The good morning thread

iu
 
Morning everyone and it's fresh this morning so have lit the cuisinière whilst making the coffee.
Our cast iron radiators came back yesterday from the powder coating company and they are stunning.
Took some getting off the truck carefully they are heavy.
Happy Hump Day :)
 
zagatoes30 said:
That is an understatement, how this man still has a political career is beyond me the depth of some peoples stupidity or gullibility leaves me speechless
Click to expand...
When the sheep were laughing at him a few years back for taking Hydroxychloroquine ................turns out the old bugger was right , and a lot of the sheep took the vaccine and a too high % of those same laughing sheep are now paying the consequences ..........for all his foibles he's a much needed important tool in the tool box to be dismissed in this crazy world we now find ourselves in IMHO
 
lozcb said:
turns out the old bugger was right
Click to expand...

No, he wasn't:

Cochrane review of the studies around the use of Hydroxychloroquine to treat COVID.

www.cochrane.org

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 reduce deaths from COVID-19, and probably does not reduce the number of people needing mechanical ventilation."
www.cochrane.org www.cochrane.org

The important bit:
Key messages

  • Hydroxychloroquine does not reduce deaths from COVID-19, and probably does not reduce the number of people needing mechanical ventilation.
  • Hydroxychloroquine caused more unwanted effects than a placebo treatment, though it did not appear to increase the number of serious unwanted effects.

End of. No cover up. No tin foil hat required. Just simply out and out wrong.

C
 
CatmanV2 said:
No, he wasn't:

Cochrane review of the studies around the use of Hydroxychloroquine to treat COVID.

www.cochrane.org

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 reduce deaths from COVID-19, and probably does not reduce the number of people needing mechanical ventilation."
www.cochrane.org www.cochrane.org

The important bit:
Key messages

  • Hydroxychloroquine does not reduce deaths from COVID-19, and probably does not reduce the number of people needing mechanical ventilation.
  • Hydroxychloroquine caused more unwanted effects than a placebo treatment, though it did not appear to increase the number of serious unwanted effects.

End of. No cover up. No tin foil hat required. Just simply out and out wrong.

C
Click to expand...
Hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) has shown efficacy against coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) in some but not all studies. We hypothesized that a systematic review would show HCQ to be effective against COVID-19, more effective when provided earlier, not associated with worsening disease and safe. We searched PubMed, Cochrane, Embase, Google Scholar and Google for all reports on HCQ as a treatment for COVID-19 patients. This included preprints and preliminary reports on larger COVID-19 studies. We examined the studies for efficacy, time of administration and safety. HCQ was found to be consistently effective against COVID-19 when provided early in the outpatient setting. It was also found to be overall effective in inpatient studies. No unbiased study found worse outcomes with HCQ use. No mortality or serious safety adverse events were found. HCQ is consistently effective against COVID-19 when provided early in the outpatient setting, it is overall effective against COVID-19, it has not produced worsening of disease and it is safe.

I'll repeat the last few words ................it is safe .............unlike and has been proven with the other vaccines that were available at the time
 
2b1ask1 said:
Morning all, more local rope repairs today.

Have fun all...
Click to expand...
Glad to see your keeping busy Newton, but begs the question if councils have money to spend on ropes and playgrounds why are they not so enthused at spending money fixing potholes which enhance the day to day driving experience of a far greater number of people , cant you get a tarmaccing contract with them ......just saying :whistle:
 
lozcb said:
Hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) has shown efficacy against coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) in some but not all studies. We hypothesized that a systematic review would show HCQ to be effective against COVID-19, more effective when provided earlier, not associated with worsening disease and safe. We searched PubMed, Cochrane, Embase, Google Scholar and Google for all reports on HCQ as a treatment for COVID-19 patients. This included preprints and preliminary reports on larger COVID-19 studies. We examined the studies for efficacy, time of administration and safety. HCQ was found to be consistently effective against COVID-19 when provided early in the outpatient setting. It was also found to be overall effective in inpatient studies. No unbiased study found worse outcomes with HCQ use. No mortality or serious safety adverse events were found. HCQ is consistently effective against COVID-19 when provided early in the outpatient setting, it is overall effective against COVID-19, it has not produced worsening of disease and it is safe.

I'll repeat the last few words ................it is safe .............unlike and has been proven with the other vaccines that were available at the time
Click to expand...

Source?

<don't worry I found it>

Hydroxychloroquine is effective, and consistently so when provided early, for COVID-19: a systematic review - PMC

Hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) has shown efficacy against coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) in some but not all studies. We hypothesized that a systematic review would show HCQ to be effective against COVID-19, more effective when provided earlier, not ...
www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov


C
 
lozcb said:
I'll leave that thought with you then :whistle:
Click to expand...

There are indeed many studies that suggest that treating people with early-stage COVID infections (mostly in an outpatient / pre-hospitalisation setting) with anti-inflammatory drugs such as Hydroxychloroquine, is quite likely to somewhat reduce the risk of hospitalisation and death. The evidence is sufficiently strong to suggest that prescription of an anti-inflammatory for vulnerable people when they get their initial diagnosis might be helpful. It looks like this is because a lot of the dangerous symptoms that a COVID infection produces are basically inflammatory in nature, and the most lethal effect seems to be due to vascular inflammation (including in the lungs), rather than the more typical respiratory impairment found in, for example, influenza. So reducing that inflammation at an early stage can reduce the severity of the disease's progression.

But there is almost no evidence to suggest that Hydroxychloroquine 'cures' COVID or is some sort of 'wonder-drug' that everyone should have been taking. The problem is that Hydroxychloroquine got widely promoted by lunatics and charlatans as some sort of 'secret' and 'miracle' cure (or prophylactic), rather than one of many drugs that were somewhat useful in treatment. And this fuelled a reaction by knowledgeable people, with medical professionals saying, 'please don't just dose yourself up with this, as it is not a cure' and also, 'please don't kill people who actually need drug this for other serious conditions, by using up all the supply'. It also helped to support a whole panoply of COVID-deniers and anti-vaccine lunatics, who undermined sensible public-health measures and the use of life-saving vaccines.

So medical evidence for Hydroxychloroquine being useful is there. But touting Hydroxychloroquine as a miracle cure probably did no good (and maybe reduced its availability for effective use by medics) and probably helped to kill hundreds of thousands of people.

​

 
lozcb said:
I'll leave that thought with you then :whistle:
Click to expand...

You'll leave a thought that an article written *before* the Cochrane review might have a different response? Especially given the quality of the data and the test methodoligy...

Probably best that you do.

You know, we used to think that lead in petrol was harmless as well.

C
 
MarkMas said:
(and maybe reduced its availability for effective use by medics) and probably helped to kill hundreds of thousands of people.
Click to expand...
IMHO Thats absolute supposition on your part , totally unfounded rubbish and supported by nothing than your distaste for Trump ..............
 
CatmanV2 said:
You know, we used to think that lead in petrol was harmless as well.
Click to expand...
Again unfounded and no grounds to support that, that im aware of, its not easy to admit in hindsight that we were all mostly taken in and misled ( myself included to a degree) selfishly and stupidly due to greed on my part I agreed to have part 1 and 2 of the vaccines to enable my travel back and forth to Africa throughout all the lockdowns , for me it was a financial decision which overrode my gut feeling which I now wholeheartedly regret.
Whats worse than that, is people who still try and continue to support the ( so called dubious science ) which lead us to where we are
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top