American Medical Association Approves the Use of Hydroxycholoroquine Therapy for COVID-19

[Elephant Tipper 430]

AMA Resolution 509 (November, 2020) approves the use of hydroxychloroquine as a therapy for treating COVID-19.

The resolution is 2/3's down the page: Nov 2020 Special Meeting of the AMA House of Delegates - Handbook Addendum (ama-assn.org)

[I_M4_AU 8,055]

Amazing, I wonder why they waited until November to do this, the evidence was there earlier.

[DKW 86 7,481]

Spontaneous Combustion and Bed Wetting in 3...2...1...

[homersapien 11,511]

https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2020/dec/16/rush-limbaugh/no-american-medical-association-didnt-rescind-stat/

 

[autigeremt 6,776]

It's been used in Alabama for months. 

[Elephant Tipper 430]

This quote is directly from the AMA Handbook, 11/20, and permits physicians to use hydroxychloroquine and chloroquine for off-label use:

1 Whereas, The COVID-19 pandemic is a serious medical issue, people are dying, and 2 physicians must be able to perform as sagacious prescribers; therefore be it 3 4 RESOLVED, That our American Medical Association rescind its statement calling for physicians 5 to stop prescribing hydroxychloroquine and chloroquine until sufficient evidence becomes 6 available to conclusively illustrate that the harm associated with use outweighs benefit early in 7 the disease course. Implying that such treatment is inappropriate contradicts AMA Policy 8 H-120.988, “Patient Access to Treatments Prescribed by Their Physicians,” that addresses off 9 label prescriptions as appropriate in the judgement of the prescribing physician (Directive to 10 Take Action); and be it further 11 12 RESOLVED, That our AMA rescind its joint statement with the American Pharmacists 13 Association and American Society of Health System Pharmacists, and update it with a joint 14 statement notifying patients that further studies are ongoing to clarify any potential benefit of 15 hydroxychloroquine and combination therapies for the treatment of COVID-19 (Directive to Take 16 Action); and be it further 17 18

RESOLVED, That our AMA reassure the patients whose physicians are prescribing 19 hydroxychloroquine and combination therapies for their early-stage COVID-19 diagnosis by 20 issuing an updated statement clarifying our support for a physician’s ability to prescribe an FDA21 approved medication for off label use, if it is in her/his best clinical judgement, with specific 22 reference to the use of hydroxychloroquine and combination therapies for the treatment of the 23 earliest stage of COVID-19 (Directive to Take Action); and be it further 24 25

RESOLVED, That our AMA take the actions necessary to require local pharmacies to fill valid 26 prescriptions that are issued by physicians and consistent with AMA principles articulated in 27 AMA Policy H-120.988, “Patient Access to Treatments Prescribed by Their Physicians,” 28 including working with the American Pharmacists Association and American Society of Health 29 System Pharmacists. (Directive to Take Action)

[wdefromtx 3,159]

35 minutes ago, homersapien said:

https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2020/dec/16/rush-limbaugh/no-american-medical-association-didnt-rescind-stat/

 

Who cares what Rush says?! LOL 

[DKW 86 7,481]

1 hour ago, Elephant Tipper said:

This quote is directly from the AMA Handbook, 11/20, and permits physicians to use hydroxychloroquine and chloroquine for off-label use:

1 Whereas, The COVID-19 pandemic is a serious medical issue, people are dying, and 2 physicians must be able to perform as sagacious prescribers; therefore be it 3 4 RESOLVED, That our American Medical Association rescind its statement calling for physicians 5 to stop prescribing hydroxychloroquine and chloroquine until sufficient evidence becomes 6 available to conclusively illustrate that the harm associated with use outweighs benefit early in 7 the disease course. Implying that such treatment is inappropriate contradicts AMA Policy 8 H-120.988, “Patient Access to Treatments Prescribed by Their Physicians,” that addresses off 9 label prescriptions as appropriate in the judgement of the prescribing physician (Directive to 10 Take Action); and be it further 11 12 RESOLVED, That our AMA rescind its joint statement with the American Pharmacists 13 Association and American Society of Health System Pharmacists, and update it with a joint 14 statement notifying patients that further studies are ongoing to clarify any potential benefit of 15 hydroxychloroquine and combination therapies for the treatment of COVID-19 (Directive to Take 16 Action); and be it further 17 18

RESOLVED, That our AMA reassure the patients whose physicians are prescribing 19 hydroxychloroquine and combination therapies for their early-stage COVID-19 diagnosis by 20 issuing an updated statement clarifying our support for a physician’s ability to prescribe an FDA21 approved medication for off label use, if it is in her/his best clinical judgement, with specific 22 reference to the use of hydroxychloroquine and combination therapies for the treatment of the 23 earliest stage of COVID-19 (Directive to Take Action); and be it further 24 25

RESOLVED, That our AMA take the actions necessary to require local pharmacies to fill valid 26 prescriptions that are issued by physicians and consistent with AMA principles articulated in 27 AMA Policy H-120.988, “Patient Access to Treatments Prescribed by Their Physicians,” 28 including working with the American Pharmacists Association and American Society of Health 29 System Pharmacists. (Directive to Take Action)

Man, stop this. Facts and stuff are all good, until they contradict a Corporate Dem's Opinion on ANYTHING. 

[DKW 86 7,481]

1 hour ago, wdefromtx said:

Who cares what Rush says?! LOL 

Rush must be writing for the AMA. I dont need anyone to interpret what was in the document. 

I learned how to read some time ago.

Sorry so many Americans have forgotten how to think. 

And NO, I dont think it will cause it to be used often if at all.
I do realize that the level of hate leveled at someone can and often does overwhelm otherwise rational thought by even well educated people. 

Edited December 17, 2020 by DKW 86

[DKW 86 7,481]

6 hours ago, DKW 86 said:

Spontaneous Combustion and Bed Wetting in 3...2...1...

Anyone notice who the next post was by?

[homersapien 11,511]

The fact the AMA (essentially a doctors lobby) reserves the right of physicians to do pretty do much whatever they damn well want proscribing drugs (SURPRISE! ),  does not constitute a scientific endorsement regarding the medical efficacy or safety of such drugs.

I realize this is far too subtle for MAGAs to understand or appreciate,  but it's hardly surprising, considering their disdain for facts.

Edited October 1, 2021 by homersapien

[homersapien 11,511]

6 hours ago, autigeremt said:

It's been used in Alabama for months. 

It's probably been used everywhere for months.  As far as I know, it's not been "banned" anywhere for "off-label prescriptions".

But,  the FDA (not a doctor's lobby)  has revoked their emergency authorization "that allowed for chloroquine phosphate and hydroxychloroquine sulfate donated to the Strategic National Stockpile to be used to treat certain hospitalized patients with COVID-19 when a clinical trial was unavailable, or participation in a clinical trial was not feasible."

https://www.fda.gov/news-events/press-announcements/coronavirus-covid-19-update-fda-revokes-emergency-use-authorization-chloroquine-and

 

Edited December 18, 2020 by homersapien

[Elephant Tipper 430]

1 hour ago, homersapien said:

The fact the AMA (essentially a doctors lobby) reserves the right of physicians to do pretty much whatever they damn well want to regarding proscribing drugs (SURPRISE! ),  that does not constitute a scientific endorsement regarding the medical efficacy or safety of such drugs.

I realize this is far too subtle for MAGAs to understand or appreciate,  but it's hardly surprising, considering their disdain for facts.

Bbbbbbuuuuutttt, when you thought that quoting the AMA's tweet proved your point you were quick to do so.  Don't let irony stand in your way of your quackery, gomer.  Hydroxychloroquine is safer than aspirin and most effective when used appropriately in healing COVID-19-infected people IN EARLY STAGES OF THE DISEASE.  But don't let science deter you there either.

As an aside, you are always quick to cast aspersions without offering support.......sooooooo, how is it that the AMA is making rich its medical community by approving the off-label use of a drug that has no patent and cheap to manufacture, hence, has little profitability, the opposite of what you insinuate ?  And one last comment Dr. gomer, the word is "prescribe", not "proscribe".  But that was too subtle a difference for you, wasn't it ?  Remember the first "e" next time.  You made it feel abandoned.

Ta-ta !

[Elephant Tipper 430]

1 hour ago, homersapien said:

It's probably been used everywhere for months.  As far as I know, it's not been "banned" anywhere for "off-label prescriptions".

But,  the FDA (not a doctor's lobby)  has revoked their emergency authorization "that allowed for chloroquine phosphate and hydroxychloroquine sulfate donated to the Strategic National Stockpile to be used to treat certain hospitalized patients with COVID-19 when a clinical trial was unavailable, or participation in a clinical trial was not feasible."

https://www.fda.gov/news-events/press-announcements/coronavirus-covid-19-update-fda-revokes-emergency-use-authorization-chloroquine-and

 

Yes, the FDA banned its use for COVID-19, period, regardless of the national stockpile, mainly because of unwarranted pressure to do so because of the constant onslaught of ignorant threads like these: 

 

Comments like these imposed a wide-spread fear among the population of those who considered using the drug.  Fear mongering like yours did more damage than help.

[homersapien 11,511]

12 hours ago, Elephant Tipper said:

Bbbbbbuuuuutttt, when you thought that quoting the AMA's tweet proved your point you were quick to do so.  Don't let irony stand in your way of your quackery, gomer.  Hydroxychloroquine is safer than aspirin and most effective when used appropriately in healing COVID-19-infected people IN EARLY STAGES OF THE DISEASE.  But don't let science deter you there either.

As an aside, you are always quick to cast aspersions without offering support.......sooooooo, how is it that the AMA is making rich its medical community by approving the off-label use of a drug that has no patent and cheap to manufacture, hence, has little profitability, the opposite of what you insinuate ?  And one last comment Dr. gomer, the word is "prescribe", not "proscribe".  But that was too subtle a difference for you, wasn't it ?  Remember the first "e" next time.  You made it feel abandoned.

Ta-ta !

Nevertheless - ad hominem attacks and typos aside - the premise of your OP is false.

And I wouldn't try lecturing anyone about science, something you are obviously ill-equipped to do.

Edited December 18, 2020 by homersapien

[homersapien 11,511]

12 hours ago, Elephant Tipper said:

Yes, the FDA banned its use for COVID-19, period, regardless of the national stockpile, mainly because of unwarranted pressure to do so because of the constant onslaught of ignorant threads like these: 

 

Comments like these imposed a wide-spread fear among the population of those who considered using the drug.  Fear mongering like yours did more damage than help.

Pointing out that a drug with potentially serious side affects has not been approved for the reason it's being taken is not "fear mongering".  It's a simple statement of fact.  But knock yourself out, take as much of it as you can get your doctor to prescribe.

And if you're really concerned about avoiding damage, I suggest you would do more good trying to convince more of your fellow MAGAs to take one of the vaccines - or wear masks for that matter.

https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/27-vaccinated-coronavirus-republicans-conservatives-poll/story?id=70962377

 

 

Edited December 18, 2020 by homersapien

[DKW 86 7,481]

6 minutes ago, homersapien said:

Nevertheless - and ad hominem attacks aside - the premise of your OP is false.

So the AMA is wrong? America's foremost medical organization is wrong? The OP is quoting directly from the AMA, not someone's opinion or regurgitation of what was said. 

[homersapien 11,511]

16 minutes ago, DKW 86 said:

So the AMA is wrong? America's foremost medical organization is wrong? The OP is quoting directly from the AMA, not someone's opinion or regurgitation of what was said. 

No, what you and your lap dog are claiming what AMA actually said is wrong. 

My responses - including a clarification by the AMA - explains how.   And the AMA is America's foremost lobbying organization for doctors.  Look it up.

Where's that nihilistic cynicism that's your stock in trade?? 

 

Edited December 18, 2020 by homersapien

[DKW 86 7,481]

21 hours ago, homersapien said:

No, what you and your lap dog are claiming what AMA actually said is wrong. 

My responses - including a clarification by the AMA - explains how.   And the AMA is America's foremost lobbying organization for doctors.  Look it up.

Where's that nihilistic cynicism that's your stock in trade?? 

I love how you have suddenly given yourself a MD. Congrats.

I mean its so clear now, if you just twist it, stand on your head, turn it inside and out, develop a totally partisan hack personna...It all makes sense then.

I will say this, you are predictable and funny...

https://www.ama-assn.org/practice-management/cpt/statement-lobbying

Applicants and other interested parties must not engage in “lobbying” for or against code change requests. “Lobbying” means unsolicited communications of any kind made at any time (including during Editorial Panel meetings) for the purpose of attempting to improperly influence either:

• CPT/HCPAC Advisors’ or their societies’ evaluation of or comments upon a code change request or
• Voting by members of the Editorial Panel on a code change request

Any communication that can reasonably be interpreted as coercion, intimidation or harassment is strictly prohibited. Violation of the prohibition on lobbying may result in sanctions, such as being suspended or barred from further participation in the CPT process.

Information that accompanies a code change request, presentations or commentary to the Editorial Panel during an open meeting or to a workgroup during a workgroup meeting, and responses to inquiries from a Panel member or a CPT staff member, do not constitute “lobbying.”

View examples of permitted activities and impermissible activities (PDF). 

In order for the CPT Editorial Panel to effectively review and act on proposed changes to the CPT code set, code change applications must be reviewed by CPT/HCPAC Advisors and the Editorial Panel based on the information contained in the application and available clinical literature. CPT staff is responsible for organizing and submitting information to CPT/HCPAC Advisors and the Editorial Panel for consideration. Information relating to a code change application must be submitted to CPT staff no later than 30 days prior to the start of the Editorial Panel meeting at which the code change application will be considered. In some cases, the chair of the Editorial Panel may establish rules which allow for supplemental submissions of information to workgroups or facilitation sessions established by the chair or for postponed or appealed agenda items. (A “facilitation session” is an informal meeting requested by the chair during a CPT Editorial Panel meeting to allow interested parties to confer and attempt to reach a consensus recommendation for presentation at the meeting).

Edited December 19, 2020 by DKW 86

[Elephant Tipper 430]

On 12/18/2020 at 10:50 AM, homersapien said:

Nevertheless - ad hominem attacks and typos aside - the premise of your OP is false.

And I wouldn't try lecturing anyone about science, something you are obviously ill-equipped to do.

Soooooooo, Gomer, I make fun of your FAKE screen name and your feelings are hurt ?  You guys are killing the comedy clubs because of your overdose of sensitivity training.  I guess you were blowing kisses to Shoney'sPonyBoy by calling him an idiot.  υποκριτής

[jj3jordan 2,078]

On 12/17/2020 at 2:53 PM, homersapien said:

https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2020/dec/16/rush-limbaugh/no-american-medical-association-didnt-rescind-stat/

 

Homer slipping. This resolution clearly states the AMA approving doctors to administer HQN in stage one for sure, and even in later stages when the doctor felt it was beneficial. Massive fail Homer. I am truly disappointed. 

[CoffeeTiger 5,227]

https://www.amjmed.com/article/S0002-9343(21)00523-4/fulltext#  

 

Here we are 8 months later, and researches still aren't finding any evidence that hydroxychloroquine is effective in treating Covid 

[Elephant Tipper 430]

4 hours ago, CoffeeTiger said:

https://www.amjmed.com/article/S0002-9343(21)00523-4/fulltext#  

 

Here we are 8 months later, and researches still aren't finding any evidence that hydroxychloroquine is effective in treating Covid 

Citing a meta-study is tricky and with this study you cite the information is at best nebulous.   This meta-study which you quote appears to have been designed more so to drive a conclusion with bias against the use of hydroxchloroquine (HCQ) rather than being designed to search for truth.

1) The size of the results for each hospital averages 28 patients, which is insignificant for a "study".  They are essentially saying, Hey, we gave a bunch of pills and see, they didn't work.  Very little info is given about that "select" group of patients.  Just because they say that there were 11,330 patients (wow, a big number...eyeroll) in the study doesn't mean that it is statistically significant.

2) The study recommends against the use of HCQ because of its relative risk value being higher than remdesivir (FDA approved drug for Sars-COV-2 treatment), but the actual percentage of deaths for remdesivir  is slightly higher than that of HCQ.  Using the data of the limited meta-study shows that 104 deaths occurred in the administration of the drug to 954 patients, which is a 10.901% death rate, whereas, with the administration of remdesivir to 2,750 patients, 301 died, which is a 10.945% death rate.  Why did these researchers not disqualify remdesivir since it is statistically as effective as HCQ ?  Hmmm ?

This link is for the mother load of meta-studies for 290 studies and over 400,000 patients, of which, 210 of those studies shows that HCQ has a positive effect in resolving Sars-CoV-2.  https://hcqmeta.com/

We are still learning about this novel disease and will continue to learn about how to treat it in its different stages for a protracted period.  People, such as yourself and others on this board, should stop making medicine a black and white issue.  It isn't.  Medicine is nuanced and Sars-CoV-2 has proved this in spades.

[Elephant Tipper 430]

5 hours ago, CoffeeTiger said:

https://www.amjmed.com/article/S0002-9343(21)00523-4/fulltext#  

 

Here we are 8 months later, and researches still aren't finding any evidence that hydroxychloroquine is effective in treating Covid 

And a few more comments.  These researchers are just that, researchers which I emphasize for two reasons.

1) Although these researchers have no business/financial relationships to disclose, they do have a pecuniary interest in how they are perceived among potential future employers, ie, Big Pharma, et al.  The current climate says, HCQ is "bad", anything else is "good".  These researchers will be favored more than those who support the use of HCQ and that is a fact.

2) The primary supporting evidence for the use of HCQ comes from practitioners.  They are on the front line of treating this disease and have a vested interest in making their patients well, not just doing research.  

3) HCQ is dirt cheap compared to all other forms of treatment.  To repeat, physicians don't have a financial interest in HCQ, only in making their patients well.  Some patients may not have access to other modes of treatment.  This is the case throughout the world.  Imagine the closest doctor being 50 miles away.  They don't have the finances to provide anything better than HCQ which may be their only option.

[TitanTiger 20,542]

16 hours ago, Elephant Tipper said:

And a few more comments.  These researchers are just that, researchers which I emphasize for two reasons.

1) Although these researchers have no business/financial relationships to disclose, they do have a pecuniary interest in how they are perceived among potential future employers, ie, Big Pharma, et al.  The current climate says, HCQ is "bad", anything else is "good".  These researchers will be favored more than those who support the use of HCQ and that is a fact.

2) The primary supporting evidence for the use of HCQ comes from practitioners.  They are on the front line of treating this disease and have a vested interest in making their patients well, not just doing research.  

3) HCQ is dirt cheap compared to all other forms of treatment.  To repeat, physicians don't have a financial interest in HCQ, only in making their patients well.  Some patients may not have access to other modes of treatment.  This is the case throughout the world.  Imagine the closest doctor being 50 miles away.  They don't have the finances to provide anything better than HCQ which may be their only option.

This is all high sounding rhetoric to imply conspiracies between Big Pharma, medical researchers and epidemiologists and the government and I'm just not here for it.  Actual properly structured clinical trials based at its root on the same scientific method you learned all the way back when you were doing science projects in the 7th grade are evidence.  Anecdotes are not the same thing.  Let the reader understand...

 

That's why the best trials take measures to eliminate (or at least control for) other causal factors.  They have a experiment group (the group getting the medicine) and a control group (those getting a placebo) to eliminate the placebo effect.  They make the trials double blind so that not only do the trial participants not know who got the real thing vs placebo, but neither do the doctors/scientists.  There's much more to it that only makes the use of such trials stronger in terms of the outcomes being something measurable and legitimate.

The way people read "testimony from the frontlines" is often akin to the picture above.  A doctor starts treating all this patients with HCQ, or horse dewormer, or a cocktail of Vitamin D, Zinc, Azithromycin and Eye of Newt and a bunch of them get better and now it's all "This cheap wonder drug saves people from COVID! Take that BIG PHARMA!!"  But no serious attention is given to how many of those people were going to survive anyway and they don't have any of that data because the nature of how they went about it prevents them from being able to know.

At some point, people have got to stop defaulting to "BIG PHARMA IS LYING TO US TO MAKE MONEY."  The level of conspiracy and the number of people it would take to keep it under wraps is staggering and the people pushing it the most have scant evidence to show it holds any water.  They just float "I'm just asking questions" and plant seeds of doubt out there and let it fester until we have the situation we're in now - people unnecessarily going through hell in the hospital, jamming up ICUs and exhausting frontline workers, and dying by the thousands because we've scared them off the best weapons we have to combat this.