Posted on 04/19/2020 6:28:07 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
So, 7% got the virus. How many died? Kinda important question.
I wouldn’t expect any drug to be FULLY protective
RE: So, 7% got the virus. How many died? Kinda important question.
How many died is not the issue in this study. Let’s not conflate treatment with prophylaxis.
The question is now many were INFECTED. Period.
There is no “silver bullet” in the pharmaceutical world. There is no drug that has a 100% cure rate without side effects. However, HCQ seems to be considerably less lethal and more effective than many (frightfully expensive) “miracle drugs”. It would be interesting to see how many of the “experts” cited in the article are bought and paid for by “big Pharma”. Big Pharma has no interest in inexpensive, effective medicines. Pardon me, but the article seems to be a bullsh*t hit piece from Pharma minions. Just remember that many of the new psoriasis and arthritis drug have to warn that one of their many side effects is death.
Funny. I would demand as much from any drug that was sold as “100%”.
RE: There is no “silver bullet” in the pharmaceutical world. There is no drug that has a 100% cure rate without side effects.
Again, please, let’s focus on the item that this article is trying to address — not treatment AFTER one has Covid-19, but WHETHER OR NOT Hydroxychloroquie acts as a protective against INFECTION from Covid-19 the way it does for Malaria.
Nothing mentioned about zinc from the piece above. Without zinc, HCQ is not as effective
The modern treatment of immune mediated rheumatic disorders such as lupus and rheumatoid arthritis is to inhibit the immune system. When treating COVID-19 with hydroxychloroquine, there appears to be a beneficial effect as evidenced by observed clinical outcomes and a sharp decline in C Reactive Protein which is a marker of inflammation. It is really unknown just how hydroxychloroquine may work but apparently it mitigates the “cytokine storm” which seems to “drown” and injure the respiratory tissue. In any case good frontline physicians will use what they have. The scientific explanations will come later. Democratic governors must stop putting impediments to the timely prescription and dispensing of hydroxychloroquine.
You’ve got to have the zinc, too. Hydroxychloroquine doesn’t work by itself.
dozens out of nearly 5,000 taking it.
re: Nothing mentioned about zinc from the piece above. Without zinc, HCQ is not as effective
Are you referring to Zinc plus HCQ as TREATMENT for Covid-19 patients?
Or are you saying that to be an effective protective against Covid-19 infection, one must ALSO take Zinc together with HCQ?
People in this thread don’t bother to read the article. It is not talking about treatment but PROTECTION AGAINST INFECTION.
The perfect is the enemy of the good.
RE: You’ve got to have the zinc, too. Hydroxychloroquine doesn’t work by itself.
Are you referring to Zinc plus HCQ as TREATMENT for Covid-19 patients?
Or are you saying that to be an effective protective against Covid-19 infection, one must ALSO take Zinc together with HCQ?
People in this thread don’t bother to read the article. It is not talking about treatment but PROTECTION AGAINST INFECTION.
approx 5,000 were taking it and 189 got it (out of nearly 9,500 surveyed).
RE: The perfect is the enemy of the good.
So, you are saying that HCQ is not a perfect protective against Covid-19 but is a protective most of the time nonetheless?
Does this apply to Malaria as well?
death is also a side effect of hydroxychloroquine. The new drugs are being used in very ill patients on ventilators where hydroxychloroquine is far less than impressive.
How many were infected and developed severe symptoms is the relevant question during the pandemic. If it is only how many were diagnosed, then the flu shot should be banned, as it is considered only (at best) 40% effective.
Better question is: what is the percentage of people who are not on HCL who get the virus?
If that number is 40 to 50% then clearly HCL is having a huge positive impact. 7% is better than 50%
RE: approx 5,000 were taking it and 189 got it (out of nearly 9,500 surveyed).
Some questions come to mind:
* What about the 9,500 - 5,000 = 4,500 ? Did they take nothing?
* Of the 5,000 - 189 = 4,811 who DID NOT get it, were they similarly exposed to Covid-19 as the other 189?
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.