Good News! Trump is taking hydroxychloroquine!

[_ajax18]

Trump is mocked for promoting something as a cure which isn't a cure and then encouraging people to take it saying it is 100% harmless which is a 100% incorrect statement.

Show me the quote where Trump says this.

[_Jersey Girl]

Audio resurfaced Thursday in which Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D-MN) suggested that her husband, John Bessler, had taken hydroxychloroquine during his battle against coronavirus, from which he later recovered.

The President isn't battling coronavirus.

[_Icarus]

Show me the quote where Trump says this.

Good God you must have your head firmly buried in Brietbart if you can't even inform yourself on the most talked about issues in the news.

"What do you have to lose" is what he's said about hydroxychloroquine several times.

[_EAllusion]

The Trump admin had the taxpayers of this country buy a massive stockpile of Hydroxychloroquine and was planning on flooding the NY, New Jersey, PA area with it as part of their coronavirus response. Cooler heads prevailed, but fighting it cost at least one key scientist his job. The President has repeatedly promoted it in a variety of public settings, including during pandemic response updates. His allied media sources on Fox News have been relentlessly promoting it as almost a miracle drug. Recently, and what this thread is about, the President claimed to be taking it as a matter of personal testimonial, though he might have just been bullshitting.

That this is an unproven treatment with potentially serious side-effects is scandalous. Everyone wants an effective COVID treatment, but that does not mean it's OK to promote drugs without evidence of efficacy and potential serious risk of harm for general use. The logic that it's relatively safe to treat Lupus, therefore it must be fine for COVID is busted. The Lancet observational study found the risk of using this particular drug while being hospitalized with COVID as worse than several of the common pre-existing conditions that are widely talked about as risk factors for poor COVID outcomes. The effect was large enough that it probably is unethical to even experimentally treat patients with the drug if they are hospitalized with COVID. Regardless of how you feel about that, it sure as hell is unethical to use a national bully pulpit to encourage people to use it given the current state of evidence.

The Amy Klobuchar quote, via the dubious source Gateway Pundit, has her saying that she thinks her husband might've taken it briefly during treatment, but she is unsure if that's the drug, then defaults to pablum about trusting science and doctors for individual situations. This is, in no way shape or form, encouraging people to use the drug. She's not even sure if it was part of his treatment regimen. If she was out there acting like Trump, then she'd deserve to be condemned too, but she's not. As usual, this is whataboutism that also is false equivalence.

It's hard to believe a medical professional is incapable of understanding that the risk benefit of taking a drug in one context might differ in another, and I'm not sure you so much incapable of understanding that Ajax as you are, as you have confessed to your Nazi friends, a serial liar who feels he needs to lie to defend his political views against those smarmy liberals.

[_Res Ipsa]

Audio resurfaced Thursday in which Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D-MN) suggested that her husband, John Bessler, had taken hydroxychloroquine during his battle against coronavirus, from which he later recovered.

The audio was cited by the Gateway Pundit blog, which in turn referred to P. J. Gladnick at the Citizen Free Press blog, who cited an April 7 interview on the Michael Smerconish Program on Sirius XM Radio 124 (9:00 a.m. to 12:00 p.m. ET, weekdays).

Smerconish and Klobuchar discussed her husband’s recovery, and had the following exchange (here from 4:47 to 5:41):

Smerconish: Has it influenced your thought process relative to the discussion or debate about hydroxychloroquine?

Klobuchar: Well, I think that I listen to the science there. I believe he did briefly take that drug, I’d have to check with his doctors, because of course I wasn’t there. But I think that — or some drug like it — but I think that we have to listen to the science and you have to listen to your doctors, [about] what is going to work in each individual situation. Sometimes you might have other conditions that make it so you can’t take certain drugs, sometimes your own condition with the virus wouldn’t demand that, and so I think people have to look at what works. And I just believe in science, something this president has been not listening to.

Curiously, Klobuchar mocked President Donald Trump on Wednesday for taking the drug (prescribed by his medical team at the White House, with zinc, as a prophylactic):

She tweeted, "They say that hydroxychloroquine can lead to hallucinations."

https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2020 ... loroquine/

I'm not even sure why you think this is some kind of inconsistency. The FDA issued an EUA permitting the use of HCQ for some hospitalized patients with COVID-19 under some circumstances. It has not even issued an EUA for prophylactic use. Given the risks shown by studies, one could make an excellent case that prescribing it prophylactically violates the applicable medical standard of care. And Klobuchar is correct about the possible side effects. They include:

feeling that others are watching you or controlling your behavior
feeling that others can hear your thoughts
feeling, seeing, or hearing things that are not there

https://www.drugs.com/sfx/hydroxychloro ... fects.html

That's not so much a problem when the patient is Amy's husband in the hospital. It's a damn sight more serious when we're talking about the President of the United States.

So what, exactly, is your point?

[_Jersey Girl]

severe mood or mental changes
unusual behavior

[_ajax18]

"What do you have to lose" is what he's said about hydroxychloroquine several times.

And that is equivalent to saying "Hydroxychloroquine is 100% harmless," in your language?

[_EAllusion]

"What do you have to lose" communicates that the risk is so low that trying it is, for all intents and purposes, pure upside because on the chance it works, you're better off. When it turns out what you have to lose is your life, it's not such a hot rhetorical question.

Trump has used this rhetoric in other contexts, infamously to appeal to black voters, and the intent is always that things are so bad that it can't possibly be worse. Only, it can be, and Trump plunging people into unnecessary risks is quite possibly getting some of them needlessly killed. That's also the macro-story of the Trump admin's inept response to the pandemic in the first place.

[_Jersey Girl]

Trump is mocked for promoting something as a cure which isn't a cure and then encouraging people to take it saying it is 100% harmless which is a 100% incorrect statement.

Show me the quote where Trump says this.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qqbq0MASZXg

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b2NoxPzcE0I

Nothing lost by doing it...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=im3Ic9u2_qw

[_Doctor CamNC4Me]

Well, thank god Jersey Girl met Ajax’s CFR. Looks like we got another one to vote Democrat this November, boys (and girls)!

- Doc