Isn't this how we got here in the first place?!RGV AG said:
It is really frustrating when these threads devolve, as most seem apt to do, into arguing, dick measuring, and preaching. On my end I really appreciate the contributions of the Doc's on here, proffering their opinions and insight. I can honestly say that the combination of Doc's on here and other health care scientists have provided me with more lucid, from my stand point, information that I have gotten from speaking personally with a few docs that I know personally.
At the same time, given the current crisis, uncertainty, and ignorance (not meant in a deragotary manner) about this virus I can't help but think all individuals, of age of consent, should be allowed to pursue the course of action they think best if it doesn't infringe on others nor harm others.
In American society, where Physicians are held in very high esteem, the populace has come to take them as almost infallible and many Physicians gladly grab on to that mantra. I see this quite a bit in the situation we are in now. People in general look for validation, and one way to have that is via "group think". Those feelings and desires need to go out the window right now. If a Doc doesn't believe in Hydrox.Clor. then he/she shouldn't offer it, if the patient wants it real bad he should have the right to get it under his/her personal responsibility. That is what should happen. In the US, it won't be that way and that is going to cause some recriminations when this all plays out. Equally, if Doc's want to prescribe it, they should be empowered to do so.
On a personal level I know dozens, no inflated number, of folks out of the US that are taking it. A friend of mine that lives in a remote jungle area in Central America has been taking it for years, he relates no issues other than really weird sleep patterns and dreams. He takes it on his own. Maybe it has helped him with Malaria and other things, who knows, but he continues taking it.
At this point in time if eye of newt, bat wing, and simple syrup helped the general population have some confidence (not saying take the place of precautions) I think it would serve the world well for competent adults to be able to have access to anything that might offer hope.
Hydroxychloroquine...........
324,492 Views |
1854 Replies |
Last: 9 mo ago by Jabin
Infection Ag and others.
In regards to a 2005 statement somewhere within the NIH that HCQ worked for the initial SARS, what is the repudiation of that? I don't have the same access to medical studies that you do.
I appreciate the discussion and look forward to reading more. As someone on the sidelines who reads the opinions of researchers and treating physicians, I get frustrated with the political agenda on HCQ, but it's forcing people to study it more thoroughly.
OTOH, we are wasting time when other treatments could be more beneficial. I thought I read from Infection Ag another low profile, low cost medication was being ignored. What drug is that?
In regards to a 2005 statement somewhere within the NIH that HCQ worked for the initial SARS, what is the repudiation of that? I don't have the same access to medical studies that you do.
I appreciate the discussion and look forward to reading more. As someone on the sidelines who reads the opinions of researchers and treating physicians, I get frustrated with the political agenda on HCQ, but it's forcing people to study it more thoroughly.
OTOH, we are wasting time when other treatments could be more beneficial. I thought I read from Infection Ag another low profile, low cost medication was being ignored. What drug is that?
Doctors shouldn't be presenting themselves as scientists. I don't get to call myself a medical doctor. Doctors aren't out there writing or reading the literature; they're too busy treating patients. And for those doctors who do research, it's very specific to their trial studies (e.g. a very specific surgical approach).
Doctors follow the script that science hands them. Sometimes the science is bad; sometimes it's good. Some of them like to try new things; some of them are scared to. They're just people. They combine their training, experience, anecdotal evidence, some combination of current best practices, and educated guesses to treat patients.
In my opinion, the best ones are brilliant, honest, open-minded, hard-working, know what they do and don't know, and listen to their patients. Good scientists have those qualities too, but they listen to their experiments instead of patients.
Doctors follow the script that science hands them. Sometimes the science is bad; sometimes it's good. Some of them like to try new things; some of them are scared to. They're just people. They combine their training, experience, anecdotal evidence, some combination of current best practices, and educated guesses to treat patients.
In my opinion, the best ones are brilliant, honest, open-minded, hard-working, know what they do and don't know, and listen to their patients. Good scientists have those qualities too, but they listen to their experiments instead of patients.
Holy smokes. Where (who) have you been?Derrida said:
Infection Ag and others.
In regards to a 2005 statement somewhere within the NIH that HCQ worked for the initial SARS, what is the repudiation of that? I don't have the same access to medical studies that you do.
I appreciate the discussion and look forward to reading more. As someone on the sidelines who reads the opinions of researchers and treating physicians, I get frustrated with the political agenda on HCQ, but it's forcing people to study it more thoroughly.
OTOH, we are wasting time when other treatments could be more beneficial. I thought I read from Infection Ag another low profile, low cost medication was being ignored. What drug is that?
I know it might be buried in fifty pages of commentary but I read the last few pages and was impressed with Infection Ag's commentary and explanation.
The key to showing someone knows their information is being able to break it down to the simplest parts, and Infection Ag has been able to do that.
I bet Infection Ag can explain why Class IV viruses, coronaviruses don't have the same behaviors as Class V viruses, i.e., flu viruses.
The key to showing someone knows their information is being able to break it down to the simplest parts, and Infection Ag has been able to do that.
I bet Infection Ag can explain why Class IV viruses, coronaviruses don't have the same behaviors as Class V viruses, i.e., flu viruses.
How have you been? It's been a long while, 94.
Doctors are much better suited for interpreting medical research as compared to almost everyone on this thread and definitely moreso than politically slanted journalists.Quote:
Doctors shouldn't be presenting themselves as scientists.
and this statement seems rather off . . .
Are you saying Doctors should outsource their thinking to patients rather than rely on actual medical research? Seems kind of insane actually. I remember when we used to host Chinese programmers and one of the nice young woman had complications with her pregnancy. She kicked up a massive fuss at Rhino Horn powder was not an option at the hospital. Should those docs have "listened to the patient"?Quote:
In my opinion, the best ones are brilliant, honest, open-minded, hard-working, know what they do and don't know, and listen to their patients. Good scientists have those qualities too, but they listen to their experiments instead of patients.
Even physicians who worry about demon sperm?
Dr. Stella has thousands of patients! She listens to them.
Derrida said:
In regards to a 2005 statement somewhere within the NIH that HCQ worked for the initial SARS, what is the repudiation of that? I don't have the same access to medical studies that you do.
It was based on a single study published in 2005 which involved the use of chloroquine on primate cells to demonstrate in vitro activity against SARS. They took monkey cells in a Petri dish, pretreated them with chloroquine in increasingly large concentrations and then exposed them to SARS.
I discussed it more in depth above, but in summary:
Chloroquine =/ hydroxychloroquine
SARS-CoV =/ SARS-CoV2
In vitro =/ In vivo
African green monkey cells =/ Human cells
Cellular effect =/ Clinical efficacy
The quality in vivo studies of the drug in question on the disease in question have no shown clinical efficacy. Moreover, the involved mechanisms in the 2005 study had nothing to do with zinc.
No material on this site is intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment. See full Medical Disclaimer.
Thanks for the help. I have one person who has shown me this list of 65 "peer-reviewed" articles to say the majority of studies show HCQ has a net positive impact.Infection_Ag11 said:Derrida said:
In regards to a 2005 statement somewhere within the NIH that HCQ worked for the initial SARS, what is the repudiation of that? I don't have the same access to medical studies that you do.
It was based on a single study published in 2005 which involved the use of chloroquine on primate cells to demonstrate in vitro activity against SARS. They took monkey cells in a Petri dish, pretreated them with chloroquine in increasingly large concentrations and then exposed them to SARS.
I discussed it more in depth above, but in summary:
Chloroquine =/ hydroxychloroquine
SARS-CoV =/ SARS-CoV2
In vitro =/ In vivo
African green monkey cells =/ Human cells
Cellular effect =/ Clinical efficacy
The quality in vivo studies of the drug in question on the disease in question have no shown clinical efficacy
I don't believe that's the sum and substance of most research but wondered where the HCQ advocates come up with this stuff.
https://c19study.com/?fbclid=IwAR3-LAFABb7ctCS9QfOCf8UIjM-cf3PCSs2nYXGXmDHdzq1HseawctUTRt4
Windy City Ag said:
Dr. Stella has thousands of patients! She listens to them.
She's a Cameroonian witch doctor, conspiracy theorist and is the pastor of a denomination most mainstream Christians here would regard as a cult.
No material on this site is intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment. See full Medical Disclaimer.
94chem said:
Doctors shouldn't be presenting themselves as scientists.
Many of us have masters degrees and PhDs in basic science fields with extensive research backgrounds in those fields. Still more are, literally, physician scientists who spend the vast majority of their time in the lab. And most physicians in academic medicine have a relatively robust research career, regardless of their status as a physician scientist or not.
Quote:
Doctors aren't out there writing or reading the literature; they're too busy treating patients.
This is as false as a statement can be. I don't even know where to begin because it's so absurd.
No material on this site is intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment. See full Medical Disclaimer.
Quote:
Doctors aren't out there writing or reading the literature; they're too busy treating patients.
It is a requirement that all physicians partake in research prior completion of residency. Most medical students graduating today have several publications to their name. Who do you think is writing "the literature"? Reading medical literature is actually a requirement for most specialty maintenance of certification. I read medical literature almost daily, as should most physicians who want to keep up to date on practice changes. If you have a doctor that isn't reading the literature, you need to find a new doctor.
No material on this site is intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment. See full Medical Disclaimer.
Continuing Medical Education is a requirement (at least where my wife works) and she's constantly reading literature, going to conferences, etc.
The internet warriors are starting to tell our doctors how they do their jobs. Amazing!
Quit holding back!Infection_Ag11 said:Windy City Ag said:
Dr. Stella has thousands of patients! She listens to them.
She's a Cameroonian witch doctor, conspiracy theorist and is the pastor of a denomination most mainstream Christians here would regard as a cult.
I have been having a discussion with various persons regarding a non-virologist, non-immunologist and non-physician or infectious disease researcher's ability to "research" the evidence.goodAg80 said:
The internet warriors are starting to tell our doctors how they do their jobs. Amazing!
Here is a great article that discusses the phenomenon.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2020/07/30/you-must-not-do-your-own-research-when-it-comes-to-science/?subId3=xid%3Afr1596421025586hea&fbclid=IwAR1sJrjDAF3JrsFiidKHviA4_zbt1-GDwk36qd1u1Ne17Oilr5UpTVc-cnc#34d516e9535e
I have come to the conclusion that a non-expert has the ability to become informed as to some of the arguments, but rarely understands the what, how and why in order to find the holes in studies and arguments. I know my biochemistry is inadequate to challenge theories and I have no classes or research in virology or vaccinology.
I can review and become informed about some of the arguments but I can't "research" the science.
It is frustrating for someone such as myself who is empirically minded to see contrarians use social media to confound the work of good researchers and treating physicians.
Although a physician may be able to read and to understand the research, it will depend upon that physician's area of expertise and training to see how useful it is as I understand it.
Thanks for all of you helping us lay persons understand the research better.
Come on, let loose!Infection_Ag11 said:Quote:
Doctors aren't out there writing or reading the literature; they're too busy treating patients.
This is as false as a statement can be. I don't even know where to begin because it's so absurd.
Doctors in family, always reading medical literature. Never seen them without...
I appreciate all of the time that you spend on this board letting us know your perspective. It must be getting harder and harder to keep doing so, with the head winds that you are facing. Keep it up. Thanks!
To be fair to what 94Chem said, there are a decent number of docs out there that do the bare minimum CME and reading. They don't know how to critically appraise evidence and research and typically wait until UpToDate tells them what to do, and they do it algorithmically, without critical thinking. They would hardly qualify as scientists.
Most of these doctors tend to be the urgent care, doc in the box, type places where they're highly concerned about keeping a steady stream of happy patients coming in that'll keep paying. Doesn't matter if the evidence says they shouldn't get that prescription, they patient is paying, and that's really what matters. These are also the people that likely jumped on the HCQ bandwagon early on, writing prescriptions for themselves and family without bothering to look at any evidence. But to be honest, I'm not sure I'd trust their ability to understand the evidence if they even tried. I also think they're the reason medical curriculum has increased its content of biostats and classes on understanding research.
Most of these doctors tend to be the urgent care, doc in the box, type places where they're highly concerned about keeping a steady stream of happy patients coming in that'll keep paying. Doesn't matter if the evidence says they shouldn't get that prescription, they patient is paying, and that's really what matters. These are also the people that likely jumped on the HCQ bandwagon early on, writing prescriptions for themselves and family without bothering to look at any evidence. But to be honest, I'm not sure I'd trust their ability to understand the evidence if they even tried. I also think they're the reason medical curriculum has increased its content of biostats and classes on understanding research.
Dunning-Kruger
Some of the extra research has been really nice. However, there are a few who do research to promote their preconceived opinions. That is less interesting, but tolerable. But attacking the doctors, so you can "win" the argument shouldn't be happening.Derrida said:I have been having a discussion with various persons regarding a non-virologist, non-immunologist and non-physician or infectious disease researcher's ability to "research" the evidence.goodAg80 said:
The internet warriors are starting to tell our doctors how they do their jobs. Amazing!
Here is a great article that discusses the phenomenon.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2020/07/30/you-must-not-do-your-own-research-when-it-comes-to-science/?subId3=xid%3Afr1596421025586hea&fbclid=IwAR1sJrjDAF3JrsFiidKHviA4_zbt1-GDwk36qd1u1Ne17Oilr5UpTVc-cnc#34d516e9535e
I have come to the conclusion that a non-expert has the ability to become informed as to some of the arguments, but rarely understands the what, how and why in order to find the holes in studies and arguments. I know my biochemistry is inadequate to challenge theories and I have no classes or research in virology or vaccinology.
I can review and become informed about some of the arguments but I can't "research" the science.
It is frustrating for someone such as myself who is empirically minded to see contrarians use social media to confound the work of good researchers and treating physicians.
Although a physician may be able to read and to understand the research, it will depend upon that physician's area of expertise and training to see how useful it is as I understand it.
Thanks for all of you helping us lay persons understand the research better.
If you are saying not every practicing physician is a great researcher or reader of research you are correct.Dr. Not Yet Dr. Ag said:Quote:
Doctors aren't out there writing or reading the literature; they're too busy treating patients.
It is a requirement that all physicians partake in research prior completion of residency. Most medical students graduating today have several publications to their name. Who do you think is writing "the literature"? Reading medical literature is actually a requirement for most specialty maintenance of certification. I read medical literature almost daily, as should most physicians who want to keep up to date on practice changes. If you have a doctor that isn't reading the literature, you need to find a new doctor.
It's analogous to say not every practicing attorney has a great knowledge of the newest ConLaw cases. Unless those cases are relevant to his or her practice of law, many are ignorant of the new laws or even the theories advanced by that area of the law. Very few attorneys understand the intricacies of patent law for example, but that doesn't mean they couldn't learn it, they just don't.
Derrida said:I have been having a discussion with various persons regarding a non-virologist, non-immunologist and non-physician or infectious disease researcher's ability to "research" the evidence.goodAg80 said:
The internet warriors are starting to tell our doctors how they do their jobs. Amazing!
Here is a great article that discusses the phenomenon.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2020/07/30/you-must-not-do-your-own-research-when-it-comes-to-science/?subId3=xid%3Afr1596421025586hea&fbclid=IwAR1sJrjDAF3JrsFiidKHviA4_zbt1-GDwk36qd1u1Ne17Oilr5UpTVc-cnc#34d516e9535e
I have come to the conclusion that a non-expert has the ability to become informed as to some of the arguments, but rarely understands the what, how and why in order to find the holes in studies and arguments. I know my biochemistry is inadequate to challenge theories and I have no classes or research in virology or vaccinology.
I can review and become informed about some of the arguments but I can't "research" the science.
It is frustrating for someone such as myself who is empirically minded to see contrarians use social media to confound the work of good researchers and treating physicians.
Although a physician may be able to read and to understand the research, it will depend upon that physician's area of expertise and training to see how useful it is as I understand it.
Thanks for all of you helping us lay persons understand the research better.
It's just a manifestation of the Dunning-Kruger effect. The less one knows about a given topic, the less they can comprehend how little they know (and that there is to know) and this end up vastly overestimating their ability to understand the topic.
We all have to fight this as we all tend to be guilty of it in some walk of life.
No material on this site is intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment. See full Medical Disclaimer.
Thank you all the same. I am trying to be better, but as I examine the vastness of knowledge needed to understand the universe of viruses, I see how little I know about biochemistry, physiology and immunology.Infection_Ag11 said:Derrida said:I have been having a discussion with various persons regarding a non-virologist, non-immunologist and non-physician or infectious disease researcher's ability to "research" the evidence.goodAg80 said:
The internet warriors are starting to tell our doctors how they do their jobs. Amazing!
Here is a great article that discusses the phenomenon.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2020/07/30/you-must-not-do-your-own-research-when-it-comes-to-science/?subId3=xid%3Afr1596421025586hea&fbclid=IwAR1sJrjDAF3JrsFiidKHviA4_zbt1-GDwk36qd1u1Ne17Oilr5UpTVc-cnc#34d516e9535e
I have come to the conclusion that a non-expert has the ability to become informed as to some of the arguments, but rarely understands the what, how and why in order to find the holes in studies and arguments. I know my biochemistry is inadequate to challenge theories and I have no classes or research in virology or vaccinology.
I can review and become informed about some of the arguments but I can't "research" the science.
It is frustrating for someone such as myself who is empirically minded to see contrarians use social media to confound the work of good researchers and treating physicians.
Although a physician may be able to read and to understand the research, it will depend upon that physician's area of expertise and training to see how useful it is as I understand it.
Thanks for all of you helping us lay persons understand the research better.
It's just a manifestation of the Dunning-Kruger effect. The less one knows about a given topic, the less they can comprehend how little they know (and that there is to know) and this end up vastly overestimating their ability to understand the topic.
We all have to fight this as we all tend to be guilty of it in some walk of life.
Yes a little bit of knowledge is dangerous because of the certainty and blindness it creates.
Infection_Ag11 said:Windy City Ag said:
Dr. Stella has thousands of patients! She listens to them.
She's a Cameroonian witch doctor, conspiracy theorist and is the pastor of a denomination most mainstream Christians here would regard as a cult.
I've even heard some people believe in some dude that's murdered and put in the grave for a few days then walked out!
Dead people left their graves and walked around town. Geesh!
Then the same dude walks around for a few months, walks thru walls, then last seen with two shiny bright guys zipping up into the sky.
Said he'd some back and rule the world some day.
Alien DNA sounds mild by comparison!
Seriously... just having fun.
Thank you for explaining how placebo controlled studies work. Did not know "standard of care" was a form of placebo. Still somewhat skeptical, but I'll buy what you're saying since I find it hard to believe what I hear and see of these type studies. But one has to admit, what's out there is not very well explained.
Look at all the educating that has been going on here. The misperceptions of what doctors learn in medical school, the misunderstanding of scientific concepts, or basics of medical research.
Everyone should just step back for a minute and think that maybe if they were wrong about one of the above things, that just maybe they should be a little more skeptical of what they read about online before they start thinking doctors don't know what they're talking about. Just maybe.
That being said, doctors are human. And like all humans, anyone can make a mistake.
Everyone should just step back for a minute and think that maybe if they were wrong about one of the above things, that just maybe they should be a little more skeptical of what they read about online before they start thinking doctors don't know what they're talking about. Just maybe.
That being said, doctors are human. And like all humans, anyone can make a mistake.
Guys
Can we get back to arguing over HCQ please!
Can we get back to arguing over HCQ please!
Infection_Ag11 said:Windy City Ag said:
Dr. Stella has thousands of patients! She listens to them.
She's a Cameroonian witch doctor, conspiracy theorist and is the pastor of a denomination most mainstream Christians here would regard as a cult.
But, what about my politics? Would someone please think of my politics?
MY BODY, MY CHOICE! Why do you insist on preventing what I think may be as beneficial as tamiflu. End of the day if it doesn't work, ITS THE SAME ****ING PROTOCOL. Why do you insist on withholding something that has statistical evidence for many? Why do you idiots keep coming back saying its bad when their are equally vocal numbers on the front line saying it works if implemented early enough? What does it hurt? Seriously, sans ZPACK until you present? I was on HCQ for a month in SE Asia, no issues, all I would need to add is Zinc.Infection_Ag11 said:Derrida said:
In regards to a 2005 statement somewhere within the NIH that HCQ worked for the initial SARS, what is the repudiation of that? I don't have the same access to medical studies that you do.
It was based on a single study published in 2005 which involved the use of chloroquine on primate cells to demonstrate in vitro activity against SARS. They took monkey cells in a Petri dish, pretreated them with chloroquine in increasingly large concentrations and then exposed them to SARS.
I discussed it more in depth above, but in summary:
Chloroquine =/ hydroxychloroquine
SARS-CoV =/ SARS-CoV2
In vitro =/ In vivo
African green monkey cells =/ Human cells
Cellular effect =/ Clinical efficacy
The quality in vivo studies of the drug in question on the disease in question have no shown clinical efficacy. Moreover, the involved mechanisms in the 2005 study had nothing to do with zinc.
oldyella said:MY BODY, MY CHOICE! Why do you insist on preventing what I think may be as beneficial as tamiflu. End of the day if it doesn't work, ITS THE SAME ****ING PROTOCOL. Why do you insist on withholding something that has statistical evidence for many? Why do you idiots keep coming back saying its bad when their are equally vocal numbers on the front line saying it works if implemented early enough? What does it hurt? Seriously, sans ZPACK until you present? I was on HCQ for a month in SE Asia, no issues, all I would need to add is Zinc.Infection_Ag11 said:Derrida said:
In regards to a 2005 statement somewhere within the NIH that HCQ worked for the initial SARS, what is the repudiation of that? I don't have the same access to medical studies that you do.
It was based on a single study published in 2005 which involved the use of chloroquine on primate cells to demonstrate in vitro activity against SARS. They took monkey cells in a Petri dish, pretreated them with chloroquine in increasingly large concentrations and then exposed them to SARS.
I discussed it more in depth above, but in summary:
Chloroquine =/ hydroxychloroquine
SARS-CoV =/ SARS-CoV2
In vitro =/ In vivo
African green monkey cells =/ Human cells
Cellular effect =/ Clinical efficacy
The quality in vivo studies of the drug in question on the disease in question have no shown clinical efficacy. Moreover, the involved mechanisms in the 2005 study had nothing to do with zinc.
You're welcome to try it
No material on this site is intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment. See full Medical Disclaimer.
Infection_Ag11 said:Philip J Fry said:
I'll reiterate. 256 trials have been done on HCQ. Only 3 in progress with H/Z/A. As much as I respect Infection's expertise in this, I still contend that if you are going to go through the effort of clinical trials, you should be looking at the entire cocktail.
Refer to my previous post
We don't do trials just to satisfy the curiosity of a select group of people.
Yet we are doing 256 trials of HCQ based on no one suggesting that cocktail is whey should be tried. We have anecdotal evidence that HZA works. Why ignore it? Why not actually test the hypothesis and prove one way or another if it's effective?
When I have symptoms you willing to write the script? I will signoff any negligence. Thing is if it doesn't work, the protocol to follow is the ****ing same. You definitely have an agenda.Infection_Ag11 said:oldyella said:MY BODY, MY CHOICE! Why do you insist on preventing what I think may be as beneficial as tamiflu. End of the day if it doesn't work, ITS THE SAME ****ING PROTOCOL. Why do you insist on withholding something that has statistical evidence for many? Why do you idiots keep coming back saying its bad when their are equally vocal numbers on the front line saying it works if implemented early enough? What does it hurt? Seriously, sans ZPACK until you present? I was on HCQ for a month in SE Asia, no issues, all I would need to add is Zinc.Infection_Ag11 said:Derrida said:
In regards to a 2005 statement somewhere within the NIH that HCQ worked for the initial SARS, what is the repudiation of that? I don't have the same access to medical studies that you do.
It was based on a single study published in 2005 which involved the use of chloroquine on primate cells to demonstrate in vitro activity against SARS. They took monkey cells in a Petri dish, pretreated them with chloroquine in increasingly large concentrations and then exposed them to SARS.
I discussed it more in depth above, but in summary:
Chloroquine =/ hydroxychloroquine
SARS-CoV =/ SARS-CoV2
In vitro =/ In vivo
African green monkey cells =/ Human cells
Cellular effect =/ Clinical efficacy
The quality in vivo studies of the drug in question on the disease in question have no shown clinical efficacy. Moreover, the involved mechanisms in the 2005 study had nothing to do with zinc.
You're welcome to try it
oldyella said:When I have symptoms you willing to write the script? I will signoff any negligence. Thing is if it doesn't work, the protocol to follow is the ****ing same. You definitely have an agenda.Infection_Ag11 said:oldyella said:MY BODY, MY CHOICE! Why do you insist on preventing what I think may be as beneficial as tamiflu. End of the day if it doesn't work, ITS THE SAME ****ING PROTOCOL. Why do you insist on withholding something that has statistical evidence for many? Why do you idiots keep coming back saying its bad when their are equally vocal numbers on the front line saying it works if implemented early enough? What does it hurt? Seriously, sans ZPACK until you present? I was on HCQ for a month in SE Asia, no issues, all I would need to add is Zinc.Infection_Ag11 said:Derrida said:
In regards to a 2005 statement somewhere within the NIH that HCQ worked for the initial SARS, what is the repudiation of that? I don't have the same access to medical studies that you do.
It was based on a single study published in 2005 which involved the use of chloroquine on primate cells to demonstrate in vitro activity against SARS. They took monkey cells in a Petri dish, pretreated them with chloroquine in increasingly large concentrations and then exposed them to SARS.
I discussed it more in depth above, but in summary:
Chloroquine =/ hydroxychloroquine
SARS-CoV =/ SARS-CoV2
In vitro =/ In vivo
African green monkey cells =/ Human cells
Cellular effect =/ Clinical efficacy
The quality in vivo studies of the drug in question on the disease in question have no shown clinical efficacy. Moreover, the involved mechanisms in the 2005 study had nothing to do with zinc.
You're welcome to try it
I'd prefer to give you a pulse oximeter to go home with and give you dexamethasone if you become meaningfully hypoxic.
No material on this site is intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment. See full Medical Disclaimer.
Have a pulse ox and I am an EMT. I check my temperature twice a day and POX once day, or more if I feel "off". I am just curious the staunch anti wing on here when at the end of the day you follow the same protocol? Why not try something for those that can withstand HCQ and zinc? I get science, but even in science statistical evidence plays a role. Why say no to something for over 95% of the world can consume with little to no adverse effects. I get it if you are in the hospital, they are beyond the benefit of HZQ+Zinc, but why be so obtuse to the statistics from other countries. Could they be cooking the books, some definitely, others not so much. For the sake of things, we shutdown the economy on China's numbers. Right move yes because back then we do not have the statistical evidence and the advance therapeutics compared to back then.
Featured Stories
See All
21:36
1d ago
2.3k
No. 13 Aggies dispatch East Texas A&M in Friday's home opener, 87-55
by Olin Buchanan
54:36
1d ago
6.8k
47:49
1d ago
2.4k
5 Thoughts: No. 13 Texas A&M 87, East Texas A&M 55
by Luke Evangelist
99:23
1d ago
2.1k