magic drugs against covid-19?

Doc Holliday said:
Yep. I'm sure if someone is near death and the doctor says "I'm going to give you hydroxychloroquine", that person will say "No, no...I'm sorry, it may interfere
with my FAA medical"........o_O
Click to expand...
"Use of chloroquine or hydroxychloroquine to prevent coronavirus infection is disqualifying while on the medication and for 48 hours after the last dose before reporting for flight or other safety related duties," a new FAA directive says.
 
My research so far indicates that Bourbon is 100% effective in preventing not only COVID-19, but influenza as well. And a bunch of other stuff. Now, it's an admittedly small sample size... but I'm going with it.
 
DaleB said:
My research so far indicates that Bourbon is 100% effective in preventing not only COVID-19, but influenza as well. And a bunch of other stuff. Now, it's an admittedly small sample size... but I'm going with it.
Click to expand...

for me its single malt, but i concur...i have successfully prevented many diseases thus far ...
 
My kids have been on this drug several times for school trips to third world **** hole countries. If I were getting sick from Covid 19 you bet your butt I would take this, plus zinc, plus a zpack, or what ever my doctor thinks would work. This article talks about taking it for prevention.
 
WannFly said:
"Use of chloroquine or hydroxychloroquine to prevent coronavirus infection is disqualifying while on the medication and for 48 hours after the last dose before reporting for flight or other safety related duties," a new FAA directive says.
Click to expand...

My post was in response to that incredibly poorly written article. Journalism is dead.
 
So don't take it to prevent covid, take it to prevent rheumatroid arthritis, for which it's a CACI medication with the proper documentation.

What I want to know is anybody surveying all those thousands of RA patients to see if they're geting the virus?
 
IBTL!

Which is funny because if you guys don’t behave I might be the guy locking the thread. :D
 
Pilawt said:
Had POTUS denounced hydroxycholoroquine from the get-go, CNN would today be saying it's the next best thing to mother's milk and demand it be distributed free on every street corner.
Click to expand...
Y'know, I posted this because it was the first notice reported FROM THE FAA. The fact that CNN posted it is irrelevant to me. You've politicized it, not me.

Let's see where else this is reported:
https://thehill.com/policy/healthca...-anti-malaria-drugs-within-48-hours-of-flying
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/arti...ed-from-taking-drug-trump-touts-against-virus

Oh, gee, guess how this got posted? Perhaps if you'd read the article instead of immediately complaining it was CNN....

"The text was shared with CNN by the Allied Pilots Association, which represents pilots at American Airlines. The directive was signed by Dr. Penny Giovanetti, the director of the Medical Specialties Division within the Office of Aerospace Medicine."
 
Doc Holliday said:
Yep. I'm sure if someone is near death and the doctor says "I'm going to give you hydroxychloroquine", that person will say "No, no...I'm sorry, it may interfere
with my FAA medical"........o_O
Click to expand...
If you're near death, I seriously doubt your FAA medical is at the top of your worry list.
 
Murphey-right on!

Amazing how so many people are willing to put their faith in pseudo or none science. Making totally irrational claims based on little or none existent logic or reason has reached epic levels.

Following the current trend orange juice is an intoxicant. After all if you drink sufficient screwdrivers (oj and vodka) you get drunk. Same thing with mimosas (oj and champagne) you get drunk. Since oj is the common element obviously it causes intoxication!
 
https://www.webmd.com/lung/news/20200407/parasite-drug-shows-early-promise-against-covid-19

An inexpensive drug used to treat parasitic infections killed the coronavirus that causes COVID-19 in less than 48 hours in a laboratory setting, Australian researchers say.

ivermectin, has been used widely used for decades. It was introduced as a veterinary drug in the 1970s. Doctors also prescribe it to treat head lice, scabies, and other infections caused by parasites. According to a report published online in the journal Antiviral Research, the drug quickly prevented replication of SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID-19. The study has been peer-reviewed and accepted for publication, although it is not yet a "definitive" version of record.
Click to expand...
 
What about these drugs cause them to be disqualifying?
 
There are better drugs in the pipeline. The most promising target for therapeutics is the viral RNA-dependent RNA polymerase. This is a unique viral protein target that is essential for viral reproduction, which means there is less likelihood of side effects in humans for inhibitors of this protein. The most promising candidate right now is a 4-N-hydroxycytidine derivative. It is highly effective in cell culture, and is about to undergo phase I testing now. It causes the virus to make fatal errors in copying its RNA genome. It is similar to remdesivir, which also targets the RNA polymerase, except it can be taken orally, unlike remdesivir which must be administered by IV. These drugs are similar in concept to AZT (azidothymidine), which is a highly successful HIV treatment. An army in my scientific community now is using structural biology methods to identify still more potential small molecule drugs and drug fragments that target key viral proteins. Some of these are going to pan out. But we have some good existing compounds out there now.
 
Pilawt said:
Had POTUS denounced hydroxycholoroquine from the get-go, CNN would today be saying it's the next best thing to mother's milk and demand it be distributed free on every street corner.
Click to expand...

I'm guessing it's best not to ask a politician, reporter, or plumber for accurate pharmacology advice. Best ask a medicinal chemist, pharmacologist, infectious disease physician, or biochemist for that kind of information. Just sayin'. As a retired scientist in this general area of research, I find much of the discussion of potential COVID antiviral treatments maddeningly simplistic and misleading.
 
AggieMike88 said:
What about these drugs cause them to be disqualifying?
Click to expand...

Potential side effects, depending on dosage and duration, include cardiac arrhythmias, hypoglycemia, hypotension, and retinopathy. Any of those would probably raise the FAA's eyebrow.
 
WannFly said:
"Use of chloroquine or hydroxychloroquine to prevent coronavirus infection is disqualifying while on the medication and for 48 hours after the last dose before reporting for flight or other safety related duties," a new FAA directive says.
Click to expand...

Yeah. So if you take it to prevent Malaria, it’s not disqualifying??
 
WannFly said:
for me its single malt, but i concur...i have successfully prevented many diseases thus far ...
Click to expand...
I will admit to having scared off more than one bug (and the occasional waitress) with a couple fingers of Lagavulin.
 
luvflyin said:
Yeah. So if you take it to prevent Malaria, it’s not disqualifying??
Click to expand...
i am sure they are disqualifying no matter why you take them. but i didnt write the article, my point was ... if i am dying, i dont care about what FAA thinks.... but if i am proactively taking any med, as a pilot i should know whats disqualifying
 
luvflyin said:
Yeah. So if you take it to prevent Malaria, it’s not disqualifying??
Click to expand...
I know we got shot up for all the bad bugs we expected to encounter every cruise we deployed on and got anti-malaria meds en-route - prior to Mombasa, Kenya port of call is one I remember. I don't recall the flight surgeon grounding any of us after any of those... of course - different rules, different rule makers.
 
gkainz said:
I know we got shot up for all the bad bugs we expected to encounter every cruise we deployed on and got anti-malaria meds en-route - prior to Mombasa, Kenya port of call is one I remember. I don't recall the flight surgeon grounding any of us after any of those... of course - different rules, different rule makers.
Click to expand...
Also maybe different medicine. I looked back at the choices I was offered the couple times I took anti-malaria drugs. Hydroxychloroquine was not one of them. It was either malarone or doxycycline. I think people normally take malarone, unless they are cheap, um, frugal. Doxycycline is less expensive but has more side effects. At least that's what I was told. I listed malarone on my medical, although I wasn't taking it any more, and the AME pretty much said that they don't care.
 
jonvcaples said:
Murphey-right on!

Amazing how so many people are willing to put their faith in pseudo or none science. Making totally irrational claims based on little or none existent logic or reason has reached epic levels.
...
Click to expand...

Indeed, tens of millions people out of work, enormous and yet to be qualified economic damage that will last for many years ... all of that because of experimental pandemic models that even lack sufficient input data to be relevant and tend to produce orders of magnitude different outcomes on weekly basis ... thats beyond non-existent logic, that’s completely lacking common sense.
 
WannFly said:
i am sure they are disqualifying no matter why you take them. but i didnt write the article, my point was ... if i am dying, i dont care about what FAA thinks.... but if i am proactively taking any med, as a pilot i should know whats disqualifying
Click to expand...

Yeah. I was just commenting on the silliness of the wording in the FAA directive you quoted that implied the reason you were taking the drug, not the drug itself, was what was disqualifying. I was just agreeing with you. Thought that was why you highlighted “to prevent coronavirus.”
 
luvflyin said:
Yeah. I was just commenting on the silliness of the wording in the FAA directive you quoted that implied the reason you were taking the drug, not the drug itself, was what was disqualifying. I was just agreeing with you. Thought that was why you highlighted “to prevent coronavirus.”
Click to expand...

"Because it’s currently impossible to know the doses needed to prevent infection -- a use of the drugs that’s not approved -- the FAA can’t perform a risk assessment."​

Based on the FAA statement above, it appears that the reason the purpose for taking the drug matters is that, according to them, the dosage needed to prevent the infection is not known, and therefore the FAA does not have the information needed to do a risk assessment.
 
Dana said:
What I want to know is anybody surveying all those thousands of RA patients to see if they're geting the virus
Click to expand...

I'll start, Mom is on it for RA, she doesn't have Covid.
 
The only person I know who actually has Covid and this isn't second hand I talk to her husband several times a week. She was high risk. Over 60, overweight and had afib. Went to the hospital with pneumonia and tested positive for Covid. They put her on Hydroxichloraquine and Zpac as well as some others she was home in 4 days and is continuing to improve. Millions of people have taken it for malaria this is just hogwash. From what I read on the Brazilian study they were using really high doses. Oh and by the way for a super contagious virus it is funny her husband and daughter who live in the same house haven't got the virus yet.
 
DFH65 said:
Oh and by the way for a super contagious virus it is funny her husband and daughter who live in the same house haven't got the virus yet.
Click to expand...

Were they tested? One thing we do know is that a lot of folks "get" it but are asymptomatic, or nearly so. Or they may just live in conditions good enough and have personal hygiene practices that are good enough to have avoided it. Three or four folks in a one-room apartment in a city makes transmission more likely than the same number of people in a 2,500 sf 4 bedroom, 3 bath, house.
 
Jeff Oslick said:
Were they tested? One thing we do know is that a lot of folks "get" it but are asymptomatic, or nearly so. Or they may just live in conditions good enough and have personal hygiene practices that are good enough to have avoided it. Three or four folks in a one-room apartment in a city makes transmission more likely than the same number of people in a 2,500 sf 4 bedroom, 3 bath, house.
Click to expand...

Yes they were tested.
 
asicer said:
Here's a paper with some stats for ivermectin used on COVID-19 patients.

https://www.docdroid.net/DzUu8Ej/ivermectin-covid-19-pdf
Click to expand...

Wow. That's really a stretch, kind of like throwing spaghetti against the wall to see if it sticks. Ivermectin targets chloride channels in parasitic worm nervous systems. So I guess if it doesn't help your Covid, you'll get a good deworming. This is a macrocyclic lactone with no known viral target. Scratching my head why they thought it might be an effective antiviral.

I wish the medical folks would put on their chemistry and molecular biology hats and prioritize existing drugs and derivatives that actually have viral targets, like proteases and RNA polymerases. Or aptamers that interfere with cell binding. The "spaghetti" approach at best will identify drugs with weak, partially useful side effects.
 
Old Thread: Hello . There have been no replies in this thread for 365 days.
Content in this thread may no longer be relevant.
Perhaps it would be better to start a new thread instead.
Back
Top