Trump defends his use of unproven treatment as prevention against coronavirus

[Eric Loh]

9 minutes ago, Crazy Alex said:

"Scarce bits"? Hardly.

 

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

Yet European regulators refuse to clear chloroquine for Covid-19 without data. 

[Tippaporn]

9 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.  

 

If the MSM doesn't report it then it doesn't exist.  Correct?  But others, non-mainstream, will report it.  Is that the "scouring of the Internet" that you're referring to?  LOL  You haven't read any of the recent posts here, I take it, or you've been so blue-pilled that you automatically ignore anything that doesn't agree with your views?  I dunno.  Just asking.

 

Dr. Mike Ryan . . . who is he?  If I don't look up his credentials or affiliations then I wouldn't know whether he's conflicted in his opinions or not.  Is he a "trusted" source?  Do you take him as a trusted source solely on his title and position within the WHO?  To me he's another guy with his own opinion.  Maybe his opinion is correct and maybe it's not.  But I'm not going to take what anyone says sight unseen as gospel.  Nod your head uncritically if you like but make your own choices, my friend.

[Tippaporn]

7 minutes ago, Eric Loh said:

Yet European regulators refuse to clear chloroquine for Covid-19 without data. 

Well good for them.  So what?  How many people have died in Europe as of today from the Wuhan virus?  How has the current treatment been working out?  Why is no one conducting similar studies on these current failed treatments and banning them?

[simple1]

Coronavirus statistics

 

https://www.euronews.com/2020/05/21/covid-19-coronavirus-breakdown-of-deaths-and-infections-worldwide

[billd766]

On 5/20/2020 at 8:22 AM, stephenterry said:

Agreed. If Trump, who is BMI obese, focuses on his dietary regime instead, he'd be a lot healthier. Keep up high levels of Zinc, Vit C and D3 to combat corona viruses, and forget this malaria drug.  As for the overpaid US physicians - as in other western societies - they are only capable of treating symptoms, not the cause of disease.

 

Sometimes, I wonder what planet he's on?  

Unfortunate for the majority of people on planet Earth, he also lives on planet Earth.

[Tie Dye Samurai]

21 hours ago, rabas said:

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."

How is this confusion...CDC was able to determine that the virus does not spread as easily on surfaces as they once thought...GOOD NEWS. Then they say "Routinely clean and disinfect frequently touched surfaces" because you can still contract the virus from these surfaces, just not as easily. CDC never said it is impossible to contract the virus from frequently used surfaces...and since when is it a bad idea TO CLEAN FREQUENTLY USED SURFACES...pandemic or no pandemic? Come On Man.....

[rabas]

1 hour 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.  

Now the truth.   Chloroquine is currently being used in roughly 218 COVID-19 studies:

 

COVID-19 Clinical Trials Report Card: Chloroquine and Hydroxychloroquine

according to the The Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine

 

"Chloroquine and/or HCQ were mentioned in 218 studies. Of those, 158 (72%) were examining CQ/HCQ as active investigational treatments. The 60 trials in which either CQ or HCQ was being used as a control probably understates the true number, as many trials that plan to control with a “standard of care” are probably using CQ/HCQ. For example, in Iran it appears that use of hydroxychloroquine and lopinavir/ritonavir as a “standard of care” is widespread."

 

What?! Chloroquine used as a control? As the standard therapy to beat? You meant ii is already used widely? (Yes, that is what that means)

 

"Over 130,000 patients are planned for enrolment in studies assessing CQ/HCQ globally. While these drugs are primarily seen as a treatment option, there is also considerable interest in the prophylactic use of hydroxychloroquine"

 

It is also already in use as prophylactic for medical personnel in various situations.

 

[jb61]

77 year old sister in U.S. last month got the c virus and said she was so bad that she had very difficult time

breathing. She was admitted to Univ. of Oregon Health Sciences hospital. Doc. gave her hydroxychloriquine and zinc. She said, after 6 to 8 hours breathing was much improved. Next day she was up and walking around. She called me to tell of her experience. 

[TopDeadSenter]

1 minute ago, jb61 said:

77 year old sister in U.S. last month got the c virus and said she was so bad that she had very difficult time

breathing. She was admitted to Univ. of Oregon Health Sciences hospital. Doc. gave her hydroxychloriquine and zinc. She said, after 6 to 8 hours breathing was much improved. Next day she was up and walking around. She called me to tell of her experience. 

This must be impossible? I have just read hundreds if not thousands of posts from armchair experts on this very forum, that tell us only a moron would take Hydroxychloroquine, and that it does not work in any way shape or form against the Wuhan virus. I wonder who is right?

 

 Good to hear your sister recovered.

[simple1]

1 hour ago, rabas said:

Now the truth.   Chloroquine is currently being used in roughly 218 COVID-19 studies:

 

COVID-19 Clinical Trials Report Card: Chloroquine and Hydroxychloroquine

according to the The Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine

 

"Chloroquine and/or HCQ were mentioned in 218 studies. Of those, 158 (72%) were examining CQ/HCQ as active investigational treatments. The 60 trials in which either CQ or HCQ was being used as a control probably understates the true number, as many trials that plan to control with a “standard of care” are probably using CQ/HCQ. For example, in Iran it appears that use of hydroxychloroquine and lopinavir/ritonavir as a “standard of care” is widespread."

 

What?! Chloroquine used as a control? As the standard therapy to beat? You meant ii is already used widely? (Yes, that is what that means)

 

"Over 130,000 patients are planned for enrolment in studies assessing CQ/HCQ globally. While these drugs are primarily seen as a treatment option, there is also considerable interest in the prophylactic use of hydroxychloroquine"

 

It is also already in use as prophylactic for medical personnel in various situations.

 

A recent study of 1376 Covid patients in the US concluded....

 

Given the observational design and the relatively wide confidence interval, the study should not be taken to rule out either benefit or harm of hydroxychloroquine treatment. However, our findings do not support the use of hydroxychloroquine at present, outside randomized clinical trials testing its efficacy.

 

https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa2012410

[candide]

6 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.

 

OK, Let's do it in a scientific way.

To start with, there is no reason to restrict search to the period before March 10. As Trump touted this drug on March 19, it must be extended to March 18. And, surprise! More articles come up!

Let's look at the timeline: the interest for CQ among professionals started to raise end of February after the first scientific papers on China (some negative, some positive) were published. Another reason was that the epidemic was starting in Europe and they were looking for possible treatment. Then awareness of it progressively extended to MSM and general public.

 

Trump started talking about it because it was starting to be discussed among professionals and in media, not the reverse. Of course, his statement attracted a lot of attention from the public and started the real buzz about it.

 

As to your characterization of MSM, they have published all information available, and did not invent it. They did  not invent statements from experts, information on experiments and scientific studies, statements by the FDA, the European health organisation, etc....

 

Anyway, the key issue, according to me, is that Trump is making a bet by touting a controversial drug. Politicians should not make bets about medecine and should let professionals and scientists do their job. That's where we diverge.

[Tie Dye Samurai]

1 hour ago, jb61 said:

77 year old sister in U.S. last month got the c virus and said she was so bad that she had very difficult time

breathing. She was admitted to Univ. of Oregon Health Sciences hospital. Doc. gave her hydroxychloriquine and zinc. She said, after 6 to 8 hours breathing was much improved. Next day she was up and walking around. She called me to tell of her experience. 

I am glad your sister recovered, that is great news!!

[Krataiboy]

2 hours ago, simple1 said:

A recent study of 1376 Covid patients in the US concluded....

 

Given the observational design and the relatively wide confidence interval, the study should not be taken to rule out either benefit or harm of hydroxychloroquine treatment. However, our findings do not support the use of hydroxychloroquine at present, outside randomized clinical trials testing its efficacy.

 

https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa2012410

Probably all got shares in vaccine companies.

[simple1]

1 hour ago, Krataiboy said:

Probably all got shares in vaccine companies.

An extremely insulting comment against front line medical personnel in the NYC area, many of whom have died treating Covid patients. The doctors contributing to the report are listed below, it's unfortunate they cannot take defamation action against you.

 

• Joshua Geleris, M.D., 
• Yifei Sun, Ph.D., 
• Jonathan Platt, Ph.D., 
• Jason Zucker, M.D., 
• Matthew Baldwin, M.D., 
• George Hripcsak, M.D., 
• Angelena Labella, M.D., 
• Daniel K. Manson, M.D., 
• Christine Kubin, Pharm.D., 
• R. Graham Barr, M.D., Dr.P.H., 
• Magdalena E. Sobieszczyk, M.D., M.P.H., 
• and Neil W. Schluger, M.D.

Edited May 22, 2020 by simple1

[opalred]

his followers will believe him when he tells them pigs will fly

[rabas]

4 hours ago, candide said:

OK, Let's do it in a scientific way.

To start with, there is no reason to restrict search to the period before March 10. As Trump touted this drug on March 19, it must be extended to March 18. And, surprise! More articles come up!

PUSH ME Google search "chloroquine coronavirus" up to March 19, 2020

 

Nothing burger. Vastly overwhelmingly positive comments everywhere,  rather surprising for science. But to use science, you must refute that huge body of results that contradict your position, you can't cherry pick some obscure counter point.

 

[candide]

1 hour ago, rabas said:

PUSH ME Google search "chloroquine coronavirus" up to March 19, 2020

 

Nothing burger. Vastly overwhelmingly positive comments everywhere,  rather surprising for science. But to use science, you must refute that huge body of results that contradict your position, you can't cherry pick some obscure counter point.

 

And we must believe you without any data about what has been published or not published to back your claim. Lol!

 

You provided a very interesting source, below the chart which shows very clearly why the CQ topic became more popular in March. One very simple reason, without needing to resort to a convenient conspiracy theory, is just that much more trials have been made so more information was available. The other obvious reason is that people and media got more interested in possible treatments after the outburst started.

 

As about my position, it has always been clear. This is a controversial topic. Contradictory information has been published about it. It may be useful or not. I am personally not certain about its usefulness (or lack of), as most scientists who are much more competent than me. Let's cite again the Oxford researcher who is working on the UK investigation reported in this thread: 

"We really do not know if chloroquine or hydroxychloroquine are beneficial or harmful against COVID-19,” said the University of Oxford’s Professor Nicholas White, the study’s co-principal investigator, who is based at MORU.”

 

So it is showing a lack of any sense of responsibility to tout it like Trump did. That's my position. 

 

 

[candide]

16 hours ago, Tippaporn said:

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.

That's where we diverge and your POV is complete B.S.. it's not a question of scientists "knowing better" (well to a large extent it's true). What makes 'scientific' knowledge reliable is the methodology used to produce It.  If the methodology is reliable enough the results should be reliable. Reliable methodologies may be used for goal oriented research, and unreliable methodologies may be used for research made for the purest reason. If the research is corrupt, peers will find out that there are flaws in the methodology, and the research will not even be published. Well, for those who fail, I guess there's still the opportunity to be shown in fake science and conspiracy theory websites.

 

Of course, nothing is perfect but In the end it's all about methodology. So either, because of your training, you are able to assess the methodology used, or you have to trust people who are expert enough to assess the methodology used. The rest is pure B.S.

 

PS In social sciences, it's a bit more complex.

[RadicalVestor]

This puts it in a nice perspective.  https://www.theweek.co.uk/106544/donald-trump-s-obsession-with-hydroxychloroquine-explained

and then there is this  https://www.thedailybeast.com/trump-reportedly-has-financial-interest-in-hydroxychloroquine-manufacturer

And... https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2020/04/donald-trump-hydroxychloroquine-push

Edited May 22, 2020 by RadicalVestor

[Krataiboy]

17 hours ago, simple1 said:

An extremely insulting comment against front line medical personnel in the NYC area, many of whom have died treating Covid patients. The doctors contributing to the report are listed below, it's unfortunate they cannot take defamation action against you.

 

• Joshua Geleris, M.D., 
• Yifei Sun, Ph.D., 
• Jonathan Platt, Ph.D., 
• Jason Zucker, M.D., 
• Matthew Baldwin, M.D., 
• George Hripcsak, M.D., 
• Angelena Labella, M.D., 
• Daniel K. Manson, M.D., 
• Christine Kubin, Pharm.D., 
• R. Graham Barr, M.D., Dr.P.H., 
• Magdalena E. Sobieszczyk, M.D., M.P.H., 
• and Neil W. Schluger, M.D.

Get off your high horse. If Bill Gates can make a killing from vaccines, why shouldn't the rest of us?