Politics Thread

[boozehound]

Notice how Boozehound continues to ignore the data I provided that goes against his ignorant POV....

Honestly, I just don't view you as worth engaging with based on the content of your posts. You are free to do the same with me. I'm sorry to be rude.

I'm a lawyer. I don't know if HCQ is effective. What I do know is that at least five doctors were silenced because their views on covid were contrary to the left wing's views. What I also know is that the left applauded that decision to silence them, and two of our liberal posters on this board also applauded that decision. And I find all of this very, very disturbing.

To be very, very clear: I did not and do not support 'silencing' anyone for their political views.

Having said that: This is a tough one for me: We have a problem right now, in that far too many people in this country are too stupid for their own good. The internet allows for information (and misinformation) to spread astonishingly quickly. In that regard, I am tempted to support a private business choosing to remove content that has been proven false or contains clear misinformation. My concern, however, is that somebody would just form a conservative version of twitter that all the conservatives would go and join and then we would further the divide in this country.

For a drug that is effective in treating people for other serious diseases and has been in use for decades. It's not like people are advocating for essential oils as a treatment for cancer or something. It's real medicine backed by real doctors with some examples of success so far. Dismissing it completely doesn't seem like a wise move for "the party of science."

Are you a lawyer too?

In all seriousness - I mostly agree with this. The only extent to which I give a shit what anyone says about HCQ is the extent to which, I believe, it is being held up as a beacon of false hope. Most of the studies I have read suggest that there is no real change in outcome. Not that it particularly harms people, just that it doesn't really help. It requires a prescription though, so it's not like people can go out and buy it themselves - it still has to be dispensed by a Doctor. Are there peer reviewed studies that point convincingly HCQ's effectiveness as a treatment for COVID? I thought most of those were continuing to come back null.

I do think that there are some drugs that are safe, or 'worth the risk' for some things but not others. I mean, why not try Chemotherapy for COVID? The answer is because there is no indication it will help and it would probably hurt.

Not only is it silly but it’s complete BS this drug has been so politicized especially during a pandemic. You even had a complete bogus study published in NEJM and the Lancet. What was the motive of the lead investigator? Studies have varied for its utility on Covid. However, if a doctor feels it may help and discusses risk/benefit with patient, then go for it. I mean if a patient was dying of cancer, some oncologists would be throwing the kitchen sink at the disease.

What ever happened to listen to the medical professionals? Yes, Trump should’ve stayed in his lane, but in typical fashion the press went out of their way to prove him wrong even before the facts are/were out. In my 20 some years in medicine, this has definitely been a first.

The issue because politicized because Trump politicized it. If he hadn't said anything nobody would even know what hydroxycholoroquine was. Trump has also been a first, in that he basically started a war with the media and then spent his Presidency whining about how unfair they are to him. His supporters have since joined the fray.

[paulxu]

Perhaps Dr. Emmanuel has some crazy viewpoints, but you, nor the liberal media, have provided any type of counter to her findings.

Perhaps?

I'm going to go try and find some sort of "counter" to her findings that demons having sex with women in their dreams causes endometriosis.
Will be back when I do. Would welcome a link to some verified study on this phenomenon.

[XU 87]

To be very, very clear: I did not and do not support 'silencing' anyone for their political views.

Having said that: This is a tough one for me: We have a problem right now, in that far too many people in this country are too stupid for their own good. The internet allows for information (and misinformation) to spread astonishingly quickly. In that regard, I am tempted to support a private business choosing to remove content that has been proven false or contains clear misinformation. My concern, however, is that somebody would just form a conservative version of twitter that all the conservatives would go and join and then we would further the divide in this country.

That's classic liberalism- "We need to have a panel of really smart people like us to protect all the dumb people like you from getting bad information."

In short, you do want to silence people's political views if you or some other liberal deems those views "false".

[paulxu]

You don't need smart people to know it's not healthy to yell "fire" in a crowded theater.

But perhaps you need a little bit of intelligence to understand why it's a bad idea.

[boozehound]

That's classic liberalism- "We need to have a panel of really smart people like us to protect all the dumb people like you from getting bad information."

In short, you do want to silence people's political views if you or some other liberal deems those views "false".

Again: Not a liberal. I know that you can't (or choose not to) understand that. You saying you were a lawyer makes sense, since you seem to view everything as black and white and are a persistent debater.

But I do think that we all agree that some things are objectively true and false, right? Like factual and not-factual is an actual thing and not some sort of abstract concept where people have 'their truth' vs 'the truth'? Do we want people spreading completely false (and potentially dangerous) information, or do we all agree that there is still a line somewhere?

As I stated: I'm not sure that I'm in favor of twitter (even though they are a private business) removing posts that they deem false - I'd rather see them flag or fact check them. I do think that Social Media companies are within their right to monitor what people post and remove it for any reason they want, honestly.

[noteggs]

The issue because politicized because Trump politicized it. If he hadn't said anything nobody would even know what hydroxycholoroquine was. Trump has also been a first, in that he basically started a war with the media and then spent his Presidency whining about how unfair they are to him. His supporters have since joined the fray.

We already knew about HCQ and its potential and was being looked at before Trump opened his big mouth. So bringing up a potential treatment at the time is political? Perhaps. At the time, l believe he said it may work or it may not.

As I mentioned earlier, he should have stayed in his lane with the Covid press conferences. Unfortunately those conferences were about 2 hours too long and did turn into a Trump vs press. Kind of like staying until a bar closes and you either get into a fight or hookup with something less than desirable. Neither good options.

Trump fights with press as much as the press tries to prove him wrong or lied. Obviously I normally side with conservatives, but people don’t understand how refreshing it was at the beginning for someone to actually fight back at MSM/Democrats narrative about Republicans. Unfortunately it’s now just turned into a shit show.

BTW, HCQ is sold over the counter in some countries such as India if that tells you something about its safety profile.

[XU_Lou]

Honestly, I just don't view you as worth engaging with based on the content of your posts.

Gee, I'm sorry, I didn't realize you were so sensitive...

[Muskie in dayton]

This "Front Line Doctors" thing is another example of how F-ed up everything is.

Group of Doctors: "We have data to show that HCQ, zinc and azithromyocin are effective in treating COVID-19."
Trump: "Woo hoo! I'm going to blindly retweet this!"
Mainstream Media: "OK, how can dismiss this one? Should we question their data? Should we ask about how they conducted their studies? Maybe ask for the data to be published? No, wait, look! One of the doctors has some crazy-ass beliefs!!! Let's just use that to blanket dismiss the everything. Yeah!"
"Fact Check" sites: these doctors have varying degrees of qualifications, are all politically conservative, and one is bat-shit crazy. Ergo, false!"
Social Media: we're removing this content because it's false.
Trump & supporters: "The truth is being silenced, all in a conspiracy against Trump!"

Reality: this is a group of conservative doctors of varying qualifications, one of which has some bat-shit crazy beliefs. But there has been no vetting of their claimed studies and data. It may be total bullshit - hell they may not have any data at all. But we still don't know, and that's a problem.

[paulxu]

I thought there had been studies both ways on the chloro stuff. Probably wrong on that.

But if someone says something, often we don't need to vet the claim.
For example, when your president says that maybe injecting disinfectant is a good idea...maybe we don't need to vet that claim.
We do need the CDC to warn people not to try it, because, well...it might kill you.

[Muskie in dayton]

I was searching MedRxiv to see if any of the "Front Line Doctors" had published. I found nothing. I did find a meta analysis of HCQ testing that essentially said it didn't help and only hurt.

Then I also found this, which looked at roughly the same cocktail as the "Front Line Doctors" promoted:
https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1....02.20080036v1
"Conclusion: This study provides the first in vivo evidence that zinc sulfate in combination with hydroxychloroquine may play a role in therapeutic management for COVID-19".

Not exactly a ringing endorsement, but we deserve better vetting of their data than what the media provided.