Why Do Liberals Question HCQ?

[BrotherFease]

Approximately half of the studies, both clinical and observational, that have been done so far on HCQ have indicated that it is effective in treating COVID, and saves lives. Another half have indicated that HCQ is ineffective.

Nearly all studies have indicated that HCQ is safe, with no dangerous side effects.

Why do liberals believe half of the studies, and question the other half?

Is HCQ approved by the FDA? There is your answer.

 

[ReubenSherr]

You are hoping to have a lie that all right wingers can forward

Explain how the 66 studies linked supporting HCQ are a “lie”.

What’s even more telling about your response is that clearly, you are scared that those 66 studies are CORRECT. Scared, not relieved.

The normal moral reaction would be “If this is true, we could cut the death rate down to zero!” Instead, your response is “You are responsible for all those deaths, not us.”

 

[ReubenSherr]

Is HCQ approved by the FDA?

No.

And guess what? The FDA was following Fauci’s guidance.

The Fauci virus has gone far enough.

 

[beefheart]

No.

And guess what? The FDA was following Fauci’s guidance.

The Fauci virus has gone far enough.

Hyperbolic twaddle.

You really should be better than this level of anti-science crap.

 

[ReubenSherr]

Hyperbolic twaddle.

You really should be better than this level of anti-science crap.

If you’re not trolling, tell us exactly what you mean by “anti-science”

Those are 66 scientific studies, many of which are RCTs with control groups, a majority of which have been peer reviewed.

They are Supporting the use of HCQ.

Anthony Fauci does not get to determine what is science and what is not.

This is why we nominated Trump, to get these bureaucrats out.

 

[iguanaman]

If you're talking about the Henry Ford study, the death rate was 0%.

You're claiming that we now have a death rate of 0%?

You must be kidding. The average death rate is about 1.4% but it varies greatly with age. But yes all the patients in that study would have survived without CHQ. We know that now. The drug has ZERO effectiveness in treating Covid 19 and actually increases death rates due to side effects.

Hydroxychloroquine and chloroquine, with or without azithromycin or clarithromycin, offer no benefit in treating patients with COVID-19 and, instead, are associated with ventricular arrhythmias and higher rates of mortality, according to a major new international study.

Hydroxychloroquine Has No Benefit, 'Only Risks' in COVID-19

 

[ReubenSherr]

You must be kidding. The average death rate is about 1.4% but it varies greatly with age. But yes all the patients in that study would have survived without CHQ. We know that now. The drug has ZERO effectiveness in treating Covid 19 and actually increases death rates due to side effects.

Hydroxychloroquine and chloroquine, with or without azithromycin or clarithromycin, offer no benefit in treating patients with COVID-19 and, instead, are associated with ventricular arrhythmias and higher rates of mortality, according to a major new international study.

Hydroxychloroquine Has No Benefit, 'Only Risks' in COVID-19

You linked one study. I linked 66 studies.

As far as the Henry Ford study, 2154 patients were involved, the death rate was 0% after patients received HCQ. You can’t argue that HCQ had nothing to do with it. And, even more importantly, you definitely can’t argue that HCQ is dangerous.

 

[beefheart]

If you’re not trolling, tell us exactly what you mean by “anti-science”

Those are 66 scientific studies, many of which are RCTs with control groups, a majority of which have been peer reviewed.

They are Supporting the use of HCQ.

Anthony Fauci does not get to determine what is science and what is not.

This is why we nominated Trump, to get these bureaucrats out.

Wow, its early, and you have already made the dumbest post of the day.

Are you being paid to spam this forum? I'd hate to think otherwise.

Your studies are crap, as has been pointed out to you over and over and over.

Fauci is a scientist. Be better.

 

[Carleen]

Approximately half of the studies, both clinical and observational, that have been done so far on HCQ have indicated that it is effective in treating COVID, and saves lives. Another half have indicated that HCQ is ineffective.

Nearly all studies have indicated that HCQ is safe, with no dangerous side effects.

Why do liberals believe half of the studies, and question the other half?

Why do you assume it is only liberals?

 

[SmartCat]

Medpage Today

HCQ No Longer Approved Even a Little for COVID-19
— Study after study showed no benefit, and now the FDA has had enough
by Molly Walker, Associate Editor, MedPage Today June 15, 2020

The FDA rescinded its emergency use authorization (EUA) of hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) to treat COVID-19 patients, citing concerns about efficacy and risks associated with its use, and saying the drug no longer meets the criteria for an EUA, the agency said on Monday.

"The agency determined that the legal criteria for issuing an EUA are no longer met," according to an FDA statement. Both hydroxychloroquine and a related antimalarial drug, chloroquine (CQ), are "unlikely to be effective at treating COVID-19" for uses described in the EUA, the statement continued.

Moreover, the FDA now says the benefits of the drug "no longer outweigh the potential risks," citing the serious cardiac adverse events associated with the drug.

"This warrants revocation of the EUA for HCQ and CQ for the treatment of COVID-19," the agency said.

A letter from the agency to the Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority (BARDA) detailed the FDA's concerns, including that suggested dosing regimens are "unlikely to produce an antiviral effect," and said "decreased viral shedding" from treatment with these drugs, noted in some observational studies, "has not been consistently replicated."

HCQ No Longer Approved Even a Little for COVID-19 | MedPage Today

 

[iguanaman]

If you’re not trolling, tell us exactly what you mean by “anti-science”

Those are 66 scientific studies, many of which are RCTs with control groups, a majority of which have been peer reviewed.

They are Supporting the use of HCQ.

Anthony Fauci does not get to determine what is science and what is not.

This is why we nominated Trump, to get these bureaucrats out.

Most of those studies were flawed and had tiny case numbers and some are outright quackery. None of them were randomized which is the only way to prove effectiveness.

At the root of the conflict is the fundamental principle that the FDA uses to evaluate drugs. Decisions are based almost entirely on what is known as a randomized controlled trial, in which patients are randomly assigned to receive a treatment or not. Other types of studies have, again and again, failed to deliver accurate information about medicines’ benefits and risks, and are used sparingly in making medical decisions. Three randomized studies have now shown no benefit for hydroxychloroquine in hospitalized patients.

The study that sparked the latest controversy was anything but randomized. Not only was it not randomized, outside experts noted, but patients who received hydroxychloroquine were also more likely to get steroids, which appear to help very sick patients with Covid-19. That is likely to have influenced the central finding of the Henry Ford study: that death rates were 50% lower among patients in hospitals treated with hydroxychloroquine.

A flawed Covid study gets Trump's attention — and FDA may pay the price

 

[iguanaman]

If you’re not trolling, tell us exactly what you mean by “anti-science”

Those are 66 scientific studies, many of which are RCTs with control groups, a majority of which have been peer reviewed.

They are Supporting the use of HCQ.

Anthony Fauci does not get to determine what is science and what is not.

This is why we nominated Trump, to get these bureaucrats out.

So you want Trump because he will bring back snake oil and leeches? Thank God his days are numbered. Only 93 more days of this madness.

 

[ReubenSherr]

Most of those studies were flawed and had tiny case numbers

Where is your evidence that most of the 66 studies were flawed?

The case numbers of these studies were no different, on average, than the case numbers of most studies opposing HCQ.

Your links about a “flawed study” refer to the Henry Ford study, not the 66 studies I linked. The a Henry Ford study was not flawed, it was observational. And several studies liberals have touted against HCQ have been observational as well.

These anti-HCQ talking points are coming from Fauci, in order to cover himself.

 

[jakiejakester]

Everything with the left is based on politics. For the left, politics takes precedence over science, morality, humor, ... virtually everything.

:lamo This is one of the funniest posts I've ever read! LOL! Democrats dismiss science? Really? Please elaborate. What science do Liberals/Democrats scoff at?

 

[Mr Person]

Everything with the left is based on politics. For the left, politics takes precedence over science, morality, humor, ... virtually everything.

Ah, so that's why the left said that anyone who claims COVID should be taken seriously and Trump needs to start doing things immediately was just hoaxing to make Trump look bad.

And that's why the left tried to make requirements to wear masks to stop you from getting other people killed into a political issue that must be resisted.



Oh wait. That was you.

 

[iguanaman]

Where is your evidence that most of the 66 studies were flawed?

The case numbers of these studies were no different, on average, than the case numbers of most studies opposing HCQ.

Your links about a “flawed study” refer to the Henry Ford study, not the 66 studies I linked. The a Henry Ford study was not flawed, it was observational. And several studies liberals have touted against HCQ have been observational as well.

These anti-HCQ talking points are coming from Fauci, in order to cover himself.

Not one of those studies were randomized and that makes them all worthless at determining effectiveness. You need to get up to speed or stop posting this nonsense.

 

[ReubenSherr]

Not one of those studies were randomized and that makes them all worthless at determining effectiveness.

???

That’s completely false.

Where is your source that not one of the 66 studies linked was randomized?

 

[aociswundumho]

Democrats dismiss science? Really?

I said they the left puts politics over science - they always have and they still do. For a few examples, they deny that the law of demand applies to healthcare. They deny the heritability of IQ. They believe the nonsense idea of the "blank slate" despite there being virtually no evidence supporting it. They still support socialism, again, in spite of the overwhelming evidence and real life experiments demonstrating what a disaster it is. They defend FGM in order to appease Islam.

Party of Science, my ass.

 

[iguanaman]

???

That’s completely false.

Where is your source that not one of the 66 studies linked was randomized?

Besides the fact that the "results" they found were faulty? Check for yourself you will see that I am right.

 

[iguanaman]

I said they the left puts politics over science - they always have and they still do. For a few examples, they deny that the law of demand applies to healthcare. They deny the heritability of IQ. They believe the nonsense idea of the "blank slate" despite there being virtually no evidence supporting it. They still support socialism, again, in spite of the overwhelming evidence and real life experiments demonstrating what a disaster it is. They defend FGM in order to appease Islam.

Party of Science, my ass.

 

[Nickyjo]

I said they the left puts politics over science - they always have and they still do. For a few examples, they deny that the law of demand applies to healthcare. They deny the heritability of IQ. They believe the nonsense idea of the "blank slate" despite there being virtually no evidence supporting it. They still support socialism, again, in spite of the overwhelming evidence and real life experiments demonstrating what a disaster it is. They defend FGM in order to appease Islam.

Party of Science, my ass.

Three straw men in your post at least. And FGM? Really? I worked with groups dealing with the issue, all of us liberal, in a way that was respectful of those believing in it, even girls looking forward to it (almost impossible to believe) comparing it to male circumcision. Our advisors, activists from Africa, told us it would be counterproductive for Europeans and Americans to be identified as leaders of the opposition.

 

[ReubenSherr]

Besides the fact that the "results" they found were faulty? Check for yourself you will see that I am right.

You have evidence that all 66 studies linked produced faulty results?

What is your source?

 

[ataraxia]

Poll: Why Do Liberals Question HCQ?

What an odd question. The answer: because the science says it doesn't work, and might even be harmful.

Three big studies dim hopes that hydroxychloroquine can treat or prevent COVID-19 | Science | AAAS

 

[iguanaman]

You have evidence that all 66 studies linked produced faulty results?

What is your source?

I gave you the evidence and you won't accept it because you hate science. That is your problem not mine. Our national Covid 19 results also reflect Trump's similar anti-science beliefs. You are both doubling down on failure and it is killing us in record numbers. Only 93 days left of this madness.

 

[ataraxia]

I said they the left puts politics over science - they always have and they still do. For a few examples, they deny that the law of demand applies to healthcare. They deny the heritability of IQ. They believe the nonsense idea of the "blank slate" despite there being virtually no evidence supporting it. They still support socialism, again, in spite of the overwhelming evidence and real life experiments demonstrating what a disaster it is. They defend FGM in order to appease Islam.

Party of Science, my ass.

So when are you signing up for Trump U? I hear it's better than Harvard!:lamo