Thank you, Free Market medical care and prescription plans.
So much better than a public plan.
I’m case you’re interested, it costs around $10 to produce. BTW our tax dollars funded the research.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-8298253/How-remdesivir-cost-Experts-say-10-Gileads-antiv***l.html

Some good news 🥳
Remdesivir is looking like it will at least reduce recovery time and is safer as a baseline treatment than Hydroxychloroquine.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/arstechnica.com/science/2020/05/the-antiv***l-remdesivir-shortens-c****-**-recovery-times-study-shows/%3Famp%3D1

Rwnjs?

I’d be interested where you got this idea from?

I agree, China is responsible for its failure to tell the t***h. I’m not convinced it was intentional. They will, of course, exploit it as much as they can. I personally think it will blow up in their face.

I agree, regulations should be reviewed in light of the science.

“Impractical” is worrisome. I want a clear definition. Does that mean it doesn’t achieve the desired outcome? If so, get rid of it. Is it simply too expensive? How do you draw that line? What does the cost/benefit equation look like?

Obtuse regulations should be clarified, not necessarily eliminated.

“Unnecessary” has the same problems as “impractical”.

Contradicting regulations should be resolved one way or the other.

Yes, it’s frustrating. There are a number of factors in play.

- The unfortunate influence of politics.
The effectiveness of hydroxychloroquine has become a political issue, as if Trumps opinion of the treatment demonstrates his competence, or lack thereof. One side insists that Trumps opinion is absolutely right, as proof of competence. The other insists it is absolutely wrong as proof of incompetence. The fact is he’s not a doctor, nor does he claim to be. We just don’t know what treatments will prove to be effective.

- As we learn more about the v***s, medical opinions change. That’s how science works. Someone proposes a hypothesis. The hypothesis is tested. Maybe it looks good. Then further testing reveals new information. The hypothesis may be supported and have more weight, it may be adjusted to take the new evidence into account or discarded entirely if the new evidence disproves the hypothesis. If enough evidence supports a hypothesis it eventually becomes a theory. There are no scientific theories that can’t be discarded tomorrow if sufficient evidence disproves them.

- The public is desperate for a solution, so any treatment that shows promise is jumped on. It seems many people have pinned their hopes on hydroxychloroquine. The possibility that it doesn’t work, or is too dangerous as a baseline treatment, terrifies them.

I truly hope we find an treatment that works well enough to save as many lives as possible. I’m just not convinced hydroxychloroquine is it.

Please dig down to the study itself.
It is not conclusive.
Hydroxychloroquine showed very promising results in early days.
Unfortunately, while it may be useful in some cases, it may be too dangerous as a standard of care.
We still have a lot to learn about this v***s.

Ummm
No
https://www.ny1.com/nyc/all-boroughs/news/2020/05/07/hospitals-in-nyc-abandon-hydroxychloroquine-treatment-touted-by-trump-

I see plenty of guilt to go around. Right now? TDS is real, and belongs in the DSM.

Hydroxycloroquine is an effective treatment for many diseases. This doesn’t mean it will be effective for C****-**.

I absolutely agree with your assessment of the pharmaceutical industry.🤬🤑🤬

Please be careful of any article regarding a treatment for C****-** that doesn’t include a link to a study you can examine for your self.

Unfortunately, and ridiculously, medical information (and misinformation) has become politicized. If there’s one area where politics should have as little influence as possible, it’s medicine. Still, here we are.

A clinical trial is being put together for this purpose.
https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04370782

I would be very interested in a link to a study evaluating the effectiveness.

I’m not claiming the study is conclusive. A lot more work is needed for that.

From the article- Heading: Methods
4th sentence.
“Patients who received one of the treatments of interest within 48 hours of diagnosis.”
I’m not sure what relationship that has to the v***s cycle but it does indicate it was administered within 48 hours.

Heading: Findings
Sentence 4
“After controlling for multiple confounding factors (age, sex, ethnicity, body mass index, underlying cardiovascular disease and its risk factors, diabetes, underlying lung disease, smoking, immunosuppressed condition, and baseline disease severity), ...”
This is a pretty comprehensive list.

Heading: Statistical Analysis
Paragraph 3 shows how they matched patient health profiles. So, a healthy patient would be compared with a healthy patient.

I believe you’re referring to the early French study.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32387409/

Here in America, Henry Ford Hospital started our first large scale study in April.
https://www.dicardiology.com/article/first-large-scale-us-study-hydroxychloroquine-c****-**-prophylaxis-begins-detroit

I’m hoping we will succeed in determining both effectiveness and risk factors. I suspect it will be useful for some, definitely not for others. We shall see.

So far as Lancet is concerned, while I’m not saying they’re pure as the driven snow, you’re not going to find a more trustworthy source.