Doctor Oz stated tonight on Hannity that this drug's promising news for the condition IS NOT just based on some flimsy anecdote! He's getting across people need to wake up.One needs more than anecdotes. People often fools themselves in cases like this. Data is needed. The data does not seem to agree.
Dr. Oz, and FOX News, oh my!!!Doctor Oz stated tonight on Hannity that this drug's promising news for the condition IS NOT just based on some flimsy anecdote! He's getting across people need to wake up.
My, my, my how about you find out what Dr Oz found out from a Doctor Daniel Wallace, board certified Rheumatologist has the largest lupis practise in the United States in 1985, has right now 2000 patients with lupus the majority of them taking the drug in question, has done over 400 peer reviewed papers, past chairman of the Lupus Foundation of America....um, I think he's pretty credible when it comes to knowing about hydroxychloroquine...I think people better have a look at it. This man is in the KNOW not like those who might think they are. (see from 1908-2616 in the link)Dr. Oz, and FOX News, oh my!!!
As stated...it is irresponsible and dangerous to deny the facts that are very much out there...although and also stated...some people will never be satisfied no matter how much evidence has accumulated .
It is the negative narrative and one that ignores that it as an "unofficial cure" with millions of doses being produced and distributed just for US citizens,not to mention all the other countries that are administering HCQ+ as an effective treatment and which has also been approved by the FDA.
And again 1000's of doctors surveyed from many different countries that have all stated HCQ+ SHOULD be used as a treatment for covid-19.
But then there are the naysayers pushinng, the no no no it's not effective narrative, with no substantial evidence to support such negative claims whatsoever...spreading fear, anxiety and distress.
Not my narrative at all, nor would I ever dash peoples hopes with this false negative narrative about the effectiveness of these meds.
I would love to see some positive results too, but I have also found that false hopes are often more damaging than no hopes. If anything the answer is most likely to be some sort of vaccine. And I will be first in line if such a vaccine is developed.
A Democratic state representative believes that her life was saved by using hydroxychoroqine her doctor prescribed for her. And now she thanks Trump for promoting it!
Detroit Dem says Trump's touting of hydroxychloroquine helped save her life
Here in the EU we are currently talking about two:Aren't there other promising antiviral drugs?
Doctor Oz said there's no way one can called the evidence anecdotal. He says that is a dishonest representation of what's happening. He said you have a randomized trial from China, you have a large case series of 1000 patients from France. Other doctors have told him they wish there was a greater case trial BUT they're taking it themselves. I'd say that suggest the real feel out there is that this drug IS helping people with corona.The plural of anecdote is anecdotes, not data.
A Democratic state representative believes that her life was saved by using hydroxychoroqine her doctor prescribed for her.
Doctor Oz said there's no way one can called the evidence anecdotal. He says that is a dishonest representation of what's happening. He said you have a randomized trial from China, you have a large case series of 1000 patients from France. Other doctors have told him they wish there was a greater case trial BUT they're taking it themselves. I'd say that suggest the real feel out there is that this drug IS helping people with corona.
The problem is that the "evidence" is that while HCQ is a useful drug that is effective against malaria and helpful with Lupus, it hasn't been shown in scientific studies to be effective again COVID-19, and there really hasn't been much in the way of scientific studies on that topic.
It's been approved for treating Malaria and Lupus, but it's not been approved, nor shown to be effective against COVID-19. The only really positive study from France was based upon only 80 cases, and while only 1 person died in that study, that's all the deaths that we might expect to see if *no treatment at all* were offered to those same 80 individuals. Most of them were "mild" cases which is in fact typical and such cases don't even require hospitalization or anything external to "cure" the virus.
There's a big difference between believing that a particular drug "should" be available to be tried if the patient so chooses, and knowing with scientific certainly that it's going to make someone better. The problem is that there isn't sufficient evidence yet to "know" it's going to do anything.
I think you have that backwards. The virus spreads fear, anxiety, distress and even death. A *demonstrate cure* would counterbalance that kind of reaction. Unfortunately a "hypothetical" cure isn't going to have that same ability or that same effect. That's where we are right now. It's nobody's fault, it's just where things stand right now.
We also run the risk of creating a "false positive" narrative that causes people to have a sense of 'false hope/belief' that there's a cure out there so they act with less caution, only to get themselves infected and they die as a result of a 'false hope/belief'.
I'd be *thrilled* if a dozen or so studies all supported the belief that *any* treatment was effective, but unfortunately nothing like that currently exists.
Melatonin? Stem cells? Researchers step up with unconventional approaches to COVID-19
Even Melatonin has been floated as having positive effects, but again, there's simply no strong 'scientific evidence" to suggest it's an actual "cure" for COVID-19.
I think your basic argument cuts both ways. A false positive is actually more dangerous however because it may cause people to act less responsibly and lead to more deaths. A false negative might unnecessarily prolong fear, but it's not likely to increase the body count. That's probably why most medical professionals are "cautious" about claiming that A) there is any "cure' at all right now, or B) that HCQ is such a cure. There just isn't sufficient scientific evidence to support that assertion, and at least some evidence to refute it.
It's worth *knowing* that it *might* be effective, and offering the individual the *option* to help "test" it's effectiveness, but it's premature to suggest it's a 'done deal'.
It is incorrect to call an honest assessment a "negative narrative". If you could support your claims you would not need to name call.I'm not stopping you...or anyone else from pushing the negative narrative...that's your's and their choice.
I don't want the responsibilty of denying a PROVEN cure and letting people die because of it. Negative narrative pushers can shoulder that responsibility.
And yes, PROVEN...as defined by the scientific method...accumulative consistent evidence equals proof...and defined by 1000's of doctors around the world as an effective early treatment for the covid-19.
It is incorrect to call an honest assessment a "negative narrative". If you could support your claims you would not need to name call.
It is incorrect to call an honest assessment a "negative narrative". If you could support your claims you would not need to name call.
Doctor Oz said there's no way one can called the evidence anecdotal. He says that is a dishonest representation of what's happening. He said you have a randomized trial from China, you have a large case series of 1000 patients from France. Other doctors have told him they wish there was a greater case trial BUT they're taking it themselves. I'd say that suggest the real feel out there is that this drug IS helping people with corona.
I'm not stopping you...or anyone else from pushing the negative narrative...that's your's and their choice.
I don't want the responsibilty of denying a PROVEN cure and letting people die because of it. Negative narrative pushers can shoulder that responsibility.
And yes, PROVEN...as defined by the scientific method...accumulative consistent evidence equals proof...and defined by 1000's of doctors around the world as an effective early treatment for the covid-19.
I'm not pushing a 'negative' narrative, I'm pushing a neutral narrative toward a lot of possible ways to treat COVID-19 until or unless I see strong statistical evidence to support the method. Here's another possibility by the way:
A Plausible "Penny" Costing Effective Treatment for Corona Virus - Ozone Therapy
I'm not suggesting that there is strong evidence to support ozone therapy either, but by your logic I'm pushing a negative narrative simply for suggesting that *I don't know* if it's a valid treatment for COVID-19.
You're essentially arguing a false dichotomy fallacy. It's not an either/or proposition at this point because there is a third category of "I don't know" if it's effective, not just a positive or negative position..
Yes ... Remdesivir is looking good.Aren't there other promising antiviral drugs?
You are not accurately describing those arguing against you or their position.Honest assessment decrying the use of HCQ...haven't seen an honest one yet...nor do I expect to...there's far to much supporting evidence contradicting the negative narrative...and eventually the MSM will have to acknowledge it as the proof becomes to large ro sweep under the rug...with three weeks into this treatment, the evidence is already huge in support of HCQ+ as an early treatment for the virus.
So you keep saying...and you can go ahead and keep on saying there is no evidence...just like the rest of those promoting the negative narrative...and you can keep trying to make it personal by calling it "my claim" which of course is entirely inaccurate as it's the claim and concensus of doctors from many different countries...it won't the effectiveness and success of HCQ+ go away...and continue accumulating positive results.
The negative narrative out there is cheering on this disater, pushing for a prolonged shutdown, and is attempting to squelch the positive effects of HCQ+.
Now why would that be???
You go right ahead and accept responsibiltiy of promoting the negative narrative, that's you choice.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?