[ / / / / / / / / / / / / / ] [ dir / random / hentai / in / k / mde / miku / noblium / s / wx ][Options][ watchlist ]

/qresearch/ - Q Research

Research and discussion about Q's crumbs
You can now write text to your AI-generated image at https://aiproto.com It is currently free to use for Proto members.
Name
Email
Subject
Comment *
File
Select/drop/paste files here
Password (Randomized for file and post deletion; you may also set your own.)
Archive
* = required field[▶ Show post options & limits]
Confused? See the FAQ.
Expand all images

Welcome Page | Index | Archive | Voat Subverse | Poal Sub | Q Posts | Notables | Q Proofs
Q's Board: /projectdcomms/ | Bakers Board: /Comms/ | Legacy Boards: /CBTS/ /TheStorm/ /GreatAwakening/ | Politics News & Debate: /pnd/

File (hide): b617d1f86083b5d⋯.jpg (20.28 KB, 474x266, 237:133, hydroxychloroquine.jpg) (h) (u)

[–]

ea6cb3 (1)  No.9289519[Watch Thread][Show All Posts]

New study reports increased deaths when hydroxychloroquine is taken.

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

I assume, this happens when people have a G6PD deficiency. In this case, Hydroxychloroquine can be dangerous.

G6PD deficiency is common on malaria areas. It protects people from getting sick with malaria. So normally such people would not need Hydroxychloroquine.

If, however, they receive Hydroxychloroquine to cure or prevent Covid-19, they can develop shortness of breath and embolisms.

Read more: https://t.me/Angela_aus_Bayern/32

And more: https://multipolar-magazin.de/artikel/covid-19-a-case-for-medical-detectives

____________________________
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

516d5c (3)  No.9309753>>9309758

As a rule of thumb, scientists hide data they don't want you to see in the Appendix or Supplemental aspect of a study.

Scroll all the way down on the Lancet study and look for the Supplementary .pdf.

If you look at the Supplementary Tables, it shows that the study is completely slanted in terms of where it got its data from. That's a bit of a problem if you're looking at how HCQ therapies affect human beings in general, versus a mostly European-descended North American population. Sampling (who they pick and from where) is usually a way that people manipulate studies to get the results that they want to get, without respect for the facts.

If you look at the next page, the average patient age is 53.8 years, you're much more likely to have preexisting conditions at that age. So, that's not good…

Then, 66.9% of people were White in the study. This is a problem for several reasons. First, drugs don't affect people of different races the same. There are racial differences in biology, from disease predispositions (e.g. sicle-cell anemia) to BMI averages, and so on. So, slanting the study towards that many White people is not a good start. The other issue is that it's very possible that those 66.9% of people aren't really even White. Most of the data came from North America and there is a lot of mixing in the US, in particular. So, this division is somewhere between problematic and a crap shoot.

Now, comes the problem of sex. Women are typically more than 50% of the population (partly because the male lifespan is shorter), but they're 46.3% of the patients? That actually goes along with the study I read elsewhere about men being more affected by the virus. There are many reasons for this. But, if you go back to the Lancet page with the study, it claims: "After controlling for multiple confounding factors (age, sex, race or ethnicity…" -- How did they 'control' for these things? This is a huge problem right here, though it might not seem that way. How they 'control' for age, sex, race, ethnicity, etc., can slant the data in one direction or another. When you factor in the issue of P.C. culture being rampant in science these days, the question arises: Did they treat males/females and different races/ethnicities the same? This would be a serious problem because not only have I read studies showing that males are more affected by the virus, I've read studies that found that people of certain ethnicities (e.g. Asian descent) were more affected by the virus. Virus vulnerability can be related to cell structure, which can be genetic, which is related to ethnicity. So, treating all races/ethnicities as if they're the same would be a serious problem.

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

516d5c (3)  No.9309758>>9309868

>>9309753

Now come the other charts which, for whatever reason (*cough* P.C. culture *cough*) have listed "female" but not "male." So, you have page after page of "female" statistics, but no specific male statistics. Sure, you could probably do the math yourself and figure things out. But, this comes across as pretty biased and ridiculous from a scientific standpoint. (At this point, I'm just amazed they didn't write this out in crayon.)

Finally, if that's not enough to draw into question this glorified shit sandwich, there's some serious slanting across the percentages in terms of how many patients took each treatment. Refer back to my initial comment on sample size. Those who used Chloroquine alone in North America 1.7% of patients, those who used HCQ alone was 3.4% of patients. To give you an idea of how badly that could skew things, what if I took 3% of the state of California, but just from the San Fransisco area. I then asked all these people: "Are you gay/lesbian/bisexual?" Let's say that 30% of people replied "yes." If I extrapolated using that tiny sample of data, I might think that around 30% of the US was gay/lesbian/bisexual. (It's not.) Small numbers like this are a serious problem when trying to determine the actual statistics because they misrepresent the population at large. Look at pg. 5 of the Supplementary .pdf in particular. The percentages for HCQ, CQ, HCQ+macrolide, CQ+macrolide are very, very small compared to antiviral therapy use.

I wouldn't line a bird cage with this paper. It's very slanted, leaving out a line for the male sex was insane and unscientific, the sample sizes were too small, and the representative populations were horribly skewed towards North America. They just wanted to badmouth this treatment and it's damned obvious.

Next time, go straight to the Supplementary or Appendix after reading the Abstract. They hide their dirt there and it'll save you the time of reading through their bullshit to just go straight there and see if something looks off. I mean, the fact that they left off a male section in the table, that alone is crazy. I did see a male section in the study itself, but like I said, they hide shit in the Supplementary/Appendix. When they only decided to list females there, it showed their bias. They count on people not reading these things. So, make a point of reading them. They reveal who they are in them.

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

516d5c (3)  No.9309868

>>9309758

Here's a great study that compares the results of 443 different studies. It found that HCQ had a lot of positive effects and even recommended it for use for heart health: https://ard.bmj.com/content/77/10/e65

I'll post some quotes because the article is not available for free at the link above:

"We retrieved a total of 443 articles. In addition, we searched for abstracts from the European League Against Rheumatism and the American College of Rheumatology meetings between 2009 and 2016." (pg. 1)

"Our study results provide information that reinforces the conclusions of Rempenault et al that HCQ leads to an improvement in the cardiovascular risk profile in RA (15 studies). This beneficial effect of HCQ on lipid or glycaemic profiles seems to also exist in patients with lupus (14 studies) or other conditions (diabetes: three studies; obese non-diabetic patients:

two studies; and Sjögren syndrome: one study). These interesting effects suggest there are other indications for HCQ use, including the prevention of recurrent cardiovascular events in patients with myocardial infarction, coronary artery disease or pre-eclampsia. Whatever the disease, HCQ treatment is associated with an improved cardiovascular risk profile. As in

lupus, patients with RA should consider systematic treatment with HCQ." (pg. 1)

Source: Cardiovascular effects of hydroxychloroquine: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.



[Return][Go to top][Catalog][Screencap][Nerve Center][Random][Update] ( Scroll to new posts) ( Auto) 5
3 replies | 0 images | 2 UIDs | Page ?
[Post a Reply]
[ / / / / / / / / / / / / / ] [ dir / random / hentai / in / k / mde / miku / noblium / s / wx ][ watchlist ]