33 minutes ago, Eric Loh said:

Not without push back with very good reasons.

https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2020/04/former-fda-leaders-decry-emergency-authorization-malaria-drugs-coronavirus

Much of the "push back" I've heard of is politically biased as in the case of the former Obama appointed FDA commissioner.  Her objection that "...making the drugs available in a more widespread way might actually interfere with the ability to get the data that we need.” is a pretty weak argument IMO.

 

If HCQ were a new experimental drug with no safety track record, that argument would make some sense but HCQ has safely been used for decades, and the suggested dosages being cited for Covid-19 treatment are the same dosages as those used for malaria prophylaxis or rheumatoid arthritis (can't remember which), and for a much shorter duration.

35 minutes ago, WaveHunter said:

Much of the "push back" I've heard of is politically biased as in the case of the former Obama appointed FDA commissioner.  Her objection that "...making the drugs available in a more widespread way might actually interfere with the ability to get the data that we need.” is a pretty weak argument IMO.

 

If HCQ were a new experimental drug with no safety track record, that argument would make some sense but HCQ has safely been used for decades, and the suggested dosages being cited for Covid-19 treatment are the same dosages as those used for malaria prophylaxis or rheumatoid arthritis (can't remember which), and for a much shorter duration.

Politically biased pushback? The main push is as politically biased as it gets.

30 minutes ago, WaveHunter said:

Much of the "push back" I've heard of is politically biased as in the case of the former Obama appointed FDA commissioner.  Her objection that "...making the drugs available in a more widespread way might actually interfere with the ability to get the data that we need.” is a pretty weak argument IMO.

 

If HCQ were a new experimental drug with no safety track record, that argument would make some sense but HCQ has safely been used for decades, and the suggested dosages being cited for Covid-19 treatment are the same dosages as those used for malaria prophylaxis or rheumatoid arthritis (can't remember which), and for a much shorter duration.

You should at least read the article before commenting that it was politically biased. Full of Trump’s appointees making similar comments. 
 

Agree that choloroquine safely used for Malaria etc not novel corona virus. 

56 minutes ago, Eric Loh said:

You should at least read the article before commenting that it was politically biased. Full of Trump’s appointees making similar comments. 
 

Agree that choloroquine safely used for Malaria etc not novel corona virus. 

I did read the article and was already familiar with the push back even before I read it.  I am not pro or anti trump but I know political bias when I see it, and the arguments I've heard so far from critics of HCQ are incredibly weak, and therefore suspect, particularly from someone as qualified and knowledgeable as Margaret Hamburg.

Furthermore, clinical studies that have been negative towards HCQ for Covid-19 that I've seen have been flawed to the point where bias can strongly be suspected as well, particularly that Veterans Administration study, which has been highly criticized, even by scientists and doctors who are against HCQ use.

 

The only way to take bias out of it is in a double blind study, and that will be taking place shortly with the Novartis study.

 

As for safety of HCQ for Covid-19, yes I agree there is no specific proof of safety, but there is no specific proof of danger either.  A patient's physician is the best person to determine whether it is safe or not based on the patient's medical history, not a government beaurocrat with no knowledge of the patient.  Just my personal view of course.

14 minutes ago, WaveHunter said:

I did read the article and was already familiar with the push back.  I am not pro or anti trump but I know political bias when I see it, and the arguments I've heard so far from critics are incredibly weak.

 

As for safety of HCQ for Covid-19, yes I agree there is no specific proof of safety, but there is no specific proof of danger either.  A patient's physician is the best person to determine whether it is safe or not based on the patient's medical history, not a government beaurocrat with no knowledge of the patient.  Just my personal view of course.

When due to make my first backpacking trip to S.E. Asia 10 years ago I visited my GP for vaccination advice prior to my trip. Having previously researched what I might need, I asked about a course of choloroquine to safeguard me from malaria and was told it had a number of side effects and he advised against it. When pushed he flatly refused to prescribe it to me as I had a previous heart condition.

 

The dangerous side effects of choloroquine have long been known about, including inducing cardiac arrhythmia in previously symptom less patients, sometimes resulting in death.

 

 

27 minutes ago, Phil McCaverty said:

When due to make my first backpacking trip to S.E. Asia 10 years ago I visited my GP for vaccination advice prior to my trip. Having previously researched what I might need, I asked about a course of choloroquine to safeguard me from malaria and was told it had a number of side effects and he advised against it. When pushed he flatly refused to prescribe it to me as I had a previous heart condition.

 

The dangerous side effects of choloroquine have long been known about, including inducing cardiac arrhythmia in previously symptom less patients, sometimes resulting in death.

 

 

...and I've had it prescribed to me numerous times as a malaria prophylaxis for various travels.  I did not say there are no dangers to its' use.  It all depends on your medical history, so your doctor was just as correct in his decision not to prescribe to you, as mine was in prescribing to me since I had no contraindications.

 

As for arrhythmias in healthy people...any drug at all, even aspirin, can have adverse effects on an otherwise healthy person.  It all boils down to benefits vs risks, and a person's own physician is the best person to determine that.

 

Also, in the case of Covid-19, treatment time is from 5-10 days, which is a very short timeframe compared to use for rheumatoid arthritis, and at a relatively low dosage, and I would suspect that the person would be monitored carefully for any signs of problems during the treatment period.

 

Again, it's all about risk vs benefit for a particular individual; one size does not fit all.

3 hours ago, WaveHunter said:

The debate in this thread is starting to get a little ridiculous.  Right now there is no definitive evidence whether or not HCQ has efficacy in treating Covid-19.  SInce this is a very fast moving situation, there has not yet been time for peer-reviews or rigorous clinical trials.  However, there is strong anecdotal evidence that it may help slow down symptoms, and therefore every reason that research should be aggressively pursued in light of these positive findings.

 

Here are the three well regarded and significant studies that I know of that support its' use, and one that is about to start that will be the first true randomized, double-blind placebo-controlled study (by Novartis).

 

You need to actually read the reports to draw your own conclusions since I am not going to do that for you in the interest of not introducing my own bias. 

 

Click on links to see actual study reports and READ THEM.  If you do not read the actual reports and rely only on unsubstantiated news stories about them, then you have no business criticizing them:

 

Study 1 – March 16, 2020

Breakthrough: Chloroquine phosphate has shown apparent efficacy in treatment of COVID-19 associated pneumonia in clinical studies

 

Researchers from China reported in a letter that over 100 people with COVID-19 have been treated with chloroquine. These patients had less severe disease and a shorter illness duration compared to those who did not receive chloroquine. However, results from these studies are not yet available, nor do we have a lot of information about the type of people who received this drug, or what dose they took and for how long.

 

Study 2 – March 20, 2020

Hydroxychloroquine and azithromycin as a treatment of COVID-19: results of an open-label non-randomized clinical trial

 

A small study in France reported that people who got 600 mg of hydroxychloroquine had a lower amount of the virus (viral load) in the body. The problem with this study is that comparisons were made between patients at different hospitals. This makes it difficult to know if improvements were because of hydroxychloroquine or other things. And, of the 26 people who initially got hydroxychloroquine, 6 people (23%) had to stop treatment because of nausea, worsening disease, leaving the hospital, or death.

 

Study 3 – March 31, 2020

Efficacy of hydroxychloroquine in patients with COVID-19: results of a randomized clinical trial

 

A small, randomized study of 62 people in Wuhan, China looked at how well hydroxychloroquine worked for hospitalized patients with mild COVID-19. Cough and fever improved about 1 day earlier for those who got 400 mg of hydroxychloroquine for 5 days compared to those who did not get any. Additionally, pneumonia improved in 25 of 31 patients who received hydroxychloroquine (compared to 17 of 31 in the group who didn’t). Larger clinical studies are still needed to better understand the type of patients who may respond best to this treatment.

 

UPCOMING NOVARTIS STUDY

 

It should also be noted that Novartis, the major pharmaceutical company is about to conduct a 450 person study, and it will be a randomized, double-blind placebo-controlled study consisting of three options: hydroxychloroquine, the combination of hydroxychloroquine and the antibiotic azithromycin, or placebo.  The study will be led by Richard E. Chaisson, a professor of medicine, epidemiology and international health at Johns Hopkins University.

 

Also, keep in mind that while its use is not yet approved by the FDA for COVID-19 as of 7 April 2020, there is an Emergency Use Authorization for such use.

 

I'm fine with continuing research.  I'm not fine with promoting a drug that has not been proven to be effective and that may be dangerous.  This topic is about results that show hydroxychloroquine "provided no benefit and potentially higher risk of death for patients at U.S. veterans hospitals, according to an analysis that has been submitted for expert review."

2 hours ago, WaveHunter said:

Many people recover without pharmaceutical treatment...not "most".  There's a big difference between the two words.  If you or a loved one finds themselves developing serious complications, I think you might be very interested in a possible pharmaceutical treatment.

 

Yes, timing seems to be critical for HCQ to work, but if early symptoms are highly indicative of Covid-19 (i.e.: progression to shortness of breath), it's not too late for HCQ to possibly do some good.

 

It shouldn't be thought of as a "cure" but simply a way to slow down the progression of symptoms and perhaps allow the person's immune response to kick in more, perhaps avoid visit to ICU, or if that occurs, minimize time in ICU.  it's not just for the benefit of the patient but also minimizes the chances of overwhelming the capabilities of the health care system.

 

Honestly, I think some of the other possible treatment options being studied will be probably prove to be better (like Remdesivir), but the thing is, HCQ has already been developed, thoroughly tested for safety, and been in use for decades.  Why not use it?  When properly administered by a qualified physician, the potential benefits would seem to outweigh risks. 

 

According to data from China most of the people who contract Covid 19 only experience mild symptoms.  https://www.cnn.com/2020/03/20/health/covid-19-recovery-rates-intl/index.html  I interpret this to mean that prescription drugs are not needed.  WebMD estimates that only 14% of those infected require hospitalization, meaning 86% don't.  The only "pharmaceutical treatment" it suggests for those not requiring hospitalization is taking aspirin or ibuprofen.  https://www.webmd.com/lung/covid-recovery-overview#2  I don't know if taking such common non-prescription medications qualifies as pharmaceutical treatment, if it does I stand corrected.

 

The list of side effects from taking hydroxychlorquine is long.  https://www.mayoclinic.org/drugs-supplements/hydroxychloroquine-oral-route/side-effects/drg-20064216  Anecdotal evidence suggests it may help, this topic is about analysis that indicates it may increase mortality.  That's a good reason not to use it.

It’s worth revisiting the earlier thread from when Trump first kicked off this dangerous nonsense.

 

The certainty of those then defending Trump’s promotion of his ‘Hydroxychloroquine (quack-cure)’ and their professed expertise on the ‘correct’ use and dosage of Trump’s ‘quack-cure’ was always a barrel of laughs, more so now.

 

I only hope those who swallowed Trump’s dangerous nonsense and rushed out and bought Hydroxychloroquine can now get a refund, or at least a part exchange credit for toilet cleaner, or whatever other ‘disinfectant’ Trump was rambling on about.

5 hours ago, heybruce said:

I'm fine with continuing research.  I'm not fine with promoting a drug that has not been proven to be effective and that may be dangerous.  This topic is about results that show hydroxychloroquine "provided no benefit and potentially higher risk of death for patients at U.S. veterans hospitals, according to an analysis that has been submitted for expert review."

That Veterans Administration study is being criticized left and right for all of its' flaws.  Even doctors and scientists who are in opposition to HCQ treatment for Covid-19 are characterizing the report as "poor science"

 

The “HCQ shows no benefit” claim appears more an intentional narrative being pushed by biased parties than a truly science-backed finding. 

 

It was not even a legitimate clinical study.   The analysis was completely based on pulling medical records of a non-randomized group of 368 patients for which the baseline demographic was primarily African-American males, aged 65 and over, and in advanced stages of the disease and already close to death.  That is hardly a randomized group!  If data is not coming from randomized, controlled studies, then the findings are essentially meaningless.

 

Furthermore, by its own admission, hydroxychloroquine was given to sicker patients, closer to death, when it's believed that HCQ works early on in the infection by preventing the virus from entering into the cell membrane, or at least minimizing it.  In other words, it works only during the initial phases of infection, not after it has entered the cell and began to replicate.

 

If you read the actual VA report instead of just relying on biased media reports of it, you don't need to be a PhD to realize how poorly this so-called report was prepared.  Read it here

 

To conclude from this study that death was caused by HCQ or that HCQ is of no benefit in minimizing symptoms of Covid-19 is a complete fallacy, and an example of scientific investigation at its' absolute worst.

 

9 hours ago, Sujo said:

Trump has moved on. Even he kniws the drug is useless. Now hes onto his next eureka moment.

 

Inject some dettol then shine a uv light up your butt.

 

Then he had the audacity to accuse a reporter of being fake news for questioning him about it.

 

Even his two specialists said no.

I just watched the Covid19 briefing, POTUS has no logic to his thought bubbles, no filters. 

Posts with oversize emojis have been removed.

 

A post that contained a video with restricted access has been removed. 

Researchers cut chloroquine study short over safety concerns, citing a ‘primary outcome’ of death

 

Citing a “primary outcome” of death, researchers cut short a study testing anti-malaria drug chloroquine as a potential treatment for Covid-19 after some patients developed irregular heart rates and nearly two dozen of them died after taking doses of the drug daily.

Scientists say the findings, published Friday in the peer-reviewed Journal of the American Medical Association, should prompt some degree of skepticism from the public toward enthusiastic claims about and perhaps “serve to curb the exuberant use” of the drug, which has been touted by President Donald Trump as a potential “game-changer” in the fight against the coronavirus.

https://www.cnbc.com/2020/04/24/coronavirus-citing-a-primary-outcome-of-death-researchers-cut-chloroquine-study-short-over-safety-concerns.html

3 hours ago, WaveHunter said:

That Veterans Administration study is being criticized left and right for all of its' flaws.  Even doctors and scientists who are in opposition to HCQ treatment for Covid-19 are characterizing the report as "poor science"

 

The “HCQ shows no benefit” claim appears more an intentional narrative being pushed by biased parties than a truly science-backed finding. 

 

It was not even a legitimate clinical study.   The analysis was completely based on pulling medical records of a non-randomized group of 368 patients for which the baseline demographic was primarily African-American males, aged 65 and over, and in advanced stages of the disease and already close to death.  That is hardly a randomized group!  If data is not coming from randomized, controlled studies, then the findings are essentially meaningless.

 

Furthermore, by its own admission, hydroxychloroquine was given to sicker patients, closer to death, when it's believed that HCQ works early on in the infection by preventing the virus from entering into the cell membrane, or at least minimizing it.  In other words, it works only during the initial phases of infection, not after it has entered the cell and began to replicate.

 

If you read the actual VA report instead of just relying on biased media reports of it, you don't need to be a PhD to realize how poorly this so-called report was prepared.  Read it here

 

To conclude from this study that death was caused by HCQ or that HCQ is of no benefit in minimizing symptoms of Covid-19 is a complete fallacy, and an example of scientific investigation at its' absolute worst.

 

Who has been criticizing the VA analysis, other than Fox News talking heads and fame wh*re doctors appearing on Fox News without documented evidence?

 

You are using anecdotal evidence to defend the use of hydoxychloroquine while discounting a study based on hundreds of patients that has been submitted for review.  It seems like you accept any "evidence" suggesting there may be benefits in the drug, while rejecting evidence that it increases mortality.  Do you see the problem with this?

 

Come back when you have actually studies that show hydroxychloroquine use is beneficial and safe in treating Covid 19.

5 hours ago, WaveHunter said:

That Veterans Administration study is being criticized left and right for all of its' flaws.  Even doctors and scientists who are in opposition to HCQ treatment for Covid-19 are characterizing the report as "poor science"

 

The “HCQ shows no benefit” claim appears more an intentional narrative being pushed by biased parties than a truly science-backed finding. 

 

It was not even a legitimate clinical study.   The analysis was completely based on pulling medical records of a non-randomized group of 368 patients for which the baseline demographic was primarily African-American males, aged 65 and over, and in advanced stages of the disease and already close to death.  That is hardly a randomized group!  If data is not coming from randomized, controlled studies, then the findings are essentially meaningless.

 

Furthermore, by its own admission, hydroxychloroquine was given to sicker patients, closer to death, when it's believed that HCQ works early on in the infection by preventing the virus from entering into the cell membrane, or at least minimizing it.  In other words, it works only during the initial phases of infection, not after it has entered the cell and began to replicate.

 

If you read the actual VA report instead of just relying on biased media reports of it, you don't need to be a PhD to realize how poorly this so-called report was prepared.  Read it here

 

To conclude from this study that death was caused by HCQ or that HCQ is of no benefit in minimizing symptoms of Covid-19 is a complete fallacy, and an example of scientific investigation at its' absolute worst.

 

It appears to me that those who are against it's use are trying to quickly push through a study for the purpose of producing a banner headline to get their propaganda out.  By the time their study gets debunked the propaganda will have already stuck in the heads of at least a few.  The jury is still out on it's use.  As long as it shows potential it makes no sense to cheer lead it's failure for no other reason than the fact that Trump perceived it's possible feasibility.  Again it boils down to such an intense hatred of the man that it causes people to lose their ability to think rationally and logically.

1 hour ago, Tippaporn said:

It appears to me that those who are against it's use are trying to quickly push through a study for the purpose of producing a banner headline to get their propaganda out.  By the time their study gets debunked the propaganda will have already stuck in the heads of at least a few.  The jury is still out on it's use.  As long as it shows potential it makes no sense to cheer lead it's failure for no other reason than the fact that Trump perceived it's possible feasibility.  Again it boils down to such an intense hatred of the man that it causes people to lose their ability to think rationally and logically.

It appears to me that those who are for it's use, because Trump endorsed it, are trying to quickly push it into the mainstream before there is evidence of its effectiveness and safety.  Hence the constant references to anecdotal evidence and rejection of preliminary results showing increased mortality.

The only thing that could improve trump's virus conferences would be to play sound affects like Thai comedies. 

In a earlier conference trump floated the idea of ingesting or having injected disinfectants like Lysol. I kid you not.  

 

  

4 minutes ago, heybruce said:

  

1 hour ago, Tippaporn said:

It appears to me that those who are against it's use are trying to quickly push through a study for the purpose of producing a banner headline to get their propaganda out.  By the time their study gets debunked the propaganda will have already stuck in the heads of at least a few.  The jury is still out on it's use.  As long as it shows potential it makes no sense to cheer lead it's failure for no other reason than the fact that Trump perceived it's possible feasibility.  Again it boils down to such an intense hatred of the man that it causes people to lose their ability to think rationally and logically.

 

It appears to me that those who are for it's use, because Trump endorsed it, are trying to quickly push it into the mainstream before there is evidence of its effectiveness and safety.  Hence the constant references to anecdotal evidence and rejection of preliminary results showing increased mortality.

Trump's endorsement shouldn't even enter the equation as to whether or not the drug has potential.  I would contest your claim that anyone pushing it's use is due only to the fact that Trump endorsed it.  It never was to me.  My point still stands that much of the opposition to the drug is solely due to Trumps' endorsement of it.

 

WaveHunter has provided much information questioning the study's legitimacy which, as the topic header confirms, hasn't even been validated yet.  Given these facts one needs only to read the initial comments to this thread for confirmation that the study's findings were accepted at face value without any questioning by most every Trump hater on this site.  There is undeniably a jubilant and victorious air in expressing Trump's 'failure' to many of those comments which, given that the only issue should be a unified response from both Trump haters and supporters to find a cure for one of the most crippling pandemics in recent history, is in my opinion sick beyond words.

20 minutes ago, sirineou said:

The only thing that could improve trump's virus conferences would be to play sound affects like Thai comedies. 

In a earlier conference trump floated the idea of ingesting or having injected disinfectants like Lysol. I kid you not.  

 

  

You make my point in my above post splendidly, sirineou.  Trump is merely trying to come up with ideas to help in this fight in which we should all be unified.  He clearly stated that he's not a medical doctor, he doesn't know whether his ideas are feasible nor does he know whether they could be implemented.  He's merely asking doctors that if they thought his ideas have merit then to please check into them.

 

Again, I simply think criticism and ridicule of a man who is only trying to help in an extremely dire situation and is based solely on an uncontrollable hatred for the man is sick.

3 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

You make my point in my above post splendidly, sirineou.  Trump is merely trying to come up with ideas to help in this fight in which we should all be unified.  He clearly stated that he's not a medical doctor, he doesn't know whether his ideas are feasible nor does he know whether they could be implemented.  He's merely asking doctors that if they thought his ideas have merit then to please check into them.

 

Again, I simply think criticism and ridicule of a man who is only trying to help in an extremely dire situation and is based solely on an uncontrollable hatred for the man is sick.

Bad  ideas. that he should discuss with his experts before he goes on his " not ready for prime time show"

Are you kidding me?

Why don't  you volunteer to be the first to be injected with Lysol to see if it works. 

 

18 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

Trump's endorsement shouldn't even enter the equation as to whether or not the drug has potential.  I would contest your claim that anyone pushing it's use is due only to the fact that Trump endorsed it.  It never was to me.  My point still stands that much of the opposition to the drug is solely due to Trumps' endorsement of it.

 

WaveHunter has provided much information questioning the study's legitimacy which, as the topic header confirms, hasn't even been validated yet.  Given these facts one needs only to read the initial comments to this thread for confirmation that the study's findings were accepted at face value without any questioning by most every Trump hater on this site.  There is undeniably a jubilant and victorious air in expressing Trump's 'failure' to many of those comments which, given that the only issue should be a unified response from both Trump haters and supporters to find a cure for one of the most crippling pandemics in recent history, is in my opinion sick beyond words.

Lol. (Un)surprisingly enough, all Trump's fans have been frantically posting support for this drug since Trump started touting it.

 

As to the position of so-called anti-trumpers, most of them have been recalling that there are too many uncertainties and contradicting information about it. There is no agreement among scientists and practioners about it and it's too early to draw any conclusion.

 

So the main point is that Trump should shut up and let health professionals and scientists do their job without any political interference. As usual, Trump has not been able to shut his mouth and no one else can be blamed for unpleasant consequences.

32 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

You make my point in my above post splendidly, sirineou.  Trump is merely trying to come up with ideas to help in this fight in which we should all be unified.  He clearly stated that he's not a medical doctor, he doesn't know whether his ideas are feasible nor does he know whether they could be implemented.  He's merely asking doctors that if they thought his ideas have merit then to please check into them.

 

Again, I simply think criticism and ridicule of a man who is only trying to help in an extremely dire situation and is based solely on an uncontrollable hatred for the man is sick.

Alternatively, one could hold the opinion that Trump should just shut up.

21 minutes ago, candide said:

Lol. (Un)surprisingly enough, all Trump's fans have been frantically posting support for this drug since Trump started touting it.

 

As to the position of so-called anti-trumpers, most of them have been recalling that there are too many uncertainties and contradicting information about it. There is no agreement among scientists and practioners about it and it's too early to draw any conclusion.

 

So the main point is that Trump should shut up and let health professionals and scientists do their job without any political interference. As usual, Trump has not been able to shut his mouth and no one else can be blamed for unpleasant consequences.

FDA has now gone on the public record with warnings regards the use of the anti malaria drug.

 

https://www.nbcnews.com/health/health-news/fda-cautions-against-hydroxychloroquine-outside-hospital-setting-n1191266

 

As I stated elsewhere if a CEO (e.g. from a medical supplier company) were to make similar statement to trump regards potential treatments for Covid-19, without doubt the Board would immediately fire the person. Long overdue for trump to be removed from power just on the basis of his handling of the Covid-19 crisis, but won't happen due to corruption by trump of the norms of political processes.

 

 

47 minutes ago, sirineou said:

Bad  ideas. that he should discuss with his experts before he goes on his " not ready for prime time show"

Are you kidding me?

Why don't  you volunteer to be the first to be injected with Lysol to see if it works. 

 

Who really cares whether Trump discusses his ideas in private with his experts or airs them out spontaneously during his pressers?  What is so horrific about it?  And to be fair it has to be put into context with his intentions to help.  Joe Scarborough and Mika Brzezinski hate Trump and are political animals so it's totally expected that they would not only attempt to make a political mountain out of a molehill but will portray this in the worst possible light they can.  It's dripping with hatred and bias.

 

It's painfully obvious that Trump was talking about the concept of a disinfectant and not suggesting a literal injection of Lysol.

6 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

Who really cares whether Trump discusses his ideas in private with his experts or airs them out spontaneously during his pressers?  What is so horrific about it?

Whoo cares?

The people who look to him for leadership in this difficult time care. or should. 

What is so horrific about it?

How about if some people took him seriously and tried it? 

 

2 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

It's painfully obvious that Trump was talking about the concept of a disinfectant and not suggesting a literal injection of Lysol.

I assume you watched trump making his comments. Your claim is incorrect concerning treatment of Covid using disinfectant internally. trump is now back tracking claiming he was being sarcastic - what a laugh!

1 hour ago, Tippaporn said:

You make my point in my above post splendidly, sirineou.  Trump is merely trying to come up with ideas to help in this fight in which we should all be unified.  He clearly stated that he's not a medical doctor, he doesn't know whether his ideas are feasible nor does he know whether they could be implemented.  He's merely asking doctors that if they thought his ideas have merit then to please check into them.

 

Again, I simply think criticism and ridicule of a man who is only trying to help in an extremely dire situation and is based solely on an uncontrollable hatred for the man is sick.

It would help, if he could engage the executive function of his brain, even momentarily, prior to engaging the vocal chords.

Any person who can read, can see on most disinfection labels' Not for Human Consumption" call poisons information if ingested.

It is not intense hatred, it possibly consternation regarding the absolute stupidity of his ramblings. 

 

 

4 minutes ago, simple1 said:

I assume you watched trump making his comments. Your claim is incorrect concerning treatment of Covid using disinfectant internally. trump is now back tracking claiming he was being sarcastic - what a laugh!

I was concerned about getting the intense light into the body?? I too watched the briefing, I was left imagining how the "advisers" would "counsel " him afterwards. He sometimes could be writing a script for the Monty Python crew.

 

A post using a trolling meme and the replies have been removed. 

14 minutes ago, RJRS1301 said:

I was concerned about getting the intense light into the body?? I too watched the briefing, 

I've been visited by aliens and the intense light is relief as to what comes next.  The probes don't do aliens any favours.