International Study shows countries that used HCQ early had 79% less mortality rate
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.
very minimal risk. I mean VERY minimal. nearly not there but slightly there. nowhere near the hyperbole associated with the mad dash to kill use of this drug.
yet everywhere actual doctors are actually giving it, it works. (given they are doing so in early stages.)
If it is used in "early stages" it is being given to many people who would get better without it. It would take a large study in which there is a control group that was untreated to establish that it does indeed "work". We do not have those studies yet.
...The trial results, published in the Annals of Internal Medicine, determined that hydroxychloroquine did not decrease the severity of COVID-19 symptoms over 14 days any better than a placebo...
you want me to quote the Michigan study? says the opposite.
If it is used in "early stages" it is being given to many people who would get better without it. It would take a large study in which there is a control group that was untreated to establish that it does indeed "work". We do not have those studies yet.
well duh! the problem is NONE of the studies being touted as "proof" it doesn't work DONT TARGET THE RIGHT GROUP!
That's the point. AT the same time, these "studies" are being used as proof it doesn't work, and this drug is being pulled for off label use. THAT in and of itself is troubling because that generally doesnt happen.
If it is used in "early stages" it is being given to many people who would get better without it. It would take a large study in which there is a control group that was untreated to establish that it does indeed "work". We do not have those studies yet.
FURTHERMORE your above comment really bothers me because it shows that you don't even know that the people who have been making claims that HCQ was useful have always stated its best use is in the early stages. ALWAYS. That's what they have been saying going back to March.
But YOU don't seem to know that. Why? and you aren't troubled by that? geez that's crazy.
its not different in function from something like Tamuflu which is used in the early stages of flu.
HCQ works by retarding the ability of the drug to attach itself to human cells, it further works in the cells to retard the ablility of the cell to regenerate the SARS-COV-2 RNA. (among other things) those actions are well understood and even Fauchi understood this when SARS was making its first round.
we know the operation of the virus we know the impact of HCQ and we know what the limitations are and always have . but you who i would think consider yourself pretty well informed, don't know that.
well duh! the problem is NONE of the studies being touted as "proof" it doesn't work DONT TARGET THE RIGHT GROUP!
That's the point. AT the same time, these "studies" are being used as proof it doesn't work, and this drug is being pulled for off label use. THAT in and of itself is troubling because that generally doesnt happen.
None of the people who claim it works have a comparison untreated group. That is why they should not claim it works. They may be giving it to people who were going to get better whether they were treated or not. That should be a fairly simple concept to understand.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ferd
FURTHERMORE your above comment really bothers me because it shows that you don't even know that the people who have been making claims that HCQ was useful have always stated its best use is in the early stages. ALWAYS. That's what they have been saying going back to March.
But YOU don't seem to know that. Why? and you aren't troubled by that? geez that's crazy.
its not different in function from something like Tamuflu which is used in the early stages of flu.
HCQ works by retarding the ability of the drug to attach itself to human cells, it further works in the cells to retard the ablility of the cell to regenerate the SARS-COV-2 RNA. (among other things) those actions are well understood and even Fauchi understood this when SARS was making its first round.
we know the operation of the virus we know the impact of HCQ and we know what the limitations are and always have . but you who i would think consider yourself pretty well informed, don't know that.
and you aren't even asking yourself why?
None of the people who claim it works have a comparison untreated group. That is why they should not claim it works. They may be giving it to people who were going to get better whether they were treated or not. That should be a fairly simple concept to understand.
They banned it because it didn't work for advanced cases. It's like saying hydroxychloroquine is better because it cures healthy people by cherrypicking the groups you're treating They would've gotten better anyways since 80 percent of cases are mild. Most don't advance to the next level.
you want me to quote the Michigan study? says the opposite.
The "Michigan" study was a retrospective study done by Henry Ford hospitals, not a clinical trial. There are inherent issues with retrospective studies - the biggest issue with that particular study is that HCQ recipients from their case mining were 2x as likely to also receive steroids - which *are* proven to help with CV-19 symptoms.
This has been talked to death on this forum and elsewhere.
Bottom line, everyone in the drug approval world will tell you that data from a randomized, placebo controlled trial is magnitudes more applicable than a retrospective study.
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.