I love how people are finally calling out BS and propaganda from the #MSM and noticing how much we are overreacting to the #Coronavirus.
@realcaseyrollins How is this an overreaction? With a 1% fatality rate - which would probably be higher for the USA, since obesity and diabetes put you at higher risk - the casualties in the US will be in the millions. Is saving 2 million+ lives not worth the shutdown?
@dave We already have highly effective treatments for the #Coronavirus, so there should be far fewer deaths from it. There's no reason why treatment should be withheld from those sick with the #Coronavirus.
(Unfortunately #NewYork is doing their best to limit the spread of the treatment, but they can only do so for so long.)
@realcaseyrollins Bro, you're watching too much Blaze. We have possible treatments that *may* help with this virus, but nothing that has been shown to be both safe and effective yet. Everything is still in the trial stages.
@dave 100% of 699 patients experiencing zero respiratory symptoms 4-6 hours after treatment isn't good enough for you?
@realcaseyrollins It isn't when I google "100% of 699 patients" and one of the first things I get is a Snopes link.
https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/zelenko-669-coronavirus-patients/
@dave That appears valid upon first glance.
I wonder what Snopes has to say about this:
One is a one page blurb claiming that 100 patients in China were given the drug and some of them saw a reduction in symptoms, not a cure.
The second one tested no actual patients, and instead ran "simulations" to come up with a recommended dosage for a slightly different drug, hydroxychloroquine, claiming that the same chloroquine mentioned in the 1st study had limited effectiveness.
I stand by what I said before. We have some treatments that *may* help with the coronavirus, but nothing that has been shown to be both safe and effective yet. Everything is still in the trial stages.
@dave I stand by what I said as well. I never said we have a cure. We have treatments that are highly effective. I linked to studies showing them to be safe and effective. (There's actually another one being conducted as we speak, to see if Cloroquine can prevent the #Coronavirus: https://depts.washington.edu/covid19pep/)
Now, perhaps there are studies pointing to Cloroquine's inefficacy that I'm unaware of...
A one-page blurb isn't a study, dude. That's just credibility laundering. What was the dosage? And was it the same dosage for all patients, or did they try different dosages and see differing results? What were the differences in response vs. the stage of the infection when the treatment was started? How significant was the reduction in symptoms mentioned among the patients who did see a reduction in symptoms? Try reading the "study" and answering any of these questions. You can't, because it has no actual data.
As for the 3rd link you've provided, it says this in the first paragraph:
"At this time, there are no vaccines or treatments for COVID-19. However, there are many ongoing clinical trials evaluating potential treatments, including this study."
"Based on PBPK models results, a loading dose of 400 mg twice daily of hydroxychloroquine sulfate given orally, followed by a maintenance dose of 200 mg given twice daily for 4 days is recommended for SARS-CoV-2 infection, as it reached three times the potency of chloroquine phosphate when given 500 mg twice daily 5 days in advance."
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32150618?mod=article_inline
The Chinese study doesn't mention a recommended dosage.
And that quote you grabbed is patently false. Oh well, you can't expect everyone to get everything right.
That's the point. The first one claimed clinical improvement with a small sample size and provided no data. The 2nd study has no clinical data, only simulated data, and is recommending a different drug.
Hence the term "potential treatments". Chloroquine *may* have potential to help, but to say that it has been "shown to be highly effective" is an exaggeration of the evidence. The alternative is that you have a better grasp of the situation than every Western government, all of whom have paid medical experts advising them, and none of whom are giving out this medication en masse to the best of my knowledge.
@dave How is it "potential"? It's being used rn: https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2020/03/24/ny_gov_andrew_cuomo_announces_state_will_try_drug_combination_trump_has_been_talking_about.html
And Gov. Cuomo claims that "the New York State Department of Health has been working on this with some of New York's best health care agencies and we think it shows promise."
"It’s only a trial, it’s a trial for people who are in serious condition, but the New York State Department of Health has been working on this with some of New York’s best health care agencies and we think it shows promise and we’re going to be starting that this week."
@dave Ah, I see. On this point I agree with you.
While there are treatments out there, and I think they have been demonstrated to be effective, they have not been exactly proven enough to the point where it can be said "yeah, take this and it'll heal your ailment, guaranteed". Too few people have been included in these studies.
I had thought when you said "potential", you were saying that no one knows what to do as far as treatments are concerned. We do have an idea now, but it isn't very precise.
