Perhaps when people start lumping FOX into the MSM?

Lol, yeah they are. 1 FOX versus how many lefty slanted media outlets?

1 slanted + many slanted = many slanted.

---

I'll play you in ping pong. 

That's just a lie. By medically sound, you're parroting the talking point about randomized controlled clinical trials.  

A.) Those trials take longer than the projected duration of the outbreak

B.) The French epidemiologist who conducted the first few limited trials raised the point that with a virus that poses legitimate risk of mortality it's not ethical to do a randomized control trial.  Half the participants would get an active drug & if ur looking @ the target demographic (55+ with comorbidity) you could be looking @ 20-25% mortality in the control group.  

C.) Same French researcher just published another series of treatments including 1000 patients.  That's some 1100 patients in total.  That's enough to provide statistically significant data to support the drugs efficacy.  

D.) There are no randomized control groups for the lockdowns that nations are prescribing to deal with the pandemic!  People keep creating the false illusion of perfect solutions or some magical playbook within the pre-existing medical establishment that were supposed to follow.  There isn't.  There are no safe spaces in this war.  No option is perfectly proven and they all have potential side effects.  

E.) There are plenty of frontline doctors in the Unitrd states already prescribing HCQ in different combinations.  We are a week or so removed from the expanded use in NYC, were conducting another one in Detroit and weve stockpiled 10s of millions of doses in anticipation that this can help patients.  The initial data supports the general hypothesis that HCQ in has the ability to 1.) Allow zinc within the cell to stop viral replication 2.) Modulate the immune response and prevent the cytokine storm that's drying people's lungs.  A 10% reduction in mortality would translate into saving a population double the size of that lost on 9-11 according to the latest "models"  if we can risk a great depression, we can risk temporary diarrhea.  

F.) When combating a pathogen if this magnitude, off label use of existing medication HAS TO BE among the front line tools to save lives.  Customized synthetic theraputics and vaccines take years to develop, test and deploy.  By the time your out of the conventional FDA process your economic base is destroyed and hundreds of thousands of our countrymen will have died.  Medications that have already proven to 1.) Be relatively safe in humans 2.) Demonstrate efficacy to modulate immune response/demonstrate efficacy against the virus in the lab cant be withheld or downplayed simply to preserve bureaucratic norms when people's lives hang in the balance.  In this case you have a data driven attempt by physicians based on their research, training, and experience to give their patients the best options possible.  It would be childish and irresponsible to limit those options out of a morbid political vendetta.

No. When I say medically sound I'm referring to the drug that was discontinued in many countries due to its toxicity and side effects. But I'd imagine you won't mention that because it doesn't fit your narrative here.  

Please don't conflate experimenting with drugs in a pandemic on the front line with the president of country pleading for citizens to take it in their droves with zero medical backing or commentary on its list of PROVEN side effects on toxicity, that is quite simply just irresponsible from any public figure, not just the president of an actual country. It may work for some people, it may be very damaging and increase fatality in others, especially if already taking different drugs 


https://twitter.com/DrEricDing/status/12...3468306433


good thread on the history of the drug

https://twitter.com/RemingtonNevin/statu...5111610376

It's used everyday in this country for loopus and rheumarory arthritis.  It's being introduced in a clinical setting for covid 19 patients and the president has NEVER advocated using the drug in the absence of consulting a physician.  

The idea that he is covering some major conspiracy to sell more of a drug that's out of patent is reckless.  The day the Gov. Of Michigan tried to restrict the use of the drug it saved the life of one of her state representatives.  The idea of rooting against a potential theraputic is really asinine.

---

No. When I say medically sound I'm referring to the drug that was discontinued in many countries due to its toxicity and side effects. But I'd imagine you won't mention that because it doesn't fit your narrative here.  

Please don't conflate experimenting with drugs in a pandemic on the front line with the president of country pleading for citizens to take it in their droves with zero medical backing or commentary on its list of PROVEN side effects on toxicity, that is quite simply just irresponsible from any public figure, not just the president of an actual country. It may work for some people, it may be very damaging and increase fatality in others, especially if already taking different drugs 


https://twitter.com/DrEricDing/status/12...3468306433


good thread on the history of the drug

https://twitter.com/RemingtonNevin/statu...5111610376

It's used everyday in this country for loopus and rheumarory arthritis.  It's being introduced in a clinical setting for covid 19 patients and the president has NEVER advocated using the drug in the absence of consulting a physician.  

The idea that he is covering some major conspiracy to sell more of a drug that's out of patent is reckless.  The day the Gov. Of Michigan tried to restrict the use of the drug it saved the life of one of her state representatives.  The idea of rooting against a potential theraputic is really asinine.

Just curious, but how do we know that drug saved that life?

---

That's just a lie. By medically sound, you're parroting the talking point about randomized controlled clinical trials.  

A.) Those trials take longer than the projected duration of the outbreak

B.) The French epidemiologist who conducted the first few limited trials raised the point that with a virus that poses legitimate risk of mortality it's not ethical to do a randomized control trial.  Half the participants would get an active drug & if ur looking @ the target demographic (55+ with comorbidity) you could be looking @ 20-25% mortality in the control group.  

C.) Same French researcher just published another series of treatments including 1000 patients.  That's some 1100 patients in total.  That's enough to provide statistically significant data to support the drugs efficacy.  

D.) There are no randomized control groups for the lockdowns that nations are prescribing to deal with the pandemic!  People keep creating the false illusion of perfect solutions or some magical playbook within the pre-existing medical establishment that were supposed to follow.  There isn't.  There are no safe spaces in this war.  No option is perfectly proven and they all have potential side effects.  

E.) There are plenty of frontline doctors in the Unitrd states already prescribing HCQ in different combinations.  We are a week or so removed from the expanded use in NYC, were conducting another one in Detroit and weve stockpiled 10s of millions of doses in anticipation that this can help patients.  The initial data supports the general hypothesis that HCQ in has the ability to 1.) Allow zinc within the cell to stop viral replication 2.) Modulate the immune response and prevent the cytokine storm that's drying people's lungs.  A 10% reduction in mortality would translate into saving a population double the size of that lost on 9-11 according to the latest "models"  if we can risk a great depression, we can risk temporary diarrhea.  

F.) When combating a pathogen if this magnitude, off label use of existing medication HAS TO BE among the front line tools to save lives.  Customized synthetic theraputics and vaccines take years to develop, test and deploy.  By the time your out of the conventional FDA process your economic base is destroyed and hundreds of thousands of our countrymen will have died.  Medications that have already proven to 1.) Be relatively safe in humans 2.) Demonstrate efficacy to modulate immune response/demonstrate efficacy against the virus in the lab cant be withheld or downplayed simply to preserve bureaucratic norms when people's lives hang in the balance.  In this case you have a data driven attempt by physicians based on their research, training, and experience to give their patients the best options possible.  It would be childish and irresponsible to limit those options out of a morbid political vendetta.

No. When I say medically sound I'm referring to the drug that was discontinued in many countries due to its toxicity and side effects. But I'd imagine you won't mention that because it doesn't fit your narrative here.  

Please don't conflate experimenting with drugs in a pandemic on the front line with the president of country pleading for citizens to take it in their droves with zero medical backing or commentary on its list of PROVEN side effects on toxicity, that is quite simply just irresponsible from any public figure, not just the president of an actual country. It may work for some people, it may be very damaging and increase fatality in others, especially if already taking different drugs

All drugs have side effects. The vision effects are temporary, and from what I've read are mainly (or maybe entirely) related to color confusion. Seizures are a bigger concern, but  not nearly as common. This medicine was approved for use against malaria. Had the side effects been significant it would have never been approved to begin with.

One proven side effect of not taking this drug is death. Comparing the French doctor's results with general results puts that side effect at about 10%. That's much worse than color confusion and/or seizures.

And Trump wasn't "pleading for citizens to take" the drug. He was describing a possible treatment that has shown promise, which is exactly what this is. I read about chloroquine days before Trump first mentioned it. Is it your opinion that Trump should have just left people who didn't already read about it ignorant of something that might save their lives? If so I'm glad you're not running a country.

If someone in your family comes down with the disease, will you recommend that they not use a drug that has shown promise, just because it's use is off-label?

---

                                                                          

"Why should I give information to you when all you want to do is find something wrong with it?"

You might actually be able to find a shotgun for sale.  A lot of semi-auto pistols and rifles are hard to find now.
A lever-action rifle in 30-30, .357 or .44 Magnum works well in a pinch.

Not your first apocalypse, eh? 

I learned from the best:

---

Just curious, but how do we know that drug saved that life?

You can never know the answer to that question unless you let them die and it brings them back to life. No drug ever going to give you that but there are a lot of studies after the fact to determine it. You cannot do those studies right now. You have to provide treatment and you then leave it up to models to help determine what worked.

All drugs have side effects. The vision effects are temporary, and from what I've read are mainly (or maybe entirely) related to color confusion. Seizures are a bigger concern, but  not nearly as common. This medicine was approved for use against malaria. Had the side effects been significant it would have never been approved to begin with.

One proven side effect of not taking this drug is death. Comparing the French doctor's results with general results puts that side effect at about 10%. That's much worse than color confusion and/or seizures.

And Trump wasn't "pleading for citizens to take" the drug. He was describing a possible treatment that has shown promise, which is exactly what this is. I read about chloroquine days before Trump first mentioned it. Is it your opinion that Trump should have just left people who didn't already read about it ignorant of something that might save their lives? If so I'm glad you're not running a country.

If someone in your family comes down with the disease, will you recommend that they not use a drug that has shown promise, just because it's use is off-label?

If you ever see the inside view of how all that crap is done, it would make you not trust anything said by a doctor or medical company. The government requires any side effect to be reported, so if you call a drug company and tell them you saw some colors or your head hurt, etc they have to document it all. They have to report them and if they get more common ones they may have to pull drugs. The same stuff happens when testing the drugs, so that's why most say they may cause headaches, gas, etc. People already have most of those and usually they aren't because of the drug.

Trump is doing what a leader should do and giving people hope. He can't say we have no clue, nothing works, we are all dead if we go outside or get within 6ft of someone like Fauci is always saying. Fauci is looking at an old medical solution looking for a vaccine, not from an out in the field trying to find something that works.

---

Lol, yeah they are. 1 FOX versus how many lefty slanted media outlets?

1 slanted + many slanted = many slanted.

No FOX and many slanted MSM (pre-1996) = No worries

1 Fox and many, many slanted MSM (1997 - present) = "My god, so many stupid Deplorables believing FOX who is so terribly biased in their reporting"

---

“An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato

1 slanted + many slanted = many slanted.

No FOX and many slanted MSM (pre-1996) = No worries

1 Fox and many, many slanted MSM (1997 - present) = "My god, so many stupid Deplorables believing FOX who is so terribly biased in their reporting"

Sure thing, FSG. Whatever makes you feel better about swallowing your partisan news.

---

I'll play you in ping pong. 

No FOX and many slanted MSM (pre-1996) = No worries

1 Fox and many, many slanted MSM (1997 - present) = "My god, so many stupid Deplorables believing FOX who is so terribly biased in their reporting"

Sure thing, FSG. Whatever makes you feel better about swallowing your partisan news.

Lol, I don't watch news, when I do it's just Channel 4 at night. I'm a simple bystander pointing out the hypocrisy associated with the castigation of Fox as biased by people who turn to the AlphabetMSM (or worse Comedy Central and the Late Shows) for their news.

---

“An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato

Sure thing, FSG. Whatever makes you feel better about swallowing your partisan news.

Lol, I don't watch news, when I do it's just Channel 4 at night. I'm a simple bystander pointing out the hypocrisy associated with the castigation of Fox as biased by people who turn to the AlphabetMSM (or worse Comedy Central and the Late Shows) for their news.

Fox and MSNBC are mirror images of one another, IMO. 

How about this. I'll similarly call it hypocritical for the president to castigate the alphabet news orgs and NYT as biased when he turns to Fox for his news.

---

I'll play you in ping pong. 

Lol, I don't watch news, when I do it's just Channel 4 at night. I'm a simple bystander pointing out the hypocrisy associated with the castigation of Fox as biased by people who turn to the AlphabetMSM (or worse Comedy Central and the Late Shows) for their news.

Fox and MSNBC are mirror images of one another, IMO. 

How about this. I'll similarly call it hypocritical for the president to castigate the alphabet news orgs and NYT as biased when he turns to Fox for his news.

You should stop watching both.

Do you actually watch Fox News and MSNBC? Or are you just basing that on what others have said? 

It has been many years since I watched network news, but back then Fox was the only network that didn't spin way left (or way right).

In any case it's good that there is ONE news station that doesn't repeat the same party line dogma 100% of the time. If Fox didn't exist we'd be stuck watching Pravda 24/7.

---

                                                                          

"Why should I give information to you when all you want to do is find something wrong with it?"

This guy makes some good points.  Why is the media spending so much time on trivial questions, like what you call COVID-19 and if it's racist or not and ignoring more important questions about the models?  

This guy is Canadian so his example is of Canada.  If the models tell us that as many as 100,000 people would die of coronavirus in Ontario if their government did nothing over the next 18 to 24 months and 200,000 die normally over a 24 month period in Ontario, what is the overlap?  If class A is of people who would die over the next 24 months no matter what and class C is of people who die of coronavirus over the next 24 months, what about the overlap in class B of people who die of coronavirus but would've died from another infectious disease like the flu or of their preexisting conditions regardless?  What if the overlap is 90%?  Essentially, how many extra people will die because of the coronavirus?  It is misleading not to take the overlap into account no matter the size of it.  Can anyone provide evidence that this was taken into account before such unprecedented decisions were made by our governments? 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B8A13jKztes

---

Fox and MSNBC are mirror images of one another, IMO. 

How about this. I'll similarly call it hypocritical for the president to castigate the alphabet news orgs and NYT as biased when he turns to Fox for his news.

You should stop watching both.

Do you actually watch Fox News and MSNBC? Or are you just basing that on what others have said? 

It has been many years since I watched network news, but back then Fox was the only network that didn't spin way left (or way right).

In any case it's good that there is ONE news station that doesn't repeat the same party line dogma 100% of the time. If Fox didn't exist we'd be stuck watching Pravda 24/7.

To keep myself grounded, I do watch programming or synopses of programming from time to time. I encourage everyone to do the same so they don't fall into the trap of thinking that anything counter to what they believe is "party line dogma"

FOX and MSNBC exist to tow their party's dogma. Each have their centrists, but 95% of both exist strictly just to satisfy their party base. FWIW, I particularly like Chris Wallace's approach to news reporting/journalism, but I know that people who get their news nearly entirely from FOX label him as a leftist hack.

---

I'll play you in ping pong. 

Lol, I don't watch news, when I do it's just Channel 4 at night. I'm a simple bystander pointing out the hypocrisy associated with the castigation of Fox as biased by people who turn to the AlphabetMSM (or worse Comedy Central and the Late Shows) for their news.

Fox and MSNBC are mirror images of one another, IMO. 

How about this. I'll similarly call it hypocritical for the president to castigate the alphabet news orgs and NYT as biased when he turns to Fox for his news.

All TV news stations are bias and most news media is also biased. No one cares about just reporting the news, enacting the laws, etc. Everyone wants to put their own feelings on things. Feelings can be affected and manipulated, that is what people are abusing today.

---

Lol, I don't watch news, when I do it's just Channel 4 at night. I'm a simple bystander pointing out the hypocrisy associated with the castigation of Fox as biased by people who turn to the AlphabetMSM (or worse Comedy Central and the Late Shows) for their news.

Fox and MSNBC are mirror images of one another, IMO. 

How about this. I'll similarly call it hypocritical for the president to castigate the alphabet news orgs and NYT as biased when he turns to Fox for his news.

And MSNBC and CNN and ABC and CBS and NBC are all mirror images of one another as well. Hence my point.

I don't care what you call the President, but I'm pretty sure his news all comes from Twitter.

---

“An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato

This guy makes some good points.  Why is the media spending so much time on trivial questions, like what you call COVID-19 and if it's racist or not and ignoring more important questions about the models?  

This guy is Canadian so his example is of Canada.  If the models tell us that as many as 100,000 people would die of coronavirus in Ontario if their government did nothing over the next 18 to 24 months and 200,000 die normally over a 24 month period in Ontario, what is the overlap?  If class A is of people who would die over the next 24 months no matter what and class C is of people who die of coronavirus over the next 24 months, what about the overlap in class B of people who die of coronavirus but would've died from another infectious disease like the flu or of their preexisting conditions regardless?  What if the overlap is 90%?  Essentially, how many extra people will die because of the coronavirus?  It is misleading not to take the overlap into account no matter the size of it.  Can anyone provide evidence that this was taken into account before such unprecedented decisions were made by our governments?

Yes they are in the models, because the data shows people with preexisting conditions do die at a much higher rate.

No the models don't break out the numbers that show who is dying that won't have died otherwise. Politics wouldn't allow anyone to say this. The left already wants to kill people and Cuomo already was fine with not having ventilators and choosing who would get them. Now that people are dying, he is screaming give me ventilators, it's not my fault. The right doesn't want to say they are fine letting people die because the left would attack them non-stop over it, even though the left has been in favor of it for a long time.

It sucks when people close to you die, but we are still at 1/5 of the normal flu yearly deaths.

---

Regarding news I get the bulk of my news from FOX Business network which I watch/listen to during the day and during the week.  Much of it is both political and business related since both are tied to one another.  Online aside from local news I check The Drudge Report, FOX News, CNN, The New York Times and the Wall Street Journal (subscription required) every day.  I take in the information that they provide and make my own decision(s) regarding what is "real news" and what is "fake news".

I watch the press conferences to get information and to see where we are at.  Many of the "questions" from the so-called MSM are framed to be "gotcha" questions.

People really need to think about how would "President Hillary Clinton" handle something like this?  In my mind we pretty much "dodged a bullet" in the last election.  I am by no means a "trumpette", but I do think that he has done a fine job handling what has been thrown at him.

Imagine this happening next year.  Would you want Joe Biden handling this mess?  Bernie Sanders?  Elizabeth Warren?  If that was the case we would quickly turn into another Venezuela.

---

There are 10 kinds of people in this world.  Those who understand binary and those who don't.

This guy makes some good points.  Why is the media spending so much time on trivial questions, like what you call COVID-19 and if it's racist or not and ignoring more important questions about the models?  

This guy is Canadian so his example is of Canada.  If the models tell us that as many as 100,000 people would die of coronavirus in Ontario if their government did nothing over the next 18 to 24 months and 200,000 die normally over a 24 month period in Ontario, what is the overlap?  If class A is of people who would die over the next 24 months no matter what and class C is of people who die of coronavirus over the next 24 months, what about the overlap in class B of people who die of coronavirus but would've died from another infectious disease like the flu or of their preexisting conditions regardless?  What if the overlap is 90%?  Essentially, how many extra people will die because of the coronavirus?  It is misleading not to take the overlap into account no matter the size of it.  Can anyone provide evidence that this was taken into account before such unprecedented decisions were made by our governments?

Yes they are in the models, because the data shows people with preexisting conditions do die at a much higher rate.

No the models don't break out the numbers that show who is dying that won't have died otherwise. Politics wouldn't allow anyone to say this. The left already wants to kill people and Cuomo already was fine with not having ventilators and choosing who would get them. Now that people are dying, he is screaming give me ventilators, it's not my fault. The right doesn't want to say they are fine letting people die because the left would attack them non-stop over it, even though the left has been in favor of it for a long time.

It sucks when people close to you die, but we are still at 1/5 of the normal flu yearly deaths.

It just shows that political correctness is killing rationality and critical examination.  Agreed, I don't blame anyone personally affected by this for being emotional, but that doesn't mean we should ignore the big picture.

And I'm not someone who thinks we should let people die.  I believe quarantining those most vulnerable would have been the best decision.  Or letting people access their own risk and if they choose to defer to a medical professional to access that risk then so be it.  And we should always be trying to boost immune health of the population because there are always going to be vulnerable people and always going to be threats.  Hiding otherwise healthy people away in quarantine doesn't solve any long term problems and we don't even know for sure what it is doing short term except for wrecking the economy.

---

One thing to ponder is the financial incentive to count deaths as COVID-19 related. If all hospital expenses are covered for CV19 patients, there may be pressure on hospital officials (and family members of the deceased) to categorize more deaths as CV19 related.

---

One thing to ponder is the financial incentive to count deaths as COVID-19 related.  If all hospital expenses are covered for CV19 patients, there may be pressure on hospital officials (and family members of the deceased) to categorize more deaths as CV19 related.

Where has this been published?

---

I'll play you in ping pong.