Sorry for the political slant. Glad you pushed back. I responded to your post with more detail, and tried to bring a little more than a cheap swipe:
Since you don't even know what drug it was, I doubt you're really interested in dialogue about it and instead favor your politics I also doubt you're interested in the truth because you strike me as yet one more guy who doesn't come here for any reason other than to stir the pot. I love guys like you. You're easy The crickets after the post you MEANT to grab are deafening, and I'm very happy to shove this across the table at YOU, too.
Sorry for the Crickets after the post. Really busy right now working in manufacturing. I am very blessed, and have not had the time to devote to a proper response. Poor form on my part. Again, sorry for the laziness. I am now in front of a laptop, and not a phone on the side, the other hand is untied from behind my back, and you now have my focus.
Got me on the incorrect spelling of the drug, I let autocorrect drive on that one. Guilty as charged.
Quackery. That's cute. I do love (and you people are very consistent) the labels and complete dismissal of information and people you don't agree with because your media tells you it's....quackery. Like I said....cute.
Another good point. It is a “cute” word. Its very catchy and sort of maddowy, and gives off the feeling that the subject is ridiculous. Better choice next time.
Since you asked (and I bet this isn't what you meant to imply with your divisive and condescending tone) : HCQ in its design breaks down a cellular barrier and lets zinc into the cell. Zinc is being utilized in every therapy being trialed at this point. Some examples of "how it turned out? " : HCQ is being used at Yale, there is a randomized trial ongoing at Henry Ford Health System in Detroit, St. Francis Network in NY, Orange County network in NY, it's prescribed for every COVID patient in Turkey and has been shown to either slow or eliminate ICU admissions. A large doctor's group in Brazil posted a study over the weekend showing HCQ helped 91.6% of COVID patients, Dr. Michael Robb and Dr. Jane Orient, leaders in the American Association of Physicians and Surgeons said TODAY "We believe there is clear and convincing evidence of benefit both pre and post exposure (of use of HCQ)," meaning it may also be a prophylactic. Its being used successfully for the first time with older patients at a nursing home in Texas. Early adoption of HCQ in Italian hospitals showed unequivocal earlier release from hospitals compared to those who didn't receive it. It was used in a trial in New Brisnwick, CA with 118 patients. All 118 recovered. No deaths. No ICU admissions.
Do you need MORE examples of "how it turned out?" And surely you could have looked all of this up yourself, but it's just easier (and lazier and more predictable) to make fun of data your media won't give you. You really should look this stuff up, though. It's fun to learn accuracy instead of parroting. Cute word though. I like "quackery." But if you want the REAL truth? Read this. COVID is a SARS virus. In 2005 Dr. Fauci and others were very high on HCQ. Now? It's Remdisavir. You can draw your own conclusions, right? https://www.dropbox.com/s/hy4zovox820vmpu/3G13018 50 micron.docx?dl=0
Great summary of some very detailed information. I hope it works. Your right, cheap shot, and bad on me for assuming that this was dead in the water and to have not followed the rest of the story. Thank you for opening my eyes. I'll take some time with these names and places and bring myself back up to speed.
I don’t understand the Dropbox thing still. Do you care to enlighten me? It has some graphs and stuff but I am not sure what is proving.
Sources? Immunologists. You think politicians are just opening things up because they feel like it? How dumb are you? Seriously....it's like you people just read what the media tells you and regurgitate it. Think for yourself. Try it. Just one time. What disinformation are you speaking of? Why do I KNOW it's really "information you don't have" or information you don't agree with. What else ya' got?
I thought the decreased immunity claim came from the Bakersfield physicians. Are you speaking of your circle of friends when you say immunologists? I am honestly asking because google searches of “immunity decreased” along with “shelter in place” or “quarantine” are coming up empty. I would like to know more and can not find any information that says one way or the other.
I think politicians are opening up based upon a calculation of how many deaths are acceptable over a period of time weighed against all of the needs and wants of the entire states population not being met during this “shutdown” period. It’s a terrible, unenviable decision for a leader to have to make.
There were guidelines for opening up that were published by the CDC. States seem to be adopting those in varying degree. Why can’t these guidelines be made mandatory and everyone follows the same standard?
Everyone seems to agree that monitoring as places open up and pulling back if there is an outbreak is a good idea.
What is the standard for making these decisions?
In my mind it is deaths/period of time vs certain needs and wants met.
The big moral question is what is/are the proper threshold(s)?
I don’t see a standard. That is why we are debating in your case and swiping in mine. There is a vacuum of leadership at the Federal level. How many times has this phrase been uttered in the last 30 years? This isn’t a right/left issue to me. This is a freaking problem. We are absolutely rudderless in Congress and the White House. Tell us what to do and we will do it. We are Americans, we can conquer anything, but we need a direction to pull in.
I don’t like the argument of saying that people are going to die if we continue to follow the isolation guidelines. It makes it seem like it is a one-to-one give and take of folks perishing. We can and should put every effort towards supporting those who are in abusive, suicidal, medical, shelter, and food need right now situations. Moratorium on evictions or foreclosures. Stop all mortgage and rent payments. US, landlords, or employers pony up.
But putting forth the argument that people are suffering, and we can’t let them suffer, so we need to open up because someone is going to die anyways, seems to lack nuance. It frames the argument in an either/or choice when that is not the case. We can do other things while we are isolated to support our neighbors from a corporate, community, government, and personal perspective.
I put my stake in the ground on waiting until we have better a better handle on all of these issues, to make such grave decisions. But I am conservative by nature.