Covid 19 thread

[snackdaddy]

Curious where some of you posters get your news and information?

What sources, if any, do you trust?

Compared to the cable news networks, this is the one I trust more.

 

[Allen2McVay]

Compared to the cable news networks, this is the one I trust more.

You’re just half kidding, aren’t you?

 

[-X-]

Weird.

 

[OC--LeftCoast]

Weird.

Why? The Doctor asks, and she’s right btw

I think any reasonable person knows why

Its really too freaking bad this is what we’ve become

 

[12intheBox]

can’t resist ....

Weirder yet ... it also can apparently cure cancer now too?


View: https://twitter.com/BusyDrT/status/1291907651912122371?s=20


and I’d use that keen skepticism that so many of you brandish on that “massive international study“ - it has .... drawn a bit of criticism.

 

[XXXIVwin]

Weird.

If HCQ is proven to work, I’d be all for it. Politics are irrelevant.

Gold didn’t provide a link to a study, though. Her source is an unpublished, unverified, anonymous website.

 

[OC--LeftCoast]

can’t resist ....

Weirder yet ... it also can apparently cure cancer now too?


View: https://twitter.com/BusyDrT/status/1291907651912122371?s=20


and I’d use that keen skepticism that so many of you brandish on that “massive international study“ - it has .... drawn a bit of criticism.

Right, so let me get this straight

On one hand certain people bash the USA for being behind the curb to international communities seemingly containing the China virus

On the other hand, we are to disregard the same international community on their studies on a certain drug that for what ever reason in congress, the mere mention of its name triggers those same aforementioned “certain people”

Jeeez, ya can’t make this up

 

[12intheBox]

Right, so let me get this straight

On one hand certain people bash the USA for being behind the curb to international communities seemingly containing the China virus

On the other hand, we are to disregard the same international community on their studies on a certain drug that for what ever reason in congress, the mere mention of its name triggers those same aforementioned “certain people”

Jeeez, ya can’t make this up

international community? There is no international community study. Seriously - take just a small dip in - use any search engine you want - and see what you can find on this “study”. See if you can find a single doctors name who contributed to the study. See if you can identify what they are actually saying their study shows and how they purport to have arrived at that conclusion.

 

[OC--LeftCoast]

international community? There is no international community study. Seriously - take just a small dip in - use any search engine you want - and see what you can find on this “study”. See if you can find a single doctors name who contributed to the study. See if you can identify what they are actually saying their study shows and how they purport to have arrived at that conclusion.

Splitting hairs are we?

I’m thinking you missed my point

You did write “massive international study” dripping with sarcasm

Hence my reply

I realize there is just no getting thru to you, or me on this subject, there’s a lot out there to digest, it’s best to leave it at the ol’ you believe what you want to believe and I’ll do like wise

At this point is all conjecture...on both sides, tho to deny HCQ hasn’t helped many, many patients is probably not a well researched take (Lol, I edited my original comment) OR, you just must think all these Doctors and Patients are lying (there I go again using either/or )

Cheers

 

[XXXIVwin]

Weird.

Gold’s source is hcqtrial.com

Early treatment with hydroxychloroquine: a country-based analysis

A country-based analysis of HCQ use

hcqtrial.com

This is not science.

This is an anonymous website masquerading as science.

It tries to look and sound “science-y.” But it is not science.

There’s no such thing as a “country-randomized trial.” It’s a meaningless term made up by the authors. As is the absurd notion of a “sample size” of 2.7 billion people.

People can look up data on the internet and then give their opinions about it. That’s fine. But it is completely unethical for this anonymous website to present itself as having conducted “scientific research”.

I read the entirety of HCQ trial.com and tried to give it the benefit of the doubt.

But this rebuttal takes a step-by-step analysis to expose the entire study as a sham:

HCQTrial.com: Astroturf and disinformation about hydroxychloroquine and COVID-19 on steroids

Late last week, a "study" published on HCQTrial.com by an anonymous source claiming to be a group of PhD scientists went viral. It claimed that countries that used hydroxychloroquine to treat COVID-19

sciencebasedmedicine.org

I’m all for a debate about “different people listen to different scientists.” But this is different. This hcqtrial website is deliberate misinformation masquerading as a scientific study.

 

[-X-]

can’t resist ....

Weirder yet ... it also can apparently cure cancer now too?

Well, that wasn't the claim in that video. It was how chlorquine reacts to different cells. That may or may not be true, but what's interesting is your response. It goes directly to mockery and an attempt at humiliation. As I dig deeper into this (and honestly, I never really wanted to), I see a metric shit ton of medical doctors across the entirety of the medical spectrum, who are passionate about this subject - many of whom have either directly used it as treatment, or are deep divers into the research. And these aren't dumb people like you and me as it relates to this drug. I'll freely admit I'm dumb when it comes to this. You are too, if you're honest.

What's interesting is the level of push-back. It's absolutely RIFE with the same response as yours. Attacks of character, knowledge, credentials, methodology, etc. Very little in the way of counter-studies (though, there are some). It's just really weird to me how much vitriol is used to counter an argument in the medical community. Maybe it's all God-complexes. I dunno. I just find it odd.

 

[-X-]

But this rebuttal takes a step-by-step analysis to expose the entire study as a sham:

HCQTrial.com: Astroturf and disinformation about hydroxychloroquine and COVID-19 on steroids

Late last week, a "study" published on HCQTrial.com by an anonymous source claiming to be a group of PhD scientists went viral. It claimed that countries that used hydroxychloroquine to treat COVID-19

sciencebasedmedicine.org

The website in question is fake to the core, is what I gather from that. The website in question is extremely voluminous, and the author of the rebuttal has put out a voluminous response of his own (again, rife with ridicule and statements of mockery). The author of that blog also has a twitter account, and it's ... interesting. He's extremely biased against people who are anti-vax, anti-GMO, and members of the republican party. What he's suggesting here (below) is that the GOP wants to kill children by opening up schools in the middle of a pandemic. Now tell me. What science is available that proves kids are (a) dying from this or (b) spreaders of the disease? And further, why does he not call out the CDC and WHO who both are in favor of doing the same?

I’m all for a debate about “different people listen to different scientists.” But this is different. This hcqtrial website is deliberate misinformation masquerading as a scientific study.

Why do you suppose doctors would put out such a vast amount of 'deliberate misinformation' about something from which they stand to gain nothing financially? That's the part that's confusing to me. Why are there so many doctors advocating for something that's (according to others) just complete and utter bullshit?

Lastly, why was it found to be effective in 2005?

Chloroquine is a potent inhibitor of SARS coronavirus infection and spread

Severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) is caused by a newly discovered coronavirus (SARS-CoV). No effective prophylactic or post-exposure therapy is currently available.We report, however, that chloroquine has strong antiviral effects on SARS-CoV infection ...

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

 

[snackdaddy]

Its a shame we've come to this as a society. HCQ became political once the president said it was a good thing. Heck, Ohio banned the sale of it for covid use. Just let the doctors and their patients decide. They are the ones who have the most at stake. This drug has been on the market for over 6 decades. It was considered reasonably safe until it became political.

If I'm about on my last breaths and a doctor says "This drug is our last chance. But Hitler recommended it. Do you want to try it?" I'd say "Is a pig's ass pork? Of course I'll try it."

 

[12intheBox]

Science isn't really about opinions. Its about data and conclusions based on that data. Now can there be variations in the conclusions that different scientists draw from the same set of data? Sure. What isn't generally up for discussion is the methodology for arriving at the data.

There is a protocol that is in place for determining whether a drug works - and it is really very simple - that protocol is taught the same way in every advanced part of the world. This protocol - when applied to HCQ - has shown that HCQ is not effective for COVID-19. Thats not a political spin, its not the lamestream fake news media making things up, that is the science speaking.

It’s time to move on from hydroxychloroquine, scientists say | Science News

Hydroxychloroquine doesn’t work as antiviral or a treatment for COVID-19, an abundance of scientific data suggest.

www.sciencenews.org

HCQ has been studied more than any other potential Covid-19 drug. No one is stifling the research into the drug - its just that it keeps failing the double blind placebo study.

So - why do I care? Its a fair question - I said earlier that I didn't - and probably I shouldn't - so long as the protocols to stop the spread are still being taken seriously, take what makes you happy. But - I do want for people to listen to experts. I do want people to trust experts. I firmly believe that had more people listened to the experts throughout this epidemic that we wouldn't be in as much of a mess as we are in right now.

So - all of these doctors who want to prescribe it - whats in it for them? Attention, certainly. You can guess that there will be some books written, speaking engagements, and media interviews for the brave doctors who raged against the machine.

So, what do we do with the opinion of doctors that are pushing studies that aren't really studies? If we take a critical look at HCQStudy.com - what do we see? Keep in mind that this is the "study" that Dr. Gold is touting as this "Massive international study show[ing] countries that implemented early outpatient treatment with hydroxychloroquine had a 79% lower mortality rate."

If this website is the basis for the opinions of these 'metric ton' of doctors - even in part - then we should be concerned. It doesn't take an advanced degree to see what this study is and what it isn't. Where does that 79% number come from - how did they arrive at the number - who are "they" in the first place? Peek behind the curtain just a bit and see what this is.

And yes, by the way, I stipulate that my knowledge on this subject is no more robust than anyone else - but at a minimum - I am willing to be proven wrong and to listen to the other side of the issue. There are doctors who say this works - lets look at why they say that. When they point to a website like hcqstudy.com - my bullshit detector perks up.

And the reason I brought up the cancer thing is to show how this crap spreads like wildfire. Search HCQ and Cancer on twitter. Metric Truckloads of people who took that tweet and now think that HCQ cures cancer and no wonder the government is trying to keep it down. There are even posts suggesting that intentionally exposing yourself is a reasonable course of action:


View: https://twitter.com/richardursomd/status/1291620577900482560?s=20


In the end, I would love to eat crow on this whole thread. I would love for COVID to just die down - as it has been suggested it will. I would love for HCQ to be a miracle treatment. I would be perfectly fine with having been wrong in order to get some normalcy back to life - to not have to mask up - to be able to party - to have sports - for school to resume normally - for the economy to get on track. But closing my eyes and wishing really hard just isn't an effective way to confront this - it wasn't this spring and it still isn't.

Is there a doctor who is advocating the use of HCQ that you find particularly trustworthy? I'd be willing to read articles - watch videos - etc. Point me to the people who are convincing you guys that this drug works and that the pushback against it is bogus.

 

[-X-]

Is there a doctor who is advocating the use of HCQ that you find particularly trustworthy? I'd be willing to read articles - watch videos - etc. Point me to the people who are convincing you guys that this drug works and that the pushback against it is bogus.

Here’s a letter from the Henry Ford doctors that I think answers most of your questions. With the last paragraph being the most impactful support of my position.

———

On Friday, Fauci said the study, which has been touted by President Donald Trump and other Republicans, contradicts other studies that found the drug does not effectively treat COVID-19.

"That study is a flawed study, and I think anyone who examines it carefully is that it is not a randomized placebo-controlled trial.

"The most well-accepted and definitive method to determine the efficacy of a treatment is a double-blind, randomized clinical trial. However, this type of study takes a long time to design, execute and analyze," the doctors wrote.

You can read the entire letter below.

To our friends and colleagues around the country and globe:

We believe wholeheartedly that a mission statement is more than a plaque we hang on a wall, but rather an idea we embed in our hearts and minds that unifies, empowers and enables us to do what we do every day for the people of our communities.

Our mission is to improve people’s lives through excellence in the science and art of health care and healing. For more than 100 years, we have proudly pioneered clinical and scientific breakthroughs that have advanced health care here and abroad.

As an early hotspot for the COVID-19 pandemic, we have seen and lived its devastating effects alongside our patients and families. Perhaps that’s what makes us even more determined to rally our researchers, frontline care team members and leaders together in boldness, participating in scientific research, including clinical trials, to find the safest care and most effective treatments. While feeling the same sense of urgency everyone else does to recognize a simple, single remedy for COVID-19, we need to be realistic in the time it takes to fully understand the optimal therapy or combination of therapies required of a new virus we are all trying to contain.

The most well-accepted and definitive method to determine the efficacy of a treatment is a double-blind, randomized clinical trial. However, this type of study takes a long time to design, execute and analyze. Therefore, a whole scientific field exists in which scientists examine how a drug is working in the real world to get as best an answer as they can as soon as possible. These types of studies can be done much more rapidly with data that is already available, usually from medical records.

Like all observational research, these studies are very difficult to analyze and can never completely account for the biases inherent in how doctors make different decisions to treat different patients. Furthermore, it is not unusual that results from such studies vary in different populations and at different times, and no one study can ever be considered all by itself.

Our promising Henry Ford treatment study should be considered as another important contribution to the other studies of hydroxychloroquine that describes what the authors found in our patient population. We – along with all doctors and scientists – eagerly support the need for randomized clinical trials.

We also want to point out that scientific debate is a common occurrence with almost every published study. In part, this is what fuels the advancement of knowledge – challenging one another on our assumptions, conclusions and applications to get to a better place for the patients we collectively serve. You can read the original study here and the senior author’s letter to the editor here.

Unfortunately, the political climate that has persisted has made any objective discussion about this drug impossible, and we are deeply saddened by this turn of events. Our goal as scientists has solely been to report validated findings and allow the science to speak for itself, regardless of political considerations. To that end, we have made the heartfelt decision to have no further comment about this outside the medical community – staying focused on our core mission in the interest of our patients, our community, and our commitment to clinical and academic integrity.

Thank you for your support.

Sincerely,

Adnan Munkarah, M.D., Executive Vice President and Chief Clinical Officer

Steven Kalkanis, M.D., Senior Vice President and Chief Academic Officer

 

[-X-]

But closing my eyes and wishing really hard just isn't an effective way to confront this - it wasn't this spring and it still isn't.

No offense (really), but how is it you’ve positioned yourself as the champion of truth in this matter; and yet, have zero experience or qualifications necessary to do so? All you’ve been doing is letting the detractors of this drug speak for you. Honestly, it’s just confirmation bias. Like your wholly invested in proving doctors wrong. Why? Who are you saving? The people who can get this drug and take it on their own? Because that doesn’t happen. If, hypothetically, there was simply ONE doctor in Zimbabwe who used it as an early treatment and saved 10 people with it, then that alone should be enough to let doctors and patients make that decision on their own, provided there are enough observational studies that give guidance on its administration (dosage, contraindications, etc). That’s my choice, isn’t it? Shouldn’t it be? Or should the government make that determination for me?

 

[thirteen28]

The most well-accepted and definitive method to determine the efficacy of a treatment is a double-blind, randomized clinical trial. However, this type of study takes a long time to design, execute and analyze. Therefore, a whole scientific field exists in which scientists examine how a drug is working in the real world to get as best an answer as they can as soon as possible. These types of studies can be done much more rapidly with data that is already available, usually from medical records.

This is more or less a point I tried arguing earlier in the thread, to no avail. In the middle of a pandemic when people are getting sick and some even dying, you don't always have the time for the double-blind study.

 

[thirteen28]

I would love for HCQ to be a miracle treatment.

Why does it have to be a miracle treatment? If it worked for 50% of covid patients, would that not be preferable to those patients getting sick and some of them dying? If it works for 50% of people as a prophylactic against catching the virus to begin with, wouldn't that be better than them potentially catching it an spreading it to others?

There are doctors who say this works - lets look at why they say that.

Many of them say that because they have actually treated patients with the drug, successfully. Yet you don't seem to give their word much credence, and yet they are the ones on the front lines of this, with the risk of malpractice suits and loss of medical license hanging over them if they are wrong, and you seem to not want to give them any credence whatsoever? When they speak up, you run back to the whole study thing, then when someone points to a study with which you disagree, you use that to say your bullshit detector went off.

That's not consistent.

 

[12intheBox]

The double blind studies have been done. Additional double blind studies are being done. They didn’t run out of time to test the drug the right way - they tested it the right way. It is the single most tested drug for Covid in the world. The tests were done - and the drug showed no effect.

Then - these doctors came out and said - yeah but my patients have gotten better and I gave it to them so I don’t care what the tests said.

and yes, @-X- - I’m not the champion of truth - I’m an advocate for expertise. I think the most studied minds should be leaned on in an epidemic. I realize you will roll your eyes at this - but I think dissenting opinions are totally healthy and even vital to a successful society. But that concept kind of leans on the idea that those opinions will be listened to - analyzed - picked apart - scrutinized in a search for the actual truth. Science doesn’t end with an “agree to disagree” - they keep crunching - because there is a truth. This answer can be reconciled - it will be reconciled.

@thirteen28 - I don’t need it to be a miracle - i - I don’t even need 50% efficacy - if there were data that it helped in any percentage - I would change my tune. I promise I would. But the data needs to be real - and it needs to be controlled (at least for me it does).

and my bullshit detector goes off because that wasn’t a study and they tried to make it look like it was. Seriously - don’t take my word for it (as if you would) - take 10 minutes and look at what the proposition is on that website. Look at it critically. See if passes your bullshit detector.

one thing you all do very well is raise questions. i hope you continue to do so. I just ask that you look at the proponents of this with the same skepticism even if only for a few moments.

I’ll do the same - I’ll challenge my biases and my assumptions and I will try to pick thru what is political bullshit and what is science. If we are all honest about it - we should be able to find common ground - we should be able to call bullshit bullshit no matter whose side it comes from.

I’ll start with a deeper dive into this Henry Ford study - because I tend to agree with the thrust of their open letter.