Been putting up prayers for her when I remember to. 
Posted on 03/25/2020 9:23:43 AM PDT by kiryandil
Until I have a better idea (the answer to my question), no. I wouldn’t recommend anyone take it. My question has an answer that can be known this minute.
That is fascinating news Mr Edd.
There have been many theorizing that the controlled conditions of cruise ship isolation were a better predictor of spread than the data from spread in land populations. I resisted thinking that there may be other variables. This is a whopper of a variable.
Bookmark
Scott Adams has been a calming voice of reason during this entire episode.
Honestly, if I didn’t have his Periscopes to listen to every day I might turn off the news completely so as not to be driven insane.
His persuasion filter on seeing our world is the most rational tool for “seeing through the BULLSHIT” of the media that I have found in my 5+ decades on this planet.
You’re distracting yourself.
The point is if it treats even only 75% of cases, it should be used.
Mine would not script for any reason. I, 5 of the blood suckers.
“No, we don’t know it works. We have anecdotes. Thalidomide comes to mind....”
***********************************
Hydroxychloroquine was approved for medical use in the United States in 1955. I strongly suspect that broad use over the past 65 years would have revealed whether it can cause birth defects.
But nice try.
Thanks for posting. Definitely food for thought.
Scott says you should look your doctor in the eyes and ask him if he would use the drug if he got symptoms, etc and negotiate to get the drug. It is likely you won’t be looking your doctor in the eyes if you have the symptoms. You will call in and they will give you instructions on what to do. Doctors are inundated right now. You may or may not even get to talk to him until you are a confirmed case.
Nevertheless I guess you can make your case over the phone to whomever.
As I posted when it was initially proposed, if it only prevents those who are asymptomatic from becoming mild and that’s all it’s not going to change mortality. It is entirely possible it “works” but still doesn’t do what we need it to do. We don’t know that. We have a bunch of anecdotes, even some from clinicians with large numbers. It is entirely possible their observations are correct but if it doesn’t change outcomes for the seriously ill there is no reason to expose people to the risk.
There is a difference between “can be taken safely” and “it works”.
Been putting up prayers for her when I remember to.
Thalidomide left a stain on the medical profession that has lasted for decades. But you new that, didn’t you?
/S
Some random poster on FR "wouldn't recommend that anyone take it".
My cat talks on every Christmas Eve, but I don't pay much attention to him, either.
Randomized, controlled studies do not define reality. Failure to contemplate these matters on this level is the problem with bureaucratic medicine.
Suppose it doesn’t work at all. But you have $50, and it doesn’t really have bad side effects. Isn’t it worth the bet?
There are only 3 reasons to not allow this:
1. It actually has negative impacts, and the possibility of success is not high enough to overcome those negative impacts.
2. In states where they are running trials, you might screw up the trial if you are supposed to be a control but you are taking the meds.
3. The meds are actually out of stock, and your taking them prevents the studies going forward, or keeps people who need them for life-saving treatment from getting that treatment.
THe 3rd seems to be the focus right now; and in Nevada, the governor decided he couldn’t trust doctors not to hoard the medicine, so he shut it down. But the companies are producing millions more of this, so I don’t see that supply will be a problem, unless it is found to work and they make it the primary treatment.
BTW, there’s one other issue; we have a half-dozen ready or almost-ready possible treatments, plus there’s a group who every day is generating a new list of current drugs that show in analysis that they might work off-label against this drug (an interesting field of study, the use computer simulations to search through the database of all drugs, and check each against the known pathology, and get probability hits. There were 10 very promising drugs that they have sent out to actual studies).
So, it might be that this drug “works”, in that maybe it saves half the deaths, and cuts hospital time to 6 days.
But maybe one of the other drugs will save 90% of the deaths, and cut hospital time to 3 days. We want to find that out, not just jump on the first partial cure.
BUT, and this is important — this PARTICULAR combination of drugs is cheap, and easily manufactured, and already out for decades. We know how they work, we just don’t know what the best mix might be, and whether to add zinc or not, or what side effects to watch for in combinations. So it makes sense to deploy this as a temporary measure while we are doing actual studies.
I’m stumped.
“Thalidomide left a stain on the medical profession that has lasted for decades. But you new that, didn’t you?”
********************************************
Of course I knew that. But Hydroxychloroquine is not Thalidomide. It’s clear that you threw out Thalidomide to cloud the issue.
Thanks for thinking of us. A little cabin fever but getting by.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.