Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The preponderance of evidence does NOT support HCQ as an effective treatment or prophylaxis for COVID 19 despite what the moron in the White House thinks....
There are more morons on this forum than in The White House.
The evidence does suggest that HCQ does shorten the course of CoViD symptomatic period if started early enough in the course.
The results of tests done so far on the general use of the drug are not systematically empowered to produce consistently significant results....Absence of proof is not proof of absence.
By analogy, tests of the effect of Vit C supplements on the general public would prove no benefit...But give it to someone with scurvy and the improvement would be miraculous. HCQ may well be of remarkable benefit to an as yet undefined subset of pts....We do, after all, have to explain the statistically significant results of so many studies.
There are more morons on this forum than in The White House.
The evidence does suggest that HCQ does shorten the course of CoViD symptomatic period if started early enough in the course.
The results of tests done so far on the general use of the drug are not systematically empowered to produce consistently significant results....Absence of proof is not proof of absence.
By analogy, tests of the effect of Vit C supplements on the general public would prove no benefit...But give it to someone with scurvy and the improvement would be miraculous. HCQ may well be of remarkable benefit to an as yet undefined subset of pts....We do, after all, have to explain the statistically significant results of so many studies.
Show me the evidence of which you speak and don't include the first 2 French studies that started all this nonsense with 20 and 80 patients and no controls...
"The UK RECOVERY Trial randomized 1542 patients to hydroxychloroquine and 3132 patients to usual care alone. Preliminary results found no significant difference in the primary endpoint of 28-day mortality (25.7% hydroxychloroquine vs 23.5% usual care; hazard ratio 1.11 [95% CI, 0.98-1.26]; P = 0.10). There was also no evidence of beneficial effects on hospital stay duration or other outcomes."
"An observational study of 2512 hospitalized patients in New Jersey with confirmed COVID-19 was conducted between March 1, 2020 and April 22, 2020, with follow-up through May 5, 2020. Outcomes included 547 deaths (22%) and 1539 (61%) discharges; 426 (17%) remained hospitalized. Patients who received at least one dose of hydroxychloroquine totaled 1914 (76%), and those who received hydroxychloroquine plus azithromycin totaled 1473 (59%). No significant differences were observed in associated mortality among patients receiving any hydroxychloroquine during the hospitalization (HR, 0.99 [95% CI, 0.80-1.22]), hydroxychloroquine alone (HR, 1.02 [95% CI, 0.83-1.27]), or hydroxychloroquine with azithromycin (HR, 0.98 [95% CI, 0.75-1.28])"
"An observational study of consecutively hospitalized patients (n = 1446) at a large medical center in the New York City area showed hydroxychloroquine was not associated with either a greatly lowered or an increased risk of the composite endpoint of intubation or death."
"A retrospective analysis of data from patients hospitalized with confirmed COVID-19 infection in all US Veterans Health Administration medical centers between March 9, 2020, and April 11, 2020, has been published. Patients who had received hydroxychloroquine (HC) alone or with azithromycin (HC + AZ) as treatment in addition to standard supportive care were identified. A total of 368 patients were evaluated (HC n=97; HC + AZ n=113; no HC n=158). Death rates in the HC, HC + AZ, and no-HC groups were 27.8%, 22.1%, 11.4%, respectively. Rates of ventilation in the HC, HC + AZ, and no-HC groups were 13.3%, 6.9%, 14.1%, respectively. The authors concluded that they found no evidence that hydroxychloroquine, with or without azithromycin, reduced the risk of mechanical ventilation and that the overall mortality rate was increased with hydroxychloroquine treatment. Furthermore, they stressed the importance of waiting for results of ongoing, prospective, randomized controlled trials before wide adoption of these drugs. " https://emedicine.medscape.com/artic...2-overview#a15
I don't think there's really a doubt that it MIGHT help SOME people - that's a misleading topic by the OP - even myths are based on some observations, and probably it helps some people. The problem is - it also HURTS some people by a greater amount. This seems like it's taking a lot of time to sink in!
60 some articles. Take your pick. Some show no evidence of help from HQL; some show minor, statistically significant help; none show harm in outcomes of the infection. ..side effects are always a risk. HQL has been used for decades. It's certainly safer than many drugs that are used routinely for various conditions like DM, Auto-immune diseases etc. (Chemo- agents are too obvious to mention.)
All these studies suffer from the logistic problems of dealing with a new disease suddenly appearing and inadequate time to design and carry out meaningful double blind, well controlled studies on an adequate number of properly selected subjects.
There is certainly enough circumstantial/anecdotal evidence that HQL may be effective that it warrants further testing, and the derision & contempt of that concept being displayed by some merely exposes the ignorance of those parties.
60 some articles. Take your pick. Some show no evidence of help from HQL; some show minor, statistically significant help; none show harm in outcomes of the infection. ..side effects are always a risk. HQL has been used for decades. It's certainly safer than many drugs that are used routinely for various conditions like DM, Auto-immune diseases etc. (Chemo- agents are too obvious to mention.)
All these studies suffer from the logistic problems of dealing with a new disease suddenly appearing and inadequate time to design and carry out meaningful double blind, well controlled studies on an adequate number of properly selected subjects.
There is certainly enough circumstantial/anecdotal evidence that HQL may be effective that it warrants further testing, and the derision & contempt of that concept being displayed by some merely exposes the ignorance of those parties.
This study of 821 asymptomatic patients in Canada and USA strongly suggests it makes no difference whether people who are exposed early on to coronavirus take hydroxychloroquine or not.
This study of 821 asymptomatic patients in Canada and USA strongly suggests it makes no difference whether people who are exposed early on to coronavirus take hydroxychloroquine or not.
That study was looking at prophylactic use of HCQ to prevent acquiring the virus after exposure...It did not look at the role of HCQ in shortening the course of illness or in preventing death in sick pts.
Keeping in mind that NO studies have been done that are beyond reproach for their methods (ie- no "good" studies), what we have is a bunch of studies that show no help from HCQ (equivalent to getting 4 heads, 5 heads or 6 heads on 10 flips of a coin. We expect to get 5 heads, but get trials where 6 or 4 commonly occur due to chance).....
...But we also have a handful of studies that show some small, but statistically significant improvements in clinical outcomes of sick guys (like getting 8 heads & 2 tails on 10 flips of the coin)....If those were just due to chance, we should also be seeing some studies that show adverse effects of HCQ treatment (like getting 2 heads & 8 tails to "balance out" the 8H:2T trials....But we don't see those. They don't seem to be due to random chance..... We have to explain that.
Last edited by guidoLaMoto; 08-08-2020 at 04:05 PM..
60 some articles. Take your pick. Some show no evidence of help from HQL; some show minor, statistically significant help; none show harm in outcomes of the infection. ..side effects are always a risk. HQL has been used for decades. It's certainly safer than many drugs that are used routinely for various conditions like DM, Auto-immune diseases etc. (Chemo- agents are too obvious to mention.)
All these studies suffer from the logistic problems of dealing with a new disease suddenly appearing and inadequate time to design and carry out meaningful double blind, well controlled studies on an adequate number of properly selected subjects.
There is certainly enough circumstantial/anecdotal evidence that HQL may be effective that it warrants further testing, and the derision & contempt of that concept being displayed by some merely exposes the ignorance of those parties.
An uncontrolled OBSERVATIONAL study...That's all you got???
Here's another saying for you....Garbage in Garbage Out....
Continuing to support the false belief in a "treatment" that the consensus of opinions now believes is useless also exposes the ignorance of those parties that would continue to espouse the "benefits" of a failed treatment strategy...
The only RCT's performed to date have shown the same thing....HCQ is ineffective and glaringly so as a treatment for COVID 19
That study was looking at prophylactic use of HCQ to prevent acquiring the virus after exposure...It did not look at the role of HCQ in shortening the course of illness or in preventing death in sick pts.
Keeping in mind that NO studies have been done that are beyond reproach for their methods (ie- no "good" studies), what we have is a bunch of studies that show no help from HCQ (equivalent to getting 4 heads, 5 heads or 6 heads on 10 flips of a coin. We expect to get 5 heads, but get trials where 6 or 4 commonly occur due to chance).....
...But we also have a handful of studies that show some small, but statistically significant improvements in clinical outcomes of sick guys (like getting 8 heads & 2 tails on 10 flips of the coin)....If those were just due to chance, we should also be seeing some studies that show adverse effects of HCQ treatment (like getting 2 heads & 8 tails to "balance out" the 8H:2T trials....But we don't see those. They don't seem to be due to random chance..... We have to explain that.
This study shows that when it is taken after the disease has advanced enough that patients are in the hospital that it is no help in this situation either.
I gather what you are trying to argue is that hydroxychloroquine might be effective when we get to the nebulous area of when it is not being taken to prevent occurrence of symptoms, but it hasn't advanced to the point where the patient ends up in the hospital? How do you define these parameters? When exactly is the appropriate time to take this medicine? When is it too late? Shouldn't it lessen symptoms if taken prophylatically when a person actually becomes sick? The study I have quoted above states the patients had "mild to moderate symptoms".
I find it more logical that the medication isn't useful in treating coronavirus.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
