Throughout the course of my daily travails battling clueless liberal weenies, I once in a while happen upon a gem so rare that I am compelled to share it.
Last week I was involved in a heated debate with several
sheep liberals that was provoked by a video I had published starring a Dallas physician who is prescribing hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) to her COVID patients. She is enjoying a 100% cure rate and shared her success story publicly via video. She is not the only doc, by the way, enjoying a 100% cure rate with HCQ, as reported by Powdered Wig in early April.
I don’t know how it is possible to argue against a 100% cure rate, but leave it to a
sheep clueless liberal weenie, and he or she will find a way. One of the pitiful misfortunates I was attempting (in vain) to educate parroted the Fauci claim that HCQ is risky, not sufficiently tested for COVID treatment, and puts patients at risk of heart problems. I demanded evidence of that claim for credibility’s sake. It’s not that I don’t trust anything a liberal weenie tells me…. OK, it is.
So, said liberal weenie presented a link to a medical study/article that, frankly, shocked me. Apparently, he didn’t read the article before submitting it as evidence to support his argument, which it certainly did not do. In fact, it supported my argument that HCQ is safe for COVID treatment. If this is the evidence that Fauci, et al, are hanging their anti-HCQ argument on, then they should all be fired, have their medical licenses revoked, and perhaps be charged with a variety of crimes for the deaths of those poor souls who were denied HCQ treatment.
In bold italics, below, is the conclusion to that study/article. A link to the article is provided at the bottom of this page should you want to read the entire study/article, which isn’t very long.
“In conclusion, we have presented, to our knowledge, only the fifth reported biopsy-proven case of HCQ cardiotoxicity, presenting as a rapidly evolving non-ischaemic biventricular dysfunction in a 52-year-old female with RA (Rheumatoid Arthritis) and multiple other comorbidities on long-term HCQ therapy. Although rare, the current case and the accompanying clinically orientated literature review highlights that antimalarial cardiotoxicity can be a fatal diagnosis with cardiac dysfunction persisting despite drug discontinuation. Given this, and the potential for reversibility, regular screening with 12-lead ECG and transthoracic echocardiography should be considered in HCQ- or CQ-treated patients in addition to ophthalmological screening, particularly if prolonged duration of treatment or other manifestations of toxicity.”
THIS is the evidence being cited to keep lifesaving HCQ from being administered to COVID patients? Really? The authors of this study admit that the case they are citing is “only the fifth reported biopsy-proven case of HCQ cardiotoxicity” (of the hundreds of thousands, probably millions, of patients prescribed HCQ in the past 65 years) and involves a patient with multiple “comorbidities” (unrelated chronic diseases) who had been prescribed HCQ on a long-term basis, which is not the case in the very short-term HCQ treatment of COVID, making the bizzare argument against HCQ being used to treat COVID patients entirely invalid!
Paraphrasing my advice to the
sheep liberal who provided this evidence, I strongly advised him to remember the first rule of debate, ‘never provide evidence that supports your opponent’s argument’ and, by all means, be sure to read the evidence you provide to avoid being humiliated by Rule #1.
Link to the article cited above…. HCQ