COVID-19 Research, Drug trials and Pathophysiology

As you noted, the President praised this drug as well(he praised really the entirety of drugs that were being tested. He just didn't say their names, which didn't give Democrats an ample media sound bite.). But the other thing to note is that you point out that 25% showed severe side effects of liver/kidney damage.

So OMFG, should we stop it? That's obviously some very bad stuff right? /Sarcasm. No, in reality doctors should be able to collaborate with patients on the risks, treat their patients for any underlying conditions from treatments and generally do what it is they do.

Both Remdesivir and the HCQ method should be available to patients. It was not sold as a "Trump Drug". It is a medical option, and all medical options should be used aggressively. And while we're at it, we need to be more proactive and get people not only merely tested, but treated at the EARLIEST signs of COVID-19.

Why are we waiting for them to develop SARS-like symptoms to treat them? If we look at it like any other virus with stages, the chances of survival at stages 1-2 are FAR better than 3-4. Forget the freaking Hospital overload, their obligation is to treat their patients and yes sometimes in not so ideal conditions.

 

I agree 100% on early treatment. For remdesivir I suspect it’s partly availability. It just doesn’t exist in quantity is my understanding.

There was a big kerfluffle when it was granted the monopoly by the government. They (Gilead, the owner/manufact) voluntarily gave the monopoly up after criticism from progressive groups (Bernie etc) but then limited it to certain approved trials before backing off that policy as well. Lots of drama.

The press release without data that caused a stock price spike may be Gileads way of profiting without keeping the monopoly. If the results come out less encouraging than reported they could profit if they sold stock on the spike and buy back on a pullback. I’m assuming the company would do this, can’t prove it.

Here’s a link that explains some of the drama.

I hope everything from the financials to the research pan out and are on the up and up. But you know what kind of reputation drug makers have. . We hate them until we want them to save our lives. Then they do, and we hate them more when we get the bill.

But back to early treatment you are correct in my opinion. These treatments inhibit replication of viruses. It’s only logical to treat early unless side effects outweigh risk from the virus.

 

Where's the link? Lol. Just ribbing ya. But the reality is, even the medical response to the virus was flawed. Not intentionally, but inevitably when said host country refused to divulge important information, information that we're now finding out about in real time.

 

Nuts. Going to fire my proof reader.
https://www.statnews.com/pharmalot/2020/03/25/gilead-covid19-coronavirus-orphan-drug/

We are all learning a lot. It’s the first time we’ve ever dealt with it. Mistakes are a certainty. Hopefully what we learn we don’t have to implement again in our lifetime but pass it on for future generations. We should also be thankful for all these tools we have that previous pandemics the world has experienced didn’t have.

Maybe we will whip viruses for good and nobody has to worry about it anymore.

 

This isn’t from a research site but people may find it interesting regardless

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-04...ors-sharing-ct-images-of-coronavirus/12155560

Here is the link to the radiopaedia repository for COVID 19

https://radiopaedia.org/articles/covid-19-3?lang=gb

 

A drs obligation is to first “do no harm”.
That means making sure you don’t cause someone to end up with a wrecked liver or destroyed kidneys while treating their virus with a drug which hasn’t been thoroughly tested.

 

Thing is: All the tests in the world don't determine how a drug will react to THAT particular patient that reaches their hospital beds. Hence, a doctor IMO should have all options possible at their disposal to make the best judgments as they see it on the front lines.

To do "no harm" is not to interfere in that sacred process. Well, so much for that.

 

So what dosage do you recommend?

 

That sort of thinking is very unevolved.

 

This promises faster diagnosis as well

https://physicsworld.com/a/ai-checks-ct-scans-for-covid-19/

 

Actually, that 'sort of thinking' is what Democrats USED to believe about Abortion. IE: Stay out of my body, stay out of my doctor's office. Now, apparently it's a "very unevolved" thinking.

See, Democrats's view of 'evolved thinking' is what we used to call: Blatant hypocrisy, and it's why Trump is President now and might be President again in a re-election.

 

That too, believe it or not will differ from patient to patient. Some patients can make the maximum dosage, some others not only can't but it'd be more effective with a lesser dosage. If I hadn't been clear yet, I'm giving doctors a full range of authority, to deal with the crisis.

We don't have time for placebo tests, etc. Our first and foremost priority and the easiest way to save those hospital beds is to clear patients and keep them clear. After this pandemic is over, we can use as many placebo tests, double blind studies etc as we want to perfect medicine.

 

I prefer proven medicine rather than weirdo medical advice from donald trump.

 

Donald Trump wasn't giving medical advice. He was touting medications that as Levant has shown, were being tried and tested. It's a Democratic propaganda prop(which makes it worse) that has delivered this fatally wrong talking point.

Democrats, in order to win an election violated something very sacred. In doing so, they also violated one of the last remaining reasons to being a Democrat. If they can't protect pro choice, what good are they? Seriously, for females, the Democratic party is no longer pro-choice if the name "Donald Trump" is involved. That'd make me less certain of a Democratic Administration.

 

Hydroxychloroquine administration recommendation wasn’t medical advice?

 

Not at all, it was a suggestion. You could take the HCQ treatment. Or you could not. Nowhere did Donald Trump violate the anatomy and independence of the patient. It wasn't a diktat, an EO or a decree. It was saying "Hey, this could work." Somehow Democrats took that, violated the sacred pledge of pro choice from a Democratic Standpoint and showed me I was right 8 years ago to call them hypocrites, and they are hypocrites now.

Philosophically, pro choice should be something you die on. But to get to Trump, since you hate him so badly you were willing to discard it. And individually speaking, that sickens me. Values that you discard, were values that you never had.

If I were a Female Liberal voter, I would be very critical not only of this failed and pathetic propaganda prop, but in how it shows just how little my party is committed to party values. Or maybe pro-choice is strictly limited only to abortions and not medical/non-medical decisions?

 

He said “ what do you have to lose?” He’s a hotel developer. He shouldn’t, in his position of authority, be telling people what medicine to take.
Ps. This isn’t the abortion thread.

 

He wasn't telling them "what to take", he touted the preliminary effectiveness findings and rather than having our patients lie there and die needlessly, he said go for it. That's what it means by "what do you have to lose"? They don't have weeks or months at that stage to wait for perfect clinical tests and a perfect drug.

Those of us clear of, and/or asymptomatic of COVID-19 can wait for perfect clinical tests, for the perfect drug. We've got that time. But if you're on a hospital bed, diagnosed with COVID-19 and/or your breathing worsens, do you want to die? Or do you want to fight this thing? I don't know about you, but I'd fight it.

And if my team told me HCQ was the best treatment possible? I'd take the HCQ protocal with Zinc. If they recommended the plasma treatments, I'd take that too.(Honestly, I'd take a full-course treatment program. And that's what I'd say to doctors), it's my will to fight this thing.

If medications fail and I die, it means I wasn't meant to live. I didn't have weeks and months to wait for perfection. But with what we had, I was determined to fight. And that's what it means to have choice. I'd rather die, knowing that I exercised my options rather than die and knowing there's a treatment but "sorry, the FDA didn't give the clear yet." OR "Media says its unproven."

 

You being able to choose is not the same as taking irresponsible medical advice.
What’s the use of having a FDA if you ignore it?

 

It's not irresponsible though, because of the urgency of the moment. I understand that it's "unproven" but if I'm lying there on a hospital bed, it's the saying "So you're telling me there's a chance?". We humans want to live. We know there's no guarantee, but we also know we want a fighting chance.

What's irresponsible and reckless is to take away a medication that has shown effectiveness for some, just because it hadn't shown effectiveness for all. And to do that, not to "save lives" or to "ensure safety", but because you hate that it came from Donald Trump specifically.

Democrats need to finally examine TDS, and understand that they hate Trump on a personal level. Not merely a political level, a personal vendetta. And it's understandable. He's done and said things that are morally reprehensible. But the problem with personal vendettas is that in the political arena, they become deadly toxic and have paralyzed government.

 

Urgency doesn’t require that you abandon commonsense and proven procedures.
I would scorn anyone who gives reckless medical advice which abandons safety protocols.

 

Let me as blunt as Trump: They're dying anyway. You have two choices: Give them a medication that might save their lives, or B: Because it's unproven, watch them die. What do you think violates the Hippocratic oath more?

This was actually a political issue, as Bernie Sanders is in favor of loosening said restrictions to bringing drugs from Canada, etc into the US for more treatments. We want people healthy, so we should be able to access everything including even apupunctures and holistic medicine as well.

Donald Trump didn't endanger anyone more or less than the virus. He touted a medication earlier than some others would have, but that doesn't mean it was unethical, reckless or wrong.

No, that belongs specifically to the party that claimed it was pro choice, claimed it was for the right to choose but when push came to shove. They went the other way.

 

The first one obviously.
Again, abortion has nothing to do with this virus.

 

It's not about "abortion". It's that the principle of being pro-choice isn't relegated(or shouldn't be relegated) to simply abortion. That this is the Democratic Stance now, is kind of telling.

 

I’ve always thought that ProChoice was about abortion. I’m not American, sorry.