Most of us don’t need any pundits or influencers. We heard it live with our own ears. He didn’t call the virus a hoax. But he did call the Democrat’s concern over the virus a hoax, as you have just admitted. That is what we mean. It was not a hoax.
There are currently no effective treatments. That’s what the experts are saying. HCQ might be somewhat effective, but that is still unknown at this time.
He said the danger from it was a hoax. That is not fake news. That is my own memory, having heard what he said, when he said. The current administration is known for Orwellian twists of facts, that is, lying. What amazes me is that how effective it is, truly Orwellian, from his followers who believe him when one day he says war is never peace, and the next day convinces a lot of people that war is peace and he never said otherwise. Again, this is not based on news, fake or otherwise, but my own witness of this in real time.
If the replies gathered in this “poll” aren’t based upon empirical data, the poll has absolutely zero scientific value. What physicians think about a drug is not relevant. Which is exactly the reason double blind studies were developed.Michaelangelo:
True.
Though a poll taken of doctors, may shed light on what the doctors think. Which is not nothing when the topic is what drug works on Disease X.
OK, here’s the one that is seriously being tested and with some very encouraging results:
The President is, by temperament, someone who has gotten through a lot of tight situations by whistling past the graveyard. He is best-acquainted with business, in which perception is reality. The thing with infectious diseases, on the other hand, is that they are not beaten by courageously wading into the danger they pose. They are not deterred in the way that human adversaries are. To be brave in the face of an epidemic, we have to be brave as we are with flood waters. We have to respect the power of nature. We cannot afford to be cavalier about the threat posed by 6 inches of flood water.
Oh, Leaf, you really need to learn some new chords.
Who is we?1cthlctrth:
Most of us don’t need any pundits or influencers. We heard it live with our own ears. He didn’t call the virus a hoax. But he did call the Democrat’s concern over the virus a hoax, as you have just admitted. That is what we mean. It was not a hoax.
You might want to reconsider that…1cthlctrth:
OK, here’s the one that is seriously being tested and with some very encouraging results:
Remdesivir.
Still, I find it peculiar that you are suggesting remdesivir as “better than” given that the FDA has not approved it for the treatment of any disease, it hasn’t been determined to be safe for human beings and there is no evidence that it is effective on COVID-19 according to MedicineNet.
Please identify your alternative suggestion that is currently better than… laetrile, Carter’s Liver Pills, yoghurt enemas, or the quack remedy of your choice,
New chords??? Consider the size of LSN to CBS, CNN, FOX, etc., and note how much more they are cited here than these other sources. The new chords need to be learned by those who keep citing these agenda blogs while ignoring actual journalist. I do not know how and anti-Catholic website that promotes right-wing causes is worse than one that promotes left-wing causes.
That is not how science works. Medicine hasn’t worked that way since the day of the traveling miracle elixirs. I am all for experimenting, even on humans, with HCQ, as long as they know it, take part in it knowing the risks, but lets not act like it is something it is not, or take polls on anecdotal feelings. This is one way that this was attempted here:
The reason containers of ingestibles, both food and medicinals, are packaged so that they look different after having been opened is that somebody wanted to murder someone and throw suspicion off himself. In order to do that, he substituted poison for an over-the-counter pain killer in several bottles on store shelves. He killed his intended victim and some others. There were even copycat killers, so a new, tamper-proof industry was born.HarryStotle:
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.
Unfortunately, the size of CBS, CNN, FOX, etc., does not establish their credibility, just the opposite, actually. They are all owned by inordinately large multinational corporations with a vested interest in what the public is fed in order to sustain the bulk of their corporate interests that are not the media. They are also very interested in swaying public opinion to influence the political views of those in government.HarryStotle:
New chords??? Consider the size of LSN to CBS, CNN, FOX, etc., and note how much more they are cited here than these other sources.
You mean the smaller the organization, the more likely it is to be credible???
You are creating a false dichotomy here. There is no insistence that polls or anecdotal results ought to replace peer review (without acknowledging that peer review is itself necessarily infallibly reliable.) The point is that polls and anecdotal evidence could provide a legitimate or plausible indicator for which treatments ought to be peer reviewed — it narrows the field so to speak.
That is true. But that is not the issue. The issue in this thread is not over which drugs should be researched further. The issue is when it is appropriate to promote them to the general public. In particular, the poll in the OP is cited to compare HCQ with all other therapies, not to decide if HCQ (along with several other candidates) should be researched.
Oh dear! This is soooo not how the efficacy of a drug is evaluated. All that matter is cold, empirical data. And the best method we have to obtain such empirical data from human subjects is the double blind method. Even the treating physician should be kept in the dark during the study. So this poll is absolute nonsense from a scientific standpoint.