Isn’t this practice done all of the time? Oh, yes it is: Off-label use - Wikipedia
So could someone with medical expertise convince me that this just isn’t a middle finger to Trump? Sure, maybe it does not work, but could it be harmful? Any more harmful than side effects of other medications?
As long as my doctor gives me the full information as to the possible negatives, why shouldn’t I be able to take it with the blessing of my doctor?
It has extremely severe side effects, including blindness. It is just as extremely unethical to prescribe a medication for off-label use which has exactly zero proof that it is in any way effective but would certainly hurt many patients needlessly.
Off-label use happens all the time, yes. In many cases it’s still a shady practice, simply because frequently the drug is used off-label because it couldn’t pass the clinical trial for the condition.
Sometimes it’s not a shady practice. Frequently a drug found effective against one type of solid tumor cancer will be used off-label for other similar solid tumor cancers. Because there’s a pretty good case that these tumors respond similarly to similar medications. Myself, I occasionally take a prescription antihistamine off-label for anxiety.
But there are strict laws against the drug companies PROMOTING these drugs for off-label use. The pharmaceutical companies employ or pay doctors to promote off-label uses of medication to other doctors. They also frequently ghost write articles for medical journals and pay doctors to put their name on them. I find this to be a shady practice although pharmaceutical companies have their own talking points justifying such practices.
I’m not sure about the legality of an untrained person who happens to be the President of the United States promoting a virtually untested drug to millions of people. Probably one of those laws we don’t have because no one thought we needed it. I think it’s immoral, though.
The biggest issue in this case isn’t the practice of off-label prescribing.
It’s that the one preliminary study appears to be garbage.
Then why would any doctor give it to a patient to treat Covid-19?
I have no medical training and therefore no opinion whatsoever about the efficacy of these drugs. Are some suggesting that my doctor might be such a MAGA Trump supporter that he would risk my life for no medical benefit because Trump said so?
If so, he would just be hurting Trump by having me go blind and not helping my illness would he not?
WAG: Some doctors wouldn’t, but some would just because the patient demanded it. Just like some doctors will prescribe antibiotics for a cold or flu because patients insist on them.
There is no free market solution to prescribing medications. Take anything for any reason is not medicine but quackary.
Are some doctors quacks? Certainly. Since you now know better, if your doctor suggests this medication run out the door and contact your state medical association.
I’ve evaluated and supervised my fellow doctors for decades.
Some of them just can’t say no to patient requests. They’re people pleasers who wilt under pressure. And it’s difficult to break them of that character defect. I know, I’ve tried. It’s ridiculous, but there it is. It takes close scrutiny and constant supervision to have a chance at changing some of them.
But aren’t there some doctors that see some value in these treatments, even if it hasn’t been fully vetted? Maybe there’s some of this “That will shut the patient up” going on, but there have been several doctors in the media that are saying that there is nothing else that can treat this, so in certain circumstances, why not try this?
As I said, I know nothing about medicine, so I don’t have an opinion, but I have clients wanting to bring a certain case, and I’ll tell them that their chance of success is exceedingly poor, but if they want, I will try this pretty poor legal argument to see if it sticks. As long as I am being completely honest going in, and it is not just a purely insane and frivolous argument, what is wrong with letting the client/patient make the final decision? It’s not going to kill anyone else if they take these drugs, right?
Yes, they’re idiots.
Years ago while working tech support, I came across the case of a doctor who had to get his floppy drive replaced because he’d shoved a 3.5 disk into a 5 inch drive. It’s possible to be an MD and still be a mororn.
Because there is zero proof it would help, substantial proof it might harm, and there are patients out there who do need this drug.
I’m a bit disturbed by governors who apparently know so much about medicine that they overrule doctors.
I certainly agree.
That’s not what Fauci is saying, and not at all what I have been hearing from numerous media outlets. What I have heard, directly from Fauci and it seems to be the consensus is: There is anecdotal evidence that it works. However, anecdote does not equal data. Medicine is a science and until you have proof you cannot say that medicine X is a good treatment for a certain condition.
Fair enough, but that would seem to say that all off-brand uses should be prohibited.
Off label use is generally based on at least a consensus that there’s a moderate amount of halfway decent science to support said use. Unlike the study behind the use of the antimalarials and zithromycin.
Administer large doses of heroin to COVID patients. Sure, it’s off-label, but it will quiet them. I hate whiny patients.
There is a massive conspiracy by the French government and BIG PHARMA to suppress this cheap miracle cure and discredit the brilliant Dr. Raoult. :smack:
If you follow that through, you’re being a bit disturbed by doctors who apparently know so much about medicine that they overrule other doctors. Because the governors aren’t making this up: they are following medical advice.
And this isn’t a one-off special case for COVID-19: restrictions on prescribing and dispensing are a normal part of the medical system.
The only thing that’s odd here is that it normally takes years for a government to pull their finger out and enact some kind of necessary medical action.
There’s a very good chance that diverting the limited supply of hydroxychloroquine will kill somebody, specifically lupus patients who don’t respond to the other available treatments. Did you miss that in post 23?
Umm, maybe it’s because I skimmed bits of this thread and skipped some links, but I haven’t seen any mention of QT interval prolongation as a common side effect of hydroxychloroquine. Seems like that should be pointed out: There’s a non-trivial chance that this drug will cause fatal cardiac arrhythmias in a non-trivial subset of patients. (IANAD, but I welcome further comment from them.)
So when a Very Stable Genius asks “What do you have to lose,” the answer might be “my very life.”
Dr. Wallace might assuage your fear, and a lot of other fears people have expressed on this message board in regards to Hydroxychloroquine:
His interview starts around 2:30, but the lead up is also very interesting.There is a new organization that is collecting data from patients with rheumatology disorders -such as lupus- that have also been diagnosed with COVID-19. The data they are collecting includes medication information.
So far they have collected data on 146 COVID-19 patients. 36 of these patients, approximately 25%, were on Hydroxychloroquine when they became infected.
And the only thing I have fears about is a bunch of gullible people running around thinking they are immune.
The International Society of Antimicrobial Chemotherapy just issued the following statement about that ridiculous French report that Jim Peebles cited in post #17:
When a major international body retracts a study, the world needs to listen.
I assume that proper studies are being conducted. This drug, possibly in combination with other drugs, may have some value. Nevertheless, junk science is junk science no matter who advocates for it. Let’s hope that we stop listening to people who don’t understand this.