Evidence against Hydroxychloroquine

Status
Not open for further replies.
2/2 . . .

Using common sense and understanding what Dr. Agarwal taught us, you can see why giving these patients hydroxychloroquine, might be too little too late (which may explain WHY the hydroxychloroquine PLUS azithromycin group fared better).

The patients who received neither, of course were judged to NEED neither. They probably received some other antibiotic though as they were sick enough, that at least SOME of them died.

The model for this study did not follow Dr. Agarwal’s EARLY intervention recomendation with hydroxychloroquine AND azithromycin.

The hydroxychloroquine group was the worst but also had the worst lymphopenia (lowered white blood cell counts of the types of cells that help fight viruses).

So in a sense they started out behind the proverbial 8-ball to begin with.

I cannot confirm this yet (I heard it reported, but I did not save the link), but I understand some of the VA patients did not get the hydroxychloroquine until they were almost dead. Until they were on the ventilators.

Dr. Agarwal from the CDC recomends EARLY intervention. Not LATE as the VA study did.

This video segment skips right to his recomendation.
This drug should be given at this point, EARLY in patients with COVID19 infection.
Click to expand...
Emphasis mine.


The reason is obvious.

Because if it BLOCKS COVID19 virus from getting into the cell (as he stated it does), then early treatent is almost necessary.

And with that much damage already going on, to withold an antibiotic (azithromycin or any other antibiotic would not make sense either. Remember. The non-azithromycin group does not equal NO ANTIBIOTIC. They almost certainly received other antibiotics. I read the study and do not recall them reporting which ones were used but with patients dying of pnemonia, I can’t imagine they let them die, without SOMETHING of an antibiotic!)

So treating the patients AFTER the virus is ALREADY IN the cell in a widespread manner (as this VA study did) makes less sense.

Which is probably WHY the authors recomended further studies are necessary here.

In summary: There is no evidence against usage of hydroxychloroquine in patients with COVID19.
Furthermore, this study was not applicable to the recomended usage in COVID19 actively infected patients, that is EARLY intervention.
 
Last edited:
Zzyzx_Road said:
scaring the manure out of us
Click to expand...
If they showed nothing but five-year-old Suzie getting a new kitten, we wouldn’t be exposed to the commercials because we wouldn’t bother to turn on the tv set to watch Suzie.

And too, if they manage to make people afraid of Trump, they think we’ll vote for Biden if they keep him from saying anything too stupid.

A twofer.
 
sloancaprice said:
Both abortion and the environment are core life issues in Catholic teaching.
Click to expand...
The Church’s teaching regarding the environment is relatively new and is pretty general. But the green new deal is not clothed in clerical scarlet just yet, and we should not suggest that it is.

The Church has always considered child killing a grave sin and mass killing a graver one still. In timeless Church teaching, that is not a matter of opinion, but an absolute. Certainly, churchmen have opinions about the environment. Some, indeed, believe human life will end in 12 years a la AOC, (or is it ten now?) due to fossil fuel use. But it’s not Church doctrine and driving an SUV is not considered sinful.

So I don’t know one can legitimately say concern for the environment is a “core” teaching of the Catholic Church. It’s a political issue about which opinions, even of churchmen, vary.
 
sloancaprice . . .
Existing trajectories of pollutants being placed in the atmosphere by human activity, if unchecked, will raise the temperature of the earth in the coming decades . . .
Click to expand...
The problem with THAT theory, even if true, presupposes an unchecked trajectory, and collectivizes guilt upon, well you know who (conservatives).

It may be that a guy will come along and invent a carbon sequestration method that remedies all the global warming panic.

As a matter if fact, several of the pro-aborts could have already murdered him/her.

The global warming panic is not equivalent to premeditated murder of innocent human beings.
No matter how much one wants to vote Democrat.
Or “Green”. Or whatever “party” pushing for upholding of legalized murder of innocent human beings.
 
sloancaprice said:
There is a clear international scientific consensus that climate change caused by the use of fossil fuels and other human activities poses an existential threat to the very future of humanity
Click to expand...
Disputed and, since CO2 concentrations have been much higher long ago, doubtful. But it is a good way to get money out of a prosperous country when its run by fools.

I don’t doubt, however, that air pollution can be a serious health risk.

Yes, we know, if we buy carbon credits from Al Gore’s eucalyptus plantations from which he evicted small farmers, and pour taxpayer money into money pit green schemes operated by the politically favored, it will all be okay.
Cathoholic said:
It may be that a guy will come along and invent a carbon sequestration method that remedies all the global warming panic.
Click to expand...
Well, let’s see, we’re about 230 PPM or so away from the CO2 level at which all plant life will cease. We came close during the Little Ice Age. On the other hand, we’re about 3600 ppm away from the highest known CO2 level, during which plants and animal life thrived. But let’s see if we can get down to 170 and see if all the plants really do die like the scientists tell us they will.
 
Cathoholic said:
Let’s listen to the CDC’s Dr Agarwal explain…
Click to expand...
Wait, wait, wait, wait… why do you say “the CDC’s Dr. Agarwal”? It appears he is a rheumatologist, and not a member of the CDC.
Cathoholic said:
He also said hydroxychloroquine increases the pH of the cell (I’m pretty sure he meant increases the acidity of the cell which would DECREASE the cell pH).
Click to expand...
And that didn’t worry you???
Cathoholic said:
This was a non-randomized VA retrospective analysis.
Not a randomized double-blinded prospective study.
Click to expand...
You can’t criticize anecdotal evidence of this drug failing to provide a benefit while at the same time accepting anecdotal evidence that it does provide a benefit.
Cathoholic said:
So this is the reason WHY Dr. Agarwal recomends EARLY intervention.
Click to expand...
That’s another problem. “Early” implies “broad-based” because you can’t know in advance which patients are likely to develop a serious case and which aren’t. That would expose far more people to potential side effects, and it would put much more stress on the limited supply of HCQ.

I am beginning to wonder if I should even trust this guy with rheumatism.
Cathoholic said:
In summary: There is no evidence against usage of hydroxychloroquine in patients with COVID19.
Click to expand...
The real problem is that there is no evidence for it.
 
Last edited:
No he is not. He is addressing dire consequences with extinction level ramification.
 
There is probably no chance of really building unity within this society. About half the population insists on abortion on demand and about half opposes that. Since that’s a human life issue even more serious than the Nazi Holocaust, it’s just going to be a divider.

No American political party, however, integrates the tenets of Catholic social teaching. They’re both too wedded to big corporate influences.
 
Last edited:
? It appears he is a rheumatologist, and not a member of the CDC.
Click to expand...
The CDC posted this on their site.

Rhematologists use hydroxychloroquine more than any other kind of physician.

This would be expected.
 
sloancaprice said:
In the closing remarks of his address to Congress in 2015, Pope Francis said a nation is great when it defends liberty as Abraham Lincoln did, when it seeks equality as Martin Luther King did, and when it strives for justice for the oppressed as Dorothy Day did. Let us pray that our nation moves toward such greatness in this election year, and that faith-filled prudent disciples are leading the way.
Click to expand...
And let’s pray too, that our people no longer kill a million babies annually.
 
LeafByNiggle on microacidity cell changes . . .
And that didn’t worry you???
Click to expand...
It is irrelevant what my feelings (“worry”) are.
The issue is, is this cytoprotective. Not your FEELINGS.

.
You can’t criticize anecdotal evidence of this drug failing to provide a benefit while at the same time accepting anecdotal evidence that it does provide a benefit.
Click to expand...
This is irrelevant.

I presented the physiology based upon what was taught.

The study anectodal or non-anectodal, does not conform to the recommended guidelines.

The guidelines are based upon the pathways presented.

LeafByNiggle . . .
The real problem is that there is no evidence for it.
Click to expand...
I’ll tell the FDA who approved it, LeafByNiggle said they were wrong based upon his opinion.
 
Last edited:
sloancaprice . . .
Both abortion and the environment are core life issues in Catholic teaching.
Click to expand...
As Pat Madrid and Karl Keating frequently wrap up their debates with . . . .
Some day you will go before God almighty and I will go before God almighty.
Click to expand...
You go ahead and explain to God
how global warming is equivalent
to murdering an innocent person on purpose.
 
That doesn’t mean they are experts in infectious disease or viruses.
Click to expand...
Well Leaf. Infectious disease docs don’t use it as an antibiotic either (until now.) They use it for malaria prevention, but not in this capacity.

For everyone else.

I will put up the screenshot later and you can draw your own conclusions.
 
Cathoholic said:
LeafByNiggle on microacidity cell changes . . .
And that didn’t worry you???
Click to expand...
Wait. When a simple factual error is made and not even corrected, that should cast doubt on speaker’s attention to detail and therefore on everything else he says.
Cathoholic said:
You can’t criticize anecdotal evidence of this drug failing to provide a benefit while at the same time accepting anecdotal evidence that it does provide a benefit.
Click to expand...
Of course it is relevant. You don’t apply the same standard to positive results that you apply to negative results. That is a sure recipe for arriving at a biased conclusion.
The study anectodal or non-anectodal, does not conform to the recommended guidelines.
Click to expand...
All positive supposed evidence also does not conform to recommended guidelines.
LeafByNiggle . . .
The real problem is that there is no evidence for it.
Click to expand...
I’ll tell the FDA who approved it, LeafByNiggle said they were wrong based upon his opinion.
Click to expand...
The FDA does not say there is evidence for effectiveness. You are falsely deducing that from the fact that they allow its use in extremely serious cases.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
The errors here from you are so many I don’t know where to begin.

So I won’t. At least for now.
 
Last edited:
LeafByNiggle said:
The FDA does not say there is evidence for effectiveness. You are falsely deducing that from the fact that they allow its use in extremely serious cases.
Click to expand...
Nor do they say there is evidence for ineffectiveness.

I have noticed a conspicuous lack of criticism from you toward anti-HCQ articles on the basis that they’re not based on the clinical trials that you so strenuously advocate for every time a pro-HCQ article comes up. Hypocrisy much?

If you did actually criticize such an anti-HCQ article on that basis as strongly as you did pro-HCQ articles, please point to the post numbers where you did so and I will apologize.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top