AP FACT CHECK: Trump trashing virus science he doesn’t like

[Hari Seldon]

Not only that, left-leaning media outlets dwell on the studies that come out against HCQ and ignore the studies that come out supporting it - so much so, that the studies in support of it get buried in search engines behind 5 pages of wall-to-wall media references to the same two studies in the NEJM

Did you read about the lady who has been taking it for years for Lupus? She caught the virus. I'm sure its a wonderful preventative measure. LOL!

 

[JasperL]

Trump and his physician are proponents of using HCQ as a preventative, and as a treatment early in the stages of the disease.

This study in the Lancet is a survey of hospital patients -Why would patients in the extremely early stages of the disease be in hospitals?, especially in December and January

It has the same problem as the two studies from the NEJM and the Virginia study on veterans - It only studies patients, or mostly studies patients, in more severe stages of the illness

Bad attempt to move the goal posts. But it's a nice move on your part because you now have a ready made excuse to dismiss all the other clinical trials of HCL, because all of them will have the same flaws you just fabricated for these studies. Excellent job comrade!! Your bosses will commend your creativity!!

 

[JasperL]

Did I say we should? Of course they should do clinical trials but that doesn't mean they don't cut corners and other shady things.

Well, every single human endeavor you can imagine or put on a list is sometimes corrupt, and involves corrupt people doing bad things, especially if it involves money or profits. So pointing that out is akin to telling us all that water is wet and the sun rises in the east each day.

All to defend Trump's lies.... I don't know why people put in the effort myself.

Pharmaceuticals are profit motivated...and only seem to research for cures when there's big money to be made...or when some rich guy like David Koch gets prostrate cancer and donates millions to find a cure.

OK, and exactly what relevance is that to this group of researchers looking at an old, generic drug? Are they secretly working for a drug company? Do they have a financial interest in killing off a promising cure for COVID 19? What is that conflict of interest? What's their motive?

It was the Fen Phen scam that soured me on the CDC. The drug was banned in Europe because it was killing people...but the CDC approved it anyway after a pharmaceutical company pushed it through.

And it's odd that you'd question published research studies since it was a research study that helped kill that drug combo by linking it to heart problems...

 

[HumblePi]

Jim Carrey

Obamagate? Yo’mamagate!

https://twitter.com/JimCarrey/status/1261722745978490882

 

[JasperL]

Hydroxychloroquine Has about 90 Percent Chance of Helping COVID-19 Patients - AAPS | Association of American Physicians and Surgeons

Results from a Controlled Trial of Hydroxychloroquine for COVID-19

Early Hydroxychloroquine Is Associated with an Increase of Survival in COVID-19 Patients: An Observational Study[v1] | Preprints

Doctors group claims that hydroxychloroquine helps 91% of coronavirus patients | Daily Mail Online

Hydroxychloroquine rated 'most effective therapy' by doctors for coronavirus: Global survey - Washington Times

https://www.ny1.com/nyc/all-borough...thromycin-combo-on-decreasing-covid-19-deaths

It's kind of hilarious you're citing the AAPS. They're just a bunch of right wing flakes and hacks. Look them up.

And you're dismissing studies in The Lancet.

You have an odd list of who you trust and who you don't. About 180 degrees from most rational folks.

 

[Parrish]

Why doesn't the POTUS believe his own scientists, agencies and experts? Is it, perhaps, ignorance, stupidity or paranoia? Or is it an investment?

 

[ReubenSherr]

Did you read about the lady who has been taking it for years for Lupus? She caught the virus. I'm sure its a wonderful preventative measure. LOL!

Funny how many of these liberal attacks come from anonymous sources where the person's claim is impossible to verify...:roll:

Here's an excerpt from the article you're refering to:

"The woman, identified only as Kim, told WISN Channel 12 that she has been taking hydroxychloroquine for 19 years to treat flareups caused by lupus, an autoimmune disease. She began self-quarantining in March and worked to avoid exposure from other people, she said."

Here are some anecdotal accounts of HCQ from confirmed sources, where we know their full names and can actually verify what they're saying...

Michigan Dem lawmaker describes how Trump'''s boosting of hydroxychloroquine '''saved my life''' | Fox News

Rantz: Hydroxychloroquine coronavirus treatment saved my friend's life

Hydroxychloroquine saved my life from COVID-19: US lawmaker | Deccan Herald

What saved my life in coronavirus: NC elected official | Fox Business

 

[ReubenSherr]

Why doesn't the POTUS believe his own scientists...?

Because the people who conducted the two studies associated with the New England Journal of Medicine, and the people who conducted the study on Veterans in Virginia, are not his own scientists - big difference - They have just as much credibility as the slew of scientists who found data supporting the idea of HCQ - and judging from the fact that they chose to only study late-term cases, I would say they have less credibility

 

[ReubenSherr]

And you know there's no consistent way to define "point of diagnosis" because why? What's your experience with these data? What don't they show that you would need to be consistent from hospital to hospital?

The data comes from hundreds of hospitals worldwide, and dates back retrospectively to patients treated in December 2019 - There's no consistent way to define the point of diagnosis in terms of the progression of the disease

The patient could have been diagnosed two days into the illness, or the person could've been diagnosed three weeks into the illness, especially in December and January when many hospitals were still relatively unfamiliar with certain symptoms of the disease - The researchers claim that this study focused on patients in the beginning stages of the illness, and the data they use to back this up only involves the point of their "diagnosis"

There is nothing about this study that verifies that most or all of these patients were given HCQ early on - especially since all of the patients were in the hospital

 

[JasperL]

The data comes from hundreds of hospitals worldwide, and dates back retrospectively to patients treated in December 2019 - There's no consistent way to define the point of diagnosis in terms of the progression of the disease

And you know this how? What's in the databases that leads you to this conclusion? What's your experience with the data in question?

The patient could have been diagnosed two days into the illness, or the person could've been diagnosed three weeks into the illness, especially in December and January when many hospitals were still relatively unfamiliar with certain symptoms of the disease - The researchers claim that this study focused on patients in the beginning stages of the illness, and the data they use to back this up only involves the point of their "diagnosis"

There is nothing about this study that verifies that most or all of these patients were given HCQ early on - especially since all of the patients were in the hospital

I see, so you want the studies and all like them to use date of INFECTION, versus date of diagnosis. OK, Mr. Researcher, please tell us how one would reliably gather that data?

Patient Bob says he was at the grocery on Feb 3, at 1:45 and someone who looked sick coughed near him, so that's the date and time of infection, which we verified by_________.

If you can fill in how a physician presented with a sick patient can determine the date and time of INFECTION, you let us know. I'm sure you have no clue, 100% positive, so you're establishing a requirement that's impossible to meet in practice, which you know and are doing dishonestly, or more likely are doing because your ignorance about these matters approaches 100%.

 

[Hari Seldon]

Funny how many of these liberal attacks come from anonymous sources where the person's claim is impossible to verify...:roll:

Here's an excerpt from the article you're refering to:

"The woman, identified only as Kim, told WISN Channel 12 that she has been taking hydroxychloroquine for 19 years to treat flareups caused by lupus, an autoimmune disease. She began self-quarantining in March and worked to avoid exposure from other people, she said."

Here are some anecdotal accounts of HCQ from confirmed sources, where we know their full names and can actually verify what they're saying...

Michigan Dem lawmaker describes how Trump'''s boosting of hydroxychloroquine '''saved my life''' | Fox News

Rantz: Hydroxychloroquine coronavirus treatment saved my friend's life

Hydroxychloroquine saved my life from COVID-19: US lawmaker | Deccan Herald

What saved my life in coronavirus: NC elected official | Fox Business

Its a good thing there are no negatives to taking the drug. :roll:

 

[sjmay]

And you know this how? What's in the databases that leads you to this conclusion? What's your experience with the data in question?



I see, so you want the studies and all like them to use date of INFECTION, versus date of diagnosis. OK, Mr. Researcher, please tell us how one would reliably gather that data?

Patient Bob says he was at the grocery on Feb 3, at 1:45 and someone who looked sick coughed near him, so that's the date and time of infection, which we verified by_________.

If you can fill in how a physician presented with a sick patient can determine the date and time of INFECTION, you let us know. I'm sure you have no clue, 100% positive, so you're establishing a requirement that's impossible to meet in practice, which you know and are doing dishonestly, or more likely are doing because your ignorance about these matters approaches 100%.

You are 100% right,

But so is he, what good is it knowing when it was diagnosed, when you don't know how far along the disease has progressed? If you want to say the drug is working or not working, it seems that you would want the same reference point, ie, they were all given the drug on the 2nd day of infection here's the results, but you can't give the drug to a guy on the 2nd day, and to another guy on the 21st day, and say....see these results say the same thing etc.

 

[JasperL]

You are 100% right,

But so is he, what good is it knowing when it was diagnosed, when you don't know how far along the disease has progressed? If you want to say the drug is working or not working, it seems that you would want the same reference point, ie, they were all given the drug on the 2nd day of infection here's the results, but you can't give the drug to a guy on the 2nd day, and to another guy on the 21st day, and say....see these results say the same thing etc.

The studies (at least the legitimate ones) control for disease severity, which is the clinical equivalent of that. It doesn't matter so much when they were infected but how badly the disease had compromised their health, how sick they were, when they were administered the drugs.

 

[Moot]

Hydroxychloroquine Has about 90 Percent Chance of Helping COVID-19 Patients - AAPS | Association of American Physicians and Surgeons

Results from a Controlled Trial of Hydroxychloroquine for COVID-19

Early Hydroxychloroquine Is Associated with an Increase of Survival in COVID-19 Patients: An Observational Study[v1] | Preprints

Doctors group claims that hydroxychloroquine helps 91% of coronavirus patients | Daily Mail Online

Hydroxychloroquine rated 'most effective therapy' by doctors for coronavirus: Global survey - Washington Times

https://www.ny1.com/nyc/all-borough...thromycin-combo-on-decreasing-covid-19-deaths

Your sources are either bogus or inconclusive....

"...The Association of American Physicians and Surgeons (AAPS) is a conservative non-profit association founded in 1943. The group was reported to have about 5,000 members in 2014. The association advocates a range of scientifically discredited hypotheses, including the belief that HIV does not cause AIDS, that being gay reduces life expectancy, that there is a link between abortion and breast cancer, and that there is a causal relationship between vaccines and autism. It is opposed to the Affordable Care Act and other forms of universal health insurance....

The association's Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons (JPandS), from 1996 to 2003 named the Medical Sentinel, is not listed in academic literature databases such as MEDLINE/PubMed or the Web of Science. The quality and scientific validity of articles published in the journal have been criticized by medical experts, and some of the viewpoints advocated by AAPS are rejected by mainstream scientists and other medical groups.[24] The U.S. National Library of Medicine declined repeated requests from AAPS to index the journal, citing unspecified concerns.[24]

As of September 2016, JPandS was listed on Beall's list of potential or probable predatory open-access journals.[25] Quackwatch lists JPandS as an untrustworthy, non-recommended periodical.[26] An editorial in Chemical & Engineering News described the journal as a "purveyor of utter nonsense."[27] Investigative journalist Brian Deer wrote that the journal is the "house magazine of a right-wing American fringe group [AAPS]" and "is barely credible as an independent forum."[28] Writing in The Guardian, science columnist Ben Goldacre described the journal as the "in-house magazine of a rightwing US pressure group well known for polemics on homosexuality, abortion and vaccines."[29]..."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Association_of_American_Physicians_and_Surgeons​

 

[Parrish]

Because the people who conducted the two studies associated with the New England Journal of Medicine, and the people who conducted the study on Veterans in Virginia, are not his own scientists - big difference - They have just as much credibility as the slew of scientists who found data supporting the idea of HCQ - and judging from the fact that they chose to only study late-term cases, I would say they have less credibility

Uh, it wasn't a study of vets in Virginia. It's the VA, the Veterans Administration.:roll:

 

[JasperL]

Funny how many of these liberal attacks come from anonymous sources where the person's claim is impossible to verify...:roll:

Here's an excerpt from the article you're refering to:

"The woman, identified only as Kim, told WISN Channel 12 that she has been taking hydroxychloroquine for 19 years to treat flareups caused by lupus, an autoimmune disease. She began self-quarantining in March and worked to avoid exposure from other people, she said."

Here are some anecdotal accounts of HCQ from confirmed sources, where we know their full names and can actually verify what they're saying...

Michigan Dem lawmaker describes how Trump'''s boosting of hydroxychloroquine '''saved my life''' | Fox News

Rantz: Hydroxychloroquine coronavirus treatment saved my friend's life

Hydroxychloroquine saved my life from COVID-19: US lawmaker | Deccan Herald

What saved my life in coronavirus: NC elected official | Fox Business

What's hilarious is how your benchmarks change from post to post. That last person was....admitted to the hospital and claims HCL cured him. On other threads, you're asserting that the drug is only intended to be helpful early, before they get sick enough to enter the hospital, and isn't being touted as helpful for those in the late stages, i.e. when admitted to the hospital, which is why the Lancet study is worthless in your view, because all those were diagnosed in the...HOSPITAL, like that NC legislator.

So which is it? Can you keep your story straight from one post to another? Fox News and you are touting it as working for a "late stage" patient, but then you claim it's not touted as helpful to them. Weird....