学术文章发在美国流行病学杂志。左媒科技官僚手上全是枉死病人的血债,医生敢出来说HCQ有效就被威胁吊销执照 文章链接 https://academic.oup.com/aje/article/doi/10.1093/aje/kwaa093/5847586 要早使用,本来最早是纽约医生看到中国2月份的治疗方案开始使用,效果很好,没有一个病人死亡。喊了一嗓子,被川普听到了,结果从川普嘴里说出来,就成了有各种各样风险的剧毒药。看看中国方案2月份就推荐使用奎宁类药,结果美国还在闹。 科技部:磷酸氯喹治疗新冠肺炎有效 2020-02-17 20:13:24 来源: 中新网 国务院联防联控机制于2月17日召开新闻发布会,科技部生物中心副主任孙燕荣表示, 专家组经过认真细致地研讨,最后达成一致意见,该药是个上市多年的老药,用于广泛 人群治疗的安全性是可控的,机构开展的临床研究结果可以明确,磷酸氯喹治疗新冠肺 炎具有疗效,基于临床救治的迫切需求,专家一直推荐应该尽快将磷酸氯喹纳入到新一 版诊疗指南,扩大临床使用范围。(谢艺观) The Key to Defeating COVID-19 Already Exists. We Need to Start Using It | Opinion HARVEY A. RISCH, MD, PHD , PROFESSOR OF EPIDEMIOLOGY, YALE SCHOOL OF PUBLIC HEALTH ON 7/23/20 AT 7:00 AM EDT
As professor of epidemiology at Yale School of Public Health, I have authored over 300 peer-reviewed publications and currently hold senior positions on the editorial boards of several leading journals. I am usually accustomed to advocating for positions within the mainstream of medicine, so have been flummoxed to find that, in the midst of a crisis, I am fighting for a treatment that the data fully support but which, for reasons having nothing to do with a correct understanding of the science, has been pushed to the sidelines. As a result, tens of thousands of patients with COVID-19 are dying unnecessarily. Fortunately, the situation can be reversed easily and quickly. I am referring, of course, to the medication hydroxychloroquine. When this inexpensive oral medication is given very early in the course of illness, before the virus has had time to multiply beyond control, it has shown to be highly effective, especially when given in combination with the antibiotics azithromycin or doxycycline and the nutritional supplement zinc. On May 27, I published an article in the American Journal of Epidemiology (AJE) entitled, "Early Outpatient Treatment of Symptomatic, High-Risk COVID-19 Patients that Should be Ramped-Up Immediately as Key to the Pandemic Crisis." That article, published in the world''''s leading epidemiology journal, analyzed five studies, demonstrating clear-cut and significant benefits to treated patients, plus other very large studies that showed the medication safety. Physicians who have been using these medications in the face of widespread skepticism have been truly heroic. They have done what the science shows is best for their patients, often at great personal risk. I myself know of two doctors who have saved the lives of hundreds of patients with these medications, but are now fighting state medical boards to save their licenses and reputations. The cases against them are completely without scientific merit. Since publication of my May 27 article, seven more studies have demonstrated similar benefit. In a lengthy follow-up letter, also published by AJE, I discuss these seven studies and renew my call for the immediate early use of hydroxychloroquine in high-risk patients. These seven studies include: an additional 400 high-risk patients treated by Dr. Vladimir Zelenko, with zero deaths; four studies totaling almost 500 high-risk patients treated in nursing homes and clinics across the U.S., with no deaths; a controlled trial of more than 700 high-risk patients in Brazil, with significantly reduced risk of hospitalization and two deaths among 334 patients treated with hydroxychloroquine; and another study of 398 matched patients in France, also with significantly reduced hospitalization risk. Since my letter was published, even more doctors have reported to me their completely successful use. READ MORE''''I Ran 22 Miles In A Mask To Show They Are Safe''''''''I''''ve Been A Teacher For 23 Years—I Wrote My Will Because Of COVID-19''''Instead of Attacking the Coronavirus, Trump Attacks Americans. My original article in the AJE is available free online, and I encourage readers—especially physicians, nurses, physician assistants and associates, and respiratory therapists—to search the title and read it. My follow-up letter is linked there to the original paper. Beyond these studies of individual patients, we have seen what happens in large populations when these drugs are used. These have been "natural experiments." In the northern Brazil state of Pará, COVID-19 deaths were increasing exponentially. On April 6, the public hospital network purchased 75,000 doses of azithromycin and 90,000 doses of hydroxychloroquine. Over the next few weeks, authorities began distributing these medications to infected individuals. Even though new cases continued to occur, on May 22 the death rate started to plummet and is now about one-eighth what it was at the peak. 系统提示:若遇到视频无法播放请点击下方链接 https://www.youtube.com/embed/https://frontend.1worldonline.com/widget/smart3-087ac41a.html#!/widget/ae00c103-e726-4807-baa0-5d9957b1dd03
Hydroxychloroquine tablets GEORGE FREY/AFP VIA GETTY IMAGES A reverse natural experiment happened in Switzerland. On May 27, the Swiss national government banned outpatient use of hydroxychloroquine for COVID-19. Around June 10, COVID-19 deaths increased four-fold and remained elevated. On June 11, the Swiss government revoked the ban, and on June 23 the death rate reverted to what it had been beforehand. People who die from COVID-19 live about three to five weeks from the start of symptoms, which makes the evidence of a causal relation in these experiments strong. Both episodes suggest that a combination of hydroxychloroquine and its companion medications reduces mortality and should be immediately adopted as the new standard of care in high-risk patients. Why has hydroxychloroquine been disregarded? First, as all know, the medication has become highly politicized. For many, it is viewed as a marker of political identity, on both sides of the political spectrum. Nobody needs me to remind them that this is not how medicine should proceed. We must judge this medication strictly on the science. When doctors graduate from medical school, they formally promise to make the health and life of the patient their first consideration, without biases of race, religion, nationality, social standing—or political affiliation. Lives must come first. Second, the drug has not been used properly in many studies. Hydroxychloroquine has shown major success when used early in high-risk people but, as one would expect for an antiviral, much less success when used late in the disease course. Even so, it has demonstrated significant benefit in large hospital studies in Michigan and New York City when started within the first 24 to 48 hours after admission. In fact, as inexpensive, oral and widely available medications, and a nutritional supplement, the combination of hydroxychloroquine, azithromycin or doxycycline, and zinc are well-suited for early treatment in the outpatient setting. The combination should be prescribed in high-risk patients immediately upon clinical suspicion of COVID-19 disease, without waiting for results of testing. Delays in waiting before starting the medications can reduce their efficacy. Third, concerns have been raised by the FDA and others about risks of cardiac arrhythmia, especially when hydroxychloroquine is given in combination with azithromycin. The FDA based its comments on data in its FDA Adverse Event Reporting System. This reporting system captured up to a thousand cases of arrhythmias attributed to hydroxychloroquine use. In fact, the number is likely higher than that, since the reporting system, which requires physicians or patients to initiate contact with the FDA, appreciably undercounts drug side effects. But what the FDA did not announce is that these adverse events were generated from tens of millions of patient uses of hydroxychloroquine for long periods of time, often for the chronic treatment of lupus or rheumatoid arthritis. Even if the true rates of arrhythmia are ten-fold higher than those reported, the harms would be minuscule compared to the mortality occurring right now in inadequately treated high-risk COVID-19 patients. This fact is proven by an Oxford University study of more than 320,000 older patients taking both hydroxychloroquine and azithromycin, who had arrhythmia excess death rates of less than 9/100,000 users, as I discuss in my May 27 paper cited above. A new paper in the American Journal of Medicine by established cardiologists around the world fully agrees with this. In the future, I believe this misbegotten episode regarding hydroxychloroquine will be studied by sociologists of medicine as a classic example of how extra-scientific factors overrode clear-cut medical evidence. But for now, reality demands a clear, scientific eye on the evidence and where it points. For the sake of high-risk patients, for the sake of our parents and grandparents, for the sake of the unemployed, for our economy and for our polity, especially those disproportionally affected, we must start treating immediately. Harvey A. Risch, MD, PhD, is professor of epidemiology at Yale School of Public Health
这个世界真是疯了。 搜索了一下这个教授。 Education: 9/80-12/82 University of Washington Postdoctoral Fellow, Epidemiology 9/76-8/80 University of Chicago Ph.D., Biomathematics 9/72-6/76 UC San Diego School of Medicine M.D., Medicine 9/67-6/72 California Institute of Technology B.S. (Honors), Biology; Mathematics
这个世界真是疯了。 搜索了一下这个教授。 Education: 9/80-12/82 University of Washington Postdoctoral Fellow, Epidemiology 9/76-8/80 University of Chicago Ph.D., Biomathematics 9/72-6/76 UC San Diego School of Medicine M.D., Medicine 9/67-6/72 California Institute of Technology B.S. (Honors), Biology; Mathematics nyclily 发表于 2020-07-28 10:18
在pandemic这么危急的情况下,难道不是要open minded的尝试各种药物吗?何况还是一个安全用了半个世纪的预防药。不推广就算了,还一路封杀。看看人家印度 Why ICMR continues to stand firm on using hydroxychloroquine as prophylaxis https://health.economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/pharma/why-icmr-continues-to-stand-firm-on-using-hydroxychloroquine-as-prophylaxis/76172274 Indian Council of Medical Research (ICMR) has maintained its recommendation and approved the use of HCQ as prophylaxis based on the studies conducted in India, despite World Health Organisation (WHO) suspending the clinical trials using hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) under its Solidarity Trial. A recent case-controlled study by ICMR has underlined the benefit of hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) as prophylaxis, showing that the sustained use of the anti-malaria drug along with the use of personal protective equipment (PPE) was associated with a significant decline in risk of Covid-19 infection rate by upto 80% among the healthcare workers. The study findings further strengthen ICMRs stand on HCQ as prophylaxis, meaning the treatment is given or action is taken to prevent the disease. "There is a huge difference in the (HCQ) dose which is used as therapeutic and preventive purpose. The prophylaxis HCQ is given in very small dose (400 milligrams once a week)," said Dr Arvind Kumar, Chairman, Centre for Chest Surgery and Director in Institute of Robotic Surgery at Sir Ganga Ram Hospital, who is also taking it himself. According to the ICMR study published in the Indian Journal of Medical Research (IJMR), consumption of four or more maintenance doses was associated with a significant decline (>80%) in the risk of Covid-19 infection among the ‘participants’. The study also found that there was no significant association between HCQ and adverse drug reactions. The growing debate on the efficacy of HCQ was sparked by study findings including a large observational study published in the medical journal The Lancet which showed that HCQ or HCQ with azithromycin had no significant therapeutic benefit, increased mortality and irregular heart rhythm in Covid-19 patients. However, serious questions have been raised on the reliability of the findings reported in two of the world’s leading medical journals which have also expressed concern about potential flaws in their data. Dr Arvind said, “The cardiac impact of HCQ has been overplayed. In the dosages which are used in the preventive setting the benefit outplays the risks. The heart rhythm disorder has been reported to the tune of 1.9 per cent." Amid the HCQ controversy, Dr Balram Bhargava, Director General (DG) of the ICMR, told that media last week that the Council found the drug very effective and having less side effects for prophylaxis consumption. Soon ICMR expanded the use of HCQ as a preventive medication for asymptomatic healthcare workers working in non-Covid-19 hospitals, frontline staff on surveillance duty in containment zones and paramilitary/police personnel involved in coronavirus infection-related activities. Further elaborating on the importance of HCQ as prophylaxis Dr Kumar said, “People who are normal but are at risk of getting the disease due to the high exposure level in their profession, need a higher level of a preventive measure than the average general population.” Differentiating on the use of HCQ in a therapeutic setting, Dr Kumar said, "The dose is much higher and the Covid-19 patients in ICU are mostly 60 plus (age) and already have other co-morbidities. So, that is a different setting, whereas the healthcare workers are mostly the middle-aged people.” Clinical Research & Drug Development, Consultant, Dr Arun Bhatt said, "Policy and judgements should be based on what the emergency situation demands as one cannot wait for 3 months to decide what will come in the trial. Currently, there is no option for the government but to recommend this drug as there is no other prophylaxis available." India has been independently making effective interventions and has managed to keep the coronavirus cases and fatalities low. Going by the positive results in the recent ICMR study, India will continue to push forward the prophylactic use of HCQ drug for protecting the doctor and frontline workers atleast till a more effective drug against Covid-19 is introduced.
文章链接 https://academic.oup.com/aje/article/doi/10.1093/aje/kwaa093/5847586
要早使用,本来最早是纽约医生看到中国2月份的治疗方案开始使用,效果很好,没有一个病人死亡。喊了一嗓子,被川普听到了,结果从川普嘴里说出来,就成了有各种各样风险的剧毒药。看看中国方案2月份就推荐使用奎宁类药,结果美国还在闹。
科技部:磷酸氯喹治疗新冠肺炎有效 2020-02-17 20:13:24 来源: 中新网
国务院联防联控机制于2月17日召开新闻发布会,科技部生物中心副主任孙燕荣表示, 专家组经过认真细致地研讨,最后达成一致意见,该药是个上市多年的老药,用于广泛 人群治疗的安全性是可控的,机构开展的临床研究结果可以明确,磷酸氯喹治疗新冠肺 炎具有疗效,基于临床救治的迫切需求,专家一直推荐应该尽快将磷酸氯喹纳入到新一 版诊疗指南,扩大临床使用范围。(谢艺观)
The Key to Defeating COVID-19 Already Exists. We Need to Start Using It | Opinion HARVEY A. RISCH, MD, PHD , PROFESSOR OF EPIDEMIOLOGY, YALE SCHOOL OF PUBLIC HEALTH ON 7/23/20 AT 7:00 AM EDT
As professor of epidemiology at Yale School of Public Health, I have authored over 300 peer-reviewed publications and currently hold senior positions on the editorial boards of several leading journals. I am usually accustomed to advocating for positions within the mainstream of medicine, so have been flummoxed to find that, in the midst of a crisis, I am fighting for a treatment that the data fully support but which, for reasons having nothing to do with a correct understanding of the science, has been pushed to the sidelines. As a result, tens of thousands of patients with COVID-19 are dying unnecessarily. Fortunately, the situation can be reversed easily and quickly. I am referring, of course, to the medication hydroxychloroquine. When this inexpensive oral medication is given very early in the course of illness, before the virus has had time to multiply beyond control, it has shown to be highly effective, especially when given in combination with the antibiotics azithromycin or doxycycline and the nutritional supplement zinc. On May 27, I published an article in the American Journal of Epidemiology (AJE) entitled, "Early Outpatient Treatment of Symptomatic, High-Risk COVID-19 Patients that Should be Ramped-Up Immediately as Key to the Pandemic Crisis." That article, published in the world''''s leading epidemiology journal, analyzed five studies, demonstrating clear-cut and significant benefits to treated patients, plus other very large studies that showed the medication safety.
Physicians who have been using these medications in the face of widespread skepticism have been truly heroic. They have done what the science shows is best for their patients, often at great personal risk. I myself know of two doctors who have saved the lives of hundreds of patients with these medications, but are now fighting state medical boards to save their licenses and reputations. The cases against them are completely without scientific merit. Since publication of my May 27 article, seven more studies have demonstrated similar benefit. In a lengthy follow-up letter, also published by AJE, I discuss these seven studies and renew my call for the immediate early use of hydroxychloroquine in high-risk patients. These seven studies include: an additional 400 high-risk patients treated by Dr. Vladimir Zelenko, with zero deaths; four studies totaling almost 500 high-risk patients treated in nursing homes and clinics across the U.S., with no deaths; a controlled trial of more than 700 high-risk patients in Brazil, with significantly reduced risk of hospitalization and two deaths among 334 patients treated with hydroxychloroquine; and another study of 398 matched patients in France, also with significantly reduced hospitalization risk. Since my letter was published, even more doctors have reported to me their completely successful use. READ MORE ''''I Ran 22 Miles In A Mask To Show They Are Safe'''' ''''I''''ve Been A Teacher For 23 Years—I Wrote My Will Because Of COVID-19'''' Instead of Attacking the Coronavirus, Trump Attacks Americans.
My original article in the AJE is available free online, and I encourage readers—especially physicians, nurses, physician assistants and associates, and respiratory therapists—to search the title and read it. My follow-up letter is linked there to the original paper. Beyond these studies of individual patients, we have seen what happens in large populations when these drugs are used. These have been "natural experiments." In the northern Brazil state of Pará, COVID-19 deaths were increasing exponentially. On April 6, the public hospital network purchased 75,000 doses of azithromycin and 90,000 doses of hydroxychloroquine. Over the next few weeks, authorities began distributing these medications to infected individuals. Even though new cases continued to occur, on May 22 the death rate started to plummet and is now about one-eighth what it was at the peak.
系统提示:若遇到视频无法播放请点击下方链接
https://www.youtube.com/embed/https://frontend.1worldonline.com/widget/smart3-087ac41a.html#!/widget/ae00c103-e726-4807-baa0-5d9957b1dd03
Hydroxychloroquine tablets GEORGE FREY/AFP VIA GETTY IMAGES A reverse natural experiment happened in Switzerland. On May 27, the Swiss national government banned outpatient use of hydroxychloroquine for COVID-19. Around June 10, COVID-19 deaths increased four-fold and remained elevated. On June 11, the Swiss government revoked the ban, and on June 23 the death rate reverted to what it had been beforehand. People who die from COVID-19 live about three to five weeks from the start of symptoms, which makes the evidence of a causal relation in these experiments strong. Both episodes suggest that a combination of hydroxychloroquine and its companion medications reduces mortality and should be immediately adopted as the new standard of care in high-risk patients. Why has hydroxychloroquine been disregarded? First, as all know, the medication has become highly politicized. For many, it is viewed as a marker of political identity, on both sides of the political spectrum. Nobody needs me to remind them that this is not how medicine should proceed. We must judge this medication strictly on the science. When doctors graduate from medical school, they formally promise to make the health and life of the patient their first consideration, without biases of race, religion, nationality, social standing—or political affiliation. Lives must come first. Second, the drug has not been used properly in many studies. Hydroxychloroquine has shown major success when used early in high-risk people but, as one would expect for an antiviral, much less success when used late in the disease course. Even so, it has demonstrated significant benefit in large hospital studies in Michigan and New York City when started within the first 24 to 48 hours after admission.
In fact, as inexpensive, oral and widely available medications, and a nutritional supplement, the combination of hydroxychloroquine, azithromycin or doxycycline, and zinc are well-suited for early treatment in the outpatient setting. The combination should be prescribed in high-risk patients immediately upon clinical suspicion of COVID-19 disease, without waiting for results of testing. Delays in waiting before starting the medications can reduce their efficacy. Third, concerns have been raised by the FDA and others about risks of cardiac arrhythmia, especially when hydroxychloroquine is given in combination with azithromycin. The FDA based its comments on data in its FDA Adverse Event Reporting System. This reporting system captured up to a thousand cases of arrhythmias attributed to hydroxychloroquine use. In fact, the number is likely higher than that, since the reporting system, which requires physicians or patients to initiate contact with the FDA, appreciably undercounts drug side effects. But what the FDA did not announce is that these adverse events were generated from tens of millions of patient uses of hydroxychloroquine for long periods of time, often for the chronic treatment of lupus or rheumatoid arthritis. Even if the true rates of arrhythmia are ten-fold higher than those reported, the harms would be minuscule compared to the mortality occurring right now in inadequately treated high-risk COVID-19 patients. This fact is proven by an Oxford University study of more than 320,000 older patients taking both hydroxychloroquine and azithromycin, who had arrhythmia excess death rates of less than 9/100,000 users, as I discuss in my May 27 paper cited above. A new paper in the American Journal of Medicine by established cardiologists around the world fully agrees with this.
In the future, I believe this misbegotten episode regarding hydroxychloroquine will be studied by sociologists of medicine as a classic example of how extra-scientific factors overrode clear-cut medical evidence. But for now, reality demands a clear, scientific eye on the evidence and where it points. For the sake of high-risk patients, for the sake of our parents and grandparents, for the sake of the unemployed, for our economy and for our polity, especially those disproportionally affected, we must start treating immediately. Harvey A. Risch, MD, PhD, is professor of epidemiology at Yale School of Public Health
🔥 最新回帖
谢谢mm科普。
可能也是没有羟氯喹,就跟开始不推荐口罩一样
这个杂志 AJE,我也发表过文章,就是做为学术讨论,为将来的三期临床试验做基础,但很难作为国家政府实行政策的依据。一直就是这样,和新冠,政治无关。
哈哈哈😂这么说如果我吃了你就是SB对吗? 真的很不好意思,你要失望了。我是吃了,吃了预防用的。因为家人给我手里寄了不少过来,除了送给周围好朋友,剩下的都自己做预防用。
不知道原因。 但全网删医生的视频, 成功的引起了我的注意
🛋️ 沙发板凳
是不是这是主要原因?如果这样,是不是就依赖中国,被中国捏在手里了?
我后来搜了搜YouTube和Facebook,这个视频 果然都被删的干干净净了。
如果真的好用,我觉得盖茨应该在他Twitter上加持一下,好过每天在那整些博爱的
CNN, 华邮,纽时发了通稿,说这些人不懂科学,传播假消息,活该被法办
https://www.cnn.com/2020/07/28/tech/facebook-youtube-coronavirus/index.html
他是推疫苗的,奎宁几毛钱,要好用,2000美元的新药和疫苗没办法卖
已经死的人白死了?
这个药和其他药还有疫苗最大的不同是它可以用于预防,可以作为prophylactic use,就像它作为疟疾预防药一样
大家都在twitter 多宣传一下吧。
为反trump而死,纵做鬼也光荣
这简历太牛了!加州理工的数学本科,上了医学院,从业近40年,学历经验都是toplevel的!
不知道有用没用, 我是觉得现在媒体的censorship 很恐怖。 他们不赞成的声音大家都听不到。
trump三月份时从印度搞了很多过来 给了哭默不少
这个应该是主流治疗方法:https://www.evms.edu/media/evms_public/departments/internal_medicine/EVMS_Critical_Care_COVID-19_Protocol.pdf。 有医生网友请指正。我看HUSTON 医生采访,声称他们用这个方案三月到六月没有死一个COVID患者。
至于预防作用,就不打算争了。本来就是80%的人自己能抗过去的病,证真证伪都不容易。我也不相信那些觉得这个药作用不大的医生都是屁股坐歪了立场不正。
这年纪?!老年痴呆了没
即便控制住了,但成本大大增加。这就是美国医疗体系的严重问题,专找贵的路走
这些媒体比医生还懂科学吗?美国最大的问题是媒体包括网络媒体被操纵在少数人手里,和中共比是五十步笑百步,只不过手法更隐蔽,各种混淆视听的消息还让你觉得有新闻自由,但是关键的东西都隐藏起来,非常一致。美国人民需要觉醒起来。
你去问问Yale医学院的学生啊?再者,人家至少还能写出逻辑清楚数据可靠结论明确的几千字的学术文章,比 起来Biden话都说不清楚了,谁更应该担心老年痴呆?
预防和治疗不是一个概念,意义也完全不一样
看到你的回复前加了点更新。这个应该是主流治疗方法:https://www.evms.edu/media/evms_public/departments/internal_medicine/EVMS_Critical_Care_COVID-19_Protocol.pdf。 有医生网友请指正。我看HUSTON 医生采访,声称他们用这个方案三月到六月没有死一个COVID患者。
至于预防作用,就不打算争了。本来就是80%的人自己能抗过去的病,证真证伪都不容易。我也不相信那些觉得这个药作用不大的医生都是屁股坐歪了立场不正。
人家列举了实证和分析,根据自己的专业背景说出自己的观点,你就这个评价
shame on you
那个站出来说话的非裔医生说美国人本来不用死的, 早期用hcq套餐能救很多人命。
我同意你说的现在美国的主流方案有效, 但以前呢? 以前可以用药降低死亡率为啥不用, 那些枉死的人也太怨了吧
对,中国都不怎么生产这百年老药,就印度药厂挣点流量。整个疗程几块钱副作用小,你让2000美元一针的新药怎么卖。这药性价比,是没有可比的。
看这简历,医学院毕业后没去做residency , fellowship, 接触临床,反而跑基础学科去读几个证书,做博士后?
知道这人的出来说说,后来履历
80多岁的人了
羟氯喹的事情,跟医疗黑暗有大关系,然而跟左右之争也有非常大的关系。别试图转移视线。少来夹带私货兜售全民医疗
所以我说看临床医生的实际行动啊。事实上四月份的时候NY的医生大量用HCQ的,病人并没有被耽误。
我现在还记得当时CNN整天嘲笑trump推药的镜头 。。
跟全民医疗没关系。要川普说这药好,全宇宙免费医疗也不会用这药
盖茨加持?他不从中作梗就是积德了,盘算着从中谋利,巴不德疫情越严重越好,还有那个福奇
纽约四月份很多用HCQ的,但发展到现在,HCQ已经不再是被采用的方案了,因为其他方案证明更有效。现在还拿着说事,只让我觉得别有用心。
我倒想知道,要是trump说这个药没用,现在会不会是铺天盖地的宣传这个药有用,再顺便嘲讽一下trump反科学反智呢?!
怎么看出来80多岁的?67年开始读本科的话,也就是67年18岁,算起来现在71岁
现在也只有这样的人敢说实话了,没有金刚钻,很容易被cancel的
答案是肯定的,肯定会的。
左派误国,还在拼命黑川的,就不羞愧吗
比dr fauci 还年轻十几岁呢😂
耶鲁顶级流行病教授。顶级医学院公卫学院多了拿双料博士的教授。通常MD+PHD就不打算做临床,而是打算做科研
严谨一点, 用了hcq套餐的病人没被耽搁, 但在某些被禁的州, 病人没有机会在早期用上可能救命的药, 确确实实被耽搁了
纽约州的病人不是全美病人。 Michigan的病人的命也是命
别有用心的是你。无耻之尤。
主流媒体说10多位站出来挺HCQ的前线医生是聚众传播假消息。估计要被威胁吊销执照。
要早使用,本来最早是纽约医生看到中国2月份的治疗方案开始使用,效果很好,没有一个病人死亡。喊了一嗓子,被川普听到了,结果从川普嘴里说出来,就成了有各种各样风险的剧毒药。看看中国方案2月份就推荐使用奎宁类药,结果美国还在闹。
科技部:磷酸氯喹治疗新冠肺炎有效 2020-02-17 20:13:24 来源: 中新网
国务院联防联控机制于2月17日召开新闻发布会,科技部生物中心副主任孙燕荣表示, 专家组经过认真细致地研讨,最后达成一致意见,该药是个上市多年的老药,用于广泛 人群治疗的安全性是可控的,机构开展的临床研究结果可以明确,磷酸氯喹治疗新冠肺 炎具有疗效,基于临床救治的迫切需求,专家一直推荐应该尽快将磷酸氯喹纳入到新一 版诊疗指南,扩大临床使用范围。(谢艺观)
有些州长只是坏或者蠢而已,比如加州的牛肾,有些州长已经到了邪恶的程度了,比如密歇根的妖女。
纽约是大范围早期用吗?
证据呢?信口雌黄不行的。
Low dose is ok.
没有,纽约只给住院的病人用,符合住院标准的已经很严重了
几百万人吃了几十年快百年的便宜老药,突然成了有各种副作用的剧毒药
这药连孕妇患疟疾都可以吃
什么药都有副作用,这个药已经用了几十年了,既然有毒(这里就不展开了,姑且算对),那为啥还要用?哦,为了治病,那为神马这里治病就不能用了?这里的逻辑展开了说不通。主媒主党左派这种一味的压制言论又丝毫不讲道理真是害死了不少人,沾满了鲜血
任何药物谈应用的时候不谈剂量都是耍流氓。目前HCQ报道有效的研究剂量都是400 mg 每日左右。HCQ报道有害的研究剂量至少都是 600 mg 每日。 VA的trial 更是给到了 loading dose 2400 mg, 简直就是合法杀人。 HCQ有很多作用,包括杀病毒及免疫调节。这些高剂量的trial 都是想match anti-virus concentration from in vitro study, 结果根本都做不到,还导致病人毒副作用。其实很可能要的就是适量的免疫调节,让病人免疫系统不要攻击自身,然后就可以扛过去了。但这药在美国的研究已经被政治给带歪了。
药物都有副作用,好多抗生素副作用更可怕,更不要说抗病毒药物了。
心脏的副作用完全是manageable 的。
Hcq 可以长期服用,相比其它的药物,算是比较安全的了。
氯喹有效?
有用的话,为啥现在发现一例还是吓成狗样?
那是国内吧
再喊,就要被吊销执照
任何有效药也不是所有人都有效吧?奎宁治疗lupus也不是每个人都有效
别一看大名字就自动下跪,钓名沽誉的心思大多不在专业上.
MD,PhD很多人是冲着省学费去的,后来做临床的也不少
所以在摸索阶段干脆禁了一种小范围内证明有作用的药,到底是为什么?为什么不让这个可能有效果的药更available, 放开临床研究?
那个医生我也在follow,一直在推广hcq,还给了很详细的hcq套餐方案。推特上说他刚做了sarcoma手术,希望能挺过来。
最先发现有用的,政府下令用的不是最先来自国内么
既然象你们认为的可用于预防,可用于“Cure” ( 这是咋天录影里白女的原话)
中国政府现在费老大劲追踪lockdown做啥?做戏给你看呢?
现在只有中国人发现一例吓成狗样
我同意这个。 我反对的是现在论辩过程中,一方要消音另一方的声音, 媒体一边倒是不正常的。
事实上现在只有中国一个国家吓成这样,track成那样,至于它为什么要这么做,我觉得你去问它的决策人比较合适。
话说早几个月我们local的nextdoor上就有美国人这么说了,那时候还不知道盖茨卖药
有本事你来一口药后,不戴口罩出去浪呗,听昨天那美国人的
他那简历成绩不牛,你逗逼最牛
不用非黑即白。 如果有人吃了药预防,也还可以继续戴口罩出门的。 应该给大家一个选择的机会。
是针对你说吓得像狗的说法,第一这是国内,第二这是某些华人。其它国家和种族,你可以批评他们对新冠的态度,但不能说吓的像狗
难道这就是你证明药没用的方法?
在pandemic这么危急的情况下,难道不是要open minded的尝试各种药物吗?何况还是一个安全用了半个世纪的预防药。不推广就算了,还一路封杀。看看人家印度
Why ICMR continues to stand firm on using hydroxychloroquine as prophylaxis
https://health.economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/pharma/why-icmr-continues-to-stand-firm-on-using-hydroxychloroquine-as-prophylaxis/76172274
Indian Council of Medical Research (ICMR) has maintained its recommendation and approved the use of HCQ as prophylaxis based on the studies conducted in India, despite World Health Organisation (WHO) suspending the clinical trials using hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) under its Solidarity Trial.
A recent case-controlled study by ICMR has underlined the benefit of hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) as prophylaxis, showing that the sustained use of the anti-malaria drug along with the use of personal protective equipment (PPE) was associated with a significant decline in risk of Covid-19 infection rate by upto 80% among the healthcare workers.
The study findings further strengthen ICMRs stand on HCQ as prophylaxis, meaning the treatment is given or action is taken to prevent the disease.
"There is a huge difference in the (HCQ) dose which is used as therapeutic and preventive purpose. The prophylaxis HCQ is given in very small dose (400 milligrams once a week)," said Dr Arvind Kumar, Chairman, Centre for Chest Surgery and Director in Institute of Robotic Surgery at Sir Ganga Ram Hospital, who is also taking it himself.
According to the ICMR study published in the Indian Journal of Medical Research (IJMR), consumption of four or more maintenance doses was associated with a significant decline (>80%) in the risk of Covid-19 infection among the ‘participants’. The study also found that there was no significant association between HCQ and adverse drug reactions.
The growing debate on the efficacy of HCQ was sparked by study findings including a large observational study published in the medical journal The Lancet which showed that HCQ or HCQ with azithromycin had no significant therapeutic benefit, increased mortality and irregular heart rhythm in Covid-19 patients.
However, serious questions have been raised on the reliability of the findings reported in two of the world’s leading medical journals which have also expressed concern about potential flaws in their data.
Dr Arvind said, “The cardiac impact of HCQ has been overplayed. In the dosages which are used in the preventive setting the benefit outplays the risks. The heart rhythm disorder has been reported to the tune of 1.9 per cent."
Amid the HCQ controversy, Dr Balram Bhargava, Director General (DG) of the ICMR, told that media last week that the Council found the drug very effective and having less side effects for prophylaxis consumption.
Soon ICMR expanded the use of HCQ as a preventive medication for asymptomatic healthcare workers working in non-Covid-19 hospitals, frontline staff on surveillance duty in containment zones and paramilitary/police personnel involved in coronavirus infection-related activities.
Further elaborating on the importance of HCQ as prophylaxis Dr Kumar said, “People who are normal but are at risk of getting the disease due to the high exposure level in their profession, need a higher level of a preventive measure than the average general population.”
Differentiating on the use of HCQ in a therapeutic setting, Dr Kumar said, "The dose is much higher and the Covid-19 patients in ICU are mostly 60 plus (age) and already have other co-morbidities. So, that is a different setting, whereas the healthcare workers are mostly the middle-aged people.”
Clinical Research & Drug Development, Consultant, Dr Arun Bhatt said, "Policy and judgements should be based on what the emergency situation demands as one cannot wait for 3 months to decide what will come in the trial. Currently, there is no option for the government but to recommend this drug as there is no other prophylaxis available."
India has been independently making effective interventions and has managed to keep the coronavirus cases and fatalities low. Going by the positive results in the recent ICMR study, India will continue to push forward the prophylactic use of HCQ drug for protecting the doctor and frontline workers atleast till a more effective drug against Covid-19 is introduced.
都打成川粉就可以了
这年纪怎么了?!70出头!你爸妈这个年纪就痴呆了吗?照你这逻辑,钟南山(83岁)就是老年痴呆,都是胡说八道来着!
纠正一下 奎宁是古老的药品 但是氯喹类并没有百年。。。但算得上老药
另外不是不怎么生产的 这药是大量生产的
唯一的问题就是有overdose和抗药性的风险所以在美国没有做非处方药