I'm just saying that if something does indeed do nothing, wouldn't it be basically a flip of the coin to what group does better and thus there'd be just about as many studies showing the HCQ group did worse as the HCQ group doing better?Not necessarily, given as above "worse" meaning statistically significantly worse.
HCQ doesn't produce serious adverse side effects, it just may cause a headache or diarrhea mainly. The vaccines produce more adverse effects than HCQ.On the contrary, read through those papers and you find that people who took HCQ had a lot more adverse symptoms than those who didn't. They just generally weren't very serious ones. See also the linked Cochrane meta-analysis above.
I'm just saying if the studies all used the same methodology (similar initial levels and same daily dose) they would've produced similar results.I am not convinced you understand what you are even arguing against.
The following from a few posts back:??? I have no idea what you think you are referring to.
There's also no good studies showing much of these things definitely don't work. There's like the one place in Spain doing Vitamin D studies and that's it. Also, your cited Cochrane link says HCQ "probably does not reduce..."And this is what happened. Scientists and medical doctors looked at all the data they had for similar conditions, and applied them. That's why HCQ was theorised, and steroids, and people looked at vitamin D, etc. And so people looked at these hypotheticals, and some worked and some didn't. I just don't understand why you're claiming so fiercely that things that studies can't identify as working work.
Social distancing outdoors (outside of literally invading your personal space) doesn't do anything, there's plenty of statistics and science saying so. It's not a "better safe than sorry" approach when we know something. There's as much definitive / statistically significant data on masks as there are on HCQ. Why are you for masks but against HCQ when just looking at the numbers and nothing else? There's no studies showing masks yield statistically significant benefits.You argue "better safe than sorry" for masks, but then rage against social distancing outdoors. So kindly don't come at me over that.
Like I have said many times, you want to stuff vitamin D down your throat in a few thousand IUs a day, go for it. I just think we have got enough evidence to say it's very unlikely to be given you a benefit over a fraction of the dose.
I actually listen to what the doctors are saying, it's kinda why most of "my" predictions have been spot-on. I said last October (in the "when will the pandemic end" thread) no restrictions summer of next year (several states are currently getting rid of mask mandates now) and everyone was like "nah", I said that Texas opening up (in that thread) wasn't going to change much of anything and everyone else was like "everyone's gonna die", and where's those fear mongering reinfection stories, they gone. Those variant stories will soon be gone too. Please refer me to anyone else here who's had a better hit-miss ratio than me.You don't say.