Oklahoma desperately trying to return its $2M hydroxychloroquine stockpile

a reply to: marg6043

I know many older people in my area that were given hydroxychloroquine as a prevention

Anecdotal evidence is evidence from anecdotes: evidence collected in a casual or informal manner and relying heavily or entirely on personal testimony. ... Other anecdotal evidence, however, does not qualify as scientific evidence, because its nature prevents it from being investigated by the scientific method.

Completely useless to me.

Man, watching you partisans nauseates me. Truly, it does.

Listen, hydroxychloroquine was a drug recommended by Dr. Fauci himself back in 2003 while doing research on Coronavirus. So somewhere along the way, during a briefing, Fauci likely referenced his findings on this research. If i REALLY have to i can probably pull a link down for that...assuming it wasn't just outright scrubbed over the last year.

To make snide remarks about people over this, Trump in particular, is just stupid. Its groupthink gang bullying. Its stupid. Its beneath adults and civilized humans.

I used to joke about being a misanthrope. But i swear, the more i see human interact with each other the more I loathe my own species.

a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

Listen, hydroxychloroquine was a drug recommended by Dr. Fauci himself back in 2003 while doing research on Coronavirus.

Where's your source?

Truth me told, you wouldn't be uttering HCQ had Trump not made mention of it back in early 2020. The irony of your comment about partisans is mind numbing.

a reply to: Southern Guardian

Like i said...scrubbed. But heres another one from 2005.

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...

Point being, we knew it worked well with the sars-cov. And it would be easy imagine Fauci mentioning this, and Trump picking up on it. This was when Fauci was still advising against masks, for timeline context. So details were rare and spotty.

Yes. The only reason i heard if this was Trump saying it. See my above paragraph for my thoughts on why Trump said it. Its very linear and logical to assume that a well documented study in the bailiwick of our leading expert would be something he is aware of and possibly musing about with his response team.

Now do you understand why i think your derision is so stupid?

a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

Remember when ddt was freely sprayed in the streets?

Or lead was used in fuel?

Scientific consensus is always changing, you should know that.

a reply to: Chadwickus

That has zilch to do with anything i have said. But thanks for the PSA.

a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

Hydroxychloroquine may have been thought to be effective 18 years ago.

Doesn’t necessarily mean it’s effective now.

Oh and groupthink gang bullying?

That’s a Trump supporters MO through and through.

Just look at q, but that’s getting off topic

Hmmm sounds to me Oklahoma played a part in trying to keep drugs off of the market, and maybe they conspired with others.

Regardless of whether the drug works or not, at the time it was believed to do something, so they bought up 2M doses and didn't use them. That to me shows they were trying to get what they could off of the market, just in case it did work.

Oh prison can't come soon enough for these jokers.

a reply to: Chadwickus

And yet this still has zilch to do with what i am saying. But thanks for the reiteration if the unrelated PSA.

a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

Yeah righto then.

It does but if you choose to stick your fingers in your ears, that’s your choice

a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

Like i said...scrubbed.

i.e you have no evidence or sources eh? Maybe you should turn to anecdotes?

But heres another one from 2005.

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...

Debunked long time ago.

Fact check: Fauci did not approve hydroxychloroquine as a cure for coronaviruses in 2005

The source of the article is One News Now, a website operated by the American Family Association, a Christian fundamentalist nonprofit founded by Mississippi pastor Donald Wildmon. The Southern Poverty Law Center has classified the political organization as an anti-LGBTQ hate group.

One News Now’s article was flagged as part of Facebook’s efforts to combat false news and misinformation on its News Feed. (Read more about our partnership with Facebook.) It has been shared more than 27,000 times.

The article relies on a 2005 study about the effect of chloroquine on Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome, more commonly called SARS. Chloroquine is chemically similar to hydroxychloroquine, but it is a different drug and is primarily used to treat malaria. Both drugs pose risks for people with heart problems.

The One News Now story claims the journal that published the study is "the official publication of Dr. Fauci’s National Institutes of Health." That’s inaccurate.

While the 2005 study has been indexed by the NIH’s National Library of Medicine, it was published in the peer-reviewed Virology Journal.

Point being, we knew it worked well with the sars-cov.

From your preferred sources? How many times have you complained on here about the misleading MSM Texan? Yet you willingly continue spreading propaganda from other clearly unreliable sources?

Yes. The only reason i heard if this was Trump saying it.

The only honest thing you've posted on here. Thanks for at least confessing.

I don't understand this entire thing of clinging to HCQ despite the facts? Is it so important to Trump's image that you have to use any and every excuse?

a reply to: Southern Guardian

Are you calling the NIH unreliable?

Never mind. Your gonna make # up. Just save it. My bad.

a reply to: Chadwickus

I am not making comment on the effectiveness of the drug. You have inserted your own bias into this to make an argument. You and SG both.

And if you are not able to figure that out by now either you do so willingly or are not capable. But you and Beef Supreme here can go ahead and chuckle.

a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

Are you calling the NIH unreliable?

Where did I call NIH unreliable? Care to point out the part of that study that refers to your claims of Fauci and HCQ?

a reply to: Southern Guardian

Ill leave you with that. If you really care,re-read my posts and see where you are not understanding.

a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

I am not making comment on the effectiveness of the drug

What are you talking about? You already did? And you were corrected. Move along now.