5 ms·

[flagged]

ceejayoz 3y ago
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S075333222301853X https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S075333222... "Studies including only patients receiving HCQ, receiving HCQ from August 2020 onwards, and patients already treated with HCQ for autoimmune conditions were excluded, as well as studies from countries for which mortality data were lacking." > there's no articles about how-many-people-died-on-Remdesivir because The Experts Are Always Right, Peon! Did you look? Quick Google: https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamanetworkopen/fullarticle/2799114 https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamanetworkopen/fullarticle... "remdesivir treatment was associated with significant 17% lower risk of inpatient mortality among patients hospitalized with COVID-19"
- cheaprentalyeti 3y ago
  I believe all of you are being deliberately obtuse. >"Studies including only patients receiving HCQ, receiving HCQ from August 2020 onwards, and patients already treated with HCQ for autoimmune conditions were excluded, as well as studies from countries for which mortality data were lacking." I was not talking about a particular study when I mentioned people with autoimmune disorders. I was talking about people I _knew in real life_ who had autoimmune disorders before COVID started but suddenly couldn't get HCQ because the people running the Covid response decided the best course of action was to take HCQ off the market. How were people supposed to be using it for covid if the people who had valid prescriptions from licensed rheumatologists and were taking it so they could WALK or use their hands couldn't get any? >Did you look? Quick Google: https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamanetworkopen/fullarticle https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamanetworkopen/fullarticle... >"remdesivir treatment was associated with significant 17% lower risk of inpatient mortality among patients hospitalized with COVID-19" I know there's a probably a paper that says that. that's why I distrust all the idiots pretending to be doctors and scientists these days. At the time she was given it and died I found out later that the World Health Organization was recommending _against_ its use. Here's the links: [0]: https://www.reuters.com/article/health-coronavirus-remdesivir-who-idUSL1N2I602Z/ https://www.reuters.com/article/health-coronavirus-remdesivi... [1]: https://thehill.com/policy/healthcare/521319-who-study-finds-no-benefit-from-remdesivir-on-covid-deaths-hospital-stays/ https://thehill.com/policy/healthcare/521319-who-study-finds... [2]: https://www.science.org/content/article/very-very-bad-look-remdesivir-first-fda-approved-covid-19-drug https://www.science.org/content/article/very-very-bad-look-r...
  - ceejayoz 3y ago
    > How were people supposed to be using it for covid if the people who had valid prescriptions from licensed rheumatologists and were taking it so they could WALK or use their hands couldn't get any? Because a bunch of idiots getting prescriptions online at a couple hundred bucks for a consult from grifters like https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/America's_Frontline_Doctors https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/America's_Frontline_Doctors caused a shortage. Sudden increase in demand, no increase in supply. Very simple answer. It was never “taken off the market”. See also: toilet paper.
    - cheaprentalyeti 3y ago
      That's not what caused the shortage. It started in March or April of 2020.
      - ceejayoz 3y ago
        That lines up perfectly. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydroxychloroquine https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydroxychloroquine > Several countries initially used chloroquine or hydroxychloroquine for treatment of persons hospitalized with COVID-19 (as of March 2020), though the drug was not formally approved through clinical trials. From April to June 2020, there was an emergency use authorization for their use in the United States, and was used off label for potential treatment of the disease. https://www.fda.gov/media/136534/download https://www.fda.gov/media/136534/download is the FDA issuing an EUA in late March. April 8: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7207200/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7207200/ > As we await further evidence on the role, if any, of these drugs in addressing the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic, many clinicians have already begun using them to treat COVID-19. > A surge in prescriptions based on speculation about their role in the prevention or treatment of SARS-CoV-2 infection threatens the availability of these drugs for patients with chronic inflammatory disorders for whom they are known to be effective. At least 2 manufacturers have announced plans to increase hydroxychloroquine production in anticipation of this need. I think we’re done here.
        3y ago
kadoban 3y ago
> I have doubts about this simply because I knew people who needed HCQ for other diseases (lupus and rheumatoid arthritis) had trouble getting it during the epidemic because the government restricted supplies. Your evidence against this drug being commonly taken appears to be that it was so popular that supplies were getting low and governments acted to limit its use. > Also that the only deaths that happened during the studies happened because the studies were rigged with improper dosages. In other words they studied different dosages to see if an initially-promising treatment was effective? > [...] but there's no articles about how-many-people-died-on-Remdesivir because The Experts Are Always Right, Peon! It's known to be a dangerous drug. That's why it's perscribed only by doctors when they've determined that the tradeoffs are worth it. What would the story be? HCQ by the current understanding does fuckall for Covid. So combating the false perception that it's harmless is worthwhile and will be news to some.
- cheaprentalyeti 3y ago
  >Your evidence against this drug being commonly taken appears to be that it was so popular that supplies were getting low and governments acted to limit its use. No, I am saying it was _removed from the market by the government_ at the time to where even people who could obtain it for other uses before suddenly couldn't obtain it. >In other words they studied different dosages to see if an initially-promising treatment was effective? That's not what they did. They administered what was known from the standard of care of the use of HCQ for treating malaria to be a lethal dose and then said this proved the drug was useless for covid. You can go find a pre-2019 pre-"We have always been at war with Eurasia" edition of the Physician's Desk Reference and look at the dosage information for treatment of a patient with Malaria and see for yourself. Make a spreadsheet and add up the individual doses and see for yourself how much they gave patients.
  - ceejayoz 3y ago
    > No, I am saying it was _removed from the market by the government_ at the time to where even people who could obtain it for other uses before suddenly couldn't obtain it. This is a patently false claim.

[flagged]

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S075333222301853X https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S075333222... "Studies including only patients receiving HCQ, receiving HCQ from August 2020 onwards, and patients already treated with HCQ for autoimmune conditions were excluded, as well as studies from countries for which mortality data were lacking." > there's no articles about how-many-people-died-on-Remdesivir because The Experts Are Always Right, Peon! Did you look? Quick Google: https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamanetworkopen/fullarticle/2799114 https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamanetworkopen/fullarticle... "remdesivir treatment was associated with significant 17% lower risk of inpatient mortality among patients hospitalized with COVID-19"

cheaprentalyeti 3y ago
I believe all of you are being deliberately obtuse. >"Studies including only patients receiving HCQ, receiving HCQ from August 2020 onwards, and patients already treated with HCQ for autoimmune conditions were excluded, as well as studies from countries for which mortality data were lacking." I was not talking about a particular study when I mentioned people with autoimmune disorders. I was talking about people I _knew in real life_ who had autoimmune disorders before COVID started but suddenly couldn't get HCQ because the people running the Covid response decided the best course of action was to take HCQ off the market. How were people supposed to be using it for covid if the people who had valid prescriptions from licensed rheumatologists and were taking it so they could WALK or use their hands couldn't get any? >Did you look? Quick Google: https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamanetworkopen/fullarticle https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamanetworkopen/fullarticle... >"remdesivir treatment was associated with significant 17% lower risk of inpatient mortality among patients hospitalized with COVID-19" I know there's a probably a paper that says that. that's why I distrust all the idiots pretending to be doctors and scientists these days. At the time she was given it and died I found out later that the World Health Organization was recommending _against_ its use. Here's the links: [0]: https://www.reuters.com/article/health-coronavirus-remdesivir-who-idUSL1N2I602Z/ https://www.reuters.com/article/health-coronavirus-remdesivi... [1]: https://thehill.com/policy/healthcare/521319-who-study-finds-no-benefit-from-remdesivir-on-covid-deaths-hospital-stays/ https://thehill.com/policy/healthcare/521319-who-study-finds... [2]: https://www.science.org/content/article/very-very-bad-look-remdesivir-first-fda-approved-covid-19-drug https://www.science.org/content/article/very-very-bad-look-r...
- ceejayoz 3y ago
  > How were people supposed to be using it for covid if the people who had valid prescriptions from licensed rheumatologists and were taking it so they could WALK or use their hands couldn't get any? Because a bunch of idiots getting prescriptions online at a couple hundred bucks for a consult from grifters like https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/America's_Frontline_Doctors https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/America's_Frontline_Doctors caused a shortage. Sudden increase in demand, no increase in supply. Very simple answer. It was never “taken off the market”. See also: toilet paper.
  - cheaprentalyeti 3y ago
    That's not what caused the shortage. It started in March or April of 2020.
    - ceejayoz 3y ago
      That lines up perfectly. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydroxychloroquine https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydroxychloroquine > Several countries initially used chloroquine or hydroxychloroquine for treatment of persons hospitalized with COVID-19 (as of March 2020), though the drug was not formally approved through clinical trials. From April to June 2020, there was an emergency use authorization for their use in the United States, and was used off label for potential treatment of the disease. https://www.fda.gov/media/136534/download https://www.fda.gov/media/136534/download is the FDA issuing an EUA in late March. April 8: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7207200/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7207200/ > As we await further evidence on the role, if any, of these drugs in addressing the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic, many clinicians have already begun using them to treat COVID-19. > A surge in prescriptions based on speculation about their role in the prevention or treatment of SARS-CoV-2 infection threatens the availability of these drugs for patients with chronic inflammatory disorders for whom they are known to be effective. At least 2 manufacturers have announced plans to increase hydroxychloroquine production in anticipation of this need. I think we’re done here.
      - 3y ago

kadoban 3y ago

> I have doubts about this simply because I knew people who needed HCQ for other diseases (lupus and rheumatoid arthritis) had trouble getting it during the epidemic because the government restricted supplies. Your evidence against this drug being commonly taken appears to be that it was so popular that supplies were getting low and governments acted to limit its use. > Also that the only deaths that happened during the studies happened because the studies were rigged with improper dosages. In other words they studied different dosages to see if an initially-promising treatment was effective? > [...] but there's no articles about how-many-people-died-on-Remdesivir because The Experts Are Always Right, Peon! It's known to be a dangerous drug. That's why it's perscribed only by doctors when they've determined that the tradeoffs are worth it. What would the story be? HCQ by the current understanding does fuckall for Covid. So combating the false perception that it's harmless is worthwhile and will be news to some.

cheaprentalyeti 3y ago
>Your evidence against this drug being commonly taken appears to be that it was so popular that supplies were getting low and governments acted to limit its use. No, I am saying it was _removed from the market by the government_ at the time to where even people who could obtain it for other uses before suddenly couldn't obtain it. >In other words they studied different dosages to see if an initially-promising treatment was effective? That's not what they did. They administered what was known from the standard of care of the use of HCQ for treating malaria to be a lethal dose and then said this proved the drug was useless for covid. You can go find a pre-2019 pre-"We have always been at war with Eurasia" edition of the Physician's Desk Reference and look at the dosage information for treatment of a patient with Malaria and see for yourself. Make a spreadsheet and add up the individual doses and see for yourself how much they gave patients.
- ceejayoz 3y ago
  > No, I am saying it was _removed from the market by the government_ at the time to where even people who could obtain it for other uses before suddenly couldn't obtain it. This is a patently false claim.