Covid-19

  • You are viewing Orangepower as a Guest. To start new threads, reply to posts, or participate in polls or contests - you must register. Registration is free and easy. Click Here to register.

Rack

Legendary Cowboy
Oct 13, 2004
24,438
10,189
1,743
Earth
I'm okay with experimental things being done too. But I'm not okay with experimentation occurring without informed consent or IRB oversight. I'm not okay with the sloppy work that is being done and published without peer-review (e.g. 100% effective!). And I'm definitely not okay with continuing to give experimental treatment once they've been shown to be ineffective and/or harmful.
Agreed with informed consent...I don't know what IRB is. mostly agree with this statement, but I also like the new "right to try" law that was passed under the last Administration as it opens up avenues for people who are hurting to have some hope. Once again, I think we agree here...I'm for what the most data says works and I find it odd that some posters hold on to treatments without a bunch of data to back them, but part of freedom is dissent, even in science and data. I'm good with that because it can create competition and could help to keep domination of science and manipulation of data for political or economic gain from happening too much.

Btw the USA is approaching 65 Million Vaccine doses given...that's getting to be a significant number and considering most are in the risk range we are, IMHO, seeing a major effect already from the process. I'm with the John Hopkins guy who is saying immunity by Spring. https://meaww.com/dr-marty-makary-j...s-us-covid-mostly-gone-april-us-herd-immunity
 

RxCowboy

Has no Rx for his orange obsession.
A/V Subscriber
Nov 8, 2004
71,648
41,148
1,743
Wishing I was in Stillwater
Agreed with informed consent...I don't know what IRB is. mostly agree with this statement, but I also like the new "right to try" law that was passed under the last Administration as it opens up avenues for people who are hurting to have some hope. Once again, I think we agree here...I'm for what the most data says works and I find it odd that some posters hold on to treatments without a bunch of data to back them, but part of freedom is dissent, even in science and data. I'm good with that because it can create competition and could help to keep domination of science and manipulation of data for political or economic gain from happening too much.
Institutional Review Boards (IRB for short - I sit on two of them) look at research before it starts to make sure patients are protected. Review by an IRB is required by Federal law, and it comes out of The Belmont Report which was a response to the Tuskegee Syphilis Study and the Willowbrook State School Hepatitis studies.

"Right to try" refers specifically to patients with terminal diseases and drugs that are in clinical trials, but the patient doesn't qualify for the clinical trial for one reason or another. It is not the wild west where you can try inhaling Lysol for COVID-19.

There is room for dissent in science when the science is unknown. However, dissention from good science in favor of bad science doesn't create competition, it causes harm. Non-maleficence, first do no harm, used to be a bedrock principle of medicine.
 

Rack

Legendary Cowboy
Oct 13, 2004
24,438
10,189
1,743
Earth
I have not said it’s dangerous. I said it could be. It has only been 7 months since it was 1st given. My problem is we DON’T KNOW what if any long term problems it may cause and people should be told that, not “hey it’s so safe, get in line to take it or you are a conspiracy theorist”. As you can tell from the things that have been said to me in this thread this is exactly what happens if you don’t get in line and take it and keep your mouth shut.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Well, it's kind of a big deal to those, like me, that think it's the answer to the shut down / lock downs / closed businesses / livelihoods lost. That's why it's such a vile push back, it's because many of us believe it's the main answer just as the stock market did after they came out with their 95% effective studies. The push back, from me anyway, was due to me thinking you, and others like you, are holding us back from that possible fix. I'm sure you can logically understand that. My point about you being on the "wrong side of this" logically, was based on what I see as the vaccine being the logical "cure" to the pandemic based on the studies and the apparent retreat of the virus we are seeing now. None of it was meant as personal...but some of it was, indeed emotional, because we all want to see this behind us...just as you do. The percentage that don't want to see covid dead and gone is VERY tiny...a bipartisan vast majority want it driven out of the park, over, gone and never to be seen again. You got the "conspiracy theorist" talk because of that...emotions cloud judgement on all sides...we need to see it in ourselves as well as in others and realize that we are still all mostly on the same team here...we just have different ways we think are best to get there.
 
Last edited:

Rack

Legendary Cowboy
Oct 13, 2004
24,438
10,189
1,743
Earth
Institutional Review Boards (IRB for short - I sit on two of them) look at research before it starts to make sure patients are protected. Review by an IRB is required by Federal law, and it comes out of The Belmont Report which was a response to the Tuskegee Syphilis Study and the Willowbrook State School Hepatitis studies.

"Right to try" refers specifically to patients with terminal diseases and drugs that are in clinical trials, but the patient doesn't qualify for the clinical trial for one reason or another. It is not the wild west where you can try inhaling Lysol for COVID-19.

There is room for dissent in science when the science is unknown. However, dissention from good science in favor of bad science doesn't create competition, it causes harm. Non-maleficence, first do no harm, used to be a bedrock principle of medicine.
Thanks @RxCowboy informative post...I understand your concern, however, we have all sorts of "medical" advice that we allow under law in the USA. Some of that is likely good...like acupuncture for all sorts of things in addition to western medicine...certain natural supplements and vitamins for general heath and specific illnesses...CBD which evidentially "cures" EVERYTHING...lol.

So in a free society, I don't see, completely, the harm in at least allowing alternatives to the Medical Standard...certainly folks should be informed on what officially is supported by our best science and data by boards like the IRB, but ultimately each person is/should be responsible for his/her own wellbeing and healthcare choices. We all make choices that affect our health daily...that diet coke I just had might be worse for me that the cattle de-wormer our friend is taking and advising to be taken by his family...I honestly don't know...He's free to choose as I am my diet coke, YET, he's also free to take the backlash from a board that is sick and tired for being sick and tired...Grieved of the death this has caused and ready to move on with life after we knock covid the slap out. We are ALL (including @drbwh)in major need of healing and to me it seems to be slowing coming. Thanks again for your continued posting on this board.
 

drbwh

Federal Marshal
Sep 20, 2006
10,281
3,790
1,743
Not everyone said "hydroxychloroquine was dangerous"...I know numerous people who used it and did well. I'm for an all of the above approach and I do ALSO trust a 95% effective vaccine. I also trust hydroxychloroquine and likely the other drugs that you are taking as well as others. I'm 100% for whatever works and I'm for a VERY fast end to this virus...Numbers are dropping...I know "testing." Hospitalizations are dropping...I know "high numbers were a government induced and incentivized fabrication." Bottom line, we are seeing the light at the end of the tunnel and the vaccine is a big (HUGE) "part" of that...just as are new drugs and plasma to treat covid. Additionally my uncle who had covid and his wife whom I saw today for the first times since...are still suffering from issues from it and they got it around Christmas. My uncles doctor says his lungs should totally clear in about 6 months...also his two blood clots in his lungs will clear with his warfarin in a month or so. His wife was far less sick but still can't taste or smell and we are talking months post infection...Point being, it is a national health emergency and I'm VERY glad they got the vaccine done in record time due to Mike Pence and Donald Trump...and the CDC. In terms of record time...they have been researching this vaccine for several years so it wasn't as fast as you imply. Btw, same approval that enables you and other doctors to prescribe hydroxychloroquine and other non-covid meds for covid is the one being used for emergency use of a vaccine that was actually specifically developed for covid. Logic just says you aren't on the right side of this...Once again, all is better than none and I'm in agreement with you that every avenue that works should be tried and used...including the most tested of those avenues specifically for this specific virus...the vaccines...My parents got their second dose of the Pfizer vaccine yesterday. My hope is that it protects them from the virus...prior to it they were taking a high load zink along with their other daily supplements of D and other vitmans...same with my family. ALL of the above.
Hydroxychloroquine has not been given hundreds of millions of times for decades for COVID-19. It has not been given for COVID-19 any longer than anything else has been given for COVID-19. And the data is bad. Why people want to disbelieve bad data to accept HCQ and disbelieve good data to reject the vaccine is just beyond me.
I didn’t say anything about covid 19.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

drbwh

Federal Marshal
Sep 20, 2006
10,281
3,790
1,743
To continue to use ivermectin you have to believe that Merck is somehow in on the conspiracy to block the sale of their own drug, which is whack-a-doodle.
View attachment 89048
This was already addressed l. Anyone can produce ivermectin. It is available in generic. I already explained this. The patent has expired. Stay with us here.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

drbwh

Federal Marshal
Sep 20, 2006
10,281
3,790
1,743
See my post above. They actually have to believe that the company that owns ivermectin is in on the conspiracy to block the use of ivermectin.
The generics rebuttal to that is still bizarre to me because it's being taken as a prophylactic, meaning it would have to be regularly administered with sales skyrocketing and even generics becoming scarce.
You don’t think more generic drug companies would start producing it if it was being used more? The reason no one produces it is because it’s not being used very often. It’s called supply and demand. It’s very simple


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

drbwh

Federal Marshal
Sep 20, 2006
10,281
3,790
1,743
I'm sure you are right, I'm just ok with experimental things being done in the midst of a pandemic to help provide relief. I do know some people early on who used it with what appeared to be good results at least that is what I heard (rumors basically, NOT data)...I don't know ANY data and tend to agree with you that the more something is tested (like the vaccines) the better. I was also making the point to him that I'm good with whatever works...just think it's better to take the 95% percent, specifically designed and test route...the vaccine. I'm also resigned to the fact that we aren't changing his mind and I prefer to be kind, unfortunately I think many peoples political biases have really clouded their vision (mine included). I'm sure he thinks he is right on this and doing a public service...I'm having a harder time having a problem with that. So, a lot of words to say, I agree with you, I'm just thinking it's time for me to move on to just posting the vaccine numbers daily and hopefully the reduced numbers of viruses and deaths.
I'm okay with experimental things being done too. But I'm not okay with experimentation occurring without informed consent or IRB oversight. I'm not okay with the sloppy work that is being done and published without peer-review (e.g. 100% effective!). And I'm definitely not okay with continuing to give experimental treatment once they've been shown to be ineffective and/or harmful.
Then don’t take it. If people want to, they shouldn’t be discouraged. These are drugs known to be safe.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

drbwh

Federal Marshal
Sep 20, 2006
10,281
3,790
1,743
I'm sure you are right, I'm just ok with experimental things being done in the midst of a pandemic to help provide relief. I do know some people early on who used it with what appeared to be good results at least that is what I heard (rumors basically, NOT data)...I don't know ANY data and tend to agree with you that the more something is tested (like the vaccines) the better. I was also making the point to him that I'm good with whatever works...just think it's better to take the 95% percent, specifically designed and test route...the vaccine. I'm also resigned to the fact that we aren't changing his mind and I prefer to be kind, unfortunately I think many peoples political biases have really clouded their vision (mine included). I'm sure he thinks he is right on this and doing a public service...I'm having a harder time having a problem with that. So, a lot of words to say, I agree with you, I'm just thinking it's time for me to move on to just posting the vaccine numbers daily and hopefully the reduced numbers of viruses and deaths.
I'm okay with experimental things being done too. But I'm not okay with experimentation occurring without informed consent or IRB oversight. I'm not okay with the sloppy work that is being done and published without peer-review (e.g. 100% effective!). And I'm definitely not okay with continuing to give experimental treatment once they've been shown to be ineffective and/or harmful.
What treatment wasn’t experimental for people with confirmed Covid? Please fill me in sir


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

drbwh

Federal Marshal
Sep 20, 2006
10,281
3,790
1,743
Agreed with informed consent...I don't know what IRB is. mostly agree with this statement, but I also like the new "right to try" law that was passed under the last Administration as it opens up avenues for people who are hurting to have some hope. Once again, I think we agree here...I'm for what the most data says works and I find it odd that some posters hold on to treatments without a bunch of data to back them, but part of freedom is dissent, even in science and data. I'm good with that because it can create competition and could help to keep domination of science and manipulation of data for political or economic gain from happening too much.
Institutional Review Boards (IRB for short - I sit on two of them) look at research before it starts to make sure patients are protected. Review by an IRB is required by Federal law, and it comes out of The Belmont Report which was a response to the Tuskegee Syphilis Study and the Willowbrook State School Hepatitis studies.

"Right to try" refers specifically to patients with terminal diseases and drugs that are in clinical trials, but the patient doesn't qualify for the clinical trial for one reason or another. It is not the wild west where you can try inhaling Lysol for COVID-19.

There is room for dissent in science when the science is unknown. However, dissention from good science in favor of bad science doesn't create competition, it causes harm. Non-maleficence, first do no harm, used to be a bedrock principle of medicine.
I swear. You literally have no clue what you’re talking about. The vaccine does not treat people with Covid. So what do you suggest we do with the people that have known Covid disease? Where are all these studies on how to treat Covid? Early in the disease process people were discourage from being treated with hydroxychloroquine. What were these known treatments with all the science behind them? Please fill me in. Thank God you are not a doctor. Thank God you were not trained or licensed to diagnose and treat disease.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
May 4, 2011
2,252
1,076
1,743
Charleston, SC
Institutional Review Boards (IRB for short - I sit on two of them) look at research before it starts to make sure patients are protected. Review by an IRB is required by Federal law, and it comes out of The Belmont Report which was a response to the Tuskegee Syphilis Study and the Willowbrook State School Hepatitis studies.

"Right to try" refers specifically to patients with terminal diseases and drugs that are in clinical trials, but the patient doesn't qualify for the clinical trial for one reason or another. It is not the wild west where you can try inhaling Lysol for COVID-19.

There is room for dissent in science when the science is unknown. However, dissention from good science in favor of bad science doesn't create competition, it causes harm. Non-maleficence, first do no harm, used to be a bedrock principle of medicine.
IRBs are definitely one of the least understood scientific bodies, at least by the general public. I really don't think people understand how much oversight goes into research, especially clinical trials. It seems like your impression about some of the ivermectin and hydroxychloriquine (and some other treatments) is similar to mine in that part of the reason the research design is poor is they tried to get around the IRB to just call them retrospective reviews. That's why they don't have true randomization.
 

drbwh

Federal Marshal
Sep 20, 2006
10,281
3,790
1,743
I have not said it’s dangerous. I said it could be. It has only been 7 months since it was 1st given. My problem is we DON’T KNOW what if any long term problems it may cause and people should be told that, not “hey it’s so safe, get in line to take it or you are a conspiracy theorist”. As you can tell from the things that have been said to me in this thread this is exactly what happens if you don’t get in line and take it and keep your mouth shut.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Well, it's kind of a big deal to those, like me, that think it's the answer to the shut down / lock downs / closed businesses / livelihoods lost. That's why it's such a vile push back, it's because many of us believe it's the main answer just as the stock market did after they came out with their 95% effective studies. The push back, from me anyway, was due to me thinking you, and others like you, are holding us back from that possible fix. I'm sure you can logically understand that. My point about you being on the "wrong side of this" logically, was based on what I see as the vaccine being the logical "cure" to the pandemic based on the studies and the apparent retreat of the virus we are seeing now. None of it was meant as personal...but some of it was, indeed emotional, because we all want to see this behind us...just as you do. The percentage that don't want to see covid dead and gone is VERY tiny...a bipartisan vast majority want it driven out of the park, over, gone and never to be seen again. You got the "conspiracy theorist" talk because of that...emotions cloud judgement on all sides...we need to see it in ourselves as well as in others and realize that we are still all mostly on the same team here...we just have different ways we think are best to get there.
For the love of God! I have not told one person not to get the stupid vaccine.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

drbwh

Federal Marshal
Sep 20, 2006
10,281
3,790
1,743
I am more for informed consent than worshiping science. Your beloved vaccine is not even a year old. Why is nobody telling people we don’t know the long-term consequences of taking the vaccine? If you love science so much shouldn’t that be told to every patient is lining up to get this thing? I can assure you we know more about the effects of ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine on people than this vaccine.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

drbwh

Federal Marshal
Sep 20, 2006
10,281
3,790
1,743

RxCowboy

Has no Rx for his orange obsession.
A/V Subscriber
Nov 8, 2004
71,648
41,148
1,743
Wishing I was in Stillwater
IRBs are definitely one of the least understood scientific bodies, at least by the general public. I really don't think people understand how much oversight goes into research, especially clinical trials. It seems like your impression about some of the ivermectin and hydroxychloriquine (and some other treatments) is similar to mine in that part of the reason the research design is poor is they tried to get around the IRB to just call them retrospective reviews. That's why they don't have true randomization.
There have been even more egregious violations. There was a study in Jackson, MS where the researcher holds a patent on a combination medication that includes an H2 blocker famotidine. They gave it to a bunch of COVID-19 patients, then filed an IRB submission for a retrospective review. Had I been on the peer-review panel for that paper my review would have been scathing. I would have referred them to the Nuremburg Code.
 

RxCowboy

Has no Rx for his orange obsession.
A/V Subscriber
Nov 8, 2004
71,648
41,148
1,743
Wishing I was in Stillwater
Thanks @RxCowboy informative post...I understand your concern, however, we have all sorts of "medical" advice that we allow under law in the USA. Some of that is likely good...like acupuncture for all sorts of things in addition to western medicine...certain natural supplements and vitamins for general heath and specific illnesses...CBD which evidentially "cures" EVERYTHING...lol.

So in a free society, I don't see, completely, the harm in at least allowing alternatives to the Medical Standard...certainly folks should be informed on what officially is supported by our best science and data by boards like the IRB, but ultimately each person is/should be responsible for his/her own wellbeing and healthcare choices. We all make choices that affect our health daily...that diet coke I just had might be worse for me that the cattle de-wormer our friend is taking and advising to be taken by his family...I honestly don't know...He's free to choose as I am my diet coke, YET, he's also free to take the backlash from a board that is sick and tired for being sick and tired...Grieved of the death this has caused and ready to move on with life after we knock covid the slap out. We are ALL (including @drbwh)in major need of healing and to me it seems to be slowing coming. Thanks again for your continued posting on this board.
The IRB isn't a science advisory board. It protects subjects in human research. Period. That's all it does. You are free to make whatever idiotic decisions you want to make for yourself every day. You are not free to conduct any idiotic human research you want. Research must be conducted with beneficence, justice, and respect for persons. Those are the Belmont Principles. The Belmont Report was generated in response to crimes against humanity in research in this country, by our own government.

Rejecting good science and embracing bad science because of politics is a whole 'nother level of idiocy. The science on HCQ was bad from the beginning. The original study, upon which Trump declared HCQ "a potential game changer", was "100% effective" because the researchers excluded the cases where it failed. It's easy to reach 100% efficacy if you exclude the failures. HCQ has failed in clinical trial after clinical trial. Yet, some people are still clinging to it. Why? Because Trump. Which is absolute lunacy. The whole ivermectin thing was started by the same group that was caught purposefully manipulating data out of Chicago. They had cornered the market on ivermectin in South America and were trying to create a market for it, so they rushed a couple of studies to pub where they used magnitudes of order higher concentrations in the petri dish than we could ever accomplish in humans. Yet, people want to cling to it and reject vaccines that have been well done in large numbers of patients. Why? Why embrace the bad science and reject the good?

The harm in embracing bad science and rejecting good is that people die because they waste time, money, and health on the bad therapy. It is unethical.
 

wrenhal

Federal Marshal
Aug 11, 2011
10,619
4,213
743
In other news, new cases and hospitalizations continue to plummet.
Maybe the vaccinations are working. Unlike what one "doctor" with an agenda is pushing here.
Even I can read. He didn't say they don't work. He said they don't know long term side effects and so he's not taking it.
Why is everyone trying to mischaracterize what he's said?

Sent from my Moto Z (2) using Tapatalk
 

RxCowboy

Has no Rx for his orange obsession.
A/V Subscriber
Nov 8, 2004
71,648
41,148
1,743
Wishing I was in Stillwater
Even I can read. He didn't say they don't work. He said they don't know long term side effects and so he's not taking it.
Why is everyone trying to mischaracterize what he's said?

Sent from my Moto Z (2) using Tapatalk
We don't know the long-term side effects of any treatment for COVID-19, because the disease has only been known for a year. And please don't tell me about HCQ being used for decades, because it hasn't been used for COVID-19 for decades. Drugs can exhibit different adverse effects when used for different diseases because they interact pharmacologically differently with the diseases.

We do, however, know something about efficacy of HCQ (it isn't) and the vaccine (it is) in COVID-19. That makes one worth the unknown long-term adverse effects and the other not.