quote:
No patient is going to willingly sign up for the chance to be given a sugar pill when the drug in question was voted as the most effective treatment available according to a poll of over 6,000 doctors worldwide.

It really bugs me that the worldwide medical community has not been more forthcoming with data, even preliminary data, during this pandemic. Reportedly Italian doctors started widespread early onset use of HCQ in mid March. They've had a nice downturn in both cases (peaked on March 19) and deaths (peaked on March 27), which might be explainable if the drug was reducing both viral shedding and symptom progression.

By now you'd think we'd at least have a ton of raw numbers on the internet, unless it's working and they'd rather keep demand low for selfish reasons. If the drug isn't working, likewise put the raw numbers out there and let everybody else figure it out for themselves and quit wasting their time with it. Not impressed with information flow around the world, you'd think we were waiting for it to be transcribed onto scrolls by the monks.

This post was edited on 4/17/20 at 6:34 pm

0 ...

Report Post

Posted by Bestbank Tiger

Premium Member

Member since Jan 2005

80890 posts

Posted on 4/17/20 at 6:31 pm to dandyjohn

quote:
yep, brazil and india is where i want to get my cutting edge healthcare from.

So the laws of biology and chemistry cease to exist in countries with a lower per capita GDP?

Do the laws of physics also cease to exist on your stovetop?

This post was edited on 4/17/20 at 6:33 pm

0 ...

Report Post

Posted by cwil177

Baton Rouge

Member since Jun 2011

29647 posts

Posted on 4/17/20 at 7:30 pm to wdhalgren

quote:
Personally, I think it's reasonable to use HCQ right now, particularly early after sx onset in high risk patients, maybe randomize it in low risk patients.

I think this is very reasonable. I would still want a baseline EKG to rule out QT prolongation first.

0 ...

Report Post

Posted by cwil177

Baton Rouge

Member since Jun 2011

29647 posts

Posted on 4/17/20 at 7:35 pm to OKtiger

quote:
It seems to be useful in the early stages of disease.

Maybe, but the data is poor.

quote:
Again, the philosophical differences we have is whether it is ethical or not to give a placebo to a patient that could very well develop complications because no treatment was given.

We use placebo controlled trials for a reason, and that's what we need here, too. Without them you won't know if any benefits or harms are caused by the drug or by the other treatments. You imply that no treatment with HCQ = harm, but we don't have data that says that. We do know that the drug can cause diarrhea and QT prolongation. So if HCQ doesn't end up having a positive effect, we are just causing harm without benefit. That is unethical.

quote:
the drug in question was voted as the most effective treatment available according to a poll of over 6,000 doctors worldwide.

Anecdotes do not make good medicine. Most doctors right now are not prescribing it to their patients, for what it's worth.

0 ...

Report Post

Posted by Bristol Dawg

God's Country

Member since Jul 2016

2934 posts

Posted on 4/17/20 at 8:03 pm to OKtiger

Darn. I thought we may have something here. The controls were the ones who refused treatment, which implies ‘less ill’. Still have hopes but looking less likely.

We saw this with AIDS too. Trials couldn’t withhold treatment but could compare to those who refused. Why can’t we just put a good trial together using two areas - one that has access to treatment and one that does not.

Page 1 2 3 4