Hydroxychloroquine Still Doesn’t Do Anything, New Data Shows

a reply to: puzzled2

Well proof HCQ Doesn't work is not proven

Nor is the non-existence of unicorns.

a reply to: puzzled2

Well proof HCQ Doesn't work is not proven

Logical falacies: Proving Non-Existence

Demanding that one proves the non-existence of something in place of providing adequate evidence for the existence of that something. Although it may be possible to prove non-existence in special situations, such as showing that a container does not contain certain items, one cannot prove universal or absolute non-existence. The proof of existence must come from those who make the claims.

Make that 32+ pages. Still nothing you or others here. The onus is still there.

a reply to: puzzled2

Also mentioned early by someone else research is moving on to new treatments and new chemicals. Hopefully they get proper scientific opportunity. HCQ's days maybe numbered purely because better solutions are found.

Or proven to be benign in the fight against covid.

www.thedesertreview.com... article_31d37842-dd8f-11ea-80b5-bf80983bc072.html

Dr. Harvey Risch, the renowned Yale epidemiologist, published an article in May 2020 in the American Journal of Epidemiology titled “Early Outpatient Treatment of Symptomatic, High-Risk COVID-19 Patients that Should be Ramped-Up Immediately as Key to Pandemic Crisis." He further published an article in Newsweek in July 2020 for the general public expressing the same conclusions and opinions. Dr. Risch is an expert at evaluating research data and study designs, publishing over 300 articles. Dr Risch’s assessment is that there is unequivocal evidence for the early and safe use of the “HCQ cocktail.” If there are Q-T interval concerns, doxycycline can be substituted for azithromycin as it has activity against RNA viruses without any cardiac effects.

Yet, you continue to reject the use of hydroxychloroquine, except in a hospital setting in the form of clinical trials, repeatedly emphasizing the lack of evidence supporting its use. Hydroxychloroquine, despite 65 years of use for malaria, and over 40 years for lupus and rheumatoid arthritis, with a well-established safety profile, has been deemed by you and the FDA as unsafe for use in the treatment of symptomatic COVID-19 infections. Your opinions have influenced the thinking of physicians and their patients, medical boards, state and federal agencies, pharmacists, hospitals, and just about everyone involved in medical decision making.

Indeed, your opinions impacted the health of Americans, and many aspects of our day-to-day lives including employment and school. Those of us who prescribe hydroxychloroquine, zinc, and azithromycin/doxycycline believe fervently that early outpatient use would save tens of thousands of lives and enable our country to dramatically alter the response to COVID-19. We advocate for an approach that will reduce fear and allow Americans to get their lives back.

We hope that our questions compel you to reconsider your current approach to COVID-19 infection.

He must be lying according to Snark n Troll though jefwayne. I,ve already put interviews on here with Dr Risch and no one would answer the question on whether he was lying or not, Wonder why ? a reply to: jefwane

sch

a reply to: themove1904

You know I didn't even notice, that I only posted a link and a small subset of the Op-Ed till I saw your reply. It's a well thought out and reasoned Open Letter to those at the the top tier or our medical establishment. Almost every concern in this thread is addressed.

The propaganda against HCQ has been pretty transparently so from the start. I believe that in addition to OrangeManBad (TDS if you prefer) psychosis there is a huge financial incentive for the media to pan it. Watch any of the MSM 24 hour news channels for an hour during prime time count the minutes of Big Pharma advertisements. What percentage of CNN, MSNBC, and even Fox's revenue is for drug ads? I saw much the same thing 11 years ago after the last Financial Crisis with how much of the ads were by Big Banks and other financial interests.

On the lighter side, one of the funniest things I've seen today was someone refer to Anthony Fauci as Dr. Faux Xi. That was pretty funny.

a reply to: jefwane

This, from Dr Sten H. Vermund, Dean and Anna M.R. Lauder Professor of Public Health; Professor of Pediatrics, Yale School of Medicine.

Statement Regarding Hydroxychloroquine

Yale-affiliated physicians used HCQ early in the response to COVID-19, but it is only used rarely at present due to evidence that it is ineffective and potentially risky. The Food and Drug Administration of the U.S. Public Health Service issued the following statement (in part):

June 15, 2020 Update: Based on ongoing analysis and emerging scientific data, FDA has revoked the emergency use authorization (EUA) to use hydroxychloroquine and chloroquine to treat COVID-19 in certain hospitalized patients when a clinical trial is unavailable or participation is not feasible. We made this determination based on recent results from a large, randomized clinical trial in hospitalized patients that found these medicines showed no benefit for decreasing the likelihood of death or speeding recovery. This outcome was consistent with other new data, including those showing the suggested dosing for these medicines are unlikely to kill or inhibit the virus that causes COVID-19. As a result, we determined that the legal criteria for the EUA are no longer met.

As Dean of the Yale School of Public Health where Dr. Risch is employed, I have championed maintaining open academic discourse, including what some may view as unpopular voices.

Yale Doc Backing HCQ Cites Questionable Data

Just this week, about two dozen of Risch's Yale colleagues published an open letter on Medium, acknowledging his renown in cancer epidemiology but criticizing his "ardent advocacy" for HCQ. The letter notes that Risch is "not an expert in infectious disease epidemiology and he has not been swayed by the body of scientific evidence from rigorously conducted clinical trials which refute the plausibility of his belief and arguments."

The consensus on HCQ is clear:

Dr. Birx: Randomized trials show benefit for remdesivir, but not hydroxychloroquine

Dr. Fauci says all the ‘valid’ scientific data shows hydroxychloroquine isn’t effective in treating coronavirus

The World Health Organisation: Studies show hydroxychloroquine does not have clinical benefits in treating COVID-19

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

NIH Halts Hydroxychloroquine Study; Says 'Unlikely' To Help COVID-19 Patients

British Heart Foundation: Why hydroxychloroquine isn't a "miracle cure" for coronavirus

Do not use hydroxychloroquine for COVID: National Taskforce (Australia)

The point has been made time and time again that there's dispute over HCQ's effectiveness against other ailements over the years (i.e malaria), that doesn't been it's effective against the current novel COVID-19.

Penicillin, for example, can be credited for helping and saving millions over lives over the past century. It was a revolutionary drug when it was introducted. Just because of these facts, doesn't mean it's an effective treatment or cure against all ailements. Unfortunately, you and others continue to paint this broad brush with HCQ and refuse to listen. It's also unfortunate I have to find myself reminding each and every one of you of this fact. It's fortunate I have the patience and willingness to continue doing so, regardless.

a reply to: Southern Guardian

The consensus on HCQ is clear

And again, consensus in science means absolutely squat.

TheRedneck

a reply to: TheRedneck

And again, consensus in science means absolutely squat.

To you, maybe?

Shall I remind you of your irrelevance concerning this matter again?

a reply to: Southern Guardian

Your very confused aren't you proving something works or doesn't work is not illogical.

Your avoiding the whole reply because like I said you can't handle the message.

a reply to: puzzled2

Your very confused aren't you proving something works or doesn't work

What you seem to be confused about are fairly understandable, well placed, responsibilities in normal debate.

There's a clear onus on your side to demonstrate actual physical evidence (whether consistently displayed in studies, in testings, in trials) that HCQ is an effective treatment against COIVD-19. To date, you've failed to demonstrate this at all. Whatever else you may believe from your own personal knowledge, or the speculations, the reporteded outcomes from others, doesn't amount to anything tangible at the end of the day. That's what's needed to deal with this pandemic.

This isn't a game. These are people's actual lives we're talking about here. Your personal inner thoughts, or the thoughts of others, won't amount to resolving this pandemic.

a reply to: puzzled2

Look, puzzled, that above comment of mine was admittedly harsh, and unproductive.

I like to believe I am an objective person with regards to the concern of HCQ, and I certainly wouldn't want any significant finding or evidence to go unheard. We all have a voice on this matter, it's important we listen and take note.

If you're still interested in a response, I'll take the time today and tomorrow to go back to your posts (and those posts you may have referred back to in relation to HCQ). I'll then go over a summary of your findings, positions, sources, and give you a break down view of my positions in response. I'll touch base then.

Things can tend to get heated in this forum. We're all very passionate about the things we believe in. I try my best to maintain some degree of civility during these times, and I will try again this time around.

Let me know if you couldn't care less, if you're dismissive. However, if you respond by advising you're open to the above, I'll take that time and respond soon.

a reply to: Southern Guardian

Side effects should include.

"Warning may lose you an election down to improper use."

Or should that be erection.

a reply to: Southern Guardian



See you're still pushing announcements without any substance. Do any of the links you cut and push link to a good quality study?

Just 1 good link to an actual peer reviewed study - or is it all Anonymous eyes only.

a reply to: Southern Guardian

Irrelevance? You define the term!

At one time, scientific consensus included the following:

• Heavier than air flight was impossible.
  
• Disease was caused by "bad blood" and required bloodletting to sure.
  
• The earth was flat.
  
• The sun revolved around the earth.
  
• Tomatoes were poisonous.
  
• There was no such thing as relativity.
  
• The sound barrier was unbreakable.

and a million other things people used to believe until someone proved them wrong.

You keep claiming that you "defer" to conclusions by experts... you don't even realize that the conclusions are not part of the science! The conclusions are what the researchers thought after conducting the experiment, and are the most unscientific part of any experiment. The important parts are the parameters of the tests, the methodology used to conduct the tests, and the raw data produced by the tests... all of which you dismiss, some of which you don't even accept exist!

You can stop your BS any day now. You have been playing freakin' games ever since page 1. You intentionally acted obtuse to get an argument, then kept making ridiculous statements and outright lies to egg people on. You even tried to reconcile with me a few pages back, and took the first opportunity to attack again. For future reference, that won't happen again.

You are as irrelevant as a milk bucket under a bull, and you know it. You just get your kicks from ticking others off because you somehow think that makes you look important. It doesn't. In my day, that would have caused quite a bit of scarring... be thankful for the science that gave you the Internet and a computer to hide behind.

TheRedneck

a reply to: Southern Guardian

You can do what you please , unlike you I'm not going to go thru your posts and see how many times you were wrong or linked to crappy data that has been proven incorrect at a later date.

I would like you to read an article that supports your views and then do the same research you do when an article doesn't support your view.

Look for the real data, investigate, the source, the messenger and likely conflicts.
When you then comment on the article, with your research good or bad you become a positive contributor -- don't be just a mouth piece of announcements.

After all if no-one had questioned Surgisphere were would we be?

a reply to: puzzled2

You can do what you please

You're quite right there. I'll continue to call you out when you respond. It's as I please, yes.

unlike you I'm not going to go thru your posts

Yet you insist I go through yours again? And you wonder why you keep on getting cut off everytime you come back with the same excuse?

If you want some respect shown, I'll listen. If not, we'll continue as we had been for the last 10+ pages. Perfectly fine with me.

Look for the real data, investigate, the source, the messenger and likely conflicts.

You complain of likely conflicts and messengers? Like FranceSoir, a well known French tabloit newspaper? Or
Dr. Simone Gold?

Gold has been a regular on the right-wing media circuit during the pandemic, appearing on Fox News on May 21, arguing that patients are being harmed by the shutdowns taking place across the country.

What data again? Substantive data that actually shows break-throughs with HCQ against COVID-19, or speculative data? Retrospective data? Outside of real time?

Anybody can post data on here. It's the substance that counts. Your personal intepretations of these are meaningless in front of the relevant qualified experts, and you will keep on being reminded.

Till your next post.

a reply to: Southern Guardian

Your qualified experts brought the Surgisphere study, the Minnesota phone in study - were only 16 out 821 took a pcr test and the others guessed the symptoms where covid.
Hook, line and sinker. Really great quality expert evaluations there.

So you're not pushing back your repeating the same bad data.
Why don't you re paste the links to "we have a study" but not telling you which one in case we got it wrong again.
We can all be in wonderment of your pasting ability.

Til something new pops up have a great day.

a reply to: puzzled2

Your qualified experts

Yes. My qualified experts.

Dr. Birx: Randomized trials show benefit for remdesivir, but not hydroxychloroquine

Dr. Fauci says all the ‘valid’ scientific data shows hydroxychloroquine isn’t effective in treating coronavirus

The World Health Organisation: Studies show hydroxychloroquine does not have clinical benefits in treating COVID-19

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

NIH Halts Hydroxychloroquine Study; Says 'Unlikely' To Help COVID-19 Patients

British Heart Foundation: Why hydroxychloroquine isn't a "miracle cure" for coronavirus

Do not use hydroxychloroquine for COVID: National Taskforce (Australia)

What I also know is that people, doctors, are more than capable of being wrong in certain instances. It's when we start to discover a common pattern, is where the entire consensus comes into question.

Again, the onus remains on you to reference actual studies showing, physically, the effectiveness of HCQ against COVID19.

Till your next post, good evening.

a reply to: Southern Guardian

oh well done not a referenced study amongst them. Perhaps it all based on Surgisphere

And FYI the thread is
Hydroxychloroquine Still Doesn’t Do Anything, New Data Shows

So the onus is on you to provide the NEW DATA - not me.