Danger-Mouse Posted August 8, 2020 Report Share Posted August 8, 2020 Are we going to have another reason to blame the media for unnecessary deaths? Has Trump Derangement Syndrome cost lives? Admittedly prevention rather than cure but nonetheless. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-53679498 https://news.sky.com/story/coronavirus-oxford-study-says-hydroxychloroquine-can-not-be-ruled-out-as-preventative-measure-study-says-12043367 http://www.pharmatimes.com/news/researchers_says_hydroxychloroquine_could_still_prevent_covid-19_1346544 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
treetree Posted August 8, 2020 Report Share Posted August 8, 2020 I've been following the HCQ story with amazement; the lengths gone to in order to discredit and write it off as soon as Trump offered it up as worth looking into. You are right, it is derangement by your MSM. Also, no money to be made from a solution that already exists not for Faucci and his big pharma pals Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ordnance Posted August 9, 2020 Report Share Posted August 9, 2020 (edited) All the properly run and peer reviewed trials of HQC, have shown no benefit in treating CV19. It has being tried in other countries with no benefit and stoped, nothing to do with Trump. You are falling for the misinformation put out by Trumps administration and them trying to discredit the science and the scientists, to try and cover their disastrous handling of CV19 in America. You are right it is being politicised, by Trump and others. Edited August 9, 2020 by ordnance Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stonepark Posted August 9, 2020 Report Share Posted August 9, 2020 (edited) 2 hours ago, ordnance said: All the properly run and peer reviewed trials of HQC, have shown no benefit in treating CV19. It has being tried in other countries with no benefit and stoped, nothing to do with Trump. You are falling for the misinformation put out by Trumps administration and them trying to discredit the science and the scientists, to try and cover their disastrous handling of CV19 in America. You are right it is being politicised, by Trump and others. Name a trial that has run using HQC, zinc (nornally zinc sulphate which is the active ingredient) and an antibiotic as reccommended by hundreds if not thousands of doctors around the world........ there are none, so all the trials to date are irrelevant. Every trial I have seen has simply run HQC on its own or HQC and an antibiotic, the former statisticely making very little difference and the latter making a statistical but limited difference which I would suggest it depends on how much zinc is in their diet. They simply refuse to run the HQC + Zinc and optionally an antibiotic (to stop secondry infections such as pneumonia) trials and that is what is widely reported as being successful from many countries but costs £5 to £10 a course of treatment instead of a vaccine which requires billions to develop and then putrchase at £1000 a course. Effectively, the HQC is a solvent for the Zinc at a molecular level allowing it to more easily penetrate into cells by a factor of 50, and ZINC prevents viral replication therefore stopping the virus by limiting replication allowing the bodies immune system to kill the virus and hence it's inclusion in other anti viral meds such as 'cold sore' ointments and its recommended use when people have colds and other viral diseases. Edited August 9, 2020 by Stonepark Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ordnance Posted August 9, 2020 Report Share Posted August 9, 2020 Quote They simply refuse to run the HQC + Zinc and optionally an antibiotic (to stop secondry infections such as pneumonia) trials and that is what is widely reported as being successful from many countries but costs £5 to £10 a course of treatment instead of a vaccine which requires billions to develop and then putrchase at £1000 a course. So you are saying that doctors, governments, scientists, have a effective treatment for CV19. But have decided not to use it to annoy Trump, and make money on a vaccine OK. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Docleo Posted August 10, 2020 Report Share Posted August 10, 2020 19 hours ago, Stonepark said: Name a trial that has run using HQC, zinc (nornally zinc sulphate which is the active ingredient) and an antibiotic as reccommended by hundreds if not thousands of doctors around the world........ there are none, so all the trials to date are irrelevant. Every trial I have seen has simply run HQC on its own or HQC and an antibiotic, the former statisticely making very little difference and the latter making a statistical but limited difference which I would suggest it depends on how much zinc is in their diet. They simply refuse to run the HQC + Zinc and optionally an antibiotic (to stop secondry infections such as pneumonia) trials and that is what is widely reported as being successful from many countries but costs £5 to £10 a course of treatment instead of a vaccine which requires billions to develop and then putrchase at £1000 a course. Effectively, the HQC is a solvent for the Zinc at a molecular level allowing it to more easily penetrate into cells by a factor of 50, and ZINC prevents viral replication therefore stopping the virus by limiting replication allowing the bodies immune system to kill the virus and hence it's inclusion in other anti viral meds such as 'cold sore' ointments and its recommended use when people have colds and other viral diseases. Do you have an idea of the amount of nonsense you wrote? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vince Green Posted August 14, 2020 Report Share Posted August 14, 2020 (edited) When my work colleague's wife got cancer she refused all treatment from the doctors and totally believed she could cure herself using herbal potions. In every other way she was a rational and intelligent person. Needless to say she died but her belief was absolute. Maybe Trumps got it right, as long as people believe in it, and they are going to be happy to take it, whats the difference? The ones that survive are going to think it worked and the ones that die won't be there to complain Edited August 14, 2020 by Vince Green Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Docleo Posted August 14, 2020 Report Share Posted August 14, 2020 2 hours ago, Vince Green said: When my work colleague's wife got cancer she refused all treatment from the doctors and totally believed she could cure herself using herbal potions. In every other way she was a rational and intelligent person. Needless to say she died but her belief was absolute. Maybe Trumps got it right, as long as people believe in it, and they are going to be happy to take it, whats the difference? The ones that survive are going to think it worked and the ones that die won't be there to complain You (as Trump and all the others) are understimating all the potential adverse effects (with costs for everyone, included those not so ignorant). Suggest to include "optionally an antibiotic" as Stonepark said is not only pointless but really dangerous. https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/antibiotic-resistance Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted August 15, 2020 Report Share Posted August 15, 2020 On 09/08/2020 at 18:00, ordnance said: All the properly run and peer reviewed trials of HQC, have shown no benefit in treating CV19. It has being tried in other countries with no benefit and stoped, nothing to do with Trump. You are falling for the misinformation put out by Trumps administration and them trying to discredit the science and the scientists, to try and cover their disastrous handling of CV19 in America. You are right it is being politicised, by Trump and others. Did you read any of the articles I posted? I wasn't aware Trump's administration had infiltrated Oxford University! "Leading scientific researchers from the University of Oxford have said that the antiviral medication hydroxychloroquine is being ‘discarded prematurely’ and could still have benefit against COVID-19. From Pharma Times. Which as far as I can find out is an independent publication. From the BBC article, who of course love Trump "We know now that it doesn't work in treatment of hospitalised patients," says Prof Nick White, one of the study's investigators. "But it's still is a medicine that may prove beneficial in preventing Covid-19." The UK medicines regulatory body MHRA halted hydroxychloroquine trials, following a now-discredited paper in The Lancet claiming it caused harms. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Docleo Posted August 15, 2020 Report Share Posted August 15, 2020 At the moment HCQ must not be considered either a cure or a prevention for Covid-19 (no data supporting any use for it). Anything different is a (dangerous) fake news. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ordnance Posted August 16, 2020 Report Share Posted August 16, 2020 (edited) 18 hours ago, Mr_Nobody said: Did you read any of the articles I posted? I wasn't aware Trump's administration had infiltrated Oxford University! "Leading scientific researchers from the University of Oxford have said that the antiviral medication hydroxychloroquine is being ‘discarded prematurely’ and could still have benefit against COVID-19. From Pharma Times. Which as far as I can find out is an independent publication. From the BBC article, who of course love Trump "We know now that it doesn't work in treatment of hospitalised patients," says Prof Nick White, one of the study's investigators. "But it's still is a medicine that may prove beneficial in preventing Covid-19." The UK medicines regulatory body MHRA halted hydroxychloroquine trials, following a now-discredited paper in The Lancet claiming it caused harms. There are a lot of drugs that can do a lot of things, but there needs to be evidence that they are useful / effective before dishing them out just because it could help. All the proper trials so far have shown then to be neither useful or effective. Edited August 16, 2020 by ordnance Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
serrac Posted August 17, 2020 Report Share Posted August 17, 2020 On 16/08/2020 at 11:58, ordnance said: There are a lot of drugs that can do a lot of things, but there needs to be evidence that they are useful / effective before dishing them out just because it could help. All the proper trials so far have shown then to be neither useful or effective. Could you please list these "proper trials". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Docleo Posted August 17, 2020 Report Share Posted August 17, 2020 This is a fairly balanced overview on HCQ and Covid. If you are one the "internet MD-PhD" type, don't bother reading this. https://www.bhf.org.uk/informationsupport/heart-matters-magazine/news/behind-the-headlines/coronavirus/coronavirus-and-hydroxychloroquine Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
enfieldspares Posted August 17, 2020 Report Share Posted August 17, 2020 (edited) Medical experts...once upon a time said that children should have their tonsils removed to prevent throat infections or discounted the mosquito as the true reason for malaria and in the twentieth century gave us thalidomide. Medical experts all of them! They still can't agree if red wine is good, or bad, or good or if people should take aspirin to reduce the risk of stroke. Yes I've absolute 100% confidence in medical experts. Remember...Doctors are doctors as they aren't good enough to be veterinaries. Edited August 17, 2020 by enfieldspares Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stonepark Posted August 17, 2020 Report Share Posted August 17, 2020 (edited) 1 hour ago, Docleo said: This is a fairly balanced overview on HCQ and Covid. If you are one the "internet MD-PhD" type, don't bother reading this. https://www.bhf.org.uk/informationsupport/heart-matters-magazine/news/behind-the-headlines/coronavirus/coronavirus-and-hydroxychloroquine I don't think it is very balanced....... The first study heart problems occcured in a study of hospitalised patients who already had severe symptoms, the other study used 3x the normally daily dose to show their problems, bit like if you take 3x does paracetomol it will give liver problems. The newly released study from Turkey found no cardiac abnormalities with HCQ given at therapeutic doses for 5 days in early COVID patients. There was no significant QT prolongation or other adverse conduction defects in the heart that varied from the patient’s baseline ECG before HCQ administration. Attributing any late-stage patient cardiac effects due to the virus is not only NOT warranted, but medically totally improper. Their conclusion: HCQ is safe for early use. Covid-19 has 'two main stages' , and HCQ works well in the first, but not the second, later stage of the disease: At the first stage, it is a flu-like illness. That illness will not kill you. If you are a high-risk patient and begin treatment immediately, you will almost certainly be done with it in a few days. When not treated, high-risk patients may progress. The virus then causes severe pneumonia and attacks many organs, including the heart. In this second stage, hydroxychloroquine is not effective. The so call 'well balanced page' merely quotes outcomes from studies taken in progressive (hospitalised stage) when the virus has already overtaken the immune system, even the doctors promoting HCQ accept that. Dr. McKinnon’s clinical trial at Henry Ford found an impressive 51% reduction in deaths if HCQ was begun within 24 hours of admission to hospital. An outpatient primary care study by Dr. Vladimir Zelenko, using HCQ, azithromycin and zinc given within less than 7 days of COVID-19 symptoms, showed approximately 80% decrease in deaths, and less than 1% of his patients needed to be admitted to hospital. These U.S. early intervention studies extraordinary results show how many lives can be saved with early HCQ treatment. Why is HCQ the primary treatment in India Russia and other countries, beacuse it reduces deaths.. India for a 2.47m cases only has 51k deaths, Russia 925k cases, 15k deaths, Israel 94k for 690 Turkey 250k for 6000 Poland 57k for 1900 why are their deaths so much lower than lower than the UK's 320k cases, 46k deaths, Europes, USA etc etc etc etc, because amongst other less signiciant things, they hit the virus immediatly with HCQ. The BHF is a charity that relies on donations from public and importantly from pharmaseutical companies and is not waht I would call an independant view! Edited August 17, 2020 by Stonepark Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
serrac Posted August 17, 2020 Report Share Posted August 17, 2020 Then there's this from 15 years ago.https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/16115318/ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
treetree Posted August 17, 2020 Report Share Posted August 17, 2020 37 minutes ago, serrac said: Then there's this from 15 years ago.https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/16115318/ I've got access to a huge range of research papers at the moment thanks to a course in doing. I decided to search the database using HCQ as key term, and was amazed at the number of papers out there that also suggest there are benefits of using HCQ for covid / SARS type viruses Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Docleo Posted August 17, 2020 Report Share Posted August 17, 2020 (edited) 3 hours ago, Stonepark said: I don't think it is very balanced....... The first study heart problems occcured in a study of hospitalised patients who already had severe symptoms, the other study used 3x the normally daily dose to show their problems, bit like if you take 3x does paracetomol it will give liver problems. The newly released study from Turkey found no cardiac abnormalities with HCQ given at therapeutic doses for 5 days in early COVID patients. There was no significant QT prolongation or other adverse conduction defects in the heart that varied from the patient’s baseline ECG before HCQ administration. Attributing any late-stage patient cardiac effects due to the virus is not only NOT warranted, but medically totally improper. Their conclusion: HCQ is safe for early use. Covid-19 has 'two main stages' , and HCQ works well in the first, but not the second, later stage of the disease: At the first stage, it is a flu-like illness. That illness will not kill you. If you are a high-risk patient and begin treatment immediately, you will almost certainly be done with it in a few days. When not treated, high-risk patients may progress. The virus then causes severe pneumonia and attacks many organs, including the heart. In this second stage, hydroxychloroquine is not effective. The so call 'well balanced page' merely quotes outcomes from studies taken in progressive (hospitalised stage) when the virus has already overtaken the immune system, even the doctors promoting HCQ accept that. Dr. McKinnon’s clinical trial at Henry Ford found an impressive 51% reduction in deaths if HCQ was begun within 24 hours of admission to hospital. An outpatient primary care study by Dr. Vladimir Zelenko, using HCQ, azithromycin and zinc given within less than 7 days of COVID-19 symptoms, showed approximately 80% decrease in deaths, and less than 1% of his patients needed to be admitted to hospital. These U.S. early intervention studies extraordinary results show how many lives can be saved with early HCQ treatment. Why is HCQ the primary treatment in India Russia and other countries, beacuse it reduces deaths.. India for a 2.47m cases only has 51k deaths, Russia 925k cases, 15k deaths, Israel 94k for 690 Turkey 250k for 6000 Poland 57k for 1900 why are their deaths so much lower than lower than the UK's 320k cases, 46k deaths, Europes, USA etc etc etc etc, because amongst other less signiciant things, they hit the virus immediatly with HCQ. The BHF is a charity that relies on donations from public and importantly from pharmaseutical companies and is not waht I would call an independant view! Just to clarify, I'm not exluding HCQ could somehow work. What I'm saying is that atm, suggesting its use is pointless and dangerous (all the medicines have side effect). In your "analysis" you decided that some of the study should not been considered (severe desease and high dose). Well Covid can be a nasty stuff and no one knows the required dose of HCQ (we don't even know if it has any effect). Did you read all the article you cited? Dr. McKinnon’s clinical trial. They state that further studies are required. The other is not even peer reviewed, so difficult to be considered as relevant study right now. Finally, your analysis of the mortality linked to the use of HCQ, well this is near to immagination (as you know, science is a different thing). Out of curiosity, what do you consider an independent view? Wikipedia? I won't waste more time on this so if you're happy with your ideas, take HCQ and best of luck with everything. 👍 Edited August 17, 2020 by Docleo Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
serrac Posted August 18, 2020 Report Share Posted August 18, 2020 14 hours ago, Docleo said: Just to clarify, I'm not exluding HCQ could somehow work. What I'm saying is that atm, suggesting its use is pointless and dangerous (all the medicines have side effect). The same argument could be made 1000x for a Covid Vaccine...https://helenaglass.wpcomstaging.com/2020/08/05/covid-vaccine-a-possible-hoax-for-quick-money/ Hydroxychloroquine has been in use for ~65 years for Malaria, for which it is an over the counter medicine in several countries. It is also used long-term for conditions such as Lupus, where again it is considered to have an excellent safety record. Banning or discouraging it's use under proper medical supervision for Covid is pointless, and while there remains the possibility it might be helpful, dangerous. 14 hours ago, Docleo said: In your "analysis" you decided that some of the study should not been considered (severe desease and high dose). Well Covid can be a nasty stuff and no one knows the required dose of HCQ (we don't even know if it has any effect). What would qualify as "any effect"? "In the multivariable Cox regression model of mortality using the group receiving neither hydroxychloroquine or azithromycin as the reference, treatment with hydroxychloroquine alone decreased the mortality hazard ratio by 66% (p < 0.001), and hydroxychloroquine + azithromycin decreased the mortality hazard ratio by 71% (p < 0.001). " 14 hours ago, Docleo said: Did you read all the article you cited? Dr. McKinnon’s clinical trial. They state that further studies are required. The other is not even peer reviewed, so difficult to be considered as relevant study right now. OK here are a few more for you to "debunk" https://c19study.com/ 14 hours ago, Docleo said: Finally, your analysis of the mortality linked to the use of HCQ, well this is near to immagination (as you know, science is a different thing). Science has many facets, not just Pharma rigged sponsored trials.http://www.plata.com.mx/enUS/More/392?idioma=2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Docleo Posted August 18, 2020 Report Share Posted August 18, 2020 No Serrac. Science doesen't have many facets, it is a rigorus process in which any claim has to be supported by strong (reproducible) evidence. Try yourself to "debunk" some of the research you cited. You might find it really interesting. Sadly, many (scientifically) ignorant people think they can find a cure for pretty much any disease citing and pretending to read (old and/or very preliminary) bits of research. And, of course, if anyone doesen't agree with their views is because is payed by Big Pharma. In reality, is just someone who spent the best part of her/his life studying, but who cares... Best of luck 👍 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
treetree Posted August 19, 2020 Report Share Posted August 19, 2020 17 hours ago, Docleo said: Science doesen't have many facets, it is a rigorus process in which any claim has to be supported by strong (reproducible) evidence. Absolutely. Now can someone please point me in the direction where I can find the above for the wearing of masks on shops... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.