The Big Gamble: Hydroxychloroquine

[SoCal Deek]

10 minutes ago, Gary Busey said:

 

You know the woman's political party but not her name because it was about politics.

What? Once again, come on man! That’s correct...he’s making the point that she crossed political lines to describe her medical condition and tell her success story. Her NAME isn’t the important part of the story. Quick Gary....tell me what she was wearing in the interview....also NOT important. 

[Warren Zevon]

7 minutes ago, SoCal Deek said:

he’s making the point that she crossed political lines to describe her medical condition and tell her success story.

 

So it is political? Thanks

13 minutes ago, Doc said:

 

...and?  How many things are being done for political gain during this crisis? 

 

I'm replying to someone who says he doesn't see political gain. Stay in your lane crock doc

[Doc]

1 minute ago, Gary Busey said:

So it is political? Thanks

 

Sure it is.  Just like the Dems/MSM naysaying is political.  The big difference is this is helping to save lives.

[Wacka]

You libtards would  deny help  to somebody  hit by a car  if Trump  asked you  to pitch in.

[Warren Zevon]

Just now, Wacka said:

You libtards would  deny help  to somebody  hit by a car  if Trump  asked you  to pitch in.

 

So full of hate on Good Friday

[leh-nerd skin-erd]

59 minutes ago, Gary Busey said:

 

I think her comments were too. Trump was more interested in letting everyone know she was a Democrat than letting anyone even know her name. He did it for political gain.

 

IMO

Come on Gary B.  If we're going to sit in judgement of every person holding a political office making comments and doing it for political gain, let's just concede that everything that is ever said or done by a person holding political office is done for his/her own political gain.   It's much easier that way than debating back and forth over an attempt at humor and an acknowledgement that a political enemy praised someone.

 

 

 

[keepthefaith]

3 hours ago, Gene Frenkle said:

My problem with this whole thing is that it was irresponsible and inappropriate for him to gamble on this by immediately hitching his horse to the HCQ wagon for all to see. It's a gamble to gain political capital, plain and simple. It may turn out that this is an effective treatment and if so, great. I would prefer if he had let the docs do their thing and refrained from giving questionable medical advice, as he's obviously unqualified to do so. Had he just let the experts do their jobs, this would not have turned into the most ridiculous and miscast political issue of the crisis to date.

 

In my view Trump didn't give medical advice.  He simply amplified the hopeful and somewhat promising French hypothesis.  He then facilitated the drug's availability so that doctors could administer it if they so chose.  In the end doctors and patients made the call which is how it's supposed to be, right?  Sure he supported it and often those comments came in response to media questions.  A media that often chose to criticize his answer and spin the thing as a dangerous approach or one that may benefit the President financially.  The latter being a very typical example of how the media uses a lack of facts and a lack of investigative reporting to put out propaganda solely designed to attack him politically. 

[Foxx]

13 minutes ago, leh-nerd skin-erd said:

Come on Gary B.  If we're going to sit in judgement of every person holding a political office making comments and doing it for political gain, let's just concede that everything that is ever said or done by a person holding political office is done for his/her own political gain.   It's much easier that way than debating back and forth over an attempt at humor and an acknowledgement that a political enemy praised someone.

 

 

 

quid pro quo! impeach the *****! all of them!

[Warren Zevon]

14 minutes ago, leh-nerd skin-erd said:

If we're going to sit in judgement of every person holding a political office making comments and doing it for political gain

 

I'm not judging I am acknowledging a fact. He did it for political gain. It was a smart move on his part - it obviously has worked. 

[Wacka]

19 minutes ago, Gary Busey said:

 

So full of hate on Good Friday

You and others are so full of hate 24 hrs a day, 365 days a year (366 this year)n every year.

[Doc]

2 minutes ago, Gary Busey said:

I'm not judging I am acknowledging a fact. He did it for political gain. It was a smart move on his part - it obviously has worked. 

 

Again, it wasn't just for political gain.  If more minds are changed on using it, more people can be saved.

[Cinga]

12 hours ago, Scraps said:

Quite frankly, if you are so sick with CV-19 that you are close to death, this drug just might kill you as it can mess with your heart rythm.

Again... you're dead anyway! Your argument is like someone goes into cardiac arrest, and I refuse to start CPR because I'm probably going to break his/her sternum! Their dead anyway! But your action might, just might, bring them back!

[Warren Zevon]

2 minutes ago, Wacka said:

You and others are so full of hate 24 hrs a day, 365 days a year (366 this year)n every year.

 

I love you Wacka

[B-Man]

 

It's a word the MSM uses to dismiss the truth.

Stop the 'anecdotal' nonsense

by Jim *****

Original Article

 

"Anecdotal" has suddenly transmogrified into a magic word with power to shut down any further inquiry, discussion, or debate of hydroxychloroquine's (HYQ) application as a Wuhan virus antidote.

 

This one simple word has reached ultimate status in the world of TDS-sufferers everywhere as the definitive slayer of arguments for the drug's use to impede the deadly path of the virus.

 

This sad fact is representative of a pernicious chasm in our society. The deeply felt antipathy and revulsion of anything Trump by TDS-sufferers are so intense, raw, and vituperative that the one, and so far, only readily available treatment modality demonstrating high efficacy in stopping COVID-19

 

 

 

.

[Scraps]

26 minutes ago, B-Man said:

 

It's a word the MSM uses to dismiss the truth.

Stop the 'anecdotal' nonsense

by Jim *****

Original Article

 

"Anecdotal" has suddenly transmogrified into a magic word with power to shut down any further inquiry, discussion, or debate of hydroxychloroquine's (HYQ) application as a Wuhan virus antidote.

 

This one simple word has reached ultimate status in the world of TDS-sufferers everywhere as the definitive slayer of arguments for the drug's use to impede the deadly path of the virus.

 

This sad fact is representative of a pernicious chasm in our society. The deeply felt antipathy and revulsion of anything Trump by TDS-sufferers are so intense, raw, and vituperative that the one, and so far, only readily available treatment modality demonstrating high efficacy in stopping COVID-19

Odd.  I haven't seen anyone, including Fauci who is roundly criticized by the Trumpsters, say don't try it.  They're simply saying, it hasn't been scientifically proven.  Isn't that the meaning of "anecdotal"?

46 minutes ago, Cinga said:

Again... you're dead anyway! Your argument is like someone goes into cardiac arrest, and I refuse to start CPR because I'm probably going to break his/her sternum! Their dead anyway! But your action might, just might, bring them back!

Hardly the same.  Someone in cardiac arrest will die.  Someone with Covid-19 on a respirator may or may not die.

Edited April 10, 2020 by Scraps
typo

[Doc]

7 minutes ago, Scraps said:

Odd.  I haven't seen anyone, including Fauci who is roundly criticized by the Trumpsters, say don't try it.  They're simply saying, it hasn't been scientifically proven.  Isn't that the meaning of "anecdotal"?

 

You're also kidding, right?  What do you think the left's "but oh, the side effects!" histrionics are about?

 

7 minutes ago, Scraps said:

Hardly the same.  Someone in cardiac arrest will die.  Someone with Covid-19 on a respirator may or may not die.

 

And odds of dying on a vent are ~50%.  The odds of dying from HCQ are nowhere near that.  Otherwise it would not be in use for other diseases today.

 

[Scraps]

5 minutes ago, Doc said:

You're also kidding, right?  What do you think the left's "but oh, the side effects!" histrionics are about?

 

 

I think its about the fact that the drug has some side effects and can kill some people.  I don't see that as a left vs right issue.

[Warren Zevon]

6 minutes ago, Doc said:

 

And odds of dying on a vent are ~50%.  The odds of dying from HCQ are nowhere near that.  Otherwise it would not be in use for other diseases today.

 

 

Of course not. We need a a study that shows how HCQ shifts that 50% (if it's right) figure.

[Doc]

8 minutes ago, Scraps said:

I think its about the fact that the drug has some side effects and can kill some people.  I don't see that as a left vs right issue.

 

The drug has rare side effects that rarely kill people, again which is the reason why it's still being used by millions on a daily basis.  The left used examples of idiots overdosing and taking fish tank cleaner containing it without consulting a doctor to fabricate a narrative that it's a dangerous drug.  Why did they do that?  The answer is obvious.

 

7 minutes ago, Gary Busey said:

Of course not. We need a a study that shows how HCQ shifts that 50% (if it's right) figure.

 

The studies will come in time.  Right now, we need to use it because it has been proven to work (not on everyone I'll admit) and there is no other treatment.

Edited April 10, 2020 by Doc

[Taro T]

15 minutes ago, Doc said:

 

The drug has rare side effects that rarely kill people, again which is the reason why it's still being used by millions on a daily basis.  The left used examples of idiots overdosing and taking fish tank cleaner containing it without consulting a doctor to fabricate a narrative that it's a dangerous drug.  Why did they do that?  The answer is obvious.

 

 

The studies will come in time.  Right now, we need to use it because it has been proven to work (not on everyone I'll admit) and there is no other treatment.

 

The cynical answer is because the left would rather see people die than see 45 get "a win."

 

Really believe it is less sinister than that.  The left reflexively believes that anything 45 supports is necessarily wrong or nefarious, sometimes both.  And it takes a bit of doing to get over that reflexive 'this has to be fake or bad' reaction.  That the national level media almost entirely in unison can't stand him being president and most all the people they interact with daily think like mindedly, and it isn't too hard to see why they still can't open up to the possibility that this might work.  And except in very rare cases, at a minimum it won't hurt.

[Doc]

17 minutes ago, Taro T said:

The cynical answer is because the left would rather see people die than see 45 get "a win."

 

Really believe it is less sinister than that.  The left reflexively believes that anything 45 supports is necessarily wrong or nefarious, sometimes both.  And it takes a bit of doing to get over that reflexive 'this has to be fake or bad' reaction.  That the national level media almost entirely in unison can't stand him being president and most all the people they interact with daily think like mindedly, and it isn't too hard to see why they still can't open up to the possibility that this might work.  And except in very rare cases, at a minimum it won't hurt.

 

I'm not so sure it's "cynical."  They've been against it for weeks, even though they should have seen reports of it working for people, again in the face of no other treatment.

[Scraps]

3 minutes ago, Doc said:

 

I'm not so sure it's "cynical."  They've been against it for weeks, even though they should have seen reports of it working for people, again in the face of no other treatment.

 

Can you show me anyone who has been against this?

[Warren Zevon]

6 minutes ago, Scraps said:

 

Can you show me anyone who has been against this?

 

I've asked the same thing and all he can say is "libs." 

[meazza]

1 hour ago, Gary Busey said:

 

Of course not. We need a a study that shows how HCQ shifts that 50% (if it's right) figure.

I think if someone is on a ventilator the medicine might not make a difference. Seems to be in the case in which the virus is beginning to spread.

 

i also read a study in which doctors seem to think that ventilators are actually increasing the risk of death.

Edited April 10, 2020 by meazza

[Scraps]

5 minutes ago, meazza said:

I think if someone is on a ventilator the medicine might not make a difference.

 

It could be that by the time your on a ventilator the medicine might not work, in which case you are increasing the risk of heart failure.  It could be that the drug is totally ineffective, in which case you are increasing the risk of heart failure.

 

The thin study sited to support the use of HCQ did not include people on ventilators.

[Deranged Rhino]

2 hours ago, Wacka said:

You and others are so full of hate 24 hrs a day, 365 days a year (366 this year)n every year.

 

The vast majority of every post he makes is littered projection. Has been for years -- because he's a bad person, intellectually dishonest, and competently inept. 

[meazza]

5 minutes ago, Scraps said:

 

It could be that by the time your on a ventilator the medicine might not work, in which case you are increasing the risk of heart failure.  It could be that the drug is totally ineffective, in which case you are increasing the risk of heart failure.

 

The thin study sited to support the use of HCQ did not include people on ventilators.

 

Maybe.  I really wish the politics would be left out of this.  I wish the media would shut the ***** up and trump would shut the ***** up.

 

Hey maybe I'm really in the middle.

[Nanker]

29 minutes ago, Scraps said:

 

Can you show me anyone who has been against this?

 

Sure. According to these reports it's worse than dying. It must be tested under clinical trials that last for at least 3 - 4 years before Dr.s should be allowed to use it.

Hey, if it can save one person in 5 - 6 years from now, it'll probably be worth burying 20 - 30 million people before we get to that date.

 

https://nationalinterest.org/blog/buzz/why-trump-wrong-about-hydroxychloroquine-it-wont-help-treat-coronavirus-140862

https://www.factcheck.org/2020/03/trump-hypes-potential-covid-19-drugs-but-evidence-so-far-is-slim/

https://www.indiatoday.in/india-today-insight/story/covid-19-the-bitter-truth-about-using-hydroxychloroquine-as-a-preventive-drug-1659116-2020-03-24

https://www.floridatoday.com/story/news/2020/03/24/trump-backs-covid-19-hydroxychloroquine-and-azithromycin-therapy-weak-science/2904846001/

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/ama-president-trump-hydroxychloroquine_n_5e8a9914c5b6e7d76c663197

 

 

[meazza]

1 minute ago, Nanker said:

 

Sure. According to these reports it's worse than dying. It must be tested under clinical trials that last for at least 3 - 4 years before Dr.s should be allowed to use it.

Hey, if it can save one person in 5 - 6 years from now, it'll probably be worth burying 20 - 30 million people before we get to that date.

 

https://nationalinterest.org/blog/buzz/why-trump-wrong-about-hydroxychloroquine-it-wont-help-treat-coronavirus-140862

https://www.factcheck.org/2020/03/trump-hypes-potential-covid-19-drugs-but-evidence-so-far-is-slim/

https://www.indiatoday.in/india-today-insight/story/covid-19-the-bitter-truth-about-using-hydroxychloroquine-as-a-preventive-drug-1659116-2020-03-24

https://www.floridatoday.com/story/news/2020/03/24/trump-backs-covid-19-hydroxychloroquine-and-azithromycin-therapy-weak-science/2904846001/

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/ama-president-trump-hydroxychloroquine_n_5e8a9914c5b6e7d76c663197

 

 

 

At this point, what difference does it make?

Edited April 10, 2020 by meazza

[Scraps]

10 minutes ago, Nanker said:

 

Sure. According to these reports it's worse than dying. It must be tested under clinical trials that last for at least 3 - 4 years before Dr.s should be allowed to use it.

Hey, if it can save one person in 5 - 6 years from now, it'll probably be worth burying 20 - 30 million people before we get to that date.

 

https://nationalinterest.org/blog/buzz/why-trump-wrong-about-hydroxychloroquine-it-wont-help-treat-coronavirus-140862

https://www.factcheck.org/2020/03/trump-hypes-potential-covid-19-drugs-but-evidence-so-far-is-slim/

https://www.indiatoday.in/india-today-insight/story/covid-19-the-bitter-truth-about-using-hydroxychloroquine-as-a-preventive-drug-1659116-2020-03-24

https://www.floridatoday.com/story/news/2020/03/24/trump-backs-covid-19-hydroxychloroquine-and-azithromycin-therapy-weak-science/2904846001/

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/ama-president-trump-hydroxychloroquine_n_5e8a9914c5b6e7d76c663197

 

 

 

 

Those were interesting links.  Thank you.  I didn't read them as "it's worse than dying" though and I don't think meaningful trials would take 3-4 years.  This is a distortion in my opinion.

[Doc Brown]

4 hours ago, Wacka said:

You libtards would  deny help  to somebody  hit by a car  if Trump  asked you  to pitch in.

If it was Tom Brady I'd have reservations.

[Doc Brown]

2 hours ago, Taro T said:

 

The cynical answer is because the left would rather see people die than see 45 get "a win."

 

Really believe it is less sinister than that.  The left reflexively believes that anything 45 supports is necessarily wrong or nefarious, sometimes both.  And it takes a bit of doing to get over that reflexive 'this has to be fake or bad' reaction.  That the national level media almost entirely in unison can't stand him being president and most all the people they interact with daily think like mindedly, and it isn't too hard to see why they still can't open up to the possibility that this might work.  And except in very rare cases, at a minimum it won't hurt.

I don't agree with this.  It's more that in general the left is often overly reliant on science while the right has a healthy skepticism of it (think climate change debate).  You saw that play out here with Trump calling an unproven drug that subdues an overreactive immune response a potential game changer.  This is the same guy that's pushed in the past that vaccines give some children autism.  Plus, there's no doubt that even the most partisan person on the left can see the disdain most of the media has for Trump.  

[Magox]

1 minute ago, Doc Brown said:

I don't agree with this.  It's more that in general the left is often overly reliant on science while the right has a healthy skepticism of it (think climate change debate).  You saw that play out here with Trump calling an unproven drug that subdues an overreactive immune response a potential game changer.  This is the same guy that's pushed in the past that vaccines give some children autism.  Plus, there's no doubt that even the most partisan person on the left can see the disdain most of the media has for Trump.  

 

 

I'm not going to word it the way others have.  

 

But, let's put it this way, do I believe that many in the media and some of the most ardent lefties hope that Trump is wrong about Hydrochloroquine?  Yes, yes I do.

[Doc Brown]

1 minute ago, Magox said:

 

 

I'm not going to word it the way others have.  

 

But, let's put it this way, do I believe that many in the media and some of the most ardent lefties hope that Trump is wrong about Hydrochloroquine?  Yes, yes I do.

Fair enough.  "Rather see people die" is a bit histrionic though.

[Doc]

1 hour ago, Scraps said:

Those were interesting links.  Thank you.  I didn't read them as "it's worse than dying" though and I don't think meaningful trials would take 3-4 years.  This is a distortion in my opinion.

 

And mentioning 4 cases of unsupervised ingestion of it as being reasons not to use it isn't a distortion?

[Doc]

5 minutes ago, Doc Brown said:

Fair enough.  "Rather see people die" is a bit histrionic though.

 

I didn't come to that conclusion lightly.  The left, who loves science, could have said from the beginning "there is evidence it works, it's had no issues so far in the millions of patients who use it daily and we have no other treatments."  But instead they went in the opposite direction and tried to push a false narrative about the drug being too dangerous to use, using 4 cases of people being stupid, to push that narrative.  And they're still largely doing it.

[Doc Brown]

11 minutes ago, Doc said:

 

I didn't come to that conclusion lightly.  The left, who loves science, could have said from the beginning "there is evidence it works, it's had no issues so far in the millions of patients who use it daily and we have no other treatments."  But instead they went in the opposite direction and tried to push a false narrative about the drug being too dangerous to use, using 4 cases of people being stupid, to push that narrative.  And they're still largely doing it.

Agree with this part but when you say "the left" does that include all registered Democrats?

[Taro T]

4 minutes ago, Doc Brown said:

I don't agree with this.  It's more that in general the left is often overly reliant on science while the right has a healthy skepticism of it (think climate change debate).  You saw that play out here with Trump calling an unproven drug that subdues an overreactive immune response a potential game changer.  This is the same guy that's pushed in the past that vaccines give some children autism.  Plus, there's no doubt that even the most partisan person on the left can see the disdain most of the media has for Trump.  

 

Wouldn't expect you to agree with that, as I don't either for the VAST majority of people that consider themselves to be to the left.  (See paragraph below it for my version of the less cynical, and likely more correct, answer for why the vast majority of those reflexively countering the suggestion do so.)

 

But, it is a fallacy to claim that the left relies on science and the right doesn't trust science.  Astrology and crystal power both find way more adherents from the left than the right.  Neither of which is in any way shape or form "science."  And another popular item of "science" from the left - single use plastic bag bans looks like it had a veritable truckload of science behind it.  As for "climate change," nobody denies the climate is changing.  Nobody claims that mankind has no impact on it either.  What gets questioned is how much of changes we see are primarily  due to natural fluctuations of the sun and Earth itself and how much are due to mankind.  Also, and far more importantly, the proposed remedies are questioned far more than the "science" especially when darn near every single model that predicts climate changes has over predicted the change, the proposed remedies are all costing in the TRILLIONS of $'s, and the people pushing these draconian solutions tend to be big winners should any of the remedies get enacted, the scientists don't let people see their data (falsifiability being a huge part of good science as opposed to concensus) and none change their own behavior to limit their own "carbon footprint".

 

Being old enough to not only remember the old "the next ice age is coming" warnings but to have read several books on the subject, tend to take all these predictions with more than a heavy grain of salt.  And having been an air quality engineer for a number of years, have a bit of an understanding about the science of it too. 

 

A lot of the debates on whether to "believe science" or not (and science isn't about belief, it's about hypothesizing, testing, and measuring and quantifying what it can) aren't even really about science at all.  They're about people wanting to tell others how they should act and live and others fighting back against that.  And that happens with actors from both sides.  Science and religion get pushed hard when they support one's preferred policy of what others must do and get questioned when they don't.  The climate change scientists haven't proved their theories in the scientific meaning of that term.  Until their models start accurately predicting events, don't see where we should drop more $T's on their theories.  If they have remedies that cost in the $MM's, might be willing to see them implemented, but they'd better do better if they want to continue to push implementation of solutions that are 5-6 orders of magnitude greater.  Personally, would much rather see the environmentalists get back to focusing on actual pollution rather than their current money grabs.

 

Rant over.  Sorry for the rant.  Did not mean to take away from the focus of this thread.

 

 

 

[Doc]

10 minutes ago, Doc Brown said:

Agree with this part but when you say "the left" does that include all registered Democrats?

 

No.  And I hate generalizations but it was easier than saying "almost everyone on the left..."

[RaoulDuke79]

2 hours ago, Scraps said:

 

Can you show me anyone who has been against this?

 

2 hours ago, Gary Busey said:

 

I've asked the same thing and all he can say is "libs." 

 

2 hours ago, Nanker said:

 

Sure. According to these reports it's worse than dying. It must be tested under clinical trials that last for at least 3 - 4 years before Dr.s should be allowed to use it.

Hey, if it can save one person in 5 - 6 years from now, it'll probably be worth burying 20 - 30 million people before we get to that date.

 

https://nationalinterest.org/blog/buzz/why-trump-wrong-about-hydroxychloroquine-it-wont-help-treat-coronavirus-140862

https://www.factcheck.org/2020/03/trump-hypes-potential-covid-19-drugs-but-evidence-so-far-is-slim/

https://www.indiatoday.in/india-today-insight/story/covid-19-the-bitter-truth-about-using-hydroxychloroquine-as-a-preventive-drug-1659116-2020-03-24

https://www.floridatoday.com/story/news/2020/03/24/trump-backs-covid-19-hydroxychloroquine-and-azithromycin-therapy-weak-science/2904846001/

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/ama-president-trump-hydroxychloroquine_n_5e8a9914c5b6e7d76c663197

 

 

I guess that answers that.