Coronavirus

[hollodero]

(05-21-2020, 12:05 AM)bfine32 Wrote: Of course, off the top of my head, I've defended Hillary on Bengazi,

Oh that is cool. I guess you also thought she did not kill Seth Rich.
Not quite a comparison. I, for example, give Trump credit, very sincerely, that he did not start a war. I don't get to use that to prove everything else I say about him is fair and unbiased too.

(05-21-2020, 12:05 AM)bfine32 Wrote: nor have I defended Trump here. Merely given my thoughts on why there's such an uproar. but I'm sure you think you're right. So you can collect your 10 zillion. 

Yeah, you do not defend Trump. You only relentlessly attack Trump critics on everything. You hunt for every possible exaggeration, every little terminology that might be constructed as over the top, evey bigger or even microscopical wrong in their posts. I guess you do so to show that Trump is just a normal president, like Obama, like Bush, like everyone, that just enrages the left because they are so biased and unreasonable.
Never mind that I think this approach often fails on its face -- I also see it as a huge logical flaw, to think that by proving the left (or one individual person, often Dino) is unreasonable and over the top and exaggerating in one point or another makes Trump a normal POTUS. He still is not a normal POTUS. Eg. his whole handling of corona is inept, moronic and would be laughable if it weren't so tragic. There are lists of a million other unnormal and flat out awful things he said and did throughout his tenure and before. And even you finding someone going after him unfairly in one instance or another does not change that, that deductive inference is just wrong. And you permanently choose to die on that hill. Hence, you do not get to complain about being perceived as a Trump defender.

I for one think you're captured in a conservative vs. liberal culture war, but sure so are others. I give you the credit you "demand" with your Benghazi example, for it's true, you do not follow every conspiracy and don't quite go down every "deep state" rabbit hole, which distinguishes you from most other "conservatives" really. Your disdain for the left, however, unites you with them. Which is why you always go after Dino, but almost never against those on your side that hammer outlandish conspiracy theories into their keyboards.


----
Specifically, I can guarantee that if the chancellor of my country had repeatedly promoted an unproven and explicitly unrecommended drug to fight corona, including "what you got to lose?" and doubling down by claiming he self-medicates with said unproven unrecommended drug, there would be an uproar in my country. Chances are chancellor would not be chancellor any longer. This is not a prime example of leftist exaggeration.

[Dill]

(05-22-2020, 02:55 AM)hollodero Wrote: Yeah, you do not defend Trump. You only relentlessly attack Trump critics on everything. You hunt for every possible exaggeration, every little terminology that might be constructed as over the top, evey bigger or even microscopical wrong in their posts. I guess you do so to show that Trump is just a normal president, like Obama, like Bush, like everyone, that just enrages the left because they are so biased and unreasonable.
Never mind that I think this approach often fails on its face -- I also see it as a huge logical flaw, to think that by proving the left (or one individual person, often Dino) is unreasonable and over the top and exaggerating in one point or another makes Trump a normal POTUS. He still is not a normal POTUS. Eg. his whole handling of corona is inept, moronic and would be laughable if it weren't so tragic. There are lists of a million other unnormal and flat out awful things he said and did throughout his tenure and before. And even you finding someone going after him unfairly in one instance or another does not change that, that deductive inference is just wrong. And you permanently choose to die on that hill. Hence, you do not get to complain about being perceived as a Trump defender.

I for one think you're captured in a conservative vs. liberal culture war, but sure so are others. I give you the credit you "demand" with your Benghazi example, for it's true, you do not follow every conspiracy and don't quite go down every "deep state" rabbit hole, which distinguishes you from most other "conservatives" really. Your disdain for the left, however, unites you with them. Which is why you always go after Dino, but almost never against those on your side that hammer outlandish conspiracy theories into their keyboards.

 Because Dino!  

Yes, that implies a kind of projection, acting out the behavior one imputes to others, but that cannot unite the projector with "the left" in this case unless "the left" really is defined by constant distortion of a not-really-all-THAT-bad Trump's actions, plus "forgetting" of the many many scandals under Obama.

Fox left has always been FAR WORSE than Trump; and people lose sight of that when Dino posts every new allegation of sexual assault or outrageous lie tweet or disinformation about COVID-19 or abuse of power in plain sight, thereby normalizing and validating a "left" which now presents as guardian of decency and traditional norms appealed to by the Right two decades ago.  Dino has turned your "Trump Tweets Thread" into a legitimate research archive into Trump misbehavior. Has to be some pushback. Somehow.

So we get "because Trump" because Dino. And maybe "because Hollo," too, as no one so far has demonstrated your capacity for marshalling the concrete specifics of Trump malfeasance in every category, ranging from marital infidelity to pandemic disinformation to summitry.

(05-22-2020, 02:55 AM)hollodero Wrote: Specifically, I can guarantee that if the chancellor of my country had repeatedly promoted an unproven and explicitly unrecommended drug to fight corona, including "what you got to lose?" and doubling down by claiming he self-medicates with said unproven unrecommended drug, there would be an uproar in my country. Chances are chancellor would not be chancellor any longer. This is not a prime example of leftist exaggeration.

LOL  Most certainly not!     Es lebe Kakania!

[GMDino]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/health/2020/05/22/hydroxychloroquine-coronavirus-study/

Quote:A study of 96,000 hospitalized coronavirus patients on six continents found that those who received an antimalarial drug promoted by President Trump as a “game changer” in the fight against the virus had a significantly higher risk of death compared with those who did not.


People treated with hydroxychloroquine, or the closely related drug chloroquine, were also more likely to develop a type of irregular heart rhythm, or arrhythmia, that can lead to sudden cardiac death, it concluded.

The study, published Friday in the medical journal the Lancet, is the largest analysis to date of the risks and benefits of treating covid-19 patients with antimalarial drugs. It is based on a retrospective analysis of medical records, not a controlled study in which patients are divided randomly into treatment groups — a method considered the gold standard of medicine. But the sheer size of the study was convincing to some scientists.


“It’s one thing not to have benefit, but this shows distinct harm,” said Eric Topol, a cardiologist and director of the Scripps Research Translational Institute. “If there was ever hope for this drug, this is the death of it.”

David Maron, director of preventive cardiology at the Stanford University School of Medicine, said that “these findings provide absolutely no reason for optimism that these drugs might be useful in the prevention or treatment of covid-19.”

Past studies also found scant or no evidence of hydroxychloroquine’s benefit in treating sick patients, while reports mounted of dangerous heart problems associated with its use. As a result, the Food and Drug Administration last month warned against the use of the drug outside hospital settings or clinical trials.

The new analysis — by Mandeep Mehra, a Harvard Medical School professor and physician at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, and colleagues at other institutions — included patients with a positive laboratory test for covid-19 who were hospitalized between Dec. 20, 2019, and April 14, 2020, at 671 medical centers worldwide. The mean age was 54 years, and 53 percent were men. Those who were on mechanical ventilators or who received remdesivir, an antiviral drug made by Gilead Sciences that has shown promise in decreasing recovery times, were excluded.


Mehra said in an interview that the widespread use of antimalarials for covid-19 patients was based on the idea of “a desperate disease demands desperate measures," but that we have learned a hard lesson from the experience about the importance of first doing no harm.

In retrospect, Mehra said, using the drugs without systematic testing was “unwise.”

“I wish we had had this information at the outset,” he said, “as there has potentially been harm to patients.”

Nearly 15,000 of the 96,000 patients in the analysis were treated with hydroxychloroquine or chloroquine alone or in combination with a type of antibiotics known as a macrolide, such as azithromycin or clarithromycin, within 48 hours of their diagnosis.

The difference between patients who received the antimalarials and those who did not was striking.


For those given hydroxychloroquine, there was a 34 percent increase in risk of mortality and a 137 percent increased risk of a serious heart arrhythmias. For those receiving hydroxychloroquine and an antibiotic — the cocktail endorsed by Trump — there was a 45 percent increased risk of death and a 411 percent increased risk of serious heart arrhythmias.

Those given chloroquine had a 37 percent increased risk of death and a 256 percent increased risk of serious heart arrhythmias. For those taking chloroquine and an antibiotic, there was a 37 percent increased risk of death and a 301 percent increased risk of serious heart arrhythmias.


Cardiologist Steven Nissen of the Cleveland Clinic said the new data, combined with data from smaller previous studies, suggests that the drug “is maybe harmful and that no one should be taking it outside of a clinical trial.”


Jesse Goodman, a former FDA chief scientist who is now a Georgetown University professor, called the report “very concerning.” He noted, however, that it is an observational study, rather than a randomized controlled trial, so it shows correlation between the drugs and certain outcomes, rather than a clear cause and effect.

Peter Lurie, a former top FDA official who now heads the Center for Science in the Public Interest, called the report “another nail in the coffin for hydroxychloroquine — this time from the largest study ever.”

He said it was time to revoke the emergency use authorization issued by the FDA, which approved the drug for seriously ill patients who were hospitalized or for whom a clinical trial was not available.

Michael Felberbaum, a spokesman for the FDA said Friday that agency generally “does not comment on third-party research" but that an emergency use authorization may be revised or revoked under certain circumstances, such as when there are linked or suspected adverse events, new data about effectiveness, or a change in the risk-benefit assessment.


The new study’s findings cannot necessarily be extrapolated to people with mild illness at home or those, like Trump, who are taking the antimalarials as a prophylactic. The president stunned many doctors earlier this week when he said he was taking a pill “every day” — despite FDA warnings that the use of the drug should be limited to those in a hospital setting or in clinical trials. (He has since said he is close to finishing his course of treatment and would stop taking the medication in “a day or two.”)

A large study of health-care workers that examines the use of hydroxychloroquine as a preventive measure against covid-19 is in the works, but no results have been released.

Quote:Donald J. Trump

@realDonaldTrump
HYDROXYCHLOROQUINE & AZITHROMYCIN, taken together, have a real chance to be one of the biggest game changers in the history of medicine. The FDA has moved mountains - Thank You! Hopefully they will BOTH (H works better with A, International Journal of Antimicrobial Agents).....

384K
10:13 AM - Mar 21, 2020

There have been at least 13 studies in recent months on hydroxychloroquine or chloroquine as a treatment for covid-19 patients. They have included randomized controlled studies and observational analyses encompassing patients on the continuum from mild illness to those near death. Evidence of any benefit, such as viral clearance or improved symptoms, has been almost nonexistent. But many found an increased risk in adverse cardiac reactions — especially when combined with the antibiotic azithromycin.


Earlier this month, some proponents of hydroxychloroquine seized on a study out of New York University’s Langone Health center that threw zinc into the mix with hydroxychloroquine and azithromycin, and showed the treated group had a higher rate of survival. But researchers emphasized that it only showed that the combination had some promise. They said the results also could have been due to other factors, such as the zinc being added to patients’ regimens later in the pandemic when hospital treatments and procedures had been refined.

Last week, the National Institutes of Health announced a clinical trial of 2,000 adults to determine if hydroxychloroquine and azithromycin could be used to treat coronavirus patients.

Topol, of the Scripps Research Translational Institute, suggested that the researchers should reconsider the ethics of those trials, given the increasing evidence of potential harm. “It’s very hard to ignore that signal, and it’s worrisome to continue giving it,” he said.


Geoffrey Barnes, a cardiovascular specialist at the University of Michigan, said the study’s approach and its findings were “striking” in making the case that “the risk with these drugs is real.” However, he said that due to the enthusiasm some Americans have for the drug and the Lancet study’s findings, randomized trials are even more important.

“There has been so much discussion about this drug that I think the scientific and medical community has an obligation to define what the potential benefit or risk is in the best way possible,” Barnes said.

When the first large wave of sick patients began showing up at hospitals in March, doctors had very little to offer them. As a result, many took a gamble on hydroxychloroquine. The drug had been shown to have strong antiviral properties in cell cultures, was widely available and was thought to be rather benign in terms of side effects. For years, hydroxychloroquine has been considered a generally safe and effective treatment for malaria, lupus and rheumatoid arthritis.


But those findings of safety were at lower doses than were being used at hospitals during the early days of the surge in patients in the United States and mostly in patients who were healthy. The population infected with covid-19 in hospitals, it turned out, was already at higher risk of cardiovascular complications because many suffer from high blood pressure or other heart issues. Doctors also discovered that, to their surprise, the novel coronavirus appeared to directly or indirectly attack the heart, including by reducing its ability to pump, creating an imbalance in its electrical rhythms, and attacking blood vessels.

Again, it is quite possible Trump is lying or doesn't even know what medication he is on.

[CKwi88]

(05-22-2020, 12:48 PM)GMDino Wrote: https://www.washingtonpost.com/health/2020/05/22/hydroxychloroquine-coronavirus-study/



Again, it is quite possible Trump is lying or doesn't even know what medication he is on.

I really think he's bullshitting. I'll believe it when I see him pop a pill at a rally press conference. 

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

https://www.marketwatch.com/story/republican-house-member-says-he-and-multiple-family-members-are-taking-hydroxychloroquine-to-ward-off-coronavirus-2020-05-21?siteid=yhoof2&yptr=yahoo

Quote:U.S. Rep. Roger Marshall, who is running for the U.S. Senate, said he doesn’t have COVID-19 but is taking hydroxychloroquine as a preventative drug. His parents, siblings and wife also are taking the drug, a spokesman for Marshall told the Kansas City Star on Tuesday.

There is zero scientific evidence hydroxychloroquine works as a prophylaxis against Covid-19.

Marshall, a OB/GYN, had this to say about legalizing medical marijuana . . .

http://local1082.rssing.com/chan-14735418/all_p396.html

Quote:I’m not convinced that it’s medically proven . . . I’m going to be very cautious . . . I just haven’t seen enough scientific data to say it’s a good thing

The height of hypocrisy.

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(05-22-2020, 12:48 PM)GMDino Wrote: https://www.washingtonpost.com/health/2020/05/22/hydroxychloroquine-coronavirus-study/



Again, it is quite possible Trump is lying or doesn't even know what medication he is on.

“What do you have to lose? Take it.”

Quote: For those given hydroxychloroquine, there was a 34 percent increase in risk of mortality and a 137 percent increased risk of a serious heart arrhythmias. For those receiving hydroxychloroquine and an antibiotic — the cocktail endorsed by Trump — there was a 45 percent increased risk of death and a 411 percent increased risk of serious heart arrhythmias.

(05-21-2020, 06:40 PM)bfine32 Wrote: I've clearly said his touting of household cleaners was some dangerous shit, but this HCQ pimping really is not. There are folks out there that are sick and dying, with no remedy. Why are we mad if POTUS tells them there might be hope?

Hmm, a 34-45% increased risk of death and a 137-411% increased risk of potentially fatal arrhythmias with or without azithromycin. I don’t know, bfine, still think the dangers are overblown?

Holy shit! It’s almost like a federal drug agency responsible for the oversight of the safety of drugs with some credibility and credentials issued guidance on how potentially harmful drugs should be prescribed was actually looking out for the welfare of patients. Instead of selling snake oil.

[Belsnickel]

(05-22-2020, 01:24 PM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: https://www.marketwatch.com/story/republican-house-member-says-he-and-multiple-family-members-are-taking-hydroxychloroquine-to-ward-off-coronavirus-2020-05-21?siteid=yhoof2&yptr=yahoo


There is zero scientific evidence hydroxychloroquine works as a prophylaxis against Covid-19.

Marshall, a OB/GYN, had this to say about legalizing medical marijuana . . .

http://local1082.rssing.com/chan-14735418/all_p396.html


The height of hypocrisy.

I'm curious. Given that there is no evidence, and certainly no FDA approval, for hydroxychloroquine to be used as a preventative medication for COVID-19 and a lack of evidence that it is an effective treatment, could doctors/PAs/NPs lose their license/certification for prescribing it incorrectly?

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(05-22-2020, 01:53 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: I'm curious. Given that there is no evidence, and certainly no FDA approval, for hydroxychloroquine to be used as a preventative medication for COVID-19 and a lack of evidence that it is an effective treatment, could doctors/PAs/NPs lose their license/certification for prescribing it incorrectly?

Inappropriate prescribing is something which can certainly cause you to lose your license. But, this sort of board action would most likely start as part of a malpractice suit to gain the board’s attention for potential disciplinary action.

[GMDino]

As far as reopening goes not one state has met the Federal guidelines and Trump wants everyone to open.

Now, because he's starting to taste that desperation, he's falling back on the evangelicals and demanding that places of worship open.

If they do not he will "override the governors".

Trump angrily reads his statement about reopening places of worship and then leaves without answering questions pic.twitter.com/HiZH7AyJhO

— Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) May 22, 2020

 

Trump angrily reads his statement about reopening places of worship and then leaves without answering questions pic.twitter.com/HiZH7AyJhO

— Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) May 22, 2020

 

[6andcounting]

(05-22-2020, 12:48 PM)GMDino Wrote: https://www.washingtonpost.com/health/2020/05/22/hydroxychloroquine-coronavirus-study/



Again, it is quite possible Trump is lying or doesn't even know what medication he is on.

I don't think there's enough (if any) evidence to say the drug is effective at treating Covid, but there's also not enough to say it's more dangerous to take it.

Right from the article it says, "The study, published Friday in the medical journal the Lancet, is the largest analysis to date of the risks and benefits of treating covid-19 patients with antimalarial drugs. It is based on a retrospective analysis of medical records, not a controlled study in which patients are divided randomly into treatment groups — a method considered the gold standard of medicine."

So all this study concludes is that the patients who were so sick they were given an experimental drug died at a higher rate than those with more milder symptoms. We really can't conclude anything from this study because it's purely observation. Understandably, anything covid related is just observation at this point, but without a control group (or any consistent basis of who and why the drug was given to certain patients) we really can't infer anything.


Did hospitals without enough ventilations given the drug as the only other option they had, and naturally had a higher death rate than more equipped hospitals? Did some hospitals give the drug any after positive tests? Did some give it just based on symptoms? Did some wait until positive cases got worse after a week? We have no idea of any of this

[GMDino]

(05-22-2020, 04:30 PM)6andcounting Wrote: I don't think there's enough (if any) evidence to say the drug is effective at treating Covid, but there's also not enough to say it's more dangerous to take it.

Right from the article it says, "The study, published Friday in the medical journal the Lancet, is the largest analysis to date of the risks and benefits of treating covid-19 patients with antimalarial drugs. It is based on a retrospective analysis of medical records, not a controlled study in which patients are divided randomly into treatment groups — a method considered the gold standard of medicine."

So all this study concludes is that the patients who were so sick they were given an experimental drug died at a higher rate than those with more milder symptoms. We really can't conclude anything from this study because it's purely observation. Understandably, anything covid related is just observation at this point, but without a control group (or any consistent basis of who and why the drug was given to certain patients) we really can't infer anything.


Did hospitals without enough ventilations given the drug as the only other option they had, and naturally had a higher death rate than more equipped hospitals? Did some hospitals give the drug any after positive tests? Did some give it just based on symptoms? Did some wait until positive cases got worse after a week? We have no idea of any of this

Did they try leeches?  Perhaps a nice cup of chicken soup?  Do we KNOW if in the heat of the moment they didn't just try to PRAY it away?!??!

Without knowing absolutely EVERYTHING about everything else we simply can NOT even SUGGEST that Trump was being reckless in pushing an unproven drug that has shown to be even the slightest bit dangerous or taking it himself.

Frankly I am appalled at the level of discourse aimed at a POTUS who shows such great personal courage!

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(05-22-2020, 04:30 PM)6andcounting Wrote: I don't think there's enough (if any) evidence to say the drug is effective at treating Covid, but there's also not enough to say it's more dangerous to take it.

False.

Just forget about Covid-19 for a second. This drug has known adverse reactions that anyone who takes it is at an increased risk of developing just from taking the medication. That’s why there is a risk benefit analysis for every prescription and why the FDA and other medical organizations have issued their current guidelines while we continue to gather more data on its efficacy and safety for the Covid-19 indication.

[BigPapaKain]

(05-22-2020, 03:48 PM)GMDino Wrote: As far as reopening goes not one state has met the Federal guidelines and Trump wants everyone to open.

Now, because he's starting to taste that desperation, he's falling back on the evangelicals and demanding that places of worship open.

If they do not he will "override the governors".

Trump angrily reads his statement about reopening places of worship and then leaves without answering questions pic.twitter.com/HiZH7AyJhO

— Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) May 22, 2020

 

Trump angrily reads his statement about reopening places of worship and then leaves without answering questions pic.twitter.com/HiZH7AyJhO

— Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) May 22, 2020

 

It's cute that he thinks he can override governors.

[BmorePat87]

(05-22-2020, 07:46 PM)BigPapaKain Wrote: It's cute that he thinks he can override governors.

Yea, I'm interested in knowing how he'd achieve that one. 

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(05-22-2020, 07:46 PM)BigPapaKain Wrote: It's cute that he thinks he can override governors.

Expect a rebuttal from the conservative state’s right fanatics in 3 . . . 2 . . . 1 . . . never.

[samhain]

(05-19-2020, 04:58 PM)SunsetBengal Wrote: We're all going to die.  I always seem to be shopping at the same exact time as one of those who like to pick up, scrutinize every single meat package on the shelf, prior to making their "final decision".  That is a peeve of mine, even in times of non-crisis.  Makes me want to shout in my sternest, most booming voice that I can muster, "Why must you, put your grimy hands on every effing package on the damn shelf??".

I totally brought a jar of protein at my local supplement shop because I stood there reading the label with it in my hands for a few minutes.  I didn't want it, just felt bad about picking it up and putting it back.

[hollodero]

(05-22-2020, 10:55 AM)Dill Wrote: So we get "because Trump" because Dino. And maybe "because Hollo," too, as no one so far has demonstrated your capacity for marshalling the concrete specifics of Trump malfeasance in every category, ranging from marital infidelity to pandemic disinformation to summitry.  

Just to be precise, I never thought too much about the infidelity part. I'd put around 500 things above it.

There's not much to add to the rest of your post. So sorry for being so brief :) others might appreciate that though.

(05-22-2020, 10:55 AM)Dill Wrote: LOL  Most certainly not!     Es lebe Kakania!

lol, I see you are accustomed to Robert Musil's work. So I guess you do know where that term stems from?

[GMDino]

(05-22-2020, 09:50 PM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: Expect a rebuttal from the conservative state’s right fanatics in 3 . . . 2 . . . 1 . . . never.

"Trump being Trump"

"He didn't mean that"

[Dill]

(05-23-2020, 07:16 AM)hollodero Wrote: lol, I see you are accustomed to Robert Musil's work. So I guess you do know where that term stems from?

Yes, from you guys packing your Austrian Kaisertum and Hungarian Koenigreich together in one state and then the acrobatic phraseology to label it and address your leaders all proper. Back then. The Musil allusion was Just ribbing you a bit about your rosy assessment of Austrian politics and how you can count on even your "bad" leaders to adhere to norms. Order at home tsk tsking at the chaos beyond the borders. Really jealousy and sour grapes on my part, though.

We should be better than you cuz we have way more aircraft carriers and movie stars. But we're not.

[6andcounting]

(05-22-2020, 05:05 PM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: False.

Just forget about Covid-19 for a second. This drug has known adverse reactions that anyone who takes it is at an increased risk of developing just from taking the medication. That’s why there is a risk benefit analysis for every prescription and why the FDA and other medical organizations have issued their current guidelines while we continue to gather more data on its efficacy and safety for the Covid-19 indication.

You're right on this. I should clarify that there are known side effects and depending on your pre-existing conditions these side effects may put you at greater risk, but this is something doctors know and can control for this by making sure the consider how it will affect the specific patient in front of them. These are well known side effects that doctors have been accounting for when they treat their patients with this for decades. It may not be right for every patient, but my original comment was made under the assumption those treated in a hospital with this drug were under competent and ethic medical care of doctors.