5 ms·

> 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 epi

> 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.
  - cheaprentalyeti 3y ago
    Here's an article about state pharmacy boards micromanaging the supply: [0]: https://www.reuters.com/article/us-health-coronavirus-usa-pharmacies/states-work-to-limit-prescriptions-of-potential-coronavirus-drugs-idUSKBN2190XC/ https://www.reuters.com/article/us-health-coronavirus-usa-ph...
    - ceejayoz 3y ago
      Read your article again. They limited it to patients who needed it. Because of the shortage! > The Nevada and Ohio rules dictate that the drugs can only be used for treatment not prevention of COVID-19. Texas and Idaho said that the prescription needs a diagnosis "consistent with the evidence for its use."
- kadoban 3y ago
  > 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. Please point to that study. That is a literally unbelievable claim.

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.
- cheaprentalyeti 3y ago
  Here's an article about state pharmacy boards micromanaging the supply: [0]: https://www.reuters.com/article/us-health-coronavirus-usa-pharmacies/states-work-to-limit-prescriptions-of-potential-coronavirus-drugs-idUSKBN2190XC/ https://www.reuters.com/article/us-health-coronavirus-usa-ph...
  - ceejayoz 3y ago
    Read your article again. They limited it to patients who needed it. Because of the shortage! > The Nevada and Ohio rules dictate that the drugs can only be used for treatment not prevention of COVID-19. Texas and Idaho said that the prescription needs a diagnosis "consistent with the evidence for its use."
kadoban 3y ago
> 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. Please point to that study. That is a literally unbelievable claim.