|
Now that we have a new thread, in order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread |
On May 20 2020 22:07 Biff The Understudy wrote:Show nested quote +On May 20 2020 19:09 Simberto wrote:On May 20 2020 11:52 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On May 20 2020 10:47 iPlaY.NettleS wrote:On May 20 2020 10:14 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On May 20 2020 09:45 Gahlo wrote:On May 20 2020 09:23 iPlaY.NettleS wrote:On May 19 2020 19:12 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On May 19 2020 18:33 Gorsameth wrote:On May 19 2020 14:33 CorsairHero wrote:
Trump is taking hydroxychloroquine
Any other elected member of the government doing the same? he says he does* Are you suggesting we can't take the president at his word? /s According to Trump, not only does hydroxychloroquine cure coronavirus, but hcq can be taken preemptively to prevent even getting covid-19 in the first place. So now, just about everyone might as well take hcq, just to be safe... Sigh. Yes, it was known 15 years ago that chloroquine can inhibit Sars-Coronavirus.This is not new information. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1232869/ Medical information from 15 years ago is suspect for a strain that was discovered/came to be last year. Yeah lol. There are plenty of differences between those coronaviruses. The study was for SARS Covid-1, to suggest it doesn't work at all for prevention of SARS Covid-2 is premature.Wheres the SARS covid-1 vaccine anyway? I like how some people think they know better than the White house doctor who prescribed Trump this stuff in the first place.Ever consider the WH doctor is privvy to information the public is not? You have it backwards, because it's a non sequitur. It's premature to assume that a medication for one disease will automatically treat another, different disease. It's not premature to hold off on taking the unverified medication for the latter; that's how the burden of proof works, and that's why the medical community has made it very clear that more research and testing needs to be done before advocating an identical treatment. We've already seen negative consequences from people blindly buying and taking away HCQ from people who actually need it. Thank you. That reversal of the burden of proof made me stop and facepalm. I'm amazed anyone is willing to die on the "Trump and his Chloroquine" hill.
They literally have. They're rushing to take unproven medication because Trump suggested they have nothing else to lose, and that it might be a good idea. I know what's a good idea. You take medication when there's actually evidence that it works, and not endanger not only your own life, but the lives of people who actually needed that medication for proven reasons. We've reached peak post-factuality, and medical science has now become a political anvil, rather than a matter of life-and-death science. People will die who absolutely did not need to, and they already have.
|
On May 20 2020 23:37 NewSunshine wrote:Show nested quote +On May 20 2020 22:07 Biff The Understudy wrote:On May 20 2020 19:09 Simberto wrote:On May 20 2020 11:52 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On May 20 2020 10:47 iPlaY.NettleS wrote:On May 20 2020 10:14 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On May 20 2020 09:45 Gahlo wrote:On May 20 2020 09:23 iPlaY.NettleS wrote:On May 19 2020 19:12 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On May 19 2020 18:33 Gorsameth wrote:
[quote]he says he does*
Are you suggesting we can't take the president at his word? /s According to Trump, not only does hydroxychloroquine cure coronavirus, but hcq can be taken preemptively to prevent even getting covid-19 in the first place. So now, just about everyone might as well take hcq, just to be safe... Sigh. Yes, it was known 15 years ago that chloroquine can inhibit Sars-Coronavirus.This is not new information. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1232869/ Medical information from 15 years ago is suspect for a strain that was discovered/came to be last year. Yeah lol. There are plenty of differences between those coronaviruses. The study was for SARS Covid-1, to suggest it doesn't work at all for prevention of SARS Covid-2 is premature.Wheres the SARS covid-1 vaccine anyway? I like how some people think they know better than the White house doctor who prescribed Trump this stuff in the first place.Ever consider the WH doctor is privvy to information the public is not? You have it backwards, because it's a non sequitur. It's premature to assume that a medication for one disease will automatically treat another, different disease. It's not premature to hold off on taking the unverified medication for the latter; that's how the burden of proof works, and that's why the medical community has made it very clear that more research and testing needs to be done before advocating an identical treatment. We've already seen negative consequences from people blindly buying and taking away HCQ from people who actually need it. Thank you. That reversal of the burden of proof made me stop and facepalm. I'm amazed anyone is willing to die on the "Trump and his Chloroquine" hill. They literally have. They're rushing to take unproven medication because Trump suggested they have nothing else to lose, and that it might be a good idea. I know what's a good idea. You take medication when there's actually evidence that it works, and not endanger not only your own life, but the lives of people who actually needed that medication for proven reasons. We've reached peak post-factuality, and medical science has now become a political anvil, rather than a matter of life-and-death science. People will die who absolutely did not need to, and they already have.
Another unfortunate byproduct is that the people who preemptively take HCQ and don't die from Covid-19 are going to create a causal link, and attribute not getting sick/ not dying to HCQ, whether or not it's true.
|
"The Association of American Physicians and Surgeons (AAPS) is a conservative non-profit association founded in 1943. The group was reported to have about 5,000 members in 2014. The association advocates a range of scientifically discredited hypotheses, including the belief that HIV does not cause AIDS, that being gay reduces life expectancy, that there is a link between abortion and breast cancer, and that there is a causal relationship between vaccines and autism. It is opposed to the Affordable Care Act and other forms of universal health insurance."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Association_of_American_Physicians_and_Surgeons
There is still a lot of research being done to see if hcq can help as a treatment of COVID-19 so it remains an open question whether or not it actually is effective. The research being done for hcq is pretty limited though (maybe because of the potential side effects) and sample sizes have been very low for most studies so it will probably take a long time to establish a consensus on this issue..In the meantime, while I think it's likely not a good idea to use hcq, I guess i can kind of understand if people are using it out of a desperate hope that it might work.
Either way, it's pretty sad that even science has become a partisan issue in the US. I'd prefer that political pundits defer to experts on this kind of topic because their opinion is generally worse than useless.
|
On May 21 2020 00:11 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On May 20 2020 23:37 NewSunshine wrote:On May 20 2020 22:07 Biff The Understudy wrote:On May 20 2020 19:09 Simberto wrote:On May 20 2020 11:52 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On May 20 2020 10:47 iPlaY.NettleS wrote:On May 20 2020 10:14 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On May 20 2020 09:45 Gahlo wrote:On May 20 2020 09:23 iPlaY.NettleS wrote:On May 19 2020 19:12 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:
[quote]
Are you suggesting we can't take the president at his word? /s
According to Trump, not only does hydroxychloroquine cure coronavirus, but hcq can be taken preemptively to prevent even getting covid-19 in the first place. So now, just about everyone might as well take hcq, just to be safe... Sigh. Yes, it was known 15 years ago that chloroquine can inhibit Sars-Coronavirus.This is not new information. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1232869/ Medical information from 15 years ago is suspect for a strain that was discovered/came to be last year. Yeah lol. There are plenty of differences between those coronaviruses. The study was for SARS Covid-1, to suggest it doesn't work at all for prevention of SARS Covid-2 is premature.Wheres the SARS covid-1 vaccine anyway? I like how some people think they know better than the White house doctor who prescribed Trump this stuff in the first place.Ever consider the WH doctor is privvy to information the public is not? You have it backwards, because it's a non sequitur. It's premature to assume that a medication for one disease will automatically treat another, different disease. It's not premature to hold off on taking the unverified medication for the latter; that's how the burden of proof works, and that's why the medical community has made it very clear that more research and testing needs to be done before advocating an identical treatment. We've already seen negative consequences from people blindly buying and taking away HCQ from people who actually need it. Thank you. That reversal of the burden of proof made me stop and facepalm. I'm amazed anyone is willing to die on the "Trump and his Chloroquine" hill. They literally have. They're rushing to take unproven medication because Trump suggested they have nothing else to lose, and that it might be a good idea. I know what's a good idea. You take medication when there's actually evidence that it works, and not endanger not only your own life, but the lives of people who actually needed that medication for proven reasons. We've reached peak post-factuality, and medical science has now become a political anvil, rather than a matter of life-and-death science. People will die who absolutely did not need to, and they already have. Another unfortunate byproduct is that the people who preemptively take HCQ and don't die from Covid-19 are going to create a causal link, and attribute not getting sick/ not dying to HCQ, whether or not it's true.
I will admit that taking HCQ to address the Coronavirus, and then subsequently not dying of either HCQ or the virus, is noteworthy, but not for the reason Nettles thinks it is.
|
One thing that I enjoy about local political discussion: Rural Oregon insisting no one on the planet can possibly understand their lives other than rural Oregon. Its like when you meet someone who does something really unethical and they didn't realize they are the only one. When people are well educated and make a conscious effort to learn about the world around them, they tend to become sympathetic to the struggles of people they never would have known about. Diversity starts to not be a bad thing and lots of other ideas come into focus. This tends to eventually develop into a left-leaning ideology. As such, it is entirely normal and natural to learn about the lives of people around you.
The sociological/societal challenges of small rural counties make the dynamic I am describing above very rare. In my conversations with people in rural areas, it is amazing to me how little they care about the world outside their county. They don't see the need for all the mixing and mashing that happens in economic centers. A lot of the sociology of the world just isn't all that relevant to them and it is super apparent.
So they constantly comment on Reddit threads in the Oregon subreddit about how Portland doesn't understand them. lol. Its not some bizarre, difficult to understand situation. It is possible to learn about cultures and people without living among them, ***so long as you have an existing interest in learning about other people and cultures for the sake of doing so*** (that is what rural Oregon doesn't understand).
|
On May 21 2020 00:11 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On May 20 2020 23:37 NewSunshine wrote:On May 20 2020 22:07 Biff The Understudy wrote:On May 20 2020 19:09 Simberto wrote:On May 20 2020 11:52 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On May 20 2020 10:47 iPlaY.NettleS wrote:On May 20 2020 10:14 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On May 20 2020 09:45 Gahlo wrote:On May 20 2020 09:23 iPlaY.NettleS wrote:On May 19 2020 19:12 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:
[quote]
Are you suggesting we can't take the president at his word? /s
According to Trump, not only does hydroxychloroquine cure coronavirus, but hcq can be taken preemptively to prevent even getting covid-19 in the first place. So now, just about everyone might as well take hcq, just to be safe... Sigh. Yes, it was known 15 years ago that chloroquine can inhibit Sars-Coronavirus.This is not new information. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1232869/ Medical information from 15 years ago is suspect for a strain that was discovered/came to be last year. Yeah lol. There are plenty of differences between those coronaviruses. The study was for SARS Covid-1, to suggest it doesn't work at all for prevention of SARS Covid-2 is premature.Wheres the SARS covid-1 vaccine anyway? I like how some people think they know better than the White house doctor who prescribed Trump this stuff in the first place.Ever consider the WH doctor is privvy to information the public is not? You have it backwards, because it's a non sequitur. It's premature to assume that a medication for one disease will automatically treat another, different disease. It's not premature to hold off on taking the unverified medication for the latter; that's how the burden of proof works, and that's why the medical community has made it very clear that more research and testing needs to be done before advocating an identical treatment. We've already seen negative consequences from people blindly buying and taking away HCQ from people who actually need it. Thank you. That reversal of the burden of proof made me stop and facepalm. I'm amazed anyone is willing to die on the "Trump and his Chloroquine" hill. They literally have. They're rushing to take unproven medication because Trump suggested they have nothing else to lose, and that it might be a good idea. I know what's a good idea. You take medication when there's actually evidence that it works, and not endanger not only your own life, but the lives of people who actually needed that medication for proven reasons. We've reached peak post-factuality, and medical science has now become a political anvil, rather than a matter of life-and-death science. People will die who absolutely did not need to, and they already have. Another unfortunate byproduct is that the people who preemptively take HCQ and don't die from Covid-19 are going to create a causal link, and attribute not getting sick/ not dying to HCQ, whether or not it's true.
Yeah. There’s a fun quote in that AAPS thing Nettles linked:
To date, the total number of reported patients treated with HCQ, with or without zinc and the widely used antibiotic azithromycin, is 2,333, writes AAPS, in observational data from China, France, South Korea, Algeria, and the U.S. Of these, 2,137 or 91.6 percent improved clinically. There were 63 deaths, all but 11 in a single retrospective report from the Veterans Administration where the patients were severely ill.
Note that they make no reference to a control group; just that “91.6% improved clinically”. That is, only 91.6% improved at all? Only 63 died, so that leaves ~6% that didn’t die, but also never recovered? Meanwhile the headline “90% chance it helps” makes it sound like they’ve got data suggesting a p value of 0.1, which a) they don’t, and b) would be an extremely unimpressive result with an N of 2333. If you’ve got a sample that big and can’t reach statistical significance, either there’s no effect at all or it’s vanishingly small.
Don’t get me wrong, AAPS is just a PAC run by a bunch of conservative hacks, so it’s not surprising they don’t know how to understand clinical data. Their whole gimmick is that you can name an organization anything you want to, so they picked a name that sounds like it’d be some professional society like the AMA or something. Then readers might see a statement from them and be fooled into thinking someone with actual credibility is saying it.
|
Spain17989 Posts
On May 21 2020 00:33 NewSunshine wrote:Show nested quote +On May 21 2020 00:11 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On May 20 2020 23:37 NewSunshine wrote:On May 20 2020 22:07 Biff The Understudy wrote:On May 20 2020 19:09 Simberto wrote:On May 20 2020 11:52 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On May 20 2020 10:47 iPlaY.NettleS wrote:On May 20 2020 10:14 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On May 20 2020 09:45 Gahlo wrote:Medical information from 15 years ago is suspect for a strain that was discovered/came to be last year. Yeah lol. There are plenty of differences between those coronaviruses. The study was for SARS Covid-1, to suggest it doesn't work at all for prevention of SARS Covid-2 is premature.Wheres the SARS covid-1 vaccine anyway? I like how some people think they know better than the White house doctor who prescribed Trump this stuff in the first place.Ever consider the WH doctor is privvy to information the public is not? You have it backwards, because it's a non sequitur. It's premature to assume that a medication for one disease will automatically treat another, different disease. It's not premature to hold off on taking the unverified medication for the latter; that's how the burden of proof works, and that's why the medical community has made it very clear that more research and testing needs to be done before advocating an identical treatment. We've already seen negative consequences from people blindly buying and taking away HCQ from people who actually need it. Thank you. That reversal of the burden of proof made me stop and facepalm. I'm amazed anyone is willing to die on the "Trump and his Chloroquine" hill. They literally have. They're rushing to take unproven medication because Trump suggested they have nothing else to lose, and that it might be a good idea. I know what's a good idea. You take medication when there's actually evidence that it works, and not endanger not only your own life, but the lives of people who actually needed that medication for proven reasons. We've reached peak post-factuality, and medical science has now become a political anvil, rather than a matter of life-and-death science. People will die who absolutely did not need to, and they already have. Another unfortunate byproduct is that the people who preemptively take HCQ and don't die from Covid-19 are going to create a causal link, and attribute not getting sick/ not dying to HCQ, whether or not it's true. I will admit that taking HCQ to address the Coronavirus, and then subsequently not dying of either HCQ or the virus, is noteworthy, but not for the reason Nettles thinks it is.
Most people don't die of taking HCQ either. Otherwise it would be a pretty terrible medication for malaria, arthritis and lupus, all of which are legit uses. Taking HCQ isn't bad because it'll kill you (unlike injecting bleach, which has quite a high chance of killing you), it's bad because it does have some nasty side effects, and in a very small % of cases these can be life-threatening. Creating a run on HCQ also means it creates a scarcity for people with lupus who actually do need it. And there is no evidence at all that it does work, so by advertising HCQ for covid you are:
1. Putting people at risk of somewhat nasty side effects.
2. Putting some people at risk of serious side effects.
3. Reducing the availability of HCQ for people who need it for other purposes.
For no apparent benefit to anybody who takes it. It is just really really dumb (but not as dumb as injecting bleach).
|
On May 21 2020 00:40 Acrofales wrote:Show nested quote +On May 21 2020 00:33 NewSunshine wrote:On May 21 2020 00:11 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On May 20 2020 23:37 NewSunshine wrote:On May 20 2020 22:07 Biff The Understudy wrote:On May 20 2020 19:09 Simberto wrote:On May 20 2020 11:52 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On May 20 2020 10:47 iPlaY.NettleS wrote:On May 20 2020 10:14 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On May 20 2020 09:45 Gahlo wrote:
[quote]
Medical information from 15 years ago is suspect for a strain that was discovered/came to be last year. Yeah lol. There are plenty of differences between those coronaviruses. The study was for SARS Covid-1, to suggest it doesn't work at all for prevention of SARS Covid-2 is premature.Wheres the SARS covid-1 vaccine anyway? I like how some people think they know better than the White house doctor who prescribed Trump this stuff in the first place.Ever consider the WH doctor is privvy to information the public is not? You have it backwards, because it's a non sequitur. It's premature to assume that a medication for one disease will automatically treat another, different disease. It's not premature to hold off on taking the unverified medication for the latter; that's how the burden of proof works, and that's why the medical community has made it very clear that more research and testing needs to be done before advocating an identical treatment. We've already seen negative consequences from people blindly buying and taking away HCQ from people who actually need it. Thank you. That reversal of the burden of proof made me stop and facepalm. I'm amazed anyone is willing to die on the "Trump and his Chloroquine" hill. They literally have. They're rushing to take unproven medication because Trump suggested they have nothing else to lose, and that it might be a good idea. I know what's a good idea. You take medication when there's actually evidence that it works, and not endanger not only your own life, but the lives of people who actually needed that medication for proven reasons. We've reached peak post-factuality, and medical science has now become a political anvil, rather than a matter of life-and-death science. People will die who absolutely did not need to, and they already have. Another unfortunate byproduct is that the people who preemptively take HCQ and don't die from Covid-19 are going to create a causal link, and attribute not getting sick/ not dying to HCQ, whether or not it's true. I will admit that taking HCQ to address the Coronavirus, and then subsequently not dying of either HCQ or the virus, is noteworthy, but not for the reason Nettles thinks it is. Most people don't die of taking HCQ either. Otherwise it would be a pretty terrible medication for malaria, arthritis and lupus, all of which are legit uses. Taking HCQ isn't bad because it'll kill you (unlike injecting bleach, which has quite a high chance of killing you), it's bad because it does have some nasty side effects, and in a very small % of cases these can be life-threatening. Creating a run on HCQ also means it creates a scarcity for people with lupus who actually do need it. And there is no evidence at all that it does work, so by advertising HCQ for covid you are: 1. Putting people at risk of somewhat nasty side effects. 2. Putting some people at risk of serious side effects. 3. Reducing the availability of HCQ for people who need it for other purposes. For no apparent benefit to anybody who takes it. It is just really really dumb (but not as dumb as injecting bleach).
I would argue by virtue of #3 that it is in fact worse than injecting bleach. It's easier to feel like you're not doing something incredibly stupid when it only affects someone else.
|
On May 21 2020 01:32 NewSunshine wrote:Show nested quote +On May 21 2020 00:40 Acrofales wrote:On May 21 2020 00:33 NewSunshine wrote:On May 21 2020 00:11 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On May 20 2020 23:37 NewSunshine wrote:On May 20 2020 22:07 Biff The Understudy wrote:On May 20 2020 19:09 Simberto wrote:On May 20 2020 11:52 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On May 20 2020 10:47 iPlaY.NettleS wrote:On May 20 2020 10:14 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:
[quote]
Yeah lol. There are plenty of differences between those coronaviruses. The study was for SARS Covid-1, to suggest it doesn't work at all for prevention of SARS Covid-2 is premature.Wheres the SARS covid-1 vaccine anyway? I like how some people think they know better than the White house doctor who prescribed Trump this stuff in the first place.Ever consider the WH doctor is privvy to information the public is not? You have it backwards, because it's a non sequitur. It's premature to assume that a medication for one disease will automatically treat another, different disease. It's not premature to hold off on taking the unverified medication for the latter; that's how the burden of proof works, and that's why the medical community has made it very clear that more research and testing needs to be done before advocating an identical treatment. We've already seen negative consequences from people blindly buying and taking away HCQ from people who actually need it. Thank you. That reversal of the burden of proof made me stop and facepalm. I'm amazed anyone is willing to die on the "Trump and his Chloroquine" hill. They literally have. They're rushing to take unproven medication because Trump suggested they have nothing else to lose, and that it might be a good idea. I know what's a good idea. You take medication when there's actually evidence that it works, and not endanger not only your own life, but the lives of people who actually needed that medication for proven reasons. We've reached peak post-factuality, and medical science has now become a political anvil, rather than a matter of life-and-death science. People will die who absolutely did not need to, and they already have. Another unfortunate byproduct is that the people who preemptively take HCQ and don't die from Covid-19 are going to create a causal link, and attribute not getting sick/ not dying to HCQ, whether or not it's true. I will admit that taking HCQ to address the Coronavirus, and then subsequently not dying of either HCQ or the virus, is noteworthy, but not for the reason Nettles thinks it is. Most people don't die of taking HCQ either. Otherwise it would be a pretty terrible medication for malaria, arthritis and lupus, all of which are legit uses. Taking HCQ isn't bad because it'll kill you (unlike injecting bleach, which has quite a high chance of killing you), it's bad because it does have some nasty side effects, and in a very small % of cases these can be life-threatening. Creating a run on HCQ also means it creates a scarcity for people with lupus who actually do need it. And there is no evidence at all that it does work, so by advertising HCQ for covid you are: 1. Putting people at risk of somewhat nasty side effects. 2. Putting some people at risk of serious side effects. 3. Reducing the availability of HCQ for people who need it for other purposes. For no apparent benefit to anybody who takes it. It is just really really dumb (but not as dumb as injecting bleach). I would argue by virtue of #3 that it is in fact worse than injecting bleach. It's easier to feel like you're not doing something incredibly stupid when it only affects someone else.
Agreed. Killing yourself or endangering your own life is one thing, but preventing other people from getting the medicine they need is another.
|
I don't get the anti HCQ point of view. Its cheap, easy to scale if there really was a spike in demand, and for most people the side effects are similar to that of placebo. In addition there is an obvious biological vector through which it would potentially be effective in treating C19. That same vector is the reason that ventilators don't work for treating C19 for most patients.
This is exactly the sort of situation where off label prescribing is called for. Its not like they are experimenting with something expensive like Ribavirin or with common bad side effects like Keytruda.
|
On May 21 2020 06:08 cLutZ wrote:
I don't get the anti HCQ point of view. Its cheap, easy to scale if there really was a spike in demand, and for most people the side effects are similar to that of placebo. In addition there is an obvious biological vector through which it would potentially be effective in treating C19. That same vector is the reason that ventilators don't work for treating C19 for most patients.
This is exactly the sort of situation where off label prescribing is called for. Its not like they are experimenting with something expensive like Ribavirin or with common bad side effects like Keytruda.
I'm done trying to track HCQ effectiveness. Covid is weird and nothing makes sense. So much conflicting information.
|
QT elongation is not a side effect of placebo.
|
On May 21 2020 06:08 cLutZ wrote:
I don't get the anti HCQ point of view. Its cheap, easy to scale if there really was a spike in demand, and for most people the side effects are similar to that of placebo. In addition there is an obvious biological vector through which it would potentially be effective in treating C19. That same vector is the reason that ventilators don't work for treating C19 for most patients.
This is exactly the sort of situation where off label prescribing is called for. Its not like they are experimenting with something expensive like Ribavirin or with common bad side effects like Keytruda.
The anti HCQ point of view is that it has shown to have side effects that increase mortality for Covid and for normal people. And nothing is easy to scale in medications unless there is significant investment. Which welcome to America there isn't for.
|
On May 21 2020 06:08 cLutZ wrote:
I don't get the anti HCQ point of view. Its cheap, easy to scale if there really was a spike in demand, and for most people the side effects are similar to that of placebo. In addition there is an obvious biological vector through which it would potentially be effective in treating C19. That same vector is the reason that ventilators don't work for treating C19 for most patients.
This is exactly the sort of situation where off label prescribing is called for. Its not like they are experimenting with something expensive like Ribavirin or with common bad side effects like Keytruda.
Are you actually mad?
Because nothing truely didn't work we do whatever because stuff that didn't but nothing really didn't work?
Lord praise the sceptics.
|
On May 21 2020 06:08 cLutZ wrote:
I don't get the anti HCQ point of view. Its cheap, easy to scale if there really was a spike in demand, and for most people the side effects are similar to that of placebo. In addition there is an obvious biological vector through which it would potentially be effective in treating C19. That same vector is the reason that ventilators don't work for treating C19 for most patients.
This is exactly the sort of situation where off label prescribing is called for. Its not like they are experimenting with something expensive like Ribavirin or with common bad side effects like Keytruda.
People who need HCQ can't get it because Trump supporters are taking it instead, and taking any drug that hasn't yet been properly tested and vetted extensively perpetuates a dangerous anti-science, anti-medicine precedent where people may unnecessarily be risking their lives, well-being, and financial stability by ingesting something we don't yet understand with the explicit misunderstanding that it's supposed to be a legitimate treatment. Trump calling it a miracle cure and a preventative treatment is Dr. Oz levels of bullshit-magic-advertising. He also shouldn't be contradicting the experts on this, as he peddles his nonsense.
|
It’s no different than if China suggested traditional Chinese medicine as a coronavirus cure because a lot of people who consume Chinese medicine are also people who have recovered.
Even if we ignore the fact that the evidence of this being incredibly wonky and dependent on people cherry-picking results to fit their political views, it’s an incredibly anti-intellectual way of deriving a result and gives people a false sense of security.
If you really think about it, this is really the end goal of Trump promoting this drug. BTW I still see no proof of Trump actually consuming the drug, only constantly complaining about why America isn’t open yet.
|
On May 21 2020 06:48 Velr wrote:Show nested quote +On May 21 2020 06:08 cLutZ wrote:
I don't get the anti HCQ point of view. Its cheap, easy to scale if there really was a spike in demand, and for most people the side effects are similar to that of placebo. In addition there is an obvious biological vector through which it would potentially be effective in treating C19. That same vector is the reason that ventilators don't work for treating C19 for most patients.
This is exactly the sort of situation where off label prescribing is called for. Its not like they are experimenting with something expensive like Ribavirin or with common bad side effects like Keytruda. Are you actually mad? Because nothing truely didn't work we do whatever because stuff that didn't but nothing really didn't work? Lord praise the sceptics.
No, its more like a "meh" thing. Its like with the people who are upset about Flynn's prosecution being dropped. Even if you think its bad, its bad in the most "meh" of ways. No one is voraciously advocating for the prosecution of Andrew McCabe, and IG Horowitz served that up on a platter for both 1001 and Perjury.
|
Please tell us more about trump promoting some drug as his end goal.
Sry clutz, didn't see your reply but... Sooo fuck it all or is there anything more?
|
The "Anti-HCQ" point of view is that it is insane to prescribe something as a cure to a disease that is not proven to have any effect curing that disease. I don't understand how someone can not understand that.
I can point at 5000 different things and claim that they cure 5000 different things, and it would take a lot of effort to disprove even a single one of these claims. If we put the burden of proof onto people trying to proof that stuff doesn't cure disease, you should be eating bullshit pills 24 hours a day. It is just absurd.
I really cannot even understand the other point of view here. Should we just take random stuff that might help if it isn't proven to not help? Really the only reasonable way of dealing with this is to prove that something works in scientific studies, and then use that stuff.
And HCQ is not proven to work.
Am i completely misunderstanding stuff here, or is the "Pro-HCQ" point of view just plain insane?
|
tbf a lot of medications in the US aren't proven to work but simply show slightly better results than placebo (sometimes not even that) in studies sponsored by the drug's manufacturer.
It's one reason we have a new commercial for some "new" drug for some condition popping up on our TV's pretty regularly.
We pumped a whole generation full of anti-depressants and mood altering drugs with literally no idea what they did to children's brains for example.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
