Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I put on what amounts to a hazmat suit and treat these patients all day long. Almost every single one of them is getting Hydroxychloroquine as part of the treatment regimen. Just about every NYC Metro hospital is doing the same.
Thx for what you are doing. Does the HQC seem to be working? Are there any other treatments being tried?
How about the antibody plasma transfusions...seen any of that?
This is true, the mixture is really more of the problem....but when it comes to a high risk patient with a potentially fatal infection, the benefit usually outweighs the risks associated with the combination of the 2 drugs which is why your wife is taking them.
I don't mean to jump to the opposite extreme and pretend that there's no risk involved when it comes to taking a combination of prescription drugs because that's almost never the case no matter what we're talking about. I just get beyond frustrated when people are here talking about how 600mg of hydroxychloroquine "almost always" will kill when it's simply not the case.
I'm sorry to hear about your wife's diagnosis, I truly hope the combination of drugs helps her. She's incredibly fortunate to have someone with your knowledge and experience looking after her.
The lethal dose of the med must be way higher than that. My wife was on plaquenil I think 200 mg daily for at least a year, about 20 years ago. No side effects. Longer term you need to monitor the retinas.
A newer thing - don't use with metformin! This might eliminate the safe use in many diabetics.
I haven’t heard any inside information on the trials. These trials usually take months to complete, but I have been reading, weeks instead of months from certain sources.
I would like to see the studies divided by age groups, because grouping a 20 year old that is getting the drug with an 80 year old getting the drug would be almost useless. Compare 80 year olds to 80 year olds with and without the drug. Same with 20 year olds.
Also, I am hoping for some studies that that take the stage of disease into account. These drugs are not like an antibiotic. They done kill the virus. They block some of the virus from replicating itself and creating more virus in the body. Given this, It is easy to understand that a drug that works this way, s going to be much more effective if it is started in the early stages of the disease, while there is not that much virus in the body yet. You are making the disease progress at a slower rate, basically buying the body time to mount it’s own defense.
From what I have seen, the people who take it soon after symptoms start, often claim the symptoms improved soon after starting the drug. But the people on ventilators, already have such a high viral load, that slowing down replication does very little to help them.
If you understand the way the drug works, then you understand why it is important to take it early. The usefulness of the drug will NOT be in saving the people on ventilators. It will be in keeping them from getting on ventilators in the first place.
I haven’t heard any inside information on the trials. These trials usually take months to complete, but I have been reading, weeks instead of months from certain sources.
I would like to see the studies divided by age groups, because grouping a 20 year old that is getting the drug with an 80 year old getting the drug would be almost useless. Compare 80 year olds to 80 year olds with and without the drug. Same with 20 year olds.
Also, I am hoping for some studies that that take the stage of disease into account. These drugs are not like an antibiotic. They done kill the virus. They block some of the virus from replicating itself and creating more virus in the body. Given this, It is easy to understand that a drug that works this way, s going to be much more effective if it is started in the early stages of the disease, while there is not that much virus in the body yet. You are making the disease progress at a slower rate, basically buying the body time to mount it’s own defense.
From what I have seen, the people who take it soon after symptoms start, often claim the symptoms improved soon after starting the drug. But the people on ventilators, already have such a high viral load, that slowing down replication does very little to help them.
If you understand the way the drug works, then you understand why it is important to take it early. The usefulness of the drug will NOT be in saving the people on ventilators. It will be in keeping them from getting on ventilators in the first place.
I would monitor the QT on anyone getting the med combo. Is that considered over doing it?
It is, considering how many people are taking the drug, vs, how few people this would actually help. Especially when you eliminate the people who you already know are prone to have problems.
When I first started in medicine 25 years ago, we got EKGs and a full set of labs on every patient before surgery. As you can imagine, billions of dollars and man hours were wasted on tests, for a very tiny portion of the population where the tests turned out to be helpful.
Since then, we created criteria to get a pre-op ekg. We have created certain criteria to get labs. And this has become the standard of care, so doctors are protected by the written and accepted criteria.
Some surgeons still order an ekg and labs for every patient. And I will never fault a surgeon for giving me too much information, but it is not required for me to approve the surgery.
I would be surprised if all the people in the studies are not getting serial ekg’s, because I am sure the studies will want this information as part of the studies. But I doubt all the other hospitals are doing this for every single patient, because it is very low yield for patients that have no history of arrhythmias.
If you were following along with what I said, you'd know I was only talking about their weight when I said "average American male" nothing related to age or risk factors when it comes to COVID-19. The toxic dose of hydroxychloroquine is 20mg/kg... so for 600mg to be fatal you'd be talking about someone who weighed 66 lbs.
Im just trying to educate you so you stop with the misinformation.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hoonose
The lethal dose of the med must be way higher than that. My wife was on plaquenil I think 200 mg daily for at least a year, about 20 years ago. No side effects. Longer term you need to monitor the retinas.
A newer thing - don't use with metformin! This might eliminate the safe use in many diabetics.
When I was taking about the legal dose, I was talking about taking it all at once. Most Americans would need to take at least 8 200mg tabs at once to od on the stuff. If you weigh more than average it would take even more
The secret to this virus is to keep it from colonizing in the lungs.
It is very manageable as an upper respiratory infection, but once it goes lower, it is big trouble. The CT scans of these people’s lungs are horrible. The few people with severe lung disease that do survive, will have scarring and restrictive lung disease the rest of their lives.
Thx for what you are doing. Does the HQC seem to be working? Are there any other treatments being tried?
How about the antibody plasma transfusions...seen any of that?
Stay safe.
I do see people on trials of certain antivirals, but these are studies that their individual doctors are participating in. It is not hospital-wide, like Hydroxychloroquine, so I dont really have a good idea about whether they are working or not. The plasma antibody trials are limited to certain hospitals around the country. I think Mt Sinai is the nearest hospital to me that is doing it. They haven’t released any results yet, to my knowledge.
I notice you don't quote the time stamp of that quote the you took from me. Yes, since that quote we have had 1 death under 50.
ONE.. the % of deaths under 50 is minuscule. And you know it. You just want to scare young people so they do what you want. There is ONE death in my state under 50. 2 in the 50 to 60 range and 400+ over 60.
I cannot see that we will be up to 100K deaths in 2 months.
Yesterday the number of cases dropped substantially, though this could be a reporting issue if we merely stay the same with deaths over the next month -- that is 1000 per day for 60,000 by June 1.
Face it, the bombastic claims are fizzling out. Never mine that more and more things are showing promise as treatments and mistakes that are being made in treatment are being corrected.
Here are some stats by age group for New York. While the % of deaths under 50 is low, I wouldn't consider it minuscule.
Seems to me that the best action in the event one has the disease;
1. knowing the history of the patient
2. start with small doses.
3. pay close attention to their progress in a controlled environment.
4. document their response or the lack thereof.
As a vaccine smallest doses to start with the well-understood expectation of improving that over time as necessary.
One vaccine to fit all is not realistic, every single person on this planet has a different chemistry. most intelligent people know this.
It is going to take hundreds of different groups to devise antivirus to work in them.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
