Has the Corona Virus infected anyone you know?

CMJ · May 5, 2020

https://www.the-hospitalist.org/hospitalist/article/221667/arrhythmias-ep/hydroxychloroquine-triggered-qtc-interval-prolongations

FirefightnRick · May 5, 2020

1 hour ago, FirefightnRick said:

Dr. Armstrong was interviewed last night.

BTW...despite the numerous success stories, according to the clinical trial database Thelancet.com there’s over 300 clinical trials being performed worldwide concerning Hydroxychloroquin.

https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04363203?cond=COVID-19&fund=01&draw=2&rank=1

Rick

Also... Dr. Anderson states in the interview that they regularly performed EKG’s on every patient and didn’t have a single one present with any bullshit heart problems the TDS Fear Porn’ers keep touting.

Rick

CMJ · May 5, 2020

A few anecdotal doctors vs an actual study.

UNTLifer · May 5, 2020

2 hours ago, CMJ said:

https://www.the-hospitalist.org/hospitalist/article/221667/arrhythmias-ep/hydroxychloroquine-triggered-qtc-interval-prolongations

https://aapsonline.org/hcq-90-percent-chance/

Every medication has a side effect. Ever watched/listened to a commercial for a medication? Half of it is dedicated to the side effects. Below is a list of side effects from a pretty common pharmaceutical. Would you take this drug?

ringing in your ears, confusion, hallucinations, rapid breathing, seizure (convulsions);
severe nausea, vomiting, or stomach pain;
bloody or tarry stools, coughing up blood or vomit that looks like coffee grounds;
fever lasting longer than 3 days; or.
swelling, or pain lasting longer than 10 days

The drug with these side effects is aspirin.

Edited May 5, 2020 by UNTLifer

Quoner · May 5, 2020

2 hours ago, FirefightnRick said:

Also... Dr. Anderson states in the interview that they regularly performed EKG’s on every patient and didn’t have a single one present with any bullshit heart problems the TDS Fear Porn’ers keep touting.

Rick

-Rick Dull

Quote

Bright also warned about an impending shortage of N95 masks for healthcare workers, as well as medical swabs for coronavirus tests.

In April, as Bright pushed back against treating the novel coronavirus with hydroxychloroquine — an anti-malaria drug that President Trump has touted, but which scientists have been cautious about using because of a lack of strong evidence that it helps and the potential for toxicities — Bright was removed from his job at BARDA and given a smaller role at the NIH.

-Rick Bright

Edited May 5, 2020 by Quoner

CMJ · May 5, 2020

9 minutes ago, UNTLifer said:

https://aapsonline.org/hcq-90-percent-chance/

Every medication has a side effect. Ever watched/listened to a commercial for a medication? Half of it is dedicated to the side effects. Below is a list of side effects from a pretty common pharmaceutical. Would you take this drug?

ringing in your ears, confusion, hallucinations, rapid breathing, seizure (convulsions);

severe nausea, vomiting, or stomach pain;

bloody or tarry stools, coughing up blood or vomit that looks like coffee grounds;

fever lasting longer than 3 days; or.

swelling, or pain lasting longer than 10 days

The drug with these side effects is aspirin.

I agree - I don't really take anything for that reason. I have to be on basically death's door before I use medicine. Even when my oral surgeon gave me a prescription when I got my wisdom teeth removed, I took a single Advil (when you don't ever take anything - they become quite effective when you do because you haven't gotten "used" to it).

The question goes back to what is the reason that basically every country has been cautious about hydroxychloroquine so far? I know people seem to think the only reason so many US doctors (and the press) are playing up side effects/issues is to make Trump look bad somehow, but it's not like the drug is in wide use in many places. It's being studied all over the place - if it was proven effective everyone but us would be using it. So far that is not the case. Sure, Turkey is using it widely and India has stockpiled millions of doses, but most places have studied it and the results are inconclusive that it helps more than it hurts. Seems to help some folks (I've read about the miraculous recoveries, whether attributable to the drug or not) and make others worse -- but overall the results haven't been that much different than the placebo populations at large.

FirefightnRick · May 5, 2020

12 minutes ago, CMJ said:

A few anecdotal doctors vs an actual study.

Fearfully wrong again but it wouldn’t matter if it were only one.

If it works...it works and a lot of people have given credit that it does.

Rick

MCMLXXX · May 5, 2020

44 minutes ago, CMJ said:

A few anecdotal doctors vs an actual study.

What study are you referring to?

FirefightnRick · May 5, 2020

53 minutes ago, Quoner said:

Rick Dull

-Rick Bright

In your link...

Therapeutic Options for COVID-19 Currently Under Investigation

Summary Recommendations

At present, no drug has been proven to be safe and effective for treating COVID-19. There are no Food and Drug Administration (FDA)-approved drugs specifically to treat patients with COVID-19. Although reports have appeared in the medical literature and the lay press claiming successful treatment of patients with COVID-19 with a variety of agents, definitive clinical trial data are needed to identify optimal treatments for this disease. Recommended clinical management of patients with COVID-19 includes infection prevention and control measures and supportive care, including supplemental oxygen and mechanical ventilatory support when indicated. As in the management of any disease, treatment decisions ultimately reside with the patient and their health care provider.

Antivirals:

There are insufficient clinical data to recommend either for or against usingchloroquine or hydroxychloroquine for the treatment of COVID-19 (AIII).
- If chloroquine or hydroxychloroquine is used, clinicians should monitor the patient for adverse effects, especially prolonged QTc interval (AIII).
There are insufficient clinical data to recommend either for or against using the investigational antiviral drug remdesivir for the treatment of COVID-19 (AIII).
- Remdesivir as a treatment for COVID-19 is currently being investigated in clinical trials and is also available through expanded access and compassionate use mechanisms for certain patient populations....”

Like HQC from 4(?) weeks ago, Remdesivir just recieved emergency release for hospital use last week

Unlike HQC..Remdesivir is expensive, is a failed drug for treating Ebola and is made by Gilead. If it works fine. But ’m gonna guess Fauci and possibly Gates have a vested interest in it’s reestablishment in the drug industry?

Edited May 5, 2020 by FirefightnRick

CMJ · May 5, 2020

33 minutes ago, MCMLXXX said:

What study are you referring to?

https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.04.16.20065920v2

https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.04.10.20060558v1

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0399077X20300858?via%3Dihub

Quoner · May 5, 2020

35 minutes ago, FirefightnRick said:

In your link...

Therapeutic Options for COVID-19 Currently Under Investigation

Summary Recommendations

At present, no drug has been proven to be safe and effective for treating COVID-19. There are no Food and Drug Administration (FDA)-approved drugs specifically to treat patients with COVID-19. Although reports have appeared in the medical literature and the lay press claiming successful treatment of patients with COVID-19 with a variety of agents, definitive clinical trial data are needed to identify optimal treatments for this disease. Recommended clinical management of patients with COVID-19 includes infection prevention and control measures and supportive care, including supplemental oxygen and mechanical ventilatory support when indicated. As in the management of any disease, treatment decisions ultimately reside with the patient and their health care provider.

Antivirals:

There are insufficient clinical data to recommend either for or against usingchloroquine or hydroxychloroquine for the treatment of COVID-19 (AIII).
If chloroquine or hydroxychloroquine is used, clinicians should monitor the patient for adverse effects, especially prolonged QTc interval (AIII).

There are insufficient clinical data to recommend either for or against using the investigational antiviral drug remdesivir for the treatment of COVID-19 (AIII).
Remdesivir as a treatment for COVID-19 is currently being investigated in clinical trials and is also available through expanded access and compassionate use mechanisms for certain patient populations....”

Like HQC from 4(?) weeks ago, Remdesivir just recieved emergency release for hospital use last week

Unlike HQC..Remdesivir is expensive, is a failed drug for treating Ebola and is made by Gilead. If it works fine. But ’m gonna guess Fauci and possibly Gates have a vested interest in it’s reestablishment in the drug industry?

Ok? When did we start rooting for some drugs over others? The weird, somehow partisan stance that HQnC (congrats on the abbreviation - it's hard to spell!) is the infallible solution while science is still verifying almost every aspect of this is the point here. I'm not seeing a single article that calls Remdesivir a sure fire cure like a handful of folks are doing with HQC, just discussion about a drug showing some initial positive results with a lot more to prove. There's so much we don't know about both. Also, fun that you're dipping a toe in the fire Fauci waters and invoking the new Bill Gates boogeyman threat to see how it feels. It's like conservative twitter on severe tape delay, but a person!

But, we've digressed from the Rick Bright thing without any acknowledgement, so your ability to pivot wildly continues to be an invaluable asset. You're elusive, like the Barry Sanders of debate, constantly dashing toward the wrong end zone for a safety, breaking teammates ankles all the way down the field as they try in horror to prevent the inevitable.

FirefightnRick · May 5, 2020

28 minutes ago, Quoner said:

Ok? When did we start rooting for some drugs over others? The weird, somehow partisan stance that HQnC (congrats on the abbreviation - it's hard to spell!) is the infallible solution while science is still verifying almost every aspect of this is the point here. I'm not seeing a single article that calls Remdesivir a sure fire cure like a handful of folks are doing with HQC, just discussion about a drug showing some initial positive results with a lot more to prove. There's so much we don't know about both. Also, fun that you're dipping a toe in the fire Fauci waters and invoking the new Bill Gates boogeyman threat to see how it feels. It's like conservative twitter on severe tape delay, but a person!

But, we've digressed from the Rick Bright thing without any acknowledgement, so your ability to pivot wildly continues to be an invaluable asset. You're elusive, like the Barry Sanders of debate, constantly dashing toward the wrong end zone for a safety, breaking teammates ankles all the way down the field as they try in horror to prevent the inevitable.

Was there a question? Are you asking me about Bright being dismissed?

Rick

THOR · May 6, 2020

this is a fun read and really shows how some people are. a few folks have changed their minds a bit/recognized the other sides thoughts/understood where others are coming from and have stayed positive, although disagreeing, without attacking the others, while a few folks have gone out of their way to prove one side wrong/don't acknowledge other peoples beliefs and thoughts/criticized others lack of knowledge and common sense....interesting. two very distinct sets of people on two different sides of covid and how to deal with it.

i'm sure neither group is an example of all the people on each side of the subject, but it does open one's eyes about people on gmg

FirefightnRick · May 6, 2020

4 hours ago, CMJ said:

https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.04.16.20065920v2

https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.04.10.20060558v1

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0399077X20300858?via%3Dihub

In that first link you provided,...that’s a “study” done within the Veteran’s Health Administration centers that was so extremely dishonest that it’s beyond ridiculous.

For one thing one of its researchers receive funding from Gilead, which makes Remdesivir, a competitor to HCQ,

Secondly they waited until some patients in the untreated control group got sick enough to be placed on ventilators..THEN gave them HCQ. Then turned around and reported those same patients’ eventual death as evidence that HCQ was not only ineffective but may have increased or led to their risk of death.

No one that I have ever read has claimed HCQ cures Cov19 and it’s well documented that in order for it to help it must be given early,...not in late stages of patient treatment during the cytokin storm.(point of intubation in many patients).

Then of course this “study” got leaked out to the media who then ran with it as evidence against the use of HCQ despite the fact that the SOURCE clearly states on its front page...

6C064B77-2582-4587-BD65-B661D5AD785B.png.878098ccf269bdb3df59807d263d97b2.png

Edited May 6, 2020 by FirefightnRick

keith · May 6, 2020

18 hours ago, UNTLifer said:

https://aapsonline.org/hcq-90-percent-chance/

Every medication has a side effect. Ever watched/listened to a commercial for a medication? Half of it is dedicated to the side effects. Below is a list of side effects from a pretty common pharmaceutical. Would you take this drug?

ringing in your ears, confusion, hallucinations, rapid breathing, seizure (convulsions);

severe nausea, vomiting, or stomach pain;

bloody or tarry stools, coughing up blood or vomit that looks like coffee grounds;

fever lasting longer than 3 days; or.

swelling, or pain lasting longer than 10 days

The drug with these side effects is aspirin.

I was going to add something similar about side-effects. HCQ has been in use for over 60 years. I suspect all side-effects are already known unless there are new side-effects specifically related to someone infected with COVID-19. The WHO includes HCQ on its list of essential medicines. HCQ was handed out like candy to me the three times I went to India. No prescription necessary and no one put me on an EKG monitor while I took it. The hysteria around this drug is completely irrational.

I find it ironic that most of the medical journals that raise caution about the drug and say we need to conduct extensive medical studies and clinical trials to determine its efficacy then usually go on to provide their *opinions* about the drug.

In a perfect world, we would be able to wait for all these studies, peer reviews then validation, etc. No one is saying, that I've heard, that we shouldn't be conducting these studies with all potential treatments. The problem is these usually take months or years to complete. When you have days to live, you don't have the luxury to wait. The Right to Try act is designed to allow individuals facing a terminal sickness or that cannot participate in a clinical trial to try experimental or unapproved treatments. What's wrong with that?

If I or a loved one had tried everything else and someone said, you know a few people like you gargled salt water while sticking their finger in a glass of Windex and lived, I'd give it a shot. When you are at the end of the rope, isn't having a shot all any of us would be asking for? Who cares what it is.

Edited May 6, 2020 by keith

UNTLifer · May 6, 2020

The reason I posted the aspirin side effects is to point out that all medications have side effects. You choose what you can handle and contact your doctor should you be impacted in a negative manner. I am not on the hydroxychloroquine bandwagon as the only drug that should be used, but it has shown to be effective pretty quickly, has saved some lives, is available and has been around for years without many complications. Why the big list of complications now? Why is everyone so ready to dismiss it? My take is because Trump touted it and nobody in the media wants to say he may be right about something. I don't care who gets credit, but they should stop playing politics with people's lives.

By contrast, the media has been touting the results of Remdesivir, yet the results only show it lessening the illness from an average of fourteen days down to eleven despite it being experimental. It seems to me that it is less reliable and has the potential for more complications than hydroxychloroquine based on the quote below taken from a Chicago Tribune article.

The emergency use authorization granted Friday by the Food and Drug Administration allows the drug to be given to patients with COVID-19 only if they are severely ill — with blood oxygen levels at 94% or lower, or otherwise requiring supplemental oxygen.

Supply of the drug also is limited, given remdesivir is a complex intravenous medication made by one company that already must provide enough of it to support the clinical trials being conducted at nearly 200 sites across the globe. The antiviral drug, a medicine first developed to treat Ebola with less than glowing results, is still considered experimental.

CMJ · May 6, 2020

Again, if only the US was being hesitant about it, then you could argue that it was a Trump phenomenon.

I think this article (in the conservative National Review) outlines why people should be hesitant. It helps some, hurts others, and sometimes doctors aren't sure where at in the Goldilocks zone a patient might be.

https://www.nationalreview.com/the-morning-jolt/why-hydroxychloroquine-works-for-some-coronavirus-patients-but-not-others/

Censored by Laurie · May 6, 2020

56 minutes ago, keith said:

If I or a loved one had tried everything else and someone said, you know a few people like you gargled salt water while sticking their finger in a glass of Windex and lived, I'd give it a shot. When you are at the end of the rope, isn't having a shot all any of us would be asking for? Who cares what it is.

I understand this sentiment on a personal level, but do you believe this sentiment is grounds for forming broad medical decisions?

El Paso Eagle · May 6, 2020

2 minutes ago, Censored by Laurie said:

I understand this sentiment on a personal level, but do you believe this sentiment is grounds for forming broad medical decisions?

Good point. Taking the "emotions" out of decisions is difficult; I guess that is why some of the best Doctors have the worst bedside manners and might seem not to care. I would guess it also has a large amount to do where you are at in respect to the issue. If you or someone you care for at "at the end" and they are saying there is no hope, would you want the opportunity to take the risk? I understand it opens a lot of questions, but at what point do we allow people to control what happens at the end of their lives?

Censored by Laurie · May 6, 2020

9 minutes ago, CMJ said:

Again, if only the US was being hesitant about it, then you could argue that it was a Trump phenomenon.

I think this article (in the conservative National Review) outlines why people should be hesitant. It helps some, hurts others, and sometimes doctors aren't sure where at in the Goldilocks zone a patient might be.

https://www.nationalreview.com/the-morning-jolt/why-hydroxychloroquine-works-for-some-coronavirus-patients-but-not-others/

I was just reading this as well. I think it lays out about as plainly as possible why HCQ isn't the quick fix and can actually be harmful.

El Paso Eagle · May 6, 2020

10 minutes ago, Censored by Laurie said:

I was just reading this as well. I think it lays out about as plainly as possible why HCQ isn't the quick fix and can actually be harmful.

Something else coming out of this is going to be a better understanding from people on just how difficult and expensive it is to develop new drugs. Literally the best scientist and doctors are working nonstop on this. Can you imagine if it was made public the drug test failures that have happened over the years and the "unplanned side effects" that have been experienced? If risk are not taken then we might be waiting years. The question, and God knows I don't have an answer, is what level of risk is worth it and who is the right person)s) to decide?

keith · May 6, 2020

42 minutes ago, Censored by Laurie said:

I understand this sentiment on a personal level, but do you believe this sentiment is grounds for forming broad medical decisions?

What broad medical decisions have been made for HCQ? I'm not aware of any. The FDA approved the drug as an emergency treatment *option* for COVID-19. I believe this requires doctor supervision in a hospital setting so this seems fairly narrow, but I could be wrong. The Right to Try Act is broad, but I'm fully on board with that as the next paragraph will explain.

I believe all medical decisions are unique, personal decisions to be made by the individual assuming they are capable of making those decisions or by a duly designated person who is authorized to make decisions on their behalf. That decision may or may not include the guidance/recommendations of a medical professional. Ultimately, I should have the final say what's put in my body.

If I or a loved one was gasping for air and was told, we've tried everything, but there is one more option, but there's a problem. Problem, what problem? Well, there hasn't been a peer-reviewed, double-blind study with COVID-19 patients on their death bed and.... And what? Well, Trump said something about this treatment in a news conference and Dr. Fauci isn't all that excited about it. F that. Trump isn't my doctor, Fauci isn't my doctor, the Surgeon General isn't my doctor, etc., let's give it a try.

Edited May 6, 2020 by keith

greenminer · May 6, 2020

18 minutes ago, keith said:

I believe all medical decisions are unique, personal decisions to be made by the individual assuming they are capable of making those decisions or by a duly designated person who is authorized to make decisions on their behalf. That decision may or may not include the guidance/recommendations of a medical professional. Ultimately, I should have the final say what's put in my body.

The public also once vaulted American Idol to the top of TV's most watched programming, chose McDonalds as their preferred food provider, and appx. 1 in 6 Americans are not sure the Earth is round.

Proceed with caution.

Edited May 6, 2020 by greenminer

El Paso Eagle · May 6, 2020

3 minutes ago, greenminer said:

The public also once vaulted American Idol to the top of TV's most watched programming, chose McDonalds as their preferred food provider, and appx. 1 in 6 Americans are not sure the Earth is round.

Proceed with caution.

You had me at American Idol