Comments by "peabase" (@peabase) on "WHO suspends clinical trial of hydroxychloroquine for COVID-19" video.

  1. Duh, all drugs have side-effects. It's a matter of weighing the pros against the cons. Here, the nays have it.
    5
  2.  @lundqvjrl9359  Don't you get that the disadvantages outweigh the advantages? It's claimed that smoking lessens the risk of developing Parkinson's disease, but it's definitely a fact that smokers are far more likely to die from lung cancer, emphysema and heart disease than succumbing to Parkinson's. If you believe your own nonsense, you should become a smoker -- if you aren't already.
    3
  3.  @lundqvjrl9359  Both the pros and cons of hydroxychloroquine in preventing Covid-19 are somewhat sketchy still. We have to go by the little information that we have, and that information doesn't favour the use of hydroxychloroquine. It appears you're keen to accept the pros, but you're just as keen to discount the cons. That suggest to me that snake oil salesmen couldn't wish for a better customer than you. Your analogy is skewed. Terminal cancer patients are hardly comparable to healthy persons who may never contract Covid-19. Even if they do, they're bound to make a full recovery.
    3
  4.  @theobsr  It's interesting that you don't even try to counter my arguments. You just manage a feeble ad hominem.
    2
  5.  @lundqvjrl9359  Hydroxychloroquine (and chloroquine) are said to cause heart rhythm problems. If that snippet has passed you by, you haven't been following the news properly. True, the WHO halted their trials, temporarily at least, because of safety concerns. However, theirs is not the only game in town. I believe fanboy Trump could simply order the FDA to run a clinical trial. I'm not claiming there's a conspiracy behind it all. That's your imagination acting up. You call me a one-sided skeptic, yet I've been insisting all along that both the pros and the cons should be considered. You can't control your unbounded optimism for an unproven and potentially dangerous drug.
    1
  6.  @MersageSW  Explain something that has been puzzling me no end. Americans are represented in WHO on all levels, no doubt because of the high level of subject-matter expertise in the US. How did all these brainboxes fail so miserably, as you imply, and not only in understanding the disease, but also politically? Why did they fail to report that they were completely sidelined by the Chinese?
    1