Hydroxychloroquine rated ‘most effective therapy’ by doctors for coronavirus:

[HarryStotle]

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.

The problem is that even (perhaps especially) the supposedly “reliable” sources are prone to be ridiculously unreliable these days.

Take this article from Time…

https://time.com/5808688/chloroquine-phosphate-coronavirus-death/

The tacit claim is that the drug the man took is the same as the one President Trump suggested could be effective for COVID-19. The article goes out of its way to connect the two as having the same ingredients — “also found in.” The writer never comes out and identifies the drug name suggested by President Trump, but does provide the chemical (a fish tank cleaning chemical called chloroquine phosphate).

This article was written March 23.

If you do a search on Google for Phoenix Man Dies from Chloroquine you will get a myriad of articles with a headline similar to…

From CBS…

Arizona man dies, wife ill after taking drug touted as virus treatment: "Trump kept saying it was basically pretty much a cure"​

---

From Phoenix New Times…

Arizona Man Dies After Trying COVID-19 Remedy Touted by Trump to Cure COVID-19 …​

---

From CBC…

Arizona man dead, wife in hospital after ingesting chloroquine over coronavirus fears​

---

From BuzzFeed…

A Man Died After Self-Medicating With A Form Of A Drug That Trump Promoted As A Potential Treatment For The Coronavirus​

---

The facts about the incident are that the surviving wife of the man who died had “accidentally poisoned” him by preparing the drink of a fish tank cleaner she wrongly thought would stave off a possible COVID-19 infection. Turns out the woman has contributed some $6000 to various Democrat election committees since 2018.

What actual connection is there between Trump and a poisoning in Arizona? Yet the press ran with it and many articles haven’t been retracted nor have the headlines been changed.

Yet, it is the infamously “unreliable” RT that actually gets the proper read on the story…

Devil in the details: Media jumps to blame Trump for death of man who self-medicated with FISH TANK CLEANER containing chloroquine​

So who are you going to trust to NOT spin stories these days?

 

[Kobayashi-Maru]

From the article

"The survey conducted by Sermo, a global health care polling company, of 6,227 physicians in 30 countries found that 37% of those treating COVID-19 patients rated hydroxychloroquine as the “most effective therapy” from a list of 15 options."
In other words, 63% of those treating COVID-19 patients did not rate hydroxychloroquine as the “most effective therapy” from a list of 15 options.

From the survey, those countries with the most highest percentage of use:
75% in Spain, 53% Italy, 44% in China, 43% in Brazil, 29% in France, 23% in US and 13% in UK.
It is not exactly a confidence filling statistic that the two countries with the most prolific use of hydroxychloroquine have by far the highest per capita death rate. If this was a highly effective treatment, you would expect the death rate would not be the two highest in the world.

It is just extremely bizarre that Trump becomes a salesman for this drug at every news briefing without any conclusive evidence of effectiveness. . . .

 

[Jeanne_S]

The dishonest reporting of this incident is reflective of the media’s attitude the past four years. It’s vile not to mention unprofessional.But,hey anything to make Trump look bad.Its a mental illness.
The pen is mightier than the sword…

 

[Horton]

If the source of a report is unreliable that does have a bearing on discussion of the report.
Now if a reliable medical authority tells us this drug is useful for combating Covid-19 that would be good news and I’d gladly accept it.

The problem is that even (perhaps especially) the supposedly “reliable” sources are prone to be ridiculously unreliable these days.

The topic of this thread is if Chloroquine and Hydroxychloroquine is an effective treatment for Covid 19. When I am ill and in need of medication I generally go to my doctor, not the news media.

I feel bad for the family of the guy who drank fish tank cleaner but the fault lays with him.

 

[HarryStotle]

Zaccheus:

If the source of a report is unreliable that does have a bearing on discussion of the report.
Now if a reliable medical authority tells us this drug is useful for combating Covid-19 that would be good news and I’d gladly accept it.

The problem is that even (perhaps especially) the supposedly “reliable” sources are prone to be ridiculously unreliable these days.

The topic of this thread is if Chloroquine and Hydroxychloroquine is an effective treatment for Covid 19. When I am ill and in need of medication I generally go to my doctor, not the news media.

I feel bad for the family of the guy who drank fish tank cleaner but the fault lays with him.

I think you are missing the point. Millions of people rely on the media to provide impartial information on serious issues and events in the world. This isn’t about whether some person took fish tank cleaner because they acted without discretion, the point is that the media took the incident and tried to saddle the president with the blame.

The irresponsible reporting wasn’t isolated, it was (and still is) widely circulated.

If the media attempted to make such a foolish connection believing they would be taken seriously, what other “connections” are being made and for what purpose? Can the media even be believed where more serious and critical information is required?

Furthermore, it was addressing the point that “fake news” comes only from sources that are biased — the Moonies for example. My point is that all sources — even those touted as “reliable” are engaged in undermining the truth for their own political ends.

That is why the information itself (no matter what source) ought to be placed under strict and rigorous scrutiny — by each of us — until a clearer picture of the truth comes out. Very little of the media is much interested in the truth, so “reliable” sources ought to be as subject to that scrutiny as any other.

 

[HarryStotle]

From the article

"The survey conducted by Sermo, a global health care polling company, of 6,227 physicians in 30 countries found that 37% of those treating COVID-19 patients rated hydroxychloroquine as the “most effective therapy” from a list of 15 options."
In other words, 63% of those treating COVID-19 patients did not rate hydroxychloroquine as the “most effective therapy” from a list of 15 options.

From the survey, those countries with the most highest percentage of use:
75% in Spain, 53% Italy, 44% in China, 43% in Brazil, 29% in France, 23% in US and 13% in UK.
It is not exactly a confidence filling statistic that the two countries with the most prolific use of hydroxychloroquine have by far the highest per capita death rate. If this was a highly effective treatment, you would expect the death rate would not be the two highest in the world.

There are two problems with your analysis.

1. The 63% of those treating COVID patients may not be familiar with nor actually have tried using chloroquine to treat patients. Effectively, the statistic is moot unless you can provide data to show they have tried it and found it ineffective. The survey actually said only 33% of the treatments surveyed used Hydroxychloroquine — which coincides very well with the 63% of the physicians who did not rate it as effective — likely because they are in the 67% of doctors who haven’t used it. In fact, only 19% of doctors have prescribed it, yet 37% believe it is the most effective treatment.
2. The correlation between highest percentage of use and highest per capita death rate proves nothing. Correlation doesn’t mean causation.

In fact, the survey states that "globally, 19% of physicians prescribed or have seen Hydroxychloroquine prophylactically used for high risk patients, and 8% for low risk patients"

That implies that a relatively small number of doctors even in those countries with high death rates have tried Hydroxychloroquine. Those who need to be surveyed are the doctors that have tried it, not those unfamiliar with it.

You also left out reporting that the survey itself claimed…

Hydroxychloroquine was overall chosen as the most effective therapy from a list of 15 options (37% of COVID-19 treaters).
• 75% in Spain, 53% Italy, 44% in China, 43% in Brazil, 29% in France, 23% in US and 13% in UK

Given that there are numerous strains (as many as 18) of the virus and those doctors in countries hit most — i.e., have seen the most severe cases and most deaths — are the ones who select it as the “most effective,” implies that it is the most effective. Your conclusion that “prolific use” implies high death rate is backwards, actually, especially if countries like Spain are dealing with a particularly virulent form of it.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

The problem is that even (perhaps especially) the supposedly “reliable” sources are prone to be ridiculously unreliable these days.

Take this article from Time…

https://time.com/5808688/chloroquine-phosphate-coronavirus-death/

The tacit claim is that the drug the man took is the same as the one President Trump suggested could be effective for COVID-19.

“Tacit” means understood or implied without being stated. But you are wrong. The headline does not imply it is exactly the same drug. It correctly states that it is a chemical that is in the drug - not the exact same drug. This is no smoking gun for a “ridiculously unreliable” report. The essence of the story is true. The man who died thought he was taking something close enough to what the President touted. The article could have been better written, but it not “ridiculously unreliable”.

 

[HarryStotle]

HarryStotle:

The problem is that even (perhaps especially) the supposedly “reliable” sources are prone to be ridiculously unreliable these days.

Take this article from Time…

https://time.com/5808688/chloroquine-phosphate-coronavirus-death/

The tacit claim is that the drug the man took is the same as the one President Trump suggested could be effective for COVID-19.

“Tacit” means understood or implied without being stated. But you are wrong. The headline does not imply it is exactly the same drug. It correctly states that it is a chemical that is in the drug - not the exact same drug. This is no smoking gun for a “ridiculously unreliable” report. The essence of the story is true. The man who died thought he was taking something close enough to what the President touted. The article could have been better written, but it not “ridiculously unreliable”.

Okay, so assess the remaining headlines and get back to me. How about this one…

Arizona man dies, wife ill after taking drug touted as virus treatment: "Trump kept saying it was basically pretty much a cure"​

 

[LeafByNiggle]

Those who need to be surveyed are the doctors that have tried it, not those unfamiliar with it.

That is statistically unsound. The doctors that have tried it are likely to be doctors that already had a pre-existing preference for and bias for Hydroxycholorquine. It is not surprising that the doctors who thought enough of it to try it would also say it was the most effective treatment, or else they would have to admit to themselves that they subjected their patients to a sub-optimal treatment.

Also there is this: Doctors in the midst of this crisis are way to stressed by the demands put on them to sit back and evaluate the true effectiveness of this treatment. Someone else who is not so put upon would be better suited to collect true statistics and evaluate the effectiveness. So I don’t trust the survey under these conditions. That said, it is certainly appropriate to try Hydroxycholoroqine before those trials are done for those who have little hope for anything else.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

LeafByNiggle:

HarryStotle:

The problem is that even (perhaps especially) the supposedly “reliable” sources are prone to be ridiculously unreliable these days.

Take this article from Time…

https://time.com/5808688/chloroquine-phosphate-coronavirus-death/

The tacit claim is that the drug the man took is the same as the one President Trump suggested could be effective for COVID-19.

“Tacit” means understood or implied without being stated. But you are wrong. The headline does not imply it is exactly the same drug. It correctly states that it is a chemical that is in the drug - not the exact same drug. This is no smoking gun for a “ridiculously unreliable” report. The essence of the story is true. The man who died thought he was taking something close enough to what the President touted. The article could have been better written, but it not “ridiculously unreliable”.

Okay, so assess the remaining headlines and get back to me. How about this one…

Arizona man dies, wife ill after taking drug touted as virus treatment: "Trump kept saying it was basically pretty much a cure"​

The headline is erroneous, but that is common for headlines. The content of the article is correct.

 

[HarryStotle]

HarryStotle:

Those who need to be surveyed are the doctors that have tried it, not those unfamiliar with it.

That is statistically unsound. The doctors that have tried it are likely to be doctors that already had a pre-existing preference for and bias for Hydroxycholorquine.

Interesting. So doctors, and presumably scientists, who research or show some interest in some issue in science have a “pre-existing preference” or “bias.”

So how does that sentiment impact the claims of climate scientists? Perhaps their findings are all “unsound,” as well?

So we “trust” the experts until we can’t trust them?

Funny how you seem to line up on the same side of the political spectrum every time — touting the experts one moment then decrying them as having “pre-existing preferences” the next moment — all depending upon where their views align politically.

Hmmm. Make me wonder whether you have a “pre-existing preference.”

 

[HarryStotle]

HarryStotle:

LeafByNiggle:

HarryStotle:

The problem is that even (perhaps especially) the supposedly “reliable” sources are prone to be ridiculously unreliable these days.

Take this article from Time…

https://time.com/5808688/chloroquine-phosphate-coronavirus-death/

The tacit claim is that the drug the man took is the same as the one President Trump suggested could be effective for COVID-19.

“Tacit” means understood or implied without being stated. But you are wrong. The headline does not imply it is exactly the same drug. It correctly states that it is a chemical that is in the drug - not the exact same drug. This is no smoking gun for a “ridiculously unreliable” report. The essence of the story is true. The man who died thought he was taking something close enough to what the President touted. The article could have been better written, but it not “ridiculously unreliable”.

Okay, so assess the remaining headlines and get back to me. How about this one…

Arizona man dies, wife ill after taking drug touted as virus treatment: "Trump kept saying it was basically pretty much a cure"​

The headline is erroneous, but that is common for headlines. The content of the article is correct.

Most people don’t bother reading the “content of the article” as assiduously as you do, they tend to get the gist of the article from the headline. So why would the media continually print “erroneous headlines” in an era of compromised attention spans?

Seems like they aren’t very concerned about the truth if they get so sloppy. And it wasn’t just one headline — it was large numbers of publications following the same storyline in their headlines — I could provide dozens and dozens more — although some retracted.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

Most people don’t bother reading the “content of the article” as assiduously as you do…

That is their fault. Not the fault of the media.

So why would the media continually print “erroneous headlines”

They don’t. You had to go cherry-picking to find what you found.

Seems like they aren’t very concerned about the truth if they get so sloppy.

Your speculation. Seems to me they are trying as hard as they can to uphold journalistic standards.

LeafByNiggle:

HarryStotle:

Those who need to be surveyed are the doctors that have tried it, not those unfamiliar with it.

That is statistically unsound. The doctors that have tried it are likely to be doctors that already had a pre-existing preference for and bias for Hydroxycholorquine.

Interesting. So doctors, and presumably scientists, who research or show some interest in some issue in science have a “pre-existing preference” or “bias.”

So how does that sentiment impact the claims of climate scientists?

There is a difference between polling doctors in the midst of a crisis (which gives only a milk-toast weak endorsement of HydChlor…) and climate scientists coming to a nearly unanimous and vigorous support of climate change.

 

[HarryStotle]

HarryStotle:

So why would the media continually print “erroneous headlines”

They don’t. You had to go cherry-picking to find what you found.

Actually, I did a search and all those were on the first page and a half of results.

Five in the first seventeen results — but I could have picked more from the first ten, its just that they were so similar and that BuzzFeed one from the second page was particularly egregious.

No need to “cherry pick” when they fall like a plague of locusts at your feet.

 

[HarryStotle]

HarryStotle:

Most people don’t bother reading the “content of the article” as assiduously as you do…

That is their fault. Not the fault of the media.

Right. It’s the people’s fault for trusting erroneous headlines from the press. Not the press for printing them.

Odd claim that.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

LeafByNiggle:

HarryStotle:

So why would the media continually print “erroneous headlines”

They don’t. You had to go cherry-picking to find what you found.

Actually, I did a search and all those were on the first page and a half of results.

Five in the first seventeen results — but I could have picked more from the first ten, its just that they were so similar and that BuzzFeed one from the second page was particularly egregious.

No need to “cherry pick” when they fall like a plague of locusts at your feet.

You were only searching one story, and the headline that you despise is not that far from the truth. Yes, a lot of news services copy other news services.

 

[Horton]

I think you are missing the point…

I really don’t think I am. Perhaps this is a good time for real news to come back and get rid of the agenda driven news sources such as…well almost every news source out there. I can’t remember the last time a read an article or saw a news story that didn’t have some bias.

The problem is so many people seem to believe the news is telling them the truth, and in my opinion, it seems more often it appears to be the on the left. It really comes down to the inability to think for ones self, that lost art of looking at information, weighing pros & cons, and making an informed decision. We have a couple of generations who have no concept of how to do this. This is why we have people drinking fish tank cleaner to cure covid-19. All news media should be taken with a grain of salt and we should go to experts for real information.

 

[Freddy]

You know, Science is based on trial and error, if it doesn’t work it doesn’t work, but it’s better than nothing.

I’ve heard that bleeding with leeches will help. Likewise trepanning. And a guy I know said that bright orange face cream helped someone they knew. And eye of newt and toe of frog could work (but my local supermarket was out of both yesterday so I haven’t tried that one yet). I mean (sotto voce), whaddyagotalose?

 

[Jbrady]

Interesting. So doctors, and presumably scientists, who research or show some interest in some issue in science have a “pre-existing preference” or “bias.”

So how does that sentiment impact the claims of climate scientists? Perhaps their findings are all “unsound,” as well?

So we “trust” the experts until we can’t trust them?

That’s why we have peer review. And then corroboration, replication and confirmation. It doesn’t mean much if it hasn’t jumped through all these hoops, as climate research has.

 

[debgab]

If anyone is interested. I’ve been hoping the anti-malarial drug might prove to be a solution too. But after listening to a podcast on a talk show, in which the host featured a Dr. Remington Nevin, https://remingtonnevin.com/. it changed my mind about it’s effectiveness. The doc really doesn’t recommend it maybe only in the most extreme cases.

The Quinism Foundation Warns of Dangers from Use of Antimalarial Quinolines Against COVID-19