You don't read what I'm saying half the time. I never said hydroxy should be used as a prophylaxis, I never said it should be used on hospitalized patients (especially ICU patients). I said it works (especially when combined with a few other things like zinc) on the onset of infection / early infection (1st symptoms). Nothing anyone has posted has shown proof of that not being true. I have no conflict of interests or agendas; if anything I'd want to prove it doesn't work because I don't like Trump. When I do research to find out things, I'm not typing in "coronavirus + hydroxychloroquine + good/effective/whatnot (or vice verse)", I type in nothing but "coronavirus + hydroxychloroquine". I don't want biased results and I'm not just going to look at the 1st couple results (cuz they biased). Then, I actually listen to doctors explaining some of the studies and their opinion on how good/bad the study was because I'm not in the medical field and some of the terminology they know and I don't.You do realize that when Doctors and nurses actually used HCQ in an attempt to prevent COVID-19, it didn't work don't you?
The malaria drug hydroxychloroquine -- which President Trump said he took in the hope of warding off Covid-19 -- was found not to prevent infections among volunteers in a study released on Wednesday.www.cnn.com
2nd and 3rd world studies do not hold as much weight because they are often known to lie for profit. You may want to brush up on your history of pharmaceuticals bribing physicians to write good things about them, even when they are not true. The history of pharmaceuticals doing their trials in 2nd and 3rd world nations is pretty bad when you actually look into it. Who does the study, when and where matter here. Often studies are done just to make a profit, and India pharmaceuticals have been making a killing off this. Bribes are cheaper in 2nd and 3rd world nations. They still do bribe western doctors, just the reality is they have to pay them a hell of a lot more.
Years back I actually went into detail about pharma bribing physicians and adding it to the price of the medications, it is really sick tbh when you look at what is really happening here.
I know there's a lot of shit in BigPharma on a general basis, you may/probably know more details. Hydroxy isn't BigPharma though, it's a generic, there's far more money to be made off stuff like remdesiver and the vaccines being developed than hydroxy. I wouldn't be surprised if Gilead has already made more revenue off remdesivir than the companies producing hydroxy have (during the pandemic). A 5-day dosage of remdesivir cost over $3,000 and that's via the "wholesale" price, hydroxy is less than dollar a pill and there's far more data on hydroxy than remdesivir. I'm well aware doctors are heavily influenced from BigPharma and usually prescribe what they're told/guidelines say (influenced by lobbyists) vs doing their own outside research into studies and everything. Also, there's more money to be made when a patient is hospitalized vs outpatient so finding something cheap that works as outpatient treatment is pretty much not making any money. There's plenty of documented cases in the past where unequivocally dangerous things were allowed to continue due to corporate money.
In the US, there's ads for drugs that don't even say what they do and just to ask your doctor about because all the happy people in the commercial basically.Do they have prescription medication commercials on television in Sweden? They do here, so now we have tons of patients coming in demanding medications that will not even help them because they " think" they need it now because they see it on TV
The Youtube videos I posted have links to the trials/studies/papers/whatnot that you can read if you don't want to watch the video. The videos are much more digestible to people not in the medical field or specialization needed to fully get the papers on their own, which is the vast majority of people on a gaming forum. That's why I post them. Literally the whole point of learning anything is someone teaching you about the stuff you don't know in a way that is understandable at your current knowledge level.I initially started out trying to discuss the actual data with him, but after he told me how he didn't understand it in the first place pages back and told me that he didn't need to understand the data and started posting youtube videos as rebuttals, I am not wasting my time as he isn't even presenting a legitimate discussion in the first place.
You've yet to post any non-cherry-picked data whatsoever stating hydroxy doesn't produce at least somewhat effective results in people with early infection of the coronavirus. Here's literally ALL THE STUDIES. Not a single early treatment study of hydroxy has a negative result. Since you're such an "expert", why don't you go into detail on what hydroxy actually does in the body and explain why it wouldn't work against the coronavirus? Because doctors that do know what it does in the body make arguments that make sense as to why it would work.
All of those studies are on hospitalized patients. As you know, I'm not an expert or anything. Isn't it good to usually catch most things early on for various reasons? Why does taking remdesivir for 5 days have better results than 10 days? Just throwing stuff out here that I feel makes logical sense... If hydroxy helps slow down the infection, wouldn't it be buying the immune system time to "figure it out" and develop the proper antibodies? Say if the virus infects 10 cells a day early on (I know the number is super low but just doing it for simplicity) and hydroxy lowers that by even say 20%, isn't that far more effective than when the virus is infecting 100 cells a day and in the lungs already and different parts of the body?Snip
I don't care about appearing right, I care about what is objectively right. I was against hydroxy early on if you wanna go through my posts.Then we have nothing further to discuss. If you're not willing to engage with the ethics and are only concerned with appearing right, then you're not going to listen to anybody telling you what you don't want to hear.