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.
This article states Trump touted CHQ as a cure...FALSE! He never did so. He touted it as a promising looking treatment since nothing else was out there at the time.
It is still being used in most hospitals, but that has to be taken for what it is. I mentioned in another post that it is like the Wild West out there. This is not the way medicine was meant to be practiced, but the only other choice is to do nothing for anyone who is not part of a trial.
This is a new, dangerous virus, that has killed 11,500 New York City residents in the amount of time it takes the flu to kill 400 New York City residents, and nobody knows for sure what to do about it, so we are treating them with anything and everything that has shown some degree of anecdotal success. There are many different trials on many different drugs going on right now, in the hopes that some of them turn out to be beneficial. Until then, it is just a free-for-all.
I said pretty much the same thing as this video is saying, several pages back. This study isn't very useful because without being randomized, it is not telling us anything about the efficacy and/or pitfalls of hydroxychloroquine. In fact, it is not JUST not randomized, it is the opposite of randomized. The patients who got the drug were the sickest and the patients who didn't get the drug were the least sick.
All it really tells us is that the patients with severe disease die at a higher rate than the patients with milder disease.
says the doctor that's treating COVID in NY/NJ. Thank you!
You're still taking it prophylactically (or ran your course of it)? What % of fellow health pros where you're serving are doing the same, anecdotally?
One more tidbit. Just got off the phone with my internist. A regularly scheduled appointment though he moved it from an in person to a phone contact. He also told me that the office is now doing Covid19 testing and that he wants me to have one this coming week. The only reason is that I am in the ultimate target group. So I will go in for the virus test and a couple of other second level blood tests. And I pretty much know how it comes out by who calls back. If it is all normal a nurse will call saying to forget about it. But if he calls something interesting was found.
says the doctor that's treating COVID in NY/NJ. Thank you!
You're still taking it prophylactically (or ran your course of it)? What % of fellow health pros where you're serving are doing the same, anecdotally?
Many doctors (I dont know the percentages) are still taking it prophylactically, but again, not because we know it works, just because we don’t know that it doesn’t work. And such a small, once a week dose, is not likely to have any side effects. Most of us are taking the once a week dose that is prescribed to prevent (not treat) malaria. But we dont know if it preventative, or if it is, if that is the right dose. But when you spend day and night surrounded by people who have the virus and are infectious, and you see them dying left and right, it provides a little comfort in the hopes that it might be doing something. Again, not the way we want to be practicing medicine, but there are no good alternatives.
Citing a “primary outcome†of death, researchers cut short a study testing anti-malaria drug chloroquine as a potential treatment for COVID-19 after some patients developed irregular heart rates and nearly two dozen of them died after taking doses of the drug daily.
Scientists say the findings, published Friday in the peer-reviewed Journal of the American Medical Association, should prompt some degree of skepticism from the public toward enthusiastic claims about and perhaps “serve to curb the exuberant use†of the drug, which has been touted by President Donald Trump as a potential “game-changer†in the fight against the coronavirus.
JAMA is a highly respected medical journal. Even our right leaning Dr's on this site would agree to that I would reckon.
But here is actually what is interesting about their study.
Conclusion:
Quote:
The preliminary findings of this study suggest that the higher CQ dosage should not be recommended for critically ill patients with COVID-19 because of its potential safety hazards, especially when taken concurrently with azithromycin and oseltamivir. These findings cannot be extrapolated to patients with nonsevere COVID-19.
So there is still hope that hydroxychloroquine may be helpful in alleviating symptoms of mild COVID-19.
It works very much like Granny Clampett's cold remedy.
JAMA is a highly respected medical journal. Even our right leaning Dr's on this site would agree to that I would reckon.
But here is actually what is interesting about their study.
Conclusion:
So there is still hope that hydroxychloroquine may be helpful in alleviating symptoms of mild COVID-19.
Very much like Granny Clampet's cold remedy.
We're in an era where people don't even show respect for universities and academics in general. Just look no further than these forums at the politicizing nature of it. "Economists are fake social scientists", Anti-vaxxers, "Liberal universities", etc.
The only way those people will learn is literally let them eat cake. I can't fix stupid and neither should you.
As the saying goes - change comes and goes. 1 funeral at a time.
I said pretty much the same thing as this video is saying, several pages back. This study isn't very useful because without being randomized, it is not telling us anything about the efficacy and/or pitfalls of hydroxychloroquine. In fact, it is not JUST not randomized, it is the opposite of randomized. The patients who got the drug were the sickest and the patients who didn't get the drug were the least sick..
Actually there is another way:
Filter out patients from every group that has:
- blood pressure outside of an average range
- age outside of certain range.
Compare subgroups of people within each group separately based on pre-existing conditions. for example gather a group of HCQ with diabetes, no-HCq with diabetes, then compare those. Then compare a subgroup of HCQ + no diabetes, with a subgroup of no-HCQ + no diabetes.
Or bucket people into age and preexisting condition subgroups and search for hcq and no-hcq label within the buckets, and list the analysis for each bucket separately.
It is just data mining done properly. Use an excel sheet for F sake.
Actually there is another way:
Filter out patients from every group that has:
- blood pressure outside of an average range
- age outside of certain range.
Compare subgroups of people within each group separately based on pre-existing conditions. for example gather a group of HCQ with diabetes, no-HCq with diabetes, then compare those. Then compare a subgroup of HCQ + no diabetes, with a subgroup of no-HCQ + no diabetes.
Or bucket people into age and preexisting condition subgroups and search for hcq and no-hcq label within the buckets, and list the analysis for each bucket separately.
It is just data mining done properly. Use an excel sheet for F sake.
There are statistical programs that do that.
The problem is that it will take a while to get a large enough number of cases to tease out the effects of different risk factors.
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.
Researchers Cut Chloroquine Study Short, Citing ‘Primary Outcome’ of Death
