TSN: How the coronavirus could impact the NHL’s bottom line UPD: NHL Season suspended MOD Warning post139

[HeadInjury]

Politics aside, what in her article looks to be partisan. She's a science writer.. Science does not have partisan leaning. If you disagree with her findings, post some facts with links. But right now, I would take an award winning AP medical writer. And this is the latest study on those drugs.

I know some here like to bash the media but AP does have their standards. It is sad that even facts and truths are politicized just because its not convenient to their tribal beliefs.

I am somewhat part of this science field (Engineer). Science will always go with the facts. If that study is false, then I don't have a problem dismissing it. But her report should stand on its own. It is a shame that some here think it should be about politics first.

If you read her article about the VA study, it wasn't actually a controlled study being conducted. It's just looking at medical records after the fact. It mentions, for example, that the death rate was higher for people given hydroxychloriquine. But is that because the VA was more prone to give the medication to those who were most sick? The article doesn't say.

The underlying study says this: "Rates of death in the HC, HC+AZ, and no HC groups were 27.8%, 22.1%, 11.4%, respectively. Rates of ventilation in the HC, HC+AZ, and no HC groups were 13.3%, 6.9%, 14.1%, respectively."

Thus, the rates of death and rates of ventilation are at odds. Another way to title this article would have been: "Rates of ventilation for patients given the hydroxychloriquine cocktail less than one half the rate for patients only given the standard of care."

If so, Sean Hannity would have led off his show tonight touting it as further proof hydroxychloriquine works.

The actual controlled studies in the US aren't concluded yet. That will provide the best indication whether this medicine cocktail helps or not.

By the way, in the Brazilian study of chloriquine referenced in the article, patients were given 3 times the amount of medication each day (600 m.g.) for twice as long (10 days) compared to what was being given by the doctors claiming success with the hydroxychloriquine cocktail. The Brazilian study was stopped due to side effects being observed. That's fine. I'm sure different doctors are trying all sorts of medications in different doses. But I've seen multiple media reports saying the Brazilian study undermined use of the drug cocktail. It doesn't. It's apples and oranges. And this author doesn't bother to mention that patients in the Brazilian study were being given 6 times the amount of chloriquine as doctors claiming success with hydroxychloriquine recommended. Why is that?

I'm all for science. The drug cocktail either works or it doesn't. I'm eager to find the answer, good or bad. It's okay to publish an article about the VA study. But why was the article written like it was? Ignorance? (I would think not.) Sloppiness? Perhaps an agenda?

 

[jfont]

If you read her article about the VA study, it wasn't actually a controlled study being conducted. It's just looking at medical records after the fact. It mentions, for example, that the death rate was higher for people given hydroxychloriquine. But is that because the VA was more prone to give the medication to those who were most sick? The article doesn't say.

The underlying study says this: "Rates of death in the HC, HC+AZ, and no HC groups were 27.8%, 22.1%, 11.4%, respectively. Rates of ventilation in the HC, HC+AZ, and no HC groups were 13.3%, 6.9%, 14.1%, respectively."

Thus, the rates of death and rates of ventilation are at odds. Another way to title this article would have been: "Rates of ventilation for patients given the hydroxychloriquine cocktail less than one half the rate for patients only given the standard of care."

If so, Sean Hannity would have led off his show tonight touting it as further proof hydroxychloriquine works.

The actual controlled studies in the US aren't concluded yet. That will provide the best indication whether this medicine cocktail helps or not.

By the way, in the Brazilian study of chloriquine referenced in the article, patients were given 3 times the amount of medication each day (600 m.g.) for twice as long (10 days) compared to what was being given by the doctors claiming success with the hydroxychloriquine cocktail. The Brazilian study was stopped due to side effects being observed. That's fine. I'm sure different doctors are trying all sorts of medications in different doses. But I've seen multiple media reports saying the Brazilian study undermined use of the drug cocktail. It doesn't. It's apples and oranges. And this author doesn't bother to mention that patients in the Brazilian study were being given 6 times the amount of chloriquine as doctors claiming success with hydroxychloriquine recommended. Why is that?

I'm all for science. The drug cocktail either works or it doesn't. I'm eager to find the answer, good or bad. It's okay to publish an article about the VA study. But why was the article written like it was? Ignorance? (I would think not.) Sloppiness? Perhaps an agenda?

Here's another one involving Fox News backing away form that malaria drug
Fox News Quietly Backs Away From Hyping Trump’s Coronavirus ‘Miracle Drug’

From Bloomberg citing a study from a Chinese University:
Malaria Drug Chloroquine No Better Than Regular Coronavirus Care, Study Finds

From the Daily Beast citing two studies here in the US:
Study of Trump-Promoted Coronavirus Drug Finds More Deaths, No Benefit

“In this study, we found no evidence that use of hydroxychloroquine, either with or without azithromycin, reduced the risk of mechanical ventilation in patients hospitalized with Covid-19,” the authors wrote.
In fact, the analysis of data from 368 patients at veterans hospitals found 28 percent of those who got it died—compared to 11 percent who received the standard treatment without the drug. And 22 percent of the patients who got hydroxychloroquine plus the antibiotic azithromycin died.

 

[Raccoon Jesus]

We're still talking about hydroxychloroquine? I mean I guess we should just to run it out and get some actual data, but I thought we were now looking at Remdesivir

Leaked remdesivir results shows promise, helping Southern Californians with coronavirus – Orange County Register

It's free coverage but email-walled for access. The premise:

"The anti-viral drug remdesivir outsmarts the coronavirus.
Posing as the one of the building blocks the virus needs to make copies of itself, it’s incorporated into the virus’s genome — stopping it from reproducing and essentially shutting it down in its tracks, research has found."

"In the New England Journal of Medicine on April 10, Gilead announced results from a cohort analysis of 53 patients hospitalized with severe complications of COVID-19 who were treated with remdesivir on what’s known as “an individual compassionate use basis.” That’s outside the scope of the national studies currently being conducted.
The majority of those patients showed clinical improvement, and no new safety signals were identified with remdesivir treatment, the analysis found.
Nearly two thirds of the patients were on mechanical ventilation, and remdesivir improved oxygen levels in 68 percent of them — 36 of the 53. Nearly half of all patients were discharged from the hospital following treatment."

Gilead data suggests coronavirus patients are responding to treatment

Again, nothing conclusive, but certainly hopeful that at least a seemingly effective treatment is already there

 

[HeadInjury]

Here's another one involving Fox News backing away form that malaria drug
Fox News Quietly Backs Away From Hyping Trump’s Coronavirus ‘Miracle Drug’

From Bloomberg citing a study from a Chinese University:
Malaria Drug Chloroquine No Better Than Regular Coronavirus Care, Study Finds

From the Daily Beast citing two studies here in the US:
Study of Trump-Promoted Coronavirus Drug Finds More Deaths, No Benefit

“In this study, we found no evidence that use of hydroxychloroquine, either with or without azithromycin, reduced the risk of mechanical ventilation in patients hospitalized with Covid-19,” the authors wrote.
In fact, the analysis of data from 368 patients at veterans hospitals found 28 percent of those who got it died—compared to 11 percent who received the standard treatment without the drug. And 22 percent of the patients who got hydroxychloroquine plus the antibiotic azithromycin died.

Three articles. Zero controlled studies referenced. Two articles referencing the same VA records review I mentioned above. The other referencing a small study in China from March. There are other small studies going the other way too, which -- for some unimaginable reason -- these articles don't bother mention. Again, why is that?

All you've found is examples of the media echo chamber.

 

[HeadInjury]

We're still talking about hydroxychloroquine? I mean I guess we should just to run it out and get some actual data, but I thought we were now looking at Remdesivir

Leaked remdesivir results shows promise, helping Southern Californians with coronavirus – Orange County Register

It's free coverage but email-walled for access. The premise:

"The anti-viral drug remdesivir outsmarts the coronavirus.
Posing as the one of the building blocks the virus needs to make copies of itself, it’s incorporated into the virus’s genome — stopping it from reproducing and essentially shutting it down in its tracks, research has found."

"In the New England Journal of Medicine on April 10, Gilead announced results from a cohort analysis of 53 patients hospitalized with severe complications of COVID-19 who were treated with remdesivir on what’s known as “an individual compassionate use basis.” That’s outside the scope of the national studies currently being conducted.
The majority of those patients showed clinical improvement, and no new safety signals were identified with remdesivir treatment, the analysis found.
Nearly two thirds of the patients were on mechanical ventilation, and remdesivir improved oxygen levels in 68 percent of them — 36 of the 53. Nearly half of all patients were discharged from the hospital following treatment."

Gilead data suggests coronavirus patients are responding to treatment

Again, nothing conclusive, but certainly hopeful that at least a seemingly effective treatment is already there

Fingers crossed, but there are already articles out there poking holes in the early results.

Hope it's found to be effective in the end.

 

[jfont]

Three articles. Zero controlled studies referenced. Two articles referencing the same VA records review I mentioned above. The other referencing a small study in China from March. There are other small studies going the other way too, which -- for some unimaginable reason -- these articles don't bother mention. Again, why is that?

All you've found is examples of the media echo chamber.

If you could site those studies give us a link with all the controlled study.

Seems like there are plenty of studies already that is credible and the facts are going against it.

 

[KINGS17]

We interrupt your regular programming for this brief commercial break.

 

[HeadInjury]

If you could site those studies give us a link.

Seems like there are plenty of studies already that is credible and the facts are going against it.

So you can only find articles dismissing its efficacy and nothing promoting it? That's hilarious. Talk about confirmation bias.

I've made numerous posts about what some doctors were saying in this thread. If it interests you, go through my posts to find references and links.

I've never said it works. I don't know if it works. Some people act like they sure don't want it to work. Like reporters who mention the death in Arizona and somehow forgot to mention the deceased ate an unknown amount of fish tank cleaner.

In a nutshell, the first suggestions it could help came from a small study in China. Then a French doctor, Didier Raoult, published a small study showing significant results. He later reported again on further treatment, although he didn't use a control group the second time. Two Kansas doctors published a piece in the Wall Street Journal about their results. There have been numerous treating doctors who have appeared on television and discussed what they were witnessing with their own patients.

Doctors were polled internationally and 37% said it was the most effective treatment they found. "Hydroxychloroquine was overall chosen as the most effective therapy amongst COVID-19 treaters from a list of 15 options (37% of COVID-19 treaters), 75% in Spain, 53% Italy, 44% in China, 43% in Brazil, 29% in France, 23% in the U.S. and 13% in the U.K.”
Largest Statistically Significant Study by 6,200 Multi-Country Physicians on COVID-19 Uncovers Treatment Patterns and Puts Pandemic in Context - Sermo

But you can only find links dismissing it. Got it.

 

[Raccoon Jesus]

The problem here is that this is not a true study. It is an analysis of carefully chosen patient records. All of these patients were hospitalized and the analysis was performed after the fact. Doctors caring for the patients made clinical and not experimental decisions. The "control" group was made up of patients whom doctors chose not to treat with ANY therapies upon entering the hospital. Why not? Common sense would lead us to conclude that doctors assessed the patients and thought they were better off than those who were given at least a single treatment. It's the job of the analysts to rule out that possibility. Furthermore, the sample size is concerning. Across the entire VA hospital system, these researchers were not able to find more than 400 patients to analyze with fewer than 75 deaths? That does not make sense. Either the virus is far less serious than is being reported or there was cherry picking.

We have to wait for definitive data that was responsibly collected and analyzed before making any real determinations. Blind studies with various drug combinations and placebos are required. This is no better than the anecdotal evidence President Trump was touting in favor of using hydroxychloroquine. He can probably find the medical records of 75 cases where the patient made a "miraculous" recovery.

My interpretation is that there's irresponsibility by President Trump rushing to push a drug that hadn't been appropriately tested and vetted, and a pushback by the media saying no that's not the case, with both parties ignoring that we didn't stumble upon a miracle cure or letting the process play out. The media acted responsibly in saying "well, hold your horses, we don't know that," but also irresponsibly in writing off the drug altogether.

The reality is American culture as a whole is always looking for the simple pill miracle cure for everything, "just take your medicine and it'll be fine," with very little attention paid to the precious public health tools of prevention as well as vaccination (look no further in people wearing those stupid ass lap bands instead of exercising, or diet pills instead of changing eating habits). In this case we don't have a vaccine, and we're working on a treatment, so all we have is prevention--but with the rush for the elixir you have everyone acting irresponsibly pushing forth/pushing back on a possibility just resulting in disinformation for everyone but particularly dangerous for hyperpartisan extremes.

I'm all for science. The drug cocktail either works or it doesn't. I'm eager to find the answer, good or bad. It's okay to publish an article about the VA study. But why was the article written like it was? Ignorance? (I would think not.) Sloppiness? Perhaps an agenda?

Respectfully disagree, it's not that binary. It could have a reaction in some people. It could cure Covid, but cause kidney failure. It could not work at all. It could be deadly to certain blood types.

Do agree that the tests need to run their course and that incomplete information needs to be presented as such, yet no one in any capacity seems to be doing that, whether reporter or government official. Edit: I mean, in looking at the study, it's pretty clear that this is an "outcomes analysis" of already-hospitalized vets and not a clinical study.

So you can only find articles dismissing its efficacy and nothing promoting it? That's hilarious. Talk about confirmation bias.

I've made numerous posts about what some doctors were saying in this thread. If it interests you, go through my posts to find references and links.

But you can only find links dismissing it. Got it.

Unfortunately a lot has happened in two weeks and a lot of that info is outdated. As above, we still need more time for more certain results, but the most recent news isn't very positive, and it's all time sensitive. That has to be acknowledged and contextualized and that's not partisan. Hell, re: the above, even Fox News reported the same:

COVID-19 treatment hydroxychloroquine showed no benefit, more deaths in VA virus study

“In this study, we found no evidence that use of hydroxychloroquine, either with or without azithromycin, reduced the risk of mechanical ventilation in patients hospitalized with Covid-19,” the researchers said. “An association of increased overall mortality was identified in patients treated with hydroxychloroquine alone. These findings highlight the importance of awaiting the results of ongoing prospective, randomized, controlled studies before widespread adoption of these drugs.”

Honestly I'm not real sure what's controversial about this. Ultimately the thesis is "everyone be careful, we need more time."

 

[Rumpelstiltskin]

Again, nothing conclusive, but certainly hopeful that at least a seemingly effective treatment is already there

Yep. Here's an excerpt from another article on this drug that I really like [emphasis mine]:

https://www.usnews.com/news/health-...d-news-on-remdesivirs-power-to-treat-covid-19

Remdesivir was originally developed to treat Ebola more than a decade ago. It's known to be generally safe in humans, the researchers said, and is backed by a large body of preclinical research, and a number of studies have shown it stops SARS (severe acute respiratory syndrome) and MERS (Middle East respiratory syndrome), the viral cousins of COVID-19.​

 

[KINGS17]

My interpretation is that there's irresponsibility by President Trump rushing to push a drug that hadn't been appropriately tested and vetted, and a pushback by the media saying no that's not the case, with both parties ignoring that we didn't stumble upon a miracle cure or letting the process play out. The media acted responsibly in saying "well, hold your horses, we don't know that," but also irresponsibly in writing off the drug altogether.

The reality is American culture as a whole is always looking for the simple pill miracle cure for everything, "just take your medicine and it'll be fine," with very little attention paid to the precious public health tools of prevention as well as vaccination (look no further in people wearing those stupid ass lap bands instead of exercising, or diet pills instead of changing eating habits). In this case we don't have a vaccine, and we're working on a treatment, so all we have is prevention--but with the rush for the elixir you have everyone acting irresponsibly pushing forth/pushing back on a possibility just resulting in disinformation for everyone but particularly dangerous for hyperpartisan extremes.

There is a difference between pushing something and saying this is the way and having anecdotal evidence regarding the efficacy of hydroxycholoraquine and Zip packs + zinc. Multiple links with success stories which are just as valid as the VA "study".

This Coronavirus Patient Dodged A Bullet With Hydroxychloroquine. Is She A Harbinger Or Outlier?

Michigan doctors see success in COVID-19 treatment but say more clinical trials are needed

Why Trump is at odds with his medical experts over Covid-19 drugs - STAT

At a Thursday news briefing, Trump trumpeted that chloroquine had shown “very, very encouraging early results” and said “we’re going to be able to make that drug available almost immediately.”

On Friday, the president said, “It may work, it may not work. I feel good about it. That’s all it is. Just a feeling.”

The study doesn’t show that patients lived longer or were more likely to recover, but instead shows that the amount of virus in the blood was reduced much faster in the patients who took hydroxychloroquine and even faster in the six patients who took the combination of hydroxychloroquine and azithromycin.

Coronavirus patient’s recovery after 20 days on ventilator is a miracle for family, a welcome boost for doctors – Daily Breeze

Plenty of patients with anecdotes of being on a ventilator, and recovering after being given some type of hydroxychloroquine drug cocktail. As we know the survival rate after going on a ventilator is as we know very poor. If I had a family member or friend about to be put on a vent, I would want them to receive the drug cocktail.

Zuniga, like all coronavirus ICU patients at Providence Little Company of Mary in Torrance, received hydroxychloroquine and azithromycin, which have shown success in some COVID-19 patients.

I believe President Trump was saying metaphorically if you are on a ventilator, "What have you got to lose?" Hundreds of thousands of doses are given annually. Hydroxychloraquine is relatively safe, or it would not be prescribed so often. He never said to not do the studies. When it's the only hope you have, it makes sense to me. Not sure why the media has so much invested in trying to prove anything Trump says as being wrong.

 

[KINGS17]

Yep. Here's an excerpt from another article on this drug that I really like [emphasis mine]:

https://www.usnews.com/news/health-...d-news-on-remdesivirs-power-to-treat-covid-19

Remdesivir was originally developed to treat Ebola more than a decade ago. It's known to be generally safe in humans, the researchers said, and is backed by a large body of preclinical research, and a number of studies have shown it stops SARS (severe acute respiratory syndrome) and MERS (Middle East respiratory syndrome), the viral cousins of COVID-19.​

In general I think any drug which has a calming effect on the body's immune system may have some benefit, and have some efficacy.

Why Some COVID-19 Patients Crash: The Body's Immune System Might Be To Blame

 

[Raccoon Jesus]

There is a difference between pushing something and saying this is the way and having anecdotal evidence regarding the efficacy of hydroxycholoraquine and Zip packs + zinc. Multiple links with success stories which are just as valid as the VA "study".

This Coronavirus Patient Dodged A Bullet With Hydroxychloroquine. Is She A Harbinger Or Outlier?

Michigan doctors see success in COVID-19 treatment but say more clinical trials are needed

Why Trump is at odds with his medical experts over Covid-19 drugs - STAT

At a Thursday news briefing, Trump trumpeted that chloroquine had shown “very, very encouraging early results” and said “we’re going to be able to make that drug available almost immediately.”

On Friday, the president said, “It may work, it may not work. I feel good about it. That’s all it is. Just a feeling.”

The study doesn’t show that patients lived longer or were more likely to recover, but instead shows that the amount of virus in the blood was reduced much faster in the patients who took hydroxychloroquine and even faster in the six patients who took the combination of hydroxychloroquine and azithromycin.

Coronavirus patient’s recovery after 20 days on ventilator is a miracle for family, a welcome boost for doctors – Daily Breeze

Plenty of patients with anecdotes of being on a ventilator, and recovering after being given some type of hydroxychloroquine drug cocktail. As we know the survival rate after going on a ventilator is as we know very poor. If I had a family member or friend about to be put on a vent, I would want them to receive the drug cocktail.

Zuniga, like all coronavirus ICU patients at Providence Little Company of Mary in Torrance, received hydroxychloroquine and azithromycin, which have shown success in some COVID-19 patients.

I believe President Trump was saying metaphorically if you are on a ventilator, "What have you got to lose?" Hundreds of thousands of doses are given annually. Hydroxychloraquine is relatively safe, or it would not be prescribed so often. He never said to not do the studies. When it's the only hope you have, it makes sense to me. Not sure why the media has so much invested in trying to prove anything Trump says as being wrong.

But that's my point--it's not so much about partisan showmanship wrong/right garbage as it is about getting the medicine right. The media's job is literally to report and fact check on that. It's absolutely more than okay to question the efficacy of a drug he was literally touting every day. Will some people take that as an opportunity to bash the president or the media? Absolutely. And to certain degrees neither party will do themselves any favors. But suggesting that's an investment "in trying to prove anything Trump says as being wrong" is excusing an authority figure whose words carry great weight for making certain claims when there's no way to be certain. I know you're speaking in generalities but we can't just discount it because "lolz media" when reports from around the world are corroborating one another, including outlets left, right, and center.


Date of article 1: March 22nd.
Date of article 2: march 31st.
Date of article 3: March 22nd.


Anecdotal evidence of success is only evidence for more clinical trials. It sounds like we agree on that. The much more recent stuff calls that into question, which like you say is every bit as fair. Again, I'm not seeing the problem here, given every one of these links I've clicked on has basically said "this is inconclusive, we need more trials." Hearing an answer you don't like doesn't make something partisan. If it's showing no great benefit, it's worth reporting on, and questioning and testing further. That's it.

The only more recent one was article 4: April 13, so just over a week ago. And in that one they suggest the medical center has been using it as a whole, but they only cite this one success story in particular. This would be another good site for analysis similar to the one above.

Edit: more than anything I'm thinking it's a general lack of public literacy (not here, this forum has been a genuinely pleasant respite versus what's out there) on what it takes for medicine to be deemed fit for use vs. Trump trying to do a good thing without understanding that process himself. Scientific articles--at least good ones--are going to have a heaping dose of skepticism. And even the ones presented here reporting on both positive and negative outcomes have disclaimers suggesting they are not not vetted, controlled trials, only outcome analyses that need further examination. So one more time--I'm having a hard time seeing this part as partisan/controversial in any way that would be raising the temperature the way it has raised in the last two pages or so.

 

[KINGS17]

But that's my point--it's not so much about partisan showmanship wrong/right garbage as it is about getting the medicine right. The media's job is literally to report and fact check on that. It's absolutely more than okay to question the efficacy of a drug he was literally touting every day. Will some people take that as an opportunity to bash the president or the media? Absolutely. And to certain degrees neither party will do themselves any favors. But suggesting that's an investment "in trying to prove anything Trump says as being wrong" is excusing an authority figure whose words carry great weight for making certain claims when there's no way to be certain. I know you're speaking in generalities but we can't just discount it because "lolz media" when reports from around the world are corroborating one another, including outlets left, right, and center.


Date of article 1: March 22nd.
Date of article 2: march 31st.
Date of article 3: March 22nd.


Anecdotal evidence of success is only evidence for more clinical trials. It sounds like we agree on that. The much more recent stuff calls that into question, which like you say is every bit as fair. Again, I'm not seeing the problem here, given every one of these links I've clicked on has basically said "this is inconclusive, we need more trials." Hearing an answer you don't like doesn't make something partisan. If it's showing no great benefit, it's worth reporting on, and questioning and testing further. That's it.

The only more recent one was article 4: April 13, so just over a week ago. And in that one they suggest the medical center has been using it as a whole, but they only cite this one success story in particular. This would be another good site for analysis similar to the one above.

Edit: more than anything I'm thinking it's a general lack of public literacy (not here, this forum has been a genuinely pleasant respite versus what's out there) on what it takes for medicine to be deemed fit for use vs. Trump trying to do a good thing without understanding that process himself. Scientific articles--at least good ones--are going to have a heaping dose of skepticism. And even the ones presented here reporting on both positive and negative outcomes have disclaimers suggesting they are not not vetted, controlled trials, only outcome analyses that need further examination. So one more time--I'm having a hard time seeing this part as partisan/controversial in any way that would be raising the temperature the way it has raised in the last two pages or so.

Why does a patient who is on a ventilator and likely going to die within days need to have a drug having anecdotal success vetted? I don't see this as President Trump doing something irresponsible as the media has tried to frame it on several occasions. I think what the media has been doing is a bit disingenuous, especially the story about Trump killing the idiot in Arizona who drank his fish tank cleaner. The story here isn't whether the hydroxychlroquine cocktail is going to be the most effective treatment, it is about the bias demonstrated by the media in trying to play the gotcha game with Trump.

 

[Bandit]

Why is the president speaking about a specific drug or treatment at all? He sounds like a 3rd grader who hasn’t read the book he’s trying to do the report on. Has nobody told him he has experts for this kind of thing, or is it that he’s fired them all and replaced them with assistant managers from Carl’s Jr.? I don’t know about any of you but the last thing I’d want is medical advice from the CEO of Baxter. If he doesn’t want to be attacked he should stop making himself such an easy target.

 

[King'sPawn]

Why is the president speaking about a specific drug or treatment at all? He sounds like a 3rd grader who hasn’t read the book he’s trying to do the report on. Has nobody told him he has experts for this kind of thing, or is it that he’s fired them all and replaced them with assistant managers from Carl’s Jr.? I don’t know about any of you but the last thing I’d want is medical advice from the CEO of Baxter. If he doesn’t want to be attacked he should stop making himself such an easy target.

Agree that Trump (actually, any non-medical professional) shouldn't be pushing specific treatments.

And any respectable medical professional won't push a specific treatment except to patients, as they will only advise patients whose records they have access.

 

[Herby]

I've never said it works. I don't know if it works. Some people act like they sure don't want it to work. Like reporters who mention the death in Arizona and somehow forgot to mention the deceased ate an unknown amount of fish tank cleaner.
.

No hyperbole, but that may have been the lowest point the media in this country has ever had. There have been lower levels by individual journalists or television personalities, but MULTIPLE "journalists" reported on this as if it was Trump's fault that a couple consumed fish tank cleaner. Let that sink in for a minute, F-I-S-H T-A-N-K C-L-E-A-N-E-R. Even my most liberal of friends can't even place blame on Trump for it, but the media just can't help themselves. Alot of them truly are the enemy.

 

[KINGS17]

Why is the president speaking about a specific drug or treatment at all? He sounds like a 3rd grader who hasn’t read the book he’s trying to do the report on. Has nobody told him he has experts for this kind of thing, or is it that he’s fired them all and replaced them with assistant managers from Carl’s Jr.? I don’t know about any of you but the last thing I’d want is medical advice from the CEO of Baxter. If he doesn’t want to be attacked he should stop making himself such an easy target.

President Trump spoke about hydroxychloroquine because some doctors seemed to have success treating some of their patients with it. Trump had never heard of hydroxychloroquine before in his life until COVID-19 showed up. Go back and read his quotes. He was hopeful, he wanted more research done on its efficacy as soon as possible. Is that an unreasonable position?

People who will be dead in a week don't have time to wait for the FDA' s usual process. If a physician believes a treatment meets the "do no harm" standard, then use it if it might help the patient.

The media's gotcha treatment of this entire situation has been sloppy and biased.

 

[Raccoon Jesus]

President Trump spoke about hydroxychloroquine because some doctors seemed to have success treating some of their patients with it. Trump had never heard of hydroxychloroquine before in his life until COVID-19 showed up. Go back and read his quotes. He was hopeful, he wanted more research done on its efficacy as soon as possible. Is that an unreasonable position?

People who will be dead in a week don't have time to wait for the FDA' s usual process. If a physician believes a treatment meets the "do no harm" standard, then use it if it might help the patient.

The media's gotcha treatment of this entire situation has been sloppy and biased.

I think he genuinely meant well on that one, but he did a pisspoor job expressing it, and the media rightly took him to task for it. Like I said above, Americans as a whole are taught to look for 'the cure' in a pill, and he was pushing this one uber-hard. That's dangerous. Especially when he has two experts standing right next to him that were like 'no, we shouldn't do that.'

I agree with you that if I'm hurting badly from this thing, let's take a swing with the unvetted treatment. But that's not at all what he said, and across the course of like a week. Some key quotes:

"a real chance to be one of the biggest game changers in the history of medicine"
"We're going to be able to make that drug available almost immediately"
and the real problematic one, "And that's where the FDA has been so great. They've gone through the approval process - it's been approved."

Plenty of other stuff to get on the media on, their coverage of treatment results isn't one of them. It's vital that they're sharing ongoing information re: possible treatments.

 

[Raccoon Jesus]

No hyperbole, but that may have been the lowest point the media in this country has ever had. There have been lower levels by individual journalists or television personalities, but MULTIPLE "journalists" reported on this as if it was Trump's fault that a couple consumed fish tank cleaner. Let that sink in for a minute, F-I-S-H T-A-N-K C-L-E-A-N-E-R. Even my most liberal of friends can't even place blame on Trump for it, but the media just can't help themselves. Alot of them truly are the enemy.

Link?

I haven't seen anyone at all try to blame trump for some couple's Natural Selection in action. The couple themselves saying "we saw it in the press conference" isn't biased reporting.

But relatedly,

We have a real problem in this country and it's a lack of critical thinking and proper research. And while I agree it's probably the media's lowest point in that everyone collectively has to sift through a mountain of shit to get to any nuggets of truth, that's partially the media's fault, and partially their subjects' faults.

I don't even want to go down this rabbit hole in this thread because it will end in more just an airing of grievances than coronavirus-related discussion, yet, to bring it back to the subject--I have very little beef with the media coverage of treatments. There they can report 'just the facts' and by and large aside from the fringe outlets they've done that.

 

[KINGS17]

I think he genuinely meant well on that one, but he did a pisspoor job expressing it, and the media rightly took him to task for it. Like I said above, Americans as a whole are taught to look for 'the cure' in a pill, and he was pushing this one uber-hard. That's dangerous. Especially when he has two experts standing right next to him that were like 'no, we shouldn't do that.'

I agree with you that if I'm hurting badly from this thing, let's take a swing with the unvetted treatment. But that's not at all what he said, and across the course of like a week. Some key quotes:

"a real chance to be one of the biggest game changers in the history of medicine"
"We're going to be able to make that drug available almost immediately"
and the real problematic one, "And that's where the FDA has been so great. They've gone through the approval process - it's been approved."

Plenty of other stuff to get on the media on, their coverage of treatment results isn't one of them. It's vital that they're sharing ongoing information re: possible treatments.

Hydroxychloroquine has been approved by the FDA. It is a relatively safe drug with few and minor side effects for most people. Off label drug prescriptions account for 10%-20% of the drug prescriptions each year in the United States. The drug had been approved. That was not a misrepresentation by President Trump. Hydroxychloroquine is and was available immediately, so again not a misrepresentation. I will agree the "game changer" line was over the top, but it is standard Trump hyperbole.

Also, I don't agree that doctors Fauci and Birx said "No, we shouldn't do that." They did say something akin to, "We don't know how effective it is without clinical trials." The media spin on this one got out of control. It's not like President Trump was advocating COVID-19 patients taking a completely unproven and unapproved drug. When you have physicians reporting quite often they were having success in treating their patients with an off label approved drug, I see nothing wrong with Trump offering that information in his briefings.

Maybe instead of slamming President Trump at every turn, the media could find some of the doctors who have prescribed a hydroxychloroquine drug cocktail for their patients and why they did it? Why did the doctor think it might be effective? What specific patient response were they hoping to illicit by giving the drug? I have yet to see a main stream media story asking any of these questions.

The media isn't doing their job in this case. Instead, they are busy trying to add another point to their "Trump Lied" scoreboard.

 

[HeadInjury]

"a real chance to be one of the biggest game changers in the history of medicine"
"We're going to be able to make that drug available almost immediately"
and the real problematic one, "And that's where the FDA has been so great. They've gone through the approval process - it's been approved."

He was expressing hope initially, which was fine. Then the media attacked him and both he and them proceeded to go off the deep end continually attacking each other over it. Not really that different from the ventilator panic (in the media), which no one talks about anymore since Trump was right (whether due to actual insight or just a lucky guess) when he said New York would have enough.

Part of the problem is we both have a President and a Washington press corp that have no background in pandemics or medicine. So there aren't enough good questions being asked and Trump goes on way, way too long in his answers. I stopped watching the press briefings live a couple of weeks ago and just go to youtube afterwards and skip to that parts where Fauci or Birx talk since usually it's informative.

In terms of hydroxychloroquine's "approval", it was approved early on for compassionate use, meaning for patients who were the most severely ill. Trump seems to almost always provide garbled info. He should have just said: it's being looked into, we will make sure there is lots available in case it works, and patients should discuss treatment options with their doctor. But there is also no reason for the press to focus on as much as it has either and produce insane reporting about death by fish tank cleaner.

 

[KINGS17]

Link?

I haven't seen anyone at all try to blame trump for some couple's Natural Selection in action. The couple themselves saying "we saw it in the press conference" isn't biased reporting.

But relatedly,

We have a real problem in this country and it's a lack of critical thinking and proper research. And while I agree it's probably the media's lowest point in that everyone collectively has to sift through a mountain of shit to get to any nuggets of truth, that's partially the media's fault, and partially their subjects' faults.

I don't even want to go down this rabbit hole in this thread because it will end in more just an airing of grievances than coronavirus-related discussion, yet, to bring it back to the subject--I have very little beef with the media coverage of treatments. There they can report 'just the facts' and by and large aside from the fringe outlets they've done that.

Arizona man dies after attempting to take Trump coronavirus 'cure'

Coronavirus: Arizona man dies, wife ill after taking drug touted by Trump - CBS News

Arizona Man Dies From Chloroquine Overdose After Listening to Trump Coronavirus Press Conference

Man Dies After Self-Medicating For Coronavirus With Chloroquine Phosphate - This one isn't main stream, but how many stupid people think it's gospel?

Then there is the NBC news tweet, which was retweeted thousands of times:



There is a picture in the tweet of Nivaquine, which is a brand name drug used in the treatment of malaria. Nivaquine is not chloroquine phosphate, which is what the couple in Arizona ingested. Nivaquine is chloroquine sulfate. Completely biased and misleading tweet by NBC news that other organizations ran with in their "Blame Trump" frenzy which seems to run in perpetuity.

The links above have incredibly biased and misleading headlines. How many average stupid people only read the headline? It's a large number.

This writer nails it, when it comes to the level of trust Americans place in the media and why:

Geoff Caldwell: NBC tweet undermines effort by other media to get information out

 

[Bandit]

Arizona man dies after attempting to take Trump coronavirus 'cure'

Coronavirus: Arizona man dies, wife ill after taking drug touted by Trump - CBS News

Arizona Man Dies From Chloroquine Overdose After Listening to Trump Coronavirus Press Conference

Man Dies After Self-Medicating For Coronavirus With Chloroquine Phosphate - This one isn't main stream, but how many stupid people think it's gospel?

Then there is the NBC news tweet, which was retweeted thousands of times:



There is a picture in the tweet of Nivaquine, which is a brand name drug used in the treatment of malaria. Nivaquine is not chloroquine phosphate, which is what the couple in Arizona ingested. Nivaquine is chloroquine sulfate. Completely biased and misleading tweet by NBC news that other organizations ran with in their "Blame Trump" frenzy which seems to run in perpetuity.

The links above have incredibly biased and misleading headlines. How many average stupid people only read the headline? It's a large number.

This writer nails it, when it comes to the level of trust Americans place in the media and why:

Geoff Caldwell: NBC tweet undermines effort by other media to get information out

The woman that survived said in no uncertain terms they took the shit after listening to the president. Are they morons? Absolutely, but that doesn’t make the headlines wrong.

We have a president that spends regular time on Twitter sounding like a teenager with autism, but sure let’s complain about “the media”.

 

[Raccoon Jesus]

Arizona man dies after attempting to take Trump coronavirus 'cure'

Coronavirus: Arizona man dies, wife ill after taking drug touted by Trump - CBS News

Arizona Man Dies From Chloroquine Overdose After Listening to Trump Coronavirus Press Conference

Man Dies After Self-Medicating For Coronavirus With Chloroquine Phosphate - This one isn't main stream, but how many stupid people think it's gospel?

Then there is the NBC news tweet, which was retweeted thousands of times:



There is a picture in the tweet of Nivaquine, which is a brand name drug used in the treatment of malaria. Nivaquine is not chloroquine phosphate, which is what the couple in Arizona ingested. Nivaquine is chloroquine sulfate. Completely biased and misleading tweet by NBC news that other organizations ran with in their "Blame Trump" frenzy which seems to run in perpetuity.

The links above have incredibly biased and misleading headlines. How many average stupid people only read the headline? It's a large number.

This writer nails it, when it comes to the level of trust Americans place in the media and why:

Geoff Caldwell: NBC tweet undermines effort by other media to get information out

"I don't like it" =/= biased. That's literally directly quoting from the couple themselves.

How would you write that headline?