If doctors could prescribe HCQ, 'we wouldn't need the lockdowns'

Discussion in 'Australia, NZ, Pacific' started by undertheradar, Sep 24, 2020.

  1. undertheradar

    undertheradar Newly Registered

    Joined:
    May 1, 2019
    Messages:
    348
    Likes Received:
    179
    Trophy Points:
    43
    "Professor Wicks said hydroxychloroquine was a well-known prescription medication that had been used for more than 50 years, initially for malaria and subsequently for autoimmune diseases, such as lupus and rheumatoid arthritis.

    “Rheumatologists are very comfortable with the drug’s safety profile. Like any medication hydroxychloroquine has certain side effects, but fortunately these are well known and quite uncommon.

    “Hydroxychloroquine has shown promising anti-viral activities, including against SARS-CoV-2, and so this is what we will be exploring further,” he said.

    https://www.wehi.edu.au/news/covid19-prevention-trial-opens-high-risk-healthcare-workers
     
    DennisTate likes this.
  2. Monash

    Monash Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 12, 2019
    Messages:
    4,516
    Likes Received:
    3,138
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    I have friends in the Northern Hemisphere who have said that unlike usual it hasn't snowed at Christmas. So what? Your 'friends' info would only be relevant if the demand for HLC had suddenly spiked in Western counties. It hasn't.

    OK, have it your way:

    https://medicine.yale.edu/news-article/26290/

    Note the difference in dates. (BTW this took less than one minute to google.) So exactly how long are you going to persist with this farce?
     
    Last edited: Jan 8, 2021
  3. DennisTate

    DennisTate Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 7, 2012
    Messages:
    31,489
    Likes Received:
    2,601
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Great post.... you are wise indeed to want to stay under the radar!

    I am taking high levels of MSM, and moderate levels of vitamin C, Zinc and D3 to get prepared in case I am exposed to COVID 19.
     
    Last edited: Jan 8, 2021
  4. DennisTate

    DennisTate Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 7, 2012
    Messages:
    31,489
    Likes Received:
    2,601
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Wow!!!

    That is an excellent meme!
     
  5. Monash

    Monash Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 12, 2019
    Messages:
    4,516
    Likes Received:
    3,138
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Oh, and regarding this comment ...

    It took me about 30 seconds to find this;

    https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2020/11/201106103103.htm

    Read the article. The route cause of the problem? Panic buying. HCL as toilet paper.

    The survey used for this paper was conducted in April 2020. Immediately after the initial (erroneous) reports surfaced claiming that HCL was useful in the treatment or prevention of COVID. And before studies started coming out in May and June proving it wasn't effective.

    I particularly like this bit; 'The study found that patients on antimalarials and those who did not take these drugs had similar rates of COVID-19 infection.'

    And; 'The findings from this study highlight the harmful consequences of repurposing antimalarials, without adequate evidence for benefit, on patients who rely on access to their hydroxychloroquine or chloroquine prescriptions for their rheumatic diseases,"

    There all explained. So even if your friends are having problems obtaining HCL now (which is unlikely) its not a demand issue. But somehow I doubt you'll go back and ask.
     
    Last edited: Jan 9, 2021
    Sallyally likes this.
  6. Sallyally

    Sallyally Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Mar 12, 2017
    Messages:
    15,834
    Likes Received:
    28,238
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Female
    Have they started the clinical trial yet? This was eight months ago - haven’t heard of any results yet have you?
     
  7. undertheradar

    undertheradar Newly Registered

    Joined:
    May 1, 2019
    Messages:
    348
    Likes Received:
    179
    Trophy Points:
    43
    That sounds like a rehash of The Lancet study which was quietly, very quietly in fact, redacted. Most don't know that because it got buried by the anti-Trump MSM. And now Biden's been 'sworn in', surprise, surprise...

    https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(20)31180-6/fulltext



    Also:

    Hydroxychloroquine had several success stories ignored by the mainstream media
    In May, a survey of doctors found that an overwhelming majority “would prescribe hydroxychloroquine or another anti-malaria drug to a family member” suffering from the coronavirus. The media didn’t care.

    Success stories from coronavirus patients who recovered after being treated with the drug have also been widely ignored. In April, a Democrat lawmaker in Michigan credited the drug and President Trump with saving her life. State Rep. Karen Whitsett, a Detroit Democrat, tested positive for the coronavirus in March, and had been aware of “the wonders” of hydroxychloroquine after a previous Lyme disease affliction, but would never have thought to ask for a prescription for it to treat the coronavirus had Trump not been touting it as a possible treatment for COVID-19. Whitsett took the drug in combination with antibiotics and made a full recovery.

    “It has a lot to do with the president … bringing it up,” Whitsett said. “He is the only person who has the power to make it a priority.”

    Other coronavirus patients have reported dramatic recoveries after taking the drug.

    And this is what it's all been about:

    Anti-chloroquine sentiment was entirely linked to anti-Trumpism
    Despite the slew of positive results of the drug, a Democratic state lawmaker in Ohio moaned that Trump should be tried for “crimes against humanity” for touting the drug’s potential...

    The war on chloroquine and hydroxychloroquine began almost immediately after Trump touted it as a potential gamechanger in the fight against the disease. Trump was accused of “practicing medicine without a license” simply for pointing out that the drug showed promise in some small studies...

    The media was so focused on how they could use the pandemic to undermine Trump’s chances of reelection that they rushed to downplay any sign of hope, which, perhaps prevented the drug from being used to saved lives.

    https://pjmedia.com/news-and-politi...dy-showing-reduced-covid-19-mortality-n602456
     
  8. Monash

    Monash Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 12, 2019
    Messages:
    4,516
    Likes Received:
    3,138
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    1) You claim the study I quoted is a 'rehash' of a previous Lancet study? Fine go ahead and prove it with the appropriate references.

    2) Even if true, show evidence that the medical systems of any western nations are currently using HCL as a primary treatment for COVID related medical conditions.
    3) With regards to PJ Media which seems to be your latest 'go to' source for information?

    FACT CHECK; PJ Media: ' A questionable source that exhibits one or more of the following: extreme bias, consistent promotion of propaganda/conspiracies, poor or no sourcing to credible information, a complete lack of transparency and/or fake news. Fake News is the deliberate attempt to publish hoaxes and/or disinformation for the purpose of profit or influence.'

    That took about 30 seconds to find. Not the 6 weeks plus it you took to come back on to this thread after having been thrashed the last time. (Out of curiosity exactly how many how hours did you spend 'deep diving' into the bottom feeding depths of the internet to come with this drivel exactly?)

    So, one more time, for the slow learners (that's you BTW). If you wish to dispute scientific/medical findings you need to quote reputable scientific/medical journals not lunatic fringe/conspiracy theory websites.

    That said, can you please for the love of God go out and get a life away from your computer keyboard! I know that may sound rough coming from me given how often I seem to do the same thing, but believe me when I tell you this - internet conspiracy forums are not real life.
     
    Last edited: Jan 23, 2021
  9. CenterField

    CenterField Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 21, 2020
    Messages:
    9,738
    Likes Received:
    8,378
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Jesus, people still beating this dead horse, and quoting publicity-seeking, clueless idiots - I won't say the person's name due to libel laws... but you all might want to check if people are actually professors at a Medical School or different, much less prestigious schools in a university... and whether or not they possess true expertise in virology and therapeutics, or whether they are crossing to a lane that is not theirs. Also, you might look into why people toot their own horns in layman publications, and ask yourselves if they sound as true men of sciences.

    I also see people here quoting flawed observational studies as proof - they don't know anything about categories of strength of evidence and how randomized controlled trials have already debunked the studies they are quoting.

    Finally, people still say that "it is safe because it's been used for 60 years for malaria" - ignoring that the safety of a medication is disease-specific. Sure, HCQ is safe for malaria (and lupus, and RA) but is not safe for Covid-19, due to the SARS-CoV-2 propensity to attack the heart fibers with resulting conduction delays, and HCQ's propensity to prolong the QTc interval in the heart, thus adding assault to injury and causing fatal arrhythmias at times. That's exactly why the FDA said, not safe for Covid-19, don't do it... but remains safe for malaria, lupus, and RA (that is, not banned).

    If you give chemotherapy to a person with leukemia to kill off the thousands of abnormal white blood cells per microliter, the person gets better... but if you give the same drug to someone with a different disease, say, diabetes, you kill the person by wiping out their normal white blood cells. That is, safety is disease-specific. That's why certain medications are indicated for some diseases, but not for others.

    The bottom line: HCQ doesn't work for Covid-19 (as shown by now in dozens of randomized controlled trials), and is unsafe for Covid-19. It is perfectly fine for malaria, lupus, and RA.

    The above is the absolute prevailing consensus by every reputable specialist (a classification that doesn't apply to some people quoted in this thread).

    I thought that once Trump got Covid-19 and his doctors didn't treat him with HCQ, this fascination with this drug would die out... apparently not.

    I can understand that some lay persons may have been mislead by the mistaken publicity about this drug... several months ago. That they continue to believe in it, is really mind-boggling.
     
    Sallyally likes this.
  10. undertheradar

    undertheradar Newly Registered

    Joined:
    May 1, 2019
    Messages:
    348
    Likes Received:
    179
    Trophy Points:
    43

    Do you say that to all you disagree with?


    (Eng Subs) Hydroxychloroquine Lancet Study: Former France Health Minister blows the whistle

    "About a third of the whole CIA budget went to media propaganda operations... We're talking about hundreds of millions of dollars a year just for that... close to a billion dollars are being spent every year by the United States on secret propaganda."
    – Testimony of William Schaap to Congress


    [​IMG]
     
  11. Monash

    Monash Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 12, 2019
    Messages:
    4,516
    Likes Received:
    3,138
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    No, only people who persist in promoting, demonstrably false agendas and conspiracy theories in the face of overwhelming, real world evidence that they are wrong. So far on this forum? That's just you.

    Now will you please go away and continue your fruitless search for hospitals proscribing HCQ for COVID. Or unicorns, take your pick. Personally, based on your success rate on this thread? If I were you I'd stick with the unicorns, the odds of success are better and I hear the CIA has a stable full of them.
     
  12. James California

    James California Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Nov 25, 2019
    Messages:
    11,335
    Likes Received:
    11,469
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    ~ This medication was always promoted as a prevention - not a treatment. They found use in India appears to lower the risk of infection. Used in this densely populated country for malaria it seems to have had a dual purpose. This may also be true in Vietnam. I believe it is still being studied in India where the drug is produced in large quantity.
    • " Hydroxychloroquine [ HCQ ] consumption as pre-exposure prophylaxis by Health Care Workers is associated with a statistically significant reduction in risk of SARS-CoV-2. "

    https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.06.09.20116806v3
     
    ToddWB likes this.
  13. CenterField

    CenterField Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 21, 2020
    Messages:
    9,738
    Likes Received:
    8,378
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Complete BS. It is widely use in Brazil (the government there bought hundreds of millions of doses - from India! - and distributed it to the population, and still, Brazil has the second biggest outbreak of Covid-19 in the world.

    There's been a randomized controlled trial of prophylaxis showing the exact opposite of what your BS study says: that it doesn't work. I've posted the link here and can post again later (no time now to go look for it again). See that your BS study is a retrospective cohort observation (with a VERY small number of subjects) which proves nothing. Look at real RCTs instead.

    Why is it that the people who still believe in this BS are only capable of quoting retrospective, cohort, open label observations, while the real studies all show no efficacy?

    Do you understand the difference in category of strength of evidence between an RCT and a retrospective cohort observation?

    I'm sick and tired of this BS and how people still beat on this dead horse.
     
  14. James California

    James California Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Nov 25, 2019
    Messages:
    11,335
    Likes Received:
    11,469
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    ~ It's possible that you are simply sick and tired. Perhaps see a doctor ...
     
    ToddWB likes this.
  15. CenterField

    CenterField Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 21, 2020
    Messages:
    9,738
    Likes Received:
    8,378
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Cute. You take an expression literally. It says more about you than about me.
     
  16. James California

    James California Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Nov 25, 2019
    Messages:
    11,335
    Likes Received:
    11,469
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    ~ I believe that you are the only one taking yourself seriously . :aww:
     
  17. CenterField

    CenterField Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 21, 2020
    Messages:
    9,738
    Likes Received:
    8,378
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    I wouldn't say so. A lot of people here take me seriously; better proof (similar to you by the way), a large proportion of my posts get "likes" - in this regard, our "performance" is of the same order of magnitude (yours being a bit better). Which is nice and all but not really important to me. I try to make a contribution (especially regarding the medical matters) and some people here appreciate it and have said so. Others don't, and have tried to insult me and ridicule me (I rarely engage with these for too long - as per the last line of this very post; people who debate via rude personal attacks are not that interesting). In life you can never please everybody, so trying to do so is a fool's errand, and I'm no fool.

    I'm not here in search of validation. I have enough of that in my real life. Over here, it's a hobby. If nobody liked my contributions (which is obviously not the case), I'd still have the same hobby. Those who don't like what I say, it is often because their knowledge of the topic at hand is a tiny fraction of mine and I don't hesitate in exposing how wrong they are (again, this is only valid when it's a medical matter; I don't pretend to know stuff like the Law, and I'm not among the most sophisticated posters here regarding political sciences).

    So it's very simple: what I know well, I set the record straight when people post BS about it (like you did in post #88 ). You didn't like that I exposed your BS "study" (a very small retrospective cohort, LOL) then you lashed out - called me sick, and said that I shouldn't be taken seriously. Typical. People who don't have valid arguments appeal to personal attacks.

    Me, what I don't know well, I defer to other posters' superior expertise (recent examples include my interactions with a fellow poster here who is a lawyer, by the name of Death, and another one who is an assistant football coach, by the name of Army Soldier - if you're curious, you can look it up in my posting history - you'll see that I can be very humble when it's appropriate).

    So, I have no trouble whatsoever acknowledging superior expertise in areas that I don't master. But in therapeutics and pharmacology as related to Virology and Infectious Diseases, and clinical trials? I GUARANTEE that I know 1,000 times more about these topics than you do. Which is not surprising, really, given what I do for a living (obviously that's not your case, given the stuff you post).

    Do you know what's the appropriate response when people correctly call out your BS? "Oops, I stand corrected." That instead you lash out with personal attacks, again, says more about you than about the person you are lashing out at. You do you. Me, I'm no longer interested. Have a nice life. Over and out.
     
    Last edited: Feb 4, 2021
    Sallyally likes this.
  18. undertheradar

    undertheradar Newly Registered

    Joined:
    May 1, 2019
    Messages:
    348
    Likes Received:
    179
    Trophy Points:
    43
    hcq_h-sun.jpg

    You were saying?
     
  19. Sallyally

    Sallyally Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Mar 12, 2017
    Messages:
    15,834
    Likes Received:
    28,238
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Female
    This was a group of three doctors, not a generally held opinion.
     
  20. CenterField

    CenterField Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 21, 2020
    Messages:
    9,738
    Likes Received:
    8,378
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Do you actually think that the OPINION of three quacks is sufficient to counter the HUGE number of prospective randomized double-blind placebo-controlled trials (abbreviated as RCTs) from everywhere with thousands of patients (look up for example Oxford University's RECOVERY trial), which have established with NO DOUBT that hydroxychloroquine is not a good option to treat Covid-19???

    LOL, the "proof" these people post is pathetic. Your source is laughable as it's just an opinion, but yes, you'll even find so-called scientific papers defending HCQ. Most of them, non-peer-reviewed, published in fringe publications or online ahead of print (and then they don't actually get to print), or even when they are peer-reviewed and are accepted by more reputable journals, they are often merely retrospective, observational, non-controlled (or poorly controlled) studies that, again, prove NOTHING, given that the ONLY definitive proof of efficacy (or lack thereof) for most therapeutic agents known to Medicine, comes from RCTs.

    When in Medicine we look at efficacy and safety of a proposed treatment, we look at the full set of evidence, not the opinion of three quacks in Melbourne. We also separate the available information into classes of degree of strength of evidence. Large meta-analyses of large RCTs (like the Oxford one I mentioned above) is the #1 category of evidence, the strongest. Observational studies are the penultimate category of strength of evidence among several others, only above the very last, "opinions..." And still, this very last category is only considered when it reflects expert consensus... not 3 guys in Melbourne. There is NO consensus ANYWHERE that HCQ is a good treatment for Covid-19. None. So not even the LAST category of evidence exists, in favor of this misguided idea.

    If you aren't aware, even the pioneering guy who first proposed HCQ to treat Covid-19, Professor Didier Raoult of Marseilles, France (who is nuts, by the way; I know him), has retracted it. He has published a retraction saying that now he realizes that HCQ doesn't work for Covid-19. LOL. But noooooo.... some Internet guy nicknamed undertheradar still thinks it works. Oh, and three quacks in Melbourne. Great. Pardon me if my eyes are rolling.
     
    Sallyally likes this.
  21. Monash

    Monash Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 12, 2019
    Messages:
    4,516
    Likes Received:
    3,138
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Yes I was.

    22 February 2022: 'Melbourne Doctors under review for promoting discredited COVID Treatment '

    Link: https://www.theguardian.com/austral...iew-for-promoting-discredited-covid-treatment

    I particularity like how many of the Doctor in the group have gone on the record has either not believing HCQ to be particularly beneficial in treating COVID, asking to the reference to HCF and/or distancing themselves from the letter that formed the basis for the letter issued by Dr Matheison who is also apparently is also a supporter of gay conversion therapy.

    So it looks like you picked another real 'winner' there again. You just never get tired of being wrong do you.
     
    Last edited: Feb 26, 2021
    Bowerbird likes this.
  22. undertheradar

    undertheradar Newly Registered

    Joined:
    May 1, 2019
    Messages:
    348
    Likes Received:
    179
    Trophy Points:
    43
    You never get tired of believing you're right, eh?

    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1232869/
     
  23. Bowerbird

    Bowerbird Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 13, 2009
    Messages:
    91,873
    Likes Received:
    73,626
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Female
    Yes but what dose is required for it to be effective in Covid?
     
    Sallyally likes this.
  24. Bowerbird

    Bowerbird Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 13, 2009
    Messages:
    91,873
    Likes Received:
    73,626
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Female
    Date on that article -

    2005!! :roll:
    Plus it discusses the in vitro effect and no one disputes that HCQ is effective in vitro - what has not been proven is the in vivo effect
     
    Last edited: Mar 10, 2021
    Sallyally likes this.
  25. Monash

    Monash Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 12, 2019
    Messages:
    4,516
    Likes Received:
    3,138
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Well, at least your making progress on one front. This time you actually quoted an article in a journal published by an accredited scientific organization. FROM 2005!

    By way of information. SARS and COVID-19 are both members of a class of viruses known as 'Corona' viruses. But that does not means they are exactly the same and that medications that may work to ameliorate the adverse health effects of one virus will work against another.

    Finally from the journal you just quoted; 'Chloroquine is effective in preventing the spread of SARS CoV in cell culture.'

    Notice the underlined part. And that was primate (not human) cell cultures, not actual living human beings.

    Finally no, I don't get tired of believing I'm 'right' or whatever else it is you imagine I'm doing. I do get tired, very, very tired of having to show you how completely and utterly wrong you are in the context of what is starting to look like an almost pathological fixation on the imagined benefits of using HCL to treat COVID.
     

Share This Page