Oklahoma desperately trying to return its $2M hydroxychloroquine stockpile

a reply to: Southern Guardian

I already responded to all your standard MSM arguments that only demonstrate you having fallen victim to scientism (or your love for scientism) in our previous discussions about this matter.

c19study.com is not a random compilation of studies, it's listing all studies that it could find, both with positive and negative results, both those done by genuine researchers and Big Pharma's marketeers posing as independent objective scientists producing unbiased studies. The one's you keep on linking and have been linking when the anti-HCQ marketing campaign was in full swing to setup a demand for vaccines, while simply conveniently ignoring any positive study or report about the subject. Dismissing all of them by painting (tainting) them with several broad brushes (standardized arguments like "not peer reviewed", "cherry-picking data", etc.; when this is actually the issue with what you've been promoting so far, cherry-picking only the negative studies, and previously, you went as far as promoting news articles that use the term "gold standard" RCT for a supposedly "peer reviewed" study that was entirely conducted over the internet, with anonymous contributers to the data and no treating physician inputting any data. Your bias for misrepresenting the value of a study is quite amazing).

I don't really want to waste my time on responding again to all your arguments and ways of misrepresenting the situation when you are this closed minded to all the data (or more specifically, the data you don't like, the expression "all the data" is referring to the way c19study.com looks at both positive and negative studies of all kinds, and you dismissing c19study.com altogether for doing it that way, i.e. closed minded to the notion of looking at all the data in the same manner, rather than --->), and only pointing to the so-called "studies" that tickle your ears and promote the arguments and claims you want to make. While giving the false impression that any positive result is due to any of the supposed 'flaws' or issues you are using to invalidate the entire study or report because you don't like their endconclusion or the positive numbers given or highlighted by c19study.com.

The most valuable data to me is still the actual experiences and numbers given by reliable honest hard-working physicians who are actually trying to help their patients (in the 2 videos I shared), not the collected data from c19study.com, which often includes publications of studies conducted by those who handle the data but haven't treated a single Covid-19 patient. Long live the holy "gold standard" RCT? I think not. Not when they are this easily skewered in a particular direction by those limiting the protocol to 5 days maximum treatment with HCQ, when actual experience by treating physicians has already shown that you get a rebound of the disease if you do it that way with hospitalized patients, where you're already a bit late with your treatment (how convenient if that is your intention to make it look like HCQ didn't work in the so-called "gold standard" RCT; it's certainly not "gold standard" health care). And that's just one example on how to skewer and manipulate the results of a study based on protocol and bias for a particular result that justifies one's own actions and those described in hospital and health care protocols across the world.

originally posted by: Southern Guardian
a reply to: network dude

What is your medical background ? Should we be listening to you? We did hear from plenty of doctors that it helped them and their patients.

Which doctors?

Dr. Birx: Randomized trials show benefit for remdesivir, but not hydroxychloroquine

Dr. Fauci says all the ‘valid’ scientific data shows hydroxychloroquine isn’t effective in treating coronavirus

Hydroxychloroquine for COVID-19: Scientists say it's time to stop promoting the drug

Hydroxychloroquine has no effect in treating people with COVID-19, study shows

The World Health Organisation: Studies show hydroxychloroquine does not have clinical benefits in treating COVID-19

WHO says trials show malaria and HIV drugs don't cut Covid-19 hospital deaths

NIH Halts Hydroxychloroquine Study; Says 'Unlikely' To Help COVID-19 Patients

British Heart Foundation: Why hydroxychloroquine isn't a "miracle cure" for coronavirus

Do not use hydroxychloroquine for COVID: National Taskforce (Australia)

Brazil's Bolsonaro picks fourth health minister since start of pandemic

Pazuello's two predecessors resigned in roughly the span of a month last year, in part because as physicians they would not fully endorse treating Covid-19 patients with the anti-malarial drug hydroxychloroquine.

Pazuello expanded access to hydroxychloroquine and allowed it to be prescribed to virtually anyone testing positive for the coronavirus. Regulators elsewhere have said hydroxychloroquine is unlikely to be effective for that purpose and have cautioned against its use.

It's pretty clear it's not am viable treatment against COVID19. What more is there to say? Individual doctors on local news stations are entitled to their opinions and that's it.

not sure if you understood the question, it's obvious you didn't, but it has to do with offering medical advice, when you aren't a medical professional. As I quoted above, Trump didn't say "this is the cure, everyone should take it!", just as he never told everyone to inject bleach. But the #tards who had to be 100% against what Trump said, for the sake of Trump, spun all that into exactly what you seem to believe. Being able to look at things objectively, and make your own decisions is a lost art. Too many brain dead lemmings on the left need the MSM to explain how they feel. I sure hope they never lie to you.

khn.org...

crownheights.info...

thepostmillennial.com...

A recent study conducted at the Henry Ford Health System in Southeast Michigan concluded that of 2,541 hospitalized patients, those who were administered hydroxychloroquine were more likely to survive the coronavirus, according to CNN.

www.contagionlive.com...

The initial results from a placebo-controlled trial of hydroxychloroquine for COVID-19 indicate that patients hospitalized with mild illness recovered more quickly with addition of the drug than with placebo at the start of a standard treatment. The results also suggest that hydroxychloroquine might convey some protection against the illness worsening.

link to many more like these

Perhaps they might have a connection to the WHO or the CDC, and they could get a malaria pandemic declared this summer, and then sell the stockpile for 100 times it's original cost ?

Our family doctor has been using HCQ right from the beginning with great results. Doc said it has to be started soon enough though. Not waiting a week, getting worse & then starting it. Said all his patients turned around in 24 hours! It’s like a miracle cure. Called to followup on a 64 year old patient & he wasn’t home. He was out playing golf!

The only problem is, the chain pharmacies around here, won’t fill the prescription for off label use! Doc has been using a local Mom & Pop pharmacy, but is afraid of losing his license! Said it’s criminal how it has become politicized!

I think that I read way back, that it was Chloroquine, not Hydroxychloroquine that had bad side effects.
I even wondered if it could be used for Babesia, a co-infection of Lyme Disease, which has symptoms similar to Malaria.

Doc said, why would anyone get an experimental shot, for something that has a 99.7% recovery rate? Especially when HCQ is so effective! This doctor is a keeper!

WOQ

originally posted by: AngryCymraeg

Hydroxychloroquine doesn't work for Covid-19. It just doesn't. It works for Malaria and Lupus, but only idiots think that it works for Covid-19.
It's very simple - listen to the science and not the amateurs.

It is said it doesn't work because all the evidence is anecdotal evidence, but then there hasn't been rigorous scientific study to actually say it doesn't work either.

So we are down to a good number of doctors from around the world saying it helped their patients and that isn't good enough for the left it seems...

How about putting patients on their bellies that have shown a good reduction in deaths or ventilator need, that is anecdotal too, so does it work or not?

a reply to: Southern Guardian

I still remember it like it was yesterday, that fateful day Trump held everybody down and forced them to take hydroxychloroquine. Then there was that old couple that he forced to eat aquarium cleaner in the Rose Garden. Plus, if that wasn't enough, all the bleach injection checkpoints. We need to get that guy out of office before he kills us all with his reckless policies.

It's a scary world we live in with people trying to force unproven medical treatments on an unwitting public. It takes some really messed up people to try to force poorly understood and insufficiently tested drugs on a gullible public.

Naturally it's Drumph that is forcing unproven drugs on people. Before long you'll be forced to present your Drumph passport showing you took hydroxychloroquine, because Drumph is forcing this on people.

originally posted by: AngryCymraeg
a reply to: Southern Guardian

Welp, it looks like sanity has returned to even Oklahoma. How many other southern States bought that snake oil?

Snake oil? Educate yourself. That drug has been in use for a century- its especially helpful with malaria.

a reply to: KansasGirl

That drug has been in use for a century

So has penicillin. Does make it right to go out there proclaiming it's a viable and reliable treatment against cancer as opposed to others? I supposed you'd be a-ok for somebody to market it to a bunch of desperate sick patients right? Because it works in other ways?

Not sure why it's hard to understand.

a reply to: network dude

As I quoted above, Trump didn't say "this is the cure, everyone should take it!",

At no point in the OP was it claimed that Trump advised HCQ was a 'cure'. If you actually go back and read my responses, I've referred to his claims as HCQ being a viable treatment. I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume this wasn't an attempt at a strawman. I'm confident you know better.

But the #tards who had to be 100% against what Trump said

It's amazing to me how certain members of this forum get away with the stuff they post, like the above. Why is that?

khn.org...

crownheights.info...

thepostmillennial.com...

A recent study conducted at the Henry Ford Health System in Southeast Michigan concluded that of 2,541 hospitalized patients, those who were administered hydroxychloroquine were more likely to survive the coronavirus, according to CNN.

First off, notice your sources are from early to mid-2020? At that time most relevant studies were still ongoing. The Henry Ford study article you referenced was dated April 2020. Studies were still largely ongoing at that time, so I question why you haven't found anything recent, or a reliable complete study?

Promoted in April as the first large-scale drug study on the effectiveness of hydroxychloroquine to protect against COVID-19, the Detroit-based clinical trial has quietly been iced.

Henry Ford Health System officials told Bridge Michigan they could not find enough participants to continue studying whether the drug could help beat back the deadly pandemic.

Hydroxychloroquine — an antimalarial drug that has also proven useful in treating rheumatoid arthritis, lupus and other inflammatory diseases — briefly produced some excitement last spring when it was promoted as a potential game-changer by President Trump. But early optimism gave way to broader medical studies, with the nation’s top health agencies eventually determining it was not effective in treating or preventing the spread of the novel coronavirus.

So what makes the Henry Ford study special compared to others? Maybe you can tell me.

doubts about the effectiveness of hydroxychloroquine had already begun to emerge among frontline clinicians, and were confirmed over time by larger studies that failed to show significant evidence of improvement among coronavirus patients.

And Henry Ford’s research was heavily criticized by scientists and experts, including Dr. Anthony Fauci speaking in a Congressional hearing, for falling short of the scientific rigor necessary to draw such conclusions.

The thing with the Henry Ford Study, it was deeply flawed from the onset being that it was observational and not randomized. Observational studies mean you're going back and looking at patients as opposed to following them and going forward in time. With that particular study, when closely reviewed, it was also identified that 80% of those patients in that study that were given Hydroxychloroquine were also receiving a steroid medication - that had already been shown to be beneficial. This conflicted with results given the mix of the two treatments.

www.contagionlive.com...

The initial results from a placebo-controlled trial of hydroxychloroquine for COVID-19 indicate that patients hospitalized with mild illness recovered more quickly with addition of the drug than with placebo at the start of a standard treatment. The results also suggest that hydroxychloroquine might convey some protection against the illness worsening.

From your source dated April 5th 2020:

"Despite our small number of cases, the potential of hydroxychloroquine in the treatment of COVID-19 has been partially confirmed," Zhang and colleagues concluded.

"However, large-scale clinical and basic research is still needed to clarify its specific mechanism and to continuously optimize the treatment plan," they added.

And there have since been larger more comprehensive studies completed since. Why are you referring to preliminary and incomplete studies?

Are we really looking for the facts here? Or are we looking for anything that says we're right?

Going back to your comments about 'doctors' saying this drug is effective, why ignore the nation's foremost medical experts and bodies? Ones tasked by Trump himself to deal with the pandemic? What's wrong with Fauci and Birx?

originally posted by: djz3ro
a reply to: AngryCymraeg

There are people on these very pages who fell for it but you won't see them posting a retraction anytime soon.

Mugs

I believed the study that found it only failed to cure the disease 0.03 % of the time and probably included it in a post of mine on here. Perhaps even two. I'll say it if I have been had, it's not embarassing to not be a doctor, not have a clue what organizations are reputable and have no lab and cue of patients waiting in the next room to allow me to scrutinize and repeat the experiment. I see nothing shameful in that and I honestly doubt that others like me have a seventh sense for medical and biological chemistry just by I dunno....their joints acting up or a sudden erection o-.....let me FINISH PLEEEASE...or erection of the hair on their necks.

a reply to: Southern Guardian

Oklahoma should sell it at a discount to countries where Malaria is prevalent. Preventing Malaria is what its primary global use is for.

a reply to: KansasGirl

When used right (with zinc at least, preferrably also vitamin C+D3) it works quite well against all RNA viruses. So that includes the flu and such. Or the zika virus for example:

Chloroquine, an Endocytosis Blocking Agent, Inhibits Zika Virus Infection in Different Cell Models

CQ and HCQ work the same way (safety profile is a bit different).

Here's why:

Chloroquine, Hydroxychloroquine & SARS-CoV-2 (COVID-19): Mechanism & Overview of Anti-Viral Effects (playlist)

a reply to: whereislogic

You know that the Vaccine loses it's emergency use status if another treatment is found right?

a reply to: whereislogic

it works quite well against all RNA viruses.

Mind to reference the part of the study where it says this?

a reply to: HorrorRoach

I was under the impression that the emergency use authorization (EUA) in the US for HCQ had already been revoked (by the Trump administration). Did the MSM mislead me again?

a reply to: Southern Guardian

The study I linked is about the Zika virus, so it wouldn't have that detail in there. It was just an example of another RNA virus.

The reason I know it works against other RNA viruses as well is because of its well-researched mechanism of action (MOA, see video). It works best against those RNA viruses that enter the cell via the ACE2 receptor, but it inhibits viral replication of RNA viruses regardless (it inhibits the function of the replicating machinery in cells by increasing pH levels, and those replicating machines remain the same no matter what RNA virus enters the cell, so it doesn't matter, it will inhibit viral replication regardless which RNA virus it is; and if you look at the MOA video, you might notice that zinc inside the cell also does this regardless of the type of RNA virus, for the same reason that it inhibits the viral replication machinery, the normal machinery of the cell that is hi-jacked by RNA viruses). The relevant studies can also be found in the MOA video, one RNA virus at a time usually, but when it comes to viral replication, they pretty much operate the same way.

Dr. Tyson (the California doctor from my previous video) mentions it as well in one of his latest video interviews on the subject (which emboldened me to repeat the statement, cause I already suspected this to be the case based on my knowledge of the mechanism of action, but it's always nice to see an honest reliable experienced physician who has used the drug on his patients confirm it, or point it out as well). It's in part 2, after 9:53 (at 10:13 with the keyphrase that I used as well, "all RNA viruses", at 10:55):


It's quite the threat to those selling and marketing vaccines for RNA viruses, especially when they are inefficient and invasive like the flu-vaccines. The risk vs reward ratio is much better for HCQ + zinc + vitamin C+D3, which also works for the flu. For the flu, you can even go less invasive and swap out HCQ for quercetin, another zinc ionophore (then you have a completely over-the-counter treatment that can also be used prophylactically). It will be a little less effective but it may already be enough for the flu (the Eastern Virginia Medical School has some relevant links to studies for these substances in relation to the flu, in their protocol for Covid-19; of course there are other ways to find the same studies for those curious about it). But if you want to bring out the big guns against the flu, go with HCQ rather than quercetin (or both), it'll still be less invasive and healthier than an ineffective flu vaccine that will only make you sick (including a fever that for some frail people may be dangerous), when that's not needed to deal with the problem (neither is it a risk you need to take; HCQ won't do that, it instead takes away the fever, see Dr. Ban's video in my first comment or the one below). HCQ doesn't make you sick, it makes you better, and is very efficient in alleviating fevers (it also regulates overinflammation of the auto-immunesystem, from which you get fevers and worse, something quercetin, zinc or the flu-vaccine won't do for example):

a reply to: HorrorRoach

Oops, I read "medicine" instead of "vaccine" in my previous response to you. Thought you were talking about HCQ there where you said "Vaccine". The question makes a lot more sense to me now.

a reply to: Southern Guardian

Up here in northern Wisconsin, our former Congressman Sean Duffy used this treatment last fall when he had Covid, and recovered within a couple of days. The treatment does work but it's not worth the big bucks like the vaccines are. Gotta protect Big Pharma!

a reply to: Southern Guardian

I know many older people in my area that were given hydroxychloroquine as a prevention for covid by their doctors, so far none of the ones I know that took it, got sick with covid.

My son in law when he had covid was prescribed, remdesivir, and he said it did not do a darn thing for his symptoms, he had full blow covid and was sick for weeks.

My daughter said that none of the people that have taken remdesivir for covid has worked at all as they comeback to the doctor complaining that it did not work and my daughter is a nurse.

originally posted by: Southern Guardian
a reply to: Hecate666

The irony of this comment is staggering. Especially in regards of the blind acceptance of the real snake oil they are injecting into people right now.

Like Trump?

Trump, Melania were vaccinated for Covid at the White House in January

Say what? What has that got to do with anything? So what Trump is supposed to have had it, so frigging what? It's still snakeoil even if jeebus himself took it, I'd just shake my head. Jeebus ain't no scientist and neither is Trump. Again don't know why you asked this inane question.