• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Hydroxychloroquine. It’s over.

RetiredUSN said:
Probably for the same reason that thousands of other drugs cannot be sold over the counter, but can be safely prescribed by a doctor.
Click to expand...

You mean a doctor actually balances the risks with the potential positive benefits... hmmm...
 
marke said:
The drug has been around for decades before now. There has never been any significant report of the drug being harmful unless it was by ambulance chasers who sue every pharmaceutical company they can over every drug they can as a way to get rich.
Click to expand...

That’s silly.

HCQ has a clear toxicity profile and is well known to increase QTc intervals, causing ventricular arrhythmias, especially in a combo with azithromycin and in a critically ill setting.
 
JasperL said:
Right, and I should have inserted "only" before preventative, etc., but the "Doctors" you quoted have apparently accepted it's useless for serious cases. Again, I missed the memo where HCL shows "great promise" and is a "game changer" but only as a preventative, or for very mild cases early on, but NOT!! for those admitting to the hospital. So now it's not touted as a game changer for "all stages."

I wish the right wingers would release their talking points so I know what I'm supposed to think, when. Would be helpful in interpreting the comments from partisan hacks, which would be a good thing.
Click to expand...

I don't regard this as an issue with a right wing or a left wing. It's a research issue.
 
BlueTex said:
You do realize anyone can create an account there and classify themselves as a physician without any checks. Correct?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

Yes, and I don't care. The diversity of views matters more to me than individual credentials.
 
Jack Hays said:
I don't regard this as an issue with a right wing or a left wing. It's a research issue.
Click to expand...

Right, so it's a good thing that you then cited an article that made the issue overtly political, and quoted two "Doctors" making it a partisan issue, because you don't regard it as such but wanted to amplify voices that made it explicitly such, while these voices dismissed the study as "Another garbage, politically motivated study" because it doesn't address what they wanted by only looks at patients presenting in the hospital, which was once touted as a benefit of HCL and AZ, to cure CV19, but now isn't for some reason....
 
Jack Hays said:
Yes, and I don't care. The diversity of views matters more to me than individual credentials.
Click to expand...

Right, this is the kind of comment worth sharing:

Iggy Dalrymple
Hydroxychloroquine has 2 major defects:
1- Trump touted it.
2- HCQ is off patent.
Retrospective studies are ideal for agenda driven “researchers” because they allow cherry-picking the data.
Click to expand...

Of course the studies also show that prescribing it has the "defect" of killing more people, but it's always good to get diversity of opinions.

On the one side respected researcher producing the results of a massive study, in a peer-reviewed article in the Lancet and on the other side cranks. BOTH SIDES!!
 
JasperL said:
Right, so it's a good thing that you then cited an article that made the issue overtly political, and quoted two "Doctors" making it a partisan issue, because you don't regard it as such but wanted to amplify voices that made it explicitly such, while these voices dismissed the study as "Another garbage, politically motivated study" because it doesn't address what they wanted by only looks at patients presenting in the hospital, which was once touted as a benefit of HCL and AZ, to cure CV19, but now isn't for some reason....
Click to expand...

Simply a useful corrective to the thread title claim that "it's over." Obviously it isn't. I don't feel compelled to take either side.
 
JasperL said:
Right, this is the kind of comment worth sharing:



Of course the studies also show that prescribing it has the "defect" of killing more people, but it's always good to get diversity of opinions.

On the one side respected researcher producing the results of a massive study, in a peer-reviewed article in the Lancet and on the other side cranks. BOTH SIDES!!
Click to expand...

Please see #260.
 
Jack Hays said:
Simply a useful corrective to the thread title claim that "it's over." Obviously it isn't. I don't feel compelled to take either side.
Click to expand...

I hear you, so who else is better to present the "other side" than hacks dismissing the study out of hand as "politically motivated" "garbage" and published at JoNova?

Anonymous commentators versus published research is the perfect both sides.
 
BlueTex said:
Or that there are known side effects, for instance, prolonged QT interval... Like this case documented in 2016..

Life Threatening Severe QTc Prolongation in Patient with Systemic Lupus Erythematosus due to Hydroxychloroquine
Click to expand...

A successful lawyer can find a way to make a killing by suing drug companies for almost any drug on the market. They craftily tie the drug to some bad effects the drug has allegedly had in some instances somewhere. It is a wonder we even have drugs any more due to the way lawyers have begun to use medicines to create windfall profits for themselves in that manner.
 
Jack Hays said:
Please see #260.
Click to expand...

Yes, I got it, actual expertise isn't relevant. If there are ignorant hacks making claims on a climate skeptic website about drug therapy, they should be heard and their opinions considered just like those with actual expertise in the subject. Both sides and all that.
 
JasperL said:
I hear you, so who else is better to present the "other side" than hacks dismissing the study out of hand as "politically motivated" "garbage" and published at JoNova?

Anonymous commentators versus published research is the perfect both sides.
Click to expand...

The cited comments were posted on a respected site, Medpage Today. JoNova served, as often, as an aggregator.
 
JasperL said:
Yes, I got it, actual expertise isn't relevant. If there are ignorant hacks making claims on a climate skeptic website about drug therapy, they should be heard and their opinions considered just like those with actual expertise in the subject. Both sides and all that.
Click to expand...

Please see #265.
 
Threegoofs said:
That’s silly.

HCQ has a clear toxicity profile and is well known to increase QTc intervals, causing ventricular arrhythmias, especially in a combo with azithromycin and in a critically ill setting.
Click to expand...

Some people have attributed the drug to their miraculous recovery from COVID-19. Like you, I am neither convinced the drug is effective or ineffective in every case. However, God can and does heal us of all our diseases except for the last one. He has been doing that for thousands of years.
 
marke said:
A successful lawyer can find a way to make a killing by suing drug companies for almost any drug on the market they can tie to some bad effects the drug has allegedly had in some instances somewhere. It is a wonder we even have drugs any more due to the way lawyers have begun to use medicines to create windfall profits for themselves in that manner.
Click to expand...

While it is true what you say lawyers don't exist without clients. So using your reasoning all clients should be questioned as well. Next your description is extreme. Therecgave beenbnumerous examples of defective medication that has harmed people. They have a right to compensation.

Certain pharmaceutical companies also driven by the same greed you seem to think only exists in lawyers caused them to cover up da groups side effects knowing that even if sued, the law suit awards would never be as large as the profits made.

Product liability the concept you refer to is real. Many manufacturers have made unsafe products some intentionally others unintentionally. Genuinely injured consumers have a right to sue and get compensated.

Surely you don't suggest all such cases are strictly the creation of lawyers.

When I see such a blanket statement about lawyers I can only say to you, yes some of us are unprincipled greedy unethical bastards but not all of us. Not all pharmaceutical manufacturers are evil but some have been. Not all people seeking compensation are greedy. They were exposed to cancer, other diseases, physical injuries leading to severe pain and/or death not to mention loss of enjoyment of life and wages. I would wager you'd be wanting to sue someone who injured you severely.

So I agree with you but to a limited extent. Now I respect your lack of trust. Our legal profession could do a far better job policing itself yes. You have a good reason to be critical. Stay that way but please give some of us the benefit of the doubt. Not all of us are the greedy bastards you think. I could say that about any professional sales or trades person, some of us do care.
 
Jack Hays said:
The cited comments were posted on a respected site, Medpage Today. JoNova served, as often, as an aggregator.
Click to expand...

JoNova didn't just aggregate, the site editorialized by cherry picking from among the comments at Medpage to claim "Doctors seem unimpressed." That is wrong of course, since the comments section of an article doesn't tell us anything about how "Doctors" greeted the study, but how a few people commenting on an article greeted it, which isn't

I also love how JoNova, just an aggregator, concluded the article: "But most of all, we need to depoliticize medical research somehow…" which assumes with no evidence at all that the research in question is politicized.

My favorite part of the comments you cherry picked for us through JoNova is how they claim the drug isn't indicated for sick patients, but the study found 15,000 instances of doctors prescribing the drug or combo to sick patients in the hospital. Good stuff.
 
marke said:
Some people have attributed the drug to their miraculous recovery from COVID-19. Like you, I am neither convinced the drug is effective or ineffective in every case. However, God can and does heal us of all our diseases except for the last one. He has been doing that for thousands of years.
Click to expand...

We don’t know yet, but almost all signs are pointing toward complete ineffectiveness, and multiple studies are showing unacceptable toxicity.
 
JasperL said:
JoNova didn't just aggregate, the site editorialized by cherry picking from among the comments at Medpage to claim "Doctors seem unimpressed." That is wrong of course, since the comments section of an article doesn't tell us anything about how "Doctors" greeted the study, but how a few people commenting on an article greeted it, which isn't

I also love how JoNova, just an aggregator, concluded the article: "But most of all, we need to depoliticize medical research somehow…" which assumes with no evidence at all that the research in question is politicized.

My favorite part of the comments you cherry picked for us through JoNova is how they claim the drug isn't indicated for sick patients, but the study found 15,000 instances of doctors prescribing the drug or combo to sick patients in the hospital. Good stuff.
Click to expand...

Again, I don't care. Their views are their own. The point is that it's apparently not over.
 
JasperL said:
JoNova didn't just aggregate, the site editorialized by cherry picking from among the comments at Medpage to claim "Doctors seem unimpressed." That is wrong of course, since the comments section of an article doesn't tell us anything about how "Doctors" greeted the study, but how a few people commenting on an article greeted it, which isn't

I also love how JoNova, just an aggregator, concluded the article: "But most of all, we need to depoliticize medical research somehow…" which assumes with no evidence at all that the research in question is politicized.

My favorite part of the comments you cherry picked for us through JoNova is how they claim the drug isn't indicated for sick patients, but the study found 15,000 instances of doctors prescribing the drug or combo to sick patients in the hospital. Good stuff.
Click to expand...

It’s so weird how these climate deniers have glommed on to this HCQ pumping.

I really don’t get it.
 
Jack Hays said:
Weird how some people want to politicize a research issue.
Click to expand...

Exactly!

Why would these denier wingnuts glom on to a controversy about one single medication that literally has no relationship to climate?

Politicizing a research issue is probably right.

But it’s not just the US, it’s Australian and German idiot deniers as well.

I don’t get it
 
Jack Hays said:
Again, I don't care. Their views are their own. The point is that it's apparently not over.
Click to expand...

No, you don't care how stupid or ignorant the people you're pimping on DP might be. Both sides!! That's the point!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom