Covid-19 Prophylaxis

[Swifto]

Yes, so there is increased risk if taken without supervision. We know that this has already happened due to increased coverage of it as a "miracle cure."

I wasn't only that.

Study calls into question use of malaria drug for COVID-19

www.cidrap.umn.edu

 

[waterscholar]

I wasn't only that.

Study calls into question use of malaria drug for COVID-19

www.cidrap.umn.edu

Yeah, I posted on that earlier in the thread. I was slowly getting on-board that it may help given some of the posts from some on this thread (e.g., rex), but now I'm pretty darn skeptical. Even more so that there may be a safer alternative

 

[Swifto]

See this contradicting article.

Fauci praises remdesivir after data show it speeds recovery

US-run trial of Gilead coronavirus therapy demonstrates ‘significant positive effect’

www.ft.com

I dont think anyone has a clue to be honest

Everyone wants to the the first to have the "cure" or "treatment" and make 10s of billions but nothing has shown to be solid IMO.Its probably too early anyway, but nothing stands out from what I read online. Thats not to say drugs dont work in reality as I'm not on the frontline.

 

[maldorf]

Its been thoroughly tested and is "safe"? I thought it was linked to increased deaths one adverse cardiac events (arrhythmias) recently?

FDA: Improper use of hydroxychloroquine, chloroquine for COVID-19 may increase risk for arrhythmias, death

The FDA issued a safety alert warning health care professionals and patients to avoid the use of hydroxychloroquine and chloroquine outside of hospital or clinical trial settings due to potential increased risk for serious heart-related adverse events and death. The drugs, which can be used to...

www.healio.com

I think the danger is mostly there just for certain populations, people like me.

From that article:
"The FDA alert noted that hydroxychloroquine and chloroquine should be used with caution in patients with known heart and kidney disease, as they may be at elevated risk for the cardiac adverse effects."

So for many healthy people it is probably safe. It has been used for arthritis for years. Not sure how the dose compares though.

 

[waterscholar]

See this contradicting article.

Fauci praises remdesivir after data show it speeds recovery

US-run trial of Gilead coronavirus therapy demonstrates ‘significant positive effect’

www.ft.com

I dont think anyone has a clue to be honest

Everyone wants to the the first to have the "cure" or "treatment" and make 10s of billions but nothing has shown to be solid IMO.Its probably too early anyway, but nothing stands out from what I read online. Thats not to say drugs dont work in reality as I'm not on the frontline.

It looks like we can't access the article. I'll have to read it to know what you mean.

But I guess the positive of the recent results (i guess we all won't really know until the data is released) is that it is multi-site and has a placebo group. That is a first so far at least.

Yes, there is massive money here and bc of that there is major pressure (e.g., burn-out, and frankly lives being saved). But careers are being made and people's lives hopefully will be saved too

 

[maldorf]

The big new today though is another drug altogether, not even related to hydroxychloroquine. Its remdesivir and had a controlled well run study done on it.

 

[muscle96ss]

Its been thoroughly tested and is "safe"? I thought it was linked to increased deaths one adverse cardiac events (arrhythmias) recently?

FDA: Improper use of hydroxychloroquine, chloroquine for COVID-19 may increase risk for arrhythmias, death

The FDA issued a safety alert warning health care professionals and patients to avoid the use of hydroxychloroquine and chloroquine outside of hospital or clinical trial settings due to potential increased risk for serious heart-related adverse events and death. The drugs, which can be used to...

www.healio.com

Chloroquine and hydroxychloroquine are different. Hydroxychloroquine has been used since 1945 and like all drugs have some side effects; but check its record and its just as safe as any other of the drugs you would take for any normal ailments or disease. Suppose Tylenol showed promise to help with covid-19, its like saying not to take it because it causes liver issues and is dangerous. Now you tell me, would you then discourage Tylenol use for covid? You need to think about who is saying its dangerous and why they are saying it.

 

[muscle96ss]

I immediately regretted making it political so thanks for not going in that direction.

Well, as Maldorf has said: a trial with a control group. Without one there is no way to know whether any type of benefit would have been seen from no treatment at all (i.e., people would have just naturally gotten better anyways). Also, although I don't know much about the drug, it appears that it isn't entirely safe. Thus, the risk vs. rewards need to be balanced here if it is going to be used widespread.

I agree that the media isn't always unbiased but that's why we can fall back on science. Now who interprets science potentially remains the issue.

But there is not time to wait for a control group. And with your life on the line and relying on safety data since 1945; what would you do in that situation? Would you choose to try the drug if given the option or would just do nothing and pray you survive? Be honest! I know if I get the virus, the first thing I am going to do is request HCQ!!

 

[waterscholar]

But there is not time to wait for a control group. And with your life on the line and relying on safety data since 1945; what would you do in that situation? Would you choose to try the drug if given the option or would just do nothing and pray you survive? Be honest! I know if I get the virus, the first thing I am going to do is request HCQ!!

Based on the evidence I would now request remdesivir. I will say that before this came out I might request HCQ but I would really do some heavy reading on it.

Critical study of Gilead's Covid-19 drug shows patients are responding to treatment, NIH says

A government-run study of Gilead’s remdesivir, perhaps the most closely watched experimental drug to treat the novel coronavirus, showed that the medicine is effective against Covid-19, the disease caused by the virus.

www.statnews.com

You're right though about the ethical conundrum about waiting for a control group; however, as we can see from above, it is still possible with a wait-list or volunteers who opt-out.

You're not quite right about the comparison of tylenol and HCQ. Again, I'm not an expert on this drug but from my superficial reading of some of these articles it seems like normal doses of HCQ can lead to adverse and potentially deadly outcomes. With tylenol I believe it is excess doses and the proportion of cases is very small considering such widespread use (i'm not sure about the proportion of an adverse reaction with HCQ though). In addition, now that there appears to be maybe a safer alternative (we don't know about the side effects I think) there is little point about discussing HCQ (i.e., considering it for general use) unless the results from all the studies above were erroneous.

 

[muscle96ss]

Based on the evidence I would now request remdesivir. I will say that before this came out I might request HCQ but I would really do some heavy reading on it.

Critical study of Gilead's Covid-19 drug shows patients are responding to treatment, NIH says

A government-run study of Gilead’s remdesivir, perhaps the most closely watched experimental drug to treat the novel coronavirus, showed that the medicine is effective against Covid-19, the disease caused by the virus.

www.statnews.com

You're right though about the ethical conundrum about waiting for a control group; however, as we can see from above, it is still possible with a wait-list or volunteers who opt-out.

You're not quite right about the comparison of tylenol and HCQ. Again, I'm not an expert on this drug but from my superficial reading of some of these articles it seems like normal doses of HCQ can lead to adverse and potentially deadly outcomes. With tylenol I believe it is excess doses and the proportion of cases is very small considering such widespread use (i'm not sure about the proportion of an adverse reaction with HCQ though). In addition, now that there appears to be maybe a safer alternative (we don't know about the side effects I think) there is little point about discussing HCQ (i.e., considering it for general use) unless the results from all the studies above were erroneous.

You realize there are thousands of Lupus patients on this drug long-term. One of the doctors who has the largest Lupus practice in the country wrote a letter to the FDA because in decades of practice he has NEVER had one patient hospitalized from a side effect of using the drug. How many people die each year from side effects of Tylenol or other meds?

 

[waterscholar]

You realize there are thousands of Lupus patients on this drug long-term. One of the doctors who has the largest Lupus practice in the country wrote a letter to the FDA because in decades of practice he has NEVER had one patient hospitalized from a side effect of using the drug. How many people die each year from side effects of Tylenol or other meds?

Read that article about the FDA warning. There is a response from a physician saying that there are many patients with cardiac effects from the virus. Thus, it isn't necessarily safe to compare the drug's effects among different populations. Just my superficial assessment, but def read the article

 

[muscle96ss]

Read that article about the FDA warning. There is a response from a physician saying that there are many patients with cardiac effects from the virus. Thus, it isn't necessarily safe to compare the drug's effects among different populations. Just my superficial assessment, but def read the article

I read the article, its simply a warning; typical legal procedure and full disclosure to protect themselves. Read the package insert of any drug and it will scare you to death.

Would you take AAS like testosterone if it might help with covid-19? You can find a ton more negative literature about testosterone and AAS than HCQ. Almost everyone on this board is or has taken AAS and they are not using it in a life-saving situation; but you want me to believe that with their live's on the line it would be more risky to take HCQ? Are you really serious? Yes, if you fall into the category of cardiac disease then do it under a MD's care who can monitor things. But to go around saying its dangerous and discourage its use in general seems irresponsible. And is for the sole reason we all know about.

 

[maldorf]

Read that article about the FDA warning. There is a response from a physician saying that there are many patients with cardiac effects from the virus. Thus, it isn't necessarily safe to compare the drug's effects among different populations. Just my superficial assessment, but def read the article

Well, again I think the risk of cardiac arrhythmias,like what I suffer from -ventricular tachycardia, is mostly for patients that have existing problems. If someone like me had covid-19 and was sick in the regular hospital room they may very well not want to use it. If I were in ICU on a ventilator and looked really bad they might actually try it. For people with no heart ailments its probably mostly safe like other drugs are if dosed properly. Its used by millions around the world for lupus and arthritis.

 

[hawkmoon]

Chloroquine and hydroxychloroquine are different. Hydroxychloroquine has been used since 1945 and like all drugs have some side effects; but check its record and its just as safe as any other of the drugs you would take for any normal ailments or disease. Suppose Tylenol showed promise to help with covid-19, its like saying not to take it because it causes liver issues and is dangerous. Now you tell me, would you then discourage Tylenol use for covid? You need to think about who is saying its dangerous and why they are saying it.

HCQ is turning out to not be nearly as effective as hoped. It's also more dangerous than initially thought.
I have some arriving in a few days and probably won't touch it. My wife has Afib and I would never give it to her.

Conspiracy thinking isn't needed on this, and it's severely limiting people's ability to be objective.

 

[maldorf]

Conspiracy thinking isn't needed on this, and it's severely limiting people's ability to be objective.

Yes, so much of this going on that it is clouding people's judgement. Some of the thinking shocks me a bit, I find it hard to comprehend that people can actually believe some of it. Not as bad as the theory that George Bush was behind 911, but they are bad nonetheless!

 

[muscle96ss]

HCQ is turning out to not be nearly as effective as hoped. It's also more dangerous than initially thought.
I have some arriving in a few days and probably won't touch it. My wife has Afib and I would never give it to her.

Conspiracy thinking isn't needed on this, and it's severely limiting people's ability to be objective.

As I mentioned before, if you are trying to stop the virus from replicating then by the time you are severe enough that you went to get tested, got the test result, and were bad enough to be admitted to the hospital; how effective would you expect it to be at that point? You need to get it to the patients early on or as prophylaxis. It would be like trying to stop a fire from spreading and putting it out. You can use a garden hose to wet areas to prevent them from catching fire. If something starts to catch fire you can put it out with the garden hose before it gets too big. But if a whole room in the house is already on fire; the garden hose won't stop the house from burning down. Now if you keep trying to put the fires out with the garden hose once they are too big you are going to deem them useless. But if you had a garden hose immediately when each of those fires started, you could have save a shitload of homes. So when they are giving HCQ to patients on vents, would you expect a high rate of success?

 

[waterscholar]

I read the article, its simply a warning; typical legal procedure and full disclosure to protect themselves. Read the package insert of any drug and it will scare you to death.

Would you take AAS like testosterone if it might help with covid-19? You can find a ton more negative literature about testosterone and AAS than HCQ. Almost everyone on this board is or has taken AAS and they are not using it in a life-saving situation; but you want me to believe that with their live's on the line it would be more risky to take HCQ? Are you really serious? Yes, if you fall into the category of cardiac disease then do it under a MD's care who can monitor things. But to go around saying its dangerous and discourage its use in general seems irresponsible. And is for the sole reason we all know about.

It's a warning based on evidence. Not anecdotal "feelings" or observations (which can be beneficial but not in this case).

I'll let someone else try to take a stab at why I think your comparisons aren't apt. Just to very quickly highlight a few things: (a) if AAS did hypothetically treat COVID, we would then compare acute effects vs. chronic effects of taking the drug. The general issues with AAS seem to appear with chronic and high dose use. There may be acute effects but these are seen less. So this comparison isn't fair. (b) You seemed to ignore that it may be inappropriate to compare two patient populations. It appears that COVID may increase heart related issues.

We have a very different risk calculus. I'm not really understanding yours.

 

[upeccmi]

To all that are COVID fearful, a great video from actual doctors in the field and not theorist like Dr Fauci. The data is showing that COVID is less deadly than the common yearly flu strain. Also talks about how sheltering in place is actually hurting us. Why are we still home?

 

[maldorf]

Dr. Fauci is not just a theorist, but a lifelong physician. He's been in medicine longer than those 2 have been on earth. Ill listen to what Fauci has to say any day.

Anthony Fauci - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[muscle96ss]

It's a warning based on evidence. Not anecdotal "feelings" or observations (which can be beneficial but not in this case).

I'll let someone else try to take a stab at why I think your comparisons aren't apt. Just to very quickly highlight a few things: (a) if AAS did hypothetically treat COVID, we would then compare acute effects vs. chronic effects of taking the drug. The general issues with AAS seem to appear with chronic and high dose use. There may be acute effects but these are seen less. So this comparison isn't fair. (b) You seemed to ignore that it may be inappropriate to compare two patient populations. It appears that COVID may increase heart related issues.

We have a very different risk calculus. I'm not really understanding yours.

You have proved my point exactly! You have a virus that has been deemed so deadly that we have shut down the entire country as a result. We have a drug that has been used for 75 years in millions of people with a squeaky clean safety record. But even though it could possibly save your life, you are scared to death to use it, because the media has vilified it(in the same manner that Judge Kavanaugh became a serial rapist overnight); for political reasons simply because they can't stand our president. And to the point where a person, who appears well educated and intelligent, doesn't even understand my train of thought.