- 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
re: American Journal Of Medicine: Hydroxychloroquine Reduces Mortality Rates In COVID Patients
Posted on 1/29/21 at 10:08 pm to conservativewifeymom
Posted on 1/29/21 at 10:08 pm to conservativewifeymom
quote:
So how many thousands have died since they told us no, it hasn't been proven for covid.
It was already proven for previous variants of coronavirus, so some efficacy was pretty much expected.
Obviously it's not the *best* option now but in April, May, June 2020 I think anyone with covid should have gotten it. I know a few people who got it in the August/September timeframe and they all got hcq
1
Posted on 1/29/21 at 10:10 pm to SDVTiger
quote:
Lol @ Roger Klarvin
As usual, swing and miss.
As an aside, your average word count per post must be among the lowest on this site.
Posted on 1/29/21 at 10:18 pm to Vastmind
quote:
As a pharmacist, I feel morally obligated to fill HCQ scripts for pre and post exposure prophylaxis and treatment despite the potential threat of action against my license by Trump hating boards of pharmacy.
Even though virtually all large, quality prospective studies showed no benefit for prophylaxis?
Of the 10 largest studies by cohort conducted in the world on the topic of prophylaxis, 8 showed no benefit (including all of the top 5), 1 showed potential harm and 1 showed potential benefit (which barely achieved statistical significance).
This post was edited on 1/29/21 at 10:19 pm
Posted on 1/29/21 at 10:20 pm to Roger Klarvin
quote:
Of the 10 largest studies
Not doubting you but link?
Posted on 1/29/21 at 10:22 pm to Roger Klarvin
There are those that disagree with you. Quite a few. Reputable people and this was just reprinted.
Personally I see nothing wrong with trying this early onset. If it does not interfere with any other methods of treatment and if you have nothing else to offer.
Personally I see nothing wrong with trying this early onset. If it does not interfere with any other methods of treatment and if you have nothing else to offer.
Posted on 1/29/21 at 10:25 pm to jonnyanony
quote:
It was already proven for previous variants of coronaviru
False, it was shown to be potentially effective IN VITRO at VERY HIGH CONCENTRATIONS in a SINGLE PAPER from nearly TWO DECADES AGO.
Hydroxychloroquine and chloroquine combined were the most extensively studied drugs IN THE WORLD in 2020 in terms of research volume. And at this time the overwhelming preponderance of evidence that it is not effective at treating or preventing COVID19, regardless of when it is administered or what other medications it is administered with.
Despite the narrative here, we as a field tried. HARD. We wanted this to work. The idea that doctors and researchers didn’t want a cheap, reasonably safe and widely available drug to work for this because Trump talked about it is pure insanity. The reality is there’s just no good evidence that it works. I wish there was, I truly do.
This post was edited on 1/29/21 at 10:27 pm
Posted on 1/29/21 at 10:27 pm to Roger Klarvin
Ok so link?
Posted on 1/29/21 at 10:29 pm to antibarner
quote:
There are those that disagree with you.
They can disagree all they want, but I have the overwhelming preponderance of evidence on my side.
Look, there are geologists who believe in young earth creationism, biologists who deny evolution and medical doctors who are anti-vax. The fact that such people exist doesn’t mean anything. What matters is what the evidence shows.
This post was edited on 1/29/21 at 10:30 pm
Posted on 1/29/21 at 10:31 pm to Roger Klarvin
quote:
The idea that doctors and researchers didn’t want a cheap, reasonably safe and widely available drug to work for this because Trump talked about it is pure insanity.
Agreed. Doctors would have ignored the press and written HCQ for everyone until there was none left
In the pharmacy.
That still doesn’t explain the press gaslighting about the drug.
Posted on 1/29/21 at 10:32 pm to Roger Klarvin
Once again, so YOU say. There are those, reputable people, and this report is an example, that disagree with you.
Numerous examples of those that disagree with you. Doctors and researchers, sir. This is why when you go to a doctor, you have the option of a second opinion.
Unless you have a better option, I fail to see why the HCQ/ZPACK/ Zinc combination isn't worth a try very early onset.
Numerous examples of those that disagree with you. Doctors and researchers, sir. This is why when you go to a doctor, you have the option of a second opinion.
Unless you have a better option, I fail to see why the HCQ/ZPACK/ Zinc combination isn't worth a try very early onset.
Posted on 1/29/21 at 10:34 pm to antibarner
quote:
Personally I see nothing wrong with trying this early onset.
I guess it depends on how one defines “wrong”. I believe it’s wrong to give a patient of mine something under the guise that it may work despite knowing the evidence clearly points to it being of no benefit. That’s regardless of how safe the drug is. It would be wrong in that sense if it were a bag of Cheetos.
First, that’s effectively lying to your patient. Second, no pharmaceutical drugs are completely harmless and there’s no reason to risk deleterious effects if there’s no realistic chance of benefit.
Using your logic, I might as well give patients HCQ for any condition for which few effective treatments exist.
Posted on 1/29/21 at 10:35 pm to Roger Klarvin
quote:
overwhelming preponderance of evidence on my side.
For the love of god.... link?
Posted on 1/29/21 at 10:37 pm to the808bass
quote:
That still doesn’t explain the press gaslighting about the drug.
Sure, the fear mongering that HCQ was likely to stop your heart was silly. The side effects they constantly spoke of are exceedingly rare, I’ve see one patient ever with any cardiac issue related to HCQ. Many rheumatologists who use it every day have never seen it.
Posted on 1/29/21 at 10:42 pm to LuckyTiger
NOLA hospitals used it early and often.
Posted on 1/29/21 at 10:44 pm to Roger Klarvin
That's being silly and isn't based on logic at all. On the other subject, one reason the drug wasn't prescribed until we ran out was doctors and pharmacists were prevented from doing so for ridiculous reasons by people wholly unqualified to step into the process.
YOU wouldn't write it because you don't think it works.Other Doctors have said they have had good results with it. That's what second opinions are for, as I said.
And I note, and I have asked repeatedly, you have not offered up a better option.
YOU wouldn't write it because you don't think it works.Other Doctors have said they have had good results with it. That's what second opinions are for, as I said.
And I note, and I have asked repeatedly, you have not offered up a better option.
This post was edited on 1/29/21 at 10:45 pm
Posted on 1/29/21 at 10:55 pm to Roger Klarvin
LINK
Like I said...second opinions.
quote:
By Nigel Bark and Chuck Dinerstein, MD, MBA — November 9, 2020
The value of hydroxychloroquine in treating COVID-19 patients continues to rise from the ashes of refutation in the medical literature. The latest iteration is a meta-analysis of utilizing the drug early in ambulatory patients' care to lessen the undesirable outcomes of infection, hospitalization, and death. Several of our readers and members of our Board of Scientific Advisors believe that this study is important and that we disregard it at our risk. We are letting a proponent of each side make their case.
Like I said...second opinions.
This post was edited on 1/29/21 at 10:56 pm
Posted on 1/29/21 at 10:55 pm to antibarner
quote:
YOU wouldn't write it because you don't think it works.
It’s not that I don’t think it works, the current data shows it doesn’t.
quote:
Other Doctors have said they have had good results with it.
These are anecdotes, which given most making this claim are outpatient docs treating mild covid makes them especially irrelevant. I can give a patient literally anything that isn’t wildly harmful in an outpatient setting for a low mortality illness and anecdotally perceive a benefit. Why? Because almost all of those types of patients will get better regardless of what you do, because the disease has an overall low mortality.
quote:
That's what second opinions are for, as I said.
Opinions not rooted in evidence are not meaningful opinions in an evidence based field. You continue to ignore that the people holding this opinion are doing so IN SPITE OF the data.
quote:
And I note, and I have asked repeatedly, you have not offered up a better option.
First, I wouldn’t need to as an ineffective treatment is worse than no treatment at all. Second, for mild disease in low risk populations symptomatic therapy alone is sufficient. For patients who develop oxygen requirements, the evidence for steroids is actually fairly robust now and seems to improve outcomes. The evidence for remdesivir is decent in patients requiring oxygen but not yet on NIMV or intubated, though a bit conflicting. The early data on monoclonal antibodies is promising even on an outpatient basis, but it’s too early to comment too strongly one way or another.
Posted on 1/29/21 at 10:57 pm to Roger Klarvin
Read the above. Your position is far from settled orthodoxy sir. It just isn't the case.
This post was edited on 1/29/21 at 10:59 pm
Posted on 1/29/21 at 11:01 pm to antibarner
quote:
Like I said...second opinions.
You then left out the majority of the discussion in your link, where Dr. Dinerstein proceeds to dismantle and eviscerate Dr. Bark’s arguments
Page 2 of 4
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News