Special Report: Doctors embrace drug touted by Trump for COVID-19, without hard evidence it works

[Crazy Alex]

7 hours ago, rabas said:

There is 17 years of research behind chloroquine's efficacy against cronoviruses and SARS and thus SARS2. They actually understand why it works.  Is it possible that you do not know what doctors know?

Sadly, it's quite obvious what is going on here. Trump has clearly gotten some good information on chloroquine's efficacy and potential to help the pandemic. As such, there is a contingent of leftists who are automatically against it because Trump is for it. And rest assured many of these people are the ones who say right wingers are "anti-science". And I bet some of them are angry at Trump for not unifying the country as well.

[Monomial]

20 hours ago, Don Chance said:

You guys can make some quick cash selling these drugs online and shipping to the US.

 

Do you know a pharmacy that has them? I checked around and it isn't available. Azithromycin, yes. But not hydroxychloroquine.

 

[rabas]

On 4/7/2020 at 3:23 PM, Chomper Higgot said:

Your first 'Hint', yes I know, but then are these particular medicines amongst those or are you speaking without knowing. 

 

Your second 'Hint'. I'm not at all sure on what basis you claim 'what they decided to do...'? Perhaps you can provide us with the evidence to back up your statement. 

 

I'm not at all sure what doctors are doing, and I'm not inclined to accept your word or that of any other stranger on the internet.

1. Doctors can prescribe it in Thailand. 

 

2. There was a recent world wide survey of 7000 physicians currently treating nCov2019 patients, Chloroquine was the most recommended treatment of various options, including "just supportive care"

 

3. One reason for shortages in the US was because of doctors writing prescriptions for themselves and family.

 

[rabas]

9 hours ago, Monomial said:

Do you know a pharmacy that has them? I checked around and it isn't available. Azithromycin, yes. But not hydroxychloroquine.

About 2 weeks before Trump's comment, Thailand stopped the sale through pharmacies even with prescription, and hospitals began hoarding their supplies for inpatient use only. Thailand obviously recognized Chloroquine's potential value before Trump.

 

In fact, everyone knew, doctors everywhere knew, I and many knew, it has been known for more than a decade since SARS. Trump was the last to know.

 

Then why is the American MSM manufacturing such a blatantly false perspective? Chloroquine costs 5 cents per tablet. An entire long treatment is less than $1. The $4 trillion per year health industry is not happy. 

[atyclb]

11 hours ago, Crazy Alex said:

17 hours ago, atyclb said:

 

the act of threatening dr fauci is unacceptable regardless of origin.

 

as the article you so graciously linked stated  "the source of the threats was not identified." why would i believe or disbelieve trump supporters are behind the threats?  because per the article the source is unknown

It could very well be leftists making the threats. One need look no further than the plethora of phony racial crimes leftists consistently commit. One of the oldest tricks in the book, ESPECIALLY with leftists.

 

is it anything like. ?

 

Jobs created

 

AOC. -25,000

 

Jussy Smollett. +3

[JackThompson]

On 4/8/2020 at 5:53 AM, simple1 said:

Volunteers, Yes, but take a look at their corporate roles below, lots of self interest.

 

https://www.nationalmemo.com/is-kushners-covid-19-team-profiting-from-the-crisis/?cn-reloaded=1

 

It has come to light that trump, though investment funds, though small, has interests in the drugs he is promoting, as well as a number of his so called advisers. it's beyond believe trump has not put his financials interests in blind trusts.

 

https://www.vox.com/2020/4/7/21211872/trump-coronavirus-hydroxychloroquine-covid19-drugs-sanofi-owns

 

Yesterday the French recommendation of the drug combo for Covid has now been retracted by the oversight organisation.

 

https://www.thedailybeast.com/publisher-now-says-study-touting-hydroxychloroquine-as-covid-19-cure-doesnt-meet-its-standard

I am sure Big Pharma is working world wide to buy time for an "on-patent" - hence more profitable - solution.  Trump doesn't own enough of any of any of this to make a difference to his wealth.  Keep an eye on Kushner, though. 

[JackThompson]

On 4/8/2020 at 4:52 AM, Crazy Alex said:

I hereby condemn anyone who engages in threats of violence over political differences. But yes, obviously many of the people invested in hycroxychloroquine not helping to save lives are leftists.

They aren't even real-leftists.  They are pro-globalist, transnational-corporate propagandists, using left-cover rhetoric (like screaming "racism") as cover to push outsourcing and mass-immigration to destroy American's wages. 

 

I disagree with "actual leftists" on economic matters, but encounter few of those.  To see if an American so-called lefitist really is "left," ask them what they think about Obamacare.  If they tell you it was a corporate-welfare scam, they are for real.

 

Running "blocker" for big-pharma, by attacking off-patent hycroxychloroquine + z-pac, is more of the same.

[3NUMBAS]

https://qz.com/1835197/pharma-companies-race-to-roll-out-antibody-based-covid-19-drugs/

ANTIBODY COCKTAIL

A ‘bridge to a vaccine’: The race to roll out antibody-based Covid-19 drugs

April 8, 2020

The world is not likely to see a vaccine for SARS-CoV-2 until next year, and there’s still no drug engineered to fight the virus. Studies of the malaria drug hydroxychloroquine, which has been touted by President Trump, have not conclusively shown an effect against Covid-19. Plasma transfusions, which deliver antibodies from blood donated by recovered Covid-19 patients, are undergoing trials in a few hospitals, but remain in short supply.

In the meantime, a growing number of pharmaceutical companies are scrambling to roll out what will likely be the first generation of drugs specific to Covid-19.

Like plasma transfusions, these drugs are built on antibodies. But they’re delivered in a concentration that aims to be more effective, consistent, and able to be mass-produced. Such drugs are commonplace in treating cancer, rheumatoid arthritis, infectious diseases like Ebola, and other conditions, and represent a $50 billion annual market in the US that includes six of the country’s top 15 selling drugs. 

[candide]

14 hours ago, rabas said:

About 2 weeks before Trump's comment, Thailand stopped the sale through pharmacies even with prescription, and hospitals began hoarding their supplies for inpatient use only. Thailand obviously recognized Chloroquine's potential value before Trump.

 

In fact, everyone knew, doctors everywhere knew, I and many knew, it has been known for more than a decade since SARS. Trump was the last to know.

 

Then why is the American MSM manufacturing such a blatantly false perspective? Chloroquine costs 5 cents per tablet. An entire long treatment is less than $1. The $4 trillion per year health industry is not happy. 

MSM manifacture what? They just relay the assessment of most experts. It may well be efficient but there is no conclusive study yet. There is a large scale trial going on in Europe so we can hope this matter will be soon clarified

 

[Crazy Alex]

15 hours ago, rabas said:

About 2 weeks before Trump's comment, Thailand stopped the sale through pharmacies even with prescription, and hospitals began hoarding their supplies for inpatient use only. Thailand obviously recognized Chloroquine's potential value before Trump.

 

In fact, everyone knew, doctors everywhere knew, I and many knew, it has been known for more than a decade since SARS. Trump was the last to know.

 

Then why is the American MSM manufacturing such a blatantly false perspective? Chloroquine costs 5 cents per tablet. An entire long treatment is less than $1. The $4 trillion per year health industry is not happy. 

They probably knew before Trump. However, I'm sure Trump knew about it well before he started suggesting it as a possible therapy. Many leftists think he just throws stuff out without thinking about as his common strategy. Trump has rope-a-doped them enough times to know that's not the case.

 

I am still bewildered that so many on the left appear to literally be hoping chloroquine doesn't work. It's the strangest thing. It's almost as though they prefer more people die than Trump be correct. Bizarro times we live in.

[candide]

59 minutes ago, Crazy Alex said:

They probably knew before Trump. However, I'm sure Trump knew about it well before he started suggesting it as a possible therapy. Many leftists think he just throws stuff out without thinking about as his common strategy. Trump has rope-a-doped them enough times to know that's not the case.

 

I am still bewildered that so many on the left appear to literally be hoping chloroquine doesn't work. It's the strangest thing. It's almost as though they prefer more people die than Trump be correct. Bizarro times we live in.

Yeah, Trump has a proven track of only making well informed and predictive statements, lol! Such as

February 20: "And again, when you have 15 people, and the 15 within a couple of days is going to be down to close to zero, that's a pretty good job we've done," ????

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/timeline-president-donald-trump-changing-statements-on-coronavirus/

 

There is no way Trump can be more informed than the most authoritative sources in the world. He's just making a bet. If it works he will try to get some advantage of it. If it doesn't work, people like you will explain us that he was just expressing his hope that it could work!

[Crazy Alex]

16 minutes ago, candide said:

Yeah, Trump has a proven track of only making well informed and predictive statements, lol! Such as

February 20: "And again, when you have 15 people, and the 15 within a couple of days is going to be down to close to zero, that's a pretty good job we've done," ????

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/timeline-president-donald-trump-changing-statements-on-coronavirus/

 

There is no way Trump can be more informed than the most authoritative sources in the world. He's just making a bet. If it works he will try to get some advantage of it. If it doesn't work, people like you will explain us that he was just expressing his hope that it could work!

Yes of course, the president can be just as well-informed as the most authoritative sources in the world. That's not even debatable. The only question is, why are you so invested in it not working? That seems quite odd.

[Crazy Alex]

2 hours ago, candide said:

MSM manifacture what? They just relay the assessment of most experts. It may well be efficient but there is no conclusive study yet. There is a large scale trial going on in Europe so we can hope this matter will be soon clarified

 

Oh please let's not kid around, the MSM relays the assessment of most LIBERAL "experts".

[candide]

2 minutes ago, Crazy Alex said:

Yes of course, the president can be just as well-informed as the most authoritative sources in the world. That's not even debatable. The only question is, why are you so invested in it not working? That seems quite odd.

I am not at all invested in it not working. If it is ultimately proven that it works, that's fine for me (and most of all for people who could be saved). But tell me, for what other reason than supporting Trump are you writing so many posts on a topic on which there is absolutely no consensus, in any country.

My point is that political leaders should not meddle in scientific health issues and should leave it to health professionals. That's what other leaders in other countries do.

My point is not that Trump should be against choloronavirus. My point is that he should shut up.

[candide]

10 minutes ago, Crazy Alex said:

Oh please let's not kid around, the MSM relays the assessment of most LIBERAL "experts".

Which experts are 'liberal' and which are not? Tell us!

Get out of the US microcosm! In other countries, this issue is not politicized by people such as Trump, and there is exactly the same debate as is exposed in the US MSM.

Check the British, French or German media, whatever their political orientation. No right-wing politicians or right-wing supporters are in propaganda mode for using chloroquine.

 

[Crazy Alex]

1 hour ago, candide said:

I am not at all invested in it not working. If it is ultimately proven that it works, that's fine for me (and most of all for people who could be saved). But tell me, for what other reason than supporting Trump are you writing so many posts on a topic on which there is absolutely no consensus, in any country.

My point is that political leaders should not meddle in scientific health issues and should leave it to health professionals. That's what other leaders in other countries do.

My point is not that Trump should be against choloronavirus. My point is that he should shut up.

Why do you think there needs to be consensus among countries in order to start a new drug trial? Imagine how slowly advancements would occur if the world did so.

 

As to political leaders not meddling in scientific health issues- complete nonsense. A president has to "meddle" in a plethora of issues. Why do you think health care is some sort of holy grail which the president must avoid?

[Crazy Alex]

1 hour ago, candide said:

Which experts are 'liberal' and which are not? Tell us!

Get out of the US microcosm! In other countries, this issue is not politicized by people such as Trump, and there is exactly the same debate as is exposed in the US MSM.

Check the British, French or German media, whatever their political orientation. No right-wing politicians or right-wing supporters are in propaganda mode for using chloroquine.

 

In case you haven't noticed, the topic is about COVID-19 in the US.

 

But hey, I'm just relieved it's only Trump that is politicizing, right?

 

Dem Rep. Told Colleagues Coronavirus Bill Is ‘Tremendous Opportunity to Restructure Things to Fit Our Vision’

[candide]

45 minutes ago, Crazy Alex said:

Why do you think there needs to be consensus among countries in order to start a new drug trial? Imagine how slowly advancements would occur if the world did so.

 

As to political leaders not meddling in scientific health issues- complete nonsense. A president has to "meddle" in a plethora of issues. Why do you think health care is some sort of holy grail which the president must avoid?

You did get my point. What I wrote is that, in any country, there is no consensus on chloroquine for covid-19. Some think it works, some state there is no real proof of it. And it's not according to any political stance. That's why they conduct trials to find out.

 

Yes, a president must not meddle in scientific debates and controversies, in particular about medicine. That's not his job.

[Crazy Alex]

2 hours ago, candide said:

You did get my point. What I wrote is that, in any country, there is no consensus on chloroquine for covid-19. Some think it works, some state there is no real proof of it. And it's not according to any political stance. That's why they conduct trials to find out.

 

Yes, a president must not meddle in scientific debates and controversies, in particular about medicine. That's not his job.

OK... I"m going to do a search for posts by you in which you criticize Barack Obama for sticking his nose in the *climate change* debate. How do you think I'll make out? Wait... I have ESP..... "that's different", right? LOL

[candide]

5 hours ago, Crazy Alex said:

OK... I"m going to do a search for posts by you in which you criticize Barack Obama for sticking his nose in the *climate change* debate. How do you think I'll make out? Wait... I have ESP..... "that's different", right? LOL

Which debate? There is a consensus among scientists about it, except for a very marginal fringe.

Did his statements raise the risk of uncontrolled use of a drug and/or its shortage?

Edited April 10, 2020 by candide

[CharlieH]

Reported Troll content removed.

[Crazy Alex]

8 hours ago, candide said:

Which debate? There is a consensus among scientists about it, except for a very marginal fringe.

Did his statements raise the risk of uncontrolled use of a drug and/or its shortage?

You've moved the bar. Previously, you stated presidents should keep their nose out of scientific debate. Now you've added a caveat regarding "consensus" among scientists. That seems like a very arbitrary standard. I will stick with the Constitution: free speech. Obviously, a president has that right. And given scientific consensus has been wrong before, there's no reason to use that as a means to tell a president he needs to shut up about an issue he is in charge of.

[stevenl]

29 minutes ago, Crazy Alex said:

You've moved the bar. Previously, you stated presidents should keep their nose out of scientific debate. Now you've added a caveat regarding "consensus" among scientists. That seems like a very arbitrary standard. I will stick with the Constitution: free speech. Obviously, a president has that right. And given scientific consensus has been wrong before, there's no reason to use that as a means to tell a president he needs to shut up about an issue he is in charge of.

It is a means to tell a president he needs to shut up about an issue he has no knowledge of.

 

Personally I believe in plasma transplants with antibodies btw, much more than in this.

[Crazy Alex]

1 minute ago, stevenl said:

It is a means to tell a president he needs to shut up about an issue he has no knowledge of.

 

Personally I believe in plasma transplants with antibodies btw, much more than in this.

Funny perspective. In case you haven't heard, a president leads. As such, he is provided with information on a plethora of issue so that he can make decisions. So yes, Trump has been given plenty of information on matters of science, executive summaries at the very least.

 

But let's take a look at your proposal, for a president to shut up about an issue he has no knowledge of. How do we test for that? See the problem?

 

So.... either presidents continue to be briefed on issues they decide on, or we come up with some silly and arbitrary system to decide on which issues the president must shut up.

 

Which do you think makes more sense?

[stevenl]

42 minutes ago, Crazy Alex said:

Funny perspective. In case you haven't heard, a president leads. As such, he is provided with information on a plethora of issue so that he can make decisions. So yes, Trump has been given plenty of information on matters of science, executive summaries at the very least.

 

But let's take a look at your proposal, for a president to shut up about an issue he has no knowledge of. How do we test for that? See the problem?

 

So.... either presidents continue to be briefed on issues they decide on, or we come up with some silly and arbitrary system to decide on which issues the president must shut up.

 

Which do you think makes more sense?

We don't have to come up with anything, he listens to the experts. But this stable genius knows all about everything.

[candide]

2 hours ago, Crazy Alex said:

You've moved the bar. Previously, you stated presidents should keep their nose out of scientific debate. Now you've added a caveat regarding "consensus" among scientists. That seems like a very arbitrary standard. I will stick with the Constitution: free speech. Obviously, a president has that right. And given scientific consensus has been wrong before, there's no reason to use that as a means to tell a president he needs to shut up about an issue he is in charge of.

BS! The president is not in charge of advising which medicine to take. 

[Crazy Alex]

1 hour ago, candide said:

BS! The president is not in charge of advising which medicine to take. 

Straw man alert. No one said that.

[candide]

12 minutes ago, Crazy Alex said:

Straw man alert. No one said that.

From the surge of demand for prescriptions and the numerous posts by faithfull Trumpers advocating the benefits of using this drug, I am afraid That's how it has been understood.

Edited April 10, 2020 by candide

[Travis179]

No hard evidence it works??? Dr. Zelenko has reportedly cured over 1,000 patients to date with this drug (along with Zinc, and Zithromax). Other doctors are reporting similar success stories. With no serious side effects whatsoever. The Fake News Media, <deleted> Dems, and Big Pharma are just trying to discredit Trump, for advocating it's use. Trump should have used reverse psychology, and came out strongly against its use. Then they would have been all for it. 

[candide]

19 minutes ago, Travis179 said:

No hard evidence it works??? Dr. Zelenko has reportedly cured over 1,000 patients to date with this drug (along with Zinc, and Zithromax). Other doctors are reporting similar success stories. With no serious side effects whatsoever. The Fake News Media, <deleted> Dems, and Big Pharma are just trying to discredit Trump, for advocating it's use. Trump should have used reverse psychology, and came out strongly against its use. Then they would have been all for it. 

What's your competence for assessing medical therapies? Same as Trump? 555