Politics Trump Owns Stock in Company that produces Hydroxycloroquine

Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Register Log in

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)
It's easy, almost cliche' to trash Trump and sometimes easily and correctly done. But it doesn't take much digging in some cases to either find a serious agenda by the mostly very left leaning media (that is not very debatable) or that sometimes it's just dead wrong. How many times did the media tell us they was "overwhelming" evidence of Russia collusion? For 2 years! The the impeachment trial, they changed the charges 3 times trying to come up with something to convict him on. If it was Don Jr. getting $1,000,000 a year from some foreign group with very questionable ties, and Biden/Clinton/Obama brought it up, the media would have hailed them as heros. It would have been just as wrong but the difference in how it would be/has been reacted to is ridiculous and completely lacks objectivity.

I had in long chat with a local hosptial 'official' last week who talked about the benefits of hydroxychloroquine could provide in some of these cases because of how it works. It is not a cure but how it works can help the patient fight by helping reduce viral load. From a political standpoint, he is a long time Democrat but is also open an objective discussion instead of just trashing Trump....because it was Trump.

Can only imagine the resonses I'll get here for having a thought that isn't 100% bashing Trump.
 
....and in case anyone was wondering about the NYT's agenda, they have changed the headline from,

“Trump himself has a small personal financial interest in Sanofi, the French drugmaker that makes Plaquenil, the brand-name version of hydroxychloroquine”
.....to.....
“Trump’s Aggressive Advocacy of Malaria Drug for Treating Coronavirus Divides Medical Community.”

First of all, ridiculously small interest, and then the negative angel about how he is dividing the medical community. Newsflash, the medical community is divided on a lot of things and LONG before Trump ever came along.

What happened to objective reporting?
 
TBpup said:
....and in case anyone was wondering about the NYT's agenda, they have changed the headline from,

“Trump himself has a small personal financial interest in Sanofi, the French drugmaker that makes Plaquenil, the brand-name version of hydroxychloroquine”
.....to.....
“Trump’s Aggressive Advocacy of Malaria Drug for Treating Coronavirus Divides Medical Community.”

First of all, ridiculously small interest, and then the negative angel about how he is dividing the medical community. Newsflash, the medical community is divided on a lot of things and LONG before Trump ever came along.

What happened to objective reporting?
Click to expand...
Objective reporting? Ha, that shit has been dead for years.

Now the fake news is apparently cutting in and out of Trump corona updates and deciding what is true and not on the spot if they even show you what was said.

I am so happy when people decide for me what I need to know and believe.
 
TBpup said:
“Trump’s Aggressive Advocacy of Malaria Drug for Treating Coronavirus Divides Medical Community.”

What happened to objective reporting?
Click to expand...

What do you think the headline should be?

Mine, which will surely not be the same as yours, would be:

"Trump, who has no medical training whatsoever and who frequently makes false statements, gives medical advice during a pandemic"
Sub-head: "Trump's recommended treatment is just one of many potential but as yet unproven treatments for covid-19"

barfo
 
  • Like
Reactions: RR7
bodyman5000 and 1 said:
It isn't a secret. It isn't proven in clinical trials doesn't mean it is a secret.
Click to expand...

There's a reason we do blinded clinical trials. It's not just mindless bureaucracy.

Humans are very complex machines, both patients and doctors. So it's impossible to determine from anecdotal evidence whether a therapeutic actually works, or if a human simply believes that it works.

If you want faith healing, there are plenty of churches and/or infomercials that offer that. No clinical trials needed.

barfo
 
MickZagger said:
Click to expand...

I dont get why some in the medical community seem to not want it to work. He keeps citing two studies, Im not sure which ones, because we really don't have much outside of anecdotal evidence or very small groups of treated patients by doctors who have tried it.
He continues to say that, “at best” it has mild effects, and then contradicts himself by saying well there are always “lazarus” effects for some people. So what is it? At best you’ll have mild effects or a chance for a “lazarus effect”.
What they need is more testing, and data, I agree with that, but he then says oh he’s convinced that further testing will show it doesnt do anything. Think were seeing some of his own hypothesis
wrapped up in it at this point. Then he talks about purified forms of anti-serums, which ok, we’ll see how that goes and when they can get there.
 
Also whoever that lady is who is interviewing him, she seems really clueless and cant seem to get off a question without stumbling along...
 
barfo said:
There's a reason we do blinded clinical trials. It's not just mindless bureaucracy.

Humans are very complex machines, both patients and doctors. So it's impossible to determine from anecdotal evidence whether a therapeutic actually works, or if a human simply believes that it works.

If you want faith healing, there are plenty of churches and/or infomercials that offer that. No clinical trials needed.

barfo
Click to expand...
Zinc has been studied extensively.

Whatever this virus is made of it came from this Earth. So did we and there are things on it that help us and there are things on it that are harmful to us. The same will be true of this virus. Something on this planet will kill it.

Apparently you choose to believe that nothing can be known or suspected without a long drawn out scientific study.

Has anyone studied how long it takes one to die if you slowly submerse a human being in lava? I don't even think the Nazis tried that shit. I'm sure it will kill someone, how long it takes is unknown to me.
 
TorturedBlazerFan said:
I dont get why some in the medical community seem to not want it to work. He keeps citing two studies, Im not sure which ones, because we really don't have much outside of anecdotal evidence or very small groups of treated patients by doctors who have tried it.
He continues to say that, “at best” it has mild effects, and then contradicts himself by saying well there are always “lazarus” effects for some people. So what is it? At best you’ll have mild effects or a chance for a “lazarus effect”.
What they need is more testing, and data, I agree with that, but he then says oh he’s convinced that further testing will show it doesnt do anything. Think were seeing some of his own hypothesis
wrapped up in it at this point. Then he talks about purified forms of anti-serums, which ok, we’ll see how that goes and when they can get there.
Click to expand...
You don't suppose there are people that are hours away from going on a ventilator do ya? Those that almost need it and then avoid it?

I don't know, maybe there aren't. If there are wouldn't a "mild" effect be helpful?

If you have 1000 bucks and lose 100 gambling and your rent is 920 a tiny loan of 20 bucks might be considered mild but extremely helpful.
 
bodyman5000 and 1 said:
You don't suppose there are people that are hours away from going on a ventilator do ya? Those that almost need it and then avoid it?

I don't know, maybe there aren't. If there are wouldn't a "mild" effect be helpful?

If you have 1000 bucks and lose 100 gambling and your rent is 920 a tiny loan of 20 bucks might be considered mild but extremely helpful.
Click to expand...
I don't know I'm not really trained in medicine at all and I'll admit that readily, I just find that 24 hours a day it seems like we can different supposed "experts" telling us different stories about what works and doesn't work.
 
TBpup said:
In the interests of full disclosure, many of my clients do as well as part of their diversified portfolio. Unless it is individual stock, if you have mutual funds which are funds of funds, you own a LOT of different interests, some of which you may not even be aware of.

What would be much more surprising is if the NY Times wrote something positive about this particular president....for anything. Not an "apologist", but after a while, the same negative vein day after day starts to loose a level of objectiveness.
Click to expand...
Look, there's so many negatives about this President that no matter how hard they tried, the NY Times could not do any better than to scratch the surface. I certainly would concern myself over the Trump negativism of the NY Times. I'd concern myself with trying to group the negativism such that you could convey even fraction of the scope of the magnitude.
 
barfo said:
What do you think the headline should be?

Mine, which will surely not be the same as yours, would be:

"Trump, who has no medical training whatsoever and who frequently makes false statements, gives medical advice during a pandemic"
Sub-head: "Trump's recommended treatment is just one of many potential but as yet unproven treatments for covid-19"

barfo
Click to expand...

Of course Trump has no medical training. But if training were required, Obama, who had one job for 5 minutes before becoming president, wouldn't have been able to say a word. That is straight parroting talking points heard from media that obviously doesn't like him versus just reporting the news....which makes false statements all the time.

As for the 2nd headline...an actual objective headline. Finally.
 
TBpup said:
Of course Trump has no medical training. But if training were required, Obama, who had one job for 5 minutes before becoming president, wouldn't have been able to say a word. That is straight parroting talking points heard from media that obviously doesn't like him versus just reporting the news....which makes false statements all the time.

As for the 2nd headline...an actual objective headline. Finally.
Click to expand...
Exactly. The 2nd one is like the news I read as a child.

Now we've got people like Jim Acosta. Yuck.
 
TBpup said:
Of course Trump has no medical training. But if training were required, Obama, who had one job for 5 minutes before becoming president, wouldn't have been able to say a word.
Click to expand...

I don't recall Obama making specific medical treatment recommendations?

That is straight parroting talking points heard from media that obviously doesn't like him versus just reporting the news....which makes false statements all the time.
Click to expand...

Saying that Trump is not a medical doctor is a 'talking point'???

As for the 2nd headline...an actual objective headline. Finally.
Click to expand...

I'm confused about what you are calling the 2nd headline. the NYT 2nd headline, or my sub-head? If the NYT, I thought you called it a "negative angel about how he is dividing the medical community".

barfo
 
  • Like
Reactions: RR7
TBpup said:
Obama, who had one job for 5 minutes before becoming president, wouldn't have been able to say a word. That is straight parroting talking points heard from media that obviously doesn't like him versus just reporting the news....which makes false statements all the time.
Click to expand...

It is a shame that you are parroting lies to claim others are parroting lies.

Obama was a community outreach organizer for 3 years, the editor and president of the Harvard law review journal while studying for his 2nd degree, a visiting law professor for 2 years while working on a book, served on the board of multiple foundations for 8 years, served 3 years as a state senator and 3 years as a US senator before running for president.

So, he clearly had years of experience in government - 6 years in public government as an elected official before becoming a president - making your comparison absurd and wrong.
 
andalusian said:
It is a shame that you are parroting lies to claim others are parroting lies.

Obama was a community outreach organizer for 3 years, the editor and president of the Harvard law review journal while studying for his 2nd degree, a visiting law professor for 2 years while working on a book, served on the board of multiple foundations for 8 years, served 3 years as a state senator and 3 years as a US senator before running for president.

So, he clearly had years of experience in government - 6 years in public government as an elected official before becoming a president - making your comparison absurd and wrong.
Click to expand...

Reminds me of the old saying, those who can't do teach.
 
TorturedBlazerFan said:
I dont get why some in the medical community seem to not want it to work. He keeps citing two studies, Im not sure which ones, because we really don't have much outside of anecdotal evidence or very small groups of treated patients by doctors who have tried it.
He continues to say that, “at best” it has mild effects, and then contradicts himself by saying well there are always “lazarus” effects for some people. So what is it? At best you’ll have mild effects or a chance for a “lazarus effect”.
What they need is more testing, and data, I agree with that, but he then says oh he’s convinced that further testing will show it doesnt do anything. Think were seeing some of his own hypothesis
wrapped up in it at this point. Then he talks about purified forms of anti-serums, which ok, we’ll see how that goes and when they can get there.
Click to expand...

Where do you get the idea that some in the medical field don't want it to work. Things I have read and heard is that many of the medical field think it's very premature to tout this as a some sort of miracle drug. The findings have some possibilities but even Dr. Fauci is very cautious in its use at this time. Like anything, there will be promoters and some doubters of it, but I don't think anyone wants it to fail, but are just being cautious in what it might be able to do. Unfortunately it takes time for vaccines to be approved and shown to be safe.
 
A millionaire profiting off of a negative circumstance?

MADNESS! I CAN'T BELIEVE THAT IS HAPPENING!

Okay that was a bit blatant in the sarcasm department.

It's messed up to think about how much money some people make each time a bullet is fired into an "enemy" during war. Or how much money some people make for each nuclear weapon that is manufactured. Even the "space force" is certainly making some unscrupulous individuals quite wealthy.

There's a reason our military budget is like >50% of the nations budget. War makes people rich, people like being rich, and they don't care about people dying because it makes them rich. Despicable!
 
andalusian said:
It is a shame that you are parroting lies to claim others are parroting lies.

Obama was a community outreach organizer for 3 years, the editor and president of the Harvard law review journal while studying for his 2nd degree, a visiting law professor for 2 years while working on a book, served on the board of multiple foundations for 8 years, served 3 years as a state senator and 3 years as a US senator before running for president.

So, he clearly had years of experience in government - 6 years in public government as an elected official before becoming a president - making your comparison absurd and wrong.
Click to expand...

An organizer, a newspaper editer, a board member, a state senator and a partial term senator before running for office. Not exactly typical job experience. And if you took the '5 minutes' thing literally, well....lol.

And for people not liking Trump taking about medical things because he is not a Doctor, what about the W.H.O. clows who was dead wrong multiple times with VERY specific medical advice and directives while being in bed with China all the way up to his ears.

And Trump hasn't exactly been all wrong. And there are more and more examples of this coming in. https://va.news-republic.com/a/6812...ptRW9jcdHOw66e2LyiaUSXP4EJ03-LXCkyPAuLT3Z5v9k

The knee-jerk, "It's horrible because it came from Trump" reaction, especially when it is exactly the same things some of his biggest critics have said, is mind-boggling. Again, it's not to defend him from things he does that deserve questioning, but objectivity has gone out the window.
 
TBpup said:
And for people not liking Trump taking about medical things because he is not a Doctor, what about the W.H.O. clows who was dead wrong multiple times with VERY specific medical advice and directives while being in bed with China all the way up to his ears.
Click to expand...

Don't know what specifically you mean about WHO being wrong on medical advice, but they were certainly more right than Trump was about the pandemic.

The knee-jerk, "It's horrible because it came from Trump" reaction, especially when it is exactly the same things some of his biggest critics have said, is mind-boggling. Again, it's not to defend him from things he does that deserve questioning, but objectivity has gone out the window.
Click to expand...

Of all the things he's done, giving medical advice is certainly one that richly deserves questioning. He simply isn't qualified to do so, and it's not his job. There is a reason why we require doctors to have licenses. There is a reason why we have a drug approval process. The reason is public safety. As president, he has a responsibility to not be irresponsible.

barfo
 
barfo said:
Don't know what specifically you mean about WHO being wrong on medical advice, but they were certainly more right than Trump was about the pandemic.
Click to expand...

Seriously? They were very specific saying it was not contagious, would not be a pandemic, and couldn't be passed from person to person. Not sure how they were more right.....than anyone.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top