Trust the science:Mayo Clinic Website Now Says Hydroxychloroquine CAN Be Used to Treat COVID-19 Patients, Previously Claimed It Was Not Effective
- Thread starter doerunn
- Start date
Can you not actually be accurate in quoting the Mayo Clinic website. From your link is the following
In the new update on their site, it now say "Hydroxychloroquine may be used to treat COVID-19 in certain hospitalized patients".
And if you go to the link (from the Mayo Clinic site) it also says
Using this medicine alone or with other medicines may increase your risk of heart rhythm problems. Hydroxychloroquine should only be used for COVID-19 in a hospital or during clinical trials. Do not take any medicine that contains hydroxychloroquine unless prescribed by your doctor.
So you didn't exactly tell the whole story, because it sounds like you are saying just go ahead and take it.
And, yes, they previously claimed it was not effective, because at the time it was first suggested to be used for COVID-19 there was no valid study that said it was effective. A lot of things changed in regard to COVID, but some people want to rewrite history to fit their narrative.
If someone want to dispute this, go right ahead, but don't change the subject as usual.
In the new update on their site, it now say "Hydroxychloroquine may be used to treat COVID-19 in certain hospitalized patients".
And if you go to the link (from the Mayo Clinic site) it also says
Using this medicine alone or with other medicines may increase your risk of heart rhythm problems. Hydroxychloroquine should only be used for COVID-19 in a hospital or during clinical trials. Do not take any medicine that contains hydroxychloroquine unless prescribed by your doctor.
So you didn't exactly tell the whole story, because it sounds like you are saying just go ahead and take it.
And, yes, they previously claimed it was not effective, because at the time it was first suggested to be used for COVID-19 there was no valid study that said it was effective. A lot of things changed in regard to COVID, but some people want to rewrite history to fit their narrative.
If someone want to dispute this, go right ahead, but don't change the subject as usual.
why are you so hurt over a relatively mundane announcement?
Trump was right yet again!?
see ya with your next moniker!
bye bye
My my. Remember chat libs attacking the use. Just take the L and move on. Regarding side effects. I know people that have taken this for years. Apparently a very safe drug. But most drugs list a litany of potential side effects
Are you serious? The Mayo Clinic is saying to only take it in a hospital or clinical trials (I wasn't the one who posted this), but you declare it apparently a very safe drug. Sounds like typical Vent advice. Some people using it is more medical advice I guess.
Yes, every drug has potential side effects. But you are talking about drugs approved for particular uses.
Yes, the use was attacked early on because there were no studies, but the fact the Mayo Clinic now approves it doesn't change history even though you are trying to do it.
fair enough. but the "valid" study, so to speak, were the 100s of doctors that WERE prescribing it nationwide, getting 75% - in some cases 90% and higher recovery rates; until the FDA shut them down, using other organizations to threaten their licenses. FrontLINE doctors on Youtube had some of the top doctors and researchers. Google shut them down. And as far as "possible side effects" what drug does NOT have a ton of possible side effects? Every drug commercial on TV scares the hell out of me when they do those disclaimers required by the FDA. Have you checked your local Wal-Mart OTC pharmacies lately? Yep, there in plain view is "Ivermectin" .. off the shelf. As far as I know, those OTC drugs are not for animals. Imagine that. I trust my doctor - I have to. But NOT the FDA, CDC, or big pharma.
Fair enough also. However, doctors using it is not a valid study. Let's not muddy the waters.
I trust my doctor also and he recommended against it. I haven't had COVID so it never came into play.
To not trust the FDA or CDC is a separate problem and I understand, but we can't have the Wild West. We need a solution.
Also keep in mind I was questioning the presentation made by the OP which wasn't quite accurate.
Solid post, if a Dr mentioned something that might work or build up immunity PRE-Vaccination they were shut down by major media, social media, the FDA. I understand cautiousness, but saying it doesn’t work, marginalizing and sensoring is different than saying use caution , consult with your Dr first and don’t expect a miracle cure.
Duke did a study on ivermectin alone and it did move the needle with recovery time. The concoction used with ivermectin to my knowledge has never been put thru a study, I wish it was as I think it would move the needle several more steps as well.
ok. your doctor IS the one who you should trust. And many were threatened with legal action. I trust the day-to-day practice and results over the politically funded research papers.
Why do you care if people want to take it? I know from traveling and living in malaria-infested countries that people have been taking it daily for decades, including myself. Again, why do you care? Are you on the Pfizer kickback list with your fellow democrats in Washington?
And why is the government so desperate for people to keep taking their barely-tested “vaccines”? I would not take one for love nor money.
Great post. But once folks have bought in 100% on everything the government and certain agencies tell them there’s no reasoning with them. What‘s never mentioned is when the CDC has approved the “vaccines” for certain younger age groups the vote to approve was 13-10. It wasn’t unanimous? No not even close, but that is the type of information you won’t ever hear reported on most of the MSM.
I don't care if people want to take it. I think you just want to assume that instead of actually reading what I wrote. Your snide remark reflects that.
I don't want people to misuse what they read. I don't know what the OP's intent was, but maybe it was to present a biased heading because that was the result.
Don't take any vaccines; I don't care. But I agree with poochpup and I will listen to my doctor.
No Republicans give a shit who you listen to.
Celticdawg, you sound like an Ohio St. fan instead of a Dawg. They haven’t been able to handle an ass whipping either!
Wouldn't this mean that it IS an effective antiviral med to some degree if it is now approved for hospitalized patients. Doesnt this bolster some of the earlier claims that it along with Zpac worked well in some cases of severely ill patients.
If it is approved now under certain conditions, why did the government discourage doctors from using it in the first place.
Yes, to your first sentence. No to the second sentence. That's not the point. It might be why it worked well at times, but it doesn't bolster the claims made at that time because there was no basis for it then.
You are answering you own question. There was no basis (meaning valid studies) that it worked for COVID early so it wasn't approved. Everything about COVID was unknown at the beginning basically and things changed along the way. At first ventilators were seen as a necessity for COVID patients and that produced a shortage. As time went on and COVID patients could be observed, the thinking changed to where maybe some patients were killed by being put on ventilators.
