And? The point wasn't that there may not be other zinc facilitators available, but rather those advocating hydroxychloroquine are primarily advocating it for early intervention (not death bed treatment) and in combination with zinc. If you haven't heard this it is primarily because your primary news sources don't cover it.
I've heard it recommended for early, for late, with zinc, without zinc, etc. The evidence is thus far little or no benefit at all - and significant increased risk of death. The 'research' supporting it has been horrendously flawed. The research showing harm has generally been well done.
Except that's not true either. The US research has been almost entire limited to the extremely ill. That would mean the primary potential benefit of the treatment - suppression of the virus before it has a chance to overwhelm the body - was never going to be demonstratable. The treatment is not a cure for someone already damaged, it's a method to slow viral progress to allow the body to fight it off.
Again, the fact that you think what you do is a function of source bias.
I didn't recommend quercetin, I said that if we wanted a zinc ionophore, then it would be far more logical to try a supplement than is GRAS (generally recognized as safe), rather than a medication with known serious side effects.
If the only point was the zinc you'd have a point. Again, there's plenty of discussion about how HCQ could also be supporting the body and inhibiting viral reproduction, it's role in allowing zinc to operate is a force multiplier not the only predicted method of action. Honestly though I don't care, if there's a better choice than HCQ I'd love to get it into trials ASAP. It's only political spite that wants it to not be HCQ to the point of promoting flawed studies.
I also pointed out early on that death was expected with HCQ because the ezymes that metabolize it are oxygen dependent and thus a hypoxic individual is getting a much larger effective dose.
Yep. Which is why a "test" that limits its use only to individuals that have already suffered severe lung damage is flawed.
By the way, hearing much about ventilators these days? The "early results" on what was expected to be a "gold standard" life saving treatment were so terrible they started to give ventilators a bad reputation. Granted, we'd need a serious study to separate out whether ventilators are causing fatal damage to weakened lungs or the only chance the patient has, but I don't you see demanding double blind studies for COVID patients on that front. Why not? Treatment for a novel virus that causes heavily lung damage is actually by ventilator is actually experimental. Its just something that we have every reason to have suspected could be effective.
It wasn't a 'common trend' - the absolute numbers of medical professionals doing so was quite small. The reality is that many doctors are extremely ignorant of science. Only 20% can do basic bayesian reasoning - something that is absolutely mandatory to understanding things like drug treatment effectiveness.
Can you define "quite small"? I'm not taking your word for it. I note that Google has been flooded with left wing "stories" claiming it's not common but not one of them actually provides statistics, most commonly they cite to the "limited studies" and ignore the actual question of how many are taking it off label.
You won't get an argument from me that doctors are good with statistics. They're almost a sucky as the rest of the population with them. The problem is though at this stage we have no good statistics, everything is just reasonable or unreasonable projections that analogize to known effects in other contexts.
That's why your position in particular is so dangerous and disingenous. You pretend that we have a choice between known rock solid confirmed results and completely made up lies. We don't. We have a straight forward choice between how widely we allow people to take treatments that have reasonable probabilities of effectiveness while we are working on developing rock solid confirmed results. Your opposition to HCQ is political not scientific, and pretending its because there hasn't been a double blind study or because "early results" from studies that were designed to fail based on the expected mechanisms of action give you cover to pretend that you are not being political.
Unless you are saying it's better to let he disease go untreated than let people take medicines that have reasonable probabilities based on their known effects of being helpful the opposition to HCQ can only be political. And you can't pretend you based this on the recent results, you opposed it before any studies had been conducted.
So why wouldn't the friend be aware of it? Again, choice of their news providers.
Because it isn't important. WHy would they cover it?
It's a funny test you advocate. They will cover any thing at all, whether it's unimportant, fake, a lie, completely nonsense if it supports their anti-Trump memes. But if it's counter to them it can be covered.
It's really simple here though. You are just telling yourself a self serving lie. It actually is news and important.
Medicine isn't a popularity contest - the evidence is overwhelmingly that HCQ is dangerous and shows little or no benefit. There wasn't every any good evidence to think it might be useful.
Again none of that is actually true. There's no "overwhelming" evidence that HCQ is dangerous. It's risks are widely known and it's used by certain segments of the population routinely. Like any treatment there are risks and they may or may not be worth it compared to the benefits.
The evidence it could be useful is in fact pretty good. Its anti-viral properties have been known about for decades. The mechanism through which it operates is known and reasonable for consideration for an impact on COVID 19, and it's show in lab tests to have an effect on the virus. If it wasn't connected to Trump it would be one of the top candidates for trials without any one blinking an eye.
Again, you seem to be of the view that we'd be better off dead than for Trump to have been right. Cause you've really bought into something the science doesn't prove, which if you were being consistent you'd have to have acknowledged.
Completely agree, there just wasn't any such evidence for usage of HCQ. There is legit off label usage, and dubious usage. The evidence simply was never there to suggest we should even try HCQ.
I think this is beating a dead horse, but your claim his is false. HCQ's potential here may never pan out, but it's absolutely wrong that there isn't evidence supporting that potential. It's known effects are almost certainly the reason it was tried in the first place. I can't even imagine how any one could have the knowledge on this topic you sometimes seem to have an not be aware of that. HCQ wasn't pulled off them medical shelf at random.
There was no useful evidence supporting usage of HCQ. Raoult's trials were horrendously done - he excluded the people who got seriously ill and died who were on HCQ when calculating his average viral load stuff. The New York doctor was presenting an absurdity regarding how many cases he had treated, the reality was he was almost certainly misdiagnosing people who had colds and other minor illnesses.
You are making a common mistake. Flawed studies produce flawed results. They still produce evidence. It's just of less utiilty. Again, it's almost like you'd have to run a double blind study before you'd accept that a house needs to be built with walls on all sides. Double blinds are to week correlation from causation, no one actually cares though if we can get a "correllation" of getting better about what the real cause is.
The NY doctor is actually a funny case, because he was using it more closely in line with how its actually projected to work.
Yes. As I said above - responsible news organizations don't write about treatments that don't have evidence to support them.
That's literally a lie, they do it all the time. It's political blindness that's causing you to make this claim. No one out there wrote anything about HQC that wasn't true. The President didn't even go that far. He gave an optimistic message that was qualified.
Again the reason you think otherwise is that your sources misrepresent what actually happened.
They report only when there is adequately vetted evidence.
Again its a lie. How many reports have quoted a time line to develop a vaccine. Probably hundreds of thousands. There's no vetted evidence that supports that. We'll read reports of the "next great thing" in medicine that ultimately pan out to be not much.
The media pretends Trump is pushing an outlandish theory, you've analogized it to healing rocks.
He was pushing a theory without scientific support. It was actually more dangerous than promoting healing rocks or homeopathy, since those can't kill you (well, homeoupathy can have contaminated water, but most preperations are unlikely to kill you).
Again that's false. There is scientific support. You not liking research that has been ongoing for decades does not magically delegitimize it.
No, he departed in a worse decision. The expert advice was quarantine, instead of travel bans. We implemnted travel bans but not quarantines. So all of the US citizens who returned to the US did massive spread of infections. Similarly the travelers from other countries and through other routes that weren't banned resulted in the infection still spreading about the same as countries who did neither travel bans nor quarantine.
Now you are being ridiculous. The expert advice could have been to shoot on sight that doesn't make it possible or legitimate. The travel ban was a radical departure from precedent and the left immediately whined about it being unnecessary and racist. Travelors were directed to self quarantine, which is pretty much the extent of the legal authority. They ignored it, and blue state politicians undermined it. I saw deBlasio telling NY'ers to get out and mingle to go to China Town and mingle with the crowds. Pelosi in late February visting Chinatown and saying "That’s what we’re trying to do today is to say everything is fine here," Pelosi said. "Come because precautions have been taken. The city is on top of the situation." That's in the last week of February, almost a month after Trump's original travel ban.
Lie to yourself if you want, there is ZERO chance that mandatory quaratine was happening.
Everything reported on and suspected about Russia was accurate.
False. Most everything reported on and suspected about Russia was actually false. Most was a fantasy spun from the minds of political operatives of the left that the media uncritically pretended wer real.
There was the meeting with the Russian lawyer by Trump Jr. and other Trump high level campaign members.
Which lawyer met with DNC operatives before and after the meeting. Sounds like collusion with Russia doesn't it?
It was deemed that Trump Jr. and others might plead lack of knowledge of the relevant law and thus the case wasn't strong enough to garuntee a conviction.
Total garbage interpretation and a lie. Nothing prevented Mueller from bringing that case if there was crime. He spared no measure in pursuing others with less basis.
What killed that case is actually in Mueller's own report. There has NEVER BEEN ANY CASE THAT FOUND PROVIDING TRUE EVIDENCE OF A CRIME ISA THING OF VALUE. Without that fact there can't be a crime. He also found that it would have been impossible to show that Trump Jr. knowingly "violated a law" against that standard both because there's no way to know something is a crime if t's NEVER been found to be one and because he didn't have an awareness of the law.
And it's rich, because it wouldn't have been a crime if Trump Jr. paid for it in any event. It's only a "crime" if its free. Good thing Hillary's lawyers paid for their Russian misinformation.
There were meetings with Trump campaign members and Russia.
No there weren't. You've misstated the truth.
Stone definitely colluded with Russia (via the GRU under the name Guccifer) and coordinated with the Trump campaign.
Again you've made false claims. You're confused about who "colluded" with Guccifer, you've repeated an unproven claim about Guccifer's identity (and ignored that no one would have had any way to"know" that Guccifer was anything but the hacker he appeared to be), and you've overstated the coordination on that front. Again, never shown which is why Stone is in prison for lying rather than conspriracy. In fact, his trial pretty much conclusively showed he didn't coordinate anything in a material way that he was essentially a braggart.
However there wasn't specific evidence of whether the Trump campaign had knowledge of Stones working with Russia.
There wasn't specific evidence that Stone did work with Russia. or that Stone would have had any reason to believe he was.
Facts aren't a 'liberal narrative'. There is objective reality even if you choose to ignore it.
I agree facts aren't a liberal narrative, the liberal narrative and facts have nothing in common other than they can both be expressed in words.
I don't know what you've been reading lately, but you've dropped way off the deep end on confirmation bias of false statements.
I mean by golly, any one on the left that's ever repeated back some form of the Russian collusion being obvious or proven is someone that's completely misinformed.
BS. There was plenty of evidence that it happened but it was felt those for whom we had evidence of them doing so, could plead ignorance of the law, so they weren't prosecuted.
Except you are lying. Mueller's conclusion was that there was no evidence of collusion by the Trump campaign with Russia. Listing out "contacts" and pretending there's more to it is exactly the basis behind this being a complete hoax.
Ignorance was an affirmate defense against the charges that would have been brought.
Not even remotely. You misunderstood it's role in the report and have grossly overgeneralized its applicability.
Don Jr. did not benefit from Presidential immunity. He benefitted because there was no plausible way that Mueller could have made a case. We have a word for that in legal circles, it's called innocent.
You seem to believe that being innocent really means that you "got away" with it.
Not sure why quoted Mueller, it just demonstrated that you don't understand him. "...second, the government would likely encounter difficulty proving beyond a reasonable doubt that the value of the promised information exceeded the threshold for a criminal violation." It's right there. Mueller wrote the entire section to tell you that there was no crime, but to pretend there was.
You specifically were his target audience. You fell for it. Meuller admitted this was not illegal conduct, hence he couldn't prove it but he wanted you to think it was a crime and you do. You don't blink an eye at Hillary buying Russian misinformation, but Don Jr. neither buying or even receiving what was supposed to be true evidence of a crime by Hillary is a crime in your mind. Do you realize how far you have to be down the nonsense rabbit hole to rationalize that?
So they didn't think they had enough evidence to prove that the acted willfully, but they absolutely had evidence that it happened.
Its sad to see how effective propaganda is. Meuller told you it wasn't a crime, and you deluded yourself into thinking it was. It has zero to do with Don Jr.'s knowledge, any prosecutor would have taken that case if that was all they had to prove. They do it all the time. They impute the knowledge they flip a defendant. He didn't bring the case because the theory is garbage. You really fell for the idea that it would be criminal for a Russian national to send you court documents from Russia showing your opponent committed a crime?
When even smart people are this easily mislead it explains a lot about why the country is where it is.
