H
Hume
Guest
I’m guessing you meant that as a reply to someone else.
Evidence against Hydroxychloroquine
- Thread starter LeafByNiggle
- Start date
- Status
M
Maximus1
Guest
Good analogy. And very similar to my favorite analogy, the mayor of Amity insisting everyone go swimming because he is blinded by the need to open his summer town for business.
That resulted in a dead boy also
That resulted in a dead boy also
V
Victoria33
Guest
We are back to square one. I don’t believe people should die OR recover if it is avoidable by waiting 12 months for a study to come out.
Did the FDA once state that smoking was not dangerous to one’s health?
Does not science reverse itself on positions.
And enough of this anecdotal evidence line.
Doctors have attested to it. At least Dr. Zelenko and I am sure there are others. It is being administered nationwide.
Chloroquine was used as an anti-malaria drug in Vietnam. It is surely related to hydroxy.
I would wager hydroxychloquine has been tested already, just not for COVID.
I have had my say. I don’t care to repeat myself or add more postings.
Last edited:
P
Pattylt
Guest
HC has been used alone, with zinc and with Zpacks. It’s possible that one of the combinations works better than the other or alone. At this point in time, it’s just guessing with anecdotal evidence.
If a patient is told exactly what is and is not known and wants to try it, I’m fine with them doing so. With what is known so far…including anecdotal evidence that it can also cause a worse outcome as well as the damage to the heart, I’m not going to.
For all we know right now, every recovery with the drug could have recovered without it…we just don’t have enough good data and I prefer meds with good data. All medicines have risks and side effects and I prefer to know what they are. Many seem willing to try it without that knowledge and I feel that’s their right. Just not for me!
If a patient is told exactly what is and is not known and wants to try it, I’m fine with them doing so. With what is known so far…including anecdotal evidence that it can also cause a worse outcome as well as the damage to the heart, I’m not going to.
For all we know right now, every recovery with the drug could have recovered without it…we just don’t have enough good data and I prefer meds with good data. All medicines have risks and side effects and I prefer to know what they are. Many seem willing to try it without that knowledge and I feel that’s their right. Just not for me!
H
Horton
Guest
Which I’m saying is insufficient to make the claim you made. Hydroxychloroquine has been around for a very long time and is used frequently for malaria and for certain autoimmune disorders. Most of us have multiple disorders, at times with contraindicated treatments, so we know meds, we research meds, we talk to our docs, we weigh the pros & cons, assess the risks, and then make a decision based on our docs professional knowledge and what we’ve learned.
I’m saying there is always a lot more to meds than what you can read on WebMD.
P
ProVobis
Guest
On theories, not facts.
V
Victoria33
Guest
Dr. Zelenko said he barely saw any kind of irritation per heart problems. In fact, he basically said he had not seen any heart arrytmia (spelling?). So, I’m not going to spread the video, it could be misinformation, we all can make up our own minds but it is in his interview with Rudy Giuliani where he says this.
You can go on about what is anecdotal but doctors are saying this, hence, they have an educated opinion versus if your local car mechanic said this.
You can go on about what is anecdotal but doctors are saying this, hence, they have an educated opinion versus if your local car mechanic said this.
Last edited:
J
JapaneseKappa
Guest
They’re not prescribing anything based on catholic answers forum posts either. The simple justification for this is that Trump gave the drug excessive positive publicity, so if it turns out to not work it should get proportional negative publicity so no one is confused.
M
Maximus1
Guest
Trump intuition, or mystic ignorance, or whatever it is called is profoundly dangerous because people give it weight.
V
Victoria33
Guest
Might as well say that since people have benefited from the drug combo and your view might have voided such recoveries.
Your remark may well be out-of-bounds and is nothing but ad homs.
Your remark may well be out-of-bounds and is nothing but ad homs.
Last edited:
M
Maximus1
Guest
People may or may not have benefitted. The study was negative.
We cannot substitute Mary Poppins for actual medicine.
We cannot substitute Mary Poppins for actual medicine.
I
ImQuiet
Guest
The claim that touting HC is a cure for COVID is irresponsible? We can’t definitively reject or deny it at this point.ImQuiet:
Which I’m saying is insufficient to make the claim you made.
LeafByNiggle
Well-known member
If you need more, here is more:
https://reason.com/2020/04/22/more-evidence-that-hydroxychloroquine-is-not-a-covid-19-silver-bullet/
theconversation.com
https://www.yalemedicine.org/stories/hydroxychloroquine-and-chloroquine-treat-covid-19/
https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanrhe/article/PIIS2665-9913(20)30089-8/fulltext
https://science.slashdot.org/story/...nce-hydroxychloroquine-works-against-covid-19
Loading…
www.statnews.com
https://reason.com/2020/04/22/more-evidence-that-hydroxychloroquine-is-not-a-covid-19-silver-bullet/
Loading…
www.cebm.net
A small trial finds that hydroxychloroquine is not effective for treating coronavirus
The president promoted the combination of hydroxychloroquine and an antibiotic for treating COVID-19. But a new study suggests it provides no benefits.
theconversation.com
Loading…
blogs.sciencemag.org
Loading…
www.vox.com
Loading…
www.sciencenews.org
https://www.yalemedicine.org/stories/hydroxychloroquine-and-chloroquine-treat-covid-19/
Loading…
thehill.com
https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanrhe/article/PIIS2665-9913(20)30089-8/fulltext
Loading…
www.reuters.com
Loading…
www.marketwatch.com
https://science.slashdot.org/story/...nce-hydroxychloroquine-works-against-covid-19
M
Maximus1
Guest
But it is still irresponsible to tout it
R
Ridgerunner
Guest
You seem to be using the old equipment. But it’s close enough for government work.
R
Ridgerunner
Guest
Hard to do testing when your “control” is going to be some person with the disease to whom you’re not giving treatment. And to really be a good control, you have to give the disease to some healthy persons in order to be sure the “stage” of the disease is known for all of the patients, given that CV19 is so highly variable in symptoms and duration.
But while Yale medicine doesn’t claim hydrochloroquine is a cure-all, their doctors use it in treating patients. Here’s from your Yale medical journal article:
"Still, due to its ability to calm an inflammatory immune response in autoimmune diseases, Yale doctors are giving hydroxychloroquine to some severely ill COVID-19 patients “because there are theoretical benefits,” Dr. Vinetz says. “It’s an effort to dampen the immune response that might cause a person’s lungs to become inflamed and damaged enough to require a ventilator to breathe,” he explains. “It’s not an anti-viral.”
https://www.yalemedicine.org/stories/hydroxychloroquine-and-chloroquine-treat-covid-19/
Now, what does the article say about Azithromax. Do they say it’s worthless? No. They say it’s not an anti-inflammatory. Who ever said it was one? It’s an antibiotic used to control bacterial infections that often follow damage from viral infections. Nor do they say it shouldn’t be used.
Your CEBM article just says the evidence in favor of chloroquine and hydrochloroquine is not definitive. Everybody knows that. However, the article (by two people, neither of whom is an infectious disease physician) adds this:
" Disclaimer: the article has not been peer-reviewed; it should not replace individual clinical judgement and the sources cited should be checked. The views expressed in this commentary represent the views of the authors and not necessarily those of the host institution, the NHS, the NIHR, or the Department of Health and Social Care. The views are not a substitute for professional medical advice."
In other words, “listen to your doctor, not to us”.
The rest are just popular magazines with political views they suggest (wrongly) are backed by science, while disclaiming having any scientific basis for their political opinions.
Hydrochloroquine may yet prove to be an effective or partially effective treatment for CV19. But what a shame it is that there is this movement to prevent its use by politically motivated people who, in their eagerness to discredit Trump may be condemning some people to death who didn’t need to die.
I do hope Cathoholic’s friend, who was unreasonably denied Hydrochloroquine, has pulled through the night. It didn’t look good yesterday.
But while Yale medicine doesn’t claim hydrochloroquine is a cure-all, their doctors use it in treating patients. Here’s from your Yale medical journal article:
"Still, due to its ability to calm an inflammatory immune response in autoimmune diseases, Yale doctors are giving hydroxychloroquine to some severely ill COVID-19 patients “because there are theoretical benefits,” Dr. Vinetz says. “It’s an effort to dampen the immune response that might cause a person’s lungs to become inflamed and damaged enough to require a ventilator to breathe,” he explains. “It’s not an anti-viral.”
https://www.yalemedicine.org/stories/hydroxychloroquine-and-chloroquine-treat-covid-19/
Now, what does the article say about Azithromax. Do they say it’s worthless? No. They say it’s not an anti-inflammatory. Who ever said it was one? It’s an antibiotic used to control bacterial infections that often follow damage from viral infections. Nor do they say it shouldn’t be used.
Your CEBM article just says the evidence in favor of chloroquine and hydrochloroquine is not definitive. Everybody knows that. However, the article (by two people, neither of whom is an infectious disease physician) adds this:
" Disclaimer: the article has not been peer-reviewed; it should not replace individual clinical judgement and the sources cited should be checked. The views expressed in this commentary represent the views of the authors and not necessarily those of the host institution, the NHS, the NIHR, or the Department of Health and Social Care. The views are not a substitute for professional medical advice."
In other words, “listen to your doctor, not to us”.
The rest are just popular magazines with political views they suggest (wrongly) are backed by science, while disclaiming having any scientific basis for their political opinions.
Hydrochloroquine may yet prove to be an effective or partially effective treatment for CV19. But what a shame it is that there is this movement to prevent its use by politically motivated people who, in their eagerness to discredit Trump may be condemning some people to death who didn’t need to die.
I do hope Cathoholic’s friend, who was unreasonably denied Hydrochloroquine, has pulled through the night. It didn’t look good yesterday.
D
dvdjs
Guest
Does anyone have any idea why it has become so important ot Trump supporters to try to breathe some life into this dead-horse therapy? Odd.
Last edited:
V
Victoria33
Guest
We can not let people die for some ineffective government bureacracy, Doctors all over are prescribing it so your statement could even be contradictory.
R
Ridgerunner
Guest
I had to be at least mildly amused. In your “Market Watch” article appears the following:
"Organizations representing doctors and pharmacists criticized physicians who, they say, have prophylactically prescribed chloroquine, hydroxychloroquine and the antibiotic azithromycin “for themselves, their families, or their colleagues”
Whether it works or not, obviously enough physicians believe in it to lay in a supply for themselves, their families and their colleagues, to draw the attention of organizational critics. They might be wrong in thinking it a potential remedy in whole or in part, but they believe in it enough to use it to help protect their families.
It’s pretty plain that many physicians at least tentatively believe in it, including the Yale medical department doctors cited above. The movement by the left to prevent its use because Trump spoke favorably of it is shameful.
"Organizations representing doctors and pharmacists criticized physicians who, they say, have prophylactically prescribed chloroquine, hydroxychloroquine and the antibiotic azithromycin “for themselves, their families, or their colleagues”
Whether it works or not, obviously enough physicians believe in it to lay in a supply for themselves, their families and their colleagues, to draw the attention of organizational critics. They might be wrong in thinking it a potential remedy in whole or in part, but they believe in it enough to use it to help protect their families.
It’s pretty plain that many physicians at least tentatively believe in it, including the Yale medical department doctors cited above. The movement by the left to prevent its use because Trump spoke favorably of it is shameful.
I think it’s inevitable, as the anti-Trumpers have the media on their side. They’ll have doctors afraid to prescribe it, which might be the immediate objective. Can’t have any possibility of it succeeding.
Last edited:
N
niceatheist
Guest
No, there are claims that people have been saved. Without double blind studies, you have no idea whether the alleged therapies did anything at all. Correlation does not imply causation.Maximus1:
People have been saved by this drug combination. Enough said.
- Status