Researchers Cut Chloroquine Study Short Over Safety Concerns, Citing a 'Primary Outcome' of Death (cnbc.com) 213
Citing a "primary outcome" of death, researchers cut short a study testing anti-malaria drug chloroquine as a potential treatment for Covid-19 after some patients developed irregular heart rates and nearly two dozen of them died after taking doses of the drug daily. From a report: Scientists say the findings, published Friday in the peer-reviewed Journal of the American Medical Association, should prompt some degree of skepticism from the public toward enthusiastic claims about and perhaps "serve to curb the exuberant use" of the drug, which has been touted by President Donald Trump as a potential "game-changer" in the fight against the coronavirus. Chloroquine gained widespread international attention following two small studies, including one with 36 Covid-19 patients published March 17 in France, found that most patients taking the drug cleared the coronavirus from their system a lot faster than the control group. The JAMA report said those trials didn't meet the publishing society's standards.
Old news (Score:4, Interesting)
It's roundly established that this drug combination is NOT EFFECTIVE when the disease is already in a severe state. All the positive results have come from using the combo much earlier. This is also true of antivirals like tamiflu. Sadly this whole thing has become so politicized that people cheer on bad results and deliberately extrapolate them to imply the drug is worse than useless.
Re: (Score:2)
I dont' think anyone is cheering bad results. What they're doing is pointing out how the "let's have some trials first" was the more correct approach rather than the "they're going to die anyway, so you should let them have the drug!" claims that were made many times in slashdot. The claims that it might not be safe were roundly mocked here and other places, along with calls for the FDA to stop getting in the way.
Re: (Score:2)
Who is cheering on bad results? Who is "deliberately extrapolating"? I'm sure there are fine people on both sides! ')
Re: (Score:2)
So you're saying that this particular piece of spaghetti that Trump threw against the wall hasn't quite slid all the way off yet?
Re: (Score:2)
Nope. The combination approach didn't show a statistically significant increase in deaths, but it did not show a decrease in deaths at all.
And the next thing I'm going to hear is, "Yes, but it was supposed to be azithromycin AND zinc." And at that point, we're gettin into silly territory. Maybe zinc helps slightly when
Re: (Score:2)
> Nope. The combination approach didn't show a statistically significant increase in deaths, but it did not show a decrease in deaths at all.
"deaths" aren't the only metric that matters.
If I caught C19, and taking HCQ+azithromycin+zinc+(whatever) achieved nothing more than reducing my net misery time by an hour, I'd still say it's worthwhile and a net benefit.
It's like people who argue that Tamiflu is "worthless" because it only reduces the "acute infection" by "less than a day". Well, if you're complete
Re: (Score:2)
It isn't nearly as clear-cut a trade-off as you're suggesting. You have a few hours less misery, yes, but depending on the person, it may cause vomiting, so you're potentially deciding between being somewhat miserable for n days or being REALLY miserable for n-1 days.
BTW, Tamiflu also reduces
Re: (Score:2)
Are you proposing, then, that everyone take it as a prophylactic? How do we hit that window when it has come and gone and we still, largely, refuse to test people for a diagnosis?
Also, I suppose any benefit, not matter how small, is worth it when you don't have to do the work or pay the tab. Meanwhile, when drugs, manpower and time are precious the question is significantly different. We don't have unlimited healthcare.
Re: (Score:2)
Ah there it is! Knew this shill would be posting bullshit here.
Curious, as I recall, not long again you claimed there was evidence of this drug's effectiveness. Of course, you never cited any, and you also claimed that the population has a significant natural immunity as well. After all, what possible explanation could there be for an entire cruise ship not being infected?
You are a dishonest shill, SuperKendall, who posts in bad faith on literally every topic.
"Many, many people would seem to rather have
Re: (Score:2)
More quality content, I see.
BTW, significant pre-existing immunity to CV19 is one common theory for why it's advancing so slowly. There was one study that showed that those with antibodies to CV19 in LA county were something like 30x what was expected, as if CV19 had gone through the area months ago, before we were aware what it was. The evidence there isn't solid, and it's still one theory of many, but something is odd here, for sure.
We'll see when the first states open up whether there's an upswell in t
Re:Old news (Score:5, Informative)
What we've got here is failure to communicate. You've quoted one sentence from a report without understanding what it means. That was the primary outcome hypothesis used for the statistical test -- an assumed prior. More and more protocols require that the outcome hypothesis be set and reported at the start of a study, to prevent p-hacking and other shennanigans. How do I know that's the case here? Because of this block from the actual publication:
You won't find that 50% number, or anything like it, in the Results. Rather, you'll find this:
So no, they didn't detect anything of the sort.
No, it's getting accurately reported because it showed that HCQ increased lethality, which is the opposite of what we want. You moron.
Re: (Score:2)
You've quoted one sentence from a report without understanding what it means.
The sad thing is that it's impossible to tell if he actually understood what it means or whether he was just making an argument in bad faith. Is he dumb, did he make an honest mistake, or is he a sophist? Who knows?
Plato asserted that making a true and convincing argument requires a great deal more effort than an untrue and convincing argument, but it was worth the effort because the truth is so important. I wonder how he would have reacted to the internet, where he could spend a lifetime dismantling fallac
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
it showed that HCQ increased lethality, which is the opposite of what we want
Your post was spot-on, except for this one item: they used CQ, not HCQ, because that's what was readily available in Brazil, where the study was conducted. HCQ is known to have lower toxicity than CQ, but, unfortunately, that's not what they could get their hands on.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't want people like him overseeing me either. But he's not a typical liberal either, and not a typical centrist, or a typical libertarian, or a typical anyone who doesn't love Trump. And it should be that this was not to be taken seriously and it was just a joke in bad taste. The last I checked, people from all political backgrounds make jokes in bad taste.
Re: (Score:3)
What will he have to do to convince you that he's trying to kill off people who are not well educated?
To be fair, I don't think he's trying to kill people. He's trying to make people cheer for him, and doesn't really grok any consequences which do not affect him directly. This leads to lots of harm, of course, but harm is not his intent IMO.
I'm also not sure if this is better or worse than someone who is actually trying to do harm. There is a reason we cannot elect physical 6th-graders as president, but the founding fathers never imagined we'd need a mental requirement too.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Literally none of your claims are true.
Citation needed.
Re: (Score:2)
I thought it only works in combination with zinc (Score:3)
Floxed (Score:2)
Well ... (Score:2)
My wife takes medication where the effects may also be a rash, sudden death, ...
Chloroquine Diphosphate, not Hydrochloroquine (Score:3)
They're related, but not the same.
Chloroquine diphosphate has more side effects, and the dose given in that study was far too high. 600 milligrams twice a day is a toxic dose. The reference dose (450 mg twice on the first day, and once daily after that) is a borderline dose already. As a reference, the dose for HCQ starts with 800 mg, followed by smaller doses.
The toxic dose for HCQ is about twice that of the diphosphate, so they gave those patients more than the equivalent of a triple dose of HCQ.
They also left out the zinc supplements, which the successful HCQ trials have shown to be very important.
More proof... (Score:2)
That stuff all people actually read past the length of a twitter, and going to the source be damned.
Itâ(TM)s all outrage all the time.
If thatâ(TM)s all you have, go punch someone irl. That will probably a) cure Covid if you have it, in the sense that whoever you punched will likely kill you, and b) make you feel even more unthinkingly self-righteous and do you will repeat (a) until your Covid problems have been cured.
Sensationalized Headline (Score:4, Informative)
This study was to actually determine the safety of high dosage cloroquine vs low dosages of cloroquine, not whether it's effective at treating SARS-CoV-2.
The high dosage group receives 600mg CQ twice daily (1200mg), vs the low dosage group which received 450mg twice daily (900mg).
Both are higher dosages, and a higher risk drug, than the two studies out of France which showed that hydroxycloroquine with azithromycin showed promise. The French studies administered HCQ 200mg three tiimes daily (600mg), plus 500mg AZ on day one then 200mg each day after.
Effective (Score:2)
So it seems it is highly effective at preventing death from COVID-19. However, I suspect that shooting an infected person in the head would be more curative of COVID-19 and absolutely and certainly 100% effective at preventing death due to COVID-19.
Ventilators = death as well (Score:2)
They haven't stopped using ventilators, even though they have basically the same outcome as Chloroquine.
https://arstechnica.com/scienc... [arstechnica.com]
JAMA is a Chinese pawn! (Score:2)
Hoax! Fake news! JAMA is a pawn of China just like the WHO! It's totally safe!
The mayor of Las Vegas is going to sign up the entire city for a future double-blind study.
What could possibly be more important than living? /s
Just drink gin and tonic (Score:2)
Gin and tonic works great as a treatment since traditionally tonic water is flavored with quinine.
Comment removed (Score:4, Funny)
Re: Butt hurt (Score:2)
Like he can tell the difference . . .
He probably meant chroroform, since that was a word he could read.
Re: (Score:2)
Not really different as the active drug is the same. "Hydroxy" meaning oxygen and Hydrogen. Meaning it binds to water easier making it easier for the body to excrete via urine.
Removing drugs and medicine from the body is just as important as the correct dosage. It's a fine line between poison and medicine.
Re:Butt hurt (Score:4, Funny)
Trump never said anything about Chloroquine. He did talk about Hydroxychloroquine.
Old news. Besides, he's moved on to suggesting chugging Lysol and shoving a tanning lamp up your ass as the latest possible cures.
Fake News! (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Funny but fake.
However Im sure if you look hard enough you might find he has shares in Reckitt Benckiser through a blind trust who holds mutual funds that invest in many house cleaning manufacturers.
Re: (Score:2)
He also said he's really really smart and these things come natural to him. So we have s super smart man who's also president, and on top of that he's the richest man ever but prefers hanging out with all the poor people as he has said. Why would anyone listen to doctors instead? After all most doctors went to the university where they were indoctrinated in liberal ideas such as how to destroy America to make way for the One World Government, which I heard is a required class for graduation.
Re: (Score:2)
He said he's not a doctor, but he also said that he has a natural ability for this stuff. He's so smart he doesn't need to go to medical school, because his uncle was a smart doctor and they share a lot of genes. I would like to say that I am making this shit up, but that's essentially what Trump has said or strongly implied while rambling.
Re: But Trump promised! (Score:2)
Don't worry, he has alternatives lined up already. Thanks to Trump you'll be mainlining Lysol in UVC sunbeds real soon now
Re: But Trump promised! (Score:5, Insightful)
Thing is you aren't parodying anyone's opinion. Just showing off how you haven't managed to listen.
Re: (Score:2)
Thing is you aren't parodying anyone's opinion. Just showing off how you haven't managed to listen.
Nicely said. You see this shit coming from both the right and left but IMHO more from the right. Foxnews Laura Ingram recently display a plate with steaks and incandescent light bulbs screwed into the steak. She was thinking she was "owning the libs" and her listeners eat it up. When you have to resort to such insanity and exaggeration that only serves as a signpost your position is weak.
Re: (Score:2)
Is he? It would not be surprising since in other threads he demostrates similar lizard-brained thinking. He's clearly bigoted so it's a small step...
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
You know, I watched the Trump press conferences where this was discussed. Now, I spend most of this viewing time drinking and laughing at the bizarre spectacle that unfolds, but Trump seemed to reiterate over and over that what he was in favor of was trying potentially useful therapies because there were no other options.
We're probably exiting the phase of this epidemic where try-almost-anything therapies make less and less sense. First hand clinical knowledge in improving treatments is getting better the
Re: (Score:2)
You listen to the full press conferences? I can't manage more than a minute or two, they're just excruciating. He has no idea what he's going to say so he is just improvising the whole time, and it's obvious he wasn't paying attention if there was any prior status update meeting before the press conference. He's got that voice and speaking style that is just too hard to listen to; I'd rather read what was said afterwards; it's all just "me, me, me!" he's constantly insisting on being the center of attent
Re: (Score:2)
I'm usually pretty drunk by the time they end, like down a half pint of gin or tequila. I can't do that every day, I'm too old for that kind of regular binge drinking.
It's an entirely surreal experience, it's a modern version of watching Nero fiddle while Rome burns. I can't even believe what I'm watching, it's like it's not real, it's some kind of parody or I'm watching some dramatic re-creation of someone else's history.
Re: (Score:2)
Trump says a lot of dumb things, but he kind of has a point once in a while
Really? Multiple people are dead as a result of the drug. Let's leave things to the scientists and let's report on researched outcomes instead of having a buffoon think about drugs because he has a good feeling (reads: Saw it on Fox News an hour ago), which leads to a massive rush to buy the drug, massive rush for ignorant numpties to flood their doctors with requests for the drugs, and legitimate users of said drugs without a supply of it.
Trump says a lot of dumb things. Period. If he had a point it was de
Re: (Score:2)
Re:But Trump promised! (Score:4, Insightful)
No, he was reiterating that because he had monetary ties in companies that manufactured said drugs, as the media has repeatedly noted in the past month.
Yes, a billionaire President is bought for between $99 and $1485 [snopes.com] held in a blind trust that invested in a mutual fund.
Don't go full Maddow. You NEVER go full Maddow. When even Snopes says it's false - it's false.
Re: (Score:2)
No, he was reiterating that because he had monetary ties in companies that manufactured said drugs, as the media has repeatedly noted in the past month.
My understanding is that the monetary investment is quite, or relatively, small.
The main reason is that Trump is desperate for a "win" and not educated enough (putting things politely) to know the difference between science and wishful/fanciful thinking -- case in point, his musings yesterday about injecting UV light and disinfectants into the body to clean COVID-19 from the lungs. Thankfully, the medical community has pointed out that the latter is often used in suicide attempts, so not a recommended tr
Re: (Score:2)
I'm predicting Trump will counter by saying he didn't say the things shown on the video of him doing so and that it's "Fake News", etc...
After catching up on the news, turns out my prediction was wrong. Trump didn't deny it; he said he was being sarcastic [slashdot.org]. (a well rehearsed Trump response to being undeniably caught saying something dumb)
From Trump claims controversial comment about injecting disinfectants was 'sarcastic’ [washingtonpost.com]:
Amid a flurry of backlash and ridicule, President Trump walked back his suggestion that scientists test whether disinfectants, like bleach, could be injected inside the human body to fight the coronavirus, claiming Friday that he had said it sarcastically.
“I was asking a question sarcastically to reporters like you just to see what would happen,” Trump said.
So I guess that settles it. /actual-sarcasm
Re: (Score:3)
He's just running his mouth and more or less free associating.
He's a boorish ignoramus, but I don't actually think the way he delivers these statements like the light/disinfectant comment are anything more than a stream of consciousness.
It puzzles me why the media considers them to be serious medical guidance and reports on them like that.
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
And yet, im pretty sure you Liberals with TDS would scream and rant if he came out with a cure for cancer. likely ranting how he put scientists out of a job, or removing peoples choice to have cancer or not. you know. stupid liberal bullshit that spews non stop :)
Re: But Trump promised! (Score:2)
Wrong. If Trump announces a cure for cancer that he developed, he would deserve a noble prize.
Of course that's a straw man, because he can't develop a cure for cancer. He is not an oncologist, or a scientist of any kind. Except maybe a pseudoscientist.
Re: (Score:2)
Also, it was known to be toxic. Back in the day it was better than getting malaria...but, well, in the US even tonic water no longer contains quinine...and that was at a really low dose.
So it was known to be toxic. Just not too toxic to be useful in certain circumstances. It can lead to heart attacks, and at high doses it should be expected to lead to heart attacks if prolonged use happens.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, but the dose needs to be as low as effective. In the French study the doses were a lot higher than is safe for a long period...as expected, and shown by this study.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Why is Trump endorsing anything? He has no expertise in this realm. Experts seem to be saying that the treatments he has endorsed are not good. At least one person died following his endorsement of something.
You can argue that person administered it wrong. Quite. But that is what we have doctors for, to make sure these things are done correctly.
And I seem to be seeing news reports that Trump is suggesting ingesting or injecting disinfectants to cure covid-19.
Could someone die from that? ( the answer i
Re: (Score:2)
He has no expertise in this realm.
I'm pretty sure he has no expertise in any realm.
Re: (Score:3)
> At least one person died following his endorsement of something.
And, it's arguably at least as possible that at least one person is alive today because his endorsement of it got it news coverage, made everyone aware of it, and convinced someone who doesn't have cardiac risk to forcefully demand early treatment with it, and ultimately avoided progressing to a life-threatening state.
Right now, there is very little disagreement among lab techs that giving HCQ to someone in the early stages of C19 infectio
Re: (Score:3)
You make some good points.
My point stands, I think. The President should not be playing doctor.
He has no business talking about anything in this space, he should be referring people to those who do know something.
Re: (Score:2)
He's the president of the united states, anything he says will, by virtue of his office be taken somewhat seriously.
Knowing THAT, he should have been more circumspect about his endorsement of a treatment (implied or otherwise). Christ the FDA even mandates that for companies selling supplements, the minute they say it's intended to treat a condition or disease, they need FDA approval. And that's for infomercial-levels of trust.
And here you have the president of the united states with absolutely no trainin
Re: (Score:2)
He's the president of the united states, anything he says will, by virtue of his office be taken somewhat seriously.
Yes, so here's something novel: listen to his actual words in context instead of listening to what some pundit or politician wished/dreamed he said. Go ahead, post the actual words that he said to drink or inject disinfectants. Please. Include the context AROUND the statement.
This is only a problem if you have a political agenda to push. Otherwise you'd realize you're in the wrong.
Re: (Score:2)
I never mentioned disinfectants. And I agree in principle; selective quoting and spin to make hay out of what someone says to score political points is a scummy thing to do.
But regarding chloroquine:
"It's not going to hurt people," he said. "It can help them, but it's not going to hurt them. That's the beauty of it. You see? It can help them, but it's not going to hurt them. What do you have to lose? OK."
(Regarding chloroquinine) sic [it has].. “a real chance to be one of the biggest game changers in
Re: (Score:2)
Im presuming you are talking about the idiot that took fish tank cleaner ? chloroquine phosphate ? that says it right on the package ?
They are fcking morons who cant read.
Re: (Score:2)
Do you have anything to substantiate that position?
I've seen nothing so far to back that up. I would expect that I would have, I try hard to follow the news and stay up to date.
Right now, to me, "this looks like" Trump spoke on a subject he should not have.
And has done it again, in spite of a death.
Re: (Score:2)
https://www.google.com/search?... [google.com]
Nothing. VOX/msnbc/CNN, etc, I get your point. But I would have expected Fox to pick it up, and it is recent enough I would expect it to be prominent.
And I didnt say "Trump killed people...", I said it wasn't wise for him to speculate on cures, that he should leave it to experts.
And further, given that death, however arrived at, i would have expected him to refrain from future speculation, but now he wonders if injecting or ingesting disinfectants is a cure. So much a bad
Re: (Score:2)
"HYDROXYCHLOROQUINE & AZITHROMYCIN, taken together, have a real chance to be one of the biggest game changers in the history of medicine."
From his twitter account. Look up the context yourself.
Then, today, despite one death and people calling him out on the inadvisedness of the above, he starts on ultra violet light, injecting, ingesting disinfectants. Enough so that Lysol changed their home page to issue a warning not to use their product ( disinfectants ) in the manner suggested by Trump.
https://www [lysol.com]
Re: (Score:2)
"How is that wrong"
Ill try again.
It *might* be a cure. He should leave that to people who have the expertise to investigate and scientific background to determine *if* it is, and how to use it and what the effective doses are. That is science. Not Trump posting and people doing dangerous things based on his musings. He should shut up except to say that people are working on the problem with everything they have.
On the rest of my post, I am honest, and I admit no such thing.
Look at *todays* news. He att
Re: (Score:2)
Ill try again. It *might* be a cure.
have a real chance to be one of the biggest game changers in the history of medicine.
The first is your statement, the second is the one from the President that you take offense with. You say might, he says a chance. Both are "maybes". I think you're being offended just to be offended - because he's said what you said he should have said. You just don't want to acknowledge it, probably because Orange Man Bad.
Re:But Trump promised! (Score:5, Insightful)
Trump endorsed it, so it can only be bad. Medical results be damned, the only priority that can ever matter is Orange Man Bad! We must destroy the worlds economy and cause 1 billion people to starve to death because it will mean a slightly lower chance of Orange Man Bad being re-elected. You must understand how important this is!
As my brother-in-law and his wife (both doctors) and their friend (an actual infectious disease specialist who has fought Ebola, SARS, et al. on the front lines) have said:
"The President vocalizing this does nothing but give false hope, a false feeling of power, to people who don't understand how viruses or drugs work. This often leads to them doing less than intelligent things that will probably make things worse, because they cease paying attention to what actually does work at preventing the rapid spread of the virus. He is doing nothing making things worse by expounding things he claims to understand, when he really understands less about this situation than a registered nurse or newest green resident just out of college. He's as dangerous as a child left at home with a can of kerosene, a box of fireworks, a dozen matches, who really likes fire and things that go bang."
That pretty much sums up Trump's election press conferences for me.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
No, he promoted a dangerous drug on no evidence because his dyspeptic gut, his Svengali (Giuliani), and Fox thought it a wonderful idea. But he's not a doctor you see, so why the hell is he up there playing one on TV?
Re: (Score:2)
Trump endorsed it, so it can only be bad
You haven't been paying attention -- people weren't saying it was a bad recommendation because Trump said it, but because there was no evidence to back the recommendation. Many doctors were cautiously optimistic but weren't willing to commit to using it as a treatment until there were more studies. And they were worried about exactly what this study showed -- just because a drug treats some disease safely doesn't mean it can safely treat another one because a side effect that's harmless in one case can be a
Re: (Score:3)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
The Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership (CPTPP), also known as TPP11 or TPP-11,s a trade agreement between Australia, Brunei, Canada, Chile, Japan, Malaysia, Mexico, New Zealand, Peru, Singapore, and Vietnam. It evolved from the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), which never entered into force due to the withdrawal of the United States. At the time of its signing, the eleven countries' combined economies represented 13.4 percent of the global
Re: (Score:2)
It is not surprising that you would post this. To overcome our problems we must also overcome people like you.
Re: (Score:2)
Go inject some bleach and stick a lightbulb up your ass.
Re: (Score:2)
Now this is the sort of quality content we've come to expect from spun!
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
No, it was bad before Trump endorsed it, as I'm sure Federal health officials likely informed him. That he chose to ignore the voices of those that are in a far better position to make educated guesses on possible therapies demonstrates that, well, Donald Trump is a fucking idiot.
This is completely false. Chloroquine and hydroxychloroquine are actively used right now almost everywhere in the world to treat Covid (France, Italy, China, India, State of New York etc.). Those who are on field, treating patients, push for it. Donald Trump may be an idiot, but even an idiot can win when he faces a bunch of morons worse than him.
sources:
https://www.sermo.com/press-re... [sermo.com]
https://www.thelancet.com/jour... [thelancet.com]
https://thediplomat.com/2020/0... [thediplomat.com]
https://www.jstage.jst.go.jp/a... [jst.go.jp]
Re:But Trump promised! (Score:4, Informative)
This is just another example of a poor study like the British study that kicked off the whole anti-vax movement. People grabbed on to some news and ran with it. In all of those cases they are trials with people trying to replicate results. So far, none of the results line up with the original trial which most people knew would be the case given how dangerous the drug is already known to be.
This is science in action, not people in the field pushing for this treatment. The whole world is desperate and willing to try almost anything (Except injecting fucking bleach or sunlight? )
This is why Trump shouldn't be talking about any part of the medical process. He should be out making people work together towards a common goal rather than forcing them all to fend for themselves. He should let his professionals give out the medical advice and you certainly shouldn't be thinking out loud on the podium which Trump does ALL the time.
While I know that Trump has a conflict of interest with this drug I don't know that it is the reason he was pushing it since as you pointed out, its being tried all over the world even though it has proven to largely be a waste of time. Sometimes you just don't know that until you go through the process. At that point you are now smarter than you were before and so it wasn't a complete waste of time.
Re: (Score:2)
To be fair, many people in the field have been using it. This doesn't mean it's successful or safe, it means they felt they needed to try something. And there *are* occasional cases that survive both COVID and chloroquine, and credited the chloroquine, rather than just that most people normally live through it. There's a guy in Britain that credits deep breathing exercises, and I think he has a stronger case.
Re: (Score:2)
Just to add to your information.
Trump does not have a conflict of interest in this. As a 1500$ to possibly 99$ investment in a blind trust through mutual funds, does not a conflict of interest make.
Also, as for the studies, so far, none of the studies presented, including this one, follow the protocol used by the initial study out of the IHU.
The IHU also followed up with 2 other studies with larger sample sizes, the latest one being 1000+ patients with similar results to their initial findings.
Same methodol
Re: (Score:2)
"They're just not doing it hard enough." How are they not following the protocol used by the initial study? Identify the differences.
Re: (Score:2)
Here are the studies in order (1st and second contain details on protocol, 3rd is abstract only, pre-publication I guess)
1st
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/p... [nih.gov]
2nd (
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/p... [nih.gov]
3rd(abstract only)
https://www.mediterranee-infec... [mediterran...ection.com]
You can see details on the protocol used and results in early treatment vs advanced illnesses in the first 2 studies.
Re: (Score:2)
You realize that your first and second links are identical, right?
Also "French Confirmed COVID-19 patients were included in a single arm protocol from early March to March 16th, to receive 600mg of hydroxychloroquine daily and their viral load in nasopharyngeal swabs was tested daily in a hospital setting."
How much virus a patient is shedding in their upper respiratory track has very little to do with disease progression and health outcomes. It doesn't even address transmissibility, since coughing (lower r
Re: (Score:2)
My bad, here is the 2nd one.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/p... [nih.gov]
Re: (Score:2)
Trump does not have a conflict of interest in this. As a 1500$ to possibly 99$ investment in a blind trust through mutual funds, does not a conflict of interest make.
However, political donations from a manufacturer of the drug to his campaign can make a conflict of interest.
Re: But Trump promised! (Score:2)
Really?
Tell that to every politician... Ever. It's called free speech in the USA.
In any case, it's not like there is any money to make with HCQ. It generates peanuts for the companies that produce it.
AND they are giving away hundreds of millions of doses to hospitals around the world.
All the manufacturers are.
You are barking up the wrong tree.
Re: (Score:2)
What is a poor study? What this study does is a certain therapy with certain high dosage of chloroquine combined with azithromycin gave bad results. This is a very specific study and the result should be interpreted in a similar narrow fashion. The chinese guidelines which I've seen recommend hydroxychloroquine but say specifically that azithromycin should not be combined with chloroquine because of the effect on the heart (it lenghtens the Q-T interval).
In the mean time other people have claimed that the c
Re: (Score:2)
I thought he was suggesting that they inject it.
Re: (Score:2)
He is? Citation needed. And please include the ENTIRE context, meaning the 3 sentences IMMEDIATELY BEFORE where you claim he should ingest something.
Otherwise, you're essentially lying about what he said. It would be like me taking your statement and claiming "you are 'suggesting idiot advise world's problems'" by slicing your words as I desire - not as you said.
Re: (Score:2)
It certainly is the preferred method for Japanese suicides.
Re: Bleach & Vinegar + UV= Miracle Cure. (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
The summaries of these study prove Trump wrong, so those studies will continue getting attention because the left rather have people die and starve than allow someone who disagrees with them.
This trial shows a potential 50% reduction in death in a very small sample group with side effects which are very manageable, hell, they are routine in a clinical setting. This isn't a cocktail you should be taking at home, but when you're sick and in the hospital with a 90% chance of death, I'll take the 25-50% reducti
Re: (Score:3)
This trial shows a potential 50% reduction in death
It does not. There is a post above that explains it - the study works on a hypothesis that HCQ reduces the death rate. The actual finding is consistent with HCQ _increasing_ the death rate.
Re: (Score:2)
Please disconnect yourself, for your own sake and others. You can't seem to spot where the intolerance lies.
Your bullshit has been debunked above. Go read it.
Re: (Score:2)
I've read an analysis of his study. There was no control group. He dropped from his study (at lest the first one) people who went to the ICU or who died. If you include them, there is no statistically significant result. (Well, it was a very small study.)
He did a second study that also had no control group, but had a larger number of subjects. It also wasn't significant.
Previous to these studies he had already been criticized for running a lab that produced fraudulent papers. Ex-employees have said th
Re: (Score:2)
"Dr. Zelensky, the pioneer of CHQ treatment of coronavirus, has emphatically denounced these trials as bunk. He never once stated that CHQ by itself was a treatment for Covid-19. It was always a cocktail of CHQ, Azithromycin, and Zinc Sulfate."
With a disease that has only existed a short number of months, you are calling one guy "the pioneer of ..." something that is entirely unknown and unproven, as though there is some established fact that is being ignored by others. Perhaps what is needed is for Dr. Ze
Re: (Score:2)
It's not a cure but if it lowers the death rate from 90% or even 50% to 25%, with a relatively minor side effect (12%) and an even smaller side effect of potentially deadly side effects (2%), I'd count that as "it's better than nothing"
I am not an epidemiologist, but I work with people who are. While it sounds like "Hey, this had 50% success rate! Try it!" Things aren't so simple. For one thing, those numbers as good as a placebo. You also have to consider all the things happening around it - like side effects, the limited window of treatment, and the other possible treatments. A result like this one means that it is likely a useless dead-end for research and there are better treatments to research.
Consider stuff like this: Once you
Re: (Score:2)
So several issues: It's not just the single drug, this was a cocktail in already severe COVID-19 patients. The low dose group did also have associated heart issues but also died, the heart issues were reported across both groups which we can thus conclude it was not statistically significant which group developed heart conditions.
So basically only 25% of the patient group died from COVID-19 (vs. 50-90% of people with severe COVID-19 symptoms dying in the much larger statistical sample that is 'the world' - https://www.medpagetoday.com/i... [medpagetoday.com]), heart abnormalities were seen in only 12% of them as a result of the drug cocktail but only 2 developing (3%) developing arrhythmia (a dangerous heart condition which, if not managed, can lead to death).
It's not a cure but if it lowers the death rate from 90% or even 50% to 25%, with a relatively minor side effect (12%) and an even smaller side effect of potentially deadly side effects (2%), I'd count that as "it's better than nothing"
Admittedly I only read the key points and abstract, but there was no control group that didn't receive the drug, so all it says is that high dosage in late stage severe cases kills more than it could possibly help (low dosage being the control group). The larger statistical sample that is 'the world' is per your link says "Near 90% Mortality Rate in Intubated COVID-19 Patients in NYC" which in my world only refers to New York City and "that data were collected from an electronic record database and lacked
Re: (Score:2)
For something that works like tamiflu that isn't going to prove effective. The 'quines only hope is early administration with zinc to prevent viral replication.
How about waiting until we get studies showing effectiveness before recommending it to patients with COVID-19? And until then, we need to maintain social distancing to not overwhelm the hospitals.
Trump, his supporters, and his detractors are all irrelevant in this discussion. Whether they believe one thing or the other doesn't affect what chloroquine does.