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.
They state very clearly that their work was not rigorous, and it isn't peer reviewed either.
Right, and that should have been the case with stating its potential as an effective treatment as well, but for some reason the administration both gave it a lot of mentions and didn’t strongly and explicitly state that this was just one of many unproven treatments. The “what do you have to lose” part was especially bad. The false hope part might be bad in a more roundabout way or people opting for this as treatment instead of other potential treatments that may eventually be proven to work though that’s essentially a crapshoot currently, but the actual side effects parts can be bad since cardiac arrest is part of the potential side effects and that is certainly not helpful when having this virus or otherwise. It’s a low chance depending on dosage, but if it’s not proven to be helpful and there are going to be hundreds of thousands if not more people infected with covid, then you’re talking about a decent number of additional deaths for NO PROVEN BENEFIT. Another one of the fears was that a run on this drug due to people believing that it would work would also mean shortages for people with illnesses that actually depend on having this as proven effective treatment. So, overall, yes, there was something to lose aside from hope placed on this as treatment.
Yea, it can ostensibly have gone either way, and were it to be proven effective treatment, then great in that sense. The issue though is not having scientific expertise and process play out and clear communication of what’s actually understood at the time. It would be great if this proved to be an incredibly effective treatment, but even in that scenario, you’d hope people would still come away with the realization that the way it was touted is generally a bad idea.
A 70yo good friend of mine got CV19 about a month ago. They immediately put him on a combination of the 3-4 drugs including Hydroxy.
He immediately started getting better. It did take him about 10 days in the Hospital but he is back home now.
He'll tell you he's glad Hydroxy was available to take.
Right, and it’s possible it worked in his favor to some extent under whatever conditions this was done and it’s also possible that he would have without hydroxychloroquine started getting better anyways as that also happens. This can end up looking like effective treatment even if the correlation between him taking the drug and then feeling better has no causation. The problem is that it’s hard to distinguish this without a well executed study. It’s still possible that under certain conditions this can be good treatment, but it’d be better if there was more reasonable discussion about this.
And you need to stop trying to create a boogieman where none exists.
Obviously, the drug was administered to the sickest patients, so big surprise some of them died.
Nobody, to include Trump, said it was the greatest thing since Penicillin.
So one minute its a miracle drug and the next its not surprising it didn't help.
So here is the deal:
Tucker Carlson, Sean Hannity, and Laura Ingraham, questionable news reporters at best, start touting how hydroxychloroquine may be a miracle drug.
The president of the United States forgoes any scientific evidence from the foremost experts at his disposal and starts repeating what he hears on FOX news most all of which turns out to be false.
And just as sad, his followers will then fabricate every excuse they can to defend these poor decisions.
How about your heart function? I was prescribed this drug for arthritis and now have permanent heart arrhythmia and taking lots of other drugs for that.
“… It’s a very strong, powerful medicine, but it doesn’t kill people. We have some very good results and some very good tests.”
“What do you have to lose? And a lot of people are saying that, and are taking it. If you’re a doctor or a nurse, a first responder, a medical person going into hospitals, they say taking it before the fact is good.”
“And there are signs that it works on [coronavirus], some very strong signs. And in the meantime, it’s been around a long time, and also works very powerfully on lupus. So there are some very strong, powerful signs, and we’ll have to see.”
“But we don’t have time to go and say, gee, let’s take a couple of years and test it out. And let’s go and test with the test tubes and the laboratories. We don’t have time.”
“I want them to try it, and it may work, and it may not work. What if it doesn’t work? It’s nothing lost by doing nothing.”
Losing one's life is what some have lost listening to a non-medical person.
Trump did not invent the idea to prescribe it. Doctors and research people did. Trump parroted the claim because people were dying and there was no treatment. Hospitals and doctor use it because there is anecdotal evidence that it may work.
It really seems as if many are hoping it is ineffective simply because Trump brought it up. TDS at its worst. It may very well turn out this drug is ineffectual against Covid. If it was me that was gravely ill I would be in favor of trying.
Here is a large group recommending it. Do you believe they did this because of Trump?
Lots of other countries have also recommended it long before Trump ever heard about it. Did they do it because of Trump?
Quote:
The American Thoracic Society issued guidelines Monday that suggest COVID-19 patients with pneumonia get doses of the anti-malaria drug.
“To prescribe hydroxychloroquine (or chloroquine) to hospitalized patients with COVID-19 pneumonia if all of the following apply: a) shared decision-making is possible, b) data can be collected for interim comparisons of patients who received hydroxychloroquine (or chloroquine) versus those who did not, c) the illness is sufficiently severe to warrant investigational therapy, and d) the drug is not in short supply,” the Thoracic Society said.
Several hospitals in Boston use it. Is this because of Trump?
Quote:
Balancing the potential for benefit with the potential for harm’: How Boston hospitals are using hydroxychloroquine on coronavirus patients
Quote:
Major hospitals in New York, Louisiana and other areas hit hardest by the coronavirus outbreak are routinely using hydroxychloroquine on patients hospitalized with COVID-19,
A hospital in Las Vegas now prescribes it to patients not being admitted to some patients. Why? Trump? No because they feel the potential benefit outweighs the risk.
Quote:
University Medical Center on Tuesday began prescribing hydroxychloroquine to high-risk emergency room patients who test positive for COVID-19 but do not require immediate hospitalization.
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.
