scientists" is equal to "anonymous sources"...

1
harrison_bergeron 1 point ago

This reminds me of the useless fucksticks at Imperial UK who said that it was okay that their "stochastic" model doesn't produce consistent results on multiple runs with the same inputs because they just averaged the results together, as if averaging random noise generated by a computer tells you a fucking thing about anything.

1
Liberty-Or-Death 1 point ago

The "journalist" needs to be beheaded on live TV for trying to kill people.

1
GottliebPins 1 point ago

People who are prescribed cancer drugs and pain medicine are more likely to die if they take only the pain medicine and not the cancer drugs. And while this study has nothing to do with proving the efficacy of the cancer drugs because it has such a large sample we can pretend it has significance and use it to discredit the drugs they didn’t actually take.

1
MrsSilenceDogood 1 point ago

Your daily reminder that Doctors practice their profession.

1
daomino 1 point ago

A medicine has negative side effects. That's a first.

1
ACuriousWingnut 1 point ago

StUdY sAYs

CoNviNcINg tO SoME ScIEnTiStS

Blah blah blah Trump bad, media good

1
goodguy 1 point ago

Jeff Bezos can go directly to the center of hell, in my opinion.

1
Ninki333 1 point ago

If media had to convince a grand jury that their best buddy was not guilty of a crime they would fail 6 ways to Sunday.

1
Breakfaststout 1 point ago

Got to love the liberals and their use of language. Apparently this has become "Vaccine Nationalism" to support viable treatment plans to save people from a deadly virus.

1
blackdeath 1 point ago (edited)

All the studies I’ve read that show hydroxychloroquine being detrimental has the drug given to patients who are on death’s door and then they’re compared to everyone else of all conditions has contracted covid. Then they retrospectively equalize everything with statistical fairy dust. So people who were going to die within 24 hours are more like to die than people who require zero treatment. What a giant fucking surprise.

1
GoldNavet 1 point ago

Pure globalist propaganda

1
YuugeNews 1 point ago

Also end stage patients (severe symptoms) so no investigation into its use as a prophylactic.

IS TRUMP ON A RESPIRATOR? I'LL ASK YOU AGAIN MOTHERFUCKER, DOES GEOTUS LOOK LIKE HE IS ON A RESPIRATOR? SAY "THIS PROVES DRUMPF WRONG" ONE MORE TIME YOU ASSHOLES, SAY IT AND REAP THE WIND...

1
PhantomShield72 1 point ago

"But the sheer size of the study was convincing to some activists." Fixed it...

1
Ironball 1 point ago

So......bullshit in other words. Out of those 96000, how many died from taking it? Not "more likely"...... but actually died. We know hundreds of thousands if not more have been saved from Wu-Flu by taking it. WAPO is discredited propaganda mill.

1
Marshall 1 point ago

In a study of 95,000 patients who have been taking Hydroxychloroquine for ten years or more at massive doses for the treatment of painful arthritis or Lupus, a few patients developed heart arrhythmia. This could theoretically lead to sudden cardiac failure. Of course the PAIN could have led to suicide as well

ps None of these patients took the Hydroxychloroquine in the doses and duration recommended for COVID-19 as a treatment or prophylactic.

Now I do not KNOW this, but it's a bet I would love to make.

1
Awake45 1 point ago

“But the sheer size was convincing to some scientists”... yeah, the ones with TDS!

1
Mrsattorney 1 point ago

Add WaPo to long list of media outlets that are passively murdering Americans by damaging the reputation of this effective drug therapy.

1
LBTrumplican 1 point ago

What is "some" scientists? 2?

1
SherlockHolmes 1 point ago

Isn't this just a correlation?

You can't prove cause and effect by looking at past records.

1
thallos 1 point ago

Even worse the study was essentially testing if larger doses had better results... The answer is no, more is not necessarily better with hcq. But the normal dose works great.

So it's really fucked up that they'd use this study this way.

1
ObongoForPrison2020 1 point ago

These people are legit retarded.

1
moto455 1 point ago

an increased RISK

ok, so not an actual increase in death itself? Just increasing the possibility? From not very possible to maybe kinda possible?

they cant even get their scare tactics right

1
deleted 1 point ago
1
winsome 1 point ago

liars

1
Gospeedrcer 1 point ago

You can spin any point you want with statistics, and therefore studies.

1
JoePCool14 1 point ago

Communist Party PR is the biggest reason we keep losing. If there was more truth and objectivity reported, things would look very different.

1
Donarudo_Taranpu 1 point ago

Besides "not a study" being quite contrary to the headline "STUDY SAYS", isn't "retrospective analysis of medical records" just a fancier way to say "cherry-picked historical data"?

1
Schifty 1 point ago

Trump in response to a question on use: "Yes, I've been taking it for a few weeks now."

"Touted" definition: attempt to sell (something), typically by pestering people in an aggressive or bold manner.

That right there is editorial misconduct folks.

1
Choppermagic 1 point ago

Has a single person ever died from taking HCQ

1
AquarianLibrarian 1 point ago

The deception is present with just reading the first lines of "People treated with HCQ or CQ" were more likely to.. blah blah blah.

I can truthfully say that "Over 98% of people in the United States die from Gun Violence or other causes." because an "or" means you can entirely ignore one of the terms in the statement. VERY misleading.

Why did they lump HCQ and CQ together? They're not the same thing. Why couldn't they just give their 'retrospective analysis' of HCQ alone? I suspect it's because not that many develop complications from HCQ alone, so they combined it with CQ deaths and tried to veil it with an OR statement.

1
Fredo_Cuomo 1 point ago

"Convincing to some scientists"

Yeah the Democrat ones

1
IntrepidBurger 1 point ago

If your statistical methods are off, it doesn't matter how many people are in the study. The margin of error will be proportional to the size of the cohort.

Lefties are too dumb to read articles though.

1
Keiichi81 1 point ago

Let's all ignore the dozen or more global studies that showed significant success in treating the Commie Cough with HCQ and instead focus on the single study with negative results whose own authors pointed out its flawed methodology.

Also, let's ignore the multiple countries currently prescribing HCQ prophylactically for WuFlu, or the fact that it's been handed out like candy in countries where malaria is common, and insist that it's actually deadly-dangerous and will absolutely kill you if taken.

1
Gmama2 1 point ago

They probably analyzed patients over 95 with 4 or more comorbidities.

Probably 100% cardiac patients, likely to have irregular rhythms.

1
RiverFenix 1 point ago

sudden cardiac death isn't even a real term either...

...decapitation induced difficulty breathing...

1
stoic_troll 1 point ago

Same bullshit they pull with 99% of climate studies. Meaningless correlations and number massaging without any experimental, empirical evidence.

1
top_eagle 1 point ago

'The study is thing a not thing b which is considered the gold standard in medicine.' Those clever little demons. How easy it would be to skim this article and think it was based on a study considered "the god standard in medicine". Punchable words.

1
PartTimeHick 1 point ago

But muh party of science

You know why I don't like new science? Close enough is good enough

1
PotentialWizard 1 point ago

If you give the drug to people already on ventilators, it ain't gonna do shite at that point. Has to be given before a person gets sick, along with zinc and supposedly azithromycin, which Trump already knows. The side effects were also well known. The media pretends to not know any of this, and purposely conflates things or leaves things out.

1
deleted 1 point ago
1
PotentialWizard 1 point ago

OK, but were they symptom-free like Trump? Or symptomatic, maybe very sick, or borderline needing ventilators? Anyway, the whole thing is a fake debate and a distraction from Obamagate. People have been taking this drug for years for other purposes. Trump's doctor signed off on the drug for off-label use, so the risk was deemed acceptable by a highly skilled medical professional. End of story.