Hydroxychloroquine is effective.

[Thaidup]

 

Hydroxychloroquine is effective, and consistently so when provided early, for COVID-19: a systematic review

 

My opinion is to read more and make up your own mind, One may think that cheap and easily produced pharmaceuticals will not be profitable for drug companies, But hey just a thought.

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33042552/

 

[Faraday]

33 minutes ago, Thaidup said:

Hydroxychloroquine is effective, and consistently so when provided early, for COVID-19: a systematic review

My opinion is to read more and make up your own mind, One may think that cheap and easily produced pharmaceuticals will not be profitable for drug companies, But hey just a thought.

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33042552/

Doesn't look very convincing to me, it's really a review of studies done.

This is a quote from the above paper:

^{"We searched PubMed, Cochrane, Embase, Google Scholar and Google for all reports on HCQ as a treatment for COVID-19 patients. This included preprints and preliminary reports on larger COVID-19 studies. We included reports with HCQ alone as well as in combination with AZ and/or zinc."}

However, it's only 05:06 & I'm not fully awake.

 

[Rookiescot]

No it is not.

An Update: Is hydroxychloroquine effective for COVID-19? (drugs.com)

[Thaidup]

Another Ivermectin study has recently come out, peer reviewed again,anyone want to see it? It was funded by Pfizer, it may have the results some want to see.

Edited April 4, 2022 by Thaidup

[NorskTiger]

On 4/1/2022 at 12:09 AM, Faraday said:

Doesn't look very convincing to me, it's really a review of studies done.

This is a quote from the above paper:

^{"We searched PubMed, Cochrane, Embase, Google Scholar and Google for all reports on HCQ as a treatment for COVID-19 patients. This included preprints and preliminary reports on larger COVID-19 studies. We included reports with HCQ alone as well as in combination with AZ and/or zinc."}

However, it's only 05:06 & I'm not fully awake.

With all respect. A Cochrane study is the often considered the highest level of evidence and is a compilation of many meta-analaysis done.

   A reivew of studies can be a very effective tool to concentrate the current scientific information. 

[NorskTiger]

On 4/4/2022 at 2:22 AM, Thaidup said:

Another Ivermectin study has recently come out, peer reviewed again,anyone want to see it? It was funded by Pfizer, it may have the results some want to see.

Now, Pfizer funding a study.. Here we got the "unbiased", "altruistic", "objective" and totally "free of secondary gain" the covidistas want. 

   555

[analog]

I love how no matter how much evidence one provides, some people are just too brain-damaged from Trump Derangement Syndrome and religious belief that HCQ/Ivermectin simply CANNOT be effective that no amount of evidence will ever make them budge one inch on the matter. Even a high-quality meta-analysis like this one.

You give them evidence, they say it's "unconvincing".  They ask for more evidence, you give them a meta-analysis, they say, "hmph".

You stick a peer-reviewed journal article (or a whole bunch of them) in their face, they look the other way.

Not only will they reject any evidence that challenges their beliefs, but they won't even consider looking into it.

NOTHING. NOTHING. will change their minds.

It's part of their identity now.

Edited May 9, 2022 by analog

[Thaidup]

The latest version of it. Notice the price increase, and in the first line they say it is an expensive drug. I can remember posting this same link over a year ago that had prices in the cents per pill.

https://www.goodrx.com/hydroxychloroquine

[Smithydog]

On 5/10/2022 at 12:27 AM, analog said:

I love how no matter how much evidence one provides, some people are just too brain-damaged from Trump Derangement Syndrome and religious belief that HCQ/Ivermectin simply CANNOT be effective that no amount of evidence will ever make them budge one inch on the matter. Even a high-quality meta-analysis like this one.

You give them evidence, they say it's "unconvincing".  They ask for more evidence, you give them a meta-analysis, they say, "hmph".

You stick a peer-reviewed journal article (or a whole bunch of them) in their face, they look the other way.

Not only will they reject any evidence that challenges their beliefs, but they won't even consider looking into it.

NOTHING. NOTHING. will change their minds.

It's part of their identity now.

For many, we don't waste our time narrowing into one segment of the scientific community only using meta-analysis to try and prove a point. We only ask for properly conducted mass double blind testing as the standard for vaccines, other medications and treatments etc. 

After all, it may not have been successful, perhaps even considered dangerous by some, against earlier variants. As variants change, so does testing have to be redone against the new. 

But unlike the early stages, we are now living in a world with far more medical treatments and medication for the virus.

https://theconversation.com/does-a-new-study-really-show-that-hydroxychloroquine-might-be-effective-against-omicron-174300

I leave it to the advice from the trusted expert medical professionals I feel comfortable with, often who have given me many years of service delivering sound advice that has worked for my medical conditions and health status. I am sure others do as well.

What anyone else chooses to take in such circumstances, and in what ever means they feel is good for them, then that is up to them. But lets not label any part of the community just because you disagree with the position they have taken, especially ones highlighted well in the past.

In my opinion, and as an external observer, it does seem too often Americans are locked into a Trump vs anti-Trump reality and wrongly believe the rest of the world can only follow their lead in what they do.

After all, we have enough of our own governmental mechanisms in place to cater for our internal stuff ups and passionate debate rather than rely on others for that particular need. We tend to cast the political sideshow of US politics into the comedy club it deserves to provide entertainment when we are bored.

 

[NorskTiger]

This corona hysteria seems to be gradually replaced by Russophobia and the endless love for Ukraine (while NATO allies shoot up one Yemenese school bus after another) and theiur endless desire to write articles about dead Ukrainean people and shipment of more weapons. 

 

   What a crazy time to be alive. 

 

[Thaidup]

20 hours ago, NorskTiger said:

This corona hysteria seems to be gradually replaced by Russophobia and the endless love for Ukraine (while NATO allies shoot up one Yemenese school bus after another) and theiur endless desire to write articles about dead Ukrainean people and shipment of more weapons. 

   What a crazy time to be alive.

The Russian guy at the UN laying out the biolab stuff with those documents was interesting.

[Thaidup]

On 5/15/2022 at 7:12 AM, Smithydog said:

I leave it to the advice from the trusted expert medical professionals I feel comfortable with

This is my exact same opinion, I only may ask why do the government agencies that are funded by large pharmaceutical companies distribute directives to private trusted medical expert professionals not to use trusted medications in an "off lable" manor? especially considering that the "vaccine" is EUA drug?

[Thaidup]

6 minutes ago, Thaidup said:

This is my exact same opinion, I only may ask why do the government agencies that are funded by large pharmaceutical companies distribute directives to private trusted medical expert professionals not to use trusted medications in an "off lable" manor? especially considering that the "vaccine" is EUA drug?

Injecting radio active isotopes to treat cancer?

[Thaidup]

I will make a presumption. All of the major media companies are owned by 6 corporations, most of these media companies revenue by a factor of above 75% is via pharmaceutical company advertising.

https://mediaradar.com/blog/top-pharma-advertising-trends-2021/

https://adage.com/article/health-union/social-health-future-healthcare-marketing/2349496

https://www.pewresearch.org/journalism/2014/03/26/revenue-sources-a-heavy-dependence-on-advertising/

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/drug-ads-5-2-billion-annually-and-rising/

https://www.fiercepharma.com/special-report/top-10-ad-spenders-big-pharma-for-2020

https://www.emarketer.com/content/us-healthcare-pharma-digital-ad-spending-2020

[Smithydog]

6 hours ago, Thaidup said:

This is my exact same opinion, I only may ask why do the government agencies that are funded by large pharmaceutical companies distribute directives to private trusted medical expert professionals not to use trusted medications in an "off lable" manor? especially considering that the "vaccine" is EUA drug?

To me the purpose of drug screening and testing is to ensure medications, vaccines or treatments are safe for proposed use. As such, off label use, would seem to fall under their scrutiny and as such would need to meet minimum safety levels for such use. Perhaps the ones you are looking at didn't meet the standards required.

It does seem that an EUA, in the case for the US FDA, seems can be applied for any such item when predetermined steps are fulfilled. For example, this article includes the following text:

"An EUA can be revised or revoked by the FDA at any point as the agency evaluates the most current needs and available data. For example, the FDA issued an EUA for hydroxychloroquine during the first phase of the COVID-19 pandemic. Later, when it became clear that the treatment posed a risk but did not offer significant benefit, the FDA retracted the EUA."

https://www.yalemedicine.org/news/what-does-eua-mean

As to why individual medications or treatments have not been approved? Well I am sure if you are interested then searches through the internet may provide better answers than I can for individual items.

 

[analog]

On 5/14/2022 at 5:12 PM, Smithydog said:

For many, we don't waste our time narrowing into one segment of the scientific community only using meta-analysis to try and prove a point. We only ask for properly conducted mass double blind testing as the standard for vaccines, other medications and treatments etc. 

After all, it may not have been successful, perhaps even considered dangerous by some, against earlier variants. As variants change, so does testing have to be redone against the new. 

But unlike the early stages, we are now living in a world with far more medical treatments and medication for the virus.

https://theconversation.com/does-a-new-study-really-show-that-hydroxychloroquine-might-be-effective-against-omicron-174300

I leave it to the advice from the trusted expert medical professionals I feel comfortable with, often who have given me many years of service delivering sound advice that has worked for my medical conditions and health status. I am sure others do as well.

What anyone else chooses to take in such circumstances, and in what ever means they feel is good for them, then that is up to them. But lets not label any part of the community just because you disagree with the position they have taken, especially ones highlighted well in the past.

In my opinion, and as an external observer, it does seem too often Americans are locked into a Trump vs anti-Trump reality and wrongly believe the rest of the world can only follow their lead in what they do.

After all, we have enough of our own governmental mechanisms in place to cater for our internal stuff ups and passionate debate rather than rely on others for that particular need. We tend to cast the political sideshow of US politics into the comedy club it deserves to provide entertainment when we are bored.

I am not sure what you are trying to say. :)

 

 

Edited May 18, 2022 by analog

[Smithydog]

1 hour ago, analog said:

I am not sure what you are trying to say. :)

Simply, all medications, treatments, and vaccines should be tested to the same level of testing. Too often do we hear of "meta-analysis" and not the ultimate large scale double blind testing. To me it is hypocritical to seek a superior level of testing for one product (e.g. vaccines) but then to rely on less effective means of testing for existing products, especially when those products were not originally designed or tested for the new purpose intended.

and

The sideshow of the Covid-19 pandemic has been the debate, the good, the bad and the downright criminal, with the greatest amount over all aspects of it going on in the USA, and clearly influenced by two factors. Money and Politics. In my opinion trust is better with your own proven medical professionals than some advice on the internet. Too many may just tout their own unproven/tested services, effectively to seek payment like a "Dr Snake Cures all" or "Miracle hair cure" salesman of the past.

 

[Guphz]

On 5/16/2022 at 11:32 PM, NorskTiger said:

This corona hysteria seems to be gradually replaced by Russophobia and the endless love for Ukraine (while NATO allies shoot up one Yemenese school bus after another) and theiur endless desire to write articles about dead Ukrainean people and shipment of more weapons. 

   What a crazy time to be alive. 

Ah yes, criticizing Russias imperialist invasion of Ukraine is Russophobia.

[Guphz]

On 5/17/2022 at 8:25 PM, Thaidup said:

The Russian guy at the UN laying out the biolab stuff with those documents was interesting.

Yeah, only problem being that it was obviously nonsense. You can't trust anything coming out of Russia.

[NorskTiger]

On 5/21/2022 at 6:46 PM, Guphz said:

Yeah, only problem being that it was obviously nonsense. You can't trust anything coming out of Russia.

Of course not. EVERYTHING from Russia is pure nonsense. Heck, I must not even be eating real bread, since the wheat comes from Russia. 

    What is the end game of the Russophobes? 

[NorskTiger]

On 5/18/2022 at 7:10 AM, Smithydog said:

Simply, all medications, treatments, and vaccines should be tested to the same level of testing. Too often do we hear of "meta-analysis" and not the ultimate large scale double blind testing. To me it is hypocritical to seek a superior level of testing for one product (e.g. vaccines) but then to rely on less effective means of testing for existing products, especially when those products were not originally designed or tested for the new purpose intended.

and

The sideshow of the Covid-19 pandemic has been the debate, the good, the bad and the downright criminal, with the greatest amount over all aspects of it going on in the USA, and clearly influenced by two factors. Money and Politics. In my opinion trust is better with your own proven medical professionals than some advice on the internet. Too many may just tout their own unproven/tested services, effectively to seek payment like a "Dr Snake Cures all" or "Miracle hair cure" salesman of the past.

Ehhh, do you have a source for this? You are saying a meta-analysis ranks lower than a DB randomized trial?? Really? According to TOS you must provide a link and I would especially find it a valid demand when such a ground-breaking statement comes out. 

 

  So your statement is patently false and even wildly inaccurate. I do not think you are misrepresenting anything here, but rather that you simply do not know anything about medical research. I may be wrong of course, but meta-analysis is something you learn about in the first or second year of medical school. 

    So one DB RCT is superior to a meta-analysis of multiple RCT's? 

        When one's opinions trumps science, logic and critical thinking.... 

    

  

[NorskTiger]

On 5/18/2022 at 3:10 AM, Smithydog said:

To me the purpose of drug screening and testing is to ensure medications, vaccines or treatments are safe for proposed use. As such, off label use, would seem to fall under their scrutiny and as such would need to meet minimum safety levels for such use. Perhaps the ones you are looking at didn't meet the standards required.

It does seem that an EUA, in the case for the US FDA, seems can be applied for any such item when predetermined steps are fulfilled. For example, this article includes the following text:

"An EUA can be revised or revoked by the FDA at any point as the agency evaluates the most current needs and available data. For example, the FDA issued an EUA for hydroxychloroquine during the first phase of the COVID-19 pandemic. Later, when it became clear that the treatment posed a risk but did not offer significant benefit, the FDA retracted the EUA."

https://www.yalemedicine.org/news/what-does-eua-mean

As to why individual medications or treatments have not been approved? Well I am sure if you are interested then searches through the internet may provide better answers than I can for individual items.

You seem a bit confused, so let me help you out a little. Medicine and clinical conduct is indeed very complex, so I understand your lack of understanding. 

Drug screening has nothing to do with off-label use. Nothing whatsoever. 

Drugs are tested for SAFETY with volunteers and when found to be safe, they typically are safe whether you take them for flu or headache. It is the CONTEXT of how you treat a patient that matters and THIS is ALWAYS a decision between the doctor and his patient. 

  The "risk" posed by HyChl has not been proven in context of covid. The FDA is not a body that performs it's own clinical safety trials or breakdowns of specific drugs. Their statement of "became clear" is their opinion and since the agency has ultimate power in determining legality of drugs, they can say it is unsafe nad ban it's use. This is the same as FDA is banning Cannabis at US federal level despite no rigourous evidence of harm to the mass of population. 

  Finally, did you know that doctors use drugs "off label" 24 hours a day and the night? Opiate pain killers have no solid scientific evicende of usefullness in chronic pain, but still gets prescribed and has created plenty addicts. The "harm" of continuing to let opiates be used for chronic pain appears way higher than any presumptive harm from HCQ. 

 

     Remember your citation even states FDA "evaluates". This is a subjective summation of data. I hope this was helpful to you.

     

[Smithydog]

7 hours ago, NorskTiger said:

You seem a bit confused, so let me help you out a little. Medicine and clinical conduct is indeed very complex, so I understand your lack of understanding. 

Drug screening has nothing to do with off-label use. Nothing whatsoever. 

Drugs are tested for SAFETY with volunteers and when found to be safe, they typically are safe whether you take them for flu or headache. It is the CONTEXT of how you treat a patient that matters and THIS is ALWAYS a decision between the doctor and his patient. 

  The "risk" posed by HyChl has not been proven in context of covid. The FDA is not a body that performs it's own clinical safety trials or breakdowns of specific drugs. Their statement of "became clear" is their opinion and since the agency has ultimate power in determining legality of drugs, they can say it is unsafe nad ban it's use. This is the same as FDA is banning Cannabis at US federal level despite no rigourous evidence of harm to the mass of population. 

  Finally, did you know that doctors use drugs "off label" 24 hours a day and the night? Opiate pain killers have no solid scientific evicende of usefullness in chronic pain, but still gets prescribed and has created plenty addicts. The "harm" of continuing to let opiates be used for chronic pain appears way higher than any presumptive harm from HCQ. 

     Remember your citation even states FDA "evaluates". This is a subjective summation of data. I hope this was helpful to you.

No not really. Waste of effort really as I understand the facts perfectly thank you, review them objectively and have no need to spin them to any other reason. 

If I have any questions after researching information myself, then I ask trusted medical professionals to clarify for me. 

But if it helped clarify things in you mind, then go for it.

[Smithydog]

6 hours ago, NorskTiger said:

Ehhh, do you have a source for this? You are saying a meta-analysis ranks lower than a DB randomized trial?? Really? According to TOS you must provide a link and I would especially find it a valid demand when such a ground-breaking statement comes out. 

  So your statement is patently false and even wildly inaccurate. I do not think you are misrepresenting anything here, but rather that you simply do not know anything about medical research. I may be wrong of course, but meta-analysis is something you learn about in the first or second year of medical school. 

    So one DB RCT is superior to a meta-analysis of multiple RCT's? 

        When one's opinions trumps science, logic and critical thinking.... 

Here we go to clarify your understanding.

Seems the random controlled testing is considered to be the gold standard of testing which clearly suggests it is the best.

https://www.pmlive.com/pharma_intelligence/the_gold_standard_of_scientific_evidence_1216296#:~:text=Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) are,resulting in reliable causal inference.

Meta analysis are a statistically analysis of other tests. They don't actually test anything so can't even be compared to actual testing methods. After all, without all the other tests being done, no meta analysis opportunity would even exist!

https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fphys.2019.00203/full

They are a tool as much as a piece of equipment is and yes people use them and equipment in the wrong manner. They are open to abuse simply for that reason. 

"Lacking any understanding or acknowledgement of the need for adjustment, most meta-analyses must be regarded as abuses of the technique."

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/8872100/

Like all statistical analyses they are widely open for an unacceptable level of assumption. 

Is it so wrong that we should all ask for only the best to be performed and actual testing is done on items that affect our health? Or do you prefer for scientists to just cut corners?

I have read too many opinions on this forum where a member suggests a vaccine has not been properly tested, even though it has been subject to extensive randomised trials, and then turn round and suggest we should accept this or that alternative simply on the basis of minimal testing and meta analysis "grouping" the results together.

If a vaccine, drug, or treatment is good enough, it will stand alone on itself in a mass randomised testing against it intended "fit for purpose". Why should we accept anything less than a consistent standard for all?

[Thaidup]

13 hours ago, Smithydog said:

If a vaccine, drug, or treatment is good enough, it will stand alone on itself in a mass randomised testing against it intended "fit for purpose". Why should we accept anything less than a consistent standard for all?

The normal testing period of new vaccines is what? 5 years. We are the test subjects. And those that refuse to take it are the control, if they ever mandated the vaccine for everyone there would be no control subject.