COVID Pandemic Exposes the Ugly Secrets Hidden in America’s Healthcare System

This forum made possible through the generous support of SDN members, donors, and sponsors. Thank you.
The other is arrhythmia caused by QT prolongation. But it could affect only around 0.01% of the population who has QT prolongation. Even for them, the risk is reduced by 50% if you substitute AZM with some other antibiotic like Doxycycline.

QT prolongation isn't just an issue for those with congenital long QT syndrome.

Members don't see this ad.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 users
Yes sir, I am not a doctor but not a complete idiot either. But the doctors who have prescribed HCQ for 42, 47 years testify that none of their patients had any serious side effects or heart issues. What is your response? Are they liars? WHO says that they did not find any evidence of patients having adverse events after examining hundreds of millions of HCQ prescriptions. Are they lying? How many of your patients had heart issues because of HCQ? If not many, why don’t you follow what you are doing now before prescribing HCQ before prescribing to Covid patients instead of blocking it completely.

I just have a few questions for you.

1.Have you ever prescribed any medicine to any of your patients THAT ARE NOT COMPLETELY BENIGN?

2.Is the terrible stomach upset worse than a possible death

3. you are saying that HCQ is causing rare life threatening cardiac events. Why don’t you quantify? What is the percentage of people it affects? What is the preexisting condition that enable it? Is there a way to identify and isolate them from prescribing HCQ instead of blocking for everyone stupidly ?

4. you are saying that there is no good evidence that HCQ helps with Covid. What is your response to those doctors who claim that it has helped thousands if administered early? Are they liars?

5. do you believe that Zinc can stop or slow down virus replication ? Do you believe that HCQ is a zinc ionophore? Do you believe that an antibiotic will help clearing residual infection. If your answer is YES, why don’t you believe that the cocktail might help if administered early? If your answer is NO, then I am a better qualified doctor than you.

Thank you sir. Please answer my questions directly. No sidestepping !!!

I don’t have time to have a lengthy response but to directly answer some of your questions:

1. Yes, this is a “safe” drug if you have experience prescribing it, know the contraindications and check carefully for contraindications (the way it’s been done for the last 70 years). Not so sure if you just prescribe it Willy-nilly with no prior experience of the drug or an attitude it’s harmless.

2. Yes, even with experience there are rare bad outcomes. Yes, I have seen them myself. Yes WHO and anyone else is lying if they ever said this is zero out of millions (which I don’t think is actually true - provide the direct source of so).

3. There are plenty of doctors that don’t practice evidence based medicine. That’s on them.

Again, if there was a good RCT that showed a decent positive effect I’d be the first one advocating for it. But there is not.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
I’m an IM resident. Why does type of doctor matter? Sb pointed out the problem above with epipens. If you only make 7.25 an hour it’s time to garner some skills that increase your pay no? I think we have different viewpoints on what is/ isn’t proper government intervention. I am and always will be against socialized healthcare unless someone 1. Holds people who abuse the system accountable 2. Allows a parallel private system.

Not everyone is going to be able to afford the best healthcare. That’s just how it is just as not everyone can buy a Lexus. And yes, most patients are where they are due to poor life choices.
I think those who can afford better education and better roads should able to purchase/buy their own on top of what the government provides. Those are adequate government functions.
If you feel sorry for ole Betty and her 2 packs of smokes not being to afford her meds then give her some cash. Stop trying to reach into other people’s pockets.

I asked what type of doctor you are because I originally responded to your post because you asked if patients really can't afford medical care at times. So I was thinking maybe you are a pathologist or a doctor who doesn't have to speak to patients regularly or find out information about their lives or order meds & imagining that are often too expensive for people to afford. You said "most of the meds aren't that expensive," which isn't always the case, so someone who is a pathologist likely hasn't faced getting a call from the pharmacist or patient letting you know that X medication is going to be $300/month. Or maybe you work in an area where patients don't face obstacles that a lot of my patients do in an underserved area, therefore I responded to let you know that yes patients do have difficulty affording medical care on a daily basis. I think it absolutely matters what type of doctor one is in regards to how/when/why we interact with patients and our viewpoint.

I never mentioned anything about "socialized healthcare" I was just responding to the fact that yes medication can be expensive for people. Some people's insurance premiums for a family of 3 are over $1,000/month. That is a lot of money to me, I certainly couldn't afford that on a resident salary (the median household income in the US is approx 60k) and I would have difficulty affording that now while paying back my student loans and saving for retirement. Would you be able to afford to pay $1,000/month for health insurance right now? I called to find out how much COBRA would cost for my insurance in between residency and getting a new job and it was $615. So since I had to wait about 10 weeks before I started my new job and was eligible for new insurance I simply went without. I'm very thankful that I didn't have any major medical problems at the time and that I could afford $70/month for my medication. $615 is a lot of money to me.

So you can certainly not be a proponent of universal healthcare, but to say that medical care in this country is affordable and that "most meds aren't that expensive" for the vast majority of Americans is not the reality of the situation.
 
Members don't see this ad :)
I asked what type of doctor you are because I originally responded to your post because you asked if patients really can't afford medical care at times. So I was thinking maybe you are a pathologist or a doctor who doesn't have to speak to patients regularly or find out information about their lives or order meds & imagining that are often too expensive for people to afford. You said "most of the meds aren't that expensive," which isn't always the case, so someone who is a pathologist likely hasn't faced getting a call from the pharmacist or patient letting you know that X medication is going to be $300/month. Or maybe you work in an area where patients don't face obstacles that a lot of my patients do in an underserved area, therefore I responded to let you know that yes patients do have difficulty affording medical care on a daily basis. I think it absolutely matters what type of doctor one is in regards to how/when/why we interact with patients and our viewpoint.

I never mentioned anything about "socialized healthcare" I was just responding to the fact that yes medication can be expensive for people. Some people's insurance premiums for a family of 3 are over $1,000/month. That is a lot of money to me, I certainly couldn't afford that on a resident salary (the median household income in the US is approx 60k) and I would have difficulty affording that now while paying back my student loans and saving for retirement. Would you be able to afford to pay $1,000/month for health insurance right now? I called to find out how much COBRA would cost for my insurance in between residency and getting a new job and it was $615. So since I had to wait about 10 weeks before I started my new job and was eligible for new insurance I simply went without. I'm very thankful that I didn't have any major medical problems at the time and that I could afford $70/month for my medication. $615 is a lot of money to me.

So you can certainly not be a proponent of universal healthcare, but to say that medical care in this country is affordable and that "most meds aren't that expensive" for the vast majority of Americans is not the reality of the situation.
Insurance isn’t care, insurance is very expensive

basic medical care actually is pretty cheap as are basic medications
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
I asked what type of doctor you are because I originally responded to your post because you asked if patients really can't afford medical care at times. So I was thinking maybe you are a pathologist or a doctor who doesn't have to speak to patients regularly or find out information about their lives or order meds & imagining that are often too expensive for people to afford. You said "most of the meds aren't that expensive," which isn't always the case, so someone who is a pathologist likely hasn't faced getting a call from the pharmacist or patient letting you know that X medication is going to be $300/month. Or maybe you work in an area where patients don't face obstacles that a lot of my patients do in an underserved area, therefore I responded to let you know that yes patients do have difficulty affording medical care on a daily basis. I think it absolutely matters what type of doctor one is in regards to how/when/why we interact with patients and our viewpoint.

I never mentioned anything about "socialized healthcare" I was just responding to the fact that yes medication can be expensive for people. Some people's insurance premiums for a family of 3 are over $1,000/month. That is a lot of money to me, I certainly couldn't afford that on a resident salary (the median household income in the US is approx 60k) and I would have difficulty affording that now while paying back my student loans and saving for retirement. Would you be able to afford to pay $1,000/month for health insurance right now? I called to find out how much COBRA would cost for my insurance in between residency and getting a new job and it was $615. So since I had to wait about 10 weeks before I started my new job and was eligible for new insurance I simply went without. I'm very thankful that I didn't have any major medical problems at the time and that I could afford $70/month for my medication. $615 is a lot of money to me.

So you can certainly not be a proponent of universal healthcare, but to say that medical care in this country is affordable and that "most meds aren't that expensive" for the vast majority of Americans is not the reality of the situation.

Most meds are fairly cheap, they just don't get media attention. If we want only cheap drugs then don't expect pharm companies to make anything new/good. Also we need to stop subsidizing other countries medicine prices. If its made in America they should pay the same we do for it. If they can't afford it tough luck get a better government.

I could afford that 1k plan on my residency salary, I am pretty frugal. My bills are around 2k a month for static expenses, so yeah I could live on the salary of most jobs (most places pay more than minimum wage FYI)


It is common knowledge that a majority of healthcare costs come from bad livestyle choices, so I am probably not going to be enthused to have to subsidize ole betty and her recurrent copd exacerbations just bc she won't quit smoking. Yeah, her inhalers are expensive. That sucks for her. That is her fault, she dug her own grave. Dont touch my tax dollars. Now if Ms. Frank comes in and has MS and her bills are like 5k per month for her MS meds. Sure, take some of my tax money, she had no say in this.
 
Last edited:
Most meds are fairly cheap, they just don't get media attention. If we want only cheap drugs then don't expect pharm companies to make anything new/good. Also we need to stop subsidizing other countries medicine prices. If its made in America they should pay the same we do for it. If they can't afford it tough luck get a better government.

I could afford that 1k plan on my residency salary, I am pretty frugal. My bills are around 2k a month for static expenses, so yeah I could live on the salary of most jobs (most places pay more than minimum wage FYI)


It is common knowledge that a majority of healthcare costs come from bad livestyle choices, so I am probably not going to be enthused to have to subsidize ole betty and her recurrent copd exacerbations just bc she won't quit smoking. Yeah, her inhalers are expensive. That sucks for her. That is her fault, she dug her own grave. Dont touch my tax dollars. Now if Ms. Frank comes in and has MS and her bills are like 5k per month for her MS meds. Sure, take some of my tax money, she had no say in this.

Ok, we’ll have to agree to disagree about healthcare costs in this country. $1,000/month for insurance for a family of 3 is not affordable for many people. And again that’s just the premium, not the copays, deductibles, etc. There’s a reason that medical bills are a top reason for bankruptcy in this country. It sounds like you’ve never had a medical emergency but many people are just 1 medical emergency away from wiping out their savings, going far in to debt or having to declare bankruptcy. It’s great that you have thousands saved if you all of a sudden got a cancer diagnosis, chronic illness, needed your gallbladder removed, had a bike or car accident, etc, but one should be able to recognize that 5 and 6 figure bills for healthcare aren’t affordable for many. I don’t wish harm on anyone or their family, but I do wonder if one were to end up with a $50,000 bill after a medical emergency or face a new chronic illness diagnosis like MS, type 1 DM, etc and not be able to afford their medication or treatment they’d at least get it and have empathy for others and recognize healthcare costs are expensive here.

Below is a decent article about medications and the false narrative that medication prices must be so high in order for research to continue. I mean even millionaire trump at least recognized that drug prices are too high in this country.

 
I don’t disagree that certain parts are too high. Government intervention (patent laws) are the reason or the main reason for high drug costs according to that article. Do we want more government intervention? They are also still cherry picking the drugs. MOST drugs are not exceedingly expensive.
Drug companies are in the profit making business, that’s part of a free country. What would be best for us? I don’t know, but the government itself seems to not be able to get anything done so why would we want more of it?



I’ll agree to say the system isn’t perfect, but when it comes to people not having enough money saved? The millionaire next door is a good read. People lack personal responsibility and no amount of government can fix that

I also did state that a fund for those who acquire a disease from little or no control of their own may be a good idea, I do have empathy for them, but they are a minority. This is something the government *may* be able to handle. Again, nearly all healthcare costs are due to lack of personal responsibility. Something my tax dollars I’ll never agree to fund. But sensational news articles never focus on those. The masses want someone to blame besides themself.

We should talk more about ole billy jo the crack ho and how his recurrent admissions cost hospital and government a fortune and we are charged higher prices to subsidize his care. Wait. He’s back again with a nice spider bite. Brb gotta go do this free I and D while getting cussed out. Wonder how much an oil change on my truck would be if I had to subsidize others?
 
Last edited:
Drug prices can remain high for pretty much 1 reason- a convoluted system where costs are hidden and paid by “others.”

If we setup a system where every single drug had to be paid for 5% flat by the patient (no rebates or coupons which exist solely to jack up total prices and further “hide” the cost from the end user) published widely, cannot be more expensive for X hospital vs Y hospital (or country) - I GUARANTEE prices (and disgusting profit margins) would plummet overnight.

we’d be way better off. But simple solutionslike that willnever happen because of both lobbying and the stupidity of the American people.

Americans are too stupid to realize that drug rebates (plus the the liberal view the poor can’t possibly be made to have some “skin in the game” for healthcare expenditures) is the DIRECT reason why premiums are 1000 dollars a month instead of 300.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Drug prices can remain high for pretty much 1 reason- a convoluted system where costs are hidden and paid by “others.”

If we setup a system where every single drug had to be paid for 5% flat by the patient (no rebates or coupons which exist solely to jack up total prices and further “hide” the cost from the end user) published widely, cannot be more expensive for X hospital vs Y hospital (or country) - I GUARANTEE prices (and disgusting profit margins) would plummet overnight.

we’d be way better off. But simple solutionslike that willnever happen because of both lobbying and the stupidity of the American people.

I was watching a doc on YouTube goes by reimbursementrx complaining out price transparency. I think that’s something everyone would agree on. He explains it very well.

And yes what a terrible idea that everyone have skin in the game. Such an afterthought of the evil rich in this country!!!! Since having money correlates negatively with how good of a person you are. :-(
 
Last edited:
Did you go through the video? He is a doctor just like you. What is your answer?

First of all, he's a PhD. Not a physician. So he is a doctor, but not a doctor "like us". That said, he's clearly smart and the video isn't completely wrong.

The first part of the video looks at anecdotal evidence -- for example, that Costa Rica is "using" hydroxychloroquine and their death rate is lower. But we have no idea how much they are using, or if that data is accurate. So this is "interesting", but it's not good enough.

He then goes through the VA study. His conclusions are not unreasonable. HC seemed to increase death rates, but was given to sicker patients. Perhaps sicker patients are more susceptible to cardiotoxicity. When looking at less sick patients (those who got HC prior to being put on the ventilator), there was no difference -- so no clear evidence that it worked, but also no evidence that it harmed. But the number of patients was very small. So interesting, but can't really base decisions off it. (Interestingly, right at 17:00 he misunderstands a statement in the paper about RCT's. He's wrong there, they are not claiming their study is an RCT. They are stating that the concerns they found suggest we should wait for other RCT's before proceeding. He gets back to this around 28:00 - the problems with a non-randomized retrospective study.) I do agree that the press made a bigger deal of this than they should - it's not great data, but doing a retrospective review is often the first step.

He then goes on talking about measuring zinc blood levels. This is where I'm going to take exception. There's no medical evidence that measuring zinc levels is of any use, except perhaps in diagnosing Zn deficiency (and even in that case there is quite a bit of controversy). The evidence that HC has anything to do with Zinc is thin at best. Here's a recent article from Nature, which is one of the best basic science journals around, all about HC and how it works, and Zinc isn't mentioned. At all. This whole theory of Zinc and HC fighting off viruses is not based in any clear science that I can see.

After that, he goes completely down the naturopath discussion, looking at blood selenium levels, etc. There is no science around any of this.

Which brings us to the Lancet study, quoted above, but here's the link for it again: https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(20)31180-6/fulltext

This, again, is a retrospective study. It is not randomized, so has the same problem -- there may be bias in the study, since the patients who got HC might be more, or less, sick than those who did not. Physicians might feel pressured to "do something" if the patient was more ill. Still, this Lancet study has some big advantages over the VA study. First, it's huge. 90K patients, 600+ hospitals -- that gives you a much broader patient base, and makes the study much less susceptible to a random fluctuation at a single site. Second, they only included patients who started treatment within 48 hours of diagnosis and before they were on a ventilator -- so this is like that table in the video from the VA study that showed "no difference". And the UK was (relatively) pro-HC treatment, so many patients were treated early in their disease.

Unfortunately, the Lancet study has the same problem as the VA study. If you look at the data tables, the need for mechanical ventilation in the control group was 9-10%, and in the HC/C groups was 25%. This is a problem. One explanation is that treatment with HC markedly worsened patients such that they needed mechanical ventilation. Another is that physicians gave the drug to patients who appeared more ill, hence ended up on the ventilator more, and hence died more. This is the problem with non-randomized studies -- we can't be sure which is "right" (or if there's some other explanation).

Even with all that, the evidence for HC+Zn+Azithro is poor or non-existent. The best we can say at this point is "we don't know". I am very worried about the increased cardiotoxicity seen in the Lancet study, there appeared to be many more arrhythmic deaths which would not be expected even if the patients were just "more ill", and marked QT prolongation seen. Your suggestion that this is only a problem for people with underlying QT problems is incorrect. Your suggestion that lots of doctors say "my patients on HC do fine" is also hard to interpret -- if a patient dies, it's impossible as a single physician to know if a drug they were on caused it. That's why we need studies to look at this. You also mention that Azithro is needed as part of the treatment to "treat any lingering infection" which doesn't really make sense -- Azithro is an antibiotic, treats bacterial infections. This is a virus infection. (Azithro may have some anti-inflammatory effects, although this remains somewhat controversial). Antibiotics definitely cause C Diff infections, so there is real harm to using them when not needed.

You also mentioned that short courses of HC might be safe. HC has a very long half-life, so once you take it, it remains in your body for weeks. There are lots of case reports of toxicity from HC pre-COVID. I can't find a big study looking at it -- but that's probably because we just don't use it all that much any more, and because it would be very difficult to find a good comparison group (ie identical patients not on HC). The one thing the Lancet study is reasonable convincing of is cardiotoxicity of HC (IMHO).

I doubt any of this will change your mind. There's lots of stuff out there on the internet that looks believable, but isn't true. Flat Earth is a great example -- there are lots of videos "proving" the earth is flat using math, physics, videos, pictures, etc. They seem believable -- in fact I find them fun to watch because they try so hard to be real. Yet the earth is in fact round.

The same is true here. There is no good evidence that HC + Zn + Azithro works for COVID. There is some retrospective data that suggests it doesn't, and suggests harm, but has limitations that prevent us from forming any clear opinion. Ongoing randomized trials will hopefully answer the question more fully. The use of Zinc for virus infections is largely unproven, and given studies that have been done will likely have no effect or a very small effect. Touting it as some miraculous cure for COVID that's being hidden is hard to believe given the data we have.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 5 users
Why don’t you pay for and have your own police? Why do you expect others to pay for your protection? I thought you were a libertarian.

The monopolization of the police/military power by government has been occurring for the last 500 years.... we really can't have private armies and police forces running wild across the country
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
I heard some bad things about how they handle the positive covid patients. I just hope everything will be better soon
 
I heard some bad things about how they handle the positive covid patients. I just hope everything will be better soon
Who is “they” and how are “they” handling patients in appropriately?
 
Members don't see this ad :)
Not that I ever had any hope. But this FDA decision is a solid proof that the USA is not going to have any intention ever of doing or inventing anything that benefits HUMANITY. THERE WILL BE NO CURE FOR ANYTHING, ESPECIALLY FOR THE CASH COWS LIKE DIABETES, CANCER etc. The world has to look up to Europe from now onwards.

FDA pulls emergency use authorization of hydroxychloroquine

“In light of ongoing serious cardiac adverse events and other serious side effects “

These geniuses whine about so called dangerous side effects of HCQ. But I couldn’t find anything in their studies or anywhere else for that matter that talk about the dosage, the duration of treatment, HOW MANY PEOPLE WHO ACTUALLY DEVELOPED HEART ISSUES, whether those health issues caused by HCQ or by other health conditions etc. BECAUSE ALL OF THEM ARE LYING COWARDS. we should not ask any questions, just suck up whatever they vomit and lick their feet. Alas, there are millions ready to do just that.

BUT, those taking HCQ for 20, 30 , 40 years for RA, Lupus and those nursing mothers, babies, old people who need it for malaria, PLEASE DO NOT DESPAIR. HCQ is absolutely is safe for all of you , you can take it for 40, 50 years. IT ONLY BECOMES SO DANGEROUS TO TAKE IT FOR JUST 5 or 6 DAYS, IF YOU CONTRACT COVID 19. If you get Covid 19, there is a cheap, 100% effective cure is available. It is called Remdesivir and it is the Gods’ preferred standard treatment for Covid 19. IT WILL ONLY AFFECT YOUR LIVER FOR SURE, but IT IS ACCEPTABLE and that’s why none of the FDA/CDC geniuses speak anything about it.
 
In Apr 2020, I had a conversation with my PCP and asked him about his stand on HCQ. He said he had given it to all his patients who contracted Covid 19 (five of them). Last week I had fever for a few days. He asked to me test myself for Covid 19 because I developed shortness of breath (caused by allergy, not Covid, I found out later). I asked him if he would prescribe me HCQ if I tested positive for Covid. He said NO, explaining that FDA says that IT IS EXTREMELY DANGEROUS. I asked him how it was safe until a few weeks ago. He was silent. This is how FDA pushes their agenda,
 
You are quite delusional

Delusional ... huh ? Lol.

There are at least 100 doctors have said that IF YOU ADMINISTER HCQ+Zinc+Antibiotic EARLY IMMEDIATELY AFTER DIAGNOSIS, IT HELPS PREVENT VIRUS REPLICATION, thereby quicker recovery and reduced hospitalization and deaths.

it is too late to administer the cocktail if the person is already hospitalized, because by them the virus replication would have been complete and the organs would have been damaged. I don’t understand why the medical community is SO OBTUSE NOT TO UNDERSTAND THIS TRIVIAL KNOWLEDGE.

But still people see good success even with hospitalized patients IF ZINC IS ADDED.

 
You are quite delusional

the following is from yahoo comments board .....

I have a cousin in Vermont who drives to Canada to get HCQ for her leg cramps. The actual reason it's difficult to get in the states is because some years ago a company patented a drug for leg cramps that costs $40 per pill. HCQ cost $10 a bottle. The company paid off the FDA to remove the approved usage of cramp mitigation leaving only malaria. It was to force you to buy a $40 pill instead of a $.05 pill. They didn't bother in Canada because all pharmaceuticals are bulk purchased by the provincial health plans (national health) so they couldn't get away with the gouging. Thats why cramps are still an approved use in Canada. They need an excuse to make it not available for Covid and thats the excuse. It will be same scam with outrageously expensive patented drugs here in the US. Those companies are trying to demonize HCQ everywhere, hence the push to marginalize it. Just the usual corruption.
 
Delusional ... huh ? Lol.

There are at least 100 doctors have said that IF YOU ADMINISTER HCQ+Zinc+Antibiotic EARLY IMMEDIATELY AFTER DIAGNOSIS, IT HELPS PREVENT VIRUS REPLICATION, thereby quicker recovery and reduced hospitalization and deaths.

it is too late to administer the cocktail if the person is already hospitalized, because by them the virus replication would have been complete and the organs would have been damaged. I don’t understand why the medical community is SO OBTUSE NOT TO UNDERSTAND THIS TRIVIAL KNOWLEDGE.

But still people see good success even with hospitalized patients IF ZINC IS ADDED.

Did you actually read the study that news article references?

The mortality benefit only applies to non-ICU patients AND only those who were discharged prior to March 20th.

If an arbitrary date makes your data not statistically significant, it's probably not good data.

Beyond that, no one cares what any number of doctors say unless they have data to back it up. The data about this drug cocktail is mixed at best.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 users
the following is from yahoo comments board .....

I have a cousin in Vermont who drives to Canada to get HCQ for her leg cramps. The actual reason it's difficult to get in the states is because some years ago a company patented a drug for leg cramps that costs $40 per pill. HCQ cost $10 a bottle. The company paid off the FDA to remove the approved usage of cramp mitigation leaving only malaria. It was to force you to buy a $40 pill instead of a $.05 pill. They didn't bother in Canada because all pharmaceuticals are bulk purchased by the provincial health plans (national health) so they couldn't get away with the gouging. Thats why cramps are still an approved use in Canada. They need an excuse to make it not available for Covid and thats the excuse. It will be same scam with outrageously expensive patented drugs here in the US. Those companies are trying to demonize HCQ everywhere, hence the push to marginalize it. Just the usual corruption.
Are you honestly using the Yahoo comments section to argue a point?

Beyond even that, I don't think you understand what an FDA indication means. I can't speak for other countries, but physicians here prescribe things that aren't for FDA approved indications all the time. I do it on at least a daily basis. It's called off-label prescribing. Astoundingly common practice.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 users
Not that I ever had any hope. But this FDA decision is a solid proof that the USA is not going to have any intention ever of doing or inventing anything that benefits HUMANITY. THERE WILL BE NO CURE FOR ANYTHING, ESPECIALLY FOR THE CASH COWS LIKE DIABETES, CANCER etc. The world has to look up to Europe from now onwards.

FDA pulls emergency use authorization of hydroxychloroquine

“In light of ongoing serious cardiac adverse events and other serious side effects “

These geniuses whine about so called dangerous side effects of HCQ. But I couldn’t find anything in their studies or anywhere else for that matter that talk about the dosage, the duration of treatment, HOW MANY PEOPLE WHO ACTUALLY DEVELOPED HEART ISSUES, whether those health issues caused by HCQ or by other health conditions etc. BECAUSE ALL OF THEM ARE LYING COWARDS. we should not ask any questions, just suck up whatever they vomit and lick their feet. Alas, there are millions ready to do just that.

BUT, those taking HCQ for 20, 30 , 40 years for RA, Lupus and those nursing mothers, babies, old people who need it for malaria, PLEASE DO NOT DESPAIR. HCQ is absolutely is safe for all of you , you can take it for 40, 50 years. IT ONLY BECOMES SO DANGEROUS TO TAKE IT FOR JUST 5 or 6 DAYS, IF YOU CONTRACT COVID 19. If you get Covid 19, there is a cheap, 100% effective cure is available. It is called Remdesivir and it is the Gods’ preferred standard treatment for Covid 19. IT WILL ONLY AFFECT YOUR LIVER FOR SURE, but IT IS ACCEPTABLE and that’s why none of the FDA/CDC geniuses speak anything about it.
There is good data of a benefit for some conditions. For those you talk to patients about the pros/cons of taking a medicine with risks and let them choose

if there is not good data of benefit, and there is clear data for harm, we usually won’t prescribe. I’m not giving you a dangerous thing that I don’t even think can help. Nope
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 users
THERE WILL BE NO CURE FOR ANYTHING, ESPECIALLY FOR THE CASH COWS LIKE DIABETES

We have a cure for diabetes. It's called cardio and salad. It's an old tonic, but remains quite powerful.
Delusional ... huh ? Lol.

There are at least 100 doctors have said that IF YOU ADMINISTER HCQ+Zinc+Antibiotic EARLY IMMEDIATELY AFTER DIAGNOSIS, IT HELPS PREVENT VIRUS REPLICATION, thereby quicker recovery and reduced hospitalization and deaths.

it is too late to administer the cocktail if the person is already hospitalized, because by them the virus replication would have been complete and the organs would have been damaged. I don’t understand why the medical community is SO OBTUSE NOT TO UNDERSTAND THIS TRIVIAL KNOWLEDGE.

But still people see good success even with hospitalized patients IF ZINC IS ADDED.

the following is from yahoo comments board .....

I have a cousin in Vermont who drives to Canada to get HCQ for her leg cramps. The actual reason it's difficult to get in the states is because some years ago a company patented a drug for leg cramps that costs $40 per pill. HCQ cost $10 a bottle. The company paid off the FDA to remove the approved usage of cramp mitigation leaving only malaria. It was to force you to buy a $40 pill instead of a $.05 pill. They didn't bother in Canada because all pharmaceuticals are bulk purchased by the provincial health plans (national health) so they couldn't get away with the gouging. Thats why cramps are still an approved use in Canada. They need an excuse to make it not available for Covid and thats the excuse. It will be same scam with outrageously expensive patented drugs here in the US. Those companies are trying to demonize HCQ everywhere, hence the push to marginalize it. Just the usual corruption.

Every time I think I've seen it all SDN delivers. Did you seriously just cite DailyMail and Yahoo comments to argue a point and then try to take a victory lap like you made some "gotcha" point?
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Rest of the world is on track to have the coronavirus vaccine by September for $2 a dose.


But, someone from a third world country is concerned about the Americans paying too much for the vaccine. So he is BEGGING the president TO ALLOW HIM to help his citizens. How funny it is? BUT NOTHING WILL CHANGE. Americans will be forced to wait (hundreds of thousands more will die or suffer) at least FOUR more precious months to wait and pay at least $20000 a dose of a vaccine that was discovered USING TAX PAYER MONEY. But we should not complain, BECAUSE WE HAVE THE BEST HEALTHCARE IN THE WORLD. Also, WE HAVE THE BEST STUPIDS AND IDIOTS OF THE WORLD.

 
Rest of the world is on track to have the coronavirus vaccine by September for $2 a dose.


But, someone from a third world country is concerned about the Americans paying too much for the vaccine. So he is BEGGING the president TO ALLOW HIM to help his citizens. How funny it is? BUT NOTHING WILL CHANGE. Americans will be forced to wait (hundreds of thousands more will die or suffer) at least FOUR more precious months to wait and pay at least $20000 a dose of a vaccine that was discovered USING TAX PAYER MONEY. But we should not complain, BECAUSE WE HAVE THE BEST HEALTHCARE IN THE WORLD. Also, WE HAVE THE BEST STUPIDS AND IDIOTS OF THE WORLD.


Lol

If you believe the world is going to have a $2 vaccine to COVID in the next 6 weeks I have some nice beach front property in Wyoming to sell you.
 
Lol

If you believe the world is going to have a $2 vaccine to COVID in the next 6 weeks I have some nice beach front property in Wyoming to sell you.
As a doctor, what is your suggestion for the coronavirus situation rather than sitting around, making one liner irrelevant comments/questions etc? In two years, I never seen you making any useful comments or suggestions!!! That way, I have a lot of respect for “VA Hopeful Dr” even though I disagree with him a lot.
 
As a doctor, what is your suggestion for the coronavirus situation rather than sitting around, making one liner irrelevant comments/questions etc? In two years, I never seen you making any useful comments or suggestions!!! That way, I have a lot of respect for “VA Hopeful Dr” even though I disagree with him a lot.

Honest question, do you seriously believe the rest of the world will have a vaccine in 6 weeks?
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Honest question, do you seriously believe the rest of the world will have a vaccine in 6 weeks?
The article says it was will be available in September which is up to 10 weeks, not 6 weeks. At least they are showing some urgency, caring and optimism. So what if it eventually took 11 or 12 weeks? I appreciate the fact that they are trying their best without salivating about how many billions they can swindle, unlike here where they immediately rejected it because they have to make it available for the public for a very cheap fee or free.
 
The article says it was will be available in September which is up to 10 weeks, not 6 weeks. At least they are showing some urgency, caring and optimism. So what if it eventually took 11 or 12 weeks? I appreciate the fact that they are trying their best without salivating about how many billions they can swindle, unlike here where they immediately rejected it because they have to make it available for the public for a very cheap fee or free.
You are angry that the US is not also promising unicorn wings for everyone. There will not be a mass produced, tested, safe to US standards vaccine in 12 wks
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
The article says it was will be available in September which is up to 10 weeks, not 6 weeks. At least they are showing some urgency, caring and optimism. So what if it eventually took 11 or 12 weeks? I appreciate the fact that they are trying their best without salivating about how many billions they can swindle, unlike here where they immediately rejected it because they have to make it available for the public for a very cheap fee or free.

September 1st is 6 weeks away.... 6-10 weeks is inconsequential on this, neither are going to happen.

It's like you didn't even read the article you posted, they say that their goal is to have one out by the end of the year, and then hedge on that over and over.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
My friends Dunning and Kruger would like to have a word with you....

In all seriousness, it’s honestly not our fault that you don’t understand basic statistical analysis or research design and we aren’t going to alter what is a massively useful skill in data interpretation to satisfy your jaded, myopic view of how the scientific and medical establishments should operate.
It is both illogical and unethical to prescribe something without a very good reason. But yes, let’s rush these drugs and vaccines because a few dudes said “it worked for my patients” when they have no way to know if it truly does work without proper randomization or a control group. For all they know, it could have been that homeopathic remedy the patient’s aunt Karen recommended based on her years of experience as a google researcher and a mushroom hunter as well as her anecdote of “my cough goes away a day later after I take it, so it must work!”

When did I say let’s rush the vaccine? When you lie to make an argument, you don’t really have an argument. Isn’t it? You mean the people in UK don’t follow the procedures to make the vaccine available?

I think you are also referring to my comments about use of HCQ+AZM+Zinc cocktail. I think I have made my points very clear. HCQ has been there for 70 years and no one talked about it’s safety concerns before Covid. Even WHO reviewed the documents related to billions of HCQ prescriptions AND DID NOT FIND EVEN A SINGLE CASE OF PATIENT DEVELOPING HEART ISSUES. But after Covid, in every official trial , HCQ started killing patients within five days of use. I don’t know about you BUT I AM NOT SUCH A STUPID TO BELIEVE THAT.

I don’t think we need a randomized trial with control group WHEN HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS DYING WITHOUT HELP when we have a 70 year old safe medicine as a possible help.

Let me ask you one thing. The HCQ+AZM+Zinc combo started doing the rounds in mid March. Since then do you know how many randomized trials with control groups were conducted in USA (private or public) by administering HCQ+AZM+Zinc combo EARLY AFTER POSITIVE DIAGNOSIS ? A BIG ZERO. I am sure you know why.
 
People of this country thunder at every opportunity that this is the only free country in the entire world that allow free speech !!! Really? Is that why THREE major websites removed a video where a group of doctors claimed that they treated hundreds of Covid patients successfully with HCQ+AZM+Zinc cocktail? I did not see the video. How three major websites removed the video with such effective coordination? Why these people in power are afraid of a single video? If some people want to cut the tongue of somebody, that means they are terrified of What the person might say. Isn’t it?

Before getting into the non sense of “not scientifically proven”, anecdotal, suggestive etc, let’s cut the crap and get to the bottom of it. The doctors claim that they treated patients successfully in public and on camera. Then, why not these cowards who ordered the website owners to remove the video, just ask the doctors for the medical records , interview all the patients AND MAKE EVERYTHING PUBLIC? They can do this with all the doctors who claim the same. Isn’t it? BUT THEY WONT DO IT BECAUSE THESE ARE THE PEOPLE WHO ARE ACTUALLY SHAMELESS THIEVES THAT WANT TO FLEEZE THE INNOCENT PUBLIC HUNDREDS OF BILLIONS OF DOLLARS.
That’s not what freedom of speech means
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 users
Top