Getting hydroxychloroquine
- Thread starter Spacealien2
- Start date
A very safe drug that the manufacturer warns has serious side effects and admits that has no evidence to claim that it works against COVID19.
The manufacturer. The manufacturer says this. The manufacturer that would make BILLIONS if there was even a shred of truth to the claims says this.
But trump and alex jones claim it's a cure, so let's all dose up.
:der:
This topic frustrates many physicians. hydroxychloroquine has been suggested and trialed literally anytime there is a new virus and every time there are mixed results but long term analysis shows no clear benefit. This isn’t the first time but it’s the first time with politicians with no understanding or background in medicine blindly supporting it. There are other therapies that have even greater potential but you don’t see people like OP blindly trying to force a diagnosis to get it from their physicians. (Look up hrsACE2 by UBC).
There is a chance it does actually have some benefit but a small one only at certain stages. But it’s becoming hard to study that with all this drama. Even the researchers in support of this drug are pissed off with all this media attention.
The study that is often cited in support of it is very poorly designed. I think it had 20 patients of which 6 dropped out and the rest had no clear randomization. The outcome of the study was also Viral load which Doesent really convert well to clinical outcomes. There have been other studies contradicting those findings and some in support. Whenever something has a mixed effect like this from my experience it usually means it’s either just placebo or the impact is small
Now some ask what’s the downside ? There are many side effects cardiac peripheral nerve etc. The bigger down side in my opinion is that people that actually need this drug are having a hard time finding it dude to all the trump supporters hoarding it.
Bottom line let researchers and medical professionals deal with this and not politicians. It is not a cure but it might have a small impact which frankly even if it does does not change the magnitude of the issue we are facing it just dampens it every so lightly.
There are nice articles on this. I think the bmj has a good one
Studying this drug is hard as is without the politics. The outcome we are looking for already has low incidence in the study population that’s why it’s so hard to study this . The outcome that most are interested in are thing like Icu status or mortality. The drug also has to be given early for it to have it’s best chance. So assuming an Icu rate of 5% if you give the drug to 100 people early your looking to see if there is a change from the 5 people you expect to be Icu bound but any co founding variable (and there are a lot of them ) are acting on the 100 original patients and hence the confounding is magnified when you’re outcome is expected in only 5. Now at max this drug has a 20% improvement so out of those 100 people essentially your trying to isolate ONE in the best case scenario. Now you can see why so many studies can contradict each other.
There is a chance it does actually have some benefit but a small one only at certain stages. But it’s becoming hard to study that with all this drama. Even the researchers in support of this drug are pissed off with all this media attention.
The study that is often cited in support of it is very poorly designed. I think it had 20 patients of which 6 dropped out and the rest had no clear randomization. The outcome of the study was also Viral load which Doesent really convert well to clinical outcomes. There have been other studies contradicting those findings and some in support. Whenever something has a mixed effect like this from my experience it usually means it’s either just placebo or the impact is small
Now some ask what’s the downside ? There are many side effects cardiac peripheral nerve etc. The bigger down side in my opinion is that people that actually need this drug are having a hard time finding it dude to all the trump supporters hoarding it.
Bottom line let researchers and medical professionals deal with this and not politicians. It is not a cure but it might have a small impact which frankly even if it does does not change the magnitude of the issue we are facing it just dampens it every so lightly.
There are nice articles on this. I think the bmj has a good one
Studying this drug is hard as is without the politics. The outcome we are looking for already has low incidence in the study population that’s why it’s so hard to study this . The outcome that most are interested in are thing like Icu status or mortality. The drug also has to be given early for it to have it’s best chance. So assuming an Icu rate of 5% if you give the drug to 100 people early your looking to see if there is a change from the 5 people you expect to be Icu bound but any co founding variable (and there are a lot of them ) are acting on the 100 original patients and hence the confounding is magnified when you’re outcome is expected in only 5. Now at max this drug has a 20% improvement so out of those 100 people essentially your trying to isolate ONE in the best case scenario. Now you can see why so many studies can contradict each other.
One of the few terb posters who actually knows what they are talking about and contribute good insights based on their knowledge of the field vs. many of terb posters who pretend to be experts in everything.
@ben19 Thanks for sharing your knowledge and provide good insights to this place without the ego drama terb posters seem to suffer from :thumb:
@ben19 Thanks for sharing your knowledge and provide good insights to this place without the ego drama terb posters seem to suffer from :thumb:
Well, there you go, Kirky. Looks like TERB's sole resident out-and-proud resident doctor doesn't agree with you.
You and Wyatt and your assorted buds can parade on to your next little soapbox now.
I bet many here would go apeshit if Fox news created a Hannity & Tucker Fake Pundit Power Hour. LMAO
I dont know what out and proud means but just to make things clear as I know there are lawyers around here I never made recommendations as a doctor nor did I claim I was one it was just my opinion on a subject take it if you want lol. In general never take medical recommendations from the internet or from the president lol. To the OP you can have this discussion with your own doctor in person. Tell them your concerns and hear what they have to say. They may even prescribe you what you want who knows.
So what you're saying is that, if hydroxyasdfsdf is at best a placebo, the virus is no big deal at all?
I do not understand your logic here?
What I am saying is at best it has some minor benefit when given at the optimal window. There is NO evidence that it is a cure and everyone who actually has looked at the evidence agrees to it.
If it was placebo how does that mean that the virus is not a big deal at all?
Here's an interesting and balanced article without all the political bias or the hydroxy cheerleading. Even though it's a Texas newspaper, the Houston Chronicle is not a conservative outlet. It's just far from the intensely political environs of New York and Washington.
https://www.houstonchronicle.com/ne...-home-doctor-unproven-drug-trump-15192584.php
https://www.houstonchronicle.com/ne...-home-doctor-unproven-drug-trump-15192584.php
This is ONE GPs. experience at ONE nursing home and conclusions are made on a population scale on risk prevention of 20% for ICU admission?
This is called anecdotal evidence..... Science doesent work on feelings, it works on data. If I had a sugar pill and gave it to all nursing homes for treatment of cancer I can guarantee you at least one would say this pill is a magic cure.
Look I dont watch politics it frustrates me.... and I am not against this drug. All I am saying is give the experts a chance to study the drug. The professionals who actually are studying this drug and advocating it are not even making some of the claims I have seen being made by the public that is in support. This drug is being looked at to reduce viral loads given at early stages of the disease it is by no means a cure. Even if it does that it is still significant so lets actually study it.... so far the evidence is inconclusive but there are more studies enroute. Honstly it frustrates me how much money and effort is being spent on this one drug when there are other alternatives that need more funding. There are other therapies that have MUCH more promise yet no one is talking about them since it was not brought up to the political discourse.
This is called anecdotal evidence..... Science doesent work on feelings, it works on data. If I had a sugar pill and gave it to all nursing homes for treatment of cancer I can guarantee you at least one would say this pill is a magic cure.
Look I dont watch politics it frustrates me.... and I am not against this drug. All I am saying is give the experts a chance to study the drug. The professionals who actually are studying this drug and advocating it are not even making some of the claims I have seen being made by the public that is in support. This drug is being looked at to reduce viral loads given at early stages of the disease it is by no means a cure. Even if it does that it is still significant so lets actually study it.... so far the evidence is inconclusive but there are more studies enroute. Honstly it frustrates me how much money and effort is being spent on this one drug when there are other alternatives that need more funding. There are other therapies that have MUCH more promise yet no one is talking about them since it was not brought up to the political discourse.
I posted a few threads about other potential remedial treatments that are being studied. No comments to any of these threads.
I will look for your threads.
And in response to others, I don't think anyone has said it is a cure. Until there is a vaccine, I suspect we will develop treatment regimes that involve various drugs and methods used in unison. It will likely be a different regime for each patient depending on various factors. And yet, we yet will still lose people who come down with COVID-19.
You need a prescription and a Doctor to monitor you. This not a miracle drug or magic bullet. There are side effects like liver damage.
The US FDA approved it for emergency use. There have been quite a number of successful reports re its use, with or without another drug or two:
http://www.therxforum.com/showthread.php?t=1156488
It's a prescription drug that has been in use for years. So it's considered safe enough to have been approved for use. But like many approved drugs they occasionally have very serious, even deadly, consequences.
Trump has a small personal stake in Sanofi, a maker of chloroquine. Not sure about Oz.
One of many listed in this thread with successful use of the drug vs COVID-19:
http://www.therxforum.com/showthread.php?t=1156488
The anecdotal evidence is pilling up. How many mountains of it will convince people?
You just linked to a forum post as evidence for efficacy for a drug?
There are reports it works there are also reports that it doesent work And there are no credible reports that it’s a cure. AT best with a combination of other drugs it may reduce viral load in patients when taken very early and that may reduce length of stay in ICU in a fraction of those patients.
In most patients with covid they recover on their own so when studying a drug on recovery you have to study it properly and people are doing that and all I am saying is let the experts do the research not politicians. It’s crazy how much this drug is getting attention compared to other avenues of treatment that have more evidence and are more promising just cause of a politician.
