Coronavirus Thread

[RonJohn]

Prior to the invention of synthetic insulin, Type 1 Diabetes was a death sentence. An excrutiatingly slow death sentence. Around then in the early 1920s, scientists began trying to find ways to manufacture a synthetic insulin. If you had heard that their work might have some benefit, would you participate in studies to see if it helped, even if it weren't scientifically proven yet? What would you have had to lose? (In fact the first person scientists actually tested with their new invention didn't show any benefit.) Unlike the current drugs, synthetic insulin had no track record whatsoever for safety or efficacy.

Actually, the first synthetic insulin wasn't available until the 1980s. It was produced in the late 70s and tested. Before that, animal insulin was used.(mainly pig)

To your question: If I was diagnosed before insulin therapy began and had an opportunity to decide between certain death and a chance at some unproven potential new therapy, I would probably have chosen the therapy.

In the case of COVID-19, the choice isn't certain death and some unproven treatment. The choice is taking or not taking something that might have some affect on a disease that the person will most likely survive anyway. There is also a choice of more than 60 potential medicines that might have some affect, several of which have shown some indications that they might work. Are any of those that have shown some indication better than others? Which should one try to use?

The media frenzy over hydroxychloriquine started because of a document that was written and promoted by a person with fraudulent credentials and fraudulently claiming a credentialed co-writer. It referenced a non-scientific, non pier reviewed paper by a French doctor that had somewhat promising, but not convincing results. There is enough evidence that this medicine should be examined to see if it is effective. However, there are other medicines with enough evidence to study to see if it is effective. Do we ignore the other potential medicines because of a fraudulent document? We should study all of the potential medicines to see if they work. If one or more of them do work in scientific trials, the use those widely as soon as they are proven. If someone wants to use one of them before they are proven, that is a personal decision. However, don't widely spread one of them as a solution before it is proven. Doing so might cause people to not another solution after it is proven.

 

[Supersizethatorder-mutt]

Actually, the first synthetic insulin wasn't available until the 1980s. It was produced in the late 70s and tested. Before that, animal insulin was used.(mainly pig)

To your question: If I was diagnosed before insulin therapy began and had an opportunity to decide between certain death and a chance at some unproven potential new therapy, I would probably have chosen the therapy.

In the case of COVID-19, the choice isn't certain death and some unproven treatment. The choice is taking or not taking something that might have some affect on a disease that the person will most likely survive anyway. There is also a choice of more than 60 potential medicines that might have some affect, several of which have shown some indications that they might work. Are any of those that have shown some indication better than others? Which should one try to use?

The media frenzy over hydroxychloriquine started because of a document that was written and promoted by a person with fraudulent credentials and fraudulently claiming a credentialed co-writer. It referenced a non-scientific, non pier reviewed paper by a French doctor that had somewhat promising, but not convincing results. There is enough evidence that this medicine should be examined to see if it is effective. However, there are other medicines with enough evidence to study to see if it is effective. Do we ignore the other potential medicines because of a fraudulent document? We should study all of the potential medicines to see if they work. If one or more of them do work in scientific trials, the use those widely as soon as they are proven. If someone wants to use one of them before they are proven, that is a personal decision. However, don't widely spread one of them as a solution before it is proven. Doing so might cause people to not another solution after it is proven.

I think the congresswoman from Michigan would disagree with you. According to what both she and her doctor said, she was at death's door, and virtually overnight the hydroxycholorquine saved her, and she has since been released from the hospital, supposedly virus-free.

 

[FredJacket]

Actually, the first synthetic insulin wasn't available until the 1980s. It was produced in the late 70s and tested. Before that, animal insulin was used.(mainly pig)

To your question: If I was diagnosed before insulin therapy began and had an opportunity to decide between certain death and a chance at some unproven potential new therapy, I would probably have chosen the therapy.

In the case of COVID-19, the choice isn't certain death and some unproven treatment. The choice is taking or not taking something that might have some affect on a disease that the person will most likely survive anyway. There is also a choice of more than 60 potential medicines that might have some affect, several of which have shown some indications that they might work. Are any of those that have shown some indication better than others? Which should one try to use?

The media frenzy over hydroxychloriquine started because of a document that was written and promoted by a person with fraudulent credentials and fraudulently claiming a credentialed co-writer. It referenced a non-scientific, non pier reviewed paper by a French doctor that had somewhat promising, but not convincing results. There is enough evidence that this medicine should be examined to see if it is effective. However, there are other medicines with enough evidence to study to see if it is effective. Do we ignore the other potential medicines because of a fraudulent document? We should study all of the potential medicines to see if they work. If one or more of them do work in scientific trials, the use those widely as soon as they are proven. If someone wants to use one of them before they are proven, that is a personal decision. However, don't widely spread one of them as a solution before it is proven. Doing so might cause people to not another solution after it is proven.

I haven't been following this that closely. Is there evidence treatments are not being pursued at the expense of looking into hydroxychloriquine?

 

[RonJohn]

I think the congresswoman from Michigan would disagree with you. According to what both she and her doctor said, she was at death's door, and virtually overnight the hydroxycholorquine saved her, and she has since been released from the hospital, supposedly virus-free.

I stated earlier that there are survivor testimonies from UFO abductions. Many people believe many things that are not true. Many people have been in bad shape and on ventilators that have survived and are virus free. Just because she and her doctor believe she would have died without it doesn't mean that it is true and doesn't scientifically prove the medicine is effective. Just because she is on a political side that is opposite of people who believe in this medicine doesn't mean that her opinion carries more weight than anyone else.

This is a scientific and medical issue, not a political one. If Biden and Trump come to an agreement that the world is flat, it doesn't make it true. Science will answer whether this medicine is effective or not. Political beliefs that it is, nor political beliefs that it isn't will prove anything.

 

[Deleted member 2897]

Actually, the first synthetic insulin wasn't available until the 1980s. It was produced in the late 70s and tested. Before that, animal insulin was used.(mainly pig)

To your question: If I was diagnosed before insulin therapy began and had an opportunity to decide between certain death and a chance at some unproven potential new therapy, I would probably have chosen the therapy.

In the case of COVID-19, the choice isn't certain death and some unproven treatment. The choice is taking or not taking something that might have some affect on a disease that the person will most likely survive anyway. There is also a choice of more than 60 potential medicines that might have some affect, several of which have shown some indications that they might work. Are any of those that have shown some indication better than others? Which should one try to use?

The media frenzy over hydroxychloriquine started because of a document that was written and promoted by a person with fraudulent credentials and fraudulently claiming a credentialed co-writer. It referenced a non-scientific, non pier reviewed paper by a French doctor that had somewhat promising, but not convincing results. There is enough evidence that this medicine should be examined to see if it is effective. However, there are other medicines with enough evidence to study to see if it is effective. Do we ignore the other potential medicines because of a fraudulent document? We should study all of the potential medicines to see if they work. If one or more of them do work in scientific trials, the use those widely as soon as they are proven. If someone wants to use one of them before they are proven, that is a personal decision. However, don't widely spread one of them as a solution before it is proven. Doing so might cause people to not another solution after it is proven.

Ah yes, a certain death versus an unproven treatment. That's the analogy I was going for! How about a 20% chance of death versus a long-used treatment with known but few side effects?

Your argument was that you would trust science and not belief. By that point, you would not have chosen to try the insulin until full clinical trials had been completed.

 

[RonJohn]

I haven't been following this that closely. Is there evidence treatments are not being pursued at the expense of looking into hydroxychloriquine?

I haven't seen any. There are studies currently involving more than 60 different medicines according the Fauci. I am just concerned that public outcry about one unproven medicine might push too much study on that one medicine. It could also obfuscate a different medicine if one actually is proven to work. I can see people demanding a popular unproven medicine over an unpublicized but scientifically effective medicine.

 

[Supersizethatorder-mutt]

I stated earlier that there are survivor testimonies from UFO abductions. Many people believe many things that are not true. Many people have been in bad shape and on ventilators that have survived and are virus free. Just because she and her doctor believe she would have died without it doesn't mean that it is true and doesn't scientifically prove the medicine is effective. Just because she is on a political side that is opposite of people who believe in this medicine doesn't mean that her opinion carries more weight than anyone else.

This is a scientific and medical issue, not a political one. If Biden and Trump come to an agreement that the world is flat, it doesn't make it true. Science will answer whether this medicine is effective or not. Political beliefs that it is, nor political beliefs that it isn't will prove anything.

No, it doesn't guarantee that the drug is what cured her, but since the doctor administered it, and since she recovered, it is definitely not something to be ignored. Would she have recovered without it? We will nor can ever know, but at least on the surface it appears that it worked. To compare her to a UFO abductee is insulting to her, her doctor, and to all who are willing to consider POSSIBLE treatments for the virus. If nothing else, it should serve as yet another reason why clinical trials MUST be started and/or continued.

 

[FredJacket]

I haven't seen any. There are studies currently involving more than 60 different medicines according the Fauci. I am just concerned that public outcry about one unproven medicine might push too much study on that one medicine. It could also obfuscate a different medicine if one actually is proven to work. I can see people demanding a popular unproven medicine over an unpublicized but scientifically effective medicine.

Unfortunately, the "frenzy" & bully pulpits... which very effectively perpetuates their narratives & agendas.... allow the media & politicians to totally dominate over the doctors & scientists.

I'm telling you... the Information Age has some big time drawbacks.

 

[Supersizethatorder-mutt]

I haven't seen any. There are studies currently involving more than 60 different medicines according the Fauci. I am just concerned that public outcry about one unproven medicine might push too much study on that one medicine. It could also obfuscate a different medicine if one actually is proven to work. I can see people demanding a popular unproven medicine over an unpublicized but scientifically effective medicine.

That is definitely a valid point, and it gives all the more reason for the media to stay out of it and just report facts, and not their personal opinions, regardless of which side they might be on.

 

[armeck]

I think the congresswoman from Michigan would disagree with you. According to what both she and her doctor said, she was at death's door, and virtually overnight the hydroxycholorquine saved her, and she has since been released from the hospital, supposedly virus-free.

I assume you mean this lady:
https://www.abc12.com/content/news/...OVID-19-treatment-not-hospital-569461601.html

She was never hospitalized and was treated at home. Her symptoms were moderate, I'd say: "She had a relentless headache and what she described as an “uncomfortable” and “weird” throat. She didn’t have a fever, and she could smell and taste."

I am glad she got better, but it wasn't quite as dire as you keep saying.

 

[wrmathis]

HOLY ****!

Anybody who dies who has tested positive for COVID-19 is being listed as a COVID-19 death, regardless of the reason they actually died. In other words, if someone is largely asymptomatic, but dies in the hospital from anything, they are still listed as a COVID-19 death. This is ridiculously horrible.

https://nypost.com/2020/04/07/feds-classify-all-coronavirus-patient-deaths-as-covid-19-deaths/

I’ve seen this a few times. Basically anything short of gunshot deaths or stabbing, this is going on.

 

[Supersizethatorder-mutt]

I only base what I have been saying to what she herself said in two different interviews which I viewed, one with her doctor. The only thing in that article that I was apparently mistaken about was that she had not been in the hospital. Nevertheless, both she and her doctor believe that is what turned her around, and that's all anyone has to go on. As she is quoted as saying in that article: "If you have an opportunity to receive something, and it's a choice between taking this pill and a machine to keep you breathing, you tell me what your choice would be.” Whether they are correct or not really doesn't matter so much as it demand further clinical testing.

 

[RonJohn]

Ah yes, a certain death versus an unproven treatment. That's the analogy I was going for! How about a 20% chance of death versus a long-used treatment with known but few side effects?

Your argument was that you would trust science and not belief. By that point, you would not have chosen to try the insulin until full clinical trials had been completed.

Type 1 diabetes without insulin is a 100% chance of death, not 20%. COVID-19 is what somewhere between 1% and 3% of diagnosed individuals? Some people who don't have the virus at all are demanding this medicine as a preventative measure, even though there isn't even any anecdotal evidence that it prevents infection. Why this medicine vs. other medicines that have shown at least some promise? What if hydroxychloroquine is used massively and found to be ineffective while another medicine is ignored and found to be very effective?

I am not trying to say that people should be prevented from using this medicine if they want to. What I am trying to say is that until this medicine is proven, it shouldn't be touted as "the cure" by anyone. I am not calling out the President or trying to say anything at all about him. I would say the same thing no matter who the person saying this is. I care very little about the politics. I am just looking at things scientifically.

 

[Deleted member 2897]

Type 1 diabetes without insulin is a 100% chance of death, not 20%. COVID-19 is what somewhere between 1% and 3% of diagnosed individuals? Some people who don't have the virus at all are demanding this medicine as a preventative measure, even though there isn't even any anecdotal evidence that it prevents infection. Why this medicine vs. other medicines that have shown at least some promise? What if hydroxychloroquine is used massively and found to be ineffective while another medicine is ignored and found to be very effective?

I am not trying to say that people should be prevented from using this medicine if they want to. What I am trying to say is that until this medicine is proven, it shouldn't be touted as "the cure" by anyone. I am not calling out the President or trying to say anything at all about him. I would say the same thing no matter who the person saying this is. I care very little about the politics. I am just looking at things scientifically.

LOL, I wasn’t saying Type 1 Diabetes had a 20% death rate pre-insulin. I was stating the death rate for those with COVID-19 who end up in the hospital. Nothing I am stating here has anything to do with the President.

Like I said, had you been around when insulin was invented, you would have declined it until full clinical trials had finished. Fine. All I’m saying is for people in bad condition with COVID-19, with a long standing drug whose side effects are known, who gives a crap if some of them want to try it? We should certainly endeavor to prove the efficacy and safety of it so we know. But in the meantime, this should be no big deal.

 

[RonJohn]

That is definitely a valid point, and it gives all the more reason for the media to stay out of it and just report facts, and not their personal opinions, regardless of which side they might be on.

And what I have been at least trying to say all along, this is a matter of science. The President's beliefs. The Democrat's reactions to his beliefs. The press either backing his beliefs of belittling his beliefs. None of that has anything to do with science. A person's political beliefs or associations don't have anything to do with whether this medicine works or not. I hope this medicine or another medicine do prove effective. My political beliefs won't affect it either way. I do not understand how or why it is a political issue with one political side touting how effective it is and the other side portraying how ineffective it is. Science will prove it one way or the other no matter what politicians and news organizations do or say. I am not going to take a stance on effectiveness or ineffectiveness until actual scientific evidence is available.

 

[Deleted member 2897]

And what I have been at least trying to say all along, this is a matter of science. The President's beliefs. The Democrat's reactions to his beliefs. The press either backing his beliefs of belittling his beliefs. None of that has anything to do with science. A person's political beliefs or associations don't have anything to do with whether this medicine works or not. I hope this medicine or another medicine do prove effective. My political beliefs won't affect it either way. I do not understand how or why it is a political issue with one political side touting how effective it is and the other side portraying how ineffective it is. Science will prove it one way or the other no matter what politicians and news organizations do or say. I am not going to take a stance on effectiveness or ineffectiveness until actual scientific evidence is available.

Exactly.

I don’t recall that 1 side touted it as a miracle drug that was proven to work. I believe they said what have we got to lose since the side effects are few and long and well known. And in the meantime let’s do it in a way that will also prove safety and efficacy at the same time. I don’t see any reason why that approach is invalid. I tend to ignore the peanut gallery, because they lie from when the sun comes up until the sun goes down to try and score political points. I prefer to stick to the science and common sense.

 

[MWBATL]

I’ve seen this a few times. Basically anything short of gunshot deaths or stabbing, this is going on.

So, you mean to tell me that we are OVER-counting deaths from covid-19?????

 

[GT_EE78]

What part of my reply conflicted with that? Did I say that it doesn't work? Did I say that I believe it doesn't work? If you think that is what I am saying, you aren't paying very much attention to what I am actually writing.

Your new shark bite suit is lookin real good RonJohn. They want you to jump into this pool of sharks, and you tell us if it hurts when they bite you.
Since the test is randomized, you won't know whether or not YOUR shark bite suit is a placebo. That OK?

 

[RonJohn]

Your new shark bite suit is lookin real good RonJohn. They want you to jump into this pool of sharks, and you tell us if it hurts when they bite you.
Since the test is randomized, you won't know whether or not YOUR shark bite suit is a placebo. That OK?

You are writing as if this medicine is 100% proven to be effective. There are other medicines being tested. What if this one is not effective, but another one is. Are you responsible for killing someone by giving them this medicine instead of the effective one?

You have posted many articles touting: someone who never was in the hospital saying this medicine brought her back from the brink of death: a doctor who says that this medicine cures everyone who didn't leave the study, get worse, or die: etc. How do you know for certain that this medicine isn't a placebo with respect to COVID-19.

I am not against this medicine. I am simply trying to suggest moderation in the belief in this medicine. You are treating this as a political issue instead of a science issue. I am not arguing for or against any person or political group. I am not going to let any personal, political, or religious beliefs skew my understanding of science. I will simply look at scientific evidence and see what it points to.

 

[Deleted member 2897]

Peanut Gallery 1: “Invoke the DPA!”
Peanut Gallery 2: “Be careful what you wish for.”
Peanut Gallery 1: “Invoke the DPA!”
FEMA: “Hold my beer.”

https://www.yahoo.com/news/hospitals-feds-seizing-masks-other-210748808.html