COVID-19 Research, Drug trials and Pathophysiology

He was briefed on more than one occasion on a pandemic scenario

From the Annals of Internal Medicine

https://annals.org/aim/fullarticle/2764199

 

I think the message is pretty clear that nothing is "proven". Just because nothing is "proven" doesn't mean I wouldn't want to take medication on the chance of getting better. I don't think there's a contradiction between those two sentiments.

People are a lot smarter than these lab coats are giving them. The reason for taking the risk is that we'd prefer to live, even with ailments than to die potentially of COVID-19. We know we could croak either way, we'd rather croak knowing we gave it our all instead of submitting meekly to our fate.

Also, the statement/argument on not doing harm to rheumatic patients isn't entirely accurate, because the same could(and would) be said for ANY other repurposed drug that is confirmed to have worked. What will the message be then?

 

There is more research supporting Ivermectin than there is for HCQ

Would you take Ivermectin?

https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3570270

 

A possible synergistic use of HCQ and Ivermectin

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7146719/pdf/main.pdf

 

Summary of possible COVID 19 treatments

https://ama.com.au/sites/default/files/AMA Fact Files - COVID-19 Pharmacologic Treatment.pdf

 

All you're doing is providing google search results. If you have a point, you do your research to back up your point.. If there's something in any of those links you think support your point, point them out. Providing your reading list and calling that a victory is silly.

 

Why are you promoting medical opinions that haven't been supported by fully randomized, double-blind, peer reviewed, studies?

 

I am posting research and attempting not to show bias in that selection

If you wish to join me in this please feel free to post from any of the sites listed on the front page

 

No I am providing results from google scholar

And as I said this is not about making a political point but in reviewing available research

 

I don't need your help to search google or google scholar.. Did you just discover it? Is that why you keep talking about it as though it's something new?

If you find something you want to discuss in those links post it.. Blind links is just a waste of time, no more meaningful than the one I posted for peach jam.

 

Sorry about your sore finger

You know the one that you use to click on something........./sarcasm

Others appreciate what I am doing here

 

Interesting thread. Have to keep diving into Pharmacopoeia when I come across unfamiliar drugs.

 

He's not doing anything by talking about specific therapies. Nothing.

If he wants to do something useful, he could use his authority to sweep away proprietary designs and patents that prevent manufacturers from making PPE. We should have enough PPE for everyone so we don't ever have to order people to stay at home again.

How about blaming the pols for not giving the "scientific/medical communities" the resources they said we needed?

What are we doing now?

I'm tired of watching Trump blame everyone but himself.

 

I judge the methodology of what's in front of me, not the credentials of the authors.

Expertise does not make what you are saying correct. If you have a problem with someone using what you see as kook science confront them with the argument of the expert, not an argument from authority logical fallacy.

From the great Carl Sagan:

"One of the great commandments of science is, "Mistrust arguments from authority." ... Too many such arguments have proved too painfully wrong. Authorities must prove their contentions like anyone else"

Any efforts to create a system that allows us to place complete confidence in its findings and ignore the basis of those findings in evidence is dangerous. I support the peer review system but its findings are no more valid to you as an individual than those proposed by the Flat Earth Society until you examine their claims directly.

 

News article not a scientific journal article but interesting nonetheless

Read more at:
https://economictimes.indiatimes.co...ofinterest&utm_medium=text&utm_campaign=cppst

 

This theory is being very much publicized in the Middle East. I heard about it several days ago and found articles stating that it was being promoted by a a Syrian Arab but I found it doubtful, the main reason being is that most people born in the UK before around 1980 had the routine BCG vaccination when at school yet the UK is being hit hard. Maybe a booster helps. The theory is very popular in the Middle East.

 

I would dismiss it as wishful thinking we’re it not for the fact there are several trials running. But many vaccines the effectiveness can and do fade over time which is why we have to have “boosters”

 

More on Hydroxychloroquine

Outcomes of hydroxychloroquine usage in United States veterans hospitalized with Covid-19

 

Thanks

I will keep an eye out for the finalised published research

 

Totally fake science until there's a fully-random, double-blind, peer-reviewed, published study. It needs to be banned until the study is complete.

 

Looks like maybe the Poms are onto something.

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-04-22/human-coronavirus-vaccine-trials-to-start-in-uk/12171534

 

The problem with testing a vaccine during a lockdown is that there will be a low chance of interaction with the virus. Ideally a vaccine should be tested in a location that does not have a lockdown. Though there is talk of removing some restrictions in about 3 weeks so in that time the test subjects should have produced antibodies directly against this vaccine and not against externally acquired cvirus so perhaps that is why the study is starting now. All the subjects were tested to ensure that they were not already infected.

 

A lot of the vaccine trials are on healthcare workers

 

The study in the UK have asked for a random sample of volunteers from the public. The problem of testing a vaccine on those that can be in high risk of contracting the disease is that there is a higher risk that they get the disease before giving time for the body to produce antibodies. This would produce false negatives on whether the vaccine is successful.

 

Good lord! Doctors are NOT oblivious to the fact that you would prefer to stay alive, and that you are probably ready to take risks to increase the chances of that outcome. They have dedicated thir LIVES to that.

Why did Trump to lead America toward believing that one particular compound, a compound known by medical science, is a silver bullet? What was his source of knowledge on that? What made Trump an expert in medicine, deciding how to treat your disease?

Doctors are very well in touch with each other and they are carefully watching what is successful and what is not.

Screwing with that by switching to Trump Medicine is unbelievably stupid.