Jump to content
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by zDragon

  1. 6 hours ago, shadrap said:

    this describes me.  I'll get in the mood & post a few thoughts but mostly not because it's "Just not worth it".   really tired of being labeled stupid & racist.  I admit I'm stupid sometimes but never been a racist.

    I do enjoy the banter.

    I just started using other resources for my fantasy football news and leaving this site behind. I used to like jumping on the forums but no ones seems to try and reign anything in so better to move on. The regulars are loud and obnoxious and like trying to belittle everyone that has a different view than them and knowing that a primary problem the country is having I see no need to reward the behavior anymore.

    I jumped on occasionally like tonight to see if anything had changed and of course it hasn't.  I thought the site admins were reigning it in but that doesn't seem to be happening.  I remember the days when I could highly recommend the site and forums.

    And to the obnoxious ones that feel a need to always speak up and make snide remarks don't bother as I won't be replying or checking back for awhile again.

    • Sad 1
  2. On 4/21/2020 at 5:07 PM, cobalt_27 said:

    I applaud anytime I see someone think about research design and methods.  And if you were as hardliner about truth with a capital T and objective as you try and present yourself here, would have been helpful had you raised those same concerns last week and the week before and the week before when this thread was littered with pro Trump pro HCQ/chloroquine studies.  

    The best you could muster at the time was a 🤷‍♂️ when the French study came out, asking if it was so bad why did they publish it, somehow ignoring the massive deficits in the study and the ethical train wreck of the coauthor being the editor of the journal. 

    So I respectfully reject this revisionist history and suggestion that you’ve applied equal weight to your critiques.  Friend. 

    Reject all you want.  It doesn't make you correct.  Like I said in my most recent reply there were studies I linked that were for it working that were trash.  I'm not around here a lot so I miss a bunch of in between stuff.  The one you mention I couldn't think of anything worse than publishing it when they thought it was so bad.  I can't think of much worse to happen to a publication.  Sorry I didn't look at or mention they study since that not had me saying "Wow, what?

  3. 6 minutes ago, sho nuff said:

    So the effectiveness was in question...now the safety is as well.

    What do you have to lose?  Um, the NIH seems to think, you know, your life.

    Safety has been a concern prior to COVID. It is know to cause a condition that affects the heart rhythm. It also gets worse if it is mixed with other medications.  So not new but there is a risk with all drugs.

  4. 4 minutes ago, Sinn Fein said:

    NIH Panel Recommends Against Drug Combination Trump Has Promoted For COVID-19

    A panel of experts convened by the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases recommends against doctors using a combination of hydroxychloroquine and azithromycin for the treatment of COVID-19 patients because of potential toxicities.

    "The combination of hydroxychloroquine and azithromycin was associated with QTc prolongation in patients with COVID-19," the panel said.

    QTc prolongation increases the risk of sudden cardiac death.

    The recommendation against their combined use would seem to fly in the face of comments made by President Trump suggesting the combination might be helpful. On March 21, for example, the president described them in a tweet as having a "real chance to be one of the biggest game changers in the history of medicine."


    huh - go figure.


    "It's all based on the data," said panel member Dr. Susan Swindells, a professor in the department of internal medicine at the University of Nebraska College of Medine. "We just plowed through everything that was, and apart from supportive care, there wasn't anything that was working terribly well."

    Seems like a good recommendation when everyone including Trump has said we don't have enough data. I would hope there is always a risk based approach to these things.  I can see where certain people may want to push forward with using it if there is even a slight chance it might help.


    "I think it's not a bad idea to do it, but that's up to the doctors,"

    "It's going to have to be proven. It's very early."

    Overall they made the right decision.

  5. 7 minutes ago, SaintsInDome2006 said:

    The thing about the chloroquine discussion is that - in case no one noticed - Trump has dropped it several pressers running now. - It's happened before, he makes a claim, which his supporters carry and carry and carry, but Trump feels no need to defend or support or backup what he says, ever. Everything is transactional. The point was to make noises to reassure the market and to say "stuff" to pesky journalists. It also fit his world view which usually concerns magic cost free solutions to nasty problems that he has created. - So yes all that positive stuff about off label use and continuing trials applies - alongside the other 17 or so therapeutics - but that's where it belongs, in that bucket. Usually clinical or pharmacological subjects are not a matter of intense partisan debate. I'm not blaming anyone just recognize that Trump himself has completely forgotten about it and he may even have internal strategy at this point to abandon it.

    I doubt he has forgotten about it but there has been nothing to prove it works one way or the other.  I think he has moved on to other glorious things that have been done he can take credit for.  You know if a study comes out stating it works there will be weeks of stating how right he was two months ago.


    • Like 1
  6. 4 minutes ago, cobalt_27 said:

    Exactly how many times did you come in to post this sentiment when all the crap studies posted by Trump supporters touting the drug’s efficacy?

    If it’s more than zero please post a link.  

    If there’s a silver lining, it is good to finally see Trump supporters give a glancing thought to research design and methods  


    What does that matter? I commented on the one I saw.  I also linked 3-4 other studies that I assume the...what did you call them...Trumpers would have posted saying they were also flawed.

    See the four links I have added since I was on today which I called flawed.

    So since I disagree with a post you assume I'm a Trump supporter?  You seem very blind to the real world my friend.

  7. 5 minutes ago, cobalt_27 said:

    HCQ and chloroquine might actually be the “cure” that’s worse than the disease. 

    The studies I saw that showed that used two doses that were both twice the daily recommended dosage and included other heart accelerating drug in the cocktail. 

    This does show why we need good solid research as views can be tainted both ways with bad studies.

  8. 3 minutes ago, The General said:

    We are discussing the political aspects of this.

    Your point is taken that we don't know how effective this is and again the issue here is that the president made this an issue.

    Would you have been it disturbing if the president during his daily propaganda press briefings spent time discussing your toe fungus or you fart article? That the medical expert speaking to the nation would have to take time to explain that about toe fungus study?

    I'm disturbed in some way each day with what he says. The man is not a good communicator.

    The In Vitro looked promising and it hasn't shown one way or the other.

    I'm pretty sure he will never mention the Fart study or the Toe Fungus study. I'm pretty sure he has a little higher level of understanding of the Cornovirus than that. So no real need to discuss it.


  9. 13 minutes ago, belljr said:

    The point is most want good information but the leader of the Free world has been pimping that drug for 2 weeks or more... 

    You want good information, tell that to the leader....

    Maybe it works maybe it doesn't.....

    Still doesn't make sense. A flawed study is posted. I point out it is flawed. You respond with a Trump comment.  

    What does Trump have anything to do with you or anyone else posting or providing good data points. What does Trump have anything to do with you responding with points about why it was a good study like a few others did.

  10. 15 minutes ago, The General said:

    Great example.

    If the President spent the next week telling people not to fart, then arguing with reporters about what he meant, and spent time leveraging other countries for their national suppllies of Beano I think it would be worthwhile to discuss in here. 

    That still has nothing with discussing good studies versus flawed ones.  If you posted a bad article on the impact of Beano I would hope people would point it out. That would be beneficial to discussing Covid versus just wanting to bast on Trump.

    My contribution to the Forum

    Bad Trump....Bad Man Trump....Trump say bad things.

    Toe Fungus spreads CornoVirus

  11. 11 minutes ago, Amused to Death said:

    Thank you. This is the message a lot people have but we get accused of cheering for it to fail by some Trump supporters. The other quotes are from Trump himself. Very bad and worthless info indeed. But be careful, if you keep repeating these things you may be accused of hating Trump, hating America, and wishing for everything to fail.

    But I also get why the latest study was posted. You're right that there is a lot of bad info being spread about its effectiveness. This one seems to be the best so far (even as bad as it is). Yet Trump was pushing it nightly as a potential "game changer".

    After the snide remark "The General"  made I could see where people think they are cheering for it to fail.  Quoting me pointing out that the study is very flowed with a Trump quote is useless.  Seems like he hung on to that Quote to use it in here. I tend to write off most stupid things people say so don't recall a lot of what trump says but do get the points he tries to make most of the time.

    The best study so far is the In Vitro.  All others for or against are flawed and do more damage than good.  Once the big formal studies are out we will know.

    The last one is not good just bigger than normal so far.  My guess we will have a lot more information by middle of June that will tell us one way or the other. 

  12. 1 minute ago, The General said:

    This is the political thread where political aspects of COVID are discussed.

    If the president took the same view you did here this would have all been left to doctors and experts. 

    What does it being a Political thread and about COVID mean that posting a bad study and making non-useful remarks should be the standard? I would think it would mean analyzing and commenting on the given study would be a good thing.  Guess since he wasn't your guy you feel slighted I pointed out it was a bad study.  Sorry about that.

    Now for my contribution to the Political Forum.

    Trump Bad, Bad Man Trump. Bad, Bad, Bad Trump. He no make the decision smarts he has.

    Don't fart.


    Australian doctor Andy Tagg pointed out that farting could cause coronavirus after analysing a series of tests take from coronavirus patients earlier this year.

    He cited tests that revealed the virus was present in the faeces of 55 per cent of patients with Covid-19.


  13. 21 minutes ago, Gr00vus said:


    It may not end up being determined a rigorous enough study, but it does give us some information.

    The sample size may be too small, there may be other considerations not taken into account. But it still gives some indication of the effectiveness of hydroxychloroquine beyond assumptions, which is what many have been working off of until now.

    Not really as there could be a lot of underlying symptoms that influence the study.  There are several large scale 1,500+ well organized studies going on that will give us good answers.  Rigor and process is a must for these studies to truly tell us anything.

  14. 1 minute ago, The General said:

    This is the President’s response to why you should take this drug. Do you have any information about it’s use?

    What does that have to do with anything?  Why bring a trump comment in at all?  Was that relevant in any way to the article on a study you posted? Or just a knee jerk reaction to someone not echoing your opinion thoughts in your link?

    I'd prefer not to spread bad information based on flawed studies.  Which your article  points out in the second paragraph. This goes both ways I can point to studies that say it works but then again they are just as flawed and would not post them to say it worked.  The best is probably the In Vitro results but once again not enough to say one way or the other.



  15. 12 minutes ago, The General said:

    Why do you continue to post bad studies? It doesn't really help anyone. We will have better information once good studies have been completed.


    The nationwide study was not a rigorous experiment.

    It has not been reviewed by other scientists. 

    I also don't see where they took into account any underlying medical factors in the groups. 

    • Like 1
  16. 5 hours ago, the moops said:

    I keep coming back in here in hopes that there is some actual politics being discussed in here. Whoa is me

    I don't know how you all keep this up. I am exhausted after reading the last page and a half

    Your in the comedy section here.  If you want to talk real politics it is best to find someplace else.  If you want a good laugh this is the place.  

    • Like 1
  17. 17 minutes ago, Kal El said:

    Chloroquine study halted due to heart issues and deaths

    In fairness, it was at high doses, but it got stopped after 6 days.

    Seem like a flawed study.  The highest dosage I've seen is 600 milligrams in a day by the French. So they doubled up on that per day and still included two drugs that can cause the same issues. I did not see a reference to the dosing of the other drugs.



    Beginning March 23, half the participants were given a high dose of 600 milligrams of chloroquine two times a day. Half were given a low dose of 450 milligrams twice a day. The patients also received azithromycin and another antibiotic.

    The antibiotic azithromycin and antiviral treatment, oseltamivir, both of which can cause the same electrical issues in the heart muscle



  18. On 4/14/2020 at 11:41 AM, timschochet said:

    Since mid March, Trump’s approval for handling the virus has fallen by 18 points. It’s now underwater: 


    He remains very high with Republicans; it’s independents who have completely soured on him. 

    Not seeing it.  In fact for all parties his numbers are up from 03/15 to Today.

    03/15 - Independents were at 40.3

    04/15 - Independents were at 43.2


  • Create New...