Coronavirus drug endorsed by Trump causes no heart complications despite previous concerns, study fi

~ The peers are doctors treating patients. Remember you are always free to refuse treatment .

 

~ Yes indeed zinc seems to be the key.

 

None actually, of course the fact that trump owns stock in the corp that makes it is not suspicious at all.

 

The main issue for concerns was the lack of testing done. One single test showed that the drug might be used to treat coronavirus, but that isn't enough to justify regular use. There's no way of knowing whether or not the test was a fluke or if the drug is actually effective. The drug has several side effects and is vital to the treatrment of lupis. There needs to be proof that the drug is effective to justify using it.

 

If Breitbart were involved in a peer reviewed study, they would be the only ones that didn't have a financial stake in rejecting a generic drug in favor of an expensive less effective therapy. Not unlike Climate Hysteria. All the peers benefit from the hysteria and their work have to get past the same 5 gate keepers who also benefit from the hysteria. Then, the climate hysteria industry claims a 97% consensus by testing how good a job the gatekeepers did in rejecting abstracts that didn't support their theory.

 

~ I you have a mutual fund you own the stock too.

 

Trump owns stock in a mutual fund which includes stock the company.
"The president’s latest financial disclosure form indicates that he holds shares in the mutual fund through three different family trusts. The value of each of those holdings is between $1,001 and $15,000, which would put Trump’s stake in Sanofi at "between about $100 and $1,500 in total," the Washington Post reported.

"That Sanofi investment would therefore constitute between 0.000003 and 0.00005 percent of Trump’s net worth," the newspaper wrote. "If you were worth $100,000, it would be like worrying about the nickel in your pocket."
ttps://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2020/apr/09/facebook-posts/trump-has-tiny-financial-stake-company-manufacture/

 

I know a lot of doctors who are Trump loyalists too. But doctors are not scientists. They try to do the best for their patients but, before there is established science, they go by trial and error. This is the reason why the highest percentage of deaths occurred at the beginning of the pandemic. Before there was any science on the matter.

 

Doctors are not scientists? Exactly how do you come to that distinction?

 

What???

Maybe not the smartest, but definitely the most hilarious attempt to change the subject.

 

Do you claim there is absolutely no bias in how they select papers to be published?

 

Nor is the fact the Fauci and others own stock in the company that makes Rendesevir. And have patents related to it.

 

Doctors use science. They don't do scientific research. And, of course, I'm referring to doctors who produce the anecdotal evidence the poster is referring to.

 

There is no clear absolute line between scientists and doctors nor virtually any other profession. You said they use trial and error. Trial and error is also used by scientists. That is what they are doing when they test a hypothesis.

But here is how the world actually works. Many medicines only treat the symptoms. They don't actually cure the affliction. However by treating the symptoms, many times it does aid in the recovery. Doctors are very much aware of what symptoms a particular medicine treats. That is part of their training. It is not unusual for them to prescribe a medicine that was originally designed to treat the symptom of another disease. In fact I am sometimes take Gabapentin for peripheral neuropathy. It was originally prescribed to treat seizures. It calms the nerves for both afflictions. Unfortunately, it has many very undesirable side affects. So I do not take it unless I absolutely have to.

In short, you can say doctors are not scientists. That statement, in itself is questionable. However, it makes very little difference. Their training allows them to make such decisions.

 

Hell no I'm not claiming that! They are absolutely biased in favor of the scientific method.

 

The scientific method is performed by people. People tend to be biased.
I have spent a lot of time with "scientists" and if you believe there is no bias, you have spent your time with a very different group than I have. They have their pet theories and get very upset if something does not agree with that pet theory.

 

It's the difference between scientists and technicians.

I didn't say they can't make decisions. I'm just saying they don't make science. The rest of your post is has nothing to do with anything I have said.

 

There is no clear cut line.

I am not sure how anyone "makes science". However, whether you call them or scientists or not, that does not make their judgements any less valid. Probably, more valid because they are up close and personal with the results of their decisions.

 

Of course! And that's precisely the reason why the scientific method was developed.

Yep! And that's why most Scientists don't like epistemologists.

 

The scientific method is not some magic potion.

However, because of their bias to their pet theory, they tend to be blind to anything that contradicts that pet theory. They are human beings with all their flaws.

 

Exactly. It's the contrary of a "magic potion".

Have you noticed how many times I have rebutted you by agreeing with you?

Your strawman arguments make that so easy.

 

Which doesn't negate my post in the slightest.

 

Which doesn't negate my post in the slightest.

 

The implication was that Trump would prosper over sale of the drug. The amount is too trivial to be of significance.

 

Which STILL doesn't negate my post in the slightest.