MookieMonstah Posted July 28, 2020 Share Posted July 28, 2020 1 minute ago, ramssuperbowl99 said: Why are you guys debating with the anti-masker? Because I enjoy banging my head against the wall 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dtait93 Posted July 28, 2020 Share Posted July 28, 2020 Just now, MookieMonstah said: Congratulations on avoiding the first question. I'll rephrase. Do you think it works? If you think it works, why isn't EVERY US doctor using it? The answer to the second question implies the answer to the first. And I don't know, I wish I had the answer. Some countries are using it, and some aren't. Some studies claim it's effective, and some don't. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MookieMonstah Posted July 28, 2020 Share Posted July 28, 2020 1 minute ago, dtait93 said: The answer to the second question implies the answer to the first. And I don't know, I wish I had the answer. Some countries are using it, and some aren't. Some studies claim it's effective, and some don't. You must be great at dodge ball. Numerous studies have shown it has some positive effects. Numerous studies have shown it has zero improvement on death rate. Its not a useful cure. We'd be far better off using time and resources elsewhere. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ramssuperbowl99 Posted July 28, 2020 Share Posted July 28, 2020 6 minutes ago, BobbyPhil1781 said: OK this is what makes the most sense to me as to why and isn't something I had considered. When you think about literally almost everyone surviving, you do have to be extra cautious w/ what you use for treatment purposed to not lessen those chances. I'd be curious of how many of those people have heart issues as a result of the drug b/c if you looked at the site, there are plenty of peer reviewed, positive studies done w/ this drug in early stages. What are your thoughts on all those studies (not each individual but the overwhelming amount of positive influence the drug has as a whole)? Sanofi spent millions of dollars on this drug - they only do that when there is positive data. Pharma is one of those industries where everything looks great until it doesn't. Every time you run a study, you learn more and more about the drug, so it's like blackjack where your odds change all the time as you go. There are lots of things you may not have investigated yet that could completely ruin a drug, and until you know them, everything's fine. In this case, the safety issue in question is called QT prolongation. I think I've explained this before, but if you think of your heart as a revolver, the QT interval is the reload time. That means the longer it gets, the more when under stress the body may try to fire before the heart has "reloaded". If one drug lengthens QT interval, and you give it with another drug that lengthens QT interval, they'll stack and it's possible that you'll actually get a longer reload time than even the sum. So that means there is going to be a certain fraction of the population who is going to be really vulnerable to heart attack if they take this. Not everybody, but if you dose enough people, somebody. That's where the risk reward comes into play. We don't really know the thing works, it might a little bit, but we'd be giving a population that trends obese, diabetic, and old a drug that contributes to a potential heart attack when 99.X% of them are going to survive if we just use the current standard of care. Doesn't add up. 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JDBrocks Posted July 28, 2020 Share Posted July 28, 2020 2 minutes ago, ramssuperbowl99 said: Sanofi spent millions of dollars on this drug - they only do that when there is positive data. Pharma is one of those industries where everything looks great until it doesn't. Every time you run a study, you learn more and more about the drug, so it's like blackjack where your odds change all the time as you go. There are lots of things you may not have investigated yet that could completely ruin a drug, and until you know them, everything's fine. In this case, the safety issue in question is called QT prolongation. I think I've explained this before, but if you think of your heart as a revolver, the QT interval is the reload time. That means the longer it gets, the more when under stress the body may try to fire before the heart has "reloaded". If one drug lengthens QT interval, and you give it with another drug that lengthens QT interval, they'll stack and it's possible that you'll actually get a longer reload time than even the sum. So that means there is going to be a certain fraction of the population who is going to be really vulnerable to heart attack if they take this. Not everybody, but if you dose enough people, somebody. That's where the risk reward comes into play. We don't really know the thing works, it might a little bit, but we'd be giving a population that trends obese, diabetic, and old a drug that contributes to a potential heart attack when 99.X% of them are going to survive if we just use the current standard of care. Doesn't add up. Thank you, sir. This was very helpful to me. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shanedorf Posted July 28, 2020 Share Posted July 28, 2020 Risk / Reward If you are developing a brand new nasal decongestant, the bar for safety is super high - its not a fatal disease and we already have dozens of them - so any new meds are held to an incredibly high standard. If you are developing a treatment for brain cancer, the bar is much lower because the disease is fatal and we don't have any treatments available So if a new drug for brain cancer makes your hair fall out, that's unfortunate, but acceptable - its better than dying. But if the new nasal decongestant causes your hair to fall out, no chance it gets approved. Medical Risk/Reward is weighed in every decision the FDA makes, their decisions are supported by validated clinical evidence and in most cases are available for public review and scrutiny. One really interesting part about the FDA is that the "agency" doesn't approve new meds, the Medical Reviewers/Committees do and they put their name, reputation and their livelihood on the line when they give it the go ahead. That's done to keep the process clean from any economic or political influences. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Xenos Posted July 28, 2020 Share Posted July 28, 2020 22 minutes ago, MookieMonstah said: Because I enjoy banging my head against the wall If you were a Browns fan, this would be a great joke. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LETSGOBROWNIES Posted July 28, 2020 Share Posted July 28, 2020 18 minutes ago, Xenos said: If you were a Browns fan, this would be a great joke. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dtait93 Posted July 28, 2020 Share Posted July 28, 2020 4 minutes ago, MookieMonstah said: You must be great at dodge ball. Numerous studies have shown it has some positive effects. Numerous studies have shown it has zero improvement on death rate. Its not a useful cure. We'd be far better off using time and resources elsewhere. https://www.ijidonline.com/article/S1201-9712(20)30534-8/fulltext This study shows it having an impact on mortality rate among hospitalized patients median age 64. It's not the be all end all obviously, just as Risch's study isn't either. I just don't get the backlash against it if a doctor deems it safe for his/her patient. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LETSGOBROWNIES Posted July 28, 2020 Share Posted July 28, 2020 35 minutes ago, ramssuperbowl99 said: Sanofi spent millions of dollars on this drug - they only do that when there is positive data. Pharma is one of those industries where everything looks great until it doesn't. Every time you run a study, you learn more and more about the drug, so it's like blackjack where your odds change all the time as you go. There are lots of things you may not have investigated yet that could completely ruin a drug, and until you know them, everything's fine. In this case, the safety issue in question is called QT prolongation. I think I've explained this before, but if you think of your heart as a revolver, the QT interval is the reload time. That means the longer it gets, the more when under stress the body may try to fire before the heart has "reloaded". If one drug lengthens QT interval, and you give it with another drug that lengthens QT interval, they'll stack and it's possible that you'll actually get a longer reload time than even the sum. So that means there is going to be a certain fraction of the population who is going to be really vulnerable to heart attack if they take this. Not everybody, but if you dose enough people, somebody. That's where the risk reward comes into play. We don't really know the thing works, it might a little bit, but we'd be giving a population that trends obese, diabetic, and old a drug that contributes to a potential heart attack when 99.X% of them are going to survive if we just use the current standard of care. Doesn't add up. Thank you for taking the time to explain this stuff. I simply don’t have the patience, especially when most of the people who need to understand the “why” won’t get it or refuse to listen. you and @Shanedorf or doing the lord’s work in this thread. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ramssuperbowl99 Posted July 28, 2020 Share Posted July 28, 2020 14 minutes ago, LETSGOBROWNIES said: Thank you for taking the time to explain this stuff. I simply don’t have the patience, especially when most of the people who need to understand the “why” won’t get it or refuse to listen. you and @Shanedorf or doing the lord’s work in this thread. Happy to help guys like @BobbyPhil1781 who are asking questions and trying to learn. This is about the only time that I'm useful barring combine weed tests and Jon Jones "pulsing" nonsense. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LETSGOBROWNIES Posted July 28, 2020 Share Posted July 28, 2020 6 minutes ago, dtait93 said: https://www.ijidonline.com/article/S1201-9712(20)30534-8/fulltext This study shows it having an impact on mortality rate among hospitalized patients median age 64. It's not the be all end all obviously, just as Risch's study isn't either. I just don't get the backlash against it if a doctor deems it safe for his/her patient. No one is providing any backlash if a particular doctor wants to prescribe it to a particular patient. Backlash is happening when it’s being presented as a “the key to defeating covid”, when it’s simply not. Having a possible treatment option that may or may not provide some benefit depending on patient‘s risk factors doesn’t equal “a cure”. It equals a potential treatment option. In this case, one that hasn’t shown enough promise to even continue testing by the FDA. From there you combine that data with other studies where it shows no improvement in mortality rate and the perceived benefit declines further. Meanwhile, the associated risks remain constant. You’re looking for info you want, as opposed to what’s being determined clinically. https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/nejmoa2012410 https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2020/06/three-big-studies-dim-hopes-hydroxychloroquine-can-treat-or-prevent-covid-19 https://homelandprepnews.com/countermeasures/50535-largest-study-of-its-kind-finds-hydroxychloroquine-not-effective-among-young-people-to-treat-covid-19/ https://www.nih.gov/news-events/news-releases/nih-halts-clinical-trial-hydroxychloroquine https://medcitynews.com/2020/07/hydroxychloroquine-flunks-phase-iii-trial-in-mild-to-moderate-covid-19/ https://www.statnews.com/2020/06/17/who-drops-hydroxychloroquine-covid-19-clinical-trial/ https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa2016638 https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa2019014 I can keep going. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rob_shadows Posted July 28, 2020 Share Posted July 28, 2020 Why are we arguing about hydroxychloroquine when we know there is something that works better out there anyway in remdesivir? Like I could understand arguing for it if we hadn't found anything else that works but we did so why keep arguing about hydroxychloroquine? Just use the one that has had better test results with less risk involved and move on... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BobbyPhil1781 Posted July 28, 2020 Share Posted July 28, 2020 1 hour ago, ramssuperbowl99 said: Sanofi spent millions of dollars on this drug - they only do that when there is positive data. Pharma is one of those industries where everything looks great until it doesn't. Every time you run a study, you learn more and more about the drug, so it's like blackjack where your odds change all the time as you go. There are lots of things you may not have investigated yet that could completely ruin a drug, and until you know them, everything's fine. In this case, the safety issue in question is called QT prolongation. I think I've explained this before, but if you think of your heart as a revolver, the QT interval is the reload time. That means the longer it gets, the more when under stress the body may try to fire before the heart has "reloaded". If one drug lengthens QT interval, and you give it with another drug that lengthens QT interval, they'll stack and it's possible that you'll actually get a longer reload time than even the sum. So that means there is going to be a certain fraction of the population who is going to be really vulnerable to heart attack if they take this. Not everybody, but if you dose enough people, somebody. That's where the risk reward comes into play. We don't really know the thing works, it might a little bit, but we'd be giving a population that trends obese, diabetic, and old a drug that contributes to a potential heart attack when 99.X% of them are going to survive if we just use the current standard of care. Doesn't add up. Ok this is helpful and the analogy used regarding the heart makes sense. So while it works and it's proven to work (in some instances) there is too much risk for a virus where you're more than likely going to live anyway. If the odds were substantially worse, this may be a more viable option and something given regularly. So essentially it's not a question of effectiveness but, as you stated, the risk really isn't necessary due to what can happen to the individual. Thanks for taking the time to write this 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BobbyPhil1781 Posted July 28, 2020 Share Posted July 28, 2020 44 minutes ago, ramssuperbowl99 said: Happy to help guys like @BobbyPhil1781 who are asking questions and trying to learn. This is about the only time that I'm useful barring combine weed tests and Jon Jones "pulsing" nonsense. And yeah, I took the wrong approach when presenting the site I did but I wasn't thinking in the right sense. I just looked at it as "there's a ton of data that this **** works, why the hell aren't we using it??" instead of the way you made me look that the risk just isn't worth it. I just need to ask better questions. My wife made me aware of a Nigerian doctor who's been ridiculed like no other and I just watched that video and was made aware of some of her beliefs. I promise you I had no clue who this woman was until then. I'm not a flat Earther, I'm not antivax or mask, and I'm not under the impression women have PCOS bc they screw demons in their dreams or whatever the hell she said. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts