Don’t Get COVID-19 Without Having a Plan Ahead of Time

 

Let’s say that, God forbid, you end up contracting COVID-19. What are you going to do? That’s not a rhetorical question, it’s serious, and one that needs to be answered by everyone well before they get a positive test result. I did not have an answer to that question before I tested positive and now I’m kicking myself. And I’m pretty certain that’s been the case with millions of other people as well.

So here’s how it went down for me. I had some very mild symptoms (which later got worse) and decided to get tested just to be on the safe side. Since my job involves going in and out of doctors’ offices and hospitals, I was at higher risk than the average person. But since I had been doing that for months on end without getting the virus, I assumed that mask- and glove-wearing was keeping me safe. Wrong!

(By the way, inexplicably, my wife did not get it from me, thank goodness!)

When I tested positive I immediately called my doctor’s office to schedule an appointment and that’s when I ran head-on into the sick reality that’s been forced on us by left-wing ideology and politics. I was basically told – politely and in not so many words – don’t even think about setting foot in here with COVID. Stay at home, take over-the-counter cold medication, and if things get bad, go to the hospital.

In other words, we can’t help you, you’re on your own, good luck! How’s that for some healthcare in a pandemic?

So let me get this straight. For the first time in human history, civilization was shut down over a virus, but if you get it you’re treated like a leper up until the point where it’s so serious that they have no choice but to let you into the hospital because you might die otherwise. Is that even remotely acceptable?

And here’s the kicker. We know there’s a safe and frequently effective treatment for this virus if applied early. It’s called hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) and you’ve all heard of it. But the powers that be, especially on the left, don’t want you to be able to get it. If you’re not infuriated by that, it’s probably because you’re just numb over the events of the past year and you’ve grown complacent, as I had. Well, no more!

A wealth of studies have proven it to be a safe and frequently effective treatment for COVID when started early and taken in combination with certain other drugs. But wait a minute! What about all those studies showing it to be useless for the treatment of the virus? Well, many of those studies were done on hospital patients and any such study is inherently dishonest. That’s because every proponent of HCQ stipulates, without exception, that it must be started soon after the onset of symptoms in order to be effective. For those who end up in the hospital, it’s too late. So why would anybody do a study on hospital patients? Gee, I don’t know. Maybe to ensure a negative result that comports with their ideological bent?

But why would anyone want to prevent people from even having the option to take HCQ? It’s one of the most prescribed drugs on the planet and has a nearly 70-year history of being overwhelmingly safe. In that time, hundreds of millions of people have taken billions of doses. Even if they believe it’s ineffective for the treatment of COVID, why would they care if people want to give it a try? Why do they want people to have no treatment whatsoever until they end up in the hospital with their lives in jeopardy?

Well, we know that in the early stages of the pandemic they didn’t want a treatment because then they wouldn’t have been able to justify shutting everything down. And if they couldn’t shut everything down, they couldn’t wreck the economy. And if they couldn’t wreck the economy, then Trump might have been reelected rather easily. So, of course, we get that, it’s very clear.

And then, when Trump started talking about HCQ being an effective treatment, they had to be against it because Trump was for it. Okay, got it.

But why can’t we have the treatment now? Trump is gone! Their malevolent gambit to prevent Trump’s reelection (along with some voting fraud thrown in for good measure) worked. So what’s the problem now? They can’t credibly claim it’s because they’re concerned about the possible risks of taking HCQ because those risks are miniscule. And we know that anti-HCQers are typically fine with giving puberty-blocking drugs to children so they can change their gender, which is literally insane and amounts to child abuse. That alone negates any serious claim to concern about how a drug might hurt someone. It’s not even remotely believable.

The fact is, it’s all purely political and ideological, and even after Trump is gone, they just can’t let go.

So here’s a question: Would it be hyperbolic to call the prevention of people’s access to HCQ a crime against humanity? Well, let’s see … nearly a half-million deaths (as of this writing) in the United States have now been attributed to COVID-19. Not that that number is even close to the truth since dying with COVID-19 is not the same as dying of COVID-19. But the same people who insist on the highest death toll numbers are the same people who are also typically against the use of HCQ, so let’s go ahead and use their numbers.

If a significant portion of nearly a half-million people could have been saved by a drug that has a nearly seventy-year record of safety, but they were prevented from access to that drug for political and ideological reasons, then I’d call that a crime against humanity, straight up!

Fortunately, there is good news for anyone who has knowledge and is prepared ahead of time. You can get HCQ, you just have to know how to go about it. Ideally, you would try and find a doctor ahead of time who would prescribe it, but that might be quite difficult. And that’s where America’s Frontline Doctors come in. You may have heard of them. They’ve been fighting the lies and distortions about COVID since soon after the pandemic began. They’ve been maligned, censored, and called everything in the book, but they have a website (as of this writing) through which you can get what you need after a consultation with a teledoc.

I wish I had known that before it was too late to take the treatment. I’m okay, I never got extremely sick, but I got sick enough and the effects linger on after four weeks, primarily chest congestion. Had I been prepared, I very likely could have gotten over the illness a lot sooner with a lot less misery, anxiety, and time out of work.

My mission now is to inform as many people as possible what they can do if they get COVID-19. You do not have to just sit at home and suffer and hope for the best. And the fact that people in power want you to do just that is a stark reminder of the corruption and depravity that currently reign over this land.

Published in General
This post was promoted to the Main Feed by a Ricochet Editor at the recommendation of Ricochet members. Like this post? Want to comment? Join Ricochet’s community of conservatives and be part of the conversation. Join Ricochet for Free.

There are 47 comments.

Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.
  1. Gossamer Cat Coolidge
    Gossamer Cat
    @GossamerCat

    Thank you for sharing that information and glad you are over it.  The reaction to HCQ has been one of the most inexplicable things about this pandemic.  As you say, even if it doesn’t do any good, since when has that ever stopped any person from taking something that does not harm.  It has 70 years of data. My mother was prescribed all kinds of drugs for her dementia, none of which had any  effect at all, as far as I could tell.  

    • #1
  2. Greg Strange Member
    Greg Strange
    @GregStrange

    Gossamer Cat (View Comment):

    Thank you for sharing that information and glad you are over it. The reaction to HCQ has been one of the most inexplicable things about this pandemic. As you say, even if it doesn’t do any good, since when has that ever stopped any person from taking something that does not harm. It has 70 years of data. My mother was prescribed all kinds of drugs for her dementia, none of which had any effect at all, as far as I could tell.

    Actually, I’m not over it yet, even after four weeks.  I’d like to be able to save as many people as possible from going through this unnecessarily.

    • #2
  3. JoelB Member
    JoelB
    @JoelB

    they have a website (as of this writing) through which you can get what you need after a consultation with a teledoc.

    I have this bookmarked now. Thank you.

    • #3
  4. Greg Strange Member
    Greg Strange
    @GregStrange

    JoelB (View Comment):

    they have a website (as of this writing) through which you can get what you need after a consultation with a teledoc.

    I have this bookmarked now. Thank you.

    There’s also a wealth of information on that website about HCQ for anyone who has any qualms about taking it.  Lots of other good and pertinent information as well.

    • #4
  5. kedavis Coolidge
    kedavis
    @kedavis

    I get a message that the COVID medication page, on that site, doesn’t exist.

    • #5
  6. Greg Strange Member
    Greg Strange
    @GregStrange

    kedavis (View Comment):

    I get a message that the COVID medication page, on that site, doesn’t exist.

    It’s coming up just fine on my computer, looking at it now.

    • #6
  7. kedavis Coolidge
    kedavis
    @kedavis

    Greg Strange (View Comment):

    kedavis (View Comment):

    I get a message that the COVID medication page, on that site, doesn’t exist.

    It’s coming up just fine on my computer, looking at it now.

    How odd.  Maybe it’s the vpn, although I don’t know why they’d block that page from a vpn.

    • #7
  8. Sandy Member
    Sandy
    @Sandy

    Always better to be the ant than the grasshopper.  I’m hardly prepared for all disasters myself but I did get ready for this one, mainly by researching and adopting preventive measures,  and I can point you to yet another group of frontline doctors, who have developed a successful and inexpensive treatment, too, as well as a prophylaxis.  You might want to think about taking the prophylactic supplements even now, because they might help your lingering symptoms.  I’ve also seen them recommended for people who get sick from the vaccines, which, by the way, may not be much of a preventive and which have their own serious risks.  From Dr. Soumya Swaminathan, chief scientist with the WHO on Dec. 28, 2020: “At the moment, I don’t believe we have the evidence on any of the vaccines to be confident that it’s going to prevent people from actually getting the infection and therefore being able to pass it on.”

    • #8
  9. kedavis Coolidge
    kedavis
    @kedavis

    Greg Strange (View Comment):

    kedavis (View Comment):

    I get a message that the COVID medication page, on that site, doesn’t exist.

    It’s coming up just fine on my computer, looking at it now.

    I tried it on two other computers, without vpn, using both Edge and Chrome.  The “covid prevention” page doesn’t come up.

    • #9
  10. kedavis Coolidge
    kedavis
    @kedavis

    Okay, here’s something.  I clicked on the “Learn More” link under “COVID-19 Medication Availability   Learn about options for you or your doctor to obtain or prescribe medication for COVID-19.” and that didn’t work.  If I click on the PHOTO showing the HCQ box, that goes to a different page, which works.

    • #10
  11. JustmeinAZ Member
    JustmeinAZ
    @JustmeinAZ

    Sandy (View Comment):

    Always better to be the ant than the grasshopper. I’m hardly prepared for all disasters myself but I did get ready for this one, mainly by researching and adopting preventive measures, and I can point you to yet another group of frontline doctors, who have developed a successful and inexpensive treatment, too, as well as a prophylaxis. You might want to think about taking the prophylactic supplements even now, because they might help your lingering symptoms. I’ve also seen them recommended for people who get sick from the vaccines, which, by the way, may not be much of a preventive and which have their own serious risks. From Dr. Soumya Swaminathan, chief scientist with the WHO on Dec. 28, 2020: “At the moment, I don’t believe we have the evidence on any of the vaccines to be confident that it’s going to prevent people from actually getting the infection and therefore being able to pass it on.”

    Hmmm. I’m feeling pretty good about things. I already take HCQ for lupus and C, D3, Zinc and melatonin every day. Just need to find out how much to increase my HCQ by if I start feeling sickly.

    • #11
  12. Annefy Member
    Annefy
    @Annefy

    Thanks for the post. 

    I had a similar experience in the fall when my boss and his wife got very ill from covid. My boss was so sick I drove him to the ER where he was refused to be admitted and refused any therapeutics. But given an IV. 

    He has recovered, but was in the danger zone at 77

    I also got ill, but tested negative. (In hindsight, the test may have been too soon). I was offered a “teledoc” appointment two weeks post.  Told them not to bother – I’d be dead or better by then. I did feel better after a few weeks. Bad news – Still don’t have my sense of taste back. Good news – I’m no longer lying about my weight on my drivers license. 

    I wrote about it at the time: Panic you might get the virus, indifference when you do. 

    Any further comment would include a myriad of swear words about the damage wrought to our country, our mental health, our society, our economy and my children’s and grandchildren’s future. This “pandemic” has been exploited by many and there are dark days and years ahead. 

    • #12
  13. MiMac Thatcher
    MiMac
    @MiMac

    The only problem is HCQ doesn’t seem to work in the well done studies and you are WAY behind the times- all the rage is about ivermectin-so please catch up. True, the supportive data on ivermectin at this point is low quality but that beats the data on HCQ. The truth is we are pretty sure HCQ doesn’t work but are unsure about ivermectin – there is preliminary data supporting it (mostly unpublished and low quality and as in cases like this a lot of publication bias is possible) and there are several ongoing trials that should give us better data-

    a good review:

    https://blogs.jwatch.org/hiv-id-observations/index.php/ivermectin-for-covid-19-breakthrough-treatment-or-hydroxychloroquine-redux/2021/01/04/

    hopefully ivermectin will be shown to work, at this point the feds are agnostic about it

     

    addendum- “publication” bias is a real thing and a very big problem in a pandemic. Essentially everyone wants good news so when studies are released claiming efficacy they get huge press- but the news release isn’t the same as getting a peer reviewed publication. So sometimes very poor data is released and gets massive publicity- “a lie gets around the world before the truth gets it’s pants on”. Additionally, publication bias exists b/c many journals will NOT publish negative studies unless they are in response to prior positive studies (who cares if X drug does not work in Y disease). So many become confused by all the negative data that comes out after the initial positive press release- and think it is a plot against the drug. Groups like the FLCCC are often unpopular in the medical world b/c they are seen as doing medicine by press release rather than real “science”- not following standard practice of seeking peer review and possibly contravailing data to be assessed.

    • #13
  14. MiMac Thatcher
    MiMac
    @MiMac

    Sandy (View Comment):

    the data on the efficacy of the vaccine GROWS DAILY and the benefits of getting it are undeniable- the experience in Israel is very instructive-

    1)“An Israeli healthcare provider that has vaccinated half a million people with both doses of the Pfizer vaccine says that only 544 people — or 0.1% — have been subsequently diagnosed with the coronavirus, there have been four severe cases, and no people have died.” remember Israel is primarily vaccinating the elderly

    2)For the first time in the pandemic, there were fewer COVID-19 hospitalizations this week in the 60 y/o and older age group than in the 60 y/o and younger age group- the 60 and over group has almost completely been vaccinated(91%)

    https://hotair.com/archives/allahpundit/2021/02/12/523000-fully-vaccinated-israelis-four-severe-cases-covid-no-deaths/

    • #14
  15. Sandy Member
    Sandy
    @Sandy

    MiMac (View Comment):

    Sandy (View Comment):

    the data on the efficacy of the vaccine GROWS DAILY and the benefits of getting it are undeniable- the experience in Israel is very instructive-

    1)“An Israeli healthcare provider that has vaccinated half a million people with both doses of the Pfizer vaccine says that only 544 people — or 0.1% — have been subsequently diagnosed with the coronavirus, there have been four severe cases, and no people have died.” remember Israel is primarily vaccinating the elderly

    2)For the first time in the pandemic, there were fewer COVID-19 hospitalizations this week in the 60 y/o and older age group than in the 60 y/o and younger age group- the 60 and over group has almost completely been vaccinated

    https://hotair.com/archives/allahpundit/2021/02/12/523000-fully-vaccinated-israelis-four-severe-cases-covid-no-deaths/

    Thanks. I’m glad to see that and happy with whatever hopeful news there is, but though I’m in the very elderly category, I’m not interested in being part of the experiment.  Warp speed and no animal testing.  I’ll take my chances with the virus.

    • #15
  16. Bob W Member
    Bob W
    @WBob

    MiMac (View Comment):

    The only problem is HCQ doesn’t seem to work in the well done studies and you are WAY behind the times- all the rage is about ivermectin-so please catch up. True, the supportive data on ivermectin at this point is low quality but that beats the data on HCQ. The truth is we are pretty sure HCQ doesn’t work but are unsure about ivermectin – there is preliminary data supporting it (mostly unpublished and low quality and as in cases like this a lot of publication bias is possible) and there are several ongoing trials that should give us better data-

    a good review:

    https://blogs.jwatch.org/hiv-id-observations/index.php/ivermectin-for-covid-19-breakthrough-treatment-or-hydroxychloroquine-redux/2021/01/04/

    hopefully ivermectin will be shown to work, at this point the feds are agnostic about it

    addendum- “publication” bias is a real thing and a very big problem in a pandemic. Essentially everyone wants good news so when studies are released claiming efficacy they get huge press- but the news release isn’t the same as getting a peer reviewed publication. So sometimes very poor data is released and gets massive publicity- “a lie gets around the world before the truth gets it’s pants on”. Additionally, publication bias exists b/c many journals will NOT publish negative studies unless they are in response to prior positive studies (who cares if X drug does not work in Y disease). So many become confused by all the negative data that comes out after the initial positive press release- and think it is a plot against the drug. Groups like the FLCCC are often unpopular in the medical world b/c they are seen as doing medicine by press release rather than real “science”- not following standard practice of seeking peer review and possibly contravailing data to be assessed.

    Here’s what Eastern Virginia Medical School is saying about these therapies.

    Dont know why it always shrinks my photos…

    Here’s a link… it’s on page 3.

    https://www.evms.edu/media/evms_public/departments/internal_medicine/EVMS_Critical_Care_COVID-19_Protocol.pdf

     

     

     

     

    • #16
  17. MiMac Thatcher
    MiMac
    @MiMac

    Sandy (View Comment):

    MiMac (View Comment):

    Sandy (View Comment):

    the data on the efficacy of the vaccine GROWS DAILY and the benefits of getting it are undeniable- the experience in Israel is very instructive-

    1)“An Israeli healthcare provider that has vaccinated half a million people with both doses of the Pfizer vaccine says that only 544 people — or 0.1% — have been subsequently diagnosed with the coronavirus, there have been four severe cases, and no people have died.” remember Israel is primarily vaccinating the elderly

    2)For the first time in the pandemic, there were fewer COVID-19 hospitalizations this week in the 60 y/o and older age group than in the 60 y/o and younger age group- the 60 and over group has almost completely been vaccinated

    https://hotair.com/archives/allahpundit/2021/02/12/523000-fully-vaccinated-israelis-four-severe-cases-covid-no-deaths/

    Thanks. I’m glad to see that and happy with whatever hopeful news there is, but though I’m in the very elderly category, I’m not interested in being part of the experiment. Warp speed and no animal testing. I’ll take my chances with the virus.

    1)Why animal testing- we have several million human subjects already. There are numerous inter-species problems with vaccines.

    2) Operation WarpSpeed did NOT work primarily by cutting corners (repeating many prior posts I have made on Ricochet)- it worked by using a time honored method of reducing development time- ie parallel rather than sequential development/production. Typically, 1st a vaccine is developed, then tested, then approved, then the factory built, then vaccine manufactured- that takes years. In this case the vaccine was created and WHILE testing was in progress the production line was built and manufacture started- this could only be done b/c the federal government, in essence, guaranteed the pharmaceutical firm against financial loss if the vaccine was ineffective- a rare stroke of brilliance by our government (which deserves the Nobel Prize but will never get it- b/c Orangeman bad!). The feds spent ~$10B but a successful vaccine is worth trillions. There is a very slight diminution in safety b/c there is less time between completion of testing and actual public vaccination. But that time period only very rarely turns up anything anyway.

    3) As Slaoui (head of OWS and one of the foremost, if not THE foremost, vaccine developer in the world) has said- the “platform” was mature- ie mRNA vaccine technology was far advanced at just the right time. If you recall, in spring of last year (IIRC) Slaoui said he expected to have 2 vaccines with 70% effectiveness before the end of 2020. Many dismissed that as overly optimistic- but we not only had 2 vaccines but the effectiveness was far above 70%.

    4) we are had earlier successful crash vaccine development programs-the 1957-1958 flu pandemic- as a plug for Ricochet listen to the PostCorona Podcast with Niall Ferguson

    • #17
  18. DrewInEastHillAutonomousZone Member
    DrewInEastHillAutonomousZone
    @DrewInWisconsin

    We knew HCQ worked 15 years ago.

    Yes, it is a crime against humanity that this simple, CHEAP drug was denied so many people. How many would still be alive if Big Pharma didn’t spend last year claiming HCQ would kill you.

     

    • #18
  19. MiMac Thatcher
    MiMac
    @MiMac

    DrewInEastHillAutonomousZone (View Comment):

    We knew HCQ worked 15 years ago.

    Yes, it is a crime against humanity that this simple, CHEAP drug was denied so many people. How many would still be alive if Big Pharma didn’t spend last year claiming HCQ would kill you.

     

    Old, superseded studies- “open label, nonrandomized”- screams POOR QUALITY at the top of its lungs. That is why follow up studies were done- ie randomized, double blind, controlled studies- and they typically failed to show HCQ works. Which is exactly my point about publication bias- several of the cited studies are just press releases (the one published study is from China- as we now know  not the most trusted source on COVID matters) and not press releases from even quality studies- more press release of anecdotal experience.

    • #19
  20. The Reticulator Member
    The Reticulator
    @TheReticulator

    MiMac (View Comment):

    DrewInEastHillAutonomousZone (View Comment):

    We knew HCQ worked 15 years ago.

    Yes, it is a crime against humanity that this simple, CHEAP drug was denied so many people. How many would still be alive if Big Pharma didn’t spend last year claiming HCQ would kill you.

     

    Old, superseded studies- “open label, nonrandomized”- screams POOR QUALITY at the top of its lungs. That is why follow up studies were done- ie randomized, double blind, controlled studies- and they typically failed to show HCQ works. Which is exactly my point about publication bias- several of the cited studies are just press releases (the one published study is from China- as we now know not the most trusted source on COVID matters) and not press releases from even quality studies- more press release of anecdotal experience.

    There were some social media headlines a few weeks ago about how the latest study showed that HCQ did work in a very early stage of the disease. I never followed up to look at the study, so have no idea how the research was done. Do you happen to have a link to it?  

    If true, it wouldn’t be the only time we’ve found that what doesn’t work or is even harmful at one stage of the disease is helpful in another.  Such has recently been found for a high-dose anti-coagulant therapy. 

    • #20
  21. Bob W Member
    Bob W
    @WBob

    MiMac (View Comment):
    2) Operation WarpSpeed did NOT work by cutting corners (repeating many prior posts I have made on Ricochet)

    But the vaccines have not been approved by the FDA except under an Emergency Use Authorization. And I don’t think it’s just bureaucratic red tape that was bypassed. They usually follow the human vaccine recipients for 2 or 3 years to verify safety. 

    • #21
  22. MiMac Thatcher
    MiMac
    @MiMac

    The Reticulator (View Comment):

    MiMac (View Comment):

    DrewInEastHillAutonomousZone (View Comment):

    We knew HCQ worked 15 years ago.

    Yes, it is a crime against humanity that this simple, CHEAP drug was denied so many people. How many would still be alive if Big Pharma didn’t spend last year claiming HCQ would kill you.

    Old, superseded studies- “open label, nonrandomized”- screams POOR QUALITY at the top of its lungs. That is why follow up studies were done- ie randomized, double blind, controlled studies- and they typically failed to show HCQ works. Which is exactly my point about publication bias- several of the cited studies are just press releases (the one published study is from China- as we now know not the most trusted source on COVID matters) and not press releases from even quality studies- more press release of anecdotal experience.

    There were some social media headlines a few weeks ago about how the latest study showed that HCQ did work in a very early stage of the disease. I never followed up to look at the study, so have no idea how the research was done. Do you happen to have a link to it?

    If true, it wouldn’t be the only time we’ve found that what doesn’t work or is even harmful at one stage of the disease is helpful in another. Such has recently been found for a high-dose anti-coagulant therapy.

    There have been studies both for & against HCQ in early COVID- my take (FWIW) would be it must not be great if there are many contradictory studies and I am not sure of the usefulness of drugs that require early treatment, b/c many patients won’t present early enough to benefit -I suspect I wouldn’t either. The problem is early COVID is like all the typical respiratory diseases we get- allergies, colds or the flu. What we really need is a drug that helps moderate or severe COVID- ie when you are in the hospital and hypoxic.  If I have mild COVID and it doesn’t progress, chicken soup will suffice-plus some TLC from my better half. It’s like seeing a concierge medical doctor- he takes care of you when you are healthy- heck I don’t need a doctor when I am healthy- I need him when I am sick- the same with drugs for COVID. I want COVID drugs that help the really ill patients (plus a vaccine).

    • #22
  23. MiMac Thatcher
    MiMac
    @MiMac

    Bob W (View Comment):

    MiMac (View Comment):
    2) Operation WarpSpeed did NOT work by cutting corners (repeating many prior posts I have made on Ricochet)

    But the vaccines have not been approved by the FDA except under an Emergency Use Authorization. And I don’t think it’s just bureaucratic red tape that was bypassed. They usually follow the human vaccine recipients for 2 or 3 years to verify safety.

    Not many vaccines have been recalled after successful phase 3 trials and before the vaccine is released for human use- that is a window of months-most problems show up during the trials not when the factory is been built and the vaccine produced AND before it is widely administered. As I said there is a small diminution of safety b/c there is a slight chance of problems becoming evident in recipients of the vaccine AFTER phase 3 trials and during the construction of the vaccine factory- but that is much, much less likely than many more additional deaths from the virus during that same time period. From a policy maker’s standpoint it doesn’t seem like a difficult call- perfect being the enemy of the good enough.

    • #23
  24. kedavis Coolidge
    kedavis
    @kedavis

    Bob W (View Comment):

    MiMac (View Comment):

    The only problem is HCQ doesn’t seem to work in the well done studies and you are WAY behind the times- all the rage is about ivermectin-so please catch up. True, the supportive data on ivermectin at this point is low quality but that beats the data on HCQ. The truth is we are pretty sure HCQ doesn’t work but are unsure about ivermectin – there is preliminary data supporting it (mostly unpublished and low quality and as in cases like this a lot of publication bias is possible) and there are several ongoing trials that should give us better data-

    a good review:

    https://blogs.jwatch.org/hiv-id-observations/index.php/ivermectin-for-covid-19-breakthrough-treatment-or-hydroxychloroquine-redux/2021/01/04/

    hopefully ivermectin will be shown to work, at this point the feds are agnostic about it

    addendum- “publication” bias is a real thing and a very big problem in a pandemic. Essentially everyone wants good news so when studies are released claiming efficacy they get huge press- but the news release isn’t the same as getting a peer reviewed publication. So sometimes very poor data is released and gets massive publicity- “a lie gets around the world before the truth gets it’s pants on”. Additionally, publication bias exists b/c many journals will NOT publish negative studies unless they are in response to prior positive studies (who cares if X drug does not work in Y disease). So many become confused by all the negative data that comes out after the initial positive press release- and think it is a plot against the drug. Groups like the FLCCC are often unpopular in the medical world b/c they are seen as doing medicine by press release rather than real “science”- not following standard practice of seeking peer review and possibly contravailing data to be assessed.

    Here’s what Eastern Virginia Medical School is saying about these therapies.

    Dont know why it always shrinks my photos…

    Here’s a link… it’s on page 3.

    https://www.evms.edu/media/evms_public/departments/internal_medicine/EVMS_Critical_Care_COVID-19_Protocol.pdf

     

    There you go.

    • #24
  25. The Reticulator Member
    The Reticulator
    @TheReticulator

    MiMac (View Comment):

    The Reticulator (View Comment):

    MiMac (View Comment):

    DrewInEastHillAutonomousZone (View Comment):

    We knew HCQ worked 15 years ago.

    Yes, it is a crime against humanity that this simple, CHEAP drug was denied so many people. How many would still be alive if Big Pharma didn’t spend last year claiming HCQ would kill you.

    Old, superseded studies- “open label, nonrandomized”- screams POOR QUALITY at the top of its lungs. That is why follow up studies were done- ie randomized, double blind, controlled studies- and they typically failed to show HCQ works. Which is exactly my point about publication bias- several of the cited studies are just press releases (the one published study is from China- as we now know not the most trusted source on COVID matters) and not press releases from even quality studies- more press release of anecdotal experience.

    There were some social media headlines a few weeks ago about how the latest study showed that HCQ did work in a very early stage of the disease. I never followed up to look at the study, so have no idea how the research was done. Do you happen to have a link to it?

    If true, it wouldn’t be the only time we’ve found that what doesn’t work or is even harmful at one stage of the disease is helpful in another. Such has recently been found for a high-dose anti-coagulant therapy.

    There have been studies both for & against HCQ in early COVID- my take (FWIW) would be it must not be great if there are many contradictory studies and I am not sure of the usefulness of drugs that require early treatment, b/c many patients won’t present early enough to benefit -I suspect I wouldn’t either. The problem is early COVID is like all the typical respiratory diseases we get- allergies, colds or the flu. What we really need is a drug that helps moderate or severe COVID- ie when you are in the hospital and hypoxic. If I have mild COVID and it doesn’t progress, chicken soup will suffice-plus some TLC from my better half. It’s like seeing a concierge medical doctor- he takes care of you when you are healthy- heck I don’t need a doctor when I am healthy- I need him when I am sick- the same with drugs for COVID. I want COVID drugs that help the really ill patients (plus a vaccine).

    Doesn’t address my question.  

    • #25
  26. The Reticulator Member
    The Reticulator
    @TheReticulator

    Bob W (View Comment):

    MiMac (View Comment):
    2) Operation WarpSpeed did NOT work by cutting corners (repeating many prior posts I have made on Ricochet)

    But the vaccines have not been approved by the FDA except under an Emergency Use Authorization. And I don’t think it’s just bureaucratic red tape that was bypassed. They usually follow the human vaccine recipients for 2 or 3 years to verify safety.

    Conservatives have traditionally criticized the FDA for being overly cautious in this way, and not doing a good benefit vs risk tradeoff, causing medications to be unavailable too long and overly expensive when available. 

    • #26
  27. Phil Turmel Coolidge
    Phil Turmel
    @PhilTurmel

    Bob W (View Comment):
    Dont know why it always shrinks my photos…

    Pssst!  When you upload a photo, the sidebar has the defaults for use when inserting into your post or comment.  If you don’t change it, the default size is medium.  You can also change it in the post/comment by adjusting its properties.  You could edit the comment above to fix it.

    • #27
  28. MiMac Thatcher
    MiMac
    @MiMac

    The Reticulator (View Comment):

    MiMac (View Comment):

    The Reticulator (View Comment):

    MiMac (View Comment):

    DrewInEastHillAutonomousZone (View Comment):

    We knew HCQ worked 15 years ago.

    Yes, it is a crime against humanity that this simple, CHEAP drug was denied so many people. How many would still be alive if Big Pharma didn’t spend last year claiming HCQ would kill you.

    Old, superseded studies- “open label, nonrandomized”- screams POOR QUALITY at the top of its lungs. That is why follow up studies were done- ie randomized, double blind, controlled studies- and they typically failed to show HCQ works. Which is exactly my point about publication bias- several of the cited studies are just press releases (the one published study is from China- as we now know not the most trusted source on COVID matters) and not press releases from even quality studies- more press release of anecdotal experience.

    There were some social media headlines a few weeks ago about how the latest study showed that HCQ did work in a very early stage of the disease. I never followed up to look at the study, so have no idea how the research was done. Do you happen to have a link to it?

    If true, it wouldn’t be the only time we’ve found that what doesn’t work or is even harmful at one stage of the disease is helpful in another. Such has recently been found for a high-dose anti-coagulant therapy.

    There have been studies both for & against HCQ in early COVID- my take (FWIW) would be it must not be great if there are many contradictory studies and I am not sure of the usefulness of drugs that require early treatment, b/c many patients won’t present early enough to benefit -I suspect I wouldn’t either. The problem is early COVID is like all the typical respiratory diseases we get- allergies, colds or the flu. What we really need is a drug that helps moderate or severe COVID- ie when you are in the hospital and hypoxic. If I have mild COVID and it doesn’t progress, chicken soup will suffice-plus some TLC from my better half. It’s like seeing a concierge medical doctor- he takes care of you when you are healthy- heck I don’t need a doctor when I am healthy- I need him when I am sick- the same with drugs for COVID. I want COVID drugs that help the really ill patients (plus a vaccine).

    Doesn’t address my question.

    Can’t be sure which article you saw- here is one for & one against:

    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7534595/

    https://www.acpjournals.org/doi/10.7326/M20-4207

    studies have been done testing postexposure treatment with HCQ and it didn’t work:

    https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32492293/

    or a study of giving HCQ to contacts of COVID patients and it didn’t work-

    https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa2021801?query=recirc_mostViewed_railB_article

    while the failure of HCQ to work as post exposure prophylaxis might lead one to lean against HCQ in early COVID there are cases of infections that can be treated with a given antibiotic that doesn’t work post exposure before overt infection occurs-particularly antibiotics that are bacteriostatic rather than bacteriocidal.

    • #28
  29. The Reticulator Member
    The Reticulator
    @TheReticulator

    MiMac (View Comment):

    Can’t be sure which article you saw- here is one for & one against:

    I think it’s this one in the American Journal of Medicine. (I had to do a Twitter search to see which one the likely suspects were talking about.)  I’ll take a look at it now:

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

    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7534595/

    https://www.acpjournals.org/doi/10.7326/M20-4207

    studies have been done testing postexposure treatment with HCQ and it didn’t work:

    https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32492293/

    or a study of giving HCQ to contacts of COVID patients and it didn’t work-

    https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa2021801?query=recirc_mostViewed_railB_article

    while the failure of HCQ to work as post exposure prophylaxis might lead one to lean against HCQ in early COVID there are cases of infections that can be treated with a given antibiotic that doesn’t work post exposure before overt 

     

    • #29
  30. The Reticulator Member
    The Reticulator
    @TheReticulator

    The Reticulator (View Comment):

    I think it’s this one in the American Journal of Medicine. (I had to do a Twitter search to see which one the likely suspects were talking about.) I’ll take a look at it now:

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

    I’ve taken a look. It isn’t a report on the results of a test. Rather, it’s a proposal for ambulatory care early in the disease, which I think has been a neglected topic. (My own opinion: Doctors who work in a hospital setting are interested in what works for their patients, and have less time to think about what could be done to keep patients from needing their care in the first place. The studies that have been done seem to reflect those interests.) This paper does refer to some HCQ studies, so I suppose I should look at those next.

    • #30
Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.