Attachment 83558

LANSING – A Democratic state representative from Detroit is crediting hydroxychloroquine — and Republican President Donald Trump who touted the drug — for saving her in her battle with the coronavirus.

State Rep. Karen Whitsett, who learned Monday she has tested positive for COVID-19, said she started taking hydroxychloroquine on March 31, prescribed by her doctor, after both she and her husband sought treatment for a range of symptoms on March 18.
"It was less than two hours" before she started to feel relief, said Whitsett, who had experienced shortness of breath, swollen lymph nodes, and what felt like a sinus infection. She is still experiencing headaches, she said.

"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."

Asked whether she thinks Trump may have saved her life, Whitsett said: "Yes, I do," and "I do thank him for that"

Detroit rep says hydroxychloroquine, Trump helped save her life amid COVID-19 fight

This is anecdotal and not solid science. Wait for more research on this. COVID-19 is quite new as threats to one's health goes. Malaria is not.

Seriously? She did not have malaria but she did have COVID. She took it and feels better. Good for her.

Ok, I'll take a stab a debunking that anecdotal report. This doctor from Long Island treated 47 outpatient nursing home patients with his drug combination. Of those 47, 45 were Covid positive. The other 2 apparently were negative. With medication 38 did not require hospitalization but 2 died apparently without hospitalization and 7 were transferred to the hospital.

This is meaningless with the article not telling you what the recovery, hospitalization, and death rate of nursing home patients would be without the drug combo. Did the article tell you? No Did you look it up? Doubtful.

9 of 47 of outpatient elderly treated with medication went on to hospitalization or death. That is a 7/47 or 15% hospitalization rate and an additional 4.3% death rate. Combined that is about 20% failure to prevent deterioration rate. Of course the rate may actually be higher as some of those who did not get hospitalized may have gotten sicker after the medications but not transferred.

This article from The Lancet which looked at large numbers of cases concluded:

"...estimates of the proportion of infected individuals likely to be hospitalised increased with age up to a maximum of 18·4% (11·0–7·6) in those aged 80 years or older. "

So without drugs you would expect 18.4% of persons over 80 to need hospitalization. Seems like that is just about identical to the amazing success claimed by this anecdotal report.

And this is why people who don't understand why medicine demands placebo controls to prove efficacy should not be misinforming readers on TOTV.

I’m trying to envision any of us in the hospital, fighting off Covid-19 and maybe only a few hours away from the ICU & ventilator ... and then, when the doctor says would you like to try the hydroxychloroquine, then saying “no thanks Doc, it’s too risky and unproven.”

Have you treated any coronavirus patients? I'm just posting links to reports of Doctors who are and what they are saying. I suggest you contact them and let them know they are misinforming people.

Also funny how you chose only the report from New York with elderly patients with a host of existing maladies, not the ones reporting 100% success, zero intubations etc

Thanks Blueash. This is why, when I read about something scientific on a news site, I try to find the actual science behind it before I form an opinion about the subject. That's not to say I always understand the science behind it, but I at least make an attempt to learn about it.

Except what you posted wasn't a report of a doctor. It was a news article ABOUT a doctor. Articles on network news - any news - even cable news - is not science. It's journalism.

I do not understand the negative Nick’s and Nancy’s. Why would you want these reports to be untrue? Where there is any successful treatment, there is hope. If it were your lungs screaming for help wouldn’t you jump at the chance for something that might help? What is wrong with you people? You pontificate beautifully but offer nothing positive.

It has nothing to do with what anyone WANTS. It has to do with fact vs. interpretation. Science vs. possibility.

It's possible that a person might recover from COVID-19 without any special medicine - and we know this, because tens of thousands of people have recovered from it, without any special medicine. It's also possible that this medicinal cocktail can provide an effective treatment. It is ALSO possible that this medicinal cocktail, when taken by the wrong person, will kill that person. The same person who MIGHT have recovered without any special medicinal intervention at all.

We don't know, that this medicine is both effective AND safe to use for this particular sickness. We know it's safe and effective for malaria for MOST people (there are exceptions here too). But this isn't malaria and a chemical interaction between the virus and the drug and the OTHER drug this is being combined with - could very well be a death sentence, to someone who might not have died without it.

There are direct quotes by all the Doctors in the articles. They are dealing with an epidemic and lots of sick people. Maybe you should email them and let them know they're not doing science and to stop giving interviews.

Going on a ventilator is more than likely a death sentence so given the choice of a vent or a malaria pill, guess which way most would go. Europe is using this cocktail with great success in France and Spain. But let’s put our head in the sand and not try because of “maybe” and “perhaps”.

There are patients with lupus, arthritis, and other conditions who are already taking hydroxychloroquine for these disorders, who have been diagnosed with COVID-19. Obviously it isn't a preventative. The "great success" in France is disputed BY France. The country's medical experts are split on the useage of the drug.

What's your source for your statement that going on a ventilator is "more than likely" a death sentence? I've never heard that one before, ever in my life. In fact - ventilators are used to save lives, not end them. If you're just waxing philosophical or applying a heavy dose of hyperbole and rhetoric, that's the sort of thing that scares people into doing very stupid, very dangerous things out of desperation. Those are the very things that some of us here are trying to prevent, by presenting facts, and challenging internet theories.

A recent study published in the NEJM saw about a 50% mortality rate for COVID-19 patients who went on a ventilator. Other sources have varying percentages up to to 80%. It is pretty clear that if you have COVID-19 and go on a ventilator your chances of survival are not good.

Orange Blossom, This drug has been in use since 1955. Obviously during that time there have been numerous occasions when a patient was given an antibiotic concurrently and in 65 years use EVERY antibiotic has been used concurrently. It may or may not be effective but every anecdotal report has been positive. Personally I wouldn't take it as a prophylactic but if I had a positive test I would. A rheumatologist who specializes in Lupus said he has never had a patient hospitalized from complications and considers it virtually without risk.

Now this one is totally ridiculous. This Fox News contributor reports that he is managing 72 Covid positive patients. He is amazed that none have needed intubation. His expert statistical analysis was provided by his kids.

"Smith, who is treating 72 COVID-19 patients, said that he has been treating "everybody with hydroxychloroquine and azithromycin [an antibiotic]. We’ve been doing so for a while.” ...not a single COVID-19 patient of his that has been on the hydroxychloroquine and azithromycin regimen for five days or more has had to be intubated. “The chance of that occurring by chance, according to my sons Leon and Hunter who did some stats for me, are .000-something,” he said, adding that “it’s ridiculously low.""

According to the description of services on his clinic's website, he provides primarily outpatient care. He is not an ICU intensivist. So it is reasonable but not certain that the everybody he is treating are mostly outpatients. As 80% of symptomatic outpatients with Covid never need hospitalization, and only 5% of patients ever make it to an ICU, and only some of them end up on a ventilator. I looked for five minutes and couldn't find a percent of outpatients that need a vent. If it were the entire 5% then does it seem nearly impossible that you might treat 72 without any of them ending up on a vent? And we don't know if all his 72 were even symptomatic. It gets worse..

Now listen to what Smith actually says about his success... play the Fox video. He tells you that he has many patients that ended up on a vent, and almost all of them were on a vent within 2 days of diagnosis. So those who end up on a vent, in his practice, all deteriorated very quickly. He then says, that those who finished all 5 days of meds didn't end up on a vent. In other words, some who were on meds for fewer than 5 days ended on a vent. So the statistic that 5% of Covid patients doesn't even work here. You'd have to know What percent of patients who after finding out they are Covid positive end up on a vent after at least five days! He has really fudged his numbers. As you don't get the Covid test back for 2 to 7 days he is throwing out of his data anyone admitted to the hospital before getting tests back. His reporting a very select group of patients who got sick slowly. Are you surprised that patients who were doing well continued to do well? And yes I am aware that patients with Covid usually have a period of mild illness first. But those people are generally not being tested. It is the retrospective report of the length of symptoms prior to being tested because of worsening that gives us that history.

This report is not only anecdotal, it is clinically meaningless.

Apparently his sons Leon and Hunter didn't take a vigorous statistics course. I don't think .000-something is a recognized value.

Your logic is flawed.

It's pretty clear that if you have COVID-19 and have to go on a ventilator, it's because your chances of survival without it were not good. WITH the ventilator, your chances of survival are better than they would have been if you didn't go on it.

50% chance of survival on a ventilator is better than 10% chance of survival for someone who needed it, and didn't get it.

Flawed logic?? Wrong. I didn't propose any theory and didn't make any statements about whether you should or shouldn't go on a ventilator and going on a ventilator does not cause you to die. Go back and reread my post. I simply stated the mortality rate of people with COVID-19 who went on a ventilator. If your condition degrades to the point of needing a ventilator, your chances of dying are good. Don't read too much into this and try to complicate it - it is really pretty simple.

You are posting links to anecdotes continuously. I continue to try to help you and others see through the faults in those articles. I have posted several links to data from other anecdotes showing no benefit. I offer those not to prove the drugs don't work but to show that not every report, as some have claimed even in this thread, has shown benefit. I have criticized the anecdotal reports from both alternatives.

I take a little time to put together a cogent post to try to explain the problems with these reports. I read the article, I watch the video. A do some side research to check the data and to find data about known illness patterns and natural disease history. So maybe I do them one at a time when you post two links. Maybe you will not find it so "funny" anymore that I didn't mention the 100% Fox story. Because as you see above, I was working on it. Hope you learned something reading it which might help you begin to develop the skills of critical reading and scientific analysis that I find worthwhile in evaluating these reports. Sorry your gotcha didn't strike home. YMMV

One thing I did notice in the Fox video was that both the doctors took time to warn about the potential for significant cardiac risk from these drugs. One mentioned doing a baseline EKG and frequent follow up EKGs to watch for changes. They both know that this risk can develop very quickly with these drugs, long term therapy is not required. There are many reports from recent hydroxychloroquine usage in Covid of having to stop the drug because of changes, including some in the Fox segment. I mention this now because in an earlier thread somebody claimed that the FDA said it only was a risk after six months, because that person did not understand the difference between no risk before six months, and increase risk after six months. What the FDA clearly said was risk increased with duration of medication. It never said there was no risk with shorter duration. But the author of that post misunderstood what was written and claimed that posters who warned about cardiac risk were wrong.

Your google fu is not quite up to the task.

Plaquenil and Arrhythmias - from FDA reports

Summary:
Arrhythmias is found among people who take Plaquenil, especially for people who are female, 60+ old , have been taking the drug for 6-12 months ,..(FDA)

"See that part about taking it for 6-12 months? They are prescribing these drugs for 6 days."

Unproven, think twice post once, please. Unproven

I find it ironic that people that will flock to chemo and radiation for cancers will be resistant to using this medication if quickly deteriorating health conditions warrant the use. SOMETIMES TAKING THE "RISK" IS OF BENEFIT! Both Chemo AND Radiation are POISONS we introduce to a body in hopes of killing ONLY the bad stuff. OBVIOUSLY they have NO idea how many drugs you take for various medical conditions have "serious risks", the difference being with some medical conditions you die more slowly and with less pain/suffering. If a member of my family was headed south quickly with this virus, I would BEG for this drug therapy to try and stop the progress of them drowning on dry land in their own body fluids! Go to Youtube and search people dying of corona virus....

How many lives have antibiotics saved over the years....and yet, there IS that population where antibiotics are something an individuals body reacts adversely to, to the point of anaphylactic reaction being life threatening??? Do we throw the "baby out with the bath water" because SOME people have a problem processing this particular medication?

EVERYONE eventually dies...NONE of us get out of this alive, but dear God please let it be quick and painless vs panicked, suffering and in pain

I read your post with interest and took offense to the phrase "people will flock to chemo and radiation for cancer". I have often heard chemo and radiation derided by people who support alternative medicine. I hope no one ever hesitates when an oncologists prescribes chemo and radiation for cancer. Tough as it is, it IS what we have now to combat many forms of cancer.

I think everyone is hoping that the Choroquine and z-pack will work. I think the problem with many posts on this thread is that they are only opinions and they try to back up these opinions with isolated anecdotal information. I think what people are resisting is the form of the message. Many posters are "preaching" instead of sharing and many are arguing with the two people on this forum who post who have medical degrees. Not only that but the tone of some posts is to "talk down" to others when It is obvious to many that some posters have no authority whatsoever to pontificate on this subject.

I think if a person has a medical background than their opinion is more valid.

Of course we would be willing to take our chances in a situation such as this. That to me isn't the issue. It is having half baked information thrown at me by know it alls…..every day and every day.

So confusing! I'm not posting my opinions, I am posting news reports that quote actual Doctors treating actual coronavirus patients. Their opinions, not mine.

Also lots of comments saying these are scary drugs, you can die if you take them! We know millions and millions of people have taken these drugs all over the world for many years but no news stories of 1000s of deaths even before coronavirus. Doctors know how to prescribe them safely.

We know only Doctors can prescribe these drugs, so why is there currently a worldwide shortage of them? Must be a ton of Doctors all over the world prescribing them. Maybe they are all "Fox News contributors" ??

Even a local Florida pharmacist in Orange county ...one that "makes pills", I can't think of the name of that kind, he said that he had "bought up" a good supply of Chloroquine several weeks ago, when the president first mentioned it. I don't understand your reference to Fox News contributors. Do they hoard Chloroquine? I didn't "get" that at all.

That was a little joke for Blueash, who called one of the Doctors I linked to above a Fox News contributor. I have read reports that pharmacies were told to stop filling prescriptions by Doctors who were prescribing it for themselves and their families. I doubt that is causing a shortage. Its likely caused by Doctors all over the world prescribing it for coronavirus patients combined with Doctors who were already prescribing it for malaria, lupus, arthritis etc. I know India has now banned export of the drug from their manufacturers.

I don't think people understand that it is already being used in these patients. a recovered patient was on TV last evening who said he was on it and a z-pack, and an antiviral....

I think the experts are just suggesting it isn't a sure all cure....it may work sometimes, it may not.

there is so much unknown about this virus--why do some get such a mild case it's almost unnoticed but others end up on respirators? is it genetic? maybe whatever it is also contributes to why some respond to this medicine and some do not.

but I would hazard a guess that at this stage all hospitals are using it.

I am well aware that this medication is used for lupus and arthritis. I never said it was a preventive medication except for malaria. It is currently being used to TRY to save lives. It is not necessary for the mild cases but rather for severe cases. Every single news channel has pointed out that the cocktail being used is showing great potential. Potential beats nothing hands-down.

Vents are good for two or three days. Beyond that, the likelihood of getting off the vent is slim to none. That too has been all over the news including the governor of New York (#1 hotspot).

Desperate times make for successful resolutions. If someone in dire straits wants to try this therapy, I applaud their decision and would do the same thing. There is no reward for dying because you’re too stubborn to try.

[QUOTE=OrangeBlossomBaby;1741957]I haven't seen anyone here state that they wouldn't take it even under emergency circumstances. What I am seeing, is people jumping on the bandwagon of "this stuff works, I know someone who knows someone who lived to tell about it!" and "this stuff works, I read it in an article that quoted a doctor!"

And then I'm seeing (and posting) "stop assuming that just because you read it in an article that quotes a doctor, and know someone who knows someone - that it's actually effective."

Here's the snopes explanation (from a person who has spent 7 years working with coronaviruses) about the France trials:

Small Trial Finds Hydroxychloroquine Is Not Effective for Treating Coronavirus[/QUOTE

Yeppers. Snopes knows better than every doctor or medical lab.

If you read the side affects for many of the drugs commonly in use it will make you seriously consider not taking it. My wife has rheumatoid arthritis and has been on Enbrel for 20 year now. The side affects of this drug are unbelievable. Enbrel, like all the rheumatoid arthritis drugs, suppresses the immune system in order to reduce the damage to the joints by the immune system. She recently suffered a dangerous bacterial lung infection that required a cocktail antibiotic to knock it out. It has taken 5 months to get it under control. Serious medical problems can happen with the use of this drug but you have to weigh the potential consequences with the benefits it provides to the patient. She has had 20 years of productivity and reasonably good health. Without this drug I have no doubt she would have been long in a wheel chair or confined to a bed due to the damage this disease causes. Because of this last infection we don't believe she will be allowed to use it anymore and has been off the drug for the five months now. She has been in nearly constant pain having to take huge doses of prednisone and pain medication to reduce the effects of the arthritis. If you take every drug off the market that has possible serious side affects we will be in serious trouble.

Why do you jump to such an over-reaction. No one said Snopes knows more than every doctor or medical lab. What was posted was a link to Snopes which is not even their own product but rather a reprint from another website.

The story reported was a small French study that tested the drug combination and found no benefit at all. So apparently not every doctor is finding success. That is all the story reports. It is not a fact checking story. I have mentioned this unsuccessful trial in some previous posts, and have listed criticisms of why this negative report is also not convincing. The Snopes reprint also mentions other failure studies and other success studies. It concludes "questions remain as to the efficacy of this treatment"

No one here is saying hydroxychloroquine with or without other meds is useless. All we are saying it that it has not been proven to work. As for the post saying

"but I would hazard a guess that at this stage all hospitals are using it" I don't know what the number of hospitals using it might be. But I don't have to hazard a guess to tell you that your guess is wrong. I know an ICU director working in what they call "Covid Land" who is not using it.

For every drug combo naysayer, there is one that promotes it. Nothing in this life can be proven to an absolute certainty and every drug has side effects. However, this drug has been around for 75 years and can be approved for use faster than something currently in a lab based on it’s long history.

Let’s face it - treating this virus right now is a crapshoot. If you are in ICU and want to take it - go for it - I know I would.
If you don’t want to take it - that’s fine too.

Lots to unpack here.
Not necessary for mild cases but rather for severe cases

Both reports starting this thread are of doctors using these medications in mild cases. Their reports both claim that using it in mild cases seems to prevent the disease from becoming severe. So your statement that it should only been used in severe cases would seem to be contrary to what these doctors are doing.

Every single news channel has pointed out that the cocktail being used is showing great potential

The news channels have mostly been extremely cautious in their reporting, being careful to differentiate between showing potential and warning viewers that the information is anecdotal and thus there is no proof of efficacy.

Hydroxychloroquine and Covid-19: an explainer - CNN Is a nice balanced presentation.
One network has been far more positive in its presentation and IMO not giving its viewers a balanced approach as it rarely explains the need for better studies. You can watch the linked report earlier in this thread and you will hearing nothing about cautious interpretation of the data.

Vents are good for two or three days

I'm not sure of the point you are making. Vents are good at keeping you alive far longer than 3 days. I have seen no data suggesting that if you are not off the vent in 3 days that this is a critical point beyond which recovery is nearly impossible. In a study published yesterday from Italy, the average time in ICU of those who were discharged alive was 8 days.

"If someone in dire straits wants to try this therapy, I applaud their decision and would do the same thing"

I agree with that. I might opt for remdesivir if I could get it.

Both reports starting this thread are of doctors using these medications in mild cases. There reports both claim that using it in mild cases seems to prevent the disease from becoming severe. So your statement that it should only been used in severe cases would seem to be contrary to what these doctors are doing.

As linked above, Dr Cardillo in LA says he is only using it on severely ill.

Dr. Anthony Cardillo said he has seen very promising results when prescribing hydroxychloroquine in combination with zinc for the most severely-ill COVID-19 patients.

"Every patient I've prescribed it to has been very, very ill and within 8 to 12 hours, they were basically symptom-free," Cardillo told Eyewitness News. "So clinically I am seeing a resolution."

LA doctor seeing success with hydroxychloroquine to treat COVID-19 - ABC7 Los Angeles

You can be on a vent for a long time but beyond 3 days, the odds are that you’re not coming off and someone will need to pull the proverbial plug. Being in ICU does not automatically mean you are on a vent. There are other assisted breathing devices used first. The patient to be vented is put into a coma like state to facilitate insertion of tubes and remains in that state to stop them from trying to remove. Sounds swell to me. I’ll take the drug cocktail thank you.

I am very sorry Dr. Blueash. I can see now that the relationships we have had with our doctors are not the same that other people might have with theirs. First I want to say that every single thing that you have written makes perfect sense to me. We are very used to physicians using most and many and rarely "all". We are very grateful for a skilled physicians measured and thoughtful and skilled response.

I understood that you are most assuredly not against the use of Chloroguine but like many others you are hoping it will be effective. You are quite aware of it's elevated use and you also read and see the "enthusiastic" response and the "spin" from the POTUS and the media, who probably don't know a placenta from an Easter egg. I think you are telling us you are not against the use but like many, many, many people are waiting and hoping to see it's valid success in saving lives .

Long ago and far away I knew a young girl who wanted to be a doctor. It is a good thing that it didn't work out. She would not have the patience to always remember....First do no harm. And she would not have the patience to treat the reasonable and the cooperative as well as the ones who read a book once...or worse, googled it.

And just in case. We still disagree over politics. Nobody's perfect.