2 ms·
Can you expand on your comment. Why is this controversial? Is it because it’s in phase-3 vs approved or is it because there is hope but no concrete evidence tha
by bardworx 6y ago
Can you expand on your comment. Why is this controversial? Is it because it’s in phase-3 vs approved or is it because there is hope but no concrete evidence that this treatment works?
- succulent_plant 6y agoBecause it sounds like communist propaganda.
- succulent_plant 6y agoSorry - Here is some context to this announcement from a day or two ago. https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2020/08/trump-accuses-deep-state-fda-slowing-vaccing-development-200822181947627.html https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2020/08/trump-accuses-deep-st...
- vmception 6y agoOkay, its because the public cant tell the difference on the utility. More prominent disclosure and terminology should be used such as UNAPPROVED USE AUTHORIZATION UNDER THE WE ARE SCRAMBLING AND HAVE NO CLUE EXEMPTION or NOT TESTED USE AT YOUR OWN RISK COULD BE SNAKE OIL COULD BE WATER EXEMPTION or THE FDA HAS NOT REVIEWED THIS AT ALL INTRASTATE EXEMPTION
- bardworx 6y agoThanks. From reading the announcement, it read like a PR piece for a co. Your explanation creates better context.