Hydroxychloroquine rated 'most effective therapy' by doctors for coronavirus: Global

» Site Navigation
Home Page The Villages Maps The Villages Activities The Villages Clubs The Villages Book Healthcare Rentals Real Estate Section Classified Section The Villages Directory Home Improvement Site Guidelines Advertising Info Register Now Video Tutorials Frequently Asked Questions
» Newsletter Signup
» Premium Tower
» Advertisements
» Trending News
» Tower Sponsors




















» Premium Sponsors
» Banner Sponsors
» Advertisements
Closed Thread
Thread Tools
  #46  
Old 04-06-2020, 08:16 PM
GoodLife's Avatar
GoodLife GoodLife is offline
Platinum member
Join Date: Oct 2017
Posts: 1,755
Thanks: 0
Thanked 2,950 Times in 829 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by blueash View Post
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.
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
  #47  
Old 04-06-2020, 08:19 PM
OrangeBlossomBaby OrangeBlossomBaby is offline
Sage
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 4,703
Thanks: 3,515
Thanked 4,739 Times in 1,455 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by blueash View Post
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.
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.
  #48  
Old 04-06-2020, 08:20 PM
OrangeBlossomBaby OrangeBlossomBaby is offline
Sage
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 4,703
Thanks: 3,515
Thanked 4,739 Times in 1,455 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by GoodLife View Post
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
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.
  #49  
Old 04-06-2020, 08:20 PM
DianeM DianeM is offline
Platinum member
Join Date: May 2013
Posts: 1,565
Thanks: 1,052
Thanked 846 Times in 255 Posts
Default

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.
  #50  
Old 04-06-2020, 08:25 PM
OrangeBlossomBaby OrangeBlossomBaby is offline
Sage
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 4,703
Thanks: 3,515
Thanked 4,739 Times in 1,455 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by DianeM View Post
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?
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.
  #51  
Old 04-06-2020, 08:29 PM
GoodLife's Avatar
GoodLife GoodLife is offline
Platinum member
Join Date: Oct 2017
Posts: 1,755
Thanks: 0
Thanked 2,950 Times in 829 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by OrangeBlossomBaby View Post
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.
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.
  #52  
Old 04-06-2020, 08:31 PM
DianeM DianeM is offline
Platinum member
Join Date: May 2013
Posts: 1,565
Thanks: 1,052
Thanked 846 Times in 255 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by OrangeBlossomBaby View Post
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.
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”.
  #53  
Old 04-06-2020, 08:57 PM
OrangeBlossomBaby OrangeBlossomBaby is offline
Sage
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 4,703
Thanks: 3,515
Thanked 4,739 Times in 1,455 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by DianeM View Post
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.
  #54  
Old 04-06-2020, 09:07 PM
biker1 biker1 is offline
Soaring Eagle member
Join Date: May 2014
Posts: 2,476
Thanks: 1
Thanked 562 Times in 298 Posts
Default

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.

Quote:
Originally Posted by OrangeBlossomBaby View Post
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.
  #55  
Old 04-06-2020, 09:08 PM
skyking skyking is offline
Senior Member
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 425
Thanks: 35
Thanked 206 Times in 87 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by OrangeBlossomBaby View Post
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.
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.
  #56  
Old 04-06-2020, 09:11 PM
blueash's Avatar
blueash blueash is offline
Sage
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 2,611
Thanks: 163
Thanked 1,829 Times in 459 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by GoodLife View Post
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.
__________________
Men plug the dikes of their most needed beliefs with whatever mud they can find. - Clifford Geertz
  #57  
Old 04-06-2020, 09:11 PM
OrangeBlossomBaby OrangeBlossomBaby is offline
Sage
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 4,703
Thanks: 3,515
Thanked 4,739 Times in 1,455 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by biker1 View Post
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.
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.
  #58  
Old 04-06-2020, 09:20 PM
biker1 biker1 is offline
Soaring Eagle member
Join Date: May 2014
Posts: 2,476
Thanks: 1
Thanked 562 Times in 298 Posts
Default

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.

Quote:
Originally Posted by OrangeBlossomBaby View Post
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.

Last edited by biker1; 04-06-2020 at 09:27 PM.
  #59  
Old 04-06-2020, 09:32 PM
blueash's Avatar
blueash blueash is offline
Sage
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 2,611
Thanks: 163
Thanked 1,829 Times in 459 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by GoodLife View Post
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
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
__________________
Men plug the dikes of their most needed beliefs with whatever mud they can find. - Clifford Geertz
  #60  
Old 04-06-2020, 10:11 PM
blueash's Avatar
blueash blueash is offline
Sage
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 2,611
Thanks: 163
Thanked 1,829 Times in 459 Posts
Default

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."
Closed Thread

Tags
doctors, hydroxychloroquine, coronavirus, rated, effective

Thread Tools

You are viewing a new design of the TOTV site. Click here to revert to the old version.

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 01:45 AM.