After mocking Trump for promoting hydroxychloroquine, journalists acknowledge it might treat coronav

Wow! That is really concerning that he thinks that the necessary safeguards in clinical rials are just “unnecessary barriers”

 

A few MAY be giving it, mr. healthcare worker who's not really? I wouldn't want you anywhere near me in a health emergency.

How about thousands of doctors are giving hydroxychloroquine? How about 67% of doctors said they'd take it if they had been exposed to the Wuhan Virus. 65% of doctors said they'd give it to their families and 30% would do so just because they were exposed, without waiting for serious or critical symptoms - as is the case in most of the world; US trails the world by a huge amount in using the drug.

Of those surveyed, only 11% said they would not use the drug - only 11% of doctors in the US hate Trump so badly that they'd let patients die in order to try to harm Trump. I wish it were even less doctors who were so evil but it's definitely far different from what you claim.

 

Doctors have always, from the beginning of on-label use, used drugs off-label. How come you never cared about those "safeguards" before? What good are safeguards when a patient is dying? Your argument is idiotic.

 

<Rule 2/3>

Nowhere in that does it tie the myocardial injury to hydroxychloroquine. The article makes a case for the Wuhan Virus causing myocardial injury. The words hydroxychloroquine or Plaquenil never show up in the article - never; not once.

 

From the article you quoted:

Nothing there says don't use hydroxychloroquine. More lies from you.

 

@Bowerbird, I have one question for you:

What is your expected outcome from your arguments against the use of hydroxychloroquine? Are you trying to save lives by preventing quack doctors from harming patients? Are you trying to take lives to hurt Trump? Seriously? What is the expected outcome of your arguments?

I can tell you mine: my expectations or hope is that politicians quit banning medications of any kind and leave the medicine to the doctors and patients. In this particular case, that means, I fully believe, lives are saved - far more lives than could ever be risked from side effects.

You may disagree with what I believe but that's what I believe and the outcome I am arguing for. So, be honest; what is the outcome you're looking for?

 

your source is a RW website? And someone should take them serious?

 

Your source is in medical.
Not a RW website.

So, your source has to be wrong.

 

Here's an example of just how badly the left and the mainstream media want to see people die. Time Magazine claims that self-medication by idiots is proof that doctors don't know how to prescribe hydroxychloroquine.

I'm sure there are those here who can explain how idiots self-medicating with a drug proves that doctors don't know how to prescribe it or that the drug is unsafe when prescribed by a doctor.

 

No; the source is the NY Post. Town Hall simply summarized it in a nice manner. Do you even bother to look?

https://nypost.com/2020/04/02/hydroxychloroquine-most-effective-coronavirus-treatment-poll/

 

I provided a reputable link that Spain was hit hard and that the blackout was a general news blackout related to the frikkin' world war... You offer bloviation. I'm willing to consider your links, if you have them.

 

Actually, I accepted his source. Then I proved it didn't say what he said it said. None of those sources claimed that hydroxychloroquine didn't help. Only one of the sources used the words hydroxychloroquine in any context - and I quoted the context.

By your logic, this link proves that Trump is the greatest national leader in the history of the planet.

 

An international poll of thousands of doctors rated the Trump-touted anti-malaria drug hydroxychloroquine the best treatment for the novel coronavirus.

Seems like a political argument over a medical argument.

 

He is the greatest.

From you link.
https://www.marthastewart.com/345551/peach-jam
Peach Jam

Rating: 3.05 stars

• 746 Ratings
• 22 Reviews

Preserve orchard-fresh flavor with nothing but sugar, lemon, and salt.

 

No, that's a headline. Try it this way, without the adjective

An international poll of thousands of doctors rated the anti-malaria drug hydroxychloroquine the best treatment for the novel coronavirus.

 

You posted the headline.
Here's a paragraph.

Of the 2,171 physicians surveyed, 37 percent rated hydroxychloroquine the “most effective therapy” for combating the potentially deadly illness, according to the results released Thursday.


They surveyed 2171 physicians. 37%of that is 790.

The story does NOT add up.

So, can you link to a real study?

 

What part of “this drug could prove dangerous” are people not getting?

1. We do not know what dose is required - is it merely one tablet a week as for Malaria or is it more?
2. We are seeing a pattern of heart failure and giving heart failure patients this drug could kill them
3. There is NO proof it will do diddly squat
4. It has been used for other viruses and it did diddly squat
5. Handing it out Willynilly could and would give a false sense of security without giving any protection
6. What if the “dying” patient would have had a better chance of survival with a different drug

Remember the CAST trials - patients died
I care about safeguards and so does the TGA. That is why safeguards are there

 

Wrong

My early link was to a published research paper

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0166354220301145

 

Wrong. This link is not in the post I quoted; <Rule 2/3> And, even the new link doesn't say that hydroxychloroquine doesn't help or is dangerous. <Rule 2/3>

 

Yes I am trying to save lives by being cautious

Hydroxychloroquine is NOT the only drug or treatment being trialled on a disease whose pathophysiological effects on the human body we are only now discovering.

 

With a billion doses having been dispensed, if it were dangerous we'd know.

Show the pattern of heart failure from this drug or that it could kill them, mr. health care science guy. You're making it up.

There's no proof that any drug will help any person. No proof ever. But actual medical doctors are making these decisions. They know more than you.

There's no evidence it is handed out willy nilly. It is prescribed, following all rules, all best practices, and based on the actual medical training of medical doctors, not Internet "medical professionals"

Just what makes you think you're better prepared to weigh the risks between taking a very safe drug off-label or pneumonia from the Wuhan Virus? How frikking arrogant for you and other Trump haters to pretend to have the best interests of actual patients and to know more than their real doctors. Again; biting my tongue and clenching my fingers to avoid a ban for saying what I think of you.

 

It is very clear in that research paper that it has no demonstrable in vivo effect

I have done a google scholar search and cannot find a paper that has a reputable double blinded study

https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0,5&q=hydroxychloroquine+covid&oq=h

Trump has spent millions procuring this drug but what if one of the other anti virals turns out to be safer and more effective?

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2020/04/200409093921.htm

Putting all your eggs in one basket is stupid

 

A billion doses have been dispensed for Covid????

And I am better prepared because I am a health professional and I actually understand the difference between in vitro and in vivo

 

I agree. Off label prescribing gives doctors the needed flexibility to provide cutting edge treatment to their patients considering the latest evidence, regardless of red tape.

I regularly take a prescription drug for an off label purpose. It will never get FDA labeling approval that particular indication simply because giving a control group a placebo in clinical trials would be extremely unethical.

 

There is equal evidence that ivermectin is effective against corona virus

Are you willing to take a nit/lice/scabies treatment off label?