Hydroxychloroquine Does Not prevent Covid-19 Infection if Exposed, Study Says (statnews.com) 280
The malaria drug hydroxychloroquine did not help prevent people who had been exposed to others with Covid-19 from developing the disease, according to the results of an eagerly awaited study that was published Wednesday in the New England Journal of Medicine. From a report: Despite a lack of evidence, many people began taking the medicine to try to prevent infection early in the Covid-19 pandemic, following anecdotal reports it could be effective and claims by President Trump and conservative commentators. Trump, too, said he took hydroxychloroquine to prevent infection. But the new study, the first double-blind randomized, placebo-controlled trial of hydroxychloroquine, found otherwise. "I think in the setting of post-exposure prophylaxis, it doesn't seem to work," said Sarah Lofgren, an assistant professor at the University of Minnesota who is a co-author of the study. Other studies of hydroxychloroquine are ongoing. Also Wednesday, the World Health Organization said it is resuming a clinical trial testing hydroxychloroquine as a treatment after pausing it over safety concerns.
Doesn't help before, doesn't help when infected (Score:3, Insightful)
So it doesn't help prevent infection, doesn't help when people are infected, doesn't prevent death. How much more money and time are we going to waste on this quackery? And why? Just because a senile orangutan promoted it? Let's spend the time and money on something that has a chance of working.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Let's spend the time and money on something that has a chance of working.
We are, there are hundreds of other drugs in trial for COVID.
And why?
Because HQC helps to suppress the cytokine storm that was theorized to be what killed people with coronavirus. That is the hypothesis.
Yet WHO restarts trial. (Score:2)
Wow great Slashdot mods.
This morning I sent in a story about how the WHO is restarting testing [financialexpress.com], because their prefvious study was flawed, but instead they deci9de to gho with one more story about HCQ not working.
RTFA (Score:3, Informative)
Given that the Spanish study is still out there and it still shows that at best unsafe doses are necessary to have an effect on the virus the second WHO study is unlikely to bear fruit. Still, it needs to be done.
Re: (Score:3)
Indeed. The aims at this time are to reliably rule out any benefits, but that still needs to be proven to sound standards, i.e. double-blind.
Re: (Score:2)
This was a double blind study. But yes we need double blind studies for proving whether or not it reduces deaths in intensive care patients.
Top medical journals raise concerns about data ... (Score:2)
It's not working for prevention. The WHO is going to run another study for treatment. Given that the Spanish study is still out there and it still shows that at best unsafe doses are necessary to have an effect on the virus the second WHO study is unlikely to bear fruit. Still, it needs to be done.
Some of the negative studies are now being questioned by the Lancet and the New England Journal of Medicine, two highly regarded medical journals.
https://www.statnews.com/2020/... [statnews.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Originally it was faster recovery (Score:2, Interesting)
Originally the combination of azithromycin and hydroxychloroquine was posited to help patients recover faster.
https://www.biospace.com/artic... [biospace.com]
https://techcrunch.com/2020/03... [techcrunch.com]
Both studies were pretty preliminary (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
And when broader studies did not back that up, certain people switched to "you have to take it before you get sick" or just after infection.
On the other hand (Score:5, Insightful)
there are questions being made about the reliability of the database used in the Lancet study for hospitalized patients a couple of weeks ago, although these questions don't *necessarily* invalidate the conclusions.
Welcome to science folks. If you aren't comfortable with uncertainty, it's not for you.
Re:On the other hand (Score:5, Insightful)
Well said. It not only takes a scientific mind to produce Science, it also takes one to understand it, especially when there is real time pressure and uncertain results need to be used as nothing better is available. From a scientific point of view, these conditions also produce the fastest advances, as you cannot play it safe anymore. In retrospect, they also produce the most false theories and failed approaches, but that is expected.
Wrong name (Score:2)
If it did prevent infection, it would be called "vaccine", not "medicine".
Re:Wrong name (Score:4, Informative)
No, it would be called a "prophylactic", or a drug that has a preventative effect. A vaccine is a very different type of thing.
Re: (Score:2)
No.
Drugs can prevent infection. They aren't vaccines when they do, because they work in an entirely different way.
This is horseshit. Doctors were taking it first (Score:2)
There is much anecdotal evidence of many frontline doctors and nurses taking hydroxychloroquine as a prophylactic for weeks before Trump even mentioned it. Where do you think he got the idea?
Look, I don't know if it works or not. There have been studies showing it does and it doesn't. Some of the "doesn't work" studies look like they under dubious circumstances at best. All of this is new. But it's shit like this that's infuriating. Trump isn't selling or making hydroxychloroquine. But every Trump ha
Re: (Score:2)
But every Trump hater in the world wants to frame it as if Trump just started naming hydroxychloroquine out of the blue and started prescribing it to the public.
And if he had prescribed Eye of Newt, Trump lovers would be fawning over his amazing medical knowledge. So it certainly works both ways.
Re: (Score:2)
Did "Eye of Newt" work?
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, very well.
But that is just anecdotal.
Re: (Score:2)
Where it has specifically shown some possible promise which again was never stated for certain is when it comes to the progression of the virus to the point where it destroys the lungs.
Re: (Score:2)
"Trump isn't selling or making hydroxychloroquine"
Trump is invested in a company which makes it. Consequently he is doing both by proxy.
Re: (Score:2)
This?
"Business Insider followed the paper trail and concluded that the holding has a maximum value of around $1,300, only slightly larger than similar holdings by Trump funds in Google parent Alphabet, FedEx, and the French bank BNP Paribas.
Here is the logic:
The Dodge & Cox holdings are mentioned in this disclosure form, logged with the US Office of Government Ethics in May 2019.
Each of three family funds list a holding in the Dodge & Cox International Stocks Fund, valued between $1,000 and $15,000.
The plural of "anecdote" is not "data" (Score:2)
There is much anecdotal evidence of ...
There is a common saying in the world of scientific research: "The plural of "anecdote" is not "data".
Show me the Zinc! (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Doing a search for "zinc" on the paper itself returns zero results.
Since the claims for prophylaxis are for HCQ + azithromycin + zinc, it looks like someone intentionally did a broken study to get the "correct" result.
Re:Show me the Zinc! (Score:4, Informative)
It's not mentioned in the paper because they did not give zinc to the subjects. However (bolded for emphasis):
Approximately 12% of those given hydroxychloroquine developed Covid-19, compared to 14% who were given the vitamin folate as a placebo. There was no further benefit among patients who chose to take zinc or vitamin C. Nearly 40% of patients on hydroxychloroquine experienced side effects such as nausea, upset stomach, or diarrhea. However, the study did not see a significant increase in disturbances of heart rhythms, or an imbalance of deaths.
Re: (Score:3)
The news article interviews the people who performed the study, who would have gathered additional data that is not directly relevant to the study. Just in case it turned out to be relevant.
If it turned out that Zinc or Vitamin C was a confounding factor to their hydroxychloroquine-only study, they'd want that data. But since it's not a study about Zinc or Vitamin C, and Zinc and Vitamin C did not have proper experimental controls, and had no apparent effect, you would not necessarily include it in the pa
Re: (Score:3)
All you had to do was read TFS.
Approximately 12% of those given hydroxychloroquine developed Covid-19, compared to 14% who were given the vitamin folate as a placebo. There was no further benefit among patients who chose to take zinc or vitamin C. Nearly 40% of patients on hydroxychloroquine experienced side effects such as nausea, upset stomach, or diarrhea. However, the study did not see a significant increase in disturbances of heart rhythms, or an imbalance of deaths.
Re: (Score:2)
I think what may be more relevant is to run blood panels on patients to correlate success and failure with with blood levels of certain elements including Zinc. It doesn't hurt the study to draw blood, and it may give some suggestion as to why it fails in some people ( low blood levels of Zinc ).
Re: Show me the Zinc! (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Follow the money. How much does HCQ cost? Go look at stock prices of leading covid vaccine contenders.
Re: (Score:3)
The headline doesn't say anything about taking the Hydroxychloroquine with Zinc.
Oh today it's zinc? I'm sure tomorrow it will be garlic, or whatever else the pro hydroxychloroquine crowd will attempt to mix it with to try and somehow prove that they didn't completely jump the gun on completely unfounded claims like morons.
Bigger news concerning studies (Score:2)
Yale School of Public Health says otherwise (Score:3, Informative)
https://publichealth.yale.edu/... [yale.edu]
Does hydroxychloroquine have the potential to be a “game-changer” in the fight against this pandemic?
HR: Hydroxychloroquine alone is not the whole story. It needs to be combined with azithromycin or doxycycline and probably with zinc to make it most effective. The game changer is to aggressively treat people as soon as possible, before they are hospitalized, to keep them from becoming hospitalized in the first place. Hydroxychloroquine plus the other medications is what we know about now. In a few months we may have data on other medications that also work. We just have to start with something now.
Don't tell trump! (Score:2)
As someone in the business... (Score:3)
The entire story with choloroquine phosphate or hydroxychloroquine has been a distraction mess. Nobody - absolutely nobody, who knows what chloroquine does (cell biologists, not medical doctors) expected chloroquine to work after exposure to the virus.
Chloroquine prevents endocytosis and autophagy, as is expected to work BEFORE exposure, to lower the risk of infection. And every single study so far focuses on the after-exposure effects, and some even on when full-blown disease is ongoing. Of course it slows insignificant effects.... it's like throwing a plastic sheet on your car to keep it dry AFTER it has been parked in the rain overnight. That's not how plastic works, stupid.
The main difficulty is that to conduct a pre-exposure study is extremely risky for the researchers. You'd have to put a group of people on chloroquine and a group of people on placebo and then hope that some of them catch COVID19...so you can get your data. In the current climate of half-baked measures and people either following social distancing or not, to various degrees, the data at the end of the trial will be a mess. Essentially, any researchers who undertake such a trial are doomed to scientific failure due to poor data quality.
Much easier to take people who are already exposed or infected...because you can identify them. This is how stupid statements from authoritative figures derail and corrupt the scientific process.
Re:Shut up already (Score:5, Insightful)
A scientific study is a conspiracy theory now? Have we really slid so far down the cliff that this is the level of discourse we want to accept?
Re: (Score:3)
to certain groups of people EVERYTHING Is now a conspiracy theory..... Sad but true.
Re: (Score:3)
The most significant of which being "the world is round" =)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
A scientific study is a conspiracy theory now? Have we really slid so far down the cliff that this is the level of discourse we want to accept?
They're doing study after study, each one not including zinc, which is absolutely essential with HCQ, since all HCQ does is increase cellular zinc absorption. What is the purpose of this, other then to discredit the cheap generic drug in order to beef up pharma stocks. Who sponsored this study?
Re:Shut up already (Score:5, Informative)
They're doing study after study, each one not including zinc, which is absolutely essential with HCQ, since all HCQ does is increase cellular zinc absorption. What is the purpose of this, other then to discredit the cheap generic drug in order to beef up pharma stocks. Who sponsored this study?
Did you even read the paper before commenting? They included data from people who happened to take Zinc independently during the study and the results were equally null.
Re: (Score:3)
Your credulity is misplaced.
There are studies investigating the use of Zinc with HCQ.
Here is a pre-print of one. (Im making no claims of its methodology, or results, only that they exist).
We will have to wait for peer review to see if its found to have merit and hold water.
https://www.medrxiv.org/conten... [medrxiv.org]
Re: (Score:3)
Duuuuuuuuuuuude, until you've studied weed + LSD as a control, your study is just too weak.
(/s)
Authors retract major study hydroxychloroquine (Score:2)
A major study on the effects of hydroxychloroquine on COVID-19 patients was retracted from a leading medical journal Thursday after doctors and scientists raised questions about the validity of the data. [thehill.com]
Re:Authors retract major study hydroxychloroquine (Score:5, Informative)
The Surgisphere data scandal [theguardian.com] affects two papers regarding an excess in cardiovascular related deaths in COVID-19 patients treated with hydroxychloroquine published in The Lancet [thelancet.com] on 22 May and The New England Journal of Medicine [nejm.org] on 1 May. The Lancet has issued an "Expression of Concern" [thelancet.com] and the NEJoM article has been retracted.
These are the studies which caused WHO to suspend its global hydroxychloroquine trails. They have resumed those trials as a result of the Guardian's article.
This scandal does not affect the prophylaxis article [nejm.org] published yesterday in the NEJoM and being discussed in this Slashdot story.
Re:Shut up already (Score:4, Insightful)
A scientific study is a conspiracy theory now? Have we really slid so far down the cliff that this is the level of discourse we want to accept?
We're also claiming that:
"following anecdotal reports it could be effective and claims by President Trump and conservative commentators"
No, it's following reports from French doctors that hydroxychloroquine - a cheap, safe, effective drug that's used for various ailments and specifically prevention of malaria - when used as part of a two drug cocktail with Z-Pak seemed to help people get well sooner. Trump mentioned it because, if true, it would be great news given the history of the drugs and their cost effectiveness. Trump and "conservative commentators" didn't say much about it until lefties went insane claiming Trump was basically making this up himself.
Re: Shut up already (Score:4, Informative)
Ok two things...
The French did a study from April and concluded mid-May that HCQ doesn't help. It's the largest observational study done so far. The results of which had the French govt ban the wastage of the drug in treating COVID-19 across their hospitals.
HCQ is used as a preventive measure for malaria. It is used to lessen Lupus and arthritis. None of those are viruses. That's pretty much it. It has been tested on many things like Dengue for over 10 years but no positive results yet.
We keep testing because there is a mechanism for it to work... we just not sure why it isn't.
Re: (Score:3)
The study was not retracted, it was not published.
Also, there are multiple authors to the study (plural).
It was also a preliminary study, which was followed up with a much larger sample of patients (over 1300).
Also in pre-print (like almost all studies at the moment on COVID-19, because of the massive backlog in peer review)
https://www.mediterranee-infec... [mediterran...ection.com]
And will soon be followed by one with over 3800+ patients.
Re: (Score:3)
A scientific study is a conspiracy theory now? Have we really slid so far down the cliff that this is the level of discourse we want to accept?
Well, two recent studies on hydroxychloroquine which where widely cited as evidence it was useless in treating COVID-19 in the media have been recently retracted. The issue was the source of the study's data source, which came from what turned out to be a very dubious source.
The Lancet article is discussed here: https://arstechnica.com/scienc... [arstechnica.com]
And the New England Journal of Medicine retracts its article here: https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/... [nejm.org]
Given how widely and thoroughly these studies where used by th
Re: (Score:2)
what studies are we missing?
Perhaps you can submit them as a possible story for slashdot.
Or just post them here.
Re:Shut up already (Score:5, Insightful)
I think the Swastika ascii art, Alt-Right and Alt-Light D-bags, MAGA Chuds, and other losers already do that. The conspiracy theories just reinforce what everybody already knows: the Slashdot comment section has more in common with watching a bug zapper on a summer night, these days, than anything resembling the intellectual discourse that used to take place here. I come here for the train wreck factor. It's cringe porn. It's like walking into a restaurant that spent a ton of money renovating in the 90s and never updated anything. Not cool, but not classic... just sad. I mean, for fuck's sake, Slashdot itself is still advertising Sourceforge at the top of the page.
If I'm looking for for what I used to get from Slashdot, I go to HN.
Re: (Score:3)
the Slashdot comment section has more in common with watching a bug zapper on a summer night, these days, than anything resembling the intellectual discourse that used to take place here.
On the plus side, there are far fewer goatse.cx links being posted nowadays.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Every racist, swastika-laden cloud has its silver lining I guess?
As an aside, I wonder when was the last time Slashdot actually slashdotted something? That's got to be the real measure of when this site died.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:3)
Quick search:
HN --> Hacker News. https://news.ycombinator.com/ [ycombinator.com]
Thanks! I don't get out much... therefore I should fit in perfectly. ;)
Re: Shut up already (Score:5, Informative)
Slashdot is definitely creating fake summaries
Not really. Mostly the slashdot summaries are copy and pasted directly from the article. Such as this one. Your statement is false: slashdot did not create a fake summary.
and cherry picking information and spreading fake news.
I checked: yep, https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/... [slashdot.org]>there it is in the New England Journal of Medicine. Your statement is false: not fake news.
Steven Nissen, a cardiologist and veteran clinical trialist at the Cleveland Clinic, was much harsher. The fact that patients self-reported their data and that one in five did not take all their doses of the study drug, as well as the studyâ(TM)s small size,
It was a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial. It is always true that some people don't follow instructions perfectly; that's why they do randomized controlled experiments, to make sure that the people not following instructions doesn't bias the experiment.
Yes, of course any study can be better if done with more people. That's not news. Do you have a study with more participants? No, you don't.
made him less than confident that the study could entirely rule out that hydroxychloroquine had some preventative effect.
What this study shows is that post-exposure Hydroxychloroquine doesn't have a large and obvious effect. That information is useful. At most, it has a small effect. That possible small effect may have some value, but these results, assuming that they're confirmed, say it's not a cure, it is at best a small improvement in outcome, and very likely no effect at all.
He emphasized that more studies of the drug, which was widely prescribed during the initial months of the Covid-19 pandemic, have not been completed.
Of course. In general, never fully trust one study that hasn't yet been replicated. More studies are always useful
âoeAbsence of evidence is not evidence of absence,â Nissen said. âoePoor quality data does not help it only confuses the world. Thatâ(TM)s exactly where we find ourselves, in a state of confusion.â
The study showed that post-exposure Hydroxychloroquine doesn't have a large and obvious effect. That information is useful.
Re: Shut up already (Score:5, Informative)
I don't know why it's so political all of the sudden, the last time I participated in a drug test it was also self reporting with trips to the hospital every other month for a checkup.
Re: (Score:3)
I don't know why it's so political all of the sudden
Because a highly-polarizing politician explicitly mentioned it during a public broadcast.
That's why it is a bad idea for politicians to meddle in the domain of science, engineering, or medicine. Anything mentioned will become political, facts be damned.
Re: (Score:3)
If you don't understand how science works I'm sure you'd jump to that conclusion to defend your belief.
Re: (Score:2)
Agreed. Anybody else notice that the use the President put it to was PRE-exposure, and that this ridiculous study was POST-exposure?
Re:Shut up already (Score:4, Interesting)
Why is this study ridiculous? Is it because it doesn't support your preferred outcome, or is it because it isn't responsive to your President's whims? Also, how do you know "that the use the President put it to was PRE-exposure" or that he even used it at all? Because you take the word of a pathological liar?
Re:How to spot a Strawman? (Score:5, Informative)
Criticizing (arguing) against claims never made. ...
Nobody said it "prevented" anything.
Well... Someone said and believes it does: Trump says he takes hydroxychloroquine to prevent coronavirus infection even though it's an unproven treatment [cnbc.com] (and other sources):
President Donald Trump said Monday that he has been taking anti-malaria drug hydroxychloroquine daily for over a week to prevent coronavirus infection even though it is not yet a proven treatment.
"I happen to be taking it," Trump said during a roundtable event at the White House. "A lot of good things have come out. You'd be surprised at how many people are taking it, especially the front-line workers. Before you catch it. The front-line workers, many, many are taking it."
He added: "I'm taking it, hydroxychloroquine. Right now, yeah. Couple of weeks ago, I started taking it. Cause I think it's good, I've heard a lot of good stories."
Re:How to spot a Strawman? (Score:4, Informative)
And if you actually read what you posted you see that Trump said he takes it - starting before catching COVID-19, while the claim he takes it TO PREVENT CATCHING COVID-19 is all from the news media.
More fake news - and they fooled you with this one.
The claims are:
- Hydroxychloroquine (perhaps with azithromycin and/or zinc supplements) may work against the virus and/or modulate the immune system's reaction to it, well enough to reduce the severity of the illness and/or the likelihood of it progressing to the fatal pneumonia and cytokine storm stage.
- Like most antivirals, you have to take it early, when the viral load is low and few cells are infected.
- Hydroxychloroquine has been around for a long time and is used for long periods (because its main uses are for malaria, lupus, and rheumatoid arthritis). Its side effects are well known. In moderate doses its safety is comparable to aspirin and the doctors know what to watch out for. So it's suitable for use for several months during a pandemic, starting before the patient is infected, so it's already on the job if/when the virus first hits.
If you read what you posted, you'll see that Trump's (layman-level) statements are consistent with this, while the media's portrayal of them is not. (At least this time they composed their piece so you could actually see what they did.)
Please do some careful reading, and consult multiple sources, before believing mainstream media slams on Trump. To paraphrase the old saw: Fooled you once, shame on them. Fooled you twice, shame on you.
Re:How to spot a Strawman? (Score:5, Informative)
The claims are:
Actually, there are many different people claiming many different things about Hydroxychloroquine. When you say "the claims are", what you mean is "one set of claims is".
- Hydroxychloroquine (perhaps with azithromycin and/or zinc supplements) may work against the virus and/or modulate the immune system's reaction to it, well enough to reduce the severity of the illness and/or the likelihood of it progressing to the fatal pneumonia and cytokine storm stage. - Like most antivirals, you have to take it early, when the viral load is low and few cells are infected.
Right. And this is the claim being tested here, that the treatment is effective right at the beginning of exposure, when the viral dose is low.
Turns out, in this study at least, it didn't seem to help.
- Hydroxychloroquine has been around for a long time and is used for long periods (because its main uses are for malaria, lupus, and rheumatoid arthritis). Its side effects are well known.
"not as bad as the effects of malaria or lupus" is not actually a good thing.
In moderate doses its safety is comparable to aspirin and the doctors know what to watch out for.
The dose being suggested for COVID 19 is from 50% to 200% higher than the dose used for malaria, lupus, or rheumatoid arthritis.
This study is useful. Many different theraputic uses of Hydroxychloroquine have been proposed for use against COVID-19. This study looked at one of them, which is use of it before symptoms manifest, and showed that this doesn't seem to help.
Re: (Score:3)
The claims are:
Actually, there are many different people claiming many different things about Hydroxychloroquine. When you say "the claims are", what you mean is "one set of claims is".
When they're that stupid, there is really nothing you can do with it.
Re: (Score:3)
Fooled you once, shame on them. Fooled you twice, shame on you.
Yes, please keep that in mind when listening to anything Trump and/or his Administration says. He and they have no credibility.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Oh please.. This describes every politition ever to run for federal office... If you think Trump lies in exclusion to others, you are not paying attention.
However, I would like to point out that the vast majorty of the "lies" you think Trump is telling, are not really lies. I've heard *many* breathless reports about Trump lying about this or that and when you go investigate what he ACTULLY said, in total, you find out that the reports are misrepresenting what was said. In my estimation, there are more l
Re:How to spot a Strawman? (Score:4, Informative)
why is everyone so fucking fixated on this drug?
You should check out Wikipedia's "List of drugs promoted by US Presidents 1789 - 2020"
Who fucking cares if it works
For drugs, "does it work?" and "will it kill me?" are quite important questions.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Because Trump endorsed it. And he must never, ever be wrong about anything.
That's the issue really, since he said something, both sides have feverishly been using it to prove him wrong/right.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:How to spot a Strawman? (Score:5, Informative)
Because Trump endorsed it. And he must never, ever be right about anything. So any tactic is allowable, including claiming he did things he didn't do.
https://www.cnbc.com/2020/05/1... [cnbc.com]
“I happen to be taking it,” Trump said during a roundtable event at the White House. “A lot of good things have come out. You’d be surprised at how many people are taking it, especially the front-line workers. Before you catch it. The front-line workers, many, many are taking it.”
Stop lying.
Re: (Score:2)
Because none of the studies so far have proven that it is effective.
Re:How to spot a Strawman? (Score:5, Insightful)
Remember when he claimed Obama wasn't born in the U.S., his birth certificate not withstanding? Or when he claimed the Central Park Five were guilty even after they'd been exonerated by the courts? Or how about those 19,000+ false and/or misleading claims he made so far? And that's only the ones he made while in office. He claimed he fired Mattis, but Mattis resigned. He claimed he gave the sobriquet "Mad Dog" to Mattis, but Mattis had that before Trump even knew he existed.
And now he claims he didn't run for the cover of his bunker last weekend when the Secret Service said he did...sort of brings a new meaning to the phrase, "did a bunk".
And people actually believe he took that damn drug? One, he's a congenital liar. Two, he hasn't the balls to take it. Three, he's more than happy to have Americans take it to see if it work regardless of how many it kills off.
How low an opinion of you must he have to lie to your face. It must be extremely low because apparently you still have Trump Derangement Syndrome, i.e., the ability to believe Trump.
Re: How to spot a Strawman? (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Sad. Low effort.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: How to spot a Strawman? (Score:4, Interesting)
Or have him impact the market decisions. There were other drugs the initial Chinese study recommended for further evaluation. But I bet those aren't receiving as much attention or funding with all the pointless focus on HCQ.
This is why people in power should shut up and let the experts do their thing. Supporting said experts shouldn't just be cheerleading.
Re:How to spot a Strawman? (Score:5, Informative)
Nobody said it "prevented" anything.
False. Not only did plenty of people say it did prevent it, the president of the USA has gone on record saying he was taking it preventatively.
Re: How to spot a Strawman? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Many claims [Re:How to spot a Strawman?] (Score:3)
It may not "prevent" COVID-19, but
Many people have claimed many different things about Hydroxychloroquine with respect to COVID-19. One of the claims was that it could help prevent the disease if taken early enough.
there is plenty of evidence that it may help symptomatic patients IF started early enough and used in combination with an antibiotic and zinc supplement.
There is some evidence, which is very ambiguious. But that's a different claim, which is also being investigated.
Re: (Score:3)
Nobody said it "prevented" anything.
Come on - around a week ago I had to call shenanigans on a slashdotter claiming that lupus patients never got coronavirus because they took the drug.
Re: (Score:3)
And if if didn't why are so many doctors prescribing it are claiming it helps?
Because they are desperate to try anything, and any individual doctor is unlikely to have a large enough sample size to determine if/how effective it is, and is likely not doing any kind of controlled study. All the studies that have been done to date have shown no effectiveness.
Re: (Score:2)
Nobody said it "prevented" anything.
This kind of statement is dangerous to make because there's always some crackpot out there who said it, no matter how crazy "it" is.
Re: (Score:3)
To answer your question, President Trump said Hydroxychloroquine looks like a promising treatment. Since he said it, it has to be bad.
Well, he had no science to back up his claim, so "promising" is mostly his imagination, and given his (lack of) track record of truthfulness skepticism is certainly warranted.
And he still has no science to back up his claim. The guys only claim to competence is reality TV, not sure why you would expect rational people to take him seriously.
Re: (Score:3)
Trump has done that himself, by acting like a wannabe 3rd world dictator.
Re:Why they care (Score:4, Funny)
The reason people in these forums etc care so much is that they have a mental disorder. They have allowed hate to fill them to such an extent, that they no longer think rationally, or wish for rational dreams.
Yeah, there's something wrong with those Trump supp. . .oh, it looks like you're confused.
Re: (Score:2)
FTFY
Re: (Score:2)
Trump supported it, so the MAGAers must support it by all means necessary, fair or foul.
LOL -- like the Trump opponent and democratic party politician that had COVID19 and publicly stated her condition improved under treatment.
Trump supporters can certainly lie as well as Trump opponents. However in this case they don't need to. There are anecdotal stories that it helps in early stages and there are anecdotal stories that it is harmful in later stages. These two things are not in conflict. More study is necessary. Yet it is the left's claims that it never works that are heard far more often
Re: (Score:2)
You realize it was actually multiple remarks, right? And that it wasn't a "this might work" remakr, but that "this is a game-changer", right?
Is there a particular reason you're lying?
Re: (Score:3)
No, ad hominem would be "You're lying because you're a fucking moron or paid Russian troll". I have no evidence that you are below average intellect, nor your ethnicity, nor your employment situation.
But the part of that sentence that is not ad hominem is that you are lying. You stated an obvious falsehood. That's called "lying".
Re: (Score:3)
People receiving treatment for rheumatoid arthritis tend to be immunocompromised due to their treatment, and thus are avoiding contact with anyone. Which makes them far less likely to get COVID-19.