Ah no he didntTrump said that the drugs in question did do what he claimed and were already approved by the FDA for said uses
Depends which Trump statement you want to go with on which day. Talk about flapping around like a dunny door.Ah no he didnt
He said "maybe it works maybe it doesnt" but if faced with a patient about to die, you would try everything. Sounds reasonable if there is anecdotal evidence at the time.
And this is logical how? Poor advice is poor advice even if someone else said it first.Exactly Trump never said it would work.
BTW Trump is not the first to suggest unconventional therapies.
Watch the video.To this date no one had actually tried it - which suggests it was a media pile-on.
I would be worried about all wrong advice.I would be more worried about the WHO director who said international travel should not be banned while China was in lockdown. Governments and media all believed WHO and some countries are currently paying a very high price for it .
Way back in the 1979s when we took it for Malaria it was made quit clear that it was important to only take the prescribed amounts as there were potential side effects.I read an article this morning that said the trial of hydroxychloroquine had been discontinued, as it had the unfortunate side effect of killing those who took part.
There are many trials. The ones discontinued had the dosage set much too high. In itself, like any drug, it is not dangerous unless an overdose is taken or given. I've been safely on hydroxychloroquine now for four years. Which is 400mg.I read an article this morning that said the trial of hydroxychloroquine had been discontinued, as it had the unfortunate side effect of killing those who took part.
Well they have nowExactly Trump never said it would work.
BTW Trump is not the first to suggest unconventional therapies. To this date no one had actually tried it - which suggests it was a media pile-on.
There is nothing wrong with Trump, or any leader, maintaining an open mind and suggesting all sorts of crazy alternatives - who knows one might just work. Best though to do that behind closed doors and not discuss it so openly until there is something promising. The trouble is people do take notice of a president's words, for better or for worse.BTW Trump is not the first to suggest unconventional therapies.
This is why best left to the experts and not promoters on news and current affairs shows (trouble is these days expert scientific opinions are often given same, or less, weighting as opinions of those who know nothing about the topic at hand). Whilst "the dose makes the poison" is not a difficult concept to grasp for the scientifically aware, there are lot of nuances around effiacy and toxicity that are difficult to communicate, and of course many people aren't that scientifically aware. For example, I'm sure most of us could safely consume bleach at extremely low concentrations (a few drops of bleach added to two litres of water will probably have no effect), but I also assume at the concentrations that are not likely to harm your human cells, they're also not likely to harm viruses inside the human body.There are many trials. The ones discontinued had the dosage set much too high. In itself, like any drug, it is not dangerous unless an overdose is taken or given. I've been safely on hydroxychloroquine now for four years. Which is 400mg.
Well here it is - A study from New York.Would it not be a simple statistical test to compare the hundreds already treated with the drugs after contracting the virus, to an equivalent number of people who contracted the virus a few weeks prior who weren't treated?
You tell me. It would seem like the people interviewed are not reliable sources of information.So, is this some kind of Right Wing Conspiracy in presenting the information above?
I couldn't agree more with you on the last statement...Or, does a partial cure fo rthe epidemic exist, but it doesn't work for the public ......but it is good for health workers? (Kind of reminds me of our Face Mask discussion)
Might be interesting to see the results where HCQ is administered as prophylaxis.Renato,
I refer to your original post -
Well here it is - A study from New York.
Gerelis et al. NEJM - "Observational Study of Hydroxychloroquine in Hospitalized Patients with Covid-19"
No difference in intubation or death.
No signal from Azithromycin.
Maybe - Fox news is not the place to get medical information from.
You tell me. It would seem like the people interviewed are not reliable sources of information.
Luckily those of us who make decisions for others don't make these decisions lightly. We rely on evidence and not anecdote. Maybe you should do the same.
I couldn't agree more with you on the last statement...
There was quite a significant caveat to the findings.And yet another study demonstrating no significant benefit and significant increased risk of heart attack.
Treatment With Hydroxychloroquine or Azithromycin and In-Hospital Mortality in Patients With COVID-19This study examines associations between use of hydroxychloroquine, azithromycin, or both and in-hospital mortality, ECG changes, and cardiac arrest among patients with COVID-19 hospitalized in the metropolitan New York area in March 2020.jamanetwork.com