Or, you can always go to the local Pet Smart and grab some there...


/ducks

(07-30-2020 11:59 AM)Hambone10 Wrote:  Perfect example where even people who agree can misinterpret. JR, you have COMPLETELY misunderstood what I said.

It is true that the EUA was revoked. What I said is that an EUA is not 'standard' FDA approval. It is an approval under emergency circumstances that has very specific guidelines. They revoked it NOT because it was determined to be generally ineffective, but because it was determined to be specifically ineffective (at least relative to potential increased risks) against a specific population under specific dosing and conditions... and we both alluded to some of those differences present in other studies that showed efficacy. Standard FDA approval requires more time, and that time is being given. Pretty clearly, if no efficacy were shown anywhere and it had in fact been determined to be ineffective as is claimed... they wouldn't allow clinical trials to continue.

The left has tried to claim that this revocation demonstrated that it doesn't work. That is precisely what Mark has claimed. That is not in any way shape or form, factually correct. If you want to claim this is being driven by forces... that's fine... I take no issue with that... I merely present the fact that what the left is claiming the revocation means is absolutely NOT what the revocation means.

There is a big difference between a study or even 100 studies declaring a drug effective and 'safe', and the FDA declaring it so. Drugs like this (off-label use or combinations of existing drugs as opposed to 'new' drugs) are often in use for years after the studies show them to be effective before the FDA clears them. When it is cleared, doctors will be prescribing 'Provasic' which is merely a $50/dose single pill combination of 2-3 existing generic drugs that cost $2, but are potentially harder to administer.

I haven't misunderstood a damn thing you've said. You are still straddling the fence for the sake of the corporate position and talking about and hiding behind industry procedures which are being used to obfuscate what those actually treating the virus are seeing in the frontlines.

I have 3 different researches that I know personally who knew this was a man made virus back in March and two of them have since discovered and have confirmed that the viruses were contained in a sheath made from HIV strands, which is why it is able to hide in the lining of the brain, like HIV. The virus was obviously designed to reemerge and re-infect. The only thing we are waiting to find out is if indeed the release was intentional, which a very good case could be made that it was.

Nobody has called it an attack yet, other than the President at Liberty and some in the Italian government, but that's only because an admission of the obvious would require retaliation and nobody wants to go there yet.

I remember you arguing back in March with me that it wasn't man made. You were wrong. Now you are arguing for status quo with the bureaucratic procedures citing procedures rather than the in field efficacy of Hydroxychloroquine. And splitting hairs over what was intentionally designed to be a nebulous set of procedures which could justify almost any decision.

That may be fine for new drugs that we have ample time to consider. But it's complete jackassery when people are dying and it is painfully obvious that the industry wants to control not only drugs, but drugs that profit their wealthiest colleagues. I could even put up with that if people weren't dying, but they are. When Bush doctors in Australia used Hydroxychloroquine with efficacy, and later others did the same with similar results it was only then that the FDA decided to steer business to Remdesivir made by Gilead. Finding out why and who actually owns and funds Gilead is interesting for an inquiring mind. Hydroxychloroquine is simply too cheap for anyone to profit from its use but Bayer. In a time of pandemic any patient who is likely to die should have the right to sign a waiver and permit their doctors to try any of the new drugs to save them. If they do die their death would not have been in vain because information was derived from it. If they live they not only survive but still contribute the base of knowledge. I can't abide any law that would rob a dying person of their right to try to live, but that's a different matter, but one very much related to basic human rights.

No what I'm hearing from you is an explanation, and a clear one, of the ambiguities built into the procedures for drug approval which I see for what it is, a hazy bureaucratic process that leaves enough wiggle room for the FDA to say anything it wishes based upon whatever it "selects" to look at and however it "chooses" to weight the material. And then I hear you supporting the procedures. What you are not hearing from me is my disgust that a bureaucracy so intertwined with Big Pharma would be given the largess to operate this way and expect people to defend them.

Jr...

I don't feel I've remotely done what you seem 100% convinced I have. I have 'very clearly' explained as you note, not defended what the FDA has said. I haven't claimed they are right... I am merely saying that they have NOT said that the drug is ineffective... they have NOT banned continued research... and they have NOT banned physicians from prescribing it. I have clearly expressed dismay/concern about attempts to stop doctors from doing what they think is best... and I have offered ways for people to get around it if they experience it.

I similarly have NOT argued in favor of their process, noting that drugs are often successfully used off-label for years before they finally catch up... It is what it is. The wisdom of that process is another issue entirely.

I absolutely did NOT claim that the disease was not man-made... because I argued with Democrats claiming that Trumps 'cuts' to our China funding in 2018 lead to this, and I pointed to our sharing of disease research technology from 2004-2014, which Obama canceled... as the more likely cause... because a big part of researching how a disease might mutate is to encourage it to do so... thus specifically creating 'man made' diseases.... so we spent 10 years showing them how to manipulate, mutate and contain diseases.... and then we simply stopped.

I believe I doubted that it was released intentionally because based on what we knew in March... it seemed to me to be poorly executed as an intentional release... and maybe something I said in that regard was misleading.... but in no way did I EVER say that it wasn't man made.

If your complaint now is that back in March, I didn't say something that even now almost in August, only a few people are saying.... that it was designed as a weapon... well, okay. You may have me there. I would have thought if the Chinese wanted to release this as a weapon, that they would have also targeted their own region, especially Japan. As an example... the Milan pipeline for Chinese textile plants to knock off Italian fashion, combined with the Chinese New Year where they would have been going between the two locations was considered to be a major reason for the initial Italian issues.... which were vastly, almost ridiculously worse than anything we faced in March... and I would think they wouldn't have done that if it were intentional. Maybe I was wrong about that part.... but you don't really address that here.

If you'd like to continue to tell me what I think over my direct objections... please either do me the courtesy of quoting me so that I can address it, or let's take it to PM so as not to waste the rest of the boards time.

Thanks

(07-30-2020 04:22 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  Jr...

I don't feel I've remotely done what you seem 100% convinced I have. I have 'very clearly' explained as you note, not defended what the FDA has said. I haven't claimed they are right... I am merely saying that they have NOT said that the drug is ineffective... they have NOT banned continued research... and they have NOT banned physicians from prescribing it. I have clearly expressed dismay/concern about attempts to stop doctors from doing what they think is best... and I have offered ways for people to get around it if they experience it.

I similarly have NOT argued in favor of their process, noting that drugs are often successfully used off-label for years before they finally catch up... It is what it is. The wisdom of that process is another issue entirely.

I absolutely did NOT claim that the disease was not man-made... because I argued with Democrats claiming that Trumps 'cuts' to our China funding in 2018 lead to this, and I pointed to our sharing of disease research technology from 2004-2014, which Obama canceled... as the more likely cause... because a big part of researching how a disease might mutate is to encourage it to do so... thus specifically creating 'man made' diseases.... so we spent 10 years showing them how to manipulate, mutate and contain diseases.... and then we simply stopped.

I believe I doubted that it was released intentionally because based on what we knew in March... it seemed to me to be poorly executed as an intentional release... and maybe something I said in that regard was misleading.... but in no way did I EVER say that it wasn't man made.

If your complaint now is that back in March, I didn't say something that even now almost in August, only a few people are saying.... that it was designed as a weapon... well, okay. You may have me there. I would have thought if the Chinese wanted to release this as a weapon, that they would have also targeted their own region, especially Japan. As an example... the Milan pipeline for Chinese textile plants to knock off Italian fashion, combined with the Chinese New Year where they would have been going between the two locations was considered to be a major reason for the initial Italian issues.... which were vastly, almost ridiculously worse than anything we faced in March... and I would think they wouldn't have done that if it were intentional. Maybe I was wrong about that part.... but you don't really address that here.

If you'd like to continue to tell me what I think over my direct objections... please either do me the courtesy of quoting me so that I can address it, or let's take it to PM so as not to waste the rest of the boards time.

Thanks

1. You did say it wasn't manmade. And to the point of being weaponized the only way it can be weaponized is if it is manmade. If I remember at the time I had indicated that the two virus were not bonded naturally and you claimed there was no evidence to indicate that. What evidence was that since now it is fairly universally accepted that there was, and the information I had head saying that they weren't naturally bonded was in March. But disinformation has ruled supreme since this incident broke. Kind of like Fauci's initial dismissal of travel bans and his disinterest in mask wearing.

2. China was quite willing to lockup the government and main military areas when Wuhan broke and did so prior to acknowledging anything to the West. Since Wuhan is also a major center for Western Industrial production then allowing the flights in and out for nearly two months was a highly effective means of distributing the virus. And as bolded Japan was not immune to the release either. They handled it better initially and Italy didn't.

3. If you want to hide an attack using biological pathogens then you can't be excluded or others would suspect a vaccine or treatment. So China suffered losses mostly among the low wage working class in Wuhan with some notable professionals like the medical staff there. Acceptable losses for them.

Neither can you spare your allies, though China is short on those from nation state perspectives, mostly due their singular view on race, even Viet Nam fears them, but China is long on them with regard to their corporate alliances where greed is the primary motivation for alliance.

As to PM's this is matter pertaining to the thread and the information imparted in it.

And the name isn't junior either, it's J.R.

(07-30-2020 04:37 PM)JRsec Wrote:  1. You did say it wasn't manmade.

Ok, we will do it your way
1) I'm confident I didn't, but if I did, so what? What does that have to do with anything we're currently talking about?
2) Why do you think it's okay to keep claiming I said something without ever providing any evidence that I did?

Since you seem to think it matters....

Here was our conversation from a few months back... which is the only time I can see where I used the phrase, manmade or man made.... It seems my memory is pretty good

Hambone10 Wrote:My point was, they were developing things like this with or without our help. If we helped them,, we should have known more about it than something they came up with on their own. It doesn't challenge your thought that we shouldn't have been involved, but it does mean that it probably doesn't matter as much as you imply.

By 'this' I meant COVID.... So I am specifically making the point that they were developing viruses like this with or without our help. Viruses they are developing are by definition, manmade.

What about that sounds to you like I'm saying 'it wasn't manmade.'?

Quote:2. China was quite willing to lockup the government and main military areas when Wuhan broke and did so prior to acknowledging anything to the West. Since Wuhan is also a major center for Western Industrial production then allowing the flights in and out for nearly two months was a highly effective means of distributing the virus. And as bolded Japan was not immune to the release either. They handled it better initially and Italy didn't.

3. If you want to hide an attack using biological pathogens then you can't be excluded or others would suspect a vaccine or treatment. So China suffered losses mostly among the low wage working class in Wuhan with some notable professionals like the medical staff there. Acceptable losses for them.

Neither can you spare your allies, though China is short on those from nation state perspectives, mostly due their singular view on race, even Viet Nam fears them, but China is long on them with regard to their corporate alliances where greed is the primary motivation for alliance.

I'm really not interested in this conversation. It has nothing to do with any part of the current conversation that interests me... and just because it makes sense to you doesn't mean it must make sense to me. The fact that something is possible does not make it likely nor a fact. This is you trying to rehash a now months old conversation. I said what I said at the time... Clearly I remember it pretty well. I did not support this theory then because I haven't seen compelling evidence of it... and you are presenting no additional evidence of anything.... having said that, please do not. The only reason I even mentioned it is because it was part of the conversation I recall having.

Quote:As to PM's this is matter pertaining to the thread and the information imparted in it.

Your opinion about what I said or did not say months ago has no bearing on anything I've said in this thread nor best i can tell, the information imparted in it. It certainly doesn't have anything to do with anything we have collectively discussed. I understand you're trying to make some point, and I have taken no issue with it... so who are you arguing with?

I don't think anyone really wants to listen to a pointless 'yes you did', 'no I didn't' exchange.

Quote:And the name isn't junior either, it's J.R.

I didn't call you junior... I called you Jr... the ellipsis is something I do a lot... because best I know, you are JRsec... Not J.R.

Mea Culpa, I let my finger off the shift button too early.

You know, not everything on here is a personal attack... I think I've done a pretty good job of ignoring you repeatedly calling me a liar without resorting to similar name calling... but if you're going to be offended by a simple missed capitalization, you should at least do me the courtesy of defending your claim that at the very least, has now been brought into question with evidence. It's entirely possible that I said something different at another time... but I think I remembered this conversation (at least in terms of the major points) pretty well... so it would really surprise me.

(07-30-2020 06:53 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(07-30-2020 04:37 PM)JRsec Wrote:  1. You did say it wasn't manmade.

Ok, we will do it your way
1) I'm confident I didn't, but if I did, so what? What does that have to do with anything we're currently talking about?
2) Why do you think it's okay to keep claiming I said something without ever providing any evidence that I did?

Since you seem to think it matters....

Here was our conversation from a few months back... which is the only time I can see where I used the phrase, manmade or man made.... It seems my memory is pretty good

Hambone10 Wrote:My point was, they were developing things like this with or without our help. If we helped them,, we should have known more about it than something they came up with on their own. It doesn't challenge your thought that we shouldn't have been involved, but it does mean that it probably doesn't matter as much as you imply.

By 'this' I meant COVID.... So I am specifically making the point that they were developing viruses like this with or without our help. Viruses they are developing are by definition, manmade.

What about that sounds to you like I'm saying 'it wasn't manmade.'?

Quote:2. China was quite willing to lockup the government and main military areas when Wuhan broke and did so prior to acknowledging anything to the West. Since Wuhan is also a major center for Western Industrial production then allowing the flights in and out for nearly two months was a highly effective means of distributing the virus. And as bolded Japan was not immune to the release either. They handled it better initially and Italy didn't.

3. If you want to hide an attack using biological pathogens then you can't be excluded or others would suspect a vaccine or treatment. So China suffered losses mostly among the low wage working class in Wuhan with some notable professionals like the medical staff there. Acceptable losses for them.

Neither can you spare your allies, though China is short on those from nation state perspectives, mostly due their singular view on race, even Viet Nam fears them, but China is long on them with regard to their corporate alliances where greed is the primary motivation for alliance.

I'm really not interested in this conversation. It has nothing to do with any part of the current conversation that interests me... and just because it makes sense to you doesn't mean it must make sense to me. The fact that something is possible does not make it likely nor a fact. This is you trying to rehash a now months old conversation. I said what I said at the time... Clearly I remember it pretty well. I did not support this theory then because I haven't seen compelling evidence of it... and you are presenting no additional evidence of anything.... having said that, please do not. The only reason I even mentioned it is because it was part of the conversation I recall having.

Quote:As to PM's this is matter pertaining to the thread and the information imparted in it.

Your opinion about what I said or did not say months ago has no bearing on anything I've said in this thread nor best i can tell, the information imparted in it. It certainly doesn't have anything to do with anything we have collectively discussed. I understand you're trying to make some point, and I have taken no issue with it... so who are you arguing with?

I don't think anyone really wants to listen to a pointless 'yes you did', 'no I didn't' exchange.

Quote:And the name isn't junior either, it's J.R.

I didn't call you junior... I called you Jr... the ellipsis is something I do a lot... because best I know, you are JRsec... Not J.R.

Mea Culpa, I let my finger off the shift button too early.

You know, not everything on here is a personal attack... I think I've done a pretty good job of ignoring you repeatedly calling me a liar without resorting to similar name calling... but if you're going to be offended by a simple missed capitalization, you should at least do me the courtesy of defending your claim that at the very least, has now been brought into question with evidence. It's entirely possible that I said something different at another time... but I think I remembered this conversation (at least in terms of the major points) pretty well... so it would really surprise me.

Well my thread search only goes back to May. The discussion I was referencing was our first on the subject and I'm guessing in mid March to early April. I'll check my posts search later.

The current conversation is about the First Line responders wanting hydroxychloroquine at least listed so that the MD's can write the prescriptions without fearing some kind of negative review from the state's licensing board. In many states this isn't a problem, in some states it's a big problem. The Dr's should be free to do what is best for their patients. And the patient should have the right to waive liability to receive a treatment that might save their life. I think this should also be true in most terminal illness but that is ancillary to this discussion.

You very adequately distinguished the protocol of the FDA and its rationale. I find that line of discussion to be circular in nature with regard to the OP. It's vague enough and allows for the selection of parameters in the testing that seems to justify whatever the bureaucracy of the FDA wants it to have in the way of their ruling.

The main issue is that the Front Line Care providers have clearly seen things differently.

You did not address the faulty study by the Lancet which formed Fauci's basis for not recommending hydroxychloroquine initially. The study proved bogus in methodology and was found to be the product of a group that had an agenda. The story was not only retracted by the Lancet but repudiated.

Methodology is at question with the Brazil study as well. Your point was that recommending Hydroxychloroquine for being prescribed for other than its original tested purposes was justified by its use in the Brazil study. But its use in the Brazil study was against the guidelines of its manufacturer, Bayer. And it wasn't an initial treatment of a diagnosed case of COVID 19 but rather a late stage use. To discredit this drug on that basis is also a bogus claim. Clearly in many countries other than our own, countries that haven't had the infection rates or morbidity rates that we have had, the drug when administered early in connection with supplements of zinc, or with the anti-biotic azithromycin, proved highly effective.

There is a dire need to look into the ethics of the FDA in their refusal to leave this drug up to the discretion of the doctors without their fear of reprisals from the politically charged state entities. Why? Because the relationship between the FDA and Big Pharma is too comingled and because the personal investments of some of those serving in bureaucratic leadership and decision making capacities may have tainted their judgement.

So from my perspective, by focusing on the protocols of the FDA's endorsements, protocols which are ambiguous by design, the main point of the Front Line Medical teams' viewpoint is undermined. So I see that as a form of dissembling in as much as the discussion is no longer about witnesses where treatment is going on testifying to the efficacy of a drug and the focus is shifted to the bureaucracy and its protocols which are being used to obstruct it. And while your intent is to explain those protocols it distracts from, and undermines the discussion about the need of front line doctors to have this drug at their disposal, especially in states that have forbidden it.

Now I didn't get back into the strategic implications of this, because the truth will out there completely. If that is not your concern so be it. But from my vantage point and those I know it truly is one. Especially when it comes to the issue of vaccines, which aren't likely at all. We are probably looking at containment treatments as we are with HIV. The primary purpose of this virus when it was developed was to shut down normal life which is the surest way to cripple a free societies economy. Lethality is ancillary. And the longer we ignore this aspect the more damage it will do and the more people will not take it seriously enough.

We will be safe when this virus is forced into hiding in the brain's lining where it can't be contagious. That's when life returns to normal. Treating the virus's initial outbreak will be very different from its long term treatment regimen, IMO.

That said the FDA has hardly proven its effectiveness in this crisis. Front line response has been much more open minded, innovative, and effective. Politics and profit seem to be the obstacles here, and that means the protocol you explained is part of the problem, not the testing, but its use to make treatment recommendations has sure appeared to be tainted. So focus on what is right, eliminate the obstructive, and let the patients have more say in their treatment, it is their lives that are in the balance. If it was you or your family wouldn't you like to have that choice?

And J.R. is correct though my screen name utilizes the sec part as a conference tag.

(07-30-2020 09:20 AM)maximus Wrote:  If one of these commies on here had COVID and they were deathly ill in the hospital and the doc came in and said we can try a medicine that has shown promise in some patients.... they would take it in a minute.

Dummies, doctors try various drugs daily for a variety of illnesses and they work for some and not others.... whats the difference here? Ill hang up and listen.

Sent from my SM-N975U using Tapatalk

damn right...and that medicine would be Dexamethazone along with Zinc plus Vit C to boost the immune system.

(07-30-2020 02:16 PM)stinkfist Wrote:  

(07-30-2020 02:11 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(07-30-2020 12:54 PM)Eagleaidaholic Wrote:  I agree. That's why I asked how many times has an FDA approved generic drug that has NOT been completely removed from the market been "outlawed" for use by doctors treating their patients? Never. But that is EXACTLY what happened here. Ohio and New York state RX boards "outlawed" the use of this drug for Covid patients. New York made them get admitted to a hospital before it can be diagnosed. Once they reach the hospital it is typically too late. How many people died due to these "rules"?

Sorry... it was the use of the term 'other' that had me concerned. That was all.

I haven't read those 'outlaw' rules... Pharmacies apparently have at least some ability to decide to fill or not any prescription they choose... under the guise of 'protecting the supply for on-label users'... which of course can easily be abused.

Of course, the idea that the drug companies haven't or can't ramp up production of generic drugs is silly. If there is demand for it, the companies should produce it... and if they're producing it, pharmacies would be stupid not to sell it. You can always buy it from Canada or even out of state. The Feds don't enforce laws against such drugs in 'personal quantities'.

I need quantified evidence a pharmacy can deny....

if = 1, eweston, we have a fk'n problem...we're not talking narcotics...

no you don't...you may want that info but you don't need it...moreover, there is a reason the Pharmacist is a DOCTOR of Pharmacy. They have professional judgement which can be used to fill or not fill any medication.

there are things that come with that...you normally offer to transfer it when/if they find somewhere willing to fill it.

(07-30-2020 08:32 PM)UofMemphis Wrote:  

(07-30-2020 02:16 PM)stinkfist Wrote:  

(07-30-2020 02:11 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(07-30-2020 12:54 PM)Eagleaidaholic Wrote:  I agree. That's why I asked how many times has an FDA approved generic drug that has NOT been completely removed from the market been "outlawed" for use by doctors treating their patients? Never. But that is EXACTLY what happened here. Ohio and New York state RX boards "outlawed" the use of this drug for Covid patients. New York made them get admitted to a hospital before it can be diagnosed. Once they reach the hospital it is typically too late. How many people died due to these "rules"?

Sorry... it was the use of the term 'other' that had me concerned. That was all.

I haven't read those 'outlaw' rules... Pharmacies apparently have at least some ability to decide to fill or not any prescription they choose... under the guise of 'protecting the supply for on-label users'... which of course can easily be abused.

Of course, the idea that the drug companies haven't or can't ramp up production of generic drugs is silly. If there is demand for it, the companies should produce it... and if they're producing it, pharmacies would be stupid not to sell it. You can always buy it from Canada or even out of state. The Feds don't enforce laws against such drugs in 'personal quantities'.

I need quantified evidence a pharmacy can deny....

if = 1, eweston, we have a fk'n problem...we're not talking narcotics...

no you don't...you may want that info but you don't need it...moreover, there is a reason the Pharmacist is a DOCTOR of Pharmacy. They have professional judgement which can be used to fill or not fill any medication.

there are things that come with that...you normally offer to transfer it when/if they find somewhere willing to fill it.

au contraire mon frere...yeah, I do NEED in this context...


there's a difference between abuse ( hence, referencing narcotics) vs. a pharmacist overruling an MD's script...

Hambone understood the point...ewe did not....

my point still stands...eweston, we have a fk'n problem if = 1...

QTY dispensed makes sense in controlling the mind altering...I get that....however, if a lackey behind the counter has that discretion across the board, i have a serious fk'n problem with that...

yeah, I understand history via a database....

(07-30-2020 08:14 PM)JRsec Wrote:  Well my thread search only goes back to May. The discussion I was referencing was our first on the subject and I'm guessing in mid March to early April. I'll check my posts search later.

Thank you

I am more than happy to be told that between March and May, I may have learned something. I really don't remotely think so, but that's fine. The conversation I quoted where I clearly said it WAS manmade was directly with you. I recall speaking with lefties on the Rice forum about it (they were blaming Trump cutting the budget to the CDC in 2018 for the outbreak... and I discovered it was more likely Obama cutting the 10yr oversight/training program with the Chinese in 2014). I don't remember exactly when that was, but it was quite early on. Those things all run together in my mind so that is why I recall the associations and train of thought. That doesn't mean I remember it 100%.

Quote:The current conversation is about the First Line responders wanting hydroxychloroquine at least listed so that the MD's can write the prescriptions without fearing some kind of negative review from the state's licensing board. In many states this isn't a problem, in some states it's a big problem. The Dr's should be free to do what is best for their patients. And the patient should have the right to waive liability to receive a treatment that might save their life. I think this should also be true in most terminal illness but that is ancillary to this discussion.

You very adequately distinguished the protocol of the FDA and its rationale. I find that line of discussion to be circular in nature with regard to the OP. It's vague enough and allows for the selection of parameters in the testing that seems to justify whatever the bureaucracy of the FDA wants it to have in the way of their ruling.

The main issue is that the Front Line Care providers have clearly seen things differently.

I get this, but this has nothing to do with the interpretation of the EUA which is all I was speaking about. The FDA does not regulate 'off label' use of drugs... it merely 'recommends' on-label usage and 'controlled' off-label usage...

Their formal approval process is long and cumbersome and unlikely to be very useful for COVID. By the time they approve a drug for it, we will likely have saved thousands with it and the issue may actually be over. I really don't know why, other than for show... anyone asked for an EUA.

I agree 100% that these are front-line decisions... not FDA decisions... and while the system is flawed as heck, that is why they only recommend. The only thing I was addressing was the false statements some have made that the FDA had said that the drugs were ineffective... or that they had banned its use. The CDC HAS cautioned against hoarding... like we saw with TP and like we saw years ago with some antibiotics during an anthrax scare... but that's not a ban, nor does it stop doctors from prescribing as appropriate. If state boards like pharmacies are blanket denying prescriptions, I don't support that. They (Pharmacists) do have responsibilities, but they are not the prescribing physician. They do not have access to the patients medical charts or history. They ARE experts in drug interactions, dosing, chemical compounding etc, but they are not remotely qualified to practice medicine. I don't know of one MD that wouldn't rip a PharmD a new one for telling them how to practice medicine and treat their patients. They are each experts in their own areas.

Quote:You did not address the faulty study by the Lancet which formed Fauci's basis for not recommending hydroxychloroquine initially. The study proved bogus in methodology and was found to be the product of a group that had an agenda. The story was not only retracted by the Lancet but repudiated.

Methodology is at question with the Brazil study as well. Your point was that recommending Hydroxychloroquine for being prescribed for other than its original tested purposes was justified by its use in the Brazil study. But its use in the Brazil study was against the guidelines of its manufacturer, Bayer. And it wasn't an initial treatment of a diagnosed case of COVID 19 but rather a late stage use. To discredit this drug on that basis is also a bogus claim. Clearly in many countries other than our own, countries that haven't had the infection rates or morbidity rates that we have had, the drug when administered early in connection with supplements of zinc, or with the anti-biotic azithromycin, proved highly effective.

I know next to nothing about the specificities of these studies. I was merely responding to the false statements being made. My point was that the 'reasons' being reported had to do specifically with the same things that I had been addressing with regard to the EUA.... and that you address here. SOME studies don't show efficacy because of the dosage, the population being tested (late stage), the combinations being used... all the things you note... and SOME of those things don't work under those conditions. That doesn't mean that the drug doesn't work at all. It doesn't mean that these studies somehow 'over-rule' other studies that DO show efficacy under different conditions.

It's like a coach calling a play that doesn't work against cover 2 being quoted as saying that 'it doesn't work' and 'we shouldn't run it' (against that defense).... and somebody claiming that this means that the coach is saying the play doesn't EVER work under any conditions and has 'banned' it from being called. That's what I've seen being done here by those who want to simply 'make fun' of others, especially Trump.

Quote:There is a dire need to look into the ethics of the FDA in their refusal to leave this drug up to the discretion of the doctors without their fear of reprisals from the politically charged state entities. Why? Because the relationship between the FDA and Big Pharma is too comingled and because the personal investments of some of those serving in bureaucratic leadership and decision making capacities may have tainted their judgement.

So from my perspective, by focusing on the protocols of the FDA's endorsements, protocols which are ambiguous by design, the main point of the Front Line Medical teams' viewpoint is undermined. So I see that as a form of dissembling in as much as the discussion is no longer about witnesses where treatment is going on testifying to the efficacy of a drug and the focus is shifted to the bureaucracy and its protocols which are being used to obstruct it. And while your intent is to explain those protocols it distracts from, and undermines the discussion about the need of front line doctors to have this drug at their disposal, especially in states that have forbidden it.

Fair enough. I don't disagree at all on the above about reviewing the FDA... I think we only disagree here on what the FDA has done. In the letter revoking the EUA, the FDA recommends that the drug only be used for an off-label use in a hospital setting or in conjunction with a clinical trial.... which is what they would have said without the EUA. That's not a mandate that eliminates a physicians ability to prescribe it for an off-label use. I get your point that it can still discourage some from using it, but this has always been the case for every drug so it's nothing new... other than the attention its getting. Docs know this about the FDA... and those I know take it for what little its worth... which in my experience has a lot more to do with insurance and reimbursement than for practicing medicine. Some insurers won't cover drugs that aren't FDA approved for the diagnosis.... but in this case because the drugs are generic, that's not as big a deal.

At one point, I worked closely with behavioral health docs, and I can't think of one drug they use there that isn't used 'off label' as often as 'on'. This is a big deal there because they're always pushing the latest and greatest drug... the ones you see advertised on TV... because if they're covered at all, they still have a huge copay.

Quote:Now I didn't get back into the strategic implications of this, because the truth will out there completely. If that is not your concern so be it. But from my vantage point and those I know it truly is one. Especially when it comes to the issue of vaccines, which aren't likely at all. We are probably looking at containment treatments as we are with HIV. The primary purpose of this virus when it was developed was to shut down normal life which is the surest way to cripple a free societies economy. Lethality is ancillary. And the longer we ignore this aspect the more damage it will do and the more people will not take it seriously enough.

We will be safe when this virus is forced into hiding in the brain's lining where it can't be contagious. That's when life returns to normal. Treating the virus's initial outbreak will be very different from its long term treatment regimen, IMO.

I honestly can't address this. I don't have a frame of reference for it. My focus is more on population epidemiology than on the internal workings and pathology of diseases. This is not a dodge, I just don't have any significant knowledge base here and it is too specific a discussion for my 'opinions' to matter very much. My only thoughts on it months ago was that I would have expected a more 'frontal' assault. That opinion had given no thought to what you're describing as I was viewing this as a Coronavirus variant. What you're describing here would work much different than any previous Coronavirus or any of those others that have come out of China. I was not considering 'the long game'... and don't know enough about it to refute any of your comments. I too trust that the truth will eventually come out. If this is as you suspect, it's IMO a MAJOR act of war and a war crime.... a global genocide.

Quote:That said the FDA has hardly proven its effectiveness in this crisis. Front line response has been much more open minded, innovative, and effective. Politics and profit seem to be the obstacles here, and that means the protocol you explained is part of the problem, not the testing, but its use to make treatment recommendations has sure appeared to be tainted. So focus on what is right, eliminate the obstructive, and let the patients have more say in their treatment, it is their lives that are in the balance. If it was you or your family wouldn't you like to have that choice?

IMO, the FDA is useless in a crisis. This is not what they do. Their job is to promote safety in the everyday practice of medicine... to insure consistency in trials and other bureaucratic functions... Their job is not to discover or promote cures. By the same token, their job is not to practice medicine... and I see some on the left acting as if it is...

I've said numerous times, even here in my convo with stink... that you and your doctors should make these decisions. You may remember the movie 'WarGames'?? "Son, I'd piss on a spark plug if I thought it would do any good." That's a big part of my philosophy. Doc, tell me the risks and benefits and I'll make the call with your help.

Quote:And J.R. is correct though my screen name utilizes the sec part as a conference tag.

I honestly intended no offense at all when I did that. I merely intended to address you as JR... as I've done before, and was not careful with my typing. It literally never crossed my mind to call you 'junior'.

Thanks

One caveat to the above....

If a treatment for COVID involves new formulations of existing drugs like we're describing here... The FDA does not need to be involved. At some point of course they will be, but they are not necessary. Some PharmD's at compounding pharmacies may even be able to 'gin up' a single dose cocktail.

If a treatment involves a new drug, then it likely can't legally be used outside of a hospital/trial without their approval... That's a whole different ball of wax.

My biggest issue with Pharma/The FDA is that what commonly happens (and may happen here) is that we will have a generic combination of say 3 drugs that is let's say 50% effective in treating the disease... pharma will develop a single pill that delivers this generic mix, and they will add a minute amount of some new formulation that is say, 50.1% effective... or the same 50% effective, but has less acid reflux as a side effect... and they will patent that drug... and the FDA will sign off on it... and sell it for $100/dose instead of the 50 cents that the meaningful compounds would have cost.

We had the same issue with AIDS in Houston back in the 80's... I remember people going to Mexico to get treatments that weren't allowed here.