Home
Log in / Sign Up
    Private Messages   Advanced Search   Rules   New User Guide   FAQ   Advertise   Contact Us  
Forum -> Coronavirus Health Questions
Please, please do your due research
  Previous  1  2  3  12  13  14



Post new topic   Reply to topic View latest: 24h 48h 72h

amother
Seashell


 

Post Wed, Jan 27 2021, 11:58 am
amother [ Cerulean ] wrote:
The bolded is your own commentary. All they have said is that data is limited, which we already knew. Medical professionals don't believe there is any risk, but they also don't want to make a blanket recommendation for the entire world population when the data is not yet there. It seems very fair and rational to me. No need to make anyone believe there are high risks that have not been substantiated.


That's why I used the word presumably. But you're kind of changing around the facts. There *was* a blanket recommendation for use in pregnant women. Until reports of miscarriages and stillbirths led to concern, those early losses were guinea pigs.

The fact is, there was no separate trial done for the purpose of specifically evaluating the safety on pregnant women, yet, the vaccine was given a blanket recommendation.
Back to top

amother
Seashell


 

Post Wed, Jan 27 2021, 12:03 pm
SixOfWands wrote:
The off-label prescription, which was found not to be beneficial and which had potential side effects, was causing shortages for people who used the medication for indicated and necessary reasons.

I viewed it much like a view the MMR/autism hoax. Its not just that a whole bunch of people fell for something. its that it drew resources and research away from real treatments.


In the midst of a global health crisis, with little understanding of what caused the progression of the disease or how to stop it and no other known treatments, several hundred doctors around the world tried different already-existing drugs and saw improvements. There was no luxury of waiting to conduct double blind placebo "gold standard" trials. And there was never a shortage of hcq.
Back to top

amother
Cyan


 

Post Wed, Jan 27 2021, 12:44 pm
amother [ Seashell ] wrote:
That's why I used the word presumably. But you're kind of changing around the facts. There *was* a blanket recommendation for use in pregnant women. Until reports of miscarriages and stillbirths led to concern, those early losses were guinea pigs.

The fact is, there was no separate trial done for the purpose of specifically evaluating the safety on pregnant women, yet, the vaccine was given a blanket recommendation.

There is never any separate trial done for the purpose of specifically evaluating the safety of anything - not a vaccine, not medication, not a new food - on pregnant women. Such a trial would be inherently unethical and it is therefore never done.

We know what is probably safe, almost certainly safe, not safe, or use with caution by what happens to people who are pregnant but do not know it, get pregnant during the trial, or have to take the medication despite being pregnant because there is no other option. We also can make educated guesses based on how a given treatment works and how close it is to an existing treatment that we know to be safe or unsafe.

And it is always a risk-benefit analysis.

Sometimes there are changes. Omepradex was considered for several decades to be safe for use during pregnancy and probably tens of millions of children were exposed to it in utero. But sometime in the past five years it went from being considered safe by everyone to being considered safe by some OBs and off-limits by other OBs.
Back to top

amother
Cyan


 

Post Wed, Jan 27 2021, 12:45 pm
amother [ Seashell ] wrote:
WHO also now says pregnant women should not get the covid vaccine, presumably because of the high risk of miscarriage and stillbirth.

I believe you mean "should not get the Moderna vaccine."
Back to top

Amarante




 
 
    
 

Post Wed, Jan 27 2021, 12:52 pm
amother [ Seashell ] wrote:
In the midst of a global health crisis, with little understanding of what caused the progression of the disease or how to stop it and no other known treatments, several hundred doctors around the world tried different already-existing drugs and saw improvements. There was no luxury of waiting to conduct double blind placebo "gold standard" trials. And there was never a shortage of hcq.


At this point there have been enough valid studies to conclude that it is of not benefit for treatment of COVID and therefore the risks of using it for COVID are not outweighed by any benefit since there is none.

The only people who are still defending its use are Trump supporters for the most part since, sadly, medicine and science became politicized during his Administration. I am not stating this as a political statement but just reflects the reality of who is still arguing about it long after valid studies have proven it is useless and there are now some treatments that seem to be effective. The infusion treatments have been shown to be statistically helpful especially if taken in the earliest stages

As a public service, I am including a link to locate Covid infusion centers close to you. Based on what I have read and heard many doctors are not aware of the significance, so if you or your family are diagnosed, it would pay to be proactive and get the treatment

https://covid.infusioncenter.org
Back to top

amother
Cerulean


 

Post Wed, Jan 27 2021, 1:50 pm
amother [ Seashell ] wrote:
That's why I used the word presumably. But you're kind of changing around the facts. There *was* a blanket recommendation for use in pregnant women. Until reports of miscarriages and stillbirths led to concern, those early losses were guinea pigs.

The fact is, there was no separate trial done for the purpose of specifically evaluating the safety on pregnant women, yet, the vaccine was given a blanket recommendation.


Where was a blanket recommendation made?
Back to top

amother
Cerulean


 

Post Wed, Jan 27 2021, 1:53 pm
amother [ Seashell ] wrote:
In the midst of a global health crisis, with little understanding of what caused the progression of the disease or how to stop it and no other known treatments, several hundred doctors around the world tried different already-existing drugs and saw improvements. There was no luxury of waiting to conduct double blind placebo "gold standard" trials. And there was never a shortage of hcq.


The vast majority of america's frontline doctors were not actually treating covid patients.
Back to top

amother
Gray


 

Post Wed, Jan 27 2021, 1:55 pm
https://www.theyeshivaworld.co......html

You know, I wish that we'd able to track everyone like this, as well as the outcomes of people who got sick (how many died, how many have serious damage, long haulers, etc). So that those non believers who only care about themselves can see how many people died and have issues now because of them.
Back to top

amother
Seashell


 

Post Wed, Jan 27 2021, 2:14 pm
Amarante wrote:
At this point there have been enough valid studies to conclude that it is of not benefit for treatment of COVID and therefore the risks of using it for COVID are not outweighed by any benefit since there is none.


This would be a good explanation for why the AMA did *not* reverse its prior guidance, not why it did.
Back to top

amother
Seashell


 

Post Wed, Jan 27 2021, 2:16 pm
amother [ Cerulean ] wrote:
The vast majority of america's frontline doctors were not actually treating covid patients.


Don't know, but most people who felt it was effective, and therefore the AMA was wrong for issuing its initial guidance, either had personal experience or their own pcp prescribed it with success.
Back to top

amother
Seashell


 

Post Wed, Jan 27 2021, 2:24 pm
amother [ Cyan ] wrote:
There is never any separate trial done for the purpose of specifically evaluating the safety of anything - not a vaccine, not medication, not a new food - on pregnant women. Such a trial would be inherently unethical and it is therefore never done.

We know what is probably safe, almost certainly safe, not safe, or use with caution by what happens to people who are pregnant but do not know it, get pregnant during the trial, or have to take the medication despite being pregnant because there is no other option. We also can make educated guesses based on how a given treatment works and how close it is to an existing treatment that we know to be safe or unsafe.

And it is always a risk-benefit analysis.

Sometimes there are changes. Omepradex was considered for several decades to be safe for use during pregnancy and probably tens of millions of children were exposed to it in utero. But sometime in the past five years it went from being considered safe by everyone to being considered safe by some OBs and off-limits by other OBs.


Fair point. Anyone in any particular high risk category, whether pregnant, age, have an autoimmune disease or whatever, should keep in mind that there was no vaccine trial specifically assessing the safety for their risk category.
Back to top

Amarante




 
 
    
 

Post Wed, Jan 27 2021, 3:36 pm
I couldn't resist when I saw this news article - Oklahoma is attempting to return the $2 million worth of hydroxychloroquine it purchased back in April - Oklahoma is one of the reddest of the red states and was chosen for Trump's first rally because of support for him.

If the drug were actually effective wouldn't doctors in this red state have been using it to "cure" their patients?

https://www.readfrontier.org/s.....uine/

The Oklahoma Attorney General’s Office has been tasked with attempting to return a $2 million stockpile of a malaria drug once touted by former President Donald Trump as a way to treat the coronavirus.

In April, Gov. Kevin Stitt, who ordered the hydroxychloroquine purchase, defended it by saying that while it may not be a useful treatment for the coronavirus, the drug had multiple other uses and “that money will not have gone to waste in any respect.”

But nearly a year later the state is trying to offload the drug back to its original supplier, California-based FFF Enterprises, Inc, a private pharmaceutical wholesaler.......

Stitt was criticized last year for the $2 million purchase, a move viewed by some as a partisan move to curry favor with conservatives who were defending Trump amid criticism of his own support of the drug. But Stitt defended the purchase at the time by likening it to the race early last year to procure personal protective equipment for Oklahomans, believing it was better to have the hydroxychloroquine stockpile and not need it, rather than to later learn the drug was useful but not have it.

Stitt’s spokeswoman Carly Atchison told The Frontier this week that “Every decision the Governor makes is with the health and lives of Oklahomans in mind, including purchasing hydroxychloroquine, securing PPE, and now distributing vaccines as quickly and efficiently as possible to combat this COVID crisis.”

The state purchased the hydroxychloroquine stockpile in early April, days after Trump began to tout it as a treatment. While many acknowledged at the time that reports of the drug’s effectiveness were purely anecdotal, Trump said at a briefing in March, “What do we have to lose? I feel very good about it.”

Health officials nationwide immediately began to caution people against using the drug, throwing water on the idea that it could cure a coronavirus infection and cautioning that it could have serious side effects, including irregular heart rhythms and even the possibility of death. The drug was ultimately discredited as a treatment option and the National Institute of Health released a report in November that the drug had “no clinical benefit to hospitalized patients.”
Back to top

amother
Cyan


 

Post Wed, Jan 27 2021, 4:11 pm
amother [ Seashell ] wrote:
Fair point. Anyone in any particular high risk category, whether pregnant, age, have an autoimmune disease or whatever, should keep in mind that there was no vaccine trial specifically assessing the safety for their risk category.

Actually many of the categories you mentioned were included in the original trials.

Pregnant women are a completely different story.
Back to top

happyone




 
 
    
 

Post Wed, Jan 27 2021, 4:22 pm
amother [ Papaya ] wrote:
Why was that silenced when u see her collapsing on national tv!! People have been saying she’s dead since a day later

https://www.google.com/amp/s/m.....9629G
Back to top

amother
Seashell


 

Post Wed, Jan 27 2021, 7:22 pm
amother [ Cyan ] wrote:
Actually many of the categories you mentioned were included in the original trials.

Pregnant women are a completely different story.


I read the trial study, what other high risk groups were included? The highest risk group for covid, age 70 and over, was not looked at specifically. For comparison, Eli Lilly tested its monoclonal antibody therapy on nursing home residents.
Back to top

amother
Seashell


 

Post Wed, Jan 27 2021, 7:27 pm
Amarante wrote:
I couldn't resist when I saw this news article - Oklahoma is attempting to return the $2 million worth of hydroxychloroquine it purchased back in April - Oklahoma is one of the reddest of the red states and was chosen for Trump's first rally because of support for him.

If the drug were actually effective wouldn't doctors in this red state have been using it to "cure" their patients?

https://www.readfrontier.org/s.....uine/


This would put lie to the claim that the AMA's directive was based on fear of not having enough hcq on hand for malaria patients.
Back to top

amother
Cerulean


 

Post Wed, Jan 27 2021, 7:37 pm
amother [ Seashell ] wrote:
I read the trial study, what other high risk groups were included? The highest risk group for covid, age 70 and over, was not looked at specifically. For comparison, Eli Lilly tested its monoclonal antibody therapy on nursing home residents.


All high risk groups were included, they were not singled out but they were included. Pregnant women were specifically excluded.

If you read the study you're aware that all moderna trial participants were either over age 65 (the majority) or under age 65 but with high risk chronic diseases. So no, they didn't study each group on its own, but the entire study looked at high risk populations specifically.
Back to top
Page 14 of 14   Previous  1  2  3  12  13  14 Recent Topics




Post new topic   Reply to topic    Forum -> Coronavirus Health Questions

Related Topics Replies Last Post
Psa reminder amazon returns due back tomorrow!!
by amother
21 Wed, Jan 31 2024, 9:09 am View last post
Home Insurance cancellation due to "a deteriorated roof"
by amother
22 Sun, Jan 14 2024, 9:40 pm View last post
Wigs from Insurance due to hair loss
by amother
1 Thu, Jan 11 2024, 8:03 am View last post
Due Tuition Commitees count retirement as savings?
by amother
4 Tue, Dec 26 2023, 5:41 am View last post
Research on moving OOT
by amother
22 Thu, Dec 07 2023, 7:02 pm View last post