Philip J Fry said:

---

Zobel said:

---

Ok, let's exclude that guy. 999-6 still seems compelling to me.

---

Sorry. Not a double blind peer reviewed study. Means nothing.

---

Agreed, but all the double blind peer reviewed studies say HCQ doesn't work, and right now I believe the count is 7 of them.

Philip J Fry said:

---

How many of the 7 have been outright retracted?

---

Not a single one

As for how many used all 3, none of them, just like all the retrospective, non-controlled studies y'all keep touting like Raoult's and the Henry Ford study.

I ask because the Lancet retraction a couple months ago.

Until a study is completed with all 3 and early in the disease progression, I don't see how the vitriol towards it is justified.

Quote:

---

I don't see how the vitriol towards it is justified.

---

Is there vitriol? I really don't see that anywhere.

What exactly is the pro-HCQ crowd looking for here? Most people, including the docs, are saying they don't think studies prove it works but if you want to use it then knock yourself out.

Some are looking for hope, some are just pawns in the latest distraction.

And some think that the answer for getting our economy back could be staring right at us, but won't act on it for political reasons.

The notion that you can protest, but can't go to church is extremely disturbing. The notion that the government will arrest you for opening a salon, but do nothing if you burn the salon down in racist protest is sickening. It destroys whatever credibility the government has to tell us we need to sacrifice our financial health for our physical health.

fig96 said:

---

What exactly is the pro-HCQ crowd looking for here? Most people, including the docs, are saying they don't think studies prove it works but if you want to use it then knock yourself out.

---

I think a lot of people are just looking to be "right" so they can say, "I told you so". Hydroxychloroquine unfortunately has just become another partisan issue and it really is a sad state of affairs that modern medicine has devolved into this d*** measuring contest.

On the politics board, a recent thread regarding another non-evidenced based claim on the efficacy of hydroxychloroquine had a poster directly accusing Aggie doctors not in favor of using the drug as wanting people to die! If the issue hadn't officially jumped the shark before, it sure has now when you have to inject that degree of asinine hyperbole into your argument. People are now conflating the desire to adhere to established and standardized protocols to evaluate therapeutic efficacy with wanting people to die.

There is no place for emotion like that in modern medicine. It isn't about being right or wrong, it's about benefiting the greater good by doing your due diligence in order to come to conclusions that are evidence-based. But f*** all that because politics.

This Aggie ophthalmologist will take HCQ with Zinc and Azithromycin if I get sick.

There have been no serious studies conducted in the US evaluating the efficacy of the early use of Plaquenil (HCQ) with Zinc and Z-Pack. It seems that Big Pharma has nothing to gain and a lot to lose from Plaquenil's success.

There is, however, a lot of other evidence to support its use.

Yale epidemiologist supports its use:

https://justthenews.com/politics-policy/coronavirus/yale-epidemiologist-says-hydroxychloroquine-key-defeating-covid-19

fig96 said:

---

What exactly is the pro-HCQ crowd looking for here? Most people, including the docs, are saying they don't think studies prove it works but if you want to use it then knock yourself out.

---

This is just flat out wrong.

DadHammer said:

---

fig96 said:

---

What exactly is the pro-HCQ crowd looking for here? Most people, including the docs, are saying they don't think studies prove it works but if you want to use it then knock yourself out.

---

This is just flat out wrong.

---

Then please correct me.

Red Fishing Ag93 said:

---

Politics might be it for some.

The understandable lack of trust in the lying, lobbying pharmaceutical industry could be another.

We could start a list of all the double blind whatever "perfect" studies that later turned to be a flat bull*****

We could so the same with historical science.

---

Agreed. My post came off as blaming the right because of what that one poster said, which was not my intention, because I believe both sides of the aisle are equally at fault for starting and continuing to foster this fiasco. And I don't blame anyone for their mistrust of information being put out these days, but that doesn't mean we abandon reason entirely.

Now more than ever, healthcare professionals on either side of the issue need to abandon their personal biases, and genuinely re-evaluate how they approach and share information on this issue, or else we risk further divide. We can't be making wise sweeping generalizations based on personal experience. The public at large is now falling victim to confirmation bias as each side continues to tout their team's anecdotal evidence and no one cares about facts anymore.

We need to start over to a point where we can all acknowledge that hydroxychloroquine is (and has been) well tolerated in most individuals, and that there is some evidence that suggests there could be a benefit in managing COVID in some population at some point during the course of infection in combination with zinc and/or azithro/doxy; with the caveat however that thus far there is simply no strong evidence to confirm that claim. Until we have definitive data one way or the other, its use needs to be individualized based on a conversation between patients and providers weighing the risks and benefits. But again, this approach will never happen, because politics.

EyeBalz said:

---

fig96 said:

---

DadHammer said:

---

fig96 said:

---

What exactly is the pro-HCQ crowd looking for here? Most people, including the docs, are saying they don't think studies prove it works but if you want to use it then knock yourself out.

---

This is just flat out wrong.

---

Then please correct me.

---

If the NIH had actually studied HCQ used early with Zinc and Azithromycin, then we might have some proof one way or the other, but they have conspicuously chosen not to.

There is enough anecdotal evidence that it's efficacious from practicing primary care docs around the world, that I think it likely does work.

I think most docs would take HCQ if they got sick and had access to the drug. I would, and I have my own stash already.

15 years ago, Chloroquine's activity against the SARS virus was well documented in this article.

Chloroquine is a potent inhibitor of SARS coronavirus infection and spread

---

Again, anecdotal evidence (which is already not particularly useful) is even more meaningless when we're talking about a disease with a very low overall mortality. And especially so when we're talking about outpatient management of that disease. This is because nearly everyone will recover no matter what you do for them. I could put ANY harmless substance in a capsule, tell patients and doctors it was X drug and generate the same anecdotal perception.

Guys like Reveille are good doctors and genuinely trying to help people. In no way am I accusing him or others like him of lying. But his intuitive assessment of the efficacy of this treatment on his outpatients is simply not a meaningful metric.

Infection_Ag11 said:

---

EyeBalz said:

---

fig96 said:

---

DadHammer said:

---

fig96 said:

---

What exactly is the pro-HCQ crowd looking for here? Most people, including the docs, are saying they don't think studies prove it works but if you want to use it then knock yourself out.

---

This is just flat out wrong.

---

Then please correct me.

---

If the NIH had actually studied HCQ used early with Zinc and Azithromycin, then we might have some proof one way or the other, but they have conspicuously chosen not to.

There is enough anecdotal evidence that it's efficacious from practicing primary care docs around the world, that I think it likely does work.

I think most docs would take HCQ if they got sick and had access to the drug. I would, and I have my own stash already.

15 years ago, Chloroquine's activity against the SARS virus was well documented in this article.

Chloroquine is a potent inhibitor of SARS coronavirus infection and spread

---

Again, anecdotal evidence (which is already not particularly useful) is even more meaningless when we're talking about a disease with a very low overall mortality. And especially so when we're talking about outpatient management of that disease. This is because nearly everyone will recover no matter what you do for them. I could put ANY harmless substance in a capsule, tell patients and doctors it was X drug and generate the same anecdotal perception.

Guys like Reveille are good doctors and genuinely trying to help people. In no way am I accusing him or others like him of lying. But his intuitive assessment of the efficacy of this treatment on his outpatients is simply not a meaningful metric.

---

Then why in God's name are we shutting everything down? This is madness.

Mantis Toboggan MD said:

---

Red Fishing Ag93 said:

---

Politics might be it for some.

The understandable lack of trust in the lying, lobbying pharmaceutical industry could be another.

We could start a list of all the double blind whatever "perfect" studies that later turned to be a flat bull*****

We could so the same with historical science.

---

Agreed. My post came off as blaming the right because of what that one poster said, which was not my intention, because I believe both sides of the aisle are equally at fault for starting and continuing to foster this fiasco. And I don't blame anyone for their mistrust of information being put out these days, but that doesn't mean we abandon reason entirely.

Now more than ever, healthcare professionals on either side of the issue need to abandon their personal biases, and genuinely re-evaluate how they approach and share information on this issue, or else we risk further divide. We can't be making wise sweeping generalizations based on personal experience. The public at large is now falling victim to confirmation bias as each side continues to tout their team's anecdotal evidence and no one cares about facts anymore.

We need to start over to a point where we can all acknowledge that hydroxychloroquine is (and has been) well tolerated in most individuals, and that there is some evidence that suggests there could be a benefit in managing COVID in some population at some point during the course of infection in combination with zinc and/or azithro/doxy; with the caveat however that thus far there is simply no strong evidence to confirm that claim. Until we have definitive data one way or the other, its use needs to be individualized based on a conversation between patients and providers weighing the risks and benefits. But again, this approach will never happen, because politics.

---

I completely agree with this. The risk is low to try HCQ plus other stuff, but no one should be surprised if it is not effective. With small, anecdotal experiments you can see all kinds of "correlations". This is well known from statistics. It makes it very easy for confirmation bias to take over and its worse if you have a political bent.

Only one political party is retweeting lines like "we don't have to wear a mask , we have a cure"

EyeBalz said:

---

fig96 said:

---

DadHammer said:

---

fig96 said:

---

What exactly is the pro-HCQ crowd looking for here? Most people, including the docs, are saying they don't think studies prove it works but if you want to use it then knock yourself out.

---

This is just flat out wrong.

---

Then please correct me.

---

If the NIH had actually studied HCQ used early with Zinc and Azithromycin, then we might have some proof one way or the other, but they have conspicuously chosen not to.

There is enough anecdotal evidence that it's efficacious from practicing primary care docs around the world, that I think it likely does work.

I think most docs would take HCQ if they got sick and had access to the drug. I would, and I have my own stash already.

15 years ago, Chloroquine's activity against the SARS virus was well documented in this article.

Chloroquine is a potent inhibitor of SARS coronavirus infection and spread

---

You're literally reinforcing my "no one really cares if you want to take it, but people keep trying to claim there's proof" post from the last page.

Also don't know how a study on a similar but different drug (in my understanding) used on SARS 15 years ago is relevant.

oldyella said:

---

fig96 said:

---

What exactly is the pro-HCQ crowd looking for here? Most people, including the docs, are saying they don't think studies prove it works but if you want to use it then knock yourself out.

---

MY BODY. MY CHOICE. If you have a patient passionate about the COVID COKCTAIL treatment, write if off label. Do the right thing, explain your "scientific" data but let the patient choose under your license.

---

First off, it's beyond hilarious to me that conservatives keep using that phrase. I can't tell if it's intentionally ironic or not.

But as I literally said in the post you quoted as and others have said, if you want to go for it. As it's not yet proven some doctors will not prescribe it as they don't believe it's effective and that's an understandable choice. Other docs will so go find one of those.

Philip J Fry said:

---

Dr. Not Yet Dr. Ag said:

---

jpb1999 said:

---

So why has every doctor I talked to said they would take it if they got Covid-19. They must all be stupid...

---

Because you have probably only talked to 2 doctors you know who likely have a significant political bias and/or have a poor understanding of medical literature appraisal, which is surprisingly common among physicians. Medical school does a terrible job of teaching statistics and study design. I happen to know 100s of doctors, and the first and only time I have heard of physicians supporting HCQ use in the last 2 months outside of the AAPS wackos was here on TexAgs.

There is a facebook group I am apart of, EMDocs, which is a group of around 20k+ emergency physicians. This is a group that leans slightly conservative. They actually posted a poll the other day regarding HCQ and who supports it. Certainly this is not in any way scientific, but I think the results below will illustrate the point I am trying to make. And hey, if no one can convince you that this med doesn't work, and you can find a doctor that will prescribe it to you, knock yourself out.

---

"I believe in science" is a typical liberal phrase meant to undercut anyone who has a differing opinion.

---

Science is liberal? Sorry, but science doesn't care what you believe (or about your politics). Neither does this virus. Poop in one hand and "believe" you have 20 diamonds in the other. Take 2 HCQ pills, then call me in the morning and let me know which hand filled up first.

No, I said that stupid phrase is a typical lib talking point. It's meant to suggest that the other side is full of hillbilly bible thumping idiots who think the earth is flat.