Coronavirus (COVID-19)

[LETSGOBROWNIES]

10 minutes ago, BobbyPhil1781 said:

I'm the one that started this banter so I'll chime in.

Again, I'm .05% conspiracy theorist but it's really frustrating to see so many studies that suggest in early stages, it's very effective but people are trying their best to say "nuh-uh" then provide data taken late in the virus' lifespan to prove their point. It's up to the person to believe what they're reading but this links to every study/article done on the subject and I don't know how to take it.

https://c19study.com/

So I’ll ask you, why isn’t this a standard treatment by now if it’s so effective?

[BobbyPhil1781]

4 minutes ago, LETSGOBROWNIES said:

So I’ll ask you, why isn’t this a standard treatment by now if it’s so effective?

I don't know hence me saying "it's really frustrating to see so many studies that suggest in early stages, it's very effective". I don't know what to believe but why are we seeing overwhelmingly positive studies that suggest it's effective early in the virus' life cycle?? That's the frustrating part..... I hate it. I hate it a lot. 

[dtait93]

7 minutes ago, LETSGOBROWNIES said:

im just asking a question.

So if it’s guy has all this wonderful data, why isn’t anyone in the world using it, despite large scale testing?

I'm not sure what you're talking about. Could you could specify what you mean when you say no one in the world is using it? Brazil, Algeria, Morocco, Turkey, Jordan, Romania, Portugal, Kenya, Senegal, Chad, Republic of Congo, Russia, Oman, Iran, Thailand, and Cuba all use it as a treatment/preventantive.

[BobbyPhil1781]

2 minutes ago, dtait93 said:

I'm not sure what you're talking about. Could you could specify what you mean when you say no one in the world is using it? Brazil, Algeria, Morocco, Turkey, Jordan, Romania, Portugal, Kenya, Senegal, Chad, Republic of Congo, Russia, Oman, Iran, Thailand, and Cuba all use it as a treatment/preventantive.

Again, reeeeeeeeaaaaaaaalllllly frustrating.

[LETSGOBROWNIES]

1 minute ago, dtait93 said:

I'm not sure what you're talking about. Could you could specify what you mean when you say no one in the world is using it? Brazil, Algeria, Morocco, Turkey, Jordan, Romania, Portugal, Kenya, Senegal, Chad, Republic of Congo, Russia, Oman, Iran, Thailand, and Cuba all use it as a treatment/preventantive.

Lol

[Xenos]

21 minutes ago, BobbyPhil1781 said:

I'm the one that started this banter so I'll chime in.

Again, I'm .05% conspiracy theorist but it's really frustrating to see so many studies that suggest in early stages, it's very effective but people are trying their best to say "nuh-uh" then provide data taken late in the virus' lifespan to prove their point. It's up to the person to believe what they're reading but this links to every study/article done on the subject and I don't know how to take it.

https://c19study.com/

Are there many studies that say the early stages though?

https://www.washingtonpost.com/health/2020/07/16/hydroxychloroquine-studies-show-drug-is-not-effective-early-treatment-mild-covid-19/

Quote

The randomized trial from Spain, published in the journal Clinical Infectious Diseases, found the drug did not reduce the time patients had symptoms or the risk of hospitalization for patients with mild covid-19, the illness caused by the novel coronavirus.

Jeanne Marrazzo, an infectious-disease specialist at the University of Alabama at Birmingham who was not involved in the study, said the new data was important because some doctors had speculated the drug would be helpful if given early in the course of the disease — right after onset of symptoms and before a patient got sick enough to go to the hospital.

“The hope was maybe, if you treat early in the disease, you don’t need a silver bullet,” such as remdesivir, an antiviral used for covid-19, she said. “Maybe it’s enough to just blunt the intensity of the viral invasion and just get people over the first hump before the viral replication goes crazy and elicits the kind of immune reaction that is taking people out late in the disease.”

 

[BobbyPhil1781]

That site could be junk. I dunno. I don't know anything about this stupid thing except I want it over.

[BobbyPhil1781]

2 minutes ago, Xenos said:

Are there many studies that say the early stages though?

https://www.washingtonpost.com/health/2020/07/16/hydroxychloroquine-studies-show-drug-is-not-effective-early-treatment-mild-covid-19/

 

The site you quoted has almost 30-40 positive articles, some peer reviewed, so yeah but are they right?

[vikesfan89]

1 hour ago, BobbyPhil1781 said:

People hate on HCQ b/c use your imagination. They try to denounce it every opportunity they can. Turns out most studies, if you believe them, suggest it's a very helpful treatment for early stages of the virus while being useless late in it's life cycle.

I get that.  I was just having a hard time following the results without putting a lot of effort into it

[dtait93]

19 minutes ago, LETSGOBROWNIES said:

Lol

India and Venezuela can be added to that list as well.

[BobbyPhil1781]

9 minutes ago, vikesfan89 said:

I get that.  I was just having a hard time following the results without putting a lot of effort into it

The page links whether the results were positive, negative, or other. It doesn't *seem* to have a bias but again, who knows wtf the believe. It's frustrating (for the millionth time).

It literally links all sources and some of them are absolutely legit. This is why I'm struggling so much on what to believe. 

Random one for example:

https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanrhe/article/PIIS2665-9913(20)30227-7/fulltext

Findings

"Between March 20 and March 30, 2020, 6228 patients with autoimmune rheumatic diseases were included in the study. The overall rate of COVID-19 in patients with an autoimmune rheumatic disease in our study population was 0·43% (27 of 6228 patients). We identified 42 families in which COVID-19 was diagnosed between Dec 20, 2019, and March 20, 2020, in either patients with a rheumatic disease or in a family member residing at the same physical address during the outbreak. Within these 42 families, COVID-19 was diagnosed in 27 (63%) of 43 patients with a rheumatic disease and in 28 (34%) of 83 of their family members with no rheumatic disease (adjusted odds ratio [OR] 2·68 [95% CI 1·14–6·27]; p=0·023). Patients with rheumatic disease who were taking hydroxychloroquine had a lower risk of COVID-19 infection than patients taking other disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs (OR 0·09 [95% CI 0·01–0·94]; p=0·044). Additionally, the risk of COVID-19 was increased with age (adjusted OR 1·04 [95%CI 1·01–1·06]; p=0·0081)."

I don't know what to believe.............

Edited July 28, 2020 by BobbyPhil1781

[JDBrocks]

Is the suggestion that doctors are against using this treatment to save peoples lives for political purposes? I don't understand what's being asked/suggested here.

[Shanedorf]

1 minute ago, LETSGOBROWNIES said:

So I’ll ask you, why isn’t this a standard treatment by now if it’s so effective?

Because it doesn't meet the risk / reward equation to be a successful treatment as determined through controlled, rigorous research
90 % of drugs fail in clinical development and every one of them showed some positive results or traits along the way.
But having some positive traits isn't enough and that's where people get bamboozled all the time - from investors, to patient advocate groups to clinicians

Right patient, right drug, right dose is a very steep hill to climb and the vast majority don't make it - and that's a good thing for humanity
There have been dozens of potential drugs that have showed some efficacy or benefit vs COVID, but upon further scrutiny -  they didn't pass muster.

This happens all the time;  but if you don't work in the industry, you're blissfully unaware of the brutal reality of drug development

[BobbyPhil1781]

5 minutes ago, Shanedorf said:

Because it doesn't meet the risk / reward equation to be a successful treatment as determined through controlled, rigorous research
90 % of drugs fail in clinical development and every one of them showed some positive results or traits along the way.
But having some positive traits isn't enough and that's where people get bamboozled all the time - from investors, to patient advocate groups to clinicians

Right patient, right drug, right dose is a very steep hill to climb and the vast majority don't make it - and that's a good thing for humanity
There have been dozens of potential drugs that have showed some efficacy or benefit vs COVID, but upon further scrutiny -  they didn't pass muster.

This happens all the time;  but if you don't work in the industry, you're blissfully unaware of the brutal reality of drug development

You're sciencey... what are your thoughts on the site that has linked all of those positive studies vs the negatives? I need someone to make me understand this more and not be as frustrated as I've been since I found this site lol. 

Edited July 28, 2020 by BobbyPhil1781

[LETSGOBROWNIES]

7 minutes ago, Shanedorf said:

Because it doesn't meet the risk / reward equation to be a successful treatment as determined through controlled, rigorous research
90 % of drugs fail in clinical development and every one of them showed some positive results or traits along the way.
But having some positive traits isn't enough and that's where people get bamboozled all the time - from investors, to patient advocate groups to clinicians

Right patient, right drug, right dose is a very steep hill to climb and the vast majority don't make it - and that's a good thing for humanity
There have been dozens of potential drugs that have showed some efficacy or benefit vs COVID, but upon further scrutiny -  they didn't pass muster.

This happens all the time;  but if you don't work in the industry, you're blissfully unaware of the brutal reality of drug development

It was rhetorical, but yeah. 😂