Study of 96,000 Covid-19 Patients Finds Hydroxychloroquine Increased Their Risk of Dying (bbc.com) 264
"The drug US President Donald Trump said he was taking to ward off Covid-19 actually increases the risk of patients with the disease dying from it," reports the BBC, citing a new study published Friday in the Lancet.
"The study said there were no benefits to treating patients with the anti-malarial drug hydroxychloroquine..." Hydroxychloroquine is safe for malaria, and conditions like lupus or arthritis, but no clinical trials have recommended the use of hydroxychloroquine for coronavirus. The Lancet study involved 96,000 coronavirus patients, nearly 15,000 of whom were given hydroxychloroquine — or a related form chloroquine — either alone or with an antibiotic.
The study found that the patients were more likely to die in hospital and develop heart rhythm complications than other Covid patients in a comparison group. The death rates of the treated groups were: hydroxychloroquine 18%; chloroquine 16.4%; control group 9%. Those treated with hydroxychloroquine or chloroquine in combination with antibiotics had an even higher death rate.
The researchers warned that hydroxychloroquine should not be used outside of clinical trials.
The BBC also reports that a separate trial involving over 40,000 healthcare workers around the world is now testing whether hydroxychloroquine could prevent infection.
UPDATE (6/4/2020): The study's three authors retracted their study on June 4th, "because independent peer reviewers could not access the data used for the analysis," reports The Hill. "The source of the data was Surgisphere Corporation, which told peer reviewers it would not transfer the full dataset used for the study because it would violate client agreements and confidentiality requirements."
However, the same day the New England Journal of Medicine published results from a new double-blind randomized, placebo-controlled trial which found hydroxychloroquine didn't help prevent people exposed to others with Covid-19 from developing the disease. One of the study's co-authors said that as a preventative agent, "It doesn't seem to work."
"The study said there were no benefits to treating patients with the anti-malarial drug hydroxychloroquine..." Hydroxychloroquine is safe for malaria, and conditions like lupus or arthritis, but no clinical trials have recommended the use of hydroxychloroquine for coronavirus. The Lancet study involved 96,000 coronavirus patients, nearly 15,000 of whom were given hydroxychloroquine — or a related form chloroquine — either alone or with an antibiotic.
The study found that the patients were more likely to die in hospital and develop heart rhythm complications than other Covid patients in a comparison group. The death rates of the treated groups were: hydroxychloroquine 18%; chloroquine 16.4%; control group 9%. Those treated with hydroxychloroquine or chloroquine in combination with antibiotics had an even higher death rate.
The researchers warned that hydroxychloroquine should not be used outside of clinical trials.
The BBC also reports that a separate trial involving over 40,000 healthcare workers around the world is now testing whether hydroxychloroquine could prevent infection.
UPDATE (6/4/2020): The study's three authors retracted their study on June 4th, "because independent peer reviewers could not access the data used for the analysis," reports The Hill. "The source of the data was Surgisphere Corporation, which told peer reviewers it would not transfer the full dataset used for the study because it would violate client agreements and confidentiality requirements."
However, the same day the New England Journal of Medicine published results from a new double-blind randomized, placebo-controlled trial which found hydroxychloroquine didn't help prevent people exposed to others with Covid-19 from developing the disease. One of the study's co-authors said that as a preventative agent, "It doesn't seem to work."
And again, a retrospective study (Score:5, Insightful)
This is a retrospective study. Until we get good double blind randomized results, we cannot read into this very much. For example, it is possible that doctors have been prescribing hydroxychloroquine to the patients who were most sick. (One could actually have a complication in the other direction if the drug is limited and so doctors don't prescribe it to the patients they are sure are going to die). We need to wait for randomized trials which will be done in the next month or so before making any strong conclusions.
The last time there was a retrospective study mentioned here which suggested that hydroxychloroquine worked, I posted almost the exact same comment and got accused of it being an anti-Trump thing. One of the most concerning is to see actual scientific questions become partisan political footballs almost in real time. Right--leaning internet fora seem to crow about every retrospective study showing positive signs for hydroxychloroquine treatment ,and left-leaning fora seem to crow about every negative one. And in both cases, any response to pointing out that such studies are of limited value due to their retrospective nature and to wait for the blinded, randomized trials before making major conclusions is met with disdain and an assumption that one must be a political footsoldier for the hated other side.
Re:And again, a retrospective study (Score:5, Insightful)
This comment in place of mod points...
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Your post accurately explains why conducting the nation's business on social platforms is a terrible idea -- a bell which, sadly, cannot be unrung.
Pro tip: people have always been insane and mentally retarded, all the internet does is let you see it beyond your local community.
This is one of many reasons why large governments shouldn't be able to exist.
Re: And again, a retrospective study (Score:3)
Without social media would anyone be burning cell towers? I suspect not.
Re: And again, a retrospective study (Score:2)
So you're not voting next few decades of elections then. The social media platform is here to stay and after it is long dead politicians will still be posting on it.
Re: (Score:2)
But CAN it be unrung? Let's see what a Twitter poll has to say about it!
Re: (Score:2)
Of course we have a president incapable of understanding or conveying this along with a news media that doesn’t care about the truth either since they’ve become addicted to reporting on Trump’s ramblings.
Re: (Score:2)
Strange then zinc isn't used in most studies against COVID-19, studies ran by people that unlike Trump (and apparently you) read and understand research data.
Re: (Score:2, Redundant)
For example, it is possible that doctors have been prescribing hydroxychloroquine to the patients who were most sick.
A large portion of the world is not prescribing hydroxychloroquine for *any* level of sickness in response to COVID-19, so one can presumably simply include them in as the control group.
The thing is, with all these restrospective studies showing little to no benefit, it doesn't really bode well for actual clinical double blind trials. The way most of these cases go it's the initial studies that demonstrate some resounding success and then the clinical trial that pulls the brakes on it. Here we have very neg
Re: (Score:3)
How may palliative studies that fail does it take to prove that a drug has not prophylaxis value?
The President is taking/took HCQ to avoid infection, this study, like so many others, deals with patients that already have the infection - you do see the difference, right?
Re: (Score:3)
This is a retrospective study. Until we get good double blind randomized results, we cannot read into this very much.
This would only be true if the purpose was academic.
They're not trying to add to the body of science, they're trying to predict the likely outcome of actions taken now. You don't need "good double-blind randomized results." (that's redundant, BTW; when you say double-blind, you already said it was randomized) What you need are the best results that can be obtained using faster methods.
Methods like the ones that medical researchers use. As described in the fucking story.
Clinical medicine is not a science. Fo
Re: (Score:2)
While you are technically correct when you say that "Clinical medicine is not a science", you have completely missed the point that, at its root, this discussion is about drug trials, which are in fact run as nearly as possible to a scientific experiment complete with double-blind treatment groups and controls.
You can't get new drugs approved even with an infinite number of retrospective studies, no matter how positive their reported results. The regulatory agencies require a more scientific basis than that
Re: (Score:2)
Clinical medicine is not a science. For people who feel triggered by that: Science is a system. Clinical medicine uses a different system. Look it up.
Clinical medicine, while technically not science, only works because it uses data obtained via the scientific method.
The goal of these studies are to test a hypothesis, which is "does hydroxychloroquine improve outcomes in people affected by SARS-COV-2". You can either prove or disprove this using the scientific method.
Until there is sufficient evidence, there's no reason to use this over the hundreds of other touted "cures" that people have put forth. You say hydroxychloroquine works. I say onion and garli
Re:And again, a retrospective study (Score:5, Interesting)
While an RCT is the gold standard, the Lancet study did control for baseline disease severity, as well as a wide array of confounding factors: BMI, age, preexisting conditions. It also excluded patients who were sick enough at the time of prescription to be put on ventilators, or where the prescription followed the initial diagnosis by more than 48 hours.
This is far more rigorous than any of the early papers reporting near-miraculous results. It is about as good as evidence as we're likely to get any time soon for people sick enough to be hospitalized.
There is an RCT going on now for people who have been diagonsed with COVID-19 but are not sick enough to be hospitalized, looking to see if chloroqine reduces the duration and severity of the disease.
Re: (Score:2)
Another study shows that Hydroxychloroquine, when used with AZ (antibiotic?) is effective and I have heard many sources (MDs) say that adding zinc to the mix is even more effective.
IMHO, the folks touting definitive study have pre-concieved options that drive their recitation of "their facts". Sadly, in the USA press, the statements of "their facts" appear to be politically driven. Years from now, we might have a better idea about this/these drug/s.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
let us take a balanced view (Score:3)
* a study which was not double blidned with very few people and no control.
What we have AGAINST:
* restrospectives
* a few study with a control and a much greater number of people than the study "for"
So again , why do you have so much skepticism to all that is "against" usage , but not on the "for" side ? Because it seem to me with ALL experiment we know, together , the judgement should be to NOT recommend usage at all.
Re: (Score:2)
If Pelosi was the one taking it and Trump was saying it was dangerous, you'd see Liberals gobbling it by the fistful and Conservatives demanding it be banned. Both "sides" are populated with imbeciles who care more for who is saying it as opposed to the accuracy of what is being said.
Both sides my ass. It's republicans denying science and reality. Democrats are merely annoying little bitches.
Re: And again, a retrospective study (Score:2, Insightful)
The problem is that Pelisi and Schiff have burned there bridges to the point that only their most ardent supporters on the far left actually care what opinion they have.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: And again, a retrospective study (Score:5, Insightful)
you'll notice that pelosi, schiff and many of the others are making the point of listening to your doctor.
Kinda like what Trump said when he admitted to taking HCQ? You actually can't get HCQ without a prescription, and that prescription has to come from a doctor, so how, exactly, does anyone take HCQ without talking to their doctor?
Re: And again, a retrospective study (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: And again, a retrospective study (Score:5, Insightful)
Wrong. [chicagopolicyreview.org] "Although party affiliation may tell us which party is spending more on certain areas of science policy, there is no consistent party pattern in total research and development funding."
Re: And again, a retrospective study (Score:2)
Re: And again, a retrospective study (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: And again, a retrospective study (Score:2, Funny)
I'm glad you found your safe space where anyone who disagrees with you gets black holed.
With Zinc? (Score:4, Insightful)
> either alone or with an antibiotic.
This is a disinformation piece, again.
What is well known at this point is that the Zinc ion is what is responsible for helping the immune system fight off SARS-CoV-2, as a prophylactic anti-viral, in the HCQ+Zn combination drug. The ionophore HCQ helps get the Zinc ion into cells and into the endosomes where it can be useful.
HCQ without Zinc is not the prescription - that is silly.
HCQ used to treat an advanced infection is not a prescription - that is silly.
This was all established with SARS-1 - it's not new. Go fact-check on pubmed.
Confirming the SARS-1 results is OK for confirmation science, but these HCQ-only studies do not conclude that HCQ+Zinc is ineffective as a prophylaxis. All the studies coming back on HCQ+Zn are showing moderately beneficial effects, decreased deaths, and greatly decreased morbidities.
It's easy to confirm that the POTUS's physician, tautologically among the best clinicians, prescribed him HCQ+Zn. But OrAnGe MaN BaD media wants to politicize science at the cost of human lives. That's actually BaD.
Meanwhile the WHO says that among 300 *million* HCQ doses, no unexplained deaths have occurred. At least they did their gigantic 2016 study, before politicians decided to fight on medicine's turf.
Here's the rule: if an article about HCQ is silent on Zn it's either disinformation or misinformation.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
When they don't even mention zinc in the negative (ctrl-f zinc), you know someone's going well out of their way to create a negative study.
If they were being at least a little honest, they'd mention it ("we don't consider zinc to be an important part of the treatment for the following reasons").
They also made sure to include plain chloroquine, not specifically HCQ, which starts to make it sound like they were fishing for bad results.
Re:With Zinc? (Score:4, Informative)
You wouldn't mention zinc, in the negative or otherwise, unless you were testing it. Zinc didn't become the successor savior to HCQ until last month. Vitamin D appears to be on its way to being the successor savior to zinc, and they don't mention that either.
They literally included HCQ.
The first damn word of the study is "hydroxychloroquine." [thelancet.com] It appears 60 times in the published article.
Get a clue.
Re: (Score:3)
They also made sure to include plain chloroquine, not specifically HCQ, which starts to make it sound like they were fishing for bad results.
They literally included HCQ.
Reading comprehension fail. The post you replied to didn't say they excluded HCQ, it says the INcluded CQ. The article title says 96,000 and HCQ but the summary says 15,000 and "HCQ and CQ", so the story is obviously trolling for Trump conflict. The summary doesn't even mention a number for HCQ but expects that the reader will read connect the story to previous stories of Trump and HCQ and fan the flames on both the Trump and anti-Trump sides.
Meanwhile, those of us who are sick of politics being treated as
Re:With Zinc? (Score:4, Informative)
Yes, yours.
It said "They also made sure to include plain chloroquine, not specifically HCQ." But it didn't lump together CQ and HCQ. There are statistical results for specifically HCQ.
Jesus Christ, there were four test groups and a control, as reported in the statistics that you helpfully clipped from my reply in your rush to support the false claim that results were lumped together with CQ.
Because the study population size wasn't 96000 COVID-19 patients? It was. Because HCQ isn't the primary issue for all? It is.
What facts were twisted? I'm not seeing evidence that facts were twisted. I'm seeing evidence that your reading comprehension stinks and you deem things "twisted" that aren't written specifically to cater to the superficial level of thought that you'll devote to them.
Re: (Score:3)
I'll quote the first paragraph of the summary since you may have missed it:
"The drug US President Donald Trump said he was taking to ward off Covid-19 actually increases the risk of patients with the disease dying from it," reports the BBC, citing a new study published Friday in the Lancet.
Do you really think that is a medical story and not trolling/flame bait?
Re: (Score:2)
Reading comprehension fail. The post you replied to didn't say they excluded HCQ, it says the INcluded CQ.
Part of reading comprehension is to understand why someone said something. Specifically the GP claimed the inclusion of CQ somehow made them look like they wanted a study on HCQ to fail. The parent pointed out the study was about HCQ, and quoted directly that the CQ was listed separately.
I won't comment on your reading comprehension skills, I'll just let the irony hang here in the air for others to appreciate.
Re: (Score:2)
You wouldn't mention zinc, in the negative or otherwise, unless you were testing it. Zinc didn't become the successor savior to HCQ until last month. Vitamin D appears to be on its way to being the successor savior to zinc, and they don't mention that either.
There are currently studies in progress checking all these things and more. It's not that scientists "aren't considering it," it's that performing a study takes time, and in most of the world we've only been taking Coronavirus seriously for two months now.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:With Zinc? (Score:4, Informative)
What is well known by Alex Jones and his followers is not what is well known by those living in objective reality, much less true.
Where are the studies, much less randomized and double-blinded controlled studies, that show this effect? If this is so well known, then providing links should be a trivial task.
Search a general database for support for your argument. No, thank you. Provide the links yourself, Mr. Expert.
POTUS's physicians have been generally defective throughout the last four years. Tautologies are fallacies, so at least you unintentionally admit your error.
Really, the WHO says that where? What were the numbers and causes of the explained deaths? By being explained are they any less dead? "They died of arrhythmia, but since we can't do much to prevent that oh well."
No, the rule is if the piece you're reading mentions zinc, and cites testing involving zinc only in vitro, it's disinformation and wishful thinking.
Re: (Score:2)
Shorter version: if anyone mention just the word zinc in this context, it's disinformation.
This heuristic is about as trustworthy as dismissing YouTube links as evidence: almost 100%.
Next up the zinc pushers are going to complain that HCQ was not administered during the full moon, or when Jupiter was not in Aquarius.
Re: (Score:2)
You're generalizing too much. Not everyone touting zinc is shifting goalposts.
Zinc was mentioned quite early on as one possible way for HCQ to prevent viral replication. See this video [youtu.be] by a doctor who explains the proposed mechanism. Note that this video dates back to March 6, about 2 weeks before everyone on the right started treating it like a miracle cure.
Re: With Zinc? (Score:2)
Its an immunosuppressant duh... (Score:2)
If you can't determine who to apply it to and exactly when... it is not of any use PERIOD.
Is Trump to blame for getting on board with it maybe as so, but nobody has really gotten out there and said exactly thi
Re: Its an immunosuppressant duh... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Because responsibility is in even shorter supply.
Re: (Score:2)
Did you know leftist also absolutely hate crack and heroin, especially in combination with alcohol? Just saying...
Title contradicts summary (Score:2)
Hmm, I wonder why the story title says 96,000 but the summary says only 15,000 out of 96,000. And of the 15,000 only an unspecified number of them were given the same drug as Trump. I'm afraid the whole story has to be considered flame bait. I wonder if the article is or just the Slashdot story. I guess I could read the article but if the article itself is trolling I'd regret it.
Re:Title contradicts summary (Score:4, Informative)
The study looked at 96,000 people. 15,000 of those were treated withe one or multiple of the drugs studied.
Contrary to popular belief, control groups are very important in science.
Remdesivir also failed. (Score:5, Funny)
Ventilators have a 90% failure rate.
So, if you get this, get your affairs in order, then if it gets bad enough to need to go to the hospital, take Denethor's advice and "Go now and die in what way seems best to you."
Personally, I much prefer Melisandre's pep talks.
Re: (Score:2)
So, if you get this, get your affairs in order, then if it gets bad enough to need to go to the hospital, take Denethor's advice and "Go now and die in what way seems best to you."
Horses**t. Most people who are hospitalized recover — more than 80% in some states. Most hospitalized patients do, however, need oxygen to get through it, and some need a *lot* of oxygen, which means they're better off in the hospital where that can be monitored.
Needing to be hospitalized doesn't automatically mean you'll be put on a ventilator. In fact, ventilators are known to make this disease worse by injuring the lungs, which is why they're so strongly discouraging their use now.
Re: (Score:2)
So, if you get this, get your affairs in order, then if it gets bad enough to need to go to the hospital, take Denethor's advice and "Go now and die in what way seems best to you."
Horses**t.
Like my dad taught me; if they're just repeating something stupid they heard, they're bullshitting. If they pretended they knew but really they just guessed, they're bullshitting.
But if it is clear from the level of detail that they provide that they know what they're doing, they know it isn't true but they think you might not know and that it helps their argument to lie... that's horseshit.
When I was a kid bullshit ruled, but sadly, horseshit is the real pandemic these days.
Re: (Score:2)
Horses**t. Most people who are hospitalized recover
Most people who are hospitalised don't get HCQ, don't get Remdesivir, don't end up in the ICU and critically don't get a ventilator either. Nothing the GP said is bullshit. You're just talking your own little irrelevant conversation in the corner like some angry homeless man shouting at an imaginary friend.
Re: (Score:2)
Also, no, remdesivir did not "fail". It did exactly what I and others have been saying for weeks [slashdot.org] that a successful antiviral would do — reduce the duration of the illness, but without having a meaningful impact on mortality. The same is true for flu antivirals.
That's not a failure, though. Having people in hospitals consuming oxygen for fewer days means that our supply chain for oxygen is less likely to run dry. And having people sick for a shorter period of time likely means better outcomes for
Re: (Score:2)
Also, no, remdesivir did not "fail". It did exactly what I and others have been saying for weeks [slashdot.org] that a successful antiviral would do — reduce the duration of the illness, but without having a meaningful impact on mortality.
That does not make any sense. It either does or does not prevent viral replication. If it does, then how does one get sick from the virus in the first place? Or alternatively, what you mean is that by the time the patient shows up in the emergency room, it's too late to affect mortality. But there's an obvious solution to that problem.
Re: (Score:2)
Ventilators have a 90% failure rate.
Define "Failure Rate" - a casual reader would think that means 90% of the patients placed on ventilators die because the ventilator failed to operate as designed. Perhaps the real issue is that by the time a patient Covid-19 infection forces them onto a ventilator, they are essentially in hospice care, and despite the ventilator working as designed, the patient still dies.
If 90% of ventilators truly failed, killing patients, why were so many states fighting to secure more ventilators?
This is why... (Score:3)
This is exactly why it was so stupid for Trump to start taking this stuff. I mean right now our president, the president of the United States of America, is currently taking something that could actually be increasing his chances of dying from a virus that has certainly had a presence in the White House. Not only is this a national security issue but also a health one as it also spawns copy cats by people who don't realize that our president is a moron.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Well given that on anything important Trump is more likely to lie than not, he is probably not taking this stuff at all.
Re: (Score:2)
This is exactly why it was so stupid for Trump to start taking this stuff. I mean right now our president, the president of the United States of America, is currently taking something that could actually be increasing his chances of dying from a virus that has certainly had a presence in the White House.
Curious, where did you get your medical degree? Amazing that you know better/feel comfortable second-guessing a prescription written by an ACTUAL doctor, not a MSNBC/CNN Doctor, and are so certain of the outcome for a patient you've never met, taking a treatment you've never studied.
(Amazing how many people that support "Her Body, Her Choice" and are loathe to let anyone get in between the doctor and patient in medical decisions are so eager to insert themselves and their judgement into the WH doctor's trea
Preventatvie vs. Curative (Score:5, Insightful)
This study focused on those who were already ill, and says nothing about any possible preventative aspects of being treated BEFORE becoming ill.
Many drugs are good for one, or the other, but rarely both.
The hard part of the problem is it is much harder to evaluate preventative use (also known as prophylactic use), as the statistics alone require test populations that are at least an order of magnitude larger than for curative or palliative (comfort) drug evaluation.
Hydroxychloroquine is fortunate in this respect, as it was already in active use prior to COVID-19. First, a study is needed to see the COVID-19 infection rates and disease development in the pre-existing population of hydroxychloroquine users.
In parallel, a study is ALSO needed that will give hydroxychloroquine to a large healthy population. For which it seems our dear President has already volunteered!
Re: (Score:3)
Many drugs are good for one, or the other, but rarely both.
Generally, when you're talking about a drug whose primary action (for example in lupus treatment) is an immunosuppresant, you don't even try it out in humans as a preventative unless you have solid animal studies.
I mean, unless some orangutan in an orange wig recommends it, then apparently you do?
But no. It is not likely to have preventative properties. You don't need to throw that at the wall during an emergency. There are lots of other things that would actually be expected to work that you could try inst
Re: (Score:2)
Generally, when you're talking about a drug whose primary action (for example in lupus treatment) is an immunosuppresant,
Another main use of HCQ is as an anti-malarial drug - is it prescribed to suppress the immune system of people heading to areas with malaria?
Re: (Score:2)
and says nothing about any possible preventative aspects of being treated BEFORE becoming ill.
I'm more interested in how HCQ works for arthritis. I mean if we're going to apply drugs for all sorts of things they aren't suited for we may as well try it for everything right? I mean it's common knowledge that preventative medicines and treatments require two completely different mechanisms, so I only assume you think HCQ is some kind of magic do everything drug?
Does it replace the blue pills too? Can it make me harder than algebra?
More is better (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
He took his last dose yesterday (Friday).
Tastes Great, Less Filling (Score:2)
"The drug US President Donald Trump said he was taking to ward off Covid-19 actually increases the risk of patients with the disease dying from it," reports the BBC, citing a new study published Friday in the Lancet.
So President Trump is taking HCQ to prevent infection, Trump is not infected/being treated for Covid-19
"The study said there were no benefits to treating patients with the anti-malarial drug hydroxychloroquine..."
Presumably patients WITH Covid-19, unlike the President who does not have Covid-19.
The BBC also reports that a separate trial involving over 40,000 healthcare workershydroxychloroquine could prevent infection.
I take it HCQ is not likely to kill the 40,000 healthcare professionals that are NOT INFECTED with Covid-19 - why do people keep conflating prophylactic use with treatment? The President touts prophylactic use, the press pushes back with studies of post-infection treatment. (Reminds me of an old beer commercial - "Tastes g [youtu.be]
Re: (Score:2)
The last quote line was butchered, it should have read:
The BBC also reports that a separate trial involving over 40,000 healthcare workers around the world is now testing whether hydroxychloroquine could prevent infection.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I take it HCQ is not likely to kill the 40,000 healthcare professionals that are NOT INFECTED with Covid-19 - why do people keep conflating prophylactic use with treatment?
We don't know if it is likely to be a benefit: "We still do not know whether anything is beneficial in COVID-19,” the University of Oxford’s Professor Nicholas White, the study’s co-principal investigator, told Reuters." https://www.reuters.com/articl... [reuters.com]
Trump (and various Fox News personalities ) touted HCQ as a treatment, now they are touting it as a prophylactic. But it is worth noting that Trump now says that he is quitting HCQ because "I think the regimen finishes in a day or two
key phrase (Score:2)
"The Lancet study involved 96,000 coronavirus patients, nearly 15,000 of whom were given hydroxychloroquine — or a related form chloroquine — either alone or with an antibiotic."
In other words they only used one third of the treatment that has been cheaply working, if they just didn't give them a 'different' type of chloroquine all together.
Not to mention straight chloroquine is less safe than hydroxychloroquine.
News for nerds, stuff that matters? (Score:2)
Hydroxychloroquine gained attention because patients in Chinese hospitals who happened to be taking it for other conditions did not seem to be catching COVID-19. It doesn't follow that it would help if you already have severe symptoms. Also, anyone looking to visit Africa for fun has to take the stuff for a months before and throughout as prophylactic. So if you want to try it off label, you are not taking any more risk than if you want to see some hypos. Probably doesn't work, because few things do till pr
It's weird .... (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Christ no. There's an entire industry dedicated towards translating Trump's dementia speak into something vaguely akin to common spoken English.
Re: More fake news!! (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
How often do you hear his supporters say "Oh he was just kidding or he wasn't serious" - that's a common excuse that is made by an abuser or for an abuser.
How many times have Democrats said the same thing about Biden? Most recently in regard to his joke about "not really being black" if you don't vote for him?
For example:
The comments made at the end of the Breakfast Club interview were in jest, but let’s be clear about what the VP was saying: he was making the distinction that he would put his record with the African American community up against Trump’s any day. Period.
Source: https://twitter.com/SymoneDSan... [twitter.com]
(Symone failed to point out how, exactly, Biden's record on African American busing, unemployment, opportunity zones, and prison sentencing reform is better than Trump's, but we'll leave that discussion for another day.)
Re: (Score:3)
First, lets acknowledge that you're whatabouting for Trump rather than disagreeing with the poster.
Second, Biden is capable of admitting error. This is the guy who said of candidate Obama: "I mean, you got the first mainstream African-American who is articulate and bright and clean and a nice-looking guy." Biden has always spoken in a way that reveals his blind spots, and has always been criticized from left, right, and center when he has done it.
Conversely, a huge majority of people on the right will rally
Re: (Score:2)
Grow sideways.
Re: (Score:2)
Grow sideways.
Grow oranges.
Re: (Score:2)
We can't all be as low as you.
Re:Poors study (Score:5, Informative)
The paper has fairly extensive discussion of how they dealt with confounding factors. They listed what they looked at, and estimated how prevalent unmeasured confounders with various hazard ratios would have to be in order to increase the P-value for CQ and HCQ to 0.05. What part of their "checks on confounding factors" do you think were inadequate?
I mean, I would love to have a drug (or drug combination) that is a significant help in treating Covid-19. And I'd get a real kick out of HCQ being that drug. But while this study isn't a randomized clinical trial, it does look like they included the statistical analyses they should have.
Re: (Score:3)
This study simply confirms that our research on it is garbage, and this just adds to the pile.
Given that most drug studies with garbage source and garbage methodology often produce some amazingly positive results, the fact that we're coming up very empty is not a good sign for a proper clinical study.
Re:Poors study (Score:5, Informative)
I don't know what you deem "proper selection of patients," but there were 81000 controls and a detailed set of checks on confounding factors. Really [thelancet.com].
Re: (Score:2)
no checks on confounding factors
Fuck off, Ivan. Yes, it discusses confounding factors.
Re: (Score:2)
We don't know if HCQ works, when it works, how well it works.
But we do know it's not some kind of miracle cure. The benefits of HCQ are small and hard to detect, if they exist at all.
Re:what a surprise (Score:4, Informative)
It wasn't picked at random.
Re:what a surprise (Score:5, Informative)
It wasn't picked at random.
Correct. The con artist has a small stake in Sanofi [forbes.com], the French company which produces the drug and a major Republican donor is one of Sanofi's largest shareholders.
The con artist is known to be an adherent to conspiracy theories (vaccines causing autism being one of them [thehill.com]) so when an unproven French study said there might be some benefits to using the drug, he immediately pounced on it in an effort to distract from his abject failure to respond to the emerging pandemic. He first threatened India with retaliation unless they supplied the U.S. with this worthless drug, then praised Modi when India sent over 29 million doses [bbc.com] behind the back of the FDA. The FDA had no input into the receiving of this drug [indiatimes.com] and there is no way to know if there is any contamination in it since it has not undergone any inspection either here or at the factories.
As was recently reported [arstechnica.com], using hydrochloroquine increases the chance for death by about 34% and an increase in ventricular arrhytmia by 137%. Using a macrolide (antibiotic) jumps those numbers to 45% and 411%, respectively.
In other words, you're better off doing nothing than taking this drug, but the con artist's ego is so frail, that any contradiction to his words won't be tolerated. So he'll keep at it, claiming he took the drug (we don't know since there has been no independent confirmation) and now a Republican Congressman who is so desperate to get the con artist's approval, is now endangering his entire family [marketwatch.com] by having them take the drug.
Re:what a surprise (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:3)
The problem with studies like this, is they tend to overshadow the combination that does seems to be working. https://www.sciencetimes.com/a... [sciencetimes.com]
The vast majority of people who were prescribed HCL in the Lancet study were not given the zinc combo. That doesn't mean the study is completely without merit, but the fact that the BBC is using it to denounce the drug is misleading. Yes, Trump is an idiot, but that doesn't mean we should be discounting the multiple lines of scientific study, just because some o
Re: (Score:2)
The drug picked seemingly at random by the same guy that suggested injecting disinfectants and house hold cleaners isn't the miracle drug we hoped for. How about intense uv light though have we started trying high wattage UV suppositories yet?
I saw the video and, technically, to be fair, he actually only mused about using/studying disinfectants and UV light. Yes, it should have been an "inside" thought (in that "really good 'you know what'" he claims to have) about things anyone with any sense should have known aren't good ideas, but he didn't actually suggest people do this. I hate defending him, but there are too many uninformed people hearing too much misinformation -- and, yes, I understand that usually includes him and is often from him.
Re: (Score:3)
Trump runs his mouth too much. Shocking, I know.
Re: (Score:2)
Good points...
President Trump on Friday insisted he was being “sarcastic” when he seemingly suggested that household disinfectants could be used as a treatment for the novel coronavirus.
If he was being serious, then he doesn't know what sarcastic means and/or what sarcasm is. There's no way to spin it that way from the video.
The point is that he's dumb enough and lies enough that we don't have to misrepresent his words/actions. The real tragedy is the people that actually support, follow and believe in him.
Re: (Score:3)
I see we are thinking the same thing.... ;-)
Re: (Score:3)
I've never seen a vaccine sold for $10K, in fact many are well under $10. Vaccines are way cheaper than the herbal remedy scams anti-vaxxers are addicted to.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Vaccines are way cheaper than the herbal remedy scams anti-vaxxers are addicted to.
Now all we need to do is convince them to inject the herbs and the circle will be complete.
Re: (Score:2)
I can't wait to pay $10K for a vaccine I will need every day for the rest of my life! Where do I sign in my house?
Ivan, what do you mean by "sign in my house?"
I think your translation aid failed you this time.
Also, I don't think that is how vaccines work.
Re: (Score:2)
HCQ isn't a vaccine, no one says it's a vaccine, why are you?
HCQ has "gone generic" - doses cost pennies/day, where did you come up with $10K?
It is said that good comedy has to have a basis in truth, but your "joke" has none.
Re: (Score:3)
You may have been confused by the awful reporting, but that is people given the chloroquine-zithro-zinc cocktail were 44% less likely to die than the people only given cloroquine and zithro.
You know, you're so consistently wrong about what the links you post say, it is just hilarious. Normally I'd hurl some pejoratives at you for entertainment, but I'm laughing too hard this time!
Re: (Score:2)
Now where's the arm with just zinc? What this proves is that zinc reduces the duration and severity of the illness, which is consistent with study after study, though most of those have not been controlled well enough to say for sure. But without a zinc-only arm, the study doesn't actually prove that chloroquine et al played any role whatsoever, and it might even have reduced its effectiveness.