Fauci: Data is "Really Quite Evident" Against Hydroxychloroquine For Coronavirus (axios.com) 282
Anthony Fauci told CNN Wednesday that the scientific data "is really quite evident now about the lack of efficacy" of hydroxychloroquine as a coronavirus treatment. From a report: The comments came in response to news that France on Wednesday banned the use of hydroxychloroquine to treat the virus, after a large retrospective study in The Lancet found an increased risk of heart problems and death among coronavirus patients who took the anti-malarial drug. The World Health Organization also announced on Monday it had temporarily stopped running tests on the drug to review safety concerns. Fauci stopped short of saying the U.S. should follow France's lead, but told CNN it has become "more clear" that using hydroxychloroquine could lead to "adverse" cardiovascular effects.
Political (Score:5, Insightful)
On one hand, I've got a real estate huckster with a minor financial stake in the production of hydroxychloroquine telling me that hydroxychloroquine is a solid treatment and prevention option. On the other hand, I've got public health experts, including the one he hired, saying it's a bad idea.
This is clearly a political move intended to discredit the real estate huckster.
Re: (Score:2)
I cannot seem to find any good reason, that is not based in conspiracy theories as to why the medical professionals would be trying to sandbag this from treatment. It would be almost too good if it really was a prophylactic against covid. It would be fantastic if it had even a small effect. It's cheap, it's well known, it's available. I am sure Facuci and every doctor looking at this would love for this to work. The fact that they are saying it doesn't means the data is really not there. To think othe
Re: (Score:2)
Pretty much this. Too many people are pitting politicians they like with no scientific background (and often a reason to just lie) against actual experts. They are basically saying that their own opinions about who is right are worth just as much as scientific facts. Of course, that is not how reality works, but since these people have no clue what Science actually is and what it does, they do not notice how utterly and catastrophically wrong they are.
This is not new:
Whenever an obviously well founded state
Grow up child (Score:2)
Might still be worth it (Score:2)
Using mathematical logic, since by presidential dictum there is nothing to lose, it might still be worth a try. How can something be bad if by presidential decree it canâ(TM)t cause any loss?
This would be the same doctor who... (Score:2)
In the 1980s convinced the country NOT to do quarantines when faced with the then 100% fatal AIDS - when very few people had it, and the means of transmission was still not fully understood. That worked really well, if MILLIONS of dead people is "well"... and incidentally, decades into THAT fight, we still have no immunization or cure (so much for a lockdown until there's a cure or at least an immunization)
Early this year assured the American people that COVID was not a problem they should be concerned with
Re: (Score:2)
it's recommended for use before or in the early stages of COVID, not to beat the virus directly but rather to increase the body's ability to fight it,
How do you think an immunosuppressant drug increases the body's ability to fight COVID?
Re: (Score:3)
I personally have no dog in this fight over this particular drug, but I get deeply suspicious when a person like Fauci goes to war against it,
There is no reason on earth you have to take Fauci's word on anything. You could read the underlying evidence for yourself just as he has.
https://www.thelancet.com/jour... [thelancet.com]
war against it, and social media companies wage war against it. It's even more suspicious when all these entities who are all supposedly neutral, clinically objective, arbiters of truth (along with WHO, which is currently lead by a Marxist terrorist with no medical training) openly pushed Chinese talking points on COVID for months.
It sure sounds like *YOU* have a dog in the fight. A political dog divorced from underlying medical evidence.
What if all you needed was Asprin? (Score:2)
https://c-vine.com/blog/2020/0... [c-vine.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Even more so that usual, side effects of hydroxychloroquine [mayoclinic.org]:
feeling that others are watching you or controlling your behavior
feeling that others can hear your thoughts
feeling, seeing, or hearing things that are not there
severe mood or mental changes
Maybe last weekend's increase in Twitter rants was "drug fueled".
Re: (Score:2)
So he's been taking HCQ for decades.
Re:And yet many others disagree (Score:5, Funny)
Governor Cuomo also took HCQ [nypost.com] to get better when he was infected.
I can also turn red traffic lights green, just by staring at them.
Re: (Score:2)
Rather: I can turn red traffic lights green just by taking hydroxychloroquine.
Re:And yet many others disagree (Score:5, Interesting)
This is _almost_ true: I took HCQ prophylactially before, during and after a trip to Africa 20+ years ago, and the side effects did include visual distortions. The locals saw my prescription and were amazed: "That stuff is _strong_, we only ever use it when/if we get acute malaria."
Terje
Re: (Score:2)
It's not like there aren't any hippos in the bay area— there are multiple zoos. Your data is significant.
Re: And yet many others disagree (Score:2)
Ever since i bought this good luck charm i have not been attacked by hippos! I live in the Bay Area.
And as long as you refrain from pointing out that "Big isn't beautiful," you probably won't be.
Re: And yet many others disagree (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You do realize that someone was killed by a tiger in the Bay Area right? Do you still have your anti tiger charm on you?
Re:And yet many others disagree (Score:4, Informative)
A FEW disagree. The overwhelming consensus is that hydroxychloroquine is, at best, useless to treat COVID-19 at best, and actually increases your chances of dying at worse. France has just banned HCQ as a COVID-19 treatment [politico.com].
But hey, if Trump wants to take it as if it were candy, more power to him.
Re:And yet many others disagree (Score:5, Funny)
France obviously banned it as part of the conspiracy aimed to discredit the President of the United States. It is amazing, the depths to which those Socialists will sink to sully his genius. They do not want to rely on the Corrupt elections, they are actually killing their citizens in support of the great Bat Flu hoax.
Re:And yet many others disagree (Score:5, Funny)
[...] they are actually killing their citizens in support of the great Bat Flu hoax.
Chinese Bats! Know your facts. The Chinese military, unit 554, trained these bats in genetics, aerosolization, and bioweapon design. Those bats worked to create this disease and spread it to non-Chinese people.
Re: (Score:2)
"Why don't you pass the time by playing a little solitaire?"
Re: (Score:2)
There is not even consensus in Fauci's statement (Score:2)
The overwhelming consensus is that hydroxychloroquine is, at best, useless to treat COVID-19 at best, and actually increases your chances of dying at worse.
Really, there is not even consensus in Fauci's statement: "... the likelihood that under certain circumstances, might be rare, but you would see it, adverse events, particularly with regard to cardiovascular and the arrhythmias that may be associated with it ...".
What are those "certain circumstances" he is referring to? What does he mean by "rare"? What he is saying seems entirely consistent with early reports that the drug may be helpful at early stages or as prophylaxis but be harmful at latter stages
Re: (Score:3)
Trump doesn't have the balls to take it. He just wants everyone else to. If it works, he'll declare himself a genius. If it doesn't, he claim it was a Democrat Conspiracy to make him look bad...like he needs any help with that.
Re: (Score:2)
It is still not clear whether Trump actually took it and, if so, at what dosage.
Re: (Score:2)
HCQ on its own is not effective, we've known that for months.
It's the triple use of HCQ, Azithromycin, and Zinc that seems to do the trick: https://www.medrxiv.org/conten... [medrxiv.org]
Re: And yet many others disagree (Score:2)
If you believe he sees a doctor at the same intervals that you do then you are insane.
That position has the best personal and constant monitoring. It is going to be hard to keel over with constant evaluations.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Talks about citations, cites nothing.
Re: (Score:2)
Can you show where prescriptions are mentioned in that or any of the "previous" decrees. I'm not seeing it.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Exactly, its harmful effects are well known. The likelihood of death at the doses suggested to treat COVID-19 are well known.
Re: There are no "doses suggested" (Score:2)
We also know that HCQ in combination with zinc affects the bodies in ways that would block or reduce the effects of any virus.
Is Covid a virus or not?
No we don't! Basically the studies say that there is a known mechanism to do this and tests in test tube and mice seem promising. Therefore, we should do limited trials. It hasn't even got to the point of recommending good controlled human trials.
We been testing HCQ against Dengue (a virus) for over a decade and that still hasn't been recommended for humans. We have plenty of data as it's exists in the same areas as malaria and we have a large sample of folks on HCQ. Even though there is a mechanism to im
Re: (Score:2)
A FEW disagree.
And yet you can only find a handful of studies arguing against it's use, while the whole world orders millions of doses for preventive use...
Millions of people also bought large quantities of toilet paper. There are a lot of idiots around.
Re: (Score:2)
Ummm...maybe they are holding it wrong?
Re: No, only a FEW agree with you (Score:3)
And all the pro-studies are at a lower threshold.
The similar pro retrospective was done with a far smaller sample. Most of the evidence for "further testing / jump to human trials" studies weren't even against COVID-19 but similar viruses. And the rest are basically test tube tests.
Comment removed (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
So you're saying that the scientists are saying one thing, and the politicians are saying another, therefore we should listen to... the politicians?
That is pretty much what anybody is saying that still backs this stuff. It is fascinating how dumb many people actually are.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
The UK is bulk buying HCQ [businessinsider.com].
Governor Cuomo also took HCQ [nypost.com] to get better when he was infected.
So you can believe one guy who has known to waffle back and forth on issues, and a handful of studies that say it doesn't do a good job when you take too much, against a much wider number of studies that say it works just fine if you use normal dosing and a lot of governments actually using HCQ in bulk...
And France just revoked authorization for doctors to prescribe HCQ with azithromycin, saying that research to date shows no benefit and a risk of serious side effects.
There may be no disagreement, early vs late stages (Score:2)
Anyone claiming success or failure needs to be clear about where the patients of the study were with respect to the disease, early or late stages.
Re: (Score:2)
Haha you're citing the NY Post...
To head off your defense, they're lying, Cuomo took quinine and not HCQ. Quinine is so hard to get that they literally put it in tonic water for flavor that you can buy at the supermarket.
Your sources do not back your claims. At all. (Score:5, Informative)
> The UK is bulk buying HCQ [businessinsider.com].
Just because the UK is stocking up doesn't mean they think it's working. Your own source that you linked to claims that UK medical experts are still testing and will only distribute if and when they have determined it works.
> Governor Cuomo also took HCQ [nypost.com] to get better when he was infected.
The article you linked to is in the New York Post. That should have given you pause. Also the article talks about Chris Cuomo. A CNN talking head. And, to top it off, he (the talking head, not the governor) did not take HCQ, but "Potentized" quinine. "Potentized" is a term from homeopathy, where they take an agent and then dilute it so much, that it is impossible to detect the original agent anymore. So the NY Post is lying in it's article. Which is expected.
On a meta note: Why is every Slashdot story related to some dumb shit the dumpster fire in the WH came up with overrun by people defending Trump? And why do those people get karma for writing really dumb "defenses"? Is Slashdot targeted by Trump's social media team or just overrun by idiots?
Re: (Score:2)
Because those people have taken over Slashdot now.
See my answer above. Those people have reached critical mass, so now they can ensure their political orthodoxy is always modded up.
Note the very large number of Slashdot
Re: (Score:2)
Chris Cuomo is not the governor of New York.
Please stop lying to people.
Re: (Score:2)
Errr...government's like France's? They just banned it. I'm unaware of the "much wider number of studies that say it works just fine". Could you please provide references to these studies?
Re:And yet many others disagree (Score:4, Informative)
The UK is bulk buying HCQ [businessinsider.com].
That article does not say that the UK is bulk buying it. It says that that the UK government is "inviting offers from pharmaceutical companies" -- so they are thinking about buying it. That article also says that the prime minister stated "It's not something which our own medical experts are recommending." One cannot cite this article as evidence that the drug works.
Governor Cuomo also took HCQ [nypost.com] to get better when he was infected.
A guy took it and recovered. So we can conclude from this that the drug is not 100% guaranteed to kill the patient.
So you can believe one guy who has known to waffle back and forth on issues, and a handful of studies that say it doesn't do a good job when you take too much, against a much wider number of studies that say it works just fine if you use normal dosing and a lot of governments actually using HCQ in bulk...
There is so much wrong in this statement it will take me a while to break it apart:
First: what one guy? The issue is a study, not one guy. Stop trying to discredit the science because you don't like the messenger. If you don't agree with the study, cite another study that disagrees with it. Also, the study didn't say it wasn't good when you take "too much" it said it wasn't effective. The "normal dosing" is intended as a preventative, not a treatment. This study was about using it as a treatment.
And there has been no waffling - the medical community has been consistently skeptical of this drug's effectiveness from the start. We have no studies saying that hydroxychloroquine is a treatment for Covid-19.
You are trying to weigh 1 unrelated rumor + 1 individual anecdote claiming that it did not do harm, against studies saying that it does more harm than good, while trying to discredit a study by associating it with someone's name.
Also -- this whole discussion is moot because people are confusing the term "treatment" with "preventative." It might help as a preventative, but it doesn't seem to help as a treatment.
Re: And yet many others disagree (Score:2)
Fauci is more of a celebrity, investor and business man than a scientist.
About half the elderly in my circles use hydroxy for arthritis. Not a peep on side effects. (And theyâ(TM)re happily sharing their since this crisis starting.)
Re: (Score:2)
Andrew Cuomo is the New you state Governor. His Brother Chris Cuomo who works for CNN got Covid-19
Please get your facts straight.
bullshit study. (Score:3)
This study is just nonsense:
- no randomization whatsoever
- no control of doses and stade of
- HCQ is given to people in teminal phase, does nothing to cure the disease, shows only the unwanted side effects of not well controlled administration
- no zinc
- no recording of which phase the patient starts.
Chris Cuomo isn't governor of New York. (Score:2)
Also *Chris* Cuomo came down with COVID-19 in March. The state of evidence was different then ... although overall evidence was thin it was still plausible back then that chloroquine might be useful.
This is the thing that distinguishes science from politics: it's conclusions change as new evidence is gathered.
I don't think we can rule out chloroquine having some utility for some uses, but the balance of evidence has certainly shifted against using chloroquine on people who are already very sick. There are
Re: (Score:3)
Governor Cuomo also took HCQ [nypost.com] to get better when he was infected. So you can believe one guy who has known to waffle back and forth on issues
Can you believe a guy who doesn't know Chris Cuomo IS NOT the Governor of NY?
Re: (Score:2)
Why are you so desperate for Trump to be right about everything. Sane people are capable of acknowledging flaws and sometimes even complaining about politicians and/or parties they support. You are not; you are incapable of believing that Trump is anything other than perfection.
Prove me wrong, tell me something you don't like about Trump or a time he was wrong.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
So you can believe one guy who has known to waffle back and forth on issues, and a handful of studies that say it doesn't do a good job when you take too much, against a much wider number of studies that say it works just fine if you use normal dosing and a lot of governments actually using HCQ in bulk...
The "much wider" number of studies say people who take it are more likely to die. It's why HCQ was yanked from solidarity trials because there is too much evidence of unacceptable harm to go ahead.
Governor Cuomo also took HCQ to get better when he was infected.
Governor Cuomo was never infected.
The UK is bulk buying HCQ.
Did you even read the article you linked to? Didn't think so.
Re:And yet many others disagree (Score:5, Interesting)
I'm not arguing with you. I was hopeful for hydroxychloroquine for a while. The one thing I will say here is, a lot of times the trials were giving hydroxychloroquine along with another drug. It very well could be the combination that was the problem and not just hydroxychloroquine.
A 100% legit scientist doing actual research says it is safe if you weed out giving it to people with a few preexisting conditions that shouldn't have it:
https://elemental.medium.com/i... [medium.com]
Same guy says it also looks like it will work best if the treatment is started while you are asymptomatic.
Also, the stuff is so safe they used to just freaking prescribe it for restless legs. Yes, they did stop doing that a while back, but there is no way it is as bad as some people are making it out to be. Dosage is also a factor. I can go to the grocery store right now and get some tonic water with the natural equivalent of it in it.
So yeah, science. It looks like it may not hold up in the real world, but it did have some interesting things going for it that actually did make it look promising.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:And yet many others disagree (Score:5, Informative)
The Lancet study found an increased risk for ventricular arrhythmias also for the group of patients which did not get a macrolide.
Re: And yet many others disagree (Score:3)
Oh you and your boring old insistence on an evidence based approach. Why canâ(TM)t the facts just be what we want them to be?
Re: (Score:2)
But what's the point if it can't treat people who are sick with Covid-19?
I mean so much of the rhetoric on the pro-HCQ side overlaps with the notion that "it's not that serious. you may have already had it. most people have mild symptoms."
If that's true, what's the plan then for HCQ? Just to mass dose the entire population with it as a general prophylactic?
Even if it provided some benefit, wouldn't the people who experience side effects outweigh the benefits? How would you even supervise this?
Re: (Score:2)
The problem here is that too many people have hitched HCQ to their politics. If it works, then it validates Trump's health expertise. If it fails, then it proves Trump just makes crap up on the spot. Thus it is a political football. Some people want vindication, others want schadenfreude. People just need to lighten up.
Re: (Score:3)
NO people do not need to lighten up - they need to grow a pair and tell the politicians to STEP AWAY and leave the medical stuff to medical people.
They checked both (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
"It could be" is a problem. You have to fill it out and continue with the "it could be:. It could be that HCQ is the problem. It could be that the other drug was the effective one and that HCQ had zero effect. It could be that the evidence is just so sparse that it's not enough data to from any valid conclusion from.
It is so safe that the medicine comes with instructions on how not to use it and when not to prescribe it. It's so safe that you need a prescription. Just like all medicine. Even aspirin
Re: (Score:2)
Also, even if it is safe, if it's not effective then all people are doing by taking it en masse is making the drug more expensive for everyone else. And it does have legitimate uses for other conditions such as lupus.
Why take a drug that has side effects that hasn't even been shown to be effective for the condition you're trying to treat? I mean, you can. But that's just as stupid and dickish as buying 5 giant packages of toilet paper all at once. You don't need it and you're just screwing over everyone
Re: (Score:2)
"A 100% legit scientist doing actual research says it is safe", which legit scientist was this, that nutjob from France who was saying evolution was all wrong?
"it did have some interesting things going for it that actually did make it look promising." Oh, and what were these things? Anecdotal crap someone as unscientific as Trump or his Svengali, Giuliani, would eat up?
Many countries tried it, in many hospitals (Score:5, Insightful)
> I do agree that it was a "maybe" for a while. It is not anymore. It has not been for a while.
Many different researchers and doctors have been studying it and trying it all across the world. There have been trials in the US, in various countries in Europe, in Africa, in Australia. Experts in all of these places are starting to say it doesn't look so good.
That tells me two things. First, the fact that top researchers around the world did trials with it tells me that there was a REASON that top researchers thought it was the medication to try. The head of the French virology research lab probably knows something about viruses, so he probably had good reason to focus on that particular drug.
Which means when people say "Trump pulled hcq out of his ass at random", that's entirely untrue. The world's virus researchers didn't do their studies based on hearing that maybe two weeks later Trump might make a comment about a particular drug. They used HCQ for their studies because preliminary data suggested that HCQ might work.
Now, most of those same researchers are saying it doesn't look so good. France did a HCQ study, because it looked promising, and now they've stopped using HCQ because it didn't seem to actually work.
So I think you're right, and more importantly the actions of most researchers indicate they agree with thisnpartnof your comment:
> I do agree that it was a "maybe" for a while. It is not anymore.
That's emphatically not an issue of US politics - researchers around the world agree.
Having said that, it's used to *prevent* malaria, given before exposure.
For covid, it's mostly been given to people who are already quite sick.
I'm not a virus expert, but I do know that, for example, seatbelts work to help lrevent injury and do not work to cure an existing injury. So evidence that acq doesn't cure covid doesn't mean it wouldn't help prevent covid.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
This recent study suggests that it isn't in fact the cytokine storm that kills people, and suppressing the cytokine storm won't help (there were studies done in mice in ~2013 that had the same result).
A secondary hypothesis is that coronavirus coincides with zinc deficiency, so HCQ combined with zinc should help. There are other studies currently testin
Re: (Score:3)
So, anecdotes are not science. Anecdotes aren't even data really. But anecdotes often point the way for science to go looking. Thus the anecdotes did hint that maybe there was something to this, and the science did go looking.
Re: And yet many others disagree (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
That's a really retarded comparison.
HCQ has been safely used as a maintenance drug for DECADES.
Plenty of us take drugs with far more interesting side effects.
It's all a matter of what you fear more: taking the drug or not taking it.
Meanwhile nimrods like you want to hide in your homes and trash the economy because you are afraid of this thing.
This seems like a situation where an imperfect solution should be considered better than doing nothing.
You have no fucking sense of perspective.
Re: (Score:3)
If you're taking it for pain relief, they don't prescribe it if it's contraindicated, they use low doses, and they stop if anything shows up. If you're trying to treat something lethal (that no studies without gaping methodology flaws have shown even a tiny effect for), you're probably using the much higher, and much more dangerous, dosages recommended by the original apparently-fraudulent paper.
Of course, now you're inventing a new category, "prophylactic" treatment, which is completely contrary to what al
Re: (Score:2)
But.. A prominent person who has a lot of money said otherwise! Also a prominent person who's in politics said otherwise! And there's this prominent celebrity that I follow who said otherwise. I want to see Science's ratings before I pay attention to it!
Re: And yet many others disagree (Score:2, Insightful)
Faucci is just screeching at this point.
Coronavirus instills faith in scientific modeling (Score:3)
As an aside, what do you think about the 97% consensus among scientists surrounding global climate change?
Well coronavirus has certainly taught the public to respect the models that the scientific community presents. ;-)
Re:India Disagrees (Score:5, Insightful)
Medical Science has been one giant fuck up during all this with fucked up models, conflicting advice, and to some extend trying to play SJW politics with the origins and naming of the virus.
Well, then, the solution is simple - stop seeing doctors. Those of us not infected with right-wing stupidity will applaud your consistency.
Re: (Score:2)
I mean, I don't get why getting advice from a doctor who has passed rigorous screening to b e in a position to advise millions is a bad thing. These are facts. It's not like you seek out local astrophysicists to get personalized star data from because Neil Degrass Tyson is giving the same information to millions. (Unless you are actually an astrophysicist, in which case you probably seek out people in your specialty.)
Re: (Score:3)
He also didn't pretend to give advice to the nation as a whole.
That's good, because it's not your dr's job to do so. However, it IS Fauci's job to do so.
Re: India Disagrees (Score:2)
He didn't say don't wear a face masks, wait, wear a face mask, wait, we don't know. He didn't tell me to not go to work.
Well then either he wasn't keeping up with the science of the pandemic or he knew he was wasting his breath on you.
The science did evolve as our understanding did. Originally, sick people should wear a mask, not everyone. The rest of the impacted world was wearing & enforcing masks but that had more to do with cultural norms of densely populated societies during flu times than safety.
BUT, later we found out about the high infection rate, asymptotic carriers, and long duration. Basically you don't know
Re: (Score:2)
It's also worth noting that Costa Rica [ticotimes.net] and Malaysia [thestartv.com] have been using HCQ all along without any adverse incidents. Then there's that nursing home in Texas [fox7austin.com] that used it quite successfully to quash an outbreak, with only one death out of 90 cases in the facility.
The trick seems to be using it as early as possible in the disease process, at the first sign of symptoms, not when somebody is already moderately or severely ill.
Re: (Score:2)
fucked up models
The r0 drives how many people would be infected. The Infection Fatality Rate drives how many of those people die.
Spain did a study of 60,000 randomized people. They determined their Infection Fatality Rate at 1%. NYC tested thousands and found the Infection Fatality Rate around 0.7%.
What rate did the models use? 0.9%. So the models all the way back in February were already very close.
How about R0? Well if you don't do a large simulation of zipcode granular mobility data and just need a back-of-nap
Re: (Score:2)
How is this interesting? It's utter idiocy. What is wrong with slashdot, have the science minded people all left?
Not all of them. I bet most are still here. But there has been a massive influx of idiots that cannot do fact-checking and instead promote the deranged fantasies they picked up elsewhere as "Science".
Re: (Score:2)
[citation needed]
Re:Fact: Every Lupus Suffer Taking HCQ Doesn't Hav (Score:5, Insightful)
BTW the Lupus Foundation of America [lupus.org] talks about how Lupus patients are at higher risk of complications from COVID-19.
Pretty amazing that could happen, given they never get the disease...
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Sick and tired of all of these disingenuous, "But muh science" religious adherents who treat scientists as faux priests.
You are getting sick of your own stupidity here in actual reality. You just do not have what it takes to see that, too complex for you.
There's a patient registry for COVID/rheumatology (Score:5, Informative)
And it contains lupus patients taking hydroxychloroquine who contracted COVID-19. [bmj.com]. There is no difference in hospitalization rates between lupus patients on chloroquine and those not on it.
Re: (Score:3)
Counterexample: https://www.insider.com/woman-... [insider.com]
Turns out your "fact" isn't.
Re: (Score:2)
Sorry, no. Every serious hydroxychloroquine study has deemed the drug not only ineffective to treat COVID-19, but actually dangerous for people with the disease.
The latest big one involved 96,000 patients at 671 and found out you're ~30% more likely to die if taking HCQ whilst sick with COVID-19: https://twitter.com/DrEricDing... [twitter.com]
Re: (Score:2)
You posted three papers about in-vitro research, this is a field study of almost 100k patients. Maybe the difference isn't clear.
Re: (Score:2)
Not man enough to share your sources are ya!
Saying do your own research isn't helpful, nor does it support your claim. It is you being a Jack Ass.
Re: (Score:3)
The actual scientific data is quite clear that it is effective
No. The articles you link to suggest it may be effective in vitro.That means "in the test tube". That is not at all the same as effective as a medicine, which means inside a biological system.
and that it warrants testing
I'd agree with that: it does need further testing.
So far, that further testing has been showing "doesn't seem to help at all." But it's possible that there may be some cases in which the benefits outweigh the adverse effects; wouldn't hurt to keep looking.
...
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, those studies of small numbers of subjects are the ones that sparked the recent studies of large numbers of subjects.
...and no, in vitro, does not mean "in the test tube". Literally translated from Latin it means "in glass",
Correct. And the "glass" referred to is a test tube.
in vitro, 1892, scientific Latin; "in a test tube, culture dish, etc.;" literally "in glass," from Latin vitrum "glass" (see vitreous). [etymonline.com]
however the actual meaning of in vitro (vs in vivo) is just referring to cellular isolation outside of a living organism whereas in vivo is testing within a living organism. In vitro testing is the basis for the overwhelming whole of virology and in vivo testing is merely the last step. Suggesting that in vitro testing is somehow invalid or presents irrelevant conclusions is absurd.
In vitro testing is not "invalid" per se, but it is also not in vivo. Showing that a medicine works requires testing in the actual organism.
if it doesn't work in the body, it doesn't make any differ
Re: Not what the science says, at all... (Score:2)
I love that âoein vivo is just the last stepâ line. Thatâ(TM)s an absolute corker. About the same as saying the LEM descent was âoejust the last stepâ in Apollo, and no biggie. Hilarious!
Hey science genius: the ratio of molecules that work in vitro to those that also work in vivo is out there for you to look up. Go use your super sleuthing science skills and find out the answer
Re: Not what the science says, at all... (Score:2)
Sorry, should have attached that to the PP, not you!
Re: (Score:2)
These studies were tiny and also have other methodological issues. I recommend to search for review papers in high-impact journals instead of trying to make sense of the primary literature yourself.
With respect to in vitro. Are you saying we do not need clinical studies because in-vitro studies are enough to show that a drug is effective and safe? This would be really great, we could then just stop doing these expensive clinicial trials. Drug development would be so much cheaper! Or maybe not...
Re: (Score:2)
I am sure he would be happy if Trump did fire him.
I am sure he could get a job anywhere. The fact that he was being Truthful and worked for the National Good, means he won't get his License Taken away from him.
Being that the Demographic who will be more likely to die from COVID-19 are also the same demographic as his base, Trump needs make sure his voters live for an other 4 more months.
Re: (Score:2)
I am not a republican, dude.
Again, show me anything that shows the absolute danger of this drug published before this year. I find it extremely hard to believe a drug prescribed so widely for a multitude of ailments for the last 50 years wouldn't have a plethora of sources showing me these obvious dangers.
Unless you're saying it just so happens to specifically just kill people with this specific coronavirus that emerged recently? If that's the case, ok. Whatever you say, man.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, it's Trump's own fault. If he didn't take a position on medical research before the evidence was in, it wouldn't *be* anti-Trump news.