Deleted User wrote: » It's available over the counter in the US which doesn't help with supply issues unfortunately.
iebamm2580 wrote: Look at the graph for deaths per population, usa doing better than most but again people cant stick to facts when it comes to trump. Again i dont like trump especially his rhetoric about bringing pharma back from Ireland among other things such as his input on scientific matters which he clearly hasn't a clue about but the facts dont lie, the us has handled this crisis better the most whether people like it or not.
notobtuse wrote: » I'd hope people here would deal with the content more than the identity. Perhaps that is hoping for too much.
one world order wrote: The lab created virus has genomes including hiv and malaria. This is why hydroxychlorine is showing promising results as it is a malaria drug. It is also cheap to make and it's safe. However it won't work every time but it does reduces deaths which is a good thing.
Wanderer78 wrote: » ....and a test on an American military base showed using it, doubled the death rates, go Donald!
one world order wrote: ??????
Wanderer78 wrote: » ...and the above is rational? Again, hydroxychlorine tests were recently done on victims of covid on a military base, these tests doubled the death rates, I. E. hydroxychlorine is a bust
notobtuse wrote: » I've no doubt you'd turn the term around around to mean the exact opposite of what it was developed to mean. Twist and shout isn't just a song, I guess. And if your doctor recommends the same treatment Trump has indicated has promise?
jibber5000 wrote: » So much wrong with this statement. You can't call a potential treatment a bust based on a retrospective study. It wasn't a randomised controlled trial. Again why would doctors worldwide be prescribing it if they thought it was a bust and so dangerous?
The Nal wrote: » Bush is the biggest war criminal the planet has seen in this century. Him calling for unity is like some sort of performance art.
one world order wrote: » The lab created virus has genomes including hiv and malaria. This is why hydroxychlorine is showing promising results as it is a malaria drug. It is also cheap to make and it's safe. However it won't work every time but it does reduces deaths which is a good thing.
amdublin wrote: » Well excuuuuusee me for my brain not interpreting something the way you wanted me to. I never heard of it before you posted it. I just googled it now. I see from the wiki page that there is a risk that although it was "coined" to be what you want it to be, there is a risk it means/is interpreted the other way. Well, sorreeee I guess it just happened with me. My answer doesn't change: I'm totally happy to follow what my doctor advises, on the basis of their medical knowledge and the scientific evidence. I'm not happy to follow someone if their advice is based on the advice of a deranged lunatic's "feeling" or "what they've heard".
notobtuse wrote: » Sorry, I probably came across a little too harsh. I'm not a fan of Alinsky's Rules for Radicals and that's what it appeared to me you were attempting.“Ridicule is man’s most potent weapon.” "Accuse your opponent of what you are doing, to create confusion and to inculcate voters against evidence of your own guilt"
ohnonotgmail wrote: » you mean the rules that trump employs?
notobtuse wrote: » Sometimes.
[Deleted User] wrote: » I don't think that's true . It's a prescription only medication in Ireland, the UK and the US. It's not like grabbing a packet of paracetamol.
duploelabs wrote: » Because, like the opiate crisis, there are disingenuous doctors who will prescribe anything with enough peer pressure
notobtuse wrote: » I see Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg has been hospitalized again, reportedly this time with a gall bladder infection. At 87 you have to admire her stamina, but with all her recent health issues perhaps it might be best to hang up the robe and enjoy the time she has left. Her health issues will become a significant factor in the general election. If the Notorious RBG does retire I can see Trump nominating Amy Coney Barrett, a judge on the US Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit, to replace her. The question would be the timing of RBG’s retirement. If she retires before the general election Democrats would pitch a fit if Trump nominated someone before the election because of what happened to Merrick Garland. And the Democrats have every right to take Republicans to task over what happened.
Brian? wrote: » I'd be interested to know what you think about it. I think it was an absolute disgrace what the GOP did to Merrick Garland. Who was cheated out of a SCOTUS seat by an act of pure petulance by the Senate GOP. It created a horrific precedence.
notobtuse wrote: » I think the republicans should have at least gone through the process. Using delay tactics in the hearings they could have drug it beyond the election... that’s what democrats would have done. I think it was wrong of them to not even allowing him the process. It will come back to bite republicans in the a$$ sometime in the future... and it should. But I can somewhat understand why republicans did it. Unlike democrats who vote on their political ideals when it comes to SCOTUS picks instead of the qualifications of the nominee, republicans ultimately vote on the qualifications of the nomination. And the Senate GOP would have confirmed Garland if a vote were taken.
ohnonotgmail wrote: » is that why the GOP are rushing through confirmations on lawyers, including those who have never tried a case and are rated as not qualified by the ABA?
notobtuse wrote: » Perhaps. Both parties would do EXACTLY the same... get as many of their nominations confirmed as they control the Senate, before an election takes place where control of the Senate might change parties.
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://w2.vanillicon.com/v2/24615175400ae675a1f589d8e5bd3285.svg)
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://wd.vanillicon.com/v2/dbba4c22aa1d352d2cdbb076e36aea8c.svg)
