Hydroxychloroquine Still Doesn’t Do Anything, New Data Shows

a reply to: TheRedneck

The fact is Hydroxychloroquine doesn't work and has been shown to be harmful in some instances.

There is a fact, damned or otherwise.

Whats Trump promoting?

Do you think maybe his repeated praise of the substance where the treatment of COVID 19 is concerned is anything other than dangerous speculation?

a reply to: andy06shake

I expected an apology, or at least an admission that you just mischaracterized my statements.

Until I get that I will continue to reply with the following:

You, sir are a damn liar for stating that I am promoting the use of any prescription drug without the consent, approval, and medial care of a licensed physician.

TheRedneck

a reply to: TheRedneck

To do that, the treatment tested must be the same as those treatments claimed successful. That includes dosage, regularity of treatment, the same medications used, etc. If one changes those parameters, one is then testing something else.

There are those who may disagree with your requirements, but do all of those "front line" providers use the exactly the same protocol? Must each protocol be tested for a determination of any level of efficacy?

If one protocol is found to be ineffective, the next should be tried? Then the next. Then the next. And in the mean time, what?

a reply to: Phage

There are those who may disagree with your requirements, but do all of those "front line" providers use the same protocols?

As I understand it, they all have used similar protocols: a combination of azithromycin, hydroxychloroquine, and zinc; early treatment; and "supporting medical care" (which I assume means hospitalization). Some have included prescription-strength levels of vitamins C and D; I do not know if all have done so.

If the treatments differ substantially, there is no way to devise a clinical trial that will verify/dispute all their front-line findings. Additional clinical trials would be required. I would hope someone would approach the idea of clinical trials by analyzing which would appear to have the best chance of success.

As for anyone disagreeing with "my requirements" (read scientific requirements), well, their opinion is bunk; they just disqualified themselves from giving any reasonable opinions. It don't work that way (and you of all people should know this).

TheRedneck

a reply to: TheRedneck

As I understand it, they all have used similar protocols: a combination of azithromycin, hydroxychloroquine, and zinc; early treatment; and "supporting medical care" (which I assume means hospitalization). Some have included prescription-strength levels of vitamins C and D; I do not know if all have done so.

That's a lot of variables to deal with. Part of the problem, I suppose. Which part, if any, may have any effect at all.

If the treatments differ substantially, there is no way to devise a clinical trial that will verify/dispute all their front-line findings

Yes. But there should be at least some effect shown as a result of treatment in clinical testing. The basic idea being that efficacy is dose dependent, not so much that there a magic threshold or combination of treatments where it suddenly works. That's more like alchemy.

As for anyone disagreeing with "my requirements" (read scientific requirements), well, their opinion is bunk; they just disqualified themselves from giving any reasonable opinions. It don't work that way (and you of all people should know this).

I think clinical trials often involve varying protocols to determine the most effective (and safe) dosages. Typically around Stage III. But the first thing is to determine if there's any point in going that far.

a reply to: Phage

That's a lot of variables to deal with. Part of the problem, I suppose. Which part, if any, may have any effect at all.

I'd have to agree. That plagues medical science regularly.

Yes. But there should be at least some effect shown as a result of treatment. Enough to continue testing. The basic idea being that efficacy is dose dependent, not so much that there a magic threshold where it suddenly works.

Dosage variations I could get past easily enough, as long as they were in the same ballpark as the treatment. What I cannot get past is the ignorance of the complete treatment. Some medications were left completely out of the trials that started this thread. That invalidates the trial right off the bat.

My wife takes a cocktail developed at UAH for treatment of migraines. It involves two primary medications, neither of which is intended for migraines. Taking either alone has zero effect. Taking both has proved quite effective.

I think clinical trials often involve varying protocols to determine the most effective (and safe) dosages. Typically around Stage III. But the first thing is to determine if there's any point in going that far.

The danger is in not going far enough, not in going too far. There is no such thing IMO as "too much knowledge."

The real crime is that these trials which do not include the full treatment have wasted valuable time and resources by trying to shortcut the trial process, I believe in an attempt to discredit the treatment using hydroxychloroquine in favor of patentable drugs like Remdesivir. Much, much more profit is involved with a patentable drug. That's not to say I have anything against Remdesivir; I hope those trials are successful as I earlier stated. However, only a fool puts all their eggs in one basket.

I want a treatment found... I care not one iota what drug is finally used. I only care about the trials for all potential treatments proceeding without political crap (like that shown in excess in this thread) gumming up the works.

TheRedneck

a reply to: TheRedneck

Some medications were left completely out of the trials that started this thread.

Yes. That's where the "control" part of controlled comes into the picture.

Taking either alone has zero effect. Taking both has proved quite effective.

No effect for anyone?

I want a treatment found... I care not one iota what drug is finally used. I only care about the trials for all potential treatments proceeding without political crap (like that shown in excess in this thread) gumming up the works.

I don't think there are many (who count) who don't want a treatment to found. But political motivations are not limited to those who do not see retrospective, uncontrolled, and unblinded studies as convincing evidence, much less a "cure."

Yes, I know you have not proclaimed the potion to be a cure. But your hyperbole about homicide and evil intent on the part of researchers is just as politically inciting as the claims that hydroxycholoroquine is highly dangerous. Neither stance is helpful in any way.

a reply to: Phage

Yes. That's where the "control" part of controlled comes into the picture.

I think you misunderstand me. I wasn't talking about a medication being left out of a control group... that's the definition of a control group. I mean left completely out of the active group. As in, not used at all. Both azithromycin and zinc were notably omitted; I focused on zinc because hyrdrochloroquine is a zinc ionophore.

It would surprise me if the azithromycin were of consequence; however, I would still want it included if for no other reason than to establish a solid baseline for future trials.

No effect for anyone?

That is correct.

I am not going to name the medications for obvious reasons (like, I am not a doctor), but one is an allergy medication and the other is a probiotic. Neither one by itself does anything for migraines. Neither one is intended for migraines.

The cocktail actually is supposed to work better if another drug is used... but it is expensive, and at the OK of the doctor who told us about it (it was given her in the ER during one extremely bad migraine), we tried it without the third drug. It worked for her, and continues to work.

A lot of recent research revolves around the use of cocktails instead of single drugs.

I don't think there are many (who count) who don't want a treatment to found. But political motivations are not limited to those who do not see retrospective, uncontrolled, and unblinded studies as convincing evidence, much less a "cure."

I would at least hope you are correct in that. However, certain individuals wishing the cure to be their medication might try to discredit any competitors. That is what I believe is happening. Profit motives are strong motivators, and any treatment for SARS-CoV-2 which is developed will have a ready and excited patronage due to the hysteria surrounding it.

Yes, I know you have not proclaimed the potion to be a cure. But your hyperbole about homicide and evil intent on the part of researchers is just as politically inciting as the claims that hydroxycholoroquine is highly dangerous. Neither stance is helpful in any way.

Well, thank you for that first sentence. I notice that the person who made that accusation has seemingly left the conversation, without even admitting his error.

I think it is human nature to push back against what one sees as overly hyperbolic. I am not immune to human nature. I do believe it is criminal for someone to risk people dying for profit, so when I see someone who is taking such risk without a solid scientific basis, yeah, I can get a little hyperbolic back.

TheRedneck

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: Southern Guardian

"All that blabber" is science.

Science related, yes, but irrelevant to the debate here, which is whether HCQ is a viable, or effective treatment against COVID-19. Findings overwhelmingly point to no, and that will be made clear to you time and time again.

The opinions of a few local doctors, partisan organisations, of your choosing based on deep political biases are just baseless.

a reply to: Southern Guardian

Science related, yes, but irrelevant to the debate here

Completely relevant to your statement that implied nothing that isn't printed in a journal exists. You have driven this debate from one of science to one of me laughing at your pitiful attempts to act as if you know anything about the subject.

I can have a debate with Phage (when he gets out of snark mode) because Phage has a clue what he is talking about. You have proven over and over that you do not. Therefore, l have no interest in trying to explain quantum mechanics to a duck and I have no interest in trying to explain scientific methodology to you. If you ever got a statement correct, it would be by sheer luck.

My God, man, you can't even listen to those doing the work!

The opinions of a few local doctors, partisan organisations, of your choosing based on deep political biases are just baseless.

Hydroxychloroquine has been reported to be of some use in treating SARS-2 almost from the first reports of the thing spreading beyond China by the Chinese, several European countries, several other Asian countries, and the USA to name a few. I didn't choose anyone... I listened to reports and waited to see if they were quickly debunked or if others would report similar findings; the latter happened. That tells me there is a possible treatment option that needs to be examined closely. The reports are from doctors, general practitioners typically, who actually treated patients who were infected with SARS-2. In many ways, general practitioners are more capable than researchers, as they have practical instead of only theoretical experience.

You have adopted a completely partisan view, basing your opinion only on the opposite of what the President said during a press conference, seeking out studies which have nothing to do with the actual reports of success and trying to promote them as something they are not, and then you disparage all general practitioners that do not agree with you as "partisan organizations," completely and purposefully ignoring the fact that they are all certified, degreed medical doctors who completed medical school and went on to establish successful practices.

Worst of all, if someone were to take your advice and ignore their doctors (and make no mistake, that is the advice you are giving), they could die.

And you expect me to take you seriously? Not likely.

To anyone reading, if your doctor recommends a treatment, do NOT listen to some self-righteous know-it-all wannabe neverwas blow-hard on any Internet forum (don't even listen to me). Listen to your doctor. If you question their judgement, get a second opinion from another licensed doctor. Your life may depend on it, and the blow-hard on the Internet doesn't care if you live or die. They just want to stir a pot full of political crap.

TheRedneck

a reply to: TheRedneck

one of me laughing at your pitiful attempts to act

Calm down.

Hydroxychloroquine has been reported to be of some use in treating SARS-2 almost from the first reports of the thing spreading beyond China by the Chinese, several European countries,

Emphasis on 'reported'.

I'll repeat again, reporting is one thing and substance is another Redneck.

To reiterate the findings:

PolitiFact - Yes, at least five randomized controlled studies say hydroxychloroquine doesn’t help

MedRxIV, HCQ findings

Chloroquine does not help against the coronavirus

research findings by scientists from the German Primate Center (DPZ) in Göttingen, the Charité in Berlin and the University Hospital in Bonn now speak a very clear language: Chloroquine is not suitable for the treatment of SARS-CoV-2 infections. It simply does not work.

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

NIH halts clinical trial of hydroxychloroquine

Large-scale study finds Turkey’s favoured COVID-19 treatment linked to sudden death

Trump Coronavirus Taskforce member, Fauci: Science shows hydroxychloroquine is not effective

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

Not interested in your own personal views and intepretations of COVID studies. You're not qualified in that field, as you've admitted yourself.

Not interested in what's been reported by those few doctors out there on HCQ. They claim it is effective, they've reported such, but have yet to put up the substance. They're entitled to their opinions, but not the facts.

Not interested in your personal grips and egotrips. I'll continue to overlook them when replying to you.

And finally, Trump is more than capable of making stupid claims, including his remarks on HCQ as far back as March. Your investment based on covering up for him (and yes, this is fairly evident) isn't getting you anywhere beyond these forum walls. That's for sure.

Cheers.

a reply to: Southern Guardian

Calm down.

As soon as you stop playing clown, maybe I can.

I'm really not interested in reading any links from you. You have zero credibility now and I'm not going to waste any more time reading studies that don't say what you think they do because you can't understand them.

You get that? You don't know how to even read a study! You have to have someone else interpret it for you! You already admitted that!

You might as well be a bum lying in a gutter clutching his brown paper bag trying to tell me how to invest. I wouldn't give him the consideration of listening either. You are one of the least qualified people I have ever met to speak about anything concerning science. But somehow you still think you know something. At this point I wonder if you even finished school. You obviously learned nothing in science class if you did.

Just give it up. All you're doing is embarrassing yourself now.

TheRedneck

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: Phage

...
It would surprise me if the azithromycin were of consequence; however, I would still want it included if for no other reason than to establish a solid baseline for future trials.
...

The French study published by Dr. Raoult and others that was published in March (17 for the preliminary results, the official publication a couple days later) compared HCQ with HCQ + Azithromycin (and a control group receiving standard care). It found that HCQ + Azithromycin cleared the virus faster than HCQ alone. Both treatment groups cleared the virus faster than the 'untreated' control group (untreated as in no HCQ).

Besides, azithromycin is useful against secondary bacterial infections. Freeing up valuable resources for your body's immune system to focus on dealing with the virus (which could also be part of the reason for the result I described above). You prevent your immune system from being overwhelmed with too many severe problems at once that won't quickly be dealth with, or go away.

a reply to: TheRedneck

I'm really not interested in reading any links from you.

Of course not Redneck. I don't expect you to. So long as you know the facts are sitting right there, that's all that matters to me in the end. For you, this isn't really about HCQ at the end of the day. I know this.

You might as well be a bum lying in a gutter clutching his brown paper bag trying to tell me how to invest.

You are one of the least qualified people I have ever met to speak about

You obviously learned nothing in science class if you did.

All you're doing is embarrassing yourself now.

Yep, off the deep end. Only took a few pages.

a reply to: Southern Guardian

Of course not Redneck. I don't expect you to. So long as you know the facts are sitting right there, that's all that matters to me in the end. For you, this isn't really about HCQ at the end of the day. I know this.

You know less than nothing.

TheRedneck

a reply to: whereislogic

There have also been pretty extensive studies done in South Korea that appeared promising.

It's getting hard to sort through searches now; every Tom, Dick, and Harry "news" organization is trying to bury successful hydroxychloroquine reports. I've been running searches pretty much daily since starting in this thread, and the number of links has been steadily decreasing. This one, apparently from Germany, still shows up: COVID-19 Outpatients – Early Risk-Stratified Treatment with Zinc Plus Low Dose Hydroxychloroquine and Azithromycin: A Retrospective Case Series Study

Objective: To describe outcomes of patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) in the outpatient setting after early treatment with zinc, low dose hydroxychloroquine, and azithromycin (the triple therapy) dependent on risk stratification.

Conclusions: Risk stratification-based treatment of COVID-19 outpatients as early as possible after symptom onset with the used triple therapy, including the combination of zinc with low dose hydroxychloroquine, was associated with significantly less hospitalizations and 5 times less all-cause deaths.

One of the comments complained about the fact that heart patients were filtered out. Well, duh... hydroxychloroquine can have an adverse effect on some heart patients, so of course any ethical doctor would filter those patients out. It's called contra-indication; not everyone can take every treatment.

People like the poster that has been trying desperately to compare apples to oranges this entire thread don't seem to understand that. There is no magic bullet for any disease. There will always be people who cannot take the optimal treatment. If there weren't, medical science could be done by computer: just draw some blood, insert it for analysis, and get a receipt for the optimal treatment. In reality, most people have a few different things happening at any one time, and a doctor has to be able to assess risk/reward for each individual patient.

Remdesivir could easily be a better treatment than hydroxychloroquine... but even if we assume it is, there will be people who are allergic to Remdesivir or have issues with the side effects. What about them? Do we just let them die because some pharmaceutical wants to make more money with a new drug? We should be investigating every potential treatment that has any indication of success, even anecdotal. But we won't... Big Pharma wins again:

Novartis has made the decision to stop and discontinue its sponsored HCQ clinical trial for COVID-19 due to acute enrollment challenges that have made trial completion infeasible. The recruitment challenge facing our HCQ trial has made it unlikely that the clinical team will be able to collect meaningful data in a reasonable timeframe to determine the effectiveness of HCQ in treating patients with COVID-19. No safety issues have been reported, and there are no conclusions on efficacy from the study.

Source: Novartis discontinues hydroxychloroquine clinical trial based on slow enrollment, remains committed to pandemic research efforts

So there's another trial pulled.

This is all just political show now. All relevant data on severity is corrupted beyond repair. Potential treatment options are now being pushed aside over politics. It is as obvious as the nose on one's face that there is no health emergency; there is a political emergency and if it means losing susceptible people to some second-rate Asian virus that is a small price to pay. Andrew Cuomo personally killed many nursing home residents by forcing infected people into environments where they could infect as many susceptible people as possible. Now we have people actively trying to ensure that certain treatments cannot be used, ignoring reports of efficacy.

I am almost to the point of setting up a chemical lab here to produce my own medications... anything that can be produced in a pharmacy can be produced in a home lab. The issue of course is one of safety; a small error can be deadly dealing with such. But if that becomes the only way to survive, as it appears it will should these murderous thieves get their way... well, people will do what people have to do.

I said it when this all started, and I will say it again: this virus is going to kill a lot of people before all is said and done, and the vast majority of those deaths will be those who never contract it.

TheRedneck

a reply to: TheRedneck

Do you think these are valid concerns about the retrospective, non-randomized, and un-blinded study? Has the study been published yet?

The main problem with this work is that the demographics of the control group are not reported, so we have no idea if they are similar. This them means that we have no idea if the differences in outcomes are because of the treatment, or if they would be expected because of the demographies of the groups.

A subtler point is that the reported age profile of the treatment group is impossible. Group A is aged >60 years, and almost half of the treatment group was in that group. But the IQR was reported as 40-60, so only 25% of the treatment group had an age >60. I hope this was due to excessive rounding, or a similar error that can be corrected.

I see that they issued a correction on the second point. A typo, apparently.

a reply to: Phage

Do you think these are valid concerns about the retrospective, non-randomized, and un-blinded study?

Yes, I do. That's why we also run clinical trials when information appears that a treatment may work.

One of only two possibilities exist: in the actions described by this report, there was a substantial decrease in hospitalizations and deaths from what was expected... or... the authors of the report are lying. I prefer to discount the latter possibility until it is shown to be true, and if it is shown to be true, the doctors who authored the report should lose their licenses.

That means something happened that decreased the hospitalization/death rates. What exactly that something is can be argued, but the first step is to repeat the experiment under controlled conditions. Would you not agree?

Or do you think all these doctors are lying and the pundits are telling the truth?

ThRedneck

a reply to: TheRedneck

One of only two possibilities exist: in the actions described by this report, there was a substantial decrease in hospitalizations and deaths from what was expected... or... the authors of the report are lying.

False dichotomy.

A flawed study does not imply lying but studies like this do present a high risk of bias on the part of the authors.

There are no demographics for the control group. How can that possibly make any sense? Perhaps that's why the study has not been published.
"Studies" like this accomplish nothing.

a reply to: Phage

Either people died or they didn't. There is nothing false about that. This is not a re-run of Schrodinger's cat.

TheRedneck