There were trials being done to see if the treatment was viable against COVID that his paper halted. Aren't clinical trials a crucial part of gathering evidence on a treatment?

It doesn't matter if the drug has been around a while. They need to make sure that it won't hurt, and then that it will help, before it becomes a standard practice to use it.

Are you stoned or pissed off, or both, when you create these postings?

It matters a lot. If someone figured out Advil was the cure, don't you think most people would be pretty comfortable fast-tracking it?

There were trials being done to see if the treatment was viable against COVID that his paper halted. Aren't clinical trials a crucial part of gathering evidence on a treatment?

UK halts trial of hydroxychloroquine as 'useless' for COVID-19 patients
Kate Kelland and Alistair Smout


LONDON (Reuters) - British scientists halted a major drug trial on Friday after it found that the anti-malarial hydroxychloroquine, touted by U.S. President Donald Trump as a potential "game changer" in the pandemic, was "useless" at treating COVID-19 patients.

"This is not a treatment for COVID-19. It doesn't work," Martin Landray, an Oxford University professor who is co-leading the RECOVERY trial, told reporters.

"This result should change medical practice worldwide. We can now stop using a drug that is useless."

This is going to reach a head pretty soon.

Well the UK halted in Friday because they found it to be useless. Had nothing to do with The Lancet study.

That's interesting. Of what relevance is it here?

This is going to reach a head pretty soon.

You're being disingenuous. That's why it's relevant.

Its also disingenuous to say "the UK" are giving up when its actually more like it seems a few individual British scientists are giving up. That would be like saying if GM went out of business that "America is giving up on carmaking".

This is going to reach a head pretty soon.

Disingenuous about what?

Turns out the paper that pretty much halted trials of hydroxychloroquine as a treatment for COVID was total bullshit.

This is going to reach a head pretty soon.

Well when you are able to establish that are scientists that are still conducting research on it in the UK then feel free to let the class know. Otherwise the statement stands. Litigation's statement was false.

What statement was false?

Turns out the paper that pretty much halted trials of hydroxychloroquine as a treatment for COVID was total bullshit.

This is going to reach a head pretty soon.

This one.

There were trials that were halted as a result of the paper. This is a fact. I did not say "halted all trials".

You're pathetically trying to create a "gotcha" here, and it isn't working too well.

This is going to reach a head pretty soon.

You initially claimed it "pretty much halted trials" and now that you claim that "there were some trials" that were halted.

Your original statement was false.

You initially claimed it "pretty much halted trials" and now that you claim that "there were some trials" that were halted and you don't understand that these are completely different statements

You suck at reading comprehension.

Ok, LTG, there was one trial that wasn't halted by The Lancet ignoring the peer review process to publish a bunk study just because it countered Trump.

There it is. It only was a matter of time.

It was researched worldwide and there was no solid evidence that it made a difference. Other trials have ended early because there was no evidence it mattered.

A "cure" for this disease that is proven probably gives the researchers a Nobel Prize and worldwide acclaim in the medical community. I'm sure they all stopped though because it would have made Trump look correct.

Rick, do you not understand the point of DBing The Lancet here? It's not just because it derailed some clinical trials. In fact that point is so insignificant I now wish I hadn't made reference to it.

I am not a legal expert, how many times do I have to say it?

Ok, LTG, there was one trial that wasn't halted by The Lancet ignoring the peer review process to publish a bunk study just because it countered Trump.

The anti-inflammatory drug hydroxychloroquine does not significantly reduce admission to intensive care or death in patients hospitalized with pneumonia due to COVID-19, finds a study from France. And a randomized clinical trial from China shows that hospitalized patients with mild to moderate persistent covid-19 who received hydroxychloroquine did not clear the virus more quickly than those receiving standard care.

This is going to reach a head pretty soon.

You could tell me the point instead of having me guess.

A peer-reviewed medical journal ignored their peer review process so they could publish a study that damaged the messaging of a political opponent. Secondary issue: A peer-reviewed medical journal has become so unabashedly political that it can reasonably be said to have political opponents.

A peer-reviewed medical journal ignored their peer review process so they could publish a study that damaged the messaging of a political opponent. Secondary issue: A peer-reviewed medical journal has become so unabashedly political that it can reasonably be said to have political opponents.

This is going to reach a head pretty soon.

What is your proof this was done to hurt Donald Trump?

You falsely claimed that it brought research to a halt when it clearly did not.

This is false.

This is going to reach a head pretty soon.

I'm not going through this again. Read the thread. The tweet from the post under OP was retweeted by the journal's editor, and is a specific defense of the editor's politicking and politicization of the journal.

This is going to reach a head pretty soon.

I'm not going through this again. Read the thread. The tweet from the post under OP was retweeted by the journal's editor, and is a specific defense of the editor's politicking and politicization of the journal.

Oh, a tweet.