So any comments on the Stella Immanuel Video?

[Ausmumof3]

34 minutes ago, Momto6inIN said:

I have not read the while thread, and I'm not planning on it. But does anyone have a link to her actual website that documents her kooky claims and conspiracy theories? All I can find are news reports about her when I Google, not her actual site. I've got oodles and oodles of people on my fb posting the video, and news reports about her are probably not going to be trusted as refutation, but if I had the link to her actual site talking about demon sperm that might help. 🤣 Thanks!

http://firepowerministry.org/blog/
 

https://m.facebook.com/FirePowerMinistriesWithDrStellaImmanuel/

I haven’t done any deep digging to check out in depth but I have wasted way way too much time on this already.  And to be honest this is where the real harm is.  It’s one thing for me a stay at home mum to be digging around but when epidemiologists etc who’ve spent years studying and are trying to figure it an epidemic right now have to spend all their time debunking conspiracy theories etc it probably gets kind of frustrating.

 

[Ausmumof3]

5 minutes ago, StaceyinLA said:

 

I saw an interview with him about this. 

I’ve seen it and also some discussion around it.

[Ausmumof3]

https://m.facebook.com/drstella.gwp?__tn__=CH-R
 

her Facebook page 

[Ausmumof3]

25 minutes ago, StaceyinLA said:

 

I don’t think it’s critical thinking to be excited to be able to discredit someone. If she and the rest of the group with her have not treated people as they say, I absolutely want that found out, but being happy to be able to make her look like a fool is not the same thing.

I kind of agree but I think the people that set her up for that kind of publicity were probably more unkind.  It also depends whether it’s a case of her genuine beliefs or not.  Because the harm that can be potentially done by people claiming that this is a miracle cure and social distancing and masking not required could be far more significant.  I’ve done yet more searching etc and supposedly the whole event was organised by some group called the tea party patriots.  It’s clearly political.  That doesn’t mean that hydroxychloroquine is written off or anything.  But I’m not sure why we’d give too much credit to a group of doctors that primarily don’t appear to be on the Covid frontlines or ers and don’t provide any kind of clinical data and do seem to have a political goal or motivation for their statements.  I’m happy to listen to drs like the dr Zev etc who are at least trying to actually produce some kind of studies/data even if they aren’t getting it exactly right.

[Ausmumof3]

Here is the list of doctors and their specialties Ive seen.  If anyone has a better source please feel free to add it.

[catz]

38 minutes ago, StaceyinLA said:

 

I don’t think it’s critical thinking to be excited to be able to discredit someone. If she and the rest of the group with her have not treated people as they say, I absolutely want that found out, but being happy to be able to make her look like a fool is not the same thing.

I don't know why you would use the word "excited".  Science is literally about analyzing and questioning constantly.  If  she/these doctors wants their "results" taken seriously it's simple.  PUBLISH THEM.  If they're compelling, more studies will be launched.  Correlation does not equal causation.  

If you showed up in DC with a lab coat and started talking about how HCQ studies are flawed because they're using vitamin C as a control when you're not even willing to read a study or press release on page 1 of this thread, should we listen to you too?  We don't really owe anyone with a voice and a platform our time or energy.  I'm still waiting to see data that shows HCQ works in a study.   

When someone breaks a story about huge numbers of health care workers taking this drug as a prophylactic, I'll be interested.  I'm not holding my breath.

Edited July 29, 2020 by FuzzyCatz

[StaceyinLA]

22 minutes ago, square_25 said:

Well, I’m sorry, I don’t like people pushing conspiracy theories. Call me mean.

 

So if her “beliefs” don’t line up with others, that automatically means she’s lying about her experiences here? That’s all I’m saying. I mean good gracious they have a lot of doctors whose beliefs wouldn’t line up with mine, but I don’t believe that necessarily negates their experiences as a doctor.

Sharing success with medical treatments that others have also shared successes with doesn’t seem like a conspiracy theory to me. 

[Happy2BaMom]

30 minutes ago, Ausmumof3 said:

http://firepowerministry.org/blog/
 

https://m.facebook.com/FirePowerMinistriesWithDrStellaImmanuel/

I haven’t done any deep digging to check out in depth but I have wasted way way too much time on this already.  And to be honest this is where the real harm is.  It’s one thing for me a stay at home mum to be digging around but when epidemiologists etc who’ve spent years studying and are trying to figure it an epidemic right now have to spend all their time debunking conspiracy theories etc it probably gets kind of frustrating.

 

 

Have you heard of Brandolini's Law? "The amount of energy needed to refute bullshit is an order of magnitude bigger than to produce it."

That's what your experiencing right now. It's what many, many doctors, researchers, and scientists have been & are experiencing right now. Because it's far easier for the cray-crays to spit out their social media videos with splashy headlines and error-ridden information, which will instantly be picked up and spread by tens of thousands as "proof" or "TRUTH" and it requires HOURS of painstaking research to go in-depth point-by-point to refute. Which approximately 0.5% of the "true believer" crowd will watch anyway. 

 

[Ausmumof3]

1 minute ago, Happy2BaMom said:

 

Have you heard of Brandolini's Law? "The amount of energy needed to refute bullshit is an order of magnitude bigger than to produce it."

That's what your experiencing right now. It's what many, many doctors, researchers, and scientists have been & are experiencing right now. Because it's far easier for the cray-crays to spit out their social media videos with splashy headlines and error-ridden information, which will instantly be picked up and spread by tens of thousands as "proof" or "TRUTH" and it requires HOURS of painstaking research to go in-depth point-by-point to refute. Which approximately 0.5% of the "true believer" crowd will watch anyway. 

 

I don’t know whether to put a like or a laugh face or a cry face to this!  So true!

[StaceyinLA]

26 minutes ago, FuzzyCatz said:

I don't know why you would use the word "excited".  Science is literally about analyzing and questioning constantly.  If  she/these doctors wants their "results" taken seriously it's simple.  PUBLISH THEM.  If they're compelling, more studies will be launched.  Correlation does not equal causation.  

If you showed up in DC with a lab coat and started talking about how HCQ studies are flawed because they're using vitamin C as a control when you're not even willing to read a study or press release on page 1 of this thread, should we listen to you too?  We don't really owe anyone with a voice and a platform our time or energy.  I'm still waiting to see data that shows HCQ works in a study.   

When someone breaks a story about huge numbers of health care workers taking this drug as a prophylactic, I'll be interested.  I'm not holding my breath.

 

If you saw my original quote wherein the poster was posting a smiley face about being able to refute people’s posts with the doctor’s crazy webpage, you’d know why I used the word excited. It’s like we just can’t wait to be able to make someone look like a quack, or prove they’re a quack.

And I don’t have a clue where you got any information about my not being willing to read a study. I merely posted that there has been at least ONE study where Vitamin C was used as a “placebo,” and it is NOT a placebo.

There’s a reason no positives ever come from any discussions on these boards, and it’s because of personal attacks. I typically avoid posts like these because of it. Shame on me for not doing the same here.

Edited July 29, 2020 by StaceyinLA

[Happy2BaMom]

9 minutes ago, StaceyinLA said:

 

So if her “beliefs” don’t line up with others, that automatically means she’s lying about her experiences here? That’s all I’m saying. I mean good gracious they have a lot of doctors whose beliefs wouldn’t line up with mine, but I don’t believe that necessarily negates their experiences as a doctor.

Sharing success with medical treatments that others have also shared successes with doesn’t seem like a conspiracy theory to me. 

 

Good grief. There have been MANY links posted in this very thread about real, actual clinical trials of hydroxycholoquine which show that it is, at best, a very mixed bag - results that *directly refute* her claims. Her background is not in the same league as the rest of the researchers, she doesn't work in any hospital, she's not a researcher or an infectious disease specialist, etc.

Yet somehow your takeaway is that this comes down to her "beliefs."

[historically accurate]

13 minutes ago, Ausmumof3 said:

Here is the list of doctors and their specialties Ive seen.  If anyone has a better source please feel free to add it.

Why are 3 ophthalmologists and a psychiatrist and an orthopedic surgeon touting a COVID cure? Are they claiming they have treated people and cured them like Dr. Immanuel has or are they just there to lend #'s so it's not just her out there? Those aren't specialties I'd go to if I needed treatment for COVID. 

 

8 minutes ago, StaceyinLA said:

 

So if her “beliefs” don’t line up with others, that automatically means she’s lying about her experiences here? That’s all I’m saying. I mean good gracious they have a lot of doctors whose beliefs wouldn’t line up with mine, but I don’t believe that necessarily negates their experiences as a doctor.

Sharing success with medical treatments that others have also shared successes with doesn’t seem like a conspiracy theory to me. 

She's not using the normal channels scientists and doctors use to get their experiences out there. There is a way to put that information out there - random youtube and FB videos is not it. 

[TCB]

4 minutes ago, Happy2BaMom said:

 

Have you heard of Brandolini's Law? "The amount of energy needed to refute bullshit is an order of magnitude bigger than to produce it."

That's what your experiencing right now. It's what many, many doctors, researchers, and scientists have been & are experiencing right now. Because it's far easier for the cray-crays to spit out their social media videos with splashy headlines and error-ridden information, which will instantly be picked up and spread by tens of thousands as "proof" or "TRUTH" and it requires HOURS of painstaking research to go in-depth point-by-point to refute. Which approximately 0.5% of the "true believer" crowd will watch anyway. 

 

And even if they watch it they won’t think about it or something. It’s so weird but you can present factual information and some people just slide right over it and seem to ignore it. You can see some of that happening on this very thread. 
I don’t like to see people hounded, but if they present information that could be vitally important surely no one thinks it’s right to just swallow it without thinking about it or checking it. I just read the whole transcript of the Frontline Dr’s video and, other than someone mentioning a Dr at Yale, which I’m going to look up, and another mentioning his website, which I tried to look up but couldn’t find, there was no mention of actual data that we can look at.

So what does that leave us with? We can look at who is saying it and how reliable they seem to be. The list of their specialities does not make me think of people highly involved in the complex treatment of Covid patients. Crazy beliefs make me pause. 
 

[StaceyinLA]

8 minutes ago, square_25 said:

I already explained this. She's providing no data, so there's no way to judge her data other than thinking about what her qualifications are. 

I don't even know whether she's treated COVID patients. I know nothing at all about her. So, yes, if I learn that she has bizarre beliefs, I start wondering about how real this is. You have to admit, demon sperm is a pretty bizarre theory. Someone who has talked about this is not high on my list of reliable sources. I hope that goes for you, too. 

 

Hey you’re right. I think she has some bizarre crap going on, but you just said you know nothing about her. Why not try to find out if she’s really treating patients before totally discrediting her because of her crazy beliefs? 

Perhaps there are people who are frustrated because they ARE seeing results, and no one is listening. Who knows? I know there’s a lot of frustration and misinformation surrounding this whole thing, and has been since the beginning.

I get we need the data - absolutely. It would need to be forthcoming, but I think personal attacks are unnecessary.

[Guest]

6 minutes ago, Happy2BaMom said:

 

Have you heard of Brandolini's Law? "The amount of energy needed to refute bullshit is an order of magnitude bigger than to produce it."

That's what your experiencing right now. It's what many, many doctors, researchers, and scientists have been & are experiencing right now. Because it's far easier for the cray-crays to spit out their social media videos with splashy headlines and error-ridden information, which will instantly be picked up and spread by tens of thousands as "proof" or "TRUTH" and it requires HOURS of painstaking research to go in-depth point-by-point to refute. Which approximately 0.5% of the "true believer" crowd will watch anyway. 

 

That’s exactly right. 

I remember asking a pediatrician, who is a member here and pops in from time to time, if she ever debates with anti-vaxxers. (This was before COVID.) She said not any more; they want to believe what they want to believe and all the patient explanation and links to reliable medical information just falls on deaf ears. It’s nothing but a frustrating waste of time for the doctor. 

I am not a doctor, nor an authority on anything of consequence, but I have come to realize this on SM too. I just Snooze or Unfollow/Hide people now. I don’t have hours to waste trying to lay out a cohesive, logical argument with supporting links, for some high school buddy who has already made up their mind about something. If that makes my feed an echo chamber or people who either believe the same things I do, or people who just post pictures of their cats and their gardens, then - oh well. 

*This* is where I come, on the web, to discuss or even argue with smart people. 

[StaceyinLA]

3 minutes ago, beckyjo said:

Why are 3 ophthalmologists and a psychiatrist and an orthopedic surgeon touting a COVID cure? Are they claiming they have treated people and cured them like Dr. Immanuel has or are they just there to lend #'s so it's not just her out there? Those aren't specialties I'd go to if I needed treatment for COVID. 

 

She's not using the normal channels scientists and doctors use to get their experiences out there. There is a way to put that information out there - random youtube and FB videos is not it. 

 

Seriously? Why is Bill Gates’ opinion being considered? I mean if you want to talk about people who don’t have proper medical experience. At least these are medical professionals.

And yes, I agree this is not the norm, but maybe they just wanted their voices to be heard. 

[TCB]

Ok I just looked on Dr Immanuel’s FB and there is a picture of her with an N95 mask on.

[Momto6inIN]

1 hour ago, StaceyinLA said:

 

This is sad to me. I mean yeah, clearly she’s got some issues, but why are people so happy to discredit her? 

I am not happy or excited to discredit her, I am trying to shine a light on truth. Most people I know personally who are sharing her video would be shocked and horrified to learn some of the things she has said. They agree with her sentiments on the video, so they hold her up as an expert without checking her qualifications. 

[StaceyinLA]

8 minutes ago, square_25 said:

No... positives... ever come from any discussions on these boards?? What does that mean?? 

All of the COVID discussions have been filled with plenty of positive information. People are excited about treatments that work. People are happy for countries that got this under control. People are also overall fairly sad about the state of the world, yes. 

If you want to discuss HCQ, why don't you start a thread on one of the actual studies, and then we can discuss this scientifically? There are both positive and negative studies, and they can be analyzed. The problem is that there's nothing to talk about here. It's possible that what she's reporting is true, of course, but there's no way to tell. I could buy a lab coat and post a video and claim to be affiliated with the Columbia Medical School and to know about some fellow doctors treating patients, and I'd be about as reliable with my claims of tapioca and paprika cures. 

 

Well, if you consider people getting on and condemning anyone who disagrees with anything a positive, yeah. Basically what it boils down to is condemning anyone with a differing opinion in such a way that anything you say beyond that falls on “deaf ears.” So yeah, the positives would be that all those who share the same opinion keep it. No one else benefits because they’ve been personally attacked, so any likelihood of changing their opinion is out the window.

[catz]

9 minutes ago, StaceyinLA said:

 

Seriously? Why is Bill Gates’ opinion being considered? I mean if you want to talk about people who don’t have proper medical experience. At least these are medical professionals.

And yes, I agree this is not the norm, but maybe they just wanted their voices to be heard. 

It's not by scientists but they probably give a polite nod because he has donated a bunch of money.  Media loves to cover rich people.  

Asking for proof/evidence and questioning qualifications is not condemning.  

[Ausmumof3]

10 minutes ago, TCB said:

Ok I just looked on Dr Immanuel’s FB and there is a picture of her with an N95 mask on.

Well I’m glad she’s taking precautions.

[Happy2BaMom]

12 minutes ago, StaceyinLA said:

 

Hey you’re right. I think she has some bizarre crap going on, but you just said you know nothing about her. Why not try to find out if she’s really treating patients before totally discrediting her because of her crazy beliefs? 

Perhaps there are people who are frustrated because they ARE seeing results, and no one is listening. Who knows? I know there’s a lot of frustration and misinformation surrounding this whole thing, and has been since the beginning.

I get we need the data - absolutely. It would need to be forthcoming, but I think personal attacks are unnecessary.

 

"It (the data) would need to be forthcoming."

THAT'S crazy.

A reputable doctor or scientist will *never* release conclusions without data that clearly backs up those conclusions. He/she will also run his/her conclusions past other medical or scientific professional before releasing those conclusions to ensure he/she has drawn the correct conclusions. That's the whole peer review process. Yes, at times it has been corrupted/circumvented/etc. Everything requires a critical eye and further research. But the process helps eliminate faulty research and faulty conclusions.

The fact that she is claiming conclusions without supporting data makes those conclusions unbelievable. It really is that simple.

1 minute ago, StaceyinLA said:

 

Well, if you consider people getting on and condemning anyone who disagrees with anything a positive, yeah. Basically what it boils down to is condemning anyone with a differing opinion in such a way that anything you say beyond that falls on “deaf ears.” So yeah, the positives would be that all those who share the same opinion keep it. No one else benefits because they’ve been personally attacked, so any likelihood of changing their opinion is out the window.

 

No, again, a number of links have been provided that show that what this doctor is claiming ISN'T TRUE. You keep ignoring that and claiming 'beliefs" and "personal attacks".

 

[StaceyinLA]

3 minutes ago, Happy2BaMom said:

 

"It (the data) would need to be forthcoming."

THAT'S crazy.

A reputable doctor or scientist will *never* release conclusions without data that clearly backs up those conclusions. He/she will also run his/her conclusions past other medical or scientific professional before releasing those conclusions to ensure he/she has drawn the correct conclusions. That's the whole peer review process. Yes, at times it has been corrupted/circumvented/etc. Everything requires a critical eye and further research. But the process helps eliminate faulty research and faulty conclusions.

The fact that she is claiming conclusions without supporting data makes those conclusions unbelievable. It really is that simple.

 

No, again, a number of links have been provided that show that what this doctor is claiming ISN'T TRUE. You keep ignoring that and claiming 'beliefs" and "personal attacks".

 

 

I am saying it would absolutely need to be supported, but I can see, in the light of what is going on, that health care providers could be frustrated with what they see is working enough to get up there and make the statements. I am NOT saying it is the right way to do it, nor that it shouldn’t be supported by the evidence - just that maybe in these particular times, doctors could be frustrated enough with the situation to want to speak out.

And I am not ignoring anything.

[Joker]

Those of you who want to believe her with no actual proof or data, do you research doctors/specialists before you make appointments or take their advice?

I research the heck out of my doctors before even making an appointment. I just had to schedule dd with a specialist and I didn't like the one the doctor referred us to so found my own and asked that he refer us there. Is this not normal with you all? 

Since she has provided no proof, we are left to research on our own. What we found during that research means we have major issues and if she wants to be believed she really needs to put out her proof. There is no conspiracy. This isn't about personal attacks. 

[TCB]

6 minutes ago, StaceyinLA said:

 

Well, if you consider people getting on and condemning anyone who disagrees with anything a positive, yeah. Basically what it boils down to is condemning anyone with a differing opinion in such a way that anything you say beyond that falls on “deaf ears.” So yeah, the positives would be that all those who share the same opinion keep it. No one else benefits because they’ve been personally attacked, so any likelihood of changing their opinion is out the window.

Stacey are you saying that you feel like you’ve been personally attacked? I wasn’t sure if you meant you or Dr Immanuel. I just watched a video on her FB and I do get the impression that she does really care about people. But to me, even though she is a very caring individual it only seems right to treat advice she gives with extreme caution because she has other views that are just hard to reconcile with truth and facts. I think that really it is a shame that Simone Gold has exposed her to all this intense interest and scrutiny. Surely, if as they claim there are many Drs who agree with them, they could have used someone else as their spokesperson. I imagine these people organizing this group are pretty savvy and I just really wonder why they chose her.

[chiguirre]

23 minutes ago, StaceyinLA said:

 

Hey you’re right. I think she has some bizarre crap going on, but you just said you know nothing about her. Why not try to find out if she’s really treating patients before totally discrediting her because of her crazy beliefs? 

It's Dr. Immanuel's job to show that she's treating patients, not our job to investigate whether or not she is. If she was serious about showing that HCQ works, she would do it in a way that it would enter in the scientific discussion, not as Facebook/Youtube/Twitter click bait fodder. Those are the channels you use when you want to make a splash among non-specialists without much scrutiny. That alone is a flashing red warning light about the veracity of the claims. When you combine that with her previous pronouncements about the "true" causes of endometriosis and ovarian cysts and the source of vaccines, you can quickly dismiss her credibility. (And giggle about dream demon lovers, because, honestly, that's pretty funny.)

[Lady Florida.]

6 hours ago, Moonhawk said:

I don't know what exactly you are imagining here. This would not look like a debate where someone is pummeling their fist on the podium, sweat beading on their brow, with one other person standing on the other side of the stage, perhaps cooly sipping their water or shuffling their papers to look disinterested and unaffected. 

That's good TV. That's not good science.

I'm assuming that you sincerely want these ideas to be given true consideration, right? True consideration wouldn't be done in an hour with commercial breaks, it would be days of deliberate and well-thought questions; no pithy zingers, no gotcha moments, no audience gasps as the damning piece of data on Table 3-42b is highlighted.

"Scientific debate", ie "Science", is literally is what these scientists are doing all day, every day. They aren't going to just pencil in "2-4pm Thursday afternoon, HCQ final decision". 

 

 

And they're certainly not going to shout BINGO! with a smug look and decide the debate is over because they didn't like what the other doctor said.

[StaceyinLA]

2 minutes ago, TCB said:

Stacey are you saying that you feel like you’ve been personally attacked? I wasn’t sure if you meant you or Dr Immanuel. I just watched a video on her FB and I do get the impression that she does really care about people. But to me, even though she is a very caring individual it only seems right to treat advice she gives with extreme caution because she has other views that are just hard to reconcile with truth and facts. I think that really it is a shame that Simone Gold has exposed her to all this intense interest and scrutiny. Surely, if as they claim there are many Drs who agree with them, they could have used someone else as their spokesperson. I imagine these people organizing this group are pretty savvy and I just really wonder why they chose her.

 

Oh on these boards? All the time. All you have to do is have a differing opinion. I’m used to it though - been around here 20+ years. I have learned to not get into things like this. I don’t know WHY I let myself do it today - glutton for punishment I suppose. 😜

But I’m leaving the discussion. I don’t normally announce my departure, but I don’t want anyone to think I’m ignoring them if they quote me. I just need to get on with my day.

[Happy2BaMom]

A little more searching revealed this (from Science Magazine, scientific journal from the American Academy for the Advancement of Science), published in June:

"Three Big Studies Dim Hopes that Hydroxycholoroquine Can Treat or Prevent Covid-19"

But I'm sure this article - and the underlying studies - will be completely overlooked as well.

[Ausmumof3]

https://academic.oup.com/aje/article/doi/10.1093/aje/kwaa093/5847586

for whoever asked here’s the Yale guys paper

And some criticisms whose style I don’t love but some points worth noting 

https://respectfulinsolence.com/2020/07/24/harvey-risch-defends-hydroxychloroquine/

 

 

 

Edited July 29, 2020 by Ausmumof3

[StaceyinLA]

17 minutes ago, square_25 said:

 

If you’re still around, I’m curious — what would you like people to do with her statements? Do you want people to treat it as meaningful evidence?

 

Wasn’t referring to the doctor. I was responding to a question about whether I feel like I was personally attacked. And the fact is, among a certain group of people on these boards, if you have a differing opinion, you will absolutely be personally attacked. I think that’s why a lot of people no longer participate in certain types of discussions here. Sadly, myself included. It’s not because I’m not confident in my beliefs, but life is just too damn short. God forbid you question science, as if everything that was ever “proven“ to be safe and effective really was. 

After 20+ years on the boards here, I rarely even get on anymore because of this, and I used to be here every day. It’s pretty sad really.

 

Edited July 29, 2020 by StaceyinLA

[Lucy the Valiant]

11 hours ago, TCB said:

Your choice of words is loaded, as I’m sure you meant them to be. A team such as the one in the video does not inspire a lot of confidence. Ophthalmologists especially and even  urgent care drs are not who I would turn to as experts in Covid-19 care. An urgent care dr might see patients with it but it’s not like they follow up with all or maybe even many of those patients to be fully aware of outcomes.

Also the Lancet withdrawal was not “quiet”

These videos that come out are completely un-critiqued by the people spreading them and seemed to be believed without any evidence of questioning their validity.

I completely agree that HCQ has been politicized but that doesn’t make it the right thing to do to check one’s brain at the door and not apply any critical thinking to what is being said. I just saw someone I know post on FB that if FB bans it then that= it is true. That is a common mentality around here. I don’t know how people can stand living with such paranoia.

 

I apologize for using "loaded" words - I do see that they are. I'm probably coming across as someone who is clueless and just believes whatever I'm told, but I feel - lost. In the middle. I'm not a huge fan of our president, honestly, but - I can admit that some of the things he's done have been fantastic. Some of them are terrible. He's definitely not a medical expert, but - there AREN'T any experts on Covid, right - that's the frustrating thing? So I try to listen & read & pay attention on both "sides", but the extreme polarization is disconcerting to say the least. I am certainly not SHARING a video, and I don't necessarily believe it, but I'm trying to ask sincerely, where's the evidence? Either for or against? This is a team of a whole bunch of doctors who are currently licensed and practicing in the USA - not just one energetic lady. Are they all wrong? (Maybe yes.) But I want to truly understand WHY. The group is charged with having "no evidence," but - their site is also scrubbed from the internet, so I can't go find out if they HAVE evidence to back themselves up. (There are a lot of links here since I went to sleep last night, and I am going to continue to read and research. I wish I were faster.)

9 hours ago, popmom said:

Apologies if this has been said already. I didn't read every comment.

Not lay people. Why not have a major news outlet give them some prime time air? Have someone interview them. Bring them (and their anecdotal evidence) INTO THE LIGHT. Engage them. Have a publicized debate with scientists on the opposing side. Why not? I totally agree that silencing these people serves no constructive purpose. How many of you have your kids study logic and debate? Isn't this a classical ed site? That's exactly what is needed right now.

 

THIS is what I'm looking for. 

I have been across the desk from "fancy" doctors too many times, asking and re-asking my un-educated questions, reading, coming back, asking again until I understand. There are 2 people very close to me who have lived now for quite a while with "experimental" medicine that actually IS working for them. It is terrifying to be in a decision-making position for people I love and to not fully understand the ramifications of "experimental" / off-label medication. I'm trying to be open & honest about my personal lack of understanding but also my persistence in trying to learn and grow and move forward. 

8 hours ago, Ausmumof3 said:

Why do we expect a live debate over science?  Science happens via studies and peer review.  I’m not saying I’m against the idea but it would be different.  The only similar kind of thing I’ve heard of is with anti vaxxers.  If zinc plus hydroxychloroquine has enough anecdotal support to warrant studies we should do the studies.

 

 

8 hours ago, Frances said:

They are hardly being silenced when our scientifically illiterate leader is touting them despite admitting knowing nothing about them or their credentials. They are getting tons of publicity.

Well, their website was taken down - if they have "promising data" regarding Covid, how would we know? If they are a group of political tools just trying to offer hope where there really isn't any, how would we know? (I know: Wait for the trials. I understand that. But for the people who cannot wait because their lives are in jeopardy - they can't wait!)

7 hours ago, Ausmumof3 said:

The stupid thing is for me it really is.  I don’t even live in the US and I think the way our state gov have handled things is good and they align more closer to republican than Democrat although we give them different names here (liberal versus labour).  I’m really struggling with why scientific data in a pandemic is political.

 

This is the thing I am trying so hard to study around, to work past the politics. I want to read EVERYTHING, and of course, 1 person can't do that. But there are definitely people who are willing to read on "both sides of the aisle," but - boy, I feel dumb asking the questions. 

6 hours ago, mathnerd said:

I was lurking on this thread, but, I might have a good guess on this: HCQ is dirt cheap in the 3rd world and millions of doses are manufactured every month for pennies per dose in many countries - Bill Gates has taken on malaria in Africa as a disease his foundation will eradicate in his lifetime and they have funded several manufacturers of this drug - if this drug works reliably, it is cheaper and easier for us to get back to normalcy than if we were to wait for 350 million doses of the vaccine for everyone in the US. I think, many people are so invested in marketing this drug as the answer to all our prayers because of the economic hit and the need for a quick and cheap solution (preferably before November!).

PS: Anecdotally, I know some people IRL who got Covid and recovered after using this drug. So, I know that it works for some youngish people with no underlying health conditions.

 

3 hours ago, Quill said:

I agree. I think one part of the problem is that the general public has a very short attention span and a surprisingly large amount of people draw a conclusion that works with their confirmation bias for literally nothing but the headline. They don’t read an article, let alone seek more info from other sources. 

A bit ago, I shared an article on FB about a young man who died of COVID one day after he expressed, on SM, regret about going to a party where he caught the virus. My “it’s the flu” people on FB immediately posted nonsense refutations on my feed, vividly demonstrating that they either didn’t read the article at all or they really struggle with reading comprehension. One person thought the article was saying he died one day after he got COVID at a party, and a different person thought he went to the party already infected himself. 

I do like when true scientists take the time to refute conspiracies, as the one doctor did point-by-point for the Plandemic video, but many know it is a waste of their very limited time because the people who just want their bias confirmed are not going to watch the refutation. The two days before the Plandemic video was removed, it was freakin everywhere. I saw links to it a dozen times, sometimes posted by people I was really surprised would put stock in it. (One is a lawyer! This is a person who is no stranger to logical argumentation!) But the video that refuted it, I saw only here. I have even linked it for friends on FB, thinking, “If they watch this video, surely they will begin to understand why the plandemic video is not right...” but that is literally never what happens. Literally has never happened once. It also hasn’t happened when I patiently explained why one can’t use last week’s death rate provisional report to calculate that “deaths are going down!” The people who want to believe it stick with their belief. 

 

Me, too. I really, really appreciate the scientists here who have done that, some in this thread. 

30 minutes ago, square_25 said:

Exactly. Which is what tipped FB into removing these things in the first place. 

We really do need to do a better job teaching critical thinking skills. I sometimes think that the passivity inculcated in schools is part of the culprit... we spend a lot of time teaching kids not to question their teachers in lots of schools, and kids spend lots of time "learning" things that don't make sense to them. So then how are people supposed to know how to think about information sources? They never had any agency about their sources during their development! 

 

This is the thing I am fighting in myself. I see it. But how to self-educate . . . I am trying. I have made some progress. I have a long way to go. There are things I am good at. Understanding scientific trials is not one, and that is the thing I currently need. I deeply appreciate the people here who have been so patient with me.

Someone I love very much is alive today because of Keytruda, off-label. Yes, there are studies, but there are none that apply it to this person's situation. A team of doctors said "We MAY have something that will cure / treat / apply therapy for cancer!" And the person I love, who has hit the "lifetime limit" of chemo, and has tried almost everything else with ANY scientific study behind it, GLADLY agreed to a clinical trial N=1. Keytruda is expensive, and not political. It does have side effects, some very serious ones. My person lives with those side effects. I am trying to understand Covid from this perspective. 

I KNOW that science prefers to deal in known outcomes and carefully controlled studies & trials. Most of us humans prefer that, too. But the BUSINESS of science advancing is the unknown - trying things we DON'T know, assuming risk, taking careful notes, looking at hard data. This virus is scary from several perspectives, and time is sometimes our friend and sometimes our enemy. 

I appreciate so many people here helping me understand better and where to read more.

[Lucy the Valiant]

3 minutes ago, square_25 said:

I don’t think anyone is disagreeing here :-). I don’t mind people trying HCQ. It’s just that you do want to see what’s working better on average, so you start by prescribing the things that are known to work.

Do we know what works for Covid? 

[StaceyinLA]

2 minutes ago, square_25 said:

I understand why you’re frustrated, and I also hate people gleefully piling on top of me.

But in this particular case, what would you like to happen?

 

I just think there are enough people stating they’ve had successes with this to study it further. Yes there are studies saying it doesn’t work/has no promise, but some of those are flawed because the controls aren’t true placebos. You have the Yale epidemiologist putting out positive information regarding HCQ (although I’m sure he will be discredited somehow). I just don’t think anything has really been proven one way or another here, and I don’t think it should be disregarded just because this doctor has weird beliefs and hasn’t followed someone’s proper protocol.

I appreciate the discussion, but I really do need to exit.

[EmseB]

I think the idea that deleting something from the internet can be done in 2020 is super hilarious. All the attempts to take this video down have made my conspiracy minded friends more likely to seek it out and share it and more determined than ever that "they" are hiding a cheap cure for profit motives, and they are starting to convince some people I would consider fence sitters.

The idea that there is some responsibility for those who know better to supress speech because of certain external circumstances is not tenable and only fans flames of conspiracy.

The only good counter to bad speech is more speech, or perhaps not acting like whatever is being said is so importantly awful that it must be removed from public view asap. You get more looky-loos by doing that than anything else.

[katilac]

2 hours ago, StaceyinLA said:

What it COULD say is this is not proven to be effective, but deleting it and telling people the only thing that will work is a vaccine looks like an agenda, and that’s where conspiracy theories come from.

When did Facebook tell people the only thing that will work is a vaccine? afaik, all they did was delete the video. Is that not correct? 

1 hour ago, StaceyinLA said:

This is sad to me. I mean yeah, clearly she’s got some issues, but why are people so happy to discredit her? 

Quoting her own stated beliefs is not discrediting her. 

1 hour ago, StaceyinLA said:

I don’t think it’s critical thinking to be excited to be able to discredit someone. If she and the rest of the group with her have not treated people as they say, I absolutely want that found out, but being happy to be able to make her look like a fool is not the same thing.

People are referencing her own publicly stated beliefs. 

1 hour ago, Ausmumof3 said:

https://m.facebook.com/drstella.gwp?__tn__=CH-R
 

The very first statement on her About Me is I shoot first and ask questions later. 

29 minutes ago, StaceyinLA said:

  Perhaps there are people who are frustrated because they ARE seeing results, and no one is listening.  

How is no one listening? There are multiple trials going on. The possibilities of hcq are not being ignored. 

3 minutes ago, StaceyinLA said:

I am saying it would absolutely need to be supported, but I can see, in the light of what is going on, that health care providers could be frustrated with what they see is working enough to get up there and make the statements. I am NOT saying it is the right way to do it, nor that it shouldn’t be supported by the evidence - just that maybe in these particular times, doctors could be frustrated enough with the situation to want to speak out.

And I am not ignoring anything.

It seems like you are ignoring the fact that multiple trials are going on, because you keep saying that doctors are making these statements because hcq is being ignored. I would certainly expect someone who calls herself "the Covid doctor" to be aware of those trials. 

[Happy2BaMom]

14 minutes ago, Lucy the Valiant said:

 

 

I KNOW that science prefers to deal in known outcomes and carefully controlled studies & trials. Most of us humans prefer that, too. But the BUSINESS of science advancing is the unknown - trying things we DON'T know, assuming risk, taking careful notes, looking at hard data. This virus is scary from several perspectives, and time is sometimes our friend and sometimes our enemy. 

I appreciate so many people here helping me understand better and where to read more.

 

Science prefers to deal in evidence, not always known outcomes. And there has been plenty of EVIDENCE that hydroxychloroquine is a very mixed bag and often not effective, at least in the way(s) originally promoted, and that's being generous.

The video originally posted is *refuted* by several rigorous studies that are already released. Many more studies are currently in process, because treatment protocols and different combinations of drugs take time to test. There have been no miracle cures in any documentable way. This clearly indicates that the video in question is extremely slanted, if not downright wrong. Yet this evidence is being dismissed by several in this very thread. And pointing that out is seen as a "personal attack".

 

Edited July 29, 2020 by Happy2BaMom

[StaceyinLA]

3 minutes ago, katilac said:

When did Facebook tell people the only thing that will work is a vaccine? afaik, all they did was delete the video. Is that not correct? 

Quoting her own stated beliefs is not discrediting her. 

People are referencing her own publicly stated beliefs. 

The very first statement on her About Me is I shoot first and ask questions later. 

How is no one listening? There are multiple trials going on. The possibilities of hcq are not being ignored. 

It seems like you are ignoring the fact that multiple trials are going on, because you keep saying that doctors are making these statements because hcq is being ignored. I would certainly expect someone who calls herself "the Covid doctor" to be aware of those trials. 

 

This is what pops up on FB when it “fact-checks” the video and removes it. 

Edited July 29, 2020 by StaceyinLA

[EmseB]

7 minutes ago, square_25 said:

It’s not about free speech. It’s a private company. They can delete whatever they feel like.

I wasn't talking about free speech as a public vs private issue. I was speaking generally.

Of course Google, Twitter, FB, et al can delete whatever they like. That doesn't mean that because they can do that they aren't suppressing speech on their respective platforms, for whatever reasons.

And, again, trying to keep a video off the internet is just silly.

[katilac]

24 minutes ago, StaceyinLA said:

God forbid you question science 

Questioning science is pretty much the point of science. 

15 minutes ago, StaceyinLA said:

I just think there are enough people stating they’ve had successes with this to study it further.  <snip>

and I don’t think it should be disregarded just because this doctor has weird beliefs and hasn’t followed someone’s proper protocol.

It is being studied further. Ausmumof3 has even summarized and linked several of the trials. 

It is not being disregarded. Is this particular doctor being disregarded? Sure, many people are disregarding her (although many are certainly not). If a doctor has weird beliefs about practicing medicine, I absolutely think that speaks to their credibility. 

[Ausmumof3]

28 minutes ago, Lucy the Valiant said:

 

I apologize for using "loaded" words - I do see that they are. I'm probably coming across as someone who is clueless and just believes whatever I'm told, but I feel - lost. In the middle. I'm not a huge fan of our president, honestly, but - I can admit that some of the things he's done have been fantastic. Some of them are terrible. He's definitely not a medical expert, but - there AREN'T any experts on Covid, right - that's the frustrating thing? So I try to listen & read & pay attention on both "sides", but the extreme polarization is disconcerting to say the least. I am certainly not SHARING a video, and I don't necessarily believe it, but I'm trying to ask sincerely, where's the evidence? Either for or against? This is a team of a whole bunch of doctors who are currently licensed and practicing in the USA - not just one energetic lady. Are they all wrong? (Maybe yes.) But I want to truly understand WHY. The group is charged with having "no evidence," but - their site is also scrubbed from the internet, so I can't go find out if they HAVE evidence to back themselves up. (There are a lot of links here since I went to sleep last night, and I am going to continue to read and research. I wish I were faster.)

 

THIS is what I'm looking for. 

I have been across the desk from "fancy" doctors too many times, asking and re-asking my un-educated questions, reading, coming back, asking again until I understand. There are 2 people very close to me who have lived now for quite a while with "experimental" medicine that actually IS working for them. It is terrifying to be in a decision-making position for people I love and to not fully understand the ramifications of "experimental" / off-label medication. I'm trying to be open & honest about my personal lack of understanding but also my persistence in trying to learn and grow and move forward. 

 

Well, their website was taken down - if they have "promising data" regarding Covid, how would we know? If they are a group of political tools just trying to offer hope where there really isn't any, how would we know? (I know: Wait for the trials. I understand that. But for the people who cannot wait because their lives are in jeopardy - they can't wait!)

 

This is the thing I am trying so hard to study around, to work past the politics. I want to read EVERYTHING, and of course, 1 person can't do that. But there are definitely people who are willing to read on "both sides of the aisle," but - boy, I feel dumb asking the questions. 

 

 

Me, too. I really, really appreciate the scientists here who have done that, some in this thread. 

 

This is the thing I am fighting in myself. I see it. But how to self-educate . . . I am trying. I have made some progress. I have a long way to go. There are things I am good at. Understanding scientific trials is not one, and that is the thing I currently need. I deeply appreciate the people here who have been so patient with me.

Someone I love very much is alive today because of Keytruda, off-label. Yes, there are studies, but there are none that apply it to this person's situation. A team of doctors said "We MAY have something that will cure / treat / apply therapy for cancer!" And the person I love, who has hit the "lifetime limit" of chemo, and has tried almost everything else with ANY scientific study behind it, GLADLY agreed to a clinical trial N=1. Keytruda is expensive, and not political. It does have side effects, some very serious ones. My person lives with those side effects. I am trying to understand Covid from this perspective. 

I KNOW that science prefers to deal in known outcomes and carefully controlled studies & trials. Most of us humans prefer that, too. But the BUSINESS of science advancing is the unknown - trying things we DON'T know, assuming risk, taking careful notes, looking at hard data. This virus is scary from several perspectives, and time is sometimes our friend and sometimes our enemy. 

I appreciate so many people here helping me understand better and where to read more.

Presumably if they have promising data they will have a registered study.  I mean dr Stella is on Facebook so you could email her if you wanted to ask.

[TCB]

16 minutes ago, square_25 said:

No miracle cures, but I think remdesivir has shown potential, and the steroid @TCB should spell for me... de-something.

Yes Dexamethasone has shown a lot of promise and is being widely used.

[Jean in Newcastle]

6 minutes ago, katilac said:

Questioning science is pretty much the point of science. 

It is being studied further. Ausmumof3 has even summarized and linked several of the trials. 

It is not being disregarded. Is this particular doctor being disregarded? Sure, many people are disregarding her (although many are certainly not). If a doctor has weird beliefs about practicing medicine, I absolutely think that speaks to their credibility. 

Not to mention that she has misrepresented some of her actual credentials AS A DOCTOR! 

[historically accurate]

1 hour ago, StaceyinLA said:

 

Seriously? Why is Bill Gates’ opinion being considered? I mean if you want to talk about people who don’t have proper medical experience. At least these are medical professionals.

And yes, I agree this is not the norm, but maybe they just wanted their voices to be heard. 

Yes, seriously.

I don't think people should listen to Gates for medical advice. I don't know Gates' opinion; I haven't bothered to listen to him. I do know he is spending tons of cash looking for a vaccine (as well as possibly inserting a chip in me to bring about the new world order - my FB is varied). Media likes to talk about rich people's opinions; I assume that is why he gets his opinion printed.

I don't listen to my psychiatrist when I have a broken arm; I go to the orthopedist or a family medicine doctor. I doubt most ophthalmologists know more about COVID than my psychiatrist does about broken arms, so to have 3 of them in the group that is touting a COVID cure is striking to me. That does not make sense to me. 

If they want their voices to be heard, they definitely did that. However, it doesn't mean that they have to be listened to having the answer because they have presented nothing except a click-baity video, which does not inspire confidence in me regarding their expertise. 

[Jean in Newcastle]

Why is it that people who are pro-actual science, who are actually not trying to be part of some conspiracy, the ones with golden fingers who can find information so easily by googling? 

[katilac]

34 minutes ago, Lucy the Valiant said:

 Well, their website was taken down  

I KNOW that science prefers to deal in known outcomes and carefully controlled studies & trials. Most of us humans prefer that, too. But the BUSINESS of science advancing is the unknown - trying things we DON'T know, assuming risk, taking careful notes, looking at hard data. This virus is scary from several perspectives, and time is sometimes our friend and sometimes our enemy. 

I appreciate so many people here helping me understand better and where to read more.

Just because their website is down doesn't mean it was taken down. Has it been stated that it was taken down, as opposed to them putting it on hold themselves? 

Are you referring to Dr. Stella's website or a different one? You can often have luck finding versions of a noncurrent page on an archive site; how recent will depend on when it was last crawled (archived). 

[Laurie]

1 hour ago, Joker said:

Those of you who want to believe her with no actual proof or data, do you research doctors/specialists before you make appointments or take their advice?

I research the heck out of my doctors before even making an appointment. I just had to schedule dd with a specialist and I didn't like the one the doctor referred us to so found my own and asked that he refer us there. Is this not normal with you all? 

Since she has provided no proof, we are left to research on our own. What we found during that research means we have major issues and if she wants to be believed she really needs to put out her proof. There is no conspiracy. This isn't about personal attacks. 

One of the articles linked in this thread says that Dr. Immanuel received her medical education in Nigeria.  

I try to research doctors as much as possible.  I know nothing about the quality of medical schools in Nigeria, but I would be very cautious about medical degrees from Nigeria after this episode, thanks to this lady.   (The princes have already made me very leery of the country.) 

 

Edited July 29, 2020 by Laurie

[Moonhawk]

Re: taking things down, free speech, and censorship of opinions, and all opinions matter. Not quoting anyone in particular because the point is more general than a particular quote.

I can get this on topics where lives are not at stake. Even on those topics, though, there isn't some magical power that makes our words not affect others. We always have a personal responsibility for the type of content we put out into our conversations.

But there are real consequences to spreading and giving credence to unscientific approaches to medicine. 

So, what is our personal responsibility in all this? 

Real lives are at stake.

"I'm just saying it's interesting" does not absolve you from critical thinking and the consequences of spreading misinformation that has negative effects on patients. This is leading others astray, willingly, because you were unwilling to either do the research yourself or because you wanted something to be true so you ignored all evidence otherwise and didn't ask for evidence supporting it.

"But they should do their own critical thinking anyway!" So can you. God (or natural ability) has given you the ability to do this, and you should be using this gift to the benefit of both you and those around you, instead of assuming God (or natural ability) has given them the same capacity, since we all have different gifts. If you can recognize you are *not* using critical thinking by relying on others to do so instead, are you willing to take on the personal responsibility of thoughtlessly spreading medical opinions that can be damaging?

Real lives are at stake.

"I was just furthering the conversation, not saying it was true!" You aren't furthering a conversation, you are redirecting it, without qualifications or data to support your redirection, away from what the people with the current medical knowledge and daily pulse on the data think it should be going. Or, in the case of the numerous studies of the HCQ currently being conducted, you are misleading others into thinking that this is not being done and fueling their distrust of the very people who are working to save them.

"But why are these ideas being silenced?" Other doctors/institutions are actively looking into HCQ in ways that can be measurably applied to further action, so the idea itself isn't being silenced.  It's just that opinions without data are being held to the level of importance they should be, and perhaps even too much more than that. Your voices are being heard, too, as is evidenced by this thread and news reports and the facts that now this Dr. Immanuel is one of the few national doctors I know, maybe 1 out of 3. So don't make this about not being heard, because you are. (Being heard does not equal people agreeing with you.)

Discussion is a part of the scientific process, but so is data. What is our personal responsibility to our society as a whole about giving unsupported opinions the same weight of thousands of hours of research and study?

This isn't an armchair debate about the best way to train dogs or how often you should get a general checkup. Real lives are at stake.

[regentrude]

4 hours ago, Momto6inIN said:

I have not read the while thread, and I'm not planning on it. But does anyone have a link to her actual website that documents her kooky claims and conspiracy theories? All I can find are news reports about her when I Google, not her actual site. I've got oodles and oodles of people on my fb posting the video, and news reports about her are probably not going to be trusted as refutation, but if I had the link to her actual site talking about demon sperm that might help. 🤣 Thanks!

https://archive.fo/G7wtb#selection-4925.0-4928.0

https://archive.fo/wWX03

Quote

Many women suffer from astral sex regularly. Astral sex is the ability to project one’s spirit man into the victim’s body and have intercourse with it. This practice is very common amongst Satanists. They leave their physical bodies in a dormant state while they project their spirits into the body of whoever they want to have sex with.

There's a lot more stuff. That lady is clearly off her rocker.

[mathnerd]

6 hours ago, regentrude said:

No, you don't know that it "works". Because the drug may have played no role in their recovery. All you know is the drug did not kill them.

 

8 hours ago, Pawz4me said:

No, you don't. Many young people who get Covid recover quickly without taking anything. That any individual takes HCQ and recovers means nothing, since many people with Covid recover.

There are people on my RA forum who take HCQ and have still gotten Covid and had quite a rough time with it. That doesn't prove it doesn't work.

We need good large, randomized studies with control groups.

The infection that I am referring to happened inside an office setting with many young people (and also many people over 55 years) in that office. The young people in this group asked for HCQ and they were initially refused the drug because the doctors said that it was far too dangerous to use and that there was not enough proof of its efficacy in the treatment of COVID. This group insisted that they wanted to take this drug and had to lobby hard to get it (some of them had already taken it as a preventative against malaria during charity trips to Africa in the past without experiencing side effects). It is my understanding that doctors are not giving this drug away for the asking because this group had to lobby hard to get it prescribed. Which is why I said it is anecdotal. It worked for them because they recovered fully and are back at work while some of their coworkers did not make a full recovery and are still hospitalized. This is not a study or recommendation to use the drug to treat covid.

Large scale study might happen sooner than we anticipate because India is using HCQ for millions of its poorer people as a preventative measure against COVID. Given that their population is more than a billion people and there is no prospect for social distancing for most of them due to high population density and poverty, we will learn more about how dangerous this drug is and how useful it is as a preventative or treatment for COVID by watching what unfolds there.

https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.06.09.20116806v2

https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-01619-8

 

 

Edited July 29, 2020 by mathnerd