COVID-19 Research, Drug trials and Pathophysiology

That's okay. It's true that abortion is where the phrase usually comes up. But generally speaking in a supposed "open society/democracy", we would value that right to choose.(It's why Americans eventually got rid of conscription.)

So to me, this entire episode here in America is Democrats capitulating on this, after capitulating to the neocons.

 

Claims of success that are poorly founded do not make me happy. I'd rather that people know the truth.

We have at least 20 treatments that are being tested. That is good news!

But, stating that one is successful when there are clear issues is fake news, not good news.

 

Democrats didnt "go the other way" at all.

Sanders is right - we should be looking world wide for solutions. We should have been doing that for testing, too, as WHO had a working test a long time before America did. The WHO test had been used on half a million people before we got off the dime with something that actually worked. We could have been having US corporations manufacturing that test for use in the US.

We have doctors and other experts. Having Trump declare that one treatment is the winner is ludicrous. It's not his job. It's not even true.

And, it is NOT harmless. If we DID have a treatment solution, it would affect our policy on COVID, our need for testing, our need for PPE, on concern for medical staff and first responders who are risking their lives to help us, etc.. So, claiming we do when we don't is not just happy time fake news - it's actually damaging.

 

The Iraq war resolution existed because of Republicans. And, it passed because of overwhelming support by Republicans.

Suggesting it passed because Dems "capiulated" is just plain ridiculous.

Not only that, but the resolution did NOT say the use would go to war - it said that the president could evaluate and make the decision.

And, that is relatively tough to vote against, as the president does have significant latitude in military action.

 

Isn’t it about co operating with Public Health requirements?

 

In referencing to the Democratic Capitulation to the Neocons, I wasn't talking about the Iraq War Resolution. I was referring to the political alliance made with neo-cons to disenfranchise the Tea Party Republicans. The 2012 coalition that was made to give tacit support to the Boehner Republicans, which paved the way for the Ryan Budget, and both far left and right groups were displeased.

Between that, the Patriot Act and expanding said war on terror, those were the capitulations that were made. But political manuevering, as hypocritical as that might be is one thing. The thing that Democrats today capitulate on is value.

You valued pro-choice, it's what you stood for. To no longer stand for that, just to get to Trump means your values are compromised. What do you think that says to other Liberal voters? Do you think I'm the only one dissatisfied with the capitulation?

 

In normal times, we'd have advertisements(be they on the internet or on some newspapers) basically recruiting people to participate in the tests.(Or they'd be recommended by their physicians to participate in the test.). And yes, there'd be medical breakthroughs. These said breakthroughs happen around the world with scientists and physicians doing tests and double checking.

But we're not in normal times right now. Taking 6-9 months on making sure a medication is 'okay', is waiting 6-9 months for an untold number of bodies to pile up in a furnance. Dr. Fauci might not like it, but this is the situation we face ourselves in. Preliminary findings are good enough to expand usage, and as he would put it it'd become a 'live clinic'.

If people say they're taking 'risks', as I said previously: They're dying of COVID-19. If I were to die, I'd rather die fighting then die knowing that something could've been done, if not for the timetable not being on my side.

We can wait to achieve perfection after we've passed this pandemic. Right now perfection is not the ideal, treatment is the ideal. As many as we can, as quickly and as safely within that time span as we can.

 

Back to topic

This is a pre-publication paper and only has a small number of patients enrolled but they could not replicate the results claimed by Raoult in his studies of HCQ

 

This article from India is cautiously recommending HCQ due to the cost effectiveness but it does nicely summarise the alternative treatments and modes of action

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1871402120300515

 

This study though is even more of a joke then the previous study that was done. They had 11 enrollles, 8 of whom with terminal diseases including Cancer, HIV, ETC.(Only 4 pages, so easy to scroll through.)

I would imagine people in such poor health, yes would die(regardless of treatment.). It's like a "gotcha" test that has no meaning and is worse than noise.

I'll await the CDC/WHO testing, to get actual non-bias'd information on the effectiveness of the treatment.

 

Hmmm, that’s surprising.

 

The drug is useless if someone is close to dying. Even if the drug works it has to be used in the first few days of mild symptoms

 

That makes no more sense than being upset about speed limits or many of the other regulations we have that are in place to save the lives of people who will clearly be affected by those who make poor choices.

Pretending that all laws are evil (on the grounds that they limit choice) is something only an anarchist could possibly support.

Progressives aren't anarchists.

 

Okay....... For those who have never seen an academic argument the following article is a wonderful example. Nearly everyone has heard of the HCQ plus Azithromycin study done by Gautret and Raoult as there has been extensive discussion on the board about this https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32205204

Here is an analysis of that research published in the prestigious “Annals of Internal Medicine”

https://annals.org/aim/fullarticle/2764065
It lays out the concerns by the medical profession about the impact of this study

 

Mate

Can you take this to another thread please?

I am trying to create a repository of research articles so that not just me but anyone can come and check up on the evidence

 

Woops - I like that effort and I hate that I have hindered it - which is certainly the case.

 

No problems .

Some discussion is inevitable but I would like to try and keep this on topic as it makes it simpler to hunt down research and information

 

Advice to clinicians

Another Excellent article from the Annals of internal Medicine

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

 

Good because that is what we are recommending

 

When you read the medical academics responses in relation to the methodology employed in Raoults research I am not surprised they could not replicate the research.

 

Informative and pertinent.

 

So if we can confirm it to be a preventative, that would actually be great news. Sure it wouldn't help those on death's bed, but it would prevent many people from getting there, and that is a crucial part of the treatment phase.

 

IF

That is a big IF as to date there is zero evidence it will work that way

 

Trump should stop pushing drugs. Just shut his trsp.

 

The President, in an election year wants to make himself out that he/his administration are doing things, especially since he's being criticized for logistic issues that honestly, aren't his fault.

Said logistic issues stem from a decade or MORE of doing nothing, by the same scientific/medical communities. In one degree or another, we all screwed up because we were complacent. The way we get out of this, is to share the blame together and pursue the solution together.