Because it’s a word he learned. So he’s repeating it

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:“Ingraham personally introduced Trump last week to two doctors who have been guests on her program and talked up the potential benefits of hydroxychloroquine.
The next day, Trump praised the drug in a televised briefing: “What do you have to lose? What do you have to lose? Take it,” he said. (He repeated the advice the following day, adding, “I’m not a doctor, but I have common sense.”)
The meeting — which was first reported by The Washington Post and which Fox has declined to confirm — would be an extraordinary breach of ethical standards at most news organizations, which typically prohibit their employees from directly advising public figures.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/media/for-fox-news-hosts-the-hydroxychloroquine-controversy-is-fuel-for-the-culture-war/2020/04/10/0ec604d6-79a4-11ea-b6ff-597f170df8f8_story.html#click=https://t.co/lXRRe7S0S0

But does it work?

Introduction is not advising.

The mountain of anecdotal evidence says yes, through a means that has nothing to do with its primary function as an anti-parasite medication, but rather by limiting RNA viruses ability to replicate within the cells. This keeps the overall viral load retarded, allowing the immune system not be overwhelmed by the viral load.

Other compounds, such as Quercetin, which are completely unrelated to the quinine-family, have also shown similar properties, especially when combined with zinc ions to help push through the cellular membrane.

Interestingly, an Australian experiment published last last week showed proof that even a common equine deworming medication was able to eradicate virus from cells in-vitro. This medication is also used to treat GI and intramuscular worms and bot infestations in humans under the same and different trade names.




I think the out of the box thinking that is being done all over the world right now with regards to this will lead to a breakthrough in the way we go about fighting viiruses in general. This process was started in the fight against HIV, where the “win” wasn’t to cure the virus, but to drive viral loads to the point where it became a maintenance treatment, rather than an impossible all or nothing fight to eliminate the virus. Using replication inhibitors, rather than trying to synthesize antibodies, and letting the immune system fight it while keeping the viral load down, will become an important area of research going forward from here. Old medications and even herbal compounds are going to be re-examined for inhibitive properties. These are really exciting times.




But, I’m a Trump supporter, so according to DCUM, I’m an idiot who can’t even dress herself.

Curious to understand why you are a trump supporter. Anyway, there have been a few promising drugs. It’s silly to tout this as “the cure”.

“Cure” is a word lay people use. Trump is a lay person, not someone with a medical or pharmacology background . But for sake of lay person's speak, it’s a quasi-accurate term that conveys the overall point. While the distinction is lost on people who don’t understand the mechanism of *why* a person gets better with treatment, they get better, and thus are “cured”. Even though it was their own immune system doing the work, with some help from the drugs holding down the viral loads while they fought it.


As for why I support the president, I really don’t want to go into it. I’m not going to change your mind, and you’re definitely not going to change mine, no matter how much you attack me. So it’s a dead end in terms of discussion. You asked if the drug worked, and I explained how it, and others, did. But I don’t want to discuss my politics, they have nothing to do with biochem.

Bravo!!!

Thank you for sharing, PP. This place can be frustrating at times. Your contribution is appreciated.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:“Ingraham personally introduced Trump last week to two doctors who have been guests on her program and talked up the potential benefits of hydroxychloroquine.
The next day, Trump praised the drug in a televised briefing: “What do you have to lose? What do you have to lose? Take it,” he said. (He repeated the advice the following day, adding, “I’m not a doctor, but I have common sense.”)
The meeting — which was first reported by The Washington Post and which Fox has declined to confirm — would be an extraordinary breach of ethical standards at most news organizations, which typically prohibit their employees from directly advising public figures.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/media/for-fox-news-hosts-the-hydroxychloroquine-controversy-is-fuel-for-the-culture-war/2020/04/10/0ec604d6-79a4-11ea-b6ff-597f170df8f8_story.html#click=https://t.co/lXRRe7S0S0

But does it work?

Introduction is not advising.

The mountain of anecdotal evidence says yes, through a means that has nothing to do with its primary function as an anti-parasite medication, but rather by limiting RNA viruses ability to replicate within the cells. This keeps the overall viral load retarded, allowing the immune system not be overwhelmed by the viral load.

Other compounds, such as Quercetin, which are completely unrelated to the quinine-family, have also shown similar properties, especially when combined with zinc ions to help push through the cellular membrane.

Interestingly, an Australian experiment published last last week showed proof that even a common equine deworming medication was able to eradicate virus from cells in-vitro. This medication is also used to treat GI and intramuscular worms and bot infestations in humans under the same and different trade names.




I think the out of the box thinking that is being done all over the world right now with regards to this will lead to a breakthrough in the way we go about fighting viiruses in general. This process was started in the fight against HIV, where the “win” wasn’t to cure the virus, but to drive viral loads to the point where it became a maintenance treatment, rather than an impossible all or nothing fight to eliminate the virus. Using replication inhibitors, rather than trying to synthesize antibodies, and letting the immune system fight it while keeping the viral load down, will become an important area of research going forward from here. Old medications and even herbal compounds are going to be re-examined for inhibitive properties. These are really exciting times.




But, I’m a Trump supporter, so according to DCUM, I’m an idiot who can’t even dress herself.

Curious to understand why you are a trump supporter. Anyway, there have been a few promising drugs. It’s silly to tout this as “the cure”.

“Cure” is a word lay people use. Trump is a lay person, not someone with a medical or pharmacology background . But for sake of lay person's speak, it’s a quasi-accurate term that conveys the overall point. While the distinction is lost on people who don’t understand the mechanism of *why* a person gets better with treatment, they get better, and thus are “cured”. Even though it was their own immune system doing the work, with some help from the drugs holding down the viral loads while they fought it.


As for why I support the president, I really don’t want to go into it. I’m not going to change your mind, and you’re definitely not going to change mine, no matter how much you attack me. So it’s a dead end in terms of discussion. You asked if the drug worked, and I explained how it, and others, did. But I don’t want to discuss my politics, they have nothing to do with biochem.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:“Ingraham personally introduced Trump last week to two doctors who have been guests on her program and talked up the potential benefits of hydroxychloroquine.
The next day, Trump praised the drug in a televised briefing: “What do you have to lose? What do you have to lose? Take it,” he said. (He repeated the advice the following day, adding, “I’m not a doctor, but I have common sense.”)
The meeting — which was first reported by The Washington Post and which Fox has declined to confirm — would be an extraordinary breach of ethical standards at most news organizations, which typically prohibit their employees from directly advising public figures.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/media/for-fox-news-hosts-the-hydroxychloroquine-controversy-is-fuel-for-the-culture-war/2020/04/10/0ec604d6-79a4-11ea-b6ff-597f170df8f8_story.html#click=https://t.co/lXRRe7S0S0

But does it work?

Introduction is not advising.

The mountain of anecdotal evidence says yes, through a means that has nothing to do with its primary function as an anti-parasite medication, but rather by limiting RNA viruses ability to replicate within the cells. This keeps the overall viral load retarded, allowing the immune system not be overwhelmed by the viral load.

Other compounds, such as Quercetin, which are completely unrelated to the quinine-family, have also shown similar properties, especially when combined with zinc ions to help push through the cellular membrane.

Interestingly, an Australian experiment published last last week showed proof that even a common equine deworming medication was able to eradicate virus from cells in-vitro. This medication is also used to treat GI and intramuscular worms and bot infestations in humans under the same and different trade names.




I think the out of the box thinking that is being done all over the world right now with regards to this will lead to a breakthrough in the way we go about fighting viiruses in general. This process was started in the fight against HIV, where the “win” wasn’t to cure the virus, but to drive viral loads to the point where it became a maintenance treatment, rather than an impossible all or nothing fight to eliminate the virus. Using replication inhibitors, rather than trying to synthesize antibodies, and letting the immune system fight it while keeping the viral load down, will become an important area of research going forward from here. Old medications and even herbal compounds are going to be re-examined for inhibitive properties. These are really exciting times.




But, I’m a Trump supporter, so according to DCUM, I’m an idiot who can’t even dress herself.

Curious to understand why you are a trump supporter. Anyway, there have been a few promising drugs. It’s silly to tout this as “the cure”.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:“Ingraham personally introduced Trump last week to two doctors who have been guests on her program and talked up the potential benefits of hydroxychloroquine.
The next day, Trump praised the drug in a televised briefing: “What do you have to lose? What do you have to lose? Take it,” he said. (He repeated the advice the following day, adding, “I’m not a doctor, but I have common sense.”)
The meeting — which was first reported by The Washington Post and which Fox has declined to confirm — would be an extraordinary breach of ethical standards at most news organizations, which typically prohibit their employees from directly advising public figures.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/media/for-fox-news-hosts-the-hydroxychloroquine-controversy-is-fuel-for-the-culture-war/2020/04/10/0ec604d6-79a4-11ea-b6ff-597f170df8f8_story.html#click=https://t.co/lXRRe7S0S0

But does it work?

Introduction is not advising.

The mountain of anecdotal evidence says yes, through a means that has nothing to do with its primary function as an anti-parasite medication, but rather by limiting RNA viruses ability to replicate within the cells. This keeps the overall viral load retarded, allowing the immune system not be overwhelmed by the viral load.

Other compounds, such as Quercetin, which are completely unrelated to the quinine-family, have also shown similar properties, especially when combined with zinc ions to help push through the cellular membrane.

Interestingly, an Australian experiment published last last week showed proof that even a common equine deworming medication was able to eradicate virus from cells in-vitro. This medication is also used to treat GI and intramuscular worms and bot infestations in humans under the same and different trade names.




I think the out of the box thinking that is being done all over the world right now with regards to this will lead to a breakthrough in the way we go about fighting viiruses in general. This process was started in the fight against HIV, where the “win” wasn’t to cure the virus, but to drive viral loads to the point where it became a maintenance treatment, rather than an impossible all or nothing fight to eliminate the virus. Using replication inhibitors, rather than trying to synthesize antibodies, and letting the immune system fight it while keeping the viral load down, will become an important area of research going forward from here. Old medications and even herbal compounds are going to be re-examined for inhibitive properties. These are really exciting times.




But, I’m a Trump supporter, so according to DCUM, I’m an idiot who can’t even dress herself.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is so true.

When what the former bartender and 16 year old Swedish girl agree with 97% of climate scientists, you bet I am going to believe them.

Check out what NASA says:

https://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/

And, when Hydroxychoroquine combined with Z pack has actually saved lives according to actual medical doctors, there is smoothing there.

Anonymous wrote:This is so true.

When what the former bartender and 16 year old Swedish girl agree with 97% of climate scientists, you bet I am going to believe them.

Check out what NASA says:

https://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/

This is so true.

Anonymous wrote:“Ingraham personally introduced Trump last week to two doctors who have been guests on her program and talked up the potential benefits of hydroxychloroquine.
The next day, Trump praised the drug in a televised briefing: “What do you have to lose? What do you have to lose? Take it,” he said. (He repeated the advice the following day, adding, “I’m not a doctor, but I have common sense.”)
The meeting — which was first reported by The Washington Post and which Fox has declined to confirm — would be an extraordinary breach of ethical standards at most news organizations, which typically prohibit their employees from directly advising public figures.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/media/for-fox-news-hosts-the-hydroxychloroquine-controversy-is-fuel-for-the-culture-war/2020/04/10/0ec604d6-79a4-11ea-b6ff-597f170df8f8_story.html#click=https://t.co/lXRRe7S0S0

But does it work?

Introduction is not advising.

“Ingraham personally introduced Trump last week to two doctors who have been guests on her program and talked up the potential benefits of hydroxychloroquine.
The next day, Trump praised the drug in a televised briefing: “What do you have to lose? What do you have to lose? Take it,” he said. (He repeated the advice the following day, adding, “I’m not a doctor, but I have common sense.”)
The meeting — which was first reported by The Washington Post and which Fox has declined to confirm — would be an extraordinary breach of ethical standards at most news organizations, which typically prohibit their employees from directly advising public figures.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/media/for-fox-news-hosts-the-hydroxychloroquine-controversy-is-fuel-for-the-culture-war/2020/04/10/0ec604d6-79a4-11ea-b6ff-597f170df8f8_story.html#click=https://t.co/lXRRe7S0S0

Anonymous wrote:I’ll ask why some are so hell-bent on saying that it doesn’t work and why governors are stepping in and not allowing doctors to prescribe it to their patients. Why would a politician interfere between a sick individual and their doctor?

Which politician are you referring to? People who have existing conditions that are currently on the medication either can’t get it or pay an astronomical price for it. That’s a fact, not opinion. Also, there haven’t been enough trials/tests to know if it does work for this purpose and under what conditions. Again fact, not opinion. So why would you want the federal government to spend hundred of millions on something that hasn’t been proven to work, have people that use the medication for a purpose that has been researched/successfully passed clinical trials (lupus, anti-malaria) end up being sicker or dying due to not having the medication, and have people that shouldn’t take the medication (think of all the disclaimers on medicine now) die from taking it? Oh, and this is while we still struggle to have basic things like Covid-19 testing, PPE, and respirators be available.

A direct public appeal for an unproven medication not only skips the health and safety safeguards we usually put on medication but it is also ripe for financial abuse. Someone can lobby a politician or someone of influence to endorse their unproven product, the politician can say “it might work, why not”, millions of desperate people buy the product, the manufacturer of the product and investors make millions. For the people making money and the person endorsing it’s a win/win proposition. If it works, they are rich, if it doesn’t work they still have that money and there is no consequence to them personally in being wrong unless it goes catastrophically bad AND gets publicity AND the people wronged can successfully sue and collect money. So basically low odds of ever having consequences, not unlike the old school snake oil salesman. In my opinion, the governors are stepping in to make sure the end consumer is ultimately protected and to cut down on potential abuse. That role is similar to how government had to step in with doctors overprescribing Oxy to their patients.

It seems like the compassionate care act being followed through on? Seems like a good thing to me. We just need the supply side to happen. We have a friend who has been on a ventilator for 2 weeks receiving an experimental treatment in a study --not hydroxy). He is one of the 'healthy' people who get very sick when their body fights this virus; I am glad that this administration is pushing doctors and patients making chices together and accessing studies and treatments. It's hope, while they work on prevention and treatments. I also think there won't be ONE treatment for COVID. Based on the wide variety of how people's bodies are reacting, underlying conditions and genetic factors/inflammation, need to explore everything while still seeking prophylactics and vaccines.

Anonymous wrote:I’ll ask why some are so hell-bent on saying that it doesn’t work and why governors are stepping in and not allowing doctors to prescribe it to their patients. Why would a politician interfere between a sick individual and their doctor?

You know why...

I’ll ask why some are so hell-bent on saying that it doesn’t work and why governors are stepping in and not allowing doctors to prescribe it to their patients. Why would a politician interfere between a sick individual and their doctor?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Maybe he hates someone with an autoimmune disorder and wants them to be handicapped because they can't get their drugs?

The money making angle seems more likely.

Nobody makes any money from hydroxychloroquine or chloroquine...they are generics. That's probably the issue in some circles...who wants a cheap solution when there are life savings to be drained from sick people?

Somebody is making money when the federal government buys a stockpile of millions and millions of pills.

These pills cost a few pennies each to make. Novartis donated 30 million of them to HHS. Compare that to other potential treatments like remdesivir, an experimental drug that costs about $1000. Or then there is the cost of an ICU stay which can be $10,000 per day or more.

Thank you for this important information.

Must be why my friend who takes it for its on-label use (she has an auto-immune disease) can’t find it anymore, her pharmacy says they can’t refill her prescription and she's been calling around without luck the past couple of days.