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

[heybruce]

32 minutes ago, WaveHunter said:

All of this unfounded hysteria is getting ridiculous, and is absolutely being generated by politically biased parties. 

 

Up until Trump showed interest, nobody was talking about the dangers of HCQ or CQ.  CQ has been prescribed for over 70 years and has an excellent safety record.  The WHO published an in-depth study of it in 2017 and no concerns over safety were expressed.

 

In short, there is nothing inherently dangerous with these drugs, and there is no reason at all that they should not be considered as a possible treatment for COVID-19.  Responsible advocates are not claiming it may be a cure, only that it seems possible that it can slow down the progression of serious complications.

 

What exactly is the danger of a low-dose, short duration prescription by a physician?  If there are no contraindications like existing cardiac history, there is no significant danger in a 5-10 day use of the drug.  The risks do not outweigh the potential benefits.

 

Most of the recent “HCQ shows no benefit” studies appears more an intentional narrative being pushed by biased parties than properly conducted clinical studies. 

 

For example, the recent 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" 

 

Finally, one of the first truly scientific studies is about to be conducted by Novartis.  Why not just hold your judgement until we finally get a true controlled, double-blind study of a genuinely randomized group of subjects that determines efficacy, instead of making such declarative statements as you are making?

 

 

"For example, the recent 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" 

 

Who has been criticizing this study left and right?  Give some sources.

 

"What exactly is the danger of a low-dose, short duration prescription by a physician?  If there are no contraindications like existing cardiac history, there is no significant danger in a 5-10 day use of the drug.  The risks do not outweigh the potential benefits."

 

If the person is in good health the risks are probably low, but why give the drug to a healthy person?  If the person is in poor health we don't know the risks, nor the potential benefits.  Why would any responsible doctor prescribe the drug under these circumstances?

 

 

[Dumbastheycome]

Trump seems to have passed over his obsessive reference to HCL but unfortunately demonstrated even less comprehension of the risk in mumbling on about things. Suggesting the possibility of injecting disinfectants and /or irradiating  the body  from the inside  with "bright light" may  be  just a day or two away  from  calling Paula White to the podium to invoke God  to  strike all with lightening ? Sure  fire  cleansing ! But only after  sending in your  Covid-19  relief  check !

 

[WaveHunter]

3 hours ago, Sheryl said:

 

Absolutely untrue of this and virtually every prescription drug.

 

Risks are certainly less if prescribed by a competent physician to a patient whose medical history is known but they are never nil.

 

And when the drug is being used for off-label purposes the risks are always higher. Cannot generalize from people with one disease to patients with a completely different one, and generally different demographic traits to boot. .

 

Why are you nit-picking my comments? You are entitled to your personal opinion of course, but to makes these declarative statements as though they are accepted fact is wrong.

 

Obviously ANY prescription drug carries potential risks!  In fact any drug at all, even aspirin, can be fatal!  It all boils down to whether potential benefits outweigh potential risks. 

 

The only person qualified to determine that is one's own physician (and the FDA); not you, not me, and not a bunch of media talking heads with hidden agendas. 

 

The same holds true with off-label use.  If HCQ posed a serious universal risk for use in treating Covid-19 as you claim, the FDA would not have issued an Emergency Use Authorization for its' off-label use.  

 

If there was indeed an extraordinary and universal risk associated with CQ or HCQ in general, the FDA would not allow for their use under any circumstances.  The FDA has never shown any concern or taken any official actions to curtail their use as long as guidelines are followed, and in the case of CQ, it has been in use with an excellent safety record for over 70 years!

 

What's more, the World Health Organization did an in-depth study of the cardiotoxicity of the drugs in 2017 and found no undue safety concerns.

 

In my view, this whole hysterical debate over safety is largely politically motivated, not motivated by science-based facts.

Edited April 26, 2020 by WaveHunter

[Slip]

1 hour ago, WaveHunter said:

<snip for brevity>

 

The only person qualified to determine that is one's own physician (and the FDA); not you, not me, and not a bunch of media talking heads with hidden agendas. 

 

<snip for brevity>

So why on earth was Trump's White House pushing for it to be made readily available without hospitalisation or medical supervision much to the horror of their own experts and agencies?  

[riclag]

6 hours ago, WaveHunter said:

The same holds true with off-label use.  If HCQ posed a serious universal risk for use in treating Covid-19 as you claim, the FDA would not have issued an Emergency Use Authorization for its' off-label use.

 

Another words

Understanding Unapproved Use of Approved Drugs "Off Label"

 "One reason is that there might not be an approved drug to treat your disease or medical condition.  Another is that you may have tried all approved treatments without seeing any benefits.  In situations like these, you and your healthcare provider may talk about using an approved drug for an unapproved use to treat your disease or medical condition".

https://www.fda.gov/patients/learn-about-expanded-access-and-other-treatment-options/understanding-unapproved-use-approved-drugs-label

 

 The question is imop,Why is the FDA telling everyone to consult your doctor and that it must be used in a hospital setting,if its gonna kill ya?

Why isn't the msm reporting what the FDA guidelines are! Let me guess!

 

Edited April 26, 2020 by riclag

[WaveHunter]

15 hours ago, Slip said:

So why on earth was Trump's White House pushing for it to be made readily available without hospitalisation or medical supervision much to the horror of their own experts and agencies?  

I have never heard of Trump advocating self-medication.  Perhaps you should provide a factual link that supports your comment, as in an actual quote of Trump saying that (and not some biased commentator interpreting his words).  Can you do that?  I'd be real interested to see your proof.

Edited April 27, 2020 by WaveHunter

[WaveHunter]

35 minutes ago, stevenl said:

All the more amazing then that quite a few companies came out and told the public not to drink or inject bleach, apparently all these CEO's and other company execs lack intelligence.

It's a litigious world and CEO's have to protect their companies from the stupid actions of stupid people.  How many people have tried to sue tobacco companies because they were stupid enough to smoke all of their lives and then got cancer?

 

Some people are very stupid, and do stupid things...like the dopey guy who drank aquarium cleaner because he read that the ingredients contained "chloroquine", not realizing there are many forms of the chemical and the one in aquarium cleaner is lethal.  He died several hours later.  Who's fault was that?

 

What else would you expect these CEO's to do to protect their companies from stupid actions by stupid people?

 

If anyone is responsible for fostering such preposterous beliefs as drinking Clorox or swallowing lightbulbs, it is not Trump, but the pundits who misinform the public with what his intended message was.  They were fully aware of what he meant, like most intelligent and rational people would be.  They could have clarified his thoughts with a science-based explanation.  Instead, they chose to spin his words into a false narrative.

Edited April 27, 2020 by WaveHunter

[stevenl]

29 minutes ago, WaveHunter said:

It's a litigious world and CEO's have to protect their companies from the stupid actions of stupid people.  How many people have tried to sue tobacco companies because they were stupid enough to smoke all of their lives and then got cancer?

 

Some people are very stupid, and do stupid things...like the dopey guy who drank aquarium cleaner because he read that the ingredients contained "chloroquine", not realizing there are many forms of the chemical and the one in aquarium cleaner is lethal.  He died several hours later.  Who's fault was that?

 

What else would you expect these CEO's to do to protect their companies from stupid actions by stupid people?

 

If anyone is responsible for fostering such preposterous beliefs as drinking Clorox or swallowing lightbulbs, it is not Trump, but the pundits who misinform the public with what his intended message was.  They were fully aware of what he meant, like most intelligent and rational people would be.  They could have clarified his thoughts with a science-based explanation.  Instead, they chose to spin his words into a false narrative.

So after Trump's recommendation they could be sued.

 

Sorry, you really can't wiggle him out of this.

[RJRS1301]

44 minutes ago, WaveHunter said:

hey were fully aware of what he meant, like most intelligent and rational people would be.  They could have clarified his thoughts with a science-based explanation.  Instead, they chose to spin his words into a false narrative.

AH no they (the press) merely  reported and recorded and put the blundering mind wandering thought bubbles to voice/print/visual media, allowing him to do his work.

How could someone else accurately clarify what is going though that mind, it is changed and scrambled by the nanosecond.

Edited April 27, 2020 by RJRS1301

[Tippaporn]

53 minutes ago, stevenl said:

 All the more amazing then that quite a few companies came out and told the public not to drink or inject bleach, apparently all these CEO's and other company execs lack intelligence.

 

Nobody is spinning his words, just repeating them.

Either the companies are stupid or they're simply covering their ar$es legally.  Could be both.

 

They are massively spinning his words.  You'd have to be in complete, utter, absolute denial to not see it.  BTW, millions do see it.  I wonder why they can but you don't.

[stevenl]

2 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

Either the companies are stupid or they're simply covering their ar$es legally.  Could be both.

 

They are massively spinning his words.  You'd have to be in complete, utter, absolute denial to not see it.  BTW, millions do see it.  I wonder why they can but you don't.

Now you've totally lost me.

 

Millions are making fun of his words, but now you're claiming they're all in complete, utter, absolute denial because you translated Trump's words correctly.

[Tippaporn]

13 minutes ago, stevenl said:

So after Trump's recommendation they could be sued.

 

Sorry, you really can't wiggle him out of this.

Nowhere did Trump recommend drinking bleach and Lysol was never mentioned by him by name . . . only by those who chose to spin the meaning of his words and introduced Lysol as it happens to be a disinfectant.  Certainly not the disinfectant Trump had in mind.

 

So why do some people go so far out of their way to distort Trump's meaning and intentions?  As with all things Trump, it's purely politics.  Given we're dealing with a pandemic which should unite people of all stripes I think it disgustingly sick that some people want to use it for political advantage.

[Tippaporn]

3 minutes ago, stevenl said:

Now you've totally lost me.

 

Millions are making fun of his words, but now you're claiming they're all in complete, utter, absolute denial because you translated Trump's words correctly.

I've lost count as to how many stupid people there are in the U.S. (and in the world, for that matter).  As W.C. Fields famously quipped, "There's a sucker born every minute."  As unfortunate as it is, the millions do add up quickly.

[xylophone]

50 minutes ago, WaveHunter said:

If anyone is responsible for fostering such preposterous beliefs as drinking Clorox or swallowing lightbulbs, it is not Trump, but the pundits who misinform the public with what his intended message was.

Read again.............trump added: "I see the disinfectant that knocks it out in a minute, one minute. And is there a way we can do something like that by injection inside or almost a cleaning? As you see, it gets in the lungs, it does a tremendous number on the lungs, so it would be interesting to check that."

 

Then search for the look of horror on the face of the doctor in that briefing. You cannot get away from the continuously well proven fact that trump is an idiot. Many more I could quote.

[WaveHunter]

14 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

Either the companies are stupid or they're simply covering their ar$es legally.  Could be both.

 

They are massively spinning his words.  You'd have to be in complete, utter, absolute denial to not see it.  BTW, millions do see it.  I wonder why they can but you don't.

Well, you're right about "covering their ar$es legally" and what choice do they really have in today's litigious world where every pharmaceutical company that advertises on TV or in print is so scared of a potential lawsuit that they meticulously list every single possible side effects in their ads where it almost becomes comical that anyone would want to buy their product after hearing all of this scary (and highly unlikely) stuff, but that's just the way things are these days.

 

As for "spinning", all the so-called "news reporting" that exists today is not true journalism at all, but commentary that is usually slanted depending on the source's political leanings.  In the past the were true journalists who only reported facts, not biased opinions.  They respected their audiences' native intelligence and ability to think for themselves, and provided facts to allow them to make up their own minds on important topics. 

 

None of that exists today.  Everything you hear on the news, especially if it has to do with Trump is biased opinions, not facts, and whether it comes from left or right leaning legacy media, it is not intended to inform their audiences, but to sway them in one direction or another.  Both liberals and conservatives are guilty of this.  There is no such thing as impartial journalism anymore; it died long ago.

Edited April 27, 2020 by WaveHunter

[Tippaporn]

1 minute ago, WaveHunter said:

Well, you're right about "covering their ar$es legally" and what choice do they really have in today's litigious world where every pharmaceutical company that advertises on TV or in print meticulously list all possible side effects in their ads where it almost becomes comical that anyone would want to buy their product after hearing all of this stuff, but that's just the way things are these days.

 

As for "spinning" All the so-called "journalism" is not true journalism at all, but commentary.  In the past the were true journalists who only reported facts, not biased opinions.  They respected their audiences' native intelligence and ability to think for themselves, and provided facts to allow them to make up their own minds on important topics.  None of that exists today.  Everything you hear on the news, especially if it has to do with Trump is biased opinions, not facts, and whether it comes from left or right leaning legacy media, it is not intended to inform their audiences, but to sway them in one direction or another.  Both liberals and conservatives are guilty of this.  There is no such thing as impartial journalism anymore; it died long ago.

As far as journalism goes it has gotten so bad that, at least in my mind, it can no longer be passed off as 'poor' journalism.  I understand many journalists have drunk the kool aid and sincerely believe in their distorted world view.  Some of them I believe are deliberately, knowingly pushing false narratives.  But those running these main stream news outlets are not stupid and are only too well aware of the propaganda and lies their media spews.  They, in fact, direct it.  Everyone has an (hidden) agenda and no doubt those at the helm have theirs.  Again, my opinion so don't be asking me for sources.  Just, ahh, covering my ar$e.

[WaveHunter]

11 minutes ago, xylophone said:

Read again.............trump added: "I see the disinfectant that knocks it out in a minute, one minute. And is there a way we can do something like that by injection inside or almost a cleaning? As you see, it gets in the lungs, it does a tremendous number on the lungs, so it would be interesting to check that."

 

Then search for the look of horror on the face of the doctor in that briefing. You cannot get away from the continuously well proven fact that trump is an idiot. Many more I could quote.

OK, so he chose his words poorly.  He is a medical layman, and makes no secret of that.  However, the underlying science he was referring to is quite valid.  Hospital fight bacterial infection by pumping Propylene glycol and dipropylene glycol through their air conditioning systems as bacterial "disinfectant" (i.e.: so it gets into your lungs...get it???).  So, such ideas as looking for ways to fight the infection through similar means are hardly far-fetched.

 

The legacy media could easily have explained what he was referring to but they chose not to, and instead spun these incredibly false narratives.  Anyone who fails to see this has their head totally in the sand.

Edited April 27, 2020 by WaveHunter

[WaveHunter]

20 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

As far as journalism goes it has gotten so bad that, at least in my mind, it can no longer be passed off as 'poor' journalism.  I understand many journalists have drunk the kool aid and sincerely believe in their distorted world view.  Some of them I believe are deliberately, knowingly pushing false narratives.  But those running these main stream news outlets are not stupid and are only too well aware of the propaganda and lies their media spews.  They, in fact, direct it.  Everyone has an (hidden) agenda and no doubt those at the helm have theirs.  Again, my opinion so don't be asking me for sources.  Just, ahh, covering my ar$e.

Yeah, I agree, and the right leaning media sources like Fox are just as bad at doing it as the left leaning ones like CNN.  See, I'm not anti-this, or anti-that; I'm anti-everything when it comes to the reporting of so called "news" today.   True and impartial journalism died after the 1960's and has just gotten less and less factual, and more and more opinionated since.

 

It's gotten so bad, that you really have to do your own journalism, instead of relying on such tainted sources to inform you.  Too many people just blindly follow the ramblings of heavily biased news commentators and talking heads.  Instead they should be using Google to carefully research important topics from well-vetted sources on their own, and then making up their own mind on what is really the truth.  All of this ridiculous and politically biased nonsense would end if more people took the responsibility to be truly informed, instead of letting themselves be blindly led by those with hidden agendas.

Edited April 27, 2020 by WaveHunter

[Eric Loh]

Once again proving that layman Trump with the biggest microphone on the largest stage shouldn’t be recommending any drug or treatment method without consultation with his scientists. He just cant free wheel matters relating to science. His words are dangerous to his gullible followers. 
https://edition.cnn.com/2020/04/26/politics/maryland-disinfectants-coronavirus-larry-hogan-donald-trump/index.html

[Tippaporn]

6 minutes ago, WaveHunter said:

Yeah, I totally agree, and the right leaning media sources like Fox are just as bad at doing it as the left leaning ones like CNN.  See, I'm not anti-this, or anti-that; I'm anti-everything when it comes to the reporting of so called "news" today. 

 

It's gotten so bad, that you really have to do your own journalism, instead of relying on such tainted sources to inform you.  Too many people just blindly follow the ramblings of heavily biased news commentators and talking heads.  Instead they should be using Google to carefully research important topics from well-vetted sources on their own, and then making up their own mind on what is really the truth.

There are many, many great independent journalists out there.  They've filled the gap left by the MSM.  Have you heard the latest bombshell regarding the Flynn case which shows those corrupt in the FBI and DOJ set him up?  Why has not one MSM outlet reported it?  Have you heard about the newly made unredactions to the footnotes of the Horowitz report and the devastating blow they deliver to the entire Russian collusion narrative, including it's predication?  Why have the MSM outlets been deathly quiet about these revelations?

 

I do believe many people never, ever venture outside of the MSM.  How can they possibly become informed of events which the MSM refuses to cover.  As the saying goes, "If it's not reported it never happened."  I believe, too, that for those people who do venture outside the MSM they carry with them such distortions of reality that facts which counter their 'facts' are uncritically deemed fake news.

[Tippaporn]

5 minutes ago, Eric Loh said:

Once again proving that layman Trump with the biggest microphone on the largest stage shouldn’t be recommending any drug or treatment method without consultation with his scientists. He just cant free wheel matters relating to science. His words are dangerous to his gullible followers. 
https://edition.cnn.com/2020/04/26/politics/maryland-disinfectants-coronavirus-larry-hogan-donald-trump/index.html

CNN should not be an approved source of information.

[WaveHunter]

6 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

There are many, many great independent journalists out there.  They've filled the gap left by the MSM.  Have you heard the latest bombshell regarding the Flynn case which shows those corrupt in the FBI and DOJ set him up?  Why has not one MSM outlet reported it?  Have you heard about the newly made unredactions to the footnotes of the Horowitz report and the devastating blow they deliver to the entire Russian collusion narrative, including it's predication?  Why have the MSM outlets been deathly quiet about these revelations?

 

I do believe many people never, ever venture outside of the MSM.  How can they possibly become informed of events which the MSM refuses to cover.  As the saying goes, "If it's not reported it never happened."  I believe, too, that for those people who do venture outside the MSM they carry with them such distortions of reality that facts which counter their 'facts' are uncritically deemed fake news.

I think you just have to take anything and everything reported in Legacy media (both the left and the right) with a grain of salt; use it as a starting point to do your own research through well-vetted sources in google searches, and then make up your own mind.  Too many people just hear some sound bite or see some clickbait headline, and their mind is already made up that they now have the gospel truth.

Edited April 27, 2020 by WaveHunter

[Tippaporn]

Just now, WaveHunter said:

I think you just have to take anything and everything reported in Legacy media with a grain of salt; use it as a starting point to do your own research through well-vetted sources through google and them make up your own mind.  Too many people just hear some sound bite or see some clickbait headline, and their mind is already made up.

I follow the Dan Bongino rule . . . whenever the MSM reports a 'bombshell' wait a day or two.  More often than not it gets debunked.

[Eric Loh]

3 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

CNN should not be an approved source of information.

Covered by Fox and I quote as as this may be your preferred news source.  

 

Fox News Sunday host Chris Wallace said on Friday that the state of Maryland emergency hotline had received more than 100 calls from people asking whether it was safe for them to drink a disinfectant. 

 

He further remarked a gem “it may sound crazy but obviously people take the president’s words seriously. The answer is no, it’s not safe”. 

[WaveHunter]

7 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

I follow the Dan Bongino rule . . . whenever the MSM reports a 'bombshell' wait a day or two.  More often than not it gets debunked.

I try and make it a point to watch all news media outlets as much as I can, including CNN, MSNBC, Fox, BBC, Al Jazeera, Reuters, New York Times, Washington Post, etc... .  They ALL report things that later should be retracted, simply in attempts to be the first to report something.  It's really shocking when you compare it to how carefully news outlet in the past used to review their sources before reporting anything.  It's just something you need to take responsibility for doing yourself if you really want to have a valid viewpoint.

Edited April 27, 2020 by WaveHunter

[simple1]

1 hour ago, WaveHunter said:

<SNIP> The facts are that he was referring to legitimate, science-based theories and hypothesis. <SNIP>

You're taking trump's comments entirely out of context. trump's commentary was immediately after...

 

"William N. Bryan, an acting under secretary for science at the Department of Homeland Security, detailed the virus’s possible susceptibility to bleach and alcohol"

 

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/04/24/us/politics/trump-inject-disinfectant-bleach-coronavirus.html

 

There is no excuse whatsoever for trump then to start taking to investigating injecting disinfectant and so on.

 

[WaveHunter]

17 minutes ago, Eric Loh said:

Covered by Fox and I quote as as this may be your preferred news source.  

 

Fox News Sunday host Chris Wallace said on Friday that the state of Maryland emergency hotline had received more than 100 calls from people asking whether it was safe for them to drink a disinfectant. 

 

He further remarked a gem “it may sound crazy but obviously people take the president’s words seriously. The answer is no, it’s not safe”. 

What's your point...that there are some very stupid people out there that actually believe he was advocating drinking clorox and swallowing lightbulbs?  Well, yes, unfortunately there probably are.

 

Granted, Trump should have deferred the topic to his medical advisors to better express the theories and hypotheses he was referring to (which are actually legitimately science-based and were proposed by his medical advisors, not merely off the top of his head).  He is a medical layman and makes no secret of that.  He chose his words poorly, for sure.

 

However, had the Legacy media acted responsibly and attempted to clarify his remarks to reflect the actual underlying science he was referring to, then not so many people would have made those phone calls.  The media chose instead to take advantage of his poor use of words to further confuse what he was referring to instead of clarifying it.

 

So who is really at fault here; Trump or the Legacy media?

Edited April 27, 2020 by WaveHunter

[Tippaporn]

11 minutes ago, Eric Loh said:

Covered by Fox and I quote as as this may be your preferred news source.  

 

Fox News Sunday host Chris Wallace said on Friday that the state of Maryland emergency hotline had received more than 100 calls from people asking whether it was safe for them to drink a disinfectant. 

 

He further remarked a gem “it may sound crazy but obviously people take the president’s words seriously. The answer is no, it’s not safe”. 

None of the MSM are my news sources.  None.  Why is it that if you are considered pro-Trump it is automatically assumed that Fox is your preferred news source?  Fox is no better than the rest.

[Tippaporn]

12 minutes ago, WaveHunter said:

I try and make it a point to watch all news media outlets as much as I can, including CNN, MSNBC, Fox, BBC, Al Jazeera, Reuters, New York Times, Washington Post, etc... .  They ALL report things that later should be retracted, simply in attempts to be the first to report something.  It's really shocking when you compare it to how carefully news outlet in the past used to review their sources before reporting anything.  It's just something you need to take responsibility for doing yourself if you really want to have a valid viewpoint.

They've figured out that for their audience they don't need to report accurately and to report falsely is O.K. to, as there currently are no repercussions.  They need only write articles that confirm their narrative.  Their audience sucks it up without question.

[JackGats]

No way I will believe chloroquine is a dangerous drug. When it was used for malaria prevention you could take it for up to 1 year. Each and every day for 1 year !