Trump stopped Fauci from answering a question about the anti-malaria drug he's hyping, despite it being unproven against coronavirus
Category: News & Politics
Via: sister-mary-agnes-ample-bottom • 6 years ago • 53 commentsBy: James Pasley
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
President Donald Trump told reporters he wasn't a doctor as he promoted the use of hydroxycholoroquine, a drug used for malaria
At a White House press briefing on Sunday night, Trump repeatedly spoke about using the drug on COVID-19 patients despite little clinical evidence that the pills are effective against it. He told reporters he backed the drug as he said: "I'm not a doctor. I have common sense." r lupus, to treat COVID-19 patients. But when Dr. Anthony Fauci was asked for his opinion, Trump would not let him speak.
Dr. Fauci reportedly disagreed and said there was only anecdotal evidence. Navarro, an economist, pointed to a stack of documents he had brought to the meeting, and told Fauci: "That's science, not anecdote."
The US government has stockpiled 29 million hydroxycholoroquine pills and Trump said it was a good option for treatment since there's currently no vaccine, although researchers are testing a number of drugs including hydroxycholoroquine.
He said: "I'm trying to save lives. I want them to try it and it may work and it may not work." If it didn't work, at least it didn't kill patients, he said. Several times, he rhetorically asked: "What do you have to lose?"
But when a reporter at the briefing asked Dr. Fauci, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases and member of the White House Coronavirus Task Force, what he thought, Trump did not let him speak.
"He answered that question 15 times," Trump said, cutting the reporter off, before the press conference moved on. Fauci never answered.
Fauci took the podium late in the conference and hadn't spoken before the reporters began asking questions.
According to Axios, on Saturday, the coronavirus task force reportedly had its first open confrontation, and it was over the use of hydroxycholoroquine.
Trump's top trade advisor Peter Navarro, who has been trying to source the drug, told the task force overseas studies showed the drug had "clear therapeutic efficacy."
The conversation grew heated, with Navarro calling out Dr. Fauci for purportedly objecting to Trump's China travel ban at one point, until the president's son-in-law and senior advisor Jared Kushner told Navarro he had the greenlight to supply the drug.
Tags
Who is online
90 visitors
Why is no one of consequence calling out Trump for being a walking advertisement for a malaria drug made by a company (Gilead Sciences, Inc.) in which he owns nearly a million dollars in stock?
It's been made clear that the benefits of the drug hydroxycholoroquine, are still in question, and Dr. Fauci has been saying that from the beginning. Now he is being muffled by Trump and Jared Kushner. How many red flags does one need to figure out what's happening?
I'm just wondering how long it will be before Trump "throws Dr. Fauci under the bus".....?
Wednesday, latest.
Trump had to put Tank treads on that bus, as it runs over any and everyone in any proximity to his administration.
What a fckn POS!
Let the DOCTORS tell US All what Drugs to take, not some used car salesman.
And shortly you'll have his usual supporters offering up another lameo excuse, as the excuse list is apparently infinite.
No more for me.
Well, a stable genius knows everything about how drugs work and interact. Covfefe.
I wish he would just Covfefe off and take his family and friends with him. They are all making a mint off of Trump's administration.
Peter Navarro is a right wing economist and extreme Trump loyalist. He has no known expertise in medicine or science. Yet within Trumpworld he is allowed to question the opinions of Dr. Anthony Fauci, one of the world's leading experts in epidemics and virology. There is the Trump White House world view in a nutshell.
Fauci is fond of predicting the very worst scenarios and outcomes. It's called fear-mongering and overreaction. The reality is turning out to be something else.
[DELETED]
I'll give you the same recommendation!
You know me well enough by now, don't try to throw out those generalizations.
I am only being nice because apparently I get blocked for anything I say.
Isn't that right charger?
Piss off, Pappy. Go be annoying somewhere else.
I would rather have the facts no matter how scary they are than somebody with no knowledge of science or medicine telling me to take an unproven drug.
I KNOW you care.
You aren't special at all. To anyone.
I am well aware to whom the comment was made. This is my seed, not yours. Behave like a human being, or scram.
throwing momma from the train,
or,
sister from the convent of her own seed...careful now, she could germinate you.
Your savings account number and routing numbers.
I think it is more that I don't give a shit about you and ignore 90% of your comments. I actually paid so little attention to this one that I am not sure what you are babbling about.
You should try the ignore function. Better than Prozac any day!
A threat? That's silly. Think of it as more of a...directive.
I trust that this will be the last word about it.
Navarro says he is qualified to disagree with Fauci on coronavirus treatment: 'I'm a social scientist'
Trump's brother from another mother.
After four weeks, we still only have anecdotal information? The pandemic is creating a baseline data set for untreated patients. It isn't necessary to give dying people sugar pills to establish comparative statistical data; that's been business as usual.
Why is science dragging it's feet? Treat patients at one hospital and compare the results with hospitals where patients receive no treatment. Since the pandemic is moving quickly, it should be possible to collect statistical data just as quickly.
We already know patients are at greater risk without treatment. Or is lack of treatment anecdotal, too? I don't believe we have the luxury of time that allows clinical researchers to cover their ass. Use the data that is already available and get on with it.
I agree. We can't wait 12-18 months to go through the usual tests and trials. The search for and testing of possible remedies can't be left to the usual prolonged process.
These scientists and experts are smart enough to cut through the loads of red tape to get to an effective and safe vaccine fairly rapidly. Anything that appears promising should be put on a fast track
Then you will not mind if your Covid-19-positive family and friends volunteer to be test subjects.
A cytokine storm is not novel, new, or unique to COVID-19 infections. In fact, malaria can cause recurring cytokine overload of the immune system. Quinine compounds are used to suppress the immune system's production of cytokines.
COVID-19 is causing an infection. But people's own immune systems are the cause of death.
It isn't, it is doing that science thing that you pretend to know lots about. Scientists are doing a weird thing called gathering data, another fucking insane thing called analyzing that data, and an even weirder fucking thing called "coming up with solutions based on the data."
Insane right? But not insane when your broker does the exact same thing. Goddamn idiots.
There is a copious amount of baseline data available for untreated patients. Why is it necessary to collect more baseline data during a clinical trial? And why isn't an 85 pct confidence level adequate during an emergency?
The science is dragging its feet to cover its ass. If astronomy followed the same methodology, we'd still be worshiping the Sun.
Like what? That "data' is anecdotal which means it is useless. I jumped off the Empire State building and did a superhero landing. Other people saw it, therefor it is true.
Anecdotal evidence is completely useless.
Because that is all we have to go on?
Because that means 15% will potentially die, pretty big number.
You actually make me hope that an asteroid hits the Earth.
1.3 million confirmed infections and 71,000 fatalities worldwide is anecdotal? 350,000 confirmed infections and 11,000 fatalities in the United States is anecdotal?
The entire response to the COVID-19 pandemic has been based on anecdotal information. The scientific experts have informed the public that COVID-19 is novel, new, and never before seen in the human population. There isn't any COVID-19 specific data; all the information available is anecdotal.
Where's the clinical studies that supports the efficacy of social distancing for COVID-19? Since we don't have data specific to COVID-19, the response has been based on anecdotal information. Social distancing has worked in other instances and we are taking the precaution based on inductive analogy, not based on COVID-19 specific data.
There is a report of one tiger being infected with COVID-19 by a zoo keeper but that is hard science requiring heightened response and precautions? One data point is not statistically significant; it's anecdotal information.
Now you are talking about verified facts, yes, those I accept.
Define anecdotal for me. And not the google definition, you know i will find it .42 seconds.
No, that's not what a confidence level means. That interpretation of confidence level is fucktard science. In the case of quinine compounds, an 85 pct confidence level indicates a level of certainty that quinine would suppress the immune response. If quinine is ineffective in individual cases, the patient can still be treated with intubation as is being done now. Suppressing the immune response to avoid the need for intubation decreases the number of ventilators that are needed.
Suppressing the immune response would increase the chances of survival for severe cases by decreasing the need for ventilators. Quinine compounds proving to be only 10 pct effective would still reduce the competition for ventilators and everyone's chance of survival increases by a statistically significant amount.
If quinine compounds are not safe to use then why have they been approved by the FDA? Why are quinine compounds being prescribed if there isn't data to support their use? Sometimes treating symptoms is the best option available. Tylenol is not a cure or prevention for COVID-19 but is being administered to treat symptoms, regardless of the absence of clinical trials to determine COVID-19 specific efficacy.
As Dr. Fauci is using the term anecdotal, the information has not been obtained under controlled conditions that provides a statistically high level of confidence in the validity of the observations.
A COVID-19 specific trial of personal protective equipment has not been performed. A clinical trial would involve two populations of test subjects; one with protection and one without protection to provide a baseline. Under controlled conditions, the protected population experiencing fewer infections would be demonstrated with a statistically high level of certainty that the observed result is valid. Without that clinical trial under controlled conditions, the recommendation that personal protective equipment be used is not based on a statistically high level of confidence that PPE will be effective. Without COVID-19 specific trials the recommendation is based on anecdotal information with less certainty in the validity of the recommendation. The recommendation to use PPE is a guess based on best available information.
The title should read "Trump stopped Fauci from giving out real information"