|
|
Post by Ovinomancer on May 20, 2020 2:09:48 GMT
On the other hand if you guys are that sure hydroxychloroquine is perfectly harmless and even beneficial, take it as a preventive, because I'm a lying shit-stain idiot who doesn't know a damn thing apparently and likes to cheer when the President is wrong about a medicine that doesn't work.
Go ahead. Prove me wrong and I want documented proof that you took it.Otherwise, you owe me an apology in this case. Because I'm fucking right and you guys aren't. Everyone except Trump and some bobble-headed idiots like Laura Ingram are saying it doesn't work for Covid-19 and can kill you. I personally am going to listen to people who actually make sense and not take hydroxychloroquine.
You can't even cite any reputable sources where it does say hydroxychloroquine is safe and effective for treating Covid-19. So that alone tells me, you got nothing. NOTHING. So yeah. I know it's a Trump distraction. But it doesn't take away the fact that I'm right and you're not.
Aw, look, the shit-stain human is being a shit-stain. It believes, fervently, the HC is harmful but wants others to take this drug it believes is harmful because it desperately wants to win an internet argument by causing actual harm to others. Honestly, how much more shit-stain, garbage human can it get? |
|
|
|
Post by kirinke on May 20, 2020 13:08:31 GMT
Hey, you're convinced I'm wrong. Go ahead and take it. I don't care. I double dog dare ya. Take it. Prove me wrong. Prove me wrong that all the experts are telling people not to take it. If you can't prove it and don't take it, then I'm right. You just can't admit it that I'm right. So you call me names, put me down and stomp your feet. How Trumpian of you.
So, once again, I fucking win with facts to back me up. You got nothing but hot air. Not even hot. Maybe tepid air. I'm being generous.
|
|
|
|
Post by evileeyore on May 20, 2020 15:05:32 GMT
Hey, you're convinced I'm wrong. Because you are. And you're strawmanning. Ovi never said hydroxychloroquine is "safe and harmless" that's all been your ridiculous interpretation. I'll break it down for you and use small words patronizing words so maybe you'll grasp it. Hydroxychloroquine is dangerous. Very bad. Muy mala. Just like chemotherapy and radiation. However, just like chemo and radiation it's used when the alternative is worse, or when it's use is the only thing that works and the patient can be monitored by a doctor (in fact it's the first-line defense in the treatment of lupus erythematosus). In this case, just like with chemo and radiation on cancer, the way hydroxychloroquine is very bad for humans, it's also very, very, very bad for specific types of bacteria and viruses. In the case of the WuHu Flu, it's believed* it might be inhibiting the bodies ability to read and translate RNA (as well as increase hem pH and other bad things), which is how viruses hijack cell reproduction. If the doctors and scientist who belief this are right, it still won't make it "safe or harmless" you complete and total slackwit. But it will mean it's useful in combating COVID-19. * I say "it's believed" when in fact we know it does this. How much this actually interferes with the virus versus how much it interferes with us? Well that's the rub and will determine if HCQ is useful for fighting COVID-19, or if it's more dangerous, or "borderline". For instance, the way it fights malaria is very dangerous for humans long term, but in the short term far more deadly to malaria, so it's a useful drug for fighting malaria. Same thing with lupus erythematosus, lupus E will eventually kill a human (and is not 'curable' as it's an auto-immune disorder), however HCQ disrupts the body's immune system keeping lupus E 'in check' (along with other medications and treatments that help keep the patient alive while HCQ is trying to kill them and also affect the immune system during non-HCQ treatment courses). |
|
|
|
Post by Ovinomancer on May 20, 2020 16:20:38 GMT
Hey, you're convinced I'm wrong. Because you are. And you're strawmanning. Ovi never said hydroxychloroquine is "safe and harmless" that's all been your ridiculous interpretation. I'll break it down for you and use small words patronizing words so maybe you'll grasp it. Hydroxychloroquine is dangerous. Very bad. Muy mala. Just like chemotherapy and radiation. However, just like chemo and radiation it's used when the alternative is worse, or when it's use is the only thing that works and the patient can be monitored by a doctor (in fact it's the first-line defense in the treatment of lupus erythematosus). In this case, just like with chemo and radiation on cancer, the way hydroxychloroquine is very bad for humans, it's also very, very, very bad for specific types of bacteria and viruses. In the case of the WuHu Flu, it's believed* it might be inhibiting the bodies ability to read and translate RNA (as well as increase hem pH and other bad things), which is how viruses hijack cell reproduction. If the doctors and scientist who belief this are right, it still won't make it "safe or harmless" you complete and total slackwit. But it will mean it's useful in combating COVID-19. * I say "it's believed" when in fact we know it does this. How much this actually interferes with the virus versus how much it interferes with us? Well that's the rub and will determine if HCQ is useful for fighting COVID-19, or if it's more dangerous, or "borderline". For instance, the way it fights malaria is very dangerous for humans long term, but in the short term far more deadly to malaria, so it's a useful drug for fighting malaria. Same thing with lupus erythematosus, lupus E will eventually kill a human (and is not 'curable' as it's an auto-immune disorder), however HCQ disrupts the body's immune system keeping lupus E 'in check' (along with other medications and treatments that help keep the patient alive while HCQ is trying to kill them and also affect the immune system during non-HCQ treatment courses). I don't think you used small enough words. |
|
|
|
Post by kirinke on May 20, 2020 16:29:08 GMT
Yes, it's good for Lupus and Malaria and even in treating arthritis. Everyone (except for Trump and his most ardent supporters) are saying it's not good to treat Covid-19. www.contagionlive.com/news/chloroquine-hydroxychloroquine-ineffective-covid-19. Recent and current studies have shown that hydroxychloroquine isn't effective in treating Covid-19. The earlier studies that showed it had some promise, were apparently flawed. So, I'm still right. You guys are depending your arguments on old data. |
|
|
|
Post by Maxperson on May 20, 2020 16:57:09 GMT
Yes, it's good for Lupus and Malaria and even in treating arthritis. Everyone (except for Trump and his most ardent supporters) are saying it's not good to treat Covid-19. www.contagionlive.com/news/chloroquine-hydroxychloroquine-ineffective-covid-19. Recent and current studies have shown that hydroxychloroquine isn't effective in treating Covid-19. The earlier studies that showed it had some promise, were apparently flawed. So, I'm still right. You guys are depending your arguments on old data. You don't read your links, do you? This is the very first fucking line. "Chloroquine and hydroxychloroquine likely are not effective against the novel coronavirus, according to a paper published in the May issue of The FASEB Journal." Your link does not say, "it's not good to treat Covid-19." That's your demented bias against all things Trump showing. It only says that it's LIKELY not effective. They put that up front as the first thing to read and use the word "likely" for a reason. That reason is that they don't know for sure. |
|
|
|
Post by cyphersmith on May 20, 2020 18:07:29 GMT
Yes, it's good for Lupus and Malaria and even in treating arthritis. Everyone (except for Trump and his most ardent supporters) are saying it's not good to treat Covid-19. www.contagionlive.com/news/chloroquine-hydroxychloroquine-ineffective-covid-19. Recent and current studies have shown that hydroxychloroquine isn't effective in treating Covid-19. The earlier studies that showed it had some promise, were apparently flawed. So, I'm still right. You guys are depending your arguments on old data. You don't read your links, do you? This is the very first fucking line. "Chloroquine and hydroxychloroquine likely are not effective against the novel coronavirus, according to a paper published in the May issue of The FASEB Journal." Your link does not say, "it's not good to treat Covid-19." That's your demented bias against all things Trump showing. It only says that it's LIKELY not effective. They put that up front as the first thing to read and use the word "likely" for a reason. That reason is that they don't know for sure. And as more studies comes out saying that either it's ineffective or they stopped the study because it was killing people, they'll still use that language. Because they're proper scientists. Absolutes are not something that they like to use. Hydroxychloroquine in combination with azithromycin (the usual combination studied) greatly increases the likelihood of cardiac events. By itself, hydroxychloroquine does that, but that combination makes it worse. We know this. What we don't know (at least partially because it's hard to do human trials to test its efficacy) is whether it works as a preventative. |
|
|
|
Post by Ovinomancer on May 20, 2020 18:15:24 GMT
You don't read your links, do you? This is the very first fucking line. "Chloroquine and hydroxychloroquine likely are not effective against the novel coronavirus, according to a paper published in the May issue of The FASEB Journal." Your link does not say, "it's not good to treat Covid-19." That's your demented bias against all things Trump showing. It only says that it's LIKELY not effective. They put that up front as the first thing to read and use the word "likely" for a reason. That reason is that they don't know for sure. And as more studies comes out saying that either it's ineffective or they stopped the study because it was killing people, they'll still use that language. Because they're proper scientists. Absolutes are not something that they like to use. Hydroxychloroquine in combination with azithromycin (the usual combination studied) greatly increases the likelihood of cardiac events. By itself, hydroxychloroquine does that, but that combination makes it worse. We know this. What we don't know (at least partially because it's hard to do human trials to test its efficacy) is whether it works as a preventative. Yep. Hydroxychloroquine is nasty stuff. Not sure it's worth using, even in smaller, safer doses. But, the science is not yet in because, as you note, proper studies are hard to do right now. |
|
|
|
Post by evileeyore on May 20, 2020 20:15:03 GMT
I don't think you used small enough words. I suffer from incurable erudition, as such I probably have no idea how to cater to the soft-headed crowd*. I mean I know what antidisestablishmentarianism means fer crispy's sake. * Maybe I should have parsed my post like a Trump speech? Pretty sure kirinke understands those perfectly. |
|
|
|
Post by kirinke on May 20, 2020 22:22:50 GMT
Very well. If you're that nit-picky, I'll use not-effective or not very effective instead of not good. There. I can compromise.
Um... Nobody understands Trump-speech. Thank you very much.
President Donald Trump has argued it is "a badge of honour" that the US has the world's highest number of confirmed Covid-19 infections.
"I look at that as, in a certain respect, as being a good thing because it means our testing is much better," he said at the White House.
The US has 1.5 million coronavirus cases and nearly 92,000 deaths, according to Johns Hopkins University.
In second place is Russia, with nearly 300,000 confirmed cases.
What did Trump say?
On Monday, Mr Trump was hosting his first cabinet meeting since the US outbreak began.
"By the way," he told reporters, "you know when you say that we lead in cases, that's because we have more testing than anybody else."
"So when we have a lot of cases," he continued, "I don't look at that as a bad thing, I look at that as, in a certain respect, as being a good thing because it means our testing is much better."
He added: "So I view it as a badge of honour. Really, it's a badge of honour.
"It's a great tribute to the testing and all of the work that a lot of professionals have done."
According to the Centers for Disease Control, a federal agency, the US had conducted 12.6m coronavirus tests by Tuesday.
Things the US has got right - and got wrong
Mr Trump was responding to a question about whether he was considering a travel ban on Latin America, Brazil in particular. That country now has the third highest number of confirmed cases, following the US and Russia.
The Democratic National Committee criticised the Republican president's comments, tweeting that the 1.5 million Covid-19 cases in the US represented "a complete failure of leadership".
Has the US conducted the most tests?
While the US has carried out more tests by volume than any other country, it is not first in the world on a per capita basis, according to Our World in Data, a scientific publication based at Oxford University.
Its chart ranks the US as 16th globally in terms of tests per 1,000 people, ahead of South Korea, but behind the likes of Iceland, New Zealand, Russia and Canada.
Over the past week, the US has been conducting between 300,000 and 400,000 tests daily, according to the Covid Tracking Project, a volunteer-led effort. But Harvard Global Health Institute director Ashish Jha last week told a congressional hearing: "The US needs more than 900,000 tests every day to safely open up again. We are doing about a third of that." The US has also reported the most coronavirus deaths in the world, though on a per capita basis it ranks sixth behind the likes of Belgium, the United Kingdom and France, according to Johns Hopkins University. US coronavirus testing rates have been criticised on both sides of the aisle. At a Senate hearing last week, Mitt Romney, a Republican, criticised the country's testing record, saying it was "nothing to celebrate whatsoever" because, he said, "we treaded water in February and March". |
|
|
|
Post by Ovinomancer on May 20, 2020 23:43:05 GMT
I don't think you used small enough words. I suffer from incurable erudition, as such I probably have no idea how to cater to the soft-headed crowd*. I mean I know what antidisestablishmentarianism means fer crispy's sake. * Maybe I should have parsed my post like a Trump speech? Pretty sure kirinke understands those perfectly. Well, I've long held a floccinaucinihilipilification regarding kirinke's general intellectual capability. Lately, though, it's devolved further. I think it's found a group where it can bash on someone else, in this case Trump, and receive validation, so it's bent it's limited capacity for though towards this end without reservation or consideration. It's lead to some garbage human places. I'm sure it gets validation from fellow travelers, though, so I don't expect it to change. Thinking was hard to begin with, now it's reinforced to not think. |
|
|
|
Post by kirinke on May 21, 2020 0:57:17 GMT
There, there. I know I'm right when you try to dehumanize me. It's a a sure fire tell with you.
|
|
|
|
Post by evileeyore on May 21, 2020 3:55:36 GMT
I think it's found a group where it can bash on someone else, in this case Trump... You might remember she pulled the same shit with Bush and anyone who speak ill of The Great Savior. So this isn't new behavior, it's just whipped into a frothing frenzing because it was lied to and assured that the great and all mighty DNC couldn't possibly lose to a basket full of deplorables. And it's happening again... |
|
|
|
Post by kirinke on May 21, 2020 21:34:43 GMT
The Great Savior? Lord you guys have fallen down the right-wing rabbit hole. Still, at least I don't defend Trump in any way shape or form.
news.yahoo.com/trump-coronavirus-test-i-tested-positively-toward-the-negative-181413918.htmlPresident Trump on Thursday disclosed the results of his most recent coronavirus test, telling reporters he “tested positively toward negative.” “I tested very positively in another sense,” Trump said on the South Lawn before departing for Michigan to visit a Ford plant that is assembling ventilators. “So this morning, yeah, I tested positively toward negative, right? So no, I tested perfectly this morning. Meaning, meaning I tested negative. But that’s a way of saying it, positively toward the negative." Trump has had trouble in the past with medical terminology regarding test results. A letter released by his personal physician in 2015 — which the doctor later said was dictated to him by Trump — said his recent physical exam “showed only positive results.” For the past several weeks, the president and Vice President Mike Pence have been tested daily after Trump’s personal valet and Pence’s spokeswoman each tested positive for the virus, which has infected more than 1.5 million Americans and killed more than 93,000. Trump has been taking the controversial anti-malaria drug hydroxychloroquine as a preventive to combat contraction of the virus, despite warnings from doctors and public health experts that its side effects could be lethal. The president said he is a day away from completing a two-week regimen of hydroxychloroquine, which was prescribed after consultation with the White House physician. “I think it’s another day,” Trump said. “And I’m still here. I’m still here.” Trump also dismissed a study, published this week by infectious disease modelers at New York’s Columbia University, that showed some 36,000 lives could have been saved if the White House had imposed restrictions to stop the spread of the virus a week earlier than it did. “I was so early. I was earlier than anybody thought,” the president said. “I put a ban on people coming in from China.” Trump issued an executive order in late January blocking entry to the United States from anyone who had been in China in the previous 14 days. (The order, which went into effect Feb. 2, did not apply to U.S. residents or their family members. Some studies have concluded that the strain of the coronavirus that affected the majority of Americans actually came from Europe.) But the White House did not impose other restrictions, such as social distancing and a ban on nonessential travel, until March 16. If the same restrictions had been imposed on March 1, Columbia’s researchers said, an estimated 54,000 fewer Americans would have died. “Columbia is an institution that is very liberal,” Trump said. “I think it’s just a political hit job.” |
|
|
|
Post by Ovinomancer on May 21, 2020 22:10:55 GMT
The Great Savior? Lord you guys have fallen down the right-wing rabbit hole. Still, at least I don't defend Trump in any way shape or form.
news.yahoo.com/trump-coronavirus-test-i-tested-positively-toward-the-negative-181413918.htmlPresident Trump on Thursday disclosed the results of his most recent coronavirus test, telling reporters he “tested positively toward negative.” “I tested very positively in another sense,” Trump said on the South Lawn before departing for Michigan to visit a Ford plant that is assembling ventilators. “So this morning, yeah, I tested positively toward negative, right? So no, I tested perfectly this morning. Meaning, meaning I tested negative. But that’s a way of saying it, positively toward the negative." Trump has had trouble in the past with medical terminology regarding test results. A letter released by his personal physician in 2015 — which the doctor later said was dictated to him by Trump — said his recent physical exam “showed only positive results.” For the past several weeks, the president and Vice President Mike Pence have been tested daily after Trump’s personal valet and Pence’s spokeswoman each tested positive for the virus, which has infected more than 1.5 million Americans and killed more than 93,000. Trump has been taking the controversial anti-malaria drug hydroxychloroquine as a preventive to combat contraction of the virus, despite warnings from doctors and public health experts that its side effects could be lethal. The president said he is a day away from completing a two-week regimen of hydroxychloroquine, which was prescribed after consultation with the White House physician. “I think it’s another day,” Trump said. “And I’m still here. I’m still here.” Trump also dismissed a study, published this week by infectious disease modelers at New York’s Columbia University, that showed some 36,000 lives could have been saved if the White House had imposed restrictions to stop the spread of the virus a week earlier than it did. “I was so early. I was earlier than anybody thought,” the president said. “I put a ban on people coming in from China.” Trump issued an executive order in late January blocking entry to the United States from anyone who had been in China in the previous 14 days. (The order, which went into effect Feb. 2, did not apply to U.S. residents or their family members. Some studies have concluded that the strain of the coronavirus that affected the majority of Americans actually came from Europe.) But the White House did not impose other restrictions, such as social distancing and a ban on nonessential travel, until March 16. If the same restrictions had been imposed on March 1, Columbia’s researchers said, an estimated 54,000 fewer Americans would have died. “Columbia is an institution that is very liberal,” Trump said. “I think it’s just a political hit job.” Not that I expect much, but could you possibly articulate what you find objectionable in this article? A turn of phrase? Taking medication under a doctor's direction and care? Not locking down the country when everyone was complaining that the travel ban was already too much? That people at Columbia have magical 20/20 hindsight? |
|
