Many of the F16 threads go a bit overboard. But if the Army is shipping HCQ and zinc to clinics in theatre then there's probably something to it. At least to the physicians that keep requesting it.
Hydroxychloroquine...........
335,832 Views |
1854 Replies |
Last: 11 mo ago by Jabin
Many of the F16 threads go a bit overboard. But if the Army is shipping HCQ and zinc to clinics in theatre then there's probably something to it. At least to the physicians that keep requesting it.
This is a pretty nice example of correlation =/= causation with a nice sprinkling of the seven countries study bias, except they picked 8.Picadillo said:
https://c19study.com/countries.html
ETFan said:This is a pretty nice example of correlation =/= causation with a nice sprinkling of the seven countries study bias, except they picked 8.Picadillo said:
https://c19study.com/countries.html
They also changed the results of at least 3 RCTs involving early treatment and post exposure prophylaxis because they didn't like the results. Clearly the work of people that have no bias.
No material on this site is intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment. See full Medical Disclaimer.
So why has every doctor I talked to said they would take it if they got Covid-19. They must all be stupid...
Gilead: Twenty-one billion reasons to discredit hydroxychloroquine
https://www.medicineuncensored.com/twenty-one-billion-reasons
https://www.medicineuncensored.com/twenty-one-billion-reasons
Quote:
Now primarily a marketing machine to sell drugs of dubious benefit, this industry uses its wealth and power to co-opt every institution that might stand in its way, including the U.S. Congress, the Food and Drug Administration, academic medical centers, and the medical profession itself.
- Marcia Angell, former editor-in-chief of The NEJM, The Truth About the Drug Companies
Introduction
In the history of medicine, no single drug has been so singularly attacked by the media, World Health Organization, government officials and institutional health experts as hydroxychloroquine. Approved as a "safe and cost-effective" essential medicine by the WHO, CDC and regulatory authorities across Europe, hydroxychloroquine has been prescribed to millions of patients over the past 65 years. Despite decades of known safety, hydroxychloroquine was labelled "dangerous" and a "poisonous substance" after showing promise as a therapeutic for COVID-19.
Many attribute this negative publicity to anti-Trump sentiment from mainstream media outlets including CNN, MSNBC, Washington Post, New York Times and Huffington Post. This thesis does not entirely hold up to scrutiny though. President Trump named both hydroxychloroquine and Gilead's remdesivir as a "game changer" in his breaking March 19th press conference.
Quote:
Remdesivir vs hydroxychloroquine
Gilead's stock rises and falls based on the successes and failures of both hydroxychloroquine and remdesivir. Immediately before Trump first announced hydroxychloroquine as a promising therapeutic for COVID-19, GILD traded at a local high of $85 per share, a price unattained since early 2018. Hours after Trump's press conference, GILD dropped 8.7%, and then continued to plummet to $69 per share the following weekerasing $21 billion from its market cap in mere days. Immediately after Dr. Fauci announced the success of remdesivir in the NIH trial, GILD stock surged back to $85 per share. Compared to the largest pharmaceutical companies by revenue, Gilead has consistently outperformed in this pandemic with GILD gaining over 20% YTD while most of its competition struggled with losses or meager gains. This growth is almost certainly attributed to remdesivir's promise as an effective treatment for COVID-19.
Gilead has a direct financial incentive for hydroxychloroquine to fail. Actually, based on its share price, Gilead has 21 billion reasons to discredit hydroxychloroquine. Perhaps no other company has more to gain in the immediate future from hydroxychloroquine's failure than Gilead.
This is a woefully simplistic argument seeing how the two medicines have two different mechanisms of action. You would actually want both medicines to work so you can stop viral propagation, completely and in all patients. It would be like treating cancer with a single med (albeit, cancer is a different beast but even HIV treatments are a cocktail.)Picadillo said:
Gilead: Twenty-one billion reasons to discredit hydroxychloroquine
https://www.medicineuncensored.com/twenty-one-billion-reasonsQuote:
Now primarily a marketing machine to sell drugs of dubious benefit, this industry uses its wealth and power to co-opt every institution that might stand in its way, including the U.S. Congress, the Food and Drug Administration, academic medical centers, and the medical profession itself.
- Marcia Angell, former editor-in-chief of The NEJM, The Truth About the Drug Companies
Introduction
In the history of medicine, no single drug has been so singularly attacked by the media, World Health Organization, government officials and institutional health experts as hydroxychloroquine. Approved as a "safe and cost-effective" essential medicine by the WHO, CDC and regulatory authorities across Europe, hydroxychloroquine has been prescribed to millions of patients over the past 65 years. Despite decades of known safety, hydroxychloroquine was labelled "dangerous" and a "poisonous substance" after showing promise as a therapeutic for COVID-19.
Many attribute this negative publicity to anti-Trump sentiment from mainstream media outlets including CNN, MSNBC, Washington Post, New York Times and Huffington Post. This thesis does not entirely hold up to scrutiny though. President Trump named both hydroxychloroquine and Gilead's remdesivir as a "game changer" in his breaking March 19th press conference.
Quote:
Remdesivir vs hydroxychloroquine
Gilead's stock rises and falls based on the successes and failures of both hydroxychloroquine and remdesivir. Immediately before Trump first announced hydroxychloroquine as a promising therapeutic for COVID-19, GILD traded at a local high of $85 per share, a price unattained since early 2018. Hours after Trump's press conference, GILD dropped 8.7%, and then continued to plummet to $69 per share the following weekerasing $21 billion from its market cap in mere days. Immediately after Dr. Fauci announced the success of remdesivir in the NIH trial, GILD stock surged back to $85 per share. Compared to the largest pharmaceutical companies by revenue, Gilead has consistently outperformed in this pandemic with GILD gaining over 20% YTD while most of its competition struggled with losses or meager gains. This growth is almost certainly attributed to remdesivir's promise as an effective treatment for COVID-19.
Gilead has a direct financial incentive for hydroxychloroquine to fail. Actually, based on its share price, Gilead has 21 billion reasons to discredit hydroxychloroquine. Perhaps no other company has more to gain in the immediate future from hydroxychloroquine's failure than Gilead.
Eye doctor that played second fiddle to demon sperm lady this past week at the tea party event.
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 it's relatively low risk and it might help. The same could be said for any placebo.
Zobel said:
Because it's relatively low risk and it might help. The same could be said for any placebo.
come on man don't be disingenuous; any help a placebo might give will only be psychological, not due to a mechanism of action that could potentially help. HCQ has a mechanism of action that might, we don't know for sure, help.
No, no it couldn't. There are no placebo tests that show effectiveness to treating symptoms of covid.
There are lots anecdotal reports for HCQ.
There are lots anecdotal reports for HCQ.
HCQ has a proposed method of action, but we don't know if it actually works. A lot of successful drugs have unknown method of actions, and a lot of failed ones have logical MOAs, so MOA doesn't mean effective.
I said it might help. A placebo also might help. The placebo effect is psychological but has measurable physiological effects.
So again, it might help. But the help it brings might be the same sugar as pills. In odd and uncommon cases it might be worse than sugar pills. However we know that risk is low.
I said it might help. A placebo also might help. The placebo effect is psychological but has measurable physiological effects.
So again, it might help. But the help it brings might be the same sugar as pills. In odd and uncommon cases it might be worse than sugar pills. However we know that risk is low.
It's disingenuous to pretend the potential upside to hcq is the same as the upside to placebo.
That is not what he said . . . . he said even if it is just a placebo there is still upside.Quote:
It's disingenuous to pretend the potential upside to hcq is the same as the upside to placebo.
I don't know why this topic attracts such reactionaries.
They haven't read the same articles that twitter Ph.D.'s have read of course...duhjpb1999 said:
So why has every doctor I talked to said they would take it if they got Covid-19. They must all be stupid...
It's because on a message board where you can't talk things out, what someone leaves unsaid becomes as important as what they say. If they were trying to make the clarification you are making, they should have said so.
Ain't nobody have time to see a short post comparing 2 things, call it out, then have to field a reply that said "he didn't say what you are saying, nevermind that he wasn't clear, Rah rah Roberts rules of order!"
Just be clear from the outset.
I feel like the gentleman made the point to try to set up a false equivalency, leaving himself wiggle room if someone challenged him to backtrack. Again, ain't nobody got time for that.
Ain't nobody have time to see a short post comparing 2 things, call it out, then have to field a reply that said "he didn't say what you are saying, nevermind that he wasn't clear, Rah rah Roberts rules of order!"
Just be clear from the outset.
I feel like the gentleman made the point to try to set up a false equivalency, leaving himself wiggle room if someone challenged him to backtrack. Again, ain't nobody got time for that.
Windy City Ag said:That is not what he said . . . . he said even if it is just a placebo there is still upside.Quote:
It's disingenuous to pretend the potential upside to hcq is the same as the upside to placebo.
I don't know why this topic attracts such reactionaries.
Here is what the guy said
Quote:
Because it's relatively low risk and it might help. The same could be said for any placebo.
Without additional clarification, he is basically making a comparison between hcq and placebo. He is begging for someone to come along and correct him or challenge his blanket(for lack of clarification) assertion. Don't jump on people who see the comparison and realize it needs that clarification.
Quote:
It's because on a message board where you can't talk things out, what someone leaves unsaid becomes as important as what they say. If they were trying to make the clarification you are making, they should have said so.
LOL. This forum has actual trained professionals who are leaning on actual medical research out in the real world. for tough treatment decisions in a highly uncertain environment,
The rest of us are just killing time sourcing mostly politically motivated media articles regarding topics we don't really grasp. If you want to spend all morning trying dig through that and righting perceived wrongs, knock yourself out. It seems like a fools errand to me but who am I to tell you what to do.
A silly question gets a silly answer. "Why are doctors using it, guess they must be stupid, huh?" is not even really an argument. It's just a sarcastic appeal to authority.
The answer is clear - they use it because we don't have a treatment, and it might work, so why not? That doesn't mean it will work, and it isn't an argument for widespread use, or an argument against clinical results, or an argument to not test and evaluate.
"It might help" is the weakest justification for any treatment. You could do practically anything under the rationale that "it might help" - including placebos. That's the comparison - not "HCQ is a placebo" but "it might help" is also true for placebos. The standard in medicine is higher, and that's a good thing.
The answer is clear - they use it because we don't have a treatment, and it might work, so why not? That doesn't mean it will work, and it isn't an argument for widespread use, or an argument against clinical results, or an argument to not test and evaluate.
"It might help" is the weakest justification for any treatment. You could do practically anything under the rationale that "it might help" - including placebos. That's the comparison - not "HCQ is a placebo" but "it might help" is also true for placebos. The standard in medicine is higher, and that's a good thing.
That's fair, not saying I agree with everything you said but it's better than a flat unexplained comparison between the two.
From COVID to Cancers, HCQ is 'Wonder Drug' of Our Time
https://principia-scientific.com/from-covid-to-cancers-hcq-is-wonder-drug-of-our-time/
https://principia-scientific.com/from-covid-to-cancers-hcq-is-wonder-drug-of-our-time/
Quote:
Undoubtedly, the biggest medical scandal of our age is the coordinated suppression of the science that proves hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) is not only a safe medicine, it is clinically proven to treat many serious diseases other than malaria and COVID-19.
Below we show the evidence from the scientific literature on Google Scholar that HCQ works against many cancers, diabetes, HIV, herpes, rheumatoid arthritis, Lupus, Lyme disease, etc.
Among the top 128 drugs prescribed by doctors, HCQ features in dozens of peer-reviewed studies in respected science journals, testifying to its 'wonder drug' epithet. The shocking truth is that it took a global pandemic and the heroism of informed and selfless men and women to stand up and expose the evil done to us.
Thankfully, most doctors still put treating patients before profit and speak out about the inflated COVID death tolls.
Baylor Scott & White asked if they could please continue use of HCQ on July 6. Stated they were having great success in early treatment and profilaxis.
Oops. Concerned moderates sweating bullets below...
Oops. Concerned moderates sweating bullets below...
I don't know why we can just let doctors and patients decide what's best for them. This **** isn't hard. As much as the left cries about politics from the right, they are just as guilty. I'd take it if I got diagnosed. Why the hell not?
Pardon me if I'm repeating anything, but I'm not going to re-read 46 pages of posts. I thought I'd do a little digging into the whole Hydroxychloroquine plus azithromycin plus zinc evidence. Seems like all the studies we've seen so far only show HCQ and in situations where patients are on vents and it's too late for HCQ anyway.
https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.05.02.20080036v1
This is why we are up in arms about studies that don't include zinc.
Here's more:
https://www.ny1.com/nyc/all-boroughs/news/2020/05/12/nyu-study-looks-at-hydroxychloroquine-zinc-azithromycin-combo-on-decreasing-covid-19-deaths
So that's interesting. Maybe there are more trials going on? I went to https://clinicaltrials.gov/ to find out.
Searching for hydroxychloroquine, azithromycin, and zinc, I got 3 active studies. ZERO completed studies.
When searching for hydroxychloroquine alone, I got 256 results. Some of these may have included azithromycin. Still, it's disappointing to see how little interest there is in testing the trio.
https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.05.02.20080036v1
Quote:
In univariate analyses, zinc sulfate increased the frequency of patients being discharged home, and decreased the need for ventilation, admission to the ICU, and mortality or transfer to hospice for patients who were never admitted to the ICU. After adjusting for the time at which zinc sulfate was added to our protocol, an increased frequency of being discharged home (OR 1.53, 95% CI 1.12-2.09) reduction in mortality or transfer to hospice remained significant (OR 0.449, 95% CI 0.271-0.744). Conclusion: This study provides the first in vivo evidence that zinc sulfate in combination with hydroxychloroquine may play a role in therapeutic management for COVID-19.
This is why we are up in arms about studies that don't include zinc.
Here's more:
https://www.ny1.com/nyc/all-boroughs/news/2020/05/12/nyu-study-looks-at-hydroxychloroquine-zinc-azithromycin-combo-on-decreasing-covid-19-deaths
Quote:
The study looked at the records of 932 COVID-19 patients treated at local hospitals with hydroxychloroquine and azithromycin.
More than 400 of them were also given 100 milligrams of zinc daily.
Researchers said the patients given zinc were one and a half times more likely to recover, decreasing their need for intensive care.
One theory is that hydroxychloroquine may aid a cell's ability to absorb the zinc which has antiviral properties and responds to the infection.
"It sort of boosts the zinc activity which is one of the reasons we thought to look at zinc here and in this observational study we did see a difference suggesting that maybe that boosting activity of the hydroxychloroquine with the zinc helps the zinc to work better and lead to a benefit," Rahimian said.
So that's interesting. Maybe there are more trials going on? I went to https://clinicaltrials.gov/ to find out.
Searching for hydroxychloroquine, azithromycin, and zinc, I got 3 active studies. ZERO completed studies.
When searching for hydroxychloroquine alone, I got 256 results. Some of these may have included azithromycin. Still, it's disappointing to see how little interest there is in testing the trio.
I don't even think most really care if someone wants to take it or not, it's more this recurring "but there is proof!" argument when there's no proof.
Medically speaking, anecdotal evidence is not proof. Trials without controls aren't proof. If a doctor sees success with it and feels it's low risk then great, but it hasn't shown consistent results in a controlled environment and it's definitely not a "cure" (per recent lady doctor in the banned video).
Early concerns were about creating a run on the drug for people that actually need it due to existing conditions (before there was much evidence either way), and we did see shortages. If it's now in enough supply (which I believe is the case) and a doc wants to prescribe it then I think they should be allowed to do so.
Medically speaking, anecdotal evidence is not proof. Trials without controls aren't proof. If a doctor sees success with it and feels it's low risk then great, but it hasn't shown consistent results in a controlled environment and it's definitely not a "cure" (per recent lady doctor in the banned video).
Early concerns were about creating a run on the drug for people that actually need it due to existing conditions (before there was much evidence either way), and we did see shortages. If it's now in enough supply (which I believe is the case) and a doc wants to prescribe it then I think they should be allowed to do so.
And even one trial doesn't make proof. That's why people do meta analysis and work off of bodies of evidence.
Edit to say this cuts both ways - for and against.
Edit to say this cuts both ways - for and against.
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.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...
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.
No material on this site is intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment. See full Medical Disclaimer.
If I want to give it a try why not? Worse case I am pissing money away and will still be able to follow the other protocols if things turn south. Doc, MY BODY MY CHOICE! Let me have the COVID cocktail! You have your opinion and respect your decision not to use it and I have mine.
Read the last sentence of my postoldyella said:
If I want to give it a try why not? Worse case I am pissing money away and will still be able to follow the other protocols if things turn south. Doc, MY BODY MY CHOICE! Let me have the COVID cocktail! You have your opinion and respect your decision not to use it and I have mine.
No material on this site is intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment. See full Medical Disclaimer.
L.O.L.
Dr. Not Yet Dr. Ag said: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.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...
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.
Especially when those "woke" libs are harping on their leftist agenda of vaccines working, the earth being round and that they don't get butt****ed by a demon in their dreams
Ok, let's exclude that guy. 999-6 still seems compelling to me.
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