Don’t have to. It’s marketing BS. Don’t tell me that you read every bit of marketing BS that crosses your path. And of course, the reputation of the source counts. This source doesn’t have a good reputation, and can be safely discounted.
You take a valid issue and attempt to completely derail this thread because you don’t like the source.
There is anecdotal evidence of the efficacy of Chloroquine & Hydroxychloroquine. Of course there hasn’t been sufficient time to do comprehensive trials.
This is a huge problem. I have been taking HC for the last 5 years and it has been successful in treating some of the symptoms of my illness. There are very few side effects of the drug. Given that for many of us it is used as a long term treatment, we have to be watchful of a couple of things. When you start HC you tend to get a bit nauseous, slight headache, which goes away after a few days.
Here we go again with the “better let them die than to try something at all” theory. Hydroxychloroquine has been around for nearly 70 years. Read the information about its safety and efficacy. It’s extremely well-tolerated in most people and side effects are generally minimal, except in a few rare instances. In those types of rare instances, I would expect the doctor to ask the right question to ensure that doesn’t happen. But to continue to argue that we should ask doctors to withhold it because we haven’t fully tested it even though there is mounting evidence every day that people with COVID who take it recover fully the next day, simply because there MIGHT be side effects is completely silly.
My wife takes it for R/A and she too has to get retina checks, but she has had no side effects whatsoever, and as you state, it has minimal side effects.
My position is not that theory. Intelligent guidelines for the use of this drug say that under certain very dire conditions, when someone is almost certain to die without some sort of treatment, this drug can be given in a controlled setting. That is a far cry from recommending this drug for general prevention, or even for people with mild symptoms.LeafByNiggle:
Here we go again with the “better let them die than to try something at all” theory.
When that “mounting evidence” actually is documented, then a change in policy will be in order. I hope it happens.
My cynical self says if Obama was still president and touting HC as the solution more people would champion it. And I’m not a Trump fan for the record.
Got some tough news for you.
Gallup is a worthless source for medical research, too. As is every other marketing company.
Yes a friend of mine from Mexico City who hates Trump was actually defending him on the phone yesterday with me. “Trump mentions this drug which might help people and then I see it saving people and then I turn on CNN and they’re all like ‘Doctor Trump is an idiot!’ Seriously? Made me sick and I don’t even like Trump”
If it’s true that the source is a publication by the Moonies, then put me on the list as not trusting the source.
My issue isn’t with the reliability of the source, I have no opinion on that. My issue was with the attempt to derail the thread with complaints that had no bearing on the topic itself.
If the source of a report is unreliable that does have a bearing on discussion of the report.Zaccheus:
My issue isn’t with the reliability of the source, I have no opinion on that. My issue was with the attempt to derail the thread with complaints that had no bearing on the topic itself.