Ongoing update on what is 'ok' versus 'not ok' for Coronavirus...

Post all political posts here.

Moderators: Hobie, AmBraCol

Forum rules
The rules are simple...
- no advocation of violence to anyone
- no cursing

Violation of the rules will result in deletion of the topic.
Post Reply
User avatar
AJMD429
Posting leader...
Posts: 26925
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2007 10:03 am
Location: Hoosierland
Contact:

Ongoing update on what is 'ok' versus 'not ok' for Coronavirus...

Post by AJMD429 »

.
In February, the ‘news’ media was saying we should look at ‘older and more established drugs’ as options for coronavirus, in addition to pursuing new things, because the older drugs were less likely to turn up with surprise side-effects, and would of course save money. Early studies showed that hydroxychloroquine plus zinc, vitamin D, and vitamin C, which all have plausible pharmacologic mechanisms to explain why they might work, did in fact help, if administered early and properly.

Then Trump said ‘hydroxychloroquine might help’ – so the ‘news’ media changed their tune, and started saying we should ‘focus on safer and more sensible alternatives like convalescent plasma’. They told us that HCQ was all of a sudden ‘dangerous’ and ‘studies’ showed it did not work, although the ‘studies’ they selectively quoted turned out to either be using toxic doses, or using it after the viral infection was over, and without zinc – or in a couple cases, the ‘studies’ turned out to be completely fabricated. So we should definitely abandon HCQ and turn to convalescent plasma.

Then Trump announced the FDA had approved convalescent plasma for expanded use, and again, the ‘news’ media changed their tune, and started saying that convalescent plasma was ‘dangerous and unproven’, and it was ‘disturbing’ that the Trump administration was ‘pushing’ its use. We were told we should be patient and wait instead for a vaccine, which was the only sensible treatment plan.

Then Trump announced that we were close to having a vaccine – and, once again – the ‘news’ media decided all of a sudden that the vaccine would be dangerous, and featured prominent ‘authorities’ who actually announced that they would refuse to take the vaccine. Instead, we are to rely on ‘universal masking’ as the way to stop the virus.

Now all we need is for Trump to announce that he has decided ‘masks are great’ – and I’ll bet the very next day the ‘news’ media will feature their ‘experts’ all day long ‘fact-checking’ Trump and proving how masks are unreliable and terrible.
Doctors for Sensible Gun Laws
"first do no harm" - gun control LAWS lead to far more deaths than 'easy access' ever could.


Want REAL change? . . . . . "Boortz/Nugent in 2012 . . . ! "
User avatar
Grizz
Advanced Levergunner
Posts: 7841
Joined: Fri Aug 31, 2007 7:15 pm

Re: Ongoing update on what is 'ok' versus 'not ok' for Coronavirus...

Post by Grizz »

Now all we need is for Trump to announce that he has decided ‘masks are great’ – and I’ll bet the very next day the ‘news’ media will feature their ‘experts’ all day long ‘fact-checking’ Trump and proving how masks are unreliable and terrible.
the evidence is that masks are unreliable and terrible.

but, when liars tell the truth, it is still the truth....

the problem liars have is that they don't know what the actual truth actually is, so they can unwittingly say something that is accidently true

absolute true truth escapes everyone who is not born again . . .

BigLiesMatter
Post Reply