• All new members please introduce your self here and welcome to the board:
    http://www.professionalmuscle.com/forums/showthread.php?t=259
Buy Needles And Syringes With No Prescription
M4B Store Banner
intex
Riptropin Store banner
Generation X Bodybuilding Forum
Buy Needles And Syringes With No Prescription
Buy Needles And Syringes With No Prescription
Mysupps Store Banner
IP Gear Store Banner
PM-Ace-Labs
Ganabol Store Banner
Spend $100 and get bonus needles free at sterile syringes
Professional Muscle Store open now
sunrise2
PHARMAHGH1
kinglab
ganabol2
Professional Muscle Store open now
over 5000 supplements on sale at professional muscle store
azteca
granabolic1
napsgear-210x65
advertise1
over 5000 supplements on sale at professional muscle store
over 5000 supplements on sale at professional muscle store
ashp210
UGFREAK-banner-PM
esquel
YMSGIF210x65-Banner
over 5000 supplements on sale at professional muscle store
over 5000 supplements on sale at professional muscle store
over 5000 supplements on sale at professional muscle store
over 5000 supplements on sale at professional muscle store
over 5000 supplements on sale at professional muscle store
over 5000 supplements on sale at professional muscle store
over 5000 supplements on sale at professional muscle store

Covid-19 Prophylaxis

Status
Not open for further replies.

I believe as restrictions lessen we WILL see a resurgence of (+) cases. How agressively states deal with these new cases through contact tracing can make a big difference. MY concern is do states have their state health departments up to the task and how much more can they expect their heathcare workforce to take/give?

Sweden has sacrified it's elderly for the sake of herd immunity. Look at the infection rates in other countries around Sweden and you see the future for the US as we relax restrictions similar to Sweden.

I think its a no-brainer that cases will increase with relaxing restrictions. But at the same time, the people that are at the most risk are still too scared to go out. So hopefully it will not spread to them and effect the death rate much; which is what we are really concerned about.
 
I think its a no-brainer that cases will increase with relaxing restrictions. But at the same time, the people that are at the most risk are still too scared to go out. So hopefully it will not spread to them and effect the death rate much; which is what we are really concerned about.

Let me clarify that previous comment. When I say death rate, I am referring to the daily death rate. In other words, there are higher case numbers but the number of daily deaths isn't increasing.
 
I think everyone should look at this as if they were front line heathcare workers and not meatheads looking to get back on their cycles so they look "yoked" at the beach/water park this summer.
 
The whole crux with lifting the restrictions is that firstly, nobody knows how things will develop, and secondly that it takes 10-14 days to see how the changes affect the situation, so they do it slowly and step by step. Because, if you happen to take a wrong step, that might just mean it's back to square 1.
As I have said before, I do share the worry about the economy, fully so - but as it was pointed out, it's always easy giving strong opinions when your opinion isn't going to be linked to a catastrophic outcome after the fact.

/e
I for one do hold strong opinions about matters that I have a certain degree of insight into, for everything else I will gladly hold back and let people who know what they're talking about do the job. Sadly, these days people on social media (and elsewhere) seem to not understand that your right to have an opinion is not an obligation to inform everyone around you about it.
 
It acts as an anti-viral; simply look at the science behind its mechanism of action:

**broken link removed**

Do you honestly think that a generic, low cost pharmaceutical was approved by the FDA for use in covid-19 without any scientific evidence to suggest that it may be effective? Do you think it is some conspiracy theory to market a useless and dangerous drug and trick people into thinking the complete opposite?

On a side note, I actually looked into the science behind it when it was first mentioned on this board back in early March by a member in the pharma industry. This was prior to the president ever mentioning it or any of the media hoopla.

when did I ever say this? Go back and read my responses to you and tell me where anything I said could be construed as to some sort of conspiracy.

There are many drugs or interventions with mechanisms of action that might suggest that they may be effective for the treatment of a particular disease/outcome; however, this doesn't mean they actually are efficacious or work to treat a particular ailment/outcome. That's one of the reasons that so many drugs don't translate from animal models to humans (among other things).

The evidence that I and others have posted have shown that the drugs and their derivatives that you seem to be so hung up on don't appear to be effective for the treatment of COVID-19 and in fact may be harmful to some people. You have provided no evidence to the contrary. That article doesn't mention anything about COVID.

Come on man,let's just move on...
 
Studies like this one are being run, but results wont be finalized and released to the public until this winter. its going to take time. This one has 1500 test subjects. It looks to be controlled too. The CDC wants all studies to be controlled.

 
Studies like this one are being run, but results wont be finalized and released to the public until this winter. its going to take time. This one has 1500 test subjects. It looks to be controlled too. The CDC wants all studies to be controlled.


Great! Maybe my tune will change when studies like this are released :)
 
when did I ever say this? Go back and read my responses to you and tell me where anything I said could be construed as to some sort of conspiracy.

There are many drugs or interventions with mechanisms of action that might suggest that they may be effective for the treatment of a particular disease/outcome; however, this doesn't mean they actually are efficacious or work to treat a particular ailment/outcome. That's one of the reasons that so many drugs don't translate from animal models to humans (among other things).

The evidence that I and others have posted have shown that the drugs and their derivatives that you seem to be so hung up on don't appear to be effective for the treatment of COVID-19 and in fact may be harmful to some people. You have provided no evidence to the contrary. That article doesn't mention anything about COVID.

Come on man,let's just move on...

I didn't say you thought it was a conspiracy, but I am just trying to understand your school of thought where this drug is so highly scrutinized. There are so many anecdotal reports of positive effects and I have yet to hear of any credible reports of people hurt by it(unless you are referring to that one joke of a study the media highlights). So, I definitely understand your skepticism and hesitation; thats healthy. But the fact that you are so dead set that after 75 years of use it is now not only dangerous but so dangerous that it outweighs any benefit that it might be effective in saving your life.

Simply put, my difficulty is understanding how a drug has gone from a long history of being extremely safe in its approved use, to overnight becoming dangerous in all populations(not just cardiac). And how something that was theorized to be effective and has anecdotal positive results with many ongoing studies has now gone overnight to being completely ineffective.

I could understand if you were saying we should proceed with caution in certain patients and use it with close medical supervision until we know more about it. But it seems as if you are saying that the science says that it is both ineffective and dangerous and if your life was at stake you wouldn't even think about using it. I'm sorry but I haven't seen any solid conclusive science saying that which passes the smell test.

Also, you mentioned that the Lancet article didn't mention coronavirus. It didn't mention covid-19, but it did mention HCQ's PROVEN anti-viral properties in other diseases in the coronavirus family. It also includes studies in its references to support that claim. Obviously they can't claim its proven to be an anti-viral in covid-19. If you are looking for a solid peer-reviewed legit study on any drug for covid-19 this early, that is not going to be realistic.
 
Great! Maybe my tune will change when studies like this are released :)
If you look at the site that is on youll see there are quite a few studies being run now or going to be run. Many more than I suspected. Im very hopeful.
 
I didn't say you thought it was a conspiracy, but I am just trying to understand your school of thought where this drug is so highly scrutinized. There are so many anecdotal reports of positive effects and I have yet to hear of any credible reports of people hurt by it(unless you are referring to that one joke of a study the media highlights). So, I definitely understand your skepticism and hesitation; thats healthy. But the fact that you are so dead set that after 75 years of use it is now not only dangerous but so dangerous that it outweighs any benefit that it might be effective in saving your life.

Simply put, my difficulty is understanding how a drug has gone from a long history of being extremely safe in its approved use, to overnight becoming dangerous in all populations(not just cardiac). And how something that was theorized to be effective and has anecdotal positive results with many ongoing studies has now gone overnight to being completely ineffective.

I could understand if you were saying we should proceed with caution in certain patients and use it with close medical supervision until we know more about it. But it seems as if you are saying that the science says that it is both ineffective and dangerous and if your life was at stake you wouldn't even think about using it. I'm sorry but I haven't seen any solid conclusive science saying that which passes the smell test.

Also, you mentioned that the Lancet article didn't mention coronavirus. It didn't mention covid-19, but it did mention HCQ's PROVEN anti-viral properties in other diseases in the coronavirus family. It also includes studies in its references to support that claim. Obviously they can't claim its proven to be an anti-viral in covid-19. If you are looking for a solid peer-reviewed legit study on any drug for covid-19 this early, that is not going to be realistic.

Have you read some of the studies? I'll just post a few:






I never said it was ineffective or that it is dangerous for everyone just that I'm very skeptical and would now choose remdesivir vs HCQ for COVID-19 based on the recent results (read my posts). I also mentioned that it was pretty darn irresponsible to broadcast it as a "miracle" cure given the limited data. The first study above seems odd I do have to agree but they attempted to control for confounds with a reasonable approach. None of these studies scream to me that I should choose HCQ over remdesivir.

Obviously it's very early but we can piece together at least some type of picture right now based on observational data or preliminary results from the giliad study that was released yesterday(I think yesterday).

I guess we can talk about theoretical approaches to treating COVID-19 via drugs that might target certain mechanisms of actions but that doesn't seem to be what anyone is talking about in this thread. It seems like we're all talking about what appears to look promising and what doesn't for the treatment of COVID-19 (that's the name of the thread for god sakes). Let's just stick to that.
 
Have you read some of the studies? I'll just post a few:






I never said it was ineffective or that it is dangerous for everyone just that I'm very skeptical and would now choose remdesivir vs HCQ for COVID-19 based on the recent results (read my posts). I also mentioned that it was pretty darn irresponsible to broadcast it as a "miracle" cure given the limited data. The first study above seems odd I do have to agree but they attempted to control for confounds with a reasonable approach. None of these studies scream to me that I should choose HCQ over remdesivir.

Obviously it's very early but we can piece together at least some type of picture right now based on observational data or preliminary results from the giliad study that was released yesterday(I think yesterday).

I guess we can talk about theoretical approaches to treating COVID-19 via drugs that might target certain mechanisms of actions but that doesn't seem to be what anyone is talking about in this thread. It seems like we're all talking about what appears to look promising and what doesn't for the treatment of COVID-19 (that's the name of the thread for god sakes). Let's just stick to that.

I actually agree with you, Remdesivir does look promising; and if I got covid-19; I would feel comfortable using either that or HCQ as well as the plasma treatment if it got to that point. I also agree that none of these drugs are "miracle" cures nor should they be marketed in that manner(although I still think it would be more effective if given much earlier in the disease process). Lastly, I do agree that more research is needed on HCQ in an unbiased and science based methodology in order to better understand it and draw better conclusions.
 

I'm not sure what you're trying to say but I guess you're buying the conspiracy theories some of these "Doctors" are peddling? Conspiracy theories can be fun entertainment and some conspiracies do happen but lots of average folks are complete idiots and their "research" is pathetic. I'm reading some London Real comment threads on IG and it's disturbing how sure these retards are of this or that implausible conspiracy.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
**broken link removed**

Just posting it in case others haven't seen it. Not sure when the trial took place. Only thing I could think of besides different groups of patients that might have accounted for differences.
 
**broken link removed**

Just posting it in case others haven't seen it. Not sure when the trial took place. Only thing I could think of besides different groups of patients that might have accounted for differences.

A couple things to consider:

1.) Low powered study with only 237 participants. For safety as well as effectiveness you really need a lot more people.
2.) The same issue I have with all these HCQ studies is that anti-viral's mechanism of action is to prevent cellular replication of the virus. Therefore, when they are giving people the medication anywhere up to 12 days after onset; do seriously think that its going to be effective in many of those cases? Tamiflu is supposed to be effective mainly in the first 24-48 hours of onset; why would these other anti-virals be any different? I used a garden hose analogy in an earlier thread and like I said it would be very effective at the onset of small fire but useless if an entire room was on fire. We need to be doing studies where the patients are given these drugs immediately upon symptoms; which would be much harder because most people don't seek medical help until the symptoms are out of control.
 
I was thinking about the sample size as well. Yeah, I do agree that severity of the case is a factor as well. I really want to see the other study now bc I don't remember off hand how many people were in it just that it was multi-site as well.

It would be interesting to look at severity of COVID illness as a potential moderator but I don't know whether the pre-trial enrollment criteria took only those with a particular severity or all comers
 
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?


.....................
 

Attachments

  • pic.jpg
    pic.jpg
    87.9 KB · Views: 16
.....................

I would like to see their rebuttal with factual information. Anybody can say that they disagree or that someone else is wrong. But it doesn't really mean anything unless you actually post the specifics of what was wrong and the factual data that supports a different conclusion. I see different medical studies make the news all the time and I will read someone making a rebu
 
I would like to see their rebuttal with factual information. Anybody can say that they disagree or that someone else is wrong. But it doesn't really mean anything unless you actually post the specifics of what was wrong and the factual data that supports a different conclusion. I see different medical studies make the news all the time and I will read someone making a rebu

2 seconds on google would have answered that

 
I keep hearing from some that we should now be wearing gloves in public places and some are even talking about gyms requiring them when they re-open. Can someone please educate me on what I am missing. I don't understand how gloves will change anything to any significant degree. If you are at the grocery store or the gym and you touch something with covid-19 and get it on your gloves instead of your hands, it is going to be transmitted to the next thing you touch unless you change gloves after everything you touch. As long as you practice good hand washing and using hand sanitizer, what difference does it make whether it is your skin or gloves that are touching things?
 
I keep hearing from some that we should now be wearing gloves in public places and some are even talking about gyms requiring them when they re-open. Can someone please educate me on what I am missing. I don't understand how gloves will change anything to any significant degree. If you are at the grocery store or the gym and you touch something with covid-19 and get it on your gloves instead of your hands, it is going to be transmitted to the next thing you touch unless you change gloves after everything you touch. As long as you practice good hand washing and using hand sanitizer, what difference does it make whether it is your skin or gloves that are touching things?

Could the virus die faster on the material of gloves, compared to skin?

People will subconsciously touch their faces less when wearing gloves, compared to no gloves. Transmission through the mouth and eyes as well as liquid droplets being inhaled. I'm sure I read somewhere transmission is highest through touching the face, not air droplets.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Staff online

  • pesty4077
    Moderator/ Featured Member / Kilo Klub

Forum statistics

Total page views
558,021,093
Threads
135,751
Messages
2,768,503
Members
160,339
Latest member
Dann828
NapsGear
HGH Power Store email banner
your-raws
Prowrist straps store banner
infinity
FLASHING-BOTTOM-BANNER-210x131
raws
Savage Labs Store email
Syntherol Site Enhancing Oil Synthol
aqpharma
yourmuscleshop210x131
hulabs
ezgif-com-resize-2-1
MA Research Chem store banner
MA Supps Store Banner
volartek
Keytech banner
musclechem
Godbullraw-bottom-banner
Injection Instructions for beginners
Knight Labs store email banner
3
ashp131
YMS-210x131-V02
Back
Top