Topic: Hard to believe, but Trump was wrong about that drug he told people to take
Anonymous A started this discussion 6 years ago #98,724
Anonymous B joined in and replied with this 6 years ago, 1 minute later[^] [v] #1,114,011
Anonymous C joined in and replied with this 6 years ago, 22 minutes later, 24 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #1,114,019
*hydroxychloroquineApocalypse Indy™ !bYobIzYIFE (OP) replied with this 6 years ago, 52 seconds later, 25 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #1,114,021
Anonymous C replied with this 6 years ago, 7 minutes later, 32 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #1,114,026
Anonymous D joined in and replied with this 6 years ago, 11 minutes later, 43 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #1,114,027
@1,114,021 (Apocalypse Indy™ !bYobIzYIFE)
> This was a French medical study, idiot.
"The study on chloroquine, conducted in Brazil..."
> This was a French medical study, idiot.
"The study on chloroquine, conducted in Brazil..."
Apocalypse Indy™ !bYobIzYIFE (OP) replied with this 6 years ago, 57 seconds later, 44 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #1,114,028
tteh !MemesToDNA joined in and replied with this 6 years ago, 56 seconds later, 45 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #1,114,030
@1,114,021 (Apocalypse Indy™ !bYobIzYIFE)
The 'tiny French study' it references isn't the focus of the article. It was Brazilian.
The 'tiny French study' it references isn't the focus of the article. It was Brazilian.
Anonymous D replied with this 6 years ago, 1 minute later, 47 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #1,114,032
@1,114,028 (Apocalypse Indy™ !bYobIzYIFE)
> Yeah ok fine.
It's not "fine". If your reading comprehension is that shoddy, who knows what else you haven't understood from the article?
> Yeah ok fine.
It's not "fine". If your reading comprehension is that shoddy, who knows what else you haven't understood from the article?
Anonymous C replied with this 6 years ago, 19 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #1,114,041
Matt proven once again that he is a Fake Newser.
Anonymous F joined in and replied with this 6 years ago, 1 minute later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #1,114,043
Oh look! Another thread about Syntax, Bert, Trump, made by Matt the obsessed loser!
Anonymous G joined in and replied with this 6 years ago, 18 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #1,114,046
@1,114,021 (Apocalypse Indy™ !bYobIzYIFE)
> Brazilian study stopped at Day Six
I didnt know Brazil was in France.
> Brazilian study stopped at Day Six
I didnt know Brazil was in France.
Meta !Sober//iZs joined in and replied with this 6 years ago, 2 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #1,114,049
He never told people to take anything. He said he hoped it would be a game changer. Maybe it isn't. So what? It was worth exploring the option.
Anonymous G replied with this 6 years ago, 2 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #1,114,051
Anonymous I joined in and replied with this 6 years ago, 3 hours later, 5 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,114,182
@1,114,049 (Meta !Sober//iZs)
Tbf, from a point of speculation, there is plenty reason to think it might work.
Tbf, from a point of speculation, there is plenty reason to think it might work.
Anonymous J joined in and replied with this 6 years ago, 3 hours later, 8 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,114,208
@1,114,049 (Meta !Sober//iZs)
> He never told people to take anything.
He's been recommending it since the beginning of the month.
https://www.wsj.com/articles/trump-pushes-broader-use-of-hydroxychloroquine-against-coronavirus-11586194581
Donald Trump Coronavirus Task Force Briefing, April 5
Even in late March he was saying we should try it. The March 20 press conference Trump spent time talking about ordering "millions of units" and talking up trying it.
> He said he hoped it would be a game changer. Maybe it isn't. So what? It was worth exploring the option.
He did say that too. So far, no evidence has materialized that the game has been changed.
> He never told people to take anything.
He's been recommending it since the beginning of the month.
https://www.wsj.com/articles/trump-pushes-broader-use-of-hydroxychloroquine-against-coronavirus-11586194581
Donald Trump Coronavirus Task Force Briefing, April 5
What do you have to lose? And a lot of people are saying that when … and are taking it, if you’re a doctor, a nurse, a first responder, a medical person going into hospitals, they say taking it before the fact is good, but what do you have to lose? They say, take it, I’m not looking at it one way or the other, but we want to get out of this. If it does work, it would be a shame if we didn’t do it early. But we have some very good signs. So that’s hydroxy chloroquine and as azithromycin, and again, you have to go through your medical people get the approval. But I’ve seen things that I sort of like, so what do I know? I’m not a doctor, I’m not a doctor, but I have common sense.
Even in late March he was saying we should try it. The March 20 press conference Trump spent time talking about ordering "millions of units" and talking up trying it.
I have a feeling you may … I’m not being overly optimistic or pessimistic. I sure as hell think we ought to give it a try. There’s been some interesting things happened, and some very good things. Let’s see what happens. We have nothing to lose. You know the expression? What the hell do you have to lose?
> He said he hoped it would be a game changer. Maybe it isn't. So what? It was worth exploring the option.
He did say that too. So far, no evidence has materialized that the game has been changed.
Meta !Sober//iZs replied with this 6 years ago, 16 minutes later, 9 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,114,212
@previous (J)
I still don't see where he said "if you have coronavirus, take this drug now". I'm seeing "they say taking before the fact is good" and "we ought to give it a try" not only that, but he's specifically saying you should only do so under medical supervision if you do take it. It just sounds like cautious optimism to me.
Certainly if hydroxychloroquine does work, ordering millions of units would make sense.
I think it's important to note this isn't something Trump invented. It's not like he was just throwing random drugs at the problem. This was based on promising results in a French study. In the article linked in the OP, hospitals are still apparently giving hydroxycholoroquine to coronavirus patients. I don't think they would do this "because the president said so".
There's definitely a risk of arrhythmia, which is well-known, but I don't think (based on the results so far) that this a completely loony idea. I don't think it's the best solution and maybe in a year or two they'll have some really cool antiviral that cures coronavirus with trivial side effects but that is not now. No one has yet suggested anything better.
I still don't see where he said "if you have coronavirus, take this drug now". I'm seeing "they say taking before the fact is good" and "we ought to give it a try" not only that, but he's specifically saying you should only do so under medical supervision if you do take it. It just sounds like cautious optimism to me.
Certainly if hydroxychloroquine does work, ordering millions of units would make sense.
I think it's important to note this isn't something Trump invented. It's not like he was just throwing random drugs at the problem. This was based on promising results in a French study. In the article linked in the OP, hospitals are still apparently giving hydroxycholoroquine to coronavirus patients. I don't think they would do this "because the president said so".
There's definitely a risk of arrhythmia, which is well-known, but I don't think (based on the results so far) that this a completely loony idea. I don't think it's the best solution and maybe in a year or two they'll have some really cool antiviral that cures coronavirus with trivial side effects but that is not now. No one has yet suggested anything better.
Anonymous J replied with this 6 years ago, 1 hour later, 10 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,114,220
@previous (Meta !Sober//iZs)
I'm not trying to make it out like the President was saying to take it without a doctor's authorization. Although people have already tried doing that because of his mentioning it. The context that he is recommending it has been evident for weeks in the press briefings. So much so that there has also been drug hoarding that caused concern for pharmacies and people already taking it legitimately.
If you want him actually saying that he thinks people should take it, then the April 4th briefing has you covered.
And there’s also other studies with the malaria that the malaria countries have very little people that take this drug for malaria, which is very effective for malaria, that those countries have very little of this virus. I don’t know. You’re going to check it out. But I think people should … If it were me, in fact, I might do it anyway. I may take it. Okay. I may take it, and I’ll have to ask my doctors about that, but I may take it.
He says people should. Hell, he might even take it. I don't know how I'm supposed to read that as anything other than the same kind of endorsement he's been spouting all month.
> I don't think they would do this "because the president said so".
That's the whole problem. Who do you think talked the FDA into testing and okayed the order for millions of units? Trump has made it clear that he was working with the FDA to do this. Trump is the only reason we're even talking about it. Trump's constant talk of hydroxychloroquine is the very reason uninformed people are rushing to get prescriptions, doctors are hoarding it, more trials are being quickly approved, and Trump is the driving force behind all the talk of it in the first place. People are doing things because the President says so.
> No one has yet suggested anything better.
There's no shortage of well-supported, science-based advice about how not to get it in the first place by practicing hygiene, protective measures, and avoiding people.
> There's definitely a risk of arrhythmia, which is well-known, but I don't think (based on the results so far) that this a completely loony idea.
You're right. It's not a completely loony idea. Plenty of doctors will admit there are studies showing that hydroxychloroquine reduces viral load and may help people recovering from COVID-19. That's just not solid evidence yet. I don't think the criticism of Trump is about whether the idea is completely unsound.
The criticism of Trump centers around him constantly talking about the drug "doing great things" and "tremendous things" and how "lots of people" are telling him about what could be a "game changer" when he has no real idea what kinds of "things" is talking about and no one else does either. The problem isn't that the drug might be a hopeless failure at treating COVID-19 -although it might be- it's the idea that he keeps talking up as being hopefully a solution or a preventive even after it becomes evident that doing so is causing problems. Trump talks about the power and influence of his position as the President of the United States often enough. Am I supposed to believe he doesn't understand that what he says influences people?
I'm not trying to make it out like the President was saying to take it without a doctor's authorization. Although people have already tried doing that because of his mentioning it. The context that he is recommending it has been evident for weeks in the press briefings. So much so that there has also been drug hoarding that caused concern for pharmacies and people already taking it legitimately.
If you want him actually saying that he thinks people should take it, then the April 4th briefing has you covered.
And there’s also other studies with the malaria that the malaria countries have very little people that take this drug for malaria, which is very effective for malaria, that those countries have very little of this virus. I don’t know. You’re going to check it out. But I think people should … If it were me, in fact, I might do it anyway. I may take it. Okay. I may take it, and I’ll have to ask my doctors about that, but I may take it.
He says people should. Hell, he might even take it. I don't know how I'm supposed to read that as anything other than the same kind of endorsement he's been spouting all month.
> I don't think they would do this "because the president said so".
That's the whole problem. Who do you think talked the FDA into testing and okayed the order for millions of units? Trump has made it clear that he was working with the FDA to do this. Trump is the only reason we're even talking about it. Trump's constant talk of hydroxychloroquine is the very reason uninformed people are rushing to get prescriptions, doctors are hoarding it, more trials are being quickly approved, and Trump is the driving force behind all the talk of it in the first place. People are doing things because the President says so.
> No one has yet suggested anything better.
There's no shortage of well-supported, science-based advice about how not to get it in the first place by practicing hygiene, protective measures, and avoiding people.
> There's definitely a risk of arrhythmia, which is well-known, but I don't think (based on the results so far) that this a completely loony idea.
You're right. It's not a completely loony idea. Plenty of doctors will admit there are studies showing that hydroxychloroquine reduces viral load and may help people recovering from COVID-19. That's just not solid evidence yet. I don't think the criticism of Trump is about whether the idea is completely unsound.
The criticism of Trump centers around him constantly talking about the drug "doing great things" and "tremendous things" and how "lots of people" are telling him about what could be a "game changer" when he has no real idea what kinds of "things" is talking about and no one else does either. The problem isn't that the drug might be a hopeless failure at treating COVID-19 -although it might be- it's the idea that he keeps talking up as being hopefully a solution or a preventive even after it becomes evident that doing so is causing problems. Trump talks about the power and influence of his position as the President of the United States often enough. Am I supposed to believe he doesn't understand that what he says influences people?
Anonymous C replied with this 6 years ago, 35 minutes later, 11 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,114,223
Sheila LaBoof joined in and replied with this 6 years ago, 19 hours later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,114,522
@1,114,212 (Meta !Sober//iZs)
> I still don't see where he said "if you have coronavirus, take this drug now". I'm seeing "they say taking before the fact is good" and "we ought to give it a try" not only that, but he's specifically saying you should only do so under medical supervision if you do take it. It just sounds like cautious optimism to me.
>
> Certainly if hydroxychloroquine does work, ordering millions of units would make sense.
>
> I think it's important to note this isn't something Trump invented. It's not like he was just throwing random drugs at the problem. This was based on promising results in a French study. In the article linked in the OP, hospitals are still apparently giving hydroxycholoroquine to coronavirus patients. I don't think they would do this "because the president said so".
>
> There's definitely a risk of arrhythmia, which is well-known, but I don't think (based on the results so far) that this a completely loony idea. I don't think it's the best solution and maybe in a year or two they'll have some really cool antiviral that cures coronavirus with trivial side effects but that is not now. No one has yet suggested anything better.
Just because he's somewhat incoherent doesn't mean we can pretend we don't know what he is saying
> I still don't see where he said "if you have coronavirus, take this drug now". I'm seeing "they say taking before the fact is good" and "we ought to give it a try" not only that, but he's specifically saying you should only do so under medical supervision if you do take it. It just sounds like cautious optimism to me.
>
> Certainly if hydroxychloroquine does work, ordering millions of units would make sense.
>
> I think it's important to note this isn't something Trump invented. It's not like he was just throwing random drugs at the problem. This was based on promising results in a French study. In the article linked in the OP, hospitals are still apparently giving hydroxycholoroquine to coronavirus patients. I don't think they would do this "because the president said so".
>
> There's definitely a risk of arrhythmia, which is well-known, but I don't think (based on the results so far) that this a completely loony idea. I don't think it's the best solution and maybe in a year or two they'll have some really cool antiviral that cures coronavirus with trivial side effects but that is not now. No one has yet suggested anything better.
Just because he's somewhat incoherent doesn't mean we can pretend we don't know what he is saying