Question on Covid19 Vaccine that makes me anxious (1 Viewer)

[moke123]

Do you prefer USA news? or Axios?

Doesn't matter. They are both referencing the Times article.

 

[Pat Hartman]

In case you haven't noticed, we treat the nursing home residents the way we treat prisoners and who's dying?

So all prisoners are in isolation. NO interaction with anyone. NO roommates, no communal dining? No time in the yard? Visitors limited to TWO SPECIFIC family members and no one else?

If Trump hadn't mentioned the positive results from Hydroxychloroquine in the early stages of the illness, governors wouldn't have closed ranks and banned it and THOUSANDS of people would have been saved or protected from more severe illness. AND the drug is cheap with a 50 year history of minimal side effects. I guess that's why big pharma backed the play and so the CDC and FDA got on board. Hydroxychloroquine is used all over the world to treat malaria.

 

[moke123]

So all prisoners are in isolation. NO interaction with anyone. NO roommates, no communal dining? No time in the yard? Visitors limited to TWO SPECIFIC family members and no one else?

Pretty much ,yes. No cellmates, eat in cell, unsure of yardtime, no visitors at all, even lawyer visits are non-contact or zoom. If they're transported to court for any reason thay are held in solitary for 2 weeks upon return.

If Trump hadn't mentioned the positive results from Hydroxychloroquine in the early stages of the illness, governors wouldn't have closed ranks and banned it and THOUSANDS of people would have been saved or protected from more severe illness. AND the drug is cheap with a 50 year history of minimal side effects. I guess that's why big pharma backed the play and so the CDC and FDA got on board. Hydroxychloroquine is used all over the world to treat malaria.

Here's a good refresher on hydroxycholoroquine which doesn't work.

The Strange and Twisted Tale of Hydroxychloroquine

The much-hyped drug sparked a battle between power and knowledge. Let’s not repeat it.

www.wired.com

 

[Pat Hartman]

I realize that you're into fact checks but you need to fact check your fact checkers. There was ONE study that "proved" Hydroxychloroquine doesn't work and that one gave the drug to very sick people in the late stages of the disease. NO ONE ever recommended that the drug should be given to these people. Studies are called studied because they try things. Some studies find solutions. Others don't. This particular study was later withdrawn because there were questions regarding the tested population but somehow it is still referenced as the "gold" standard -- https://www.webmd.com/lung/news/20200605/lancet-retracts-hydroxychloroquine-study

You need to look at the success rate of giving the drug to people with mild symptoms BEFORE the disease has put them in the hospital. The "studies" that pan Hydroxychloroquine ALL site effectiveness in very ill patients. THIS IS NOT A DRUG THAT SHOULD BE GIVEN TO VERY ILL PATIENTS AND NO ONE HAS EVER RECOMMENDED THAT!!!! The drug is most effective in the very beginning of treatment or even as a prophylactic. Look at the death rates for countries which treat early cases with Hydroxychloroquine vs those that ban the drug for early, non-hospital use.

HUGE DEVELOPMENT: 51 Global Studies Find HCQ Effective in Treating COVID-19 -- 16 Find HCQ NOT Effective -- But 10 of Those Are Late Treatment Studies! | The Gateway Pundit | by Jim Hoft

How many tens of thousands of Americans must die because of Dr.

www.thegatewaypundit.com

https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa2016638

You might equate this to all the bad press "Access" gets. When you look at the criticisms, they are panning Jet/ACE and NOT Access or they are panning the developers. In fact, if you are an Access expert, you can tell that the naysayers don't have a clue what Access even is. They think it is a database engine which I'm sure you know it is NOT. It's an apples and oranges thing. An aspirin isn't going to even touch advanced cancer pain. Does that mean that we should ban aspirin because it is "useless"? No, like every tool in our toolbox, aspirin has its place and so does morphine. The place for Hydroxychloroquine is EARLY in the illness, NOT as an end stages cure.

By withholding Hydroxychloroquine for political reasons, the CDC, FDA, and many state governors all have blood on their hands and hopefully some of the victim's family members will eventually sue.

 

[moke123]

Obviously you didn't read what I linked to. My article discusses the flaw with that article in the NEJM and the author Boulware.

Boulware's team managed to eke out enough participants for statistical significance. They wrote up the results in three days, a dozen people sharing one Google Doc, and they sent two papers to The New England Journal of Medicine. Both showed negative results. Hydroxychloroquine didn't ease symptoms any better than a control, and it didn't prevent anyone from getting sick after exposure to an infected person. The papers weren't perfect, but the data was clear: The drug didn't work. Then, on the same day he submitted the papers to the NEJM, “I got an email from the White House asking about post-exposure prophylaxis,” Boulware says. “It was a memorable day.”

You may also want to note that the articles you link to are date June and July. A little outdated.

 

[The_Doc_Man]

Moke, you're a decent fellow and I don't want to jump on your case, but I have to say that in the world of scientific publication, it is quite common to see contradictory references, each with good intentions but diametrically opposite results. Pat found a reference that says HCQ works. You found one that says it doesn't. I can't TELL you how often that happens but in the world of countable vs. uncountable numbers, "warring publications" is a barely-countable number because it is so large. The solution has to be a third study where the conditions are better controlled.

It is always going to come down to carefully analyzing the article to see if it is credible. I read the article at the link you provided. I would have to say that what that article described was worse than a screaming howler monkey sh|t fight. On experimental conditions alone, I would have had to reject the findings that said "not effective" - not because I think it is or is not effective, but the clarity of the situation was incredibly badly obfuscated. If it had said "HCQ works" I would STILL have been skeptical. The politics of the situation, in essence, spoiled the "purity" of the experiment. And remember, my background is such that I am acutely aware of what constitutes a "good" experiment.

I will grant that HCQ might not be worth much here. But I will also not rule out that it might have some efficacy. I am one of those "traditionalist" when it comes to experimentation and these "rush jobs" are just not good.

 

[moke123]

Doc, I dont think I could disagree that that in the world of scientific publication, it is quite common to see contradictory references, each with good intentions but diametrically opposite results. None of the articles linked to are claimed to be scientific studies.

The article I cited in Wired (far from a scientific journal) basically recaps the story of how Hcq got thrust into the mainstream thought and how social media and politics affected that. I did not present it as a scientific authority on the efficacy of Hcq.

As far as credible scientific articles the gateway pundit is far from scientific and even further away from credible. Holt is well known for conspiracy theories and misinformation. For instance the article cites C19Study.com as a source. A NewsGuard analysis of the domain and sub-domains reveals that the site refuses to disclose any ownership info or identity of the contributors and rates it poorly. The site predominately promotes the use of Hcq.

For example, the websites described a clinical trial at the University of Minnesota as being “positive” for the use of hydroxychloroquine for treating COVID-19, when the actual study reached a negative conclusion. The trial, involving 821 patients, found that hydroxychloroquine did not perform better than a placebo in preventing people from developing COVID19 after they were likely to have been exposed to someone who had been infected. The study was published in June 2020 in the New England Journal of Medicine. In presenting this study as “positive” for hydroxychloroquine, C19Study.com and C19HCQ.com noted on the page summarizing the study that this conclusion differs from that of the original authors

https://www.newsguardtech.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/08/COVIDAnalysis.pdf

I've yet to find any current studies supporting the use of Hcq. The most recent study I've found is due to be published next month and concerned RA and lupus patients who were being treated with Hcq pre-covid exposure. It found no prophylactic effect.

I agree that the "rush jobs" are just not good. Add to that the nut jobs like the "demon sperm" doctor and I'd tend to rule it out.
But hey, even placebos have been found to have some positive effects so who knows.

 

[The_Doc_Man]

Sorry but my whimsy just triggered.

Do you know which opera singer is most effective in calming your nerves through music?


Placebo Domingo.

Sometimes I just can't resist when a straight line falls my way.

 

[Pat Hartman]

I don't know whether Hydroxychloroquine is a miracle cure. All I know is that early studies were optimistic and later studies showed even better success but as soon as Trump mentioned that early success, the you know what hit the fan. THAT obsessive hatred of all things Trump killed people. That's the point. You can see it with the world stats comparing the countries that used Hydroxychloroquine for early treatment vs those that banned it.

 

[moke123]

All I know is that early studies were optimistic and later studies showed even better success

Thats only half right. Early indications showed promise but later studies showed it didn't quite work.

The comparison to other countries was a meme from Facebook- The Rabbit Hole -that went viral. All the countries that were trying it stopped when they determined it wasn't working.

Fact check: Hydroxychloroquine does not work better abroad

Hydroxychloroquine doesn't work in the U.S. or abroad. A viral meme online asserting that it does is false.

www.usatoday.com

Even a study of people who were already taking Hcq prior to the pandemic found:

We studied a large number of people who were prescribed hydroxychloroquine for its licensed purpose and followed them up to look for clear signals of benefit in mortality from COVID-19 and other causes. We found no evidence of benefit after adjusting for important differences in those who had received hydroxychloroquine compared with those who were not prescribed hydroxychloroquine. Completion of randomised trials for prevention of severe outcomes is warranted to support these observational findings. The use of hydroxychloroquine for prevention of COVID-19 mortality outside trial settings is currently not justified.

 

[Pat Hartman]

You do love your "fact" checkers. Sure hope you never need the drug. The actual studies. You know, the ones with controls and appropriate subject populations do show it works. It does NOT work on late stage cases. So, yes, people are not wrong in saying that "it doesn't work". It's just like all fake news. Omit a salient clause and there you have it. Black is white. Up is down. Leftspeak.

 

[moke123]

You know, the ones with controls and appropriate subject populations do show it works.

Can you point me to one?

It does NOT work on late stage cases.

So are you saying it works on early stage cases? Wouldn't those people who are already taking it for RA be considered early stage? why did they find that it didnt have any effect on their outcomes?

You do love your "fact" checkers.

Yes, I do. How else do you verify facts without doing research?

 

[Pat Hartman]

I don't have time to go looking for studies. I seem to remember that there were at least 50 of them. Your "fact checkers" won't find them for you because your "fact checkers" are biased. Much of what you need for research is being blocked by Google. So, if you care to search, don't use Google. You might want to drag out that old copy of 1984 you probably had to read in high school.

 

[AccessBlaster]

Question on Covid19 Vaccine that makes me anxious​

How much stock does Fauci own in big pharma? Also when asked how he was feeling about getting the vaccine, he points to the wrong arm? That makes me anxious.

 

[Isaac]

Whenever they ask I do my left arm, not sure why, but it makes me happier than my right.

 

[The_Doc_Man]

If Fauci is a leftie, it makes sense.

 

[harpygaggle]

H

I don't know whether Hydroxychloroquine is a miracle cure. All I know is that early studies were optimistic and later studies showed even better success but as soon as Trump mentioned that early success, the you know what hit the fan. THAT obsessive hatred of all things Trump killed people. That's the point. You can see it with the world stats comparing the countries that used Hydroxychloroquine for early treatment vs those that banned it.

A doctor once explained that Hydroxychloroquine is indeed a cure for covid19. It was a success in South Korea. And when Trump decided to use in the US, Fauci objected. Then WHO said it is not an effective one.

 

[Isaac]

The liberals DESPERATELY needed Covid to work, and work well - in order to get Trump de-elected.

Most obvious situation in the world.

Any hopeful news of any kind, they quashed it HARD.

 

[Pat Hartman]

I think there are only 5 states actually following the "science" for allocating the vaccine. The "science" says to inoculate the people at risk of dying if they contract the disease. However, most states have perverted that to inoculate the "important" or in the case of Mass give preference to convicted criminals because they are really woke and they care about felons more than they care about the elderly. I guess it is the same logic that makes them oppose the death penalty and cheer for late term abortion rights.

 

[Isaac]

And here's another way that a person could approach it. Who cares what the science says? Allocate it in a fair way - everyone has an equal chance of getting it.
I am not advocating for precisely that approach, but it wouldn't hurt to factor that concept into the conversation.

Why is it my fault that someone else has a higher death chance? I have a death chance too, and I might want to have an equal shot at it.
I might.