Jump to content
Chapala.com Webboard

WORD AROUND TOWN IS THAT ALL THE HOSPITALS ARE FILLED WITH CV PATIENTS


Recommended Posts

Suggest you get some experience on local boards Brian the Newbie.  Specifically please visit Inside Lakeside to see that it is usual for moderators to post their own opinion and there they don't even use a separate handle.  Compared to what goes on there I was quite gentle and I won't bother to try and educate you by dredging up some of Angus's gems.  Suffice to say he gives as good as he gets and then some.  He's quite capable of sticking up for himself without your help.

But of course we both know these criticisms come from people who want to censor those whom they don't agree with.  

Now I suggest you both go to the source cited above and learn something that might come in very useful in case you get sick before you can get vaccinated.  Or not, your choice.  The protocol spelled out there is basically the same as that spelled out months ago by Dr. Vladamir Zelenko who has had great success treating hundreds of covid patients this way. 

The fact is, covid is treatable if caught early with a significant rate of success.  We are not left with only the vaccine to save us.  Make your own choices, I posted this simply to add to the information from credible sources available here.

 

  • Like 1
  • Sad 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Unfortunately  Hydroxychloroquine became a political issue.  In the early weeks it was tried on patients that were already in intensive care with minimal results. There is a peer reviewed study tried on patients  in the early stage of the disease. 

Outpatient Study Finds that Combination of Zinc, Hydroxychloroquine, and Azithromycin Is Associated with Less Hospitalizations and Death for COVID-19 Patients

https://www.preprints.org/manuscript/202007.0025/v1

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, happyjillin said:

If something ain't published in The New England Journal of Medicine or The Lancet it is questionable at the very least especially when it's put forth in some obscure psuedo scientific journal

The Lancet paper on this topic was withdrawn because it was unverifiable.

https://www.webmd.com/lung/news/20200605/lancet-retracts-hydroxychloroquine-study

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Upfront said:

you want it to sound like they were wrong. even the quickest of reads shows the pulled it because the originators failed to provide a full dataset. proving once again the integirty of the journal.

Don't make stuff up about what I posted.  It was pulled because it could not be properly verified as I so stated.

Quote

June 4, 2020 - The online medical journal The Lancet has apologized to readers after retracting a study that said the anti-malarial drug hydroxychloroquine did not help to curb COVID-19 and might cause death in patients.

The study was withdrawn because the company that provided data would not provide full access to the information for a third-party peer review, saying to do so would violate client agreements and confidentiality requirements, The Lancet said in a statement.

“Based on this development, we can no longer vouch for the veracity of the primary data sources. Due to this unfortunate development, the authors request that the paper be retracted,” The Lancet said in a statement.

https://www.webmd.com/lung/news/20200605/lancet-retracts-hydroxychloroquine-study

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Upfront said:

the sad news is you really think you can justify your heinous remarks by comparing them to someone elses. oh, officer he punched him five times but i only punched him once

when was the last time you even looked at inside lakeside. no one speaks as rudely as you do and they have not for years.

I follow it.  It is more civil because they have driven off anyone who does not agree with the group think.  I continue to recommend it for people who just can't handle opinions that differ from their own.  

 

  • Like 1
  • Sad 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Mainecoons said:

I've given it to you a number of times.  Maybe if you knew better how to search the web you would have found it by now.  Here is the direct link.  Just published this week in their January issue.

https://www.amjmed.com/article/S0002-9343(20)30673-2/fulltext

I'd like to continue to engage in a battle of wits with you but that would be taking unfair advantage.

Touted is not the same as mentioned.  Touted is one of those semantically loaded words used by biased sites.

Let me know if you'd like some help reading and understanding the paper.  I have a doctor friend who can help you with that and other issues.  She's pretty good with senility I understand.  :D 

 

Just so you know that this article was FIRST published in August of 2020. I think a lot more has been learned since then.

image.thumb.png.1983a0202d3a77ad40e4795d0d46c441.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Upfront said:

like i said you try to make it sound like they were wrong and tht the science was wrong when the truth is it was pulled because of a lack of data. stop trying to make stuff up about me making stuff up

You're repeating your incorrect statement.  I stated it was withdrawn because the data couldn't be verified and now I have cited a verification that was the reason.  Sheesh, learn how to read with comprehension.

Quote

The study was withdrawn because the company that provided data would not provide full access to the information for a third-party peer review, saying to do so would violate client agreements and confidentiality requirements, The Lancet said in a statement.

Based on this development, we can no longer vouch for the veracity of the primary data sources. 

Bond and underline mine.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Mainecoons said:

So cite anything that negates this paper.

It may never be specifically NEGATED because, by its very date, it was true at the time. I can go back years in the Medical Journals and old articles of what worked at the time are still there. It doesn't mean than new and improved methods and ideologies have not been published since. Medical knowledge is a process that builds on what was before.

 

  • Like 7
Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, Ferret said:

It may never be specifically NEGATED because, by its very date, it was true at the time. I can go back years in the Medical Journals and old articles of what worked at the time are still there. It doesn't mean than new and improved methods and ideologies have not been published since. Medical knowledge is a process that builds on what was before.

 

So why do you think it has been brought up again in this very credible main line medical journal?

There has been more than enough time for it to be negated.  You should be able to find and cite.

I didn't post this for any reason other than the significance of the source and the information therein.  Do with it what you like.  Our family has had this information since Dr. Zalenko published it, a family member who is a medical doctor has used it with success and some of us, including me, also have.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I like the NIH site and it is updated regularly...

https://www.covid19treatmentguidelines.nih.gov/whats-new/

Specifically about Hydroxychloroquine starts on page 81...

https://files.covid19treatmentguidelines.nih.gov/guidelines/covid19treatmentguidelines.pdf

One of the things that I find disconcerting about the U.S. is because each state can publish their own guidelines.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Mainecoons said:

An op ed piece in a publication that hardly rises to the level of the American Journal of Medicine.  But go with it if you buy it. 

It quotes credible studies Worldwide and well respected sources but you have to wade through it first to critize it like any scholar that uses objective reasoning [open mind] not subjective reasoning [closed mind].

Link to comment
Share on other sites

28 minutes ago, Mainecoons said:

You're repeating your incorrect statement.  I stated it was withdrawn because the data couldn't be verified and now I have cited a verification that was the reason.  Sheesh, learn how to read with comprehension.

Bond and underline mine.

If it can't be verified then chances are it 's bogus. Journals like the Lancet are counted on by the medical profession at all levels for verifiable studies and that's a good thing ain't it?  When was involved with the med professions I had subscriptions to those 2 top journals so that I could be certain of the veracity of what I was reading. ain't that important when dealing with matters of life or death?

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Mainecoons said:

So why do you think it has been brought up again in this very credible main line medical journal?

There has been more than enough time for it to be negated.  You should be able to find and cite.

I didn't post this for any reason other than the significance of the source and the information therein.  Do with it what you like.  Our family has had this information since Dr. Zalenko published it, a family member who is a medical doctor has used it with success and some of us, including me, also have.

The journal you insist on citing is not  mainline.

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, happyjillin said:

The journal you insist on citing is not  mainline.

 

Quote

The American Journal of Medicine is a peer-reviewed medical journal and the official journal of the Alliance for Academic Internal Medicine. It was established in 1946. The journal is published monthly by Elsevier under its Excerpta Medica imprint. It is also known as "the green journal".Wikipedia

All depends on your definition of main line.

 

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 https://www.readfrontier.org/stories/oklahoma-trying-to-return-its-2m-stockpile-of-hydroxychloroquine/

 
 
 

Oklahoma trying to return its $2m stockpile ofhydroxychloroquine

January 26, 2021

"The Oklahoma Attorney General’s Office has been tasked with attempting to return a $2 million stockpile of a malaria drug once touted by former President Donald Trump as a way to treat the coronavirus.

 

Author

DYLAN GOFORTH

dylan@readfrontier.com
 

 

 

 

OPIOID TRIAL RULING Attorney General Mike Hunter

The Oklahoma Attorney General’s Office has been tasked with attempting to return a $2 million stockpile of a malaria drug once touted by former President Donald Trump as a way to treat the coronavirus.

In April, Gov. Kevin Stitt, who ordered the hydroxychloroquine purchase, defended it by saying that while it may not be a useful treatment for the coronavirus, the drug had multiple other uses and “that money will not have gone to waste in any respect.”

But nearly a year later the state is trying to offload the drug back to its original supplier, California-based FFF Enterprises, Inc, a private pharmaceutical wholesaler. 

Alex Gerszewski, a spokesman for Oklahoma Attorney General Mike Hunter, told The Frontierthis week that the AG’s office was working with the state health department “to try to figure out a solution.”

Gerszewski said Hunter’s office had gotten involved at the request of the Oklahoma State Department of Health.

Stitt was criticized last year for the $2 million purchase, a move viewed by some as a partisan move to curry favor with conservatives who were defending Trump amid criticism of his own support of the drug. But Stitt defended the purchase at the time by likening it to the race early last year to procure personal protective equipment for Oklahomans, believing it was better to have the hydroxychloroquine stockpile and not need it, rather than to later learn the drug was useful but not have it.

The state purchased the hydroxychloroquine stockpile in early April, days after Trump began to tout it as a treatment. While many acknowledged at the time that reports of the drug’s effectiveness were purely anecdotal, Trump said at a briefing in March, “What do we have to lose? I feel very good about it.”

Health officials nationwide immediately began to caution people against using the drug, throwing water on the idea that it could cure a coronavirus infection and cautioning that it could have serious side effects, including irregular heart rhythms and even the possibility of death. The drug was ultimately discredited as a treatment option and the National Institute of Health released a report in November that the drug had “no clinical benefit to hospitalized patients.” "

 

Also:

https://www.nih.gov/news-events/news-releases/hydroxychloroquine-does-not-benefit-adults-hospitalized-covid-19#:~:text=A National Institutes of Health,benefit to hospitalized patients.

 

 

"Monday, November 9, 2020

Hydroxychloroquine does not benefit adults hospitalized with COVID-19

 

 
 
 
Novel Coronavirus SARS-CoV-2Colorized scanning electron micrograph of a cell (blue) heavily infected with SARS-CoV-2 virus particles (red), isolated from a patient sample. Image captured at the NIAID Integrated Research Facility (IRF) in Fort Detrick, MarylandNIAID

A National Institutes of Health clinical trial evaluating the safety and effectiveness of hydroxychloroquine for the treatment of adults with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has formally concluded that the drug provides no clinical benefit to hospitalized patients. Though found not to cause harm, early findings in June when the trial was stopped indicated that the drug was not improving outcomes in COVID-19 patients. Final data and analyses of the trial, which was funded by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute (NHLBI), part of NIH, will appear online Nov. 9 in the Journal of the American Medical Association(link is external)."

 

NIH officials said the careful design, implementation, and oversight of the study was key to its results, as well as the recommendation by a data and safety monitoring board (DSMB) to stop the trial early.

“Having a rigorously designed clinical trial that captured patient-centered, clinically meaningful outcomes was critical to reaching the unequivocal conclusions about the use of hydroxychloroquine in COVID-19. ORCHID shows that hydroxychloroquine does not improve clinical outcomes in hospitalized COVID-19 patients,” said James P. Kiley, Ph.D., director, Division of Lung Diseases at NHLBI."

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...