What kind of idiot would not conduct follow-up testing based on that result?
Posted on 03/26/2020 7:20:26 PM PDT by bitt
Of course it could happen. If Joe doesn’t get 1991 delegates on the first ballot, then the 775 superdelegates come into play on the second round and every round thereafter. The delegates earned by Biden and Sanders are only committed for the first ballot. After that, they are free to vote for anyone.
If Joe were to drop out or fall out of favor, then the Establishment could find a consensus candidate other than Bernie. Biden is not helping himself with his apparent decline mentally.
Have you listened to Cuomo he is a complaining whining fool!! He could have ordered the ventilators he needed 5years ago and he declined the purchase order!!! NY of all places should have had enough medical supplies due to constant terrorist threats there YET this governor has been caught with his pants down, and is blaming everything on Trump!!!
It certainly looks very promising. Hope it works out.
***********************************************
Hopefully, it’s a non-corrupted “randomized double blind” clinical study of the treatment (and possibly variants of it such as with different dosages) versus treatment with placebos drugs. There’s a tremendous amount of money that can be made with competing NEW drugs so there’s always the possibility of “fingers being placed on the scales”.
“spurred by political leaders including President Trump to try a treatment that is not proved to be effective against the coronavirus”
well, your WaPo a-holes, unless you try something it can never be proved that it’s effective and would always be “not proved to be effective”, which is WHY TRIALS are underway!
WaPo and the rest of the fake stream enemedia are terrified that these trials are going to be positive, as that would end the panic they’ve created and bolster President Trump as a near-prophet ...
the fake stream enemedia are evil and true enemies of the people ... they’d rather see hundreds of thousand of us die than give President Trump a single iota of credit for anything ... it’s really almost beyond belief ...
What kind of idiot would not conduct follow-up testing based on that result?
“They can NOT draft Cuomo he did not run in the primary it had to be Joe or Bernie take your pick, but everyone touting all this crap about Cuomo need to stop it because it CAN NOT happen!!!”
even if possible, Cuomo is too smart to run against Trump since he can wait four years and run against an unknown, non-incumbent ...
Absolutely two good things. The FDA is a crazy bureaucratic-bureaucracy.
The delegates can vote to nominate whoever they wish. They are not bound by law.
“2. The FDA will be pushed into making new drug testing timelines more reasonable. This second point, by the way, may have the added effect of driving down the costs of drugs, since the cost of over-testing is cranked into the prices they charge.”
agree 100% ... and the revolutionary methods of putting this trial together in a couple of weeks for hundreds of doctors and thousands of patients probably amounts to little more than building a website to register participation and enter the data, but nonetheless, demonstrates feasibility and provides a template to super accelerate future studies for fraction of the cost spent for such studies now ... and guaranteed this all happened ONLY because President Trump demanded that it happen ...
That story is sure a lot of spin, spin, spin.
“I am CONVINCED the media WANTS more people to DIE so as to justify their desperate need to KEEP AMERICA SHUT DOWN because the longer it’s shut down THE MORE IT HURTS TRUMP. American lives be damned! “
that’s actually pretty evident at this point: they hate Donald Trump so much that it’s worth it to them for a few hundred thousand of us to die if that will get rid of him ...
The Rats are good at changing the rules.
"The effort has raised concerns among health experts about safety risks — including the danger of fatal heart arrhythmia and vision loss associated with the drugs — and of raising false hopes in the American public."
The risks of "fatal heart arrhythmia" and "vision loss" are rare, and the risk arises from long term use (as in 5 years) not 5 or 10 days.
If the Washington Post simply published what the CDC itself said, or what the FDA says, it would be obvious to everyone that they were lying about the safety risks.
Here is what the FDA data sheet says about the risk of vision loss:
"Irreversible retinal damage has been observed in some patients who had received hydroxychloroquine sulfate. Significant risk factors for retinal damage include daily doses of hydroxychloroquine sulfate greater than 6.5 mg/kg (5 mg/kg base) of actual body weight, durations of use greater than five years, subnormal glomerular filtration, use of some concomitant drug products such as tamoxifen citrate and concurrent macular disease. Reference ID: 4047416
A baseline ocular examination is recommended within the first year of starting PLAQUENIL."
How much of a risk is taking the drug for a week or so if the FDA only recommends an eye exam within the first year of taking the drug? As close to none as you can imagine.
Hydroxychloroquine has a lower risk profile than Chloroquine and yet the CDC recommends it for vacationers.
Multiple other sources have published recommended dosages for COVID-19 treatment.
Their study was well designed, and the p-values indicate the strength of the data.
By contrast some of the studies purporting to show less efficacy that the media has run with have much weaker experimental design.
Extraordinarily small sampling.
We’re talking 10 people each for each treatment.
16 people for no treatment (control).
Not worth it.
Especially when compared to the normal synopsis of disease. Which no one really reports except to imply everyone dies. Anecdotally (including a case very close to me), I’ve heard some of the patients say it was hardly anything, maybe 2 days of suffering then basically gone.
I’d like to know if that is the norm or not. If it is, then “getting better in 2 days” isn’t really doing much.
I thought the parties could do whatever they want. There aren’t any laws about who they can nominate.
Because it’s an influenza strain? There are tons of those to build on.
Oh? How many subjects did they use? Sorry, one needs a large sampling to be truly sure. This may be OK to “kickstart” something for more research, but not a good solid proof for definite usage.
I don’t mind them trying, but even minus any side effects, it could be a HUGE waste of resources ($, time, effort, etc).
So what p value is enough in your mind?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.