The Hydroxychloriquine Fiasco - Trump isn't just BS'ing, he has past financial interests in the distributor.

A more layman website Law and Crime reported that Cohen (Trump's criminal lawyer) had previous financial arrangements with Novartis, a HCQ manufacturer who upon Trump's recent insistence for the drug to be clinically used, has lead to Novartis offering to donate 130 million to the COVID-19 cause. The initial report on the relationship between Trump and Co. and Novartis is from May of 2018, as reported by Time. The agreement allegedly fell through after a year. However, since this agreement was not disclosed publicly, but rather by criminal prosecution...yah.

It should be noted that the initial pilot study on HCQ benefit has been disputed as manipulated and invalid, while follow up studies have shown little promise in the drug's therapeutic ability to treat COVID-19. Furthermore, the drug's other clinical usages would leave many in pain should the medication be unavailable, malaria and lupus in particular. Efforts to point this out, including Dr. Fauci, has been met with hostility, censorship, and discord among Trump's staff and the President.

Will HCQ be found to have any benefit? It seems unlikely at this point, but that is regardless of the massive ethical violation perpetrated by this administration.

What ethical violation? Trump has not said anything incorrect. There is signs that it may have an effect.

https://www.ema.europa.eu/en/news/covid-19-chloroquine-hydroxychloroquine-only-be-used-clinical-trials-emergency-use-programmes

https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2020/03/who-launches-global-megatrial-four-most-promising-coronavirus-treatments

@Jacanuk: Your first link says nothing except the efficacy has not been proved (and thus reflects my point), your second article is on a multitude of treatments, but refers to the French study that has since come under intense scrutiny. At this point, the French study is invalid.

As far as ethics, what Trump is doing would in the science and law fields have your reputation destroyed and all your data retracted until otherwise proven valid. It's an immense conflict of interest to have undisclosed financial stake in a product or methodology you are advocating for or are a part of.

Further, the fact that HCQ is unproven to the extent that it is and a US President is advocating for it over the advice of his medical authority is absolutely an egregious case of corruption - given that he has financial stake.

This isn't a simple matter, this could be one of the worst ethical violations in US History. That might seem like hyperbole, but in the science field, people have been prosecuted or had their careers destroyed for less. Advocating for a non-cure during an epidemic that is killing thousands for money? Come on. Get your head out of the sand.

And Trump has never said it had proven facts, he has, again and again, said that there are good results and there is some proven effects.

Which is not inaccurate, and as to the french study, well so far I have not seen any evidence to that effect, so please link.

Same goes for the "claimed financial stakes" as they say the proof is in the pudding and so far all you have is a badly done Times article from a convicted felon.

There needs to be a lot better evidence than that.

@Jacanuk: Don't be dense. He is promoting a product, that he has financial stake in. The efficacy or foretold efficacy is irrelevant.

There are several articles on r/Coronavirus, as well as several more mainstream medical opinions. Take your pick.

Ah yes, the man with shady criminal dealings should get the benefit of the doubt when said shady criminal dealings are in line with a product that he's been promoting against the advice of the medical community?

You claim that but so far no evidence of any financial stake beyond a criminal´s word.

Please link to actual credible evidence.

It is great! Presidents should make unsubstantiated scientific medical claims while profiting from it. Owning the libs!

@Jacanuk: please link to what? That an absolutely unsubstantiated unproven drug has not been found to be effective in treating an illness?

Molina et al. No Evidence of Rapid Antiviral Clearance or Clinical Benefit with the Combination of Hydroxychloroquine and Azithromycin in Patients with Severe COVID-19 Infection. It's Elselvier. Unless you have University access good luck, you'll probably have to pay. You might be able to find it on PMC, but I doubt it.

Yes, Trump's criminal lawyer who handled Trumps business dealings is an improper source when reported by Time, a credible news source. Jesus. What do we need to prove he's a financial criminal his tax returns? Oh..wait, he's the only President in history (I believe) to not provide those...wonder why?

No, link to credible proof that Trump a) has a financial stake in the company who makes this drug and b) Trump has said it´s def. cure and not that it merely as according to health experts have a proven effect.

In order to drain the swamp you must first become the swamp. Lefties known nothing of ancient jedi governmental technics.

@Jacanuk:

a) Oh please, they had an agreement with the Trump organization through Cohen. Per Cohen, this only lasted a year. The unverifiable part is that they reestablished one currently. But given Trump's business insistence and arguments with his staff (business versus medical), it's likely and should be considered.

I'm sorry, is Trumps lawyer and criminal prosecution not evidence?

The fact that you consider Trump worthy of the benefit of the doubt is asinine at this point. His COIs are regularly discovered and documented, with many pending lawsuits.

b) For the last time Trump has been promoting the drug saying that he would take it, that we should distribute whether it works or not. It does not matter if he declares verifiable fact of whether it works or not. How is that so difficult to understand. It is a Conflict of Interest, legally.

Again, what are your basis for those claims? so far all I hear is your words, if you want to prove it, link to any credible source that confirms it?

Wouldn't it be hilarious if Trump got impeached again?

His cronies would exonerate him again, but man, that'd be great.

@Planeforger: I've come to the conclusion that the Republican Party is partially a crime syndicate. Not all of them for sure, but you wonder at this point if the Trump loyalists are a faction or all inclusive.

Will they bail if serious charges are brought to bare? The Hill has reported that he may get sued for "Crimes Against Humanity" by an Ohio Democrat. Probably not going to go through because they loaded the Courts, but it's hilarious none-the-less.

Frankly, his legal protection evaporates once he's out of office.

I honestly don't care about anything relating to Trump and HQC distribution. What I care about is promoting a treatment which hasn't been cleared by any trials or published results. It's risky and it's dangerous.

Him and Navarro need to shut the hell up and let the adults and experts do the talking.

@wizard: No sense trying to discuss anything with him...……..too many inconsistencies in his posts to believe he's just a GS visitor.

Let's do some more testing as well as allow people to voluntarily use it to see if it reduces the symptoms. Many already have, to include some famous people that aren't fans of Trump. To dismiss it outright because of some story that Trump may or may not profit off of this is a disservice to the people it could potentially help.

If it turns out later it's snake oil then, by all means, treat it as such, and if proof of wrongdoing is discovered react to it accordingly. Schiff is already ahead of all of you calling for a 9/11-style commission before we're even over the hump of this pandemic.

The best scenario would have been to not have a pandemic at all. The second-best scenario would have been for us to not have a pandemic during an election year because politics are screwing this response up more than anything else.

Unreal the level some of you bootlickers go to defend Trump. Can’t believe you’re actually advocating people voluntarily take unproven drugs simply because Trump suggested it. If he said heroin cures COVID-19 would you be down for that too?

If Trump was the only one suggesting it then you may have a point. We can safely say that comparing a drug that is primarily used to treat malaria to a drug with absolutely no positive use other than getting high is a poor comparison.

If you catch COVID-19, then, by all means, decline the drug if it's offered to you. It's your right if you live in the United States.

@ad1x2: ... Malaria is not COVID-19. You’re still advocating taking unproven drugs, which is at best careless and at worst extremely dangerous. Do you not see the issue with that?

Their body, their choice. You can refuse to take it if you think it's snake oil, and they can choose to try it if they, as well as their doctor, think it may help them. I don't have a dog in this fight since I'm not infected so far, but after that one politician said she wants Trump to be tried at the Hague for suggesting this drug that lets me know the main reason why some people are against it.

I don't know. There has been reports of it being effective, along with azithromycin and zinc. It has anti-inflammatory effects so it could be useful for people with inflammation around and in the lungs. However we have been refusing hydroxychloroquine prescriptions that we suspect are for "treating" or "preventing" COVID-19 as it's not approved in Canada. I've seen doctors write it for their family members and for large quantities. It's dangerous as it may not be effective, contraindicated in specific cases, and it could affect supply of it. It's a maintenance drug for people with lupus and RA and it can be the only drug available that stabilizes their condition.

There's nothing wrong with his point and he isn't defending Trump. Trump's comments have been irresponsible and inappropriate, but we can and should separate the medical science from the whack job talking about it.

At the outset of this, medically qualified people tried numerous drugs alone and in combination looking for something that might help save people who were going to die. We did not run around saying, 'no, no, you can't try that on dying people without a couple of years of trials'.

Trump did not invent this drug, nor was he the first to speak about it.

Whether or not it actually works seems unclear and quite probably doubtful. Having said that, if it is administered by doctors on people with no reasonable hope and there is informed consent then why would you or I have the moral authority to say no?

I believe that is what he is saying. I don't see him saying people should try it on their own nor do I see him saying people should have it given to them because Trump said so.

@Jacanuk: Dude, my OP contained all the links to every article. As for the peer reviewed document, that's on you to find. It might not be available for free and I can't send the PDF. It's a violation.

at least we can all agree the response is screwed up :)

@SOedipus: Surely steroids and NSAIDs would be safer for anti-inflammatory effects. By the way, what’s your stance on masks now?

Surely the same.

Let's ignore the ethical problems, because let's be frank, that went out the door a long time ago. The level of promiscuity between personal and family affairs and state interests would make governments fall in most developed countries but most Americans are fine with this 3rd world approach by Trump.

The problem with recommending a medicine without clinical testing should be obvious. It's again my main issue with Trump in all this, it passes the wrong idea of fake security to the masses, because we know with 100% certainty that it is not a cure, even if it helps in some cases. We also know for sure that people that take this medication have been hospitalised due to the virus regardless of taking it.

(Don't quote me on this numbers) Let's say 99% of people affected by the virus end up cured. If I recommend people to put some onions in the corner of their rooms to cure them I would get many reports of people saying their symptoms vanished or greatly improved after using my cure. That's why procedures must be followed before making claims like "it's a game changer".

The ethical problems, like I've said in my opening, it's whatever at this point.

Seems Fox was caught advising Trump on this drug. So much corruption it’s sad, that and Fox is about to get sued for misinformation on the virus. Hopefully this gets Fox News shutdown, but I doubt it.

That's like saying we should of never tried Viagra for erectile dysfunction because it was made for heart disease. There's 2 separate trails that have stated it shows promise and we should continue research. So why not?

No one is blasting the bunch of universities around the world saying "we may have a cure/vaccine soon".

Again, I have asked you to link it to a proper credible source, not Avenatti a confirmed liar and convicted felon.

You don´t find it puzzling that no other media source out there has gone with this? there is not even an article on the confirmed liar site Buzzfeed.

Perhaps he should instead leave it to medical professionals to advice on medicine and not just throw out a recommendation that " might work".

Fairly certain most people take their medical advice from a doctor and not their local government official.

If only he left anything to the experts...…….

@Jacanuk: I love your reasoning here.

Some criminal who used to serve the Trump family is lying about Trump (a pathological liar) and his sketchy business dealings. As told by Trump's lying criminal lawyer. So who's lying?

Circumstantial evidence, there are a multitude of treatments being pushed to market, why is Trump backing HCQ under the scrutiny of the media and medical community?

You can't be this daft.

Avenatti is known to fabricate "evidence" so sorry i do not trust anything he has said or say, without it being proven by another credible source.

As to Cohen, well same thing here, his word is not known to be credible.

But no worries, I gather that you have come to terms with these fabrications not being true and also that the fact that it´s not being picked up by one single credible source, just confirms, even more, the inaccuracies.

How can you come to the conclusion that neither Cohen or Avenatti are liars while Trump is not?

Because they are?

Also, considering the seriousness of these claims, i hope you like most would want a bit more credible information than a random link to a old story from a convicted criminal.

@Jacanuk: Trump is also known to fabricate statements, and is thus discredible.

Huffington Post, MarketWatch, and Washington Post have since reported on the issue, we know Trump has a small stake in the company. Estimated to around 1,000 USD currently in French Sanofi (we only have his past dealings with Novartis). Not much at all, but given the lack of financial transparency from this administration on any kind of account (including firing the principle oversight for the stimulus package last week), the fact that you can pick liars is embarrassing. It's also pointed out that this number could have grown since his last disclosure, which given the circumstances is likely. Or it could be the usual Trumpian under-the-table shit. I can't get past WaPo's pay wall and I can instantly assume that you're going to say "FAKE NEWS!" with the Huffington post but feel free to search it. "Trump's promotion of Hydrochloriquine is almost certainly about politics and not profit" is the article title.

Really, just sink your head in sand, it's a better argument. You going to stop arguing now? So confirmed financial interest in one HCQ manufacturer, past interest in another.

You keep posting claims but no credible proof? why not just link to Washout Post if they have reported on this?

@Jacanuk: Here is the Huffington Post article that contains links to NYT, Market Watch, and Washington Post.

Is that not "credible" enough for you? Christ, you're dense.

wHy hAsNt tHeRe bEeN aNy mAiNstReaM??? (Posts mainstream)

Jancanuk - "that's not credible enough!"

Was that so hard? you could have posted that link to NYT (even though it´s a highly leftist media source) at the start.

Also,

“I certainly understand why the president is pushing it,” said Dr. Joshua Rosenberg, a critical care at Brooklyn Hospital Center. “He’s the president of the United States. He has to project hope. And when you are in a situation without hope, things go very badly. So I’m not faulting him for pushing it even if there isn’t a lot of science behind it, because it is, at this point, the best, most available option for use.”

A senior physician at Wyckoff Heights Medical Center in Brooklyn, where doctors are not providing the drug, however, said the current demand was worrisome for patients on it chronically for rheumatic diseases. At St. Barnabas Hospital in the Bronx, another doctor said his staff was giving it to coronavirus patients but criticized the president and Gov. Andrew M. Cuomo for “cheerleading” the drug without proof. “False hope can be bad, too,” he said.

So there is actual medical experts agreeing that this has some effect. Well wouldn´t you know it.

And as to the "stake"

Mr. Trump himself has a small personal financial interest in Sanofi, the French drugmaker that makes Plaquenil, the brand-name version of hydroxychloroquine.

So no word as to how much or big an "interest" Trump has in one of the many companies that make this "drug". And it seems most of all to be just of many in a Trump portfolio.

But I admire your attempt to discredit Trump, it was a valiant D- attempt.

Of course, and how adult of you with the name"change".

Stop trolling

@horgen: It's his job.

Trump has made over 15K lies or misleading statements as president. Trump is not credible.

Ok?

And it´s relevant because?

@Jacanuk: I love how you go from "It's not a conflict of interest", to "a small conflict of interest isn't a big deal".

You flip like a phone book. Kinda like Trump.

if there isn’t a lot of science behind it, because it is, at this point, the best, most available option for use.”

In the conservative "science is bad" fantasy land this might be an endorsement, but in reality it's not. Drugs undergo rigorous scrutiny and testing before hitting the market. The end. If you were informed on the topic (or science and general), you'd understand this.

It's comical how conservatives who absolutely have blasted the scientific community for decades on climate change, toxicology, and healthcare are so suddenly clamoring to be experts or have any say in the process whatsoever. It was all fake news a couple months ago, wasn't it?

I don't care how many anecdotes you find (or misconsture), until there is a peer reviewed pilot study that passes into clinical testing, and is finally approved, this drug isn't a treatment, it's a hail Mary.

And for the record, I really hope HCQ is a viable treatment. But it doesn't seem to be.

Until than, I'm sure someone will do some investigative reporting on Trump's medical interests abroad. I'll stay tuned. Of course he could just disclose his finances, submit himself to audit and release his tax returns...but he won't. Funny how conservatives keep glossing over that he obviously has many things to hide.

@horgen

Oh, is he actually a right wing troll? I honestly thought he was serious.

Point to where I acknowledge there is any kind of conflict? until you provided that link, the debate was about you providing the actual credible evidence.

Also, I didn´t say there was a small anything, or even acknowledged there being any kind of conflict, since there isn't one.

So flip where?

It's comical how conservatives who absolutely have blasted the scientific community for decades on climate change, toxicology, and healthcare are so suddenly clamoring to be experts or have any say in the process whatsoever. It was all fake news a couple months ago, wasn't it?

I don't care how many anecdotes you find (or misconsture), until there is a peer reviewed pilot study that passes into clinical testing, and is finally approved, this drug isn't a treatment, it's a hail Mary.

Link to where I have ever "blasted the scientific community" for anything? considering you are "new" here, i will grant you some leeway with the google searching.

Also, no one claims that it´s the all or nothing cure, the doctors are saying it has an effect, Trump is relaying that in his press-briefings like today with the story about the democratic politician who decided to try it out and got well.

So shouldn´t the doctors tell about something that can have an effect? because I sure as hell think they should if there is even the smallest chance it can save a life, it should, however, be controlled 100% by medical professionals.

Until than, I'm sure someone will do some investigative reporting on Trump's medical interests abroad. I'll stay tuned. Of course he could just disclose his finances, submit himself to audit and release his tax returns...but he won't. Funny how conservatives keep glossing over that he obviously has many things to hide.

Let´s hope so if Trump has a significant stake in a french company, he should, of course, be impeached for that and shipped to the Gulag or have a haircut by the guillotine.

@Jacanuk: How much are you paid to defend everything trump does?