Dear mhaze,

Back with more from the tinfoil hat brigade I see.

Which of the 4 links would you like me to click? I guarantee it will be full of holes which ever one it is but tell me the one that you consider the most robust, the one which best states your case.

I am busy at the moment but this could be a neat little diversion.

So it works with malaria ? Wasn't it intended to do just that ?

So it can prevent, or delay, the spread of Covid-19 for some people ? Then of course, if this has been tested properly, it should be widespread.

It seems that the anti-HIV vaccine also works for some people to reduce the effects of Covid-19. Maybe all anti-viral drugs work to an extent with some people.

But do you really think that health professionals - especially doctors who are on the front-line, whose colleagues are dying - haven't thought about that, armchair geniuses ?

Oops, I forget, you're so much smarter than them, in their specialised fields. Wow, we're so lucky.

Joe

If this drug is so great - why has the Food and Drug
Administration not endorsed it in the United States.
Why is the American Medical Association not backing it?
Why are only the conservative media sites like "stream.org"
"PJ media" and others the only ones supporting this sh!t?

Fake News!

Anyone watch the Trump documentary on SBS last night?

I'm surprised that mhaze hasn't quoted from Breitbart.

The fact is because Trump endorsed Hydrochloroquine that put the leftist media in opposition to its use. The left media claimed Trump advocated using household disinfectants which showed their intendant misrepresentation, fact is when a person is infected with a disease the answer is to disinfect, does not mean swallow household disinfectant.

However many trials have taken place using these drugs with limited results. http://www.covid19treatmentguidelines.nih.gov/antiviral-therapy/chloroquine-or-hydroxychloroquine/

Now lets see...

SR rejects the information I put up without ever actually reading it on the basis that if you don't want it to be true, it isn't.

LM and Foxy revert to argument from authority. If the local authorities reject it, that's good enough for them. Saves all that pesky thinking. Of course, there are lots of other authorities who don't reject HCQ but that's different because....reasons.

Foxy also reverts to her favoured shoot the messenger defence of 'I don't like the messenger therefore I reject the message"\'. Of course, the messengers in this case are merely pointing to the data, but for the Foxy's of the world, the data is wrong if the wrong people use it.

Even if these people want to reject some of the sources, I deliberately put a direct link to an actual study in my first post which they also decided to ignore, proving, if proof were needed that they aren't interested in the actual data.

Tell me again folks, how concerned you are to save lives!!

The fact remains that most of the countries with the highest case fatality rates don't use HCQ and most of the countries with the lowest CFR use it.

Dear mhaze,

You charge; “SR rejects the information I put up without ever actually reading it on the basis that if you don't want it to be true, it isn't.”

No, I know that you are normally true to form and any “evidence” you claim to put up will be rubbish, therefore the effort to wade through it all is rarely justified. You haven't quite reached Armchair Critic's level but you are giving it a good shake.

However I'm in a humorous mood so let's dip the toe in anyway.

I am going to choose your third link because it at least mentions the word evidence. Don't come sooking back as you usually do because I did offer the choice to you in the first place.

Well the first quote from an actual virologist was this one:

“Steven Hatfill, a veteran virologist, noted at RealClearPolitics that “There are now 53 studies that show positive results of hydroxychloroquine in COVID infections. There are 14 global studies that show neutral or negative results — and 10 of them were of patients in very late stages of COVID-19, where no antiviral drug can be expected to have much effect.” “

So who is Steven Hatfield?

Well leaving aside the fact he was implicated and later exonerated in an anthrax bio-terrorist act he is quite an interesting character.

So Wikipedia tells us “Hatfill was enlisted as a private in the U.S. Army from 1975 to 1977. (In 1999, he would tell a journalist during an interview that he had been a "captain in the U.S. Special forces", but in a subsequent investigation the Army stated that he had never served with the Special Forces.” 

He did his medical training in Rhodesia where “His claimed military associations during this period included assistance as a medic with the Selous Scouts and membership in the Rhodesian SAS, but according to one journalist[15] the regimental association of the latter is "adamant Hatfill never belonged to the unit".”

Cont...