Drug touted by Trump to treat COVID-19 linked to higher death risk - study

[Redline]

18 hours ago, tropo said:

Surprise, surprise... More crazy talk from Trump haters...

 

Do you think Trump woke up one day and decided hydroxychloroquine would help people with covid-19 infections.

 

ALL of his information comes from a distinguished team of experts in all fields of medicine. He hears from the best of the best and has them at his fingertips. No one knew how effective or not this drug would be. This is a new study, and you're using it to damn Trump in hindsight. He made it quite clear it is experimental and it should be only taken as presciption medicine from your doctor. Looking for any angle to disparage Trump, this is what people can inspect.

 

Why not go around disparaging each and every doctor that has prescribed this medicine. I'm sure there are thousands that you can insult.

 

 

Oh yeah, when you can post proof from multiple reliable sources, someone might listen ????

[Crazy Alex]

6 hours ago, johnnybangkok said:

One, it doesn't affect my life as I wouldn't be so stupid as to listen to Trump and two, see my comment above.

And I've noticed you are a very active participant in the discussions (what with your highly biased avatar) and I have never heard you crirticise Trump, not even once, so you'll forgive me if I think you cannot see what to many is a VERY simple thought. He shouldn't be touting a drug that can have serious consequences to some when he happens to be POTUS. He can sell dodgy university degrees, questionable steaks, rubbish airline seats and unpalateable vodka when he's a businessman but he can't tout questionable drugs when he is POTUS. Jezus, how difficult is this to understand?    

It appears you listen to Trump quite attentively.

 

And yes, I'm highly biased. Are you not?

 

Oh and by the way, a global survey of doctors shows 25% support hydroxychlororoquine for the purposes Trump is taking it.

_{Sermo Reports: One-Quarter of Global Physicians Agree That Healthcare Workers Should Take Hydroxychloroquine to Prevent COVID-19 Infections; Use of Hydroxychloroquine in Prophylaxis and Even in Undiagnosed Suspected Patient Cases is Seen}

[Crazy Alex]

6 hours ago, candide said:

Come on! You perfectly understood what he meant and are trying to deflect again.

Let's state it more clearly for a last try:

- Trump is free to do whatever he wants with his health

- however Trump is an opinion leader. For some people, he's a role model (OMG).

- therefore, his statements may have an impact on people's behaviour

- when Trump is touting a controversial drug, he likely influences other people who may follow his example

- so it shows a lack of any sense of responsibility.

 

You may disagree with it and think that a country leader may say anything that comes to his mind, whatever the consequences. OK, but it has nothing to do with first amendment and the other diversions you make.

Why do you think hydroxychloroquine is a "highly controversial drug"? Because leftists have been whining about it ever since Trump voiced support for it? No, that won't do.

[Crazy Alex]

6 hours ago, johnnybangkok said:

Ahhhhhh the last bastion of the Trump fan when trying to defend the indefensable; spout the first amendment.

 

Well, you said Trump should just shut up. So clearly, that is a basis to remind you of the First Amendment. So tell me, specifically: what has Trump said about hydroxychloroquine that is indefensible?

[rabas]

11 hours ago, Phil McCaverty said:

Its cost has quadrupled since Trump started touting it. The vaccine produced by Oxford University is made from the common cold virus. No RNA / DNA from aborted foetus, animals, formaldehyde, aluminium, polysorbate, msg, included. MSG? If it were in a vaccine, it would be completely harmless.

 

The only place that you would find that list of ingredients is in a McDonalds burger.

 

Oy vey!

Hola! Yenta.

 

Still about $0.05/tablet for generic here in Thailand. HCQ a bit more. Can you afford 1 tablet/week? The zinc will cost you more.

 

The vaccine

 

The vaccine is made from a weakened version of a common cold virus (adenovirus) from chimpanzees, modified to not grow in humans. This is not the common common cold virus (rhinovirus) but one that can cause bronchitis, pneumonia, diarrhea, and pink eye. [CDC]

 

Then they add the COVID-19  'spike' protein to the adenovirus.  “We hope to make the body recognize and develop an immune response to the spike protein that will help stop the SARS-CoV-2 virus” the university said.  There will be side effects. Trial volunteers are warned they may get sore arms, headaches, and fevers for a couple of days.

 

In summary, no one knows a lot about anything yet.  The exception is the MSM, who knows based on immaculate knowledge that Trump continues to kill millions. Red pill blue pill. Warning: blue pill can cause hallucinations.

[stevenl]

4 minutes ago, rabas said:

<snip>

 

In summary, no one knows a lot about anything yet.  The exception is the MSM, who knows based on immaculate knowledge that Trump continues to kill millions. Red pill blue pill. Warning: blue pill can cause hallucinations.

Nonsense, the MSM are warning against unqualified medical advice from someone in a position of authority.

[thaibeachlovers]

21 hours ago, stevenl said:

Exactly, factual reporting of research.

LOL. IMO the BBC ceased to be an impartial news organisation years ago. It's about the same as CNN now, and I don't watch either.

Far as I'm concerned Al Jazira is the only tv news organisation that is any good ( although their anti Trump bias is remarkable ). That's IMO what happens when tv news is controlled by biased people, and the BBC is controlled by, IMO, very PC people.

[metisdead]

A personal attack post and the replies have been removed. 

[stevenl]

1 hour ago, thaibeachlovers said:

LOL. IMO the BBC ceased to be an impartial news organisation years ago. It's about the same as CNN now, and I don't watch either.

Far as I'm concerned Al Jazira is the only tv news organisation that is any good ( although their anti Trump bias is remarkable ). That's IMO what happens when tv news is controlled by biased people, and the BBC is controlled by, IMO, very PC people.

You may believe that, but it has nothing to do with my post.

Unless you want to claim this BBC report is not factual and correct.

 

Edit: regarding your BBC 'complaint', with the Johnson supporters claiming they are to PC, with the labour supporters claiming they are too right wing, BBC must be doing something right. I'd say they favour the traditional conservatives btw.

Edited May 24, 2020 by stevenl

[Crazy Alex]

1 hour ago, stevenl said:

Nonsense, the MSM are warning against unqualified medical advice from someone in a position of authority.

Are you talking about Nancy Pelosi?

[Venom]

There's no money in hydroxychloroquine, the patent ran out decades ago. 

[rabas]

2 hours ago, stevenl said:

You may believe that, but it has nothing to do with my post.

Unless you want to claim this BBC report is not factual and correct.

 

Edit: regarding your BBC 'complaint', with the Johnson supporters claiming they are to PC, with the labour supporters claiming they are too right wing, BBC must be doing something right. I'd say they favour the traditional conservatives btw.

Back to your BBC article. https://www.bbc.com/news/world-52779309

 

1. "The president has repeatedly promoted the drug, against medical advice."

 

I am unaware (but don't follow closely) that Trump is telling people to go out and take chloroquine. They can't anyway, it's a prescription drug. As for medical views, I have shown a few times that the general medical view was quite positive at the time he made his first comment. The BBC also badly blurs the line between saying something has potential and saying it is recommended for patients. So, the BBC's 10 word statement is materially wrong on a few counts. It is an ungrounded overly simplified hit piece, It is not accurate news.

 

2. The BBC does not provide any reference to the study and does not even explain what kind of study it was so readers have no way to know. Luckily I had already read it. They BBC only cheery picks.

 

• It was not a medical trial, it was an statical analysis based on a global database of hospital records. A  hodgepodge of different patients under different treatments and circumstances. The authors had no control over how treatments were done or evaluated.
• The study is not wrong considering, but there are issues that should be reported, which are not. Chloroquine and other experimental drugs are often given to more severely ill patients, which can easily bias outcome.  Second, they did not include zinc. It has been known as fact for 10+ years that zinc is what attacks the virus. Chloroquine only helps zinc enter cells.
• The study showed HydroxCQ was somewhat more dangerous than chloroquine. This makes no sense because HCQ is often used because is is safer. This indicates the study has very wider error margins.

So the BBC is using the negative results without explaining them.

 

Then the BBC says "Mr Trump said he was taking the drug despite public health officials warning that it could cause heart problems." Really?  He is surrounded by top medical experts and doctors. Does it cause heart problems as a prophylactic? Did the BBC consider any of that, or just ram negative points together? Did the BBC also tell you there are 218 medical trials involving chloroquine? No. Just negative stuff.

 

So the BBC has presented only a negative side based on poorly interpreted or ignored information,  along with a big picture of Mr. Trump and a basic lie under the picture. They are leading you.

 

The good news? BBC is 100X better than the likes of CNN.

 

Edited May 24, 2020 by rabas

[candide]

7 hours ago, Crazy Alex said:

Why do you think hydroxychloroquine is a "highly controversial drug"? Because leftists have been whining about it ever since Trump voiced support for it? No, that won't do.

Lol. Have you read the article linked in the OP? Has it been written by leftists, as well as the large number of trials which have been analysed? ????

[Thomas J]

On 5/23/2020 at 5:54 AM, rooster59 said:

Drug touted by Trump to treat COVID-19 linked to higher death risk - study

I guess given the study, Dr. Siegel should reconsider having his father take it. 

 

Dr. Marc K. Siegel is an American physician, Associate Professor of Medicine at the NYU Langone Medical Center

 

 

[Crazy Alex]

9 hours ago, rabas said:

Back to your BBC article. https://www.bbc.com/news/world-52779309

 

1. "The president has repeatedly promoted the drug, against medical advice."

 

I am unaware (but don't follow closely) that Trump is telling people to go out and take chloroquine. They can't anyway, it's a prescription drug. As for medical views, I have shown a few times that the general medical view was quite positive at the time he made his first comment. The BBC also badly blurs the line between saying something has potential and saying it is recommended for patients. So, the BBC's 10 word statement is materially wrong on a few counts. It is an ungrounded overly simplified hit piece, It is not accurate news.

 

2. The BBC does not provide any reference to the study and does not even explain what kind of study it was so readers have no way to know. Luckily I had already read it. They BBC only cheery picks.

 

• It was not a medical trial, it was an statical analysis based on a global database of hospital records. A  hodgepodge of different patients under different treatments and circumstances. The authors had no control over how treatments were done or evaluated.
• The study is not wrong considering, but there are issues that should be reported, which are not. Chloroquine and other experimental drugs are often given to more severely ill patients, which can easily bias outcome.  Second, they did not include zinc. It has been known as fact for 10+ years that zinc is what attacks the virus. Chloroquine only helps zinc enter cells.
• The study showed HydroxCQ was somewhat more dangerous than chloroquine. This makes no sense because HCQ is often used because is is safer. This indicates the study has very wider error margins.

So the BBC is using the negative results without explaining them.

 

Then the BBC says "Mr Trump said he was taking the drug despite public health officials warning that it could cause heart problems." Really?  He is surrounded by top medical experts and doctors. Does it cause heart problems as a prophylactic? Did the BBC consider any of that, or just ram negative points together? Did the BBC also tell you there are 218 medical trials involving chloroquine? No. Just negative stuff.

 

So the BBC has presented only a negative side based on poorly interpreted or ignored information,  along with a big picture of Mr. Trump and a basic lie under the picture. They are leading you.

 

The good news? BBC is 100X better than the likes of CNN.

 

I agree with all of that. I would only like to add a comment on "against medical advice" and as WHOSE medical advice? Opinions vary.

[3NUMBAS]

https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/11707597/brit-scientists-develop-coronavirus-inhaler-fight-disease-symptoms/

 

COVID KILLER

Brit scientists develop coronavirus inhaler which could fight disease at first sign of symptoms

• Dan Keane

• 26 May 2020, 0:33
• Updated: 26 May 2020, 7:42

[candide]

9 hours ago, 3NUMBAS said:

https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/11707597/brit-scientists-develop-coronavirus-inhaler-fight-disease-symptoms/

 

COVID KILLER

Brit scientists develop coronavirus inhaler which could fight disease at first sign of symptoms

• Dan Keane

• 26 May 2020, 0:33
• Updated: 26 May 2020, 7:42

I have no doubt someone will claim that Trump was right to suggest to spread disinfectant in patients' lungs

[OZinPattaya]

You have to love how politically neutral TVF is where Trump is concerned. The very headline presupposes the mob response, which is hardly based on science. Maybe there is a deal in the future making betwixt TVF and CNN? Whose news is going to be the faker?

 

 

[Jingthing]

8 minutes ago, OZinPattaya said:

You have to love how politically neutral TVF is where Trump is concerned. The very headline presupposes the mob response, which is hardly based on science. Maybe there is a deal in the future making betwixt TVF and CNN? Whose news is going to be the faker?

 

 

The headline factually represents the facts based news story. Nothing fake about it. Just because some people might not like the facts in a news story does not make it fake.

[OZinPattaya]

24 minutes ago, candide said:

I have no doubt someone will claim that Trump was right to suggest to spread disinfectant in patients' lungs

No, mate. The irony is that you people with orange-man derangement syndrome were constantly mocking Trump for the mere suggestion that this remedy could be effective. And you never failed to reiterate this on TVF. And now that it seems there's some credibility to this notion, instead of giving credit where credit is due you instead use it as yet another spurious reason to defame a president that you're already going to defame in the first place.

[OZinPattaya]

Just now, Jingthing said:

The headline factually represents the facts based news story. Nothing fake about it. Just because some people might not like the facts in a news story does not make it fake.

Factually represents. Ha. Somehow I doubt you'd feel the same way if the headline were coming from Fox News. Hypocrite.

[Jingthing]

6 minutes ago, OZinPattaya said:

Factually represents. Ha. Somehow I doubt you'd feel the same way if the headline were coming from Fox News. Hypocrite.

Name calling, huh? Stay classy. Goodbye.

[OZinPattaya]

2 minutes ago, Jingthing said:

Name calling, huh? Stay classy. Goodbye.

Jingthing. Who, exactly, is indulging in the name-calling? I'd encourage you to examine the TVF Archives in this respect 

[thaibeachlovers]

On 5/25/2020 at 12:48 AM, Crazy Alex said:

I agree with all of that. I would only like to add a comment on "against medical advice" and as WHOSE medical advice? Opinions vary.

Obviously the medical advice they agree with. As long as it's against Trump they certainly like it.

[Crazy Alex]

2 hours ago, OZinPattaya said:

Jingthing. Who, exactly, is indulging in the name-calling? I'd encourage you to examine the TVF Archives in this respect 

He gives up debating very easily.

[candide]

2 hours ago, OZinPattaya said:

And now that it seems there's some credibility to this notion, instead of giving credit where credit is due you instead use it as yet another spurious reason to defame a president that you're already going to defame in the first place.

So you are suggesting that he should get some credit for it. I did not expect my prediction to be confirmed so quickly. ????

[Crazy Alex]

2 hours ago, Jingthing said:

The headline factually represents the facts based news story. Nothing fake about it. Just because some people might not like the facts in a news story does not make it fake.

Please read his post carefully. He didn't say the story was fake. He asked who was going to be the new faker. Facts matter.

[Onrai]

By differing accounts Trump has cried wolf 15,000-18,000 times during his presidency. By this time the press may reflexively assume everything he says is incorrect. Who could blame them? The record clearly shows he is a pathological liar bending truth to fit his own self serving version of reality. 

Unfortunately the press is so polarized in their opinions and views it is impossible for most to be objective anymore. 

I think Trump is P.T. Barnum incarnate. It is almost impossible to separate the wheat from the chaff in his remarks. The press pouncing on Trump about taking Hydroxycholoroquine is not worthy of credible journalism. I took the drug as does everyone in West Africa or any place malaria is present. It is a simple choice- take the drug or get malaria. That the press can malign a drug that has been around 65+ years is unconscionable. Sure if you take it indiscriminately it can cause damage. You can also die from taking too much Tylenol. 

[bluesofa]

1 hour ago, Onrai said:

By differing accounts Trump has cried wolf 15,000-18,000 times during his presidency. By this time the press may reflexively assume everything he says is incorrect. Who could blame them? The record clearly shows he is a pathological liar bending truth to fit his own self serving version of reality. 

Unfortunately the press is so polarized in their opinions and views it is impossible for most to be objective anymore. 

I think Trump is P.T. Barnum incarnate. It is almost impossible to separate the wheat from the chaff in his remarks. The press pouncing on Trump about taking Hydroxycholoroquine is not worthy of credible journalism. I took the drug as does everyone in West Africa or any place malaria is present. It is a simple choice- take the drug or get malaria. That the press can malign a drug that has been around 65+ years is unconscionable. Sure if you take it indiscriminately it can cause damage. You can also die from taking too much Tylenol. 

'It is a simple choice- take the drug or get malaria.'

Not quite that simple.

Decades ago I went on holiday from the UK to Malaysia and Singapore. One of the drugs I was prescribed to prevent malaria was Hydroxycholoroquine,

I still contracted malaria, so although it vastly reduces the chance, it's not 100% successful.

[johnnybangkok]

5 hours ago, Crazy Alex said:

Please read his post carefully. He didn't say the story was fake. He asked who was going to be the new faker. Facts matter.

Yes facts do matter but no so much to you, Trump fans or Trump himself.

The debate with this matter is over. The FDA does not approve this drug   https://www.fda.gov/drugs/drug-safety-and-availability/fda-cautions-against-use-hydroxychloroquine-or-chloroquine-covid-19-outside-hospital-setting-or

 

The WHO does not approve this drug  https://www.bbc.com/news/health-52799120

 

Medical tests confirm 'We were unable to confirm a benefit of hydroxychloroquine or chloroquine, when used alone or with a macrolide, on in-hospital outcomes for COVID-19'   https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(20)31180-6/fulltext 

 

A study just published in a French medical journal provides new evidence that hydroxychloroquine does not appear to help the immune system clear the coronavirus from the body. https://www.thailandmedical.news/news/breaking-covid-19-drug-research-study-shows-that-hydroxychloroquine-and-azithromycin-has-no-effect-on-covid-19-patients,-no-better-than-a-dangerous-p

 

Since you seem to be such a big fan of facts, I'm sure you will welcome all of these facts and finally put this subject to bed by admitting Trump got this wrong (oh wait, is that a flying pig I see?).