Hydroxychloroquine Still Doesn’t Do Anything, New Data Shows

a reply to: Phage

randomized, blinded, and controlled studies.

That's probably the dozenth time or so that you have used those terms. Perhaps we need to ensure we know the definition of those as well?

Randomization means the subjects (patients in this case) are assigned to a group at random. Each group is given a different medication or a placebo to compare results to.

A single-blind study is one in which the subjects do not know beforehand what medication, if any, they are being given. A double-blind study is one in which neither the researcher or the subjects know before the trial ends which medication, if any, is being given to which subject.

Both indicate the study is controlled. A controlled study is one which includes a control group (typically given a placebo) to use in comparison to the test groups. The phrase "randomized, blinded, and controlled" is redundant.

TheRedneck

a reply to: TheRedneck

Dude... I can barely respond to you any more.

So we've devolved to using dude here. Telling.

Also, this is the second time you've commented on not really wanting to bother with responding, after 5 plus pages. Please, there's no point in repeating that excuse.

After your last statement... you cannot even understand what a parameter is.

Yep, from arguing that you're an engineer extraordinaire to doing your own little experiements, to knowing what parameter means. All geared towards dismissing findings from major scientific and medical bodies, experts, globally. I mean this is you at this point, on a conspiracy website at the corner of the internet Redneck.

And no, the treatment associated with hydroxychloroquine has not even been studied in the tests you keep railing about.

There's been several clear studies on this drug. There's been commentary from medical experts clear on the ineffectiveness. It's right there. Not much more to say. I'm happy to keep dancing though.

a reply to: ManBehindTheMask

Hydroxychloroquine which has been used for over 40 years

Penicillin has been used for close to a century now and can be credited with saving many lives. That doesn't mean it's an effective treatment against cancer, for example.

We know the success of hydroxychloroquine on illnesses. That doesn't mean it's a viable treatment against COVID19. Pretty simple to understand.

a reply to: Southern Guardian

Look, dude... and yes, it has devolved to using "dude" because what I would like to use is not allowed on ATS... the fact is you wouldn't know how to read a scientific report if it came with flashing neon instructions. You honestly don't know what a parameter is? And you want to tell ME what a trial indicates?

People like you, people who obviously don't know anything... and I do mean anything... about science and who obviously don't care to learn anything... and I do mean anything... about science shouldn't even be allowed to read scientific reports or use the word "science" in conversation. You have absolutely no idea what you are talking about. You can't. You don't even know how a trial is conducted, much less how the results are interpreted.

You telling me about science is like an ant telling an elephant how to gain weight. And it's disgusting.

TheRedneck

originally posted by: Southern Guardian
a reply to: ManBehindTheMask

Hydroxychloroquine which has been used for over 40 years

Penicillin has been used for close to a century now and can be credited with saving many lives. That doesn't mean it's an effective treatment against cancer, for example.

We know the success of hydroxychloroquine on illnesses. That doesn't mean it's a viable treatment against COVID19. Pretty simple to understand.

Lol, first it was - 'oh look, Trump is pushing a drug that kills people'. Now you know it;s been around for 40 years and is quite safe, it's a withdrawal to ' it doesn't work for Covid'. Keep retreating into your cave, because the data shows there is some benefit wrt to Covid. It's ok fella, you can admit trump was right. You shouldn't let your emotional reaction to Tump dictate reality to you.

a reply to: UKTruth

Emotional reactions are all he's got. He couldn't understand a scientific article if it came with step-by-step directions.

TheRedneck

a reply to: TheRedneck

the fact is you wouldn't know how to read a scientific report

Putting aside the fact it's highly questionable of your ability and your biases to read scientific reports, we have those intepretations by the scientists and medical experts themselves. I'm more than happy to stick with them. Made this clear a few pages back. Not sure who you're trying to convince otherwise.

People like you, people who obviously don't know anything... and I do mean anything...

I think I've had enough life experience to humble myself to the fact I don't know many things. I'm happy to instead to refer to those qualified and with the substantive backgrounds to intepret and explain these things to me. You should take a page Redneck. There's a world out there.

a reply to: Southern Guardian

You have a scientist sitting right here, telling you the study doesn't indicate what you claim it does.

So much for deferring to the qualified. You defer to the politics.

TheRedneck

originally posted by: Southern Guardian
a reply to: TheRedneck

the fact is you wouldn't know how to read a scientific report

Putting aside the fact it's highly questionable of your ability and your biases to read scientific reports, we have those intepretations by the scientists and medical experts themselves. I'm more than happy to stick with them. Made this clear a few pages back. Not sure who you're trying to convince otherwise.

People like you, people who obviously don't know anything... and I do mean anything...

I think I've had enough life experience to humble myself to the fact I don't know many things. I'm happy to instead to refer to those qualified and with the substantive backgrounds to intepret and explain these things to me. You should take a page Redneck. There's a world out there.

Do you consider it 'scientific' : to get one's 'facts' from the opinions and interpretations of others, rather than from raw data ?

If we rely on 'experts' for our information : would not the first ones to be bought-out, be those said 'experts' ?

a reply to: TheRedneck

You have a scientist sitting right here

You're not a scientist Redneck.

So, here is something I'd like to find out. HCQ, is routinely used in treatment of Rheumatoid Arthritis, and Lupus . Also, maybe Chrons Disease as well. Along with being the go to for both prophylaxis and treatment of one of the deadliest diseases in the world, Malaria.

What are the rates of COVID infections amongst people with those diseases using HCQ. With Lupus being an auto immune disorder, if HCQ is useless for COVID shouldn't there be a higher rate of serious infection and death among Lupus patients than the general population? Also, what does the infection rate look like in the world's Malaria hotspots that use HCQ as a prophylaxis?

Everything I've seen positive about HCQ has said the earlier used the better, maybe even as a prophylaxis. Most of the early studies used it too late to make a difference. Almost every negative news story I've seen about it paints it as something like AZT, that is at best useless for anything, and ultimately possibly harmful. Even if it is useless for COVID, portraying it in the light it's been portrayed in is pretty damn dishonest for something that has kept millions of not billions from contracting one of the biggest killers known to man, and is useful in treating said killer.

originally posted by: Southern Guardian
a reply to: TheRedneck

You have a scientist sitting right here

You're not a scientist Redneck.

How would you know that?
You certainly have not presented anything that would lead people to believe you are qualified to make that assessment. Quite the opposite. It's really quite obvious. Trump said this drug helps. You are therefore searching out any opinion that might prove him wrong. You are entirely disinterested in any scientific discussion. You simply have an asnwer that feeds your political bias and you are trying to push it onto other people.
You know this. We know this. Everyone knows this.
So why play games?

a reply to: UKTruth

Trump said this drug helps.

And thus far, the clear consensus is, it does not.

Authors retract hydroxychloroquine study

WHO says trials show malaria and HIV drugs don't cut Covid-19 hospital deaths

Hydroxychloroquine flunks Phase III trial in mild-to-moderate Covid-19

NIH halts clinical trial of hydroxychloroquine

Birx: FDA 'has been very clear' on its concerns about using hydroxychloroquine as COVID-19 treatment

There's also the fact the president was pushing for this drug as a viable treatment as early as March, before any major testing and reviews were completed with regards to effectiveness against COVID19.

It's pretty clear UK. The question shouldn't be why people are trying prove Trump wrong. It should be, why people are eager to prove him right.

a reply to: Southern Guardian

You're not a scientist Redneck.

Says who? You?

You know nothing about me.

TheRedneck

a reply to: Southern Guardian

And thus far, the clear consensus is...

IRRELEVANT.

Science is not democracy. It does not work on votes. It works on facts. I don't care if you get every scientist in the world to say the sky is green, it will not change the wavelength dependency of the refractive index of light in the atmospheric gases.

You fail again.

TheRedneck

a reply to: Southern Guardian
I think most of us would love to see a cheap, well tolerated, off patent drug that is easily produced have a positive impact on outcomes. I feel like that's a natural good hearted desire.

If you don't, then it's either political, or you own stock in drug companies set to make a fortune off of a new patentable drug. Not so good hearted there.

However it is concerning because there does seem to be a disconnect between evidence for effectiveness coming from RCTs, and people using it in a clinical setting. Several of the early RCTs were obviously flawed due to either using only on half dead patients or giving doses that would be damn near fatal by themselves. It is concerning that later RCTs didn't match the results of practitioners at respectable places like Henry Ford Medical System and East Virginia Medical Associates.

This is a conspiracy site, I have my own ideas, and i'm sure there are others. If I were to get infected I'd have no problems taking either HCQ or that cheap anti- parasitic that seem to facilitate zinc absorption if I caught it early. However, with the delays in test result, unless you're an athlete, movie star or politician, who seem to get 24hr results, the lag between test, and results would mean your disease has most likely progressed to moderate severity which seems to require a different protocol involving steroids, possible oxygen support and more serious observation.

To end this post, I question the motivations of those against it more than those for it. There are Billion$ of reasons not to want it to work. It's cheap and easy to produce, has a known but manageable side effect profile.

I'd it doesn't work it doesn't work. Time will show the folly one way or the other eventually. Luckily the preferred money maker Remedisvir, isn't it seems a 21st Century AZT, which wa the "miracle treatment " for HIV aids in the 80s and 90s until it was determined to be not helping and possibly hastening the deaths of people using it.

What really turned up my radar on HCQ was the obvious hit job carried out buy the media against it back in March and April. I don't know how advertising of pharmaceuticals works in the EU and UK, but it's quite obscene in the US. And if you watch any cable news in the US longer than 30 minutes you'll be bombarded with ads for Erectile Dysfunction, Excema, and a host of other conditions you've never heard of but might have that can be relieved by this new pill. Followed by the paid attorney spokesperson ad for those damaged by last decades miracle cure to join a class action lawsuit. I honestly would have probably said more on to trying other drugs had the media not come out so strongly against it, but like I said Billions$ of reasons to be against a cheap treatment.

originally posted by: Southern Guardian
a reply to: UKTruth

Trump said this drug helps.

And thus far, the clear consensus is, it does not.

Authors retract hydroxychloroquine study

WHO says trials show malaria and HIV drugs don't cut Covid-19 hospital deaths

Hydroxychloroquine flunks Phase III trial in mild-to-moderate Covid-19

NIH halts clinical trial of hydroxychloroquine

Birx: FDA 'has been very clear' on its concerns about using hydroxychloroquine as COVID-19 treatment

There's also the fact the president was pushing for this drug as a viable treatment as early as March, before any major testing and reviews were completed with regards to effectiveness against COVID19.

It's pretty clear UK. The question shouldn't be why people are trying prove Trump wrong. It should be, why people are eager to prove him right.

But true science would look at a proposed solution to a problem with an open mind. Attempting to equally prove or disprove the hypothesis.

What I saw was people hoping it wouldn’t work from the get go.

Because, you know, Trump.

a reply to: TheRedneck

IRRELEVANT.

Science is not democracy.

Unfortunately for you, when there's a clear consensus from major science and medical bodies, governments and communities listen, and rightfully so. That's exactly what's happening now. Plenty of other promising treatments taking place.

You're certainly entitled to your opinion though Redneck.

a reply to: NorthOfStuff

But true science would look at a proposed solution to a problem with an open mind.

And how did you come to the conclusion these government bodies did not have an open mind?

It seems a number of these studies took hours and monies worth to conclude. That's not spent lightly. Of course, if you're conspiracy minded, there's nothing further for me to respond to.

a reply to: jefwane

I think most of us would love to see a cheap, well tolerated, off patent drug that is easily produced have a positive impact on outcomes. I feel like that's a natural good hearted desire.

I think for many banking on Hydroxychloroquine for purely hearted reasons. Many, very desperate for some solution, and I feel for them. I'm also of the firm believe that there are many that have nefarious reasons for pushing false promises about this drug. It's harmful in the end, and puts lives at risk.

It is concerning that later RCTs didn't match the results of practitioners at respectable places like Henry Ford Medical System and East Virginia Medical Associates.

I'd like your source for this. The OP already addresses the Henryford study by the way. Hydroxi being used in conjunction with a strong steroid that had proven results, and in the end both treatments (for 80% of patients in that trial) could not be adequately seperated in terms of results, effectiveness, because of this mix up.

This is a conspiracy site, I have my own ideas, and i'm sure there re others. If I were to get infected I'd have no problems taking either HCQ or that cheap anti- parasitic that seem to facilitate zinc absorption.

This is a conspiracy website, true. Though, if we're going to claim we're discussing the hard facts here, we best to stick to just that. If we want to speculate, there are other forums for that. With regards to HCQ being used in conjunction with zinc, the verdict isn't out at all on this. No completed, independent, studies referenced. Is it possible? Maybe. Anything's possible I guess.

What really turned up my radar on HCQ was the obvious hit job carried out buy the media against it back in March

Not sure about a hit job by the media, but you'd have to admit it was pretty odd for Trump to come out of the blue and start promoting a drug, as early as March, with absolutely no adequate analysis or testing in relation to COVID19. It's as if he said it back then, and his supporters have vehemently latched onto the belief, with anything remotely positive used as conclusive evidence. It's troubling, especially in light of the consensus out there on the ineffectiveness of this drug against COVID19. In anycase, you mention that thost other 7 studies were 'troubling', I'd really love the source you're getting that news from. It'd be an interesting read.

Thanks for your respectful post by the way.