- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
0
Posted on 4/3/20 at 1:47 pm to TulaneFan
But our resident furloughed plant workers told me differently
Posted on 4/3/20 at 1:49 pm to TulaneFan
quote:
This study described a trial of 80 patients carried out by Philippe Gautret in Marseille, France. Although some of their results appeared to be encouraging, it should also be noted that most of their patients only had mild symptoms. Furthermore, 85% of the patients didn’t even have a fever – one of the major telltale symptoms of the virus, thus suggesting that these patients likely would have naturally cleared the virus without any intervention.
quote:
The results showed that the 31 patients who received the drug showed a lessening of their symptoms 24 hours earlier than patients in the control group. In addition, pneumonia symptoms improved in 25 of the 31 patients versus 17 of 31 in the control group.
quote:
In contrast, however, to the Gautret study, eight of the 11 patients had underlying health conditions, and 10 of 11 had fevers and were quite ill at the time the dosing began.
So this combination doesn't save people who are already severely ill, but does seem to lessen the effects of the virus if administered soon enough to the general population?
It's not a miracle cure all, but that's still good news to me.
Posted on 4/3/20 at 1:49 pm to guedeaux
quote:
. You can't determine shite with those low numbers, much less without a control group.
People were touting it as a cure with similar numbers... but you are correct.
Posted on 4/3/20 at 1:51 pm to RB10
quote:
Furthermore, 85% of the patients didn’t even have a fever – one of the major telltale symptoms of the virus, thus suggesting that these patients likely would have naturally cleared the virus without any intervention.
That’s interesting. So 85% of people don’t need any medical assistance to recover? Is that what it’s saying?
Posted on 4/3/20 at 1:52 pm to RB10
quote:
It's not a miracle cure all, but that's still good news to me.
The though all along was that this would be the medication that could truly flatten the curve by preventing hospitalizations, intubations, and deaths.
This drug shouldn't be the last resort. It should be given as soon as possible depending on your QTc
Besides, all of these patients were already hospitalized with: Obesity (2), Solid Cancer (3), Blood Cancers (2), and HIV (1)
No shite it's not going to work. They needed this medication BEFORE they entered the hospital with severe shortness of breath
Posted on 4/3/20 at 1:52 pm to kciDAtaE
quote:
That’s interesting. So 85% of people don’t need any medical assistance to recover? Is that what it’s saying?
That number has been kicked around for a couple of weeks now. It's why people who test positive are being sent home if their symptoms aren't severe.
This post was edited on 4/3/20 at 1:53 pm
Posted on 4/3/20 at 1:54 pm to Barstools
quote:
Sounds like we need more studies.
Posted on 4/3/20 at 1:56 pm to TulaneFan
It seems like the studies were testing completely different things. One tested the benefits of early treatment while the other tested the effectiveness with infected people with more severe symptoms. I’m not sure these are contradictory findings.
Posted on 4/3/20 at 1:59 pm to Pandy Fackler
quote:
But Fox News and their "experts" say it'll not only kill the China cough but every other frickin' disease Charlie Sheen happens to have too.
quote:
Pandy Fackler
Sorry, Pandy, there’s a minimum IQ threshold to post on the PT board. Go back to the Movie/TV board to give your insubstantial and unsupported-by-fact opinions.
Posted on 4/3/20 at 2:00 pm to tiggerthetooth
quote:means the op is gullible and shouldn't be starting threads
What? What does this mean?
Posted on 4/3/20 at 2:03 pm to Jimbeaux
quote:
Sorry, Pandy, there’s a minimum IQ threshold to post on the PT board. Go back to the Movie/TV board to give your insubstantial and unsupported-by-fact opinions.
This isn't the PT board dumdum, it's the OT and I can promise you this, you polifrick. I meet the minimum IQ requirements for the OT.
Posted on 4/3/20 at 2:05 pm to tiggerthetooth
You don’t know what “does not appear” means?
Posted on 4/3/20 at 2:05 pm to TulaneFan
The conclusion in the title of this thread is totally incorrect.
Posted on 4/3/20 at 2:08 pm to Fun Bunch
quote:
The conclusion in the title of this thread is totally incorrect.
I do not expect a news outlet to be able to read a scientific study and report accurately on the results.
What were the methods? What were the outcomes being looked at? Do the results have any meaningful clinical relevance?
Posted on 4/3/20 at 2:20 pm to OKtiger
Isn't the problem that if you have success treating the virus before the symptoms are serious, you don't really prove that much since such a high percentage of people never become critical regardless of treatment?
Have the studies which are "successful" in treating people without serious conditions really shown that their success rate is greater than just our general stats which seem to show only about 1 in 20 people infected are being tested and, of those, only 15% are being hospitalized?
It would seem that cases which do not become serious are already close to 95% without any specific treatment at all.
Is that an incorrect understanding?
Posted on 4/3/20 at 2:23 pm to Pandy Fackler
quote:
it's the OT and I can promise you this, you polifrick. I meet the minimum IQ requirements for the OT.
Was this supposed to be a comeback?
Posted on 4/3/20 at 2:24 pm to TulaneFan
Posted on 4/3/20 at 2:26 pm to TulaneFan
DP
This post was edited on 4/3/20 at 2:26 pm
Posted on 4/3/20 at 2:36 pm to OKtiger
quote:
This info is very beneficial. Never thought HCQ would help patients who are severely ill.
It seems like HCQ was given to patients severely ill in the ICU in this study. In which case, I would agree HCQ would not be appropriate to give in that context.
I think it'll be much more beneficial to give 3-5 days after onset of symptoms before the patient deteriorates.
There is currently a study looking at how HCQ can affect the virus prophylactically and in the outpatient setting before a pneumonia/ARDS develops.
No actually the assertion of the first study was that the patients “completely cleared the virus” and the use was based on the assertion that chorloquine and hydroxychloroquine being able to prevent virus replication in vitro.
This more recent study started the drug for patients who were not on their death bed and on the vent as per your assertion but were admitted with fever and nasal oxygen.
Most people are hopeful and I hope other studies show benefit but you do no favors by trying to disregard this study. you are anchoring just as bad as the media is anchoring in being skeptical.
Page 2 of 3
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News