re: Great news! Azithromycin & Chloroquine: victory lap

quote:

---

Deep State Red Tape,

---

Can we start calling it blue tape?

quote:

---

Who in the absolute frick gives a shite about what the news/media say at this point? They are vermin at best.

---

Unfortunately many people who are not “news savvy” are now watching the news because of the virus. If your sole information comes from the news then you believe the world is ending and 30million Americans are going to die.

I friggin hate the MSM. I will not watch. Fox Business is the most tolerable.

quote:

---

The drug companies see an opportunity to make money

---

FYI, Bayer donates three million malaria tablets to U.S. for potential use against coronavirus

I hope you are correct.

quote:

---

Why do sharks circle wounded prey? They smell blood in the water. The drug companies see an opportunity to make money

---

Lol wow

quote:

---

The death rate in the treatment group in the study is actually higher than the death rate for total cases

---

Are you saying that the medicine actually contributed to the death? If not, what's the relevance of what you said.
If so, the onus would be on you to hypothesize by what mechanism the medicine might have caused the death.
Anything else, IMO, is just being negative for negativity's sake.

quote:

---

If this thing isn't 100% effective but has shown through cases that it speeds up the healing process, why not go with it?

---

I'll share a very reputable source's input, because I think it's relevant. I've explained until I'm blue in the thumbs in other threads these points. Jumping on fads with small, but unblinded nonrandomized numbers that share essentially nothing about the patients' conditions prior to treatment in a virus where something like 50% of people won't even know they have it isn't particularly helpful. This is someone who does this for a living trying to explain it to you. I'm not trying to shite on it or your hope. I'm not saying it doesn't or won't work. But we are very far from the point of ubiquitously prescribing it to everyone. Data is very easily manipulated, and that is concerning, especially in some of these studies. The US death rate appears to be 276/19,777 or 1.4%. The death rate in this study is 1/26 or 3.8%.
Crazy thing about that is that in the US, more tests are going to sicker and sicker patients than from what is being reported in places like Wuhan, where everyone was tested, so it is unlikely that the US death rate is a result of only testing healthier people (unless the US is healthier than the rest of the world). This is obviously something that isn't quantifiable, but still. The death rate in this study is around 2.5x higher than the US death rate. You can easily look and say, "well that's only 26 people, if you add more, that will obviously get better," and that's exactly my point with the exception of knowing they get better.

I digress.
UpToDate is probably the most reliable and cutting edge research in medicine that is reviewed and put behind a paywall. When a doctor reaches, "I don't know what to do," they generally turn there. The information that I share is from their Coronavirus page which is actually freely published right now, so I'll include a link to it (it doesn't have a paywall). Here, you are reading a group of doctors making recommendations to other doctors. This isn't the end-all-be-all and some disagree with it, but if such a thing as a "very solid" recommendation from "experts" exists, it's usually what they publish.


Their thoughts:

quote:

---

?Chloroquine/hydroxychloroquine – Both chloroquine and hydroxychloroquine have been reported to inhibit SARS-CoV-2 in vitro, although hydroxychloroquine appears to have more potent antiviral activity [85].
Use of chloroquine is included in treatment guidelines from China's National Health Commission and was reportedly associated with reduced progression of disease and decreased duration of symptoms [86,87]. However, primary data supporting these claims have not been published [88].
Other published clinical data on either of these agents are limited. In an open-label study of 36 patients with COVID-19, use of hydroxychloroquine (200 mg three times per day for 10 days) was associated with a higher rate of undetectable SARS-CoV-2 RNA on nasopharyngeal specimens at day 6 compared with no specific treatment (70 versus 12.5 percent) [89]. In this study, the use of azithromycin in combination with hydroxychloroquine appeared to have additional benefit, but there are methodologic concerns about the control groups for the study, and the biologic basis for using azithromycin in this setting is unclear.
Despite the limited clinical data, given the relative safety of short-term use of hydroxychloroquine (with or without azithromycin), the lack of known effective interventions, and the in vitro antiviral activity, some clinicians think it is reasonable to use one or both of these agents in hospitalized patients with severe or risk for severe infection, particularly if they are not eligible for other clinical trials

---

UpToDate

Not good science but hey, we need these preliminary associations to come out before we can prove them. If I was sick, I’d take a zpack and old malaria drug.

You better watch it posting actual facts. The op has done confirmed the cure. We are free or corona now. Everything will be back to normal monday. Drug companies are mass producing this medicine, everything is okay now.

quote:

---

Are you saying that the medicine actually contributed to the death? If not, what's the relevance of what you said.

---

No. I'm saying small pools of data are easily manipulated to show whatever you want and should not be taken as scalable facts and broadly applied as many here seem to think.

quote:

---

If so, the onus would be on you to hypothesize by what mechanism the medicine might have caused the death.

---

Could've been cardiomyopathy from the drug + virus
Could've been an abnormal heart rhythm from from QT prolongation
Could've been hemorrhage because the patient stopped producing platelets
Could've been smothered by the nurse


The onus isn't on the reader to hypothesize why someone died. It's actually on the writer to discuss why it's relevant or irrelevant and discuss all of the particularly relevant results.


May I ask why you are interested in the positive aspects of this extremely limited observation and not concerned about the methods where they chose not to report the results from the really sick and discuss the patient that died?

Anything else would be an example of why someone who doesn't read peer-reviewed literature shouldn't be so widely swayed by the latest fad.