Started By
Message
re: Alabama Board Coronavirus Thread
Posted on 7/30/20 at 8:02 am to phil4bama
Posted on 7/30/20 at 8:02 am to phil4bama
Well now you're moving the goalposts. First it was "they didn't administer it at the right time" and then when you're presented with ample evidence that they did, it's suddenly "well the dosage schedule was wrong". Come on man. Practically every study that has shown it to be effective has been highly flawed. The randomized, controlled studies have shown it to not be effective. There is no grand conspiracy among literally hundreds of thousands of medical professionals and scientists across the globe to deny this miracle treatment to millions. This isn't something being pushed by pharmaceutical companies who are trying to avoid a cheap drug beyond its patent life from solving the pandemic either. Studies have been done in countries where healthcare isn't a for-profit industry that show HCQ isn't a legitimate treatment option. The UK just did a large scale study that showed HCQ to be ineffective as a treatment for COVID, and there is one from Spain that is about to be published that -according to the doctor who led it-shows early intervention with HCQ to be ineffective.
This post was edited on 7/30/20 at 8:03 am
2
Posted on 7/30/20 at 12:01 pm to Robot Santa
quote:
Well now you're moving the goalposts. First it was "they didn't administer it at the right time" and then when you're presented with ample evidence that they did, it's suddenly "well the dosage schedule was wrong". Come on man. Practically every study that has shown it to be effective has been highly flawed. The randomized, controlled studies have shown it to not be effective. There is no grand conspiracy among literally hundreds of thousands of medical professionals and scientists across the globe to deny this miracle treatment to millions. This isn't something being pushed by pharmaceutical companies who are trying to avoid a cheap drug beyond its patent life from solving the pandemic either. Studies have been done in countries where healthcare isn't a for-profit industry that show HCQ isn't a legitimate treatment option. The UK just did a large scale study that showed HCQ to be ineffective as a treatment for COVID, and there is one from Spain that is about to be published that -according to the doctor who led it-shows early intervention with HCQ to be ineffective.
I don't believe there's some huge conspiracy to discredit HCQ therapy. But I also don't believe it's ineffective. Having said that about the conspiracy, IF, and that's a big if, there were a conspiracy, you don't think Big Pharma has a vested interest in discrediting a possible treatment that costs pennies to produce while they sink billions of dollars worldwide on vaccines, treatments like Remdesivir, and other antivirals and established meds that are being touted as possible treatments? Hell, remdesivir is a failed treatment, first for Hepatitis C then when it failed for that, they tried Ebola and Marburg virus. It failed those too, so Gilead is sitting there with Remdesivir when COVID breaks out and they got lucky. But how lucky did they get? All it does is, according to all the data, is shorten your hospital stay by 4 days. The average stay is, I believe, 19 days. Remdesivir takes it to 15. If you're on a ventilator, recommended course is 2 vials on day 1 and 1 vial for 9 more days. Non-ventilated patients get 2 vials then 1 for 5 more days. If your response isn't sufficient, they extend it for the full 10 days. At a cost of $300 per vial. It's not a miracle drug. So don't be so naive as to think there's not an economic motive behind all this research. I hope it's not the only one, but it's definitely a factor. And if they have to fudge a little data to get approval, so be it. Guess who designs and pays for the trial studies to get approval? You think that might influence the results? You're damn right it does!
Posted on 7/30/20 at 12:46 pm to Robot Santa
The reason people will always "see what they want to see" with HCQ is that:
If it must be administered at the precise point in infection in which 95-98% or more patients showing symptoms recover regardless of treatment, the "margin of error" in any study is simply off the charts.
That means even studies of 500 people would only be looking for differences in 10 people (20 at the most)?
The chance that you as a doctor/researcher may have 10 or 15 of those with another factor which heightens the danger of Covid whereas another researcher may have only 3 or 4 in their group would seem more the rule than exception.
We don't even have a grasp on all the reasons some people fight this, up and down, for 6 weeks whereas others just get over it in 2 days to consider those in the studies.
Many doctors have dealt with 200 Covid hospitalizations and have had 198 patients survive, regardless of treatment.
"Observationally" all those doctors can easily observe that whatever they did worked better...
On the other hand, many other doctors have observed 15 of 200 patients die with the exact same treatment as the doctor above simply due to a different draw of the 200 infected.
Here in the US, politics distorts the picture even more with this specific drug. For that reason, if I'm trying to get the most objective picture, I'd mainly look to other first world countries about this specific drug where politics only plays a normal instead of hyper-driven role.
Seems that even without the overzealous politics in those places, "maybe it does a little something - maybe it does nothing" isn't really a question that has much of a definitive answer.
Certainly not worth the amount of hoopla it engenders here in either direction.
At least until further research may define specifically that it "works like a charm in patients with existing T cells from a previous coronavirus common cold who do not have hypertension if administered before the onset of high fever but does not work well in others".
If it must be administered at the precise point in infection in which 95-98% or more patients showing symptoms recover regardless of treatment, the "margin of error" in any study is simply off the charts.
That means even studies of 500 people would only be looking for differences in 10 people (20 at the most)?
The chance that you as a doctor/researcher may have 10 or 15 of those with another factor which heightens the danger of Covid whereas another researcher may have only 3 or 4 in their group would seem more the rule than exception.
We don't even have a grasp on all the reasons some people fight this, up and down, for 6 weeks whereas others just get over it in 2 days to consider those in the studies.
Many doctors have dealt with 200 Covid hospitalizations and have had 198 patients survive, regardless of treatment.
"Observationally" all those doctors can easily observe that whatever they did worked better...
On the other hand, many other doctors have observed 15 of 200 patients die with the exact same treatment as the doctor above simply due to a different draw of the 200 infected.
Here in the US, politics distorts the picture even more with this specific drug. For that reason, if I'm trying to get the most objective picture, I'd mainly look to other first world countries about this specific drug where politics only plays a normal instead of hyper-driven role.
Seems that even without the overzealous politics in those places, "maybe it does a little something - maybe it does nothing" isn't really a question that has much of a definitive answer.
Certainly not worth the amount of hoopla it engenders here in either direction.
At least until further research may define specifically that it "works like a charm in patients with existing T cells from a previous coronavirus common cold who do not have hypertension if administered before the onset of high fever but does not work well in others".
This post was edited on 7/30/20 at 1:39 pm
Page 1 of 1
Latest Alabama News
Popular
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News