"I never said my family cant contract China virus - stop lying."

 You said you can "guarantee" they will not get it.

 To me, this means you are establishing that they will not get SARS-COV-2.  So you would be correct that you are not indicating they can't, you are just saying they will not, and offer a guarantee.

 Your guarantee is as valid as Immanuel's as she is providing the same level of proof as you are.  I am unaware of any procedure that would allow mass prescribing of hydrochloroquine based off of a person's guarantee, or claim of treatment without documentation and peer review.

"Guaranteed, this shitte will not stand a chance against me or my family. But I aint getting no ventilator - guaranteed."


http://suzukisavage.com/cgi-bin/YaBB.pl?action=search2


 I followed up my assessment of what you meant and your response, ("You on the other hand claim to have solved it already through your own means.') so that, to me, indicated you believe you have a cure for SARS-COV-2 but are not "qualified" enough to libtards, so you won't present this cure.


No shittete genius. But sadly I am not "qualified" Somehting very important to Libtards.


 So I would say you are correct, you did not guarantee that you or your family would not get SARS-COV-2.  You guaranteed you would not end up on a ventilator, and that SARS-COV-2 would not stand a chance against your family.  This, to me, meant that you or your family could not get or die from SARS-COV-2 and that you have a cure but due to your lack of qualifications specific to libtard assessment influences your decision to not share your cure in a clinical setting where it could save lives.

 Try this one:

http://suzukisavage.com/cgi-bin/YaBB.pl?num=1586202735/7#7


 My cutting and pasting is not creative, I attempted to reference the thread in it's entirety and cut the quotes like everyone does when they quote something.


"a guarantee my family wont get Chinavirus ???"

 No, I clarified that in my response.  You only guarantee that SARS-COV-2 will not "stand a chance" which may indicate they can get it, but it will not be damaging and will definitely not kill, or hospitalize specific to ventilated care.

 In the future I will make sure to be more accurate in saying your family can contract SARS-COV-2 but can not die from it based off of your "guarantee", and that you have a cure that you choose not to share due to your pro-shutdown stance.

 This still has the same level of validity and will be taken as seriously as doctor Immanual and her reptile government, and 300 cured patients she can't provide data on.

 But JoG's article is pro-hydroxychloroquine, so we should accept it as fact, ignoring the missing parts like actual patients.

Whats wrong with asking a doctor who has cured 300 patients with a drug to provide the info on the 300 patients?

 When that doctor can't do that and instead proclaims Jesus will retaliate on their behalf, what's wrong with thinking maybe the doctor isn't curing hundreds?

 I think hydroxychloroquine can work, especially the zinc mix, but no one has provided "cure" level information.  We don't have to blame "the media" or "libtards", or anyone for that.  The numbers don't exist, or the person making the claim would provide them.

 My point is people choose to ignore major gaps, like cured patients, in articles they like.  

"I think its called - HIPAA bro, look it up."

 Its called HIPPA, I worked in a medical center for over a decade, I am well aware.



"I can tell my doctor (chiropractor) That my wife and son are coming in ~4, but he cant tell me if they were there earlier that day."

 This is wrong.  They can tell you they were there, they can not tell you why.  For instance if you visit a hospital you can ask if your family member is there and what room they are in so you can visit and they can give you that information.  They can tell you they were there earlier and have been discharged.  

 They can not say why your family member is there.



 "By saying Jesus will strike you down - That doctor is clearly showing her religious faith as well as following HIPAA."

 This is is totally incorrect, it is showing her religious faith, and Facebook removing her posts has absolutely nothing to do with HIPPA.  She is protecting no patient confidentiality by declaring Jesus will avenge her.


 Let's not pretend that HIPPA means absolute silence of medical care, locations, times, and more important - outcomes.  A doctor can provide patient outcomes in clinical environments for peer review.  It's called modern medical science.  But by calling HIPPA, we can justify, wrongly, why a doctor can claim curing patients, but can not provide any clinical results, and just hope everyone is ignorant enough to believe that nonsense.

"OK Good, can HIPPA allow for names and contact numbers of patients to be released by their doctor ???"

 Yes, in a clinical environment, in accordance to HIPPA policy.  Medical professionals and organizations, laboratories etc. share patient information all the time.  This is how research is done.  Does it make any sense to say a doctor can only talk about patient outcomes but can never provide an actual patient or patient data?



"Oh, she's religiulous and christian (not muslim or other) - OK lets bash her on that and censor the rest."

 Claiming any Deity will shut down Facebook to avenge you will be met with the same amount of criticism.  Why on earth would anyone defend the logic that any God of any religion will shut down Facebook because they removed some posts?  Add sex with demons and reptile government leaders and we start stacking some odd statements that either mean this one doctor knows more about a well-documented medical condition, or all other doctors are wrong.



"I knew around then of people who my mom knew had been treated and reversed the infection."

 I'm not contesting that.  I am saying that knowing someone who knows someone isn't going to meet clinical standards, peer-review, or even get close to any form of assurance for large scale implementation.  People can't claim Hydroxychloroquine is a "proven cure" based off of that type of information.  At most it worked for some people you know.  That's it, don't try to make it more than that.  



"So My wife and son go to a chiropractor - and do I have to wonder why ?"

 Typically with a child you do have rights to their medical information as the child can not enter into a binding contract, and you have parental rights.  Exceptions exist such as a pregnant minor.  As for your wife you can authorize organizations to share your medical history, but she can also request her treatment not be shared.  You can not go in and ask for my medical history.



"In any case the doctor and the front desk just say - sorry we cant tell you about other people."

 That may be their process, but HIPPA does not require that.



"The front desk people at this chain isn't a medical anything, just regular high school grads."


 HIPPA applies to the medical license in operation, not the staff by medical credential.  All employees, representatives or volunteers still have to follow HIPPA policy no matter their personal qualifications.

 

We're supposed to take advice on climate change from a 17 yr old sweedish girl ...


 I've never seen peer-reviewed content from her, and also have not seen anyone recommend large scale medical protections be implemented without clinical trial because of her.  

 I think if you are using the word "Advice" to replace "Proof" then yeah we can take the "advice" of doctors that can not provide "proof" but we can not say we have "proof" because of a doctor's "advice.  

 If replacing words is how we do this then I will replace the word "owe" with the word "loaned".   So now instead of:  I "owe" you money.  It is now: I "gave" you money.  No harm in changing words mid-argument, won't change the entire meaning at all right?




"But not medical advice from the off label use of a 90 yr old proven and safe drug with known and mild side effects for a new chinese lab created virus ???"

 You can.  But you can not claim you cured 300 patients and not provide any information and expect anyone to believe you, except those that want to use it.  Anyone else wan'ts real proof.  Clinical acceptance requires clinical procedure and no other alternative.

 I am now claiming Aspirin cures SARS-COV-2.  That is my "proof" and is expected to be taken equally as serious as any clinical testing with thousands of real patients independently confirmed and reviewed.  Aspirin is "proven safe and is known", so my claim of "proof" rests on that, not actual patients.

 Makes sense right?


"Garbage arguments Eegore. On all fronts."

 Bringing up a child environmentalist that I never mentioned is not a garbage argument on my end, that is a failure to articulate a decent argument on your end.  

 Changing the word "proof" to "advice is not my garbage argument, that your change, your switch to justify a position that wan never challenged by me.

 Misrepresenting HIPPA in multiple ways hoping we won't catch on is not a garbage argument on my end, it is a misunderstanding or misleading of facts on your end.

 Continuing to pretend I ever said hydroxychloroquine should not ever be taken is getting you nowhere.  I am saying your knowledge of someone who knows someone does not meet clinical standards of "proof".  A doctor with no patient data doesn;t meet the clinical standard of "proof".

 Thats it.  Stop making it more than it is.

 "Hey Karen, i think you still have that zit."


 Yeah, that is where you have to go with this because there is no workaround of the facts.  Doctor Immanuel has provided no "proof" of her "cure" yet JoG references it as fact.  

 Your challenge to that is adolescent climate change activists, HIPPA misinformation, and your mother's associates.  And I have the garbage argument?