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.
Yes, people dying and economies collapse throughout the world because no one wants to admit Trump was right.
Yep, that’s it!!
If YOU or anyone else can't get past any issue without your TDS flaring up, that's your problem - not mine.
Take Trump out of the equation.
It mind numbingly stupid (at best) to not be prescribing this in the interest of saving lives. In the majority of accounts I have read - it has been effective.
The primary outcome of the study was whether patients had negative conversion of SARS-CoV-2—elimination of the virus that causes COVID-19—by 28 days. The investigators had also planned to look at clinical improvement in patients with severe disease, but because the trial was stopped early because of a lack of eligible patients and only two patients were severely ill, they did not present those results.
Among the 150 patients, the mean duration from onset of symptoms to randomization was 16.6 days. A total of 109 patients (53 in the treatment group and 56 in the control group) had negative conversion well before 28 days, and 41 patients (22 in the treatment group and 19 in the control group) did not reach negative conversion. Overall, the probability of negative conversion of SARS-CoV-2 by 28 days in the treatment group was 85.4% (95% confidence interval [CI], 73.8% to 93.8%), compared with 81.3% in the control group (95% CI, 71.2% to 89.6%), for an absolute difference of 4.1 percentage point (95% CI, −10.3 to 18.5).
The median time to virus elimination was also similar in the treatment group (8 days; 95% CI, 5 to 10 days) compared with the control group (7 days; 95% CI, 5 to 8 days). And the probability of alleviation of symptoms by 28 days was also similar (59.9% in the treatment group vs 66.6% in the control group). But the safety analysis found that 30% of the patients treated with hydroxychloroquine reported adverse events, compared with only 9% of the patients who received standard-of-care treatment.
"Data from our trial do not provide evidence to support the use of hydroxychloroquine in this population, particularly considering the increased adverse events," the authors wrote. But they noted that further research is needed on the use of the drug at an earlier stage of the disease, preferably within 48 hours of symptom onset.
No benefit in more severely ill patients
In the second study, this one observational, investigators in France looked at outcomes among 181 hospitalized patients who had severe pneumonia caused by COVID-19 and needed oxygen. Eighty-four of the patients, treated from Mar 12 to Mar 31, received hydroxychloroquine within 48 hours hospital admission, and 89 received standard treatment. Eight additional patients received hydroxychloroquine more than 48 hours after admission.
Obviously leftist propaganda. Give me my bleach needle, stat!
But yeah, while not the 100% effective miracle cure that some with TDS think, it may be more beneficial in less critical cases than it is in more critical ones where more and more evidence indicates it's contraindicated.
Your first study is nothing to me. Throw it away. Did you not see where the study took place, or did you purposely leave that fact out?
In the first study, investigators in China randomized patients treated at 16 government-designated COVID-19 treatment centers to receive either standard-of-care treatment (the control group) or standard-of-care plus hydroxychloroquine (the treatment group) on a 1:1 basis.
Second study...
In the second study, this one observational, investigators in France looked at outcomes among 181 hospitalized patients who had severe pneumonia caused by COVID-19 and needed oxygen.
These are advanced COVID cases. What would have happened if they were given HCQ earlier.
Your first study is nothing to me. Throw it away. Did you not see where the study took place, or did you purposely leave that fact out?
In the first study, investigators in China randomized patients treated at 16 government-designated COVID-19 treatment centers to receive either standard-of-care treatment (the control group) or standard-of-care plus hydroxychloroquine (the treatment group) on a 1:1 basis.
Second study...
In the second study, this one observational, investigators in France looked at outcomes among 181 hospitalized patients who had severe pneumonia caused by COVID-19 and needed oxygen.
These are advanced COVID cases. What would have happened if they were given HCQ earlier.
Sorry - this does nothing for me.
I realize any information that goes against your preconceived theories means nothing to you. My posts are for those who don't have their head stuck in the sand.
I get sick with this virus I am going to a hospital in Houston using convalescent plasma.
The fact is if it was some damn miracle drug we would all know it by now. Even evil Doc Fauci.
I realize any information that goes against your preconceived theories means nothing to you. My posts are for those who don't have their head stuck in the sand.
I actually read what you posted and reacted based on what was there.
I fed it back to you and explained why I am not buying it. Nothing preconceived there. You probably didn't think I would read it and expected that China detail to pass by.
But yeah, while not the 100% effective miracle cure that some with TDS think, it may be more beneficial in less critical cases than it is in more critical ones where more and more evidence indicates it's contraindicated.
Agree. I have no reason to disbelieve the urgent care doc in CA who treated milder cases of CV w/HCQ and zinc with positive outcomes within a few days. From what I've read, CA seems to have a milder strain of this virus or the impact is less severe out there because of their climate? Of course, urgent care docs aren't getting the worst cases, either.
Be that as it may, the more I read about antivirals and other therapies, it is clear to me the earlier this disease is caught the better the outcome. Treatment is not one size fits all. What works on one patient may not be effective on another. HCQ is known to cause heart irregularities. Dosage and length of time on the medication matters. I consider HCQ only one among several or more of the tools which can be beneficial under the right circumstances.
Another anecdotal note - doc on this board says he and his colleagues are taking a low-dose of HCQ once a week as a possible preventive. He's treated many CV patients in NJ for months in the ICU on ventilators under high-risk circumstances. So far, to my knowledge, he's escaped the disease.
And, fwiw, my dislike of DJT is well documented on this forum.
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.
