Hydroxychloroquine rated ‘most effective’ coronavirus treatment

Tiberius Lee said:

You forgetting one thing, Trump got the minority vote yet he won.. so to his supporter .. that works every time!

Click to expand...

Trump carried the majority of States, maybe Democrats need to venture out into so called "flyover country".

Hank77 said:

This means pharmacies need to hold their regular supply for patients who regularly use the drug and order extra if they are getting prescriptions to treat CoVid-19 patients.

Click to expand...

Order from whom?
How difficult is it to whip up a batch?
Are the precursor chemicals cheap and easy to obtain in the quantities necessary?
What are the capacities of the companies that make this?
Should “emergency laboratories” be set up to make hydroxychloroquine?

Pommer said:

Order from whom?

Click to expand...

From their pharmaceutical suppliers.

I don't see how the rest of your questions are relevant to anything that I said.

hislegacy said:

An international poll of thousands of doctors rated the Trump-touted anti-malaria drug hydroxychloroquine the best treatment for the novel coronavirus.

Of the 6,227 physicians surveyed in 30 countries, 37 percent rated hydroxychloroquine the “most effective therapy” for combating the potentially deadly illness, according to the results released Thursday.​

For those who criticized the President for being hopeful that it would be a benefit.

Click to expand...

Interesting.

And don't worry about the the Trump haters responses. Hate blinds, and as you can see here it's like being in a room full of blind people desperately trying to find something/anything (a way to demean/keep someone from getting any credit in this case.) So, as one might imagine, the thread is a little busy.

James4Christ 777 said:

Trump carried the majority of States, maybe Democrats need to venture out into so called "flyover country".

Click to expand...

This isn't even the correct argument for the EC trump win. It's the total number of EC votes in the states won that matter, not the number of states. (and not the number of raw voters)

Hans Blaster said:

This isn't even the correct argument for the EC trump win. It's the total number of EC votes in the states won that matter, not the number of states. (and not the number of raw voters)

Click to expand...

Look at the electoral Map, he won the most number of States.

Kenny'sID said:

And don't worry about the the Trump haters responses. Hate blinds, and as you can see here it's like being in a room full of blind people desperately trying to find something/anything (a way to demean/keep someone from getting any credit in this case.) So, as one might imagine, the thread is a little busy.

Click to expand...

Only proper clinical medical testing will show if this is a good treatment or not.

Trump's promotion of it is irrelevant to the usefulness of it.

I do wish the White House would be more proactive, rather than reactive, and the president would step aside from the podium and let the professionals (and the coordinator Pence) handle the public interface. He keeps letting his petty grievances get in the way of a coherent message to the American people and that will cost lives.

I was never particularly impressed with the notion that novices to government made good government executives (presidents, governors, mayors, etc), but I never imagined any businessman would be so poor at management as Trump is.

James4Christ 777 said:

Look at the electoral Map, he won the most number of States.

Click to expand...

Let me help you again!

It's not the number of states, its the number of electoral votes in those states.

We've heard over and over about how a small number of voters (less than 100k) in three states (PA, MI, WI) flipped the election. If he'd lost those three states, he'd still have won more states, but he wouldn't be president because their electoral votes would have changed the result. IT'S NOT THE NUMBER OF STATES!

Hans Blaster said:

Only proper clinical medical testing will show if this is a good treatment or not.

Click to expand...

"Interesting" nonetheless.

Hans Blaster said:

Trump's promotion of it is irrelevant to the usefulness of it.

Click to expand...

Trumps promotion?

You seem to be creating arguments I didn't make??

Kenny'sID said:

"Interesting" nonetheless.



Trumps promotion?

You seem to be creating arguments I didn't make??

Click to expand...

You complained about "Trump haters" in a thread about a possible treatment for COVID-19. A thread where the very first post tied the treatment to critics of the president. So let me restate this for you...

Whether the president promotes this treatment, calls it a "Democrat hoax" or doesn't even know it exists is *COMPLETELY* irrelevant to the efficacy of the treatment -- it either works or it doesn't.

Unfortunately the OP was made on the poly-ticks board, where I wish I'd never gone. I hate politics. (at least you're not misstating the mechanics of the EC.) I think confinement might finally drive me mad.

Hans Blaster said:

Only proper clinical medical testing will show if this is a good treatment or not.

Trump's promotion of it is irrelevant to the usefulness of it.

I do wish the White House would be more proactive, rather than reactive, and the president would step aside from the podium and let the professionals (and the coordinator Pence) handle the public interface. He keeps letting his petty grievances get in the way of a coherent message to the American people and that will cost lives.

I was never particularly impressed with the notion that novices to government made good government executives (presidents, governors, mayors, etc), but I never imagined any businessman would be so poor at management as Trump is.

Click to expand...

Hans, all hindsight aside, do you think you would have done better?

Hank77 said:

From their pharmaceutical suppliers.

I don't see how the rest of your questions are relevant to anything that I said.

Click to expand...

Fun little factoid I learned earlier, to provide everyone with one little bottle of hand sanetizer would require the manufacturing output to increase by 1000 times. Might be worth bearing in mind when we talk casually about how things can just be sourced en masse from their regular suppliers.

Hank77 said:

From their pharmaceutical suppliers.

I don't see how the rest of your questions are relevant to anything that I said.

Click to expand...

The pharmaceutical companies are depend on China for some the ingredients put in these medications. People are using this medication to treat Covid cases all over the world. If the work force is scare relate to illness and there is a increased demand, we could actually wipe out the medication supplies...and those with rheumatoid arthritis and lupus could have difficulty getting their daily medications. All medications have a limited life span so there many not be warehouses full of this stuff.

That said, the less sick hospitalized patients are getting this in my hospital. I have a patient who was very sick and on a ventilator for two weeks who is building his strength back after getting a different study medication.

Hans Blaster said:

Only proper clinical medical testing will show if this is a good treatment or not.

Trump's promotion of it is irrelevant to the usefulness of it.

I do wish the White House would be more proactive, rather than reactive, and the president would step aside from the podium and let the professionals (and the coordinator Pence) handle the public interface. He keeps letting his petty grievances get in the way of a coherent message to the American people and that will cost lives.

I was never particularly impressed with the notion that novices to government made good government executives (presidents, governors, mayors, etc), but I never imagined any businessman would be so poor at management as Trump is.

Click to expand...

This is only one of many medications being used and studied in hospitals to treat Covid. I am more impressed with a different medication that had my patient sitting on the side of his bed today after being on a ventilator for almost two weeks...and getting stronger every day.

Hank77 said:

This means pharmacies need to hold their regular supply for patients who regularly use the drug and order extra if they are getting prescriptions to treat CoVid-19 patients.

Click to expand...

Sounds about right.

Hans Blaster said:

This isn't even the correct argument for the EC trump win. It's the total number of EC votes in the states won that matter, not the number of states. (and not the number of raw voters)

Click to expand...

Most states are winner take all. If they were not, then the actual raw votes would not be so predetermined that republicans and independents in states like NY and Cal would not feel they were so disenfranchised by the overwhelming Democrat majority of a few large extremely large cities that they might as well not bother voting.

Trump won, and he will win again in 2020, what will people think on here?

Kentonio said:

Fun little factoid I learned earlier, to provide everyone with one little bottle of hand sanetizer would require the manufacturing output to increase by 1000 times. Might be worth bearing in mind when we talk casually about how things can just be sourced en masse from their regular suppliers.

Click to expand...

I don't think they can be easily sourced en masse but pharmacists don't have anywhere else they can order them from.
However, Dr.s can order both of the drugs directly from the Strategic National Stockpile for their hospitalized CoVID-19 cases because the FDA issued and Emergency Use Authorization on March 28.

James4Christ 777 said:

Trump won, and he will win again in 2020, what will people think on here?

Click to expand...

I’ll think it says a lot about Americans.

Some interesting research being done by Aussie researchers into yet another drug that appears to attack the COVID virus. Believe it or not, it’s a head lice drug....