Trump defends his use of unproven treatment as prevention against coronavirus

[Tippaporn]

7 hours ago, Throatwobbler said:

You really don't understand what science is and the scientific process. What is pure comic gold is the people who try to pass themselves off as intelligent, then reading what they post.

The feeling is mutual and allow me to explain.

 

I should start by quoting myself as to the "science."  

 

"Whose science are we talking about?  You know, is it the settled science type that global warming is real or is it the science type which counters the settled science type?  Inquiring minds want to know."

 

While it appears that there are many types of science you seem to suggest that there is only one.  And I would agree with you on that point.  Pure, objective science.  The process relies on pure objectivity, which means that there is zero expectation of any particular outcome.  Pure objectivity plays no favourites regarding outcomes, and in fact it resists any favourite outcome for that would taint the results and thus distort the truth.

 

Now the reality of the situation is that we have at least a few "types" of science; politically motivated science, science motivated monetarily, goal seeking science, just to name a few.  Again, while I would agree with you that there should only be one type of science, true objective science, the reality is that the common Joe is faced with a plethora of various and often times countering scientific views and is forced to decide for themselves which view is the correct one.

 

It seems to me, and I could be wrong, that most liberals tend to view the goal seeking science, specifically in the case of the use of hydroxychloroquine, as the correct one.  And the goal is to prove Trump wrong.  Am I wrong or am I wrong?  Again, it cannot be denied that hydroxychloroquine has been effective in situations and in many cases.  As the old saying goes, you can't argue with success.  Successful results are undeniable.  Yet no matter how many success stories are out there (I would assume most backed by their own scientific data) there can never be enough of them to burst through the "anecdotal" threshold placed by those who, by all appearances, refuse to be accepting of success under any circumstances (e.g., it doesn't meet their goal).

 

I might point out as well that science, even the purest of the pure objective type, is still not GOD (as much as scientists like to think of themselves as coexisting on that exalted plane).  Two people can be given an identical treatment with each showing a different result.  Science, despite it's self-glorified present state, is still clueless as to why.  Hydroxychloroquine may work for some and not for others.  Hydroxychloroquine may produce positive effects for some and disastrous effects for others.  In the meanwhile, and to the confusion of the average Joe, scientists experiencing positive results with the use of hydroxychloroquine will claim effectiveness and dispute those scientists claiming it is ineffective while scientists experiencing negative results will claim ineffectiveness and dispute those scientists claiming it is effective.

 

Round and round and round we go.  Where we stop nobody knows.  LOL

 

Now that you insinuate that I am unintelligent, with the inherent implication that you are the intelligent one, I would just like to comment that of all of man's attributes, intelligence being simply one of them, intelligence is vastly overrated (and that is an understatement).  Not to go off-topic but I'll let you chew on that one.

[candide]

24 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

It seems to me, and I could be wrong, that most liberals tend to view the goal seeking science, specifically in the case of the use of hydroxychloroquine, as the correct one.  And the goal is to prove Trump wrong

Projecting much.......

[Tippaporn]

2 minutes ago, candide said:

Projecting much.......

That has got to be your No. 1 favourite worthless comeback, candide.  LOL

[Phoenix Rising]

7 hours ago, Tippaporn said:

LOL.  That's simply an automated blanket response.  And usually given without reading any of the scientific evidence provided in success stories.

 

And here's a very important question for ya (and just to forewarn, don't get all squirrelly in a reply):

 

Whose science are we talking about?  You know, is it the settled science type that global warming is real or is it the science type which counters the settled science type?  Inquiring minds want to know.

Well, inquiring minds should know that "settled" science is settled for a reason. You know, like when scientists discovered that the earth is not flat, that the sun doesn't rotate around the earth etc. This science is settled and only very disturbed persons will try refute it. 

Now, inquiring minds should also know that this virus is new so that much is yet unknown about it. That means sometimes something Main Stream Science (did you like that term?) thought was right might turn out to be wrong. If they (MSS) discover they're wrong they will inform us and revise their recommendations. In the mean time most rational people will listen to those whose jobs it is to research such things and ignore snake oil salesmen with dim intellects and conspiracy nutters. That's a couple of things inquiring minds should know.

Hope this helps

Edited May 21, 2020 by Phoenix Rising

[Chomper Higgot]

Trump is now saying he will shortly stop taking Hydroxychloroquine when his treatment regimen ends.

 

This is troublesome for the earlier arguments put forward that he was taking this dangerous drug as a ‘preventative’.

 

Unless of course he’s now established a saturation of the drug in his body or some other such ridiculousness.

 

I look forward his supporters offering their next defense of his nonsense ones they’ve reshuffled their heads to fit his latest iteration of ‘alternative reality’.

Edited May 21, 2020 by Chomper Higgot

[Eric Loh]

20 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Trump is now saying he will shortly stop taking Hydroxychloroquine when his treatment regimen ends.

 

This is troublesome for the earlier arguments put forward that he was taking this dangerous drug as a ‘preventative’.

 

Unless of course he’s now established a saturation of the drug in his body or some other such ridiculousness.

 

I look forward his supporters offering their next defense of his nonsense ones they’ve reshuffled their heads to fit his latest iteration of ‘alternative reality’.

We know he is making things up as it goes. He was never on any treatment regime. Even the WH physician did not explicitly confirm that he was receiving medication from the beginning. How Trump may be taking the drug or did he take the drug is still unclear. That’s the nature of the man who lie and add lip most of the time. 

 

[rabas]

54 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

rump is now saying he will shortly stop taking Hydroxychloroquine when his treatment regimen ends.

 

This is troublesome for the earlier arguments put forward that he was taking this dangerous drug as a ‘preventative’.

 

Unless of course he’s now established a saturation of the drug in his body or some other such ridiculousness.

If I asked a Thai rice farmer or most anyone, they would probably say a prophylactic is only required during the time of possible exposure. In this case, from the time SARS2 was first detected in White House staff until incubation periods expired and tests gave the all clear. Right about now.

 

So again Trump's grasp of science, what ever it may be, greatly outshines our local naysayers.

 

Edited May 21, 2020 by rabas

[Tippaporn]

58 minutes ago, Phoenix Rising said:

Well, inquiring minds should know that "settled" science is settled for a reason. You know, like when scientists discovered that the earth is not flat, that the sun doesn't rotate around the earth etc. This science is settled and only very disturbed persons will try refute it. 

Now, inquiring minds should also know that this virus is new so that much is yet unknown about it. That means sometimes something Main Stream Science (did you like that term?) thought was right might turn out to be wrong. If they (MSS) discover they're wrong they will inform us and revise their recommendations. In the mean time most rational people will listen to those whose jobs it is to research such things and ignore snake oil salesmen with dim intellects and conspiracy nutters. That's a couple of things inquiring minds should know.

Hope this helps

You reference indisputable known scientific fact and imply that those facts are on par with the "fact" of global warming.  LOL  That's about as disingenuous as one can get (unless you're a global warming alarmist then you actually believe the two are on par).  And within your first statement you simultaneously imply that my comment evidences that I refute indisputable know scientific fact (since I'm making a distinction between settled science and the science which refutes settled science).  That also is a disingenuous suggestion on your part.  So far not a lot of honesty in your reply.

 

Main Stream Science?  What's this, another science "type" you've just made up out of thin air?  Never heard of it before.  When you next have some spare time please do me the favour of differentiating between Main Stream Science and regular science so that I might be able to recognize which is which.

 

As I read the second portion of your reply it appears that you're suggesting that your newly created Main Stream Science is the "official" science and all other science is snake oil science.  And we (me and perhaps you have others within these threads in mind), the conspiracy nutters with the dim intellects, need to get in line with this Main Stream Science which exists in your mind and stop all of this nonsense talk about any success with the use of hydroxychloroquine.  Is that a fair reading?

 

Sorry to say but you failed miserably in your attempt to "help."  It did provide me a good, hearty laugh, though.  Hope that's some consolation to you.

[Phoenix Rising]

1 hour ago, Tippaporn said:

Main Stream Science?  What's this, another science "type" you've just made up out of thin air?  Never heard of it before.  When you next have some spare time please do me the favour of differentiating between Main Stream Science and regular science so that I might be able to recognize which is which.

 

As I read the second portion of your reply it appears that you're suggesting that your newly created Main Stream Science is the "official" science and all other science is snake oil science.  And we (me and perhaps you have others within these threads in mind), the conspiracy nutters with the dim intellects, need to get in line with this Main Stream Science which exists in your mind and stop all of this nonsense talk about any success with the use of hydroxychloroquine.  Is that a fair reading?

 

Sorry to say but you failed miserably in your attempt to "help."  It did provide me a good, hearty laugh, though.  Hope that's some consolation to you.

"Main Stream Science?  What's this, another science "type" you've just made up out of thin air?  Never heard of it before.  When you next have some spare time please do me the favour of differentiating between Main Stream Science and regular science so that I might be able to recognize which is which."

 

Sure, I'll help you out. It's the same as the difference between Main Stream Media and regular media; there is none.

 

"As I read the second portion of your reply it appears that you're suggesting that your newly created Main Stream Science is the "official" science and all other science is snake oil science.  And we (me and perhaps you have others within these threads in mind), the conspiracy nutters with the dim intellects, need to get in line with this Main Stream Science which exists in your mind and stop all of this nonsense talk about any success with the use of hydroxychloroquine.  Is that a fair reading?"

 

No. that's not a fair reading and it's obvious that you willfully "misunderstand" the point I'm making.

 

"Sorry to say but you failed miserably in your attempt to "help."  It did provide me a good, hearty laugh, though.  Hope that's some consolation to you."

 

Thanks, but I really don't need consolation. Excellent that you've had a good hearty laugh though (even if the joke's on you). Even with a clown in the WH there is no such thing as too much laughter.

Edited May 21, 2020 by Phoenix Rising

[Tippaporn]

4 minutes ago, Phoenix Rising said:

"Main Stream Science?  What's this, another science "type" you've just made up out of thin air?  Never heard of it before.  When you next have some spare time please do me the favour of differentiating between Main Stream Science and regular science so that I might be able to recognize which is which."

 

Sure, I'll help you out. It's the same as the difference between Main Stream Media and regular media; there is none.

 

"As I read the second portion of your reply it appears that you're suggesting that your newly created Main Stream Science is the "official" science and all other science is snake oil science.  And we (me and perhaps you have others within these threads in mind), the conspiracy nutters with the dim intellects, need to get in line with this Main Stream Science which exists in your mind and stop all of this nonsense talk about any success with the use of hydroxychloroquine.  Is that a fair reading?"

 

No. that's not a fair reading and it's obvious that you willfully "misunderstand" the point I'm making.

 

"Sorry to say but you failed miserably in your attempt to "help."  It did provide me a good, hearty laugh, though.  Hope that's some consolation to you."

 

Thanks, but I really don't need consolation. Excellent that you've had a good hearty laugh though (even if the joke's on you). Even with a clown in the WH there is no such thing as too much laughter.

Listen, I know where this is going to lead to . . . a bunch of quibbling which will just get deleted.  I made my point, you made yours and neither of us will ever agree with each other.  Fair enough?  I'm sure there will be many more opportunities for us to share our thoughts together.  Until then, cheers mate.

[mikebike]

21 hours ago, ukrules said:

Regardless of whether this makes any difference or not it's a personal choice by him.

 

Many drugs have a long list of horrendous potential side effects which hardly affect anyone.

 

I take something that some people will go around advising others never to take as it 'destroyed their life' for a while, I have zero side effects as do the vast majority of people.

 

Same as statins, some people have real problems with them, lots of others - no problem.

 

This drug has been available over the counter without prescription in the UK (one of the biggest nanny states of them all) for a very long time.

 

If you want to read about examples of very serious side effects in a widely used drug google this 'ibuprofen toxic epidermal necrolysis death'

 

It's not so much about the side effects. It's about the efficacy.

[candide]

1 hour ago, Tippaporn said:

You reference indisputable known scientific fact and imply that those facts are on par with the "fact" of global warming.  LOL  That's about as disingenuous as one can get (unless you're a global warming alarmist then you actually believe the two are on par).  And within your first statement you simultaneously imply that my comment evidences that I refute indisputable know scientific fact (since I'm making a distinction between settled science and the science which refutes settled science).  That also is a disingenuous suggestion on your part.  So far not a lot of honesty in your reply.

 

Main Stream Science?  What's this, another science "type" you've just made up out of thin air?  Never heard of it before.  When you next have some spare time please do me the favour of differentiating between Main Stream Science and regular science so that I might be able to recognize which is which.

 

As I read the second portion of your reply it appears that you're suggesting that your newly created Main Stream Science is the "official" science and all other science is snake oil science.  And we (me and perhaps you have others within these threads in mind), the conspiracy nutters with the dim intellects, need to get in line with this Main Stream Science which exists in your mind and stop all of this nonsense talk about any success with the use of hydroxychloroquine.  Is that a fair reading?

 

Sorry to say but you failed miserably in your attempt to "help."  It did provide me a good, hearty laugh, though.  Hope that's some consolation to you.

To make it simple, what makes knowledge 'scientific' is the method followed, not a 'type' of science. In particular, it must include the possibility of falsification (Popper). It means that the method should aim not only at proving an hypothesis may be right, but also that it may not be wrong.

Hence the necessity of using two samples, one of the samples taking only a placebo. 

[mikebike]

16 hours ago, Krataiboy said:

Hardly surprising. This may not be the most serious virus ever,  but - thanks to the endless contradictory input from so-called experts of every stripe - it undoubtedly is the most confusing.

You were in another global pandemic? On another planet, or are you over 100 yrs old?

[Phoenix Rising]

30 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

Listen, I know where this is going to lead to . . . a bunch of quibbling which will just get deleted.  I made my point, you made yours and neither of us will ever agree with each other.  Fair enough?  I'm sure there will be many more opportunities for us to share our thoughts together.  Until then, cheers mate.

Likewise.

[Tippaporn]

9 minutes ago, candide said:

To make it simple, what makes knowledge 'scientific' is the method followed, not a 'type' of science. In particular, it must include the possibility of falsification (Popper). It means that the method should aim not only at proving an hypothesis may be right, but also that it may not be wrong.

Hence the necessity of using two samples, one of the samples taking only a placebo. 

Sigh, you do recognize allegory when it's presented?  Anyway, thanks for the helpful explanation.

[rabas]

16 minutes ago, mikebike said:

You were in another global pandemic? On another planet, or are you over 100 yrs old?

2009 Influenza A H1N1-2009 pandemic,

1968 Influenza A H3N2  pandemic aka Hong Kong flu,

1957 influenza A H2N2 pandemic,

 

were all global pandemics.

 

As to today's confusions. If you read health bulletins from 1918, you'll see they had clear, concise, and comprehensive information on what to do. Everything from contacts, touching things, hand washing, masks and eye protection, and clear rules for self isolation. Even how to isolate yourself from your family in your own home and how to handle food. Outside clean air and sunshine were also recognized as curative.

 

Compare that with today's confusion. The CDC today updated their site saying coronavirus no longer "spreads easily from touching objects and surfaces'. Then later says "Routinely clean and disinfect frequently touched surfaces."

[Krataiboy]

1 hour ago, mikebike said:

You were in another global pandemic? On another planet, or are you over 100 yrs old?

Try reading what I wrote. 

[Krataiboy]

18 hours ago, Sujo said:

Nothing contradictory about what experts say. Its the self proclaimed experts and the president causing confusion.

Are you kidding? Look up the differing "expert" advice on masks, hydroxychloroquine, social distancing, lockdowns, the use of ventilators, blood plasma transfusions, serum tests, antibody tests. . . 

 

Need I go on?

[candide]

2 hours ago, Tippaporn said:

Sigh, you do recognize allegory when it's presented?  Anyway, thanks for the helpful explanation.

OK Let's make it more clear: your claim that there are different types of science doesn't make any sense.

What makes knowledge 'scientific' or not, is the quality of the methodology followed, usually according to an assessment by peers.

[Tippaporn]

18 minutes ago, candide said:

OK Let's make it more clear: your claim that there are different types of science doesn't make any sense.

What makes knowledge 'scientific' or not, is the quality of the methodology followed, usually according to an assessment by peers.

allegory [ al-uh-gawr-ee, -gohr-ee ]
noun, plural al·le·go·ries.
1. a representation of an abstract or spiritual meaning through concrete or material forms; figurative treatment of one subject under the guise of another.
2 a symbolical narrative
3 emblem

 

I was using a literary device to illustrate that practically speaking science isn't necessarily one thing.  As I said in my post, it should be.  It isn't because scientific results and opinions can be driven by a variety of intentions.  For instance, science driven by monetary considerations applies pressure to those scientists funded by, say the oil and gas industries, to produce results which are favourable to the oil and gas industries' arguments as to why their practices are not harmful to the environment as they seek permits to drill for oil in environmentally protected areas.  Of course this is a corruption of science but no doubt it happens.  The same can be said as to the science behind global warming.  Is it pure science or is it science which is driven to goal seek results?  The same can be said of the medical profession where scientists employed by pharmaceutical companies purposely downplay side effects of drugs in order to get them approved and profit from their sale.  Think of Monsanto as it applies to agriculture.

 

I used "types" to represent various intentions so no, there are no "types" of science.  Pure, objective science does not goal seek and is free of expectation.  It does exist in that state but unfortunately man tends to corrupt in many ways and science can be corrupted.

 

Now apply the above to hydroxychloroquine.  Ask yourself, what forces are applying their intentions to scientific results and opinions on this subject?  Please do not be so naïve to reply, "None."  I won't be sold on that answer.

[candide]

44 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

allegory [ al-uh-gawr-ee, -gohr-ee ]
noun, plural al·le·go·ries.
1. a representation of an abstract or spiritual meaning through concrete or material forms; figurative treatment of one subject under the guise of another.
2 a symbolical narrative
3 emblem

 

I was using a literary device to illustrate that practically speaking science isn't necessarily one thing.  As I said in my post, it should be.  It isn't because scientific results and opinions can be driven by a variety of intentions.  For instance, science driven by monetary considerations applies pressure to those scientists funded by, say the oil and gas industries, to produce results which are favourable to the oil and gas industries' arguments as to why their practices are not harmful to the environment as they seek permits to drill for oil in environmentally protected areas.  Of course this is a corruption of science but no doubt it happens.  The same can be said as to the science behind global warming.  Is it pure science or is it science which is driven to goal seek results?  The same can be said of the medical profession where scientists employed by pharmaceutical companies purposely downplay side effects of drugs in order to get them approved and profit from their sale.  Think of Monsanto as it applies to agriculture.

 

I used "types" to represent various intentions so no, there are no "types" of science.  Pure, objective science does not goal seek and is free of expectation.  It does exist in that state but unfortunately man tends to corrupt in many ways and science can be corrupted.

 

Now apply the above to hydroxychloroquine.  Ask yourself, what forces are applying their intentions to scientific results and opinions on this subject?  Please do not be so naïve to reply, "None."  I won't be sold on that answer.

Ok, we may disagree and  find a common ground to start with. Science can be goal oriented for various reasons; there may be a dominant design or paradigm (ex a particular energy), there may be a goal to divert attention (sugar manufacturers finance research on the negative effects of eating too much fat), etc.... As a result, some research domains may be neglected or avoided.

 

Another risk that you rightly mention is about studies that are (willingly or not) biased. It is usually rather easy to find out by having expert peers looking at the methodology.

 

Now coming back to ICQ, there are several studies or experiences that are only able to suggest hypotheses. No scientific study, as far as I know has been able to confirm or reject any hypothesis with a sufficient level of confidence. Several honest scientists recognise that they simply don't know whether it can be beneficial or not, and under which conditions.

 

Trump has no way to know better than scientists, so he is just making a bet. You may feel that it's right for an ignorant politician to make a bet about a drug and tout it. I think it is dangerous and ridiculous. I guess that's where we are definitely diverging.

[Sujo]

5 hours ago, Krataiboy said:

Are you kidding? Look up the differing "expert" advice on masks, hydroxychloroquine, social distancing, lockdowns, the use of ventilators, blood plasma transfusions, serum tests, antibody tests. . . 

 

Need I go on?

Which didnt answer anything. Experts are those appointed by govts to lead the virus fight. Others are just self appointed wannabees.

 

So please do go on. Which of those experts have said what you posted. If it makes it easier for you just give me the country where their appointed virus experts have advised their govt to do what you say.

Edited May 21, 2020 by Sujo

[Krataiboy]

2 hours ago, Sujo said:

Experts are those appointed by govts to lead the virus fight. Others are just self appointed wannabees.

Give me the wannabes any day, rather than Government appointees like the UK's Professor Neil "Pants Down" Ferguson or the US's Dr Anthony Fauci.

 

Ferguson's wildly inaccurate projections of COVID mortality rates in the UK and US caused economy-wrecking lockdowns and a mounting toll of deaths among sick people too scared to leave home for help.

 

Fauci initially backed Ferguson, claiming the virus was ten times more deadly than flu, but later did an about-turn, admitting the "overall clinical consequences may ultimately be more akin to those of a severe seasonal influenza".

 

There are also conflict-of-interest issues at play with these two "experts". Mandatory vaccines advocate Fauci works with the Gates Foundation, which bankrolls Ferguson's Imperial College research team - as well as a number of UK Government overseas aid projects. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited May 21, 2020 by Krataiboy

[rabas]

11 hours ago, candide said:

Ok, we may disagree and  find a common ground to start with. Science can be goal oriented for various reasons; there may be a dominant design or paradigm (ex a particular energy), there may be a goal to divert attention (sugar manufacturers finance research on the negative effects of eating too much fat), etc.... As a result, some research domains may be neglected or avoided.

 

Another risk that you rightly mention is about studies that are (willingly or not) biased. It is usually rather easy to find out by having expert peers looking at the methodology.

 

Now coming back to ICQ, there are several studies or experiences that are only able to suggest hypotheses. No scientific study, as far as I know has been able to confirm or reject any hypothesis with a sufficient level of confidence. Several honest scientists recognise that they simply don't know whether it can be beneficial or not, and under which conditions.

 

Trump has no way to know better than scientists, so he is just making a bet. You may feel that it's right for an ignorant politician to make a bet about a drug and tout it. I think it is dangerous and ridiculous. I guess that's where we are definitely diverging.

OK, you do have a good sense of science, and Tippaporn's allegorical points were also legitimate.

 

So, let's do some scientific research.

 

We will study Chloroquine versus Time. Go to google, enter "chloroquine coronavirus" now go to tools, select 'time', then select Customized date range, leave From blank and set To to a date just before Trump's comments, I used 3/10/2020. Look at current articles and also those going back over the years. What do you see? Can you count the number of negative versus positive articles? No, you can't count zero.

 

I knew about chloroquine in early January because a friend at Stanford's School of Medicine clued me into chloroquine and a couple of anti HIV drugs as reasonable possibilities.  In early January chloroquine was just one of several drugs being discussed. By the time Trump spoke it had moved to the top of the list as a good one to focus on.

 

The day after Trump, the MSM destroyed Chloroquine for ever. That should scare you more than a million Trumps. It does me.

 

Edited May 22, 2020 by rabas

[Tippaporn]

11 hours ago, candide said:

Ok, we may disagree and  find a common ground to start with. Science can be goal oriented for various reasons; there may be a dominant design or paradigm (ex a particular energy), there may be a goal to divert attention (sugar manufacturers finance research on the negative effects of eating too much fat), etc.... As a result, some research domains may be neglected or avoided.

 

Another risk that you rightly mention is about studies that are (willingly or not) biased. It is usually rather easy to find out by having expert peers looking at the methodology.

 

Now coming back to ICQ, there are several studies or experiences that are only able to suggest hypotheses. No scientific study, as far as I know has been able to confirm or reject any hypothesis with a sufficient level of confidence. Several honest scientists recognise that they simply don't know whether it can be beneficial or not, and under which conditions.

 

Trump has no way to know better than scientists, so he is just making a bet. You may feel that it's right for an ignorant politician to make a bet about a drug and tout it. I think it is dangerous and ridiculous. I guess that's where we are definitely diverging.

Good that we agree for a change.  I'm all for it.

 

As far as I'm concerned there are only four things one needs to understand about science:

1. Science should be pure.
2. Science can be corrupted.
3. Science is fallible.
4. Science is limited.

That's it.  If I wanted to embellish those four points then I'd add:

1. Purity of science would include freedom from goal seeking, freedom from any and all outside influences including the ego, freedom from expectation, adherence to the scientific method.
2. Corruption would include any and all influence stemming from self-serving intentions and motivations.
3. Fallibility would include the fact that science's current conclusions are based on all known evidence and data.  As the unknown becomes known any new data has the potential to obsolete current conclusions, sometimes in dramatic fashion.
4. Perhaps this is the most difficult point to expound on fully as it entails a great deal of thought.  To put in into the most general of terms then whenever, wherever, and as long as science is operating under false assumptions then they will be severely hampered in attempting to discern true reality as their false assumptions will automatically lead them to seek for answers in directions directly opposite to where the real answers lie.

Other than that, I personally refuse to accept willy-nilly and out of hand any scientific proclamations defining any aspect of reality.  I do not put them on a pedestal to be bowed down to while granting them superiority over others.  They're human just like me.  So please do not confront me with scientific proclamations of any kind and expect me to be uncritically accepting at face value.

 

Perhaps our disagreement at it's core is the view on the one hand that scientists know more than we do and we should thus always heed their advice and opinions and the view on the other hand that we are each capable of arriving at our own correct conclusions despite not being steeped in any formal scientific grounding.  Each of those views would be based on any given individual's own current knowledge.  And the knowledge that each of us possess can vary dramatically.  You will know things that I do not know and I will know things that you do not know.  That's the source of all disagreements, isn't it?

 

Given all of that then, yes, Trump can know "better" than scientists, as I believe we all can.  As to what to believe, to each their own.

[Tippaporn]

2 hours ago, rabas said:

OK, you do have a good sense of science, and Tippaporn's allegorical points were also legitimate.

 

So, let's do some scientific research.

 

We will study Chloroquine versus Time. Go to google, enter "chloroquine coronavirus" now go to tools, select 'time', then select Customized date range, leave From blank and set To to a date just before Trump's comments, I used 3/10/2020. Look at current articles and also those going back over the years. What do you see? Can you count the number of negative versus positive articles? No, you can't count zero.

 

I knew about chloroquine in early January because a friend at Stanford's School of Medicine clued me into chloroquine and a couple of anti HIV drugs as reasonable possibilities.  In early January chloroquine was just one of several drugs being discussed. By the time Trump spoke it had moved to the top of the list as a good one to focus on.

 

The day after Trump, the MSM destroyed Chloroquine for ever. That should scare you more than a million Trumps. It does me.

 

Wonderful post that hammers down the point better than all of my verbose ramblings.  The power of belief is quite impressive and there are those who know this very, very well.  Feed the masses bogus information from trusted sources and, voilà, you control their world view and hence, but more importantly, their actions while at the same time the masses give you their unwavering support.  It's so simple and so very devious as well.

 

Edit:  BTW, thanks very much for that search tip.  Didn't know of it.  And your findings are indeed very enlightening.  More than that, their implications are exceedingly profound.  Thanks.

 

 

Edited May 22, 2020 by Tippaporn

[Tippaporn]

Another Trump vindication coming soon?

 

The Indian Express (India) - UK healthcare workers begin COVID-19 hydroxychloroquine trial

 

British healthcare workers will on Thursday begin taking part in a University of Oxford-led international trial of two anti-malarial drugs to see if they can prevent COVID-19, including one US President Donald Trump says he has been taking.

The ‘COPCOV’ study will involve more than 40,000 frontline healthcare workers from Europe, Africa, Asia and South America to determine if chloroquine and hydroxychloroquine are effective in preventing the novel coronavirus.

 

There's a video available on YT, which I'm not allowed to post, of a televised news report covering this news item.  Part of the coverage contains filming of the pills' production facility.  The color of the pill is red.  LOL

[Tippaporn]

3 hours ago, rabas said:

OK, you do have a good sense of science, and Tippaporn's allegorical points were also legitimate.

 

So, let's do some scientific research.

 

We will study Chloroquine versus Time. Go to google, enter "chloroquine coronavirus" now go to tools, select 'time', then select Customized date range, leave From blank and set To to a date just before Trump's comments, I used 3/10/2020. Look at current articles and also those going back over the years. What do you see? Can you count the number of negative versus positive articles? No, you can't count zero.

 

I knew about chloroquine in early January because a friend at Stanford's School of Medicine clued me into chloroquine and a couple of anti HIV drugs as reasonable possibilities.  In early January chloroquine was just one of several drugs being discussed. By the time Trump spoke it had moved to the top of the list as a good one to focus on.

 

The day after Trump, the MSM destroyed Chloroquine for ever. That should scare you more than a million Trumps. It does me.

 

I'll have to quote you one more time on this, rabas.  Here is the infamous video clip of Mika Brzezinski admitting on a national broadcast of Morning Joe that it is the media's job to control the people's thinking.  I'm adding this as it is supportive of the contention that the media is purposely promoting a false narrative as to hydroxychloroquine with the express intention of having people believe it as the narrative is coming from "trusted" sources.

 

 

[Eric Loh]

14 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

Another Trump vindication coming soon?

 

The Indian Express (India) - UK healthcare workers begin COVID-19 hydroxychloroquine trial

 

British healthcare workers will on Thursday begin taking part in a University of Oxford-led international trial of two anti-malarial drugs to see if they can prevent COVID-19, including one US President Donald Trump says he has been taking.

The ‘COPCOV’ study will involve more than 40,000 frontline healthcare workers from Europe, Africa, Asia and South America to determine if chloroquine and hydroxychloroquine are effective in preventing the novel coronavirus.

 

There's a video available on YT, which I'm not allowed to post, of a televised news report covering this news item.  Part of the coverage contains filming of the pills' production facility.  The color of the pill is red.  LOL

Must be hard work scouring the internet to find scarce bits to vindicate your man. As Dr. Mike Ryan of WHO warns against using hydroxychloroquine outside clinical trials which is what University of Oxford is doing. Colour of pill normally white but if you thrilled by seeing a red pill, so be it. Have fun.  

 

[Crazy Alex]

3 minutes ago, Eric Loh said:

Must be hard work scouring the internet to find scarce bits to vindicate your man. As Dr. Mike Ryan of WHO warns against using hydroxychloroquine outside clinical trials which is what University of Oxford is doing. Colour of pill normally white but if you thrilled by seeing a red pill, so be it. Have fun.  

 

"Scarce bits"? Hardly.

 

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1545C_dJWMIAgqeLEsfo2U8Kq5WprDuARXrJl6N1aDjY/edit?fbclid=IwAR23x_Set5YGK0cpG9cDSZ52DTCBzos0kaFk6QqrSKbHc_cc30VMuVPrWyU