|
Now that we have a new thread, in order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread |
It's like what StalkerTL said. They want a sense of security that their lives are going to return to normal and if this drug helps with that, then they are for it. Side effects be damned. That's the only rationale I can seem to discern from this because it doesn't make sense.
Around 2007 or so, I went to clinical trial for diabetes or something. After filling all of the paperwork out and everything to test this drug, I ended up walking out because it didn't feel right. What if I took the actual drug and had adverse side effects? That scared the living hell out of me. So I can't understand why someone would take a real drug on purpose, for something it isn't clinically tested to treat.
|
On May 21 2020 07:59 GreenHorizons wrote:
tbf a lot of medications in the US aren't proven to work but simply show slightly better results than placebo (sometimes not even that) in studies sponsored by the drug's manufacturer.
It's one reason we have a new commercial for some "new" drug for some condition popping up on our TV's pretty regularly.
We pumped a whole generation full of anti-depressants and mood altering drugs with literally no idea what they did to children's brains for example.
Got any examples handy of drugs that perform no better than placebo getting approved?
|
The number of things that don't cure covid is much larger than the number of things that cure covid.
If you believe something is in the second category, the burden is on you to demonstrate that this is the case.
If there's one thing this crisis has shown, it's that the the general public has no idea how science and medicine work.
|
On May 21 2020 09:22 Belisarius wrote:
The number of things that don't cure covid is much larger than the number of things that cure covid.
If you believe something is in the second category, the burden is on you to demonstrate that this is the case.
If there's one thing this crisis has shown, it's that the the general public has no idea how science and medicine work.
I think it’s really spotlighted the problem of how to communicate technical fields that affect everybody to laypeople. Conspiracy theories and pseudoscience have been on the rise for years, and it increasingly feels like an existential threat.
|
On May 21 2020 07:59 GreenHorizons wrote:
tbf a lot of medications in the US aren't proven to work but simply show slightly better results than placebo (sometimes not even that) in studies sponsored by the drug's manufacturer.
It's one reason we have a new commercial for some "new" drug for some condition popping up on our TV's pretty regularly.
We pumped a whole generation full of anti-depressants and mood altering drugs with literally no idea what they did to children's brains for example.
Can you also quote the research done for the last statement? I'd like to read that.
|
On May 21 2020 09:15 ChristianS wrote:Show nested quote +On May 21 2020 07:59 GreenHorizons wrote:
tbf a lot of medications in the US aren't proven to work but simply show slightly better results than placebo (sometimes not even that) in studies sponsored by the drug's manufacturer.
It's one reason we have a new commercial for some "new" drug for some condition popping up on our TV's pretty regularly.
We pumped a whole generation full of anti-depressants and mood altering drugs with literally no idea what they did to children's brains for example. Got any examples handy of drugs that perform no better than placebo getting approved?
The closest parallel to this HCQ would probably be Lyrica or Pregabalin. Where like HCQ it is an approved drug, shown to help with a similar issue that was widely prescribed and taken with no evidence of it actually helping for the thing millions of people took it for.
www.cbsnews.com
|
On May 21 2020 09:50 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On May 21 2020 09:15 ChristianS wrote:On May 21 2020 07:59 GreenHorizons wrote:
tbf a lot of medications in the US aren't proven to work but simply show slightly better results than placebo (sometimes not even that) in studies sponsored by the drug's manufacturer.
It's one reason we have a new commercial for some "new" drug for some condition popping up on our TV's pretty regularly.
We pumped a whole generation full of anti-depressants and mood altering drugs with literally no idea what they did to children's brains for example. Got any examples handy of drugs that perform no better than placebo getting approved? The closest parallel to this HCQ would probably be Lyrica or Pregabalin. Where like HCQ it is an approved drug, shown to help with a similar issue that was widely prescribed and taken with no evidence of it actually helping for the thing millions of people took it for. www.cbsnews.com
Ah, you’re talking about off-label usage. Yeah, that’s often a clusterfuck.
|
On May 21 2020 10:17 ChristianS wrote:Show nested quote +On May 21 2020 09:50 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 21 2020 09:15 ChristianS wrote:On May 21 2020 07:59 GreenHorizons wrote:
tbf a lot of medications in the US aren't proven to work but simply show slightly better results than placebo (sometimes not even that) in studies sponsored by the drug's manufacturer.
It's one reason we have a new commercial for some "new" drug for some condition popping up on our TV's pretty regularly.
We pumped a whole generation full of anti-depressants and mood altering drugs with literally no idea what they did to children's brains for example. Got any examples handy of drugs that perform no better than placebo getting approved? The closest parallel to this HCQ would probably be Lyrica or Pregabalin. Where like HCQ it is an approved drug, shown to help with a similar issue that was widely prescribed and taken with no evidence of it actually helping for the thing millions of people took it for. www.cbsnews.com Ah, you’re talking about off-label usage. Yeah, that’s often a clusterfuck.
Yeah, that's what were talking about with HCQ too right?
An important thing to keep in mind with the pharmaceutical industry and studies, is not only are they almost always funded by the drugmaker (kinda like our financial markets are rated/regulated) so they own the results but they also have a bad habit of not publishing the data that reflects poorly on their drugs if at all possible. For example, perhaps some here are familiar with the tamiflu story?:
Roche paid for dozens of clinical trials to prove oseltamivir worked in practice. Afterward, the scientists produced lengthy "clinical study reports" and turned them over to the FDA, which approved the drug in 1999. Some of those reports were condensed into short articles published in medical journals. Most of us have access only to these published findings.
But the full clinical study reports from those trials were locked away. There wasn't even a list of what trials were conducted; Cochrane initially figured there were about 36 and sought to read them all. It began negotiating with the drugmaker, filing freedom of information requests to the FDA and the European Medicines Agency (EMA), Europe's FDA equivalent, and backing pressure campaigns in the media. At one point early on, Roche offered to give Cochrane 10 reports, but only if it signed a confidentiality agreement keeping everything secret—including the existence of the agreement. Cochrane refused to sign.
After five years, Roche and the EMA opened up (the FDA has not, and did not respond to requests, both from Cochrane and Newsweek, to explain why). What Cochrane uncovered was more than 70 Tamiflu trials and well over 100,000 pages of unpublished reports. Among them were many trials where the results were negative or inconclusive. With this more complete picture of the testing, Cochrane concluded the trials don't prove that Tamiflu prevents hospitalizations, contagiousness or complications.
www.newsweek.com
@zero I recommend The Emperor's New Drugs by Irving Kirsch (fitting title given the topic) as a good starting point.
|
On May 21 2020 10:47 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On May 21 2020 10:17 ChristianS wrote:On May 21 2020 09:50 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 21 2020 09:15 ChristianS wrote:On May 21 2020 07:59 GreenHorizons wrote:
tbf a lot of medications in the US aren't proven to work but simply show slightly better results than placebo (sometimes not even that) in studies sponsored by the drug's manufacturer.
It's one reason we have a new commercial for some "new" drug for some condition popping up on our TV's pretty regularly.
We pumped a whole generation full of anti-depressants and mood altering drugs with literally no idea what they did to children's brains for example. Got any examples handy of drugs that perform no better than placebo getting approved? The closest parallel to this HCQ would probably be Lyrica or Pregabalin. Where like HCQ it is an approved drug, shown to help with a similar issue that was widely prescribed and taken with no evidence of it actually helping for the thing millions of people took it for. www.cbsnews.com Ah, you’re talking about off-label usage. Yeah, that’s often a clusterfuck. Yeah, that's what were talking about with HCQ too right? An important thing to keep in mind with the pharmaceutical industry and studies, is not only are they almost always funded by the drugmaker (kinda like our financial markets are rated/regulated) so they own the results but they also have a bad habit of not publishing the data that reflects poorly on their drugs if at all possible. For example, perhaps some here are familiar with the tamiflu story?: Show nested quote +Roche paid for dozens of clinical trials to prove oseltamivir worked in practice. Afterward, the scientists produced lengthy "clinical study reports" and turned them over to the FDA, which approved the drug in 1999. Some of those reports were condensed into short articles published in medical journals. Most of us have access only to these published findings.
But the full clinical study reports from those trials were locked away. There wasn't even a list of what trials were conducted; Cochrane initially figured there were about 36 and sought to read them all. It began negotiating with the drugmaker, filing freedom of information requests to the FDA and the European Medicines Agency (EMA), Europe's FDA equivalent, and backing pressure campaigns in the media. At one point early on, Roche offered to give Cochrane 10 reports, but only if it signed a confidentiality agreement keeping everything secret—including the existence of the agreement. Cochrane refused to sign.
After five years, Roche and the EMA opened up (the FDA has not, and did not respond to requests, both from Cochrane and Newsweek, to explain why). What Cochrane uncovered was more than 70 Tamiflu trials and well over 100,000 pages of unpublished reports. Among them were many trials where the results were negative or inconclusive. With this more complete picture of the testing, Cochrane concluded the trials don't prove that Tamiflu prevents hospitalizations, contagiousness or complications.
www.newsweek.com@zero I recommend The Emperor's New Drugs by Irving Kirsch (fitting title given the topic) as a good starting point.
I read the cliff notes. Doesn't conclude that your statement isn't more than sensationalism. Saying an entire generation was fucked because of these drugs is misleading. Saying that they had no affect and that no one has any idea about long term side effects is also misleading.
|
On May 21 2020 10:47 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On May 21 2020 10:17 ChristianS wrote:On May 21 2020 09:50 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 21 2020 09:15 ChristianS wrote:On May 21 2020 07:59 GreenHorizons wrote:
tbf a lot of medications in the US aren't proven to work but simply show slightly better results than placebo (sometimes not even that) in studies sponsored by the drug's manufacturer.
It's one reason we have a new commercial for some "new" drug for some condition popping up on our TV's pretty regularly.
We pumped a whole generation full of anti-depressants and mood altering drugs with literally no idea what they did to children's brains for example. Got any examples handy of drugs that perform no better than placebo getting approved? The closest parallel to this HCQ would probably be Lyrica or Pregabalin. Where like HCQ it is an approved drug, shown to help with a similar issue that was widely prescribed and taken with no evidence of it actually helping for the thing millions of people took it for. www.cbsnews.com Ah, you’re talking about off-label usage. Yeah, that’s often a clusterfuck. Yeah, that's what were talking about with HCQ too right? An important thing to keep in mind with the pharmaceutical industry and studies, is not only are they almost always funded by the drugmaker (kinda like our financial markets are rated/regulated) so they own the results but they also have a bad habit of not publishing the data that reflects poorly on their drugs if at all possible. For example, perhaps some here are familiar with the tamiflu story?: Show nested quote +Roche paid for dozens of clinical trials to prove oseltamivir worked in practice. Afterward, the scientists produced lengthy "clinical study reports" and turned them over to the FDA, which approved the drug in 1999. Some of those reports were condensed into short articles published in medical journals. Most of us have access only to these published findings.
But the full clinical study reports from those trials were locked away. There wasn't even a list of what trials were conducted; Cochrane initially figured there were about 36 and sought to read them all. It began negotiating with the drugmaker, filing freedom of information requests to the FDA and the European Medicines Agency (EMA), Europe's FDA equivalent, and backing pressure campaigns in the media. At one point early on, Roche offered to give Cochrane 10 reports, but only if it signed a confidentiality agreement keeping everything secret—including the existence of the agreement. Cochrane refused to sign.
After five years, Roche and the EMA opened up (the FDA has not, and did not respond to requests, both from Cochrane and Newsweek, to explain why). What Cochrane uncovered was more than 70 Tamiflu trials and well over 100,000 pages of unpublished reports. Among them were many trials where the results were negative or inconclusive. With this more complete picture of the testing, Cochrane concluded the trials don't prove that Tamiflu prevents hospitalizations, contagiousness or complications.
www.newsweek.com@zero I recommend The Emperor's New Drugs by Irving Kirsch (fitting title given the topic) as a good starting point.
Yes and no. Yes, any doctor currently prescribing HCQ is effectively going off-label (although I’m not sure it’s *technically* off-label due to the emergency authorization). But typically the problem with off-label is that no one’s done the work to determine efficacy. In this case people *are* doing that work, and a lot of the results are already available.
Regarding Tamiflu: I think regulators are well aware of the issue of selectively reporting results at this point. Not that there’s not still plenty of corner-cutting and incompetence in this industry, but I don’t think that particular loophole is where the trouble is any more.
|
On May 21 2020 13:11 ChristianS wrote:Show nested quote +On May 21 2020 10:47 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 21 2020 10:17 ChristianS wrote:On May 21 2020 09:50 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 21 2020 09:15 ChristianS wrote:On May 21 2020 07:59 GreenHorizons wrote:
tbf a lot of medications in the US aren't proven to work but simply show slightly better results than placebo (sometimes not even that) in studies sponsored by the drug's manufacturer.
It's one reason we have a new commercial for some "new" drug for some condition popping up on our TV's pretty regularly.
We pumped a whole generation full of anti-depressants and mood altering drugs with literally no idea what they did to children's brains for example. Got any examples handy of drugs that perform no better than placebo getting approved? The closest parallel to this HCQ would probably be Lyrica or Pregabalin. Where like HCQ it is an approved drug, shown to help with a similar issue that was widely prescribed and taken with no evidence of it actually helping for the thing millions of people took it for. www.cbsnews.com Ah, you’re talking about off-label usage. Yeah, that’s often a clusterfuck. Yeah, that's what were talking about with HCQ too right? An important thing to keep in mind with the pharmaceutical industry and studies, is not only are they almost always funded by the drugmaker (kinda like our financial markets are rated/regulated) so they own the results but they also have a bad habit of not publishing the data that reflects poorly on their drugs if at all possible. For example, perhaps some here are familiar with the tamiflu story?: Roche paid for dozens of clinical trials to prove oseltamivir worked in practice. Afterward, the scientists produced lengthy "clinical study reports" and turned them over to the FDA, which approved the drug in 1999. Some of those reports were condensed into short articles published in medical journals. Most of us have access only to these published findings.
But the full clinical study reports from those trials were locked away. There wasn't even a list of what trials were conducted; Cochrane initially figured there were about 36 and sought to read them all. It began negotiating with the drugmaker, filing freedom of information requests to the FDA and the European Medicines Agency (EMA), Europe's FDA equivalent, and backing pressure campaigns in the media. At one point early on, Roche offered to give Cochrane 10 reports, but only if it signed a confidentiality agreement keeping everything secret—including the existence of the agreement. Cochrane refused to sign.
After five years, Roche and the EMA opened up (the FDA has not, and did not respond to requests, both from Cochrane and Newsweek, to explain why). What Cochrane uncovered was more than 70 Tamiflu trials and well over 100,000 pages of unpublished reports. Among them were many trials where the results were negative or inconclusive. With this more complete picture of the testing, Cochrane concluded the trials don't prove that Tamiflu prevents hospitalizations, contagiousness or complications.
www.newsweek.com@zero I recommend The Emperor's New Drugs by Irving Kirsch (fitting title given the topic) as a good starting point. Yes and no. Yes, any doctor currently prescribing HCQ is effectively going off-label (although I’m not sure it’s *technically* off-label due to the emergency authorization). But typically the problem with off-label is that no one’s done the work to determine efficacy. In this case people *are* doing that work, and a lot of the results are already available. Regarding Tamiflu: I think regulators are well aware of the issue of selectively reporting results at this point. Not that there’s not still plenty of corner-cutting and incompetence in this industry, but I don’t think that particular loophole is where the trouble is any more.
My point is more that the whole "this sounds like it could plausibly help, what could it hurt?" mentality is part of American drug culture. Ignoring severe side-effects is too and the commercialization of superficially/inconclusively effective treatments or prophylaxis (as tamiflu is still prescribed for, despite the research mentioned) as well.
So the Trump-HCQ story is a synthesis of existing threads in our culture that I'd argue if we analyze in hindsight are predictive of a Trump like manifestation of that synthesis imo.
|
On May 21 2020 13:29 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On May 21 2020 13:11 ChristianS wrote:On May 21 2020 10:47 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 21 2020 10:17 ChristianS wrote:On May 21 2020 09:50 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 21 2020 09:15 ChristianS wrote:On May 21 2020 07:59 GreenHorizons wrote:
tbf a lot of medications in the US aren't proven to work but simply show slightly better results than placebo (sometimes not even that) in studies sponsored by the drug's manufacturer.
It's one reason we have a new commercial for some "new" drug for some condition popping up on our TV's pretty regularly.
We pumped a whole generation full of anti-depressants and mood altering drugs with literally no idea what they did to children's brains for example. Got any examples handy of drugs that perform no better than placebo getting approved? The closest parallel to this HCQ would probably be Lyrica or Pregabalin. Where like HCQ it is an approved drug, shown to help with a similar issue that was widely prescribed and taken with no evidence of it actually helping for the thing millions of people took it for. www.cbsnews.com Ah, you’re talking about off-label usage. Yeah, that’s often a clusterfuck. Yeah, that's what were talking about with HCQ too right? An important thing to keep in mind with the pharmaceutical industry and studies, is not only are they almost always funded by the drugmaker (kinda like our financial markets are rated/regulated) so they own the results but they also have a bad habit of not publishing the data that reflects poorly on their drugs if at all possible. For example, perhaps some here are familiar with the tamiflu story?: Roche paid for dozens of clinical trials to prove oseltamivir worked in practice. Afterward, the scientists produced lengthy "clinical study reports" and turned them over to the FDA, which approved the drug in 1999. Some of those reports were condensed into short articles published in medical journals. Most of us have access only to these published findings.
But the full clinical study reports from those trials were locked away. There wasn't even a list of what trials were conducted; Cochrane initially figured there were about 36 and sought to read them all. It began negotiating with the drugmaker, filing freedom of information requests to the FDA and the European Medicines Agency (EMA), Europe's FDA equivalent, and backing pressure campaigns in the media. At one point early on, Roche offered to give Cochrane 10 reports, but only if it signed a confidentiality agreement keeping everything secret—including the existence of the agreement. Cochrane refused to sign.
After five years, Roche and the EMA opened up (the FDA has not, and did not respond to requests, both from Cochrane and Newsweek, to explain why). What Cochrane uncovered was more than 70 Tamiflu trials and well over 100,000 pages of unpublished reports. Among them were many trials where the results were negative or inconclusive. With this more complete picture of the testing, Cochrane concluded the trials don't prove that Tamiflu prevents hospitalizations, contagiousness or complications.
www.newsweek.com@zero I recommend The Emperor's New Drugs by Irving Kirsch (fitting title given the topic) as a good starting point. Yes and no. Yes, any doctor currently prescribing HCQ is effectively going off-label (although I’m not sure it’s *technically* off-label due to the emergency authorization). But typically the problem with off-label is that no one’s done the work to determine efficacy. In this case people *are* doing that work, and a lot of the results are already available. Regarding Tamiflu: I think regulators are well aware of the issue of selectively reporting results at this point. Not that there’s not still plenty of corner-cutting and incompetence in this industry, but I don’t think that particular loophole is where the trouble is any more. My point is more that the whole "this sounds like it could plausibly help, what could it hurt?" mentality is part of American drug culture. Ignoring severe side-effects is too and the commercialization of superficially/inconclusively effective treatments or prophylaxis (as tamiflu is still prescribed for, despite the research mentioned) as well. So the Trump-HCQ story is a synthesis of existing threads in our culture that I'd argue if we analyze in hindsight are predictive of a Trump like manifestation of that synthesis imo.
Off-label Lyrica prescriptions predicted a Trump presidency? That’s a bit much, don’t you think?
I’m a big fan of evidence-based medicine and I realize the issues with off-label usage. The trouble is that clinical trials are expensive and it’s not obvious how to pay for it. Sometimes the drug company thinks they can sell it for more for the other indication, so they run the trials themselves; that was the case for Campath iirc. Other times the FDA tries to create special incentives for conducting clinical trials on old drugs.
The trouble is, that work generally results in dramatic increases in the price of already-available drugs. People (understandably) hate it when that happens.
|
On May 21 2020 13:55 ChristianS wrote:Show nested quote +On May 21 2020 13:29 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 21 2020 13:11 ChristianS wrote:On May 21 2020 10:47 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 21 2020 10:17 ChristianS wrote:On May 21 2020 09:50 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 21 2020 09:15 ChristianS wrote:On May 21 2020 07:59 GreenHorizons wrote:
tbf a lot of medications in the US aren't proven to work but simply show slightly better results than placebo (sometimes not even that) in studies sponsored by the drug's manufacturer.
It's one reason we have a new commercial for some "new" drug for some condition popping up on our TV's pretty regularly.
We pumped a whole generation full of anti-depressants and mood altering drugs with literally no idea what they did to children's brains for example. Got any examples handy of drugs that perform no better than placebo getting approved? The closest parallel to this HCQ would probably be Lyrica or Pregabalin. Where like HCQ it is an approved drug, shown to help with a similar issue that was widely prescribed and taken with no evidence of it actually helping for the thing millions of people took it for. www.cbsnews.com Ah, you’re talking about off-label usage. Yeah, that’s often a clusterfuck. Yeah, that's what were talking about with HCQ too right? An important thing to keep in mind with the pharmaceutical industry and studies, is not only are they almost always funded by the drugmaker (kinda like our financial markets are rated/regulated) so they own the results but they also have a bad habit of not publishing the data that reflects poorly on their drugs if at all possible. For example, perhaps some here are familiar with the tamiflu story?: Roche paid for dozens of clinical trials to prove oseltamivir worked in practice. Afterward, the scientists produced lengthy "clinical study reports" and turned them over to the FDA, which approved the drug in 1999. Some of those reports were condensed into short articles published in medical journals. Most of us have access only to these published findings.
But the full clinical study reports from those trials were locked away. There wasn't even a list of what trials were conducted; Cochrane initially figured there were about 36 and sought to read them all. It began negotiating with the drugmaker, filing freedom of information requests to the FDA and the European Medicines Agency (EMA), Europe's FDA equivalent, and backing pressure campaigns in the media. At one point early on, Roche offered to give Cochrane 10 reports, but only if it signed a confidentiality agreement keeping everything secret—including the existence of the agreement. Cochrane refused to sign.
After five years, Roche and the EMA opened up (the FDA has not, and did not respond to requests, both from Cochrane and Newsweek, to explain why). What Cochrane uncovered was more than 70 Tamiflu trials and well over 100,000 pages of unpublished reports. Among them were many trials where the results were negative or inconclusive. With this more complete picture of the testing, Cochrane concluded the trials don't prove that Tamiflu prevents hospitalizations, contagiousness or complications.
www.newsweek.com@zero I recommend The Emperor's New Drugs by Irving Kirsch (fitting title given the topic) as a good starting point. Yes and no. Yes, any doctor currently prescribing HCQ is effectively going off-label (although I’m not sure it’s *technically* off-label due to the emergency authorization). But typically the problem with off-label is that no one’s done the work to determine efficacy. In this case people *are* doing that work, and a lot of the results are already available. Regarding Tamiflu: I think regulators are well aware of the issue of selectively reporting results at this point. Not that there’s not still plenty of corner-cutting and incompetence in this industry, but I don’t think that particular loophole is where the trouble is any more. My point is more that the whole "this sounds like it could plausibly help, what could it hurt?" mentality is part of American drug culture. Ignoring severe side-effects is too and the commercialization of superficially/inconclusively effective treatments or prophylaxis (as tamiflu is still prescribed for, despite the research mentioned) as well. So the Trump-HCQ story is a synthesis of existing threads in our culture that I'd argue if we analyze in hindsight are predictive of a Trump like manifestation of that synthesis imo. Off-label Lyrica prescriptions predicted a Trump presidency? That’s a bit much, don’t you think? I’m a big fan of evidence-based medicine and I realize the issues with off-label usage. The trouble is that clinical trials are expensive and it’s not obvious how to pay for it. Sometimes the drug company thinks they can sell it for more for the other indication, so they run the trials themselves; that was the case for Campath iirc. Other times the FDA tries to create special incentives for conducting clinical trials on old drugs. The trouble is, that work generally results in dramatic increases in the price of already-available drugs. People (understandably) hate it when that happens.
That would be a bit much and an inaccurate interpretation/description of:
this sounds like it could plausibly help, what could it hurt?" mentality is part of American drug culture. Ignoring severe side-effects is too and the commercialization of superficially/inconclusively effective treatments or prophylaxis (as tamiflu is still prescribed for, despite the research mentioned) as well.
So the Trump-HCQ story is a synthesis of existing threads in our culture that I'd argue if we analyze in hindsight are predictive of a Trump like manifestation of that synthesis imo. imo
That some charlatan would ascend to the presidency (or other prominent position) and hawk snake oil amid a pandemic is the part I would say those existing threads of US culture would be predictive of. NotOff-label Lyrica prescriptions predicted a Trump presidency.
I'm basically just supporting the supposition + Show Spoiler +On May 21 2020 08:02 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:
It's like what StalkerTL said. They want a sense of security that their lives are going to return to normal and if this drug helps with that, then they are for it. Side effects be damned. That's the only rationale I can seem to discern from this because it doesn't make sense.
|
On May 21 2020 07:52 Simberto wrote:
The "Anti-HCQ" point of view is that it is insane to prescribe something as a cure to a disease that is not proven to have any effect curing that disease. I don't understand how someone can not understand that.
I can point at 5000 different things and claim that they cure 5000 different things, and it would take a lot of effort to disprove even a single one of these claims. If we put the burden of proof onto people trying to proof that stuff doesn't cure disease, you should be eating bullshit pills 24 hours a day. It is just absurd.
I really cannot even understand the other point of view here. Should we just take random stuff that might help if it isn't proven to not help? Really the only reasonable way of dealing with this is to prove that something works in scientific studies, and then use that stuff.
And HCQ is not proven to work.
Am i completely misunderstanding stuff here, or is the "Pro-HCQ" point of view just plain insane?
Well it's a new disease and people are dying. Nothing is proven to work. You have to try things. Like ventilators.
|
We should absolutely be doing trials of HCQ.
If those trials suggest it does nothing, we should probably stop. This is the point we are up to now.
Under no circumstances should we continue to throw random things around ex-trial when the evidence suggests they do not work.
This is not rocket science. It's barely even science. It's just common sense.
|
Trials have been done, it doesn't do anything.
www.nejm.org
Clinical guidance at our medical center has been updated to remove the suggestion that patients with Covid-19 be treated with hydroxychloroquine. In our analysis involving a large sample of consecutive patients who had been hospitalized with Covid-19, hydroxychloroquine use was not associated with a significantly higher or lower risk of intubation or death (hazard ratio, 1.04; 95% CI, 0.82 to 1.32). The study results should not be taken to rule out either benefit or harm of hydroxychloroquine treatment, given the observational design and the 95% confidence interval, but the results do not support the use of hydroxychloroquine at present, outside randomized clinical trials testing its efficacy.
|
On May 21 2020 07:22 Velr wrote:
Please tell us more about trump promoting some drug as his end goal.
Sry clutz, didn't see your reply but... Sooo fuck it all or is there anything more?
HCQ is a generally safe drug with almost no side effects in most people (ones that most doctors who would be prescribing it prophetically to other healthcare workers would know, as an obvious example), and it has an obvious route for possible effectiveness via hemoglobin.* That is the something more. Off labeling is rarely based on much more.
*Note we really don't have a full biological reason for why HCQ works against malaria and lupus.
On May 21 2020 07:52 Simberto wrote:
The "Anti-HCQ" point of view is that it is insane to prescribe something as a cure to a disease that is not proven to have any effect curing that disease. I don't understand how someone can not understand that.
I can point at 5000 different things and claim that they cure 5000 different things, and it would take a lot of effort to disprove even a single one of these claims. If we put the burden of proof onto people trying to proof that stuff doesn't cure disease, you should be eating bullshit pills 24 hours a day. It is just absurd.
I really cannot even understand the other point of view here. Should we just take random stuff that might help if it isn't proven to not help? Really the only reasonable way of dealing with this is to prove that something works in scientific studies, and then use that stuff.
And HCQ is not proven to work.
Am i completely misunderstanding stuff here, or is the "Pro-HCQ" point of view just plain insane?
You are missing that most drugs are actually used all over the place all of the time based on what doctors hope will work. Think House, but on a wide scale, over many patients. Once a drug is generally approved, what happens is that people do all sorts of mediocre studies on that drug for ancillary uses and then doctors use their best judgment. Another thing is that safety is overweighted in formal approval. Aspirin would probably not be approved today for either pain or heart attacks, it is effective for both.
On May 21 2020 13:29 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On May 21 2020 13:11 ChristianS wrote:On May 21 2020 10:47 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 21 2020 10:17 ChristianS wrote:On May 21 2020 09:50 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 21 2020 09:15 ChristianS wrote:On May 21 2020 07:59 GreenHorizons wrote:
tbf a lot of medications in the US aren't proven to work but simply show slightly better results than placebo (sometimes not even that) in studies sponsored by the drug's manufacturer.
It's one reason we have a new commercial for some "new" drug for some condition popping up on our TV's pretty regularly.
We pumped a whole generation full of anti-depressants and mood altering drugs with literally no idea what they did to children's brains for example. Got any examples handy of drugs that perform no better than placebo getting approved? The closest parallel to this HCQ would probably be Lyrica or Pregabalin. Where like HCQ it is an approved drug, shown to help with a similar issue that was widely prescribed and taken with no evidence of it actually helping for the thing millions of people took it for. www.cbsnews.com Ah, you’re talking about off-label usage. Yeah, that’s often a clusterfuck. Yeah, that's what were talking about with HCQ too right? An important thing to keep in mind with the pharmaceutical industry and studies, is not only are they almost always funded by the drugmaker (kinda like our financial markets are rated/regulated) so they own the results but they also have a bad habit of not publishing the data that reflects poorly on their drugs if at all possible. For example, perhaps some here are familiar with the tamiflu story?: Roche paid for dozens of clinical trials to prove oseltamivir worked in practice. Afterward, the scientists produced lengthy "clinical study reports" and turned them over to the FDA, which approved the drug in 1999. Some of those reports were condensed into short articles published in medical journals. Most of us have access only to these published findings.
But the full clinical study reports from those trials were locked away. There wasn't even a list of what trials were conducted; Cochrane initially figured there were about 36 and sought to read them all. It began negotiating with the drugmaker, filing freedom of information requests to the FDA and the European Medicines Agency (EMA), Europe's FDA equivalent, and backing pressure campaigns in the media. At one point early on, Roche offered to give Cochrane 10 reports, but only if it signed a confidentiality agreement keeping everything secret—including the existence of the agreement. Cochrane refused to sign.
After five years, Roche and the EMA opened up (the FDA has not, and did not respond to requests, both from Cochrane and Newsweek, to explain why). What Cochrane uncovered was more than 70 Tamiflu trials and well over 100,000 pages of unpublished reports. Among them were many trials where the results were negative or inconclusive. With this more complete picture of the testing, Cochrane concluded the trials don't prove that Tamiflu prevents hospitalizations, contagiousness or complications.
www.newsweek.com@zero I recommend The Emperor's New Drugs by Irving Kirsch (fitting title given the topic) as a good starting point. Yes and no. Yes, any doctor currently prescribing HCQ is effectively going off-label (although I’m not sure it’s *technically* off-label due to the emergency authorization). But typically the problem with off-label is that no one’s done the work to determine efficacy. In this case people *are* doing that work, and a lot of the results are already available. Regarding Tamiflu: I think regulators are well aware of the issue of selectively reporting results at this point. Not that there’s not still plenty of corner-cutting and incompetence in this industry, but I don’t think that particular loophole is where the trouble is any more. My point is more that the whole "this sounds like it could plausibly help, what could it hurt?" mentality is part of American drug culture. Ignoring severe side-effects is too and the commercialization of superficially/inconclusively effective treatments or prophylaxis (as tamiflu is still prescribed for, despite the research mentioned) as well. So the Trump-HCQ story is a synthesis of existing threads in our culture that I'd argue if we analyze in hindsight are predictive of a Trump like manifestation of that synthesis imo.
Not only is offlabeling part of American drug culture, it is basically necessitated by the approval structure. There are many compounds that are probably effective but not used because they have never passed. If HCQ was not approved for used today, it would never be approved even for malaria. Not because its not useful for malaria, but because the cost of approval exceeds the potential gain for a private entity.
Also, ethical doctors are not gonna do a randomized trial on a thing they think works unless they are getting paid and have cover. They just choose the course they think will work best. This means samples are nonrepresentative. But, some of the better studies suggest it does prevent progression, but probably doesn't solve cases once death is likely imminent. This is consistent with the hypothetical models that say the disease affects hemoglobin rather than the lungs directly.
|
On May 21 2020 16:44 cLutZ wrote:Show nested quote +On May 21 2020 07:22 Velr wrote:
Please tell us more about trump promoting some drug as his end goal.
Sry clutz, didn't see your reply but... Sooo fuck it all or is there anything more? HCQ is a generally safe drug with almost no side effects in most people (ones that most doctors who would be prescribing it prophetically to other healthcare workers would know, as an obvious example), and it has an obvious route for possible effectiveness via hemoglobin.* That is the something more. Off labeling is rarely based on much more. *Note we really don't have a full biological reason for why HCQ works against malaria and lupus.
Which is a good reason to test HCQ on Covid-19 patients. They did. It had no positive effect. They don't need to keep trying on the off chance that it might work next time.
|
|
|
On May 20 2020 05:14 Vivax wrote:Show nested quote +On May 20 2020 03:50 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 20 2020 01:26 LegalLord wrote:On May 20 2020 01:19 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On May 20 2020 01:16 LegalLord wrote:On May 20 2020 00:18 Vivax wrote:
Watching the senate online hearing, it's hilarious.
The fed leverages 200 billions to 1.3 trillion iirc. My jaw dropped. One guy was asking where the money is going and didn't get a clear answer, then he said 'what's 100 billions among friends' as a Trump jab lmao. And that he's going to look into it. Following the money must be a pretty good thriller with Trump.
Powell to HY purchases: 'These high-yield companies can even borrow themselves now!' LOL It's been a fantastic game of money-print lately. Junk bonds, commercial paper, there is no asset too questionable or risky for the Fed to buy up with money-printed leverage. And the only alleged consequence is that it "looks bad" if the Fed ends up bailing out companies and choosing winners in the process of doing this all! On May 20 2020 01:13 Biff The Understudy wrote:
I shiver thinking what would have happened if the democrats hadn't won the midterm. It would have been the greatest heist in history. With the exception of the actual left-wingers, they are only notionally different. This whole song and dance is only notionally different from what Obama's administration and Fed did over the 8 years he was in charge. Can you please elaborate on the parallel you're drawing between our current situation and past situations during Obama's presidency? I'm having some trouble understanding the similarities. Thanks  Giant corporate bailouts, "unprecedented" Fed initiatives, racking up impressive deficits, remarkable lack of any meaningful accountability, etc. Might have been in a more pleasant package back then but the underlying mechanics are the same and all the things the Fed is doing today are straight out of the Obama-era playbook. Not as if Obama invented that stuff, but it doesn't do any good for us to pretend Trump did either. Obama waited to see who's swimming naked when the tide went out and then bailed some out. He didn't disguise his bailouts as covid-19 relief, which is imo the difference here.
![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/97mOqhp.png)
Fitch is catching up.
There's the sayings that lies are short-legged. The devil can make the pot but not the lid.
Btw what does this mean:
banks are permitted to not report payment deferrals granted until the earlier of the end of 2020 or 60 days following the termination of the public health emergency as TDRs, past due or non-accrual.
I can't process until the earlier of the end of 2020 as a date.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
