According to Kevin, we are expected to grab, sniff, and taste everything that comes out of HIS ass....
According to Kevin, we are expected to grab, sniff, and taste everything that comes out of HIS ass....
To answer Kevin's question as to why he would take the drug:
Don't take my word for it. Look it up.
Originally posted by: Candy Wright
To answer Kevin's question as to why he would take the drug:
Don't take my word for it. Look it up.
I've already researched it extensively. The answer is "out of desperation." The whole concept behind "compassionate use" provisions is "well, he's going to die anyway." But what if someone who would have pulled through with conventional treatment takes the Trump drug and dies of cardiac arrest? Isn't that a, y'know, bad outcome?
The only real reason to take or prescribe the drug to treat CoVid-19 is to show fealty to Donald Trump. And that's not medicine.
Karen Whitsett, (D) congresswoman from Michigan would disagree with Mr. "researched it extensively" Kevin. I prefer to believe someone who, at deaths doorstep, recovered from the corona virus using hydroxychloroquine than the Trump hating, deranged Kevin.
The experiences of a single person don't mean anything, and in any event are countered by the experiences of several people who died from taking the Trump drug.
I believe that Kevin has been a champion for the "if just saving one life" campaign - well, there is an example of "one life". And that life that was saved definitely does mean something - to that woman.
Originally posted by: David Miller
I believe that Kevin has been a champion for the "if just saving one life" campaign - well, there is an example of "one life". And that life that was saved definitely does mean something - to that woman.
We don't know if the drug saved her life. She took the drug. She got better. Correlation does not equal causation.
However, we do know that taking the drug killed several people in a clinical trial.
Science.
Originally posted by: Candy Wright
As I mentioned, it isn't cyanide, people. It isn't new, it has been approved for lupus and malaria for years. It does have a known possible side effect of a cardiac arrhythmia. People taking it need close monitoring. Regulators have approved it for "compassionate use" in C-19 when nothing else is working (and there is nothing else other than supportive care) but imminent death. Everybody get a grip. You might be begging for hydroxy if, God forbid, you end up with Covid-19 and are otherwise not recovering.
What you've written here is exactly what I've read and heard from the health professionals I look to for accurate information.
What you've written here is also the compelling reason to avoid taking the drug unless you are suffering from lupus, malaria or advanced Covid. That is contrary to Trump's advice, "What have you got to lose?" Answer: A cardiac arrhythmia that could kill you.
--------------
"It does have a known possible side effect of a cardiac arrhythmia. People taking it need close monitoring. Regulators have approved it for Covid-19 ONLY ... when nothing else is working (and there is nothing else other than supportive care) but imminent death."
------------
In other words, the risks outweigh the benefits except when certain serious diseases are present. That is a far different description of the drug's safety and efficacy from what Trump and Trumpsters insist is the case.
Public persons like entertainers, sports stars, and politicians are always cautioned not to reveal the specific medication they are taking as it leads to people using or demanding a prescription for the same drug even though the drug may be contraindicated in their particular case.
For the president of the United States to ignore that well established constraint on speaking publicly about personal Rx's due to the dangers of doing so not to mention his frequent offerings of off-the-cuff, worthless, faulty and ludicrous opinions on treatment modalities is yet another glaring and sordid example of his outrageous affronts to common sense and responsible leadership.
Originally posted by: David Miller
Karen Whitsett, (D) congresswoman from Michigan would disagree with Mr. "researched it extensively" Kevin. I prefer to believe someone who, at deaths doorstep, recovered from the corona virus using hydroxychloroquine than the Trump hating, deranged Kevin.
And I bet you can find hundreds of Vegas tourists who attribute their last jackpot to playing on their lucky machine. Or wearing their lucky shirt. Or...
To determine the efficacy of treatment involves analyzing metadata to design the procedure, randomizing subjects, controlling for observer bias, using double-blind methods to avoid influencing subjects and staff, testing a large enough population to infer results, and using accepted statistical techniques to analyze the results. And then replicating the above with similar studies.
David, since you are a science-denier, I'm sure you don't accept the above. Or probably even understand it.
Candy, since you probably understand the above but insist on clinging to anecdotal stories anyway, I don't get you. David is profoundly ignorant; what's your excuse?
Originally posted by: MisterPicture
And I bet you can find hundreds of Vegas tourists who attribute their last jackpot to playing on their lucky machine. Or wearing their lucky shirt. Or...
To determine the efficacy of treatment involves analyzing metadata to design the procedure, randomizing subjects, controlling for observer bias, using double-blind methods to avoid influencing subjects and staff, testing a large enough population to infer results, and using accepted statistical techniques to analyze the results. And then replicating the above with similar studies.
David, since you are a science-denier, I'm sure you don't accept the above. Or probably even understand it.
Candy, since you probably understand the above but insist on clinging to anecdotal stories anyway, I don't get you. David is profoundly ignorant; what's your excuse?
"To determine the efficacy of treatment involves analyzing metadata to design the procedure, randomizing subjects, controlling for observer bias, using double-blind methods to avoid influencing subjects and staff, testing a large enough population to infer results, and using accepted statistical techniques to analyze the results. And then replicating the above with similar studies."
Could you brake that down using smaller word's? I thought if someone took a pill and got better, it was do to the pill. R U saying that's not true?
