@metal-brain saidIf you had bothered to read your little article, you'll notice Fauci once approved chloroquine & hydroxychloroquine for a different ailment. In addition, the author of this piece (Mr. Fischer) is a writer, who studied theology and philosophy not medicine, so is no more qualified to judge Dr. Fauchi's medical decisions than the trees in my backyard. I would advise you and Mr. Fischer (who advocates the holocaust was caused by homosexuals) to leave medical decisions to the doctors.
He once approved and now he disapproves.
https://onenewsnow.com/perspectives/bryan-fischer/2020/04/27/fauci-knew-about-hcq-in-2005-nobody-needed-to-die
Why isn't Trump taking it anymore?
- and in the future, please try to find a more reputable source than this goofball!🙄
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bryan_Fischer
05 Oct 20
@mchill saidWell.....maybe you should have a problem with Robert Redfield then.
If you had bothered to read your little article, you'll notice Fauci once approved chloroquine & hydroxychloroquine for a different ailment. In addition, the author of this piece (Mr. Fischer) is a writer, who studied theology and philosophy not medicine, so is no more qualified to judge Dr. Fauchi's medical decisions than the trees in my backyard. I would advise you and Mr. ...[text shortened]... ry to find a more reputable source than this goofball!🙄
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bryan_Fischer
https://foreignpolicy.com/2018/03/23/meet-trumps-new-homophobic-public-health-quack/
So are you claiming SARS1 is so different than SARS2 that these two coronaviruses could not possibly be treated with the same medication?
Why is Trump being given remdesivir? There is no more proof that works any more than hydroxychloroquine.
https://www.globalresearch.ca/scientific-corona-lies-and-big-pharma-corruption-hydroxychloroquine-versus-gileads-remdesivir/5717718
www.cnbc.com/amp/2020/07/29/dr-fauci-says-all-the-valid-scientific-data-shows-hydroxychloroquine-isnt-effective-in-treating-coronavirus.html
Dr. Fauci says all the 'valid' scientific data shows hydroxychloroquine isn't effective in treating coronavirus
This thread is pointless. Trump claimed he was taking hydroxychloroquine as a preventive measure and still contracted the virus. Clearly, Fauci was right.
@vivify said"Trump claimed he was taking hydroxychloroquine as a preventive measure and still contracted the virus. Clearly, Fauci was right."
www.cnbc.com/amp/2020/07/29/dr-fauci-says-all-the-valid-scientific-data-shows-hydroxychloroquine-isnt-effective-in-treating-coronavirus.html
Dr. Fauci says all the 'valid' scientific data shows hydroxychloroquine isn't effective in treating coronavirus
This thread is pointless. Trump claimed he was taking hydroxychloroquine as a preventive measure and still contracted the virus. Clearly, Fauci was right.
He was taking it at one time. I doubt he continued taking it up until he got SARS2. Unless you can provide a source to your claim I will assume you are making that up.
That cnbc article says exactly the opposite of what Fauci said years before. You just proved Fauci contradicted himself. Thanks.
The Lancet article was retracted.
The scientific data clearly was not valid since it was retracted. Now you are left with a clear contradiction in Fauci's statements and writings. Being contradictory is the only consistent thing about Fauci.
https://www.globalresearch.ca/scientific-corona-lies-and-big-pharma-corruption-hydroxychloroquine-versus-gileads-remdesivir/5717718
05 Oct 20
@metal-brain saidHow often does hydroxychloroquine need to be taken in order to work? Every day? Twice a day?
He was taking it at one time. I doubt he continued taking it up until he got SARS2. Unless you can provide a source to your claim I will assume you are making that up.
And where's YOUR source that Trump stopped taking it? I guess I should assume you're making your claim up.
That cnbc article says exactly the opposite of what Fauci said years before. You just proved Fauci contradicted himself. Thanks.
You clearly don't understand how science works. Scientists go with available data. If new data comes along showing something doesn't work, you abandon it in favor of updated research. That's not contradiction, that's science.
@vivify said"Scientists go with available data. If new data comes along showing something doesn't work, you abandon it in favor of updated research. That's not contradiction, that's science."
How often does hydroxychloroquine need to be taken in order to work? Every day? Twice a day?
And where's YOUR source that Trump stopped taking it? I guess I should assume you're making your claim up.
That cnbc article says exactly the opposite of what Fauci said years before. You just proved Fauci contradicted himself. Thanks.
You clearly don't understand ho ...[text shortened]... oesn't work, you abandon it in favor of updated research. That's not contradiction, that's science.
The updated research shows hydroxychloroquine to be vindicated. The Lancet article was retracted. That makes Fauci's statement against hydroxychloroquine outdated and based on false data. In other words, it was a fraudulent smear.
hydroxychloroquine is a common malaria drug used for years. Many doctors in third world countries have used hydroxychloroquine to treat SARS2. Ask them how often they a gave it to their patients and how well it worked.
05 Oct 20
@metal-brain saidhttps://www.wsj.com/articles/fda-withdraws-emergency-use-authorization-for-hydroxychloroquine-for-covid-19-11592238129
The updated research shows hydroxychloroquine to be vindicated. The Lancet article was retracted. That makes Fauci's statement against hydroxychloroquine outdated and based on false data.
FDA Pulls Emergency Covid-19-Use Approval for Hydroxychloroquine, Taken by Trump
Agency says ‘it is no longer reasonable to believe’ the malaria drug is effective in treating the virus
Discussion over.
@vivify saidNope. Why did the FDA withdrawl approval? Was it because of the Lancet article that was subsequently retracted because it was fraudulent information? Yep!
https://www.wsj.com/articles/fda-withdraws-emergency-use-authorization-for-hydroxychloroquine-for-covid-19-11592238129
FDA Pulls Emergency Covid-19-Use Approval for Hydroxychloroquine, Taken by Trump
Agency says ‘it is no longer reasonable to believe’ the malaria drug is effective in treating the virus
Discussion over.
In fact, there were two articles that were redacted. One report was published May 22 in The Lancet, while the other was published May 1 in the New England Journal of Medicine. That means the article you posted was written after those articles were redacted.
Did the FDA reverse their decision after both articles they based their decision on were redacted because of fraudulent data?
05 Oct 20
@vivify saidTrump took it as post-exposure prohylaxis when one of his guards tested positive in the summer. There is no reason to believe he's still taking it.
www.cnbc.com/amp/2020/07/29/dr-fauci-says-all-the-valid-scientific-data-shows-hydroxychloroquine-isnt-effective-in-treating-coronavirus.html
Dr. Fauci says all the 'valid' scientific data shows hydroxychloroquine isn't effective in treating coronavirus
This thread is pointless. Trump claimed he was taking hydroxychloroquine as a preventive measure and still contracted the virus. Clearly, Fauci was right.
Still, that HCQ is not part of his regimen now (the whole regimen was released) shows that the WH docs no longer believe HCQ helps with treatment.
There is some evidence that HCQ may help with pre-exposure prophylaxis, but not compelling. And the case to be made for using it as a treatment for those already presenting is very weak.
06 Oct 20
@sh76 saidGilead Sciences Inc was headed by Donald Rumsfeld (1997-2001).
Trump took it as post-exposure prohylaxis when one of his guards tested positive in the summer. There is no reason to believe he's still taking it.
Still, that HCQ is not part of his regimen now (the whole regimen was released) shows that the WH docs no longer believe HCQ helps with treatment.
There is some evidence that HCQ may help with pre-exposure prophylaxis, but not ...[text shortened]... ling. And the case to be made for using it as a treatment for those already presenting is very weak.
Is it any surprise the WH publicly says it is taking Remdesivir from a company that made the swine flu medication called Tamiflu?
Given this politically connected drug company makes Remdesivir , it is not surprising it is getting the headlines lately. I think it is a leap in judgement to assume WH docs no longer believe HCQ helps with treatment.
In fact, I think Trump's mentioning HCQ was meant to polarize the left against HCQ simply because he mentioned it. Now the establishment can say it was brought up by the president when it turns out it is confirmed to be the best medicine for SARS2 when diagnosed early.
Propagandists know anything endorsed by Trump will instantly be met by hatred and scrutiny from the left. They easily got nearly half of the population to instantly question HCQ as a treatment because of partisan bias alone.
HCQ is an effective treatment for SARS2 when diagnosed early. It is not surprising a conformist democrat like you fell for partisan bias and bought into the smearing of HCQ.
https://www.globalresearch.ca/scientific-corona-lies-and-big-pharma-corruption-hydroxychloroquine-versus-gileads-remdesivir/5717718
@metal-brain saidI really wish HCQ had turned out to be a miracle cure. I was rooting for it harder than anybody. But it was never proven effective after having been given one of the great looks-at in the history of medicine.
Gilead Sciences Inc was headed by Donald Rumsfeld (1997-2001).
Is it any surprise the WH publicly says it is taking Remdesivir from a company that made the swine flu medication called Tamiflu?
Given this politically connected drug company makes Remdesivir , it is not surprising it is getting the headlines lately. I think it is a leap in judgement to assume WH docs no ...[text shortened]... cientific-corona-lies-and-big-pharma-corruption-hydroxychloroquine-versus-gileads-remdesivir/5717718
If it makes you feel any better, I'm not that sold on Remdesivir either. It probably provides a very small benefit. I am more sold on convalescent plasma, which almost certainly provides a significant benefit (though it's not exactly a cure either).
I am very optimistic about various MAb treatments in the works and I also think that second waves are going to prove far less potent than first waves. The second wave in Europe right now is generating lots and lots of new cases, but doesn't seem to be killing people anywhere near the rate of the Spring outbreak. In the New York second wave happening right now in some communities, hopsitalizations and deaths have barely moved.
When places do start getting true third and fourth waves, they're probably going to look like the flu.
Or we can perhaps lock down forever, destroy our economy and cripple our children's education. I guess we'll see.
@metal-brain saidThe Lancet study was a fraud. That's been settled.
Nope. Why did the FDA withdrawl approval? Was it because of the Lancet article that was subsequently retracted because it was fraudulent information? Yep!
In fact, there were two articles that were redacted. One report was published May 22 in The Lancet, while the other was published May 1 in the New England Journal of Medicine. That means the article you posted was w ...[text shortened]... decision after both articles they based their decision on were redacted because of fraudulent data?
But HCQ got a lot of other looks from a lot of other sources and never really demonstrated efficacy as a treatment.
Edit: To be clear, I'm not accusing the authors of the study or The Lancet itself of intentionally defrauding people. But the underlying data provided by Surgisphere was clearly fraudulent.
06 Oct 20
@sh76 said"If it makes you feel any better, I'm not that sold on Remdesivir either."
I really wish HCQ had turned out to be a miracle cure. I was rooting for it harder than anybody. But it was never proven effective after having been given one of the great looks-at in the history of medicine.
If it makes you feel any better, I'm not that sold on Remdesivir either. It probably provides a very small benefit. I am more sold on convalescent plasma, which almost c ...[text shortened]... haps lock down forever, destroy our economy and cripple our children's education. I guess we'll see.
It does. I was wondering if you noticed Remdesivir is referred to as an "experimental medication". So why didn't Remdesivir get the same scrutiny that HCQ did?
07 Oct 20
@metal-brain saidThe standard answer is that it showed a good result in a randomized clinical trial supervised by the NIH. The other data on Remdesivir has been kind of mixed. Still, it had that one big result that HCQ never had.
"If it makes you feel any better, I'm not that sold on Remdesivir either."
It does. I was wondering if you noticed Remdesivir is referred to as an "experimental medication". So why didn't Remdesivir get the same scrutiny that HCQ did?
But if you’re asking whether there was a lot of opposition to HCQ merely because Trump supported it, I’d agree that there was.