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

[rabas]

2 minutes ago, candide said:

Ok not forbidden, only not recommended.

Anyway, it's interesting  to learn that by mid-March, according to you, Trump was still trusting the Chinese! ????

I think most scientists trust Chinese scientists, its the CCP that's toxic.  (I would trust bat woman, but I would wear a mask)

[VincentRJ]

14 hours ago, candide said:

When Trump touted this drug, he never specified it was for prophylactic use only.

That might be true, but it should be obvious that he, Trump, was taking it only for prophylactic purposes because he does not have a Covid-19 infection (yet?), as far as we know. I believe he began taking the drug after a couple of people in the White House had been tested positive for the virus. 

 

Apparently Trump is no longer taking the drug because of the increasing but inconsistent evidence of its effectiveness, which is a reasonable response. ????

[stevenl]

13 minutes ago, VincentRJ said:

That might be true, but it should be obvious that he, Trump, was taking it only for prophylactic purposes because he does not have a Covid-19 infection (yet?), as far as we know. I believe he began taking the drug after a couple of people in the White House had been tested positive for the virus. 

 

Apparently Trump is no longer taking the drug because of the increasing but inconsistent evidence of its effectiveness, which is a reasonable response. ????

"increasing but inconsistent evidence of its effectiveness"

Believe whatever you want, but the facts don't support this belief.

[VincentRJ]

25 minutes ago, stevenl said:

"increasing but inconsistent evidence of its effectiveness"

Believe whatever you want, but the facts don't support this belief.

You seem very confused. Some of the facts don't support this belief, but some of the facts do. Therefore it is a fact that the evidence is inconsistent. The belief itself, in the effectiveness of a particular drug, also has some effectiveness in reality. It's called the placebo effect. It's estimated that about 30% of the effectiveness of all drugs administered or recommended by doctors is due to a placebo effect, that is, a belief that the drug works.

[stevenl]

24 minutes ago, VincentRJ said:

You seem very confused. Some of the facts don't support this belief, but some of the facts do. Therefore it is a fact that the evidence is inconsistent. The belief itself, in the effectiveness of a particular drug, also has some effectiveness in reality. It's called the placebo effect. It's estimated that about 30% of the effectiveness of all drugs administered or recommended by doctors is due to a placebo effect, that is, a belief that the drug works.

You make a claim 'increasing evidence of its effectiveness'. There is afaik no increasing evidence of its effectiveness, and your answer does not support your claim.

[VincentRJ]

5 hours ago, stevenl said:

You make a claim 'increasing evidence of its effectiveness'. There is afaik no increasing evidence of its effectiveness, and your answer does not support your claim.

Okay! I see the problem. This is what I wrote. "increasing but inconsistent evidence of its effectiveness".

 

Perhaps I should have written, "increasingly inconsistent evidence of its effectiveness". In other words, as time progresses, more studies are conducted but the inconsistency of the results continues because of the complexity of the issue due to different individual reactions to the drug, and the difficulty of conducting controlled experiments.

 

As I recall, Trump asked his doctor if he should take Hydroxyquinoline, before he decided to take it. The doctor replied, 'Take it if you really want to, and if it makes you feel good', or something along those lines. I would deduce that Trump's doctor understood that there was uncertainty about the drug's efficacy in protection against Covid-19, but he also understood it could have a placebo effect even if the evidence eventually became clear that Hydroxyquinoline, on balance, had no benefit in preventing Covid-19 infection.

 

There is also the issue of the Zinc supplements that were combined with Hydroxyquinoline. I've read reports that the role of Hydroxyquinoline, in relation to Covid-19, is to facilitate the absorption of Zinc into the human cells. There are claims that it is the Zinc that destroys the virus, not Hydroxyquinoline.

 

Everything clear now? ????

[stevenl]

28 minutes ago, VincentRJ said:

Okay! I see the problem. This is what I wrote. "increasing but inconsistent evidence of its effectiveness".

 

Perhaps I should have written, "increasingly inconsistent evidence of its effectiveness". In other words, as time progresses, more studies are conducted but the inconsistency of the results continues because of the complexity of the issue due to different individual reactions to the drug, and the difficulty of conducting controlled experiments.

 

As I recall, Trump asked his doctor if he should take Hydroxyquinoline, before he decided to take it. The doctor replied, 'Take it if you really want to, and if it makes you feel good', or something along those lines. I would deduce that Trump's doctor understood that there was uncertainty about the drug's efficacy in protection against Covid-19, but he also understood it could have a placebo effect even if the evidence eventually became clear that Hydroxyquinoline, on balance, had no benefit in preventing Covid-19 infection.

 

There is also the issue of the Zinc supplements that were combined with Hydroxyquinoline. I've read reports that the role of Hydroxyquinoline, in relation to Covid-19, is to facilitate the absorption of Zinc into the human cells. There are claims that it is the Zinc that destroys the virus, not Hydroxyquinoline.

 

Everything clear now? ????

Please don't try to make this about placebos when it was not. You wrote 'increasing evidence', now you're saying that was incorrect, is that correct because you meant to write 'inconsistent evidence'?

 

And please, don't talk about the doctor's reply on Trump taking medicine, all you have for that is Trump's words.

[VincentRJ]

2 hours ago, stevenl said:

Please don't try to make this about placebos when it was not. You wrote 'increasing evidence', now you're saying that was incorrect, is that correct because you meant to write 'inconsistent evidence'?

 

And please, don't talk about the doctor's reply on Trump taking medicine, all you have for that is Trump's words.

I wrote 'increasing but inconsistent evidence'. Why are you distorting what I wrote? Don't you understand 'inconsistent'? The evidence is increasing on both sides. The jury is still out.

 

Personally I'm not at all interested in promoting the use of Hydroxyquinoline in the absence of rigorous scientific studies, and I'm not American, and I'm not a Trump supporter. I'm just interested in the objective truth.

[sanuk711]

Oh come on guys your printing something 16 days old that has been on all the news as being wrong and has been withdrawn and apologized for by Lancet.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/jun/04/covid-19-lancet-retracts-paper-that-halted-hydroxychloroquine-trials

 

Lancet Retracts paper

[stevenl]

23 minutes ago, VincentRJ said:

I wrote 'increasing but inconsistent evidence'. Why are you distorting what I wrote? Don't you understand 'inconsistent'? The evidence is increasing on both sides. The jury is still out.

 

Personally I'm not at all interested in promoting the use of Hydroxyquinoline in the absence of rigorous scientific studies, and I'm not American, and I'm not a Trump supporter. I'm just interested in the objective truth.

Increasing but inconsistent evidence of effectiveness means increasing evidence of effectiveness. It is not.

But now it is clear you didn't mean to write increasing evidence, so all clear.

[VincentRJ]

10 minutes ago, stevenl said:

Increasing but inconsistent evidence of effectiveness means increasing evidence of effectiveness. It is not.

But now it is clear you didn't mean to write increasing evidence, so all clear.

Looks like I'll have to play the role of English teacher. ????

 

Increasing but inconsistent evidence of effectiveness means 'increasing evidence of effectiveness plus increasing evidence of non-effectiveness, meaning the jury is still out.

[stevenl]

32 minutes ago, VincentRJ said:

Looks like I'll have to play the role of English teacher. ????

 

Increasing but inconsistent evidence of effectiveness means 'increasing evidence of effectiveness plus increasing evidence of non-effectiveness, meaning the jury is still out.

No, your English is lacking.

[VincentRJ]

13 hours ago, stevenl said:

No, your English is lacking.

How is your Math? If I were to write, 'Two plus two equals four', would it be sensible to claim that I wrote, 'Two equals four'? ????

 

Sometimes people respond to a post by quoting just one paragraph or one sentence out of context, and that does sometimes raise reasonable objections. However, quoting a sentence whilst also removing a critical and significant word from that sentence, is ridiculous. ????

[stevenl]

13 minutes ago, VincentRJ said:

How is your Math? If I were to write, 'Two plus two equals four', would it be sensible to claim that I wrote, 'Two equals four'? ????

 

Sometimes people respond to a post by quoting just one paragraph or one sentence out of context, and that does sometimes raise reasonable objections. However, quoting a sentence whilst also removing a critical and significant word from that sentence, is ridiculous. ????

So now you're equating English to maths, in a poor attempt to distract from your poor expression here. 'Increasing but inconsistent evidence of its effectiveness' means there is increasing evidence. Unfortunately there is not increasing evidence.

Edited June 8, 2020 by stevenl

[VincentRJ]

1 hour ago, stevenl said:

'Increasing but inconsistent evidence of its effectiveness' means there is increasing evidence. Unfortunately there is not increasing evidence.

Really!! Would you argue that the reason there's no increasing evidence is because there's no increasing, or continuing, research?

 

Check out the following article.
https://www.cnbc.com/2020/06/03/world-health-organization-resumes-coronavirus-trial-on-malaria-drug-hydroxychloroquine-after-safety-concerns.html

 

"The World Health Organization is resuming its trial of hydroxychloroquine, the malaria drug backed by President Donald Trump to combat the deadly coronavirus, after temporarily halting research over safety concerns."

 

"White House physician Dr. Sean Conley released a memo that said that after discussing evidence for and against hydroxychloroquine with Trump, they concluded “the potential benefit from treatment outweighed the relative risks.”

 

As the research continues, the evidence, either in favour of, or against the use of Hydroxyquinoline, increases. Hopefully, the inconsistencies will decrease and the picture will be become clearer as to the benefits and the harm, the appropriate dosage, and for whom the benefits might outweigh the risks, and for whom the risks might outweigh the benefits.

 

As I mentioned before, at this stage the jury is still out.
 

[Crazy Alex]

On 6/6/2020 at 3:46 AM, Phil McCaverty said:

And none for because the research hasn't been done. Ergo, you don't proscribe a dangerous drug to someone who is not sick if you have no idea if its of benefit or not.

So you know better than the doctors prescribing it?

[johnpetersen]

58 minutes ago, Crazy Alex said:

So you know better than the doctors prescribing it?

Just because doctors wear white coats, that doesn't make them scientists. Scientists know better than do doctors.

Doctors prescribe way too many antibiotics. Experts offer tips on cutting back

https://www.statnews.com/2016/01/19/overprescribing-antibiotics-advice/

Doctors Heavily Overprescribed Antibiotics Early in the Pandemic

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/04/health/coronavirus-antibiotics-drugs.html

 

 

[candide]

FDA revokes authorization of drug Trump touted

 

https://edition.cnn.com/2020/06/15/politics/fda-hydroxychloroquine-coronavirus/index.html

[riclag]

16 minutes ago, candide said:

FDA revokes authorization of drug Trump touted

 

https://edition.cnn.com/2020/06/15/politics/fda-hydroxychloroquine-coronavirus/index.html

So the FDA didn't ban the drug for use with covid patients ! Isn't it true when a drug is so dangerous the FDA out and out bans its use and clinical trials!

"However, because the drugs are on the market and approved for other uses, it could still be prescribed for "off-label" use in COVID patients. Clinical trials studying the drugs can also continue. The World Health Organization and the National Institutes of Health are still conducting trails".

https://thehill.com/policy/healthcare/502748-fda-withdraws-emergency-use-authorization-for-hydroxychloroquine

Edited June 15, 2020 by riclag

[candide]

12 minutes ago, riclag said:

So the FDA didn't ban the drug for use with covid patients ! Isn't it true when a drug is so dangerous the FDA out and out bans its use and clinical trials!

"However, because the drugs are on the market and approved for other uses, it could still be prescribed for "off-label" use in COVID patients. Clinical trials studying the drugs can also continue. The World Health Organization and the National Institutes of Health are still conducting trails".

https://thehill.com/policy/healthcare/502748-fda-withdraws-emergency-use-authorization-for-hydroxychloroquine

Tss tss.  So now you trust the WHO? ????

[bendejo]

On 5/22/2020 at 9:26 PM, tropo said:

I don't understand a non-US citizens [...] feeling so emotional about a sitting US president. 

 

Well. you managed to say something I can agree with, but I see it in a different way: DT is destroying the country, dismantling what he can and breaking alliances with the democratized world and instead embracing dictators, and in some way has made himself beholden to Putin. 

In my view any non-American DT supporter is anti-U.S. and is cheering on the destruction of the country.  Either that or they are being directly compensated to spread propaganda on the net.

I may make an occasional comment about certain characters running other countries but I won't keep on about it as in the end I'm "not a member of the family," it's not my country.  Every place in the world has things going on an outsider wouldn't know about, whether a country or a moo ban. 

For someone to posture that they know so incredibly much about a place they haven't lived in for a time is highly arrogant.

And if someone is doing this as a job my advice is to find other work -- I hear they are looking for test subjects for various cleaning products to fight Covid-19.  ????

 

 

[Chiphigh]

17 hours ago, candide said:

FDA revokes authorization of drug Trump touted

 

https://edition.cnn.com/2020/06/15/politics/fda-hydroxychloroquine-coronavirus/index.html

Actually it is still approved for off label use

[johnpetersen]

17 hours ago, riclag said:

So the FDA didn't ban the drug for use with covid patients ! Isn't it true when a drug is so dangerous the FDA out and out bans its use and clinical trials!

"However, because the drugs are on the market and approved for other uses, it could still be prescribed for "off-label" use in COVID patients. Clinical trials studying the drugs can also continue. The World Health Organization and the National Institutes of Health are still conducting trails".

https://thehill.com/policy/healthcare/502748-fda-withdraws-emergency-use-authorization-for-hydroxychloroquine

The FDA can't ban a drug for a specific use if it is already approved for another.

25 minutes ago, Chiphigh said:

Actually it is still approved for off label use

No, it's not approved for off label use. It's an approved drug and therefore can be used off label.

[johnpetersen]

13 hours ago, bendejo said:

 

Well. you managed to say something I can agree with, but I see it in a different way: DT is destroying the country, dismantling what he can and breaking alliances with the democratized world and instead embracing dictators, and in some way has made himself beholden to Putin. 

In my view any non-American DT supporter is anti-U.S. and is cheering on the destruction of the country.  Either that or they are being directly compensated to spread propaganda on the net.

I may make an occasional comment about certain characters running other countries but I won't keep on about it as in the end I'm "not a member of the family," it's not my country.  Every place in the world has things going on an outsider wouldn't know about, whether a country or a moo ban. 

For someone to posture that they know so incredibly much about a place they haven't lived in for a time is highly arrogant.

And if someone is doing this as a job my advice is to find other work -- I hear they are looking for test subjects for various cleaning products to fight Covid-19.  ????

 

 

Actually, being a citizen of a country is no guarantee that one knows anything about how its government works and being a non-citizen is no guarantee that they know less than a  citizen. There's plenty of hard information out there.

[Crazy Alex]

On 6/13/2020 at 9:05 PM, johnpetersen said:

Just because doctors wear white coats, that doesn't make them scientists. Scientists know better than do doctors.

Doctors prescribe way too many antibiotics. Experts offer tips on cutting back

https://www.statnews.com/2016/01/19/overprescribing-antibiotics-advice/

Doctors Heavily Overprescribed Antibiotics Early in the Pandemic

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/04/health/coronavirus-antibiotics-drugs.html

Ah yes, the *experts*. The question is, which *experts*? And hydroxychloroquine is not an antibiotic- so I'm not sure why the moving of the goal posts.

[johnpetersen]

27 minutes ago, Crazy Alex said:

Ah yes, the *experts*. The question is, which *experts*? And hydroxychloroquine is not an antibiotic- so I'm not sure why the moving of the goal posts.

The experts who overwhelmingly agree. Not some outliers. The very rare cases when outliers are correct is not a good justification for pursuing a scientifically dubious course of treatment. But if you believe otherwise, the maybe you should consider investing your saving in the lottery. After all, people win at the lottery all the time. Maybe you'll bet amazingly lucky, too.

What does it matter if it's antibiotics or something else? Doctors often prescribe drugs when they shouldn't. They are not bound by law to follow evidence based medicine. Once a drug is approved for treatment, then it's available for off label usage. That doesn't make it sound or sensible.

[Crazy Alex]

Just now, johnpetersen said:

The experts who overwhelmingly agree. Not some outliers. The very rare cases when outliers are correct is not a good justification for pursuing a scientifically dubious course of treatment. But if you believe otherwise, the maybe you should consider investing your saving in the lottery. After all, people win at the lottery all the time. Maybe you'll bet amazingly lucky, too.

What does it matter if it's antibiotics or something else? Doctors often prescribe drugs when they shouldn't. They are not bound by law to follow evidence based medicine. Once a drug is approved for treatment, then it's available for off label usage. That doesn't make it sound or sensible.

Great! So now all you have to do is prove a specific doctor is doing something wrong. Best of luck to you.

[johnpetersen]

3 minutes ago, Crazy Alex said:

Great! So now all you have to do is prove a specific doctor is doing something wrong. Best of luck to you.

This makes no sense at all. The subject is off label prescribing for a drug that the evidence shows is not effective for that use. What's your point?

[candide]

3 hours ago, Crazy Alex said:

Ah yes, the *experts*. The question is, which *experts*?

Hmmm.....When did I read that already?

I remember! When you were downplaying the epidemic risk and accusing MSM and Dems of creating panic by exaggerating the threat of an outbreak! ????

[stevenl]

dexamethason sounds promising as a medication for people already hospitalised, a possible cure.