Trump said today that he has been taking hydroxychloroquine for about a week and a half along with Zinc.
1. He’s an idiot
2. The WH doctor will make sure he does not over dose when he gives him the med.
1. He's an idiot for taking something with the help of a doctor.
2. Isn't that a good thing?
If it kills him wouldn't half the pop of the US be happy? Win-Win is how it looks to them.
A doctor prescribing medication that hasn't passed clinical trials for this usage is alarming, actually. Moreover, this drug isn't even being explored for preventative treatment of coronavirus, so that raises the question even further as to why the president is taking it.
Just because one doctor prescribes something doesn't make it right. It can still very much be stupid.
Trump said today that he has been taking hydroxychloroquine for about a week and a half along with Zinc.
1. He’s an idiot
2. The WH doctor will make sure he does not over dose when he gives him the med.
1. He's an idiot for taking something with the help of a doctor.
2. Isn't that a good thing?
If it kills him wouldn't half the pop of the US be happy? Win-Win is how it looks to them.
1. Yes. His doctor didn’t prescribe it to him, he just asked for it - probably repeatedly and the doctor reluctantly gave in. Allegedly hydroxychloroquine helps with minor breathing symptoms and allows people to recover faster if they have minor symptoms. There is no evidence that it prevents a person from getting the disease and really no trial has been effective enough to prove it does help recovery time. More can be read here: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/apr/22/hydroxychloroquine-coronavirus-scientific-studies-research
Trump said today that he has been taking hydroxychloroquine for about a week and a half along with Zinc.
Not even sure I believe he's taking it.
I thought of that. Doctor could be giving him sugar pills and telling him it’s medicine but that is unethical unless the doctor said it’s part of a larger trial.
Trump said today that he has been taking hydroxychloroquine for about a week and a half along with Zinc.
Not even sure I believe he's taking it.
Exactly, but people still get bent out of shape.
Here's what he's doing: Bad news about hydroxychloroquine as a treatment lately in widespread use among COVID-19 patients. Trump doesn't have the virus. He doesn't have it because everyone at the White House is getting tested multiple times a week. But Trump doesn't care about testing for the rest of us. So he throws this out there as post hoc ergo propter hoc (after this, therefore because of this). In other words, he doesn't have the virus because he's taking this drug and, apparently, zinc. But that isn't true, because there are no proven preemptive effects of hydroxychloroquine on the virus. But he's trying to insinuate there is. When, again, what is really keeping him safe is a wall of testing for staffers and reporters.
Trump said today that he has been taking hydroxychloroquine for about a week and a half along with Zinc.
1. He’s an idiot
2. The WH doctor will make sure he does not over dose when he gives him the med.
1. He's an idiot for taking something with the help of a doctor.
2. Isn't that a good thing?
If it kills him wouldn't half the pop of the US be happy? Win-Win is how it looks to them.
A doctor prescribing medication that hasn't passed clinical trials for this usage is alarming, actually. Moreover, this drug isn't even being explored for preventative treatment of coronavirus, so that raises the question even further as to why the president is taking it.
Just because one doctor prescribes something doesn't make it right. It can still very much be stupid.
A doctor can prescribe medication or treatment as long as it does not create greater dis-ease. Ethically.
Actually, in quite some countries the hippocratic oath is not mandatory anymore when you study medicine or continue specialisation afterwards. More a guideline.
Actually, in quite some countries the hippocratic oath is not mandatory anymore when you study medicine or continue specialisation afterwards. More a guideline.
Trump said today that he has been taking hydroxychloroquine for about a week and a half along with Zinc.
Not even sure I believe he's taking it.
Exactly, but people still get bent out of shape.
Love how some folks have just accepted that the president can lie about whatever. And as if that's the enlightened view to take.
We don't even know he is lying but hanging off every word I type. If it makes some sleep better.
Hmm... We don't even know if the government is lying or not, but it's no big deal. This is the attitude of people who do not take government and politics seriously, but instead treat it as a reality television show.
That publication still doesn't justify Trump using unless they're withholding some other key information. As the study's abstract says: "More recent studies have highlighted the possibility of treating patients infected with the novel SARS-CoV-2 virus".
And even if Trump was an infected patient, he's not in a clinical trial or a hospitalized patient, which goes against the current FDA guidelines on this treatment.
The White House released a statement from his doctor apparently just a bit ago. Make of it what you will, but it only seems to add to dishonesty of the whole thing.
That publication still doesn't justify Trump using unless they're withholding some other key information. As the study's abstract says: "More recent studies have highlighted the possibility of treating patients infected with the novel SARS-CoV-2 virus".
And even if Trump was an infected patient, he's not in a clinical trial or a hospitalized patient, which goes against the current FDA guidelines on this treatment.
Nothing is solid or concrete, lot of shenanigans going on out there. I'll wait to see what comes of it.
Taunting and berating people at a time where we are under siege from a virus and can't get a straight answer from our governments is not helping anyone. Patience and taking care of one's self mental is paramount. Don't need the next shooting massacre to come out of stress from this.
Laugh, have fun and make jokes. Don't take things too serious, we will put someone down that might kick back harder than we think. Be careful.
As for the links I put them out there not to make a point but to show what info is out there. No 'gotcha' moment here .
*Edit to make it less personal, much more global as to not offend.
As I said earlier, it was all bullshit. He does this ALL the time. He says something demonstrably untrue, and let's his staff clean it up afterwards, then pretends it never happened. He isn't taking it, the guy simply ENJOYS lying his ass off because he believes it puts him in a position of power to do so and get away with it.
As I said earlier, it was all bullshit. He does this ALL the time. He says something demonstrably untrue, and let's his staff clean it up afterwards, then pretends it never happened. He isn't taking it, the guy simply ENJOYS lying his ass off because he believes it puts him in a position of power to do so and get away with it.
I wouldn't go as far as saying he's lying, again. I think waiting and letting this unfold would be much sweeter if he is proven to be.
I was just reading Trump's letter to the WHO threatening permanent withdrawal from the organisation unless they agree to do what he wants (whatever that is) in the next 30 days. The bulk of the letter is accusations about problems with China's response to the disease and the unhealthy relationship between China and the WHO.
Most of that has been covered recently and people can make up their own minds about how great deficiencies in the response have been. However, the first accusation on the list caught my eye as being new - that is that "The World Health Organization consistently ignored credible reports of the virus spreading in Wuhan in early December 2019 or even earlier, including reports from the Lancet medical journal."
I couldn't believe that I would have been unaware of such early reports, so checked the Lancet's own archives - to find that the first publication they issued relating to the disease was on January 24th. Thinking about it though, I believe I know what prompted the mention of the Lancet. They did publish an article a while ago looking at the genetic changes in the virus over time and hypothesized that those changes would be consistent with a first human infection having taken place in mid-November. To belabor the obvious though that is something still to be confirmed and certainly was not known at the time - so this is another case akin to "Obama left me flawed testing kits for coronavirus".
In order to read Trump's letter I had to open his Twitter feed and I had a quick scan through replies to his post. As would be expected there were many both pro- and anti-Trump. What struck me though was that there was also what I would describe as a distinct strand of anti-science replies. It's of course no surprise that Trump would be seen as a champion by people that don't trust science, but the damage that promoting their cause could do in future is considerable. As has been said many times, the most obvious way out of the current crisis is to get a safe, reliable and effective vaccine. Even if that does become available though, which is of course very far from certain, legal fights against its use are likely to continue well into the future and the level of take-up is likely to be depressed even in the long term by the type of messages Trump is consistently putting out.
As I said earlier, it was all bullshit. He does this ALL the time. He says something demonstrably untrue, and let's his staff clean it up afterwards, then pretends it never happened. He isn't taking it, the guy simply ENJOYS lying his ass off because he believes it puts him in a position of power to do so and get away with it.
I wouldn't go as far as saying he's lying, again. I think waiting and letting this unfold would be much sweeter if he is proven to be.
I'd be the last person to assume he's telling the truth, but I don't see the need to assume he's lying. As I've said before chloroquine and its derivatives have been used as a preventative measure against malaria by multiple millions of people over many decades, so as drugs go we have ample evidence it's a relatively safe one. Unless Trump has some undisclosed health conditions, I don't see why a doctor would not agree to prescribe it.
It wouldn't seem sensible to me to risk even rare side effects, but I could certainly imagine a germophobe like Trump wanting to do something to 'protect' against Covid-19 - whether or not that protection is illusory.
Also this. If someone from Great Britain @Grond0 maybe, can shed some light on this comment made by Sir Patrick Vallance.
I'm hoping it was snipped out of context. If it is how it sounds then that would be alarming.
Please excuse the nonsense at the end of the video, only one I could find with the clip.
Also this. If someone from Great Britain @Grond0 maybe, can shed some light on this comment made by Sir Patrick Vallance.
I'm hoping it was snipped out of context. If it is how it sounds then that would be alarming.
Please excuse the nonsense at the end of the video, only one I could find with the clip.
There's nothing alarming there. What he was talking about needs to be taken in the context of the criteria for testing. At the start of the outbreak the UK was carrying out testing in the community as well as in hospitals, which helped in assessing the spread of the disease. However, the UK was slow to increase the capacity for testing and, as case numbers grew, they therefore tightened up the criteria for testing and only applied that to hospital cases.
That, along with the easy availability of data, is why the UK's headline figures for Covid-19 cases only referred to hospital cases until relatively recently. However, the UK has always also published the figures for the total deaths attributed to Covid-19 on death certificates, i.e. including those where doctors think that Covid-19 was probably present for deaths in the community (including care homes) even though no test was carried out. What Vallance was explaining was why there is a difference between the two sets of figures. The clip is over a month old of course and the difference that applied at that time no longer exists (tests are also now almost universally available - anyone over 5 with symptoms can ask for one).
The basis on which countries publish data varies, but publishing only data from hospitals has been a common practice. In the US this certainly used to be the case. I understand the CDC did say some time ago that community deaths should be included in figures, but I'm not sure whether that change has been generally made in state figures. I know it was implemented in New York, with an additional 3,778 deaths added on April 14, but I've seen no other adjustments (but I don't generally follow state by state data, so may have just missed these).
Comments
A doctor prescribing medication that hasn't passed clinical trials for this usage is alarming, actually. Moreover, this drug isn't even being explored for preventative treatment of coronavirus, so that raises the question even further as to why the president is taking it.
Just because one doctor prescribes something doesn't make it right. It can still very much be stupid.
Not even sure I believe he's taking it.
1. Yes. His doctor didn’t prescribe it to him, he just asked for it - probably repeatedly and the doctor reluctantly gave in. Allegedly hydroxychloroquine helps with minor breathing symptoms and allows people to recover faster if they have minor symptoms. There is no evidence that it prevents a person from getting the disease and really no trial has been effective enough to prove it does help recovery time. More can be read here: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/apr/22/hydroxychloroquine-coronavirus-scientific-studies-research
2. Hippocratic Oath.
I thought of that. Doctor could be giving him sugar pills and telling him it’s medicine but that is unethical unless the doctor said it’s part of a larger trial.
Exactly, but people still get bent out of shape.
Here's what he's doing: Bad news about hydroxychloroquine as a treatment lately in widespread use among COVID-19 patients. Trump doesn't have the virus. He doesn't have it because everyone at the White House is getting tested multiple times a week. But Trump doesn't care about testing for the rest of us. So he throws this out there as post hoc ergo propter hoc (after this, therefore because of this). In other words, he doesn't have the virus because he's taking this drug and, apparently, zinc. But that isn't true, because there are no proven preemptive effects of hydroxychloroquine on the virus. But he's trying to insinuate there is. When, again, what is really keeping him safe is a wall of testing for staffers and reporters.
Love how some folks have just accepted that the president can lie about whatever. And as if that's the enlightened view to take.
Ya. In this graph, can you tell when Trump first touted it as a cure:
What he says sadly matters.
A doctor can prescribe medication or treatment as long as it does not create greater dis-ease. Ethically.
We don't even know he is lying but hanging off every word I type. If it makes some sleep better.
If that chart proves anything is that Doctors are prescribing it. I guess we have to call every Doctor an idiot.
This is very unfortunate and alarming.
Hmm... We don't even know if the government is lying or not, but it's no big deal. This is the attitude of people who do not take government and politics seriously, but instead treat it as a reality television show.
Unfortunate that you see it that way.
https://www.virology.ws/2020/03/19/hydroxychloroquine-reduces-viral-load-and-symptoms-in-covid-19-patients/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32335560
And even if Trump was an infected patient, he's not in a clinical trial or a hospitalized patient, which goes against the current FDA guidelines on this treatment.
https://www.fda.gov/drugs/drug-safety-and-availability/fda-cautions-against-use-hydroxychloroquine-or-chloroquine-covid-19-outside-hospital-setting-or
The White House released a statement from his doctor apparently just a bit ago. Make of it what you will, but it only seems to add to dishonesty of the whole thing.
Nothing is solid or concrete, lot of shenanigans going on out there. I'll wait to see what comes of it.
Taunting and berating people at a time where we are under siege from a virus and can't get a straight answer from our governments is not helping anyone. Patience and taking care of one's self mental is paramount. Don't need the next shooting massacre to come out of stress from this.
Laugh, have fun and make jokes. Don't take things too serious, we will put someone down that might kick back harder than we think. Be careful.
As for the links I put them out there not to make a point but to show what info is out there. No 'gotcha' moment here .
*Edit to make it less personal, much more global as to not offend.
You are right. Good show
I wouldn't go as far as saying he's lying, again. I think waiting and letting this unfold would be much sweeter if he is proven to be.
Most of that has been covered recently and people can make up their own minds about how great deficiencies in the response have been. However, the first accusation on the list caught my eye as being new - that is that "The World Health Organization consistently ignored credible reports of the virus spreading in Wuhan in early December 2019 or even earlier, including reports from the Lancet medical journal."
I couldn't believe that I would have been unaware of such early reports, so checked the Lancet's own archives - to find that the first publication they issued relating to the disease was on January 24th. Thinking about it though, I believe I know what prompted the mention of the Lancet. They did publish an article a while ago looking at the genetic changes in the virus over time and hypothesized that those changes would be consistent with a first human infection having taken place in mid-November. To belabor the obvious though that is something still to be confirmed and certainly was not known at the time - so this is another case akin to "Obama left me flawed testing kits for coronavirus".
In order to read Trump's letter I had to open his Twitter feed and I had a quick scan through replies to his post. As would be expected there were many both pro- and anti-Trump. What struck me though was that there was also what I would describe as a distinct strand of anti-science replies. It's of course no surprise that Trump would be seen as a champion by people that don't trust science, but the damage that promoting their cause could do in future is considerable. As has been said many times, the most obvious way out of the current crisis is to get a safe, reliable and effective vaccine. Even if that does become available though, which is of course very far from certain, legal fights against its use are likely to continue well into the future and the level of take-up is likely to be depressed even in the long term by the type of messages Trump is consistently putting out.
I'd be the last person to assume he's telling the truth, but I don't see the need to assume he's lying. As I've said before chloroquine and its derivatives have been used as a preventative measure against malaria by multiple millions of people over many decades, so as drugs go we have ample evidence it's a relatively safe one. Unless Trump has some undisclosed health conditions, I don't see why a doctor would not agree to prescribe it.
It wouldn't seem sensible to me to risk even rare side effects, but I could certainly imagine a germophobe like Trump wanting to do something to 'protect' against Covid-19 - whether or not that protection is illusory.
Also this. If someone from Great Britain @Grond0 maybe, can shed some light on this comment made by Sir Patrick Vallance.
I'm hoping it was snipped out of context. If it is how it sounds then that would be alarming.
Please excuse the nonsense at the end of the video, only one I could find with the clip.
There's nothing alarming there. What he was talking about needs to be taken in the context of the criteria for testing. At the start of the outbreak the UK was carrying out testing in the community as well as in hospitals, which helped in assessing the spread of the disease. However, the UK was slow to increase the capacity for testing and, as case numbers grew, they therefore tightened up the criteria for testing and only applied that to hospital cases.
That, along with the easy availability of data, is why the UK's headline figures for Covid-19 cases only referred to hospital cases until relatively recently. However, the UK has always also published the figures for the total deaths attributed to Covid-19 on death certificates, i.e. including those where doctors think that Covid-19 was probably present for deaths in the community (including care homes) even though no test was carried out. What Vallance was explaining was why there is a difference between the two sets of figures. The clip is over a month old of course and the difference that applied at that time no longer exists (tests are also now almost universally available - anyone over 5 with symptoms can ask for one).
The basis on which countries publish data varies, but publishing only data from hospitals has been a common practice. In the US this certainly used to be the case. I understand the CDC did say some time ago that community deaths should be included in figures, but I'm not sure whether that change has been generally made in state figures. I know it was implemented in New York, with an additional 3,778 deaths added on April 14, but I've seen no other adjustments (but I don't generally follow state by state data, so may have just missed these).