Hydroxychloroquine Still Doesn’t Do Anything, New Data Shows

a reply to: puzzled2

Will interesting when the Hydroxychloroquine and Zinc With Either Azithromycin or Doxycycline for Treatment of COVID-19 in Outpatient Setting Study is completed.

I've pointed The Redneck to that study previously. He made no comment about it.

a reply to: Phage

why would he it only exists as a notification there are no results yet. perhaps wait for a Result.

Suppose you pointed him to the A Randomized Trial of Hydroxychloroquine as Postexposure Prophylaxis for Covid-19 as well.

Which according to this researcher The devil is REALLY in the detail, after The Lancet, we question the New England Journal of Medicine.
was incorrect in it's conclusions and has been reported for conflict of interest with Gilead.

When we pool the samples in person being exposed for 1 to 2 days or 1 to 3 days, therefore with larger samples and therefore more reliable,

there the tests become significant. So the conclusion of the Boulware study is wrong. Which would argue in favor of hydroychloroquine and change the conclusions of this study.

(To use the interpretation in simple words, in the case of the study writer, they tested whether there was a significant effect between the placebo group and the treatment group. By doing this by exposure bracket to treatment, they come to the conclusion that it is not statistically different. The analyst should have verified on a more important basis by regrouping as we have proposed. With these regroupings the result becomes statistically significant. that there is a positive effect of hydroxychloroquine)

Lies, damned lies, and statistics.
Money makes the world go around...

Will history work it all out before everyone is dead or will the money protect the elite forever.
Suppose it depends on who gets woke the most.

a reply to: puzzled2

You're wasting your time with either of these two. I can tell you "get it" at least.

They'd probably be shocked to realize that most treatments for disease come from regular doctors who get an inspiration to try something out of the ordinary. There's no electron scanning microscope connected to a supercomputer in a lab somewhere with big-brained wanna-be Vulcans analyzing the virus from the readouts... medicine is still, in many ways, in its infancy. We still can't fully describe the life process. Oh, we know the various parts of a cell and their general function; we know some of the chemical reactions that take place; we have even mapped the human DNA. But we are still discovering not just which genes control what, but also how genes affect each other.

And we've only just begun.

The "triple treatment" (hydroxychloroquine, zinc, azithromycin or another antibacterial)... I'm calling it that now to maybe not trigger people into further ignorance... was a result of just trying to find something that would help some people. SARS-1 is a virus. Zinc is a known antiviral. Hydroxychloroquine is a known zinc ionophore. Azithromycin is a known antibacterial to combat any bacterial infections that might be present. Somewhere one doctor tried them together and saw a little success. He told other doctors, who then started using the triple treatment. They all adjusted dosages until they figured out something that they claim works. There were no "clinical trials"... there was no time for "clinical trials." Patients were sick with a potentially deadly virus and no prescribed treatment was available. The doctors treating them were more interested in saving their lives than in journal publications.

General practitioners don't usually do a lot of journal reports anyway... most journals want reams of supporting data which is only available in clinical trials. GPs will usually talk to other GPs and the information will make its way to researchers who can provide the reams of data needed.

The clinical trials should start there. Randomized, controlled studies to first replicate the front line results, then to expand on efficacy. That's how every other treatment happens... but for some reason it didn't happen that way this time. This time, one of the medicines used in the triple treatment was isolated and clinical trials were conducted on it alone, ignoring every parameter used by the doctors who had developed the treatment (and it appears they ignored know safety protocols as well). Of course they did not produce the same effects.

What bothers me is the results tried to say that the drug under question was actually harmful, in direct contradiction to 75 years of regular usage. Had this been a new drug without all that background, I as well would have been loathe to try it. Something like Remdesivir would fit that bill; it is a fairly new drug without much usage history. Remdesivir would have been easy to demonize. This drug? Not so much... took a lot of propaganda to scare the general public into thinking it is deadly somehow, so they would refuse to participate in clinical trials to determine its actual effectiveness in the triple treatment.

No participants... no studies. Mission accomplished.

The thing I am wondering about now is, why demonize the treatment? All of the ingredients are plentiful, cheap, and old... which is probably the reason. A pharmaceutical cannot get a patent on an existing medication, so they will obviously gravitate toward patentable medications. The profit margin is many times the size of unpatentable medications, simply because a patent gives the patent owner exclusive rights... a temporary monopoly if you will. They can charge what they like, with no concern over competition.

My mother was on Lyrica for her nerve pain caused by the schleraderma. Thankfully she had good insurance. Her co-pay was still a little over $100 a month, but the full cost was over $2500. Today, since the patent ran out, Lyrica is available as the generic pregabalin at a small fraction of the cost. Pfizer made a small fortune.

I strongly suspect Gilead is trying to do the same with Remdesivir, but I have no proof.

The real question is: is the constant fear-mongering over the triple treatment due to people being indoctrinated, or is it commercialized? I suspect some of those attacking the triple treatment are being well-paid by Gilead... hopefully no one on this forum of course.

TheRedneck

a reply to: TheRedneck

I think Brix is a cutie!

Dr Birx? An actual qualified American physician currently serving on Trump's very own Coranavirus Response task force as as the lead Coordinator?

Former director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's Division of Global HIV/AIDS? That Birx right?

"No evidence" hydroxychloroquine works for treating Covid-19, Birx says

I'm glad you find the mispelling of her surname cute Redneck. Meanwhile you insist your unqualified armed chair analysis of various reports should be taken seriously instead, on abovetopsecret.com.

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: puzzled2

You're wasting your time with either of these two. I can tell you "get it" at least.

Why?

They're pointing out the correct scientific method and standards for conducting an accurate trial to determine what, if any, effect HCQ has.

While it's incorrect to say HCQ doesn't do anything as the double blind trials of HCQ or HCQ and Zinc, HCQ and Azithromicin studies haven't concluded yet, the preliminary data of the trials shows it does more harm than good.

Here's the guides on how to conduct a clinical trial.
royalsocietypublishing.org...
royalsocietypublishing.org...

Bad Science is a major problem. In Europe 90% of the results of clinical trials aren't reported by the scientists conducting them. Major medical journals like Lancet, Nature et al don't report trials correctly www.sciencemag.org... and the majority of authors don't report the results correctly trialsjournal.biomedcentral.com...

That's the whole reason why Phage is correctly pointing out the proper scientific standards that are designed to remove human error and human bias to obtain accurate, reliable, reproducable science.


With HCQ the trials are being conducted using the correct method you state. The whole reason it seemed very promising for trials is because it was used for SARS and initial results were great but the trials never concluded as SARS died out and funding dried up before they finished and accurate data was available.

Phase I and II trials were conducted using frontline data from hospitals, as were retrospective meta-analysis when the treatment was used - because of this we're now nearing phase iii conclusion and possibly phase iv starrting.

The press are demonising the treatment because Trump made a statement on it and journalists generally know nothing about science, the general public would never read an article on HCQ -- howefer demonising it to make Trump look a moron who's promoting a drug he has shares in based on no scientific evidence is an easy pre-understood narrative that gains more readers and clickbait.

It would never have been mentioned by the press without the recomendation or Trump owning shares in Sanofi who manufacture HCQ (his stake is less than $3000 which is peanuts to him and he won't make any real profit, he's a buisinessman so would have stakes in 10,000's of companies so it's not insidious, but it is being pointed out as a conflict of interest by the press)

a reply to: Southern Guardian

Dr Birx?

You said Brix, not Birx. Deborah Birx specializes in internal medicine and immunology. She is the response coordinator for the task force on the virus.

I just assumed you meant Mia Brix, the figure skater. Not as many big words around her.

TheRedneck

a reply to: bastion

Bad science is a major problem. No argument there. I am pointing out bad science, where a clinical trial does not match the parameters of what it is supposed to be testing, but is promoted as conclusive anyway.

Phage seems to think that a doctor trying to save patients is somehow bound by a requirement to conduct clinical trials before saving his/her patient. That is simply not true. General practitioners have a certain amount of leeway in treatment, especially when there are no treatments approved. If they have successes in those treatments, then the clinical trials begin. I showed claims of success which have not been subjected to clinical trials which I would like to see trials conducted on. Phage dismisses those successes because there have been no clinical trials; how can there be clinical trials without first identifying what to test?

And Phage has his snark on. If he's not going to even answer a simple yes/no question, there's not going to be any debate between us. That's how it works. I am open to honest debate by anyone at any time. I am not going to beat my head against a brick wall for someone's lulz.

TheRedneck

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: TheRedneck
And as long as no trials meet your definition of "full treatment" you can forever claim homicide if they don't show efficacy. Cozy. And confirmation bias ridden.

The treatment has already shown incredible efficacy - maybe not in your precious gold standard placebo controlled double-blind trials that cost millions of dollars, but in the real world, while being used by Doctors on the front lines.

Not to mention the incredible successes of those using high dose IV vitamin C, in spite of the fact they are using extremely low doses as compared to what has been used in the past.

a reply to: TheRedneck

Deborah Birx specializes in internal medicine and immunology. She is the response coordinator for the task force on the virus.

I'm well aware of what you meant Redneck. We've clarified that. Now that we have, what Dr Birx say about HCQ?

"No evidence" hydroxychloroquine works for treating Covid-19, Birx says

a reply to: Southern Guardian

Your link CNN propaganda is broken.

Of course.

TheRedneck

a reply to: TheRedneck

What about the Dailymail?

There is 'NO evidence' that hydroxychloroquine works to treat coronavirus, Dr Birx says after Trump retweeted video of controversial doctor claiming the drug cures the infection

There we go.

a reply to: Southern Guardian

Well, you at least get a B- for linking. Congratulations?

She's right. The triple treatment has not been subjected to clinical trials; therefore there is no evidence yet.

Hydroxychloroquine by itself does not work. We managed to prove that. Not sure why since that was never claimed, but we managed to prove it.

TheRedneck

a reply to: TheRedneck

She's right. The triple treatment has not been subjected to clinical trials; therefore there is no evidence yet.

A lovely way of rewording 'no evidence' Redneck. I'll continue to cut out your pointless blabber.

Hydroxychloroquine by itself does not work. We managed to prove that. Not sure why since that was never claimed

Yes it was claimed, unless you could slip in a time where Trump and his supporters specified zinc as a necessary addition all the way back in March? Now all of a sudden Zinc was the missing link when HCQ is disproven by itself, and yet another fact still prevails here.... it's all once again reportly with no subtsantiation.

Maybe once hydroxychloroquine, zinc sulfate and azithromycin are also disproven to be ineffective, you'll move onto insisting unicorn poop is another missing link?

a reply to: Southern Guardian

Run a clinical trial on the triple treatment and we'll see.

Oh, sorry, I forgot... you can't even read the results of a clinical trial, much less run one. My bad.

TheRedneck

a reply to: TheRedneck

Run a clinical trial on the triple treatment and we'll see.

Come back to me with substance, not what you think or what you anticipate Redneck. You've been doing that for a while now while purposefully overlooking actual results, findings and commentary from more than qualified individuals and medical bodies. Stop talking up, actually put up.

Cheers.

a reply to: Southern Guardian

There is no substance; that's my whole point... which keeps flying right over your head.

TheRedneck

a reply to: TheRedneck

There is no substance; that's my whole point.

You have nothing of substance to add Redneck. That was obviously not your point from the start but this is where you find yourself now. From sourcing partisan agenda driven sources the AAPS, to insisting your own unqualified analysis matters more, to blatantly ignoring the views of well qualified individuals like Birx, Fauci, the NIH, while putting up 'reports' from some local doctors on a pedestal, to side stepping actual findings and studies by (creatively) insisting important additions (zinc) will make a difference. It's all there.

At least you admitted in the end how unqualified you were in this area... eventually mind you... after playing coy (alongside UKtruth) for a few pages. Well done for having a thread of decency in this thread.

a reply to: Southern Guardian

My point from the start is that the trials you claim prove an ineffective treatment do not even address the treatment. You can't seem to understand that because it's not on CNN.

Unqualified? I'm being called unqualified by someone who admitted they can't read?

Oh, how will I ever get over this shame?



OK, over it.

TheRedneck

a reply to: TheRedneck

My point from the start is that the trials you claim prove an ineffective treatment do not even address the treatment.

In your unqualified view Redneck. Authorities on these matters consistently make it otherwise clear. You continue to brush them aside however because, well, you just don't like their answers.

You may get away with that nonsense here but not in the outside world.

You can't seem to understand that because it's not on CNN.

How many of my references have been from CNN? Nevermind your partisan bias against them.

Unqualified? I'm being called unqualified

Well yes, you are? Are you now going to claim you are now after admitting these matters, studies were clearly outside your field of knowledge and expertise? Come on now Redneck. Those silly emojis won't do you justice.

a reply to: Southern Guardian

In your unqualified view Redneck.

Yes, I don't listen to garbage like you do. I assume that does make me seem unqualified to you.

I also read the reports. All by myself.

How many of my references have been from CNN?

Probably very few... you can't seem to get that linking thing down.

Well yes, you are? Are you now going to claim you are now after admitting these matters, studies were clearly outside your field of knowledge and expertise? Come on now Redneck. Those silly emojis won't do you justice.

I'm not claiming anything except what I already have said. I have experience in conducting scientific experiments, and clinical trials are a scientific experiment. You do not. You built a telescope, though. Just curious, was it a LEGO kit?

As for the emojis... that was for you. I thought pictures might make you feel better.

TheRedneck