I'm beginning to think throwing another Fyre Festival wouldn't be a bad idea after all. Juts make it more real. More models to make them pretty sandwhiches. More ****ing profit.
Bruh, it's a from of approval to allow it. No one is arguing it is approved across the board and not just for emergency use. We agree on that actually. You are now getting into the specific terminology of the FDA and that's just petty and doesn't really change anything. EDIT: I didn't even use the word approve initially. My first words on this was me sharing an article which I copy and pasted the beginning for all to see, and gave a link, and your freaking out about the word choice it used. But the headline gave the info you wanted... see this post below: http://bbs.clutchfans.net/index.php?threads/d-d-coronavirus-thread.303988/page-146#post-12919564 I linked THIS article https://www.pmlive.com/pharma_news/...orisation_to_chloroquine_for_covid-19_1331981 I added the headline and lede paragraph from the news article and it said "FDA grants emergency authorisation to chloroquine for COVID-19" The article then starts with the line "The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has approved the use of the decades old anti-malaria drugs hydroxychloroquine and chloroquine after preliminary data showed they had efficacy against COVID-19, the disease caused by the novel coronavirus." Then if you read the article it further explains things: "The emergency authorisation comes on the back of results from a small study in France, in which four out of five COVID-19 patients who were treated with chloroquine had ‘favourable’ outcomes." You're getting upset because I literally copy and pasted an article that used the word approved when right before it I gave the specific information your saying I didn't give via the headline. You need to be a better reader and stop being intellectually lazy/dishonest.
No one is arguing it was approved across the board by the FDA. That's the definition of a strawman. I said it was approved as in approved as in for emergency use... which is was. That was the news of the time and widely reported. No one is trying to lie or misrepresent the drug like Biina accuses. See, people like yall, are exactly the worst type of people on this forum because you lie to yourselves and to other people. http://bbs.clutchfans.net/index.php?threads/d-d-coronavirus-thread.303988/page-146#post-12919564
It's your responsibility to vet the articles you quote from. That the writer of the article made an error is not justification for you to echo it, but worse still you refuse to admit the error and still claim you are correct when the authoritative source says otherwise. In your weird version of English, allowing something that is unapproved becomes an approval - the unapproved part magically disappears. You keep repeating this false notion like if it was some innocuous mistake but it is not. You are misrepresenting the status and prospect of Chloroquine to suit your own agenda, and are trying to co-opt the FDA into being your accomplice. Chloroquine is only one among many other drugs currently being investigated for the treatment of Covid19. There is nothing scientific at this point that suggests it is any more effective than other drugs. If and at when a credible drug treatment arises, all but a few sociopaths, will be happy about it If you don't want to be called out, then stop misrepresenting stuff
You are mistaken. That article was fine. It expressly states the truth in the damn headline and subsequent reading. You are intellectually dishonest and clinging to a petty untruth. You boldly complain of misrepresentation while doing the very crime you accuse me of when I have not. And provably so to anyone who can go back and read my posts. You are a liar.
The article is clearly erroneous in claiming that the drug has been 'approved' when in truth the FDA has only allowed its unapproved use. Anybody claiming the drug has been approved is mistaken or being disingenous. But you are so adamant on the approve, cos accepting that it has not been approved does not suit whatever notion your trying to push. Your posts are clear in your advocation for Chloroquine, as if its the only potential treatment for Covid19. You calim to be balanced and only express your optimism, but - why has your 'balance' stopped you from stating the factsabout the current development in Chloroquine unequivocally? - Why have you never made any reference to other drugs that have also showed promise in treatment of Covid19 Instead you suggest that others are stockpiling Chloroquine as if it would soon become scarce when needed, and encourage others to act accordingly. Your posts sounds less like a balanced view of prospective treatments for Covid19 and more like someone with ulterior motives in hyping the prospects of Chloroquine to increase the demand for it.
The article does explain it is approved for emegency use multiple times and in the headline. Stop lying. Also you are sounding like a paranoid lunatic bro. So far I just said I was optimistic. You need to relax.
This shows two things... first, trump's "demeanor" when it came to Coronavirus (initially ignoring it, then belittling it, then saying it was contained, then *finally* acknowledging it for the massive health crisis it is) mattered, and still matters. Every distraction, misleading statement, every lie matters. And second, what the f is the Governor of a large and populous state (with a huge population of people in the most at-risk category) waiting to take vital action based on the president's "demeanor"?!? Are there not medical and scientific experts better qualified to base important and difficult decisions available to the Governor of Florida? I know desantis is simply trying to absolve himself of blame by throwing trump under the bus (and trust me, trump deserves to be under buses), Florida residents and voters need to hold their governor accountable and hopefully vote his ass out next election.
So whatever any article says is the absolute truth? It is allowed is not the same as being approved. What about what the actual policy says is the meaning of an Emergency Use Authorization? The EUA definition makes it clear by referring to the affected drugs/uses as unapproved. I have provided you a link but you ignore that and stick with some BS article as if it was the gospel. From the HHS statement (https://www.hhs.gov/about/news/2020...ossible-treatments-for-covid-19-patients.html): Is Lucy Parsons more authoritative on EUA than HHS staff? Chloroquine has NOT been approved for treating Covid19 (emergency or otherwise). Describing it as approved is simply disingenous.
There have been many great Governors in the United States that have been leading to fight against Coronavirus. And, there have been laggards (abbott seems to be catching up, but desnatis is a vivid example). Here's another one that falls in this latter category... again, are there not medical and scientific experts available to the Governor of Georgia? Can't they access federal experts? Heck, can't they see medical information available through media and other reporting? He *just* now learned about how the virus could be spread?!?
The article is clear that it is just an ok or approval of emergancy use. Stop being willfully ignorant. Also no one spoke of the type of complete 100% FDA approval you are on about. You are dead wrong and simply building a strawman to save face. You need to realize that words have multiple uses and not just for industry jargon ie fda approved. The article goes to great length to explain it was for emergency use. You are still striking at a made up target at this point. No one is disagreeing with you and saying it was for full emegency use. You are framing this in a way to feel right because at this point you have been wrong and you have been lying. You will claim the article said approved but it clearly meant that in an emergancy sense and it clarifies that at least three times. Stop misrepresenting the overall main idea and stop building false narratives. Ironic because you pretend to care so much about accuracy...
The article misrepresented the fact by claiming it was approved by the FDA but that is a fabrication of the writer, which you have decided to echo cos it suits your purpose. The technical meaning of 'approved' is significant cos the writer (and you) associated it with the FDA. It has not been approved (for emergency or otherwise) and you are deliberately misreprensting the facts by claiming that it has been. If you want to be accurate, simply state that the FDA has allowed the unapproved use
You are really reaching and I do not think most readers would be interpreting the way you do. You clearly are ignoring the piece as a whole and willfully so to suit your purpose. There was no misrepresentation. You are dishonest and putting forward claims you cannot back up. You are a liar plain and simple.
I thought this was very interesting as a graphic. Seems that it really is the subway that was/has been the super spreader of the virus in NYC.
What I have stated is the official and accurate meaning of an EUA. An EUA is does NOT mean 'approved for emergency use' like you (and the writer of that article) are claiming - that is just patently false! I have provided links to HHS and FDA sources to backup my position, while all you have is some article on PMLIve. I am sorry if I dont take PMLive articles as anauthority on HHS/FDA or any Healthcare related matter Choloroquine remains unapproved by the FDA for use in treatment of Covid19. Anyone taking and/or stockpiling the drug for Covid19 does so at his/her own risk. Sorry if that statement hurts your interests and/or feelings.
@dachuda86 Can you read this? "This is not FDA approval of hydroxychloroquine or chloroquine for the treatment of COVID-19," says infectious diseases physician Rajesh Gandhi, who is leading Massachusetts General Hospital's COVID-19 treatment task force. "There's an epidemic of misinformation out there, and we need to combat that." March 30, 20204:39 PM ET
Both interesting and scary. Makes sense, considering how densely packed people are in mass transit, how people from lower economic often use mass transit (less access to health care; poorer health) and people with weakened immune systems (tired, perhaps with cold/flu already).
My feelings and interests? Not sure what you mean by any of that but I do think that you're being stubborn on this because you can't bare reality. You are misrepresenting my position on it and you are misrepresenting the article which explains three times what you are saying. It is for emergency use and it doesn't say it's FDA approved. You're just stretching in order to save face. Keep it up. Also attacking the source? My source agrees with the FDA in what it says and is one of many that comes up on google news when you search about this issue. Guess what? They don't say it's FDA approved like you are pretending. You are moving the goal post and building strawmen all day but it won't change reality. This is not a contest btw, but if it was, you lost pages ago. One question that I need to raise is this.... Spoiler
That's nice? I never claimed it was FDA approved. I linked a story about the FDA giving the go ahead for emergency use. That's far from the same thing. Biina is just pissed off. If You want to go back like 12 pages in this thread and start from there you are welcome to because that's honestly how long Biina has been pushing a false narrative.
