Hydroxychloroquine (Plaquenil) Thread

[Fort Fun Indiana]

The results are in on the Texas nursing home using hydroxychloroquine

hotair.com

This was already posted in the thread.

 

[Ame®icano]

New hope

 

[beagle9]

Full peer reviewed study has been released by Didier Raoult MD, PhD https://drive.google.com/file/d/186Bel9RqfsmEx55FDum4xY_IlWSHnGbj/view?usp=sharing…. After 6 days 100% of patients treated with HCQ + Azithromycin were virologically cured

"Cured", meaning they will never contract it again or was it that it made them well enough that the natural immune system could finish the job ?? What is truly meant by cured ??

That is a good question - I don't know the answer.

Me either, but I would think that a virus couldn't be cured as in the body would become immune to it forever. Some diseases once the body staves it off has an immunity, but for how long?? Not sure if an immunity can last a lifetime for a person or not. Name one disease that can be staved off in that way, and the body creates a lifetime immunity against it. Chickenpocks can be defeated once immunity is achieved, but the person can get the shingles later in life.......Thanks.

Measles, mumps, rubella.

Vaccines for lifetime immunity against these ??

 

[Wapasha]

Do you have any proof that there is not a shred of evidence?

If you don't know whether there is or not, then you have already admitted the decision was made without a shred of evidence. Though, trusting a doctor is reasonable.

Ask your doctor what the evidence is. Watch him stammer and deflect. And if he, instead, falsely claims there is proof it is effective as a preventative, report him to your State's board.

It seems that your position on hydroxychloroquine is, that you will oppose any use of that drug, and ridicule anyone who recommends trying it as a treatment, until a one year, detailed clinical trial has been completed.

Then of course there will need to be a follow-up clinical trial, because we're never satisfied with just one clinical trial. So two years from now we'll finally know, definitively, whether hydroxychloroquine works as a treatment for covid-19 or doesn't. That gives you seemingly two more years to oppose the use of the drug.

And if and if it turns out that hydroxychloroquine could have been used to treat and save even just 20% or 30% of the patients, that's going to be a lot of people who are dead now, who may not have needed to die.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

It seems that your position on hydroxychloroquine is, that you will oppose any use of that drug, and ridicule anyone who recommends trying it as a treatment, until a oneone year detailed clinical trial has been completed.

My position is that there is not good evidence to call it an effective treatment. And yes, i, correctly, oppose widespread use of an unproven treatment.

There is also a chance that chloroquine does not have any effectiveness whatsoever against cocid19 in safe dosages (or any dosages), and that we end up harming people through its use and diverting time and resources away from exploring effective treatments. So keep in mind the possible costs, not just the possible benefits.

 

[Muhammed]

Do you have any proof that there is not a shred of evidence?

If you don't know whether there is or not, then you have already admitted the decision was made without a shred of evidence. Though, trusting a doctor is reasonable.

Ask your doctor what the evidence is. Watch him stammer and deflect. And if he, instead, falsely claims there is proof it is effective as a preventative, report him to your State's board.

So then you don't have any proof that it doesn't work or even have a theory for why it wouldn't work.

You're just against it because you're a TDS afflicted moron.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

So then you don't have any proof that it doesn't work or even have a theory for why it wouldn't work

I also don't have any proof that unicorns don't make ice cream in the 6th dimension. So? The burden is not to prove it doesn't work, before treating patients with it. Surely you get that.

 

[Wapasha]

It seems that your position on hydroxychloroquine is, that you will oppose any use of that drug, and ridicule anyone who recommends trying it as a treatment, until a oneone year detailed clinical trial has been completed.

My position is that there is not good evidence to call it an effective treatment. And yes, i, correctly, oppose widespread use of an unproven treatment.

There is also a chance that chloroquine does not have any effectiveness whatsoever against cocid19 in safe dosages (or any dosages), and that we end up harming people through its use and diverting time and resources away from exploring effective treatments. So keep in mind the possible costs, not just the possible benefits.

Well the the drug hydroxychloroquine has been around for about 60 years. We know an awful lot about this drug it's quite safe. So our doctors know how to safely prescribe it to people.

At the very least the drug will simply not help somebody. I don't understand the mass opposition to using this treatment, when it's been used for 60 years now for different things.

It's like being opposed to prescribing two aspirin, if aspirin has anecdotally been seen by some doctors in making the difference between life and death. For most people hydroxychloroquine is a very safe treatment

 

[Wapasha]

So then you don't have any proof that it doesn't work or even have a theory for why it wouldn't work

I also don't have any proof that unicorns don't make ice cream in the 6th dimension. So? The burden is not to prove it doesn't work, before treating patients with it. Surely you get that.

Except that, unlike unicorns which are mthological, hydroxychloroquine has been around for 60 years. It has successfully treated people who have viruses, for 60 years

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Well the the drug hydroxychloroquine has been around for about 60 years. We know an awful lot about this drug it's quite safe.

We know nothing about its effectiveness against covid19, and we know it has potentially deadly side effects.

At the very least the drug will simply not help somebody.

False. At worst it will harm or kill people, while diverting time and resources away from finding and using actual, effective treatments and causing shortages for people with conditions for which it has been proven effective.

You really need to take a step back and understand the shaky argument you are making. Start by asking yourself: why don't we just treat ALL viruses with chloroquine?

It's like being opposed to prescribing two aspirin, if aspirin has anecdotally been seen by some doctors in making the difference between life and death

A doctor who routinely prescribes aspirin for conditions for which no effectiveness has ever been shown should lose his medical license.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

that, unlike unicorns which are mthological, hydroxychloroquine has been around for 60 years

The claim that it is an effective treatment for chloroquine is no less a myth than is a unicorn. Substitute "cyanide" or "amoxycillin" for "chloroquine" in your statement, and its meaning remains the same. That should be hint to you about what a terrible argument you are making.

 

[Muhammed]

that, unlike unicorns which are mthological, hydroxychloroquine has been around for 60 years

The claim that it is an effective treatment for chloroquine is no less a myth than is a unicorn. Substitute "cyanide" or "amoxycillin" for "chloroquine" in your statement, and its meaning remains the same. That should be hint to you about what a terrible argument you are making.

False analogy, dumbass. Your inability to think logically is astounding.

There is solid scientific rationale to conclude that hydroxychloroquine may be very effective as both a prophylactic and a treatment. We know it's 3 mechanisms of action. Do you think they just randomly out of the blue approved it for clinical trials in humans?

Ask yourself why so many people who are much smarter than you are taking HCQS. Why are so many doctors and other healthcare professionals taking it? Ask yourself what they know that you don't know.

You are the poster boy for the Dunning-Kruger effect. You're so ignorant that you don't even know you are ignorant.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

There is solid scientific rationale to conclude that hydroxychloroquine may be very effective as both a prophylactic and a treatment

"May be"

Which is why we are doing clinical trials. You literally just changed your position to mine.

I see my work is done here. Thank you. Actually, it's you who should be thanking me.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

It has successfully treated people who have viruses, for 60 years

This is a perfect example of "myths with legs" that i am talking about. For which virus has it ever been deemed a successful treatment, in vivo?

The correct answer is NONE. Not a single one. Amazing, eh? What happened here is that you made up something in your mind and assimilated it into your argument and came to think it is a fact. And you did this unconsciously.

 

[Wapasha]

that, unlike unicorns which are mthological, hydroxychloroquine has been around for 60 years

The claim that it is an effective treatment for chloroquine is no less a myth than is a unicorn. Substitute "cyanide" or "amoxycillin" for "chloroquine" in your statement, and its meaning remains the same. That should be hint to you about what a terrible argument you are making.

Wrong. Doctors and patients both have cited their own personal cases where HQC made a difference in their treatment. No one is claiming they say a unicorn.

I'm the one making lousy arguments?? You are the one tossing unicorns into the discussion, seemingly because you have run out out a legit armument to support your opposition.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Wrong. Doctors and patients both have cited their own personal cases where HQC made a difference in their treatment

Not good evidence. Not scientific evidence at all, actually. So yes, itt remains a myth, until empirically demonstrated. You will never, not ever, get around this. So stop trying.

You guys keep making this same, elementary error.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Some positive news amidst all the gray clouds

Topline: President Trump said in a Thursday press briefing that chloroquine and hydroxychloroquine, drugs used to treat malaria and severe arthritis, were approved by the Food and Drug Administration to test as a COVID-19 coronavirus treatment, as the number of cases nationwide continues to increase.

• The drugs will be used in a clinical trial, according to FDA commissioner Dr. Stephen Hahn, who spoke during the press briefing.
• Trump also said that other antiviral medications will be fast-tracked for FDA approval.

Updated: Trump Says FDA Approved Anti-Malaria Drug Chloroquine To Test As Coronavirus Treatment

VA Study Shows No Benefit To Treating Coronavirus With Chloroquine

Page not found

www.inquisitr.com

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Coronavirus: Chloroquine study in Brazil aborted after deaths

Using anti-malaria drug is a risky business – DW – 05/19/2020

US President Donald Trump, his Brazilian counterpart Bolsonaro and Tesla boss Elon Musk — all swear by the anti-malaria drug as an antidote to coronavirus. But studies show it is ineffective, and potentially dangerous.

www.dw.com

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Malaria drugs fail to help coronavirus patients in controlled studies

Malaria drugs fail to help coronavirus patients in controlled studies

Hydroxychloroquine, the drug President Trump hailed as a coronavirus killer, had no beneficial effect for COVID-19 patients in two controlled trials.

www.latimes.com

 

[beagle9]

It seems that your position on hydroxychloroquine is, that you will oppose any use of that drug, and ridicule anyone who recommends trying it as a treatment, until a oneone year detailed clinical trial has been completed.

My position is that there is not good evidence to call it an effective treatment. And yes, i, correctly, oppose widespread use of an unproven treatment.

There is also a chance that chloroquine does not have any effectiveness whatsoever against cocid19 in safe dosages (or any dosages), and that we end up harming people through its use and diverting time and resources away from exploring effective treatments. So keep in mind the possible costs, not just the possible benefits.

Regardless, you are willing to drag your heels because you have a gut feeling it won't work while people are dying ?? It's the people's choice, and if they choose it as a treatment, then it's still their choice. In all of this you are merely stating your opinion, but how many times do you think that you need to state your opinion on the matter ?? At some point a person moves on unless one figures that this is like cryptonite to the Republicans or to the president who is under great pressure (in which he is handling well by the way), so it is what it is then.