A Dallas doctor on her experience treating covid-19 patients
Posted: Tue May 19, 2020 10:34 am
Permanent Portfolio Forum
https://www.gyroscopicinvesting.com/forum/
https://www.gyroscopicinvesting.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=10748
Understandably, but I'm more mistrustful of the bureaucrats than I am of the actual medical practitioners themselves.pp4me wrote: ↑Tue May 19, 2020 10:52 am I have never seen anything like this controversy over hydroxychloroquine before. Go to foxnews, especially Laura Ingraham, and you will learn that it is being used effectively to treat Covid-19 all over the world and that it is a very safe drug that has been used for years to treat malaria, lupus, and rheumatoid arthritis. One doctor said he had written thousands of prescriptions over the years and had never once seen any serious side effects.
Then go to CNN or MSNBC and you will learn that it has been proven to be ineffective in treating Covid-19 and that is a drug with potentially dangerous side effects.
So go figure. Both can't possibly be true.
Personally, I think Foxnews is probably telling the truth and the rest of the media is gaslighting because that seems to generally be what happens (see the Russia Hoax, the Covington kids, etc.)
Stranger still, is that the FDA apparently came down on the side of the gaslighters.
The whole thing just feeds my mistrust of the practice of medicine in general.
Laura Ingraham said she has taken it herself before travelling to Africa on several occasions.Cortopassi wrote: ↑Tue May 19, 2020 12:19 pm I don't know the history of hydroxychloroquine, so I would ask:
1) It is used commonly for malaria, or is there something more effective that is more widely used?
2) If it is used for malaria, for example, if I was traveling to a malaria prone region, would I be expected, or wise, to take it prior to going and while I was there?
3) If yes, would the dosage be the same as used in Covid?
If all these are yes, I assume millions of people are/have taken it before traveling to malaria prone places, so why the big deal on heart issues, and has that been clearly articulated if you actually took it for malaria?
I have looked at four difference medicine sites on hydroxychloroquine side effects, and only one lists "slow heartbeat" as a possible issue?
The negativity surrounding this drug is very puzzling.
I'd rather believe a doctor who says she has had remarkable success treating patients with it than believe observational studies.WiseOne wrote: ↑Tue May 19, 2020 2:54 pm Can I, as someone with a bit of relevant knowledge, offer some possibly useful information?
First, studies of hydroxychloroquine for COVID-19 are being conducted in multiple locations. You may recall that after I poked through the literature on it, I told you guys I doubted it would work out, but all the same I wholeheartedly supported doing studies based on that unsubstantiated report from China. The results are not promising. Here is a recent article, which I already posted elsewhere:
https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa2012410
Since it's an observational study it's not conclusive proof that the drug doesn't help, but you can safely conclude from it that if there is a positive effect, it's not a big one.
Second, the concern about side effects of hydroxychloroquine in COVID-19 is about cardiac arrhythmias. Yes, the drug is usually pretty safe - when given to patients with conditions like rheumatoid arthritis. (It's not been used for malaria for many years now because the parasites are almost all chloroquine-resistant.) The problem with COVID-19 is that there is a high incidence of cardiomyopathy in severely affected cases - who are exactly the population who might be treated with this drug. So this population could be at higher risk than those who have previously used the drug. It's still a small number of cases so not clear just what the risk is yet, but it's certainly concerning.
The risk might be acceptable if the drug had a significant effect on the disease, but since it doesn't, the benefit/risk tradeoff is most definitely NOT GOOD. Let's put it this way: if my mom was in the ICU on a vent, I wouldn't want her treated with hydroxychloroquine. Remdesivir is a better option - that drug has been showing benefit in studies so far.
I really, really hate that the above medical information is being used as a political football by both sides. It should be about the facts. Leave your emotions and opinions out of it. Wishing that this drug works (or doesn't work) is not going to change anything.
One of the regular doctors on Foxnews provided anecdotal evidence of his 90 some year old father's miracle cure from hydroxychloroquine and is obviously a firm believer. Another agrees with everything WiseOne said. So once again, who to believe?Libertarian666 wrote: ↑Tue May 19, 2020 3:03 pmI'd rather believe a doctor who says she has had remarkable success treating patients with it than believe observational studies.WiseOne wrote: ↑Tue May 19, 2020 2:54 pm Can I, as someone with a bit of relevant knowledge, offer some possibly useful information?
First, studies of hydroxychloroquine for COVID-19 are being conducted in multiple locations. You may recall that after I poked through the literature on it, I told you guys I doubted it would work out, but all the same I wholeheartedly supported doing studies based on that unsubstantiated report from China. The results are not promising. Here is a recent article, which I already posted elsewhere:
https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa2012410
Since it's an observational study it's not conclusive proof that the drug doesn't help, but you can safely conclude from it that if there is a positive effect, it's not a big one.
Second, the concern about side effects of hydroxychloroquine in COVID-19 is about cardiac arrhythmias. Yes, the drug is usually pretty safe - when given to patients with conditions like rheumatoid arthritis. (It's not been used for malaria for many years now because the parasites are almost all chloroquine-resistant.) The problem with COVID-19 is that there is a high incidence of cardiomyopathy in severely affected cases - who are exactly the population who might be treated with this drug. So this population could be at higher risk than those who have previously used the drug. It's still a small number of cases so not clear just what the risk is yet, but it's certainly concerning.
The risk might be acceptable if the drug had a significant effect on the disease, but since it doesn't, the benefit/risk tradeoff is most definitely NOT GOOD. Let's put it this way: if my mom was in the ICU on a vent, I wouldn't want her treated with hydroxychloroquine. Remdesivir is a better option - that drug has been showing benefit in studies so far.
I really, really hate that the above medical information is being used as a political football by both sides. It should be about the facts. Leave your emotions and opinions out of it. Wishing that this drug works (or doesn't work) is not going to change anything.
Maybe that makes me an ignorant layperson, but I would find a doctor to prescribe it for me if I got the plague.
Hcq by itself does have antiviral properties in the test tube but the most commonly recommended combination is hcq, zinc, and azithromycin.Simonjester wrote: did something change when i wasn't looking? i thought that hydroxychloroquine was originally not a treatment in and of itself but was being used to boost zinc absorption. (which does help with viruses) ..