Corona Virus

[Sour Masher]

Hydrochloroquine is an approved drug, because what it does for malaira patients is worth the side effects and risk for those patients. Malaria is an incredibly deadly disease that, despite the drugs and treatments we have, still kills over 1 million people a year globally, and is one of the worst killers in all of human history. So, I'm not bashing a drug that helps treat it. But it, like most drugs, carries risks, in this case serious risks. It is totally irresponsible for a man with such utter lack of knowledge to tout such a drug to the American people based on his "intuition." The idea that anyone would defend the president's intense pushing of this drug despite ever-increasing evidence that it does not do more good than harm for COVID-19 patients is absurd to me.

The man hears tidbits of preliminary info from much smarter and more knowledgeable people than himself that he does not really understand, decides in his gut to tout such things to make himself feel smarter, and it is a scattershot approach that can have serious consequences. The man has delusions of grandeur. He believes he is smarter than experts all the time. He has stated he knows more than generals. Now he thinks he knows more than doctors, by foregoing the scientific method and the advice of his best experts to tout a drug before any real data shows it efficacy, because he heard in passing small morsels of info that again, he did not fully understand, but still decided to share, filtered through the mush of his brain into the word salad of bad advice and misinformation he so often produces.

[revo]

Hydrochloroquine is an approved drug, because what it does for malaira patients is worth the side effects and risk for those patients. Malaria is an incredibly deadly disease that, despite the drugs and treatments we have, still kills over 1 million people a year globally. Left untreated, it has a mortality rate much higher than COVID-19. So, I'm not bashing a drug that helps treat it. But it, like most drugs, carries risks, in this case serious risks. It is totally irresponsible for a man with such utter lack of knowledge to tout such a drug to the American people based on his "intuition." The idea that anyone would defend the president's intense pushing of this drug despite ever-increasing evidence that it does not do more good than harm for COVID-19 patients is absurd to me.

The man hears tidbits of preliminary info from much smarter and more knowledgeable people than himself that he does not really understand, decides in his gut to tout such things to make himself feel smarter, and it is a scattershot approach that can have serious consequences. The man has delusions of grandeur. He believes he is smarter than experts all the time. He has stated he knows more than generals. Now he thinks he knows more than doctors, by foregoing the scientific method and the advice of his best experts to tout a drug before any real data shows it efficacy, because he heard in passing small morsels of info that again, he did not fully understand, but still decided to share, filtered through the mush of his brain into the word salad of bad advice and misinformation he so often produces.

This whole thing started in mid-March when Dr Oz quoted a tiny French study (just 36 patients) on "Fox & Friends" that seemed to show it had some positive effects, but yet was not properly vetted. Fox News then jumped all over it, leading your dopey president to carry the torch.

So yes -- he got all this from a f___ing TV show, and now Trumpies are twisting themselves into pretzels trying to defend, once again, his monumental stupidity.




With many Red States re-opening way too early it seems, they just don't learn. Here's what happened when Hokkaido re-opened too soon:

"Japan’s northern island of Hokkaido offers a grim lesson in the next phase of the battle against COVID-19. It acted quickly and contained an early outbreak of the coronavirus with a 3-week lockdown. But, when the governor lifted restrictions, a second wave of infections hit even harder. Twenty-six days later, the island was forced back into lockdown."

https://time.com/5826918/hokkaido-coronavirus-lockdown/

[Sour Masher]

This whole thing started when Dr Oz quoted a tiny French study (just 36 patients) on "Fox & Friends" that seemed to show it had some positive effects, but was not properly vetted. Fox News then jumped all over it, leading your dopey president to carry the torch.

So yes -- he got all this from a f___ing TV show, and now Republican Trumpies are twisting themselves into pretzels trying to defend, once again, his monumental stupidity.

Yes, it is incredibly irresponsible for him to not understand the scientific method, for him to use his typical hypberbole to talk about treatments as if they are known to be effective before the real work of testing them is done. As I have said before, I don't know this man's IQ or innate intellectual abilities. I suspect they are probably average or above, actually. But he is among the bottom 1% in the world in terms of intellectual curiosity and desire to read and learn beyond his very narrow scope of business and showmanship. Look at the reading lists of former president's. And not just the real brains like Obama, but even a guy like WH Bush. These guys wanted to learn and grow. This man already thinks he knows everything. He really thought he was so smart that he could come up with a treatment know one had thought of, by suggesting we disinfect our insides with sunlight and chemicals. He is an egomaniac with no expertise in this or most areas, yet has the power to influence those areas and the public discourse.

[cardboardbox]

Hydrochloroquine is an approved drug, because what it does for malaira patients is worth the side effects and risk for those patients. Malaria is an incredibly deadly disease that, despite the drugs and treatments we have, still kills over 1 million people a year globally, and is one of the worst killers in all of human history. So, I'm not bashing a drug that helps treat it. But it, like most drugs, carries risks, in this case serious risks. It is totally irresponsible for a man with such utter lack of knowledge to tout such a drug to the American people based on his "intuition." The idea that anyone would defend the president's intense pushing of this drug despite ever-increasing evidence that it does not do more good than harm for COVID-19 patients is absurd to me.

I'll ask again, why do you label hydroxychloroquine as dangerous? In the past it was easy to get a prescription for it, some people take it indefinitely. I've taken it with no side effects. Maybe in super high dosages it can become dangerous but so do other drugs. Try taking 4000mg of Tylenol every day for a while, you might end up damaging your liver.

[Sour Masher]

I'll ask again, why do you label hydroxychloroquine as dangerous? In the past it was easy to get a prescription for it, some people take it indefinitely. I've taken it with no side effects. Maybe in super high dosages it can become dangerous but so do other drugs. Try taking 4000mg of Tylenol every day for a while, you might end up damaging your liver.

Because there have been cases of dangerous side effects, and the reason you need a prescription in the first place is because there are risks in taking it without proper cause and instructions from a medical professional. In cases of malaria, the drug is an effective treatment for that parasite. There is no evidence at this point it is an effective treatment for COVID-19 virus. Using your own example, Tylenol is an over-the-counter drug with dangerous side effects. Someone touting it as a miracle cure for blindness and encouraging all blind people to take it would also be irresponsible, as it would cause more harm than good.

On the flip side, why do you think it is acceptable for a president with no medical training to go against the advice of all of his experts to tout it as a treatment for a disease without any real evidence it is effective? Why should that president insist on an inordinate amount of resources to be spent on clinical trials for the drug? Why not let the experts devote the appropriate amount of resources to it while also exploring other options? Taking anything without evidence it helps the condition you want to treat is irresponsible and potentially harmful. That is why it takes time for these things to get tested and approved.

[cardboardbox]

Because there have been cases of dangerous side effects, and the reason you need a prescription in the first place is because there are risks in taking it without proper cause and instructions from a medical professional. In cases of malaria, the drug is an effective treatment for that parasite. There is no evidence at this point it is an effective treatment for COVID-19 virus. Using your own example, Tylenol is an over-the-counter drug with dangerous side effects. Someone touting it as a miracle cure for blindness and encouraging all blind people to take it would also be irresponsible, as it would cause more harm than good.

If dangerous side effects are true, its probably due to a few things:
1. The patient is already close to death and perhaps in that condition the drug is too strong. I'm not denying that its a powerful drug.
2. Higher dosage than has been safely tested.

In the French study, the Dr used Hydroxychloroquine much earlier than the US tests. I dont understand why our tests are done this way - waiting until the point of no return.

On the flip side, why do you think it is acceptable for a president with no medical training to go against the advice of all of his experts to tout it as a treatment for a disease without any real evidence it is effective? Why should that president insist on an inordinate amount of resources to be spent on clinical trials for the drug? Why not let the experts devote the appropriate amount of resources to it while also exploring other options? Taking anything without evidence it helps the condition you want to treat is irresponsible and potentially harmful. That is why it takes time for these things to get tested and approved.

How do you know the parts I've bolded? Did every advisor tell Trump that Hydroxychloroquine was a dead end? Are you certain that other treatments were ignored so that Hydroxychloroquine could be tested? I dont agree that taking a drug without certainty it will work is harmful. There was evidence it could work which is a good enough reason to try it.

[Sour Masher]

If dangerous side effects are true, its probably due to a few things:
1. The patient is already close to death and perhaps in that condition the drug is too strong. I'm not denying that its a powerful drug.
2. Higher dosage than has been safely tested.

In the French study, the Dr used Hydroxychloroquine much earlier than the US tests. I dont understand why our tests are done this way - waiting until the point of no return.

How do you know the parts I've bolded? Did every advisor tell Trump that Hydroxychloroquine was a dead end? Are you certain that other treatments were ignored so that Hydroxychloroquine could be tested? I dont agree that taking a drug without certainty it will work is harmful. There was evidence it could work which is a good enough reason to try it.

You mischaracterized my claims. I never said you should never take a drug without knowing if it works. That is what clinical trials are all about. And I also never said this drug was a dead end. As far as how I know what all his experts said, I'm quite certain any scientist worthy of the name has said and would say to anyone, please don't tout a treatment as effective without us knowing it is effective. That is unethical and irresponsible. He has absolutely no place in making any kind of medical recommendations to anyone. He could say doctors are looking into the efficacy of a variety of treatments and he has hopes they will be effective, but that is not what he has said. He has made overthetop claims about the efficacy of a drug without sufficient evidence, and he is also not mentioning its side effects or the potential harm it can cause. It is irresponsible and if he were a drug company, he could be sued. He knows nothing about this subject yet he pretends to and that is dangerous to those who trust him.

[cardboardbox]

You mischaracterized my claims. I never said you should never take a drug without knowing if it works. That is what clinical trials are all about. And I also never said this drug was a dead end. As far as how I know what all his experts said, I'm quite certain any scientist worthy of the name has said and would say to anyone, please don't tout a treatment as effective without us knowing it is effective. That is unethical and irresponsible. He has absolutely no place in making any kind of medical recommendations to anyone. He could say doctors are looking into the efficacy of a variety of treatments and he has hopes they will be effective, but that is not what he has said. He has made overthetop claims about the efficacy of a drug without sufficient evidence, and he is also not mentioning its side effects or the potential harm it can cause. It is irresponsible and if he were a drug company, he could be sued. He knows nothing about this subject yet he pretends to and that is dangerous to those who trust him.

You said "Taking anything without evidence it helps the condition you want to treat is irresponsible." Are you seriously arguing "knowing" vs "evidence?"

Anyway, I'm not interested in sparring semantics with you today. I only wanted to point out that hydroxychloroquine is not considered a dangerous drug. It was worth testing, and it should be tested on patients in earlier stages of infection. Testing late in the death cycle is worthless.

Have a great Sunday!

[Sour Masher]

You said "Taking anything without evidence it helps the condition you want to treat is irresponsible." Are you seriously arguing "knowing" vs "evidence?"

Anyway, I'm not interested in sparring semantics with you today. I only wanted to point out that hydroxychloroquine is not considered a dangerous drug. It was worth testing, and it should be tested on patients in earlier stages of infection. Testing late in the death cycle is worthless.

Have a great Sunday!

I meant a regular person and I stand by that. There is a place for taking that risk--in a controlled study under the care and supervision of trained professionals. People outside of such a study shouldn't take prescription drugs with known side effects absent any evidence that it works to treat the condition you are trying to treat. I can't believe anyone would seriously argue the opposite. Wait until trials indicate it is effective and for doctors to prescribe it.

[Sour Masher]

Here are the warnings associated with hydroxychloriquine. Sure, you take these risks in the cases where this drug is proven effective to treat the very deadly condition of malaria, because it works to help treat that disease. Why in the hell would you follow the advice of Donald Trump to take it over the advice of your doctor given these warnings? And IT IS BEING TESTED, in controlled studies under the care and supervision of doctors. Touting it as a drug patients should be demanding and trying to get to take on their own before that testing concludes it is an effective treatment is irresponsible.

Important warnings:

Child danger warning: Accidentally swallowing just a few tablets has been fatal in some children. Keep this drug in a child-resistant bottle out of reach of children.

Worsened skin conditions warning: Tell your doctor if you have skin conditions, such as psoriasis or porphyria. This medication may make these conditions worse.

Eye damage: This medication can damage your eyes, leading to vision problems that can be permanent. This damage is more likely when the drug is used in high doses.

Heart damage: This medication can cause heart disease. Although uncommon, some cases have been fatal.

[cardboardbox]

I meant a regular person and I stand by that. There is a place for taking that risk--in a controlled study under the care and supervision of trained professionals. People outside of such a study shouldn't take prescription drugs with known side effects absent any evidence that it works to treat the condition you are trying to treat. I can't believe anyone would seriously argue the opposite. Wait until trials indicate it is effective and for doctors to prescribe it.

again, its not dangerous. But you're going to keep saying that, why do I bother.

There is evidence it works.

[cardboardbox]

Here are the warnings associated with hydroxychloriquine. Sure, you take these risks in the cases where this drug is proven effective to treat the very deadly condition of malaria, because it works to help treat that disease. Why in the hell would you follow the advice of Donald Trump to take it over the advice of your doctor given these warnings? And IT IS BEING TESTED, in controlled studies under the care and supervision of doctors. Touting it as a drug patients should be demanding and trying to get to take on their own before that testing concludes it is an effective treatment is irresponsible.

Important warnings:

Child danger warning: Accidentally swallowing just a few tablets has been fatal in some children. Keep this drug in a child-resistant bottle out of reach of children.

Worsened skin conditions warning: Tell your doctor if you have skin conditions, such as psoriasis or porphyria. This medication may make these conditions worse.

Eye damage: This medication can damage your eyes, leading to vision problems that can be permanent. This damage is more likely when the drug is used in high doses.

Heart damage: This medication can cause heart disease. Although uncommon, some cases have been fatal.

you shouldnt read the warnings on any drugs, its usually a long scary list. No I dont mean that literally, but if you read the warnings, you will be scared to take anything.

[Sour Masher]

you shouldnt read the warnings on any drugs, its usually a long scary list.

You shouldn't read warning labels but you should tell everyone in America they should randomly choose drugs from someone else's medicine cabinet to try them out for your unrelated condition? That is basically what Trump is doing by touting a drug known to work for the malaria parasite that is not yet known to work for the COVID-19 virus.

[Sour Masher]

I've come to realize that many on this forum don't respect the differences between credible sources and specious sources. The difference is incredibly important to decision making.

Some sources carry weight and some should not Here is a highly credible source CBB and others who don't see the harm in what Trump and other conservatives before him has done should read. This article on this issue is from the New England Journal of Medicine, written by well respected medical doctors. It is worth the read: https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMp2009457

Here is an excerpt that shows all the ways this hurts people, including the shortages it has created for diseases it is known to be effective for:

"Even before the pandemic, many conservative and libertarian politicians and advocacy groups supported expanding patients’ “right to try” unapproved experimental drugs. This position has intensified a commonly held but spurious belief that slow processes and overly onerous requirements by the FDA prevent patients from accessing many clinically useful drugs. In fact, the FDA presides over one of the fastest drug approval processes in the world, with a majority of drugs gaining approval in the United States before they are approved in Europe or Canada.3 The FDA approves the overwhelming majority of drug applications it receives, and over the past several decades it has been approving more drugs on the basis of limited evidence, such as fewer clinical trials per drug, trials with suboptimal design, and trials using surrogate measures — which may or may not predict actual clinical benefit — as end points.4

Widening access to experimental therapies that have not been fully evaluated is likely to have several unintended consequences. First, benefits to patients are unknown and may be negligible (as in the case of peramivir), in which case expanded access undermines physicians’ attempts to practice evidence-based medicine. Second, medications such as hydroxychloroquine have well-documented risks; subjecting patients to these risks would be unjustifiable in the absence of meaningful clinical benefit. Third, distributing unproven drugs under expanded access or EUAs may detract from the resources needed to carry out clinical trials, including the patient base and necessary funds. Since key outcome data are often not collected outside a trial, this redirection of resources will hamper our ability to quickly determine whether these drugs are truly safe and effective.

Finally, with drugs that are already marketed for other conditions, widespread off-label use can limit access for patients who need them for their established use. After Trump promoted hydroxychloroquine, prescribing of the drug increased rapidly, leading to substantial shortages affecting patients taking it for rheumatoid arthritis or lupus — indications for which it has been proven effective."

[GwynnInTheHall]

I've come to realize some in this forum are willfully ignorant kool-aid drinkers.

But it's not like that's surprising or anything...…….