Big pharms and conspiracy theories

FranticFrummie

Thu, May 14 2020, 4:05 am

When people talk about huge profits off of a vaccine, they often don't understand what it takes to get FDA approval. Once it's approved, it can take at least 5 years, and sometimes up until 10, before it actually turns a profit. Until then, they are just paying off the costs of all the R&D, clinical trials, production, distribution, etc. That's a long time to wait to get your money back.

(BTW, I've taken azithromycin on and off for years for a chronic sinus infection, with no problem. Then one year I developed a serious reaction that caused my heart to race and my pulse was very fast and shallow. The nurse told me I had to stop immediately, because continuing would be very dangerous. Now I'm not allowed to take it anymore.)

amother

Turquoise

Thu, May 14 2020, 11:29 am

FranticFrummie wrote:

And once it's mandated and added to the schedule, the profits keep coming in infinitely.

amother

Mauve

Thu, May 14 2020, 7:38 pm

Laiya wrote:

I would love to hear someone offer a reasonable explanation for why his protocol is not recommended. I did offer one--his, and similar studies are not double blind, although considering the current circumstances this seems an absurd reason to disregard them, imo.

If you have to resort to making up facts in order to make it make sense, ok, but that doesn't make things any clearer.

Fwiw, he has all his stats on his facebook page, including gender, age, co-morbidities, outcome, etc.

Again, AIUI, people dropped out of the study because their condition worsened, and they had to be hospitalized. If you eliminate information about everyone who gets worse, then obviously it looks like everyone gets better.

Laiya

Thu, May 14 2020, 8:51 pm

amother [ Mauve ] wrote:

Listen I was skeptical too at first because his results sound too good to be true, but it's all right there on his facebook page. I just looked at his spreadsheets again. He lists either: Improved, admitted with pneumonia, toxic, etc. Along with gender, date of birth, and co-morbidities.

He says he only treats people who are either: High risk due to age, high risk due to co-morbidities, or suffering shortness of breath. He does not treat people who are low risk or have only minor symptoms, and they are excluded from his results. His stats on improvement are ONLY with respect to the high risk group.

Two weeks ago, he said on a video that 2 patients had died and another 6 or so were ventilated, out of what was then iirc 600 in the high risk group that he had treated. He said that he believes the number is low because he initiates treatment immediately, which is the opposite of the CDC's official guidelines--stay home and do nothing until you're too sick not to go to the hospital.

His numbers are phenomenal. The basis of his protocol is that early treatment drastically increases positive outcomes.

If you are saying that he is excluding a certain number of patients whose condition worsened and he's not telling us that he's excluding those people and is in fact, representing the exact opposite, that's quite an accusation against him and I would like to know what it's based on.

Laiya

Thu, May 14 2020, 8:55 pm

OBnursemom wrote:

As a prescriber, I’ve gotten pseudo-threatening letters from my state to let me know they’re watching our scripts for hydroxychloroquine, because of the FDA warning regarding outpatient use. As an aside, if I prescribed it to someone as an outpatient and they had an adverse cardiac event due to my actions, I would never forgive myself.

I'm familiar with a state that has done that, which I won't mention in case it's yours. The prescribers I know in that state who are treating covid patients believe it's all politics and is costing lives, as the potential risk here is so miniscule.

elisheva25

Thu, May 14 2020, 9:02 pm

Laiya wrote:

That’s an amazing explanation.
Again pointing out how corrupt CDC is

Laiya

Thu, May 14 2020, 9:49 pm

FranticFrummie wrote:

Another thing I've been wondering. Why is it only the hydroxychloroquine that's getting the bad press, but not azythromycin? Why no special warnings regarding outpatient use, etc? I understand that the risks for qt prolongation are either similar or possibly even higher with azythromycin.

Laiya

Fri, May 15 2020, 12:34 am

amother [ Lemon ] wrote:

https://www.nih.gov/news-events/news-releases/nih-begins-clinical-trial-hydroxychloroquine-azithromycin-treat-covid-19

NIH (Fauci) is running a placebo trial of the hydroxychloroquine-azithromycin cocktail (without zinc).

Do you think they aren't giving zinc so the study will show the drugs don't work?

The study is double blind, so they are randomly giving half the 2,000 participants a placebo, when all participants are high risk because they've already tested positive and have a co-morbidity, shortness of breath or are over 60. I cannot wrap my head around this.