COVID-19: The conspiracy related remedies proven not to work!

Discussion in 'Coronavirus (COVID-19) News' started by Betamax101, Nov 12, 2024.

PF does not allow misinformation. However, please note that posts could occasionally contain content in violation of our policies prior to our staff intervening. We urge you to seek reliable alternate sources to verify information you read in this forum.

  1. AFM

    AFM Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Dec 15, 2014
    Messages:
    41,438
    Likes Received:
    10,995
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Your mistake is your belief that everything requires an RCT. This is the same mistake that Fauci makes. The development of penicillin for example was based on observation and implementation. Likewise the protocols. It is actually unethical to conduct an RCT on any of the protocols (which have demonstrated effectiveness) because a placebo would be given to a sick person. Surely you understand this.
     
    Last edited: Dec 11, 2024
  2. MuchAdo

    MuchAdo Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2022
    Messages:
    2,214
    Likes Received:
    1,206
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Female
    I think you should at least try to understand that billions of patients who were sick with covid went to their doctor and were successfully treated with various medications that targeted specific symptoms without the protocol devised by Fareed. Doctors will prescribe or suggest treatments that are designed to relieve whatever symptoms a patient requires medication for. Not every person will require the same treatment for covid. A good doctor is not going to prescribe a cocktail of many different medications which may or may not work unless many different medications are warranted. Why prescribe antibiotics as part of a protocol, when a person has no bacterial infections? Why prescribe a medication for parasites when the infection is viral? Why prescribe Vitamin D3 when the patient doesn’t have a vitamin deficiency. If a person has compromised breathing, that will be treated immediately with O2 therapy, bronchodilators, corticosteroids, etc etc based on severity. Generally, if a person requires hospitalization from covid they are given medications that target their most serious symptoms, not some protocol of medications that won’t relieve any serious symptoms.

    You seem to have some belief that Dr. Fareed had some magical protocol that saved thousands of people. These people would have gotten better without his protocol as did billions around the world. No doctor is going to prescribe an untested protocol when they have an array of clinically proven medications that have gone through phase 3 trials to treat the most serious symptoms of covid that people might progress to — like trouble breathing, chest pain, severe weakness or fatigue, severe cough, and high fever.

    Variables that had an effect on covid outcomes were age, the presence of underlying health conditions that increased the risk of progression to severe covid, a compromised weakened immune system, genetic factors that influenced response to the virus, and lifestyle factors that have a negative effect on health. Dr FruitLoop’s protocol couldn’t have any effect on those variables. When covid progresses to severe symptoms, the severe symptoms were treated with appropriate medications for the symptoms. The best prevention for covid is to be young and healthy.

    Patients have shown significant benefits when they have received: antiviral medications like Remdesivir and Paxlovid; corticosteroids like dexamethasone; interleukin-6 receptor antagonists; Janus Kinase Inhibitors like Baricitinib

    The protocol by Fareed was not suppressed because it was never tested. By now, since the medications in the protocol are known, if there was any interest in having some clinical trials, there would have been clinical trials. Doctors around the world are not simply going to start prescribing a protocol just because some doctor in the USA has claimed, without any clinical trials, that it is effective. It’s just not done. It’s not ‘suppression’. It’s called practicing evidence-based medicine.

    Fareed’s protocol was never researched via RCT’s.

    Doctors have an ethical obligation to provide treatments that are safe and effective, based on the best available evidence. Prescribing an untested or unproven treatment could potentially cause harm and give patients false hope. Doctors should respect patient autonomy and provide clear, evidence-based information about the risks and benefits of any treatment. If a patient requests an unproven treatment, the doctor should explain why it isn't recommended and offer alternative, evidence-based options.
     
  3. AFM

    AFM Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Dec 15, 2014
    Messages:
    41,438
    Likes Received:
    10,995
    Trophy Points:
    113
    RCT’s on protocols showing effectiveness are unethical.

    The overall case fatality rate for covid is ~ 1%. The case fatality rate for Tyson and Fareed is ~ 0.04%.
     
    Last edited: Dec 11, 2024
  4. Betamax101

    Betamax101 Banned

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2011
    Messages:
    7,527
    Likes Received:
    1,422
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Nope. They have volunteers.

    Depending on the country in question.
    Nope. That's fake.
     
  5. AFM

    AFM Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Dec 15, 2014
    Messages:
    41,438
    Likes Received:
    10,995
    Trophy Points:
    113
    It’s unethical for those administrating the test to accept volunteers to risk their health by giving them a placebo.
     
  6. MuchAdo

    MuchAdo Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2022
    Messages:
    2,214
    Likes Received:
    1,206
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Female
    Fareed could have avoided any ethical issues by doing an active-controlled trial. This would be when his protocol is compared to an existing standard treatment rather than a placebo. He didn’t do any trials so any fatality rate is based on anecdotal evidence, therefore meaningless.
     
  7. AFM

    AFM Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Dec 15, 2014
    Messages:
    41,438
    Likes Received:
    10,995
    Trophy Points:
    113
    All the doctors practiced medicine and saved lives just and saved lives. Living people are not anecdotes.
     
  8. Betamax101

    Betamax101 Banned

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2011
    Messages:
    7,527
    Likes Received:
    1,422
    Trophy Points:
    113
    This repeated spamming of the same points without citations is a feeble effort.
    Still nope. Repeating this and failing to provide any tests, nobody is surprised!

    You have claimed to have provided evidence for such tests "multiple times", but now, to do so is frickin' unethical? Foot shooting at its finest.
     
  9. AFM

    AFM Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Dec 15, 2014
    Messages:
    41,438
    Likes Received:
    10,995
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Repeating the truth is not spamming.
     
  10. Betamax101

    Betamax101 Banned

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2011
    Messages:
    7,527
    Likes Received:
    1,422
    Trophy Points:
    113
    What's that got to do with your spamming?
    Cite some evidence for EVERY SINGLE PERSON viewing this. You have proven the OP with your evasion.
     
    Last edited: Dec 11, 2024
  11. AFM

    AFM Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Dec 15, 2014
    Messages:
    41,438
    Likes Received:
    10,995
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Posted previously.
     
  12. MuchAdo

    MuchAdo Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2022
    Messages:
    2,214
    Likes Received:
    1,206
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Female
    I wonder why it would be “unethical” to test the quacktail using test vs placebo groups. There have been no complaints about that related to the phase 3 vaccine trials. They test most meds using placebo groups. People who volunteer for these trials are totally aware that they might receive a placebo. It would be unethical not to get informed consent where the subject agrees that they accept they might be getting the placebo. It wouldn’t be unethical to test the covid protocol using test vs placebo groups as getting the placebo would unlikely make a difference. If a test subject starts developing severe symptoms of covid, the person would be removed from the trial and would get treatment according to their severe symptoms. Patient safety always is the priority in clinical trials. So stating that testing the protocol using a RCT is “unethical” is an absolutely pathetic moving of the goal posts. First it was “ suppression”, now it’s “unethical”. I wonder what the next excuse for Fareed’s quackitudinous behaviour will be.
     
  13. AFM

    AFM Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Dec 15, 2014
    Messages:
    41,438
    Likes Received:
    10,995
    Trophy Points:
    113
    You don’t understand this?

    Because the protocols have been shown to be effective in treating covid especially in the early viral replication stage. To do a double blind test would require giving sick people a placebo which in effect denies them treatment. This is unethical. And this is the reason that the protocols were not tested.
     
    Last edited: Dec 11, 2024
  14. Betamax101

    Betamax101 Banned

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2011
    Messages:
    7,527
    Likes Received:
    1,422
    Trophy Points:
    113
    False, your next paragraph shows that YOU do not understand this
    I suggest you google circular reasoning.
    No it's called putting the horse before the cart, not the daft way around.
    Unethical is quackery that hands out expensive quack medicines, none of which work as intended, billing the people that it is given to, but never testing it! Science takes each ingredient and assesses its efficacy. Denial is denying such tests. All ingredients of the quacktail were tested, none of them work. So synergy is useless and so is potentiation.
    Tada! Finally, we have the admission. The quacktail was not tested! All ingredients useless and quack doctors making loads of money and falsifying their results.
     
    Last edited: Dec 12, 2024
  15. AFM

    AFM Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Dec 15, 2014
    Messages:
    41,438
    Likes Received:
    10,995
    Trophy Points:
    113
    The protocols were used to successfully treat tens of thousands of people sick with covid.

    You seem to think it would be ethical to do a RCT on people with serious wound infections by giving half of them penicillin and half of them a placebo? Penicillin and the protocols have been proven to successfully treat infected individuals.
     
  16. MuchAdo

    MuchAdo Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2022
    Messages:
    2,214
    Likes Received:
    1,206
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Female
    The protocols were not shown to be effective in the early viral replication stage. How many times does it have to be repeated to you that nothing in the protocol, at the doses given, would have had any antiviral effects? Early laboratory studies suggested that hydroxychloroquine had potential antiviral effects against SARS-CoV-2, but multiple RCT’s showed no benefit in reducing disease progression. There were also some concerns related to cardiac toxicity. Early laboratory studies showed that ivermectin had antiviral activity in vitro (in cell cultures) but at concentrations far higher than what is safely achievable in humans. High quality RCTS found no significant clinical benefit in early-stage covid-19.

    You keep mentioning ethics. It is unethical for a doctor to make claims about efficacy when there have been no clinical trials comparing the actual protocol to a placebo protocol or a protocol using actual clinically proven drugs.

    Do you not understand why it is not considered unethical to run RCT’s using people who are ill with some illness? You might believe it is unethical but your opinion is not based on anything but your own beliefs. Take cancer as an example.

    In an RCT with cancer patients: (attribute reasons below to ChatGTP
    The above is the approach taken with all RCT’s that involve testing a medication on ill people.

    Your belief related to not running an RCT of Fareed’s protocol because it is unethical is absolutely wrong. Hopefully, now you can understand why. By the way, are you in direct contact with Fareed and have direct knowledge why his protocol was not tested via RCT or are you just making things up? There are no reasons why he didn’t test the protocol anywhere online.

    One can speculate why Dr Fruitloop didn’t do any trials related to his off-label treatment protocol.

    1. Resource Constraints — it was too expensive.
    2. Time Sensitivity — during the pandemic, he didn’t have time.
    3. Focus on Clinical Experience — he erroneously believed that observational data was good enough.
    4. Regulatory and Bureaucratic Barriers — he didn’t want to jump through the hoops of regulatory frameworks and approvals.
    5. Controversy Surrounding the Components — He feared he wouldn’t get funding due to some of the components of the protocol were being highly politicized and there was growing controversy.
    7. Relying on External Research — he was hoping that other researchers would conduct RCT’s on similar protocols.
    8. He is just an arrogant **** who couldn’t be arsed to do any RCT’s.

    Fareed's protocol has many issues. It is based on anecdotal reports and observational data. Observational data do not account for variables like the natural course of covid-19, demographics, or pre-existing health conditions. Most covid-19 patients recover regardless of specific interventions making it difficult to attribute recovery to the protocol. With mild to moderate cases of covid-19, the vast majority of cases resolve without any specific treatments. Components of the cocktail have been studied extensively but the results are mixed or negative when analyzed in rigorous settings. Without any RCT’s it is impossible to separate the effects of the cocktail from the natural progression of the disease. The broader medical and scientific community have concluded that the drugs in the cocktail have no substantial benefit in preventing severe disease or death in covid-19 based on current evidence. Due to that current treatment is focussed on treatments that have been proven to be clinically effective.

    In conclusion: There is no high-quality, peer-reviewed evidence to prove the COVID cocktail was effective. There are no ethical considerations related to why a RCT could not have been undertaken. While Fareed’s anecdotal reports may reflect his clinical observations, they do not meet the standards of scientific proof. Most people with mild or moderate COVID-19 recover naturally, further complicating claims about the cocktail’s effectiveness.
     
  17. Betamax101

    Betamax101 Banned

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2011
    Messages:
    7,527
    Likes Received:
    1,422
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Megaspamming your claim a dozen times won't make it suddenly true.
    What the hell! What has this crap about a serious wound got to do with the quacktail keeping people out of hospital!?
    That's just an absurd non sequitur. Penicillin is an anti-biotic successfully used to treat infection. The quacktail is something used to treat the quack doctor's shortness of money!

    The game's up - there was no testing done for this useless crappy "protocol". You've got absolutely nothing. You quoted my post and ignored what it said!

    The OP has been proven and you just admitted the quack cocktail had no testing.
     
  18. AFM

    AFM Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Dec 15, 2014
    Messages:
    41,438
    Likes Received:
    10,995
    Trophy Points:
    113
    1% vs 0.04%?
     
    Last edited: Dec 12, 2024
  19. AFM

    AFM Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Dec 15, 2014
    Messages:
    41,438
    Likes Received:
    10,995
    Trophy Points:
    113
    1% vs 0.04%?
     
  20. MuchAdo

    MuchAdo Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2022
    Messages:
    2,214
    Likes Received:
    1,206
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Female
    Oops
     
    Last edited: Dec 12, 2024
  21. MuchAdo

    MuchAdo Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2022
    Messages:
    2,214
    Likes Received:
    1,206
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Female
    The 0.04% number you keep quoting is not a representation of anything.

    Again. Fareed's protocol has many issues. It is based on anecdotal reports and observational data. Observational data do not account for variables like the natural course of covid-19, demographics, or pre-existing health conditions. Most covid-19 patients recover regardless of specific interventions making it difficult to attribute recovery to the protocol. With mild to moderate cases of covid-19, the vast majority of cases resolve without any specific treatments. Components of the cocktail have been studied extensively but the results are mixed or negative when analyzed in rigorous settings. Without any RCT’s it is impossible to separate the effects of the cocktail from the natural progression of the disease. The broader medical and scientific community have concluded that the drugs in the cocktail have no substantial benefit in preventing severe disease or death in covid-19 based on current evidence. Due to that current treatment is focussed on treatments that have been proven to be clinically effective.

    and

    In conclusion: There is no high-quality, peer-reviewed evidence to prove the COVID cocktail was effective. There are no ethical considerations related to why a RCT could not have been undertaken. While Fareed’s anecdotal reports may reflect his clinical observations, they do not meet the standards of scientific proof. Most people with mild or moderate COVID-19 recover naturally, further complicating claims about the cocktail’s effectiveness.

    Unless you can provide actual clinical trial data that demonstrates a number that represents the number of people who improved on the protocol compared to, in the same trial, the number of people who improved who didn’t receive the protocol, the 0.04% number represents anecdotal observational data which is meaningless.
     
  22. AFM

    AFM Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Dec 15, 2014
    Messages:
    41,438
    Likes Received:
    10,995
    Trophy Points:
    113
    It’s very meaningful especially to those who were saved.
     
  23. AFM

    AFM Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Dec 15, 2014
    Messages:
    41,438
    Likes Received:
    10,995
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Data from thousands of cases are not meaningful? That’s a ridiculous statement especially when used to suppress the availability of the treatment ehich has obviously been done to justify EUA’s for the experimental covid gene therapies.
     
    Last edited: Dec 12, 2024
  24. Betamax101

    Betamax101 Banned

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2011
    Messages:
    7,527
    Likes Received:
    1,422
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Spam, posted a dozen times. NEVER verified, not once or multiple times that you claim is true and contradictory!
     
  25. Betamax101

    Betamax101 Banned

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2011
    Messages:
    7,527
    Likes Received:
    1,422
    Trophy Points:
    113
    This!
     

Share This Page