IUFLA Posted July 28, 2020 Report Share Posted July 28, 2020 7 minutes ago, 5fouls said: I may have missed it along the way, but is there proof that MILLIONS of doctors disagree with the benefits of HCQ? As I mentioned in my earlier post, I have not seen a formal breakdown that compares the number of doctors that believe in HCQ versus the number of doctors that don't. One news organization goes out and quotes 3-4 doctors that agree with their narrative, while another finds 3-4 that will say the opposite to fit their narrative. Is there documented proof somewhere that MILLIONS of doctors actually feel one way or the other about HCQ? But is that really the argument? Hydroxychloroquine is an immunomodulatory drug that has been used for 60 years to treat malaria and autoimmune diseases such as systemic lupus erythematosus and inflammatory arthritis. The side effects are known. The people who have conditions where it shouldn't be used are known. It's deemed safe.It should only be prescribed by a physician who is aware of and physical conditions that may make it higher risk. If the danger of taking it was that prevalent, why is it still FDA approved for the above mentioned conditions? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HoosierDom Posted July 28, 2020 Report Share Posted July 28, 2020 10 minutes ago, 5fouls said: Very few studies are randomized. Most are trying to prove a particular narrative and will conduct the study in such a way that the narrative is 'proven'. From my perspective, there are too many doctors out there that support the use of HCQ to totally dismiss it. And, quite a few of those doctors are in foreign countries and don't care about the current political landscape in the U.S. France, which, I believe, is where the HCQ craze originated, has banned its use on COVID patients. As far as I know that's pretty much the medical standard used in any advanced country (all of Europe, Japan, Korea, Canada). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HoosierDom Posted July 28, 2020 Report Share Posted July 28, 2020 13 minutes ago, IUFLA said: But is that really the argument? Hydroxychloroquine is an immunomodulatory drug that has been used for 60 years to treat malaria and autoimmune diseases such as systemic lupus erythematosus and inflammatory arthritis. The side effects are known. The people who have conditions where it shouldn't be used are known. It's deemed safe.It should only be prescribed by a physician who is aware of and physical conditions that may make it higher risk. If the danger of taking it was that prevalent, why is it still FDA approved for the above mentioned conditions? Couldn't you make the same argument about prescribing whiskey to treat COVID? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
5fouls Posted July 28, 2020 Report Share Posted July 28, 2020 1 minute ago, HoosierDom said: France, which, I believe, is where the HCQ craze originated, has banned its use on COVID patients. As far as I know that's pretty much the medical standard used in any advanced country (all of Europe, Japan, Korea, Canada). Interesting and very recent article published by the BBC. Does a fair and balanced discussion of both sides but stops short of actually taking a position. Of note in the article, though, is mention that the study done in France back in May that led them to ban the use of the drug was flawed and has since been retracted. https://www.bbc.com/news/51980731 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Inequality Posted July 28, 2020 Report Share Posted July 28, 2020 The HCQ regimen seems to ruffle many feathers abroad which is interesting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bluegrassIU Posted July 28, 2020 Report Share Posted July 28, 2020 HCQ started being "banned" when the false study came out. My mom has been on HCQ for years (lupus, rheumatoid arthritis and a degenerative lung disease). The medicine is safe and has been for many years. Do your own research. The facts show HCQ is effective on treating patients early. Phase 1, initial symptoms. There is plenty of data to back that up. It is not effective once the virus has fully taken hold and the patient is very ill. The vast majority of those debunking its viability are basing their arguments on a patient being very ill. Taking HCQ and not getting better. It is a straw man argument. Distort the claims to easily shoot it down. I do not care who is right or wrong, which side is right etc. I am very familiar with HCQ. I am not an expert on what it does with covid (hell, nobody is a covid expert at this point). What infuriates me is that as soon as a disliked politician says he "likes it", the media ran right to portraying it as some dangerous mystery drug with these god awful side effects. Basically claiming it was not safe. I knew right then, we will never get honest truth. Debate whether it works for covid all you want. My reading has me believing it is useful early. But to call it dangerous, and literally prohibit a doctor from prescribing it? That is wrong. That is scary. It is a safe drug.....it may give you the poops. 8 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
5fouls Posted July 28, 2020 Report Share Posted July 28, 2020 Preach on Brother Bluegrass. Preach on. I wish people took the time to understand that there is a significant void when it comes to unbiased media. This is true whatever your personal beliefs are. 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IUFLA Posted July 28, 2020 Report Share Posted July 28, 2020 1 hour ago, HoosierDom said: Couldn't you make the same argument about prescribing whiskey to treat COVID? If you can show me a statement by a doctor that says it may help, sure. But you can't... On the other hand, I can show you statements from physicians who say it has possibly helped... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HoosierDom Posted July 28, 2020 Report Share Posted July 28, 2020 12 minutes ago, IUFLA said: If you can show me a statement by a doctor that says it may help, sure. But you can't... On the other hand, I can show you statements from physicians who say it has possibly helped... Perhaps we're not talking about the same thing. I'm arguing that the YouTube "doctor" videos are without merit and no responsible website would allow them on its platform. If that's not what you were addressing then I misunderstood. I have no problem with doctors experimenting on off label uses of approved drugs. Neither does any US policy. I'm not sure how the EU does things, but I believe it's very similar. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jimsorgi Posted July 28, 2020 Report Share Posted July 28, 2020 There are tons of empirical studies publicly a available on the effectiveness of HCQ. Why in the world do we exclusively listen to the one or two studies that happen to get picked up or the anecdotal stories of some YouTube doctor? By the way, if you do this (and you should for yourself!), you’ll likely find that the research consensus is “there’s insufficient evidence that HCQ is effective, but better randomized studies are required to be sure.” Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jimsorgi Posted July 28, 2020 Report Share Posted July 28, 2020 2 hours ago, 5fouls said: Remdesiver is an alternate drug that seems to have benefits. That said, my understanding is Remdesiver is much more expensive than HCQ. In other words, it's much more profitable. As much as you would like to think that would not play a part, the reality is if you have two choices and one choice has more value to a special interest group, that special interest group is going to do everything possible to promote the choice that benefits it the most. Could/Would that include misinformation about the competition? Stuff like that happens all the time. You would like to think it would not happen in a scenario like this, but with billions on the line, who knows. Gilead would certainly love for Remdesivir to become the go-to treatment, but no other pharmaceutical company would, and I don’t think Gilead has quite this strong a domination of every university researcher in the world. Besides, by that logic, wouldn’t they skew the dexamethasone studies? That drug - cheap and easily available - has performed very well in COVID studies. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IUFLA Posted July 28, 2020 Report Share Posted July 28, 2020 (edited) 1 hour ago, HoosierDom said: Perhaps we're not talking about the same thing. I'm arguing that the YouTube "doctor" videos are without merit and no responsible website would allow them on its platform. If that's not what you were addressing then I misunderstood. I have no problem with doctors experimenting on off label uses of approved drugs. Neither does any US policy. I'm not sure how the EU does things, but I believe it's very similar. No, I was simply saying if HCQ was so "dangerous" then why would the FDA let it be prescribed for anything? @bluegrassIU nailed it... As far as the video goes, I didn't watch it. But you put "doctors" in quotations as if the people in the video aren't "doctors" at all...is that the case? If it is, then I might agree with "no merit." If they are indeed "doctors" I'd tend to believe they're entitled to their opinions... Edited July 28, 2020 by IUFLA Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dbmhoosier Posted July 28, 2020 Report Share Posted July 28, 2020 1 hour ago, IUFLA said: No, I was simply saying if HCQ was so "dangerous" then why would the FDA let it be prescribed for anything? @bluegrassIU nailed it... As far as the video goes, I didn't watch it. But you put "doctors" in quotations as if the people in the video aren't "doctors" at all...is that the case? If it is, then I might agree with "no merit." If they are indeed "doctors" I'd tend to believe they're entitled to their opinions... Apparently it's available OTC in many countries so it's probably fairly safe. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
5fouls Posted July 28, 2020 Report Share Posted July 28, 2020 Does anyone have a good explanation as to why countries like Bangladesh (164 million people) and Indonesia (273 million people) have significantly lower numbers than the United States, South America, and most of Europe? Are they better at social distancing (unlikely)? Do they have better healthcare (no)? Or, does it have something to do with their immune systems? Would be worth investigating, wouldn't it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mrflynn03 Posted July 28, 2020 Report Share Posted July 28, 2020 3 minutes ago, 5fouls said: Does anyone have a good explanation as to why countries like Bangladesh (164 million people) and Indonesia (273 million people) have significantly lower numbers than the United States, South America, and most of Europe? Are they better at social distancing (unlikely)? Do they have better healthcare (no)? Or, does it have something to do with their immune systems? Would be worth investigating, wouldn't it? Honestly, how fat are they would be my first question. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
5fouls Posted July 28, 2020 Report Share Posted July 28, 2020 1 minute ago, mrflynn03 said: Honestly, how fat are they would be my first question. Could be. But, it sure seems like someone should be looking into it and communicating any findings. Instead, everyone seems to be playing the blame game instead of looking into real world solutions. I can't be the only person that has noticed the discrepancy. There may be a Pulitzer Prize out there for a journalist that investigates it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bluegrassIU Posted July 28, 2020 Report Share Posted July 28, 2020 22 minutes ago, 5fouls said: Does anyone have a good explanation as to why countries like Bangladesh (164 million people) and Indonesia (273 million people) have significantly lower numbers than the United States, South America, and most of Europe? Are they better at social distancing (unlikely)? Do they have better healthcare (no)? Or, does it have something to do with their immune systems? Would be worth investigating, wouldn't it? Have to think testing and reporting processes have to play a role. Who knows how much, but has to be considered. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mrflynn03 Posted July 28, 2020 Report Share Posted July 28, 2020 13 minutes ago, 5fouls said: Could be. But, it sure seems like someone should be looking into it and communicating any findings. Instead, everyone seems to be playing the blame game instead of looking into real world solutions. I can't be the only person that has noticed the discrepancy. There may be a Pulitzer Prize out there for a journalist that investigates it. Be curious if it was something dietary. Other Asian countries have low rates and consume way more seafood than we do. Less saturated fats. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Inequality Posted July 28, 2020 Report Share Posted July 28, 2020 6 minutes ago, bluegrassIU said: Have to think testing and reporting processes have to play a role. Who knows how much, but has to be considered. Bingo! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
5fouls Posted July 28, 2020 Report Share Posted July 28, 2020 1 hour ago, bluegrassIU said: Have to think testing and reporting processes have to play a role. Who knows how much, but has to be considered. Yes. As it relates to the number of cases. But, how about deaths? Going from memory here, but Bangladesh only had about 3,000 and Indonesia about 4.900. It's a question that needs to be asked, in the event there is a biological reason. We could learn something that helps fight the virus. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
5fouls Posted July 28, 2020 Report Share Posted July 28, 2020 1 hour ago, Inequality said: Bingo! The gap is too wide to simply dismiss. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reacher Posted July 29, 2020 Author Report Share Posted July 29, 2020 I watched most of the video. Real Dr's largely touting the effectiveness of HCQ. Does that Dr really have 350 patients without a death? We'll see. Made a good case for using HCQ as a preventative. We know the President used it that way. Have to figure he got some pretty good advice. There is no doubt an anti HCQ agenda out there. No reason to censor this type of news. I'd like to know where it came from. I'd lean more towards big pharma $ over politics. No one needs a vaccine if we already have a cure. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mrflynn03 Posted July 29, 2020 Report Share Posted July 29, 2020 Heparin study Research is ongoing and to dismiss it is reckless. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Leathernecks Posted July 29, 2020 Report Share Posted July 29, 2020 19 hours ago, bluegrassIU said: What infuriates me is that as soon as a disliked politician says he "likes it", the media ran right to portraying it as some dangerous mystery drug with these god awful side effects. Basically claiming it was not safe. This is why politicians, actors, athletes, news anchors, etc., need to stay out of science and let doctors and scientists do their jobs. 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tdhoosier Posted July 29, 2020 Report Share Posted July 29, 2020 3 minutes ago, Leathernecks said: This is why politicians, actors, athletes, news anchors, etc., need to stay out of science and let doctors and scientists do their jobs. If Trump doesn’t say anything about it > media doesn’t say anything about it > we aren’t talking about pharmaceuticals on a basketball board and it’s one less thing America is fighting about. it’s pretty much that simple. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts