aggie-beta said:

---

I am watching Dr Oz right now and he interviewed this rheumatologist from California that says the eye problems with hydroxychloroquine don't usually happen until 10 years of use and that is only in 1% of patients. He said the heart issues are possible for HCQ but that was an issue when HCQ was prescribed at much higher doses in the 1950s and 1960s. He doesn't think it will be an issue at the dose doctors are using with Covid 19.

---

https://detroit.cbslocal.com/video/4505709-dr-oz-asks-rheumatologist-dr-daniel-wallace-if-any-of-his-patients-with-lupus-have-contracted-covid-19/

The lupus thing is very interesting, and I sure as hell hope it's true as I have a family member who takes it for an immune system disease.

If my family member is an indication though those people are being incredibly careful right now.

There are some studies involving healthcare workers for HCL as a prophylactic. I hope they find that it works.

Chinese docs having been using it as prophylaxis for months now

this was the OG mention of the drug

I hope that man is still alive.

https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2020/04/give_hydroxychloroquine_a_chance.html

Good read.

"They all did well," Tsamasfyros said in an interview. "They seemed to reverse their symptoms in a day or two."

https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2020/04/07/denver-doctor-hydroxychloroquine-and-antibiotic-successfully-treated-coronavirus-patients/

Another great report by a doctor using Hydroxychloroquine and Zpac.

DELETE

Please post your facts on that. Many Dr. are in record saying the side effects for a 5-10 day does are tiny to non existent.

I think what it boils down to is bias. Recognizing that physicians might have bias when deciding who and how to treat. If I only see relatively healthy, mildly symptomatic people and treat them with hcq then most if not all of them are going to recover anyway. Yet to me, it looks like my treatment was responsible for their recovery. Maybe it was, maybe it wasn't. Who knows? One side reports it as solid fact that it works, the other side says that it can't work at all and Trump is pushing it because of a monetary interest in a drug company. In my experience when some clinicians are finding success and some aren't the truth is somewhere in the middle.

Which facts? I didn't state I had facts. This drug hasn't been studied in this disease yet so no one knows the safety. Some basic medical knowledge should at least prompt someone to think there could be a different risk profile between the two diseases.

Unless you're asking me to post information on Covid associated myocarditis and myocardial ischemia. I can do that if you like.

Expertise can be a tricky thing; it causes some human beings to avoid leadership. Instead of taking action in the face of uncertainty and take a risk being wrong (which would undercut their 'expertise'), they choose to wait for perfect information. This is almost always the right call. But in war and pandemics, leaders emerge which happen to advance the expertise as well.

This has been a fascinating thing to watch.

I look at this situation like I look at our military in 1940 vs 1944.

Until it hits the fan it was all ceremony and manuals and that's Fine in that context, prepare as best you can. When you are in the middle of it you have to find a way to take ground level (potentially anecdotal) and begin to make decisions on implementing on those lessons learned and communicating them which eventually turns into doctrine.

That's how I view this debate. Is it technically anecdotal? Yes because the normal procedures of defining non anecdotal outcomes hasn't been followed.

On the ground many doctors are seeing results, yes it could be really anecdotal but as each doctor shows positive outcomes (and they weigh risks every day) the word spreads.

It is absolutely politicized, We all have opinions on how this has been handled by the President but the moment he trumpets it those that suooort him pick up that banner and those that oppose him shoot it down. Media picks up on this conflict and seeks to drive clicks.

If one of the docs on this thread fighting this mother f'er says something looks promising it means a hell of a lot more than an exec doctor espousing system scale policy.


Those policy folks can't let up on the fear because the only thing keeping people at home is fear imo. I believe in social distancing but it comes at massive cost and if we don't flatten this thing out the economic and societal chaos will make 1930 look trivial.

It looks promising and if me or mine needed it I'd support it being used. I'm not overly concerned about the side effects because this is a decades old drug used in hundreds of countries. Are their risks? Yes, but they're known.

Keep studying but we have to find a way to ingest what these front line docs are seeing and doing with all treatments and using their hard won knowledge to go beyond anecdotal.

This is very true. And in this pandemic I've seen many, many people answer the call to action. Patients are being treated with many different drugs and in many different ways without anyone really knowing what the best course of action is. Healthcare workers, grocery store workers, police, and other essential workers are putting themselves at risk. The best example is President Trump shut down most of the country without knowing for certain it was the best thing to do but he made the tough call anyway.

That's what's happening. It's being used all over the world already AND it's being studied to determine the best way to use it. Both things are happening at once and I don't know anyone who's saying not to use it at all until the results of the studies are known.

Not sure, just thought it was relevant for discussion, they were either using it because they thought it was the better option or because supply was short on the other. But if this result is replicated, it limits options.

I may have missed it during these discussions, but I'm not sure I've read about Chloroquine being used in the US. Certainly not widely. Docs here seem to be using HCQ specifically because of less severe side effects.

My uncle remains on a vent after receiving this treatment. It wasn't given until after he had been on the vent for some time. Hopefully, when this is all over, his data can be used for analysis.

benchmark said:

---

My uncle remains on a vent after receiving this treatment. It wasn't given until after he had been on the vent for some time. Hopefully, when this is all over, his data can be used for analysis.

---

Very sorry to hear that

If there is any benefit, much of it is likely lost that far into the disease process. Has he received any other therapies?

Infection_Ag11 said:

---

littledude said:

---

That's what's happening. It's being used all over the world already AND it's being studied to determine the best way to use it. Both things are happening at once and I don't know anyone who's saying not to use it at all until the results of the studies are known.

---

Correct

I'm using it in 70-80% of the inpatient COVID patients I see, while simultaneously having serious doubts about overall efficacy and acknowledging what I'm doing is not evidence based.

---

1) How many patients is that?
2) What stage of the virus were they in? Early, late?
3) What was your treatment?
Hydro, Az, ZN?
4) Results?