Can Oklahoma Return Its $2 Million Stockpile of Hydroxychloroquine? (readfrontier.org) 206
A nonprofit watchdog news site in Tulsa, Oklahoma reports:
The Oklahoma Attorney General's Office has been tasked with attempting to return a $2 million stockpile of a malaria drug once touted by former President Donald Trump as a way to treat the coronavirus. In April, Gov. Kevin Stitt, who ordered the hydroxychloroquine purchase, defended it by saying that while it may not be a useful treatment for the coronavirus, the drug had multiple other uses and "that money will not have gone to waste in any respect."
But nearly a year later the state is trying to offload the drug back to its original supplier, California-based FFF Enterprises, Inc, a private pharmaceutical wholesaler...
It's unclear yet how much of the initial $2 million investment in the hydroxychloroquine the state could recoup.
"While governments in at least 20 other states obtained more than 30 million doses of the drug through donations from the federal reserve or private companies, Oklahoma and Utah bought them from private pharmaceutical companies," notes ABC News: Then-Utah Gov. Gary Herbert, a Republican, initially defended the state's $800,000 purchase of 20,000 packets of hydroxychloroquine compounded with zinc, but later canceled an additional plan to spend $8 million more to buy 200,000 more treatments. The state then managed to secure a refund on the $800,000 no-bid contract it signed with a local pharmacy company that had been promoting the drugs.
The CEO of the pharmacy company has since pleaded guilty to a federal misdemeanor for mislabeling the drug imported from China.
But nearly a year later the state is trying to offload the drug back to its original supplier, California-based FFF Enterprises, Inc, a private pharmaceutical wholesaler...
It's unclear yet how much of the initial $2 million investment in the hydroxychloroquine the state could recoup.
"While governments in at least 20 other states obtained more than 30 million doses of the drug through donations from the federal reserve or private companies, Oklahoma and Utah bought them from private pharmaceutical companies," notes ABC News: Then-Utah Gov. Gary Herbert, a Republican, initially defended the state's $800,000 purchase of 20,000 packets of hydroxychloroquine compounded with zinc, but later canceled an additional plan to spend $8 million more to buy 200,000 more treatments. The state then managed to secure a refund on the $800,000 no-bid contract it signed with a local pharmacy company that had been promoting the drugs.
The CEO of the pharmacy company has since pleaded guilty to a federal misdemeanor for mislabeling the drug imported from China.
Send it to Mara Lago, COD (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
bravo.
i wish i had mod points to give
Last resort (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Well, you know what they say: "One Google search a day keeps the doctor away".
Re: (Score:3)
Rheumatoid Arthritis is most definitely treatable with diet
No. Diet can *reduce* symptoms for *some* patients. The patient will not return to regular health, and their condition will continue to deteriorate over time.
The same holds true for other diseases like Lupus.
Again, this is false. Many diseases, like Lupus, can be see symptoms *reduced* in *some* patients. Even these mild improvements are often ascribed to placebo affects.
The notion that disease is in some way the fault of the sufferers life choices is a grotesque manipulation. It is intended to dehumanize the sufferer and put the blame on them. It should
Re: (Score:2)
The patient will not return to regular health
I didn't say cure, I said treat. Diet alone is of course not enough to treat symptoms, but it does aid in the treatment. As I said I am also taking meds.
The notion that disease is in some way the fault of the sufferers life choices is a grotesque manipulation.
I suggested nothing of the sort, and merely made a joke about my sandwich costing way more than my pills. What is wrong with you people?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You mean he stopped the government fixing drug prices, getting between you and your doctor (err, pharmacist, err, Big Pharma company)? Isn't this the kind of thing that conservatives usually want to stop?
(I didn't read the story closely since my experience is that when Breitbart gives accurate facts, it's purely coincidental. But is this Biden delaying all of Trump's pending executive orders while he figures out which ones are reasonable?)
Re: (Score:2)
You got it in 1 guess:
The directive, issued by White House Chief of Staff Ron Klain, suspends new regulations for 60 days while the new administration can conduct a review.
Those regulations include the new rules finalized for insulin and epinephrine.
Of course the headline would have us believe that Biden singled out price cuts to healthcare and canceled them.
Re: (Score:2)
If you don't want Americans to become addicted to a first world medical system you could always donate the drug to African countries to treat malaria. The USA may actually win back some of it's decimated goodwill that way.
Re: (Score:2)
It was compounded with zinc, so repurposing might be more difficult than people think.
Re: (Score:2)
Can't they just remove the zinc with powerful big-ass magnets?
Oh wait, zinc is not magnetic. Now I look stupid!
Re: (Score:2)
It's infected with zinc? Won't injecting bleach help?
Re: (Score:2)
The problem isn't the zinc, it's that even the largest of ass magnets isn't powerful enough.
Re: (Score:2)
OTOH, the zinc is unlikely to be harmful.
Stupidity has a cost. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
You can blame Trump or blame the politicians in Oklahoma, but it all starts with the people that cast the ballots. Do better.
Really, it all starts with the electoral college. I mean it's not like Trump had anything even close to a majority. The people casting the ballots were clear, it just turns out that your representation depends on where you live.
Re:Stupidity has a cost. (Score:5, Informative)
Oklahoma has been heavy R for a while and it keeps biting them in the ass. https://apnews.com/article/f05... [apnews.com]
Re:Stupidity has a cost. (Score:5, Insightful)
You can blame Trump or blame the politicians in Oklahoma, but it all starts with the people that cast the ballots. Do better.
Really, it all starts with the electoral college. I mean it's not like Trump had anything even close to a majority. The people casting the ballots were clear, it just turns out that your representation depends on where you live.
The electoral college problem won't go away until Democrats get elected despite losing the popular vote. Then Republicans will attempt another 0106 event again, or if there are any law abiding ones left, they'll try a constitutional amendment.
Re: (Score:3)
There is an attempt underway in Arizona to do away with the popular vote for President (or, allow the legislature to substitute their own vote for the popular vote if the plebeians don't vote the "right" way). Why bother with a constitutional change if you can simply override the popular vote?
Re: (Score:2)
There is an attempt underway in Arizona to do away with the popular vote for President (or, allow the legislature to substitute their own vote for the popular vote if the plebeians don't vote the "right" way). Why bother with a constitutional change if you can simply override the popular vote?
It is a fact that Republicans wanted the vote to be by Michael Pence only, and they wanted to hang him until death for not abiding by their demands.
Re: (Score:2)
Overriding the popular vote was the idea behind the Electoral College in the first place. Now, it's been demonstrated they never will - regardless of how clearly it's warranted - so there's no reason not to get rid of it, except for leaving control over the presidental election in the hands of states.
As far as that goes, the U.S. hasn't been a federation of independent states for 150 years. It's a single state made up of 50 provinces. The quicker that charade gets dropped, the quicker we can get back to a f
Re: (Score:3)
Year . D . . R
2000 48.4% 47.9%
2004 48.3% 50.7%
2008 52.9% 45.7%
2012 51.1% 47.2%
2016 48.2% 46.1%
2020 51.3% 46.9%
Avg. 50.0% 47.4%
Re: (Score:2)
The Electoral College isn't a problem. It has actually yielded a result closer to people's votes than the popular vote would have. If you look at the vote breakdown for every Presidential election since 2020:
Some new sort of democracy works by getting second place in the polls. Not surprising since many of those folks ideological leaders support the group that came in second place in the great war of Northern aggression.
Re: (Score:3)
If you believe in democracy, 83/17 much better reflects the will of the People.
Ideally what I would like to see is a system where we eliminate the primaries and just put them all on the ballot for approval voting, runner up becomes VP.
Re:Stupidity has a cost. (Score:4, Insightful)
The US Constitution spends a lot of hand wringing over the situation of tyranny of the majority - instead, we now have a tyranny of a minority.
Re: (Score:2)
That's nothing new. When the Constitution was written, about 1/4 of white men (and *no* women, Indians, or slaves) were qualified to vote.
A government (not a tyranny, mind you) by a minority was always the intention. What was not the intention, and in fact the Constitution was *supposed* to prevent was the emergence of political parties. That's why the Electoral College exists; the idea of Congress electing the President was floated, but that was feared to be a temptation towards creating permanent part
Re: (Score:2)
The US Constitution spends a lot of hand wringing over the situation of tyranny of the majority - instead, we now have a tyranny of a minority.
The tyranny of the minority is real and manifest and the most serious problem in American politics today. And the way the United States has developed under the Constitution, creating many low population states, Congress mandating districts for the House (1846) but no limitations at all on gerrymandering, is what brought us to this point.
But it is false that the US Constitution frets about the problem of the "tyranny of the majority". It is no where mentioned in it, and only one founding father (John Adams)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Unitary governance does not equal tyranny, just ask all of the first world unitary republics on this list https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org] .
I'm sure the ignorant and those with ideological blinders on think you look insightful here though!
Re: (Score:2)
You're saying a bad election system causes gullibility? Had Trump not been president, the governor of OK wouldn't have fallen for such a scam?
Re:Stupidity has a cost. (Score:5, Interesting)
It does get to be absurd.
Population of ND, SD, MT, WY is around 3 million -> 8 Senators
Population of California is around 40 million -> 2 Senators
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
It does get to be absurd.
Population of ND, SD, MT, WY is around 3 million -> 8 Senators
Population of California is around 40 million -> 2 Senators
...which is why there are TWO houses. This was a whole massive discussion during the authoring of the Constitution...purely population-based representation meant that anything New York wanted and Delaware didn't, would happen. Set numbers of representatives forced New York and Delaware to cooperate. This was half decent foresight; many of the food-producing states and oil-producing states have relatively low populations, so ensuring that they don't end up at the whims of New York and California is probably
Re: (Score:2)
New York was only the 4th most populous state in 1788-89.
The most populous state, by a rather large amount, was Virginia.
It's not a fluke that the first 5 Presidents were Virginians.
The system was always designed to be a majority rule. This too, is discussed at length, in the notes from the convention.
Re: (Score:2)
Really? I didn't know that John Adams was from Virginia.
Re: (Score:2)
I think it was the polite way to mean virgins in the 1700th.
Re: (Score:2)
It's 4 out of 5.
I was initially pretty sure one of the first 5 wasn't, but then I couldn't think of which one it would be, so I went with 5.
Forgot about Adams.
It should however be noted, that Adams only won because of 3 what-we-would-call-today faithless electors.
That is, 3 electors from states that went Jefferson by huge margins instead voted for Adams.
Re:Stupidity has a cost. (Score:4)
Yes, and that same convention is what eventually caused the civil war.
Southern states that didn't want a significant portion of their population to vote (or have rights) but still wanted all those people (slaves) to count towards their population for representation so they could have more representation than Northern states, hence why representation is dolled by "persons" and not "voters" or "citizens". They wrote it specifically so slave owning states would have more representation with less voters, and not because of "farmers".
Skip ahead a hundred or so years and several dozen new empty states have been created then filled by mostly southerners fleeing the south after the civil war in fear of the freed slaves seeking reprisals, and they are still trying to get more representation than is warranted by their electorate size.
Which makes it even more ironic when the very same people these days are trying to argue that immigrants shouldn't be counted as persons for representative qualifications.
Two hundred and forty four years of arrogant shitheads trying to get their vote to count more than their opponents.
Re: Stupidity has a cost. (Score:3)
What? Actually it was the southern states that wanted the slaves to be fully counted. It would have given them more power and allowed them to ensure that any new states would be slave states. It was the northern states that forced the 3/5 compromise. Exactly the opposite of what you stated.
Re: (Score:3)
It does get to be absurd.
Population of ND, SD, MT, WY is around 3 million -> 8 Senators
Population of California is around 40 million -> 2 Senators
...which is why there are TWO houses. This was a whole massive discussion during the authoring of the Constitution...purely population-based representation meant that anything New York wanted and Delaware didn't, would happen. Set numbers of representatives forced New York and Delaware to cooperate. This was half decent foresight; many of the food-producing states and oil-producing states have relatively low populations, so ensuring that they don't end up at the whims of New York and California is probably a good thing.
Oh, and the 'because population' argument is indeed valid, it's why it was explicitly stipulated that spending bills start in the House first - the larger states are likely to be paying more, so they get more say as a result.
I've never understood the virtue of guidance from small population-states. I do understand not agreeing with the politics of New York and California. But let's put on balance, broadly speaking: the UN, financial capital of the world, entertainment industry, publishing industry, technology industry, cultural landmarks, renewable industry, and judicial systems cited worldwide versus oil production and farms run by several large corporations getting subsidies from the government.
Why are we so interested in h
Re: (Score:2)
We're a union of states, not a monolithic federal government. At least, that was the original intent.
It's not really like that anymore.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
You both clearly don't understand the purpose of the Senate vs. the House. And yes, it should be. We wouldn't even have a country if the agreement to have a bicameral Congress hadn't been devised.
Re: (Score:2)
To be fair it was a lot less stupid in April than it would have been in June. There was still a possibility back then that hydroxychloroquine *might* turn out to be an important part of COVID-19 treatment.
What was stupid was going all-in on chloroquine because the President was promoting it, when several other drugs had shown just as much if not more promise. If they'd secured options on future supplies of the most promising drugs, they'd have avoided the white elephant stockpile and they'd have secured s
Google "Voter Supression" (Score:2)
Flash Fiction (Score:2)
How about being human once for a chance... (Score:5, Interesting)
...and donate it all to Africa?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
He’s almost guaranteed to be a bible thumper. Now if he’d actually read it. I’m fairly certain that Jesus would donate the medication to the less fortunate.
Re: (Score:2)
Says the crowd who is too busy engaging in partisan sniping to suggest this obvious alternative.
Re: (Score:3)
Most Excellent suggestion! Either that, or import a bunch of African mosquitos to justify having the stuff.
Use it! (Score:2, Troll)
So you bought it, for treating Covid-19, it is only right that you should use it.
You are stupid people, so buy in haste, repent at leisure. Try bleach and swallowing lightbulbs next time.
Why do we care? (Score:4, Interesting)
Why is this news? The only thing news worthy here is that a bunch of states bought a ton of HCQ+Zinc while ignoring the scientific consensus. Some state reps decided to do a bad hedge. We can all review why and how stupid the idea was, etc etc. But it serves no purpose. Some other idiot in the future or even these guys again will do the SAME thing. They will ignore the science or expert advice or and do what they feel is better for their political careers rather than be actual leaders.
Re: (Score:2)
And then, after using it, their usage data showed it made no difference so they discontinued use. Funny how you ignore that part.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I wouldn't hold any public official guilty for waste if what they did was because of an emergency, done in good faith, and on the best information available *at the time*. But hydroxy for covid never cleared that threshold.
Give it away? (Score:5, Interesting)
As far as government waste - it's embarrassing - but it's still quite useful for actual conditions that aren't Covid.
So, donate it to any medical group that will use it for its proper intended purpose - it's expiration date is soon (1 year, apparently), so it should be distributed and used soon.
The other tragic side of this misuse of the drug was to increase the price of the hydroxychloroquine - so it's also paying for a mistake for the people affected this way too.
Oh, and add in a donation to the families of people that died from taking hydroxychloroquine instead of seeking actual treatment - because you also contributed to their deaths with this misuse also.
Unless you find that the company pushed the product as a cure - then sue them for that, instead of asking for a refund. But I think that was more a Republican framing of the drug, more than the company pushing it as such.
At the time, it was pushed as a magical fix for the economy - to get people to go to work with no changes for safety - because there was a pill they could take and no need to worry. And it was Trump saying it every day.
Ryan Fenton
The Attorney General is negotiating the return? (Score:2)
Maybe somebody out there can explain how the Oklahoma state government works, but I wouldn't think that the Attorney General's office should be involved in the return of unneeded medications. Isn't this the responsibility for the Health Department or some procurement office?
Even if the Hydroxychloroguine was purchased under an emergency order, I would think there are processes in Health/Procurement departments for dealing with returning unused/not required products/drugs.
If it was purchased in an off-
Re: (Score:2)
AG isn't involved with Procurement of any kind (Score:2)
The AG office would be far better equipped to deal with this.
Really? When I look at the Oklahoma Attorney General's site (https://www.oag.ok.gov/divisions) or at LAWS (https://attorney-general.laws.com/oklahoma-attorney-general) I don't see any indication that the Attorney General has any kind of responsibility for returning purchases other than offering legal advice to the people that do.
Wait! (Score:2)
Re: Wait! (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Anopheles quadrimaculatus (common name "Common Malaria Mosquito") is already endemic in Oklahoma. All it takes is someone with an active infection to get bitten to kick of endemic malaria.
We think of malaria as an exclusively tropical disease, but our malaria-free status quo is the product of modern sanitation. There are very few areas of the world with a history of heavy human population and no history of malaria. Malaria played a significant role in the history of Rome, England, and of course the south
Oklahoma, you got scammed (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, at time other countries (e.g. India) had studies showing it did some good
Re: (Score:2)
Trump's financial involvement with HCQ can literally be measured in pennies. HCQ is a generic drug, with a retail cost of under a buck a dose. Trump's "investment" involves small investments in several drug companies, one of which makes HCQ primarily for malaria treatments.
You're a freaking moron who is trying to politicize medical practice to the detriment of mankind. Yes, you should THINK before voting. And perhaps read something other than DNC talking points.
Re: (Score:3)
You're right. Financially, pushing HCQ made no sense to Trump and anyone claiming that it did was very wrong.
No, Trump pushed it for a few reasons:
* He's quite gullible and some hucksters pushed it on Fox and other media.
* He had clearly screwed up the COVID response, so a solution to COVID (effective or not) could hide his incompetence.
* He needed the economy to be good for the election, so a solution to COVID (effective or not) would allow him to re-open the e
Re: (Score:3)
What witty repartee! What incisive facts! Sigh. "I know you are but what am I?" was clever when I was in second grade, but it has lost its lustre in the decades since. Did you have any useful comments, or is a childish insult the only rebuttal you can come up with?
Trump pushed HCQ because he thought it would help him politically, and possibly because he believed the bullshit that it was effective against COVID (though I doubt even he is sure what he truly believes). Like you said, he did not push it be
Wow (Score:3)
Okay, the drug was bought before it was fully tested.
However we were in an emergency. And $2 million is peanuts if it were to save lives. (Government calculates one human life at $10 million, go figure).
You tried, they were not necessary, now send them to Africa where they are actually needed.
Re: (Score:2)
Okay, the drug was bought before it was fully tested.
However we were in an emergency. And $2 million is peanuts if it were to save lives. (Government calculates one human life at $10 million, go figure).
You tried, they were not necessary, now send them to Africa where they are actually needed.
... then send the $2 million bill to:
Donald J. Trump Senior,
Mar-a-Lago, 1100 S Ocean Blvd,
Palm Beach, FL 33480,
United States of America.
Not Originally Promoted by Trump (Score:2, Insightful)
While a lot of people first heard of hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) while reading Trump tweets or reading hysterical denunciations of Trump tweets, Trump wasn't the original source. I also follow Elon Musk, who was the first person (that _I_ was aware of) to report on a study done by Italian and French doctors last January. They reported that EARLY treatment of the novel coronavirus with HCQ, "Z-paks" (azythromycin) and vitamin D had been extremely effective in "curing" the Wuhan coronavirus.
https://mobile.twit [twitter.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Oops! Last MARCH, not January.
Re:Not Originally Promoted by Trump (Score:4, Informative)
"...had been extremely effective in "curing" the Wuhan coronavirus."
No, it didn't. That's a deliberate mischaracterization of the conclusion you linked to, which is:
"Despite its small sample size our survey shows that hydroxychloroquine treatment is significantly associated with viral load reduction/disappearance in COVID-19 patients and its effect is reinforced by azithromycin."
No mention of "curing", which you LITERALLY QUOTED and no suggestion of HCQ effecting any cure at all. Also, no mention of "Wuhan coronavirus" which is a dead giveaway of your bad-faith agenda.
Early data showed a correlation regarding an illness for which there was almost no knowledge. Later data shown HCQ ineffective. You know, kinda how science works.
"Politics and medicine are a deadly combination, and Andrew Cuomo has often proved."
Indeed, as the Trump Administration has demonstrated to the entire world.
"And every doctor that I'm aware of who has tried HCQ, Z-paks and D for EARLY treatment has reported success."
And who would take the word of someone so transparently dishonest as you? This is something Trump, or SuperKendall, would say.
Re: Not Originally Promoted by Trump (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Talking about dishonesty...
When the aggregate of the body of studies shows efficacy for this treatment. Maybe do a little more digging before making a judgement.
https://c19study.com/ [c19study.com]
Re: (Score:3)
You've posted this a few times. The problem is that a lot of small un-controlled studies showed some small benefit, but all large controlled double-blind studies showed no benefits.
The problem is that:
* It's easy to find good results in small uncontrolled studies. People are very good at finding patterns, and without controlling for biases it's hard to avoid those biases.
* If you find small results in small uncontrolled studies, 99% of the time those results will vanish in co
Donate it to some other country (Score:2)
Bleach ? (Score:2)
Orange Man also recommended bleach to his followers. How much did Oklahoma buy? Did their citizens consume all of it? How much remains? Will they find other uses for it? Can they get a refund on it?
The "doctor" is out. (Score:2)
The Oklahoma Attorney General's Office has been tasked with attempting to return a $2 million stockpile of a malaria drug once touted by former President Donald Trump as a way to treat the coronavirus. ... trying to offload the drug back to its original supplier, California-based FFF Enterprises, Inc, a private pharmaceutical wholesaler...
The Snake Oil -- I mean -- Hydroxychloroquine salesman you listened to is now in Florida, but his carnival is still in DC.
Utah managed to get a complete refund, so at least someone was thinking ahead.
Re: (Score:2)
Does a retrospective study from July 2020 really overturn multiple RCT trials from around the world? The patrons of this rural Pennsylvania diner say "Yes."
Common sense says... (Score:5, Insightful)
...that if that article and its claims had any merit, the governor of Oklahoma would be lining up its citizens at Owen Field popping pills to every Sooner in the state. The voice of common sense begs the question, why would he want to return such an effective medicine?
Re: (Score:2)
Tell you what, the Orange Dust Bunnie claimed before the 2016 election he was worth $10 Billion. He cannot have pissed it all off since he didn't do anything for constructive for 4 years. So he should buy the lot off Oklahoma since it was his advice that caused them to buy it.
Better yet, Oklahoma can cut out the middle creature and do direct advertising themselves. As long as they don't make any promises that it will cure anything and prominently say Not For Internal Use, they should be good. The Proles can
Re:Maybe they should hang on to it (Score:5, Informative)
The referenced study was a non-controlled retrospective cohort that had problems. The gold standard in medical science is randomized placebo-controlled studies and to my knowledge, no such studies have shown hydroxychloroquine to be effective.
Maybe they should get rid of it (Score:5, Informative)
Washington Times article from July?
Let's present some more recent studies from unbiased sources. How about:
https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanrhe/article/PIIS2665-9913(20)30378-7/fulltext
https://www.nih.gov/news-events/news-releases/hydroxychloroquine-does-not-benefit-adults-hospitalized-covid-19
https://www.idsociety.org/covid-19-real-time-learning-network/therapeutics-and-interventions/hydroxychloroquine/
Need I go on?
Re: (Score:2)
You had to ruin your credibility by having a fb link in your sig. Fix that.
There's nothing like the smell of desperation of an Ad Hominem attack in the morning.
Re:Maybe they should hang on to it (Score:5, Informative)
Ahh yes, that article again. It's a shame an isolated study is meaningless compared to actual clinical trials which came after that showed Hydroxychloroquine to be a complete waste of time.
I mean since that study there are many [nltimes.nl] examples [nih.gov] of studies [sciencemag.org] that showed the drug was ineffective [biospace.com].
Re: (Score:2)
But there are much more that do show improvement.
This is how science works. The aggregate of the body of studies show efficacy.
https://c19study.com/ [c19study.com]
Re: (Score:3)
That site is including all sorts of misleading studies to boost its obviously-predetermined conclusion - a large proportion are unpublished and not peer-reviewed, many are self-admitted to be not statistically significant, some were significant but showed no benefit to HCQ, and others are entirely unrelated. I tried following a couple of the more-positive claims back to the source study - and found that they were about something else completely, and didn't even mention HCQ outside of a note in the Abbreviat
Re: Maybe they should hang on to it (Score:2)
The list includes all related studies.
Those positive and the negative ones as well.
Including a summary and a link to original source.
I have read many of them and have followed this since mid March.
The site hides nothing, clearly indicating it includes unpublished papers in the total list, but clearly distinguishing between the published and unpublished ones in each summary.
Many of the early negative studies have included include major scientific mistakes. That are quite clear when you take the time to read
Re: (Score:2)
The findings have been highly analyzed and peer-reviewed,
No real scientist talks like that
Also, unless you are in California where they are actively trying to kill patients, the expected death rate is around 13%. So what this study says in in hospitals where the medical staff is incompetent, these quack drugs can bring the death rates of the quack doctorâ(TM)s down to expected levels.
Re: (Score:2)
Who's bashing? Saying the best evidence doesn't support its use isn't bashing, it's the normal and usual result for drugs that show promise in vitro not to pan out.
You can't use the existence of any individual clinical trial to prove anything because 5% of impeccably conducted, peer reviewed studies are going to have a type 1 error (i.e., false positive) at the usual statistical confidence threshold through no fault of their own -- and no study is ever impeccably conducted. What you need to look for is a
Re: (Score:2)
If the Gump Rule fits then its not partisan. Stupid is as stupid does.
Re:Burn him! (Score:4, Insightful)
there is no false outrage from many about team orange
He's thoroughly on team orange. He's expressing false outrage about outrage he expects to happen, mostly to try and distract from the fact that the group he has blind allegiance to did something he can't really find a good excuse for.
Re:Didn't get the Memo? (Score:4, Insightful)
HCQ is - and has been for decades - on the WHO's list of essential medicines. It has myriad purposes and is, and always has been, seen as essential.
The problem is: It does fuck-all for COVID once you have it. It has a mild preventative effect in the first place, but it's not even that great at that. But once you have it, it does NOTHING for you. We know, because we tested, because an idiot president kept saying it did, and we knew it didn't, but we tested, and it does NOTHING.
HCQ has an essential, necessary, well-known, well-documented and long-standing purpose. That's why it existed. That's why we can make millions of doses of it very quickly, that's why we HAVE millions of doses of it already.
But not for COVID.
So before you go pointing fingers at people "lying" to you, ask a fucking doctor. Or maybe a worldwide organisation of tens of thousands of them that's existed for decades.
HCQ does basically fuck-all for COVID. But we've always used it, and probably will for at least a century, for other things and other purposes.
Before you shout "propaganda" go read the basic fucking medical texts. And before you claim that people are just "against Trump", go see what the doctors actually said when he claimed that HCQ would help people who ALREADY had COVID. They said "that's not what HCQ is for, we don't think it will work", and then they literally studied it and it doesn't work for that. Specifically.
So you can choose - the idiot who doesn't understand what HCQ is for, and that it's a long-known medication, or the reams of doctors who already regard it as absolutely essential, said that's not what it's for, and then tested specifically when it was claimed otherwise so that they KNEW rather than just BELIEVED based on decades of medical expertise.
It has a mild preventative effect for COVID *before* you have it (i.e. if you're in hospital or showing symptoms, it's ALREADY too late for HCQ), but other drugs perform that action so much better anyway that it's by far not the best choice even then.