Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
That's just it ding-dong, no one advocating for experimental use of this drug in the most desperate cases claims rigorous peer reviewed studied have been conducted.
The evidence for its usefulness is anecdotal, but still promising, so why not use it if it might possibly help some people until such time as rigorous, peer-reviewed studies have been concluded?
You, on the other hand, started a thread to make claims (I.e., Trump's drug kills veterans) based on this half-baked study.
It's been pretty well and explicitly stated why it is not a good idea to promote its use without peer-reviewed studies. I don't really understand why you think this should be a "why not use it" kind of thing. What about that is still confusing to you? Also, why the meanness? It's not like you were touting it to anyone as effective treatment.
It has some weight since Swiss drug manufacturer Novartis AG paid then Trump lawyer Michael Cohen money for a meeting with President Trump. This was a buried lead back in 2018 in the Stormy Daniels allegations and again in 19 when Cohen testifiedin front of a House committee.
Novartis actually responded to the buried lead getting uncovered when Trump supported Hydroxychlorquine in the press breifings due to the Cohen deal getting brought up again.
He definitely was mentioning it as a treatment a lot without mentioning much of others and even under professional advice to not do so. That doesn't mean he had a large personal financial stake in it--it just means that it would have been better had he not said so much about it so frequently because his judgment on this as treatment might not have been so good and that it shows questionable leadership. Someone doesn't have to receive financial gain for them to be do something goofy, ill-advised, or just frankly stupid. That's just not necessary. You can do goofy, ill-advised, or just frankly stupid things and even *lose* money in the process.
that's all fine and good - and accurate! - until you have low-information opposition like you see on this very thread claiming it was a profit motive.
I don't know in WHICH press conference he said it, but he did say, paraphrasing, "They (scientists) want to wait a year or 2 for clinical trials, and I understand why. But we don't have that long, and it's a safe drug" ... which, btw, I believe this was the same on he said within a more complete sentence "what do you have to lose". Shouldn't be hard to find for those that believe otherwise.
Or, show their long-held contempt by calling him a snake oil salesman. They would leap towards the truth, but still fall short based on his actual $ interest, if he said "But only ask for Plaquenil!"
I find it too coincidental that Trump 86'ed a scientist who wanted to not use experimental techniques with no known link (ie: Hydroxychloroquine), only for Trump to promote Hydroxychloroquine (a drug made by different manufacturers including one that paid a former Trump lawyer for "access to Trump.") Now the drug is being found to have little effect on the virus from some studies. Who's the fool?
the fools are the ones believing any of this crap right now...it's all over the place
First it was going to kill smokers more...
..and now the exact opposite
smokers are less likely to catch it...and have milder symptoms
French researchers plan to give nicotine patches to coronavirus patients and frontline workers after lower rates of infection were found among smokers
It comes after a French study found that few people hospitalized, or at home, with coronavirus were regular smokers compared to the general population.
that's all fine and good - and accurate! - until you have low-information opposition like you see on this very thread claiming it was a profit motive.
I don't know in WHICH press conference he said it, but he did say, paraphrasing, "They (scientists) want to wait a year or 2 for clinical trials, and I understand why. But we don't have that long, and it's a safe drug" ... which, btw, I believe this was the same on he said within a more complete sentence "what do you have to lose". Shouldn't be hard to find for those that believe otherwise.
Or, show their long-held contempt by calling him a snake oil salesman. They would leap towards the truth, but still fall short based on his actual $ interest, if he said "But only ask for Plaquenil!"
Right, but how many people have heard of that or believe that part about the profit motive relative to hearing about hydroxychloroquine as very promising potential treatment (or even more aggressive than that) repeatedly? I don't think it's that high and it seems very unlikely to have had the kind of reach that repeated touting of hydroxychloroquine has had. The what do you have to lose part isn't good, because there are actual things to lose aside from the false hope aspect. I mean, I also have long-held contempt for him, too, but it's pretty minor and the only reason it's so long-held is because its toward certain behavior towards contractors in the past well before he was president, but that doesn't mean that I'm hoping for him to be wrong about effective treatment or that I want him to demonstrate poor leadership. Unfortunately, I also don't think he's really a high-information or accurate information kind of guy, so I make sure I'm not taking things he says at face value.
Last edited by OyCrumbler; 04-22-2020 at 08:44 PM..
I find it too coincidental that Trump 86'ed a scientist who wanted to not use experimental techniques with no known link (ie: Hydroxychloroquine), only for Trump to promote Hydroxychloroquine (a drug made by different manufacturers including one that paid a former Trump lawyer for "access to Trump.") Now the drug is being found to have little effect on the virus from some studies. Who's the fool?
Eh, it doesn't require a web of conspiracies for someone to do or say stupid or inadvisable things.
That's just it ding-dong, no one advocating for experimental use of this drug in the most desperate cases claims rigorous peer reviewed studied have been conducted.
The evidence for its usefulness is anecdotal, but still promising, so why not use it if it might possibly help some people until such time as rigorous, peer-reviewed studies have been concluded?
You, on the other hand, started a thread to make claims (I.e., Trump's drug kills veterans) based on this half-baked study.
The problem is that some people want to use endless studies to make sure nothing happens in the real world.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
