|
|
Post by garbulky on Jan 21, 2022 16:23:55 GMT -5
There are current treatments for COVID 19 approved (in some measure like emergency use) by the FDA. They do not include Ivermectin or Hydroxychloroquine.
There's Remedivisr, Regeneron, and Paxlovid that I know of. There's also ventillators and breathing support machines and other things.
These pale in comparison though to what we already know that works against COVID.
The most effective and tested way to acheive a good outcome from covid infection or exposure is the COVID vaccines - especially Moderna and Pfizer with the booster dose. We have far more quality data on the vaccines safety and efficacy vs any treatments on the market. They've now been tested on millions of people safely. Which is not even close to what we have with anything else. They have absolutely been proven effective against death and hospitalization vs not being vaccinated .... and not by a little bit. The vast number of deaths and hospitalizations are of the unvaccinated.
209 MILLION people have received two doses in the US and 80 million have received three doses. The safety and efficacy speak for themselves. You're not going to get that quality data in real world use with any Ivermectin and HCQ studies for COVID. Prevention is the key.
There was a news article about an ICU doctor. He says it happens all the time. Unvaccinated covid patients that he's about to put on the ventillator. They tell him they didn't take the vaccine because they think the vaccine was unsafe and not tested properly. He tells them well we're about to give you medicines and treatments which are much less tested, safe, or effective than the vaccine and right now the chances aren't good.
|
|
|
|
Post by rbk123 on Jan 21, 2022 16:31:03 GMT -5
I suspect that most of the "brew ha ha" was over the idea that, thanks to so much misinformation, people were already unreasonably fearful about the vaccine... The real issue was that the ready availability of a somewhat effective treatment would give them another excuse to avoid the best option - the vaccine. In short it "muddied the waters" about the reality - which is that the vaccine is the safest and most effective treatment available for CoVid-19. The issue isn't which option is best, the issue is there's only one option allowed. To put all your eggs in one basket is a fools strategy, so backup plans or strategies on what to do if you still get covid are needed. All of the options should be available and on the table, pros and cons supplied, not a mentality where "we aren't going to let that information be given because it muddies the waters on what *we* think is best". |
|
mikes
Minor Hero
Posts: 38 
|
Post by mikes on Jan 21, 2022 16:41:50 GMT -5
I suspect that most of the "brew ha ha" was over the idea that, thanks to so much misinformation, people were already unreasonably fearful about the vaccine... The real issue was that the ready availability of a somewhat effective treatment would give them another excuse to avoid the best option - the vaccine. In short it "muddied the waters" about the reality - which is that the vaccine is the safest and most effective treatment available for CoVid-19. The issue isn't which option is best, the issue is there's only one option allowed. To put all your eggs in one basket is a fools strategy, so backup plans or strategies on what to do if you still get covid are needed. All of the options should be available and on the table, pros and cons supplied, not a mentality where "we aren't going to let that information be given because it muddies the waters on what *we* think is best". You can't recommend a treatment if you don't know it's effective (well I guess you can, but it's unethical) and the way we determine effectiveness is though clinical trials. One option? on the list I posted there are 23 entries for vaccine clinical trials and 93 entries for treatment clinical trials and those are just the ones overlapping into Canadian institutions if they are effective, they get approved and your choices increase. There's no "we" here, every company, university, hospital, individual, etc. are free to conduct research, start clinical trials, apply for approval and start selling whatever gets approved. If it ends up being an over the counter medication, we can all stockpile as much as we like. |
|
|
|
Post by housetech on Jan 21, 2022 16:48:33 GMT -5
The way I see it, viewing from afar, the Vax isn't stopping anyone from getting Covid, it's not a preventative as most/all other vaccines. It may stop death from complications of the disease. That's a big deal for people who are not in good health prior to getting the Kung-Flu.
The test- waste of time, waste of money for the general population, it's over hyped. It can not differentiate between Covid the the "flu".
My Doc will advise me if I need a test.
I want to see more therapeutics come to market and made readily available. There is no reason people should die from this disease, with a 99% recovery rate of a disease that we now understand. The annual/seasonal influenza kills 30-70,000 people per year.
Isn't it strange that the reported deaths of the annual/seasonal influenza was only around 3600 in 2020?!
I believe Covid-19 and its variants will be with us for a long, long time but we must get on with life. I'm more concerned with getting cancer or have a heart attack, but it doesn't stop be from living.
|
|
|
|
Post by housetech on Jan 21, 2022 16:59:54 GMT -5
People are dying from the complication of Covid-19 and those poor souls don't have time for a damn study. If a doctor finds a cure that's works for a large percentage of their patients, that's good enough, give it to me. I've read reports that "Theraflu" has worked on some people- GREAT. Who cares if went through a study.
The secret to treating Covid-19 is SPEED, treat it asap before it has time to do permeant damage.
|
|
mikes
Minor Hero
Posts: 38
|
Post by mikes on Jan 21, 2022 17:03:52 GMT -5
The way I see it, viewing from afar, the Vax isn't stopping anyone from getting Covid, it's not a preventative as most/all other vaccines. It may stop death from complications of the disease. That's a big deal for people who are not in good health prior to getting the Kung-Flu. The test- waste of time, waste of money for the general population, it's over hyped. It can not differentiate between Covid the the "flu". My Doc will advise me if I need a test.
I want to see more therapeutics come to market and made readily available. There is no reason people should die from this disease, with a 99% recovery rate of a disease that we now understand. The annual/seasonal influenza kills 40-70,000 people per year. Isn't it strange that the reported deaths of the annual/seasonal influenza was only around 3600 in 2020?! I believe Covid-19 and its variants will be with us for a long, long time but we must get on with life. I'm more concerned with getting cancer or have a heart attack, but it doesn't stop be from living. The problem isn't that people aren't working on it, it's that the problem is really hard to solve. Viruses are really difficult to treat, and we've discovered only a handful of classes of antiviral drugs. As you point out, people still die of the flu, we don't even have a very effective antiviral drug for the flu, and there are a number of reasons for this. It's not strange that annual/seasonal influenza was down, it's a well understood phenomena and interestingly enough, has been recorded in other pandemics. You will also find that the number of people who have died from related co-morbidity to COVID-19 will also be down, the reason is unfortunately they succumb to COVID-19 first. If you look at the overall excess death statistics from all causes, the USA is still above where the trend line is for deaths, not as bad as before, but there's still more people dying than average. (remember it takes about 8 weeks for the numbers to be finalized) www.cdc.gov/nchs/nvss/vsrr/covid19/excess_deaths.htmClick "Excess deaths with and without weighting" then "Update Dashboard" to see the actual (non predicted) numbers |
|
|
|
Post by garbulky on Jan 21, 2022 17:13:21 GMT -5
The way I see it, viewing from afar, the Vax isn't stopping anyone from getting Covid, it's not a preventative as most/all other vaccines. It may stop death from complications of the disease. That's a big deal for people who are not in good health prior to getting the Kung-Flu. The test- waste of time, waste of money for the general population, it's over hyped. It can not differentiate between Covid the the "flu". My Doc will advise me if I need a test.
I want to see more therapeutics come to market and made readily available. There is no reason people should die from this disease, with a 99% recovery rate of a disease that we now understand. The annual/seasonal influenza kills 40-70,000 people per year. Isn't it strange that the reported deaths of the annual/seasonal influenza was only around 3600 in 2020?! I believe Covid-19 and its variants will be with us for a long, long time but we must get on with life. I'm more concerned with getting cancer or have a heart attack, but it doesn't stop be from living. The COVID tests detect COVID not the flu. They are simply different viruses. The flu is an influenza virus, COVID is a coronavirus.  The vax does help prevent death and hospitalizations AND reduces transmission. That's not a big deal just for people in poor health. It's a big deal for everyone. You don't have to be in poor health to have complications or die. Equally as important you also don't have to be in poor health to transmit it to others. The Omicron is close in transmission rates to measles which makes it the second most most infectious disease present. The flu though very infectious isn't even close to being so transmissible as these or have as many deaths. COVID deaths so far 861,000 in the last two years. Flu deaths are likely even lower due to current public health measures like masking and social distancing. |
|
|
|
Post by housetech on Jan 21, 2022 17:28:42 GMT -5
99% survival rate
I'm out of here and going to listen to music and enjoy life.
|
|
|
|
Post by rbk123 on Jan 21, 2022 18:02:07 GMT -5
You can't recommend a treatment if you don't know it's effective (well I guess you can, but it's unethical) and the way we determine effectiveness is though clinical trials. One option? on the list I posted there are 23 entries for vaccine clinical trials and 93 entries for treatment clinical trials and those are just the ones overlapping into Canadian institutions if they are effective, they get approved and your choices increase. There's no "we" here, every company, university, hospital, individual, etc. are free to conduct research, start clinical trials, apply for approval and start selling whatever gets approved. If it ends up being an over the counter medication, we can all stockpile as much as we like. There are plenty of treatments suggested, for plenty of ailments in the human race, for which there are no clinical trials performed or the clinical trial data is inconclusive. And that doesn't even address experimental treatments that are offered before clinical trials are performed, for obvious reasons. If there are no clinical trials for a particular treatment, that doesn't mean all of the actual data that is available for that treatment should be unavailable for public analysis. |
|
|
|
Post by rbk123 on Jan 21, 2022 18:12:10 GMT -5
The vax does help prevent death and hospitalizations AND reduces transmission. The vax is extremely valuable at keeping people from dying from covid; this should never be understated and is bar far it's greatest strength. However it's not without it's own risks just like Flu vaccines have their own risks. The vax is far safer than those who oppose it claim, but it's also far riskier than those who press for it so hard will admit. |
|
|
|
Post by garbulky on Jan 21, 2022 18:16:22 GMT -5
The vax does help prevent death and hospitalizations AND reduces transmission. The vax is extremely valuable at keeping people from dying from covid; this should never be understated and is bar far it's greatest strength. However it's not without it's own risks just like Flu vaccines have their own risks. The vax is far safer than those who oppose it claim, but it's also far riskier than those who press for it so hard will admit. What risk are you referring to? And compared to what is it far riskier? Please provide evidence. Here is an example of the risks which keep in mind are very low and very rare. www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/vaccines/safety/safety-of-vaccines.html |
|
|
|
Post by monkumonku on Jan 21, 2022 18:52:18 GMT -5
When it comes to the vaccines, my main point is still that people should be given a choice as to whether or not to take them.
I am not saying that the current approved ones are necessarily dangerous or unsafe. The data seems to say they are on the whole beneficial.
That said, there is also data showing adverse reactions to the vaccine. Each person should weigh the potential risk versus benefit to himself or herself and then decide accordingly, rather than having someone speak for them and make it mandatory or try to cajole them.
It's like the flu vaccine. Overall it appears beneficial and relatively harmless but many won't take it because of adverse reactions. My parents would not because every time they did they got severe reactions. Each person is different. So they chose not to take it.
It's like the arguments that constantly appear in the Lounge about Emo's processors. People complain that some feature didn't work properly and then a lot of people jump in and state that it works for them. So what? If it worked for you it doesn't mean it will work for someone else and aside from user error it could very well be that some component in the chain doesn't play well with the Emo gear. Just like with our bodies, something may not mesh right with the medication or vaccine.
When it comes to alternate treatments, if a medication has strong experiential data supporting it even if it lacks a requisite number of clinical trials, and if that medication has historically been safe with recommended dosages (such as Ivermectin or HCQ) then why shouldn't a doctor try it if a patent is amenable?
Sounding the cynic again, the vaccine could only be authorized under emergency use if there was no existing alternative. Following the money, generics like Ivermectin and HCQ would not be big money makers the same as patented vaccines. Why are Apple computers proprietary? Are Pharma companies so humanitarian that profitability doesn't enter into the equation when making decisions? Shareholders are very demanding. There's lots of self interests at play. We see that all the time when it comes to our Congress but they don't have a monopoly on being tempted to engage in corrupt behavior.
Anyway, there is no end to an argument over vaccine efficacy or the motivations of Pharma and I don't want to get into that. My main point, my opinion (of which there is no end to the argument on this either) is each individual should be able to choose whether or not to be vaccinated.
|
|
|
|
Post by garbulky on Jan 21, 2022 19:06:44 GMT -5
If you think vaccines are profitable, wait till you hear about the costs of 860,000 funerals, caskets, ICU rooms, doctor bills, respiratory therapist bills, lab testing, and the like. .
|
|
|
|
Post by drtrey3 on Jan 21, 2022 19:31:21 GMT -5
For me the real issue is that the Official Medical Community decided to try to manage the American public rather than educate us. They told us masks would not work early in the process in order to save them for front line personnel. Nice goal, but managing the American public is impossible. The official statements from docs and politicians changed based on their goals for the citizens behavior. That was the wrong approach, entirely. That cost the credibility of those actors for at least 40% of the population.
Instead, the officials should have stayed close to the data and educate the public about what they know and best practices. Sure, some folks would jump the gun and buy all the antiseptic and masks they could, but at least a plurality would cooperate with a well presented case. And if they stayed close to the data and eschewed politics, their credibility would grow instead of wither. That is long ball, and the way to deal with stubborn, suspicious, independent Americans.
I know, I know, total pipedream. But I can have a dream!
Trey
|
|
mikes
Minor Hero
Posts: 38
|
Post by mikes on Jan 21, 2022 21:44:45 GMT -5
People are dying from the complication of Covid-19 and those poor souls don't have time for a damn study. If a doctor finds a cure that's works for a large percentage of their patients, that's good enough, give it to me. I've read reports that "Theraflu" has worked on some people- GREAT. Who cares if went through a study. The secret to treating Covid-19 is SPEED, treat it asap before it has time to do permeant damage. That's the problem, no one has found the magic bullet cure. You just said that "Theraflu" has worked on some people, a study is needed to determine if it was in fact the drug that made the difference or something else (for example a common behaviors that reduced infection rate in that group of people). If it's found to be the drug, great give it out, but if it's not then why take something that's not doing anything and could potentially have negative effects. One component of treating an illness fast is not wasting time on ineffective drugs. Sure trials slow down the time to market, but they have also kept dangerous drugs out of the marketplace. Lots of drugs have been brought to market without trials (or trials preformed poorly) with not so great outcomes. I recognize it's little comfort in the midst of all this, but I take comfort in the fact that when a drug is prescribed for an issue I have, it's been shown to be safe and effective and I don't need to worry as much about taking it. In fact, because of lessons from the past, many clinical trials now have protocols which essentially state that if the treatment is shown to be extremely effective (the magic bullet) then it is given to the placebo group, because it's unethical to withhold treatment. The history of clinical trials is one of the more interesting things to read about, sad, tragic sometimes, but interesting |
|
mikes
Minor Hero
Posts: 38
|
Post by mikes on Jan 21, 2022 22:20:03 GMT -5
You can't recommend a treatment if you don't know it's effective (well I guess you can, but it's unethical) and the way we determine effectiveness is though clinical trials. One option? on the list I posted there are 23 entries for vaccine clinical trials and 93 entries for treatment clinical trials and those are just the ones overlapping into Canadian institutions if they are effective, they get approved and your choices increase. There's no "we" here, every company, university, hospital, individual, etc. are free to conduct research, start clinical trials, apply for approval and start selling whatever gets approved. If it ends up being an over the counter medication, we can all stockpile as much as we like. There are plenty of treatments suggested, for plenty of ailments in the human race, for which there are no clinical trials performed or the clinical trial data is inconclusive. And that doesn't even address experimental treatments that are offered before clinical trials are performed, for obvious reasons. If there are no clinical trials for a particular treatment, that doesn't mean all of the actual data that is available for that treatment should be unavailable for public analysis. I'm having a tough time thinking of a signal drug prescribed in a clinical setting that has not gone through trials. All the procedures done in a clinical setting are subject to review, follow up studies, outcome analysis..etc. I can't think of one procedure in a clinical setting that is exempt from this. If a procedure is found to be ineffective, it stops being preformed (eventually). Where is the benefit of doing something you can't show to be effective? I agree medical science is in it's infancy, any one of us can name 10 ailments that there are limited treatments for, but that doesn't mean we suggest treatments that we have no data for. Experimental treatments are just that, long shots and are usually done as a last resort with the benefit of safety and dose data from a clinical trial. If a drug is found to be the magic bullet, it will proceed very quickly through a clinical trial, but since we have never found a drug that is capable of curing any viral ailment, we're likely not going to find one any time soon. I never said the data should be unavailable, quite the contrary, if data isn't publicly shared and peer reviewed, then research will grind to a halt in every field. My point is that we have to be careful in how data is interpreted "I know how easy it is to make mistakes and fool myself" (Richard Feynman) and population studies, while interesting, can not be used to determine effectiveness, there's just too many variables. It looks compelling and can be one of the reason for doing more research or initiating a trial but that's it. The goal here is not to disregard the study, it's to be careful, because not accounting for one variable can really make a difference. For example, that study found that people who took ivermectin had a 7% lower infection rate compared to the people not taking it. But it's likely the people taking a prophylactic were also cautious in other ways, maybe they wore mask more diligently, maintained social distancing, improved their hygiene, and didn't go out in public as much as the group who didn't take it. Now you've got a problem because there's no way to tell if that 7% is from the drug or the behavior, And that's just one of many variables present in this type of study. People tend to see a positive result and jump to a conclusions that isn't supported by the overall data, It's happened to me on numerous occasions where you think, finally, now I've got some good data, only to find out that upon closer inspection and re-running the experiment, you've made a mistake and fooled yourself, it's frustrating beyond belief, but teaches you to be extremely careful when looking at data and reading articles. Anyway, as interesting as this is. I've got a home theater room to paint then my atmos upgrade will be finished. |
|
|
|
Post by rbk123 on Jan 21, 2022 22:22:27 GMT -5
And compared to what is it far riskier? Compared to what you in your echo chamber want to believe it is. However, that is still extremely low, so it's relative. |
|
|
|
Post by rbk123 on Jan 21, 2022 22:45:33 GMT -5
I'm having a tough time thinking of a signal drug prescribed in a clinical setting that has not gone through trials. All the procedures done in a clinical setting are subject to review, follow up studies, outcome analysis..etc. I must not understand what you mean by a clinical setting because there are a *lot* of doctors across the nation who have prescribed Ivermectin for their patients suffering from covid, and as you stated there are no clinical trials of it. Does that mean it does work? Certainly not. My guess is they aren't wanting to sit around and wait for Big Pharma to fund a clinical study (we all know the government won't be funding any studies since they've made their position clear) for a generic that they won't make money on, so they're trying it based on the data of all the prior Ivermectin studies against other diseases but looking for any side effect/complications. If the MD's are comfortable there isn't much risk based on the years of evidence on the drug, then I would wager they're prescribing it due to time being of the essence with patients and covid. When you start going down the path of justifying information suppression by saying "we have to be careful how we interpret data", that's just rationalization and elite-speak for "you aren't smart enough to know what's best for you, so we'll get some others tell you what you should think". That's when things go to sh*t in a hurry because he who controls that wields a lot of power. And power corrupts. |
|
mikes
Minor Hero
Posts: 38
|
Post by mikes on Jan 21, 2022 23:07:54 GMT -5
I'm having a tough time thinking of a signal drug prescribed in a clinical setting that has not gone through trials. All the procedures done in a clinical setting are subject to review, follow up studies, outcome analysis..etc. I must not understand what you mean by a clinical setting because there are a *lot* of doctors across the nation who have prescribed Ivermectin for their patients suffering from covid, and as you stated there are no clinical trials of it. Does that mean it does work? Certainly not. My guess is they aren't wanting to sit around and wait for Big Pharma to fund a clinical study (we all know the government won't be funding any studies since they've made their position clear) for a generic that they won't make money on, so they're trying it based on the data of all the prior Ivermectin studies against other diseases but looking for any side effect/complications. If the MD's are comfortable there isn't much risk based on the years of evidence on the drug, then I would wager they're prescribing it due to time being of the essence with patients and covid. When you start going down the path of justifying information suppression by saying "we have to be careful how we interpret data", that's just rationalization and elite-speak for "you aren't smart enough to know what's best for you, so we'll get some others tell you what you should think". That's when things go to sh*t in a hurry because he who controls that wields a lot of power. And power corrupts. Well if that's what you took from that, not sure what to tell you. Why you have this notion that doctors and scientists are some sort of "elites wielding power" is beyond me. While I'm not one of them, I work with them, they are all regular people trying their best to push knowledge forward. It's not easy, it's stressful and if it's not your life's interest you'll quickly get discourages and change careers. Misinterpreting data has had serious consequences in the past and is something that is easy to do. I never suggested to blindly listen to what I say, I wouldn't recommend that ever. I was discussing a publicly available study and what can be determined from it, nothing hidden, all a quick google search away. Science is transparent, there's always proprietary information that remains hidden, but the scientific community is build on sharing information, anyone can go and check things out for themselves, that's the point. But when you start making statements, your peers are going to check, so you better be correct in your analysis. What's not transparent are the "secret elites" controlling us from the shadows, and all the other vague conspiracy theories, look out "they" are going to get you, "they" are watching you, while never telling you who "they" are or providing any evidence for anything. But they always seem to have something to sell you, (t-shirts, flags, magic cure all ointments, 200 day food rations, tinfoil hats.........) What was it you said "follow the money" right... FYI, the reason things don't go to sh*t........ science, engineering, research and the people who make it happen |
|
|
|
Post by fbczar on Jan 22, 2022 1:17:49 GMT -5
The way I see it, viewing from afar, the Vax isn't stopping anyone from getting Covid, it's not a preventative as most/all other vaccines. It may stop death from complications of the disease. That's a big deal for people who are not in good health prior to getting the Kung-Flu. The test- waste of time, waste of money for the general population, it's over hyped. It can not differentiate between Covid the the "flu". My Doc will advise me if I need a test.
I want to see more therapeutics come to market and made readily available. There is no reason people should die from this disease, with a 99% recovery rate of a disease that we now understand. The annual/seasonal influenza kills 40-70,000 people per year. Isn't it strange that the reported deaths of the annual/seasonal influenza was only around 3600 in 2020?! I believe Covid-19 and its variants will be with us for a long, long time but we must get on with life. I'm more concerned with getting cancer or have a heart attack, but it doesn't stop be from living. The COVID tests detect COVID not the flu. They are simply different viruses. The flu is an influenza virus, COVID is a coronavirus. The vax does help prevent death and hospitalizations AND reduces transmission. That's not a big deal just for people in poor health. It's a big deal for everyone. You don't have to be in poor health to have complications or die. Equally as important you also don't have to be in poor health to transmit it to others. The Omicron is close in transmission rates to measles which makes it the second most most infectious disease present. The flu though very infectious isn't even close to being so transmissible as these or have as many deaths. COVID deaths so far 861,000 in the last two years. Flu deaths are likely even lower due to current public health measures like masking and social distancing. Sorry, but the CDC director says the vaccines do not stop virus transmission: Fully vaccinated people who get a COVID-19 "breakthrough" infection can spread the virus to others even if they are not symptomatic, Centers for Disease Control Director Rochelle Walensky told CNN on Thursday. There are no studies that support the efficacy of cloth masks or surgical masks in filtering either the Covid-19 virus or the influenza virus. N-95 masks are effective, but can only be worn for short periods of time if properly fitted. This fact has been verified by the CDC. Check Web MD for full info. You may have difficulty searching for information via Google, but Duck Duck Go and other search engines do not censor information and info is readily available through them. |
|
