Evidence against Hydroxychloroquine

[LeafByNiggle]

LeafByNiggle:

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.

Nor do they say there is evidence for ineffectiveness.

This sounds a bit crazy. Are you saying I need evidence of ineffectiveness to claim there is no evidence for effectiveness of HCQ? Just think about that for minute.

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?

There is no hypocrisy here. I am open to the possibility of both HCQ working and HCQ not working. I only present the anecdotal reports of no benefit to balance the very few anecdotal reports of effectiveness. They all fall short of a rigorous trial. But rigorous trials are underway, and they need not take months or years. I expect we will start getting some answers in a few weeks. And remember, HCQ is not the only drug being tested. Why haven’t Trump supporters been clamoring for Remdesivir treatments? There are anecdotal reports of that working in combination with other drugs. Could it be that no one cares because Trump did not trot it out every chance he got? Frankly I am surprised that there is still so much passion for HCQ in light of the fact that Trump himself has stopped mentioning it at all.

 

[Cathoholic]

LeafByNiggle . . .

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.

Pathetic.

He is not comparing studies here.
He is giving you the physiology. The cellular “WHYS”.

LeafByNiggle . . . .

The FDA does not say there is evidence for effectiveness.

They have enough “evidence” to approve it.

What do you think was the reason the FDA approved HCQ for use in COVID19 infections?? At least emergently?

Do you think they “approve” medication indications without “evidence”??

LeafByNiggle (on Dr. Agarwal calling increasing pH when I think he meant decreasing pH) . . .

I think it’s a verbal “typo”. But assume I am wrong there on the pH issue if you want. Not him.

Whatever it is, more acid in the cell or more base in the cell, it creates a more hostile environment for the virus without adversely effecting the human host cell.

You have a perfectly good physiology presentation by this guy, and you criticize it focusing on ME.

These are illogical feelings-based arguments by you LeafByNiggle.

 

[Zzyzx_Road]

I am open to the possibility of both HCQ working and HCQ not working.

Both? Really? You could have fooled me.
I see no words from you criticizing the anti-HCQ trials. You’re only belated accepting that they also were not clinical trial based because that was called out to you.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

LeafByNiggle . . .

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.

“Whys” for what? Why HCQ doesn’t work when used too late? Sure, I can believe that. There may be lots of reasons why HCQ doesn’t work. None of those reasons say why (or even if) it does work.

LeafByNiggle . . . .

The FDA does not say there is evidence for effectiveness.

They have enough “evidence” to approve it.

Which is zero in humans.

What do you think was the reason the FDA approved HCQ for use in COVID19 infections?? At least emergently?

Because of observations in vitro.

Do you think they “approve” medication indications without “evidence”??

If you mean evidence of effectiveness in humans, yes, they have done exactly that. As we see it is just as I said. The argument you present is not based on actual medical evidence, but on your false assumption based on an action taken by the FDA.

LeafByNiggle (on Dr. Agarwal calling increasing pH when I think he meant decreasing pH) . . .

I think it’s a verbal “typo”. But assume I am wrong there on the pH issue if you want. Not him.

Whatever it is, more acid in the cell or more base in the cell, it creates a more hostile environment for the virus without adversely effecting the human host cell.

The more I look into this Aggarwal fellow, the more I suspect he is off his rocker. On the cell pH business, he probably did mean increase the pH, because lowering pH leads to acidosis - a very dangerous condition. And I also found that for proper cell activity, the pH must be maintained in a very narrow range. The cells themselves have built-in regulation mechanisms to maintain that pH. So pH is not a parameter that we can play with willy-nilly as if it was a test tube experiment. I also looked by Dr. Aggarwal’s youtube channel. It was started this past January. It has nothing to do with CDC. It is his baby all the way. I think you need to come clean about misrepresenting him as "the CDC’s"

You have a perfectly good physiology presentation by this guy, and you criticize it focusing on ME.

I am in no position to judge the medical validity of his explanation. For I know it could be all poppycock.

There is an old story, undoubtedly apocryphal, about a group of monks in the middle ages who were debating how many teeth were in a normal horse’s mouth using obtuse deductions, not unlike your deduction from the FDA’s approval. When one apprentice monk suggested that they go and find a horse and count the teeth, he was roundly criticized for being so illogical and the debate raged on and the young monk learned his place. Here is Francis Bacon’s version of it, for your amusement.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

LeafByNiggle:

I am open to the possibility of both HCQ working and HCQ not working.

Both? Really? You could have fooled me.
I see no words from you criticizing the anti-HCQ trials.

There is nothing to criticize in the trials themselves. Now if someone were to look at those trials and conclude that HCQ definitely is a worthless treatment for covid-19, I would criticize that conclusion. But I have not seen anyone making that argument, so there is nothing of that sort to criticize. On the other hand, those who look at the few reports of seeming benefit from the drug and conclude there definitely is some benefit, that I do criticize for the same reason.

You’re only belated accepting that they also were not clinical trial based because that was called out to you.

Impugning motives - only acceptable for certified mind-readers. Are you so certified?

 

[silentwitness]

https://freebeacon.com/latest-news/woman-who-ingested-fish-tank-cleaner-was-prolific-donor-to-democratic-causes/

Loading…

www.foxnews.com

 

[JanR]

No drug is perfect. But it has helped pull some patients back from the brink of death who would otherwise have died without it. In an emergency situation, you find out what works in the short term, at least, and you use it. There’s plenty of time afterwards for formal scientific studies.

 

[Cathoholic]

Cathoholic to LeafByNiggle . . .

What do you think was the reason the FDA approved HCQ for use in COVID19 infections?? At least emergently?

LeafByNiggle . . .

Because of observations in vitro.

You don’t get FDA approval for in vitro activity.

LeafByNiggle . . .

lowering pH leads to acidosis

This is a mere partial truth.

There are lots of cell activities that give off acids.
That’s why cells have “buffering capacity” . . . so all acid production does NOT lead to “acidosis”.

Your response just is not adequate.

I think you need to come clean about misrepresenting him as “the CDC’s”

I think you do.

For everybody else, look at the video.

Here is the address.

You will see it is a CDC Youtube channel video. He is acting as a consultant for them here.

To the readers here.

Dr. Agarwal is acting as a consultant here.
Here again is the actual youtube video site.
Look at the title of the video and you will see it is from the CDC’s own Youtube channel.

LeafByNiggle would have you believe that the CDC just coincidently put this up.

Just like he is attempting to tell you the FDA approved medications are based on in vitro activity. Or at least just this one (what other approvals do you think are based on in viro activity Leaf?)

In vitro means it was OUTSIDE of a biological human environment.
It can mean in a petri dish. This is just false.
The FDA does not approve medications that way.

Leaf. I want you to back the in vitro claim up because you made it sound as though there is NO clinical evidence.

Just like he is attempting to have you believe all these studies with HCQ nationwide (there are several of them) that you have read about all just started up on their own.

He doesn’t know what he is talking about. You can’t do human studies on a whim.

See this post for more details.

Like I said LeafByNiggle.

Your errors are so vast, I have no idea where to begin.

 

[Cathoholic]

Naturally Leaf is presenting to you a series of PARTIAL TRUTHS here . . .

The more I look into this Aggarwal fellow, the more I suspect he is off his rocker. On the cell pH business, he probably did mean increase the pH, because lowering pH leads to acidosis - a very dangerous condition. And I also found that for proper cell activity, the pH must be maintained in a very narrow range. The cells themselves have built-in regulation mechanisms to maintain that pH. So pH is not a parameter that we can play with willy-nilly as if it was a test tube experiment.

I am not going to argue with him here because as I said.

These are partial truths and I am not willing to go through the work right now.

But ask yourself . . . .

Hmmm. Let’s see. Dr. Agarwal is correct on his physiology, that means minute acid-base changes occur within the cell.

But Leaf would have me believe any acid-base changes result in “acidosis”.

And just look at the picture of havoc Leaf painted for users of hydroxychloroquine.

Wow!

But wait! Heeey. Those guys have been using hydroxychloroquine for a LOT of YEARS!

Maybe YOU’VE been on it if you traveled to countries where malaria is an issue.

Heeey. Wait a minute. Leaf painted this picture of biological armageddon. But the malaria prophylaxis patients have been doing fine. At least for the most part. Well enough where the risk-benefit ratio has been “benefit”.

Well what about those arthritis patients?
Hey wait a minute there too!
Those patients have been on hydroxychloroquine for MANY years too. They go to their eye doctors every 6 months to every year and get checked. And for the most part THEY are not melting away from “acidosis” or any other side effect either.

One of my wife’s friends is on it for her arthritis.
(Hint: She has no “acidosis”.)

Well lupus recipients. Those guys MUST be going into full blown clinical acidosis, because there are micro-changes in the celluar level that can upset a virus, but a human can buffer just fine.
Just a cotton-picking minute.
The lupus patients are doing well on it too in many cases. Yes there have been side effects there too, but a favorable enough risk-benefit profile for them to keep using it.

Hmm.

Dr. Agarwal from the CDC (as a consultant here) . . .

Or . . . Dr. LeafByNiggle (which is just Dr. Google).

To the readers here.

Just watch the video and use your common sense.

If Leaf wants, you can change “acidosis” to “alkalosis” and come up with the same issue in principle. A change in pH and all the changes that come with that.
It doesn’t matter in principle.

Either way throws a cell (and a person) out of homeostasis if too extreme.

But minute amounts of acid or base shifts evidently can be handled just fine without acidosis (or alkalosis) by the people otherwise the medications would not be being used.

Common sense can tell us that.

 

[7_Sorrows]

Didn’t they also claim ventilators were necessary and were calling for ventilators?
Now it turns out 95% of people on ventilators died.

Doctors and scientists fighting covid-19 don’t have all the answers yet.
They are doing the best they can and trying to try drugs that already exist.

Don’t blame Trump because some doctors tout some drugs over others.

All of the complaining and divisiveness by anti-Trumpers doesn’t help
anything. I am waiting for the day this callousness towards the president
during this pandemic stops and mature minds prevail.

 

[Xystus]

The critical questions are: is this, or any given drug for that matter, efficacious; how does one go about proving efficacy;

The jury is still out[which you realize or you would not be asking these questions, you would be throwing the non-efficaious results is peoples faces] yet you claimed it was a “dead-horse therapy” for purely political reasons. Odd.

this dead-horse therapy

 

[Maximus1]

I blame Trump for intervening with a message designed to make people accept his conclusion. I blame him because the power of the presidency substitutes for actual medical evidence in many people’s minds in this case. I blame him for firing Doctors who refuse to lend their credibility wrongly.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

LeafByNiggle:

I think you need to come clean about misrepresenting him as “the CDC’s”

I think you do.

For everybody else, look at the video.

Here is the address.

https://youtu.be/2wqXHvCbPKg

You will see it is a CDC Youtube channel video. He is acting as a consultant for them here.

That is not a CDC Youtube channel. The name of the channel your video is on is “Myositis 101”. It has no association with the CDC. It belongs solely to Dr. Rohit Aggarwal. Here is the actual channel. You will find no approval of him or any of his content by the CDC.

Maybe you were misled by the notice below his screen that says “Get the latest information from the CDC about covid-19”. Youtube puts that notice on every video about covid-19. Even news reports from MSNBC. I don’t think MSNBC is an arm of the CDC, do you?

The bottom line is Dr. Aggarwal speaks only for himself.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

Didn’t they also claim ventilators were necessary and were calling for ventilators?

That has been the standard treatment for people in extreme respiratory distress. This disease turns out to be respiratory distress plus a whole lot more. You can’t blame the doctors for trying what worked in the past.

Now it turns out 95% of people on ventilators died.

I heard 80%, but your point is valid.

Doctors and scientists fighting covid-19 don’t have all the answers yet.
They are doing the best they can and trying to try drugs that already exist.

Don’t blame Trump because some doctors tout some drugs over others.

Doctors do not tout HCQ. That is false. They use it as a last resort because they don’t know what else to do. Plus some are using it in a trial. I think they should be trying other drugs, like Remdesivir in combinations. But I’m no doctor, so don’t run out and get Remdesivir just because I mentioned it.

All of the complaining and divisiveness by anti-Trumpers

I only complain about disinformation - no matter who it comes from.

 

[Maximus1]

Actually you complain when disinformation comes from a president, rather than the drunk, know it all, at the end of the bar, because it can do real damage.

 

[sallybutler]

Please, please, please do not rely on Trump for medical advice when he is verbalizing his stream of consciousness thoughts. While you and I know not to try taking common household cleaners as medicine, not everyone has the same cognitive abilities (due to physical and/or mental illnesses, age, experience, or inability to think straight)

Loading…

www.timesofisrael.com

 

[Maximus1]

Another Trump action that will generate accusations that those who call attention to it, and pan it, are wrong because they pan all his dumb statements.

 

[silentwitness]

Please, please, please do not rely on Trump for medical advice

People don’t.

Please please stop trying to imagine the worse possible take on the presidents remarks and assume we are all idiots.

Nothing the president said was dangerous unless you start with TDS, interpret in your own heads the worse possible take and then consider people are so stupid they would take your interpretation as gospel.

I’m starting to think a cure for TDS is just as important as COVID 19.

Please stop hating. It is not good for your souls.

 

[Ridgerunner]

Yes, let’s do so. When were CO2 concentrations higher?

Easy to look up. Of course, nearly all ancient temperature estimates are by proxy information. And, of course, every assertion by everyone is diputed. I make no claim to expertise in such determinations, but since virtually every “scientific” assertion is disputed, one can reasonably question whether anyone truly is. But one thing is for sure, life did not end at even 6,000 ppm, but was robust. Seems on a long scale, we’re closer to the life-killing bottom than at the top.

There is evidence for high CO 2 concentrations between 200 and 150 million years ago of over 3,000 ppm, and between 600 and 400 million years ago of over 6,000 ppm.[23] In more recent times, atmospheric CO 2 concentration continued to fall after about 60 million years ago. About 34 million years ago, the time of the Eocene–Oligocene extinction event and when the Antarctic ice sheet started to take its current form, CO2 was about 760 ppm,[[34] Carbon dioxide in Earth's atmosphere - Wikipedia) and there is geochemical evidence that concentrations were less than 300 ppm by about 20 million years ago. Decreasing CO2 concentration, with a tipping point of 600 ppm, was the primary agent forcing Antarctic glaciation.[[35]]
Carbon dioxide in Earth's atmosphere - Wikipedia) Low CO
2 concentrations may have been the stimulus that favored the evolution of C4 plants, which increased greatly in abundance between 7 and 5 million years ago.[32] Based on an analysis of fossil leaves, Wagner et al.[36] argued that atmospheric CO2 concentrations during the last 7,000–10,000 year period were significantly higher than 300 ppm and contained substantial variations that may be correlated to climate variations.

 

[Ridgerunner]

I think they should be trying other drugs, like Remdesivir in combinations.

Just heard that a test somewhere, Australia I think, indicates remdesivir is of no value in treatment of CV19. Guess everybody will keep trying with it, hydrochloroquine, zinc and whatever else anybody can think of that MIGHT do some good for SOME. And they can’t be blamed for it.