Fox News Stars Trumpeted a Malaria Drug, Until They Didn’t

I mean if her leader says it's going to work, then it's going to work. Don't listen to scientists. Listen to a swiss cheese-brained nincompoop.

At this point why pretend? They are state-run News - it should be called Things Trump wants you to believe channel.

Only 20% of patients on ventilators end up surviving and more than a few die because of, rather than in spite of, those ventilators. However, isn't it still worthwhile for patients who have lost all hope to go on ventilators? How is that different?

Hey asshole R3, you have spewed that shit in two threads now. Strawman bullshit!

R4 It's not my fault that people are creating duplicate threads. And I really would like to know. I'm not saying it's a miraculous drug, but it has proven effective for patients who have already tried everything else.

No, it hasn't "proven effective." And what's different is that the drug comes with adverse side effects.

You could just as easily write, "However, isn't it still worthwhile for patients who have lost all hope to drink Kool-Aid?"

I had r3 blocked

R6 While not a cure, it does treat Covid symptoms such as inflammation which can be fatal. If someone is given a death sentence, I know that I will be willing to risk potential side effects. In fact, I already take immune suppressing drugs to treat a chronic illness and am well aware of the risks.

[quote] It's not my fault that people are creating duplicate threads. And I really would like to know. I'm not saying it's a miraculous drug, but it has proven effective for patients who have already tried everything else.

You are either retarded or a fucking liar. It has not been proven effective. YOU'RE A FUCKING PIECE OF SHIT LIAR

It harms more people than it helps. Can your tiny brain understand that?

[quote] While not a cure, it does treat Covid symptoms such as inflammation which can be fatal

You are a liar. There are plenty of other drugs that treat inflammation that don't have the severe side effects of hydroxychloroquine

The results are skewed because all the patients who had the most severe symptoms were prescribed the medication. Initial tests show that the drug was at least mildly effective.

The only control test that matters would be to measure the success rate among patients who experience similar symptoms.

And also who were prescribed the same dose

Have they tried sunshine, or mainlining disinfectant?

These threads are always good for weeding out the foxbot trolls.

I'm at my mother's house for lockdown and she watches Fox. Ingraham's whole opener last night was about Hydrocloroquine. She what is OP's article referring to when it says Fox now refuses to talk about it? She talked about it for a full 15 minutes, it seemed - I left the room and came back 15 minutes later and she was still talking about it.

I hate that cunt with fire of a 1000 suns.

Authorities shouldn't promote treatments, specially a psychopath like Trump, who rather let people die before admitting they are wrong.

In study after study, malaria pills don’t work. In fact they seem to kill you faster.

Brazil, France, the America VA all stopped their studies because the pills don’t work.

The might work if taken early in the disease, but at that point the side effects of heart attacks and blindness outweigh the possible benefit.

I can’t believe this cunt has enough audience for a show. I hope she dies soon.

It's easy to see why doing a controlled experiment is problematic even if anecdotally, the drug has at least a 20% efficacy rate. The potential side effects are another reason why the drug is not prescribed earlier. Perhaps with further testing, we can find out what particular patients are more at risk. Most of the patients who took the drug would have died anyway.

[quote]it has proven effective for patients who have already tried everything else.

If you'd bothered to read the articles linked on the other thread, you'd know that this isn't true.

We should sue the fuck out of Fox News for gross negligence

R22 You mean the mother jones article that totally ignores the absence of any controlled studies that examines the effects on patients who experience similar symptoms and who are prescribed the same dosage? That article is just as reckless as spreading dangerous misinformation as those that tout it as a miraculous cure. As I've stated, controlled studies with patients that have no known health risks are problematic because dying patients will want to be prescribed a potentially life saving drug even if it's efficacy is as low as 20%. Anecdotal studies indicate that it could be even higher than that.

No, I mean the studies and articles that point out that what you wrote was entirely and stupidly false, R24. Your very reference to "anecdotal studies," which is an oxymoron, simply demonstrates that you have absolutely no idea what you're talking about.

R25 speaking of oxymoron, don’t you think it’s odd that the same people who are saying that the drug would be more effective if taken earlier are also saying that patients who did recover would have done so without the medication? Find me a scientific article, not a political one, that calls it a fake or a killer drug. Why can’t people just admit when they don’t know something?

Didn't the Hanks take that drug when they got Corona, but then they said they weren't sure it worked- cause side effects- except for the fact that they were no longer sick after taking it?

R26, since your first sentence is false, I'm afraid that no, I don't think it's odd. Try to come up with something real next time and I'll take it seriously.

And since we already have two studies in two different parts of the world that were terminated early because of the harm that the drug was causing on the recipients, not to mention the VA study here in the U.S., none of which were "political," I'm afraid that, as usual, you are really too ignorant to be posting here.