Jump to content
BANGKOK
webfact

Special Report: Doctors embrace drug touted by Trump for COVID-19, without hard evidence it works

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, candide said:

I am not at all invested in it not working. If it is ultimately proven that it works, that's fine for me (and most of all for people who could be saved). But tell me, for what other reason than supporting Trump are you writing so many posts on a topic on which there is absolutely no consensus, in any country.

My point is that political leaders should not meddle in scientific health issues and should leave it to health professionals. That's what other leaders in other countries do.

My point is not that Trump should be against choloronavirus. My point is that he should shut up.

Why do you think there needs to be consensus among countries in order to start a new drug trial? Imagine how slowly advancements would occur if the world did so.

 

As to political leaders not meddling in scientific health issues- complete nonsense. A president has to "meddle" in a plethora of issues. Why do you think health care is some sort of holy grail which the president must avoid?

  • Thanks 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, candide said:

You did get my point. What I wrote is that, in any country, there is no consensus on chloroquine for covid-19. Some think it works, some state there is no real proof of it. And it's not according to any political stance. That's why they conduct trials to find out.

 

Yes, a president must not meddle in scientific debates and controversies, in particular about medicine. That's not his job.

OK... I"m going to do a search for posts by you in which you criticize Barack Obama for sticking his nose in the *climate change* debate. How do you think I'll make out? Wait... I have ESP..... "that's different", right? LOL

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Reported Troll content removed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, candide said:

Which debate? There is a consensus among scientists about it, except for a very marginal fringe.

Did his statements raise the risk of uncontrolled use of a drug and/or its shortage?

You've moved the bar. Previously, you stated presidents should keep their nose out of scientific debate. Now you've added a caveat regarding "consensus" among scientists. That seems like a very arbitrary standard. I will stick with the Constitution: free speech. Obviously, a president has that right. And given scientific consensus has been wrong before, there's no reason to use that as a means to tell a president he needs to shut up about an issue he is in charge of.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, stevenl said:

It is a means to tell a president he needs to shut up about an issue he has no knowledge of.

 

Personally I believe in plasma transplants with antibodies btw, much more than in this.

Funny perspective. In case you haven't heard, a president leads. As such, he is provided with information on a plethora of issue so that he can make decisions. So yes, Trump has been given plenty of information on matters of science, executive summaries at the very least.

 

But let's take a look at your proposal, for a president to shut up about an issue he has no knowledge of. How do we test for that? See the problem?

 

So.... either presidents continue to be briefed on issues they decide on, or we come up with some silly and arbitrary system to decide on which issues the president must shut up.

 

Which do you think makes more sense?

  • Thanks 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
42 minutes ago, Crazy Alex said:

Funny perspective. In case you haven't heard, a president leads. As such, he is provided with information on a plethora of issue so that he can make decisions. So yes, Trump has been given plenty of information on matters of science, executive summaries at the very least.

 

But let's take a look at your proposal, for a president to shut up about an issue he has no knowledge of. How do we test for that? See the problem?

 

So.... either presidents continue to be briefed on issues they decide on, or we come up with some silly and arbitrary system to decide on which issues the president must shut up.

 

Which do you think makes more sense?

We don't have to come up with anything, he listens to the experts. But this stable genius knows all about everything.

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1
  • Confused 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, candide said:

BS! The president is not in charge of advising which medicine to take. 

Straw man alert. No one said that.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, Travis179 said:

No hard evidence it works??? Dr. Zelenko has reportedly cured over 1,000 patients to date with this drug (along with Zinc, and Zithromax). Other doctors are reporting similar success stories. With no serious side effects whatsoever. The Fake News Media, <deleted> Dems, and Big Pharma are just trying to discredit Trump, for advocating it's use. Trump should have used reverse psychology, and came out strongly against its use. Then they would have been all for it. 

What's your competence for assessing medical therapies? Same as Trump? 555

  • Thanks 1
  • Confused 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...