Corona Virus

[cardboardbox]

You shouldn't read warning labels but you should tell everyone in America they should randomly choose drugs from someone else's medicine cabinet to try them out for your unrelated condition? That is basically what Trump is doing by touting a drug known to work for the malaria parasite that is not yet known to work for the COVID-19 virus.

and if you took hydroxychloroquine from someone else for your unrelated condition, it almost surely would not kill you, nor do great damage to you. Thats the main thing I'm trying to get you to understand. Its not a dangerous, killer drug.

[Sour Masher]

and if you took hydroxychloroquine from someone else for your unrelated condition, it almost surely would not kill you, nor do great damage to you. Thats the main thing I'm trying to get you to understand. Its not a dangerous, killer drug.

Even if you want to continue to deny the potential harmful side effects of the drug (and this is true for pretty much any drug), can you admit it is certainly dangerous that many are taking it for COVID-19 even though there is no evidence it works, leaving shortages for those patients who rely on the drug for things that it is proven to treat? Isn't it better for a limited supply of drugs to go toward treating patients with conditions clinical trials have shown the drug can help treat? Is it okay if it is unlikely to harm you but also has no evidence yet it works for you if it is also taking that drug away from others who have conditions we know it helps with? Trump is encouraging people get this drug to treat a condition we don't know it treats and taking it away from those that it can help. That is dangerous and potentially fatal to those who need the drug for conditions we know it helps.

[GwynnInTheHall]

Even if you want to continue to deny the potential harmful side effects of the drug (and this is true for pretty much any drug), can you admit it is certainly dangerous that many are taking it for COVID-19 even though there is no evidence it works, leaving shortages for those patients who rely on the drug for things that it is proven to treat? Isn't it better for a limited supply of drugs to go toward treating patients with conditions clinical trials have shown the drug can help treat? Is it okay if it is unlikely to harm you but also has no evidence yet it works for you if it is also taking that drug away from others who have conditions we know it helps with? Trump is encouraging people get this drug to treat a condition we don't know it treats and taking it away from those that it can help. That is dangerous and potentially fatal to those who need the drug for conditions we know it helps.

I'm sure he has a great example of how injecting Clorox works well and with out many bad side effects too.

[Sour Masher]

I'm sure he has a great example of how injecting Clorox works well and with out many bad side effects too.

This just brings the conversation back to the strawman argument that no one was making that this drug is some super deadly killer to all who take it. I wasn't suggesting it was. I was saying it was dangerous, and without evidence that it helps treat COVID-19, it is dangerous and harmful to encourage 100s of thousands of people to take it. Not only will some of those people experience harmful side effects, as the article I linked to spells out, Trump's public touting of the drug has led to critical shortages for those that need the drug for clinically proven reasons.

[cardboardbox]

Even if you want to continue to deny the potential harmful side effects of the drug (and this is true for pretty much any drug), can you admit it is certainly dangerous that many are taking it for COVID-19 even though there is no evidence it works, leaving shortages for those patients who rely on the drug for things that it is proven to treat? Isn't it better for a limited supply of drugs to go toward treating patients with conditions clinical trials have shown the drug can help treat? Is it okay if it is unlikely to harm you but also has no evidence yet it works for you if it is also taking that drug away from others who have conditions we know it helps with? Trump is encouraging people get this drug to treat a condition we don't know it treats and taking it away from those that it can help. That is dangerous and potentially fatal to those who need the drug for conditions we know it helps.

every drug has potential side effects, that doesnt make it dangerous. Thats been my main point today. Again, there has been evidence it works, and I'd like to see more testing where the patient is given hydroxychloroquine earlier.

I know HCQ production has increased greatly, hopefully its just supply chain issues that are causing shortages.

"Several manufacturers have pledged to donate tens of millions of doses of hydroxychloroquine, or Plaquenil, the brand version, or chloroquine. The pharmaceutical manufacturer Novartis Sandoz has increased its donation pledge from 20 million doses to as many as 130 million doses"

Thats just one manufacturer.

[cardboardbox]

This just brings the conversation back to the strawman argument that no one was making that this drug is some super deadly killer to all who take it. I wasn't suggesting it was. I was saying it was dangerous, and without evidence that it helps treat COVID-19, it is dangerous and harmful to encourage 100s of thousands of people to take it. Not only will some of those people experience harmful side effects, as the article I linked to spells out, Trump's public touting of the drug has led to critical shortages for those that need the drug for clinically proven reasons.

I guess if you say its dangerous enough times, you'll believe it.

[Sour Masher]

every drug has potential side effects, that doesnt make it dangerous. Thats been my main point today. Again, there has been evidence it works, and I'd like to see more testing where the patient is given hydroxychloroquine earlier.

There has only been anecdotal evidence of it working, and that is countered by anecdotal evidence that it does not and in fact, in the limited cases being tested, early indications are that as many or more people die taking it as not. You may counter that by saying we are not giving it to people early enough, but the fact is really we don't know right now, if it does anything good for COVID-19 patients, depite Trump's aggressive touting of it (remidisiver has shown more promising early results, as one example of a drug much less talked about, simply because Trump hasn't pushed it like a corner dealer). If you really want us to find out, though, please see the quote I give above and that paper as a whole for why widespread usage of the drug by the population we want trials on can undermine the clinical studies that determine its effectiveness.

[Sour Masher]

At the bottom is another quote from the same article I linked to. I just don't know how anyone can defend Trump on this. In his own words, he calls the drug a game changer that he might start taking even though he doesn't have COVID-19, and encourages everyone else to take, despite a limited supply and a lack of any clinical evidence, because he has a "hunch." He believes his hunches are more valid than science. There is no defending that sort of thinking. It is not the sort of thinking that will lead us to the best outcomes for treating this disease. It would be blind luck if he is proven right on this. His methods will still have been wrong, wrong, wrong. His thinking undermines centuries of progress and prosperity founded on the scientific method, logic, and reason.

It is irresponsible and dangerous not only to follow his advice, unfounded as it is on any sort of science or reason, but to embrace his methods. In fact, I'd contend it is even more dangerous to embrace his methods. I truly fear what will happen if Trump's blind, baseless hunch here ends up coincidentally coinciding with the truth. It would embolden him and many of his followers to embrace his flawed "gut" methods of deciding anything. It could lead to many more deaths and pain in the long run if that happens.

"When very limited observational and anecdotal evidence raised the possibility that the antimalarial drugs chloroquine and hydroxychloroquine may have activity against SARS-CoV-2, President Donald Trump quickly began celebrating the promise of their widespread use, stating on national television that he had a “hunch” that such therapy was effective and that the drugs could be a “game changer” in addressing the pandemic. More recently, he openly encouraged patients to take the drugs and suggested he might do so himself, despite having tested negative for the virus."

[GwynnInTheHall]

So CBB, you said you are/have taken HCQ. It's only prescribed for a limited number of issues. Lupus, Malaria and Rheumatoid Arthritis.

Were you incorrectly prescribed this medicine?

I can see that the possible side effects would be preferable to getting/dying from Malaria and we all would agree that if it helped cure/mitigate Lupas, they would be tolerable and possibly for the Arthritis, but there are better treatments for that with less aggressive side effects. But to risk those side effects for anything less. is just kind of foolish.

And the argument that ALL drugs have side effects so therefore HCQ is no worse than any other drug is just ridiculous.

I hope you're recovered from you Malaria or Lupus or that your Arthritis is in check.

[cardboardbox]

So CBB, you said you are/have taken HCQ. It's only prescribed for a limited number of issues. Lupus, Malaria and Rheumatoid Arthritis.

Were you incorrectly prescribed this medicine?.

doctors thought I had RA, I have all the symptoms but the blood test is usually negative, however for a short time I tested positive. So I took HCQ and while it didnt fix my pain, it did make a few warts on my hand disappear. Warts are caused by HPV, so its clear to me that HCQ has benefits as an anti-viral. I get all the side effects of drugs, but when I took HCQ I felt no different. Dr's said I had to get my eyes checked regularly because it can damage the eyes in rare cases.

[cardboardbox]

There has only been anecdotal evidence of it working, and that is countered by anecdotal evidence that it does not and in fact, in the limited cases being tested, early indications are that as many or more people die taking it as not. You may counter that by saying we are not giving it to people early enough, but the fact is really we don't know right now, if it does anything good for COVID-19 patients

this I can agree on.

(remidisiver has shown more promising early results, as one example of a drug much less talked about, simply because Trump hasn't pushed it like a corner dealer).

isnt this the one that flopped in its trial?

[Sour Masher]

this I can agree on.

isnt this the one that flopped in its trial?

I may not be up on recent remidisiver news, but if reports are not saying it isn't working, this is more evidence for why we need to wait for more testing. Early observational evidence from pre-publication reports were positive for it.

[Sour Masher]

doctors thought I had RA, I have all the symptoms but the blood test is usually negative, however for a short time I tested positive. So I took HCQ and while it didnt fix my pain, it did make a few warts on my hand disappear. Warts are caused by HPV, so its clear to me that HCQ has benefits as an anti-viral. I get all the side effects of drugs, but when I took HCQ I felt no different. Dr's said I had to get my eyes checked regularly because it can damage the eyes in rare cases.

Interesting. My mother has had RA for decades and I don't think she has ever been prescribed HCQ. Not sure why. Maybe too many pre-existing conditions. Maybe an insurance thing. The only drugs that have really helped her have been Remicade and Enbril. Remicade was really effective for her, but sadly, it stopped being covered by Medicare, so she hasn't had it for years. If I ever won the lottery, I'd be buying her that. A single dose can cost up to $2500.

[cardboardbox]

Interesting. My mother has had RA for decades and I don't think she has ever been prescribed HCQ. Not sure why. Maybe too many pre-existing conditions. Maybe an insurance thing. The only drugs that have really helped her have been Remicade and Enbril. Remicade was really effective for her, but sadly, it stopped being covered by Medicare, so she hasn't had it for years. If I ever won the lottery, I'd be buying her that. A single dose can cost up to $2500.

I dont know if it was RA, I've also been diagnosed with Sjogrens and fibromyalgia. I might be misremembering and the HCQ could have been for any of them.

Found this, looks like HCQ might be useful for RA patients: "Plaquenil (hydroxychloroquine) is a medication that has been used for many years to help musculoskeletal symptoms and fatigue in patients with autoimmune conditions such as rheumatoid arthritis, lupus and Sjögren’s. While there is good clinical evidence demonstrating the drug’s efficacy in rheumatoid arthritis and lupus, there are very few studies looking at hydroxychloroquine as a treatment for Sjögren’s. The studies that do exist show mixed results (some show benefit and some show no benefit) in whether or not the drug is effective in helping with pain, fatigue, dry eyes or dry mouth."

https://info.sjogrens.org/conquering-sjogrens/topic/plaquenil

[cardboardbox]

I may not be up on recent remidisiver news, but if reports are not saying it isn't working, this is more evidence for why we need to wait for more testing. Early observational evidence from pre-publication reports were positive for it.

https://www.statnews.com/2020/04/23/data-on-gileads-remdesivir-released-by-accident-show-no-benefit-for-coronavirus-patients/