So any comments on the Stella Immanuel Video?

[Skippy]

1 minute ago, square_25 said:

I’d be happy to discuss the actual studies until the cows come home, though.

I have absolutely no problem with this.

[Skippy]

4 minutes ago, Skippy said:

one should perhaps worry about school quality there 😉

And this kind of makes the point that I was objecting to.

[Corraleno]

1 hour ago, Fritz said:

I normally lurk here but thought it might be helpful to have a couple of links. Dr. Immanual was not the only dcotor in that particular video nor is she the founder of the frontline doctors group. Dr. Simone Gold is the founder.

https://www.hospicepatients.org/white-paper-on-hcq-from-americasfrontlinedoctors-com-2020.2.pdf

https://thegoldopinion.com/bio

Some info on Simone Gold:

On her Twitter page, you can see her in front of Cedars-Sinai Medical Center in Los Angeles. In the video, Dr. Gold wears a lab coat that reads “Emergency Department” and tells watchers that emergency room volume is down at the hospital.

FactFinder 12 contacted Cedars-Sinai to learn of Dr. Gold’s affiliation with the hospital.

The hospital said, “for three weeks in late 2015, Dr. Gold was employed on a per diem basis by Cedars-Sinai Medical Network, a component of Cedars-Sinai. She worked during this brief time in a network urgent-care clinic. Dr. Gold is not authorized to represent or speak about any information on behalf of Cedars-Sinai.”

Physician information websites list Dr. Gold as being affiliated with Centinela Hospital Medical Center in Inglewood, Calif. When reached to verify, a spokesperson for the hospital said Dr. Gold is not on staff and she is not affiliated with any medical group related to the hospital. The spokesperson went on to say the hospital urges everyone to wear a mask, maintain physical distance, and listen to the guidance from their local health department and officials. 

She also claims to have worked for the Surgeon General's office, but a spokesman for HHS said that they could not confirm that she ever worked there.

[Frances]

1 hour ago, Fritz said:

I normally lurk here but thought it might be helpful to have a couple of links. Dr. Immanual was not the only dcotor in that particular video nor is she the founder of the frontline doctors group. Dr. Simone Gold is the founder.

https://www.hospicepatients.org/white-paper-on-hcq-from-americasfrontlinedoctors-com-2020.2.pdf

https://thegoldopinion.com/bio

While Dr Gold appears to be well educated and I haven’t seen anything to doubt she has both an MD and a JD, she seems to present her actual work experience in medicine in various different ways depending on the location. On her linked in page, besides a bunch of side businesses and brief political work in DC, she mainly claims to be a concierge physician since 2012 and has nothing about emergency medicine work except in her “about” summary, no actual emergency medicine jobs are listed. And even though she received her medical degree over thirty years ago, the only medical practice experience she includes is for 2012 forward. For the blog and video, she talks more about emergency medicine work, but doesn’t mention where she actually works and from everything I’ve read, it’s not clear if or where she actually worked in an emergency room in recent years.

https://www.kwch.com/2020/07/30/factfinder-12-digs-into-covid-19-claims-made-in-viral-video/

The doctors in the video have varied backgrounds and experiences, but it doesn’t seem that most are actually on the “frontlines” during the pandemic.

https://www.medpagetoday.com/infectiousdisease/covid19/87797

[Happy2BaMom]

32 minutes ago, Skippy said:

Quote from another post: "One of the articles linked in this thread says that Dr. Immanuel received her medical education in Nigeria.  I try to research doctors as much as possible.  I know nothing about the quality of medical schools in Nigeria, but I would be very cautious about medical degrees from Nigeria after this episode, thanks to this lady.   (The princes have already made me very leery of the country.)" 

I agree. This was my point. : )

 

Again, we are discussing one individual who received her medical education in a country not known for quality medical education and now trying to claim that we should trust her solely due to the fact that she is a doctor.

The fact that you keep switching the focus between a single individual and generalizations doesn't change the topic of conversation *on this thread*.

 

[Happy2BaMom]

1 hour ago, Fritz said:

I normally lurk here but thought it might be helpful to have a couple of links. Dr. Immanual was not the only dcotor in that particular video nor is she the founder of the frontline doctors group. Dr. Simone Gold is the founder.

https://www.hospicepatients.org/white-paper-on-hcq-from-americasfrontlinedoctors-com-2020.2.pdf

https://thegoldopinion.com/bio

 

Dr. Gold is part of the "pro-Trump doctors" group that was advocating for a complete reopening of the economy (w/o restrictions) back in May. She claims to be an emergency medicine specialist but her own Linked-In profile states that she works as a "Concierge Doctor". She is not affiliated with any hospital and claimed back in May that she gave TWO of her patients hydroxychloroquine and they got better (therefore it must be great for everyone).

[Skippy]

12 minutes ago, Happy2BaMom said:

 

Again, we are discussing one individual who received her medical education in a country not known for quality medical education and now trying to claim that we should trust her solely due to the fact that she is a doctor.

The fact that you keep switching the focus between a single individual and generalizations doesn't change the topic of conversation *on this thread*.

 

I don’t think you understand my point because I am trying to say don’t make generalizations, but I don’t really see the point of me continuing to talk about this because that was my only objecection. 

[Frances]

46 minutes ago, square_25 said:

Well, I don't know much about their medical schools. Do they have high standards? 

I think this is less about people in other countries and more about the countries' institutions. But it's entirely possible this is just unthinking American supremacy. 

While I’m not trying to defend her because she is most definitely not someone I would ever trust as a doctor, anyone practicing in the US has to pass the same exams as those educated in the US and also do a residency in the US. Because we fail to educate enough doctors here due to a lack of medical school slots, despite a plethora of qualified, interested people, we have to rely on doctors educated in other countries to fill residency slots in the US. They have to go through the same competitive residency application process as everyone else.

[ktgrok]

4 hours ago, livetoread said:

My only quibble with what some have said (not necessarily here) about Immanuel is that she is mentally ill or nuts. I’m giving my opinion without spending time researching more facts about her, so bear with me here, but if she is primarily culturally from a part of Africa where supernatural explanations are common, then I would be careful assuming mental health issues. There can be beliefs held by subcultures even in the US that can sound like mental illness (and would be concerning if voiced by people not in that subculture) but aren’t. That doesn’t mean anyone should give those beliefs the time of day when sciencing, but it does seem culturally tone deaf to me to fail to recognize that some subcultures embrace supernatural explanations for things, and some subcultures are comfortable blurring the lines between science and the supernatural. Again, that doesn’t mean we should accept that, just acknowledge that it doesn’t mean she’s nuts.

I grew up in an area with a large Hatian subculture, as well as later Jamaican, etc. Certain religious beliefs might sort of fit, but I can't think of ANY subculture that embraces the idea of alien DNA as part of their culture. 

That's just her being weird. 

[Ausmumof3]

5 hours ago, square_25 said:

The point was that if this is the lower bound, one should perhaps worry about school quality there 😉

But I don’t think this has much to do with the main points here.

Just to put that to rest a little bit a Nigerian doctors group did come out basically distancing themselves from her.

I’m not feeling like doing the digging to find it right now but I guess just so not all doctors from Nigeria get tarred with the same brush.

[catz]

You have 2 doctors

Doc 1 -  has unusual believes/practices, practices out of a strip mall or church, doesn't have hospital privileges, is a pediatrician but is allegedly treating adults off the streets, has not published any data, calls large randomized studies "fake science"

Doc 2 -  has  been working at the top of their field for 25+ years, is a lead of infectious diseases at a major world class research university, has many published peer reviewed double blind studies, is a regular teacher and lecturer, and is widely respected in their field.  

And doc 2 should spend their time debating doc 1?  There are literally thousands of other doctors we could be listening to before we should give a platform to doc 1 or any of this staged team that was  likely paid for their time.   Tell me again why we should give any time or credence, time or energy to doctor 1?  I'm not saying there aren't garbage studies published.  There are.  And they are typically quickly sorted out during the peer review process.  She isn't saying  "here are some logical fallacies to the several studies done, and here is some contrasting data which is better for logical reason X and Y".  She is just yelling fake science and saying she has had success with absolutely zero evidence of fact.  

Research centers very often will issue press releases with the results of important studies for public consumption.  People are more than happy to ignore those and not read them.  But jump on the first quack bandwagon  that starts screaming angrily what they want to hear.   How do you debate someone that calls your well respected life's work fake science.  

I am happy to be wrong about this drug.  But there is not evidence to the contrary at this point.   If you give a med to relatively healthy people that is tolerated well by most and they recover from an illness the vast majority recover from that proves absolutely nothing without the double blind/randomized aspect.   And doctors are still free to prescribe it.  

Edited July 31, 2020 by FuzzyCatz

[Halftime Hope]

On 7/29/2020 at 8:25 AM, FuzzyCatz said:

Why are people so happy to believe anyone that puts on a lab coat?   Again, publish your data and qualifications and put them out for review.  

The comment below is addressed to everyone on the thread, not just to FuzzyCatz.

I think the primary reason why these doctors went to speak directly to the public is that they felt that their ability to speak through normal channels, to practice medicine, and to be heard is non-existent in the current climate.   In my state, the pharmacy board is doing something it has never done before, it is demanding a diagnosis be written on the prescription in order for prescriptions to be filled if it is one of the "controversial" drugs.  In actuality, a person's diagnosis is a protected piece of information, between them and their doctor , protected by HIPAA and some of our state legislators have begun to intervene, calling the state pharmacy board and telling them to knock it off.   In FL, some docs are prescribing meds, and the pharmacist will call them and tell them they will not dispense the medication they prescribed.  I don't know enough about it to know how that behavior is justified, but again, it's because of these kinds of situations that doctors feel like they have to speak out and take the message directly to the people.     

I didn't watch the entire 7 hours of the doctors' summit, in fact I only had about 10 minutes to spare, but I watched the part about kids and school, and the pediatrician there was right on the money.  He was addressing schools, and children catching and spreading the virus, and his position was that families needed to know not to fear.  Kids should be in school.  He was speaking from data and from experience, right in line with the American Academy of Pediatrics.   Why don't you all talk about him, and his credentials, and what a quack he was since you've bashed this whole group?  Oh, wait, that doesn't jibe with your broad brush, does it?!?   

Now to FuzzyCatz:  "publish your data...."    Dr. Zelenko has done that.  Dr. Ratjer has done that.  But that doesn't communicate directly to people in a timely fashion when there is a desperate need for hope and encouragement, and for people to rise up and demand that the bureacracy cut out the crap.  Oh, and the Summit Doctors have published all their information from the day on their website.  They have published it, and most people will never read it.  

[Laurie]

On 7/30/2020 at 6:38 PM, Acadie said:

 

 

 

Thanks, I do remember Pizzagate. That helps me put it in perspective. What especially freaked me out was a really close friend, whose judgment I've trusted, has been posting a lot about sex trafficking at the same time. 

 

I hadn't realized that July 30 is World Day Against Trafficking...I heard something about it on the radio this week.  Is there a chance that your friend is posting things because of this awareness day and not because of conspiracy theories?   

https://www.un.org/en/observances/end-human-trafficking-day 

[katilac]

26 minutes ago, Halftime Hope said:

Why don't you all talk about him, and his credentials, and what a quack he was since you've bashed this whole group?  Oh, wait, that doesn't jibe with your broad brush, does it?!?   

If that's what they wanted people to talk about, that should have been the topic of their press conference. They promoted precisely what they wanted people to talk about. 

[Corraleno]

18 minutes ago, Halftime Hope said:

The comment below is addressed to everyone on the thread, not just to FuzzyCatz.

I think the primary reason why these doctors went to speak directly to the public is that they felt that their ability to speak through normal channels, to practice medicine, and to be heard is non-existent in the current climate.   In my state, the pharmacy board is doing something it has never done before, it is demanding a diagnosis be written on the prescription in order for prescriptions to be filled if it is one of the "controversial" drugs.  In actuality, a person's diagnosis is a protected piece of information, between them and their doctor , protected by HIPAA and some of our state legislators have begun to intervene, calling the state pharmacy board and telling them to knock it off.   In FL, some docs are prescribing meds, and the pharmacist will call them and tell them they will not dispense the medication they prescribed.  I don't know enough about it to know how that behavior is justified, but again, it's because of these kinds of situations that doctors feel like they have to speak out and take the message directly to the people.     

I didn't watch the entire 7 hours of the doctors' summit, in fact I only had about 10 minutes to spare, but I watched the part about kids and school, and the pediatrician there was right on the money.  He was addressing schools, and children catching and spreading the virus, and his position was that families needed to know not to fear.  Kids should be in school.  He was speaking from data and from experience, right in line with the American Academy of Pediatrics.   Why don't you all talk about him, and his credentials, and what a quack he was since you've bashed this whole group?  Oh, wait, that doesn't jibe with your broad brush, does it?!?   

Now to FuzzyCatz:  "publish your data...."    Dr. Zelenko has done that.  Dr. Ratjer has done that.  But that doesn't communicate directly to people in a timely fashion when there is a desperate need for hope and encouragement, and for people to rise up and demand that the bureacracy cut out the crap.  Oh, and the Summit Doctors have published all their information from the day on their website.  They have published it, and most people will never read it.  

The "reason these doctors went to speak directly to the public" is because a pro-Trump political action committee called Tea Party Patriots invented the "Frontline Doctors" group, owns their website, and organized this particular stunt.

The American Academy of Pediatrics clearly states on their website that although schools are important to children's development, "schools in areas with high levels of COVID-19 community spread should not be compelled to reopen against the judgment of local experts."  

There are lots of studies on HCQ, both pro and con, and the relative merits of those are worthy of discussion. In fact, many have been discussed at length on this very board. But none of the motley crew of politically motivated doctors in the Tea Party Patriots video have ever done any research on it, and many have not even treated patients with it.

[ktgrok]

30 minutes ago, Halftime Hope said:

 

I think the primary reason why these doctors went to speak directly to the public is that they felt that their ability to speak through normal channels, to practice medicine, and to be heard is non-existent in the current climate.   

 In FL, some docs are prescribing meds, and the pharmacist will call them and tell them they will not dispense the medication they prescribed.  

  He was addressing schools, and children catching and spreading the virus, and his position was that families needed to know not to fear.  Kids should be in school.  He was speaking from data and from experience, right in line with the American Academy of Pediatrics.   

 

1. the reason they were speaking to the public is a paid political group had them do it. 

2. There was ONE news story about this, and it was in my area. The pharmacy clarified that they are NOT refusing to fill HCQ prescriptions, but due to concerns about having enough and people attempting to stockpile it they are only filling 10 days worth for Covid patients, with no refills. That is in order to have enough for everyone. 

3. The Florida chapter of the American Academy of Pediatrics has said that no, schools in hot spots should not reopen. We are getting more and more info on how children spread it, so anyone saying they don't is plain wrong. In some countries kids spread it MORE than adult! At that one camp over half the kids under 10 caught it! 

[katilac]

40 minutes ago, Halftime Hope said:

In my state, the pharmacy board is doing something it has never done before, it is demanding a diagnosis be written on the prescription in order for prescriptions to be filled if it is one of the "controversial" drugs.  In actuality, a person's diagnosis is a protected piece of information, between them and their doctor , protected by HIPAA and some of our state legislators have begun to intervene, calling the state pharmacy board and telling them to knock it off.   

Sharing a diagnosis with a pharmacist is not a violation of HIPPA because they are considered health care providers.It's not just between you and your doctor, your health plan certainly has it as well. Your state does already require a dx in some instances, because dx codes are always required for Medicare Part B prescriptions. They may also be required for certain meds that require prior authorization, and for opiods. So, this is not some crazy new Covid thing. 

Edited August 1, 2020 by katilac

[Ausmumof3]

i think Ohio were trying to get restrictions on it but that got retracted?  

[ktgrok]

2 minutes ago, katilac said:

Sharing a diagnosis with a pharmacist is not a violation of HIPPA because they are considered health care providers.It's not just between you and your doctor, your health plan certainly has it as well. Your state does already require a dx in some instances, because dx codes are always required for Medicare Part B prescriptions. They may also be required for certain meds that require prior authorization, and for opiods. So, this is not some crazy new Covid thing. 

It's almost like people are unwilling to actually look up the truth of a claim before spreading it on the internet as fact. 

[katilac]

There are actually quite a few people beyond your doctor who can access your health information; you can see a list here.  Some are held to HIPPA and some are not. For example, if you file a workers' comp claim, they obviously get your healthcare information but are not held to HIPPA. 

Pharmacists, billing companies, claims processors, workers' comp - there are really a lot of entities involved in providing and overseeing healthcare who have access to your records. It's an improvement over the days of anyone calling up and getting your dx, lol, but still a lot of people. 

[Frances]

1 hour ago, Halftime Hope said:

The comment below is addressed to everyone on the thread, not just to FuzzyCatz.

I think the primary reason why these doctors went to speak directly to the public is that they felt that their ability to speak through normal channels, to practice medicine, and to be heard is non-existent in the current climate.   In my state, the pharmacy board is doing something it has never done before, it is demanding a diagnosis be written on the prescription in order for prescriptions to be filled if it is one of the "controversial" drugs.  In actuality, a person's diagnosis is a protected piece of information, between them and their doctor , protected by HIPAA and some of our state legislators have begun to intervene, calling the state pharmacy board and telling them to knock it off.   In FL, some docs are prescribing meds, and the pharmacist will call them and tell them they will not dispense the medication they prescribed.  I don't know enough about it to know how that behavior is justified, but again, it's because of these kinds of situations that doctors feel like they have to speak out and take the message directly to the people.     

 

I have family members who are pharmacists and I think you have a profound misunderstanding of what they do and clearly do not understand how closely they work with doctors. They do not simply blindly fill prescriptions without ever questioning a doctor, asking for more information (including but not at all limited to the diagnosis), or even making some adjustments to prescriptions on their own. Doctors will also sometimes consult with pharmacists before they write a prescription, especially in complex cases or for drugs with which they have limited experience. If they work in a hospital setting, pharmacists have full access to patient charts and will even order tests in order to monitor and adjust medications. They are licensed and they can lose their license or have disciplinary actions taken if mistakes happen on their watch. Many deaths and adverse health outcomes are avoided because pharmacists don’t simply fill every prescription as written. It’s the very essence of their job to question and to make sure the right medication in the correct dose is being given for each individual and situation.

[Liz CA]

On 7/28/2020 at 12:31 PM, PrincessMommy said:

please tell us what you know.  

My SIL posted it on FB too and has been dismayed that it was removed from FB and YT... she's (SIL) also been flagged by FB.  She's smart and does deep dives on these types of issues...but rarely posts anything on FB.  Needless to say she's upset and confused.  

 

 

She was not the only doctor in this video. Dr. Gold introduced Frontline doctors, as it was billed, comprised of several physicians, including a pediatrician and epidemiologist who wrote one of the first article on the potential of h-quine and zinc for CV19 patients. I do find it disturbing that it has been taken down from all platforms for several reasons, however, mainly because at this point in early research of CV19, anything that seems to hold some promise should be examined further IMHO.  We have nothing better that is empirically vetted at present AFAIK so using something that has been around for nearly 100 years seems worth a second look.

Edited August 1, 2020 by Liz CA

[Jean in Newcastle]

1 minute ago, Liz CA said:

 

She was not the only doctor in this video. Dr. Gold introduced Frontline doctors, as it was billed, comprised of several physicians, including a pediatrician and epidemiologist who wrote one of the first article on the potential of h-quinine and zinc for CV19 patients. I do find it disturbing that it has been taken down from all platforms for several reasons, however, mainly because at this point in early research of CV19, anything that seems to hold some promise should be examined further IMHO.  We have nothing better that is empirically vetted at present AFAIK so using something that has been around for nearly 100 years seems worth a second look.

As has been pointed out ad nauseum in this thread no less, it is being looked at in multiple studies.  And is being examined.  Properly.  And some doctors are prescribing it and are not being prevented from doing so. 

[Corraleno]

36 minutes ago, Liz CA said:

 

She was not the only doctor in this video. Dr. Gold introduced Frontline doctors, as it was billed, comprised of several physicians, including a pediatrician and epidemiologist who wrote one of the first article on the potential of h-quine and zinc for CV19 patients. I do find it disturbing that it has been taken down from all platforms for several reasons, however, mainly because at this point in early research of CV19, anything that seems to hold some promise should be examined further IMHO.  We have nothing better that is empirically vetted at present AFAIK so using something that has been around for nearly 100 years seems worth a second look.

"Worth a second look"?  There have already been dozens of studies on HCQ, and there are dozens more currently underway — more time, effort, and money has already been spent studying HCQ than any other potential Covid drug. So far, the randomized, placebo-controlled studies show no benefit, but there are still ongoing studies to test it in different dosages, at different times, in combination with different drugs and supplements, etc. Most of them are available online, you can read them yourself and make up your own mind — like many of us in this thread have already done.

Do you really think that a YouTube publicity stunt by a random group of doctors including two ophthalmologists (one of whom quit practicing 2 years ago to start a cryptocurrency company),  a clinic owner who has been condemned by the American Academy of Emergency Medicine for disseminating false information, a doctor who lies about where she works, and a doctor who believes disease is caused by witches and demons, is going to suddenly make virologists, epidemiologists, and scientists all over the world suddenly smack their heads and say "damn, why didn't we think of studying HCQ?!" 

There is a list of the 7 doctors who appeared in the video here, with further discussion of their credentials here, and there is a rebuttal of some of the false information in the video here. NONE of them are epidemiologists, and NONE of them have any research experience with HCQ or Covid. Why not go to the source and read the actual research instead of listening to a handful of random doctors with zero expertise in this area? Or you could listen to well--respected epidemiologists with decades of experience like, say, Anthony Fauci.

[Katy]

15 hours ago, Ktgrok said:

I grew up in an area with a large Hatian subculture, as well as later Jamaican, etc. Certain religious beliefs might sort of fit, but I can't think of ANY subculture that embraces the idea of alien DNA as part of their culture. 

That's just her being weird. 

 

It's not just weird, it's a standard anti-Semitic conspiracy theory that was credited to David Icke years ago.  I remember sitting in a Borders in 2003 deciding I had to buy the book Them: Adventures with Extremists by Jon Ronson because I was laughing so hard at the lunacy people were turning to look at me.

[Sneezyone]

On 7/30/2020 at 9:19 PM, Acadie said:

I haven't read this whole thread, but in responding to a FB contact's post about it I was accused of being racist and anti-religion and supporting pedophilia.

Um, what????

At the same time, I noticed posts on sex trafficking and pedophiles in general, and Epstein/Maxwell in particular, showing up on my FB feed from other friends, closer friends who support similar causes as the person who made these accusations. 

For the record, I could not be more opposed on personal, ethical, moral and religious grounds to the trafficking of human beings and exploitation of children. I routinely update my Virtus training at my church so I'm eligible to volunteer with children and young adults. And in the past I have reported, and would report any future concerns to law enforcement. Maxwell should be charged to the full extent of the law, and I support robust examination of what happened to Epstein.

But why is this showing up on social media from multiple people who don't know each other in response to any questions about Stella Immanuel's fitness for prescribing pharmaceuticals when she expresses absolute certainty that sex with demon lovers causes miscarriage, molar pregnancy and endometriosis? My point was simply to raise this question--Is this the kind of person you trust to prescribe medication that requires medical monitoring and is potentially lethal, at low doses, to children in your family?

At best, this is a diversion tactic from the real issue, that we have not addressed and controlled the pandemic anywhere near as effectively as other developed countries and that this represents total failure of our political leadership.

My other thought was Russian bots, whose aim is foment confusion and division and the breakdown of the norms of democracy. Seriously.

If I raise questions about the medical beliefs of a doctor who sees demon lovers as the cause of common obstetric and gynecological issues, and am charged with being racist, anti-religion and supporting pedophilia, and all of the comments and likes are in support of the person who made those charges? What is going on in our country? 

Has anyone else encountered this on social media recently? 

 

Join the club. Someone accused me of betraying the cause of Black Lives Matter (a cause this individual does not support) and said we thought Herman Cain was an Uncle Tom because my friend and I had a conversation about the mixed legacy of Herman Cain WRT COVID. SMH. His politics never entered the discussion. His stupidity WRT mask wearing and social distancing did. It was so totally random that my friends didn't even bother to respond. I just told this man, nicely, that I'm not sure why he friended me. His son and  went to elementary/middle school together and weren't especially close. If he was interested in remaining a 'friend' he would sit back, listen, and observe for a while before throwing "Uncle Tom" around.

Edited August 1, 2020 by Sneezyone

[Ausmumof3]

This is from the WHO.  I realise they aren’t considered 100pc reliable in all this but I think this is a fair summation.  Acknowledge the risks but state the need for more decisive research regarding use for prophylaxis.  

Edited August 1, 2020 by Ausmumof3

[ktgrok]

6 hours ago, Liz CA said:

 

She was not the only doctor in this video. Dr. Gold introduced Frontline doctors, as it was billed, comprised of several physicians, including a pediatrician and epidemiologist who wrote one of the first article on the potential of h-quine and zinc for CV19 patients. I do find it disturbing that it has been taken down from all platforms for several reasons, however, mainly because at this point in early research of CV19, anything that seems to hold some promise should be examined further IMHO.  We have nothing better that is empirically vetted at present AFAIK so using something that has been around for nearly 100 years seems worth a second look.

Oh, yes, Dr. Gold - the on who calls herself an emergency medicine doctor, stood in front of a hospital as if she worked there to be interviewed, claimed to work at a particular hospital? Yeah....she didn't work at all at the one hospital, and worked for three months in a walk in clnic - NOT an emergency room- affiliated with the other hospital YEARS ago. So yeah, that one is lacking in credibility as well, considering she is willing to be that misleading about her credentials. If she will mislead people about her credentials, what else is she going to mislead people about?

And HCQ IS being examined, closely, in more studies than any other drug. It certainly is getting WELL more than a "second look".

Which we've stated. Over and over.

Are you not reading the responses to your questions? Do you not care about the responses and just want to keep repeating false statements? Like the doctors in the video? 

 

[Guest]

9 hours ago, Halftime Hope said:

Now to FuzzyCatz:  "publish your data...."    Dr. Zelenko has done that.  Dr. Ratjer has done that.  But that doesn't communicate directly to people in a timely fashion when there is a desperate need for hope and encouragement, and for people to rise up and demand that the bureacracy cut out the crap.  Oh, and the Summit Doctors have published all their information from the day on their website.  They have published it, and most people will never read it.  

I think part of the problem is the difference between the meanings of the word published. Published in science fields means that the article has gone through peer review, usually by at least three disconnected from each other, unaffiliated reviewers with equivalent professional credentials, and is published in a major journal in the field. Usually there are only a handful considered really authoritative in a given language/country/field. Published does not mean “has a website or blog” or “wrote an article for a popular publication” or “gave an interview” . Nor does a pre-print count as published, although a pre-print usually means submitted for peer review, and is in the process of publication, hopefully. Even writing a book does not necessarily count as being published. 

The bad thing, in this case, is that the full research, submission, review, revise, publish cycle can easily take years. While COVID research is being fast tracked, there is little research that is actually able to be fully published. And because it’s being fast tracked, it is easier for bad data to get through, and therefore there will be more conflicting studies and retractions due to smaller groups, fewer replications, and less time for review. 

 

 

 

[ktgrok]

The bottom line is, if you want to discuss HCQ, we can do that. We HAVE been doing that. For months. Join one of those threads or start a new one. 

IF you want to discuss THIS video, then yes, it will focus on the crazy and the lies of this video. Which have nothing to do with HCQ, but again, we are already discussing that ad nauseum, it is being studied all over the globe, etc. 

But maybe try not to spread MORE misinformation while discussing. (like that the state of Florida won't allow pharmacies to fill HCQ for covid patients, which is a blatant lie)

[historically accurate]

4 minutes ago, square_25 said:

The ironic thing is that half the people on this thread haven’t even made up their minds about HCQ. I haven’t seen very compelling data either way and look forward to learning more...

Yeah, I'd would puffy heart love for it to work (especially since my 80 year old MIL has taken it for years), but we have to actually wait for the science to see what it says. 

[Lady Florida.]

10 hours ago, Halftime Hope said:

 

Now to FuzzyCatz:  "publish your data...."    Dr. Zelenko has done that.  Dr. Ratjer has done that.  But that doesn't communicate directly to people in a timely fashion when there is a desperate need for hope and encouragement, and for people to rise up and demand that the bureacracy cut out the crap.  Oh, and the Summit Doctors have published all their information from the day on their website.  They have published it, and most people will never read it.  

Do you know what it means to publish data in science? Because posting it on your own website isn't it.

[ktgrok]

33 minutes ago, square_25 said:

The ironic thing is that half the people on this thread haven’t even made up their minds about HCQ. I haven’t seen very compelling data either way and look forward to learning more...

Yup. 

No one on these threads doesn't want HCQ to work. They just don't want it to become a fad where it is used without cause, causing shortages for people that need it. 

And as people dedicated to education, we tend to get grumpy about garbage science, and a bit cranky when people don't understand basic things like, "what is a credible source" and "correlation does not equal causation". 

Add in people who have the energy to post the same (misleading) points over and over, but somehow don't have the time to spend a single minute googling to fact check the misinformaiton before spread it...and yeah. You get poor reactions. 

That's not one bit political.

[Wheres Toto]

Latest thing I keep seeing is Fauci can't be trusted because he's in the pocket of big pharma, is doing this for the money (??), and has been lying about everything from the beginning.  

I can't even deal with people anymore.    The reasonable people are faint voices in the wilderness of conspiracy nuts.

[Wheres Toto]

12 minutes ago, square_25 said:

What exactly is Big Pharma paying him for, dare I ask? 

Overblowing the pandemic so they can get big bucks out of a vaccine?  Maybe?  I find there's very little logic to any of this shit.  

[Liz CA]

3 hours ago, Ktgrok said:

And HCQ IS being examined, closely, in more studies than any other drug. It certainly is getting WELL more than a "second look".

 

 

This boils down for me to something much more basic though. All of us on this board (unless we have a credentialed epidemiologist here) do not have nearly enough knowledge of what is going on. People are googling and reading a few articles and think themselves experts on the subject. This is not just the case with CV19 but is an internet phenomenon in general. I don't care to discredit any doctors, don't know them and this is not what this is about for me.

My question is this (maybe this would be better in poll format):

If you were diagnosed with CV19 tomorrow and by next week it looked like you were not doing too well would you try something that has been on the market for a while but is usually rx'd for specific symptoms if it may help you but nobody is sure? Many people participate in clinical trials (other than CV19) and substances / combos of substances are tried to see what works. I think I would agree to take this if my immune system was not fighting it off. Nobody seems to know for sure what effect if may have, if the effects depend on other variable and are therefore individual? Point is that when people think they are dying, they are often willing to take it. 

[Jean in Newcastle]

2 minutes ago, Liz CA said:

 

This boils down for me to something much more basic though. All of us on this board (unless we have a credentialed epidemiologist here) do not have nearly enough knowledge of what is going on. People are googling and reading a few articles and think themselves experts on the subject. This is not just the case with CV19 but is an internet phenomenon in general. I don't care to discredit any doctors, don't know them and this is not what this is about for me.

My question is this (maybe this would be better in poll format):

If you were diagnosed with CV19 tomorrow and by next week it looked like you were not doing too well would you try something that has been on the market for a while but is usually rx'd for specific symptoms if it may help you but nobody is sure? Many people participate in clinical trials (other than CV19) and substances / combos of substances are tried to see what works. I think I would agree to take this if my immune system was not fighting it off. Nobody seems to know for sure what effect if may have, if the effects depend on other variable and are therefore individual? Point is that when people think they are dying, they are often willing to take it. 

You can look up a list of all the studies being done in the US and other countries around the world.  People have done it on this board.  It's not hard.  It's not even time consuming.  You can then click on individual studies to see the parameters - numbers in the study, what kind of control group there is, etc.  So "knowing what is going on" is not some secret knowledge only known to the select few. 

If I were diagnosed with CV19 tomorrow I would consult my doctor.  A doctor who reads those studies and has seen what is working globally as well as locally.  We would discuss the options.  I would probably ask his opinion of hcq.  But since studies have shown that hcq doesn't really help after symptoms have developed, then no, I would not be pushing for it.  I would not be pushing to take it now either.  I am taking vitamin d and Quercetin and zinc, which (the Quercetin and zinc part) are supposed to have similar prophylactic properties.  But I'm not going to test it by not masking or social distancing or by encouraging others to be foolish. 

[ktgrok]

24 minutes ago, Liz CA said:

 

This boils down for me to something much more basic though. All of us on this board (unless we have a credentialed epidemiologist here) do not have nearly enough knowledge of what is going on. People are googling and reading a few articles and think themselves experts on the subject. This is not just the case with CV19 but is an internet phenomenon in general. I don't care to discredit any doctors, don't know them and this is not what this is about for me.

My question is this (maybe this would be better in poll format):

If you were diagnosed with CV19 tomorrow and by next week it looked like you were not doing too well would you try something that has been on the market for a while but is usually rx'd for specific symptoms if it may help you but nobody is sure? Many people participate in clinical trials (other than CV19) and substances / combos of substances are tried to see what works. I think I would agree to take this if my immune system was not fighting it off. Nobody seems to know for sure what effect if may have, if the effects depend on other variable and are therefore individual? Point is that when people think they are dying, they are often willing to take it. 

You seem unable to grasp the basic differences between a discussion about HCQ and how/if/when it works and a discussion about this video. They are two separate things. 

As I've said MANY TIMES in this thread, and so have others, we have had tons of discussions about HCQ. Some here would want to take it at early stages, some wouldn't. Would I take it if very sick and not recovering? No, because it is pretty clear, even by proponents of the drug, that it does more harm than good in late stages. But that has NOTHING to do with this video. 

If discussing the drug, we need to discuss the studies. This video adds ZERO information to that discussion. It presents no evidence for us to even discuss. 

[Pawz4me]

32 minutes ago, Liz CA said:

If you were diagnosed with CV19 tomorrow and by next week it looked like you were not doing too well would you try something that has been on the market for a while but is usually rx'd for specific symptoms if it may help you but nobody is sure? Many people participate in clinical trials (other than CV19) and substances / combos of substances are tried to see what works. I think I would agree to take this if my immune system was not fighting it off. Nobody seems to know for sure what effect if may have, if the effects depend on other variable and are therefore individual? Point is that when people think they are dying, they are often willing to take it. 

Goodness no, I would not want to be given HCQ in that circumstance. As the others have pointed out, none of the studies have shown that HCQ is in any way helpful once serious symptoms have developed. Why would I waste precious time taking a drug that hasn't proven to be helpful?

If I were diagnosed tomorrow I would (obviously, I hope) discuss it with my PCP and I would likely defer to her advice. I would think that Remdesivir, if it's available, would be the logical choice of medications early on, since AFAIK the studies have shown that it's at least somewhat effective. If I were worse off then it sure looks like dexamethasone is the way to go. But again--I don't think I know more than medical professionals, and in all likelihood I would defer to professional advice.

One of my fears about HCQ, other than this current stupidity making it hard for those who really need it to get it, is that laypeople may latch onto it in exactly the scenario you describe, and want to take it when another drug(s) would likely be more effective.

[ktgrok]

1 minute ago, Pawz4me said:

 

One of my fears about HCQ, other than this current stupidity making it hard for those who really need it to get it, is that laypeople may latch onto it in exactly the scenario you describe, and want to take it when another drug(s) would likely be more effective.

This already happened in my state, and a teenager died because of it. 

[ktgrok]

@Liz CA, here is another way to look at it. 

If as you state, none of us here are qualified to read and understand the studies (which I disagree with, but lets go with that), then we are left with expert opinion. Different doctors say different things, so we have to decide which ones to trust. More than one doctor in that video has been misleading or outright dishonest about their qualifications, and made false or misleading statements about the drug and its availability. 

So WHY would I trust those doctors to listen to? 

[katilac]

48 minutes ago, Liz CA said:

I don't care to discredit any doctors, don't know them and this is not what this is about for me.

No one is discrediting these doctors. They are doing a fine job of that themselves. 

[Frances]

1 hour ago, Liz CA said:

 

This boils down for me to something much more basic though. All of us on this board (unless we have a credentialed epidemiologist here) do not have nearly enough knowledge of what is going on. People are googling and reading a few articles and think themselves experts on the subject. This is not just the case with CV19 but is an internet phenomenon in general. I don't care to discredit any doctors, don't know them and this is not what this is about for me.

My question is this (maybe this would be better in poll format):

If you were diagnosed with CV19 tomorrow and by next week it looked like you were not doing too well would you try something that has been on the market for a while but is usually rx'd for specific symptoms if it may help you but nobody is sure? Many people participate in clinical trials (other than CV19) and substances / combos of substances are tried to see what works. I think I would agree to take this if my immune system was not fighting it off. Nobody seems to know for sure what effect if may have, if the effects depend on other variable and are therefore individual? Point is that when people think they are dying, they are often willing to take it. 

I think you are underestimating the level of education, experience, and knowledge on this board. I don’t want to go into specifics due to confidentiality, but between us, my husband and I have three advanced degree, including two doctorates. Working together we could develop drugs, run clinical trials, teach about the science underlying drug development and use, dispense drugs (including in a hospital with Covid-19  patients), and perform the statistical analysis of the data from any research study. I can’t even begin to tell you how disheartening it has been to read much of this thread. I don’t do any other social media, so I know it’s way worse out there. But am I still very disillusioned by what I’ve seen on many of the Covid-19 threads on these boards.

[Liz CA]

49 minutes ago, Ktgrok said:

@Liz CA, here is another way to look at it. 

If as you state, none of us here are qualified to read and understand the studies (which I disagree with, but lets go with that), then we are left with expert opinion. Different doctors say different things, so we have to decide which ones to trust. More than one doctor in that video has been misleading or outright dishonest about their qualifications, and made false or misleading statements about the drug and its availability. 

So WHY would I trust those doctors to listen to? 

 

So I realize I am actually veering off Kids Happen's OP and question since she asked specifically about this video and my thought process was going in the direction of "why is anyone caring about a handful of doctors claiming this medication works when we have have people dying and we have nothing curative to offer other than palliative care and this substance has been around for decades and appears to have relatively few concomitant symptoms?" The question for me is not really "should I trust these Frontline Doctors (I think that is what they call themselves)  but had I not recovered on my own, would I have taken this substance if offered? I think I would have. Of course, you and others may feel differently about it which is the interesting and thought-stimulating part of a good debate.

Katie,  I do believe most of us are not qualified to present something as absolute fact when scientists are still struggling to figure it out. This sentiment is the direct result of my impression that even MDs with expertise in the field of viral infections cannot say much with certainty and this is still very much a situation of "we are flying the plane while we are building it." This quote came from one of the docs early on - maybe Fauci but I can't remember now. Oh, and you are 100% correct that I have not read all replies or all threads on CV19 as I am working in the broader health care field (not CV19 related) but we are impacted by it and it's a lot of overtime right now with little extra time for anything else other than on weekends.

[Liz CA]

12 minutes ago, Frances said:

I think you are underestimating the level of education, experience, and knowledge on this board. I don’t want to go into specifics due to confidentiality, but between us, my husband and I have three advanced degree, including two doctorates. Working together we could develop drugs, run clinical trials, teach about the science underlying drug development and use, dispense drugs (including in a hospital with Covid-19  patients), and perform the statistical analysis of the data from any research study. I can’t even begin to tell you how disheartening it has been to read much of this thread. I don’t do any other social media, so I know it’s way worse out there. But am I still very disillusioned by what I’ve seen on many of the Covid-19 threads on these boards.

 

I am glad you mentioned this. So you are one of the people here who are qualified to speak on this. I will look for more posts by you. I do think though a good portion of posters don't have your credentials because it seems "everyone became an expert in viral infections" as soon as CV19 hit us.

[Jean in Newcastle]

1 minute ago, Liz CA said:

 

So I realize I am actually veering off Kids Happen's OP and question since she asked specifically about this video and my thought process was going in the direction of "why is anyone caring about a handful of doctors claiming this medication works when we have have people dying and we have nothing curative to offer other than palliative care and this substance has been around for decades and appears to have relatively few concomitant symptoms?" The question for me is not really "should I trust these Frontline Doctors (I think that is what they call themselves)  but had I not recovered on my own, would I have taken this substance if offered? I think I would have. Of course, you and others may feel differently about it which is the interesting and thought-stimulating part of a good debate.

Katie,  I do believe most of us are not qualified to present something as absolute fact when scientists are still struggling to figure it out. This sentiment is the direct result of my impression that even MDs with expertise in the field of viral infections cannot say much with certainty and this is still very much a situation of "we are flying the plane while we are building it." This quote came from one of the docs early on - maybe Fauci but I can't remember now. Oh, and you are 100% correct that I have not read all replies or all threads on CV19 as I am working in the broader health care field (not CV19 related) but we are impacted by it and it's a lot of overtime right now with little extra time for anything else other than on weekends.

But it isn't a dichotomy between hcq and palliative care.  Even a cursory look at the news will tell you that there are other treatments out there - steroids and Remdesivir being the two things that immediately pop to mind.  There are also trials of Ivermectin.  And something to do with plasma though I admit that I don't know much about that and whether it's a reasonable treatment or not. 

[Liz CA]

1 hour ago, Pawz4me said:

Goodness no, I would not want to be given HCQ in that circumstance. As the others have pointed out, none of the studies have shown that HCQ is in any way helpful once serious symptoms have developed. Why would I waste precious time taking a drug that hasn't proven to be helpful?

If I were diagnosed tomorrow I would (obviously, I hope) discuss it with my PCP and I would likely defer to her advice. I would think that Remdesivir, if it's available, would be the logical choice of medications early on, since AFAIK the studies have shown that it's at least somewhat effective. If I were worse off then it sure looks like dexamethasone is the way to go. But again--I don't think I know more than medical professionals, and in all likelihood I would defer to professional advice.

One of my fears about HCQ, other than this current stupidity making it hard for those who really need it to get it, is that laypeople may latch onto it in exactly the scenario you describe, and want to take it when another drug(s) would likely be more effective.

 

This is a good point. As people in general we tend to leave some reasoning ability behind when panic overwhelms us and I can totally see "a run" on HCQ were it available OTC and this could obviously have lots of undesired consequences.

I am not familiar with the meds you mentioned (have not read any credible studies on it, haven't had the time to hunt them down) but am glad to hear that there seems to be some other options as well.

Edited August 1, 2020 by Liz CA

[Liz CA]

5 minutes ago, Jean in Newcastle said:

But it isn't a dichotomy between hcq and palliative care.  Even a cursory look at the news will tell you that there are other treatments out there - steroids and Remdesivir being the two things that immediately pop to mind.  There are also trials of Ivermectin.  And something to do with plasma though I admit that I don't know much about that and whether it's a reasonable treatment or not. 

 

Perhaps not a dichotomy, no. And it's interesting that we are looking at Ivermectin. I have not had time to research Remdesivir to the degree that I can competently comment on it but it's encouraging at least. My thought was just that I would be willing to try something that has been on the market for decades even if we don't know yet how effective it is when my choices are very narrow.

[Liz CA]

9 minutes ago, square_25 said:

Well, I’m absolutely not a doctor but I am very qualified to speak on statistics.

 

Yes, I distinctly had the impression you were the stats person - wasn't it you who started the scientific thread and evaluated stats as numbers became available?

[katilac]

4 minutes ago, Liz CA said:

 

So I realize I am actually veering off Kids Happen's OP and question since she asked specifically about this video and my thought process was going in the direction of "why is anyone caring about a handful of doctors claiming this medication works when we have have people dying and we have nothing curative to offer other than palliative care and this substance has been around for decades and appears to have relatively few concomitant symptoms?" The question for me is not really "should I trust these Frontline Doctors (I think that is what they call themselves)  but had I not recovered on my own, would I have taken this substance if offered? I think I would have. Of course, you and others may feel differently about it which is the interesting and thought-stimulating part of a good debate.

Katie,  I do believe most of us are not qualified to present something as absolute fact when scientists are still struggling to figure it out. This sentiment is the direct result of my impression that even MDs with expertise in the field of viral infections cannot say much with certainty and this is still very much a situation of "we are flying the plane while we are building it." This quote came from one of the docs early on - maybe Fauci but I can't remember now. Oh, and you are 100% correct that I have not read all replies or all threads on CV19 as I am working in the broader health care field (not CV19 related) but we are impacted by it and it's a lot of overtime right now with little extra time for anything else other than on weekends.

we have nothing curative <<<  This is incorrect; there are medicines that have shown to be, thus far, more effective than hcq, and of course doctors and researchers are constantly searching for me. 

What do you think posters are trying to present as absolute fact? It is an absolute fact that hcq had been both tried and trialed, and the current consensus is that it does not work as well as other options. It is an absolute fact that numerous additional trials are ongoing. Of course doctors and scientists are still struggling to figure out covid, but they have not ignored hcq and continue to study it.  

I absolutely do not understand how the credibility of doctors should not come into play when making medical decisions. 

Even those who strongly support hcq state that it works when given in the early stages of illness, not as a Hail Mary when severely sick, so I don't think 'would I take this if unable to recover' is actually a relevant question. For the record, no, I would not.