Jump to content

Menu

Here’s my conspiracy theory for the day - hydroxychloroquine


Recommended Posts

8 hours ago, FuzzyCatz said:

This is just truth.  Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity.

Yep.  I am sure Trump is sometimes right (and since I am not in the US I can't tell more than that).  But Trump is not a doctor, a chemist or a medical researcher.  I take political advice from politicians, plumbing advice from plumbers and medical advice from medical people.

  • Like 9
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 202
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Our VA hospital is using it, so I don't think there's a conspiracy to keep it for the elite.  How about an alternative conspiracy theory in which a different "they" want Trump to be wrong more than th

Back in early April or whenever Donald Trump went on television to talk about hydroxychloroquine, the Israeli government immediately purchased an enormous amount of the stuff.  Doctors here had been e

Posted Images

30 minutes ago, Ausmumof3 said:

Yes there’s evidence that it does something to the virus in a Petrie dish.  That is enough I guess to start human trials but then you have to test safety etc.  because plenty of things can kill the virus if you aren’t worried about what happens to the human being with the virus.  

Like bleach, for example...🤪

  • Like 2
  • Haha 7
Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, Quill said:

Like bleach, for example...🤪

Lol.  

But...otoh...  the N acetylcysteine metabolic pathway may involve H2O2 in a natural way within the body.... It is at least remotely possible that the Internal H2O2 has a role in helping with immunity where NAC has been found to help immunity (afaik, we still don’t know for sure with regard to SARS2.). 

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

FWIW - My SIL (experienced nurse) thinks that she was infected in Jan or Feb., that her symptoms were suppressed during a trip to Africa while she was taking an anti-malarial (HCQ?), and that her infection reactivated after her return when she stopped the meds. She had a mild case (presumptive) and is fine now.

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, square_25 said:

OK, that is a LOT of assumptions. People are not great at self-diagnosing this one. She should get an antibody test before assuming she's had it. 

Very true. Her covid test (not administered correctly) came back negative - Seattle had an 82% false negative test rate. Hopefully the antibody tests will be better!

 

Edited by LAS in LA
  • Like 1
  • Confused 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, square_25 said:

An 82% false negative rate?? Whoa, are you sure about that? Cite, please? 

Sorry, no citation. This was info from SIL. She works at a hospital in Seattle. Looking back at her message, that percentage was for WA state, not just Seattle. Not sure where her info came from.

OP - Sorry to sidetrack this thread! My original point was that one medical professional thinks that an anti-malarial reduced her symptoms. ☺

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, LAS in LA said:

Sorry, no citation. This was info from SIL. She works at a hospital in Seattle. Looking back at her message, that percentage was for WA state, not just Seattle. Not sure where her info came from.

OP - Sorry to sidetrack this thread! My original point was that one medical professional thinks that an anti-malarial reduced her symptoms. ☺

There is quite a few doctors here talking about how they think the tests are 60%  false negative.  There was even a reporter for one of the news shows who came down with it and was also talking about how his doctors were telling him how high the false negative is.  So many stories here about having to be tested so many times to test positive.  

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, happysmileylady said:

But, what you are posting here is part of the politics of it all and really doesn't have anything to do with science.  There has been enough evidence that at least University of Minnesota HAS started a trial, I mean.......trials for this sort of thing aren't just invented out of thin air right?  But regardless of that.......what a political figure did with regards to that info.....well that just gets in the way of science and turns the whole thing into the political football it became (I like that term 🙂 )  I don't really care what was really SAID....so much as I care about how that has affected the actual science of treatment for this thing.  And unfortunately, it very much HAS affected the actual science, even if there's no actual "conspiracy" involved. (and no....I don't believe there's any actual conspiracy lol)

 

Except the problem with that is exactly what I stated earlier.  The difference between 48 hrs from diagnosis and 48 hrs of onset of SYMPTOMS.  The fact that there's a difference isn't really the fault of the analysts, it's just part of the problems of treating and studying something so new.  But in terms of the research..................it could be making a LOT of difference.  Imagine if a person with shingles saw the rash, then waited a good 2 days for it to go away before even calling the doc.  The doc then says, ok, well we need you to make an appointment for 2 days from now.  THEN, the person gets a test, which is sent off to a lab, and the results come back a week later.  Meanwhile, the rash is growing and expanding.  The test comes back positive, so the day after the positive result....the person starts Valtrex.  Well, that's very unlikely to really help anything, since they have started it a full ELEVEN days after the onset of symptoms, even though they started it within 24 hrs after diagnosis.  

Ultimately, right now......this is not an uncommon scenario for diagnosing COVID.  And this analysis is going back to a time where that sort of scenario was even MORE common for COVID. 

 

Not to mention that I thought one of our greatest hopes was to find a treatment (or even more than one) that would keep people from being hospitalized in the first place, and that entire analysis was done with people who were already hospitalized.  It really doesn't answer any of the questions about whether or not it keeps people from being hospitalized in the first place.  

Right, I get all that. I get that it might work great in earlier cases. But...it might not. Why is everyone so quick to assume it works great, and that any studies saying it doesn't are lacking...but yet...they don't have any studies, lacking or otherwise, saying it works. 

I mean, saying "I don't know that it is a good idea, we need more testing" is labeled a conspiracy theory or politicizing things, despite there actually being some evidence of it maybe being a bad idea....but saying "this is a great idea, why aren't we giving it to everyone" is seen as totally rational? When there is no evidence to support that?

  • Like 8
Link to post
Share on other sites

I think it is far more likely that Trump is drumming up business to make a profit for himself, his family, and his cronies.  That's my conspiracy theory regarding that particular drug.

  • Like 7
Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Amy in NH said:

I think it is far more likely that Trump is drumming up business to make a profit for himself, his family, and his cronies.  That's my conspiracy theory regarding that particular drug.

You have a point. But clearly, he must believe it’s protecting him, unless he’s straight up lying about taking it himself, which is certainly possible, but I think, not likely. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Quill said:

You have a point. But clearly, he must believe it’s protecting him, unless he’s straight up lying about taking it himself, which is certainly possible, but I think, not likely. 

Right, but believing it is protective just means someone convinced him it is, which could be someone making a profit. (not saying that is true, but iti makes just as much sense as a conspiracy to suppress info about a valuable drug). 

I think there is no conspiracy either way. I think people were hopeful it might work, then early studies showed it didn't work well, and in fact could be dangerous given the cardiac manifestations of COVID-19. I see zero evidence that anything is going on other than that. 

And yes, I know I don't have proof it doesn't work or that it makes things worse in the sense of a double blind trial, but no on has proof it does work, in the sense of a double blind trial or even a retrospective study, so seems kind of odd to jump to the conclusion it does work rather than jumping to the conclusion it does't work. 

  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, Quill said:

You have a point. But clearly, he must believe it’s protecting him, unless he’s straight up lying about taking it himself, which is certainly possible, but I think, not likely. 

I believe he thinks it is protective, but at least part of that is because he really wants it to be. And frankly, I'm taking Vit D, Zinc, etc for the same reason. I don't know if they really are protective, but I want them to be. 

The difference is that my behavior does not dramatically affect that of others. You can't say the same thing for the president (or any other major political figure or celebrity). 

 

 

  • Like 9
Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Ktgrok said:

Right, I get all that. I get that it might work great in earlier cases. But...it might not. Why is everyone so quick to assume it works great, and that any studies saying it doesn't are lacking...but yet...they don't have any studies, lacking or otherwise, saying it works. 

I mean, saying "I don't know that it is a good idea, we need more testing" is labeled a conspiracy theory or politicizing things, despite there actually being some evidence of it maybe being a bad idea....but saying "this is a great idea, why aren't we giving it to everyone" is seen as totally rational? When there is no evidence to support that?

I am not quick to assume it works great.  What I am saying is that I wish people and the media wouldn't generally be so quick to try to prove it DOESN'T work, when the information we have currently isn't really addressing the real questions.  And I am saying that I really wish that 'because Trump likes it' wasn't the reason behind the media dismissal, but I absolutely believe that's what is going on.

As for your second sentence....I am not sure what you mean?  I am not saying "this is a great idea, why aren't we giving it to everyone?"  I am also not calling anything a real conspiracy theory.  I don't think there's some giant conspiracy against hydroxychloroquine, and I don't the the OP actually meant her post to be considered a true conspiracy either, at least that's not how I took the post anyway.  I do think the media and a lot of people are very quick to let their political biases influence their opinions on it

  • Like 5
Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't see a lot of people not wanting to even test it or dismissing it right off the bat.  Most of what I'm seeing is saying "slow down, we're doing trials, it's too early to tell".    I feel like the constant caution is a backlash to doctors self-prescribing or people stocking up or taking it when there's no reason.  There's a lot of risk to self-medicating for an unknown virus with a drug with some heavy side effects.   

I mean, once trials are going it may come out that it does work as a prophylactic but if you are a certain age, or have a certain disorder, or are on certain medications, or.......  you shouldn't take it.  This is the information that trials are trying to determine, as well as does it actually work or not.

And trials ARE happening in the US.   Multiple ones have been mentioned right in this thread so saying that nobody is studying it here due to the politicization, is factually false. 

  • Like 8
  • Thanks 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Where's Toto? said:

I don't see a lot of people not wanting to even test it or dismissing it right off the bat.  Most of what I'm seeing is saying "slow down, we're doing trials, it's too early to tell".    I feel like the constant caution is a backlash to doctors self-prescribing or people stocking up or taking it when there's no reason.  There's a lot of risk to self-medicating for an unknown virus with a drug with some heavy side effects.   

I mean, once trials are going it may come out that it does work as a prophylactic but if you are a certain age, or have a certain disorder, or are on certain medications, or.......  you shouldn't take it.  This is the information that trials are trying to determine, as well as does it actually work or not.

And trials ARE happening in the US.   Multiple ones have been mentioned right in this thread so saying that nobody is studying it here due to the politicization, is factually false. 

I didn't say nobody was studying it?   I have said the politics have made some of the science difficult, and shared an NPR article discussing how some trials are having trouble finding participants.

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, happysmileylady said:

I didn't say nobody was studying it?   I have said the politics have made some of the science difficult, and shared an NPR article discussing how some trials are having trouble finding participants.

 

That's the reality for most clinical trials.

  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites

Yep, there a lot involved with a trial.   Often you can't just take anyone who shows up, they need to fit certain criteria.   It's part of the reason trials can take so long.   Some you have to wait for a person with the right condition to show up and be willing to enter the trial.  Other times you need to be ready to react in acute situations (I had a non-lab/non-medical job working on a medication for acute ischemic stroke that had to be administered within 3 hours).  People often don't want to be guinea pigs for an unproven medication, especially if it's either a preventative or there are other treatments available (and there's a whole set of guidelines how trials need to be conducted for any condition with an existing therapy).     

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I have to admit that it is strange to me that a cheap, widely used drug with a good safety profile has become So Dangerous and also a huge opportunity for evil pharma to profit.

I think more likely is Quill's original post. Kind of like masks...if this works prophylacticly, we don't want people hoarding it so that no one can get it if we need to use it on a more widespread level.

Also, only tangentially related, but I'm pretty sure that fish tank cleaner lady poisoned her husband on purpose.

  • Like 6
Link to post
Share on other sites
41 minutes ago, Pawz4me said:

Yes.

Then you know they had volunteers lined up before the news cycle hit?

Edited by EmseB
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, happysmileylady said:

I am not quick to assume it works great.  What I am saying is that I wish people and the media wouldn't generally be so quick to try to prove it DOESN'T work, when the information we have currently isn't really addressing the real questions.  And I am saying that I really wish that 'because Trump likes it' wasn't the reason behind the media dismissal, but I absolutely believe that's what is going on.

 

And I really wish Trump would leave drug advice to medical professionals and scientists. Things could have just proceeded with it as they are in other countries if he hadn’t been his usual irresponsible self. Sure, the media around it has been bad and they share blame. But it didn’t start with the media.

  • Like 6
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, happysmileylady said:

You guys really don't think there's any media influence or bias involved or that HCQ has become political at all?

Yes, of course, I don’t deny any of that. But who do you think started the problem and is most responsible for the problem?

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, EmseB said:

Then you know they had volunteers lined up before the news cycle hit?

I am much more familiar with clinical trials than I ever wanted to be due to my DH's health issues. What the article details is nothing unusual for any clinical trial. I belong to a message board for others with his type of cancer, and there is always talk about various trials and issues surrounding the drug(s) being tested. And that often changes people's minds about whether or not they want to participate. Granted this is a slightly larger scale, but . . . not new at all.

  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Frances said:

Yes, of course, I don’t deny any of that. But who do you think started the problem and is most responsible for the problem?

The news media.  100%.  They have done an absolutely shameful job as a whole during this whole administration, but this is a new low.  There are a few who think for themselves and maintain some integrity but it is absolutely a minority.  The intellectual honesty and actual reporting seems to be running around 25% these days.

I watch no news and pay for very few sources of it.  The vast majority have lost all credibility when it became about cartoonish caricatures for political points and propping up narratives to the detriment of the actual people involved and the facts on the ground truth.  They’re running a script in their heads and discarding all data that causes cognitive dissonance, rather than taking the best arguments they see against a favored plot and seeing if they hold water or are compelling, or a better fit to the data.  And I’m not singling out one side in this either, it happens both ways, though not in equal measure.

Whatever Trump does or doesn’t do he will answer for at the ballot box.  The media, however, are essentially unaccountable for their slander, agendas, and manipulation of data to fit the preferred narrative. That is absolutely worse.

  • Like 5
  • Confused 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Arctic Mama said:

The news media.  100%.  They have done an absolutely shameful job as a whole during this whole administration, but this is a new low.  There are a few who think for themselves and maintain some integrity but it is absolutely a minority.  The intellectual honesty and actual reporting seems to be running around 25% these days.

I watch no news and pay for very few sources of it.  The vast majority have lost all credibility when it became about cartoonish caricatures for political points and propping up narratives to the detriment of the actual people involved and the facts on the ground truth.  They’re running a script in their heads and discarding all data that causes cognitive dissonance, rather than taking the best arguments they see against a favored plot and seeing if they hold water or are compelling, or a better fit to the data.  And I’m not singling out one side in this either, it happens both ways, though not in equal measure.

Whatever Trump does or doesn’t do he will answer for at the ballot box.  The media, however, are essentially unaccountable for their slander, agendas, and manipulation of data to fit the preferred narrative. That is absolutely worse.

Agree.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Pawz4me said:

I am much more familiar with clinical trials than I ever wanted to be due to my DH's health issues. What the article details is nothing unusual for any clinical trial. I belong to a message board for others with his type of cancer, and there is always talk about various trials and issues surrounding the drug(s) being tested. And that often changes people's minds about whether or not they want to participate. Granted this is a slightly larger scale, but . . . not new at all.

Ok, so since you do have experience, do you believe that the politics involved are common for all trials?  I just mean generally, like is there usually politicking going on with regards to trials, even if we don't always see it so prominently in the news media.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Joker said:

No one is 100% responsible for this. Those who say so, on either side, are ignoring reality.

When you say this, what is it you are referring to?  the virus?  HCQ science struggles?  I think there might be a couple of ideas bouncing around in the thread and I just want to make sure I understand what you mean

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, happysmileylady said:

When you say this, what is it you are referring to?  the virus?  HCQ science struggles?  I think there might be a couple of ideas bouncing around in the thread and I just want to make sure I understand what you mean

That either the media or Trump are 100% responsible for the distrust and mess surrounding this drug. They are both the problem.

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Joker said:

That either the media or Trump are 100% responsible for the distrust and mess surrounding this drug. They are both the problem.

Oh no no, of course no one is 100% responsible.  Neither the media nor Trump....nor are they the only two factors involved..  

Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Joker said:

No one is 100% responsible for this. Those who say so, on either side, are ignoring reality.

Uh yeah. The media is 100% responsible for the narrative they push, particularly when the purpose of it is to manipulate public opinion for political reasons.

I’m not talking about just this, but in general.  They cannot control the president, and he is accountable to voters. But they absolutely control their response and have a responsibility to do far better and with a far more self critical eye than they have done.

Edited by Arctic Mama
  • Like 3
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, Arctic Mama said:

The news media.  100%.  They have done an absolutely shameful job as a whole during this whole administration, but this is a new low.  There are a few who think for themselves and maintain some integrity but it is absolutely a minority.  The intellectual honesty and actual reporting seems to be running around 25% these days.

I watch no news and pay for very few sources of it.  The vast majority have lost all credibility when it became about cartoonish caricatures for political points and propping up narratives to the detriment of the actual people involved and the facts on the ground truth.  They’re running a script in their heads and discarding all data that causes cognitive dissonance, rather than taking the best arguments they see against a favored plot and seeing if they hold water or are compelling, or a better fit to the data.  And I’m not singling out one side in this either, it happens both ways, though not in equal measure.

Whatever Trump does or doesn’t do he will answer for at the ballot box.  The media, however, are essentially unaccountable for their slander, agendas, and manipulation of data to fit the preferred narrative. That is absolutely worse.

Well I obviously disagree. I have to say I continue to be amazed that so many people will daily accept behavior from their president that I highly doubt they would tolerate from their children. Bullying, off the charts lying, not taking responsibility for or admitting mistakes,  etc. The immaturity would of course be more tolerated in children. And I don’t think he will necessarily answer for it at the ballot box. First, because he could easily lose the popular vote and win the election again. And second, because some believe the ends justify the means and for others, his behavior reflects their values and morals. I actually fully expect him to be re-elected. We’ve sunk that low in this country. I actually think he’s right that he could shoot someone in broad daylight and still have lots of support. 

And nobody would ever need to partake in any media to see his abysmal character. No slander, agenda, or manipulation needed. It’s on full display on his twitter feed.
 

That’s not to say I don’t think the media shares responsibility, especially for getting him elected. They certainly stir up and keep the cognitive dissonance going and help to fuel the partisan divide.

Edited by Frances
  • Like 17
Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, happysmileylady said:

Ok, so since you do have experience, do you believe that the politics involved are common for all trials?  I just mean generally, like is there usually politicking going on with regards to trials, even if we don't always see it so prominently in the news media.

There's definitely politics of a certain type involved in the ones for DH's type of cancer. The type of cancer my DH has makes for a relatively small world. There are about five, ten at the most, oncologists in the U.S. who are considered the top experts. And what any of those oncologists say about a given clinical trial heavily influences patients' decisions on whether or not to participate. Even seemingly offhand comments get dissected for the pros/cons. One of the top experts may be on a video conference and express misgivings about the potential of a certain drug in trial, or another expert may express optimism about that same trial drug in an article. Those comments are discussed and weighed carefully on the board I belong to, although I will say that board skews heavily towards educated, pro-active patients. Now obviously there's a fine line between calling something "politics" and simply in listening to expert opinions. But these doctors do express their opinions regarding different drugs, and I guess that's pretty much the same as "politics."

  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Frances said:

Well I obviously disagree. I have to say I continue to be amazed that so many people will daily accept behavior from their president that I highly doubt they would tolerate from their children. Bullying, off the charts, lying, not taking responsibility for or admitting mistakes,  etc. The immaturity would of course be more tolerated in children. And I don’t think he will necessarily answer for it at the ballot box. First, because he could easily lose the popular vote and win the election again. And second, because some believe the ends justify the means and for others, his behavior reflects their values and morals. I actually fully expect him to be re-elected. We’ve sunk that low in this country. I actually think he’s right that he could shoot someone in broad daylight and still have lots of support. 

And nobody would ever need to partake in any media to see his abysmal character. No slander, agenda, or manipulation needed. It’s on full display on his twitter feed.
 

That’s not to say I don’t think the media shares responsibility, especially for getting him elected. They certainly stir up and keep the cognitive dissonance going and help to fuel the partisan divide.

Because it discusses a political figure and politics, I will only say that I didn't vote for him, and my opinion on him is mixed.  What I approve or disapprove of with regards to what things he has done probably gets into discussing things that do not belong in this thread.  So, that's all I will say about Trump or those particular politics.

But, in this thread, because of where it is on the board, what I can discuss is the media bias, and for this thread specifically, how it pertains to this particular drug.  I do believe there is media bias against HCQ and I absolutely believe that the bias has little to do with the science and is very much about their bias against the president and their desire to discredit him.  I believe that many outlets have taken on HCQ as some sort of proxy (though not really intentionally or as some sort of true conspiracy.)  It seems like they think that by discrediting HCQ, they are discrediting Trump.  The reverse is true as well, as I do think that in some cases, there is an effort to prove that HCQ is some sort of miracle, just to prove what a great job that the president has done.  

  • Like 9
Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Pawz4me said:

There's definitely politics of a certain type involved in the ones for DH's type of cancer. The type of cancer my DH has makes for a relatively small world. There are about five, ten at the most, oncologists in the U.S. who are considered the top experts. And what any of those oncologists say about a given clinical trial heavily influences patients' decisions on whether or not to participate. Even seemingly offhand comments get dissected for the pros/cons. One of the top experts may be on a video conference and express misgivings about the potential of a certain drug in trial, or another expert may express optimism about that same trial drug in an article. Those comments are discussed and weighed carefully on the board I belong to, although I will say that board skews heavily towards educated, pro-active patients. Now obviously there's a fine line between calling something "politics" and simply in listening to expert opinions. But these doctors do express their opinions regarding different drugs, and I guess that's pretty much the same as "politics."

Well, I am thinking more about....what I guess might be the back side of it.  Things like which trials happen, how funding happens, that sort of thing.  When I am talking about "politics" surrounding that, I am talking a bit more about the money and power sort of politiking.  

Link to post
Share on other sites

I just watched the video I'm going to try and link and I found it really helpful. I have been struggling with some of the things I have seen my friends saying and linking on social media and this video has given me a way to think about it in a much more balanced way. Not sure if this is the exact best thread etc to post it on but hopefully might be interesting to some people. Definitely recommend it even if you don't particularly agree with my view of things! Disclaimer -  I watched until just after he started talking about some of the comments for the audience so I can't vouch for the very end lol.

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, happysmileylady said:

Because it discusses a political figure and politics, I will only say that I didn't vote for him, and my opinion on him is mixed.  What I approve or disapprove of with regards to what things he has done probably gets into discussing things that do not belong in this thread.  So, that's all I will say about Trump or those particular politics.

But, in this thread, because of where it is on the board, what I can discuss is the media bias, and for this thread specifically, how it pertains to this particular drug.  I do believe there is media bias against HCQ and I absolutely believe that the bias has little to do with the science and is very much about their bias against the president and their desire to discredit him.  I believe that many outlets have taken on HCQ as some sort of proxy (though not really intentionally or as some sort of true conspiracy.)  It seems like they think that by discrediting HCQ, they are discrediting Trump.  The reverse is true as well, as I do think that in some cases, there is an effort to prove that HCQ is some sort of miracle, just to prove what a great job that the president has done.  

I don’t disagree that the media is not behaving in an unbiased way here. But none of it would ever have started had Trump not irresponsibly touted the drug from early on, before he ever started taking it. He has no medical or scientific training and there was really no good reason for him to talk about it. Do you think he was right in talking about the drug the way he has since the beginning? 
 

And if we’re only allowed to discuss and criticize the media when it comes to politics, but not the president, than I’m not sure we can even have a discussion. 

Edited by Frances
  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Frances said:

I don’t disagree that the media is not behaving in an unbiased way here. But none of it would ever have started had Trump not irresponsibly touted the drug from early on, before he ever started taking it. He has no medical or scientific training and there was really no good reason for him to talk about it. Do you think he was right in talking about the drug the way he has since the beginning? 

I saw the the briefing on youtube where he first mentioned it, and honestly, I didn't view that particular briefing as all that dramatic in terms of him "touting" the drug or promoting it.   Maybe I need to rewatch it again because I never got the impression that he was as obsessed with it or as enamored with it as the media seem to be with his opinion of it.  

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, happysmileylady said:

You guys really don't think there's any media influence or bias involved or that HCQ has become political at all?

I suppose, in the sense that a political figure promoted it, so those that like him tended to believe him, and those that don't tended to be skeptical of taking his word for it, when medical experts were saying differently. 

2 hours ago, EmseB said:

I have to admit that it is strange to me that a cheap, widely used drug with a good safety profile has become So Dangerous and also a huge opportunity for evil pharma to profit.

 

It seems weird to me that a drug without any proven or even kind of proven record of helping has become the target of so much hype. 

15 minutes ago, happysmileylady said:

 

But, in this thread, because of where it is on the board, what I can discuss is the media bias, and for this thread specifically, how it pertains to this particular drug.  I do believe there is media bias against HCQ and I absolutely believe that the bias has little to do with the science and is very much about their bias against the president and their desire to discredit him. 

One could easily believe the opposite, with the same amount of evidence - that there is bias FOR HCQ, which has very little to do with science and is very much about their bias FOR the president and their desire to support him. 

Given that most medical experts and the limited evidence we have does not support the idea that it is helpful, one might wonder why so many people are convinced it is. 

  • Like 6
Link to post
Share on other sites

Actually the is evidence around the globe it is being used, and has been used successfully, in mitigating the severity of infection when administered early on and with zinc. Low to no side effects reported, which isn’t the case with Chloroquine. And it is more effective earlier than later, no shock there.  Not a magic bullet but definitely not snake oil either.

And there is plenty of anecdote here in this country as well.  I can think of just shy of a dozen cases off the top of my head, from individuals I know to be credible, that they were given it within a few hours of showing up in the ER with symptoms and began feeling better within a day or two, I think four was the longest it took to see improvement and that person seemed to be the sickest of the bunch, from their telling of it.  And this began back in the beginning of April, this isn’t news.  Heck, even Klobuchar’s husband was administered it to good effect.  
 

And yet these things aren’t even being discussed in some outlets and print. Like, not at all.  It’s completely unreported. 

Edited by Arctic Mama
  • Like 5
Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Ktgrok said:

One could easily believe the opposite, with the same amount of evidence - that there is bias FOR HCQ, which has very little to do with science and is very much about their bias FOR the president and their desire to support him. 

Which I actually said in the very next sentence

 

27 minutes ago, happysmileylady said:

The reverse is true as well, as I do think that in some cases, there is an effort to prove that HCQ is some sort of miracle, just to prove what a great job that the president has done.  


 

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, Frances said:

 

And if we’re only allowed to discuss and criticize the media when it comes to politics, but not the president, than I’m not sure we can even have a discussion. 

Well, I didn't make the rules of the board and I could certainly be misinterpreting them.  But the rule is "no politics"  I am pretty sure that applies specifically to political figures and party positions and similar, but likely not to the general concept of "money and power" politics.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, happysmileylady said:

I saw the the briefing on youtube where he first mentioned it, and honestly, I didn't view that particular briefing as all that dramatic in terms of him "touting" the drug or promoting it.   Maybe I need to rewatch it again because I never got the impression that he was as obsessed with it or as enamored with it as the media seem to be with his opinion of it.  

Well certainly things changed when he said he was taking it, that goes far beyond talking about it. But why talk about it at all when it wasn’t yet thoroughly studied and he has no scientific or medical training? Obviously he must understand the weight his words carry. You don’t think he was being irresponsible at all by talking about it early on and offering his own personal opinion rather than deferring to the experts?

Edited by Frances
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Frances said:

Well certainly things changed when he said he was taking it, that goes far beyond talking about it. But why talk about it at all when it wasn’t yet thoroughly studied and he has no scientific or medical training? Obviously he must understand the weight his words carry. You don’t think he was being irresponsible at all by talking about it early on? 

I think he was talking about the drug trials that were getting started.  HCQ wasn't the only trial that he talked about that I can recall, it was just the one he expressed the most hope about (seriously I might have to go back to rewatch it, it was quite a while ago)

Is it irresponsible for a president to express that he is very hopeful that a particular drug trial could work out very well?  I don't know if it is.  (but again, after a month or so, I can't promise my memory on his initial press briefing regarding it is all that great.)

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, happysmileylady said:

I think he was talking about the drug trials that were getting started.  HCQ wasn't the only trial that he talked about that I can recall, it was just the one he expressed the most hope about (seriously I might have to go back to rewatch it, it was quite a while ago)

Is it irresponsible for a president to express that he is very hopeful that a particular drug trial could work out very well?  I don't know if it is.  (but again, after a month or so, I can't promise my memory on his initial press briefing regarding it is all that great.)

I think we will just have to agree to disagree. Personally, I think the casual way he talks and tweets about many scientific things is generally uninformed and irresponsible. And when lives and health are at stake, I think it goes beyond annoying. But then again I’m likely biased because my husband has two science doctorates and is a healthcare professional  and I have a grad degree in statistics. So it probably bothers me more than most.

Edited by Frances
  • Like 6
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I've actually watched many of the ZdoggMD videos.  He does offer an interesting balanced perspective on some things.   He is also another source (like everyone) trying to produce click bait and selectively ignores data at times too so YMMV.  

I think people are giving the media too much credit.  If the story next week were this drug were great and it was being with held or hoarded or data suppressed somewhere, someone would love to break that story and that would be the new click bait.   The media's job is to generate interest in current events which in turn generates revenue.  I am local to the U of MN study and am alum.  I know health care professionals participating.  There is nothing political about that study.  That's how it is supposed to work.  If something shows very encouraging promise during a study, it can move to compassionate use.  We are not there with this drug.  I personally have no feelings whether it is positive or negative.  The data I've seen reported from decent sources looks trending negative.  And I've scoured all over looking for other data.  No one has posted any other studies here. It doesn't exist as far as I can tell.  

Why should a politician be talking about any one particular drug?  That is just irresponsible.  It wouldn't be in the media if the wording had been "Doctors have been seeing some promising data with existing drugs and I'm optimistic our scientists will continue to continue to learn to fight this virus ...."  The media does stuff in response to what a world leader says.   That's not surprising.  Media consumers should take a measured response to consumption.  So yes, it's been over covered obnoxiously so in some cases.  But to expect a world leader to just be able to run his mouth and not have the media question it or take it seriously isn't the best idea either.  

  • Like 11
Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...