Joe Ferguson forever Posted 3 hours ago Posted 3 hours ago (edited) 10 minutes ago, Tenhigh said: I dont think you would really understand what I do, just consider me part of the post trade lifecycle. As for Doc, maybe he did have enough, people act like animals in this place. I hope he is doing something better with his time than embarrassing you as often as he did. Regarding the fraud you claimed, are you talking about HCQ? Ironically I just saw an article on a study that said it did moderately help prevent COVID. I can dig it up if you'd like. Yes, dig it up. I don’t believe it’s approved or in significant use to treat Covid today. Your revisionist history on our scrums shows that you are not to be trusted. Perhaps “liar” is the best nickname for you. HCQ update in layman’s terms https://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/coronavirus/in-depth/hydroxychloroquine-treatment-covid-19/art-20555331 Edited 3 hours ago by Joe Ferguson forever
Tenhigh Posted 3 hours ago Posted 3 hours ago 1 minute ago, Joe Ferguson forever said: Yes, dig it up. I don’t believe it’s approved or in significant use to treat Covid today. Your revisionist history on our scrums shows that you are not to be trusted. Perhaps “liar” is the best nickname for you. I won't call you "liar", because I believe you truly THINK that you won a lot of those arguments. But call me whatever you want. Did you decide if you'd you prefer I call you Nassar or Mengele? Either work for me. And here is the article: Hydroxychloroquine provides moderate COVID-19 prevention — Nuffield Department of Medicine https://share.google/KhjjQo76pAXXHZyiO Note that I didn't say it was approved for covid prevention, just that the study showed that it had impact. 1
Joe Ferguson forever Posted 3 hours ago Posted 3 hours ago 3 minutes ago, Tenhigh said: I won't call you "liar", because I believe you truly THINK that you won a lot of those arguments. But call me whatever you want. Did you decide if you'd you prefer I call you Nassar or Mengele? Either work for me. He’s gone without a wave. He was exposed as a fraud. I’m still here. About that hcq paper …
BillsFanNC Posted 3 hours ago Posted 3 hours ago 10 minutes ago, Tenhigh said: I won't call you "liar", because I believe you truly THINK that you won a lot of those arguments. But call me whatever you want. Did you decide if you'd you prefer I call you Nassar or Mengele? Either work for me. And here is the article: Hydroxychloroquine provides moderate COVID-19 prevention — Nuffield Department of Medicine https://share.google/KhjjQo76pAXXHZyiO Note that I didn't say it was approved for covid prevention, just that the study showed that it had impact. Does that paper have charts? Quack is very astute at interpreting chart data! 😂 1
muppy Posted 3 hours ago Posted 3 hours ago (edited) @Doc unlike most PPP posters he did also post on the football forum and also the shout box. I haven't read him for a long time. I wish him well. I tagged him in case he checks in. SUP DOC. m Edited 3 hours ago by muppy
Joe Ferguson forever Posted 3 hours ago Posted 3 hours ago 5 minutes ago, BillsFanNC said: Does that paper have charts? Quack is very astute at interpreting chart data! 😂 And you’re a molecular biologist in the same way I’m a touring PGA pro. I saw an article recently that claimed that more than 50% of gen z internet posters fabricate or exaggerate their occupation. Why is that? I guess if you’re foundering, it’s useful to live in a fantasy world. Hydroxychloroquine: https://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/coronavirus/in-depth/hydroxychloroquine-treatment-covid-19/art-20555331 I remember you being a proponent too. You were both dead wrong on this and several other medical issues.
Tenhigh Posted 3 hours ago Posted 3 hours ago 17 minutes ago, Joe Ferguson forever said: He’s gone without a wave. He was exposed as a fraud. I’m still here. About that hcq paper … I hope nothing bad happened to him. What about the article? Here it is again: Hydroxychloroquine provides moderate COVID-19 prevention — Nuffield Department of Medicine https://share.google/KhjjQo76pAXXHZyiO
muppy Posted 3 hours ago Posted 3 hours ago 1 hour ago, leh-nerd skin-erd said: Hi Mup, I should have said it doesn't make sense "to me". It still doesn't. The Biden DOJ executed an armed raid on Trump's house, with all the potential for adverse outcomes that entails. Even assuming you'e correct and everyone is dirty, by extension why would the Biden DOJ stop short of selectively releasing information about Trump while withholding data on themselves and others in democrat leadership? As for Jeffries looking to partner with Epstein, I'm only laying it out the way the game is played. Seems to me the best course of action would be an independent investigation lead by republicans to look into the relationship, to explore whether there was exploitation or pay for play, or if his relationship goes much deeper than that. In fact, I'd think Jeffries would want to tell his story, especially if he has nothing to hide. Which, by the way, is a story he could have already told...and maybe he did. well as usual you bring up valient points. So meaning if they are dirty enough to be listed why not be total Dirt and scrub their own names from the files and then release the dirt on Trump. maybe they just wanted it buried to protect more people on their side of the aisle. Or better yet just let sleeping dogs lie , out of sight out of mind. Bury it and hope it's Forgotten. **** I don't know your guess is as good as mine this subject holds my interest On the side of the women in all of this Right? Right. . all the political baloney you know I hate it. good talk though. thanks for thoughtful reply. 1
Tenhigh Posted 3 hours ago Posted 3 hours ago 3 minutes ago, Joe Ferguson forever said: And you’re a molecular biologist in the same way I’m a touring PGA pro. I saw an article recently that claimed that more than 50% of gen z internet posters fabricate or exaggerate their occupation. Why is that? I guess if you’re foundering, it’s useful to live in a fantasy world. Hydroxychloroquine: https://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/coronavirus/in-depth/hydroxychloroquine-treatment-covid-19/art-20555331 I remember you being a proponent too. You were both dead wrong on this and several other medical issues. Here is more: https://share.google/OgegwzWRlGtsWVEnR What do these findings mean? Although CQ or HCQ are unlikely to be used in COVID-19 prevention at this stage, they could have been deployed with benefit earlier, and they might have value in future pandemics.
leh-nerd skin-erd Posted 2 hours ago Posted 2 hours ago 27 minutes ago, muppy said: @Doc unlike most PPP posters he did also post on the football forum and also the shout box. I haven't read him for a long time. I wish him well. I tagged him in case he checks in. SUP DOC. m Agreed, Doc is a good poster. My understanding is this forum was not a priority and he moved on. You know, a while back we had a poster @OldTimeAFLGuy who I always enjoyed hearing from. My recollection is he was an older guy, and he stopped posting around/after COVID. Hope he’s ok, too.
BillsFanNC Posted 2 hours ago Posted 2 hours ago 5 minutes ago, leh-nerd skin-erd said: Agreed, Doc is a good poster. My understanding is this forum was not a priority and he moved on. You know, a while back we had a poster @OldTimeAFLGuy who I always enjoyed hearing from. My recollection is he was an older guy, and he stopped posting around/after COVID. Hope he’s ok, too. Doc took a several month hiatus within the past year, returned for a bit and now is gone again. A level headed MD and a great foil to the Quack who pollutes the cesspool with regularity. 3 1
Joe Ferguson forever Posted 2 hours ago Posted 2 hours ago 28 minutes ago, Tenhigh said: Here is more: https://share.google/OgegwzWRlGtsWVEnR What do these findings mean? Although CQ or HCQ are unlikely to be used in COVID-19 prevention at this stage, they could have been deployed with benefit earlier, and they might have value in future pandemics. lots to unpack here. A cursory review showed that the study looked at healthy patients, mortality was not an endpoint (it appears none of the study subjects died), and the sample size of positive covid tests in the population studied was extremely small (20 - 40) in arms of less than 5000 subject. They considered chloroquine and hydroxychloroquine equal. They don't cite studies to support this contention. Re sample size, the authors openly admit it was a significant limitation to the studies conclusions. Why they chose to exclude the most vulnerable and most likely to die, I have no idea. That would seem to me , the most important group to study. in the discussion, the authors made this statement: In summary, this large double-blind, placebo-controlled, trial showed that hydroxychloroquine and chloroquine prophylaxis was safe and well tolerated, and combined with data from other similar trials provided some evidence that laboratory-confirmed symptomatic COVID-19 might be reduced. The fact that it's still not approved for prophylaxis or treatment of Covid in the US, suggests that public health officials (even in the trump run CDC and FDA) did not find this study convincing. but thanks for the citation.
Joe Ferguson forever Posted 2 hours ago Posted 2 hours ago 24 minutes ago, BillsFanNC said: Doc took a several month hiatus within the past year, returned for a bit and now is gone again. A level headed MD and a great foil to the Quack who pollutes the cesspool with regularity. I have other theories. I told him it was illegal to impersonate a doc and give medical advice, he was a sock puppet account of which there are likely several here or he just got tired of being embarrassed. 2 minutes ago, BillsFanNC said: ⬆️ By all accounts! 😂 huh? It's all there in the study. You're trained to evaluate studies, right Dr Molecular biologist?
Tenhigh Posted 1 hour ago Posted 1 hour ago 43 minutes ago, Joe Ferguson forever said: lots to unpack here. A cursory review showed that the study looked at healthy patients, mortality was not an endpoint (it appears none of the study subjects died), and the sample size of positive covid tests in the population studied was extremely small (20 - 40) in arms of less than 5000 subject. They considered chloroquine and hydroxychloroquine equal. They don't cite studies to support this contention. Re sample size, the authors openly admit it was a significant limitation to the studies conclusions. Why they chose to exclude the most vulnerable and most likely to die, I have no idea. That would seem to me , the most important group to study. in the discussion, the authors made this statement: In summary, this large double-blind, placebo-controlled, trial showed that hydroxychloroquine and chloroquine prophylaxis was safe and well tolerated, and combined with data from other similar trials provided some evidence that laboratory-confirmed symptomatic COVID-19 might be reduced. The fact that it's still not approved for prophylaxis or treatment of Covid in the US, suggests that public health officials (even in the trump run CDC and FDA) did not find this study convincing. but thanks for the citation. You are welcome, but seem worked up about it, don't be, its not an argument for you to win. Here is more info though, if you want to learn; https://www.ndm.ox.ac.uk/news/hydroxychloroquine-provides-moderate-covid-19-prevention
Joe Ferguson forever Posted 1 hour ago Posted 1 hour ago 12 minutes ago, Tenhigh said: You are welcome, but seem worked up about it, don't be, its not an argument for you to win. Here is more info though, if you want to learn; https://www.ndm.ox.ac.uk/news/hydroxychloroquine-provides-moderate-covid-19-prevention this is discussing the same study I just reviewed with the same limitations. this comment is telling Professor Sir Nick White, Director of NDM's Mahidol Oxford Tropical Medicine Research Unit (MORU) in Bangkok and COPCOV study co-Principal Investigator, said: 'No drug excited as much controversy during the COVID-19 pandemic as hydroxychloroquine. It was both widely recommended and widely reviled as a preventive without enough scientific evidence for either position. While trials in hospitals showed subsequently that hydroxychloroquine was not effective in severely ill patients, its role in prevention remained uncertain, and the toxic atmosphere compromised the studies needed to find out whether it worked or not.' The severely ill are the important cohort. prevention was best achieved (orders of magnitude better than HCQ even with the most optimistic interpretation of this study) with the vaccines. I don't remember "doc" being a proponent and there are still magas here that disparage them.
Big Blitz Posted 55 minutes ago Posted 55 minutes ago Ds protecting Pedos. Stunning. What a sham this all is. 1
leh-nerd skin-erd Posted 11 minutes ago Posted 11 minutes ago 3 hours ago, JDHillFan said: Wasn’t it just a couple mos back that old Doc Fergs lifted a post from another poster (or reposted from one of his other screen names) without attribution? Seemed a deliberate attempt to deceive. 44 minutes ago, Big Blitz said: Ds protecting Pedos. Stunning. What a sham this all is. Aid. Comfort. Oy.
Recommended Posts