Unmet medical need, it's why you often begin with later disease stages. Also, for prophylaxis treatment in an earlier stage where patients are more likely to recover during the natural disease course than progress means you're looking at a very small effect size to power a study's sample size. You'll need approx 1500 patients to affirm it works in an earlier stage. Anecdotes/ case reports are nice but you need 1500 anecdotes to see a supposed benefit.
Hydroxychloroquine...........
335,756 Views |
1854 Replies |
Last: 11 mo ago by Jabin
BallerStaf2003 said:
Two more studies showing it didn't statistically improve patient out comes with Covid.
That makes like 5 studies now that show it doesn't work? Why is this still a topic? Because trump said so and Trumpsters can't admit he's wrong?
https://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2020-05/b-fed051420.php
Yet another study without the ZPack and without the zinc.
Read reveilles most recent posts. It doesn't make sense what is happening here.BallerStaf2003 said:
Two more studies showing it didn't statistically improve patient out comes with Covid.
That makes like 5 studies now that show it doesn't work? Why is this still a topic? Because trump said so and Trumpsters can't admit he's wrong?
https://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2020-05/b-fed051420.php
Have you read Dr Reveille's posts? Do you think he is wrong?BallerStaf2003 said:Bonfire1996 said:BallerStaf2003 said:
Two more studies showing it didn't statistically improve patient out comes with Covid.
That makes like 5 studies now that show it doesn't work? Why is this still a topic? Because trump said so and Trumpsters can't admit he's wrong?
https://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2020-05/b-fed051420.php
Yet another study without the ZPack and without the zinc.
Why would an antibiotic help with a virus?
Zinc is given to patients when they are hospitalized in most protocols. I'm sure they understood the basic theory behind how hydroxychloroquine works and added zinc.
It's just not in the article.
It doesn't matter, you're all full time foil hats at this point.
I'm not going to tell any doctor he's wrong.
If he's having great outcomes with it he should do a study and publish why his results are so different from everyone else's.
If he's having great outcomes with it he should do a study and publish why his results are so different from everyone else's.
They aren't different from "everyone else's". They are the same. What is different, and what you are quoting, is incomplete studies not including Zpacks or zinc.BallerStaf2003 said:
I'm not going to tell any doctor he's wrong.
If he's having great outcomes with it he should do a study and publish why his results are so different from everyone else's.
No zinc. No Zpack except for 15 patients, the 15 the received in combo with Zpack all survived and none were transferred to ICU. The protocol being touted worldwide is HCQ+Zpack+zinc early. The sicker patients did not receive the full protocol. From the study:
None of the 15 patients who received a combination of hydroxychloroquine and azithromycin was transferred to intensive care and none died. Additionally, these patients had fewer severe signs at admission compared with patients who received hydroxychloroquine without azithromycin (oxygen flow: 2 L/min, interquartile range 1.25-4 v 3 L/min, 2-6; respiratory frequency: 25 per min, interquartile range 22-33 v 28 per min, 24-32; percentage of lung affected >50%: 13% v 17%). Finally, 26 patients received azithromycin without hydroxychloroquine. Among these patients, six were admitted to the intensive care unit and five died.
None of the 15 patients who received a combination of hydroxychloroquine and azithromycin was transferred to intensive care and none died. Additionally, these patients had fewer severe signs at admission compared with patients who received hydroxychloroquine without azithromycin (oxygen flow: 2 L/min, interquartile range 1.25-4 v 3 L/min, 2-6; respiratory frequency: 25 per min, interquartile range 22-33 v 28 per min, 24-32; percentage of lung affected >50%: 13% v 17%). Finally, 26 patients received azithromycin without hydroxychloroquine. Among these patients, six were admitted to the intensive care unit and five died.
[url=https://l.facebook.com/l.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.nih.gov%2Fnews-events%2Fnews-releases%2Fnih-begins-clinical-trial-hydroxychloroquine-azithromycin-treat-covid-19%3Ffbclid%3DIwAR03LUcQSuAdS7lZ7ciXuzLJGIUKFHb1vDNyyNVG497jH2bd7W1uGsWUSjs&h=AT2X4D3fHb3KXfZZSAD7q1LCuLvrV27oj2Fz1T_PHSaYLJ404lXlzPss8YC0pr9yWR44JK4c33m6ASsIG1q3H5yaQzvjbX3MaRMW3z2knjtookaqH4qB21Wth1sq9XedIE60ftLq0UOAL4gZozfAJSSXkYy8TPoT_Ip_R6M_DYpB-9H9OWf7oxVbdiLGBy-J0YEVO280oomp49BW_2_zSnBTeXcaKFNGGD6owmq2TqwmcYAyHIX8D0zRi8UBnF-zLNpORBO5007wNlgazejoyAWhb5fovbQXrCNs1AQ1MJu7_wjO5K01yV3Uv468svKSgM1bHIaD7hsoDXXohG4L_8YCTf-OxICpUkUOe_s5_v5d023yAhOA8MNEid9OJL8-9MT8-yoQXtOLxjAdUl69fa906HwcrxbTlgsZn-SMVw-ze672gUC9HD1ryx1WY0zAGu2P8s_88uWjw2XD0Y9zhZeVI7YbRcPcBeLrDTGjLhyxIJeWg_j454pSWFTu9syH35bs5uOtp896KzVFkvptZy0KNFg2YOQF6D37o4Bta5eWjfKiomYG2VWkAhmGRhDkzYuLY-dCW3jbM987-sluCWwHxSZZpwfYP3CbPJfF00O3yNcCi1BpQfQiPa30j1Yk-GrPIyfhMUA][/url]Quote:
Another hydroxychloroquine study which helps give some answers?
This is a preliminary report on a study at NYU. This study examines adding zinc to hydroxychloroquine and zithromax. The reason I mention it is because that is what we are doing in clinical practice but the zinc is missing from most of the other studies. Remember that HCQ is a zinc ionophore and it allows zinc to get inside the cell where it can inhibit replicase. This enzyme is what allows the virus to reproduce itself. So not enough zinc than it can't work. Zinc is very important and is being left out of most of the studies but we are using it in clinical practice and seeing anecdotal results.
So in this study 411 patients given zinc along with the malaria medicine hydroxychloroquine and the antibiotic azithromycin for five days were 44% less likely to die and 50% more likely to be discharged home than a comparison group of 521 patients who didn't get the zinc supplement. Thus, this shows you need the zinc to get the better results.
https://www.medrxiv.org/conte/10.1101/2020.05.02.20080036v1
In addition the NIH is starting a study of 2,000 patients with mild to moderate Coivd-19. This is a much needed study but unfortunately it appears to be HCQ/zithromax vs placebo. I don't see where they are using zinc in this study either.
https://www.nih.gov//nih-begins-clinical-trial-hydroxychlo
https://www.facebook.com/permalink.php?story_fbid=2695958334020440&id=1998386763777604&__tn__=K-R
There are really specific ways it should be used.
While I understand the sentiment about antibiotics being used for bacterial infections, they are used in other ways as well. I'm on a low dose antibiotic for roseaca. My husband is on one that is used to lubricate his eye.
We need to keep our options open..especially if it means we can open faster.
They aren't "so different from everyone else's". If case you haven't noticed, tons of Drs are still doing it. He even said a zoom call with multiple Drs all doing the same thing because they are all seeing positive results.BallerStaf2003 said:
I'm not going to tell any doctor he's wrong.
If he's having great outcomes with it he should do a study and publish why his results are so different from everyone else's.
Again, not saying this is cure/treatment and a sure thing. It's still an unknown that might work at best.
Cool, then I will gladly accept and be excited about the studies that add the two other medicines. I know that zinc is very commonly given to admitted patients in the hospital, And would assume that a Z pack is given to people with symptoms of pneumonia but we can't assume that is in the studies..
I don't have an actual copy of the study to see what they gave in addition to hydroxychloroquine
I don't have an actual copy of the study to see what they gave in addition to hydroxychloroquine
There's a reason for that as naturally occurring Demodex mites are a vector for germs.
Quote:
Why the heck does anyone care if you take HCQ, azithromycin, and zinc?
Using this logic, why should anyone care what any doctor ever treats any patient with?
If you have a mild community acquired pneumonia, and I give you an antibiotic that has poor activity in the lungs, why should anyone care? You'll PROBABLY get better with or without antibiotics you may just get better more slowly without them.
The entire point of medicine is figuring out what works, what doesn't and treating patients with only the therapies we have a reasonable degree of evidence for. We strive to be as wrong as about as few things as possible, and this if HCQ doesn't work (or lacks good evidence for efficacy) we have an obligation to sift through political/societal pressures and be open about that. Treating with ineffective therapies just for the sake of "doing something" violates the foundation of medicine and the doctor/patient relationship.
No material on this site is intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment. See full Medical Disclaimer.
BallerStaf2003 said:
Two more studies showing it didn't statistically improve patient out comes with Covid.
That makes like 5 studies now that show it doesn't work? Why is this still a topic? Because trump said so and Trumpsters can't admit he's wrong?
https://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2020-05/b-fed051420.php
You say "it doesn't work". In what context?
Hypothesis: When administered at symptom onset, prior to hospitalization, and in concert with zinc, the therapy inhibits virus replication and improves patient outcomes.
Has any study tested that hypothesis?
Keegan99 said:BallerStaf2003 said:
Two more studies showing it didn't statistically improve patient out comes with Covid.
That makes like 5 studies now that show it doesn't work? Why is this still a topic? Because trump said so and Trumpsters can't admit he's wrong?
https://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2020-05/b-fed051420.php
You say "it doesn't work". In what context?
Hypothesis: When administered at symptom onset, prior to hospitalization, and in concert with zinc, the therapy inhibits virus replication and improves patient outcomes.
Has any study tested that hypothesis?
Look I'm all for anything working at this point. If the study comes out and adds the specific parameters that everyone says is a loophole and works, I will be over the moon. I've had my own personal health issues in the aftermath of Covid and it sucks. At this point, any news that's positive is good news.
I know this is a political issue for many, but it's not for me. I just think it's weird how passionately people on the politics Ford defend this drug because Trump said it's a game changer and they want so badly for him to be right. I don't care whether he's right or wrong, I just want this to end
Bonfire1996 said:BallerStaf2003 said:
Two more studies showing it didn't statistically improve patient out comes with Covid.
That makes like 5 studies now that show it doesn't work? Why is this still a topic? Because trump said so and Trumpsters can't admit he's wrong?
https://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2020-05/b-fed051420.php
Yet another study without the ZPack and without the zinc.
Do you think there might be a reason for this?
No material on this site is intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment. See full Medical Disclaimer.
Why do you call it a "loophole"?
The claim has always been that the hypothesized mechanism has benefit early in the course of the disease.
It's the same reason why HCQ was used for SARS and MERS, and why numerous Asian countries latched on to HCQ before any mainstream American every knew what it was.
I just want to see evidence that the way it is suggested to work - and seems to do so anecdotally in many cases - does not work. No one seems to be actually testing that, which is puzzling.
The claim has always been that the hypothesized mechanism has benefit early in the course of the disease.
It's the same reason why HCQ was used for SARS and MERS, and why numerous Asian countries latched on to HCQ before any mainstream American every knew what it was.
I just want to see evidence that the way it is suggested to work - and seems to do so anecdotally in many cases - does not work. No one seems to be actually testing that, which is puzzling.
Texas Pharmacy Board Backs Down on Coronavirus Medicine Restrictions
The Texas pharmacy board changed its guidance so that physicians are no longer required to provide a written diagnosis when prescribing hydroxychloroquine for coronavirus patients.
The Texas pharmacy board changed its guidance so that physicians are no longer required to provide a written diagnosis when prescribing hydroxychloroquine for coronavirus patients.
When was this announced?
Resistance to tyranny is obedience to God.
Keegan99 said:
Why do you call it a "loophole"?
The claim has always been that the hypothesized mechanism has benefit early in the course of the disease.
It's the same reason why HCQ was used for SARS and MERS, and why numerous Asian countries latched on to HCQ before any mainstream American every knew what it was.
I just want to see evidence that the way it is suggested to work - and seems to do so anecdotally in many cases - does not work. No one seems to be actually testing that, which is puzzling.
I'm not going to pay to read all the studies that say it doesn't work. I'm going off news reports thst have just the results of the study.
The methods portion of the study will show if they supplemented it with zinc or whatever else they did to both groups.
The media articles could be omitting that not knowing it's a sticking point for the far right wing, or the study actually did not supplement with zinc (they probably did).
So I can't really speak to the actual parameters of the study now that this zinc loophole has been harped one by members of the board n
They are passionate because the left is the one making it policital. You should know that left politicians will always take the opposite view of what trump says. And because he expressed hopefulness in HCQ due to doctors giving their "anecdotes", the left (politicians and media) went full throttle against it.BallerStaf2003 said:Keegan99 said:BallerStaf2003 said:
Two more studies showing it didn't statistically improve patient out comes with Covid.
That makes like 5 studies now that show it doesn't work? Why is this still a topic? Because trump said so and Trumpsters can't admit he's wrong?
https://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2020-05/b-fed051420.php
You say "it doesn't work". In what context?
Hypothesis: When administered at symptom onset, prior to hospitalization, and in concert with zinc, the therapy inhibits virus replication and improves patient outcomes.
Has any study tested that hypothesis?
Look I'm all for anything working at this point. If the study comes out and adds the specific parameters that everyone says is a loophole and works, I will be over the moon. I've had my own personal health issues in the aftermath of Covid and it sucks. At this point, any news that's positive is good news.
I know this is a political issue for many, but it's not for me. I just think it's weird how passionately people on the politics Ford defend this drug because Trump said it's a game changer and they want so badly for him to be right. I don't care whether he's right or wrong, I just want this to end
Very frustrating. I will believe doctors that are actually giving it to their patients and watching them feel better than any politician, including trump.
I guess there's always finger pointing but I really only hear about HCQ on this board.
We are so polarized at this point that you're always going to blame the other side. Liberal or conservative.
From my perspective, trump stupidly mouthed off about it and that's what made it political.
We are so polarized at this point that you're always going to blame the other side. Liberal or conservative.
From my perspective, trump stupidly mouthed off about it and that's what made it political.
Keegan99 said:
I just want to see evidence that the way it is suggested to work - and seems to do so anecdotally in many cases - does not work. No one seems to be actually testing that, which is puzzling.
First, what you're asking violates the concept of the null hypothesis and misplaces the burden of proof. The burden is ALWAYS on the person or group making the positive claim (in this case, HCQ is effective in some way as a therapy for COVID-19). Those skeptical of this are under no obligation to prove it doesn't work, as that is the default position until it is demonstrated it does work.
Second, the type of data many are asking for is very difficult to obtain in the short term and even more difficult to interpret.
Finally, and I explained this more in depth in the stickied thread, there just isn't much reason to generate a hypothesis that this three drug combination works because scientific realities say it shouldn't. Devoting funding, time and energy to it is a questionable endeavor because of this.
I don't have a problem with an outpatient physician prescribing this for their patients. I think if we're going to be bold and strive for medical truth however, we are obligated to not simply say "keep doing different studies until we find a data set we can use to support this".
No material on this site is intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment. See full Medical Disclaimer.
Today
jakeaggie84 said:They are passionate because the left is the one making it policital. You should know that left politicians will always take the opposite view of what trump says. And because he expressed hopefulness in HCQ due to doctors giving their "anecdotes", the left (politicians and media) went full throttle against it.BallerStaf2003 said:Keegan99 said:BallerStaf2003 said:
Two more studies showing it didn't statistically improve patient out comes with Covid.
That makes like 5 studies now that show it doesn't work? Why is this still a topic? Because trump said so and Trumpsters can't admit he's wrong?
https://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2020-05/b-fed051420.php
You say "it doesn't work". In what context?
Hypothesis: When administered at symptom onset, prior to hospitalization, and in concert with zinc, the therapy inhibits virus replication and improves patient outcomes.
Has any study tested that hypothesis?
Look I'm all for anything working at this point. If the study comes out and adds the specific parameters that everyone says is a loophole and works, I will be over the moon. I've had my own personal health issues in the aftermath of Covid and it sucks. At this point, any news that's positive is good news.
I know this is a political issue for many, but it's not for me. I just think it's weird how passionately people on the politics Ford defend this drug because Trump said it's a game changer and they want so badly for him to be right. I don't care whether he's right or wrong, I just want this to end
Very frustrating. I will believe doctors that are actually giving it to their patients and watching them feel better than any politician, including trump.
Oh ffs, if you can't see that both sides have made this political you are part of the problem
jakeaggie84 said:They are passionate because the left is the one making it policital. You should know that left politicians will always take the opposite view of what trump says. And because he expressed hopefulness in HCQ due to doctors giving their "anecdotes", the left (politicians and media) went full throttle against it.BallerStaf2003 said:Keegan99 said:BallerStaf2003 said:
Two more studies showing it didn't statistically improve patient out comes with Covid.
That makes like 5 studies now that show it doesn't work? Why is this still a topic? Because trump said so and Trumpsters can't admit he's wrong?
https://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2020-05/b-fed051420.php
You say "it doesn't work". In what context?
Hypothesis: When administered at symptom onset, prior to hospitalization, and in concert with zinc, the therapy inhibits virus replication and improves patient outcomes.
Has any study tested that hypothesis?
Look I'm all for anything working at this point. If the study comes out and adds the specific parameters that everyone says is a loophole and works, I will be over the moon. I've had my own personal health issues in the aftermath of Covid and it sucks. At this point, any news that's positive is good news.
I know this is a political issue for many, but it's not for me. I just think it's weird how passionately people on the politics Ford defend this drug because Trump said it's a game changer and they want so badly for him to be right. I don't care whether he's right or wrong, I just want this to end
Very frustrating. I will believe doctors that are actually giving it to their patients and watching them feel better than any politician, including trump.
Let's not kid ourselves, this is nearly entirely political from all sides at this point. We have cheering sections for every angle of this pandemic and it's deeply frustrating from my perspective.
Not to dive too deeply into this, but the concerted effort by many to undermine science over the last half century by large segments of our population (something not isolated to one party or the other, please don't read this as a condemnation of one party as "anti-science") has generated a deep mistrust and misunderstanding of the scientific community. To the point that, now, people basically pick and choose what science aligns with their worldview and discard the rest under the claim that it's been fabricated/manipulated for political purposes.
Now almost nobody feels obligated to believe anything anymore no matter how much evidence there is.
No material on this site is intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment. See full Medical Disclaimer.
Jbob04 said:BallerStaf2003 said:
I guess there's always finger pointing but I really only hear about HCQ on this board.
We are so polarized at this point that you're always going to blame the other side. Liberal or conservative.
From my perspective, trump stupidly mouthed off about it and that's what made it political.
How is giving hope for a treatment by Trump considered stupidly mouthing off? Maybe he should have said there is no hope and no treatment?
In my opinion, he should have been far more generic in his commentary while still offering hope. The second he took a hard stance on a treatment on national TV and social media, IMMEDIATELY half the population began rooting for it and the other half against it.
He made every doctors job harder the moment he did that, even if it ends up being effective (which, again, would be great).
No material on this site is intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment. See full Medical Disclaimer.
Jbob04 said:BallerStaf2003 said:
I guess there's always finger pointing but I really only hear about HCQ on this board.
We are so polarized at this point that you're always going to blame the other side. Liberal or conservative.
From my perspective, trump stupidly mouthed off about it and that's what made it political.
How is giving hope for a treatment by Trump considered stupidly mouthing off? Maybe he should have said there is no hope and no treatment?
You're going from one extreme to the other.
Of course he should be a leader and promote optimism, that doesn't mean making **** up about a drug.
Infection_Ag11 said:jakeaggie84 said:They are passionate because the left is the one making it policital. You should know that left politicians will always take the opposite view of what trump says. And because he expressed hopefulness in HCQ due to doctors giving their "anecdotes", the left (politicians and media) went full throttle against it.BallerStaf2003 said:Keegan99 said:BallerStaf2003 said:
Two more studies showing it didn't statistically improve patient out comes with Covid.
That makes like 5 studies now that show it doesn't work? Why is this still a topic? Because trump said so and Trumpsters can't admit he's wrong?
https://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2020-05/b-fed051420.php
You say "it doesn't work". In what context?
Hypothesis: When administered at symptom onset, prior to hospitalization, and in concert with zinc, the therapy inhibits virus replication and improves patient outcomes.
Has any study tested that hypothesis?
Look I'm all for anything working at this point. If the study comes out and adds the specific parameters that everyone says is a loophole and works, I will be over the moon. I've had my own personal health issues in the aftermath of Covid and it sucks. At this point, any news that's positive is good news.
I know this is a political issue for many, but it's not for me. I just think it's weird how passionately people on the politics Ford defend this drug because Trump said it's a game changer and they want so badly for him to be right. I don't care whether he's right or wrong, I just want this to end
Very frustrating. I will believe doctors that are actually giving it to their patients and watching them feel better than any politician, including trump.
Let's not kid ourselves, this is nearly entirely political from all sides at this point. We have cheering sections for every angle of this pandemic and it's deeply frustrating from my perspective.
Not to dive too deeply into this, but the concerted effort by many to undermine science over the last half century by large segments of our population (something not isolated to one party or the other, please don't read this as a condemnation of one party as "anti-science") has generated a deep mistrust and misunderstanding of the scientific community. To the point that, now, people basically pick and choose what science aligns with their worldview and discard the rest under the claim that it's been fabricated/manipulated for political purposes.
Now almost nobody feels obligated to believe anything anymore no matter how much evidence there is.
When we have had bull**** studies like the infamous hockey stick global warming graph and the study that said Waco will basically spontaneously combust if A&M left for the SEC, you can't blame people for being skeptical. Too many agendas and not enough integrity these days.
Drifter. said:Infection_Ag11 said:jakeaggie84 said:They are passionate because the left is the one making it policital. You should know that left politicians will always take the opposite view of what trump says. And because he expressed hopefulness in HCQ due to doctors giving their "anecdotes", the left (politicians and media) went full throttle against it.BallerStaf2003 said:Keegan99 said:BallerStaf2003 said:
Two more studies showing it didn't statistically improve patient out comes with Covid.
That makes like 5 studies now that show it doesn't work? Why is this still a topic? Because trump said so and Trumpsters can't admit he's wrong?
https://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2020-05/b-fed051420.php
You say "it doesn't work". In what context?
Hypothesis: When administered at symptom onset, prior to hospitalization, and in concert with zinc, the therapy inhibits virus replication and improves patient outcomes.
Has any study tested that hypothesis?
Look I'm all for anything working at this point. If the study comes out and adds the specific parameters that everyone says is a loophole and works, I will be over the moon. I've had my own personal health issues in the aftermath of Covid and it sucks. At this point, any news that's positive is good news.
I know this is a political issue for many, but it's not for me. I just think it's weird how passionately people on the politics Ford defend this drug because Trump said it's a game changer and they want so badly for him to be right. I don't care whether he's right or wrong, I just want this to end
Very frustrating. I will believe doctors that are actually giving it to their patients and watching them feel better than any politician, including trump.
Let's not kid ourselves, this is nearly entirely political from all sides at this point. We have cheering sections for every angle of this pandemic and it's deeply frustrating from my perspective.
Not to dive too deeply into this, but the concerted effort by many to undermine science over the last half century by large segments of our population (something not isolated to one party or the other, please don't read this as a condemnation of one party as "anti-science") has generated a deep mistrust and misunderstanding of the scientific community. To the point that, now, people basically pick and choose what science aligns with their worldview and discard the rest under the claim that it's been fabricated/manipulated for political purposes.
Now almost nobody feels obligated to believe anything anymore no matter how much evidence there is.
When we have had bull**** studies like the infamous hockey stick global warming graph and the study that said Waco will basically spontaneously combust if A&M left for the SEC, you can't blame people for being skeptical. Too many agendas and not enough integrity these days.
Without diving into any specific issue as this isn't the place for that, taking isolated misconduct or bad data and developing a fundamental mistrust of scientific research on that basis is a logical fallacy and really part of the problem in talking about. It's equivalent to arguing we should automatically suspect all clergy of child sex abuse, a wildly unfounded worldview and flatly untrue in nearly all cases.
Should I immediately discount everything published in the Lancet because they once published a nonsensical and fabricated study attempting to show vaccines cause autism? Or do I acknowledge the error, see they retracted it and realize 99.9% of what they publish is worthwhile research?
No material on this site is intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment. See full Medical Disclaimer.
Yes too many politics and self interest in play on all sides. Either it works or it doesn't. I tend to believe the doctors who are telling me in person that it is working. I am a glass half full kind of guy. I don't care if it was team Pelosi or trump, I would be excited to see something working. So politics have always been there.
Now add in the drug companies self interest and scientist that might be on payroll and doctors that want to get famous and CDC changing their stances on numerous protocols, and media wanting viewers so they make everything sound dismal.....it is driving most Americans crazy!
Either it works or it doesn't!
Now add in the drug companies self interest and scientist that might be on payroll and doctors that want to get famous and CDC changing their stances on numerous protocols, and media wanting viewers so they make everything sound dismal.....it is driving most Americans crazy!
Either it works or it doesn't!
I don't care what Trump said or didn't say.
I was initially super excited about the treatment. I even had the medication at home due to travel in risky medical areas.
But the results indicate it is at best marginal in its benefit. Maybe if you take it early it is better, but that isn't clear either. I don't think I will take it now. It has some uncomfortable side effects.
I was initially super excited about the treatment. I even had the medication at home due to travel in risky medical areas.
But the results indicate it is at best marginal in its benefit. Maybe if you take it early it is better, but that isn't clear either. I don't think I will take it now. It has some uncomfortable side effects.
jakeaggie84 said:
Yes too many politics and self interest in play on all sides. Either it works or it doesn't. I tend to believe the doctors who are telling me in person that it is working. I am a glass half full kind of guy. I don't care if it was team Pelosi or trump, I would be excited to see something working. So politics have always been there.
Now add in the drug companies self interest and scientist that might be on payroll and doctors that want to get famous and CDC changing their stances on numerous protocols, and media wanting viewers so they make everything sound dismal.....it is driving most Americans crazy!
Either it works or it doesn't!
I mean, it could work but the effect be so minimal that it isn't a worthwhile therapy either due to the natural delay in therapy initiation or because it only decreases symptom duration but has no impact on mortality (which if the symptom duration decrease is less than 24-48 hours a very strong argument can be made that drug side effects aren't worth it).
No material on this site is intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment. See full Medical Disclaimer.
goodAg80 said:
I don't care what Trump said or didn't say.
I was initially super excited about the treatment. I even had the medication at home due to travel in risky medical areas.
But the results indicate it is at best marginal in its benefit. Maybe if you take it early it is better, but that isn't clear either. I don't think I will take it now. It has some uncomfortable side effects.
For sale?
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
4.8k
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