Hydroxychloroquine...........
291,958 Views | 1854 Replies
...
2PacShakur
1:44p, 8/17/20
In reply to Irwin M. Fletcher
Picadillo isn't here to respond to your question, Picadillo (and DadHammer) are here to waste your time looking up all this useless junk.
goodAg80
1:46p, 8/17/20
In reply to Irwin M. Fletcher
Irwin M. Fletcher said:

Will you answer my question????? I am not even anti HCQ, I believe in theory it might have benefit if used in the cocktail early. It has not been proven to do so but in theory it makes sense. My question is around your stupid claim that big Pharma is pushing the narrative to get more expensive options in the treatment plan. That is lubricous and is disproven by dexamethasone being used. Please answer that will you?

Autocorrect gave you a really good one.

lubricious : offensively displaying or intended to arouse sexual desire.
Another Doug
4:18p, 8/17/20
In reply to new straw
new straw said:

Is this the game thread where that one dude talks to himself?
Reminds me more of this....

HotardAg07
2:47p, 1/22/21
In reply to Infection_Ag11
Infection_Ag11 said:

Windy City Ag said:

Dr. Stella has thousands of patients! She listens to them.


She's a Cameroonian witch doctor, conspiracy theorist and is the pastor of a denomination most mainstream Christians here would regard as a cult.
My grandma (in her 80's) had contact with someone who came down with COVID and has gotten sick. My (conspiracy theory embracing, anti-science) aunt took her to a clinic where she got "some shots" and HCQ, Azithromiycin Ivermectin, and Prednisone. Given what I heard about the doctor and the clinic where my aunt took her, I poked a little more into it and found out she got to see Dr. Stella Immanuel. So, I guess in case if you were wondering, yes she's still working and still handing out HCQ.

My aunt has tried to treat my grandma with frequency treatments after she knocked herself out from a fall, for example, so I think it's fair to question what she was up to.
AggieBiker
5:21p, 1/22/21
Can't believe this thread made through five months of dry dock. Hello old friend. Still kicking a little I see.
Marcus Aurelius
7:57p, 1/22/21
Gosh. I was so excited about HCQ in March. Seems like eons ago. Still not convinced it isn't beneficial given day zero.
Reveille
8:47p, 1/22/21
In reply to Marcus Aurelius
Marcus Aurelius said:

Gosh. I was so excited about HCQ in March. Seems like eons ago. Still not convinced it isn't beneficial given day zero.
Yes me too! And I agree!
No material on this site is intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment. See full Medical Disclaimer.
Philip J Fry
9:07p, 1/23/21
In reply to Marcus Aurelius
Marcus Aurelius said:

Gosh. I was so excited about HCQ in March. Seems like eons ago. Still not convinced it isn't beneficial given day zero.

[Wrong forum. We don't want the political posts on this forum per WatchOle. - Staff]
culdeus
2:32p, 1/24/21
In reply to Marcus Aurelius
Marcus Aurelius said:

Gosh. I was so excited about HCQ in March. Seems like eons ago. Still not convinced it isn't beneficial given day zero.
HCQ isn't an abortion pill, how do you identify day zero?
DadHammer
4:46p, 1/24/21
In reply to culdeus
The day you test positive I guess?
bigtruckguy3500
5:02p, 1/24/21
In reply to culdeus
culdeus said:

Marcus Aurelius said:

Gosh. I was so excited about HCQ in March. Seems like eons ago. Still not convinced it isn't beneficial given day zero.
HCQ isn't an abortion pill, how do you identify day zero?
That's the hard part here. Even monoclonal antibodies or convalescent plasma would be extremely beneficial given on day 0, or day 1. Or, even prophylactically following a high risk exposure. The problem is we have a have a hard time identifying day 0. Frequently it isn't until day 2-3 of illness, which is day 7-8 post exposure, that patients present for testing.

The virus itself doesn't appear as deadly as the inflammation and damage it leaves behind as the body is clearing it. HCQ's potential lies in its anti-inflammatory properties, in my opinion. However, steroids are potent anti-inflammatories as well, and we've seen dexamethasone and other steroids demonstrate clear and unequivocal benefits in that category.
2PacShakur
12:07p, 1/25/21
In reply to bigtruckguy3500
bigtruckguy3500 said:

culdeus said:

Marcus Aurelius said:

Gosh. I was so excited about HCQ in March. Seems like eons ago. Still not convinced it isn't beneficial given day zero.
HCQ isn't an abortion pill, how do you identify day zero?
That's the hard part here. Even monoclonal antibodies or convalescent plasma would be extremely beneficial given on day 0, or day 1. Or, even prophylactically following a high risk exposure. The problem is we have a have a hard time identifying day 0. Frequently it isn't until day 2-3 of illness, which is day 7-8 post exposure, that patients present for testing.

The virus itself doesn't appear as deadly as the inflammation and damage it leaves behind as the body is clearing it. HCQ's potential lies in its anti-inflammatory properties, in my opinion. However, steroids are potent anti-inflammatories as well, and we've seen dexamethasone and other steroids demonstrate clear and unequivocal benefits in that category.
THC has anti-inflammtory properties (E: even a reasonable MoA) but don't see many people advocating for Covid "treatment" centers.
leftcoastaggie
7:52p, 1/26/21
Oklahoma is trying to return $2 million worth of HCQ back to the supplier they bought it from...


https://www.readfrontier.org/stories/oklahoma-trying-to-return-its-2m-stockpile-of-hydroxychloroquine/
Jock 07
9:17p, 1/26/21
From my understanding it's the inflammation that jacks with the taste and smell, would steroids help in this regard?
Another Doug
11:55p, 1/26/21
In reply to leftcoastaggie
leftcoastaggie said:

Oklahoma is trying to return $2 million worth of HCQ back to the supplier they bought it from...


https://www.readfrontier.org/stories/oklahoma-trying-to-return-its-2m-stockpile-of-hydroxychloroquine/
Maybe Picadillo and Dr. Demon Sperm can go in halfsies.

culdeus
7:26a, 1/27/21
In reply to leftcoastaggie
leftcoastaggie said:

Oklahoma is trying to return $2 million worth of HCQ back to the supplier they bought it from...


https://www.readfrontier.org/stories/oklahoma-trying-to-return-its-2m-stockpile-of-hydroxychloroquine/
They should just grind it up for fish tank cleaning products, or was that some other nonsense drug for this? I lost track.
YouBet
12:15p, 1/27/21
In reply to Marcus Aurelius
Marcus Aurelius said:

Gosh. I was so excited about HCQ in March. Seems like eons ago. Still not convinced it isn't beneficial given day zero.
It seems to be beneficial according to the The American Journal of Medicine or at worst will not hurt you.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0002934320306732#bib0018

Quote:

The currently completed retrospective studies and randomized trials have generally shown these findings: 1) when started late in the hospital course and for short durations of time, antimalarials appear to be ineffective, 2) when started earlier in the hospital course, for progressively longer durations and in outpatients, antimalarials may reduce the progression of disease, prevent hospitalization, and are associated with reduced mortality.22, 23, 24, 25
Still don't understand why this was not allowed last year by folks who were supposedly following the science.
El Hombre Mas Guapo
1:31p, 1/27/21
In reply to YouBet
Sounds like what most were saying back in March
2PacShakur
5:19p, 1/27/21
In reply to YouBet
YouBet said:

Marcus Aurelius said:

Gosh. I was so excited about HCQ in March. Seems like eons ago. Still not convinced it isn't beneficial given day zero.
It seems to be beneficial according to the The American Journal of Medicine or at worst will not hurt you.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0002934320306732#bib0018

Quote:

The currently completed retrospective studies and randomized trials have generally shown these findings: 1) when started late in the hospital course and for short durations of time, antimalarials appear to be ineffective, 2) when started earlier in the hospital course, for progressively longer durations and in outpatients, antimalarials may reduce the progression of disease, prevent hospitalization, and are associated with reduced mortality.22, 23, 24, 25
Still don't understand why this was not allowed last year by folks who were supposedly following the science.
There's a reason why this is published in a journal with a low impact factor. They didn't cite or discuss any of the major, *prospective* HCQ trials. The last citation is about HCQ in autoimmune disorders. Also "may" is a keyword in their second point. "Associated" is equally pointless, like I'm "associated" with A&M but I haven't stepped foot in CS for over a decade.
YouBet
5:30p, 1/27/21
In reply to 2PacShakur
2PacShakur said:

YouBet said:

Marcus Aurelius said:

Gosh. I was so excited about HCQ in March. Seems like eons ago. Still not convinced it isn't beneficial given day zero.
It seems to be beneficial according to the The American Journal of Medicine or at worst will not hurt you.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0002934320306732#bib0018

Quote:

The currently completed retrospective studies and randomized trials have generally shown these findings: 1) when started late in the hospital course and for short durations of time, antimalarials appear to be ineffective, 2) when started earlier in the hospital course, for progressively longer durations and in outpatients, antimalarials may reduce the progression of disease, prevent hospitalization, and are associated with reduced mortality.22, 23, 24, 25
Still don't understand why this was not allowed last year by folks who were supposedly following the science.
There's a reason why this is published in a journal with a low impact factor. They didn't cite or discuss any of the major, *prospective* HCQ trials. The last citation is about HCQ in autoimmune disorders. Also "may" is a keyword in their second point. "Associated" is equally pointless, like I'm "associated" with A&M but I haven't stepped foot in CS for over a decade.
That's cool but having it flat out blocked from usage in some places due to politics is inexcusable.
NASAg03
6:42p, 1/27/21
In reply to 2PacShakur
2PacShakur said:

bigtruckguy3500 said:

culdeus said:

Marcus Aurelius said:

Gosh. I was so excited about HCQ in March. Seems like eons ago. Still not convinced it isn't beneficial given day zero.
HCQ isn't an abortion pill, how do you identify day zero?
That's the hard part here. Even monoclonal antibodies or convalescent plasma would be extremely beneficial given on day 0, or day 1. Or, even prophylactically following a high risk exposure. The problem is we have a have a hard time identifying day 0. Frequently it isn't until day 2-3 of illness, which is day 7-8 post exposure, that patients present for testing.

The virus itself doesn't appear as deadly as the inflammation and damage it leaves behind as the body is clearing it. HCQ's potential lies in its anti-inflammatory properties, in my opinion. However, steroids are potent anti-inflammatories as well, and we've seen dexamethasone and other steroids demonstrate clear and unequivocal benefits in that category.
THC has anti-inflammtory properties (E: even a reasonable MoA) but don't see many people advocating for Covid "treatment" centers.
I definitely was using THC / CBD edibles when I had covid. 5mg to 10mg at night to help me sleep.

I lost my taste and smell, but only for 3 days.
aggieduke
7:25p, 1/27/21
In reply to NASAg03
And......did it help you with your symptoms?
Philippians 4:13
NASAg03
9:14a, 1/28/21
In reply to aggieduke
I'm not sure. I don't have much to compare against. I was taking:

  • Zinc
  • CoQ10
  • Emergen-C
  • THC / CBD

Days 5-7 was the worst for me.
aggieduke
1:46p, 1/28/21
In reply to NASAg03
NASAg03 said:

I'm not sure. I don't have much to compare against. I was taking:

  • Zinc
  • CoQ10
  • Emergen-C
  • THC / CBD

Days 5-7 was the worst for me.



I'll just take that as a yes
Philippians 4:13
VanZandt92
9:47p, 1/28/21
In reply to YouBet
YouBet said:

Marcus Aurelius said:

Gosh. I was so excited about HCQ in March. Seems like eons ago. Still not convinced it isn't beneficial given day zero.
It seems to be beneficial according to the The American Journal of Medicine or at worst will not hurt you.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0002934320306732#bib0018

Quote:

The currently completed retrospective studies and randomized trials have generally shown these findings: 1) when started late in the hospital course and for short durations of time, antimalarials appear to be ineffective, 2) when started earlier in the hospital course, for progressively longer durations and in outpatients, antimalarials may reduce the progression of disease, prevent hospitalization, and are associated with reduced mortality.22, 23, 24, 25
Still don't understand why this was not allowed last year by folks who were supposedly following the science.



This is an August 2020 article and there is more recent data. This was not quality data. Click into the article and you can see the actual publication date.
YouBet
10:31p, 1/28/21
In reply to VanZandt92
Can you link the recent data?
2PacShakur
11:30p, 1/28/21
In reply to YouBet
YouBet said:

Can you link the recent data?
Hospitalized pts; Prophylaxis; AZ non-severe; AZ mild-to-moderate; postprandial
Post removed:
by user
6:43a, 1/29/21
VanZandt92
7:29a, 1/29/21
In reply to [removed post]
JJMt said:

2PacShakur said:

YouBet said:

Can you link the recent data?
Hospitalized pts; Prophylaxis; AZ non-severe; AZ mild-to-moderate; postprandial
And yet another study where the HCQ is first administered after the disease had already set in. Are there any studies of HCQ administered early in the onset of the disease? And administered in conjunction with zinc and athromycin (sp?)?


This study has some of what you are asking

https://www.thelancet.com/journals/eclinm/article/PIIS2589-5370(20)30389-8/fulltext
Post removed:
by user
11:19a, 1/29/21
shiftyandquick
7:56a, 1/5/24
estimated 17,000 people dead from this drug.

https://www.politico.eu/article/hydroxychloroquine-could-have-caused-17000-deaths-during-covid-study-finds/
FlyRod
12:11p, 1/5/24
And the study in the post two posts up showed there was no efficacy all the way back in 2020.

Same with Ivermectin sadly:

https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2801827
Jabin
12:56p, 1/15/24
In reply to shiftyandquick
shiftyandquick said:

estimated 17,000 people dead from this drug.

https://www.politico.eu/article/hydroxychloroquine-could-have-caused-17000-deaths-during-covid-study-finds/
Well, maybe and maybe not. As the article says:

Quote:

because of . . . its use instead of other effective treatments.
The article doesn't say how many of the 17,000 who died were so classified, or what other treatments they missed out on, or what the survival rate was for those "other effective treatments".

There is so much crap on every side of all of the Covid issues. It's almost impossible to sort out what's true and what's simply projection. It makes one wonder if all medicine is this bad.
Rex Racer
2:50p, 1/26/24
In reply to Jabin
What other effective treatments???? For the longest time, the medical community told us there weren't any effective treatments, and even today, the only medicine they will prescribe is Paxlovid, other than the Z-pack which is not effective at all, except to stop bacterial infections that may spring up along with COVID.
Jabin
2:53p, 1/26/24
In reply to Rex Racer
Rex Racer said:

What other effective treatments???? For the longest time, the medical community told us there weren't any effective treatments, and even today, the only medicine they will prescribe is Paxlovid, other than the Z-pack which is not effective at all, except to stop bacterial infections that may spring up along with COVID.
Exactly!
CLOSE
×
Cancel
Copy Topic Link to Clipboard
Back
Copy
Page 53 of 53
Post Reply
×
Verify your student status Register
See Membership Benefits >
CLOSE
×
Night mode
Off
Auto-detect device settings
Off