Hydroxychloroquine and Azthromycin

[DBA]

Why is it the left is so against the use of this combination. Have the all bought into the completely unfounded idea that it is dangerous, despite overwhelming, long-term use cases that say otherwise? 2% of people who have used hydroxchlorquine for 5 years at the same dose that has been used in limited COVID trials have developed heart issues. The duration of the treatment for those with COVID is 7 days. You do the math and figure the odds. The MSM has tricked people and many doctors are very partisan as well. They conveniently leave out vital pieces of information to suit their agenda.

IMO, this is all about money, to spite Trump and for this crisis to linger closer to the election. Big Pharma wants a patented fix for this virus, not a generic drug. The left likes this idea because it takes a while for this to come to market, buying them more time and causing more damage to the economy.

 

[Billy_Bob]

And the pair is >97% effective when used early in the disease progression.

Even my cardiologist told me it would not cause me problems as the dose is so low and duration so short and I have CHF. There is a lot of negative BS out there on this.

 

[JackOfNoTrades]

Why is it the left is so against the use of this combination. Have the all bought into the completely unfounded idea that it is dangerous, despite overwhelming, long-term use cases that say otherwise? 2% of people who have used hydroxchlorquine for 5 years at the same dose that has been used in limited COVID trials have developed heart issues. The duration of the treatment for those with COVID is 7 days. You do the math and figure the odds. The MSM has tricked people and many doctors are very partisan as well. They conveniently leave out vital pieces of information to suit their agenda.

IMO, this is all about money, to spite Trump and for this crisis to linger closer to the election. Big Pharma wants a patented fix for this virus, not a generic drug. The left likes this idea because it takes a while for this to come to market, buying them more time and causing more damage to the economy.

We still on this? I thought we'd moved on to UV light and disinfectants? You might remember that you and I went around this twist about a month ago and you posed the same argument. That the resistance to distributing the drug was just to hurt Trump. No it wasn't. It's a resistance to proclaiming a miracle cure be dropped to the masses before enough scientific study has been conducted. All in the name of getting dear leader back out in front of his ginned up pep rally crowds so he has something to campaign on. Fox News has dropped it like a hot potato. And we've seen in the meantime the danger of the leader of the free world getting up in front of the nation and just riffing at what is supposed to be an informational briefing to a nation that's scared, anxious, and suffering the economic and health related results of his incompetence and inaction.

A month later and we have a little better idea of the effects of the drug as it is being prescribed. The simple fact of the matter is the drug (or combination of drugs) simply hasn't been studied, researched, and had enough clinical trials done on it to pronounce it as effective. Initial favorable treatment results have waned as larger studies now come in and some of the side effects are being noticed. And your statement about dosage? Not true. The dosage is almost double what it is for Lupus and even more than Malaria. And it's all in a short period of time. Read the dosage recommendations on each link.

Dosing for COVID-19
https://www.fda.gov/media/136537/download

Dosing for Lupus
Hydroxychloroquine: Benefits, Side Effects, and Dosing

 

[ReinyDays]

One problem is manufacturing capacity ... if the Covid-19 SARS patients all grab up the hydroxychloroquine, then there's not enough for the folks who need it ...

Do we have FDA approval now for treating C-19 SARS this way? ... can we fully demonstrate that hydroxychloroquine provides any benefit through lengthy double-blind clinical trials? ... or is this just another [crazy treatment idea] circulating on HateLiberals.com? ...

Try as much hot sauce as you can endure in your tacos ... better idea than [crazy treatment idea] or hydroxychloroquine ...

Editted to remove New Speak bullshit ...

 

[Siete]

what difference does it make if it kills horses dead in their tracks -

if Dr Trump prescribed it then by god its good enough for his gaggle of geese.

end of story.

 

[Leweman]

Hydroxychloroquine Has about 90 Percent Chance of Helping COVID-19 Patients, States Association of American Physicians and Surgeons (AAPS)

Stupid doctors.

 

[JackOfNoTrades]

Hydroxychloroquine Has about 90 Percent Chance of Helping COVID-19 Patients, States Association of American Physicians and Surgeons (AAPS)

Stupid doctors.

Sorry. There were no control groups involved in the study so we don't know if the drug treatment caused them to get better or if the results would have been the same with no drug treatment. That's not the way you make conclusions. Here is your key statement from the link. The first part of the sentence is why its not conclusive. I included the second part of the sentence to be fair. However, the drug has been greenlit for prescribing by doctors for almost two months now. Doctors are free to treat their patients with the drug if they deem it necessary.

"Vaccines and results of randomized double-blind controlled trials of new drugs are at best months away. But patients are dying now, while affordable, long-used drugs would be available except for government restrictions, AAPS states".

 

[OldLady]

you posed the same argument. That the resistance to distributing the drug was just to hurt Trump. No it wasn't. It's a resistance to proclaiming a miracle cure be dropped to the masses before enough scientific study has been conducted.

YES.

 

[Leweman]

Hydroxychloroquine Has about 90 Percent Chance of Helping COVID-19 Patients, States Association of American Physicians and Surgeons (AAPS)

Stupid doctors.

Sorry. There were no control groups involved in the study so we don't know if the drug treatment caused them to get better or if the results would have been the same with no drug treatment. That's not the way you make conclusions. Here is your key statement from the link. The first part of the sentence is why its not conclusive. I included the second part of the sentence to be fair. However, the drug has been greenlit for prescribing by doctors for almost two months now. Doctors are free to treat their patients with the drug if they deem it necessary.

"Vaccines and results of randomized double-blind controlled trials of new drugs are at best months away. But patients are dying now, while affordable, long-used drugs would be available except for government restrictions, AAPS states".

haha.