Quantcast

Hydroxychloroquine . . .

The Rocketry Forum

Help Support The Rocketry Forum:

Status
Not open for further replies.

Funkworks

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jul 28, 2018
Messages
847
Reaction score
437
They can't "have it both ways" . . . Either, it works or it doesn't. I want to know the truth !
My current understanding is that it can be helpful in some cases, but there are different degrees of "helpfulness", and hundreds or thousands of different cases. So no clear, reliable demarcation like "Either, it works or it doesn't". That is simply not true. It's a mess to sort out, and that's what isn't settled yet.
 

steveh.jae

Well-Known Member
TRF Supporter
Joined
Feb 23, 2020
Messages
128
Reaction score
40
Chuck,

My "Politics" are no secret and neither are my Religious beliefs ( I'm 59 ) . . . November is coming and I am rock-solid on my voting choices, For obvious reasons, I won't go into detail here. But, if anyone is interested, send me a PM and you will be told the "whole story", in detail. NOTE : If you are easily triggered, easily offended, or are a "woke" individual, you might want to pass on that invitation . . . You won't like what you hear, in private !

I attempted to "see past my biases". I posted an article ( not from a Left-leaning source ), making it clear that I wanted to only discuss the scientific evidence of the studies it mentioned. I am curious how Scientists, studying the same drug, in use against the same illness, can come up with such widely varying results.

However, I was immediately subjected to harassment and ridicule, rather than an objective discussion of the subject at hand. In a typical example of Alinsky tactics, the thread immediately came under attack, in order to discredit both myself and the sources cited. That is all counterproductive and clearly shows the mindset of those who participated in those actions.

Speaking of bias, explain this about the testing of Hydroxychloroquine . . . Why are all of the sources, that cite negative results, connected to Leftist sources and any source that shows positive results is instantly attacked and labelled as being a Right-Wing lie? That is NOT Science . . . Rather it is "Political Bias", pure & simple !

Dave F.
It’s either ‘business casual’ or ‘the emperor’s new suit’ depending on your distance square from raw data - level of bias
 

SDramstad

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jun 26, 2014
Messages
608
Reaction score
456
Last time I got sick I drank Coca-cola and I got better. Miracle cure!!!!!!
 

les

Well-Known Member
TRF Supporter
Joined
Jan 20, 2009
Messages
2,705
Reaction score
352
They can't "have it both ways" . . . Either, it works or it doesn't. I want to know the truth !
There is no Model Mark 1A person that we are all copies of. Everyone is different. Statistically, people can be grouped into certain associations, BUT - we are not all the same.

What may work for one person won't work for another.
Some drugs cure people, but the same drug can kill others. Just watch any drug commercial on TV with all the potential negative side affects.
The question gets into how many does it help vs hurt? And how bad is the hurt?
If 1 person out of a million has a side effect, say something mild like itchy skin, while all the others get cured - that is a great drug.
If 1 person out a million gets cured, and all the rest die - that is a rotten drug and please never give it to me.

HCQ is on neither extreme, but from what I've seen there is no good justification that it helps vs hurts. There are probably cases where it did help, as well as cases where it not only didn't help but caused further complications and even death. Just because someone took the drug and improved does not mean the drug caused the improvement. That person may have improved even without taking the drug.

I have to agree that until a true, double blind, study is performed with a significant number of participants, anything else is speculation and info can be found justifying both points of view (miracle drug vs killer vs candy)
 

Ez2cDave

Well-Known Member
TRF Supporter
Joined
Jan 18, 2009
Messages
3,791
Reaction score
1,017
I wasn't 5 words into the article that it was already about "leftists" and "Trump". Therefore, in order to "leave politics out of my response", I'll "leave" this thread. That first sentence, attacking a political class, indicates the article is biased, so no, it doesn't qualify as something I'd read to get scientific information (which by definition is unbiased, i.e. a measured altitude of 1000 ft is neither leftist, populist, fascist, capitalist, communist, it's just 1000 ft period.).
Thank you for recognizing that you are unable to shed your political bias, for the purpose of open discussion, and deciding not to participate further.

As for an "unbiased source", in actuality that is a "Unicorn" ( beautiful, but fictitious ) . . . All data, once subjected to interpretation and evaluation by others, invariably is influenced by those individuals involved . . . Fact !

Hypothetical Example :

( 1 ) Hydroxychloroquine is less effective in a given study . . . "Ahah, Trump LIED . . . We told you so ! "

( 2 ) Hydroxychloroquine is shown to be effective in a given study . . . "That is not a VALID SOURCE . . . It's Right-Wing propaganda ! "

QUESTIONS : ( from above )

( 1 ) Why is the response NOT, "Really, there have been other studies with conflicting data . . . We need to combine our efforts and refine the data ! "

( 2 ) Why is the response NOT, "Really, there have been other studies with conflicting data . . . We need to combine our efforts and refine the data ! "

ANSWER to Questions #1 & #2 :

"We are content with our results, since they support our political views and agendas . . . Good to go ! " ( While the disease continues to ravage victims ).

That is the truth of political bias in the 21st Century . . . Just change the words around to fit any topic !

Dave F.
 
Last edited:

cwbullet

Obsessed with Rocketry
Staff member
Administrator
TRF Lifetime Supporter
Global Mod
Joined
Jan 24, 2009
Messages
25,398
Reaction score
3,361
Location
Glennville, GA
Chuck,

My "Politics" are no secret and neither are my Religious beliefs ( I'm 59 ) . . . November is coming and I am rock-solid on my voting choices, For obvious reasons, I won't go into detail here. But, if anyone is interested, send me a PM and you will be told the "whole story", in detail. NOTE : If you are easily triggered, easily offended, or are a "woke" individual, you might want to pass on that invitation . . . You won't like what you hear, in private !

I attempted to "see past my biases". I posted an article ( not from a Left-leaning source ), making it clear that I wanted to only discuss the scientific evidence of the studies it mentioned. I am curious how Scientists, studying the same drug, in use against the same illness, can come up with such widely varying results.

However, I was immediately subjected to harassment and ridicule, rather than an objective discussion of the subject at hand. In a typical example of Alinsky tactics, the thread immediately came under attack, in order to discredit both myself and the sources cited. That is all counterproductive and clearly shows the mindset of those who participated in those actions.

Speaking of bias, explain this about the testing of Hydroxychloroquine . . . Why are all of the sources, that cite negative results, connected to Leftist sources and any source that shows positive results is instantly attacked and labelled as being a Right-Wing lie? That is NOT Science . . . Rather it is "Political Bias", pure & simple !

Dave F.
I am nto allowed to discuss my political leanings in public. Form an HCQ stance. there are parties that feel it must fail and others are willing to take based on anecdotal stories. I say let the evidence fall where it might. So far, I am unimpressed with either side.
 

Funkworks

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jul 28, 2018
Messages
847
Reaction score
437
Thank you for recognizing that you are unable to shed your political bias, for the purpose of open discussion, and deciding not to participate further.
I'm not recognizing an inability, I'm making a choice. Besides, you asked not to be political.

The question here is why would anyone start a thread on hydroxychloroquine with a political article, while calling others not to be political. Yet start threads elsewhere in these forums without such bias.

As far as I know, people here don't make epoxy and motor choices based on politics, so I don't see why HC would be any different. Nothing but three different chemical products.
 

rklapp

NAR# 109557
TRF Supporter
Joined
May 8, 2020
Messages
671
Reaction score
429
Location
Oahu, Hawaii
The drug trial I was involved with was to determine what dose of HCQ is beneficial to arthritics with the least harmful effects. All drugs have side effects. If you guess the dose, that’s suicide. It’s like putting a big motor in a new rocket without looking up what the recommended first launch motor is. You’re likely to lose it (from experience).

on a side note, I’m wondering about the safety of the upcoming vaccine. Is it simple like developing the yearly flu shot or something more complicated like the MMR?
 

UhClem

Well-Known Member
Joined
Feb 6, 2009
Messages
1,612
Reaction score
156
on a side note, I’m wondering about the safety of the upcoming vaccine. Is it simple like developing the yearly flu shot or something more complicated like the MMR?
Very complicated with lots of different approaches. Derek Lowe has been covering that with a lot of detail.

After you read about COVID-19 be sure to check out the posts tagged "Things I Won't Work With".
 

Ez2cDave

Well-Known Member
TRF Supporter
Joined
Jan 18, 2009
Messages
3,791
Reaction score
1,017
I wasn't 5 words into the article that it was already about "leftists" and "Trump". Therefore, in order to "leave politics out of my response", I'll "leave" this thread. ).
I'm not recognizing an inability, I'm making a choice. Besides, you asked not to be political.
You're still here . . . Which time were you lying ?

Dave F.
 

modeltrains

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jun 29, 2011
Messages
1,113
Reaction score
89
Oh, after talking to internet friends in other countries I'll toss these in to the conversation,
The National Task force for COVID-19, constituted by Indian Council of Medical Research, has recommended the use of hydroxy- chloroquine as prophylaxis (preventive drug) of SARS-COV-2 infection for high risk population.

Chloroquine, or hydroxychloroquine, has been used to treat malaria since 1944. It can be given before exposure to malaria to prevent infection, and it can also be given as treatment afterward.Malaria is a disease that is caused by a parasite, unlike COVID-19. Nevertheless, laboratory studies show chloroquine is effective at preventing as well as treating the virus that causes severe acute respiratory syndrome, or SARS, a close cousin of COVID-19

The advisory provides for placing the following high risk population under chemoprophylaxis with hydroxy chloroquine:
and
Hydroxychloroquine: the drug Costa Rica uses successfully to fight covid-19
By Rico
19 April 2020

Modified date: 19 April 2020
Used in the world for decades in the treatment of malaria, a month ago, the Caja Costarricense de Seguro Social (CCSS) decided to apply hydroxychloroquine to patients infected with the new coronavirus until a vaccine is available.
 

modeltrains

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jun 29, 2011
Messages
1,113
Reaction score
89
And then I'll toss this in too, although about a different drug,
Perhaps Peru is the epicenter of the movement for off-label use of Ivermectin to treat COVID-19 patients. The doctors there swear by it. In fact, some of them curse the government for not embracing the anti-parasite drug sooner as they believe more lives could have been saved. With the advent of the COVID-19 pandemic, the Peruvian authorities had no interest in Ivermectin. Rather, they leaned toward the emerging standard of care that was circulated in medical circles from the World Health Organization (WHO). However, when a group of Australians at Monash University and Peter Doherty Institute performed lab tests revealing that the economical and available anti-parasitic medicine absolutely zapped the novel coronavirus, a local inquisitive Incan inquiry commenced. This grassroots medical movement for Ivermectin as a treatment for COVID-19 in many ways has been driven out of Peru as the story continues to unfold.
...
Although Ivermectin is now approved in Peru, it must be emphasized that that government’s decision was not based on formal, randomized controlled trials. Rather, an informal network of many doctors around Peru drove a kind of community movement to use the medicine to treat COVID-19. The government came to the conclusion that a sufficient number of experts in that country had formed a consensus that couldn’t be ignored.
 

modeltrains

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jun 29, 2011
Messages
1,113
Reaction score
89
Oh, how about tossing in this that I found on my own,
Hydroxychloroquine, which has been approved for Covid-19 treatment in Jordan, the US and France as well as China has been tested and found to strengthen cells in the respiratory tract where the coronavirus punctures and releases its genetic material.
Laboratory findings published by medRxiv, an online server for medical articles show the alkaline-based Hydroxychloroquine protects the cell from becoming acidic, an environment that enables coronaviruses to multiply
“The end result is the coronavirus is bumped out of cells and cannot infect them. (How azithromycin contributes to this process isn’t clear yet, but doctors suspect that it may quell the worst respiratory symptoms of Covid-19 by reducing inflammation caused by the viral infection in the lungs.),” it said.
 

Ez2cDave

Well-Known Member
TRF Supporter
Joined
Jan 18, 2009
Messages
3,791
Reaction score
1,017
Since a few of you have mentioned Derek Lowe, here is a Hydroxychloroquine article by him. ( NOTE: He makes disparaging remarks about the "current administration", which indicates he is BIASED towards the Left, rather than being objective ).

Apparently, his political leanings are influencing his writings and those who follow and endorse him ?

He is NOT unbiased, Centrist, or Neutral . . .

https://blogs.sciencemag.org/pipeline/archives/2020/04/22/the-politics-of-hydroxychloroquine

The Politics of Hydroxychloroquine

By Derek Lowe 22 April, 2020

I had not been planning to return to the topic of hydroxychloroquine so soon, but here we are. This will not be a calm, measured blog post – fair warning.

Yesterday, Dr. Rick Bright was pushed out of his post at HHS, where he was deputy assistant secretary for preparedness and response and director of BARDA, the Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority. This didn’t look good at the time, but now it turns out that Dr. Bright is not planning on going quietly. The New York Times reports this statement of his to their reporter Maggie Haberman:
“I believe this transfer was in response to my insistence that the government invest the billions of dollars allocated by Congress to address the Covid-19 pandemic into safe and scientifically vetted solutions. . .I am speaking out because to combat this deadly virus, science — not politics or cronyism — has to lead the way.
. . .To this point, I have led the government’s efforts to invest in the best science available to combat the Covid-19 pandemic. Unfortunately, this resulted in clashes with H.H.S. political leadership, including criticism for my proactive efforts to invest early into vaccines and supplies critical to saving American lives. I also resisted efforts to fund potentially dangerous drugs promoted by those with political connections.
Specifically, and contrary to misguided directives, I limited the broad use of chloroquine and hydroxychloroquine, promoted by the administration as a panacea, but which clearly lack scientific merit. While I am prepared to look at all options and to think ‘outside the box’ for effective treatments, I rightly resisted efforts to provide an unproven drug on demand to the American public. I insisted that these drugs be provided only to hospitalized patients with confirmed Covid-19 while under the supervision of a physician. . .”
Hmm . . . "I'm fine with everything, as long as I agree with it" ( summary )
He’s asking the HHS inspector general to investigate the circumstances of his firing and political influence on BARDA, specifically pressure to fund what he terms “companies with political connections and efforts that lack scientific merit

This is a grenade. It was clearly meant to be one, and I have to applaud Dr. Bright for his refusal to shrug his shoulders and just walk off. These are really serious charges to make during this pandemic, and if his accusations have merit, this is just the sort of malfeasance that can’t be tolerated. Dead bodies are piling up, the economy is at a standstill, we are in a public health crisis the likes of which none of us have ever experienced, and the administration is making sure to take funding decisions out of the hands of career scientists so that cash can be steered to well-connected snake oil artists? We have to know the truth.

This of course comes just a couple of days after yet another look at the use of chloroquine and hydroxychloroquine (with and without azithromycin), this time from the VA health care system, that found that administration of these drugs to coronavirus patients actually increased the chances of death and of serious respiratory problems. That study by itself is not enough to prove that these drugs don’t work, of course: it has a standard-of-care control group for comparison, but it’s all retrospective, not an intentional blinded clinical trial. But it’s not meaningless, either, and when you add that in to the other studies that are showing no effect (at best), the ones that claim benefit are not enough for a person to say that anything is working. If Rick Bright was calling for these drugs to be administered under controlled conditions and to not declare them as great therapies for the epidemic, then good for him: those are the right decisions. And if he was fired for them and for similar calls, then there should be an investigation.

Unfortunately, the conduct of many members of this administration does not allow anyone to dismiss these allegations out of hand. I will resist the temptation to list details; they are abundant. The president’s fans will wave these aside as exaggerations or fabrications, and nothing I or anyone else can say will convince them otherwise. Every administration, every government has some of these people, though, and as far as I’m concerned we have a lot more than our share right now. Sadly, I find it completely believable that Trump administration officials could take this opportunity to grease campaign donors and reward their friends at the expense of the public health and at the expense of scientific evidence. Completely.

Not very "Centrist" or unbiased of him . . .

Don’t you? Look at the commentary of veteran industry observers like Steve Usdin of Biocentury, whose frustration comes through when he writes about this administration’s behavior during the pandemic (update). He’s not alone. Honestly, just step back a little and take a look at the whole DC landscape in light of the coronavirus: can you say that George Packer is wrong? Get to the bottom of this. Get to the bottom of it as quickly as possible. This is supposed to be a great nation, not a racket run by a bunch of smirking grifters.

More "NEUTRALITY" displayed by the vaunted Derek L
owe . . . Clearly, he is biased against the Right.

Dave F.
 

UhClem

Well-Known Member
Joined
Feb 6, 2009
Messages
1,612
Reaction score
156
Apparently, his political leanings are influencing his writings and those who follow and endorse him ?
Reality has a well known liberal bias.

Talk about what he writes rather than whine about what you think of his politics. Where are the double blind placebo controlled trials showing that HCQ is effective?
 

Ez2cDave

Well-Known Member
TRF Supporter
Joined
Jan 18, 2009
Messages
3,791
Reaction score
1,017
Reality has a well known liberal bias.

Talk about what he writes rather than whine about what you think of his politics.
The first part is subject to much debate, but not here on the Forum.

The second part however, should be addressed . . . Derek Lowe's "politics" skew and influence his writings, making him a "non-neutral" source of biased information. That article I cited was Derek Lowe, in his own unaltered words.

Dave F.
 

UhClem

Well-Known Member
Joined
Feb 6, 2009
Messages
1,612
Reaction score
156
You attack his reporting on the science by looking at something that isn't about the science. You are going to have to do a lot better than that.

Where is the data supporting HCQ? Show some and then we can discuss it.
 

Ez2cDave

Well-Known Member
TRF Supporter
Joined
Jan 18, 2009
Messages
3,791
Reaction score
1,017
You attack his reporting on the science by looking at something that isn't about the science.
Until mentioned by others here, I had never heard of Derek Lowe.

He was presented as being a neutral, unbiased source of scientific data. So, I looked him up on Google, along with the the term Hydroxychloroquine, and the article by him, that I cited above, appeared.

Upon reading his article and quoting his relevant remarks in Red, it became readily apparent that he is neither neutral, nor unbiased, contrary to claims made by others here.

You only seek to denigrate Conservative sources of data, whereas I was willing to consider the works of Derek Lowe which, unfortunately, were filled with personal biases, which were clearly demonstrated.

Dave F.
 
Last edited:

RainierWolfcastle

Well-Known Member
Joined
May 24, 2017
Messages
95
Reaction score
39
<snip>
I attempted to "see past my biases". I posted an article ( not from a Left-leaning source ), making it clear that I wanted to only discuss the scientific evidence of the studies it mentioned. I am curious how Scientists, studying the same drug, in use against the same illness, can come up with such widely varying results.
</snip>
Dave F.
Not trying to take you out of context, my reply is focused on the part I’ve trimmed down to. You say you attempted to see past your biases, however a read of that article shows it is clearly written by a far right (I wouldn’t even call it leaning) author, this is not my opinion or personal bias, it’s clear to see from everything to his opening statement to his closing self description. He presents no scientific data, uses a small number of anecdotes to support his story, and has a graph countries that is clearly cherry picked to support his narrative.
Yes all media has a bias, unfortunate but true. The way to get around this is to look who they cite as a source. If they make up their own graph, what is the data based on, have they reasonably considered other contributing factors. Do they link to a peer reviewed study as a source, or their own twitter account?

As to studying the data to get different results, that’s more to do with the fact we can’t control a large number of variables in this situation, and often the reports like to leave out key information to support the result they want to report. Simplified example: two 100 person groups are given HCQ and studied by two different scientists. One group all survive, one group has 10% mortality. On the face if it you have two very different results. Now if you add the first group was sourced from a college campus and the second from a nursing home you get a factor that needs to be corrected for. Sadly real situations are not so obvious, and we are dealing with a disease that is less that a year old and so long term studies are currently non existent.
Anyone who says they have a firm answer currently is someone who should not be trusted, science is about constantly reviewing what we know based on information that can change as we learn more or improve our methods to obtain it.
 

UhClem

Well-Known Member
Joined
Feb 6, 2009
Messages
1,612
Reaction score
156
Data from any source that is not Leftist.

Dave F.
You appear to be happy with articles with conservative biases but not liberal. In any case, you haven't posted anything resembling data yet. Still waiting for links to peer reviewed literature that supports use of HCQ for treatment of COVID-19.
 

steveh.jae

Well-Known Member
TRF Supporter
Joined
Feb 23, 2020
Messages
128
Reaction score
40
Data from any source that is not Leftist.

Dave F.
Dave, your original parameters immediately CATO’d right out of the box.

PURE SCIENCE is apolitical .. you know ... like Newton’s 3rd. The motor doesn’t know or care if it’s pushin’ a rocket or a test stand, and damn sure doesn’t care whether it’s striped or not. We can’t even talk about the freakin’ weather any more. THATS even been politicized. The way things stand now we’re left with “the scientific consensus is ....xyz”. “Science“ and “consensus” should never inhabit the same breath imo, or the same sentence.

It appears that apart from rocket specific topics, the only safe subject left is fishin’. Did you know that there is a ‘true’ warm-blooded fish? Yep! The moon fish, common name Opah (Lampridae) warms its core through ‘flapping’ it’s pectoral fins.

Now how ‘bout some “Apolitical Blues” with Lowell George and Mick Taylor.

 

Ez2cDave

Well-Known Member
TRF Supporter
Joined
Jan 18, 2009
Messages
3,791
Reaction score
1,017
Obviously, no one is willing to openly discuss the topic of this thread directly. Instead it is "attack, attack, attack" ( typical Leftist "Saul Alinsky" tactics ). The goal is to create so much turmoil and contention that nothing of substance ever comes from the intent of the thread. Failing that, they hope is to escalate tensions to the point that the thread gets locked. Either way, the goal is accomplished, right guys ?

I am asking Chuck to close this thread, ASAP !

Dave F.
 

steveh.jae

Well-Known Member
TRF Supporter
Joined
Feb 23, 2020
Messages
128
Reaction score
40
Dr. Saint Fauci stands to gain freaking tens of MILLIONS of dollars (at a minimum) from the patents that he owns 50% of (see at 37:33 below). His profits do not reach maximum potential if alternate therapies or treatments are utilized and/or found to be successful or efficacious. Our government has already committed to purchasing HIS product(s) that he’s gambled OUR money on to make the tidy sum of enough cabbage to make your eyes water. Saint Fauci is NOT an unbiased disinterested party, FULL STOP! He is disgraceful and should be investigated (nobody here is niave enough to believe thats gonna happen). Mr. Kennedy begins discussing corruption in government at 49:20, and the OVERWHELMING UBIQUITOUS corrupting influences of vaccine research and procurement in the FDA, CDC and the NIH at 51:05. I hope that doesn’t put too fine a point on it for you rklapp. If this doesn’t make your jaw drop you aren’t paying attention.

 
Last edited:

steveh.jae

Well-Known Member
TRF Supporter
Joined
Feb 23, 2020
Messages
128
Reaction score
40
Dr. Saint Fauci stands to gain freaking tens of MILLIONS of dollars (at a minimum) from the patents that he owns 50% of (see at 37:33 below). He does NOT benefit if alternate therapies or treatments are utilized and/or found to be successful or efficacious. Our government has already committed to purchasing HIS product(s) that he’s gambled OUR money on to make the tidy sum of enough cabbage to make your eyes water. Saint Fauci is NOT an unbiased disinterested party, FULL STOP! He is disgraceful and should be investigated (nobody here is niave enough to believe thats gonna happen). Mr. Kennedy begins discussing corruption in government at 49:20, and the OVERWHELMING UBIQUITOUS corrupting influences of vaccine research and procurement in the FDA, CDC and the NIH at 51:05. I hope that doesn’t put too fine a point on it for you rklapp. If this doesn’t make your jaw drop you aren’t paying attention.

Here’s some ‘anecdotal data’ from Sweden ... the ‘herd immunity’ approach their scientific advisors recommended and implemented (with minimal impact on their daily lives compared to ours) seems to have produced a linear hard crash in the descending limb of the death trajectory. Just sayin’

 

Attachments

Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top