It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Hydroxychloroquine / Breaking Results: Sermo’s COVID-19 Real Time Barometer Study

page: 2
13
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 18 2020 @ 12:41 AM
link   
a reply to: Phage

nope not seeing you say that,

Seeing you say

Hydroxychloroquine (Plaquenil) and Chloroquine don't seem to stand out much in the survey in comparison to most other treatments.


Not sure if you want the treatment to be a failure for 56% of the patients in favour of some holistic tea solution or is grasping anything but something mentioned by Trump.




posted on May, 18 2020 @ 12:43 AM
link   
a reply to: puzzled2

I would think that a 56% success rate would be slightly better than a flip of the coin. But that the survey shows that 56% of those surveyed use chloroquine does not indicate even that.



posted on May, 18 2020 @ 01:17 AM
link   
a reply to: sligtlyskeptical

Less than stellar? Site the study and it's sample data... and we'll provide multiple studies that prove it was bogus.

The Brazil study, and the VA study were bulls*** studies seeking a poor outcome.

By the way... the VA study was such a deliberate "hit" on HydroxyChloroquine, that whomever was behind it should be investigated for violation of medical ethics, and possibly murder.

Yeah. It was THAT bad.

The Brazil study wasn't even a study of HydroxyChloroquine. It was a study of Chloroquine. Not even the same drug.

There's a reason HydroxyChloroquine is the drug of choice... for ALL it's approved applications, even though Chloroquine is used for the same clinical applications. It's far safer and it's more effective in boosting the bio-availability of the zinc protocol that has been so effective in treating virii in clinical studies. The Brazil study didn't even use the zinc protocol, despite there being hundreds of studies on the ability of zinc to disrupt the replication machinery of many many virii


edit on 18-5-2020 by dasman888 because: zombie gerbil attack

edit on 18-5-2020 by dasman888 because: Zombe whitetail deer



posted on May, 18 2020 @ 01:26 AM
link   
a reply to: Phage

That is correct... the OP posted what is essentially, a preferred therapy popularity contest... and I'm glad OP posted it. It's interesting information.

The actual OP, despite a mention of "efficacy" contains no information on actual therapeutic efficacy... other than Japan prefers using it above others because of it's efficacy.

Most of the media reports on HydroxyChloroquine don't even mention the Zinc part of the protocol, even though the zinc bioavailability increase via HCQ is what disrupts the virus most effectively. Hundreds of studies on Zinc's anti-viral efficacy on many virii.


edit on 18-5-2020 by dasman888 because: zombie pillbug attack



posted on May, 18 2020 @ 01:42 AM
link   
a reply to: Phage

you are unable to surmise from the survey you quoted the actual success or failure of any treatment protocol.

It was based on individual doctors responding on their individual treatments no correlational to other doctors treatments or
or patients conditions.

The tests which show the success rate of a treatment are like the virus not based on a single pill but a combination.

The questionnaire appears to give single chemicals in a multi choice format.

Plus who said it was a 56% success rate I said it was a 56% used treatment.



posted on May, 18 2020 @ 01:49 AM
link   
a reply to: puzzled2




you are unable to surmise from the survey you quoted the actual success or failure of any treatment protocol.

I know.



posted on May, 18 2020 @ 02:03 AM
link   
a reply to: Phage

Then why do it why bring it to the discussion?
What was the purpose of your original post? To confuse spread misinformation?



posted on May, 18 2020 @ 02:16 AM
link   

originally posted by: puzzled2
a reply to: Phage

Then why do it why bring it to the discussion?
What was the purpose of your original post? To confuse spread misinformation?

Misinformation; "transparency" (unnecessary information sharing) is not a good thing as is funneled by/through filters such as yourself and demonstrate how easy it is to put an evil spin on something completely innocent.



posted on May, 18 2020 @ 02:18 AM
link   
a reply to: puzzled2




What was the purpose of your original post?

To provide details of the survey. Details which the author of the OP seemed to have missed.

edit on 5/18/2020 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 18 2020 @ 08:06 AM
link   
a reply to: Waterglass

Thanks for the link to the Sermos site, provides and interesting snapshot of just how the global medical community is responding. Still lots of unknowns and questions, but for what treatment options are being perused and how those administering it feel about it is good to see.

It was interesting to see just how widespread hydroxycloraquine was being used and what feedback there is. From what I currently understand Remdesivir is in a similar family of molecules as hydroxycloraquine and getting similar results. With the increased price point of Remdesivir compared to hydroxycloraquine, a better regulated dosage plan might be helping with increased confidence of safety. Effectiveness appears around par with each other.

Overall the conclusions of the site appear inline with other data coming in. Good to see there is a strong thrashing of all the main treatment options going on. Finding all appropriate options and their limitations is going to take time, nice to see the world pulling together on it.



posted on May, 18 2020 @ 02:23 PM
link   

originally posted by: puzzled2
a reply to: Phage
from you own source - differs from your fake news -

Almost twice as many doctors think that a cuppa Chinese tea works



Please indicate which medications you are currently using to treat COVID-19 patients In the hospital (moderate-severe symptoms, excluding ICU patients).
Hydroxychloroquine (Plaquenil) or Chloroquine
56%
Azithromycin or similar antibiotics
54%
Traditional Chinese Medicine
3%
Please indicate which medications you are currently using to treat COVID-19 patients in the ICU (critical symptoms).
Hydroxychloroquine (Plaquenil) or Chloroquine
45%


Which is why I ask you for a source to verify the BS.


Yep. Where is your source or studies? No linky, stinky.

Hydroxychloroquine Has about 90 Percent Chance of Helping COVID-19 Patients

Peer-reviewed studies published from January through April 20, 2020, provide clear and convincing evidence that HCQ may be beneficial in COVID-19, especially when used early, states AAPS. Unfortunately, although it is perfectly legal to prescribe drugs for new indications not on the label, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has recommended that CQ and HCQ should be used for COVID-19 only in hospitalized patients in the setting of a clinical study if available. Most states are making it difficult for physicians to prescribe or pharmacists to dispense these medications.



posted on May, 19 2020 @ 02:57 PM
link   

originally posted by: infolurker

originally posted by: sligtlyskeptical
Published in March 2020. What is the % of use now after trial results were less than stellar?



The last "trials" have been bunk. Instead of providing it early they give it as a last resort once you are already hospitalized which pretty much defeats the purpose and it needs to be given with Zinc to achieve the anti-viral impact needed.


Concerning what he says at 43:05 - 43:20, compare with what I mentioned in this comment here:

... first time he mentioned it on March 19 the writing was already on the wall concerning HCQ's effectiveness, no need for conveniently selective agnosticism and pretending it isn't clear yet, setting up Fauci's line of argumentation concerning gold standard clinical trials in order to delay, since these will never happen concerning HCQ, nobody wants such a clinical trial for HCQ, and it's not even required to observe and acknowledge the reality of the matter: that HCQ works highly effectively).

I was using a bit of hyperbole with the words "never" and "nobody" though (there are certain conditions attached as to what exactly I'm referring to with "such a clinical trial" and who or which types I'm talking about when saying "nobody" and exceptions or exclusions that I didn't want to get into detail about).
edit on 19-5-2020 by whereislogic because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 19 2020 @ 03:53 PM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Dr UAE


so after more than almost two months since weve heard about this drug and the doctors who tried it and worked with them?
Without proper controls and blinding, there is no way to know if it was the treatment which was effective or some other factor.

Clinical trials are underway. Properly conducted trials are not completed overnight.

www.clinicaltrials.gov...
www.clinicaltrials.gov...
clinicaltrials.gov...
www.nih.gov...
www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...

Any of those that use the same high quality care that Dr. Ban uses for their HCQ groups? Any of those continuing that high quality care once HCQ becomes less useful in the later stages of the disease, with treatments that are more specifically tailored to 'dampening the cytokine storm'? Any of those continuing with HCQ+Zinc+Azythromycin (or Doxycycline if it's the better choice)+ Vitamin C + Vitamin D3 + Copper + Melatonin if the HCQ is needed a bit longer than the 5 days prescribed by the FDA guidelines? Any of them care at all if the HCQ treatment is optimized and tailored to the specific needs per patient like that (with proper follow-up and extensive monitoring of the patient all the way through from the earliest to the latest stages of the disease and not doing this)?

No? Because that's not what a clinical trial focuses on? Then why not have a look at the true potential of HCQ if optimized like that in actual case studies from Dr. Ban (which are without melatonin btw):

Don't expect too much from those works in progress you linked. Key point at 14:19.
edit on 19-5-2020 by whereislogic because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 19 2020 @ 05:21 PM
link   

originally posted by: sligtlyskeptical
Published in March 2020. What is the % of use now after trial results were less than stellar?

I have yet to see a trial that is not complete garbage. Can you point me to one?



posted on May, 20 2020 @ 01:37 PM
link   

originally posted by: whereislogic
...
Any of those continuing that high quality care once HCQ becomes less useful in the later stages of the disease, with treatments that are more specifically tailored to 'dampening the cytokine storm'? ... Any of them care at all if the HCQ treatment is optimized and tailored to the specific needs per patient like that (with proper follow-up and extensive monitoring of the patient all the way through from the earliest to the latest stages of the disease and not doing this)?

I was alluding to the following flaws in the protocols in so-called "supportive care"* that have been used in most hospitals across the world so far (more so in Europe and North America, not sure about the rest), for the following reasons (see bolded part; *: i.e. poor quality health care, I'll come back to that term later and how it relates to the rhetorical questions above):

EVMS_Critical_Care_COVID-19_Protoco l.pdf

Scientific Rational for MATH+ Treatment Protocol

Three core pathologic processes lead to multi-organ failure and death in COVID-19:

1) Hyper-inflammation (“Cytokine storm”) – a dysregulated immune system whose cells infiltrate and damage multiple organs, namely the lungs, kidneys, and heart. It is now widely accepted that SARS-CoV-2 causes aberrant T lymphocyte and macrophage activation resulting in a “cytokine storm.”.
2) Hyper-coagulability (increased clotting) – the dysregulated immune system damages the endothelium and activates blood clotting, causing the formation of micro and macro blood clots. These blood clots impair blood flow.
3) Severe Hypoxemia(low blood oxygen levels) –lung inflammation caused by the cytokine storm, together with microthrombosis in the pulmonary circulation severely impairs oxygen absorption resulting in oxygenation failure.

The above pathologies are not novel, although the combined severity in COVID-19 disease is considerable. Our long-standing and more recent experiences show consistently successful treatment if traditional therapeutic principles of early and aggressive intervention is achieved, before the onset of advanced organ failure. It is our collective opinion that the historically high levels of morbidity and mortality from COVID-19 is due to a single factor: the widespread and inappropriate reluctance amongst intensivists to employ anti-inflammatory and anticoagulant treatments, including corticosteroid therapy early in the course of a patient’s hospitalization. It is essential to recognize that it is not the virus that is killing the patient, rather it is the patient’s overactive immune system. The flames of the “cytokine fire” are out of control and need to be extinguished. Providing supportive care (with ventilators that themselves stoke the fire) and waiting for the cytokine fire to burn itself out simply does not work... this approach has FAILED and has led to the death of tens of thousands of patients.

The systematic failure of critical care systems to adopt corticosteroid therapy resulted from the published recommendations against corticosteroids use by the World Health Organization (WHO), the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), and the American Thoracic Society (ATS) amongst others. A very recent publication by the Society of Critical Care Medicine and authored one of the members of the Front Line COVID-19 Critical Care (FLCCC) group (UM), identified the errors made by these organizations in their analyses of corticosteroid studies based on the findings of the SARS and H1N1 pandemics. Their erroneous recommendation to avoid corticosteroids in the treatment of COVID-19 has led to the development of myriad organ failures which have overwhelmed critical care systems across the world.


Our treatment protocol targeting these key pathologies has achieved near uniform success, if begun within 6 hours of a COVID19 patient presenting with shortness of breath or needing ≥4L/min of oxygen. If such early initiation of treatment could be systematically achieved, the need for mechanical ventilators and ICU beds will decrease dramatically.

It is important to recognize that “COVID-19 pneumonia” does not cause ARDS. The initial phase of “oxygenation failure” is characterized by normal lung compliance, with poor recruitability and near normal lung water (as measured by transpulmonary thermodilution). This is the “L phenotype” as reported by Gattonini and colleagues. [57-60] Treating these patients with early intubation and the ARDNSnet treatment protocol will cause the disease you are trying to prevent i.e. ARDS. These patients tolerate hypoxia remarkable well, without an increase in blood lactate concentration nor a fall in central venous oxygen saturation. We therefore suggest the liberal us of HFNC, with frequent patient repositioning (proning) and the acceptance of “permissive hypoxemia”. However, this approach entails close patient observation.

Regarding that last part, I used the phrase: "proper follow-up and extensive monitoring of the patient all the way through from the earliest to the latest stages of the disease and not doing this)?" You may want to have a look at that video under the link for the proper context and the reason why I'm bringing all this up from this source in relation to what I said there describing poor quality health care. So poor and negligent in terms of physicians doing a bit of research on their own regarding treatment rather than simply blindly following whatever protocol they are handed by bureacrat scientists (which looks deliberately designed to cause more harm than necessary as can be seen from the information above and further below regarding the term "supportive care" + that video), that terms like "murder" become open for discussion, perhaps also "involuntary manslaughter" as it connects to the term "criminal negligence". Also this relates to my implication of the possibility of giving HCQ groups in clinical trials lesser quality care than the control groups used in those trials (just like the so-called "VA study" and many similar so-called "studies" or publications of statistics about the subject), in order to fudge the numbers and make it appear less effective in the treatment of Covid-19, because of the motive concerning Remdesivir, other treatments, vaccins and making the corona problem worse than it has to be; a subject well discussed before in other threads about HCQ. Anyway, continuing with the EVMS protocol (skipping some things):

...
Finally, it is important to acknowledge that there is no known therapeutic intervention that has unequivocally been proven to improve the outcome of COVID-19. This, however, does not mean we should adopt a nihilist approach and limit treatment to “supportive care”. Furthermore, it is likely that there will not be a single “magic bullet” to cure COVID-19. Rather, we should be using multiple drugs/interventions that have synergistic and overlapping biological effects that are safe, cheap and “readily” available. The impact of COVID-19 on middle- and low-income countries will be enormous; these countries will not be able to afford expensive designer molecules.

edit on 20-5-2020 by whereislogic because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
13
<< 1   >>

log in

join