LogFAQs > #941822434

LurkerFAQs, Active DB, DB1, DB2, DB3, DB4, DB5, Database 6 ( 01.01.2020-07.18.2020 ), DB7, DB8, DB9, DB10, DB11, DB12, Clear

Topic List	Page List: 1
Topic	17 y/o Girl who DIED from COVID-19 was given HYDROCHLOROQUINE that did NOTHING!
adjl 07/07/20 11:25:03 PM #13:	Zeus posted... You can't "increase your death," dead is dead. If you have to resort to nitpicking Duckbear's writing skills, this probably isn't a context where you should try playing devil's advocate. TheWorstPoster posted... Had Obama touted the drug instead, Leftists would all be for it That would really depend on how much medical consensus he had backing him up. In all likelihood, Obama wouldn't have promoted a specific drug without having some kind of concrete medical basis for doing so, since he was a whole lot less prone to the whole "speaking without thinking" thing Trump has such a fetish for. In a perfectly comparable situation, where Obama was inexplicably promoting a drug that pretty much the entire medical community (with the notable exception of the company that produces the drug and has ties to the president) did not support the use of, you would probably still get some left-wing people blindly following him, just as you've got right-wing people blindly following Trump (I might even go so far as to wager that the proportions would be similar), but the simple medical reality of the situation wouldn't change, and those who know anything about medicine would still criticize the promotion. Quite simply, hydroxychloroquine is not a partisan issue, and treating it like one is thoroughly disingenuous. Objectively and neutrally, the use of the drug to treat Covid-19 has not been subjected to sufficient clinical trials to meet the standards of any developed nation's pharmaceutical regulation agencies and be approved as a treatment. It is a drug with horrible side effects that is pretty much only ever used for malaria because that's one of the few cases where the disease is actually worse than the cure (because malaria really sucks). Suggesting that people should face those side effects for the sake of treating a disease the drug has not been proven to treat is extremely irresponsible and reeks of a conflict of interests. That is true when Trump said it, and that would be no less true if Obama, Hillary, Biden, Bernie, or any other left-wing bogeyman you want to invoke was the one saying it. --- This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts. <cite>adjl posted [p:941822434] in 17 y/o Gir... [t:78831549]...</cite> <quote>Zeus posted... </cite> <quote>You can't "increase your death," dead is dead.</quote> If you have to resort to nitpicking Duckbear's writing skills, this probably isn't a context where you should try playing devil's advocate. TheWorstPoster posted... </cite> <quote>Had Obama touted the drug instead, Leftists would all be for it</quote> That would really depend on how much medical consensus he had backing him up. In all likelihood, Obama wouldn't have promoted a specific drug without having some kind of concrete medical basis for doing so, since he was a whole lot less prone to the whole "speaking without thinking" thing Trump has such a fetish for. In a perfectly comparable situation, where Obama was inexplicably promoting a drug that pretty much the entire medical community (with the notable exception of the company that produces the drug and has ties to the president) did not support the use of, you would probably still get some left-wing people blindly following him, just as you've got right-wing people blindly following Trump (I might even go so far as to wager that the proportions would be similar), but the simple medical reality of the situation wouldn't change, and those who know anything about medicine would still criticize the promotion. Quite simply, hydroxychloroquine is not a partisan issue, and treating it like one is thoroughly disingenuous. Objectively and neutrally, the use of the drug to treat Covid-19 has not been subjected to sufficient clinical trials to meet the standards of any developed nation's pharmaceutical regulation agencies and be approved as a treatment. It is a drug with horrible side effects that is pretty much only ever used for malaria because that's one of the few cases where the disease is actually worse than the cure (because malaria really sucks). Suggesting that people should face those side effects for the sake of treating a disease the drug has not been proven to treat is extremely irresponsible and reeks of a conflict of interests. That is true when Trump said it, and that would be no less true if Obama, Hillary, Biden, Bernie, or any other left-wing bogeyman you want to invoke was the one saying it. --- This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Topic List	Page List: 1