This isn't a thread about masks.
And Fauci's view on hydroxychloroquine is being oversimplified by many.
And Fauci's view on hydroxychloroquine is being oversimplified by many.
Hydroxychloroquine...........
336,155 Views |
1854 Replies |
Last: 11 mo ago by Jabin
Fauci is doing his best to protect the institution of research and testing; specifically the money from government and pharma that has historically funded the development of drugs???
If he is party to allowing accepted practices to be circumvented, he would possibly be contributing to major changes in procedures and funding of his 'industry'. Why would anyone in the future automatically accept that 18 months to 2 years of testing protocol was required when Trump was demonstrating it could get done in perhaps half that time.
But what do I know??
If he is party to allowing accepted practices to be circumvented, he would possibly be contributing to major changes in procedures and funding of his 'industry'. Why would anyone in the future automatically accept that 18 months to 2 years of testing protocol was required when Trump was demonstrating it could get done in perhaps half that time.
But what do I know??
I would like to give Fauci two choices.Rapier108 said:
Fauci once again keeps trying to put the brakes on hydroxychloroquine because he wants standard clinical trials to be conducted.
He just needs to shut up already. It's not like these are drugs still in phase 1 trials.
I swear if this guy had his way, we'd all be on a Wuhan Style Lock Down for 6-8 weeks and medication could only be used after the CDC, NIH, and FDA did 2 years of clinical trials.
1. You get your clinical trials and slow roll the HCQ. But you lose your job, lose your house, and your granddaughter starts to lose weight during puberty.
2. You shut up and endorse HCQ, and you have a chance at complete economic reversal. If it doesn't work, you get option 1 anyway.
We are in the middle of a world wide pandemic, these are not normal times. Just because we make exceptions now, does not mean it will be that way once things get back to normal.
In terms of Rx HCQ, is anyone waiting on Fauci?
No.barnyard1996 said:
In terms of Rx HCQ, is anyone waiting on Fauci?
And Fauci knows that, has acknowledged that, and has also acknowledged his understanding of why people are doing that.
Again, people are oversimplifying his view.
And if you press a health professional as hard about the drug as some media has pressed him, of course the health professional is going to push back.
Edit- And I'm sorry, to the good conversation happening a few pages back, for further indulging a political conversation that's different from what this thread and board is really meant to be about.
This fury towards Fauci is a little ridiculous. He knows that doctors will prescribe it off label and is not objecting to that. He is sticking to the scientific method for how medicine is done in this country for his official position. I think he's done an outstanding job of delivering the truth in a steady way and sticking to the facts.
There is a long history of cures and treatments that seemed anecdotally to be the next best thing but turned out to be junk science. The whole reason we even have the placebo method is because a long time ago there were magical healers and stuff who anecdotally would "cure" people.
I would say let the science do what science is supposed to do. Let the doctors make their best judgement on the front lines.
There is a long history of cures and treatments that seemed anecdotally to be the next best thing but turned out to be junk science. The whole reason we even have the placebo method is because a long time ago there were magical healers and stuff who anecdotally would "cure" people.
I would say let the science do what science is supposed to do. Let the doctors make their best judgement on the front lines.
Rapier108 said:
Fauci once again keeps trying to put the brakes on hydroxychloroquine because he wants standard clinical trials to be conducted.
He just needs to shut up already. It's not like these are drugs still in phase 1 trials.
I swear if this guy had his way, we'd all be on a Wuhan Style Lock Down for 6-8 weeks and medication could only be used after the CDC, NIH, and FDA did 2 years of clinical trials.
People like Fauci are what separates us from the witch doctors of old. Without centuries worth of people like him, we'd still be burning incense and drilling burr holes to exorcise the demons and bad humors.
No material on this site is intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment. See full Medical Disclaimer.
There is some real risk in quickly mass-producing and prescribing HCQ that I think should at least be acknowledged. If it isn't effective and we open society back up, we could end up with massive deaths which would further destroy the economy. If production quality isn't good, the drug could actually harm people. Also, taking the drug away from people who need it for autoimmune disease could cause serious harm to people for whom we know it's effective. At the end of the day there's no strong evidence to warrant its use.
I know how frustrating the FDA and research regulations can be(and they can be painful). The reality is that those regulations exist because human beings, even in healthcare and research, will do nefarious things for ego, notoriety, and money. The entire antivaxxer movement is based on completely falsified research. Then there's the Tuskegee Study.
I'm not an ID Or an economist so I don't know what the best course of action is. I just think it's not as straightforward as some want to make it out to be.
I know how frustrating the FDA and research regulations can be(and they can be painful). The reality is that those regulations exist because human beings, even in healthcare and research, will do nefarious things for ego, notoriety, and money. The entire antivaxxer movement is based on completely falsified research. Then there's the Tuskegee Study.
I'm not an ID Or an economist so I don't know what the best course of action is. I just think it's not as straightforward as some want to make it out to be.
Infection_Ag11 said:Rapier108 said:
Fauci once again keeps trying to put the brakes on hydroxychloroquine because he wants standard clinical trials to be conducted.
He just needs to shut up already. It's not like these are drugs still in phase 1 trials.
I swear if this guy had his way, we'd all be on a Wuhan Style Lock Down for 6-8 weeks and medication could only be used after the CDC, NIH, and FDA did 2 years of clinical trials.
People like Fauci are what separates us from the witch doctors of old. Without centuries worth of people like him, we'd still be burning incense and drilling burr holes to exorcise the demons and bad humors.
If you say it doc, I believe it. You've been one of the best sources for info on these boards
aggie-beta said:
I don't like Fauci either.
I don't have a quote on him but he is helping drive the policy to lie to the American public about wearing masks. They knew that masks, if properly worn, would help reduce the spread and lied to us all like we were little kids that didn't deserve the truth. They could have said there is a shortage so try these other options instead of medical grade masks and it would have spread a lot less than it has.
Now he acts like a medicine that many doctors believe in should not be widely used until the pandemic is over and the bodies are piled up.
F him.
He didn't lie to anyone, most people just fail to grasp the nuance.
Masks don't protect you, they protect everyone else FROM you (if worn properly, which most people don't do). If everyone (ie 80-90% of the population) wears masks correctly all day long, it has benefit in reducing disease transmission by so substantially decreasing the environmental virus burden that it has trouble spreading.
It is 100% accurate to say wearing a mask to Walmart does not decrease your chances of contracting the virus.
No material on this site is intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment. See full Medical Disclaimer.
i am pretty confident big pharma will meet the need if preliminary data keeps looking good. it seems unlikely The pill pressers keep 1000# bags of the API just laying around.
littledude said:
There is some real risk in quickly mass-producing and prescribing HCQ that I think should at least be acknowledged. If it isn't effective and we open society back up, we could end up with massive deaths which would further destroy the economy. If production quality isn't good, the drug could actually harm people. Also, taking the drug away from people who need it for autoimmune disease could cause serious harm to people for whom we know it's effective. At the end of the day there's no strong evidence to warrant its use.
I know how frustrating the FDA and research regulations can be(and they can be painful). The reality is that those regulations exist because human beings, even in healthcare and research, will do nefarious things for ego, notoriety, and money. The entire antivaxxer movement is based on completely falsified research. Then there's the Tuskegee Study.
I'm not an ID Or an economist so I don't know what the best course of action is. I just think it's not as straightforward as some want to make it out to be.
The law of unintended consequences right now is wreaking havoc on our societies across the world. Every decision related to this virus and how to handle it has many unintended consequences that negatively effect some segment of the population. In times of fear, humans lose most of their already poor objectivity and rational judgement and focus almost entirely on the choices and outcomes that effect them.
That's why this is so contentious, you have people coming into the discussion from a hundred different reference points and talking past each other.
No material on this site is intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment. See full Medical Disclaimer.
Player To Be Named Later
Joined:
Sep 22, 2003
Posts:
23,085
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Infection_Ag11 said:
That's why this is so contentious, you have people coming into the discussion from a hundred different reference points and talking past each other.
Exactly. But I will say I have been incredibly impressed with the conversation on this board. Everyone is feeling the stress, but the vast majority of people have been very respectful of each other and the conversations incredibly respectful, given the circumstances.
We do still drill burr holes, when all else fails to treat moyamoya this can still work.
I think a lot of this discussion also glosses over the fact that HCQ has legitimate uses for other conditions, and there's some concern that people who genuinely need the drug may not be able to get it due to hoarding.
Most of the anecdotal positive experiences with Remdesivir is giving to patients pretty far along. Because it isn't an approved drug, they have been trying it on a compassionate care basis, so patients that are critical and likely to die anyway. That would seem to suggest you don't have to give it soon after infection.Ranger222 said:
Wow listening to the Penn Medicine Coronavirus Seminar this afternoon and Sara Cherry at Penn says they have developed an in vitro model system to be able to screen drug candidates with FDA approved drugs and other drug libraries.
She showed primary results for Hydroxychloroquine vs Remdesivir in their system --
Both Chloroquine/Hydroxychoroquine have an IC50 of 5-20 uM in their in vitro system and DOES seem to reduce infection in their cell line of choice.
However Remdesivir has an IC50 < 1 uM, meaning it is far superior. However, as mentioned, as a nucleotide analog it would most likely need to be given soon after the initial infection, which at this time just wouldn't be practical.
They have tested all of the FDA approved drugs and hope to finish analysis this weekend. Will be screening other libraries soon.
They also in another study have patient blood samples and will be trying to determine viral load and other serological studies with those samples.
I will also add that it matters where we are on the transmission curve, Everyone wearing a mask when your exposure risk is minuscule is a waste of PPE. Everyone wearing a mask when the exposure risk is a possibility or even likely makes sense.Infection_Ag11 said:aggie-beta said:
I don't like Fauci either.
I don't have a quote on him but he is helping drive the policy to lie to the American public about wearing masks. They knew that masks, if properly worn, would help reduce the spread and lied to us all like we were little kids that didn't deserve the truth. They could have said there is a shortage so try these other options instead of medical grade masks and it would have spread a lot less than it has.
Now he acts like a medicine that many doctors believe in should not be widely used until the pandemic is over and the bodies are piled up.
F him.
He didn't lie to anyone, most people just fail to grasp the nuance.
Masks don't protect you, they protect everyone else FROM you (if worn properly, which most people don't do). If everyone (ie 80-90% of the population) wears masks correctly all day long, it has benefit in reducing disease transmission by so substantially decreasing the environmental virus burden that it has trouble spreading.
It is 100% accurate to say wearing a mask to Walmart does not decrease your chances of contracting the virus.
The recommendation has gone from wearing a mask doesn't protect you so don't when you had minimal risk of exposure and idiots were hoarding the masks so medical couldn't get proper PPE to everyone should wear a mask in areas where there is enough sick people that if you go out you will likely be exposed so the sick people don't expose everyone else.
I bet it would if everyone (or at least a significant portion) was wearing some form of a mask. Let's just say it was an omission that could have reduced spread instead of an outright lie. Would you rather have 0% chance of stopping something or even slightly better odds? Masks would have always been greater than 0%. It is the same argument against hydroxychloroquine. Fauci is against it, but if it was him lying there with the choice of nothing or using it, lets just say I don't see him opting for nothing.Infection_Ag11 said:
It is 100% accurate to say wearing a mask to Walmart does not decrease your chances of contracting the virus.
**** straight out of here with that strawman argument
L08 said:I bet it would if everyone (or at least a significant portion) was wearing some form of a mask..Infection_Ag11 said:
It is 100% accurate to say wearing a mask to Walmart does not decrease your chances of contracting the virus.
Correct, but as many others have stated that will never happen in this country.
No material on this site is intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment. See full Medical Disclaimer.
HouAggie2007 said:
**** straight out of here with that strawman argument
He said they do not decrease your chances of contracting the virus. 100% accurate.
He is either lying or very uninformed. A properly worn surgical mask without touching your face does offer some protection. It also reduces your chance of spreading it if you happen to have it and not know. I don't see the point in lying.
aggie-beta said:L08 said:I bet it would if everyone (or at least a significant portion) was wearing some form of a mask. Let's just say it was an omission that could have reduced spread instead of an outright lie. Would you rather have 0% chance of stopping something or even slightly better odds? Masks would have always been greater than 0%. It is the same argument against hydroxychloroquine. Fauci is against it, but if it was him lying there with the choice of nothing or using it, lets just say I don't see him opting for nothing.Infection_Ag11 said:
It is 100% accurate to say wearing a mask to Walmart does not decrease your chances of contracting the virus.
Infection ag shouldn't wear masks around covid patients since they are so useless.
Inside a patient room, both of the below are true:
1 - 100% of the people in the room are either wearing masks, or the providers are wearing masks and the patient is intubated (a closed ventilator system)
2 - I am wearing full PPE including gown, gloves and eye protection and am consciously aware of the risk thus intentionally modifying my behavior
No material on this site is intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment. See full Medical Disclaimer.
His point was that the general consensus is that a cloth mask being worn into a store keeps you from spreading the virus if you have it more than it does on keeping it out. Those masks are not tight or able to effectively filter out viruses.
Walking through a Walmart while maintaining social distance and wearing a mask is a far cry from being surrounded daily by infected people and you know it
Walking through a Walmart while maintaining social distance and wearing a mask is a far cry from being surrounded daily by infected people and you know it
aggie-beta said:
A properly worn surgical mask without touching your face does offer some protection.
Again, most people don't wear them correctly and still touch their face. We know this because it's been studied many times over the years. Even 40% or so of nurses don't wear them right. I could watch you put a surgical mask on and almost guarantee I'd find something you did wrong in the process. Moreover, outside of settings when you are actively aware of your heightened risk people don't augment their behavior.
Second, it offers no eye protection. Droplets capable of traveling to your nares or mouth are also capable of getting in via the mucus membranes around the eye.
Third, the majority of transmission by respiratory viruses is not via disperses droplets but via fomites. You touch something or someone with the virus on it, then touch your mouth/nose/eyes/etc.
Finally, there is no seal with a surgical mask and droplet nuclei can still make their way around/through it.
Masks help by reducing an infected persons ability to disperse the virus into the environment, thus decreasing their chances others can be infected by them. They do not, in isolation, keep you from getting sick.
Quote:
It also reduces your chance of spreading it if you happen to have it and not know.
Correct
No material on this site is intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment. See full Medical Disclaimer.
Infection_Ag11 said:aggie-beta said:
A properly worn surgical mask without touching your face does offer some protection.
Again, most people don't wear them correctly and still touch their face. We know this because it's been studied many times over the years. Even 40% or so of nurses don't wear them right. I could watch you put a surgical mask on and almost guarantee I'd find something you did wrong in the process. Moreover, outside of settings when you are actively aware of your heightened risk people don't augment their behavior.
Second, it offers no eye protection. Droplets capable of traveling to your nares or mouth are also capable of getting in via the mucus membranes around the eye.
Third, the majority of transmission by respiratory viruses is not via disperses droplets but via fomites. You touch something or someone with the virus on it, then touch your mouth/nose/eyes/etc.
Finally, there is no seal with a surgical mask and droplet nuclei can still make their way around/through it.
Masks help by reducing an infected persons ability to disperse the virus into the environment, thus decreasing their chances others can be infected by them. They do not, in isolation, keep you from getting sick.Quote:
It also reduces your chance of spreading it if you happen to have it and not know.
Correct
So how about mask and goggles (or safety glasses)? I have both on my farm
I think everyone should be forced to wear both at least until end of month.
74Ag1 said:Infection_Ag11 said:aggie-beta said:
A properly worn surgical mask without touching your face does offer some protection.
Again, most people don't wear them correctly and still touch their face. We know this because it's been studied many times over the years. Even 40% or so of nurses don't wear them right. I could watch you put a surgical mask on and almost guarantee I'd find something you did wrong in the process. Moreover, outside of settings when you are actively aware of your heightened risk people don't augment their behavior.
Second, it offers no eye protection. Droplets capable of traveling to your nares or mouth are also capable of getting in via the mucus membranes around the eye.
Third, the majority of transmission by respiratory viruses is not via disperses droplets but via fomites. You touch something or someone with the virus on it, then touch your mouth/nose/eyes/etc.
Finally, there is no seal with a surgical mask and droplet nuclei can still make their way around/through it.
Masks help by reducing an infected persons ability to disperse the virus into the environment, thus decreasing their chances others can be infected by them. They do not, in isolation, keep you from getting sick.Quote:
It also reduces your chance of spreading it if you happen to have it and not know.
Correct
So how about mask and goggles (or safety glasses)? I have both on my farm
I think everyone should be forced to wear both at least until end of month.
Again if everyone wears masks correctly, the viral burden in the environment drops so low that it is difficult for the virus to spread. That only occurs once usage gets up around 80% or so. And again it requires modifying other behaviors as well.
Th collective mindset of certain societies allows for this. It's easy to get 80% of Koreans to wear masks. Not so here.
No material on this site is intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment. See full Medical Disclaimer.
Infection_Ag11 said:74Ag1 said:Infection_Ag11 said:aggie-beta said:
A properly worn surgical mask without touching your face does offer some protection.
Again, most people don't wear them correctly and still touch their face. We know this because it's been studied many times over the years. Even 40% or so of nurses don't wear them right. I could watch you put a surgical mask on and almost guarantee I'd find something you did wrong in the process. Moreover, outside of settings when you are actively aware of your heightened risk people don't augment their behavior.
Second, it offers no eye protection. Droplets capable of traveling to your nares or mouth are also capable of getting in via the mucus membranes around the eye.
Third, the majority of transmission by respiratory viruses is not via disperses droplets but via fomites. You touch something or someone with the virus on it, then touch your mouth/nose/eyes/etc.
Finally, there is no seal with a surgical mask and droplet nuclei can still make their way around/through it.
Masks help by reducing an infected persons ability to disperse the virus into the environment, thus decreasing their chances others can be infected by them. They do not, in isolation, keep you from getting sick.Quote:
It also reduces your chance of spreading it if you happen to have it and not know.
Correct
So how about mask and goggles (or safety glasses)? I have both on my farm
I think everyone should be forced to wear both at least until end of month.
Again if everyone wears masks correctly, the viral burden in the environment drops so low that it is difficult for the virus to spread. That only occurs once usage gets up around 80% or so. And again it requires modifying other behaviors as well.
Th collective mindset of certain societies allows for this. It's easy to get 80% of Koreans to wear masks. Not so here.
Thanks
Yep I've worked in both Singapore and Korea
I hope Trump orders everyone to wear them for 3 weeks. Stores shouldn't let a customer in without a mask. Same with Dr offices and other places like gas stations
Once upon a time this thread was about HCQ and some good doctors brought some good info.
barnyard1996 said:
Once upon a time this thread was about HCQ and some good doctors brought some good info.
How is our HCQ supply now? I know several companies donated millions of doses. Do our Texas pharmacies have this stocked back up?
Where did they go and how are they distributed? You also need a Zpac, are those widely available? Zinc supplements I know are as I have that at home.
PLEASE - take your mask discussion to another thread.
Where did they go and how are they distributed? You also need a Zpac, are those widely available? Zinc supplements I know are as I have that at home.
PLEASE - take your mask discussion to another thread.
PLEASE - take your mask discussion to another thread.
Sending this link as not an answer but as a data point for discussion.
https://www.accessdata.fda.gov/scripts/drugshortages/dsp_ActiveIngredientDetails.cfm?AI=Hydroxychloroquine%20Sulfate%20Tablets&st=c
https://www.accessdata.fda.gov/scripts/drugshortages/dsp_ActiveIngredientDetails.cfm?AI=Hydroxychloroquine%20Sulfate%20Tablets&st=c
FriscoKid said:
PLEASE - take your mask discussion to another thread.
https://texags.com/forums/84/topics/3104638/replies/56313901#56313901
Featured Stories
See All
2026 Lakewood (CA) tight end Caleb Tafua commits to Texas A&M
by Jason Howell
Presenting Texas Aggies United's 'Battle At Reed' Sweepstakes!
by Texas Aggies United
22:08
1d ago
4.9k
Hefner scores 19 as No. 12 A&M overpowers HCU in Friday matinee
by Olin Buchanan
Ar'maj Reed-Adams announces his return to Texas A&M for 2025
by Richard Zane