Chloroquine and Hydroxychloroquine Coronavirus cures?

[WildRose]

I really don’t give a ■■■■ what you think at all much less about Geller.

Ignore her, ignore the studies and trials, ignore everything that will help bring this outbreak to an end because we all know that if the administration succeeds, November will be a complete rout for the dem’s.

Then you can all pull that bubble in tight while you all rant, rave, wail, scream, and cry for four more years of Trump.

Even without this it was going to end up Trump vs a Stump or Potted Plant, beating this virus is going to make it a cake walk.

[JayJay]

@Camp

It told me a lot.

The drug is economical and available and offers a lot of patients effective remediation.

Side effects are well know and monitored by the physician.

Not much down side.

Saving people from needing to go on a ventilator right now is a key tool in fighting the virus.

Is it simple sport opposing something with so little downside?

Except this proves no such thing.

The vast majority of patients never go on ventilators, so since doctors are not doing a controlled study, they have zero way of determining if the drug did anything, or if these patients recovered on their own because they were always going to recover on their own.

And no one’s opposing the study of these drugs.

What’s being said is there’s no conclusive evidence they do anything.

Why is that so difficult to understand?

[Jezcoe]

@JayJay

@Camp

It told me a lot.

The drug is economical and available and offers a lot of patients effective remediation.

Side effects are well know and monitored by the physician.

Not much down side.

Saving people from needing to go on a ventilator right now is a key tool in fighting the virus.

Is it simple sport opposing something with so little downside?

Except this proves no such thing.

The vast majority of patients never go on ventilators, so since doctors are not doing a controlled study, they have zero way of determining if the drug did anything, or if these patients recovered on their own because they were always going to recover on their own.

And no one’s opposing the study of these drugs.

What’s being said is there’s no conclusive evidence they do anything.

Why is that so difficult to understand?

Because the efficacy of the drug has become political.

It is really weird.

[Konssurvative1]

@WildRose

The NY study has been updated, same results with a total of 350 patients now as I provided.

A single doctor claiming to have treated 350 people in New York is not a study. It is purely anecdotal. Where’s the study?..all you cited was a news paper report?

I hope it is true…but I want a study.

[WildRose]

No it isn’t, he’s documented his results with all of them and offered to share them with any other physician who is interested.

[Konssurvative1]

Cite it please…the study.

[mobiusptc]

And a real study, not an editorial this time

[WildRose]

The answer hasn’t changed in the last ten seconds.

If you are a physician contact his office and they will share the results with you.

[Konssurvative1]

Right. That’s classic anecdotal reporting. If the study or the doc was legit, he would have published his study. Right?

[Camp]

All you did was talk around the subject instead of addressing the benfits vs the demerits.

[Camp]

Only to those that want to step between a Dr and patient.

[Jezcoe]

@Camp

Only to those that want to step between a Dr and patient.

Good thing that no one is doing that.

[WildRose]

Except more than a few governors and other dem’s fighting to keep it from being prescribed.

[Jezcoe]

@WildRose

Except more than a few governors and other dem’s fighting to keep it from being prescribed.

Please… this has been gone over and over and over.

No one is stopping anyone from prescribing these drugs for off label use.

[WuWei]

@Camp

Democrat State Rep in MI credited Trump and these drugs with saving her life.

Is she some blind random representative?

[PeterGriffin]

And when it so easily and predictabky turns out to be another conservative scam, the marks who got fooled yet again will be right there with the “well, at least he tried”.

But yeah if you’re forced to cite people like Pam Gellar to make your case, you don’t have one.

[WuWei]

@Tangible08

So you’re saying that it’s risky to promote a drug without overwhelming evidence that it works?

No. Not if you already know the risk. Why are you afraid of it not working? Are they any worse off if it doesn’t?

[PeterGriffin]

Teump tried to save everybody but those damn Democrats wouldn’t let him.

This movie is more predictable than “Titanic”.

[WildRose]

That’s completely false. Michigan’s governor threatened to yank licenses for physicians prescribing it for prophylactic use and many governors are restricting it only to use with some patients who are hospitalized.

This isn’t even questionable much less arguable.

[WildRose]

@Tangible08

@WildRose

No, he’s just not going to risk his reputation by going out on a limb and supporting it until there’s overwhelming evidence that it works.

That’s pretty typical of Doc’s period especially those in the public eye.

As long as they stick to that they have neither any professional or personal liability.

So you’re saying that it’s risky to promote a drug without overwhelming evidence that it works?

Maybe that’s because if you don’t have overwhelming evidence that a drug works there is a non-minute chance that you are wrong?

I made no such statement period much less in the post you replied to.