|
|
Post by Birdman on Aug 1, 2020 22:21:02 GMT -5
I feel so enlightened now.
|
|
|
|
Post by fbfan on Aug 2, 2020 9:00:07 GMT -5
If you were knowledgeable you would know that there ARE multiple generics. No one "owns" HCQ. Many companies around the world make it under their own brand name, since the patents have expired long ago. How do you know the efficacy of the new drugs will be more than HCQ. They aren't even done with their trials yet. HCQ has been on the market since 1955. That is the reason it is so cheap. You do understand the concept of generic drugs don't you? And it is why the Big Pharma's want the government to force you to buy something else that is currently under development and will be patented, and much more expensive and profitable. Who would buy? POTUS, U.S. Rep. Louie Gohmert, the Bucyrus Police Chief, and thousands of others to name a few have been helped by it. HCQ is here now. If I needed it, I would ask my doctor for it too. But since "someone" has convinced the Ohio Pharmacy Board to make it illegal for my doctor to prescribe, I don't have the same rights as other Americans in some other states do. THAT is the point of my posts. So NOW you want to talk about a specific drug. You are not paying attention. I have ALREADY proffered the reasons for inexpensive drugs. "Thousand of others to name a few" LOL. Give us a list. What about the 4.7 million infections and 157,000 deaths? Of the 2.3 million that have already recovered, how many took HCQ? HCQ DOES NOT keep one from being infected by the virus. It may or may not help individuals AFTER one has contracted the virus. We will never know, those on your list might have recovered without taking HCQ...I seriously doubt the 2.3 million that HAVE recovered all took HCQ. I'm willing to bet FAR less than 1% did. Why did 2,000,000+ recover without taking HCQ?? Once there is a vaccine to keep people from being infected, you will never hear about HCQ again. Have you and your family members taken HCQ as a preventative? Why not...it's so cheap and readily available? I am not ignorant, I will not be infected, I will not need HCQ. I will be first in line to take the vaccine.. BTW, it will cost FAR LESS than HCQ costs. I've been researching Biotechs for many years. Big Pharmas DO NOT "force" anyone to do anything. Individuals will ALWAYS take THE best drug available for serious diseases, regardless if it costs $50 or $50,000. Insurance companies and government agencies pay for the vast majority of the cost. The information about those who have been successfully treated with HCQ is out there. It may be hard to find since the Fake News and others don't want you to see it. I've given some prominent examples. Since you're so experienced, I'll let you do your own work if you want more. I won't argue efficacy or use with YOU. I've already spoken with my doctor and he is onboard with HCQ should I need it. (If the government will still allow it at the time). You can hide in your basement, wait on a vaccine, or be put on a ventilator if needed. That's your CHOICE. Speaking of hearing about HCQ. It has been on the US market for 65 years. It is prescribed for multiple uses. Over 5 million prescriptions per year are written in the US, many more world wide. Some doctors discovered that patients taking it for other conditions also did well with Covid. They did further research that indicated positive results. Had you ever heard of it at that point? President Trump mentions the positive reports and......BAM.......the fake News and the experts suddenly say HCQ is a dangerous drug. Why did the experts not warn 5 million people every year that they have been taking a dangerous drug? Why have they tried to ban it......just for Covid use? I've already given my opinion about those questions in my other posts. Of course Big Pharmas don't "force" anyone to do anything. They spend millions or maybe billions of dollars to lobby politicians to put in to place the regulations they prefer. If you believe that insurance companies and government agencies pay for the vast majority of the cost of expensive drugs, you're not as smart as I thought. It is PEOPLE who ultimately pay the cost through higher premiums and taxes. You say "Individuals will ALWAYS take THE best drug available" regardless of cost. Yes, that would be their CHOICE, unless the insurance company, or Medicare "forces" them to make another choice because they won't pay for the expensive one. You're the one not paying attention. My posts have been about the government standing in the way of my rightful CHOICE to the same treatment that others have obtained. And I've pointed out the obvious vested interests and influence that Big Pharma has, in which drugs are used to treat the China Virus until an effective vaccine arrives. I will continue to do so. You can continue to not question anything about the relationship between the experts, the government, and Big Pharma. That's your CHOICE. |
|
|
|
Post by Willard Fillmore on Aug 2, 2020 15:01:04 GMT -5
AGAIN....currently there are 2.3 million that have recovered from the virus, how many took HCQ?
|
|
|
|
Post by fbfan on Aug 3, 2020 6:51:13 GMT -5
AGAIN....currently there are 2.3 million that have recovered from the virus, how many took HCQ? You'll have to ask the CDC. I'm sure they know, but they don't seem to be reporting that along with all the other stats on the virus. I wonder Why? Just for you this one time, I did an internet search for "recovered patients using hydroxychloroquine" and got numerous results, both pro and con about HCQ depending on the source. Claims by some numbered in the thousands. Others said "no evidence". But most of those reports probably only knew about their own particular circumstance, so I did the same at the CDC site, and no result was returned. I do know that about 11 million Ohio residents would have lost their CHOICE to try HCQ, that millions of Americans in some other states have, if the Ohio Pharmacy Board's initial ruling had stood. |
|
|
|
Post by Willard Fillmore on Aug 3, 2020 9:17:49 GMT -5
Logically it follows that a VERY VERY small % of the 2.3 million that have recovered from the virus were prescribed HCQ... OR a wonder drug would be proclaimed. AND even though someone did take HCQ, it can not be proven that individual would not have recovered without it. You should be more interested in finding out what doctors did for the VAST MAJORITY of the 2.3 million that have recovered, than focusing on a perceived conspiracy.
Currently there is no cure for the Chinese Virus, just as there is no cure for the common cold or the many different flues. In all cases a doctor will prescribe what he believes will do the most to alleviate the symptoms. AGAIN, at this time, there are no cures.
HCQ, like most all drugs, can have negative and in some cases serious side affects. A doctor will weigh those potential negatives and based on his knowledge of his patient, prescribe what will do the most good.
If a doctor believes HCQ is the best possible treatment for the virus, he should be able to prescribe it. BUT don't make a fool of yourself, by telling a medical professional that you WANT HCQ because the Bucyrus Sheriff took it and he's alive.
|
|
|
|
Post by fbfan on Aug 3, 2020 10:57:30 GMT -5
Logically it follows that a VERY VERY small % of the 2.3 million that have recovered from the virus were prescribed HCQ... OR a wonder drug would be proclaimed. AND even though someone did take HCQ, it can not be proven that individual would not have recovered without it. You should be more interested in finding out what doctors did for the VAST MAJORITY of the 2.3 million that have recovered, than focusing on a perceived conspiracy. Currently there is no cure for the Chinese Virus, just as there is no cure for the common cold or the many different flues. In all cases a doctor will prescribe what he believes will do the most to alleviate the symptoms. AGAIN, at this time, there are no cures. HCQ, like most all drugs, can have negative and in some cases serious side affects. A doctor will weigh those potential negatives and based on his knowledge of his patient, prescribe what will do the most good.
If a doctor believes HCQ is the best possible treatment for the virus, he should be able to prescribe it. BUT don't make a fool of yourself, by telling a medical professional that you WANT HCQ because the Bucyrus Sheriff took it and he's alive. Logically it follows that IF only a very very small % of recovered patients took HCQ, then those trying to discredit or discourage its use, would make that fact known to support their position, by reporting the statistical data. They're not. I agree. It has been my point all along that the government should not stand in the way if a patient and his doctor agree on HCQ's use. In this time of pandemic, only an ignorant fool would think he could not be infected by the virus. Only a fool would not discuss with his doctor all the treatment options, and all available information about current and past results of patients treated with HCQ and other protocols. Only a fool would not make a plan, as part of an overall health strategy, with his doctor. |
|
|
|
Post by Willard Fillmore on Aug 4, 2020 11:55:39 GMT -5
Why worry about "discredit or discourage", if one is a believer? A BAD example to set in any belief. AGAIN HCQ IS NOT a cure. If it is a certainty that HCQ has helped relieve symptoms in every patient it was given to, then it follows that EVERY doctor treating the Chinese virus would be giving HCQ to their patients. Surely you aren't saying that doctors are in on this conspiracy as well.
What makes you think that patients and doctors are not discussing treatments for Covid-19? It sure sounds like you think doctors are a part of your conspiracy. This makes you and your conspiracy theory all the more weaker.
Believe me, doctors communicate with each other about their successes.
You've surely heard of the Hippocratic Oath.
|
|
|
|
Post by fbfan on Aug 5, 2020 7:57:14 GMT -5
Why worry about "discredit or discourage", if one is a believer? A BAD example to set in any belief. AGAIN HCQ IS NOT a cure. If it is a certainty that HCQ has helped relieve symptoms in every patient it was given to, then it follows that EVERY doctor treating the Chinese virus would be giving HCQ to their patients. Surely you aren't saying that doctors are in on this conspiracy as well. What makes you think that patients and doctors are not discussing treatments for Covid-19? It sure sounds like you think doctors are a part of your conspiracy. This makes you and your conspiracy theory all the more weaker. Believe me, doctors communicate with each other about their successes. You've surely heard of the Hippocratic Oath. Just one, when I read a foolish statement: "I am not ignorant, I will not be infected, I will not need HCQ. I will be first in line to take the vaccine.. BTW, it will cost FAR LESS than HCQ costs." Did your doctor tell you all that? Doctors that work in hospitals and exam rooms are Hero's. Doctors that would go on national TV and lie to the American people are highly suspect. AGAIN.... not my theory. Check the internet. Pay attention. |
|
|
|
Post by Willard Fillmore on Aug 5, 2020 9:49:37 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by fanofthegame on Aug 5, 2020 11:44:28 GMT -5
Any treatment for an illness that was going to resolve anyway looks like it works. Most people with Coronavirus get better with or without treatment. As a result measuring benefit is going to be very difficult because they are likely small and only in certain patients. It would take a long time and many patients to prove. An example. It took six months to prove statins lower your risk of heart attack in people who already had one. It took six years to proved it prevented a first time heart attack. Many of those people weren’t going to have a heart attack in the first place. Does that mean we shouldn’t use it? Not necessarily, but it should only be in a very select group (very ill hospitalized patients). First do no harm. Should there be limits on dispensing it? Yes. We don’t want frivolous use to the point there is none for critically ill patients. I saw it happen at the beginning of this from pretty smart people who panicked.
I will not be first in line for the vaccine. I have seen too many new drugs and vaccines that appeared safe and effective in clinically trials, but when released on a larger scale in the public got recalled. Read a little about the Rotavirus vaccine if you want an example. The medication list is too long for me to put in this post.
We frequently have to make our best guess while waiting for more solid data. Nothing should be off the table in a situation like this. I wish I could say all doctors are responsible with their privilege to write for medications. Unfortunately this situation proved otherwise. Hydroxychloroquine should only be written within the confines of a strictly monitored protocol otherwise it will be used inappropriately and we get no data from that use.
|
|
|
|
Post by fbfan on Aug 5, 2020 15:27:43 GMT -5
Any treatment for an illness that was going to resolve anyway looks like it works. Most people with Coronavirus get better with or without treatment. As a result measuring benefit is going to be very difficult because they are likely small and only in certain patients. It would take a long time and many patients to prove. An example. It took six months to prove statins lower your risk of heart attack in people who already had one. It took six years to proved it prevented a first time heart attack. Many of those people weren’t going to have a heart attack in the first place. Does that mean we shouldn’t use it? Not necessarily, but it should only be in a very select group (very ill hospitalized patients). First do no harm. Should there be limits on dispensing it? Yes. We don’t want frivolous use to the point there is none for critically ill patients. I saw it happen at the beginning of this from pretty smart people who panicked. I will not be first in line for the vaccine. I have seen too many new drugs and vaccines that appeared safe and effective in clinically trials, but when released on a larger scale in the public got recalled. Read a little about the Rotavirus vaccine if you want an example. The medication list is too long for me to put in this post. We frequently have to make our best guess while waiting for more solid data. Nothing should be off the table in a situation like this. I wish I could say all doctors are responsible with their privilege to write for medications. Unfortunately this situation proved otherwise. Hydroxychloroquine should only be written within the confines of a strictly monitored protocol otherwise it will be used inappropriately and we get no data from that use. Sorry about the length of this response, but I thought I needed to put it in context using an earlier post of mine: Dr. Harvey Risch, an epidemiology professor at Yale School of Public Health, said on Tuesday that he thinks hydroxychloroquine could save 75,000 to 100,000 lives if the drug is widely used to treat coronavirus. “There are many doctors that I’ve gotten hostile remarks about saying that all the evidence is bad for it and, in fact, that is not true at all,” Risch told “Ingraham Angle," adding that he believes the drug can be used as a "prophylactic" for front-line workers, as other countries like India have done. Risch lamented that a "propaganda war" is being waged against the use of the drug for political purposes, not based on "medical facts." Researchers at the Henry Ford Health System in Southeast Michigan have found that early administration of hydroxychloroquine makes hospitalized patients substantially less likely to die.The study, published in the International Journal of Infectious Diseases, determined that hydroxychloroquine provided a "66 percent hazard ratio reduction," and hydroxychloroquine and azithromycin a 71 percent reduction, compared with neither treatment. In-hospital mortality was 18.1 percent overall; 13.5 percent with just hydroxychloroquine, 22.4 percent with azithromycin alone, and 26.4 percent with neither drug. "Prospective trials are needed" for further review, the researchers note, even as they concluded: "In this multi-hospital assessment, when controlling for COVID-19 risk factors, treatment with hydroxychloroquine alone and in combination with azithromycin was associated with reduction in COVID-19 associated mortality." "Our results do differ from some other studies," Dr. Marcus Zervos, who heads the hospital's infectious diseases unit, said at a news conference. "What we think was important in ours ... is that patients were treated early. For hydroxychloroquine to have a benefit, it needs to begin before the patients begin to suffer some of the severe immune reactions that patients can have with COVID."Risch said that most in the mainstream are not allowing people to speak about the evidence on the effectiveness of hydroxychloroquine. Risch also said discussions about the drug became “political” as opposed to “medical.” “All the evidence is actually good for it when it is used in outpatient uses. Nevertheless, the only people who actually say that are a whole pile of doctors who are on the front lines treating those patients across the country and they are the ones who are at risk being forced not to do it,” Risch said, arguing that the mainstream media is not covering the benefits of hydroxychloroquine. fan, apparently you disagree with the doctors at Yale and the Henry Ford Health System. Are they irresponsible? A lot of the studies I've read that were reported in the mainstream media as non effective were with patients that were very sick, just like you advocate. Perhaps the disconnect here is timing? The person I know was treated early by his doctor with HCQ. I quoted his public testimonial in an earlier post. Who should I believe? The doctors quoted above? You? A public testimonial from a local official? A frequent know-it-all poster on this forum?..........No disrespect to you fan, but I think I'll stick with my personal doctor whom I know and trust (if the government let's me). |
|
|
|
Post by fanofthegame on Aug 5, 2020 17:08:02 GMT -5
Any treatment for an illness that was going to resolve anyway looks like it works. Most people with Coronavirus get better with or without treatment. As a result measuring benefit is going to be very difficult because they are likely small and only in certain patients. It would take a long time and many patients to prove. An example. It took six months to prove statins lower your risk of heart attack in people who already had one. It took six years to proved it prevented a first time heart attack. Many of those people weren’t going to have a heart attack in the first place. Does that mean we shouldn’t use it? Not necessarily, but it should only be in a very select group (very ill hospitalized patients). First do no harm. Should there be limits on dispensing it? Yes. We don’t want frivolous use to the point there is none for critically ill patients. I saw it happen at the beginning of this from pretty smart people who panicked. I will not be first in line for the vaccine. I have seen too many new drugs and vaccines that appeared safe and effective in clinically trials, but when released on a larger scale in the public got recalled. Read a little about the Rotavirus vaccine if you want an example. The medication list is too long for me to put in this post. We frequently have to make our best guess while waiting for more solid data. Nothing should be off the table in a situation like this. I wish I could say all doctors are responsible with their privilege to write for medications. Unfortunately this situation proved otherwise. Hydroxychloroquine should only be written within the confines of a strictly monitored protocol otherwise it will be used inappropriately and we get no data from that use. Sorry about the length of this response, but I thought I needed to put it in context using an earlier post of mine: Dr. Harvey Risch, an epidemiology professor at Yale School of Public Health, said on Tuesday that he thinks hydroxychloroquine could save 75,000 to 100,000 lives if the drug is widely used to treat coronavirus. “There are many doctors that I’ve gotten hostile remarks about saying that all the evidence is bad for it and, in fact, that is not true at all,” Risch told “Ingraham Angle," adding that he believes the drug can be used as a "prophylactic" for front-line workers, as other countries like India have done. Risch lamented that a "propaganda war" is being waged against the use of the drug for political purposes, not based on "medical facts." Researchers at the Henry Ford Health System in Southeast Michigan have found that early administration of hydroxychloroquine makes hospitalized patients substantially less likely to die.The study, published in the International Journal of Infectious Diseases, determined that hydroxychloroquine provided a "66 percent hazard ratio reduction," and hydroxychloroquine and azithromycin a 71 percent reduction, compared with neither treatment. In-hospital mortality was 18.1 percent overall; 13.5 percent with just hydroxychloroquine, 22.4 percent with azithromycin alone, and 26.4 percent with neither drug. "Prospective trials are needed" for further review, the researchers note, even as they concluded: "In this multi-hospital assessment, when controlling for COVID-19 risk factors, treatment with hydroxychloroquine alone and in combination with azithromycin was associated with reduction in COVID-19 associated mortality." "Our results do differ from some other studies," Dr. Marcus Zervos, who heads the hospital's infectious diseases unit, said at a news conference. "What we think was important in ours ... is that patients were treated early. For hydroxychloroquine to have a benefit, it needs to begin before the patients begin to suffer some of the severe immune reactions that patients can have with COVID."Risch said that most in the mainstream are not allowing people to speak about the evidence on the effectiveness of hydroxychloroquine. Risch also said discussions about the drug became “political” as opposed to “medical.” “All the evidence is actually good for it when it is used in outpatient uses. Nevertheless, the only people who actually say that are a whole pile of doctors who are on the front lines treating those patients across the country and they are the ones who are at risk being forced not to do it,” Risch said, arguing that the mainstream media is not covering the benefits of hydroxychloroquine. fan, apparently you disagree with the doctors at Yale and the Henry Ford Health System. Are they irresponsible? A lot of the studies I've read that were reported in the mainstream media as non effective were with patients that were very sick, just like you advocate. Perhaps the disconnect here is timing? The person I know was treated early by his doctor with HCQ. I quoted his public testimonial in an earlier post. Who should I believe? The doctors quoted above? You? A public testimonial from a local official? A frequent know-it-all poster on this forum?..........No disrespect to you fan, but I think I'll stick with my personal doctor whom I know and trust (if the government let's me). I’m not discrediting their opinions. I’d need more information. Open label studies are fraught with biases. Those percentages look great. How were the patients enrolled? Were they randomly assigned to treatment or were physicians allowed to decide who got treatment? What were the demographics of the study group? Age, coexisting medical problems, other treatments, etc. What were the outcomes measured? Death, intubation, ICU admission, days in the hospital, viral shedding? Then you can’t necessarily combine data from different studies because the parameters for the studies are too different. Now, there is a finite amount of the drug. I know for a fact that our system had to scramble to get as much as we could. Your doctor gives it to you under no study protocol with no objective measures and your data/outcome never even gets figured into the big picture. You’re just a worthless anecdote. There is a saying in medicine. The plural of anecdote is not a study. “I know a guy” is an anecdote. “I know ten guys”’is just ten anecdotes. I enrolled ten guys, randomly assigned five to treatment and five to placebo, and measured whether or not they ended up on a vent is a study. There is a guy who lost his license who is almost entirely responsible for the current anti-vaccine climate. He did a meta-analysis of vaccine studies. That’s where data is pooled from multiple studies to arrive at new conclusions. It’s considered one of the weakest type of studies because you can cherry pick what data you use to paint the picture you want. Look at the damage he did. BTW he was payed by lawyers to do that study. They were going to sue the vaccine companies. That’s an example of malicious intent. You’d be surprised how often biases happen by accident. Everyone who does a study wants their data to prove something otherwise it was a waste of time. That desire can result in biases. I agree with you 100% that this whole fiasco is being politicized. Hydroxychloroquine might work. It may not. We need unbiased, quality data. |
|
|
|
Post by fbfan on Aug 5, 2020 21:54:21 GMT -5
fanofthegame, please check out this interesting study of HCQ I just heard about. I'm not a doctor, there's a lot there I don't understand, but they seem to have their bases covered. I know it's a lot, but please tell us what you think if/when you have time. hcqtrial.com |
|
|
|
Post by redskinfan04 on Aug 5, 2020 22:08:15 GMT -5
fanofthegame, please check out this interesting study of HCQ I just heard about. I'm not a doctor, there's a lot there I don't understand. Please tell us what you think if/when you have time. hcqtrial.comAnything other than a randomized control study on HCQ is useless. The British are running a massive forty thousand person worldwide trial on the drug as part of their recovery program. The results are expected some time in Nov/Dec. |
|
|
|
Post by fbfan on Aug 5, 2020 22:12:01 GMT -5
fanofthegame, please check out this interesting study of HCQ I just heard about. I'm not a doctor, there's a lot there I don't understand. Please tell us what you think if/when you have time. hcqtrial.comAnything other than a randomized control study on HCQ is useless. If you’ll be patient the British are running a massive forty thousand person worldwide trial on the drug as part of their recovery program. The results are expected some time in Nov/Dec. The study above has 2.6 Billion people. Did you read through all of it in 14 minutes??? |
|
|
|
Post by redskinfan04 on Aug 5, 2020 22:40:35 GMT -5
Anything other than a randomized control study on HCQ is useless. If you’ll be patient the British are running a massive forty thousand person worldwide trial on the drug as part of their recovery program. The results are expected some time in Nov/Dec. The trial above has 2.6 Billion people. Did you read through all of it in 14 minutes??? Once I saw the early usage group I knew it wasn’t worth going any further. In order to make this study work you’re depending on Russia to provide honest data on fatalities. That’s just not going to happen so it’s really not worth pursuing anymore. Many of those countries in fact are not likely to be reliable reporters. At this point what’s the use of anything but randomized trial for HCQ? That’s how it’s going to be judged and has been judged. I actually hold out a little hope that it can be at least somewhat effective as PPE. Anything beyond PPE and the existing control studies show it to be non effective. Luckily for everyone we’ll all find out together in late fall. |
|
|
|
Post by fbfan on Aug 6, 2020 6:51:09 GMT -5
Yea, the counts must be wrong, no way those countries can show lower death totals because early HCQ doesn't work. 14 minutes tells me a lot.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 6, 2020 16:20:21 GMT -5
Yea, the counts must be wrong, no way those countries can show lower death totals because early HCQ doesn't work. 14 minutes tells me a lot. remdesivir is much better if you can get it |
|
|
|
Post by fanofthegame on Aug 7, 2020 11:57:31 GMT -5
1. Let’s start with it would take a team of people a couple of weeks to analyze the validity of their conclusions. There are 172 references cited. Each one would have to be reviewed on its own merit.
2. Their conclusions assume valid data from every source. Did the data come from death certificates, electronic medical records, insurance data... As has been discussed on this site there is even controversy about what is being reported on death certificates in the US let alone a second or third world country.
3. Nobody would confuse this with a drug study. They are conducted with standard inclusion criteria, randomization, minimization of variables, identical outcomes. This is an epidemiological study. It is similar to a study trying to figure out why heart disease is more prevalent in the USA than Japan. It attempts to collect data with multiple variables and try to analyze which variables are relevant, irrelevant, or coincidental. They are not perfect and up for interpretation. You will often hear things like correlation doesn’t mean causation meaning just because two lines trend in the same direction it doesn’t mean one caused the other. The presence of more guns in the US isn’t necessarily the cause of a higher homicide rate. It could be because of a poorer mental health system. See - clear as mud.
Most would say the conclusions in this paper justify conducting a randomized placebo controlled study. No way it even makes a dent in getting FDA approval for hydroxychloroquine specifically for COVID. What do we do while waiting for those results? I won’t be taking it prophylactically or if I test positive. Nothing makes me happier about my decision to exercise 4-5 days a week, eat right, and not smoke than COVID. I’ll ride it out and be fine. I might change my opinion, but not based on this study. I’m not impressed with the data on antivirals either. They both may help a little. Neither are what penicillin was in it’s day.
|
|
|
|
Post by fbfan on Aug 7, 2020 13:32:20 GMT -5
1. Let’s start with it would take a team of people a couple of weeks to analyze the validity of their conclusions. There are 172 references cited. Each one would have to be reviewed on its own merit. 2. Their conclusions assume valid data from every source. Did the data come from death certificates, electronic medical records, insurance data... As has been discussed on this site there is even controversy about what is being reported on death certificates in the US let alone a second or third world country. 3. Nobody would confuse this with a drug study. They are conducted with standard inclusion criteria, randomization, minimization of variables, identical outcomes. This is an epidemiological study. It is similar to a study trying to figure out why heart disease is more prevalent in the USA than Japan. It attempts to collect data with multiple variables and try to analyze which variables are relevant, irrelevant, or coincidental. They are not perfect and up for interpretation. You will often hear things like correlation doesn’t mean causation meaning just because two lines trend in the same direction it doesn’t mean one caused the other. The presence of more guns in the US isn’t necessarily the cause of a higher homicide rate. It could be because of a poorer mental health system. See - clear as mud. Most would say the conclusions in this paper justify conducting a randomized placebo controlled study. No way it even makes a dent in getting FDA approval for hydroxychloroquine specifically for COVID. What do we do while waiting for those results? I won’t be taking it prophylactically or if I test positive. Nothing makes me happier about my decision to exercise 4-5 days a week, eat right, and not smoke than COVID. I’ll ride it out and be fine. I might change my opinion, but not based on this study. I’m not impressed with the data on antivirals either. They both may help a little. Neither are what penicillin was in it’s day. Thanks for your thoughtful insight doc. There certainly is a lot of information to consider for medical professionals, let alone lay-persons. One thing strikes me as I look through some of the references. There is certainly much interest and attention around the world from medical professionals, and many people who are/have been treated with HCQ for the China Virus. It's not just a conspiracy theory promoted by Trump and a few fringe doctors like the dems and Fake News would have you believe. |
|
|
|
Post by fanofthegame on Aug 7, 2020 14:36:00 GMT -5
1. Let’s start with it would take a team of people a couple of weeks to analyze the validity of their conclusions. There are 172 references cited. Each one would have to be reviewed on its own merit. 2. Their conclusions assume valid data from every source. Did the data come from death certificates, electronic medical records, insurance data... As has been discussed on this site there is even controversy about what is being reported on death certificates in the US let alone a second or third world country. 3. Nobody would confuse this with a drug study. They are conducted with standard inclusion criteria, randomization, minimization of variables, identical outcomes. This is an epidemiological study. It is similar to a study trying to figure out why heart disease is more prevalent in the USA than Japan. It attempts to collect data with multiple variables and try to analyze which variables are relevant, irrelevant, or coincidental. They are not perfect and up for interpretation. You will often hear things like correlation doesn’t mean causation meaning just because two lines trend in the same direction it doesn’t mean one caused the other. The presence of more guns in the US isn’t necessarily the cause of a higher homicide rate. It could be because of a poorer mental health system. See - clear as mud. Most would say the conclusions in this paper justify conducting a randomized placebo controlled study. No way it even makes a dent in getting FDA approval for hydroxychloroquine specifically for COVID. What do we do while waiting for those results? I won’t be taking it prophylactically or if I test positive. Nothing makes me happier about my decision to exercise 4-5 days a week, eat right, and not smoke than COVID. I’ll ride it out and be fine. I might change my opinion, but not based on this study. I’m not impressed with the data on antivirals either. They both may help a little. Neither are what penicillin was in it’s day. Thanks for your thoughtful insight doc. There certainly is a lot of information to consider for medical professionals, let alone lay-persons. One thing strikes me as I look through some of the references. There is certainly much interest and attention around the world from medical professionals, and many people who are/have been treated with HCQ for the China Virus. It's not just a conspiracy theory promoted by Trump and a few fringe doctors like the dems and Fake News would have you believe. I agree with that statement. Much of what’s happening with this situation smells bad. I’m not a black helicopter guy, but a lot of available information is fishy. Antivirals are getting more positive attention and guess what has a patent and costs a lot more money than hydroxychloroquine? I could go on and on about things I’ve read and listened to that don’t add up. This situation never should have been politicized. Everyone is on the same team for this one. Team life v team death. There have been glimmers of that with research data sharing, but very little. Mostly I see media whores that just want screen time. |
|
|
|
Post by fbfan on Aug 18, 2020 9:40:29 GMT -5
From a FDA news release buried by the Fake News:
The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is alerting clinical laboratory staff and health care providers of a risk of false results with Thermo Fisher Scientific TaqPath COVID-19 Combo Kit based on two issues related to the test kit and the associated Applied Biosystems COVID-19 Interpretive Software. The test is a molecular assay for the detection of COVID-19 from respiratory specimens.
The first issue is related to inadequate vortexing and centrifugation of RT-PCR reaction plates. Thermo Fisher Scientific’s conclusion from investigations of customer complaints indicate that inadequate vortexing or centrifugation can lead to false positive results. Thermo Fisher Scientific has updated these instructions to reduce the risk of inaccurate results. The updated instructions related to vortexing and centrifugation are important for both laboratories performing testing according to the authorized instructions for use and laboratories who are performing validated modifications outside of the authorization.
The second issue is related to the assay Internal Positive Control (IPC) and requires laboratory staff to upgrade their software to reduce the risk of invalid, potential false negatives, or inconclusive tests and to decrease the potential need to retest.
How many other brands of tests are flawed but not yet discovered?
How many asymptomatic positive results have there been counted in the stats because of that?
There are reports of tests being sent in that were covertly not exposed to any possible source of covid, that came back positive. More faulty tests?
Or something else designed to change public behavior?
The answer....................
Never mind all that. It's just a conspiracy. Do not question. Submit to public health orders and follow the science that we tell you, all you sheep.
|
|
|
|
Post by Willard Fillmore on Aug 18, 2020 21:14:30 GMT -5
Thanks for your thoughtful insight doc. There certainly is a lot of information to consider for medical professionals, let alone lay-persons. One thing strikes me as I look through some of the references. There is certainly much interest and attention around the world from medical professionals, and many people who are/have been treated with HCQ for the China Virus. It's not just a conspiracy theory promoted by Trump and a few fringe doctors like the dems and Fake News would have you believe. I agree with that statement. Much of what’s happening with this situation smells bad. I’m not a black helicopter guy, but a lot of available information is fishy. Antivirals are getting more positive attention and guess what has a patent and costs a lot more money than hydroxychloroquine? I could go on and on about things I’ve read and listened to that don’t add up. This situation never should have been politicized. Everyone is on the same team for this one. Team life v team death. There have been glimmers of that with research data sharing, but very little. Mostly I see media whores that just want screen time. I have a friend who is head of emergency at a hospital in a major city. He told me this yesterday. Mortality rates are down 65% even though cases are up. Due to finding the right treatments. Increased use of steroids, remdesvir, better fluid management, aggressive anti-coagulation, convalescent plasma treatments and just overall experience in treating Covid patients. It's not as simple as using one malaria drug. |
|
|
|
Post by fbfan on Aug 19, 2020 10:04:23 GMT -5
I agree with that statement. Much of what’s happening with this situation smells bad. I’m not a black helicopter guy, but a lot of available information is fishy. Antivirals are getting more positive attention and guess what has a patent and costs a lot more money than hydroxychloroquine? I could go on and on about things I’ve read and listened to that don’t add up. This situation never should have been politicized. Everyone is on the same team for this one. Team life v team death. There have been glimmers of that with research data sharing, but very little. Mostly I see media whores that just want screen time. I have a friend who is head of emergency at a hospital in a major city. He told me this yesterday. Mortality rates are down 65% even though cases are up. Due to finding the right treatments. Increased use of steroids, remdesvir, better fluid management, aggressive anti-coagulation, convalescent plasma treatments and just overall experience in treating Covid patients. It's not as simple as using one malaria drug. News report: WASHINGTON — Sen. Mike Braun isn’t happy that Congress left town without reaching a deal on the next COVID-19 relief bill as the nation continues its struggle to contain the virus. He’s even more concerned that Republicans are going to repeat a 2018 election mistake by failing to take on the nation’s soaring health care costs, including sticker shock over wildly uneven coronavirus testing and treatment prices hospitals and insurance companies are charging patients. The Indiana Republican laments that the Hoosier State has the highest hospital costs in the nation. He said he’s spending his August recess listening to one COVID-19 price-gouging horror story after another – both in Indiana and across the nation. One Houston family, already dealing with COVID-19-related unemployment, is facing nearly $37,000 in bills after their loved one died from the virus earlier this year. A Manhattan hospital initially charged one man’s insurance company nearly $1.9 million for the hospital’s 44-day effort to save him from succumbing to COVID-19 until the insurance company objected and got the bill down to $178,200. (The family’s final bill will depend on how much insurance covers.) Even the costs of diagnostic COVID-19 testing varies widely, from $20 to $850 for each test at large hospitals nationwide, not including the provider visit, facility fee or other services, a recent Kaiser Family Foundation analysis found. Supply-side economist Art Laffer recently shared his own egregious example. When his son returned home from Barcelona in March with coronavirus symptoms, he went to a Nashville hospital to get tested. He saw four nurses and returned home. His bill that arrived a few weeks later was more than $15,000. When Congress returns, Braun will hit his colleagues with this litany of nightmare billing scenarios as the latest evidence of why his health care price transparency package should be included in the next COVID-19 relief package or pass as a stand-alone bill before the November election. The measure, which he co-authored with Iowa Republican Sen. Chuck Grassley, would require hospitals to post real cash prices and insurers to disclose privately negotiated reimbursement rates before patients receive testing or treatments. “There’s this unholy alliance between insurance companies, hospitals, big Pharma and even practitioners,” Braun told RealClearPolitics in an interview. “But consumers are starting to have some skin in the game as we have migrated to high-deductible insurance plans. It’s forced consumers to shop around just like they are trying to save a buck on a loaf of bread.” Yea, finding the "right treatments" is making the United States Medical Industry and Big Pharma rich off of this plandemic. A $15 drug treatment that is being used by millions around the world could never work here in the United States. It's too simple. The medical industry, health experts, and Big Pharma have told us so. And they've never been wrong or lied have they???  |
|
|
|
Post by Willard Fillmore on Aug 19, 2020 10:13:47 GMT -5
Total ignorance on your part. Why would the head of emergency at a major hospital lie about the best way to save lives? There hasn't been a virus of this magnitude in 100 years. A new disease, there is no medical playbook for treatment. They have tried MANY avenues of treatment and have found through trial and error what has had the most success in saving lives. As a medical neophyte are willing to tell him that he's wrong and you know better???  BTW, the treatments mentioned are not expensive. |
|
|
|
Post by fbfan on Aug 19, 2020 10:27:20 GMT -5
Total ignorance on your part. Why would the head of emergency at a major hospital lie about the best way to save lives? There hasn't been a virus of this magnitude in 100 years. A new disease, there is no medical playbook for treatment. They have tried MANY avenues of treatment and has found through trial and error what has had the most success in saving lives. As a medical neophyte are willing to tell him that he's wrong and you know better??? Never said your friend personally lied or that the treatments and methods you mentioned did not work. Ask the people who were billed as described above about "expensive". I just agreed with a United States Senator who is working on the problem, and who is probably more informed than you, that: “There’s this unholy alliance between insurance companies, hospitals, big Pharma and even practitioners,” |
|
|
|
Post by Willard Fillmore on Aug 19, 2020 10:35:46 GMT -5
In every case, with every doctor, in every hospital in the US? How many, what's the %? There are bad apples in EVERY profession ESPECIALLY in politics. I am 100% certain you know that. Spewing generalities is a loser endeavor.
You should be a HUGE spokesman for Socialized Medicine. No one pays anything regardless of disease or treatment.
The treatments mentioned are standard treatments, nothing special, not costly.
Are you 100% certain the use of malaria drugs in treating the Chinese virus are ALWAYS charged $15? If you don't trust doctors, insurance companies and manufactures of pharmaceuticals, how is it you trust every doctor using Malaria drugs?? LOL ....I AM 100% certain you have not seen every billing, yet you regurgitate generalities. It doesn't make you look good.
|
|
|
|
Post by fbfan on Aug 19, 2020 10:40:23 GMT -5
Ask the Senator for your stats. He will have better information than you or I.
|
|
|
|
Post by Willard Fillmore on Aug 19, 2020 10:51:03 GMT -5
LOLOL...I don't trust any politician that speaks in generalities and doesn't supply specifics, until they're dragged out of him.
My information comes directly from a highly regarded physician on the front line of treating this virus AND with significant success. Not from a politician, not from the internet.
|
|
|
|
Post by fanofthegame on Aug 19, 2020 11:24:03 GMT -5
I am disgusted that Congress went home during a crisis. You roll up your sleeves and get the job done. Term limits. Clean house. Then they won’t have to worry about going home and sucking up to their constituents.
Doctors don’t see anything from COVID testing. We don’t get any more from treating COVID patients. Our office visits and hospital care has already negotiated reimbursements. I get paid the same for treating bacterial pneumonia as I do for treating COVID. The billing referenced in your post is from hospitals and independent labs.
All of the treatments WF mentioned are generic and cheap EXCEPT for the anti-vitals.
|
|
THE END...no need to go further.
BTW, the treatments mentioned are not expensive.