The Big Gamble: Hydroxychloroquine

[Scraps]

1 minute ago, 3rdnlng said:

No, there's many medical professionals that have seen some good results. I've heard them asked if they'd take it themselves if circumstances were ripe for them to take it and they said they would. I've also heard that doctors and nurses who were tending to the coronavirus crowd or even in just the same hospital have taken it for their own protection. 

I'm sure they might take it themselves, but there is a reason for double blind studies.  People aren't ncecesarily objective.

1 minute ago, Nanker said:

You’re the one advocating doing clinical trials, yet you know NOTHING about what that entails. And you say other people want people to die. 

I've never said I want others to die.  You and your ilk try to put those words in my mouth.

 

Sorry that your links don't support your POV.

2 minutes ago, Koko78 said:

 

Yet you've ignored "proof" at every turn when others have presented it.

Who has presented proof?  I'm happy to look at it.

[Scraps]

14 minutes ago, Koko78 said:

 

It's a Republican vs. Democrat medication because Trump dared to speak it. The juvenile #resistance immediately started attacking Trump, and attacking the medication. It's all out there. The media was reporting favorably on the treatment until Trump brought it up. Then it became the devil with horrific side effects that needs years of study before it can be safely used to help people who need it now.

 

Well even the the doctors who appear with Trump express some skepticism so the media's skepticism is understandable.

[Chef Jim]

15 minutes ago, Scraps said:

No blinders.  I'm a research engineer by training and expect proof.

Ahhhhh an engineer. Nuff said. I say this about engineers. They know everything about everything. Even things they know nothing about. ?

[Scraps]

Just now, Chef Jim said:

Ahhhhh an engineer. Nuff said. I say this about engineers. They know everything about everything. Even things they know nothing about. ?

Pretty much like you.

[B-Man]

25 minutes ago, Scraps said:

Sure, go right ahead.  I've seen very little from doctors of medicine supporting this treatment.  Mostly it has come from Trump, Fox News and their marks.

 

 

5 hours ago, B-Man said:

65 Percent of Physicians in New Survey Would Give Anti-Malaria Drugs to Their Own Family to Treat COVID-19

 

ATLANTA, April 8, 2020 /PRNewswire/ -- Sixty-five percent physicians across the United States said they would prescribe the anti-malaria drugs chloroquine or hydroxychloroquine to treat or prevent COVID-19 in a family member, according to a new survey released today by Jackson & Coker, one of the country's largest physician staffing firms.

 

Only 11 percent said they would not use the drug at all.

 

https://finance.yahoo.com/news/65-percent-physicians-survey-anti-142800139.html

 

 

Posted right in between one of your twenty similar posts today

 

 

 

.

[Chef Jim]

2 minutes ago, Scraps said:

Pretty much like you.

Seriously?  The “well double dumbass on you!” retort. Bravo.  
 

I imagine as an engineer you have a very hard time saying “you’re right. I don’t know” don’t you. 

[Scraps]

1 minute ago, Chef Jim said:

Seriously?  The “well double dumbass on you!” retort. Bravo.  
 

I imagine as an engineer you have a very hard time saying “you’re right. I don’t know” don’t you. 

I said quite some time ago that it was an unfair and impossible question to answer.  If you think otherwise, prove it.  You tell me how many people have died from this drug.

[Doc]

2 hours ago, Scraps said:

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/donald-trump/mayo-clinic-cardiologist-inexcusable-ignore-hydroxychloroquine-side-effects-n1178776

 

I posted that earlier today.  Again, you can't read,

 

Yeah, I read "rare side effect" with no problem.  If it weren't rare...tens of millions of people wouldn't be on the drug every day.

 

31 minutes ago, Scraps said:

Sure, go right ahead.  I've seen very little from doctors of medicine supporting this treatment.  Mostly it has come from Trump, Fox News and their marks.

 

5 minutes ago, B-Man said:

Posted right in between one of your twenty similar posts today

 

He can't read.  Or think. 

[Chef Jim]

Just now, Scraps said:

I said quite some time ago that it was an unfair and impossible question to answer.  If you think otherwise, prove it.  You tell me how many people have died from this drug.

 No no no. This is not the point my always right engineer. You stated that it should not be sold OTC because of its LETHAL side effects.  So you must have some knowledge of the level of LETHAL side effects there have been. 
 

[3rdnlng]

23 minutes ago, Scraps said:

I'm sure they might take it themselves, but there is a reason for double blind studies.  People aren't ncecesarily objective.

I've never said I want others to die.  You and your ilk try to put those words in my mouth.

 

Sorry that your links don't support your POV.

Who has presented proof?  I'm happy to look at it.

Nobody is saying that they shouldn't do double blind studies. Quit being so ***** obtuse. There are many anecdotal instances in which people feel that HCQ saved their lives. There are other instances in which doctors are convinced that it is helpful. So, tell us, who are you going to vote for in November for president?

[Scraps]

Just now, Chef Jim said:

 No no no. This is not the point my always right engineer. You stated that it should not be sold OTC because of its LETHAL side effects.  So you must have some knowledge of the level of LETHAL side effects there have been. 
 

Yeah, I posted that earlier.

[Doc]

Just now, Chef Jim said:

 No no no. This is not the point my always right engineer. You stated that it should not be sold OTC because of its LETHAL side effects.  So you must have some knowledge of the level of LETHAL side effects there have been.

 

Wait, when did it become about OTC HCQ? 

[Chef Jim]

5 hours ago, Scraps said:

 

There is a reason this drug is not OTC.  Its because of the potentially lethal side effects.

Here you go Doc.  This is the one post that set me off. 

[Scraps]

1 minute ago, 3rdnlng said:

Nobody is saying that they shouldn't do double blind studies. Quit being so ***** obtuse. There are many anecdotal instances in which people feel that HCQ saved their lives. There are other instances in which doctors are convinced that it is helpful. So, tell us, who are you going to vote for in November for president?

Who is being obtuse?  The general feeling I get from those posting here is plow right ahead without studies.  Anecdotal evidence is enough.

 

I'm simply saying perform the studies and if doctors want to give it on a compassionate basis fine.  Why is that a problem?  

[Doc]

Just now, Chef Jim said:

Here you go Doc.  This is the one post that set me off. 

 

No, you were right to question about the side effects regardless of talk about it being available OTC.  At no time has anyone suggested it should be OTC and not administered by a doctor.

[Scraps]

1 minute ago, Chef Jim said:

Here you go Doc.  This is the one post that set me off. 

Why is that a problem?  It does have lethal side effects.

[Chef Jim]

Just now, Scraps said:

Who is being obtuse?  The general feeling I get from those posting here is plow right ahead without studies.  Anecdotal evidence is enough.

 

I'm simply saying perform the studies and if doctors want to give it on a compassionate basis fine.  Why is that a problem?  

I trust my doctor to prescribe something, that according to doc millions are already taking, that could potentially save my life even if it’s not been clinically proven. That’s what I pay him for. But the question is if lots of people are on it for other things what clinical trials are we looking for here thar have not already been done? 

3 minutes ago, Scraps said:

Why is that a problem?  It does have lethal side effects.

Ugh. So does that alcohol that it seems you’re swigging down by the handle today. Along with THOUSANDS of other drugs prescribed daily. 

[Scraps]

1 minute ago, Chef Jim said:

I trust my doctor to prescribe something, that according to doc millions are already taking, that could potentially save my life even if it’s not been clinically proven. That’s what I pay him for. But the question is if lots of people are on it for other things what clinical trials are we looking for here thar have not already been done? 

Dude - you are trying to make this confrontational, not me.

 

If you get Covid-19 and your Doctor prescribes this to you, fine.  I hope you get well.

 

As to your last question, this drug simply has not bee proven to be effective on Covid-19.  Covid-19 did not exist before.  I hope this drug works out.  I really do.  But this drug, alone or in combination with azithromycin have dangerous side effects.  I posted some to the cautions earlier from this link

 

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/donald-trump/mayo-clinic-cardiologist-inexcusable-ignore-hydroxychloroquine-side-effects-n1178776

 

I've read a bit about this drug and Covid-19 and if it is effective, it seems to be so for people with few symptoms that in people who are seriously ill.  That is one of the reasons why trials are important.  This drug may well be effective early in the illness but dangerous once people get seriously ill.  Why not find that out?

 

I just feel that I am reacting to people who are casting all caution aside in pursuit of a magic bullet that may not be a magic bullet.  You know, most people recover from this illness without hydroxychloroquine.

[3rdnlng]

22 minutes ago, Scraps said:

Who is being obtuse?  The general feeling I get from those posting here is plow right ahead without studies.  Anecdotal evidence is enough.

 

I'm simply saying perform the studies and if doctors want to give it on a compassionate basis fine.  Why is that a problem?  

What is your definition of a compassionate basis? 

[Scraps]

Just now, 3rdnlng said:

What is your definition of a compassionate basis? 

If a doctor and patient discuss the fact that the drug is not proven to be effective and they review the potential side effects and both agree to give it a try, go for it.