Who would YOU believe?


Your choices are : Dr. Anthony Fauci, the respected scientist who understands the truth and science, or Peter Navarro, a Trade Representative, political appointee who’s loyalty lies in one place.

Navarro insisted that hydroxychloquine is proven effective based an a LOT of anecdotal evidence.

Dr. Fauci made it clear that anecdotal evidence is NOT science. And until proper scientific study is conducted, it is dangerous to fully tout the drug as a treatment for COVID-19.

And a reminder, only a vaccine can protect against the virus. The anti-malarial drugs being touted by the administration are potential treatments. In answer to the question posed by Mr. Trump, “What do you have to lose?”, I would say it is unknown and not worth it until proven otherwise.

17 thoughts on “Who would YOU believe?

  1. There are numerous reports if it working.

    If my choice was between a non-government-tested treatment and dying, I know what I would choose.

    Furthermore, Trump is not the cause of all the world’s problems.


    1. Those numerous reports are all anecdotal evidence. What may work for some may not work for all.

      My only mention of Mr. Trump was what he stated in his rally/briefing concerning using an unproven remedy for COVID-19.

      The gist of my post is that a self-avowed “social scientist” is trying to tell an actual scientific scientist how to do his job.

      Government testing isn’t necessarily the answer, but SCIENTIFIC testing is. And if you read the link, you would have seen the concern was from the CEO of the Association of Public Health Laboratories.


  2. No, a vaccine is not the only solution. Getting the disease and surviving it does the same thing.

    I have a problem with the testing going on. They are evaluating HCQ and CQ based on reduction in viral load and finding limited results, not adequate to extinguish the virus. But the drugs are also immune system moderators and what kills you in COVID 19 is the cytokine storm that turns your immune system against you. So, is it the weak antiviral properties or the regulation of the immune system that is beneficial. Measuring viral load will not tell us that.

    Patient outcome is the only valid measure of success.


    1. “Getting the disease and surviving it does the same thing.” Are we sure about that? Is that just because it works for some diseases, of which we vaccinate our children to protect them from. I have not seen or heard definitive proof that catching the disease once makes you immune to getting it again.

      “Patient outcome is the only valid measure of success.” True. But as I found out with my cancer treatments, not all people react to treatments the same way. That is why proper testing (regardless of who is conducting it) is the only valid way to determine if the desired outcomes will be realized. Anecdotal evidence is fine. Properly conducted testing, following scientific parameters and protocols is the BEST way forward. And, IMHO, should be bale to be accomplished quicker than vaccine development.


      1. A vaccine stimulates your body to produce anti-bodies against the infectious agent. Surviving the disease does the same thing.

        But do you really want the same people who botched testing in charge of determining which treatments work and which don’t?


        1. You missed my parenthetical statement about who conducts the testing.

          Thanks for our explanation on the anti-bodies. But it brings up a question: Why do we need an annual flu shot?


          1. Every year, we get different strains of the flu. Next year, we may get a strain that hasn’t been around in a decade, due to herd immunity.

            Your immune system never ‘forgets’ a strain, but over time the load of antibodies fades and you might be sick for a week before it kicks in if you don’t get a gentle reminder from your flu shot.


    2. @Tabor

      “No, a vaccine is not the only solution. Getting the disease and surviving it does the same thing.”

      Uh, no. That MAY be true but the evidence is not in on that.

      There are other corona viruses such as variations on the common cold that defy the production of effective vaccines and which we get sick from over and over again.

      But we can live in hope that . . .
      (a) you are correct, and
      (b) therefore a vaccine is possible.


  3. Economists shouldn’t make medical decisions and doctors shouldn’t make economic decisions.

    Hydroxychloroquine 200mg twice a day for 5 days
    Azithromycin 500mg once a day for 5 days
    Zinc sulfate 220mg once a day for 5 days

    Ignore the fakestream media. If you test positive, insist that your doctor prescribes foregoing. The zinc can be obtained over the counter and it enhances the immunity system anyway.

    As long as the recommend dosages are not exceeded, the risk of side-effects from hydroxycloroquine and azithromycin are minuscule.


        1. It’s NOT a cure. It is a treatment from the effects.

          I do admire your continued attempts to spread stupidity..

          And if you don’t have a cite, then your “cure” is bupkes. Like your IQ.

          Liked by 1 person

          1. Several radical leftist governors, e.g., Gretchen Whitman, have forbidden doctors from prescribing hydroxychloroquine for their patients.

            Remember, these are the same people who tell us that everything else should be between a woman and her doctor.



          2. BTW . . .

            NY Doctor Successfully Treats Patients With Drug Cocktail: “Zero Deaths, Zero Hospitalizations, Zero Intubations.”

            Given the urgency of the situation, I developed the following treatment protocol in the pre-hospital setting and have seen only positive results:

            Any patient with shortness of breath regardless of age is treated.

            Any patient in the high-risk category even with just mild symptoms is treated.

            Young, healthy and low risk patients even with symptoms are not treated (unless their circumstances change and they fall into category 1 or 2)



          3. A blog as a source? Questionable, but OK.

            Again, this is anecdotal evidence of which I stated is a good thing, but PROPER scientific testing should be conducted for efficacy in majority cases.

            Also, this is from a tight knit community in upstate NY. I know of some of these enclaves. The similarities in the population makes it common for a one-size-fits-all treatment.

            I am not saying that the cocktail is bad (I had seen it before, with the exception of the zinc), but it is not fully proven to be effective for all cases that require treatment.

            No one is trying to stop treatment. What is being stopped is voodoo treatments that may or may not work for the general populace.

            Liked by 1 person

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s