Hydroxychloroquine Still Doesn’t Do Anything, New Data Shows

There have been a number of promising treatments against COVID19 so it's any wonder why people are still hung up on Hydroxychloroquine?

The new paper from the researchers, an un-peer-reviewed preprint, details what actually happened in the hydroxychloroquine arm—1,561 people got hydroxychloroquine, and 418 of them, 26.8 percent, were dead within 28 days. And 3,155 people got standard care without the drug; 788 of them died. That’s 25 percent. So: Hydroxychloroquine didn’t reduce mortality. Its use also correlated with longer time spent in the hospital and a higher likelihood of having to go on a mechanical ventilator. As the paper puts it: “not an effective treatment.”

Source

It's important to note that scientists conduct a wide range of studies on drug-medical use that may differ from one another in a number of ways. This study involved a Randomized Controlled Trial, considered the 'Gold standard' of drug trialing and testing. Prospective, randomized and controlled. Trialing was done on relatively healthy people, early on in their infection stage:

So the so-called gold standard of drug trials is called an RCT, short for Randomized Controlled Trial. That means people sick with the thing you’re trying to study get put into one of two groups, or cohorts, from the very start. They either get the drug or they don’t, and no one—not the researchers, not the health care workers, not the participants in the study—knows who got what. (That’s called “double-blinding.”) And the researchers try to make those groups as similar as possible in every other way. They’re trying to eliminate all the possible external factors that could mess up the study.

The evidence has been piling up for sometime now that this drug is no silver bullet:

Brazilian chloroquine study halted after high dose proved lethal for some patients

Basel study: hydroxychloroquine not effective

Three big studies dim hopes that hydroxychloroquine can treat or prevent COVID-19

Others have pointed out to the one Henry-Ford study of the several odd studies in regards to this drug. That said from an observational standpoint there appeared to be benefit from Hydroxychloroquine. An Observational studies means you're going back and looking at patients as opposed to folllowing them and going forward in time. With that particular study, when closely reviewed, it was realized that 80% of those patients in that study that were given Hydroxychloroquine were also receiving a steroid medication which had been shown to be beneficial, this conflicted with results given the mix of the two treatments.

Earlier, others have been clear on the effectiveness of hydroxychloroquine. One of the Trump Administration's leading members of the Coronavirus task force and Director the National Institute of Allergies and Infections Diseases, Dr Fauci and the National Institutes of Health both made state ments citing that this drug was unproven in treating this virus.

Seems like the verdict is clear now.

For every study saying Hydroxychloroquine is Not-Effective against Covid-19, there is a study saying that it is Effective.

Since HCQ not a dangerous medication, can't hurt to give it a try. "Right to Try".

originally posted by: Southern Guardian
There have been a number of promising treatments against COVID19 so it's any wonder why people are still hung up on Hydroxychloroquine?

The new paper from the researchers, an un-peer-reviewed preprint, details what actually happened in the hydroxychloroquine arm—1,561 people got hydroxychloroquine, and 418 of them, 26.8 percent, were dead within 28 days. And 3,155 people got standard care without the drug; 788 of them died. That’s 25 percent. So: Hydroxychloroquine didn’t reduce mortality. Its use also correlated with longer time spent in the hospital and a higher likelihood of having to go on a mechanical ventilator. As the paper puts it: “not an effective treatment.”

Source

[....]

"an un-peer-reviewed preprint"

a reply to: carewemust

Also, knowing the ways of those who are aligned against anything Trump signs off on or suggests, they would have no problem at all "paying" for a study to get the "findings" that they desire.

Been seeing that kind of thing already and quite a lot since this pandemic started.

a reply to: Southern Guardian

Thank you for posting this. I’ve also been seeing tests done that seem to say Hydroxychloroquine does more harm than good.

Check your PM’s

a reply to: Southern Guardian

Yep. Great study it appears:

By the way, you need to administer Zinc with it to increase effectiveness. Notice how none of the studies do this?

www.statnews.com...

To conduct these studies, the researchers made significant compromises. They could not obtain diagnostic testing for all patients, so included people who had symptoms but couldn’t get a test result. In the end, only 58% of the people in this study had diagnostic test results. The researchers mailed study drug or placebo to patients without examining them after they enrolled over the internet, meaning they used data patients self-reported. In the end, the study randomized 491 patients, 432 of whom contributed data to the final analysis.

The patients on hydroxychloroquine recovered 12% faster, or 0.27 points on a 10-point scale, but this difference was far from statistically significant. Patients on hydroxychloroquine also had side effects: 31% had upset stomachs and 21% diarrhea, both about double the rates in the placebo group, though no patients reported cardiac arrhythmias. Overall, adverse effects were reported by 43% of hydroxychloroquine patients and 22% of placebo patients.

The question is, given the study’s limitations, what weight should be given to the results?

“The study was of such low quality that it was fundamentally uninterpretable,” said Steven Nissen, a veteran clinical trialist at the Cleveland Clinic

Now, after reading that, do you put any faith in this so called study?



Here is a list of the studies so far -
c19study.com...

a reply to: Southern Guardian

I was under the impression from the start of this whole HCQ thing that it was meant to be used in conjunction with ZINC.

I thought the HCQ provided the capacity for the zinc to enter the cell.

Seems like the verdict is clear now.

Yes it is if you take into account all of the robust studies done around the world. The hit piece you site is fake news.

The dark side can't make money off Hydroxychloroquine hence the calls propagated by them to try and fool the general public.

Pity that the great awakening gets in their way.

Keep peddling the fake news, you are good at it.

P

a reply to: pheonix358

Dude, nobody make # for money off hydroxychlorquine. It is like 35 cents a pill. I still don't think the leftest get that.

That is why you don't see good studies and all this half-@ss BS.


We NEED a big pharma pill that is hundred or thousands of dollars a pill.

This is getting like the "Coffee is BAD for you...Coffee is GOOD for you..." thing.

originally posted by: IAMTAT
This is getting like the "Coffee is BAD for you...Coffee is GOOD for you..." thing.

Unfortunately it appears to be propaganda masquerading as science.

Don't test a treatment properly then pronounce that it doesn't work. This will be followed up with the determination that only a vaccine will work.

originally posted by: myselfaswell
a reply to: Southern Guardian

I was under the impression from the start of this whole HCQ thing that it was meant to be used in conjunction with ZINC.

I thought the HCQ provided the capacity for the zinc to enter the cell.

You are correct.

You can get weaker zinc ionophores OTC and I use them daily.

Quercetin and Green Tea taken with 50mg of Zinc daily.

originally posted by: myselfaswell
a reply to: Southern Guardian

I was under the impression from the start of this whole HCQ thing that it was meant to be used in conjunction with ZINC.

I thought the HCQ provided the capacity for the zinc to enter the cell.

It works as an antiviral in this application, so.. early is best. It may be able to utilize the Zinc already present in the body, to an extent, but supplementation ensures it. As a zinc ionophore, it changes the membrane potential of the cell wall, basically allowing Zinc to occupy the channels that a virus like this (and many others) use to replicate.

It also has a bit of immunosuppresant action, which could help intermediate stages leading into a cytokine storm.

Between that, and trying to get the patients Vit D levels up to 45-60ng/mL, we would probably be looking at a different situation with two pretty basic measures.

ETA: Not a doctor, etc.

To the OP, do you have a better drug?

a reply to: Metallicus

The rest of us have the right to try it if we want.

Of course I believe you have the right to try it. If you want to take any medicine again medical advice, have at it. It's your body and I'm a firm believer in that right. Just don't expect not be called out when you spread false information about its effectiveness.

Plain and simple.

Maybe our great President should say don't take it. Then it would be a wonder drug to the leftist idiots.

originally posted by: Mark08
To the OP, do you have a better drug?

Nope, I don't proclaim to.

a reply to: pheonix358

Why are you so invested in Hydroxychloroquine when there are so many other promising trials? Is it because Trump promoted it?