Small Chloroquine Study Halted Over Risk of Fatal Heart Complications

Which seems like many drugs on the market.

 

Acute respiratory distress syndrome is a symptom - a diagnosis of a life-threatening condition, it is not a disease. It's a diagnosis of respiratory failure, the cause isn't determined by a diagnosis of ARDS.

 

Since America is leading the world in relation to the total number of people who have died......

https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/

 

Why don't you ask a European? I understand you're trying very very hard to tangle with me. Come up with something logical and I'm willing to engage your foolishness.

 

You want a better efficacy rate than what we are seeing so far

 

I am very well aware of that and suggest you read the rest of the paper I linked to

This observational study of patients is what is causing the rethink in relation to how ventilation is managed in these patients

 

This post ^ says a lot about the poster

 

Thanks. That verifies my research and what I posted previously to show @Bowerbird this is not the same as ARDS we are used to.

I’ve almost drowned a few times. I’ve watched a lot of animals die from pneumonia and from botched/rejected esophageal feedings/hydrations. I’m as familiar with it as the next guy.

Are you claiming no formal research is done on the subject of ventilator use? That doctors just fly by the seat of their pants? I find that hard to believe if that’s your claim.

Either way, bottom line, we agree. In C19 we did what past experience indicated we should do. We did it to save lives. It didn’t work out as well as we’d hoped. We were wrong on some aspects of their use. I agree it’s nobody’s fault. I’m not saying vents are bad, or we shouldn’t have used them the way we though was best. My point is simply that we can’t uphold vents as an example of a treatment used with lack of data and simultaneously repudiate doctors using any treatment like chloroquine to save lives when deemed appropriate and based on known facts.

A point on blood oxygen levels. I’ve seen reports of C19 patients with saturation levels in the 70% range without shortness of breath or cognitive impairment. It’s these type of patients physicians are beginning to believe should not be intubated immediately even though saturation levels are well below where intubation would typically be ordered (I believe that’s 93% correct me if I’m wrong I can’t remember).

Do you think this should be studied further formally or just let MDs work it out?

 

Hooray! A potentially life-saving COVID treatment failed! That's awesome!

Take that, Orange Man!

 

NYT = MSM = Fake News

 

Yep. It says that as a scientist, I'm data driven. If the data says that we have a better healthcare system than the EU States, those who want to replace it with systems that don't come close to the quality of our system are driven by ideology, not the data. I would note that this is not forum to discuss other posters and for you and your lover to turn it into a bullying forum is not appropriate. That you and your lover chose that route says more about you two than me.

 

You aren’t a fan of science by consensus I see.
I’m not either.

 

Please link me to the research papers supporting that claim

 

Read your article again - more carefully.

“One of the authors of the Brazilian study, Dr. Marcus Lacerda, said in an email on Sunday that his study found that “the high dosage that the Chinese were using is very toxic and kills more patients.”

“That is the reason this arm of the study was halted early,” he said, adding that the manuscript was being reviewed by the journal Lancet Global Health.”
NEW YORK TIMES, By Katie Thomas and Knvul Sheikh, Small Chloroquine Study Halted Over Risk of Fatal Heart Complications, 4/12/20.
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/04/12/health/chloroquine-coronavirus-trump.html

 

I'm not a fan of science by model either, though I spent many years developing technology for nuclear plant blow down models. In the end, regardless of the technology I installed in the models, modelers / analysts could produce any result they choose. The governing equations were very similar to those used in climate models. In short, I'm not surprised that climate modelers were able to make the hiatus go away in advance of the Paris gathering.

 

But quite a ways down the list in per capita deaths.

 

Well they are below the mighty San Marino, Andorra and Sint Maarten. I can't believe that so many Trump supporters think that the US is coping well with this virus

 

We are, considering the size of the country and number of travelers that came here from China and Europe. We're something like tied for #15 in deaths per million. Sleepy Joe would have done worse, he opposed the China travel restriction when it counted. He's changed his mind since, or at least his staff has changed his mind.

 

You're tenth in the list of countries with more than 1000 deaths so in what world is that doing well?

 

It's the data.
13% of Italians who got the disease died
10% of Spaniards who got the disease died
11% of Frenchmen who got the disease died
13% of British who got the disease died
11% of Dutchmen who got the disease died

We're not even close, and if Trump let the attacks for acting too soon effect his policies, we would have been just like the European socialist globalists.

 

Notice the paranoia, Amazing. These doctors murder about 20 people all to make Trump look bad.

INADB even I know that clinical trials typically use varying dosages with some being large.

 

Varying dosages does not mean high dosages... Again the drug has been used for decades.

 

Why don't you tell us what is the ideal dosage to cure coronavirus?

 

First you are treating the symptoms not trying to "cure" something.. And second you are fine with using a higher dosage then for Malaria as a test?

 

You haven't answered the question.

Dosage for Malaria 1200mg on day 1.
Dosage for Lupus 800mg per day for several weeks or months

The study: 900mg for group 1, 1200mg for group 2 on day 1

How do you think that the dose for Malaria or Lupus victims was determined?