I’m going to go against the prevailing opinion and state that I think Trump is taking the medication. He is a known germaphobe and I think he is absolutely terrified of getting the virus because it will make him look weak. He desperately needs to engage in magical thinking. He cannot deal with the uncertainty of the virus which is why he needs to believe that the VA study was an anti-Trump study, that the virus will resolve on its own and that there is medication that can protect him. That is also why he insists that everyone around him be tested daily. He cannot deal with more nebulous precautions or ones that he fears will expose his concern such as social distancing or wearing a mask. That is also why he constantly stresses how much better the numbers are than the worst projections. He can’t deal with a situation he cannot control. I absolutely believe that as soon as he heard his valet tested positive he ran to the doctor and demanded medication. It gives him a sense of control over the situation.
Mice never get cancer naturally? Well, maybe because they tend to be eaten by something else first. I really, really, really doubt that claim, can you back it up?
This is also my opinion. However, the fact that he chose HQ over other drugs with better hopes of being effective suggests that he forced the doctor’s hand, so I do think what other Dopers are saying is also relevant. He has to be RIGHT about HQ.
True, but his position of authority helps. He made conspiracy theories more mainstream. I’ve definitely noticed the increase, likely due to it being more acceptable to admit. But that also means the ideas spread more.
The US mostly kept the antiscience confined to certain issues, with anyone else declared a loon. But now it’s spreading further than I’ve ever seen due to a prominent rejection of facts themselves, which has been shown more in this administration than any other.
It’s not solely Trump, but he is making it a lot worse.
Table 1 | Most common spontaneous cancers in humans and rodents
Breast carcinoma (Mice -> Yes, Humans -> Yes)
Lung carcinoma (Mice -> No, Humans -> Yes)
Prostate (Mice -> No, Humans -> Yes)
Colon (Mice -> No, Humans -> Yes)
Skin (Mice -> No, Humans -> Yes)
Stomach (Mice -> No, Humans -> Yes)
Liver (Mice -> No, Humans -> Yes)
Endometrial carcinomas (Mice -> No, Humans -> Yes)
Leukaemia/lymphoma (Mice -> Yes, Humans -> Yes)
Thyroid (Mice -> No, Humans -> Yes)
Bladder (Mice -> No, Humans -> Yes)
Over 95% of cancer treatments that go to Clinical Trials FAIL!!! after being so successful in mice. Medical scientists have lobbied the FDA to approve any Cancer drug that improves life expectancy by a mere 2.1 months :smack: at any cost to the quality of life. Imgine a pateint paying 30 thousand dollars to get 2.1 months more of bedridden life. Even then they keep failing but make more and more money. Cancer drugs are huge moneymakers.
In the last 40 years or so, only an extremely few Cancer drugs have come out. Cancer research has failed miserably to help people with Cancer.
Oh and by the way, they have bred lab mice who are very susceptible to cancers now.
Just a side note that this claim that “flossing was scientifically found to have no positive effect” is false. As this article notes,
In other words, the research findings that the health benefits of flossing are unproven (which is not the same as your exaggerated claim that they have actually been found not to exist) are based on inadequate data.
No Thanks! is my reply to the chain store Car mechanic who pulls out my car’s air filter and shows how dirty it is and needs to be changed (I follow the manual and know when it needs to be changed)
No Thanks is my reply to the Dentist too - (Our family has good oral hygiene and we don’t floss)
You see anyone can come up with a story like how instinctively flossing is good since it cleans between the teeth and all that. In the science I grew up with, this sort of stories used to be called human bias and hence the need for double blind studies.
A website that can’t use an apostrophe correctly has no credibility with me. Or for that matter, a poster who should have inserted “[sic]” after quoting the mistake. :dubious: Moving on.
ThelmaLou and madsircool - Thanks for the diversion with grammar and user reviews. Could you back up your claims with published research that the claims in the cite are wrong ?
I also know that the world contains a lot of doctors who will prescribe anything for money. Who do you think works for those websites that let you order medication without a prescription, if you fill out a kinda detailed questionnaire, on which you are free to lie, and their in-house doc provides a prescription?
Not sure I get your point.
I did not post the results of any studies of HCQ as a preventative for COVID because they’re aren’t any completed ones that I’m aware of.
The studies on sick patients go towards disproving its clinical effectiveness as an anti-viral.
I did post the results of a study conducted on a pool of patients who take HCQ for other conditions. That study showed that those people get COVID at the same rate and severity as untreated people.
I’m not sure where you’re going with you point about cancer trials and why you seem to think it’s some big GOTCHA!
I know full well that 95% of cancer trials fail. I know that every one of those trials had a scientific theory behind it and in vitro and animal tests that showed promise. I also know that a treatment is very different from a cure, and even the treatments that pass clinincal trials usually don’t do more than add a few weeks to the average life expectancy.
I also know that for every failed cancer trial, there are dozens of patients who misinterpreted preliminary evidence and convinced themselves that they had found the thing that WORKED. I also know that this syndrome is way worse when the prospective treatment has received media coverage.
And this is exactly what I’ve seen happening with HCQ.
I’m also not sure why you think I’m claiming medical science isn’t politicized. Of course it is, although the #HCQ debacle is the worst case of politicization that I’ve ever seen. Usually the politics are in the regions where medical science connects with other issues, like abortion and vaccination, although there is a right wing tendency to believe things like “overregulation keeps valuable drugs off the market”.
I’m not going to go into the flossing stuff, except to say that I think Vitamin C might have been a better example. If someone opens a GD thread I may take it there.
Once again, you’re confused about the difference between “This research does not adequately show that the claimed benefits exist” and “This research definitively shows that the claimed benefits do not exist”.
What this flossing kerfuffle from August 2016 was all about was the removal of standard recommendations about flossing in the current USDA/HHS Dietary Guidelines, due to lack of study results definitively demonstrating that flossing helps prevent dental caries.
That is not at all the same thing as making a positive claim that “flossing has no benefits”, and you really need to stop getting the two mixed up. You are not creating a good impression of your ability to credibly evaluate scientific claims.
(I follow the manual and know when it needs to be changed)