Jump to content

Menu

Here’s my conspiracy theory for the day - hydroxychloroquine


Recommended Posts

Indulge me. I am beginning to think hydroxichloroquine is in fact an effective treatment and/or prophylactic against COVID-19, but “they” are keeping a lid on this because they already know there is not enough and is no prayer of there being enough for every Tom, Dick and Harry to access it, whether for curative or prophylactic reasons. So they are keeping it for Donald Trump, other leaders, VIPs, whoever. I have a feeling the use of it will be similar to when we were told masks won’t help. (I fully acknowledge I don’t know who this “they” would be, nor why anyone would want Trump to have a prophylactic that works...hahaha. Jk. Not really.) 

 

  • Like 4
  • Haha 5
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 192
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Our VA hospital is using it, so I don't think there's a conspiracy to keep it for the elite.  How about an alternative conspiracy theory in which a different "they" want Trump to be wrong more than th

Back in early April or whenever Donald Trump went on television to talk about hydroxychloroquine, the Israeli government immediately purchased an enormous amount of the stuff.  Doctors here had been e

Posted Images

Our VA hospital is using it, so I don't think there's a conspiracy to keep it for the elite.  How about an alternative conspiracy theory in which a different "they" want Trump to be wrong more than they want to share the truth about the drug?  The proclamations about it not working never seem to mention if it was tested it in conjunction with azithromycin, like the French doctors used when they brought it to everyone's attention, or with zinc, like Trump uses; supposedly, it helps zinc get into the cells to do something useful.  Instead, the focus seems to be only on the possible dangerous side effects, as proven by the people foolish enough to take it without medical supervision after hearing Trump praise it.  I wish this weren't an election year, so the various media could at least pretend to be more impartial in relating important info.  The best medical info I've seen comes from a source people on this board have proclaimed as quackery.  

  • Like 23
Link to post
Share on other sites

From what I can tell from reading various articles, hydroxichloroquine is an effective treatment and/or prophylactic against COVID-19. However, there are 4 different strains (I think) of COVID-19 in the USA, and because of that, another treatment might be a better fit. Back in March, I saw a post on a different forum by an ER doctor saying his patients were recovering faster with remsdevir, not hydroxichloroquine. 

As far as wearing a mask that is not N-95 to help prevent getting or giving COVID-19, my opinion is that such masks aren’t helpful. A close friend who had been sheltering in place since early March and getting food delivered (literally not going anywhere) recently went to a well (dr.) visit wearing a mask and 2 days later started having symptoms of COVID-19. Sadly, when we were told back in March that wearing masks won’t help, I think that was correct.

I am sure everyone wealthy enough to get hydroxichloroquine probably already has it in their medicine cabinet if they want it, and I know I saw articles about doctors prescribing it for their families. I also saw an article about a study going on where medical personnel at a hospital are taking hydroxichloroquine as a preventative, and I’m glad that’s going on because it looks like COVID-19 will be around for a while. I would imagine more political leaders are taking hydroxichloroquine than Pres. Trump. In any case, I think this forum is best when it doesn’t get political. Regardless of whether there is a Republican or Democrat in the White House, I think taking preventative measures to try and prevent or mitigate getting COVID-19 is a good idea.

 

  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, klmama said:

Our VA hospital is using it, so I don't think there's a conspiracy to keep it for the elite.  How about an alternative conspiracy theory in which a different "they" want Trump to be wrong more than they want to share the truth about the drug?  The proclamations about it not working never seem to mention if it was tested it in conjunction with azithromycin, like the French doctors used when they brought it to everyone's attention, or with zinc, like Trump uses; supposedly, it helps zinc get into the cells to do something useful.  Instead, the focus seems to be only on the possible dangerous side effects, as proven by the people foolish enough to take it without medical supervision after hearing Trump praise it.  I wish this weren't an election year, so the various media could at least pretend to be more impartial in relating important info.  The best medical info I've seen comes from a source people on this board have proclaimed as quackery.  

This is really kind of how I lean.  Because Trump likes it, it has to be bad.  I can't quite figure out why the studies that have been done so far have only bee done on the sickest patients, when everything I understood was that it was supposed to most effective when used early.  It's my understanding that even with most antivirals we have today, such as for the flu or for shingles, work best if you take them as early as possible, so it would make sense that the same would be true for this.  

Having said that, I also think it's possible that HCQ might not be the best option in the end, or that some of the other stuff being tested like remdesivir might end up being better options.   

  • Like 6
Link to post
Share on other sites

And this is why we're staying home as much as we can. I'm hoping that the research being done now will yield better treatments by the time a second wave hits.  

  • Like 5
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I think there may be something political to it.   I think it also may have something to do with shortages.  

But, some of it also has to do with how medications are SUPPOSED to be tested for new indications.  Especially ones with possible severe side effects.    One, to have any kind of decent results about efficacy or safety, it needs to be administered in a controlled manner, and the patients need to be tracked for a set amount of time.   Data needs to be kept on when it's administered, how sick the patient was, what other medications they may be on, what the dosing is, and soooo many other things.  Otherwise, none of the "results" mean anything.   Two, it's a prescription medication with some possible nasty side effects.  Like any other prescription, it should be administered under a doctor's supervision.  People should be aware of what side effects to watch out for, what are the signs of a severe problem, when should they call the doctor, when should they go to the ER.   

  • Like 12
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, kristin0713 said:

A man from our church died from COVID back in March.  They did have him on hydroxychloroquine. 

Unfortunately, I don't think we are going to have any medication that will be 100% effective.  Or at lease not for a very long time.  

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
56 minutes ago, klmama said:

And this is why we're staying home as much as we can. I'm hoping that the research being done now will yield better treatments by the time a second wave hits.  

That’s my feeling, too. Even if, a year from now, there is still no vaccine, I would still rather contract it a year from now than contract it right now, if I ultimately eill get it anyway. 

  • Like 6
Link to post
Share on other sites

I read a really good article ages ago on science about it and now I can’t find it.  Basically it was saying there are some percentage of people that have problems from it.  If you are only using it on sick people who are likely to die anyway it’s no big deal, but if it has serious side effects for 1 person in 1000 and you start everyone taking it then you really want to prove that there’s enough benefit to make it worth that risk.  Given that serology is showing only 5pc infected in most areas and of those infected maybe only 1pc (Or less) die you are giving a drug to a lot of people as a preventative.  Not good if it starts causing health issues.  That’s why if it’s being used it should be part of a study where data is collected.

that said I think it’s a pity that it’s become a political football in the US.  Thankfully it hasn’t elsewhere so hopefully we will still get more studies done.  It’s being trialled here with health workers although we may not have enough cases to prove anything.

The remdesivir thing seems suspicious to me.  It seems to be being pushed heavily on the basis of one study that shows no improvement in mortality and only a shortening of symptoms by four days.  And people stand to make a lot of money out of it because it’s a new drug.  Unlike hydroxychloroquine.  

  • Like 10
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Ausmumof3 said:

The remdesivir thing seems suspicious to me.  It seems to be being pushed heavily on the basis of one study that shows no improvement in mortality and only a shortening of symptoms by four days.  And people stand to make a lot of money out of it because it’s a new drug.  Unlike hydroxychloroquine.  

Well and plus.....Trump never really promoted it so remdesivir has that going for it too.  

  • Like 7
Link to post
Share on other sites

https://marlin-prod.literatumonline.com/pb-assets/Lancet/pdfs/S0140673620311806.pdf
 

for what it’s worth this is the latest from the Lancet.  Review of data/cases.  This seems at a quick glance to be better than the previous studies because they only included people who received it within 48 hours of diagnosis and excluded anyone who was already on ventilation meaning to some degree it gets away from the bias where only really sick people get the drug. Still not a randomised trial which is what we really need.

i actually don’t think so poorly of humans that I think doctors and medical people on mass are going to withhold a potentially life saving drug to make a political point.  I do think there will be some who will be influenced by that but I hope not many.  

  • Like 12
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Ausmumof3 said:

https://marlin-prod.literatumonline.com/pb-assets/Lancet/pdfs/S0140673620311806.pdf
 

for what it’s worth this is the latest from the Lancet.  Review of data/cases.  This seems at a quick glance to be better than the previous studies because they only included people who received it within 48 hours of diagnosis and excluded anyone who was already on ventilation meaning to some degree it gets away from the bias where only really sick people get the drug. Still not a randomised trial which is what we really need.

i actually don’t think so poorly of humans that I think doctors and medical people on mass are going to withhold a potentially life saving drug to make a political point.  I do think there will be some who will be influenced by that but I hope not many.  

I don't necessarily think that.....GENERALLY....docs/medical people would do such a thing.  However, as someone said in another thread, even science can be political.  And the media certainly is.  And at least in the US.....there's always lots of money involved.  The use of the money involved (ie study funding) is nearly always very political.  

I generally think that the people who work directly with the patients, they generally want to use what works, they generally want to make their patients better.  But it's the people behind them, the researchers, who often never see the actual patients, that end up getting all mixed up in the funding and the politics and all that.  

 

ETA: after going back and reading the bit about the study, I think with antivirals, it's generally most important to get the meds very soon after symptoms appear, and we all know that with this thing, people are just struggling to get diagnosed.  In the US at least, there have been test results that take over a week to get back, which would mean that within 48 hrs of diagnosis is still at least a week after symptoms started.  When I had shingles, they wanted me to start the Valtrex immediately because I had already had the spots for like 2 days.  

Edited by happysmileylady
  • Like 6
Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think the doctors treating patients are trying to be political about it.  I do think the media hype (one way or the other) makes it more difficult for them to do their jobs, as others pressure them to use or not use what they want.

  • Like 5
Link to post
Share on other sites

Back in early April or whenever Donald Trump went on television to talk about hydroxychloroquine, the Israeli government immediately purchased an enormous amount of the stuff.  Doctors here had been experimenting with malaria drugs on the first seriously ill patients, but the fear was that now that the US president was talking about it all of a sudden there would be a shortage.

However, over the last two months Israeli doctors have reportedly moved away from using hydroxychloroquine and apparently millions of doses remain in warehouses.  This is a tiny country and for both structural and cultural reasons it's almost impossible to keep a secret here -- if Israeli doctors or researchers believed that any drug was genuinely effective as either prophylaxis or treatment, the whole country would know about it and there would be ferocious pressure to both import said drug and manufacture it domestically.  (This is exactly what happened with testing reagents, btw.)   

Of course, the fact that at the moment Israeli doctors mostly don't believe that hyroxychloroquine is especially useful doesn't mean that it isn't -- they could be completely wrong.  But there is just no way that they are lying to the rest of Israel about what they believe.  And FWIW, medical care here is very sophisticated and Israel's coronavirus death rate has been one of the lowest in the world.  

OTOH. there seems to be a fair amount of enthusiasm for remedesvir, placenta-based cell therapy, and (especially) antibody treatments.  

 

Edited by JennyD
  • Like 18
  • Thanks 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Now I’m on a conspiracy theory hunt to see who owns shares in Gilead

so far I’ve found Trump did in 2016 according to Motley Fool

https://www.fool.com/amp/investing/general/2016/01/31/3-surprisingly-controversial-stocks-in-donald-trum.aspx

ive also seen lots of people saying Fauci does though I haven’t found anything official yet.  That could be a good conspiracy theory.  The whole “disagreement 

” is actually a fake cooked up between them to boost Gileads share prices 😆

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Ausmumof3 said:

Now I’m on a conspiracy theory hunt to see who owns shares in Gilead

so far I’ve found Trump did in 2016 according to Motley Fool

https://www.fool.com/amp/investing/general/2016/01/31/3-surprisingly-controversial-stocks-in-donald-trum.aspx

ive also seen lots of people saying Fauci does though I haven’t found anything official yet.  That could be a good conspiracy theory.  The whole “disagreement 

” is actually a fake cooked up between them to boost Gileads share prices 😆

Isn't that where conspiracy therorists were trying to tie Bill Gates to it?

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, happysmileylady said:

Isn't that where conspiracy therorists were trying to tie Bill Gates to it?

Probably.  Bill Gates seems to be into everything these days!  

  • Haha 4
Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, Ausmumof3 said:

https://marlin-prod.literatumonline.com/pb-assets/Lancet/pdfs/S0140673620311806.pdf
 

for what it’s worth this is the latest from the Lancet.  Review of data/cases.  This seems at a quick glance to be better than the previous studies because they only included people who received it within 48 hours of diagnosis and excluded anyone who was already on ventilation meaning to some degree it gets away from the bias where only really sick people get the drug. Still not a randomised trial which is what we really need.

i actually don’t think so poorly of humans that I think doctors and medical people on mass are going to withhold a potentially life saving drug to make a political point.  I do think there will be some who will be influenced by that but I hope not many.  

I agree. I think if this proves efficacious it will be used. I think it is a shame that Trump spoke so positively about it so early on when the evidence was pretty limited. It has really fed into the whole conspiracy thing. People I know are convinced HCQ is a cure for Covid and the basis for this belief is that Trump said so. They have not looked at any studies etc. I wonder why they have not done a proper RCT on it yet and I would not be surprised if some of that might be in some part push back against the whole Trump thing but I hate to think so, and I don’t really know because I have not been following it that closely. I find it not completely convincing to see family practice Drs making videos about how effective it is just because the patient population they are seeing may well be the population who would experience mild symptoms and recover anyway. That’s why we need a proper trial!

  • Like 8
Link to post
Share on other sites

Sadly for my conspiracy theory so far I can’t turn up any evidence that Gates or Fauci own shares In Remdesivir.  And it’s hard to imagine a couple of percent on a couple of hundred thousand (if still owned at all) would be worth the presidents time.  So really I’m back to thinking Bill Gates has all the hydroxychloroquine in a 5G tower. 

  • Haha 8
Link to post
Share on other sites

Meanwhile in Australia the government thought the job keeper support payments were going to total 130 billion and they’ve just realised it’s only 70billion due to some kind of accounting error.

“A confusing question on the JobKeeper scheme enrolment form led the Australian Tax Office to overestimate the cost of the scheme by $60 billion and its coverage by 2.5 million workers.
This afternoon the Australian Treasury revised its figures, saying the wage subsidy program would now cost $70 billion instead of the intended $130 billion and cover 3.5 million workers instead of the estimated six million.
The vast overestimation of the figures came as a result of a question on the enrolment form, in which 1000 employers who employ just one staff member mistakenly entered the wage subsidy amount of "1500" instead of "1".”
 
just in case anyone needed a laugh tonight!
...
  • Haha 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
54 minutes ago, happysmileylady said:

I don't necessarily think that.....GENERALLY....docs/medical people would do such a thing.  However, as someone said in another thread, even science can be political.  And the media certainly is.  And at least in the US.....there's always lots of money involved.  The use of the money involved (ie study funding) is nearly always very political.  

I generally think that the people who work directly with the patients, they generally want to use what works, they generally want to make their patients better.  But it's the people behind them, the researchers, who often never see the actual patients, that end up getting all mixed up in the funding and the politics and all that.  

 

ETA: after going back and reading the bit about the study, I think with antivirals, it's generally most important to get the meds very soon after symptoms appear, and we all know that with this thing, people are just struggling to get diagnosed.  In the US at least, there have been test results that take over a week to get back, which would mean that within 48 hrs of diagnosis is still at least a week after symptoms started.  When I had shingles, they wanted me to start the Valtrex immediately because I had already had the spots for like 2 days.  

Yes my dad has had a couple of run ins with shingles.  The first time he didn’t know what it was and had a pretty bad run.  Since then he knows to get the drugs quickly.

this is also true with elderberry that the evidence for it working is only if you get it within 24 hours of symptoms.  Wouldn’t be surprising if hydroxychloroquine was the same.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
58 minutes ago, Ausmumof3 said:

https://marlin-prod.literatumonline.com/pb-assets/Lancet/pdfs/S0140673620311806.pdf
 

for what it’s worth this is the latest from the Lancet.  Review of data/cases.  This seems at a quick glance to be better than the previous studies because they only included people who received it within 48 hours of diagnosis and excluded anyone who was already on ventilation meaning to some degree it gets away from the bias where only really sick people get the drug. Still not a randomised trial which is what we really need.

i actually don’t think so poorly of humans that I think doctors and medical people on mass are going to withhold a potentially life saving drug to make a political point.  I do think there will be some who will be influenced by that but I hope not many.  

Generally speaking, me too; it is why the great majority of CTies ring false for me right away. (Same ilk, for example: believing that there is a cure for cancer but “they” are keeping it hushed up because it’s more lucrative to treat with chemo/radiation/drug therapies.) So in most cases, I agree. 

But! As I’m listening to The Great Influenza, there are bits in there where the public (or military groups) were told the exactly wrong thing for political purposes. (At least, that’s the prospective used by John Barry, who wrote the book.) Things like not reporting that the flu was present in civilian populations before the Liberty Bond parade because of fear it would dampen morale and cause people to not support the war. And it does appear that, even with COVID, there are some nefarious dealings in controlling information so the population as a whole will support, or not support, certain measures. I don’t put it past some people in leadership positions (worldwide, not just US) to view deaths as the eggs you just have to break to make an omelette. 

  • Like 4
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Quill said:

Generally speaking, me too; it is why the great majority of CTies ring false for me right away. (Same ilk, for example: believing that there is a cure for cancer but “they” are keeping it hushed up because it’s more lucrative to treat with chemo/radiation/drug therapies.) So in most cases, I agree. 

But! As I’m listening to The Great Influenza, there are bits in there where the public (or military groups) were told the exactly wrong thing for political purposes. (At least, that’s the prospective used by John Barry, who wrote the book.) Things like not reporting that the flu was present in civilian populations before the Liberty Bond parade because of fear it would dampen morale and cause people to not support the war. And it does appear that, even with COVID, there are some nefarious dealings in controlling information so the population as a whole will support, or not support, certain measures. I don’t put it past some people in leadership positions (worldwide, not just US) to view deaths as the eggs you just have to break to make an omelette. 

Yes.  And there’s also potential for a good number of people to genuinely believe what they believe without realising they are believing it because it fits with their current world view.  

  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok - does someone have links to actual scientific studies showing clear value in hydroxychloroquine as a prophylactic?  I've been searching around and I'm not seeing anything super positive about this drug from middle of the road media or directly from any scientific sources/studies.  

I don't question that media loves click bait and beating certain points into the ground.  

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, FuzzyCatz said:

Ok - does someone have links to actual scientific studies showing clear value in hydroxychloroquine as a prophylactic?  I've been searching around and I'm not seeing anything super positive about this drug from middle of the road media or directly from any scientific sources/studies.  

I don't question that media loves click bait and beating certain points into the ground.  

I don't know that such a study has even been done.  

 

 

I did find this NPR piece about how politics and media is making it harder to get studies done.  ETA I found it when I was doing a quick search to see if I could get a list of studies in progress.  I thought it was pretty appropriate to the thread.

https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2020/05/21/859851682/politics-around-hydroxychloroquine-hamper-science

Edited by happysmileylady
  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

re how new drug/ new medical use for existing drug approval process works (even in ordinary times)

2 hours ago, Where's Toto? said:

I think there may be something political to it.   I think it also may have something to do with shortages.  

But, some of it also has to do with how medications are SUPPOSED to be tested for new indications.  Especially ones with possible severe side effects.    One, to have any kind of decent results about efficacy or safety, it needs to be administered in a controlled manner, and the patients need to be tracked for a set amount of time.   Data needs to be kept on when it's administered, how sick the patient was, what other medications they may be on, what the dosing is, and soooo many other things.  Otherwise, none of the "results" mean anything.   Two, it's a prescription medication with some possible nasty side effects.  Like any other prescription, it should be administered under a doctor's supervision.  People should be aware of what side effects to watch out for, what are the signs of a severe problem, when should they call the doctor, when should they go to the ER.   

This. Multiple anecdotes don't equal data, and  (particularly for drugs/treatments with significant side effects) the process is supposed to be based on data.

Multiple anecdotes DO fuel hope, of course, and it is natural and healthy to cast about for hope in a crisis.

 

re staggering level of consensus and coordination that would be required for thousands of doctors in public/private/non-profit/for-profit/hospital-based/standalone medicating environments all across the US to withhold a drug because THEY had an agenda

1 hour ago, Ausmumof3 said:

https://marlin-prod.literatumonline.com/pb-assets/Lancet/pdfs/S0140673620311806.pdf
 

for what it’s worth this is the latest from the Lancet.  Review of data/cases.  This seems at a quick glance to be better than the previous studies because they only included people who received it within 48 hours of diagnosis and excluded anyone who was already on ventilation meaning to some degree it gets away from the bias where only really sick people get the drug. Still not a randomised trial which is what we really need.

i actually don’t think so poorly of humans that I think doctors and medical people on mass are going to withhold a potentially life saving drug to make a political point.  I do think there will be some who will be influenced by that but I hope not many.  

This is the main reason why most conspiracy theories don't make a lick of sense to me.  The earth is flat (that is: every government on earth that has satellites in the air, plus every private satellite-based GPS and radio service, plus every airline top-level management plus every pilot, plus every cruise ship company, plus every vaguely curious human being who flies and also carries a compass.... every single one is on the same conspiratorial page... to effect... what, exactly?)?? 

Human beings are not terribly good at either staying on the same page, or keeping secrets. Any "conspiracy" that involves the sustained secret-keeping of more than ~20 people who are already like-minded and already have a common and **clear** self interest.... nah.  That's just not how human beings roll IMHO.

Why on earth would thousands of doctors, across the country, in all different business, models of both parties ,*all* agree to withhold treatment if they genuinely believed it to be lifesaving?  What would be the reason?

 

More on the Lancet study here (paywall is suspended for COVID content).

 

  • Like 11
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, JennyD said:

Back in early April or whenever Donald Trump went on television to talk about hydroxychloroquine, the Israeli government immediately purchased an enormous amount of the stuff.  Doctors here had been experimenting with malaria drugs on the first seriously ill patients, but the fear was that now that the US president was talking about it all of a sudden there would be a shortage.

However, over the last two months Israeli doctors have reportedly moved away from using hydroxychloroquine and apparently millions of doses remain in warehouses.  This is a tiny country and for both structural and cultural reasons it's almost impossible to keep a secret here -- if Israeli doctors or researchers believed that any drug was genuinely effective as either prophylaxis or treatment, the whole country would know about it and there would be ferocious pressure to both import said drug and manufacture it domestically.  (This is exactly what happened with testing reagents, btw.)   

Of course, the fact that at the moment Israeli doctors mostly don't believe that hyroxychloroquine is especially useful doesn't mean that it isn't -- they could be completely wrong.  But there is just no way that they are lying to the rest of Israel about what they believe.  And FWIW, medical care here is very sophisticated and Israel's coronavirus death rate has been one of the lowest in the world.  

OTOH. there seems to be a fair amount of enthusiasm for remedesvir, placenta-based cell therapy, and (especially) antibody treatments.  

 

 

Several of The Israeli treatments such as the antibody treatments look extremely promising such that it probably makes sense to move that way and toward trying for a vaccine.  Plus, as you say, they have plenty of HCQ if they want to use that.

 

I don’t think USA does have enough HCQ, not even close — that’s part of issue with regard to people who use it for Lupus, RA, rashes, malaria etc being able to get it if it gets used on CV19.

 

I expect, cynically, that many journalists who are badmouthing HCq already have their own supply—or would not hesitate to ask for it and use it if sick.  

 

[I think I read a ? New Yorker or Atlantic? article by a journalist who did ask for it.

 

Eta: I may have remembered the article wrongly—in any case, I cannot find it now. ]

 

Edited by Pen
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, Pam in CT said:

re how new drug/ new medical use for existing drug approval process works (even in ordinary times)

This. Multiple anecdotes don't equal data, and  (particularly for drugs/treatments with significant side effects) the process is supposed to be based on data.

Multiple anecdotes DO fuel hope, of course, and it is natural and healthy to cast about for hope in a crisis.

 

re staggering level of consensus and coordination that would be required for thousands of doctors in public/private/non-profit/for-profit/hospital-based/standalone medicating environments all across the US to withhold a drug because THEY had an agenda

This is the main reason why most conspiracy theories don't make a lick of sense to me.  The earth is flat (that is: every government on earth that has satellites in the air, plus every private satellite-based GPS and radio service, plus every airline top-level management plus every pilot, plus every cruise ship company, plus every vaguely curious human being who flies and also carries a compass.... every single one is on the same conspiratorial page... to effect... what, exactly?)?? 

Human beings are not terribly good at either staying on the same page, or keeping secrets. Any "conspiracy" that involves the sustained secret-keeping of more than ~20 people who are already like-minded and already have a common and **clear** self interest.... nah.  That's just not how human beings roll IMHO.

Why on earth would thousands of doctors, across the country, in all different business, models of both parties ,*all* agree to withhold treatment if they genuinely believed it to be lifesaving?  What would be the reason?

 

More on the Lancet study here (paywall is suspended for COVID content).

 

 

96790682_10157559516134335_5657958747725627392_n.jpg

  • Like 8
  • Haha 13
Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Where's Toto? said:

 

96790682_10157559516134335_5657958747725627392_n.jpg

This is just truth.  Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity.

  • Like 10
  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

My observation is that the same people who are disgusted by stubborn anti-mask-wearers are subject to the exact same kind of thinking that so disgusts them.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, square_25 said:

 

Which is what, not being evidence-based? I'll absolutely believe evidence on this one if it comes out. So far, the evidence on masks looks better to me, but I could be be wrong. 

Also not sure what that meant?  Someone shows me actual scientific data that mask wearing is actually harmful, I am on board.  I am happy to shift my thinking based on the best data and practices we have at the time.  I don't mask walking out doors.  I shoot for 20 feet+ distancing, intentionally choose "boring" places to walk, and there is decent data this is not readily transmitted in widely spaced outdoor settings.  Again, if science proves that incorrect I will modify my behavior on that too.  I am happy to wear a mask to run errands, etc.  

  • Like 8
Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, BookwormTo2 said:

From what I can tell from reading various articles, hydroxichloroquine is an effective treatment and/or prophylactic against COVID-19.

 

I havent' found anything actually supporting that, and the latest and best study says the opposite - even when controlling for risk factors and disease severity, you were more likely to die if you took the drug. 

7 hours ago, happysmileylady said:

This is really kind of how I lean.  Because Trump likes it, it has to be bad.  I can't quite figure out why the studies that have been done so far have only bee done on the sickest patients, when everything I understood was that it was supposed to most effective when used early.  It's my understanding that even with most antivirals we have today, such as for the flu or for shingles, work best if you take them as early as possible, so it would make sense that the same would be true for this.  

Having said that, I also think it's possible that HCQ might not be the best option in the end, or that some of the other stuff being tested like remdesivir might end up being better options.   

They haven't - there is a new analysis that adjusts for disease severity - still shows that the people taking it had worse outcomes. 

  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites

As for this compared to masks - masks don't have heart problems as a side effect...something that is particularly concerning with a disease known to be causing heart issues all on its own. 

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
39 minutes ago, Ktgrok said:

I havent' found anything actually supporting that, and the latest and best study says the opposite - even when controlling for risk factors and disease severity, you were more likely to die if you took the drug. 

They haven't - there is a new analysis that adjusts for disease severity - still shows that the people taking it had worse outcomes. 

If that's the Lancet piece that was posted earlier (I think that's what you are referencing) then I think that has a lot of problems itself, from the fact that it wasn't an actual controlled trial, to when the drug was actually given (ie patients already hospitalized.)  

 

I am not aware of any trial or study that addresses the drug as a preventative, or that gives the drug upon onset of symptoms.  Valtrex is recommended to be given within 48 hours of the appearance of the spots when it's used for shingles, and Xofluza is given that same 48hr window for influenza.  I am not aware of a trial or study that addresses that short window....especially given how hard it is to even get a diagnosis.  

 

 

ETA:

Actually I found this after I posted

https://www.yahoo.com/news/beyond-politics-gold-standard-covid-194526299.html

That article has this little tidbit in it

Quote

The University of Minnesota may have some results next week. It is testing whether hydroxychloroquine prevents infection in people exposed to the coronavirus and whether it alleviates COVID-19 symptoms.

So it looks like maybe there's at least one trial underway and maybe have some results soon? that is looking specifically as prevention and early treatment.  

Edited by happysmileylady
  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, happysmileylady said:

If that's the Lancet piece that was posted earlier (I think that's what you are referencing) then I think that has a lot of problems itself, from the fact that it wasn't an actual controlled trial, to when the drug was actually given (ie patients already hospitalized.)  

 

I am not aware of any trial or study that addresses the drug as a preventative, or that gives the drug upon onset of symptoms.  Valtrex is recommended to be given within 48 hours of the appearance of the spots when it's used for shingles, and Xofluza is given that same 48hr window for influenza.  I am not aware of a trial or study that addresses that short window....especially given how hard it is to even get a diagnosis.  

 

 

ETA:

Actually I found this after I posted

https://www.yahoo.com/news/beyond-politics-gold-standard-covid-194526299.html

That article has this little tidbit in it

So it looks like maybe there's at least one trial underway and maybe have some results soon? that is looking specifically as prevention and early treatment.  

The Henry Ford Hospital system in Detroit has an ongoing trial for hydroxy as a preventative for front line doctors, paramedics, etc, but as the NPR article linked a few posts up states, it has had trouble enrolling enough participants because of the constant negative press.  

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Quill said:

Indulge me. I am beginning to think hydroxichloroquine is in fact an effective treatment and/or prophylactic against COVID-19, but “they” are keeping a lid on this because they already know there is not enough and is no prayer of there being enough for every Tom, Dick and Harry to access it, whether for curative or prophylactic reasons. So they are keeping it for Donald Trump, other leaders, VIPs, whoever. I have a feeling the use of it will be similar to when we were told masks won’t help. (I fully acknowledge I don’t know who this “they” would be, nor why anyone would want Trump to have a prophylactic that works...hahaha. Jk. Not really.) 

 

From doctors around the world, it is a very effective treatment if used in time (ie- before super sick and needing ventilation).  It’s function seems to stop the replicating of the virus in the body, so if you wait too long, the body is already suffering from the virus everywhere. I saw interviews with NY doctors taking it as a prophylactic.

i trust a drug that’s been around and in constant use for 50 years way more than something they’re rushing to get out the lab. If Trump had never mentioned it, I’m sure many more people would be able to successfully use it, and the reporting on it would focus on the numerous positive stories about its usage.

  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, Mom2mthj said:

The Henry Ford Hospital system in Detroit has an ongoing trial for hydroxy as a preventative for front line doctors, paramedics, etc, but as the NPR article linked a few posts up states, it has had trouble enrolling enough participants because of the constant negative press.  

Right.  

Ultimately that is really an example of how conspiracy theories get their kernel of truth.  There's a little bit of bad press, people freak out, science struggles.......people hold up such a thing as an example of how "they" are suppressing real information.  When of course, the reality is so much more complicated.   

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Ausmumof3 said:

I read a really good article ages ago on science about it and now I can’t find it.  Basically it was saying there are some percentage of people that have problems from it.  If you are only using it on sick people who are likely to die anyway it’s no big deal, but if it has serious side effects for 1 person in 1000 and you start everyone taking it then you really want to prove that there’s enough benefit to make it worth that risk.  Given that serology is showing only 5pc infected in most areas and of those infected maybe only 1pc (Or less) die you are giving a drug to a lot of people as a preventative.  Not good if it starts causing health issues.  That’s why if it’s being used it should be part of a study where data is collected.

that said I think it’s a pity that it’s become a political football in the US.  Thankfully it hasn’t elsewhere so hopefully we will still get more studies done.  It’s being trialled here with health workers although we may not have enough cases to prove anything.

The remdesivir thing seems suspicious to me.  It seems to be being pushed heavily on the basis of one study that shows no improvement in mortality and only a shortening of symptoms by four days.  And people stand to make a lot of money out of it because it’s a new drug.  Unlike hydroxychloroquine.  

Nearly everything is a political football if our president mentions it, but a few studies are being conducted in the US... even randomized, controlled studies with sick patients, and preventative studies for healthcare workers. 

Edited by DoraBora
  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm about as anti Trump as they come (and don't for a second feel he's blameless in this mess) but it is ridiculous what's happening with news and media surrounding this med. I know it's just showing how divided we are now politically but I do find it sad that even during a pandemic it has reached these lengths. 

  • Like 8
Link to post
Share on other sites

It's truly unfortunate if political bias slows down the development of a promising treatment. I don't see any conspiracy, but hopefully one does not find themselves under the care of the doc who doggedly refuses to consider a particular med in order to avoid lending credence to a political figure.

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, happysmileylady said:

If that's the Lancet piece that was posted earlier (I think that's what you are referencing) then I think that has a lot of problems itself, from the fact that it wasn't an actual controlled trial, to when the drug was actually given (ie patients already hospitalized.)  

 

I am not aware of any trial or study that addresses the drug as a preventative, or that gives the drug upon onset of symptoms.  Valtrex is recommended to be given within 48 hours of the appearance of the spots when it's used for shingles, and Xofluza is given that same 48hr window for influenza.  I am not aware of a trial or study that addresses that short window....especially given how hard it is to even get a diagnosis.  

 

 

ETA:

Actually I found this after I posted

https://www.yahoo.com/news/beyond-politics-gold-standard-covid-194526299.html

That article has this little tidbit in it

So it looks like maybe there's at least one trial underway and maybe have some results soon? that is looking specifically as prevention and early treatment.  

Right, but there is no evidence that it DOES help either, right?  I mean, I dont' have any randomized controlled studies showing that drinking a margarita will make things worse, but I am not going to go on TV and say it is some miracle cure just because I don't have proof it isn't. You need proof it IS helpful, and all we have that I can see is evidence that it may make things worse, not better. 

1 hour ago, matrips said:

From doctors around the world, it is a very effective treatment if used in time (ie- before super sick and needing ventilation).  It’s function seems to stop the replicating of the virus in the body, so if you wait too long, the body is already suffering from the virus everywhere. I saw interviews with NY doctors taking it as a prophylactic.

i trust a drug that’s been around and in constant use for 50 years way more than something they’re rushing to get out the lab. If Trump had never mentioned it, I’m sure many more people would be able to successfully use it, and the reporting on it would focus on the numerous positive stories about its usage.

The new study looks at exactly that, people given it before going on a ventilator, and within 48 hours of diagnosis. It didn't help, and patients were more likely to die with the medication. 

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Ktgrok said:

Right, but there is no evidence that it DOES help either, right?  I mean, I dont' have any randomized controlled studies showing that drinking a margarita will make things worse, but I am not going to go on TV and say it is some miracle cure just because I don't have proof it isn't. You need proof it IS helpful, and all we have that I can see is evidence that it may make things worse, not better. 

 

But, what you are posting here is part of the politics of it all and really doesn't have anything to do with science.  There has been enough evidence that at least University of Minnesota HAS started a trial, I mean.......trials for this sort of thing aren't just invented out of thin air right?  But regardless of that.......what a political figure did with regards to that info.....well that just gets in the way of science and turns the whole thing into the political football it became (I like that term 🙂 )  I don't really care what was really SAID....so much as I care about how that has affected the actual science of treatment for this thing.  And unfortunately, it very much HAS affected the actual science, even if there's no actual "conspiracy" involved. (and no....I don't believe there's any actual conspiracy lol)

 

Quote

The new study looks at exactly that, people given it before going on a ventilator, and within 48 hours of diagnosis. It didn't help, and patients were more likely to die with the medication. 

Except the problem with that is exactly what I stated earlier.  The difference between 48 hrs from diagnosis and 48 hrs of onset of SYMPTOMS.  The fact that there's a difference isn't really the fault of the analysts, it's just part of the problems of treating and studying something so new.  But in terms of the research..................it could be making a LOT of difference.  Imagine if a person with shingles saw the rash, then waited a good 2 days for it to go away before even calling the doc.  The doc then says, ok, well we need you to make an appointment for 2 days from now.  THEN, the person gets a test, which is sent off to a lab, and the results come back a week later.  Meanwhile, the rash is growing and expanding.  The test comes back positive, so the day after the positive result....the person starts Valtrex.  Well, that's very unlikely to really help anything, since they have started it a full ELEVEN days after the onset of symptoms, even though they started it within 24 hrs after diagnosis.  

Ultimately, right now......this is not an uncommon scenario for diagnosing COVID.  And this analysis is going back to a time where that sort of scenario was even MORE common for COVID. 

 

Not to mention that I thought one of our greatest hopes was to find a treatment (or even more than one) that would keep people from being hospitalized in the first place, and that entire analysis was done with people who were already hospitalized.  It really doesn't answer any of the questions about whether or not it keeps people from being hospitalized in the first place.  

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, square_25 said:

Can't say I believe in any conspiracy, either. 

As for whether there's enough evidence to start a trial -- I'd guess you don't need real evidence to start a trial, just anecdotes. Then the trial checks for actual evidence. If the criteria for "starting a trial" was "having evidence," we'd never start a trial, since there's always a point at which there's no real evidence ;-). 

I dunno, it was my understanding that the evidence to start a trial of a drug had to be more than just anecdotal.  However, it's also my understanding that there was already evidence in terms of "in vitro" testing.  Meaning, they did testing of the drug in lab settings/test tube/culture dishes etc etc.  

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, square_25 said:

Hmmm, well, I could very well be wrong about that. I do not know what is usually needed to start a trial. 

I can also imagine this being expedited due to extraordinary circumstances... I really don't know, though! Don't treat anything I say on this as informed, lol. Not my field. 

Right, I mean, I am not exactly an expert in any of this either lol  Like most of us here....just a mom, trying to understand it all.

And yeah.....SO MUCH of everything is being expedited due to extraordinary circumstances.    Unfortunately, I think that is also muddying the waters and interfering with real research.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, happysmileylady said:

I dunno, it was my understanding that the evidence to start a trial of a drug had to be more than just anecdotal.  However, it's also my understanding that there was already evidence in terms of "in vitro" testing.  Meaning, they did testing of the drug in lab settings/test tube/culture dishes etc etc.  

Yes there’s evidence that it does something to the virus in a Petrie dish.  That is enough I guess to start human trials but then you have to test safety etc.  because plenty of things can kill the virus if you aren’t worried about what happens to the human being with the virus.  

  • Like 6
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Joker said:

I'm about as anti Trump as they come (and don't for a second feel he's blameless in this mess) but it is ridiculous what's happening with news and media surrounding this med. I know it's just showing how divided we are now politically but I do find it sad that even during a pandemic it has reached these lengths. 

Thankfully it hasn’t become a political football in the rest of the world so other countries are doing trials.

  • Like 6
Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, FuzzyCatz said:

This is just truth.  Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity.

Yep.  I am sure Trump is sometimes right (and since I am not in the US I can't tell more than that).  But Trump is not a doctor, a chemist or a medical researcher.  I take political advice from politicians, plumbing advice from plumbers and medical advice from medical people.

  • Like 8
Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, Ausmumof3 said:

Yes there’s evidence that it does something to the virus in a Petrie dish.  That is enough I guess to start human trials but then you have to test safety etc.  because plenty of things can kill the virus if you aren’t worried about what happens to the human being with the virus.  

Like bleach, for example...🤪

  • Like 2
  • Haha 6
Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...