HouAggie2007 said:

---

Unless you are dadhammer

---

https://www.newsweek.com/doj-clears-us-drug-companies-distribute-hydroxychloroquine-coronavirus-patients-1499002

Interesting......

I expect about half of you to tell your Dr., no you can't risk it it's too,dangerous. More for me and my family.

Just because Trump's DOJ has green lighted a company to make a ton of it doesn't mean that it's actually effective. We are seeing more and more actual doctors (many right here on this forum) that aren't seeing a big reason to get excited about it. I'm pretty sure if that drug was setting the world on fire, many of our docs on this forum would be speaking up about how well it's been working for them.

So far, it's not.

And edit to your edit......

Just because I may very well agree to try it doesn't mean that at the moment I'd expect it to be all that helpful. But until it's flat proven to not be an issue, sure, I may try it. But I'd "try" a lot of things if I didn't expect it to kill me.

Just seems really weird you're still banging the drum about this drug when several guys on the front lines here on this board are telling you it isn't doing much for their patients.

I can list plenty that disagree. That's fine don't use it.

Dr. Coates is one of thousands that are in favor of using it. Not sure why you are so hot and heavy to discredit a possible drug that could limit your symptoms and possibly keep you off a respirator if your one of the people it helps. It's a not a cure it's a treatment, not all treatments work for everyone. I am not asking you to believe in it, but your weird desire to discredit it at every turn is alarming. You either agree or not, that's it.

Thanks for the debate though.

DadHammer said:

---

I can list plenty that disagree. That's fine don't use it.

Dr. Coates is one of thousands that are in favor of using it. Not sure why you are so hot and heavy to discredit a possible drug that could limit your symptoms and possibly keep you off a respirator if your one of the people it helps. It's a not a cure it's a treatment, not all treatments work for everyone. I am not asking you to believe in it, but your weird desire to discredit it at every turn is alarming. You either agree or not, that's it.

Thanks for the debate though.

---

What part of "I would probably use it myself" makes you think I am "hot and heavy to discredit it"?

Hell, when the issue first came out, I was 100% in your camp that HCQ was quite possibly a great thing for us to be using and we shouldn't wait for double blinded, placebo studies, etc. But the more information that comes out from doctors on the front lines here, the less I'm becoming sold that this is our go to end of the crisis..... and it isn't because I don't want it to.

So don't lump me into the camp that is "hot and heavy to discredit it". I want it to work badly..... my confidence that it is a great medicine for this pandemic is decreasing however.

But, I have an appointment this week to get a baseline EKG to see if I'm good to go to try it if I contract the virus. Does that seem like the action of someone hell bent on discrediting it?

Nobody is hot and heavy to discredit it.

Some have preached patience because science can be maddeningly slow.

Time will tell and right now there is cause for concern. One initial study doesn't prove or disprove anything.

The reason this discussion reeks of political motivation is because of the hyper focus on HCQ and at the same time ignoring IL-6 inhibitors and remdesivir. I can't really find a good way to rationalize why someone would be so gung ho about HCQ and shooting down every anecdote that shows it is not effective, pumping up every anecdote that says it is effective, warring with anyone who shows any skepticism (including doctors with infectious disease specialty) and all while at the same time not even commenting when people like Infection Ag and Marcus Aurelius say they're having good success with IL-6 inhibitors. This thread is on page 34 and threads on those other treatments rarely leave page 1.

I would think if you're just so desperate for a successful treatment, you'd be equally focused on all potential treatments. The reason it seems politically motivated is because HCQ is the drug that the President named in a Tweet and press conference, making it some partisan battleground.

In fairness, one possible reason that folks would really be hopeful for HCQ to be proven effective is it is something that would possibly keep us out of the hospitals. Remdesevir, etc are showing strong promise when folks are already hospitalized in pretty bad shape.

None of us really want to get to the point where those drugs are needed.

I'm just less and less encouraged by HCQ lately. But wanting it to work and not seeing positive trends from it are not mutually exclusive events.

HotardAg07 said:

---

The reason this discussion reeks of political motivation is because of the hyper focus on HCQ and at the same time ignoring IL-6 inhibitors and remdesivir. I can't really find a good way to rationalize why someone would be so gung ho about HCQ and shooting down every anecdote that shows it is not effective, pumping up every anecdote that says it is effective, warring with anyone who shows any skepticism (including doctors with infectious disease specialty) and all while at the same time not even commenting when people like Infection Ag and Marcus Aurelius say they're having good success with IL-6 inhibitors. This thread is on page 34 and threads on those other treatments rarely leave page 1.

I would think if you're just so desperate for a successful treatment, you'd be equally focused on all potential treatments. The reason it seems politically motivated is because HCQ is the drug that the President named in a Tweet and press conference, making it some partisan battleground.

---

This argument falls apart when you realize that Trump actually pumped up Remdesivir also.

But in a humorous twist on your analysis, most Trump critics have focused their search for a "gotcha" on his excitement about hydroxychloroquine and forgotten, if they ever knew, that he had also mentioned Remdesivir very early as well.

So it's actually the Trump critics (maybe you among them?) who, by focusing on negatives re hydroxychloroquine without mentioning positives for Remdesivir, would be the ones politicizing the issue.

If you go back and read your post knowing that Remdesivir was also touted by Trump as a potential game changer (potential, which is also all he ever said about hydroxychloroquine) your analysis really makes for a good laugh, so thanks for that. When you saw people trying to hang the idiots who drank fish tank cleaner on Trump, that should have been a pretty big clue as to who is most invested politically in hydroxychloroquine not working.

First of all, I do agree both sides have turned this into a partisan issue. However, not all people approaching HCQ with skepticism are approaching this as a partisan issue.

Infection Ag 11, who is a Republican-voting Infectious Disease Doctor says that he has skepticism about HCQ. I don't find his insight to be partisan-driven, yet he has been routinely dismissed on this thread.

I don't think I have posted much about any cures from a position of knowledge, because I'm too ignorant on the topic to chime in, so I just read what the doctors on the board are saying. However, as a person who knows very little about the science, it's still easy to read this thread and see a lot confirmation bias going on. I don't believe this anecdote, I believe these anecdotes.

I am most certainly not viewing this issue through the lens of politics either. I voted for Trump and almost assuredly will again.

But I'm also independent minded enough to think for myself about whether this is actually working or not. I truly want it to, not because I want Trump to be right.... I truly couldn't care less about that aspect and think all of that posturing is childish, but because I want it to work for humanity.

With each passing day it just isn't looking good though. But if my dr thought I could safely take it tomorrow if I was feeling ill, I would try it.

HotardAg07 said:

---

First of all, I do agree both sides have turned this into a partisan issue. However, not all people approaching HCQ with skepticism are approaching this as a partisan issue.

Infection Ag 11, who is a Republican-voting Infectious Disease Doctor says that he has skepticism about HCQ. I don't find his insight to be partisan-driven, yet he has been routinely dismissed on this thread.

I don't think I have posted much about any cures from a position of knowledge, because I'm too ignorant on the topic to chime in, so I just read what the doctors on the board are saying. However, as a person who knows very little about the science, it's still easy to read this thread and see a lot confirmation bias going on. I don't believe this anecdote, I believe these anecdotes.

---

First, I don't think anyone has claimed ALL skeptics are politically motivated. Some people do question hydroxychloroquine skepticism precisely because of the backlash in the media against Trump for even expressing some hope for a potential answer. The fish tank drug brouhaha was just the silliest example. When you hear so much criticism that is purely politically motivated it's harder to identify and separate that which isn't from the noise.

Second, there are people on this thread who read doctors' skepticism and take it at face value and people who read it and don't. There are a lot of people in this discussion. The bigger debate on this thread was over the question of whether we should wait on double blind trials before even using hydroxychloroquine, which ultimately fell out to where everyone realized not even the more skeptical doctors agreed with that.

Third, call ME a bit skeptical about someone who hasn't even acknowledged the massive error in his argument re Remdesivir, and who can't even fathom why, other than political motivations, anyone would be biased in favor of believing hydroxychloroquine worked.

Maybe a better culprit for any confirmation bias might be because if it did work it truly would be a gamechanger? A prophylactic or early stage treatment that is cheap, available, and has a long history of minimal side-effects? That's about the most perfect solution imaginable, short of a vaccine, to returning the world to normal. That seems like a pretty huge reason for confirmation bias that isn't politically motivated.

Or maybe because at the time Trump touted its potential, bringing it to the forefront of the coranavirus discussion in the US, there were already many of us on here who had already heard about it and were excited. And after Trump mentioned it there were several more anecdotal examples, none of which seemed to be politically motivated, which supported the idea that it was really working. The anecdotal evidence has had a lot of people excited. People want something that makes the virus a non-threat. Remdesivir isn't nearly as available and also doesn't keep you out of the hospital.

I'm reading the study now. Not sure what to make of it, it is very hard to do these retrospective studies with so many unknown variables. Especially variables like "number of days since symptoms" because those are often not even charted.

I'm trying to dig through their discussion aspect to determine at what course of disease the hydroxychloroquine was given. It's possible, especially early on when testing was taking forever to result, that hydroxychloroquine wasn't given until a positive test was confirmed (delaying treatment) or was not given until a patient was nearing or already in ARDS.

I do think it is completely assinine for anyone to spin this as meaning hydroxychloroquine contributed to people's deaths. It would not explain how the addition of azithromycin seemed to have better outcomes.

One note, an early concern was that recommendations were causing a run on hydroxychloroquine when it's a required medication for people dealing with other conditions.

I believe that's since been addressed in the supply, but not wanting to cause a shortage of a needed drug is a reasonable concern.

For what it is worth, my wife's hospital is no longer treating COVID patients with hydroxychloroquine. They are actually trying to figure out how to offload their large supply. System wide.....

I was a big HCQ fanboy but have heard from several doctor buddies I was in the Corps with, who have said that It doesn't work. They've also said it doesn't really cause heart issues unless the person has heart issues, but why give it if it doesn't work. They are hopeful about Remdesivir, however. None seemed to know much about the "toci" I've heard about here though

The FDA has approved Novartis' clinical trial of hydroxychloroquine.

https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2020/apr/20/novartis-wins-approval-fda-start-hydroxychloroquin/

Player To Be Named Later said:

---

Just because Trump's DOJ has green lighted a company to make a ton of it doesn't mean that it's actually effective. We are seeing more and more actual doctors (many right here on this forum) that aren't seeing a big reason to get excited about it. I'm pretty sure if that drug was setting the world on fire, many of our docs on this forum would be speaking up about how well it's been working for them.

So far, it's not.

And edit to your edit......

Just because I may very well agree to try it doesn't mean that at the moment I'd expect it to be all that helpful. But until it's flat proven to not be an issue, sure, I may try it. But I'd "try" a lot of things if I didn't expect it to kill me.

Just seems really weird you're still banging the drum about this drug when several guys on the front lines here on this board are telling you it isn't doing much for their patients.

---

My Critical Care Pulmonologist has planned for me to use Plaquenil and ZPak. I have used ZPak many times. I get lungs infections easily and respond very well to ZPak.

My sons CCP in Virginia recommended they same approach to my oldest son. He has the same issues.

What seems to be key is the give Plaquenil with ZPak early. My CCP is managing dozens of cases in Houston. I will say it has been 10 days since we last spoke....and maybe the approach will change. But whatever it is I am following their lead and I love Trump. But Trump has zero to do with me following my doctors advice.

It is not a coincidence that most folks who are negative on Trump are negative on Plaquinil/ZPack. If there is a anecdotal story from chiropractors about the cocktail not working well they will still believe the story hook, line and sinker.

On the other hands the folks I know personally that have underlying conditions have all talked to their physicians and have no issues with the Plaquenil/ZPak cocktail if their symptoms warrant them. They also will just follow the advice of their physicians and it is not because Trump said too.

I think if Trump recommended folks not to drink gasoline that in within hours to days there would be folks going to the hospital for drinking gas.

PJYoung said:

---

---

One of the authors on this is on gileads's board.

Patients given hydroxy combo were also given it farther along in their sickness.

https://www.foxnews.com/science/covid-19-hydroxychloroquine-showed-no-benefit-more-deaths-va-virus-study

This study , if accurate, is not very positive for HCQ. I don't know what to think anymore. My Dr says it's helping so I am going to use it. Maybe it helps me maybe it doesn't.

I see all these reports that it's working and then reports that it's not working. It got so hated and politicized by the left I just don't believe any liberal news outlets what so ever.

Seems like it helps when taken early.

This is all new to everyone. I think we all have some unrealistic expectations about how this should be working.

These studies are all so weird. Every last one of them that has had bad results are studying something that no one ever said existed in the first place. No one ever claimed the medicine worked once the patient was past a certain point. Either the people doing the studies want the data to show something or they are ignorant for what they should be looking.

It's be like consistently saying that seat belts don't work because we go to accident sites and find the driver with their head smashed into the windshield and then we put their seat belt on them but it does not seem to help their condition. Why would they even continue to report on that unless there was an agenda?

panamamyers00 said:

---

These studies are all so weird. Every last one of them that has had bad results are studying something that no one ever said existed in the first place. No one ever claimed the medicine worked once the patient was past a certain point. Either the people doing the studies want the data to show something or they are ignorant for what they should be looking.

It's be like consistently saying that seat belts don't work because we go to accident sites and find the driver with their head smashed into the windshield and then we put their seat belt on them but it does not seem to help their condition. Why would they even continue to report on that unless there was an agenda?

---

I think that the problem is largely that nobody has been giving it without a positive test. And a lot of folks are having to wait 7+ days for a test result, putting most of them past the window of alleged effectiveness.

We need a study of people who received it at onset of clear symptoms or we need an accurate rapid test and then try it on those positives.

panamamyers00 said:

---

These studies are all so weird. Every last one of them that has had bad results are studying something that no one ever said existed in the first place. No one ever claimed the medicine worked once the patient was past a certain point. Either the people doing the studies want the data to show something or they are ignorant for what they should be looking.

It's be like consistently saying that seat belts don't work because we go to accident sites and find the driver with their head smashed into the windshield and then we put their seat belt on them but it does not seem to help their condition. Why would they even continue to report on that unless there was an agenda?

---

Great post!!!

bay fan said:

---

shallyaggie said:

---

For what it is worth, my wife's hospital is no longer treating COVID patients with hydroxychloroquine. They are actually trying to figure out how to offload their large supply. System wide.....

---

I think Dadhammer is in the market.....

---

More for him and his family

BBQ4Me said:

---

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/hhs-vaccine-expert-says-he-was-removed-from-post-after-pressing-for-a-rigorous-vetting-of-hydroxychloroquine/

---

Trump hasnt touted HCQ for some time, as we have pointed out. They also never called it a panacea.

And he still gets removed? Something else there and this dude has sour grapes.

There are many biases and agendas in medical studies and don't let anyone try to tell you differently, Many are designed to fail and I will let those interpreting these studies to decide if this is intentional or not.

Laura Ingraham is ripping this study. The drug was given to very ill patients in the cytokine storm in this study. The control group was given the Z pack! Everyone knows you are supposed to give it early in the course of the disease.

Well if Laura Ingram says it's so it must be.