Hydroxychloroquine rated ‘most effective’ coronavirus treatment

[hislegacy]

An international poll of thousands of doctors rated the Trump-touted anti-malaria drug hydroxychloroquine the best treatment for the novel coronavirus.

Of the 6,227 physicians surveyed in 30 countries, 37 percent rated hydroxychloroquine the “most effective therapy” for combating the potentially deadly illness, according to the results released Thursday.​

For those who criticized the President for being hopeful that it would be a benefit.

 

[Hans Blaster]

So is this a scientific study where some patients are given these treatments and others not or is this a subjective opinion survey of doctors and what they perceive to be working?

I criticize no one for being hopeful, but if one has a powerful platform it is necessary not to hype things that may or may not turn out to be correct. That's what snake oil salesmen do.

I hope that this treatment does work, but let's see the controlled studies before we start issuing drugs experimentally to lots of patients where it might even backfire.

 

[Pommer]

What company makes this medication and can they make enough for the entire country (or the world?) where will we “get more” when existing inventories are depleted?

 

[grasping the after wind]

An international poll of thousands of doctors rated the Trump-touted anti-malaria drug hydroxychloroquine the best treatment for the novel coronavirus.

Of the 6,227 physicians surveyed in 30 countries, 37 percent rated hydroxychloroquine the “most effective therapy” for combating the potentially deadly illness, according to the results released Thursday.​

For those who criticized the President for being hopeful that it would be a benefit.

Citing "nine out of ten doctors recommend" is advertising not science. I have great hope for the treatment too but the opinion of doctors, and only 37 % yet, is not scientific proof. I don't fault Trump for touting it, especially was he has repeatedly said things like "It might work , it might not." He has not given false hope by instead telling everyone it would absolutely be the answer we need.

 

[Pommer]

An international poll of thousands of doctors rated the Trump-touted anti-malaria drug hydroxychloroquine the best treatment for the novel coronavirus.

Of the 6,227 physicians surveyed in 30 countries, 37 percent rated hydroxychloroquine the “most effective therapy” for combating the potentially deadly illness, according to the results released Thursday.​

For those who criticized the President for being hopeful that it would be a benefit.

However, the study did not include data on severely ill patients.

 

[grasping the after wind]

So is this a scientific study where some patients are given these treatments and others not or is this a subjective opinion survey of doctors and what they perceive to be working?

I criticize no one for being hopeful, but if one has a powerful platform it is necessary not to hype things that may or may not turn out to be correct. That's what snake oil salesmen do.

I hope that this treatment does work, but let's see the controlled studies before we start issuing drugs experimentally to lots of patients where it might even backfire.

I see no likelihood of great harm in giving this particular drug to people at this particular time. It is not a new drug that has unknown side effects. Physicians need to be aware of the possible side effects and prescribe it responsibly after making the patient aware of the lack of testing for treating this disease. Meanwhile there needs to be a sufficient supply for those that have been prescribed this drug previously for other reasons. There are times when it is reasonable to take a slight risk if the possible reward is sufficient enough to warrant it.

 

[Tiberius Lee]

Citing "nine out of ten doctors recommend" is advertising not science. I have great hope for the treatment too but the opinion of doctors, and only 37 % yet, is not scientific proof. I don't fault Trump for touting it, especially was he has repeatedly said things like "It might work , it might not." He has not given false hope by instead telling everyone it would absolutely be the answer we need.

You forgetting one thing, Trump got the minority vote yet he won.. so to his supporter .. that works every time!

 

[grasping the after wind]

However, the study did not include data on severely ill patients.

Too bad about that. It would be nice to have such data to work with but as severely ill patients have the most to gain, and the least to lose if the treatment is ineffective, then I think I would vote for giving them the opportunity to have it. They are always empowered to refuse.

 

[grasping the after wind]

You forgetting one thing, Trump got the minority vote yet he won.. so to his supporter .. that works every time!

No, Trump got a fairly hefty majority of the electoral votes. I don't normally listen to people that tell me their team actually won because they had more shots on goal than the other team or had more baskets just less three pointers or had more yards but less touchdowns. The rules require what they require. One does not win a contest by using rules one makes up after the game is over.

 

[Pommer]

Too bad about that. It would be nice to have such data to work with but as severely ill patients have the most to gain, and the least to lose if the treatment is ineffective, then I think I would vote for giving them the opportunity to have it. They are always empowered to refuse.

I’ll leave it to the medical ethicists to determine who gets what, but if they’re going to do a proper double-blind study it’ll still take a couple of weeks to get the results/data they need to publish.

 

[grasping the after wind]

I’ll leave it to the medical ethicists to determine who gets what, but if they’re going to do a proper double-blind study it’ll still take a couple of weeks to get the results/data they need to publish.

I don't disagree with that.

 

[hislegacy]

You forgetting one thing, Trump got the minority vote yet he won.. so to his supporter .. that works every time!

Perhaps it is just time you got over that. Gore did, perhaps he can offer hope.

 

[Tiberius Lee]

No, Trump got a fairly hefty majority of the electoral votes. I don't normally listen to people that tell me their team actually won because they had more shots on goal than the other team or had more baskets just less three pointers or had more yards but less touchdowns. The rules require what they require. One does not win a contest by using rules one makes up after the game is over.

I didn’t say he didn’t win.. he did win election by the rule it was set. Does it really hurt the pride when people point out more people voted for the other person?

 

[friend of]

Heard the medication works. Should be mass approval.

 

[Tiberius Lee]

No, Trump got a fairly hefty majority of the electoral votes. I don't normally listen to people that tell me their team actually won because they had more shots on goal than the other team or had more baskets just less three pointers or had more yards but less touchdowns. The rules require what they require. One does not win a contest by using rules one makes up after the game is over.

Lets not call it hefty .. other then GWB last time any one got below 305 electoral college was Jimmy Carter!

 

[grasping the after wind]

I didn’t say he didn’t win.. he did win election by the rule it was set. Does it really hurt the pride when people point out more people voted for the other person?

Your talking about Trump here. Everything that isn't the best, the most, the first etc. hurts his pride.
​

Lets not call it hefty .. other then GWB last time any one got below 305 electoral college was Jimmy Carter!

You mean last time any winner got below 305? 305 to 227 I would consider 78 more or 56.5% compared to 42.2 % to be a hefty majority win but to each their own.

 

[Bobber]

I hope that this treatment does work, but let's see the controlled studies before we start issuing drugs experimentally to lots of patients where it might even backfire.

This isn't an experimental drug though on what it does to the human body though. They've used it for years on other things. It's said to possibly among some have a possible effect on one's heart beat BUT that can be monitored and any problems take them off of it. That's true of all drugs. Some people can react certain ways and if it doesn't work well for some you take them off of it. It's not a thing where a few doses and you die.

 

[hislegacy]

It is amazing how people have becoming experts in law regarding impeachment to just six weeks later experts in pharmacology.

 

[Hank77]

I see no likelihood of great harm in giving this particular drug to people at this particular time. It is not a new drug that has unknown side effects. Physicians need to be aware of the possible side effects and prescribe it responsibly after making the patient aware of the lack of testing for treating this disease. Meanwhile there needs to be a sufficient supply for those that have been prescribed this drug previously for other reasons. There are times when it is reasonable to take a slight risk if the possible reward is sufficient enough to warrant it.

This means pharmacies need to hold their regular supply for patients who regularly use the drug and order extra if they are getting prescriptions to treat CoVid-19 patients.

 

[hislegacy]

This means pharmacies need to hold their regular supply for patients who regularly use the drug and order extra if they are getting prescriptions to treat CoVid-19 patients.

no it doesn’t.

Novartis donation: Consignment of 30 million hydroxychloroquine tablets ships to US Department of Health and Human Services | Sandoz