Hydroxychloroquine and Azithromycin as a treatment of COVID-19 Promising Trial

a reply to: infolurker

That wasn't a study. They said they looked at data from reports from multiple countries. They also admit that a lot of the info was anecdotal. Hell, the reports had question marks on if they were given the drugs or if they improved.

It is good to have hope but let's not let hope without evidence be responsible for more death. Some of those in the list are doing actual trials that haven't reported in yet. Lets not base decisions on info like and I qoute "? total unknown. Use 100 because they said greater than 100 were treated" "Improved, 100 assumed" "Up to 100% may have improved."
That isn't a study, that's guesswork.

I don't even know if 91% success is good or bad because there is no control group. Did 9% die?
What was the success percentage of people that didn't take the drug?

I came across this which are the results of an observational study of Hydroxychloroquine in hospitalized patients yesterday. They did have a control group of people taking a placebo and the patients on the Hydroxychloroquine fared worse.

Of 1446 consecutive patients, 70 patients were intubated, died, or discharged within 24 hours after presentation and were excluded from the analysis. Of the remaining 1376 patients, during a median follow-up of 22.5 days, 811 (58.9%) received hydroxychloroquine (600 mg twice on day 1, then 400 mg daily for a median of 5 days); 45.8% of the patients were treated within 24 hours after presentation to the emergency department, and 85.9% within 48 hours. Hydroxychloroquine-treated patients were more severely ill at baseline than those who did not receive hydroxychloroquine (median ratio of partial pressure of arterial oxygen to the fraction of inspired oxygen, 223 vs. 360). Overall, 346 patients (25.1%) had a primary end-point event (180 patients were intubated, of whom 66 subsequently died, and 166 died without intubation). In the main analysis, there was no significant association between hydroxychloroquine use and intubation or death (hazard ratio, 1.04, 95% confidence interval, 0.82 to 1.32). Results were similar in multiple sensitivity analyses.

link

a reply to: Grimpachi
Yay, another marketing sales-pitch report downplaying HCQ's well-established and proven highly effectiveness to set up the useless highly toxic snake-oil Remdesivir as the one to go with (exactly as I predicted in another thread, but to actually use the same source as already discussed in the Raoult video concerning Remdesivir, that's ballsy).

Way to copy-paste the MSM's and Big Pharma's talking points...so useful on a forum that is supposed to be "AboveTopSecret" and about denying the ignorance promoted by the MSM and the system of things.

The New England Journal of Medicine (your source of publication) has lost all credibility. Anyone who thinks they've got something worth your while to publish, check out the 2nd video of Dr. Raoult for a response to the NEJM and their behaviour in terms of scientific integrity and honesty vs a conflict of interest with Big Pharma pulling the strings.

From the piece you quoted yourself, as if you don't even get how such a negative marketing/sales-pitch report works:

Hydroxychloroquine-treated patients were more severely ill at baseline than those who did not receive hydroxychloroquine...

Basically the same trick as the VA study. It's written into the protocols to give it when it's too late, so you can then say: 'see, it doesn't work'. Add a bit of bad health care and neglect to it; no attempt to treat the cytokine storm (with immunosuppressors like prednisone along with antibiotica to counteract the bacteria that will join the party then; details available here ), while you perhaps do treat it in your group that isn't getting HCQ, and don't continue with HCQ on the HCQ group if it takes a bit longer than what the protocol says, stop their antibiotica (azithromycin) regime when they still need it or never add it in the first place, don't give them Vitmanin C and zinc at least, no HFNC, CPAP or BiPAP, but straight to the closed system intubation with badly managed pressures, etc.:

And you're good to go to fudge the numbers and give a false impression for something that has already been proven to be highly effective in early stages of the disease (before the cytokine storm) and prophylactically. No marketing/sales-pitch reports presented under the marketinglabel "science" will ever change that reality.

Once more for those who still don't get it, pay specific attention to what's mentioned after 1:30 (note the source New England Journal of Medicine mentioned at 2:19):

The NEJM is not a scientific source, it's a marketing source (company) connected to Big Pharma. They, and those publishing under their name, are not functioning as scientists (or science news reporters) but marketeers*. You can't take them seriously on any subject that might affect Big Pharma's bottem line. *: and because they are posing as serious honest scientists (or science news reporters; they work together in this manner), it makes them charletans, con-artists, frauds, deceivers, careerjunkies (all appropiate descriptions in this case)

"Also, they will greedily exploit you with counterfeit words. But their judgment, decided long ago, is not moving slowly, and their destruction is not sleeping." (2 Peter 2:3)

originally posted by: whereislogic
a reply to: Grimpachi
...
Basically the same trick as the VA study. It's written into the protocols to give it when it's too late, so you can then say: 'see, it doesn't work'. Add a bit of bad health care and neglect to it; no attempt to treat the cytokine storm (with immunosuppressors like prednisone along with antibiotica to counteract the bacteria that will join the party then; details available here ), while you perhaps do treat it in your group that isn't getting HCQ, and don't continue with HCQ on the HCQ group if it takes a bit longer than what the protocol says, stop their antibiotica (azithromycin) regime when they still need it or never add it in the first place, don't give them Vitmanin C and zinc at least, no HFNC, CPAP or BiPAP, but straight to the closed system intubation with badly managed pressures, etc.:

Coming back to the information in that video about bad health care protocol, policy and guidelines, remember, the experiences shared by that nurse are from the same city as the marketing/sales-pitch report from the New English Journal of Medicine. As it says in the marketing article linked by Grimpachi:

We examined the association between hydroxychloroquine use and intubation or death at a large medical center in New York City.

edit regarding my earlier mention of "prednisone" as an example of an immunosuppressor, those details linked there actually say:

Respiratory symptoms (SOB; hypoxia- requiring N/C ≥ 4 L min: admit to ICU):

Essential Treatment (dampening the STORM)

1.Methylprednisolone 80 mg loading dose then 40mg q 12 hourly for at least 7 days and until transferred out of ICU. In patients with an increasing CRP or worsening clinical status increase the dose to 80mg q 12 hourly, then titrate down as appropriate.
2.Ascorbic acid (Vitamin C) 3g IV q 6 hourly for at least 7 days and/or until transferred out of ICU. Note caution with POC glucose testing (see below).
3.Full anticoagulation: Unless contraindicated we suggest FULL anticoagulation (on admission to the ICU) with enoxaparin, i.e 1 mg kg s/c q 12 hourly (dose adjust with Cr Cl < 30mls/min). Heparin is suggested with CrCl < 15 ml/min. Alternative approach: Half-dose rTPA: 25mg of tPA over 2 hours followed by a 25mg tPA infusion administered over the subsequent 22 hours, with a dose not to exceed 0.9 mg/kg followed by full anticoagulation.

Note: A falling SaO2 despite respiratory symptoms should be a trigger to start anti-inflammatory treatment (see Figure 2).
Note: Early termination of ascorbic acid and corticosteroids will likely result in a rebound effect with clinical deterioration (see Figure 3).

[Figure 2. Timing of the initiation of anti-inflammatory therapy]

Additional Treatment Components (the Full Monty)

4.Melatonin 6-12 mg at night (the optimal dose is unknown).
5.Famotidine 40mg daily (20mg in renal impairment)
6.Vitamin D 400u PO daily
7.Magnesium: 2 g stat IV. Keep Mg between 2.0 and 2.4 mmol/l. Prevent hypomagnesemia (which increases the cytokine storm and prolongs Qtc).
8.Optional: Azithromycin 500 mg day 1 then 250 mg for 4 days (has immunomodulating properties including downregulating IL-6; in addition, Rx of concomitant bacterial pneumonia).
9.Optional: Atorvastatin 40-80 mg/day. Of theoretical but unproven benefit. Statins have been demonstrated to reduce mortality in the hyper-inflammatory ARDS phenotype. Statins have pleotropic anti-inflammatory, immunomodulatory, antibacterial and antiviral effects. In addition, statins decrease expression of PAI-1
10.Broad-spectrum antibiotics if superadded bacterial pneumonia is suspected based on procalcitonin levels and resp. culture (no bronchoscopy). Due to the paradox of hyperinflammation and immune suppression (a major decrease of HLA-DR on CD14 monocytes) secondary bacterial infection is not uncommon.
11.Maintain EUVOLEMIA (this is not non-cardiogenic pulmonary edema). Due to the prolonged “symptomatic phase” with flu-like symptoms (6-8 days) patients may be volume depleted. Cautious rehydration with 500 ml boluses of Lactate Ringers may be warranted, ideally guided by non-invasive hemodynamic monitoring. Diuretics should be avoided unless the patient has obvious intravascular volume overload. Avoid hypovolemia.
12.Early norepinephrine for hypotension.

13.Escalation of respiratory support (steps); Try to avoid intubation if at all possible, (see Figure 4)
•Accept “permissive hypoxemia” (keep O2 Saturation > 84%); follow venous lactate and Central Venous O2 saturations (ScvO2) in patents with low arterial O2 saturations
•N/C 1-6 L/min
•High Flow Nasal canula (HFNC) up to 60-80 L/min
•Trial of inhaled Flolan (epoprostenol)
•Attempt proning (cooperative repositioning-proning)
•Intubation ... by Expert intubator; Rapid sequence. No Bagging; Full PPE. Crash/emergency intubations should be avoided.
•Volume protective ventilation; Lowest driving pressure and lowest PEEP as possible. Keep driving pressures < 15 cmH2O.
•Moderate sedation to prevent self-extubation
•Trial of inhaled Flolan (epoprostenol)
•Prone positioning.

There is widespread concern that using HFNC could increase the risk of viral transmission. There is however, no evidence to support this fear. HFNC is a better option for the patient and the health care system than intubation and mechanical ventilation. CPAP/BiPAP may be used in select patients, notably those with COPD exacerbation or heart failure.
...

It goes on for a while, source: Eastern Virginia Medical School (EVMS_Critical_Care_COVID-19_Protocol.pdf)

You can compare the bolded parts, and especially the red part, with what the nurse in the video mentions and perhaps even note the irony of it all.

And of course, I meant to refer to the closed system mechinical ventilation when I said "closed system intubation". I was using the "closed system" terminology that the nurse used because that was what I was referring to, just like she was using it to refer to the fear of viral transmission if it's not a closed system. All related to the bolded part above.

Never forget when the first clear, convincing and conclusive evidence came out in human studies of HCQ's well-proven and well-established great efficacy both pre-exposure and post-exposure in the period March 9 - 17 (or 20).

When the writing was already on the wall in clear and big letters:

HCQ WORKS GREAT!!!

Its benefits in relation to Covid-19 far far far outweigh its side effects, toxicity or associated risks. As long as you use it right and not trying to make it fail on purpose to make an argument and fiddle with the numbers in so-perceived "scientific publications".

Hydroxychloroquine doesn’t prevent coronavirus infection, study with more than 800 people finds

The study, the first randomized, placebo-controlled trial, which is considered the “gold standard” in science, looked at 821 people in the United States and Canada who had been exposed to the coronavirus.

The researchers, led by Dr. David Boulware, an infectious disease researcher at the University of Minnesota, said the drug was given to 414 people for five days while 407 got a placebo. Nearly 80% of the patients reported a high-risk exposure to a confirmed Covid-19 contact.

About 12% of the people who were given the malaria drug developed Covid-19, compared with 14% who did not receive the drug, according to the study’s findings, which included health-care workers and people close to those with Covid-19. They said side effects were more common with those who took hydroxychloroquine, but there were no “serious” adverse reactions. Results were no different for those using zinc and vitamin C, the researchers said.

No deaths were reported. About three-quarters of the patients had no underlying health conditions, according to the study, while the rest had reported hypertension, asthma or diabetes.

a reply to: Grimpachi

Can you be any more predictable? Or is the media running your account on ATS? (or should I phrase that, are you employed by any media station? Hmm, it's not quite what I mean to ask.)

You might as well link the actual paper (or is the title not catchy enough compared to the news articles about it?):

A Randomized Trial of Hydroxychloroquine as Postexposure Prophylaxis for Covid-19 | NEJM

Do you happen to know the name(s) of the only researcher(s) that actually knew who was getting HCQ and who wasn't in this study? Do you have any issue with this information only being available to one or a limited number of people involved in this study in any capacity (either as a researcher or participant; not sure if any physicians were involved as physicians, not researchers, since it was done over the internet, participants entering data for themselves and being sent the drugs per mail)? Doesn't it make that easier for someone to change the data as to who actually got the HCQ if this information is limited to one person or a select few with obvious connections to Big Pharma and a health care sector dominated by those who have withheld HCQ from patients and as a prophylaxis to those health care workers who could have been prevented from spreading the disease that way, therefore bearing some responsibility for not having prevented this or the deaths caused by withholding HCQ + Azithromycin + zinc + VitC+D3 from Covid-19 patients? But only apparent if people realize that HCQ works as a treatment and prophylaxis and excused from any wrongdoing if people think HCQ doesn't work (or think that it supposedly wasn't clear if it worked in the past 3 months up until this very moment, which would excuse those from not prescribing it, and those manipulating their opinions and if that doesn't work, pressure them by means of protocol and warnings from health care authorities and bureaucrats seeing to it that it isn't prescribed, or when it is, at least in a controlled trial so the results can be manipulated or outright changed if necessary by a limited number of people that actually know the real statistics before they are changed to paint a different picture).

Can a so-called "gold standard" clinical trial wipe out all the evidence we have from different observational studies that have no control group just because it is a "gold standard" clinical trial and these others don't have a control group or are sometimes not even defined as "clinical trials" or "randomized clinical trials" (therefore these other studies are supposedly somehow superseded and nullified by the "gold standard" clinical trial)? Should we ignore the historical use of marketing and propaganda techniques by those getting their marketing reports published by NEJM under the marketingbanner "Science", and thus the NEJM themselves as well?

a reply to: whereislogic

Chill out or you might melt. If you are looking for a safe place to post without getting opposing views or information you in the wrong place.

a reply to: Grimpachi
Why would I be looking for such a place?

I find it fascinating to see how people's thinking, opinions and way of thinking is shaped by the media, society in general, the commentary on ATS, policiticians, certain popular scientists or popular supposedly 'scientific' journals.

It often gets me wondering about all sorts of questions (see edit in my previous comment). For example, do you think it's hard for one person or a select few with an obvious motive against acknowledging HCQ's efficacy as a prophylaxis already having been demonstrated sufficiently some months ago (longer if you count the research concerning SARS-CoV-1 which contains the same principles and approach as how it should work against SARS-CoV-2 as well, given both viruses use the same tools to get into the cells and replicate, via the same ACE2 receptor), to do the following to paint an already desired picture of HCQ's effectiveness:

- send half your participants HCQ and the other half something that you refer to as a "placebo" (regardless whether or not it actually is a placebo, in this case it apparently wasn't cause it was folic acid wich has reported activity against SARS-CoV-2. But never mind that.)
- as the participants send in their results after 14 days (remember, it's all over the internet), and no one in the HCQ group got Covid-19, just swap out with some in the no HCQ group that did get Covid-19, counting them as part of the HCQ group when the altered data is published, just as many as needed to paint the picture that there is no significant difference between these 2 groups (so counting some people who got HCQ but no Covid-19 as part of the 'no HCQ' group, and counting some of those who are actually part of the 'no HCQ' group who did contract Covid-19 as part of the HCQ group, until you get the desired result: no efficacy of HCQ, or no significant difference, swap as many as needed to get that result)
- only then make the data public

Who's going to tell if that happened in a double-blinded clinical trial? Only the ones who know which participants got the HCQ and which didn't, per name (if there is even more than 1 person who knows, otherwise, the other researchers whose name is on the paper even have plausible deniability, as if they didn't know already that that was the plan, to change the data and the very reason to keep this information from as many people as possible, including patients under the cover of the fancy and heavily promoted label "double-blinded", as if it's a good thing to limit this information and definitely keep it from the public as the trial is ongoing, so that no change or fudging like that can be noticed by anyone other than the one or ones doing it and maintaining or producing the data); and what if they're already onboard with what you just did there, having the same motives (mostly financial and careerwise) and specifically receiving funds to paint the picture that HCQ has no efficacy in this regards?

Does a double-blinded study make this methodology of deception and keeping people in the dark as to what you did there harder or easier than uncontrollled unrandomized not double-blinded observational reports by dozens of less materialistic physicians (who haven't advanced their careers much but are quite happy where they are helping people as best they can, such as those general practitioners that are not careerjunkies or not being very succesful at advancing their careers in some scientific setting doing the bidding for Big Pharma or the government and receiving funding from these sources for their research or job) prescribing HCQ to people who then have to go to a pharmacy of choice to pick up their HCQ, increasing the chance of actually getting HCQ, and the many physicians who prescibe this being unlikely to all have a motive against the use of HCQ and a motive to deceive people about HCQ's effectiveness by intentionally misreporting on which people actually got HCQ and whether or not they contracted Covid-19?

I think observational reports from honest people trump "gold standard" randomized double-blinded clinical trials from known dishonest sources with a clear motive to misrepresent the situation and nothing in place to prevent them from doing what I described above concerning changing the data before it's published to the public. And no means to check if that happened, all one can do is accept the word of those with such access to this data that they didn't do that, or wouldn't do such a thing; even though their motive to lie about this and their motive to do this is so obvious, including the whole set-up of such Big Pharma/government-controlled clinical trials that limits access to this data to a select few people they control, or who will sing the party line without even needing to pressure or fund them directly, at least until it's altered and published.

I'll take all the shady observational reports from different physicians or people who got their HCQ from a random pharmacy who come across as having little motive to lie about their experiences and observations, or come across as more honestly trying to help people and actually fight against corona and not for corona, to paint my picture of the situation, thank you very much:

Real frontline reports: Help with Corona/Covid-19 treatment: Hydroxychloroquine+Zinc(+Copper 10:1 ratio)+Azithromycin+vitC+D3)

a reply to: whereislogic

Look if you think they are lying that is fine. You have no evidence of it but that is also fine because you are free to choose to take the drug or not. It probably won't harm you unless you are already sick.

If you have the medical degree or knowledge to know what you are doing you should contact all those people with qualifications who are like-minded as you. Perform a clinical study with them and prove with documented evidence that HCQ is some miracle cure. Or you can just keep claiming the random people saying it is great that haven't done any studies are right and all those people doing studies are wrong.

a reply to: Grimpachi

No, I do have clear evidence that they have a motive for lying and I have evidence that they are misrepresenting the situation as well as the value of their publication as well as the scientific integrity of their choice of publisher (and a bunch of other such issues), plenty of reasons to distrust their data as also explained in the thread about Trump taking HCQ prophylactically. The history concerning a lack of scientific integrity of the NEJM is also a big red flag. I'm also not free to choose to take this drug or not, another blatant falsehood. And if you've read any of my commentary or seen the thread about the subject of bureaucratic restrictions blocking access to this drug for both physicians and the general public (it being prescription only is already a blockade for anyone who doesn't have a license to prescribe, but it gets much worse than that when you ask your physician for HCQ and he says "no" because of the way he's controlled and manipulated not to prescribe it, or even if you do get a prescription and the pharmacy refuses to fill that prescription because they are being pressured and influenced by bureaucratic authorities and inspection boards, not sure how they're called in the US, the ones making the regulations and making sure people stick to them), the thread with "hoarding" in the title, you would be aware of that, in which case it becomes not only a falsehood, but also a lie.

In either case, the falsehood is familiarly repeated over and over on this board it seems, Phage gave the same impression before that we all somehow have a choice to take it or not. There's no way I'll ever get HCQ in my country, not even when I'm sick and dying from Covid-19 (HCQ is even more blocked from access than in the US, another hint that it works cause it's blocked by those who have done pretty much everything they can to demonstrate to me that they're fighting on the side of corona on this one, they want to make the problem as bad as they can make it without making it too obvious that they're doing it on purpose, often hiding behind a false front of supposed incompetence or not knowing any better). At the doctor's office or in the hospital my choices would be: paracetamol (Tylenol) + no care (which will make things worse, at the hospital this choice will be made for me, including the decision to send me home again because in their eyes I'm not sick enough to warrant admittal according to the protocol, hence the description "no care" but it's not really a choice); the poisonous useless Remdesivir + horrible care (which will make things worse) and a bunch of other options none of which include HCQ and none of which are beneficial to me as a Covid-19 patient or for prophylaxis.

In any case, HCQ is blocked from access by those who ask for it everywhere in the world in different levels of restriction (with my country being amongst the most restrictive, as evidenced with what they did to shut down Dr. Rob Elens from prescribing it to positively PCR-tested Covid-19 patients who were refused admittal to the hospital cause they had a stop on admittals, too crowded they told him; all 10 were cured within 5-10 days with HCQ + Azithromycin + zinc; they should have been treated in the hospital or at least given the drugs, then again, after he got shut down by the inspection/authorities, and the hospital had opened its doors again to new Covid-19 patients, he was forced to send them in, half of them died thereafter without a chance to get HCQ; quite the difference in fatality rate there, 0% and 50%, same type of patients). Even in India you will have to come with a good argument for getting it as prophylaxis if you're not an essential worker or vulnerable person.

I noticed you didn't feel like answering or responding to any of my questions, any good reason to avoid them in favor of argumentation and talking points used over and over by the media and prominent scientists and experts on TV or those being quoted in such news articles that you linked?

We're not really having a conversation are we?

a reply to: whereislogic

My choice is to stay away from all that crap until it is proven to be effective. That means real trials and studies. Your position that people are fighting on the side of corona makes you completely unbelievable to me. To put it mildly, you are not objective.

a reply to: Grimpachi
Well that's just your naivity talking. Besides, we have plenty of "real trials and studies" proving the efficacy of HCQ both pre-exposure and post-exposure and in the treatment of Covid-19 conclusively. Regardless of whether or not those publishing them are willing to acknowledge that in the same way as I described it there with the term 'proven ...conclusively'.

You're living in a fantasy world shaped for you by the media, TV and so-called "experts" and "scientists" (usually the ones whose work is most emphasized by the media or science news media, including publishers and marketing companies like the NEJM).

It really doesn't matter how often people repeat the falsehood that HCQ's efficacy in relation to Covid-19 as described above hasn't been proven or established conclusively or without any shadow of a doubt (or whichever way you want to put that). That's not going to change the reality of the matter, wel-evidenced and demonstrated in the playlist I linked earlier. Which also lists the most relevant "real trials and studies" (the most relevant ones mentioned in the video about the supposed HCQ shortage which is another lie told by those who use this argument to support their denial of access to HCQ for all sorts of people, including Covid-19 patients; and their efforts to make physicians reluctant to prescribe it; and told by those backing that play).

Ah yes, it's just an innocent mistake made out of incompetence to send sick infectious Covid-19 patients into nursing homes, force them to accept these patients, promise them PPE and then not deliver on that promise on time because they're not high on the priority lists for federally distributed PPE, hospitals come first. Totally accidental and they totally couldn't see that one coming from a mile away, they couldn't be expected to know that that would help corona spread faster to the most vulnerable group that would lead to the most deaths that can be used to justify pumping large amounts of money into research into a vaccin, as well as create demand for those vaccins (cause you can bet your ass you'll be needing more than one as the virus mutates and the old vaccin becomes obsolete, at least as they put it, never acknowledging that it never worked, or never worked well in the first place). None of that was on purpose cause they couldn't know that it would help corona spread there, suurre... (if you know ahead of time what kind of effect doing that will have, and you still do it, then you're doing it on purpose, you're helping corona spread to this population on purpose cause you know that is the outcome, thus, it is not inaccurate to somewhat colorfully describe that as 'fighting on the side of corona'; you can even fight on the side of corona without realizing it, without knowing the outcome of your decisions and actions, but you're still helping corona spread more and kill more, regardless of any good intentions, my earlier description in my previous comment still applies then, i.e. when I used the expression, I was including those types, but my focus was a bit more on the ones doing it deliberately because of potential personal gain if the corona problem gets worse, of which there are many in the sciences, the health care sector, the media, politics, the bureaucracy and Big Business)

Or how about supposedly not knowing ahead of time that mechanical ventilation with high pressures causes irreversible damage to the lungs and kills people? And that writing it into hospital protocols long before it's even necessary for a patient (see EVMS protocol concerning the topic of "permissive hypoxemia" and the "widespread concern that using HFNC could increase the risk of viral transmission."*) was going to help corona again to get more kills and make the corona problem worse than it has to be?

*: "There is however, no evidence to support this fear. HFNC is a better option for the patient and the health care system than intubation and mechanical ventilation. CPAP/BiPAP may be used in select patients, notably those with COPD exacerbation or heart failure." Quoting from:

EVMS_Critical_Care_COVID-19_Protoco l.pdf

Also compare with what the nurse says below concerning skipping CPAP/BiPAP to go straight to mechanical ventilation with high pressure (after already not giving them HCQ + Azithromycin + zinc + VitC+D3 first to avoid even needing CPAP/BiPAP or HFNC):

a reply to: whereislogic

I was trying to be kind but with that last post of yours I am telling you, you are off your rocker.

Don't come with that bullsh!t claiming I or anyone else is naive, or living in a fantasy world. As far as I can tell you described yourself. I just posted the results of the "first" randomized, placebo-controlled trial. No, I will not take your word or some nurse's word or the word of those who are more emotion than facts on the efficacy of HCQ. I am not going to address all of the tangents you like to go off on because they are not relevant to HCQ.

If you have some trial results backing up your position then post them. Not youtube videos. I will not waste my time on them. Post the evidence and be precise. The facts not your emotion.

a reply to: Grimpachi

I think there's only one person in this 'conversation' getting emotional over their perception that their precious media and Big Pharma-promoted narrative about the supposed superiority of so-called "gold standard" clinical trials over frontline experiences from doctors who are actually trying to help their patients and not protect or advance their careers, research funding and reputation, is being challenged.

As mentioned before, clinical trials are referred to throughout the earlier linked playlist. Their results paint a clear picture of efficacy even when the HCQ treatment isn't optimized with quality care (getting HCQ before a positive test when you have severe shortness of breath and low oxygen saturation levels, combining it with azithromycin + zinc + VitC+D3, not being so quick to put people on mechanical ventilation, treating or tackling the cause of the cytokine storm, not merely the symptoms with so-called "supportive care" or otherwise, etc.). And they already did so back in March (for those who are interested, the timeline of the relevant trials and studies in March can be found in the videos about the supposed shortage of HCQ).

But you don't want to emphasize those clinical trials or even look at them do you? You're much more interested in the ones that claim that HCQ doesn't work. Seeing which ones you have posted so far on this forum. Funny how you haven't posted a single publication that shows something positive about HCQ but only from proven unreliable sources and publishers (marketing companies) such as NEJM and the Lancet. When you were linking to news articles concerning the publication of observational studies that are negative about HCQ (inluding those that pretend and argue that HCQ's efficacy hasn't been proven conclusively yet and that we somehow need a "gold standard" clinical trial first to do that), you didn't have much issue with them not being "randomized, placebo-controlled"; just like you don't seem to mind that in the last study you linked no actual placebo was used (so not "placebo-controlled"), because folic acid has reported activity against SARS-CoV-2 (which is not a big issue to me, cause I'll just look only at the HCQ group then, I don't need a placebo-group to analyze stastistics and see what they tell me, as long as I have a good reason to trust the numbers being given, which is no longer the case with any publication from the Lancet or the NEJM).

Here's an overview of a number of relevant research papers and reports (including case studies, randomized placebo-controlled clinical trials and observational studies) as collected by someone who isn't cherry-picking all the negative publications about HCQ that are emphasized in the media while they ignore reporting on any of these results (none of which are even optimized the way Dr. Ban optimizes his HCQ treatment, with accompanying excellent results with some patients getting rid of a fever within one day that they have been suffering from more than 10 days before receiving this treatment, demonstrating clear efficacy, especially if you also take a look at the other symptoms and their improvement, such as severe shortness of breath, see "case studies" video from Dr. Ban further below):

Sequential CQ / HCQ Research Papers and Reports January to April 20, 2020

There are still quite a few missing from that list around the period March 9 - 20, that are mentioned in the timeline in the video about HCQ shortage, and thus can be found that way (they also have Dr. Raoult's publication listed as March 20 while the video mentions the date March 17, although it doesn't seem the latter date is connected to the actual related publication, but the completion of that clinical trial; or someone got the date slightly wrong, it is this publication that sealed the deal for me though. After that one, I no longer needed a "gold standard" clinical trial to know whether or not HCQ works, all lingering doubts were removed for me on March 26 with Dr. Ban's case studies results discussed in the video he uploaded on March 26, removed from youtube about 2 months later to keep people from seeing this highly valuable and trustworthy information; re-uploaded by me a couple of days ago).




There's also a crucial point Dr. Ban makes about HCQ's efficacy in the interview with OAN concerning long lasting fevers being gone in one day after his HCQ treatment (which includes Azithromycin, zinc, copper, vitamin C and D3). It's somewhere in parts 3-6, but he's making crucial points all throughout that interview:

Hydroxychloroquine treatment for Covid 19 patients OAN interview part 1 Doc Talk w Dr Ban Ep 33 (playlist)

a reply to: whereislogic

Thanks for the link but I have seen it 4 or 5 times already. Most of those reports a very spotty and often flawed. Certainly, not enough info in them to base any conclusions on and they are months out of date. Some of the reports look promising if you look at only the percentages but when you look closer you see they are dealing with less than a hundred people. I only post new info as I come across it unlike you that will dredge up anything no matter how old or discredited it may be as long as it fits your beliefs.

You want to believe HCQ is some miracle cure then go right ahead. If you want people to stop posting studies that show it isn't then you are out of luck. There are dozens of other trials ongoing with HCQ I will continue to post the results as they come in be it good or bad.

a reply to: Grimpachi
Why didn't you post this article about the prophylactic use of HCQ in a thread that is actually about the prophylactic use of HCQ, such as the one about Trump using HCQ prophylactically. Anything to do with me already having posted the actual NEJM publication there and not the misleading news article titles that are associated with it, that draw conclusions from this data that cannot be drawn from it as if this publication has the power to negate all the ones that clearly do show efficacy in this regards? Just because they aren't "gold standard", "placebo-controlled" or "randomized" or the numbers of participants are too low (the South Korean one about prophylaxis has 205 participants who completed the HCQ protocol, the NEJM publication you linked here has 312 in comparison; I don't see a large difference in that number to support that argument if you're OK with the conclusion expressed in the news article about it that you linked; in the Lancet study with the fancy big numbers in the 80,000 - 90,000 Covid-patients range, where they don't emphasize that the number of patients counted as receiving HCQ + Azithromycin is actually only little over 3,000, less than the number of patients treated with HCQ + Azithromycin by Dr. Raoult's hospital, IHU, alone; for which we have the statistical results that paint an entirely different picture than that Lancet study is trying to paint with shoddy data)?

Fans of scientism don't have a real appreciation for real science, honestly presented by people who care about helping Covid-19 patients more than themselves and their own future prospects in a Big Pharma dominated and controlled field of science.

originally posted by: Grimpachi
a reply to: whereislogic

...There are dozens of other trials ongoing with HCQ I will continue to post the results as they come in be it good or bad.

Funny how you haven't posted a single one yet that is "good" (or positive about HCQ); yet have plenty of gripes with them when someone does dare to mention them or remind you of them or that your arguments against what they clearly demonstrate are invalid and unreasonably biased in favor of your precious "gold standard" clinical trials (as if they supersede and/or negate them because they are supposedly superior). I eagerly await your link to the clinical trial where Dr. Zelenko is involved. Or the one Dr. Raoult has already published concerning over 1000 patients and the one he is about to publish (if it hasn't been already) concerning over 3000 patients treated with HCQ + Azithromycin without any cardiac arrhythmia issues or serious side effects. Contradicting your precious Lancet study, which is an absolute joke and insult to scientific integrity akin to the so-called "VA study".

a reply to: whereislogic

I have only posted 2 or 3 because I don't try to be first in posting new information here. The subject doesn't consume me. I did find it odd that those who seem to be so "up to date" on the subject didn't bother with posting the latest trial. Did you miss it when it came out I am pretty sure I missed it for a few days before I noticed that no one had bothered to add it to the threads.

a reply to: Grimpachi
All the usual government and Big Pharma controlled media channels were immediately promoting the NEJM publication you didn't link (for which you linked a related news article), quite heavily, as if their news articles were already ready to go; it was hard to miss. I responded within hours of publication in the thread about Trump using HCQ prophylactically. I linked the actual NEJM publication highlighting some key points (such as that it was conducted over the internet and a bunch of Twitter commentary about it with people noticing some similar issues with the reliability of the data or which conclusions you cannot draw from this publication as expressed in news articles about it) in the subsequent commentary there:

commentary on the NEJM publication concerning the use of HCQ as post-exposure prophylaxis

a reply to: whereislogic

How about posting links and the related info within. People can make their own decisions. A few insights on the info is fine but you go way overboard to make your opinions look like fact. Your posts are like a propaganda bulletin board.

You keep bringing up that Trump used HCQ like it means something. First people need to know he isn't lying about it which in this case is impossible to know. You know there is a thread you can argue in about if Trump is actually taking it right.

IMO what is important in any trial is the number of people in it the controls used the methodology and the final results then if there will be a peer review. That is all anyone should need to know to make informed decisions.

Your gish gallop of picked over info mixed with youtube videos give me the impression that you are a highly prejudiced and more than willing to throw objectivity away.

And for the record, the original post you responded to with insults showed the article link and pertinent info within. I didn't add any exposition to it denouncing or praising the info. Maybe try it sometime. I bet more people will read it instead of skimming or skipping over the bulk of your posts then.