Quote:
Originally Posted by NorskiCroat
So wait...was Secretary Wilkie ... outright lying and making things up? That's how it appears. If that's true about him, it will almost assuredly come out, and he'll have to face the consequences. It could probably be career ending.
You've mentioned more than once that Secretary Wilkie is "a lawyer who is a political appointee". You're obviously trying to diminish the man - whether you'd admit to as much or not. ... See, what bothers me most about this Hydroxychloroquine subject is that there's a vested interest among many to hope that it doesn't work. And why? Because Trump mentioned it. It's a political play. It's tantamount to saying "please, please...don't let Trump get anything positive out of mentioning this drug!" Intellectually honest people would have to admit to as much.
***
So who should we believe? The scientists at the FDA who say hydroxychloroquine should NOT be used outside of a medical study, OR a lawyer appointed by the President? Based on past experience (Dr. Bright), I wonder how long it will take before heads roll at the FDA.
As for the conspiracy theory about Big Pharma opposing use of hydroxychloroquine because they won't profit much from it, please provide factual support. There are SO many conspiracy theories out there already surrounding Covid-19. Just once, I'd like to see facts instead of conjecture.
The assertion that it could be career-ending for Mr. Wilkie to make a misstatement in support of the President, I almost lost my coffee laughing. In some circles, lying in support of Mr. Trump would be a badge of honor.
|
First of all, the FDA said it should not be used outside of a clinical trial, or hospitalized patients. See the difference? 1000s of Doctors are using it against coronavirus right now.
Big Pharma conspiracy to protect profits? Too funny
Big Pharma spends record millions on lobbying amid pressure to lower drug prices
Big Pharma spends record millions on lobbying amid pressure to lower drug prices - CNN
Proof that some scientific and medical studies are fraudulent or designed to produce a certain result?
a survey of members of the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) in which 27% of the scientists reported having encountered some type of misconduct [13]; a survey of research coordinators in which 19% of respondents reported first-hand knowledge of misconduct within the previous year – and that only 70% of these were reported [14]; a study of Norway medical investigators in which 27% of investigators knew of instances of fraud [15]; a survey of members of the International Society of Clinical Biostatistics, in which over 50% of respondents knew of fraudulent reports [16]; a survey of medical institutions in Britain in which more than 50% of respondents knew or suspected misconduct among institutional colleagues [17]; and a survey of New Scientist readers, in which a remarkable 92% knew of or suspected scientific misconduct by colleague.
a survey of NIH-funded scientists in which 33% of respondents said they had engaged in one or more of a list of ‘top 10’ questionable behaviors ranging from approximately 16% for ‘changing the design, methodology or results of a study in response to pressure from the funding source’
Data fraud in clinical trials