Coronavirus

[fredtoast]

(05-23-2020, 09:25 PM)Benton Wrote: Sooo you're saying hcq is unproven but you disagree that it's irresponsible to give out an unproven drug?

Here is my position on a drug like this.

A qualified doctor should be able to explain to his patients what the possible benefits and possible side effectes would be.  Remember this is not some off the wall substance.  It is an FDA approved medication.  Once the doctor exaplains it to a patient then the patient should have the right to try it if he wants.

It is not uncommon at all to discover that an FDA drug approved for one purpose can also help with other problems.  For years my mother suffered from "restless leg syndrome" but when she tried to describe it to doctors they would just give her stuff for leg cramps.  When the syndrome was actually "discovered" and doctors knew what it was the two medications prescibed for it were Pergolide, a drug approved to treat Parkinsons and, Gabapentin that was approved to prevent epileptic seizures.

But the President of the United States should not be gving anyone advice about it.  He is not qualified.

[GMDino]

“For him to be playing golf...is very inappropriate.” -Donald Trump pic.twitter.com/7eFG3b33aW

— ElElegante101 (@skolanach) May 23, 2020

 

[GMDino]

Still pushing it.

He is incapable of not talking about something no matter how wrong he can be.

Many physicians agree with you. Also, some very good studies! @SteveFDA @US_FDA https://t.co/NDHSTqvhoa

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) May 24, 2020

[Belsnickel]

(05-24-2020, 10:50 AM)6andcounting Wrote: Every potential treatment for covid-19 is currently unproven. With hcq it's been a drug used in modern medicine for decades so we know the potential side effects and how to mitigate the risks of giving to people with  certain underlying conditions or who are taking another drug that shouldn't be mixed with hcq. I support more and better research into seeing if and how it can be used as a covid-19 treatment. And I support the decision between doctors and patients to use a prescription for hcq to try to help them recover or survive from covid-19. If you're sick and dying now, you don't get the luxury being treated based on knowledge we won't have until years into the future.

(05-24-2020, 11:20 AM)fredtoast Wrote: Here is my position on a drug like this.

A qualified doctor should be able to explain to his patients what the possible benefits and possible side effectes would be.  Remember this is not some off the wall substance.  It is an FDA approved medication.  Once the doctor exaplains it to a patient then the patient should have the right to try it if he wants.

It is not uncommon at all to discover that an FDA drug approved for one purpose can also help with other problems.  For years my mother suffered from "restless leg syndrome" but when she tried to describe it to doctors they would just give her stuff for leg cramps.  When the syndrome was actually "discovered" and doctors knew what it was the two medications prescibed for it were Pergolide, a drug approved to treat Parkinsons and, Gabapentin that was approved to prevent epileptic seizures.

But the President of the United States should not be gving anyone advice about it.  He is not qualified.

Here is where I differ from this line of thinking. Drugs are tested and approved for treating certain things. Hydroxychloroquine was approved for certain things, like malaria prevention. It also has side effects, some of which can be life threatening. The effectiveness of the drug for its approved uses is a higher rate than the risk of serious side effects, i.e. the benefits outweigh the risks based on evidence.

Using a drug for something it hasn't been proven to treat means that you potentially have more risk than benefit because there is not sufficient evidence to say it is effective as a treatment, but there is sufficient evidence it can cause life threatening complications.

This is why prescribing hydroxychloroquine for a treatment or preventative medication for COVID-19 is a potentially life threatening issue. Until we know its effectiveness in treating the coronavirus, then there is a higher likelihood of death from taking it than there is in it being effective.

[BmorePat87]

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(05-23-2020, 08:23 PM)6andcounting Wrote: This whole conversation started because an observational study with no control group isn't proof, so you're wrong about it being proven. And if your making a blanket statement about the doctors that treated tens of thousands of covid patients, I have to disagree with that as we;;. 

No. This conversation started when Trump proposed taking hydroxychloroquine based upon a study with 26 test subjects that excluded everyone who died or got worse then claimed it was an effective treatment.

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(05-23-2020, 08:36 PM)6andcounting Wrote: Leeches and praying have been around for centuries, if not longer. We know what they can and can't do. Nothing we know about those things gives us reason to believe they have any connections to stopping upper respiratory illnesses and viruses. We know the risks of the hydroxychloroquine from it's decades of use in modern medicine. It's ability to inhibit DNA and RNA synthesis is something that would directly apply to preventing viruses from binding to cells. The are a few other ways that hydroxychloroquine works within the body that would seemingly would work to inhibit virus like Sars and covid. Doesn't mean it will or that  we will find the way it can be used effectively as a medicine in time, but it makes sense it's one of the things that's explored.

And I couldn't be wrong about this, but I don't think Trump ever went beyond saying it could be the cure we're looking for and might as well be used in cases where doctors think it's worth a shot.

“What do you have to lose? Take it.”

After being told multiple times the risks outweigh the benefits except as recommended by the FDA.

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(05-24-2020, 01:00 AM)bfine32 Wrote: Nope. It's just depressing to watch. And to see so many in this forum participating in it; while acting as if they are being earnest. 

Stephen A. Smith level irony.

[samhain]

(05-24-2020, 03:29 PM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: “What do you have to lose? Take it.”

After being told multiple times the risks outweigh the benefits except as recommended by the FDA.

I hope he is taking it.  I hope he takes a shitload of it, in fact.  Let him write the damn prescription himself for all I care.  He can stack it with his diet pills/speed.  More is better, right?

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(05-24-2020, 10:50 AM)6andcounting Wrote: Every potential treatment for covid-19 is currently unproven. With hcq it's been a drug used in modern medicine for decades so we know the potential side effects and how to mitigate the risks of giving to people with  certain underlying conditions or who are taking another drug that shouldn't be mixed with hcq. I support more and better research into seeing if and how it can be used as a covid-19 treatment. And I support the decision between doctors and patients to use a prescription for hcq to try to help them recover or survive from covid-19. If you're sick and dying now, you don't get the luxury being treated based on knowledge we won't have until years into the future.

Which would place your opinion in line with the FDA.

How do we mitigate the risk of arrhythmias when prescribing hydroxychloroquine?

[samhain]

(05-24-2020, 05:12 AM)Dill Wrote: Some confusion here for sure. Not clear that any party should "be above such behavior"--unless maybe someone doesn't understand what parties are and how they work in a democracy like ours.

It is NEVER the job of any party to say "Oh yeah, go vote for the other guys. They're the better choice this time around." ALL parties campaign by proposing solutions to problems. Ridiculous to think of a party whose platform is "Well, we'd like you to vote for us; but we aren't going to "use" problems to get elected. We're above all that!"  Hard to see how good governance could ever come from that.

This is supposed to be an agonistic system in which each party makes a case and the voters decide.  Concerning most issues, people can reasonably disagree on alternatives.  Though a few special interests may want to prolong the current pandemic for profit, the majority of Americans sincerely want their political leaders to find the best way out of the pandemic and its ill effects. And the majority will vote for whomever appears best able to do that.

So a party "using" the pandemic would have to make a case for the best way out that appealed to the majority, and to stay in power it would have to make good on its promises.

Then it's the job of the voters to decide which party makes the best case and the job of the press thereafter to keep governance transparent and not be intimidated by threats. The majority won't willingly harm their own interests "just to make Trump look bad."

We don't get rounds of bad politicians because they stoop to "using problems" like a pandemic to get elected, but because of what voters want or will settle for, including tolerance of press bashing. Voters who cannot discern competence will get incompetence and settle for scapegoats.

I mean, if I knew I was heading into gunfight and showed up with my .40, I guess it would be at least worth a try to try to shame the dude across from me into using a kitchen knife, or maybe his bare hands.  I could tell him all about how unethical and cringeworthy it is to use such an efficient weapon in physical combat, and really drive home how much more virtuous I was than him for his even entertaining the thought of shooting me.  I mean, think about the children, right?

All the while I could be loading my clip, inspecting my weapon, and feeling morally superior in the process while I get ready to waste him.  It's not a bad strategy really, but I think we're all a tad beyond that in this country.

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(05-24-2020, 03:31 PM)samhain Wrote: I hope he is taking it.  I hope he takes a shitload of it, in fact.  Let him write the damn prescription himself for all I care.  He can stack it with his diet pills/speed.  More is better, right?

If Trump were to die of cardiac arrest as a result of taking hydroxychloroquine as a Covid-19 prophylaxis his doctor would be guilty of malpractice and “he wanted it” wouldn’t be a valid defense in the face of the FDA recommendations.

[6andcounting]

(05-24-2020, 03:33 PM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: Which would place your opinion in line with the FDA.

How do we mitigate the risk of arrhythmias when prescribing hydroxychloroquine?

By following the same precautions and risk mitigation protocols for patients taking it malaria and lupus.

I think the FDA emergency approval requires it be administered to patients who are hospitalized anyway.

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(05-24-2020, 04:15 PM)6andcounting Wrote: By following the same precautions and risk mitigation protocols for patients taking it malaria and lupus.

I think the FDA emergency approval requires it be administered to patients who are hospitalized anyway.

What are those protocols?

If I wrote you a prescription for hydroxychloroquine or chloroquine how am I going to mitigate the chance of you getting an arrhythmia?

[Dill]

Geezus, This is like the climate change debate with all the so-called scientists against Trump.

Study finds no hydroxychloroquine effect on death, severe COVID-19
https://www.cidrap.umn.edu/news-perspective/2020/05/study-finds-no-hydroxychloroquine-effect-death-severe-covid-19

No one is surprised when UNIVERSITY researchers diss HCQ--they are liberals and don't like Trump.

But now the Lancet has published a study showing INCREASED deaths associated with HCQ treatment of COVID-19.

Hydroxychloroquine or chloroquine with or without a macrolide for treatment of COVID-19: a multinational registry analysis
https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(20)31180-6/fulltext

Interpretation
We were unable to confirm a benefit of hydroxychloroquine or chloroquine, when used alone or with a macrolide, on in-hospital outcomes for COVID-19. Each of these drug regimens was associated with decreased in-hospital survival and an increased frequency of ventricular arrhythmias when used for treatment of COVID-19.

Medical gobbledygook for "Don't take HCQ for the Coronavirus because Trump recommended it"!

It's like the entire international medical research establishment--except for that one French guy--has completely politicized their research.

[BmorePat87]

Trump responded to Biden's ad about him golfing by attacking Biden and Obama's vacationing and golfing habits.

Unfortunately...

-He attacked Obama on numerous occasions for golfing, including after 2 people died from Ebola.
-He claimed he would never golf.
-He has spent 1 out of every 5 days of his presidency at one of his golf clubs
-He is on pace to golf as much in 4 years as Obama did in 8 years.
-As he attacks Obama and Biden for vacationing, his golfing in 3 years has cost roughly the same as the Obama family's vacationing in 8 years.
-His family is taking 12 times as many protected trips as the Obama's did.
-In addition to his adult children choosing to make secret service follow them on international business trips, requiring the government to pay for rooms at high end hotels, they have not cut deals for the secret service to stay at Trump properties, despite claiming they would only charge "cost".

[BmorePat87]

Immediately after some guy was on Fox News saying schools should be open, our "positively towards negative" president tweeted this gem:

Schools in our country should be opened ASAP. Much very good information now available. @SteveHiltonx @FoxNews

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) May 25, 2020

[Benton]

(05-26-2020, 12:45 AM)BmorePat87 Wrote: Trump responded to Biden's ad about him golfing by attacking Biden and Obama's vacationing and golfing habits.

Unfortunately...

-He attacked Obama on numerous occasions for golfing, including after 2 people died from Ebola.
-He claimed he would never golf.
-He has spent 1 out of every 5 days of his presidency at one of his golf clubs
-He is on pace to golf as much in 4 years as Obama did in 8 years.
-As he attacks Obama and Biden for vacationing, his golfing in 3 years has cost roughly the same as the Obama family's vacationing in 8 years.
-His family is taking 12 times as many protected trips as the Obama's did.
-In addition to his adult children choosing to make secret service follow them on international business trips, requiring the government to pay for rooms at high end hotels, they have not cut deals for the secret service to stay at Trump properties, despite claiming they would only charge "cost".

Pointing out that he's golfing more and costing more than Obama, then, obviously, you were ok with Obama doing it and just don't like it because it's trump.

I think that's how that works.

[Forever Spinning Vinyl]

No. Not really

Did Obama force the secret service to pay for rooms and golf carts at his country clubs? No, he didn't own golf courses.

Did Obama accuse Bush of golfing too much? I really don't know, just asking here.

[Dill]

(05-26-2020, 08:42 AM)Forever Spinning Vinyl Wrote: No. Not really

Did Obama force the secret service to pay for rooms and golf carts at his country clubs? No, he didn't own golf courses.

Did Obama accuse Bush of golfing too much? I really don't know, just asking here.

OH so now it's bad to own golf courses--if it's Trump! 


()