Researchers analyzed medical records of 368 male veterans hospitalized with confirmed coronavirus infection at Veterans Health Administration medical centers who died or were discharged by April 11.About 28% who were given hydroxychloroquine plus usual care died, versus 11% of those getting routine care alone. About 22% of those getting the drug plus azithromycin died too, but the difference between that group and usual care was not considered large enough to rule out other factors that could have affected survival.
Researchers did not track side effects, but noted hints that hydroxychloroquine might have damaged other organs. The drug has long been known to have potentially serious side effects, including altering the heartbeat in a way that could lead to sudden death.
Earlier this month, scientists in Brazil stopped part of a hydroxychloroquine study after heart rhythm problems developed in one-quarter of people given the higher of two doses being tested.
The drug appears to reduce fever and alleviate respiratory symptoms associated with coronavirus , allowing many patients who receive it to be discharged from the hospital in less than a week. However, remdesivir has a ways to go before it may (or may not) get approval from the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to safely treat COVID-19.
The patients who received remdesivir at the University of Chicago Medicine were one part of a Phase 3 clinical trial for the drug. During Phase 3, doctors test a drug in a few hundred patients looking for efficacy and monitoring for adverse effects; the fourth and last phase involves testing the drug in a much larger group of patients.
However, there is no control group, meaning scientists can't compare these patients with a group of equally sick individuals who did not receive the drug. This is important, because it's possible that the placebo effect or another, unknown cause is playing a role in these patients' recoveries.
The same clinical trial for severe COVID-19 cases is being run on 2,400 participants at 152 institutions all over the world, but those results aren't yet public. "What we can say at this stage is that we look forward to data from ongoing studies becoming available," Gilead told Stat News.
Bullshit, Vic. Everybody wants a treatment for this virus. I'd say the vast majority of people on this site have family and friends who are at risk of being seriously ill if they were to be infected. I know I do. But I don't want doctors risking their lives trying to use a treatment that may make them worse, based on badly-done science, just to avoid hurting Trump's feelings or to line his pocket.
If Trump's feelings and wallet are collateral damage in this discovery, so be it
Lay off the Trump wallet bullshit. Here.............
According to Trump’s 2019 Executive Branch Personnel Public Financial Disclosure Reports filed with the U.S. Office of Government Ethics, the 45th president’s three family trusts each have two line item entries describing investments between $1,001 and $15,000 apiece in the Dodge & Cox International Stock Fund. The Times notes that Sanofi, the drug manufacturer, is the mutual fund’s largest individual holding. According to MarketWatch , the exact size of the fund’s stake in Sanofi “at last check was 3.3%.”
Chances are, if you are invested in international stock funds that you too would stand to benefit since this is a popular investment it seems. It's disingenuous to tout that "he's lining his pockets" crap line.
I was about to ask you the same thing, but you answered it with "If Trump's feelings and wallet are collateral damage in this discovery, so be it." You don't even realize what you are doing. You've voiced your objection to the use of this drug for high risk patients long before this so called breathtaking news.
You made it so easy for me - everytime you mention Trump.
It turns out he does look to have more than [a] modest sum invested in Sanofi, because, unmentioned in the Times report, his trusts also hold broader European stock-market index funds. The iShares Core MSCI EAFE ETF IEFA, 1.721% has 0.67% of its holdings in Sanofi, and Sanofi is a 0.78% holding for the iShares MSCI EAFE ETF EFA, 1.660%, which is neither surprising nor notable, in that the French drug maker is so large.
Aside from Trump and his family’s personal stake, at least two of Trump’s closest political allies are closely connected to Sanofi as well.
Republican mega donor and billionaire Ken Fisher runs Fisher Asset Management, one of the drug manufacturer’s largest shareholders.
Kenneth Fisher, the founder of investment advisory firm Fisher Investments, along with his wife Sherrilyn, combined to give $250,000 [to fund the Trump Victory Committee]. Fisher historically has backed Republican efforts and contributed to Trump’s first run for president.
Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross , a loyal Trump appointee, previously ran the Invesco mutual fund. That fund is also heavily invested in Sanofi. In a Monday statement obtained by the Times, Ross sought to distance himself from both his former work and the administration’s current jones for hydroxychloroquine pills.
Ross claimed he “was not aware that Invesco has any investments in companies producing” the anti-malarial medication, “nor do I have any involvement in the decision to explore this as a treatment.”
You've voiced your objection to the use of this drug for high risk patients long before this so calledbreathtakingnews.
And those concerns turned out to be based in fact, didn't they? But some people pushed the drug, anyway. The fact that it had been on the market for years was sufficient to conclude that it needed no further study for the treatment of a new disease.
Why the resentment, Vic? Did you not think that we should know if it makes death in this group of veterans more likely before using it more widely? Should that have been swept under the rug?
OMG I knew it. Trump is out there giving people Malaria and Lupus just so he can profit off a drug. That does it, I'm voting for Sleepy Joe all the way now.
The fact that it had been on the market for years was sufficient to conclude that it needed no further study for the treatment of a new disease.
How long does a real study take, Sandy?
Why the resentment, Vic?
Why do you call my assessment resentment? Questioning my motives? When You've been 100% against this drug since the moment the President said that it showed promise. Could I call that projection?
Did you not think that we should know if it makes death in this group of veterans more likely before using it more widely?
I thought you wanted a real study?
Should that have been swept under the rug?
It would have carried more weight if somebody less invested in a narrative had posted it.
The point is that your attempt to minimize Trump's financial stake in this drug failed. YOUR OWN LINK that made light of it, as far as you apparently bothered to read, found more financial ties between Trump and the drug's manufacturer, as well as between his donors and the manufacturer. I'm sure you didn't intend to find that information, but you did post the link. You just should have read a bit further down.
And you lack any evidence of that smear. You hate the President, pure and simple. Then maybe you we shouldn't have elected a radical ideologue for two terms. Then maybe a Marco Rubio would have won the last election.
Is that what we're calling "wanting to make sure it works" these days?
I had both. My objections were based on my concerns. My concerns are supported by this study. And that really seems to bother you.
They are called doctors!
Some were, and some weren't. And the doctors in this study have found information that illustrate why I had concerns. Other doctors also had the same concerns.
When You've been 100% against this drug
That's a lie. Not being for dosing every Covid-19 patient up with it without further study is not being 100% against it.
I thought you wanted a real study?
This was a real study, Vic. It doesn't show what you want it to show.
Oh, please. How many lies, Vic. How much profiting from his position? There have been mounds of evidence, but you choose to disregard them.
I submit that's why you're angry now. This study didn't show him to be right about this drug. And anybody saying so seems to enrage you. I mean, even Trump seems to be taking it in stride - he's not throwing a tantrum over it, at least not visibly. I'd say that's the wisest thing he can do at this point.
I read it and it is irrelevant IMHO. I'm going to check my 401k mutual funds to see if I too would "benefit". Because someone has a tiny vested financial interest in the drug manufacturer doesn't mean very much in the long run. Yes, Mr. Trump probably had some info from people that knew of the company but don't you have interest in your own investments and their success? You are trying to tie those people's investments into some nefarious reason for suggesting it was worth a shot.
One question for you. Since 11% of those in the study died anyway without it, how many of the 28% that were on the drug test list would have died anyway?
Compassion! We seldom hear that word anymore. You were very concerned as I recall for those gasping for air facing a ventilator. You would have them wait for a study to be completed before allowing a doctor to prescribe a drug.
Some were, and some weren't.
Only doctors can prescribe a drug, Sandy.
That's a lie.
I beg to differ. I paid close attention to everything you have written about the drug. You might say Iv'e become quite a fan.
This was a real study, Vic.
Again, I refer you to post # 2. I really can't improve on what was submitted there.
There is a reality out there that we all have to accept. There are Trump fanatics who have divorced themselves from the reality about their hero.
Trump supported hydroxychloroquine so that he could be given credit IF it worked, with the constant intention to release himself from any criticism or responsibility if it failed. That is how this man operates.
I'm not using an elected position to push the medication, so whether or not my own money is invested in it is irrelevant. I likely have money in some of those same funds, but I'd rather my parents, should they be so unfortunate as to catch the virus, be given safe treatment rather than one that benefits my portfolio.
And I'm sure you'd like to consider it irrelevant, when it said basically the opposite of what you claim.
Not from what you've posted here. But, clearly, it was about Trump - your objection to the drug. Thank you, Sandy.
I submit that's why you're angry now.
Angry? This has been a pleasure. I get to present another perspective and I get to discuss this with you.
This study didn't show him to be right about this drug.
Oh, Is that what it was conducted for? - to contradict the President of The United States? Well, in that case it failed. The President only said that it showed promise.
And anybody saying so seems to enrage you.
Left wing narratives have to be addressed. They don't enrage me. Should I characterize your emotions, like your'e trying to do with mine?
I mean, even Trump seems to be taking it in stride - he's not throwing a tantrum over it, at least not visibly.
Do you really focus all that energy on what the President might be feeling?
Not wanting to give them a drug that might make them worse is compassion, Vic.
You would have them wait for a study
If I was 100% against it, why would I have wanted a study? You can't have it both ways, Vic. I either wanted a study to show that it was effective (meaning I was only against it if it wasn't effective), or I was 100% against it, in which case I would have opposed any study.
I think you may need to consider that your personal dislike for me is clouding your ability to take my words at face value, and causing you to twist them.
Only doctors can prescribe a drug, Sandy.
We were talking about people pushing the drug - those promoting it.
I paid close attention to everything you have written about the drug.
If so, then you would know that I argue for caution. I also argue for caution in the production of a vaccine. That must mean I'm against vaccines, right?
You would do well, Vic, to argue against what I actually say, and not against views you dishonestly attribute to me.
but I'd rather my parents, should they be so unfortunate as to catch the virus, be given safe treatment rather than one that benefits my portfolio.
And what of those 62% that did get the drug and survive? I really doubt that ANYONE wants to take into account their portfolio at this point in the evolution of this disease. Especially with the Trumps and their minimal investment.
It is unfortunate for anyone to die of any disease but the statement "what have you got to lose" when it comes to experimental drugs is at least a sprig of hope. How many do you suppose will at least get worse or possibly die with ANY drug testing that will occur?
Not wanting to give them a drug that might make them worse
Tell me how much worse a choking, dying individual can be?
If I was 100% against it, why would I have wanted a study?
You would. Denying it's use until a study is completed would have the desired effect, wouldn't it? Just like those Judges who wrongly stalled the President's travel ban effectively defeated his purpose, knowing that the SCOTUS would ultimately rule in his favor. It is a tool.
I think you may need to consider that your personal dislike for me is clouding your ability to take my words at face value, and causing you to twist them.
Just because I have a different world view, does not mean that I dislike you. We come from opposing ends of the political spectrum, but I at least respect the fact that you employ facts to make an argument. Others here do not. For instance, I see someone simply say the President is this or that with zero evidence. They do it over and over. Then there are those who make it personal and they do it very quickly. Now that is what I don't like.
We were talking about people pushing the drug - those promoting it.
I don't know what you mean by "we", but I only consider the multitude of doctors who prescribe it to patients at serious risk of dying from the virus. Btw how the drug is used is important. When used early on it is effective. Are you familiar with the French study?
If so, then you would know that I argue for caution.
And if a doctor wants to prescribe it to someone infected with the virus?
I also argue for caution in the production of a vaccine.
Are you against the race underway to develop a vaccine?
Were you against the Polio Vaccine?
You would do well, Vic, to argue against what I actually say, and not against views you dishonestly attribute to me.
That's a personal attack. I'm not dishonest and Iv'e been decent to you. Iv'e overestimated you.
Tell me how much worse a choking, dying individual can be?
They aren't waiting until they're on a ventilator to start treatment, Vic. Ventilation was one of the outcomes that was tracked. Meaning, they didn't start out on a vent.
Why don't you produce any quote from me proving that I was 100% against hydroxychloroquine?
Are you familiar with the French study?
Yes, I was aware of the French study. It was intriguing, but too small to be especially trustworthy.
Here's another one:
In the French study, doctors looked back at medical records for 181 patients with Covid-19 who had pneumonia and required supplemental oxygen. About half had taken hydroxychloroquine within 48 hours of being admitted to the hospital, and the other half had not.
The doctors followed the patients and found there was no statistically significant difference in the death rates of the two groups, or their chances of being admitted to the intensive care unit.
The study also raised important safety concerns about hydroxychloroquine.
In the study, eight patients who took the drug developed abnormal heart rhythms and had to stop taking it.
Abnormal heart rhythms are a known side effect of hydroxychloroquine, which has been used for decades to treat patients with diseases such as malaria, lupus and rheumatoid arthritis.
Doctors in Sweden and Brazil have sounded warnings about chloroquine, a very similar drug, because of heart problems.
Are you against the race underway to develop a vaccine?
Apparently, you missed the analogy. Has anybody reading this ever known me to be an anti-vaxxer? Show of hands?
I'm not dishonest and Iv'e been decent to you.
I disagree. You have repeatedly misrepresented my position.
You are the one saying President Trump is pushing a drug for financial gain. Any 'Intelligent' person can figure out he must be giving people Lupus and Malaria to...
Remdesivir makes sense to me (I'm not a virologist) only because it's used to treat ebola. Ebola is caused by a virus, but I don't know what kind of virus (I could do research) and since COVID-19 is a virus....I like to play connect the dots.
Drugs either work or they don't. There is a time frame that they work in and if they don't work within that frame, you have to move on to another treatment plan.
Another report, among many, presenting anecdotal information. Perhaps it would be wise to wait for the clinical trials to be completed.
Trump also mentioned anecdotal information about remdesivir. The press created the hype about hydroxychloroquine by pressing Trump for details while ignoring that Trump said it might not work but should be tried.
You know, Trump has also touted cutting red tape to speed the development of vaccines. Maybe the press should begin downplaying vaccines, too.
The press created the hype about hydroxychloroquine by pressing Trump for details while ignoring that Trump said it might not work but should be tried.
"HYDROXYCHLOROQUINE & AZITHROMYCIN, taken together, have a real chance to be one of the biggest game changers in the history of medicine."
Do you not understand what 'real chance' means? Conflating possibility with probability only displays prejudicial ignorance.
Apparently the press (and ignorant partisans) cannot understand that Trump's Tweet was an attaboy for the FDA. It's another Forrest Gump moment for the press.
This whole thing is sad. So many people who hang on Trump's every word got their hopes up.
As soon as it is definitive that the drug doesnt help much, Trump will act as if he never heard of it before. He most certainly will never admit he promoted it . Thats what pathological liars do. His followers will absolve him too. Very sad.
Just refuse to accept that Trump never promised it would work. Never mind that he said it showed promise. Isn't that why clinical trials are even started--because a drug shows promise to treat a condition?
it doesn't work for enough people or safely enough.
While I wouldn't say there are outbreaks of lupus and rheumatoid arthritis, those are both conditions for which hydroxychloroquine has long been used, with success, and patients with those conditions (and malaria) have been having trouble getting their needed medication, because it's been hoarded to treat Covid-19.
Another reason we should have known a little more what we were about before touting hydroxychloroquine for coronavirus patients - we made it difficult for pts with a legitimate need to be treated for conditions that can have serious sequelae, up to and including death.
Obviously, there is now an all out war against this drug.
Yes, Vic. Wanting it to be available for people who legitimately need it is obviously waging war on it. That's not you deliberately misstating anybody's position at all.
Do you only care about people in the US? Before you answer that, consider whether your answer would seem petty.
Do you think that there aren't people in the US who have lupus and rheumatoid arthritis? There need not be an "outbreak" for plenty of those patients to exist, you know.
SMH. Okay, in order to validate any drug, testing must be done on a fairly large scale. So they develop one, administer it to say 1000 people. 25 of them die. Start over. Modified new drug. Same criteria. 14 people die. Start over again. Modified new drug. Same criteria. 6 people die. Start over. Modified new drug. no one dies.
Released to FDA for approval. Approved. You basically killed 45 people in the development. No biggie right?
IMO that is what happened here. NO DRUG is going to be 100% at the beginning of testing and side effects vary widely (on any drug, watch commercials/ads) and include up to and including death. It's the only way to do it. Someone has to be the first to experience any effects.
No, Jim, obviously you just give it to everyone whether it helps, hinders, or does nothing, so you never know whether you've killed anyone or not. That's what's been proposed.
Proposed by whom and when? A lot of doctors have administered this with success. Did you notice anything in the article about some possible underlying conditions of any of the deceased? They are veterans and the possibilities are practically endless.
Then you retract the multiple comments in which you accused me of being against it?
No, you have been against the prescribed use of this drug for Coronavirus patients on every discussion of this topic (which youv'e been involved in). Just like this one, your own seed.
You really should.
You should think about what you claimed Kathleen said. That's something you still can't answer.
Well, I've seen above, words to the effect of "How much worse can they get, when they're gasping for breath? And you want to wait for a study?" Sorry if that's not an exact quote. Just scroll upward, and something very similar to that will be easy to find.
Yes, I read about the comorbidities. The study's authors addressed this:
Our study has certain limitations including those inherent to all retrospective analyses such as non-randomization of treatments. We did, however adjust for a large number of Covid19-relevant confounders including comorbidities, medications, clinical and laboratory abnormalities. Despite propensity score adjustment for a large number of relevant confounders, we cannot rule out the possibility of selection bias or residual confounding.
The study addresses its own flaws. There has not yet been a study which did not have to contend with these flaws. The best study for this drug would be double-blind randomized clinical trials involving patients with a much wider demographic range, which circumstances do not allow at this time.
But this is not the only study which has shown lack of benefit, and evidence of harm, especially of cardiotoxicity.
Proper testing takes a long time. The detractors know that.
The Polio Vaccine would have been delayed under today's conditions. I can only imagine what would happen if Trump said "I think Dr Salk is on to something here."
It's not the president's place to recommend drugs, unless the president is a medical doctor. That, and his financial ties to the drug's manufacturers, are why Trump has received criticism. He said he'd hire the best people. Fauci is one of those, although he's not Trump's hire. He should listen to Fauci and stick to the script.
EVERY drug deserves "criticism" before widespread use. "More deaths with its use" is a pretty important criticism, wouldn't you say? Is that politically-based? If more people actually did die after this drug was used to treat them for Covid-19, in this study and others, are we then required to tiptoe around that data to avoid appearing to criticize Trump?
How do you propose we do that?
I have a proposal - Trump should avoid clinical discussions for which he is unqualified, and then when data comes out that doesn't support his unqualified opinions, he won't have already stuck his foot in his mouth.
Antibodies may be all we have until a vaccine is developed. They are racing to develop one, but even going as fast as they can the quickest estimate might be 10 months.
Fox News is one out of how many? 15 - 20 ass-wipes who now try and talk over and debate the President! The same scum that never asked Obama a tough question on anything.
And Obama tried to ban Fox News and spied on one of it's reporters as well as spying on the AP.
How much of any other news outlet's criticism of Trump has been just reporting his own words that he's said on camera?
Trump says things that make him look like a moron, criminal, or just plain jerk, and anybody noticing is somehow their fault, not his.
And it's not like Trump hasn't tried to ban reporters he didn't like. Jim Acosta? Threatening multiple times to pull news networks' licenses? You excoriate Obama for offenses far less than Trump's. Blatant partisanship.
How much of any other news outlet's criticism of Trump has been just reporting his own words that he's said on camera?
When have they ever done that? Remember when they claimed he asked Russia to hack Clinton's e-mails? I'll bet you can't even tell us what he really said. Just Google it, Sandy.
rump says things that make him look like a moron, criminal, or just plain jerk, and anybody noticing is somehow their fault, not his.
Sandy, the left tried everything to remove him from office. Look at what your side of the political spectrum has done. Hang your head in shame, Sandy.
And it's not like Trump hasn't tried to ban reporters he didn't like.
Sandy, he didn't. Fucking Obama did and he spied on them too and don't think he didn't sick Comey and Brennan on the Trump Campaign. Obama got away with it, along with a lot of other shit.
Jim Acosta?
Now there's somebody who should be barred from any gathering of civilized human beings.
Threatening multiple times to pull news networks' licenses?
But he hasn't Sandy, even though they do lie. THREE YEARS THEY LIED ABOUT RUSSIA AND TRUMP! THREE YEARS, Sandy!
You excoriate Obama for offenses far less than Trump's.
Yup, Obama whom you loved. The radical divider. Thank God his legacy has been demolished!
This drug has FDA approval for use against malaria and some autoimmune disorders, so that hurdle has been cleared.
Using it against coronavirus would be an off-label use. There's nothing really wrong with that, so long as it's supported by evidence. It's the evidence that's lacking. Evidence that it's effective against coronavirus is iffy, and evidence that it can cause harm is mounting.
We already knew that it was toxic to the heart and retinas. We are finding that coronavirus causes heart damage. It is not inconceivable that the damage caused by the virus is made worse by the cardiotoxic effects of the drug.
Hydroxychloroquine was found to have some antiviral effects in petri dishes, which is why it was investigated in the first place. But in vitro (lab) results don't always equate to in vivo (clinical) results. Petri dishes don't have organ systems which may already be damaged to worry about damaging further.
"I just start kissing. You can do that. When you're a star, you can do anything. You can grab them by the pussy." All on tape, and some folks defended him saying it, and criticized news outlets for airing it.
Look at what your side of the political spectrum has done.
Promoted rule of law? That's nothing to be ashamed of. NOT holding your own leaders to the same standards as everyone else is something to be ashamed of.
Sandy, he didn't.
Jim Acosta, Vic. Just because you agreed with it doesn't mean he didn't do it.
But he hasn't Sandy, even though they do lie.
Here's a list of links for you to ignore:
You have to be willfully blind not to have known about this Vic.
Nope, I didn't love Obama. I opposed the ACA. But he was infinitely the better man compared to Trump.
If this drug is so dangerous, why haven’t they taken it off the market completely then?
Risk vs. benefits. It benefits malaria and autoimmune patients, and causes less harm than those conditions do. In the case of Covid-19, it doesn't appear to benefit patients more than it risks harming them.
The most likely scenario is that if "we" agree with the criticism, we do not see it as hatred.
Half of the Northeast and New England had a negative opinion of Trump for decades before this new career.
He routinely used the legal system to his advantage and eminent domain to try to evict our fellow citizens from their homes, famously one 90 year old grandmother from her home adjacent to one of his many failed casinos.
And released just before the election. He won anyway. Then what Biden is being accused of must be important! So where is that story? Not on CNN, Not on MSNBC, not on NBC, not on ABC, not on CBS, not in the Washington Post and not in The New York Times. Oh, that's right there is only one NEWS network reporting on the Biden accusations!
Promoted rule of law?
No, they broke the law - leaking, lying, and spying on American citizens. Staging a fraudulent investigation based upon the Clinton campaign's big lie, staged a fraudulent impeachment based upon absolutely nothing and exonerating Hillary Clinton without every really investigating her. Then twisting every statement the President made and changing headlines when angry lefties complained. What an outrage!
Jim Acosta, Vic.
Yes Sandy, your precious Jim, that hateful, lying sack of shit!
Here's a list of links for you to ignore:
Your right Sandy, I don't have time to look at links of what Trump said or thought or felt or what the haters thought he said or wanted.
You have to be willfully blind not to have known about this Vic.
You are the willfully blind one who compares what Obama did vs what Trump said
Nope, I didn't love Obama.
Oh, fess up!
I opposed the ACA.
That's Ok, he had no choice, he had a majority in the House and a super majority in the Senate. If it was ever going to happen it was then at that moment and a radical like Obama wasn't going to pass it up.
But he was infinitely the better man compared to Trump.
Not on his best day. He never would have survived what Trump has. He would have crawled under the bed!
And? Did he say it, or not, Vic? Do you find his words defensible?
As far as the accusations against Biden, I have a problem with his accuser's credibility. ONE woman over the years accusing him of sexual assault, and her story keeps changing. I'm sure you'd question the credibility of an accuser of a conservative for much less.
Staging a fraudulent investigation based upon the Clinton campaign's big lie, staged a fraudulent impeachment based upon absolutely nothing and exonerating Hillary Clinton without every really investigating her.
A very partisan interpretation. Wanna know who wasn't exonerated? Trump, by Mueller.
Yes Sandy, your precious Jim, that hateful, lying sack of shit!
Nope. I don't watch CNN, or TV news at all really. Cancelled my satellite TV service. But you said Trump didn't ban Acosta, and he did ban him from White House press briefings. Acosta's credentials were reinstated by the courts. The fact that you don't like Acosta doesn't justify it, nor does it negate it having happened.
Your right Sandy, I don't have time to look at links of what Trump said or thought or felt or what the haters thought he said or wanted.
Now that is just sad. You say Trump didn't say or do something, and when presented with multiple links quoting him as having said what you say he didn't say, you just ignore them, and even admit to it. And then you call others partisan.
Not on his best day. He never would have survived what Trump has. He would have crawled under the bed!
Please. When criticized, Trump lashes out like a toddler. When did Obama ever do the same? I mean, people have attacked Obama for something so stupid as wearing a tan suit. They questioned his citizenship for years (another Trump lie, BTW), called his wife a "gorilla in heels", attacked her for wearing a sleeveless dress, criticized him over every hole of golf he played (oops, there's Trump being a bully again. What a guy!). Obama never crawled under the bed. He focused on his job.
As far as the accusations against Biden, I have a problem with his accuser's credibility. ONE woman over the years accusing him of sexual assault, and her story keeps changing. I'm sure you'd question the credibility of an accuser of a conservative for much less.
That's a very good question. Let's compare her to Christine Blasey Ford. According to Tara Reade, while she worked as a staff assistant for Biden in 1993, the senator “began kissing her without her permission, pushed her against a wall, reached under her skirt, and penetrated her with his fingers.” What did she do? She told her brother & close friend about it at the time. Both recall it. Ford alleged she was held down by Kavanaugh at some party she knew not when, how she got there or how she got home. She told nobody. Any and all alleged witnesses deny it ever happened. Ford had high priced lawyers provided to her by Sen Feinstein. Reade can barely find one. The left wing media drove the Ford story for weeks. They are notably absent here.
This is probably the end of the "me too" movement. It was very predictable!
Wanna know who wasn't exonerated? Trump, by Mueller.
Then you don't know the law. Prosecutors do not exonerate, despite what Weissmann stuck into that fraudulent "report."
The fact that you don't like Acosta doesn't justify it, nor does it negate it having happened.
There has to be a code of conduct for people who are supposed to be reporters. Any fair minded person would know that Acosta doesn't belong in a Presidential press briefing.
and even admit to it
Yup, action is more important than words. And don't think we don't know - it's his policies you hate!
When did Obama ever do the same?
He never faced criticism!!!
Don't bother with the little incidents. Obama was loved by the left, the democrats and the media. He was even treated with respect by Republicans.
Exactly. The same Ford whose latest version of her story was immediately accepted by the Washington Post.
"The several-thousand-word story could not have been more sympathetic to Blasey Ford. It accepted Blasey Ford’s claims at face value, allowing the story to be spun as if it were true even though Blasey Ford had no evidence in support of it. All of the many problems with the story, such as that it kept changing and lacked evidence, were papered over by Brown and her editors."
This article is what actual journalism looks like:
FYI, I Know I'm the dreaded "right winger" for some - and some deserve it, but I have been fair. I bet you don't know I banned cartoons and posters from group articles. Do you know why I did it? It was because of an offensive demeaning image of Michelle Obama.
The next time you get ready to say I have personal issues, think about that.
I bet you don't know I banned cartoons and posters from group articles. Do you know why I did it? It was because of an offensive demeaning image of Michelle Obama.
And I truly appreciate that. I am considering resurrecting an old rule we had for specific terms meant to annoy. I don't see how they help.
Reade and Blasey Ford both have credibility issues. You believe one. Just so happens she has accused the Presidential candidate you don't like - I'm sure that's a coincidence, yes?
And obviously, you hate for women to be mistreated, right? That's why you're vocally denouncing Trump's disgusting words about women.
Oh, wait...
Then you don't know the law. Prosecutors do not exonerate
Then who are you claiming exonerated Clinton?
Yup, action is more important than words.
So now that you can no longer deny that Trump threatened network news licenses, your defense is that it wasn't important? Keep moving those goalposts, Vic. This is pretty amusing.
Heneverfaced criticism!!!
I honestly don't know how you can bring yourself to type those words.
I honestly have a hard time with the Anita Hill style of finding women with sexual misconduct stories suddenly appearing when someone is running for office or position. It is usually politically motivated.
I don't have time to look at links of what Trump said or thought or felt or what the haters thought he said or wanted.
A rather incredible admission by Vic. Apparently he defends Trump completely concerning things Trump has said without knowing whether or not Trump said them !
Anita Hill tells the same story 30 years later, with no personal gain in it for her. I think she was almost certainly telling the truth about Clarence Thomas. It was such a strange story that I think it gave people some doubt.
She has to John, otherwise she'd be called a liar. So maybe no gain, but def a downfall. Anyone who waits till there is a confirmation of election of some sort is questionable at best.
Really? I bet the term she is referring to is TDS. But you can bet your bottom dollar that terms used by the left will stand. There will be nothing wrong with bible thumper or Trumper or any other names used to describe a supporter of Trump. [deleted]
So why are you deflecting away from what Trump said about women with the accusation
But he never did it - OBAMA DID IT!
Something you've said, I questioned, and you never addressed. Cat got your tongue, Vic? Or did you get lost in the thread? That was your response to me asking you if Trump talked about grabbing women by the pussy.
But that is what Comey did and it wasn't even his place to do it!
Mmmhmmm. You were angry that Trump's disgusting words about women were aired just before the election. I'm sure you're equally angry about Comey reintroducing Hillary's emails just before an election, yes?
I merely said that he didn't do it.
But he did threaten them. He didn't pull their licenses, because, despite believing he has "total authority", he doesn't, and can't. Him not committing a wrong action because he can't (even though he's threatened to), is hardly a merit on his part. The fact that he thinks he can is worrisome, at best.
You still equate Obama doing this shit with what Trump say.
Doing what shit? Grabbing women he's just met by the pussy? Banning reporters from White House (shit Trump did)? Pulling news network licenses? What shit are you accusing Obama of doing, Vic?
I lived through those 8 years.
So did I. Apparently, I remember them more accurately than you do.
Please tell me why there should be an acknowledged existence of a Trump Derangement Syndrome?
Is there a Bernie Madoff Derangement Syndrome? Is there a Harvey Weinstein Derangement Syndrome? Of course not. Assholes and crooks cannot be the victims of unfair attention , aka "derangement syndromes". Same with Trump.
I use the word Trumpster because it is a way to identify a point of view, but if it is disallowed here I will use the more bland "Trump supporter", no problem.
A lot of doctors have administered this with success.
Unproven "success", meaning it did not kill the patient.
There is absolutely no proof that the mere hype around this wasn't just a placebo effect for those COVID19
patients who recovered. Since the virus affects everyone differently, severity, duration, recovery, no one can prove that HCQ helped anyone but there is plenty of proof that it harmed many.
It is not and should not in any way be a political football.
It is entirely possible those patients may have recovered more quickly and with fewer complications without hydroxychloroquine. Or it may have helped some of them, or had no effect at all.
And I truly appreciate that. I am considering resurrecting an old rule we had for specific terms meant to annoy. I don't see how they help.
That would tend to seriously offend at least one Member here who loves to post those type of memes.
However, they only post them to insult the site, you and most of the NT Members, and certainly add nothing positive to the site of discussions.
So I wold certainly appreciate the renewal of that old rule to being some decency and less slap in the face to the majority of Members here.
It is not needed, and certainly not wanted. But, should not only include Mrs Obama, but, any and all other similar types of insulting memes. We need to do a clean up of NT's image, and that would be a good place to start.
The formal rebuke of the flimsy VA study by Doctor Didier Raoult:
In the current period, it seems that passion dominates rigorous and balanced scientific analysis and may lead to scientific misconduct. The article by Magagnoli et al. (Magagnoli, 2020) is an absolutely spectacular example of this. Indeed, in this work, it is concluded, in the end, that hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) would double the mortality in patients with COVID with a fatality rate of 28% (versus 11% in the NoHCQ group), which is extraordinarily hard to believe.
The analysis of the data shows two major biases, which show a welling to be convinced before starting the work : The first is that lymphopenia is twice as common in the HCQ groups (25% in the HCQ, 31% in the HCQ+AZ group versus 14% in the no HCQ group, p =.02) and there is an absolute correlation between lymphopenia (<0.5G/L) and fatality rate, which is well known (Tan, 2020) and confirmed here : 28% deaths, 22% and 11% in the HCQ, HCQ+AZ and No HCQ group, respectively. Lymphopenia is the most obvious criterion of patient severity (in our cohort, lymphocytes in dead individuals (n=22, mean ± standard deviation, 0.94 ± 0.45), versus in the living (n=2405, 1.79 ± 0.84, p < .0001)).
As the authors acknowledge, the severity of the patients in the different groups was very different, and their analysis can only make sense if there is a selection of patients with the same degree of severity, i.e. the same percentage of lymphopenia.
The second major bias is that in an attempt to provide meaningful data, by eliminating the initial severity at the time of treatment, two tables are shown: one table where drugs are prescribed before intubation, and which shows no significant difference in the 3 different groups (9/90 (10%) in the HCQ group, 11/101 (10. 9%) HCQ+AZ, and 15/177 (8.5%) in the group without HCQ, chi-square = 0.47, ddl = 2, p = 0.79), and one table, where it is not clear when the drugs were prescribed, where there are significant differences. These differences are most likely related to the fact that the patients had been intubated for some before receiving hydroxychloroquine in desperation. It is notable that this is unreasonable at the time of the cytokine storm, as it is unlikely that hydrochloroquine alone would be able to control patients at this stage of the disease. Moreover, incomprehensibly, the “untreated” group actually received azithromycin in 30% of cases, without this group being analyzed in any distinct way. Azithromycin is also a proposed treatment for COVID (Gautret, 2020) with in vitro efficacy (Andreani, 2020), and to mix it with patients who are supposedly untreated is something that is closer to scientific fraud than reasonable analysis. Altogether these 3 voluntary biases are all pushing to the idea of dangerosity of hydroxychloroquine safest drug as reported on nearly 1 million people (Lane, 2020).
All in all, this is a work that shows that, in this period, it is possible to propose things that do not stand up to any methodological analysis to try to demonstrate that one is right.
Yeah, NO randomized clinical trials have been done. There hasn't been time. There have been methodological problems with ALL trials to this point. Some like to disregard the methodological problems in trials with which they agree, though.
From the French study I linked above:
All comorbidities were less frequent in the HCQ group. The median delay between symptom onset and admission to hospital was 7 days (IQR, 5 to 10 days). Overall, initial severity was well balanced between the groups, except for confusion at admission (0 in the HCQ group vs 6 [6.2%] in the no-HCQ group) (Table 1). Further, of patients in the HCQ group, 17 (20%) received concomitant azithromycin, and 64 (76%) received concomitant amoxicillin and clavulanic acid.
So, the group that received HCQ had fewer comorbidities, and their disease was equally severe at admission, but their results were not better.
HCQ showed significant cardiotoxicity, though. Out of 84 patients receiving it, 8 had to discontinue the treatment due to EKG changes.
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
leave it to the trump administration to use vets as guinea pigs for some half baked idea
Trump never said anything about it in 5. 4. 3. 2...
Remdesivir looks promising. No seen side effects.
The drug appears to reduce fever and alleviate respiratory symptoms associated with coronavirus , allowing many patients who receive it to be discharged from the hospital in less than a week. However, remdesivir has a ways to go before it may (or may not) get approval from the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to safely treat COVID-19.
The patients who received remdesivir at the University of Chicago Medicine were one part of a Phase 3 clinical trial for the drug. During Phase 3, doctors test a drug in a few hundred patients looking for efficacy and monitoring for adverse effects; the fourth and last phase involves testing the drug in a much larger group of patients.
However, there is no control group, meaning scientists can't compare these patients with a group of equally sick individuals who did not receive the drug. This is important, because it's possible that the placebo effect or another, unknown cause is playing a role in these patients' recoveries.
The same clinical trial for severe COVID-19 cases is being run on 2,400 participants at 152 institutions all over the world, but those results aren't yet public. "What we can say at this stage is that we look forward to data from ongoing studies becoming available," Gilead told Stat News.
Until the day the President praises it!
Bullshit, Vic. Everybody wants a treatment for this virus. I'd say the vast majority of people on this site have family and friends who are at risk of being seriously ill if they were to be infected. I know I do. But I don't want doctors risking their lives trying to use a treatment that may make them worse, based on badly-done science, just to avoid hurting Trump's feelings or to line his pocket.
That's not really a response.
I'd say the vast majority of people on this site have family and friends who are at risk of being seriously ill if they were to be infected.
Completely irrelevant to your seed, which was effectively challenged in Post # 2 - As in "Check Mate!"
just to avoid hurting Trump's feelings or to line his pocket.
Thank you Sandy. To all those reading the posted seed - There was a purpose for it!
Is the science wrong, Vic? Is hydroxychloroquine the game changer it was touted to be?
No, it's not.
Does my, your, or anybody's desire for a cure change that?
No, it does not.
If Trump's feelings and wallet are collateral damage in this discovery, so be it. He should leave the science to the scientists.
Why the resentment, Vic? It's almost like you don't want anybody to know that this medication caused more deaths among our veterans.
Lay off the Trump wallet bullshit. Here.............
Chances are, if you are invested in international stock funds that you too would stand to benefit since this is a popular investment it seems. It's disingenuous to tout that "he's lining his pockets" crap line.
I was about to ask you the same thing, but you answered it with "If Trump's feelings and wallet are collateral damage in this discovery, so be it." You don't even realize what you are doing. You've voiced your objection to the use of this drug for high risk patients long before this so called breathtaking news.
You made it so easy for me - everytime you mention Trump.
From your link:
I guess that answers any questions generated by the constant reference to "Trump's wallet!"
Thank you Jim for the pertinent information.
And those concerns turned out to be based in fact, didn't they? But some people pushed the drug, anyway. The fact that it had been on the market for years was sufficient to conclude that it needed no further study for the treatment of a new disease.
Why the resentment, Vic? Did you not think that we should know if it makes death in this group of veterans more likely before using it more widely? Should that have been swept under the rug?
You are really questioning the President's motives for extolling the possibilities of the drug based on that trivia?
I think it would be far more valid to question the motivations of all those on the left who have declared war on the drug.
OMG I knew it. Trump is out there giving people Malaria and Lupus just so he can profit off a drug. That does it, I'm voting for Sleepy Joe all the way now.
Point?
What, his obvious dishonesty and grifting should have precluded that? Oh, Vic, take off the blinders.
Is that what we're calling "wanting to make sure it works" these days?
You didn't have concerns - you had objections.
But some people pushed the drug
They are called doctors!
The fact that it had been on the market for years was sufficient to conclude that it needed no further study for the treatment of a new disease.
How long does a real study take, Sandy?
Why the resentment, Vic?
Why do you call my assessment resentment? Questioning my motives? When You've been 100% against this drug since the moment the President said that it showed promise. Could I call that projection?
Did you not think that we should know if it makes death in this group of veterans more likely before using it more widely?
I thought you wanted a real study?
Should that have been swept under the rug?
It would have carried more weight if somebody less invested in a narrative had posted it.
Yeah, keep putting words in my mouth. The dishonesty of that tactic is apparent to all here.
The point is that your attempt to minimize Trump's financial stake in this drug failed. YOUR OWN LINK that made light of it, as far as you apparently bothered to read, found more financial ties between Trump and the drug's manufacturer, as well as between his donors and the manufacturer. I'm sure you didn't intend to find that information, but you did post the link. You just should have read a bit further down.
And you lack any evidence of that smear. You hate the President, pure and simple. Then maybe you we shouldn't have elected a radical ideologue for two terms. Then maybe a Marco Rubio would have won the last election.
Is that what we're calling "wanting to make sure it works" these days?
ALL OUT WAR! and you prove it with every comment.
I had both. My objections were based on my concerns. My concerns are supported by this study. And that really seems to bother you.
Some were, and some weren't. And the doctors in this study have found information that illustrate why I had concerns. Other doctors also had the same concerns.
That's a lie. Not being for dosing every Covid-19 patient up with it without further study is not being 100% against it.
This was a real study, Vic. It doesn't show what you want it to show.
Oh, please. How many lies, Vic. How much profiting from his position? There have been mounds of evidence, but you choose to disregard them.
I submit that's why you're angry now. This study didn't show him to be right about this drug. And anybody saying so seems to enrage you. I mean, even Trump seems to be taking it in stride - he's not throwing a tantrum over it, at least not visibly. I'd say that's the wisest thing he can do at this point.
Nope. If it had worked, that would have been fine by me. I advocated for caution. Caution helps us not kill people. First, do no harm.
Complete nonsense. There is total evidence that Trump is dishonest and a grifter.
I read it and it is irrelevant IMHO. I'm going to check my 401k mutual funds to see if I too would "benefit". Because someone has a tiny vested financial interest in the drug manufacturer doesn't mean very much in the long run. Yes, Mr. Trump probably had some info from people that knew of the company but don't you have interest in your own investments and their success? You are trying to tie those people's investments into some nefarious reason for suggesting it was worth a shot.
One question for you. Since 11% of those in the study died anyway without it, how many of the 28% that were on the drug test list would have died anyway?
Compassion! We seldom hear that word anymore. You were very concerned as I recall for those gasping for air facing a ventilator. You would have them wait for a study to be completed before allowing a doctor to prescribe a drug.
Some were, and some weren't.
Only doctors can prescribe a drug, Sandy.
That's a lie.
I beg to differ. I paid close attention to everything you have written about the drug. You might say Iv'e become quite a fan.
This was a real study, Vic.
Again, I refer you to post # 2. I really can't improve on what was submitted there.
There is a reality out there that we all have to accept. There are Trump fanatics who have divorced themselves from the reality about their hero.
Trump supported hydroxychloroquine so that he could be given credit IF it worked, with the constant intention to release himself from any criticism or responsibility if it failed. That is how this man operates.
I'm not using an elected position to push the medication, so whether or not my own money is invested in it is irrelevant. I likely have money in some of those same funds, but I'd rather my parents, should they be so unfortunate as to catch the virus, be given safe treatment rather than one that benefits my portfolio.
And I'm sure you'd like to consider it irrelevant, when it said basically the opposite of what you claim.
Not from what you've posted here. But, clearly, it was about Trump - your objection to the drug. Thank you, Sandy.
I submit that's why you're angry now.
Angry? This has been a pleasure. I get to present another perspective and I get to discuss this with you.
This study didn't show him to be right about this drug.
Oh, Is that what it was conducted for? - to contradict the President of The United States? Well, in that case it failed. The President only said that it showed promise.
And anybody saying so seems to enrage you.
Left wing narratives have to be addressed. They don't enrage me. Should I characterize your emotions, like your'e trying to do with mine?
I mean, even Trump seems to be taking it in stride - he's not throwing a tantrum over it, at least not visibly.
Do you really focus all that energy on what the President might be feeling?
Not wanting to give them a drug that might make them worse is compassion, Vic.
If I was 100% against it, why would I have wanted a study? You can't have it both ways, Vic. I either wanted a study to show that it was effective (meaning I was only against it if it wasn't effective), or I was 100% against it, in which case I would have opposed any study.
I think you may need to consider that your personal dislike for me is clouding your ability to take my words at face value, and causing you to twist them.
We were talking about people pushing the drug - those promoting it.
If so, then you would know that I argue for caution. I also argue for caution in the production of a vaccine. That must mean I'm against vaccines, right?
You would do well, Vic, to argue against what I actually say, and not against views you dishonestly attribute to me.
That would take several articles, Vic. But you'd ignore or attempt to explain away all of them. It would be a bit sad to watch.
No, but it's very enlightening that you should think so.
And what of those 62% that did get the drug and survive? I really doubt that ANYONE wants to take into account their portfolio at this point in the evolution of this disease. Especially with the Trumps and their minimal investment.
It is unfortunate for anyone to die of any disease but the statement "what have you got to lose" when it comes to experimental drugs is at least a sprig of hope. How many do you suppose will at least get worse or possibly die with ANY drug testing that will occur?
EVERYTHING Trump defenders Attempt to excuse, defend, and or Deny,
IS SAD
Tell me how much worse a choking, dying individual can be?
If I was 100% against it, why would I have wanted a study?
You would. Denying it's use until a study is completed would have the desired effect, wouldn't it? Just like those Judges who wrongly stalled the President's travel ban effectively defeated his purpose, knowing that the SCOTUS would ultimately rule in his favor. It is a tool.
I think you may need to consider that your personal dislike for me is clouding your ability to take my words at face value, and causing you to twist them.
Just because I have a different world view, does not mean that I dislike you. We come from opposing ends of the political spectrum, but I at least respect the fact that you employ facts to make an argument. Others here do not. For instance, I see someone simply say the President is this or that with zero evidence. They do it over and over. Then there are those who make it personal and they do it very quickly. Now that is what I don't like.
We were talking about people pushing the drug - those promoting it.
I don't know what you mean by "we", but I only consider the multitude of doctors who prescribe it to patients at serious risk of dying from the virus. Btw how the drug is used is important. When used early on it is effective. Are you familiar with the French study?
If so, then you would know that I argue for caution.
And if a doctor wants to prescribe it to someone infected with the virus?
I also argue for caution in the production of a vaccine.
Are you against the race underway to develop a vaccine?
Were you against the Polio Vaccine?
You would do well, Vic, to argue against what I actually say, and not against views you dishonestly attribute to me.
That's a personal attack. I'm not dishonest and Iv'e been decent to you. Iv'e overestimated you.
Did they survive because of the drug? Or would they have survived, anyway? Or did they survive in spite of the drug? We don't know that.
To me, it seems unwise to just willy-nilly prescribe treatments that may make the patient worse.
They aren't waiting until they're on a ventilator to start treatment, Vic. Ventilation was one of the outcomes that was tracked. Meaning, they didn't start out on a vent.
Why don't you produce any quote from me proving that I was 100% against hydroxychloroquine?
Yes, I was aware of the French study. It was intriguing, but too small to be especially trustworthy.
Here's another one:
You are the one saying President Trump is pushing a drug for financial gain. Any 'Intelligent' person can figure out he must be giving people Lupus and Malaria to...
Just as I haven't accused him of giving anybody Covid-19, I also haven't accused him of giving anybody malaria or lupus.
I can't help it if you choose to debate dishonestly, but I refuse to acquiesce to you telling everyone I've said things I haven't said.
Ciao.
Someone's oatmeal was cold this morning.
[removed]
Remdesivir makes sense to me (I'm not a virologist) only because it's used to treat ebola. Ebola is caused by a virus, but I don't know what kind of virus (I could do research) and since COVID-19 is a virus....I like to play connect the dots.
So, one possible cure tried and rejected.
On to the next one.
And the ones after that, if necessary.
Agreed.
I think that the earlier the malaria drug and anti biotic combo are used on someone the more effective they will be.
Drugs either work or they don't. There is a time frame that they work in and if they don't work within that frame, you have to move on to another treatment plan.
Another report, among many, presenting anecdotal information. Perhaps it would be wise to wait for the clinical trials to be completed.
Trump also mentioned anecdotal information about remdesivir. The press created the hype about hydroxychloroquine by pressing Trump for details while ignoring that Trump said it might not work but should be tried.
You know, Trump has also touted cutting red tape to speed the development of vaccines. Maybe the press should begin downplaying vaccines, too.
You have got to be kidding.
Unlike some, I actually read the news instead of trying to make up the news I want.
"HYDROXYCHLOROQUINE & AZITHROMYCIN, taken together, have a real chance to be one of the biggest game changers in the history of medicine."
Donald Trump
Do you not understand what 'real chance' means? Conflating possibility with probability only displays prejudicial ignorance.
Apparently the press (and ignorant partisans) cannot understand that Trump's Tweet was an attaboy for the FDA. It's another Forrest Gump moment for the press.
We are being overrun with Trump fluffers.
He told everyone this drug was going to help a lot of people.
It was a Hail Mary pass. The president should not be making Hail Mary passes. There were a couple people here who fell for it head over heels.
You just love hyperbole, don't you John?
What do you think 'real chance' means?
Duh--"Orange Man Bad"!!
You're still using words that are too big [removed.]
Bug bad. No like bug. Drug no kill bug. No like drug. No like tan man. Tan man bad bad.
This whole thing is sad. So many people who hang on Trump's every word got their hopes up.
As soon as it is definitive that the drug doesnt help much, Trump will act as if he never heard of it before. He most certainly will never admit he promoted it . Thats what pathological liars do. His followers will absolve him too. Very sad.
Just refuse to accept that Trump never promised it would work. Never mind that he said it showed promise. Isn't that why clinical trials are even started--because a drug shows promise to treat a condition?
it doesn't work for enough people or safely enough.
Move on to the next trial.
I wonder if he will order 28 million doses of the next drug for the national stockpile.
( Please let him like Remdesivir next
)
Oh well if there's outbreaks of malaria, lupus or rheumatology arthritis, the CDC will be very well prepared.
Malaria outbreaks certainly are possible.
While I wouldn't say there are outbreaks of lupus and rheumatoid arthritis, those are both conditions for which hydroxychloroquine has long been used, with success, and patients with those conditions (and malaria) have been having trouble getting their needed medication, because it's been hoarded to treat Covid-19.
Another reason we should have known a little more what we were about before touting hydroxychloroquine for coronavirus patients - we made it difficult for pts with a legitimate need to be treated for conditions that can have serious sequelae, up to and including death.
Anyone being prescribed hydroxychloroquine for those illnesses better keep quiet about it.
Hydroxychloroquine is the devils medication, don't ya know!
Obviously, there is now an all out war against this drug. The reason for it is just as obvious.
Malaria is "remote"?
Well, it's pretty common in some areas. Do those folks not deserve medication to treat their malaria?
Not when used properly.
Yes, Vic. Wanting it to be available for people who legitimately need it is obviously waging war on it. That's not you deliberately misstating anybody's position at all.
Do you only care about people in the US? Before you answer that, consider whether your answer would seem petty.
Do you think that there aren't people in the US who have lupus and rheumatoid arthritis? There need not be an "outbreak" for plenty of those patients to exist, you know.
More rigorous studies that are validated are needed before we know the answer. For now the politics surrounding it rage on.
So, you're for giving folks an unproven drug that may make them more likely to die, because we shouldn't question politicians?
Noted.
I didn't see her say she was for or against. Where did you see it?
SMH. Okay, in order to validate any drug, testing must be done on a fairly large scale. So they develop one, administer it to say 1000 people. 25 of them die. Start over. Modified new drug. Same criteria. 14 people die. Start over again. Modified new drug. Same criteria. 6 people die. Start over. Modified new drug. no one dies.
Released to FDA for approval. Approved. You basically killed 45 people in the development. No biggie right?
IMO that is what happened here. NO DRUG is going to be 100% at the beginning of testing and side effects vary widely (on any drug, watch commercials/ads) and include up to and including death. It's the only way to do it. Someone has to be the first to experience any effects.
Still waiting on that quote that shows me to be 100% against hydroxychloroquine, Vic.
Did I say I had one?
No, Jim, obviously you just give it to everyone whether it helps, hinders, or does nothing, so you never know whether you've killed anyone or not.
That's what's been proposed.
I mean, what do they have to lose?
Then you retract the multiple comments in which you accused me of being against it?
You really should.
Proposed by whom and when? A lot of doctors have administered this with success. Did you notice anything in the article about some possible underlying conditions of any of the deceased? They are veterans and the possibilities are practically endless.
No, you have been against the prescribed use of this drug for Coronavirus patients on every discussion of this topic (which youv'e been involved in).
Just like this one, your own seed.
You really should.
You should think about what you claimed Kathleen said. That's something you still can't answer.
Well, I've seen above, words to the effect of "How much worse can they get, when they're gasping for breath? And you want to wait for a study?" Sorry if that's not an exact quote. Just scroll upward, and something very similar to that will be easy to find.
Yes, I read about the comorbidities. The study's authors addressed this:
The study addresses its own flaws. There has not yet been a study which did not have to contend with these flaws. The best study for this drug would be double-blind randomized clinical trials involving patients with a much wider demographic range, which circumstances do not allow at this time.
But this is not the only study which has shown lack of benefit, and evidence of harm, especially of cardiotoxicity.
I think if Obama was in charge and recommended it then some on the right would have been saying things against it.
There will always be extreme partisans.
Proper testing takes a long time. The detractors know that.
The Polio Vaccine would have been delayed under today's conditions. I can only imagine what would happen if Trump said "I think Dr Salk is on to something here."
You can think that but Obama got his ass kissed & wiped at ever press briefing. He would have been heralded whatever he did!
It's not the president's place to recommend drugs, unless the president is a medical doctor. That, and his financial ties to the drug's manufacturers, are why Trump has received criticism. He said he'd hire the best people. Fauci is one of those, although he's not Trump's hire. He should listen to Fauci and stick to the script.
EVERY drug deserves "criticism" before widespread use. "More deaths with its use" is a pretty important criticism, wouldn't you say? Is that politically-based? If more people actually did die after this drug was used to treat them for Covid-19, in this study and others, are we then required to tiptoe around that data to avoid appearing to criticize Trump?
How do you propose we do that?
I have a proposal - Trump should avoid clinical discussions for which he is unqualified, and then when data comes out that doesn't support his unqualified opinions, he won't have already stuck his foot in his mouth.
Yeah, Fox "News" were big fans, especially.
Antibodies may be all we have until a vaccine is developed. They are racing to develop one, but even going as fast as they can the quickest estimate might be 10 months.
Fox News is one out of how many? 15 - 20 ass-wipes who now try and talk over and debate the President! The same scum that never asked Obama a tough question on anything.
And Obama tried to ban Fox News and spied on one of it's reporters as well as spying on the AP.
I didn't forget, Sandy.
I have a better one - [deleted]
Any objective human being can see that. Look what they put him through.
How much of any other news outlet's criticism of Trump has been just reporting his own words that he's said on camera?
Trump says things that make him look like a moron, criminal, or just plain jerk, and anybody noticing is somehow their fault, not his.
And it's not like Trump hasn't tried to ban reporters he didn't like. Jim Acosta? Threatening multiple times to pull news networks' licenses? You excoriate Obama for offenses far less than Trump's. Blatant partisanship.
Seems like everyone (besides you) are forgetting the blind tests that have to be done before it a drug's efficacy can be determined.
Randomized double-blind studies with controls are the ideal, where possible.
I admit it. I couldn't stand him way before he decided to run. He has always been an ass.
So I guess we will have to agree to disagree.
Obama was hated from day one and in my opinion had unprecedented ire towards him. We even still get the memes of Michelle Obama as a man.
Bush had it bad but no where near as Obama.
With every passing modern president it seems to get worse.
Though Imo most of the ire against trump he brings on himself through his statements and actions.
Threatening to execute people?
I don't know that much about drug trials but I'm pretty sure those have to be done before the FDA issues an approval
When have they ever done that? Remember when they claimed he asked Russia to hack Clinton's e-mails? I'll bet you can't even tell us what he really said. Just Google it, Sandy.
rump says things that make him look like a moron, criminal, or just plain jerk, and anybody noticing is somehow their fault, not his.
Sandy, the left tried everything to remove him from office. Look at what your side of the political spectrum has done. Hang your head in shame, Sandy.
And it's not like Trump hasn't tried to ban reporters he didn't like.
Sandy, he didn't. Fucking Obama did and he spied on them too and don't think he didn't sick Comey and Brennan on the Trump Campaign. Obama got away with it, along with a lot of other shit.
Jim Acosta?
Now there's somebody who should be barred from any gathering of civilized human beings.
Threatening multiple times to pull news networks' licenses?
But he hasn't Sandy, even though they do lie. THREE YEARS THEY LIED ABOUT RUSSIA AND TRUMP! THREE YEARS, Sandy!
You excoriate Obama for offenses far less than Trump's.
Yup, Obama whom you loved. The radical divider. Thank God his legacy has been demolished!
Blatant partisanship.
Yes, it fits you well
Who was your favorite?
Try again.
Anyone else?
This drug has FDA approval for use against malaria and some autoimmune disorders, so that hurdle has been cleared.
Using it against coronavirus would be an off-label use. There's nothing really wrong with that, so long as it's supported by evidence. It's the evidence that's lacking. Evidence that it's effective against coronavirus is iffy, and evidence that it can cause harm is mounting.
We already knew that it was toxic to the heart and retinas. We are finding that coronavirus causes heart damage. It is not inconceivable that the damage caused by the virus is made worse by the cardiotoxic effects of the drug.
Hydroxychloroquine was found to have some antiviral effects in petri dishes, which is why it was investigated in the first place. But in vitro (lab) results don't always equate to in vivo (clinical) results. Petri dishes don't have organ systems which may already be damaged to worry about damaging further.
Oh, In the GOP Primary. That was when we had a lot of candidates.
"I just start kissing. You can do that. When you're a star, you can do anything. You can grab them by the pussy." All on tape, and some folks defended him saying it, and criticized news outlets for airing it.
Promoted rule of law? That's nothing to be ashamed of. NOT holding your own leaders to the same standards as everyone else is something to be ashamed of.
Jim Acosta, Vic. Just because you agreed with it doesn't mean he didn't do it.
Here's a list of links for you to ignore:
You have to be willfully blind not to have known about this Vic.
Nope, I didn't love Obama. I opposed the ACA. But he was infinitely the better man compared to Trump.
Risk vs. benefits. It benefits malaria and autoimmune patients, and causes less harm than those conditions do. In the case of Covid-19, it doesn't appear to benefit patients more than it risks harming them.
The most likely scenario is that if "we" agree with the criticism, we do not see it as hatred.
Half of the Northeast and New England had a negative opinion of Trump for decades before this new career.
He routinely used the legal system to his advantage and eminent domain to try to evict our fellow citizens from their homes, famously one 90 year old grandmother from her home adjacent to one of his many failed casinos.
And released just before the election. He won anyway. Then what Biden is being accused of must be important! So where is that story? Not on CNN, Not on MSNBC, not on NBC, not on ABC, not on CBS, not in the Washington Post and not in The New York Times. Oh, that's right there is only one NEWS network reporting on the Biden accusations!
Promoted rule of law?
No, they broke the law - leaking, lying, and spying on American citizens. Staging a fraudulent investigation based upon the Clinton campaign's big lie, staged a fraudulent impeachment based upon absolutely nothing and exonerating Hillary Clinton without every really investigating her. Then twisting every statement the President made and changing headlines when angry lefties complained. What an outrage!
Jim Acosta, Vic.
Yes Sandy, your precious Jim, that hateful, lying sack of shit!
Here's a list of links for you to ignore:
Your right Sandy, I don't have time to look at links of what Trump said or thought or felt or what the haters thought he said or wanted.
You have to be willfully blind not to have known about this Vic.
You are the willfully blind one who compares what Obama did vs what Trump said
Nope, I didn't love Obama.
Oh, fess up!
I opposed the ACA.
That's Ok, he had no choice, he had a majority in the House and a super majority in the Senate. If it was ever going to happen it was then at that moment and a radical like Obama wasn't going to pass it up.
But he was infinitely the better man compared to Trump.
Not on his best day. He never would have survived what Trump has. He would have crawled under the bed!
Oh but when it suits you you roll out all of the statistics that Fox is number one in cable news,
( because it comes packaged with almost every cable network package )
and brag mightily about the rating of the free Fox talking heads versus the competition that only comes with higher paid tier packaging.
When it suits me, I'll always have those ratings.
BTW, Sandy doesn't really need all this help. It's ok, I take on all opponents. Just remember the Challenger has to bring it to the Champion!
And? Did he say it, or not, Vic? Do you find his words defensible?
As far as the accusations against Biden, I have a problem with his accuser's credibility. ONE woman over the years accusing him of sexual assault, and her story keeps changing. I'm sure you'd question the credibility of an accuser of a conservative for much less.
A very partisan interpretation. Wanna know who wasn't exonerated? Trump, by Mueller.
Nope. I don't watch CNN, or TV news at all really. Cancelled my satellite TV service. But you said Trump didn't ban Acosta, and he did ban him from White House press briefings. Acosta's credentials were reinstated by the courts. The fact that you don't like Acosta doesn't justify it, nor does it negate it having happened.
Now that is just sad. You say Trump didn't say or do something, and when presented with multiple links quoting him as having said what you say he didn't say, you just ignore them, and even admit to it. And then you call others partisan.
Please. When criticized, Trump lashes out like a toddler. When did Obama ever do the same? I mean, people have attacked Obama for something so stupid as wearing a tan suit. They questioned his citizenship for years (another Trump lie, BTW), called his wife a "gorilla in heels", attacked her for wearing a sleeveless dress, criticized him over every hole of golf he played (oops, there's Trump being a bully again. What a guy!). Obama never crawled under the bed. He focused on his job.
No, he's smart enough to recognize that he should distance himself from it now. Something some of his supporters should probably take note of.
Earlier, he was claiming credit for saving a life with it.
well, what are you waiting for...?
Now that coroners are getting back their bodily fluid results from February
San Diego is the first to admit that they had COVID "at home" deaths as early as February 6th.
We have much catching up to do, and Quest and others like them are failing us.
I wonder how much virus has been spread by coroners and laboratories?
I saw that about the earlier fatalities.
We are not opponents, and you aren't the declared Champion of anything,
that is your personal issue, at least one of them...
Your daily expressions of hatred for and towards your fellow citizens over partisan nonsense
is nothing to congratulate yourself over.
Just my honest opinion.
But he never did it - OBAMA DID IT!
As far as the accusations against Biden, I have a problem with his accuser's credibility. ONE woman over the years accusing him of sexual assault, and her story keeps changing. I'm sure you'd question the credibility of an accuser of a conservative for much less.
That's a very good question. Let's compare her to Christine Blasey Ford. According to Tara Reade, while she worked as a staff assistant for Biden in 1993, the senator “began kissing her without her permission, pushed her against a wall, reached under her skirt, and penetrated her with his fingers.” What did she do? She told her brother & close friend about it at the time. Both recall it. Ford alleged she was held down by Kavanaugh at some party she knew not when, how she got there or how she got home. She told nobody. Any and all alleged witnesses deny it ever happened. Ford had high priced lawyers provided to her by Sen Feinstein. Reade can barely find one. The left wing media drove the Ford story for weeks. They are notably absent here.
This is probably the end of the "me too" movement. It was very predictable!
Wanna know who wasn't exonerated? Trump, by Mueller.
Then you don't know the law. Prosecutors do not exonerate, despite what Weissmann stuck into that fraudulent "report."
The fact that you don't like Acosta doesn't justify it, nor does it negate it having happened.
There has to be a code of conduct for people who are supposed to be reporters. Any fair minded person would know that Acosta doesn't belong in a Presidential press briefing.
and even admit to it
Yup, action is more important than words. And don't think we don't know - it's his policies you hate!
When did Obama ever do the same?
He never faced criticism!!!
Don't bother with the little incidents. Obama was loved by the left, the democrats and the media. He was even treated with respect by Republicans.
As do a small hard core bases of sycophants who think he actually cares about them...
That was certainly true about Chris Matthews, we could not watch him for that very reason.
Exactly. The same Ford whose latest version of her story was immediately accepted by the Washington Post.
"The several-thousand-word story could not have been more sympathetic to Blasey Ford. It accepted Blasey Ford’s claims at face value, allowing the story to be spun as if it were true even though Blasey Ford had no evidence in support of it. All of the many problems with the story, such as that it kept changing and lacked evidence, were papered over by Brown and her editors."
This article is what actual journalism looks like:
FYI, I Know I'm the dreaded "right winger" for some - and some deserve it, but I have been fair. I bet you don't know I banned cartoons and posters from group articles. Do you know why I did it? It was because of an offensive demeaning image of Michelle Obama.
The next time you get ready to say I have personal issues, think about that.
I'm sure you do.
I couldn't watch him either. He would get worked up and have spittle flying out of his mouth.
The closest we ever had to a Royal Family was when Obama was in the WH.
Think they'll read that?
I don't think so Vic. No one will ever come close to the Kennedys.
And I truly appreciate that. I am considering resurrecting an old rule we had for specific terms meant to annoy. I don't see how they help.
They were admired, much more so after the assassination. Just out of curiosity, how old were you then?
Obama grabbed a woman he'd just met by the pussy?
Do tell.
Reade and Blasey Ford both have credibility issues. You believe one. Just so happens she has accused the Presidential candidate you don't like - I'm sure that's a coincidence, yes?
And obviously, you hate for women to be mistreated, right? That's why you're vocally denouncing Trump's disgusting words about women.
Oh, wait...
Then who are you claiming exonerated Clinton?
So now that you can no longer deny that Trump threatened network news licenses, your defense is that it wasn't important? Keep moving those goalposts, Vic. This is pretty amusing.
I honestly don't know how you can bring yourself to type those words.
I'm all for that!
I honestly have a hard time with the Anita Hill style of finding women with sexual misconduct stories suddenly appearing when someone is running for office or position. It is usually politically motivated.
A rather incredible admission by Vic. Apparently he defends Trump completely concerning things Trump has said without knowing whether or not Trump said them !
That is devotion!
Anita Hill tells the same story 30 years later, with no personal gain in it for her. I think she was almost certainly telling the truth about Clarence Thomas. It was such a strange story that I think it gave people some doubt.
Slight correction - he defends Trump completely concerning things Trump has said by refusing to acknowledge them.
She has to John, otherwise she'd be called a liar. So maybe no gain, but def a downfall. Anyone who waits till there is a confirmation of election of some sort is questionable at best.
Whom did I say I believed?
Just so happens she has accused the Presidential candidate you don't like - I'm sure that's a coincidence, yes?
It dosen't matter - the same rules should apply for every accuser, shouldn't they? Or don't you have an answer to what I laid out for you?
And obviously, you hate for women to be mistreated, right?
Absolutely!
That's why you're vocally denouncing Trump's disgusting words about women.
Were you at Newsvine when I said that his comments on Carly Fiorina were the worst thing he ever said?
Oh, wait...
No, you wait, you haven't addressed my comparison of the two allegations! Cat got your tongue?
Obama grabbed a woman he'd just met by the pussy?
You lost me.
Then who are you claiming exonerated Clinton?
But that is what Comey did and it wasn't even his place to do it! How easy that was!
So now that you can no longer deny that Trump threatened network news licenses, your defense is that it wasn't important?
I merely said that he didn't do it. It does bring up another question.
Keep moving those goalposts,
Your'e doing a good job of it. You still equate Obama doing this shit with what Trump say. I think that is outrageous. Shame!
I honestly don't know how you can bring yourself to type those words.
It's rather easy. I lived through those 8 years.
Really? I bet the term she is referring to is TDS. But you can bet your bottom dollar that terms used by the left will stand. There will be nothing wrong with bible thumper or Trumper or any other names used to describe a supporter of Trump. [deleted]
So why are you deflecting away from what Trump said about women with the accusation
Something you've said, I questioned, and you never addressed. Cat got your tongue, Vic? Or did you get lost in the thread? That was your response to me asking you if Trump talked about grabbing women by the pussy.
Mmmhmmm. You were angry that Trump's disgusting words about women were aired just before the election. I'm sure you're equally angry about Comey reintroducing Hillary's emails just before an election, yes?
But he did threaten them. He didn't pull their licenses, because, despite believing he has "total authority", he doesn't, and can't. Him not committing a wrong action because he can't (even though he's threatened to), is hardly a merit on his part. The fact that he thinks he can is worrisome, at best.
Doing what shit? Grabbing women he's just met by the pussy? Banning reporters from White House (shit Trump did)? Pulling news network licenses? What shit are you accusing Obama of doing, Vic?
So did I. Apparently, I remember them more accurately than you do.
Good to know you think you have a personal code of honor,
but "fairness" is not calling fellow Americans, leftist scum day in and day out based on that same code of honor.
Please tell me why there should be an acknowledged existence of a Trump Derangement Syndrome?
Is there a Bernie Madoff Derangement Syndrome? Is there a Harvey Weinstein Derangement Syndrome? Of course not. Assholes and crooks cannot be the victims of unfair attention , aka "derangement syndromes". Same with Trump.
I use the word Trumpster because it is a way to identify a point of view, but if it is disallowed here I will use the more bland "Trump supporter", no problem.
Unproven "success", meaning it did not kill the patient.
There is absolutely no proof that the mere hype around this wasn't just a placebo effect for those COVID19
patients who recovered. Since the virus affects everyone differently, severity, duration, recovery, no one can prove that HCQ helped anyone but there is plenty of proof that it harmed many.
It is not and should not in any way be a political football.
These are American lives, not party members.
It is entirely possible those patients may have recovered more quickly and with fewer complications without hydroxychloroquine. Or it may have helped some of them, or had no effect at all.
That would tend to seriously offend at least one Member here who loves to post those type of memes.
However, they only post them to insult the site, you and most of the NT Members, and certainly add nothing positive to the site of discussions.
So I wold certainly appreciate the renewal of that old rule to being some decency and less slap in the face to the majority of Members here.
It is not needed, and certainly not wanted. But, should not only include Mrs Obama, but, any and all other similar types of insulting memes. We need to do a clean up of NT's image, and that would be a good place to start.
Big shock, prelim studies show Trump is full of shit, what a shock.
The formal rebuke of the flimsy VA study by Doctor Didier Raoult:
In the current period, it seems that passion dominates rigorous and balanced scientific analysis and
may lead to scientific misconduct. The article by Magagnoli et al. (Magagnoli, 2020) is an absolutely
spectacular example of this. Indeed, in this work, it is concluded, in the end, that hydroxychloroquine
(HCQ) would double the mortality in patients with COVID with a fatality rate of 28% (versus 11% in
the NoHCQ group), which is extraordinarily hard to believe.
The analysis of the data shows two major
biases, which show a welling to be convinced before starting the work :
The first is that lymphopenia is twice as common in the HCQ groups (25% in the HCQ, 31% in the
HCQ+AZ group versus 14% in the no HCQ group, p =.02) and there is an absolute correlation between
lymphopenia (<0.5G/L) and fatality rate, which is well known (Tan, 2020) and confirmed here : 28%
deaths, 22% and 11% in the HCQ, HCQ+AZ and No HCQ group, respectively. Lymphopenia is the most
obvious criterion of patient severity (in our cohort, lymphocytes in dead individuals (n=22, mean ±
standard deviation, 0.94 ± 0.45), versus in the living (n=2405, 1.79 ± 0.84, p < .0001)).
As the authors acknowledge, the severity of the patients in the different groups was very different, and their
analysis can only make sense if there is a selection of patients with the same degree of severity, i.e.
the same percentage of lymphopenia.
The second major bias is that in an attempt to provide meaningful data, by eliminating the initial
severity at the time of treatment, two tables are shown:
one table where drugs are prescribed before intubation, and which shows no significant difference in the 3 different groups (9/90 (10%) in the
HCQ group, 11/101 (10. 9%) HCQ+AZ, and 15/177 (8.5%) in the group without HCQ, chi-square =
0.47, ddl = 2, p = 0.79), and one table, where it is not clear when the drugs were prescribed, where
there are significant differences. These differences are most likely related to the fact that the
patients had been intubated for some before receiving hydroxychloroquine in desperation. It is
notable that this is unreasonable at the time of the cytokine storm, as it is unlikely that
hydrochloroquine alone would be able to control patients at this stage of the disease.
Moreover, incomprehensibly, the “untreated” group actually received azithromycin in 30% of cases,
without this group being analyzed in any distinct way. Azithromycin is also a proposed treatment for
COVID (Gautret, 2020) with in vitro efficacy (Andreani, 2020), and to mix it with patients who are
supposedly untreated is something that is closer to scientific fraud than reasonable analysis.
Altogether these 3 voluntary biases are all pushing to the idea of dangerosity of hydroxychloroquine
safest drug as reported on nearly 1 million people (Lane, 2020).
All in all, this is a work that shows that, in this period, it is possible to propose things that do not
stand up to any methodological analysis to try to demonstrate that one is right.
Yeah, NO randomized clinical trials have been done. There hasn't been time. There have been methodological problems with ALL trials to this point. Some like to disregard the methodological problems in trials with which they agree, though.
From the French study I linked above:
So, the group that received HCQ had fewer comorbidities, and their disease was equally severe at admission, but their results were not better.
HCQ showed significant cardiotoxicity, though. Out of 84 patients receiving it, 8 had to discontinue the treatment due to EKG changes.