That difference in wording is important.I qualified my statements that I hadn’t been watching media, only people responding to it with the idea that he recommended that. And, as I said, that was my cursory search. No, it does not say ‘instructs,’ but rather ‘suggests.’ By all technical definitions, it could be argued that he suggested that, as in his conversation was something along the lines of “that’s interesting, you said we’re going to look in to that,” or suggest that things be researched, but would there be any fundamental difference in headlines between “Trump suggests injecting disinfectant as treatment for Coronavirus” vs. “Trump suggests researching injecting injecting disinfectant as treatment for Coronavirus”? If the concern legitimately is that people will go out and do this at his behest, which would be more likely to see that come to fruition, watching Trump pontificate on possible things to “look into,” or tags like this stating that he offered medical advice?
To be clear, what he said was stupid. But, stating he offered medical advice or people getting the impression he suggested this as more than ‘something to look into’ [or neglecting to contextualize that last part] only further distracts from how stupid the thing he said was, as this entire discussion has proved.
It does take too long for medications to get approved. 10 years. There are many reasons why that's the case, but I've mentioned before that a "cure" would not come from a novel agent. Further, Right to Try is not a Trump concept. Right to Try is employed when all other options are exhausted and prognosis is grim. It's exercised in unique circumstances (these are unique circumstances). None of those fundamentally would be argued to be bad, as you take Trump out of the equation and those ideas have long been accepted by virtually everyone. I'm also confused where Right to Try came up. Which medications was Trump pushing Right to Try for?
Not certain if your last statement is an implication of me feeling that way, but if so I'd hope you'd expand on that with some detail.
Yes, and if anyone were to want to use that for gain against Trump, it'd be an easy thing to not **** up. Just like Trump's connection to Epstein. It's an easy thing to not **** up. But, alas.
I don't know if this is the right post to respond to with this or if this is the right thread to post this in, but...
It'd be interesting to see what happens with it. Now is early enough that theoretically that could happen. My understanding is that the recent Larry King interview story was broke by people on the left, and shortly after the actual video surfaced from right-wing media. This should suggest that right-wing media would have preferred the timing later, obviously, when there can't really be a replacement. But in that vein, the avoidance of the issue (though people will say this is not being avoided) will delay this too long for there to be a replacement, should that avoidance continue. If Democrats addressed this now rather than later, they'd be able to push for a different candidate. I don't believe dragging feet will be helpful. But, I do believe if it continued to be largely ignored that it's not going to have that large of an effect, especially with what the ability to fall back on the default of "but Trump," which is currently playing out.
I haven’t heard anything about this. Can you guide me to some information? Right to Try is for specific medications under investigation that don’t have approval (aren’t on market). It’d make it hard to legislate in a blanket fashion without any specific medications.
I think you misunderstood. Can you guide me to discussion of using Right to Try broadly and legislating it beyond what it currently is? That was the part I haven’t heard discussed recently (relative to COVID-19). I know what Right to Try is.
I don't think that's a fair assessment, though. Supporting the principles behind Right to Try =/= blanketly believing in ''bypass[ing] scientific studies entirely." Also, the type of person who's going to parse through all that nuance of Right to Try legislation to derive meaning from Trump's words has enough wherewithal to not be the same person who injects disinfectant or drinks bleach. Right to Try encompasses very specific scenarios. You can't generalize anyone's opinion regarding Right to Try with relation to anything else. As I've mentioned multiple times, clinical scenarios are all different, and there are many variables that change the calculus in terms of what becomes acceptable for any given situation. FDA regulation is intended to provide a layer of safety. That's really important for a lot of things. Important for trials of treatments for gastric reflux, or hyperlipidemia, or restless leg syndrome. When someone is terminally ill, it changes the risk and benefit equation, thus enters Right to Try. But supporting Right to Try doesn't mean you would also bypass the typical standards for GERD medications just because you're allowing someone with end-stage ALS to receive an experimental treatment.
More than just a few people on both networks did. I wasn't taking notes on the names because I didn't know there would be a pop quiz.
