Woman with Lupus Catches CoVid-19 - Hydroxychloroquine

[SummerMadness]

Just asking for support for your assertion.

Ha, you must be a comedian to ask and expect that. Co-Mo-Dee!

 

[Ana the Ist]

In this case, what would be required is long term use by the host leading to tolerance by a newly acquired virus, which seems unlikely.

I don't see what that has to do with my claim.

 

[sfs]

I don't see what that has to do with my claim.

Your statement was, "But someone taking a medication...any medication...for 19 years is not going to experience the same effect as someone taking it the first time tomorrow." When it comes to the effect of the medication on a recently arrived virus, it may well not matter how long the person had previously been taking the medication. The virus doesn't care.

 

[Albion]

Hopefully, there aren't many people out there that are believing that being on Hydroxychloroquine will keep them safe from this virus.

I don't think that any chemical will guarantee perfect health.

But many will either lessen the likelihood of me catching the disease or, if not that, will make the symptoms less severe than otherwise would be the case if I did contract the disease.

 

[iluvatar5150]

Don't blame the hydroxychloroquine for not working - she did it wrong. She's supposed to inject it with bleach and a flashlight into her lungs.

He was talking about ultraviolet, so you'd need a black light, not a regular flash light.

Duh.

 

[rambot]

Hmmmm...I can't imagine that it would further our knowledge of hcq given this lady had LUPUS.

 

[Tanj]

I don't think that any chemical will guarantee perfect health.

But many will either lessen the likelihood of me catching the disease or, if not that, will make the symptoms less severe than otherwise would be the case if I did contract the disease.

Yep, we call those "vaccines".

 

[Bobber]

A Wisconsin woman who has had lupus for most of her life said she takes hydroxychloroquine and still caught COVID-19.
Kim, who only wants her first name used, said she has taken the anti-malarial drug for 19 years to help treat the pain caused by her lupus.

I thought hydroxychloroquine was a very dangerous drug that nobody should be on it. She as well as millions of others have been on it for years! Oh I see. One could possibly have side effects but if they do they report them and then they take them off of it. Why not the same then for those with Covid? Why all the talk, "Well you just can't prescribe this drug! It's dangerous!"

 

[Mayzoo]

I thought hydroxychloroquine was a very dangerous drug that nobody should be on it. She as well as millions of others have been on it for years! Oh I see. One could possibly have side effects but if they do they report them and then they take them off of it. Why not the same then for those with Covid? Why all the talk, "Well you just can't prescribe this drug! It's dangerous!"

With ANY medication a risk-benefit analysis should be done. Are the potential, verifiable risks associated with taking this medication worth the potential, verifiable benefits reaped? The higher the risk profile of a medication, the greater the possible benefits must be.

This is not a one size fits all scale. The risks of a medication to me, may not be the exact same risks there are for you and the same for benefits.

Due to Primary Immune Diffenciancy, my daughter is on Immunoglobulin therapy. However, due to the risk involved with blood born medications, I would not recommend it to others to boost their immune system during a crisis or when their immune system may be lowered ie stress.

BTW, I missed the article that stated no one should be on hydroxychloroquine. Could you please link to that one?

 

[essentialsaltes]

"Well you just can't prescribe this drug! It's dangerous!"

Mostly we're saying "It's a poor idea to take this drug. The best evidence shows that it provides no benefit, and there are side effects, potentially fatal ones. It's a net minus."

 

[essentialsaltes]

LINK

Researchers analyzed data from more than 96,000 patients with confirmed Covid-19 from 671 hospitals. All were hospitalized from late December to mid-April, and had died or been discharged by April 21.

Just below 15,000 patients were treated with the antimalarial drugs hydroxychloroquine or chloroquine, or one of those drugs combined with an antibiotic.

All four of those treatments were linked with a higher risk of dying in the hospital. About 1 in 11 patients in the control group died in the hospital. About 1 in 6 patients treated with chloroquine or hydroxychloroquine alone died in the hospital. About 1 in 5 treated with chloroquine and an antibiotic died and almost 1 in 4 treated with hydroxychloroquine and an antibiotic died.

Researchers also found that serious cardiac arrhythmias were more common among patients receiving any of the four treatments. The largest increase was among the group treated with hydroxychloroquine and an antibiotic; 8% of those patients developed a heart arrhythmia, compared with 0.3% of patients in the control group.

 

[Bobber]

BTW, I missed the article that stated no one should be on hydroxychloroquine. Could you please link to that one?

I hardly think that I should have to provide one. It's just common knowledge the mainstream media built up a hysteria warning about the serious side effects the drug could give and I don't deny there aren't possibilities of certain things. However the drug has been prescribed safely for years since 1955 to millions of people and that's one thing they won't admit. If it was an extraordinary potentially dangerous drug it would have been banned years ago.

 

[essentialsaltes]

If it was an extraordinary potentially dangerous drug it would have been banned years ago.

Did you read the first three paragraphs of what Mayzoo wrote?

 

[sfs]

It's just common knowledge the mainstream media built up a hysteria warning about the serious side effects the drug could give

If this is common knowledge for you, I suggest you start getting your knowledge from more diverse sources. At this point, there is much stronger evidence that HCQ increases the risk of dying than there is that it helps fight COVID-19.

 

[Bobber]

If this is common knowledge for you, I suggest you start getting your knowledge from more diverse sources. At this point, there is much stronger evidence that HCQ increases the risk of dying than there is that it helps fight COVID-19.

Perhaps but as for me I have a hard time shaking my distrust of media and even some in the medical community which I feel have an agenda or at least potentially that they could have. I don't think politics ends in the minds of people just because they have a doctors badge on their cloak. And I've seen other credible doctors highly educated who's opinions and assessments should be in the mix of what should be considered without having them censored, laughed at and mocked just because they've spoken positive things about certain treatments.

 

[Hank77]

I thought hydroxychloroquine was a very dangerous drug that nobody should be on it.

That was never said.

 

[Bobber]

That was never said.

Is it always what is said?

Or is it also what is implied?

 

[essentialsaltes]

Is it always what is said?

Or is it also what is implied?

Have you never heard "We report; you decide."

It's a fact this drug is worse than useless; it's actually harmful, while providing no benefit.

If people come away from a news report with the impression they shouldn't take it, that's probably their brains functioning properly. But it is not part of the reporting that it is "a very dangerous drug that nobody should be on it."

 

[Hank77]

Is it always what is said?

Or is it also what is implied?

It was never implied either.

 

[Mayzoo]

I hardly think that I should have to provide one. It's just common knowledge the mainstream media built up a hysteria warning about the serious side effects the drug could give and I don't deny there aren't possibilities of certain things. However the drug has been prescribed safely for years since 1955 to millions of people and that's the one thing they won't admit. If it was an extraordinary potentially dangerous drug it would have been banned years ago.

I have not read a single article that includes hysteria, but I do not frequent those types of sites when I seek news/information. I actually actively avoid them. I have seen many articles stating it has been used for years, and prescribed, usually, effectively (safely) for approved conditions. Who is they (and no I am not kidding) ie "one thing they won't admit"?

Everything I have read indicates the drug has some very serious side effects and should be used with caution, under strict supervision, and only in situations that it has the potential to help. Some people have died while on the medication, and that is just one of the serious side effects. It is not always safe for anyone/everyone to use even when used for its labeled uses. Hence, the balancing act I mentioned.

I suffer from chronic headaches (8-9 a week, sometimes debilitating). Morphine (insert any pain medication) has been used safely for pain for many decades. That does not mean I should take morphine as prophylaxis for my headaches or even necessarily as a treatment for my headaches.

Chemotherapy has been prescribed for years and has helped millions. That does not mean it is appropriate for everyone, nor does it mean it is safe or efficacious for off label uses.

We clearly do not read the same news. There are many, many sources for a variety of news. For my own sanity and for brevity I choose to usually go with balanced, non-inflammatory sources.

When it comes to medications, I go straight to the package insert (here) for information...not a news channel/source. However, I did work in pharmacy for 25 years, so I can easily read and understand most of the information given in those.

The medical field is all about risk/benefit balancing.