"I say my chiropractor who employes non medical trained professionals to run front desk wont tell me if my family was there or not due to hippa ... Oooo That doesn't matter they still ahve to follow hippa because of this zit and that zit ... like WTF, They're a low cost chiropractic chain, I can call my wife to see if she was there already, and how the F does it matter ... like it has anything to do with HCQ posted …" You brought HIPPA up. You did that. Now you want to pretend I made it part of the conversation. You said:
"
That doctor is clearly showing her religious faith as well as following HIPAA." This is very clearly wrong. I should ignore that for what reason? Calling it a "zit" is just your way of downplaying that you make a completely incorrect statement as a defense.
Lets look at this:
"You really will argue about anything, huh?" - rocknthehawk
"Only when you're wrong -" -
srinathhttp://suzukisavage.com/cgi-bin/YaBB.pl?num=1595954676/30#30 Imagine that. You won't accept "wrong" statements. Why should we?
"
relating to the original point or any point in general"
I keep re-typing my original point, don't pretend I haven't repeatedly attempted to redirect this to the original post, here are 5 examples:
1 - But JoG's article is pro-hydroxychloroquine, so we should accept it as fact, ignoring the missing parts like actual patients.
2 - My point is people choose to ignore major gaps, like cured patients, in articles they like.
3 - 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".
4 - Why would you keep rambling on about hydroxychloroquine from reputable sources? I am talking about the content of this post, where JoG presents a doctor that claims she has "Cured" SARS-COV-2 with hydroxychloroquine. Not "advice" a "cure".