Covid-19 Discussion

Page may contain affiliate links. Please see terms for details.
Status
Not open for further replies.
And it is still being peddled as being a solution on the internet with false assertions that it is being used successfully in other countries (when it is not).

Having read some of the things posted on YouTube and elsewhere in support of using Hydrochrolquine... I get the impression that the majority of those who are not part of the scientific or medical community and who post about how great Hydrochrolquine is, have in fact zero interest Hydrochrolquine or other drugs, and their real motivation (and agenda, if you like) if for bashing whatever the authorities - their government, the WHO - are currently advising and doing.

It gets to a point where I wonder what would have happened if the WHO recommended Hydrochrolquine as the only remedy for COVID-19 - would we have seen endless posts questioning why our health authorities have chosen to ignore the proven potential of mRNA vaccines in favour of a drug that [...makes big Pharma rich, that will deliberately crash the economy, or just proves the incompetence of our government, etc etc...]?
 
His own welfare whilst at work however is put in doubt by a policy of half vaccinating contrary to manufacturers guidelines and he knows it.

So what is your take on this? Would you have given everyone the second shot at 3 weeks, as Pfizer recommended?
 
But what has happened here is that despite repeated trials and repeated assessments about its effectivene we still see people peddling it as a treatment that is being (a) used elsewhere and (b) is being deliliberately ignored in the west.

I had the privilege of watching the Hydrochloroquine emerge in the initial French 'study'and watched it virally propogate - to the point where a senior hospital doctor I know in SE Asia were telling me it was the best treatment and asserting how effective it was. That's because they were all propogating this damned hearsay. Ask them where the evidence was and there was none - it was an 'effective' treatement because they were using it and recommending it - not because it worked. After a couple of months they had stopped using it - their local study backed the information coming from other countries that it wasn't useful.

It's right and proper to approach things with an open mind. The problem here is that the orginal information that suggrested this was an effective treatment took on a momentum that went beyond the actual facts. That momentum meant that it has acted as a dangerous distraction.

And it is still being peddled as being a solution on the internet with false assertions that it is being used successfully in other countries (when it is not).
So are you refuting or ignoring the points made by Professor Clancy in his recent article?

I don’t have an axe to grind, genuinely interested in bottoming out the HCR, IVM thing.
 
But what has happened here is that despite repeated trials and repeated assessments about its effectivene we still see people peddling it as a treatment that is being (a) used elsewhere and (b) is being deliliberately ignored in the west.

I had the privilege of watching the Hydrochloroquine emerge in the initial French 'study'and watched it virally propogate - to the point where a senior hospital doctor I know in SE Asia were telling me it was the best treatment and asserting how effective it was. That's because they were all propogating this damned hearsay. Ask them where the evidence was and there was none - it was an 'effective' treatement because they were using it and recommending it - not because it worked. After a couple of months they had stopped using it - their local study backed the information coming from other countries that it wasn't useful.

It's right and proper to approach things with an open mind. The problem here is that the orginal information that suggrested this was an effective treatment took on a momentum that went beyond the actual facts. That momentum meant that it has acted as a dangerous distraction.

And it is still being peddled as being a solution on the internet with false assertions that it is being used successfully in other countries (when it is not).
Love the way you use the word peddled repeatedly.

I have no idea what the French study is you are talking about. I am aware of the fake randomized controlled trial data from a company called Surgisphere Corporation which was used as evidence that patients using HCQ had a "significantly higher risk of death." causing trials to be halted.
 
What exactly does he know?

And what do you mean by 'half' vaccinating? Half the effectiveness, or half the number of injections. Or almost twice the number of people vaccinated over 12 weeks (I think in simple terms it would be 75% more and not 100% more).

The decision to extend the time between the first and second vaccinations to get more people vaccinated may well have been inspired. Time will tell.
He knows that it is accepted practice to follow a drug manufacturers instructions. Do you know better may i ask?
 
So are you refuting or ignoring the points made by Professor Clancy in his recent article?

I don’t have an axe to grind, genuinely interested in bottoming out the HCR, IVM thing.

I'm neither refuting or ignoring,

I'm putting it in context - which is observing that there's a huge amount of noise and very little evidence. And worse theat noise has potentially drowned out other possibiities.
 
He knows that it is accepted practice to follow a drug manufacturers instructions. Do you know better may i ask?

I don't know better.

However I observe just lke the oft quoted magic 7 degee number for winter tyres or service intervals for cars that a given parameter isn't always a magic switch that says something stops working because a parameter is not met. Instead it may well be that something works a bit less well *but well enough*.

So that is why I stated that the decision *may* be inspired.

One of the arguments I have had repeatedly with NHS doctors and staff over the last nine months is the absolutes to which some of them work and will not compromise. I call this a 'peactime' attitude. It's correct under normal circumstances. However while they may argue that having inferior equipment or less well trained ICU staff is a danger - in a wartime or emergency that attitude can cost lives.

So I throw it back at you ..... Is it acceptable practice to rigidly and uncompromisingly stick by parameters in an emergency when compromise may well lead to a better overall outcome?.
 
I'm neither refuting or ignoring,

I'm putting it in context - which is observing that there's a huge amount of noise and very little evidence. And worse theat noise has potentially drowned out other possibiities.
OK.

From what I’ve seen so far I think :
- at least some of the noise in the ‘against using HCQ for COVID’ comes from data where it was used to medicate patients that had already been hospitalised with COVID;
- using HCQ as a prophylactic, ie at the early stages of infection or even beforehand, may be useful in improving outcomes.

So my guess is that jury is still out.
 
Love the way you use the word peddled repeatedly.

I have no idea what the French study is you are talking about. I am aware of the fake randomized controlled trial data from a company called Surgisphere Corporation which was used as evidence that patients using HCQ had a "significantly higher risk of death." causing trials to be halted.
I hadn't even noiced the use of the word 'peddled'. So thanks for poimting that out

The French study was the one that started off the whole Hydrochloroquine story. Look up Didier Rauolt. That was the seed.
 
I don't know better.

However I observe just lke the oft quoted magic 7 degee number for winter tyres or service intervals for cars that a given parameter isn't always a magic switch that says something stops working because a parameter is not met. Instead it may well be that something works a bit less well *but well enough*.

So that is why I stated that the decision *may* be inspired.

One of the arguments I have had repeatedly with NHS doctors and staff over the last nine months is the absolutes to which some of them work and will not compromise. I call this a 'peactime' attitude. It's correct under normal circumstances. However while they may argue that having inferior equipment or less well trained ICU staff is a danger - in a wartime or emergency that attitude can cost lives.

So I throw it back at you ..... Is it acceptable practice to rigidly and uncompromisingly stick by parameters in an emergency when compromise may well lead to a better overall outcome?.
It is usual practice to stick to a drug manufacturers recommendations in the interests of efficacy. We already have unusual methodology being used in the management of Covid-19 with a test result being the sole criterion for classifying a covid-19 case. Normally, a test is a support for clinical diagnosis, not a substitute. This constitutes a lack of clinical oversight and is unusual.

Best not to tear up the rule book completely.
 
Best not to tear up the rule book completely.

Indeed.

I don't think it has been torn up in this case.

There has been a considered decision to flex or relax it for a reason.

I think it is right to raise concerns - but perhaps not quite so right to take an absolute position.
 
It will be interesting to see what changes will be made to the way the US addresses the issue of COVID-19 under the new administration.
 
(By date reported)

38259998-9168591-image-a-62_1611159658725.jpg
 
38164238-9159663-image-a-12_1610997079406.jpg
 
Good article by Freddie Sayers on why scepticism, critical thinking and challenging the prevailing orthodoxy is vitally important - and more so than ever in a crisis:
I have my own moral dial, I don’t need to blindly follow whichever mantra is being pumped out by whichever government is in power.

I’m also always wary of individuals motives when so keen to blithely hide behind “the rules” set by others...
 
I’m wondering what the Nightingale chart will look like...
You can get an idea by looking at the PHE weekly all cause mortality reports.

7th Jan Week 1 2021 - no statistically significant excess


14th Jan Week 2 2021 -statistically significant excess


Also Euromomo z scores

 

Is there a different way other countries class a covid death?
I know there is a lot of talk about the way uk are classing most deaths as covid related even though its not always the cause.
 
I have my own moral dial, I don’t need to blindly follow whichever mantra is being pumped out by whichever government is in power.

I’m also always wary of individuals motives when so keen to blithely hide behind “the rules” set by others...

If only more folk were so rational. Guess we can't save everyone.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top Bottom