More evidence hydroxychloroquine works

Which has always been my position. I'm firmly on the fence and open minded on hydrox

 

As long as it takes for those like you to accept reality

 

You're shilling propaganda.

Be less ridiculous.

 

MrT

Would you please tell us unwashed masses why HCQ is used for malaria and lupus and rheumatoid arthritis?

Why does it work on arthritis and malaria????

 

Covid-19 is not malaria, lupus, or rheumatoid arthritis.

Do not take HCQ unless your personal doctor recommends that you do so and, even then, consider getting a 2nd opinion.

 

I have a theory but am not certain. Why do so many posters and individuals get so worked up and anxious about the effects of HCQ?

Some people get very freaked out about it, and there must be a reason.

 

I'm sorry for your sake that you don't seem to have the attention span to read a long (but well-reasoned) post and you then assume it's Gish Gallop, but fine, you don't need to read me. I'll be just fine if you skip me and don't reply to me or place me on Ignore, because, see, I usually prefer to debate with people who are not afraid to read a long post, and who then reply to the points that the other poster was kind enough to spend some time articulating for the person's intention, which is proof of the other person's respect for the OP and courtesy of responding to the OP with care and length (although, disagreeing), which is the polite and respectful thing to do.

I've already explained why your correlation is flawed even with updated numbers but since you insist, we can agree to disagree. There, sweet and short post, huh? I guess this one you won't accuse of being Gish Gallop. Have a nice day.

 

And malaria isn't arthritis either, yet HCQ is prescribed for both. That's the point. You have no clue.

 

Truthfully, I don't understand why/how this is so divisive. It's a worldwide and national problem. Politics should have nothing to do with it.

 

That's one of the uses I mentioned, superimposed bacterial infections. That's not the only use, though.

Nothing laughable, it's you who misinterpreted what I said. I said it prolongs the QTc. QTc is the corrected (for heart rate) interval between the Q wave and the T wave in the electrocardiogram. It's the repolarization interval. When it's prolonged by a medication (AZ does, HCQ does it too, both together do it more, and the SARS-CoV-2 direct effect on the heart does it too, thus HCQ and AZ being more dangerous to COVID-19 patients than to patients with other conditions) the next cardiac impulse may fall into the repolarization phase and misfire, causing an anomalous rhythm called Torsades de Pointes (it's known by its French name, it means Bursts of Spikes) which is often fatal. That's why you see reports of cardiac toxicity in COVID-19 patients in trials such as Oxford's RECOVERY trial. That's why the FDA said the risks outweigh the benefits. There is nothing laughable about this potential lethal toxicity which has been known since 2007 (the year when the FDA put a box in the insert warning doctors about the problem).

Sure, it becomes harder to treat, thus the salvage steps of the protocol I've referenced to in other posts, the MATH+ one.

Of course the earlier the better. I fail to see why you're saying this to me. Where did I imply that early treatment is not desirable? I just said that HCQ doesn't work in early treatments either.

Again you misinterpret me and start laughing... for the respiratory insufficiency you need a ventilator. But COVID-19 very often ALSO causes renal failure. You need dialysis for that. But often other organs fail too (due to the endothelial lesion) and when it gets to that point it is too late to save the patient, and the patient dies.

Yes, for many cases. Some cases die of cardiac arrhytmia or intravascular disseminated coagulation or massive pulmonary embolism, etc. COVID-19 can kill you in different ways. Bad, nasty disease.

Again, why do you say this as if I'm against Dexametasone? I said it works. It's part of the protocols, or the alternative, methylprednisolone, which is of the same class and does the same thing. Show this post to your brother. He will probably say that he agrees with me.

Many die, sure. More get saved (infection fatality rate, 0.65%).

If common sense were the way to treat complex diseases like COVID-19, we wouldn't need to go to 4 years of pre-med, 4 years of medical school, sit for the USMLE steps 1, 2, and 3, go to four years of residency training in Emergency Care or Critical Care or Pulmonary Medicine etc., and sit for Board Exams, then get a license to practice medicine. There is a reason why Medicine is a regulated profession that requires, well, a Medical School diploma. It's because there is more to Medicine than a lay man's "common sense."

[/QUOTE]

Where did I defend this misleading lie that Dr. Fauci intentionally said? I was pretty mad at him. Are you taking me for some sort of Fauci fan???

Have a nice day.

 

I understand the stats part of it. That's easy. LOL

Right, but then how do we determine which ones are valid and which ones aren't? Is it a question of a country's leader's credibility or past reporting problems or suspicions, etc.?

My impression (and, admittedly, I'm new to all this) is Fauci knows his job but may not have been at liberty to speak freely. For example, I wondered why he changed his position on the usefulness of masks. There may be a valid reason, but it's confusing. Some say it's because there weren't enough to go around so medical staff could have enough supplies. Who knows the real reason except him?

 

It’s so important to have something to hold out hope for, so I’m not going to point out all the flaws in your argument. It could work, and your evidence doesn’t refute that, at least.

I’m not gonna take it anytime soon.

 

Thanks for taking the time to explain this. I understand it much better now.

I am still curious, though, about people saying that death numbers are exaggerated because *anything and everything* is being counted as a COVID-19 death regardless of other contributing factors that may be classified as secondary. Wouldn't that mean deaths are OVERCOUNTED here in the US?

 

There are probably cases where it is counted when it wasn't the cause of death, and there are cases where it was the cause of death and they didn't catch it. The only way to find out if it is overcounted or undercounted overall is through excess death studies (this is what the CDC always uses to determine under/over counting), and so far those indicate the COVID deaths are being undercounted.

 

Talk me through the logic here then. I point out that HCQ working on three conditions does not mean that it works on Covid-19 and your response is that because those three conditions are different from each other...what? Does it suddenly start working for Covid-19 just because malaria and arthritis are different?

FFS man. This is real ****ing simple.

Do NOT use HCQ unless your personal doctor recommends that you do such.

 

Ah! That makes sense. Thanks for explaining it to me.

 

@yardmeat does a good job of explaining in post #50, but I will elaborate a tiny bit further.

The stories of people attributing deaths, mistakenly, to covid-19 simply because they tested positive are almost entirely anecdotal stories and many are based on false narratives. There is no evidence, to my knowledge, that doctors or hospitals or any other reporting agency are systematically misrepresenting a significant number of deaths. And even when mistakes do happen, as was the case of the motorcycle accident being reported as a covid-19 death in florida, those issues get corrected rather quickly. His death, for instance, is no longer counted on the rolls.

Now, is it possible that there is a significant number of mis-representation of covid-19 deaths? Sure. But I haven't seen anyone try to validate that claim through any sort of detailed analysis and the data (the excess deaths analysis) supports, if anything, that we are significantly undercounting currently.

 

Hope that makes sense, and don't get me wrong, it is a really good question.

 

It's incredible how people say "HCQ has been around for 40 years and is approved and safe! It works for malaria, lupus, and RA!"

They don't realize that safety is disease-specific (HCQ tends to be much more cardiotoxic to COVID-19 patients due to myocarditis) and working for a two auto-immune diseases and one infectious agent doesn't mean it works for all infections agents including COVID-19. As a matter of fact, it has been shown with no doubt (large RCTs) that it doesn't work for COVID-19.

 

My friend is an cardiac electrophysiologist and he was inundated with patients requesting that he prescribe HCQ shortly after Trump's first efforts to blast it as effective.

His response, as you will very likely expect, was, "No, you have a heart problem and this drug will likely kill you. So No, I will not prescribe it to you."

 

While I fully support continued research, it does appear to be dangerous for some people in some circumstances. Moreover (and I don't think this is getting enough attention), this drug has already been found to be effective for other diseases, and people suffering from those disease are facing shortages due to the premature COVID hype.

 

Thank you also for taking the time to explain this. I think I have a better scope of HOW it all ties together and the importance of looking at various sources of information to get a better point of view of what's really happening. Much appreciated.

 

Funny (if not sad) for you: I know a guy that told me not to take my medications as prescribed (some can be taken concurrently) because "they don't know which way to go in your system". I honestly wish I could tell you I am joking. I can't.

No wonder we have regulations on prescriptions and warnings on products. It's crazy what people think they know better than trained professionals.

 

Care to dispute the research paper?
What’s wrong with that document? Or do you need biased opinions to justify your own? I have 2 people who are doctors in my circle of friends, one of them is very anti-Trump who opposes the use of this drug and another claims it’s stupid not to use it.
So, your list of experts does not and cannot address the contents of this paper. Just because you chose to ignore it doesn’t mean the findings are not valid.

 

Indeed, it is unlikely that the OP just "accidently" used months old numbers for the idea how well HCQ is doing despite science clearly showing HCQ is not useful.

The OP shows almost non-existing COVID deaths in other parts of the world, etc., but then the OP uses the CURRENT death infection and death numbers in the USA to illustrate the USA is doing badly IN COMPARISON!

What rot!

"Shilling propaganda" is a very polite way to describe this OP's "Trump School of Statistical Analysis", but some people, including myself, might more correctly consider that kind of attempt of persuasion as "unadulterated BS".