Hydroxychloroquine Still Doesn’t Do Anything, New Data Shows

I wonder is the OP now ready to put his tail between his legs and admit Trump was right?
Will be interesting to see if he has the character to that.

He,ll never be right UKTruth ,(in some peoples eyes), I,ve not got a dog in the race in the US i,m from Scotland , and have watched the Hydroxy treatment and studies from the outset,the results when treated as soon as symptoms appear speak for themselves

I found an article with a great chart in it. This chart is the only one that matters regarding this argument in my humble opinion.

It gives us a 40,000 ft. view of the hydroxy issue.

www.zerohedge.com...

If anyone can look at the chart in the above zerohedge article and still have any doubt as to the efficacy of prescribing hydroxy as part of the treatment regime for covid 19 they are being willfully ignorant or worse.

You decide!

Here if you don't like zerohedge this is the source.
Thanks to gummibear737 on twitter! mobile.twitter.com...

originally posted by: Stevenmonet
I found an article with a great chart in it. This chart is the only one that matters regarding this argument in my humble opinion.

It gives us a 40,000 ft. view of the hydroxy issue.

www.zerohedge.com...

If anyone can look at the chart in the above zerohedge article and still have any doubt as to the efficacy of prescribing hydroxy as part of the treatment regime for covid 19 they are being willfully ignorant or worse.

You decide!

It's quite possible that those spreading the propaganda that it does not work - all because they hate Trump - have contributed to the deaths of many thousands of people.

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: Stevenmonet
I found an article with a great chart in it. This chart is the only one that matters regarding this argument in my humble opinion.

It gives us a 40,000 ft. view of the hydroxy issue.

www.zerohedge.com...

If anyone can look at the chart in the above zerohedge article and still have any doubt as to the efficacy of prescribing hydroxy as part of the treatment regime for covid 19 they are being willfully ignorant or worse.

You decide!

It's quite possible that those spreading the propaganda that it does not work - all because they hate Trump - have contributed to the deaths of many thousands of people.

It may go deeper than hate for trump for some. Follow the money.

originally posted by: Southern Guardian
a reply to: Fallingdown

There is a recent peer reviewed paper that disputes your position.

Where's the source?

Here you go .I can always back up what I say

For good measure I linked eight more studies I personally read cover to cover on page 2 .

Hydroxychloroquine is used at the hospital I work at. I am in a major metro area with surging cases. We converted an entire floor into a reverse flow isolation ward. We have eight cases today, two are going home by the end of the day. No one is on a ventilator. It's been like this for a month.

Even though we have empty patient rooms on every floor, and the covid unit isn't even close to being half full, we are technically "at capacity" because a lot of our nurses are on vacation, and we have rules about nurse-patient ratios.

I'm tired of seeing bull# about all of this everywhere. Especially reports that hospitals are "at capacity". If we ran out of space to put covid patients on our covid ward, we will simply activate the reverse flow on another floor. And double our capacity. EVERY hospital I have ever worked at can do this. If hospitals are out of space right now it is because they are not shutting down elective procedures and as a result, their med-surg units are full. Which is understandable. Surgeries are how hospitals make money, and a lot of them do not want to shut that down completely.

Hospitals might be at capacity, but not because of Covid19.

a reply to: TheRedneck

A proper HCQ treatment is as follows (HCQ + quality care):

HCQ given before a positive test (not waiting for that first when the clinical symptoms clearly suggest the presence of Covid-19 given the circumstances, good doctors are quite capable of determining this patient specific)
Azithromycin
zinc
vitamin C
vitamin D3
optional: melatonin (especially when having trouble sleeping because of the disease)

- escalation with corticosteroids and anticoagulants if needed or warranted (both outpatient and inpatient setting, this may require some additional antibiotics because of a suppressed immune system, especially in the inpatient setting with those nasty hospital bacteria around)
- escalation with LFNC when hospitalized and escalation to HFNC when needed or warranted (is LFNC an option for the outpatient setting? Needs to be put on the table. Along with the acknowledgement that hospitals under the current protocols, policies and staff behaviour can be deathtraps for some patients, especially if you start suppressing their immune system and then put them on intubation or in highly bacterially contaminated rooms)
- escalation to the machine that can oxygenate blood directly without ever messing with the lungs (ECMO)
- optional: escalation to CPAP or BiPAP

No intubation (more invasive mechanical ventilation) at all, allow permissive hypoxemia before escalating to CPAP or BiPAP, try ECMO first though.

Next to that the medications and supplements protocol requires more than 5 days if the patient needs it or gets a rebound of the disease. All of those substances (medications and supplements) except for zinc (only having an antiviral function*) need to be continued till well into the cytokine storm (they all have anti-cytokine storm functionality). *: I'd say continue with the zinc as well cause there's still some viral replication and spread to other cells going on during the cytokine storm and you want to keep whatever healthy cells you have left healthy, the zinc will help with that and keep the viral load low everywhere there's even a bit of viral replication going on; see graph in the EVMS protocol for "viral replication", note there's still some viral replication going on in the late pulmanory phase. Of course, all this is assuming you are continuing with the zinc ionophore HCQ as well (and not like those clinical trials that stop after 5 days to argue that HCQ doesn't work).

There are more things that need to be considered (magnesium and thiamine for example, as mentioned in that EVMS protocol; vitamin A and K2, which aren't mentioned by the EVMS protocol, etc.) but that's a bare minimum to qualify for the description:

HCQ + quality care, instead of the HCQ + horrible care that is constantly being reported on in these so-called "clinical trials".

No more studies required to figure this out. It isn't rocket science.

a reply to: whereislogic

Good information, and much more specific than mine. Thank you.

The real question at this stage becomes not whether or not to use hydroxychloroquine (along with the other co-medications you mentioned), but rather why are so many people trying to downplay and even demonize the use of one of the few promising treatments we have available? I can understand someone claiming that a treatment does not work, but hydroxychloroquine has a well-established medical history of low side effects. If it does not real harm but has even a small possibility of saving a life, why would anyone with an ounce of morality in their body try to prevent its use?

Of course, I know the answer: money. It's always about money. That was intended to be rhetorical.

TheRedneck

I’ll champion any medicine people believe they need. To deny them seems unreasonably cruel. You mentioned other treatments that are effective? I don’t like hyper links...

a reply to: Southern Guardian

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?

Stating the fact that France and South Korea had very successful outcomes with HCQ doesn't make people 'hung up' on it. However, it does appear that some partisan folks on the left are 'hung up' on discounting the successful outcomes for many people who took HCQ during the pandemic.

I've been on it 10 years for autoimmune. Works great. Most people have zero side effets. It's a very safe and very effective drug that has been demonized by shrill partisan voices like the old bats on 'The View'.

a reply to: FlyersFan

Stating the fact that France and South Korea had very successful outcomes with HCQ

False.

Korean health authorities also advised the dropping of hydroxychloroquine after a study found the decades-old malaria drug

Source

The results from two new drug trials have failed to find evidence that hydroxychloroquine works to treat Covid-19. And a new peer review by one of Europe’s top doctors has found the study conducted by French professor Raoult

A controversial Lancet study in late May reported that they had found no proof that hydroxychloroquine could efficiently treat Covid-19 and concluded that the risk of developing a serious heart rhythm problem is more than five times greater. As a result, the WHO suspended the trials using the drug and France banned it.

Source


Next time, link a source.

a reply to: themove1904

I've already addressed the Henryford paper in the OP.

a reply to: Fallingdown

There is a recent peer reviewed paper that disputes your position.

I'm still waiting for that source of yours Falling. Not your unqualified interpretation of a scientific peer reviewed research paper.

originally posted by: carewemust
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".

I love how you can state a complete lie and get tons of stars for it just because Trump claimed it works (based on nothing).

Find me EQUIVALENT studies which support your point.

Clue: you can't.

You are fake news.

a reply to: Southern Guardian

I gave it read the thread

Check out my threads it’s in the top three it has 50 flags . You can also look at the 4 or 5 other threads I made that also exposed the same flaw in your position . Along with the thread you quoted from Brazil that said the same thing .

Hell unlike you I even provided all of the information and included a Chinese study that refutes my claim .


It’s also not my opinion it’s the direct quotes from the studies .

a reply to: Fallingdown

I gave it read the thread

No you didn't. You gave an unsourced excerp of a research analysis. I attempted to word search that excerp you gave but google gave no clear results. You then gave your own conclusion which I'm not interested in.

Where is your source? It's a simple request. Link the URL.

Check out my threads it’s in the top three it has 50 flags

There's a thread on here stating that it is a matter of fact that Dinosaurs existed with Humans. It has 133 flags. The Q anon threads on here number in the 100s. I'd hardly use ATS as an objective measure for the reliability of original posts.

a reply to: Southern Guardian

The study was published today in the International Journal of Infectious Diseases, the peer-reviewed, open-access online publication of the International Society of Infectious Diseases (ISID.org).

Should I just go ahead and post this 4 or 5 more times for when you skip over it?

Here is another study from your OP that you linked this is your claim.

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

This is from page 4 of the study it’s not my interpretation it’s a direct quote.

The
preliminary
findings from CloroC
ovid
-
19 trial suggest th
at
the
higher dosage of CQ
(
12 g
total dose over
10 days
)
in COVID
-
19
should
no
t
be
recommended because
of
safety
concerns regarding
QTc prolongation and
increased lethality
,
in the Brazilian population
, and
more often in older patients in use of drugs such as azithromycin and oseltamivir, which also
prolong QTc interval
.
Among patients randomized to the lower dosage group (5 days of
tr
eatment
, total dose 2.7 g
)
,
given the limited number of patients so far enrolled, it is still not
possible to estimate a clear benefit of CQ in
patients
with
severe ARDS. Preliminary data on
viral clearance
in respiratory
secretions
in our
confirmed cases
are also indicative of little
effect of the drug at high dosage
.
More studies
initiating
CQ
prior to the onset of the
severe
phase of the disease are urgently needed

Your study deals only with people that were in severely inflicted and hospitalized with COVID-19 infection and had hypoxic pneumonia.

It did not in anyway touch on The viability of hydroxychloroquine to prevent patients from getting to that stage of the infection.

Last time I pointed this out you made up some kind of excuse. And ignored the fact that what I said was 100% accurate.

Here are some more direct quotes from page 10 and 11 of that study. Dealing with the parameters of the patients involved in that study.

Th
e protocol
was
timely
approved by the
Brazilian Committee of Ethics
in Human Research
(
CONEP
a
pproval 3.929.646
/2020). All patients and/or legal representatives in case of
unconsciousness, were
informed
about objectives and risks of participation

Patients that were unconscious due to infection fit the parameters of the study.

. They
were given
time to
carefully
read and then sign an informed consent form (ICF). After recovery, the
patient also signed the ICF. Random online clinical monitoring and quality control was
performed. A virtu
al
independent
Data Safety and Monitoring Board
(DSMB), with
epidemiologists, clinicians and experts in
i
nfectious
d
iseases, was timely implemented to
review the protocol
and with
daily meetings to
follow
-
up
the activities of the study
. The trial
was
reported according to
Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials
(Consort) statement
.
32
Study
design and
site
CloroC
ovid
-
19
was
a parallel, double
-
blind, randomized, phase IIb clinical trial
,
which
started
on March
2
3
rd
,
2020
,
aiming
to assess
safety
and efficacy
of
CQ
in the
treatment of
hospitalized patients with severe respiratory syndrome secondary to SARS

The study was conducted on patients in severe distress not looked upon in any prophylactic way which was mentioned on page 4 in the study


Here’s the part that keeps confusing you. I agree that hydroxychloroquine does not appear to have much benefit for people and the in term of the disease. That’s what the study was about.

The study was an upon the viability of the medication to preventing people from getting to that stage of infection.

Participants
Hospitalized patients aged 18 years or older at the time of inclusion, with respiratory
rate
higher than 24 rpm AND/OR
heart rate higher than 125 bpm (in the absence of fever)
AND/OR peripheral oxygen saturation lower than 90% in ambient air AND/OR shock

(
defined as mean arterial pressure lower than 65 mmHg, with the need for vasopressors
medicines or oliguria or a lower level of consciousness) were included.
Children under 18
years of age were not included due to the known lower
morbidity/mortality from CO
VID
-
19
33
.
Patients were enrolled before laboratorial confirmation of COVID
-
19, considering that
such procedure could delay randomization. For
the
analyses at this point, all patients were
included regardless of the
confirmed
etiolog
y
which f
or safety issues (the focus of this
manuscript)
should
not be an issue. For now, the flowchart of the study presents clinical
-
epidemiological suspected cases and cases already confirmed by RT
-
PCR.

People that were so far gone that they were in shock were included in the study. Not people that tested positive for COVID-19 yesterday. The participants in the study were on deaths door. That’s not my interpretation that is the parameters for the study.


For the love of God read the damn thing and don’t scan a New York Times article and think you got unbiased information .

Brazil study that you used as evidence and didn’t know what you were talking about.

a reply to: Southern Guardian


Adam Rogers... what a hack. Not a peer study, and the author's "article" is like leftover abortion material. It's doesn't even fake being based on anything real... it's a complete mess.

EVERY MEDICAL PROPONENT of HCQ states openly and blatantly, that HCQ has efficacy when used early to keep people OUT OF THE HOSPITAL.

There's a study from a little over 1 week ago, that has clear data that HCQ got fantastic results when use as a first line therapeutic.

HCQ is a political hot potato... and the "doesn't work" bull crap has been disproven repeatedly.

Ask doctors about it on the record... they are lukewarm. Poll them anonymously, it is the drug of choice around the world for around 60% of clinicians, and it is used at the first sign of illness.

OP, if you believe the hogwash in what you posted... it makes me wonder if you are even aware that "Covid-19" doesn't actually kill ANY patients... directly.

People who are immunocompromised have a poorly attenuated immune response to COVID, and their immune systems go bonkers and flood their systems with a severe inflammatory response.

If you wait till a patient needs to be hospitalized, you have already screwed the pooch. The cytokine storm and onset of SARDS and attending damage to cardiopulmonary tissue is already well on its way. If that patient ends up on a vent... their odds drop instantly by over 50% more.

Yet, in studies and clinical settings where HCQ Therapeutic protocols (which are far more than administering HCQ, BTW) are administered at the first sign of symptoms... MOST clinicians see almost zero deaths, out of hundreds of patients treated.

Couple weeks ago, a study came out from a team at a Covid hospital, that savaged the "HCQ doesn't work" harpies. They got very dramatic results, and it was all driven by their desire to get serious about treatment of Covid in their community... not by politics. It was driven by the Hippocratic Oath. Adam Rogers doesn't even bother linking to the recent Michigan study.

2,500 patients... and very clear results... that HCQ made a huge difference to the postive for the majority of patients, and made a measurable difference for patients with serious illness. Despite peoples criticism about that polled data... it's more accurate information than most of what the media has harped on for the last 5 months!

I wonder why it is, that doctors using HCQ with no "dog in the fight" other than taking care of patients, keep having good results with it. Politics and medicine sure as hell should mix.