Drug championed by Trump for coronavirus shows no benefit, possible harm in study awaiting validation

[Tippaporn]

8 minutes ago, stevenl said:

You're misrepresenting my posts, and you do that on a continuous basis, even after having been corrected.

I'm commenting as to what I see.  You do the same.  There shouldn't be any beef.

[evadgib]

Trump has unfollowed Piers Morgan , which seems to have irked the latter ????

[Eric Loh]

53 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

Do doubt there are some very strange ideas out there.  I'll take responsibility for what I buy into and I hope you do so for yourself.

Just watch out for charlatan disguised as talk show host who are millionaires paid by billionaires to sell news. Do avoid those who like to be consistently praised and have no shame to label himself genius. 

[WaveHunter]

3 hours ago, heybruce said:

Do you think the non-medical opinion of one person has more credibility than the results from this topic's study, that shows the hydorychlorqine group had more than twice the mortality?

 

"An analysis of Veterans Health Administration (VA) data found that 28% of 97 patients given hydroxychloroquine along with standard care died, compared with a death rate of 11% for the 158 patients that did not receive the drug. The death rate was 22% for the 113 patients given hydroxychloroquine plus the antibiotic azithromycin."

 

 

If one bothers to actually read the VA report instead of just accepting misinterpreted, third party accounts of it in the media, it would be readily apparent that it was an extremely flawed study.  It doesn't take a PhD to recognize the flaws.  All you have to do is carefully READ THE STUDY and be objective about what you are reading.  

 

The biggest flaw of the VA study, though hardly the only one, is that it did not consist of a randomized group of subjects.  The baseline demographic was largely african american males over the age of 65 who were already suffering serious complications of Covid-19.  That is hardly what you would call a random cross-section of those infected with the virus. 

 

The biggest issue by far is that this group was already suffering serious complications.  HCQ is believed to have little efficacy in the advanced stages of the disease when the virus has already entered the cell membrane and started to replicate.  It's efficacy is believed to be in the very early stages of infection when it may be able to interfere with the virus getting inside the cell membrane and replicating.  So, what does this study prove?  Nothing!  It is a garbage study.

 

Numerous scientists, even those who doubt the effectiveness of treating Covid-19 with HCQ have characterized the study as "poor science"  Essentially that VA study proves nothing about the safety or dangers of HCQ, nor of its' efficacy or lack thereof. 

 

Right now, the definitive study of the safety of HCQ is the report released by the World Health Organization in 2017:  The Cardiotoxicity of Antimalarials.  Read this report and you will see that none of the current hysteria about the dangers of HCQ can be based on anything in this report.

 

[The Barmbeker]

1 hour ago, Tippaporn said:

Please tell me this isn't a serious reply and you're only joking.

I am interested: why should this reply not be considered serious?

[frenetic]

2 hours ago, WaveHunter said:

The biggest issue by far is that this group was already suffering serious complications.  HCQ is believed to have little efficacy in the advanced stages of the disease when the virus has already entered the cell membrane and started to replicate.  It's efficacy is believed to be in the very early stages of infection when it may be able to interfere with the virus getting inside the cell membrane and replicating.  So, what does this study prove?  Nothing!  It is a garbage study.

 

And can you point to any scientifically valid studies demonstrating the effectiveness of hydroxychloroquine or chloroquine? It seems you're being selectively finicky.

[heybruce]

7 hours ago, Tippaporn said:

Not sure you read any of the previous relevant posts on the last 2+ pages but you're taking this discussion back to square one.  I ain't going over it a second time.

Yes, I've read the discussion in which you and WaveHunter insisted that Trump should not be taken at his word.  I pointed out that it is not the job of the media to interpret Trump's words but to report them.  It's Trump's job to choose his words carefully and take responsibility for them.  Not that I expect that to happen.

[heybruce]

7 hours ago, Tippaporn said:

Where have you been?  Educate yourself on some of the reviews of that study.  That news is more than a few days old.

Why don't you provide credible links showing the study was discredited?  While you're at it, provide some links showing why the experience and opinion of one non-medical state politician carries more weight than a study of hundreds of Covid 19 patients.

 

In other words, educate yourself on why one person's anecdotal evidence doesn't qualify as science.

[heybruce]

7 hours ago, Tippaporn said:

I have zero issue with him throwing ideas out there.  I'm certain these ideas aren't simply off the top of his head and spur of the moment.  I would think he speaking from sourced information available to him.

 

As to blaming him for what stupid people end up doing to themselves I won't have any of it.  People are ultimately responsible for their own actions.  Stupid is no excuse.

You have no problem with Trump throwing ideas out there, but you have a problem with the press reporting these ideas and explaining why they should not be taken literally.  You don't understand the role of the free press in a democracy, do you?

[heybruce]

6 hours ago, WaveHunter said:

If one bothers to actually read the VA report instead of just accepting misinterpreted, third party accounts of it in the media, it would be readily apparent that it was an extremely flawed study.  It doesn't take a PhD to recognize the flaws.  All you have to do is carefully READ THE STUDY and be objective about what you are reading.  

 

The biggest flaw of the VA study, though hardly the only one, is that it did not consist of a randomized group of subjects.  The baseline demographic was largely african american males over the age of 65 who were already suffering serious complications of Covid-19.  That is hardly what you would call a random cross-section of those infected with the virus. 

 

The biggest issue by far is that this group was already suffering serious complications.  HCQ is believed to have little efficacy in the advanced stages of the disease when the virus has already entered the cell membrane and started to replicate.  It's efficacy is believed to be in the very early stages of infection when it may be able to interfere with the virus getting inside the cell membrane and replicating.  So, what does this study prove?  Nothing!  It is a garbage study.

 

Numerous scientists, even those who doubt the effectiveness of treating Covid-19 with HCQ have characterized the study as "poor science"  Essentially that VA study proves nothing about the safety or dangers of HCQ, nor of its' efficacy or lack thereof. 

 

Right now, the definitive study of the safety of HCQ is the report released by the World Health Organization in 2017:  The Cardiotoxicity of Antimalarials.  Read this report and you will see that none of the current hysteria about the dangers of HCQ can be based on anything in this report.

 

I was comparing the study results to the story of one state politician who had Covid 19 (apparently a severe case, like those in the VA study) and credited hydroxychloroquine with her recovery.  Which do you think comes closer to real science?

 

I have repeatedly asked you for links to the "Numerous scientists" who have criticized the VA study so I can consider exactly what their concerns are.  You have repeatedly neglected to provide such links. 

 

You have only provided a link to a study showing that hydroxychlorquinine can be taken safely by healthy individuals as a malaria preventative.  This topic isn't about healthy individuals trying to avoid malaria.  But I guess if that's all you've got....

[bendejo]

8 hours ago, evadgib said:

Trump has unfollowed Piers Morgan , which seems to have irked the latter ????

The worst thing the UK has done to the US since the War of 1812 was to allow Piers Morgan to come to the US. 

If DT bans him from entering the country or being presented on US media it'll probably be the first thing I would fully support him on.  I might be inclined to support DT on suggesting to his followers to ingest poisonous cleaning products but I'm not that cynical.

If you struggle to understand the difference between suggest and recommend I refer you to the great American statesman Donald Rumsfeld.

 

 

[RJRS1301]

9 hours ago, WaveHunter said:

If one bothers to actually read the VA report instead of just accepting misinterpreted, third party accounts of it in the media, it would be readily apparent that it was an extremely flawed study.  It doesn't take a PhD to recognize the flaws.  All you have to do is carefully READ THE STUDY and be objective about what you are reading.  

 

The biggest flaw of the VA study, though hardly the only one, is that it did not consist of a randomized group of subjects.  The baseline demographic was largely african american males over the age of 65 who were already suffering serious complications of Covid-19.  That is hardly what you would call a random cross-section of those infected with the virus. 

 

The biggest issue by far is that this group was already suffering serious complications.  HCQ is believed to have little efficacy in the advanced stages of the disease when the virus has already entered the cell membrane and started to replicate.  It's efficacy is believed to be in the very early stages of infection when it may be able to interfere with the virus getting inside the cell membrane and replicating.  So, what does this study prove?  Nothing!  It is a garbage study.

 

Numerous scientists, even those who doubt the effectiveness of treating Covid-19 with HCQ have characterized the study as "poor science"  Essentially that VA study proves nothing about the safety or dangers of HCQ, nor of its' efficacy or lack thereof. 

 

Right now, the definitive study of the safety of HCQ is the report released by the World Health Organization in 2017:  The Cardiotoxicity of Antimalarials.  Read this report and you will see that none of the current hysteria about the dangers of HCQ can be based on anything in this report.

 

Under the circumstances it would have been difficult to get ethics approval for the trial. 

[Tippaporn]

3 hours ago, heybruce said:

Yes, I've read the discussion in which you and WaveHunter insisted that Trump should not be taken at his word.  I pointed out that it is not the job of the media to interpret Trump's words but to report them.  It's Trump's job to choose his words carefully and take responsibility for them.  Not that I expect that to happen.

It's the responsibility of each individual to interpret Trump's words correctly.  Some do and some don't.  Some take the MSM interpretation without question.

[Tippaporn]

3 hours ago, heybruce said:

You have no problem with Trump throwing ideas out there, but you have a problem with the press reporting these ideas and explaining why they should not be taken literally.  You don't understand the role of the free press in a democracy, do you?

No problem with Trump.  Yes, I have a problem with the irresponsible press.  Whether in a democracy or not their role is always to report the news accurately.  They fail.  In my opinion they have a hidden agenda (hidden only to those who don't want to look).

[jastheace]

13 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

No problem with Trump.  Yes, I have a problem with the irresponsible press.  Whether in a democracy or not their role is always to report the news accurately.  They fail.  In my opinion they have a hidden agenda (hidden only to those who don't want to look).

yes and all the time the POTUS has a good … err … you know what..... (points to his head) we can all rest safe. 

[RJRS1301]

1 hour ago, Tippaporn said:

It's the responsibility of each individual to interpret Trump's words correctly.  Some do and some don't.  Some take the MSM interpretation without question.

It is the duty of a "leader" whether in a group situation, (teaching, training, tour leader) or a world leader to be concise, correct, and deliver a message which is unambiguous , and clearly understood. Not delivering uncensored thought bubbles.

[RJRS1301]

1 hour ago, Tippaporn said:

No problem with Trump.  Yes, I have a problem with the irresponsible press.  Whether in a democracy or not their role is always to report the news accurately.  They fail.  In my opinion they have a hidden agenda (hidden only to those who don't want to look).

Cannot be any more accurate than playing the clip of his own words, in context, as it was broadcast both live and later in bulletins. 

[simple1]

1 hour ago, Tippaporn said:

It's a basic responsibility of each individual to interpret Trump's words correctly.  Some do and some don't.  Some take the MSM interpretation without question.

It is one of the responsibilities of the Office of the President to communicate clearly and factually, especially in the time of a national crisis. No matter what you say, it is not for the public to try and interpret a President's ramblings. It is without any doubt whatsoever trump has failed a fundamental requirement of Office. Although to date he hasn't demonstrated he is capable to do so, one hopes for the sake of the American people, trump lifts his game and doesn't repeat his mistakes.

[stevenl]

9 minutes ago, simple1 said:

It is one of the responsibilities of the Office of the President to communicate clearly and factually, especially in the time of a national crisis. No matter what you say, it is not for the public to try and interpret a President's ramblings. It is without any doubt whatsoever trump has failed a fundamental requirement of Office. Although to date he hasn't demonstrated he is capable to do so, one hopes for the sake of the American people, trump lifts his game and doesn't repeat his mistakes.

He for sure won't win the Noble Prize for journalism.

[Tippaporn]

3 hours ago, RJRS1301 said:

It is the duty of a "leader" whether in a group situation, (teaching, training, tour leader) or a world leader to be concise, correct, and deliver a message which is unambiguous , and clearly understood. Not delivering uncensored thought bubbles.

LOL.  Trump had a concise, correct and unambiguous phone conversation with a world leader and still the Dems twisted it.  It's never good for you people.  That much is painfully obvious.

[Tippaporn]

3 hours ago, RJRS1301 said:

Cannot be any more accurate than playing the clip of his own words, in context, as it was broadcast both live and later in bulletins. 

And then put it all out of context.

[Opl]

" How Fox News convinced Trump that it found a miracle cure for coronavirus"

The resulting Trump-Fox narrative establishes the president as taking heroic steps to save lives, while ignoring the series of failures he has overseen. Trump’s Fox-fueled boosterism for the drugs quickly spilled over into federal policy.

" The same channel that has been telling him to put federal resources into chloroquine and hydroxychloroquine has also been instructing him that it is time to reopen the economy, "

 

[heybruce]

5 hours ago, Tippaporn said:

It's the responsibility of each individual to interpret Trump's words correctly.  Some do and some don't.  Some take the MSM interpretation without question.

I see.  I take it you don't think it is the responsibility of the President to speak clearly and unambiguously on life and death issues.

[heybruce]

5 hours ago, Tippaporn said:

No problem with Trump.  Yes, I have a problem with the irresponsible press.  Whether in a democracy or not their role is always to report the news accurately.  They fail.  In my opinion they have a hidden agenda (hidden only to those who don't want to look).

How is repeating Trump's exact words, providing video of him speaking these words, and providing the transcript of what he said a failure to report the news accurately?

[heybruce]

47 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

LOL.  Trump had a concise, correct and unambiguous phone conversation with a world leader and still the Dems twisted it.  It's never good for you people.  That much is painfully obvious.

Off-topic, but "I would like you to do us a favor" is certainly unambiguous.  The Democrats didn't have to twist it.

[RJRS1301]

5 hours ago, Tippaporn said:

LOL.  Trump had a concise, correct and unambiguous phone conversation with a world leader and still the Dems twisted it.  It's never good for you people.  That much is painfully obvious.

Umm I am not a dem, and I was speaking about his thought bubbles as broadcast from his own mouth in real time, no manipulation by third parties, just his rambling thought bubbles.

Respond to the real matter I addressed instead of diverting to a different topic.

 

 

[RJRS1301]

5 hours ago, Tippaporn said:

And then put it all out of context.

Oh Please the cameras were rolling , nothing was out of context except the rambling incoherent thought bubbles from the mind with no executive filters operating.

 

[checkered flag]

If we wait until the FDA wants to act the crisis will be long over.  I remember years ago asking CDC about malaria prophylaxis in chloroquine resistant areas in Thailand. They told me the drug of choice at the time wasn't available in the US but I could get it over the counter in Thailand. It appear the manufacture didn't want to spend the millions necessary for testing and approval in US. FDA approval is expensive and not cost effective for many drugs. No manufacture is going to pay for the approval process on a generic drug like chloroquine or hydroxychloroquine. Since there was anecdotal evidence of it's efficacy, Trump was right to push it. We needed options.

[Eric Loh]

35 minutes ago, checkered flag said:

If we wait until the FDA wants to act the crisis will be long over.  I remember years ago asking CDC about malaria prophylaxis in chloroquine resistant areas in Thailand. They told me the drug of choice at the time wasn't available in the US but I could get it over the counter in Thailand. It appear the manufacture didn't want to spend the millions necessary for testing and approval in US. FDA approval is expensive and not cost effective for many drugs. No manufacture is going to pay for the approval process on a generic drug like chloroquine or hydroxychloroquine. Since there was anecdotal evidence of it's efficacy, Trump was right to push it. We needed options.

You don’t have to wait as there are promising drugs that are FDA approved and been assessed on their potential in combating the corona virus. Those approved include several antiviral drugs Darinavir, Nelfinavir, Saquinavir and several other types of drugs including the ACE inhibitor Moexipril, chemotherapy drugs Daunorubicin and Mitocantrone, painkiller Metamucil, antihistamine Bepotastine and the antimalaria drug Atovaquone,

[checkered flag]

5 minutes ago, Eric Loh said:

You don’t have to wait as there are promising drugs that are FDA approved and been assessed on their potential in combating the corona virus. Those approved include several antiviral drugs Darinavir, Nelfinavir, Saquinavir and several other types of drugs including the ACE inhibitor Moexipril, chemotherapy drugs Daunorubicin and Mitocantrone, painkiller Metamucil, antihistamine Bepotastine and the antimalaria drug Atovaquone,

Not true. These are all off label uses. Since like Chloroquine they are all approved for other uses.