human chorionic gonadotropin (hCG)

@no1marauder said
??????????????????

The article you provided concerning Sahara Walker's lawsuit doesn't mention infertility.

Did you read it?

I may have posted the wrong link. Here.

https://www.organiclifestylemagazine.com/hpv-vaccine-may-be-associated-with-infertility-again?print=pdf

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/29889622/

@metal-brain said
I may have posted the wrong link. Here.

https://www.organiclifestylemagazine.com/hpv-vaccine-may-be-associated-with-infertility-again?print=pdf

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/29889622/

The article the first cite relies on has been retracted by the Journal it was published in:

"Gayle DeLong, “A lowered probability of pregnancy in females in the USA aged 25–29 who received a human papillomavirus vaccine injection,” Journal of Toxicology and Environmental Health, Part A, Volume 81, Issue 14, Pages 661-674, DOI 10.1080/15287394.2018.1477640

Following review and publication of the article, we were alerted to concerns about the scientific validity of the study. As a result, we sought advice on the methodology, analysis and interpretation from a number of experts in the field.

All of the post-publication reports we received described serious flaws in the statistical analysis and interpretation of the data in this paper, and we have therefore taken the decision to retract it."

https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/15287394.2018.1477640

The second cite is the retracted article.

@no1marauder said
The article the first cite relies on has been retracted by the Journal it was published in:

"Gayle DeLong, “A lowered probability of pregnancy in females in the USA aged 25–29 who received a human papillomavirus vaccine injection,” Journal of Toxicology and Environmental Health, Part A, Volume 81, Issue 14, Pages 661-674, DOI 10.1080/15287394.2018.1477640

Following ...[text shortened]... w.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/15287394.2018.1477640

The second cite is the retracted article.

Here is a statement from the link you provided:

"As a result, we sought advice on the methodology, analysis and interpretation from a number of experts in the field."

They sought advice from who?

"All of the post-publication reports we received described serious flaws in the statistical analysis and interpretation of the data in this paper, and we have therefore taken the decision to retract it. "

What were the alleged serious flaws in the statistical analysis?

the Lancet retracted the Hydroxychloroquine study as well. Does that mean you support the use of Hydroxychloroquine to treat Covid 19 patients now? Yes or no?

https://www.webmd.com/lung/news/20200605/lancet-retracts-hydroxychloroquine-study

@metal-brain said
Here is a statement from the link you provided:

"As a result, we sought advice on the methodology, analysis and interpretation from a number of experts in the field."

They sought advice from who?

"All of the post-publication reports we received described serious flaws in the statistical analysis and interpretation of the data in this paper, and we have therefore ...[text shortened]... now? Yes or no?

https://www.webmd.com/lung/news/20200605/lancet-retracts-hydroxychloroquine-study

What it means is that you are relying on a study found to be insufficiently reliable to be published in a reputable scientific journal.

@no1marauder said
What it means is that you are relying on a study found to be insufficiently reliable to be published in a reputable scientific journal.

the Lancet retracted the Hydroxychloroquine study as well. Does that mean you support the use of Hydroxychloroquine to treat Covid 19 patients now? Yes or no?

@metal-brain said
the Lancet retracted the Hydroxychloroquine study as well. Does that mean you support the use of Hydroxychloroquine to treat Covid 19 patients now? Yes or no?

No, I don't but that is not the subject of the thread, is it? Anyway, there have been "Four randomized controlled trials, 10 cohort studies, and 9 case series assessed treatment effects" regarding Hydroxychloroquine as a treatment for COVID and the consensus is: "Evidence on the benefits and harms of using hydroxychloroquine or chloroquine to treat COVID-19 is very weak and conflicting." https://www.acpjournals.org/doi/10.7326/M20-2496

Do you have any reputable study to support the claims you made in this thread?

@no1marauder said
No, I don't but that is not the subject of the thread, is it?

Do you have any reputable study to support the claims you made in this thread?

Why not?

@metal-brain said
Why not?

Why are you so desperate to change the subject?

Read this: https://www.acpjournals.org/doi/10.7326/M20-2496

@no1marauder said
Why are you so desperate to change the subject?

Read this: https://www.acpjournals.org/doi/10.7326/M20-2496

Not changing the subject.
Why are you holding a double standard?

Read this:
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2020/08/04/an_effective_covid_treatment_the_media_continues_to_besmirch_143875.html

@metal-brain said
Not changing the subject.
Why are you holding a double standard?

Read this:
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2020/08/04/an_effective_covid_treatment_the_media_continues_to_besmirch_143875.html

I read it; it's an advocacy article from last August. However, the FDA has had more studies and other information available to it and has declined to authorize the drug in treating COVID19. I have no reason to doubt their judgment in such a matter; they are experts in the field and I am not.

So there's no "double standard"; you have not produced any evidence supporting your claims here while the other matter you bring up has been decided by the relevant experts in the field looking at all the available info.

@no1marauder said
I read it; it's an advocacy article from last August. However, the FDA has had more studies and other information available to it and has declined to authorize the drug in treating COVID19. I have no reason to doubt their judgment in such a matter; they are experts in the field and I am not.

So there's no "double standard"; you have not produced any evidence supporting ...[text shortened]... ou bring up has been decided by the relevant experts in the field looking at all the available info.

Bull crap! Show me the studies if they exist.

The FDA has been corrupt throughout this as my thread about the FDA and Pfizer clearly shows. You accept the judgement of liars simply because you have a political bias and do not want to accept Trump was right all along. You are obviously holding a double standard and refuse to admit it.

Fauci has also been caught in more lies proven by his e-mails.

https://childrenshealthdefense.org/defender/fauci-kristian-andersen-emails-manipulation-deception/?utm_source=salsa&eType=EmailBlastContent&eId=446b53ab-7ab1-40a7-a33a-90a67994910d

You are trying to deceive me and perhaps even yourself. You are accepting the judgement of known liars. You are condoning corruption at the highest levels of our health agencies and you know it. The article from the link I posted also makes clear that Fauci and FDA Commissioner Dr. Stephen Hahn denied early infected patients hydroxychloroquine until it was too late for the drug to be effective. Here is an excerpt from the article you claim to have read:

"However, the NIH promoted a much different strategy for the United States. The “Fauci Strategy” was to keep early infected patients quarantined at home without treatment until they developed a shortness of breath and had to be admitted to a hospital. Then they would they be given hydroxychloroquine. The Food and Drug Administration cluelessly agreed to this doctrine and it stated in its hydroxychloroquine Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) that “hospitalized patients were likely to have a greater prospect of benefit (compared to ambulatory patients with mild illness).”

In reality just the opposite was true. This was a tragic mistake by Fauci and FDA Commissioner Dr. Stephen Hahn and it was a mistake that would cost the lives of thousands of Americans in the days to come."

You and others are always quick to pounce on me for promoting policies that you claim cost lives, yet Fauci and FDA Commissioner Dr. Stephen Hahn let many people die to deny them a cheap and effective drug.

Fauci and FDA Commissioner Dr. Stephen Hahn are evil creeps and so are you for condoning what they did. They should be in prison! Furthermore, the longer you condone their unethical actions the more people you are allowing to die that is completely preventable.

You are an unethical creep! You are allowing your partisan bias to cost people's lives. You disgust me!

@metal-brain said
Bull crap! Show me the studies if they exist.

The FDA has been corrupt throughout this as my thread about the FDA and Pfizer clearly shows. You accept the judgement of liars simply because you have a political bias and do not want to accept Trump was right all along. You are obviously holding a double standard and refuse to admit it.

Fauci has also been caught in m ...[text shortened]... are an unethical creep! You are allowing your partisan bias to cost people's lives. You disgust me!

In the end, all you come up with is unlikely conspiracy theories. As already stated in the non-retracted scientific journal piece I cited:

"Hydroxychloroquine as a treatment for COVID and the consensus is: "Evidence on the benefits and harms of using hydroxychloroquine or chloroquine to treat COVID-19 is very weak and conflicting."
https://www.acpjournals.org/doi/10.7326/M20-2496

So Hydroxychloroquine doesn't meet the necessary standards for being approved even for emergency use against COVID.

From the WHO:

FACT: Clinical trials confirm that hydroxychloroquine does not prevent illness or death from COVID-19.
Hydroxychloroquine or chloroquine, a common treatment for malaria and certain autoimmune diseases, has been studied as a preventative treatment for COVID-19. Evidence from these studies shows that hydroxychloroquine has little to no impact on illness, hospitalization, or death.

https://www.who.int/emergencies/diseases/novel-coronavirus-2019/advice-for-public/myth-busters?gclid=CjwKCAjw_JuGBhBkEiwA1xmbRc7LPG2PJt6hgqOntNudmwTLya964bseuaXq-K8P3_7RFoyUKvyd2xoCIjEQAvD_BwE#chloroquine

Your screeching that anybody who doesn't agree with you is a "liar" doesn't replace actual clinical research and studies.

@no1marauder said
In the end, all you come up with is unlikely conspiracy theories. As already stated in the non-retracted scientific journal piece I cited:

"Hydroxychloroquine as a treatment for COVID and the consensus is: "Evidence on the benefits and harms of using hydroxychloroquine or chloroquine to treat COVID-19 is very weak and conflicting."
https://www.acpjournals.org/ ...[text shortened]... anybody who doesn't agree with you is a "liar" doesn't replace actual clinical research and studies.

You are a hypocrite! The Lancet study was retracted!

You are holding a double standard. Apparently retracted studies only prove anything if they fit your preferred narrative. If you can claim the Lancet detraction is not relevant why should anybody accept any detraction is relevant?

You have destroyed your own debate position with your obvious hypocrisy. You have a conspiracy theory against the Lancet retraction. In the end, all you come up with is unlikely conspiracy theories and project it onto others.

You think your conspiracy theory is legitimate while condemning comparable conspiracy theories. I proved Fauci, the CDC and other high level health officials are liars, yet you have failed to do the same with my sources. FAIL!

https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=accept+sucks+to+be+you

@metal-brain said
You are a hypocrite! The Lancet study was retracted!

You are holding a double standard. Apparently retracted studies only prove anything if they fit your preferred narrative. If you can claim the Lancet detraction is not relevant why should anybody accept any detraction is relevant?

You have destroyed your own debate position with your obvious hypocrisy. You have a ...[text shortened]... e same with my sources. FAIL!

https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=accept+sucks+to+be+you

What are you ............................... 5 years old?

Perhaps saying you reason like a 5 year old isn't fair ........................... to the average 5 year old.

I didn't rely on the retracted Lancet study, but you relied on the retracted study for your entire argument.

@no1marauder said
What are you ............................... 5 years old?

Perhaps saying you reason like a 5 year old isn't fair ........................... to the average 5 year old.

I didn't rely on the retracted Lancet study, but you relied on the retracted study for your entire argument.

You claimed redacted studies prove something while simultaneously claiming others do not. FAIL! Show us the study. BS is not proof.