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

You are confusing science with academic journalism. They are not the same thing.

Contrary to the beliefs of the ignorant, science has absolutely nothing to do consensus. A coronavirus does not care about popular opinion.

 

For prophylactic use, 400mg twice on the first day, and 400mg once a week thereafter.

For treatment, 400mg twice on the first day and 400mg/day for the next 10 days.

 

How do you support that claim, doctor?

 

What do you mean? You don't want to take the advice of an anonymous poster in a mostly anonymous discussion forum over your doctor? This is the same guy who believes science has nothing to do with the scientific method.

 

Well, you claim there is zero evidence that hydroxychloroquine is effective so are you saying zero evidence that ivermectin is effective or are you saying that hydroxychloroquine actually is effective?

The President started out reporting the one, single, drug known to possibly help. Since then he has also said there are many others.

 

What part of "thousands are dying without this drug and a much lower percentage of those who got the drug are dying" are you not getting?

There are no safeguards against off-label use. This is the first time anyone now crying about saving lives with hydroxychloroquine has ever complained about off-label use of any drug.

 

Why wouldn't I? It's a safe treatment and with consultation with my doctor, why would I not? So you're not against just one treatment, you're against all potential treatments?

 

Did I say a billion cases were dispensed for the Wuhan Virus? But a billion doses is a pretty thorough sample for safety.

You still have not established that you're a health....oh, you changed from health care to health professional. What exactly is a health professional? You work at GNC?

No, you are not better prepared. Anyone knows the difference between the testing in a test tube or dish versus a lab animal. You're really going to claim you're better prepared on the topic than are the 67% of doctors who would actually use hydroxychloroquine and the literally thousands of doctors who actually ARE using it? No; you're an Internet warrior; nothing more.

 

Again where is your evidence

 

My evidence that thousands of doctors are giving hydroxychloroquine rather than the "FEW" you emphatically stated? In the article. My evidence that 67% of actual medical doctors would take it themselves? In the article.

There are, on average, more than 5 million prescriptions (not doses) given every year in the United States alone. The billion + doses number is not even in question by anyone - except Internet health professionals.

 

I’ve been pondering the C19/ventilator dynamic the last couple days. Do you know of a research paper I could read on efficacy of ventilation for C19 patients? Any controlled large random sample studies? Any “proof” they are the best option?

Or, did we just take the knowledge we had and apply it to C19?

 

That's a very good question.

My wife was intubated, I believe unncessarily, for an extended period of time, for several days beyond when the respiratory techs told me she was breathing room air at room pressure, on her own - in other words, the ventilator was doing nothing for her - and, as a result, has paralyzed vocal chords and will have a tracheostomy for the rest of her life... There are serious (even if not life threatening) risks so we shouldn't be ventilating Wuhan Virus patients until we can prove that using a ventilator to save their lives doesn't have some side effect.

 

I believe inadvertent soaking of the hands, spray application to the face, and ingestion of a mixture of dust, bovine dander, and ivermectin is all off label. I’m C19 proof.

 

Just as a technical point (NOT as a comment on what we should do) there is no way to have positive proof in experimental science - scientific method.

As a result, science is formed with expeiments with confidence intervals.

Decisions on whether testing has been sufficient to establish medical policy (what doctors should do, etc.) does involve consensus of experts. Was the testing methodology sufficient? Are the confidence intervals too wide? Is there other testing necessary? Etc. And, what is actually done in a particular case can be affected by level of desperation. Policy isn't informed by science alone.

Judegements are bing made today on testing of COVID treatment candidates.

Technical journals are an important measure in medical science like in other sciences. These journals live or die based on their reputations for publishing papers that have lasting value.

We've seen many times when medical advice has changed as a result of progress in science.

 

The latter part of the disease is an ARDS picture and treatment for ARDS is well researched and established

http://www.ardsnet.org/

 

The way things are going the bovine dander might turn out to be the most effective of the lot!

 

Wow! And they never told you about why weaning from a ventilator is problematic?
This paper is well written and referenced even if the site itself is not where I would normally link to
https://newsletter.esahq.org/protecting-lungs-diaphragm-mechanical-ventilation/

 

But it is not given for COVID and the research is equally compelling for ivermectin

 

https://www.nih.gov/news-events/new...chloroquine-potential-therapy-covid-19-begins

 

No I. Am questioning why one potential treatment, which to date has no measurable effects against any other viral injury (it has been investigated as a treatment for AIDS) should be favoured over other equally promising treatments

 

Meantome six other potential therapies have been unearthed

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

 

The lies were told by America.

The reason was that the truth of the outbreak would have have put our war effort in Europe at risk.

The earliest known cases came from Haskell county, Kansas in January of 1918. It appears to have gone to Europe as part of our war effort.

Spain did not have the most serious early outbreaks, but their reporting wasn't constrained by America or the WWI blackout in Europe, as Spain wasn't at war.

Thus it was called Spannish flu, because that's the press that reported the truth.

https://www.vox.com/coronavirus-cov...irus-covid-19-spanish-flu-pandemic-john-barry

https://web.archive.org/web/2008052...ian-bird-flu.info/spanishfluepidemic1918.html

You could have learned much of this from wiki.

 

A supercomputer of linked PCs on the internet generated 77 possible cures.

 

Yep! But the ONLY treatment Trump and the right seems focussed on is Hydroxychloroquine. The huge risk is that we will waste time effort and money on one dubious solution

What is happening is that various sites around the world are looking at what is working and what is not.

 

Goodness no! Mortality rates for intubated patients with typical ARDS is almost always 50% or lower. For intubated C19 patients it runs from 60-97%. Not the same at all.

Blood oxygen saturation levels and symptoms thereof are different with C19. And there are additional damaging factors to lung tissue from C19 as compared to bacterial pneumonia. Too many differences to normal ARDS to list.

Many health professionals are questioning the widespread use of vents for C19.

Here is a good link to catch you up...

https://www.statnews.com/2020/04/08/doctors-say-ventilators-overused-for-covid-19/