more evidence hydroxychloroquine does not prevent getting covid

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Visiting ESB

It WORKS if zinc and z-pack are taken at the same time.

Prove it.

I already have in a different thread. I posted 66 studies, properly done, that prove it. Look it up.

a reply to: Visiting ESB
Pick your favorite study in the list. Let's discuss it.

originally posted by: research100
www.dailymail.co.uk...

trump who has NO medical background said he was taking this to prevent getting the covid 19 well here you go www.dailymail.co.uk...

these people with lupus and or RA (rheumatoid arthritis) who have been on this medication for years .. They looked at the records of 4 MILLION of these people and 34.6% contracted the covid 19 roughly the same 31.4% did not get covid 19........soooooooo if what trump said was true the people who had been on it for a while that number should have been MUCH lower it should have prevented them from getting it

it worked in the lab in a test tube but as in many many things did not work on humans

It sure as hell turns it into being nothing more than a regular cold, in a person that has major complications, that I do know.

Dont ask how but I can say for an absolute 100 percent fact.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Visiting ESB
Pick your favorite study in the list. Let's discuss it.

To hell with studies, how about the fact that doctors all over Florida have been using it from day one and getting great results? Nurses and Doctors have already testified to it working so that's all the evidence I need, well and the fact that a family friend had it and used it to great effect.

You know how dam slow the FDA and CDC work to approve anything, never mind this has been a deliberate act to begin with so they will do everything in their power to dismiss it.

Then again you don't believe anything that has not been wrote in a science book anyhow.

originally posted by: RudeMarine

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Visiting ESB
Pick your favorite study in the list. Let's discuss it.

To hell with studies, how about the fact that doctors all over Florida have been using it from day one and getting great results? Nurses and Doctors have already testified to it working so that's all the evidence I need, well and the fact that a family friend had it and used it to great effect.

You know how dam slow the FDA and CDC work to approve anything, never mind this has been a deliberate act to begin with so they will do everything in their power to dismiss it.

Then again you don't believe anything that has not been wrote in a science book anyhow.

to be fair they dont believe anything that counters their agenda.

especially if it is to make trump look bad / not get elected

scrounger

a reply to: RudeMarine

To hell with studies,

Swell. Let's just go back to before science.

Maybe homeopathy works too.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: RudeMarine

To hell with studies,

Swell. Let's just go back to before science.

Maybe homeopathy works too.

Yes indeed some homeopathy does indeed work...........you dont think all these medicines were just synthesized out of thin air do you? Ever hear of penicillin?

This thought process that just because its natural means it doesnt work is the most ridiculous , shortsighted idiocy .......but then again it doesnt benefit big pharma NOT to push their dangerous drugs on people who for some reason think only something thats come out of a lab works

a reply to: ManBehindTheMask

Ever hear of penicillin?

Yes. It is not a homeopathic remedy. It is an antibiotic.

Maybe you don't know what homeopathy is? It doesn't have much to do with antibiotics.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Visiting ESB
Pick your favorite study in the list. Let's discuss it.

I'm going to be brief.
The argument that hydroxychloroquine is ineffective, is trite and banal to me.
The Henry Ford Health System report
www.henryford.com...
states," “Our analysis shows that using hydroxychloroquine helped save lives,” said neurosurgeon Dr. Steven Kalkanis, CEO, Henry Ford Medical Group and Senior Vice President and Chief Academic Officer of Henry Ford Health System. “As doctors and scientists, we look to the data for insight. And the data here is clear that there was benefit to using the drug as a treatment for sick, hospitalized patients.” Yes the study was not randomized, it was directly targeted to patients that had a new onset of the chinese virus. The Lancet publication that showed that hydroxychloroquine was potentially harmful, which was published in May, was met with criticism and was eventually withdrawn over questions about the validity of its data.
Hydroxychloroquine.
It works, and it works even better with Budesonide, Zinc and Zithromax.
www.abovetopsecret.com...
Now let me ask you; SniffMyPit and ChestFullOmedals, were you next to me in the ER, with the ill parent and 4 children (1 who's look of terror in their eyes I will never forget) tested positive for the chinese virus? Have you walked the halls with me and reviewed the patients that are positive for the chinese virus? Have you stood shoulder to shoulder with the physicians, nurses and hospital staff, lining both sides of the hospital entrance hall, applauding each of the chinese virus survivors discharging from the hospital?
I didn't think so.

a reply to: Violater1

The Henry Ford Health System report

Says this:

Limitations to our analysis include the retrospective, non-randomized, non-blinded study design. Also, information on duration of symptoms prior to hospitalization was not available for analysis.

However, our results should be interpreted with some caution and should not be applied to patients treated outside of hospital settings. Our results also require further confirmation in prospective, randomized controlled trials that rigorously evaluate the safety and efficacy of hydroxychloroquine therapy for COVID-19 in hospitalized patients.

www.sciencedirect.com...

And the data here is clear that there was benefit to using the drug as a treatment for sick, hospitalized patients.

No, it isn't clear at all. There is no way to tell if the treatment had any effect at all, from "the data."

Dr. Le explained that the average age of those who received neither HCQ nor azithromycin was significantly higher than those who received HCQ.

Specifically, the average age in the group who received other COVID-19 treatments was 68.1 years, the median age was 71 years, and 64.1% were over the age of 65. In the HCQ group, on the other hand, the average age was 63.2 years, the median age was 53 years, and 48.9% were over 65.

Patients in the HCQ group were also significantly more likely to receive steroids in addition to the drug. While 78.9% of patients in this group received steroids, only 35.7% of patients in the other COVID-19 treatment groups did.

“In addition, white race is a risk factor they identified, and it too was unbalanced,” Dr. Le added.

In the group receiving other COVID-19 treatments, 45.5% were white, while in the HCQ group, 27.6% were white.

Some commentary

Yet more

Retrospective, non-randomized, non-blinded studies can be problematic.

a reply to: RickyD

Quick summary how HCQ and zinc works in relation to Covid-19 (not all functions for HCQ are discussed, only a portion of the antiviral functions, not the anti-inflammatory functions in relation to dampening the cytokine storm, which HCQ also does, in particular regarding Interleukin 6, IL-6, an important component in the cytokine storm):

This doctor mentions some of the other anti-inflammatory functions of HCQ:

Lancet lied About Hydroxychloroquine?

Here are some more detailed explanations (some of them list functions that the others have missed, add them all up, and you almost get the full list except for the details about inhibiting IL-6 that I mentioned, which is a key function in late treatment when the cytokine storm has already started, but the last video does mention its immunomodulating effects which is the same subject that I referred to as "the anti-inflammatory functions in relation to dampening the cytokine storm"):




Dr. Raoult mentions the anti-inflammatory function (IL-6) for HCQ though in this video (albeit without that IL-6 detail, translated to "immunity modulator" at 6:48, remember to click CC for english subtitles):

Perhaps in this one as well (can't remember exactly but I'm sharing it regarding a particular caveat, "disclaimer" as he calls it, given in the video called "Chloroquine, Hydroxychloroquine & SARS-CoV-2 (COVID-19): Mechanism & Overview of Anti-Viral Effects"):

I think it's interleukins in general that he mentions towards the end.

originally posted by: BlissSeeker

originally posted by: research100
www.dailymail.co.uk...

trump who has NO medical background said he was taking this to prevent getting the covid 19 well here you go www.dailymail.co.uk...

these people with lupus and or RA (rheumatoid arthritis) who have been on this medication for years .. They looked at the records of 4 MILLION of these people and 34.6% contracted the covid 19 roughly the same 31.4% did not get covid 19........soooooooo if what trump said was true the people who had been on it for a while that number should have been MUCH lower it should have prevented them from getting it

it worked in the lab in a test tube but as in many many things did not work on humans

And here's an article discussing the problems with research that outlines several scenarios where HCQ actually did work. The problem has to do with the myriad "underlying" illnesses, testing in tubes vs patients and the fact that healthcare can't accept a treatment that is SO CHEAP!

The author also describes the despicable practice of discrediting every doctor in the world who who used the drug for treatment. Citing the experience of the French, completely competent professionals, who stated that they had used HCQ successfully were then slammed in the US news media. And here in the US, all of the sudden, all of our researchers and doctors who have used HCQ are bumbling idiots and have their videos on which they describe treatment are taken down from Youtube - not one or two doctors but LOTS of them. No. Something stinks.

Hydroxychloroquine

The fact is, Big Pharma pays massive amounts to Big Media for TV ads with tiny print and fast talkers listing side affects of drugs that could kill you so until that ends, we won't know what works and what doesn't.

Nice article, says something relevant to one of my latest responses in the other thread about HCQ to Southern Guardian concerning randomized controlled trials (RCTs):

... There are multiple good reasons that the medical curriculum and major journals and texts publish RCTs, observational studies, case histories, and other designs, and why most physicians with experience will use what I would call the “all-available-evidence” approach and take, as appropriate, what they can learn from different kinds of studies, and of course everything they know about their own patient in front of them, to decide on a treatment. That is what personalized medicine is about. RCT fundamentalists—who believe only in their randomized data and essentially argue for throwing away everything else—pose as people simply expressing the conventional view: All you need is one tool. But in practice, they are way outside it. When the teacher tells you to quit paying so much attention to the fullness of your experience, pay more attention to why he might be saying so.

For more on the controversy around “Randomized Control Trials,” why “RCT” shouldn’t mean “rigidly constrained thinking,” and on the strengths and weaknesses of different types of studies, see Medicine’s Fundamentalists.

The attitude I bolded was basically what Southern Guardian was doing in the other thread. He's not the only one.

Regarding the results of the Henry Ford study and the exaggerated flaws that don't really negate what this study already shows, it mentions the following interesting details:

One even-handed critique of the study—rare in this debate—noted both its strengths and its weaknesses. One weakness was that patients who got HCQ had received dexamethasone twice as often as the controls. Dexamethasone is a common steroid (with a lot more side effects than HCQ) that is used when inflammation gets out of control. It was good medical practice to not withhold that drug, but it would likely have been a confounding factor. If one’s only goal is to determine if HCQ and azithromycin are helpful, this must be considered a study flaw, as Fauci said. But if one’s goal is to help people survive, a 66% reduced mortality rate is something to celebrate, even if it means that the cocktail for COVID-19 might involve three drugs, for a while. But Fauci didn't seem excited about that. A study published July 29, from Milan, which also tested HCQ and azithromycin vs. controls, and which eliminated some of the Henry Ford study weaknesses, got a 66% reduction of risk compared to controls with the drug combo.

I know of at least one person commenting in this thread that likes to bring up the steroid thing as a way to dismiss the whole Henry Ford study as not being helpful in the question regarding HCQ's effectiveness. It also ties in with the behavioural attitude described by the term 'RCT fundamentalism' earlier used in the article, which in turn has a connection to the phenomena of scientism.

a reply to: whereislogic

Great review just found that article myself makes some interesting statements.

Thought this was a extremely truthful comment of some MSN and some people in ATS.

What is unique about the hydroxychloroquine discussion is that it is a story of “unwishful thinking”—to coin a term for the perverse hope that some good outcome that most sane people would earnestly desire, will never come to pass. It’s about how, in the midst of a pandemic, thousands started earnestly hoping—before the science was really in—that a drug, one that might save lives at a comparatively low cost, would not actually do so.

originally posted by: Serdgiam
...
I also find it baffling that the hacks putting out these so-called "studies" dont just outright lie and manufacture data & results. Its not like the people who believe and trust them will ever actually look into it.

Who can tell they didn't or they don't? I can't check, can you? We already know the data (numbers) used in the Lancet study that was retracted was false/wrong, i.e. didn't match up with reality, as per their own admissions after being found out and confronted by numerous experts who wrote that letter with all the objections to this publication.

But that was the obvious one (After being captured by the Wraith and searched for weapons...Sheppard: "You have a knife?" Ford: "One for them to find, one to keep. Everybody knows that." Sheppard: "Right, I forgot all about that rule."; Stargate Atlantis), what about the better hidden ones, where every effort was made by the publishers to hide the fact that their data is false/wrong, doesn't reflect the reality of the matter? Or worse, the ones whose computers were hacked by malicious parties working for Big Pharma and Big Health Care and where the data was changed that way without the publishers/researchers even noticing the change? Would that be so far-fetched with everything we've seen these entities do concerning the topic of HCQ? And again, how would one check? Do any of the RCTs verify that what is labeled HCQ is actually the same HCQ that has been produced for years, and not something else made to look like HCQ but slightly altered to set it up for failure? Is that too far-fetched for the producers of HCQ (Sanofi for example) to get away with to secure their vaccin research funding and make it so that their (fake) HCQ suddenly doesn't work anymore and is interpreted as real HCQ not working? I know, it's all pretty skeptical and cynical to think like that, but is it really entirely unjustified to consider the possibility of such duplicit behaviour of HCQ manufacturers who also stand to gain financially from continued doubt as to whether or not HCQ works and whether or not it should be used in the treatment of Covid-19?

Sanofi hasn't done much in the way of defending HCQ against this whole marketing/propaganda campaign against it in favor of alternate health care and treatment such as hospitalization (ka-ching), IC+intubation (ka-ching), remdesivir (ka-ching) and vaccins (ka-ching).

Oh btw, blood plasma is also ka-ching, i.e. big business:

And here are some important things to consider concerning treatment with blood plasma:

Remember that blood vessel constriction and the resulting blood clotting is a symptom of Covid-19 and a side-effect of many types of corticosteroids, that's why anticoagulants (anti-blood clotting) are included in many a Covid-19 treatment protocol such as the MATH+ protocol (which includes a corticosteroid) and the EVMS protocol (again including a corticosteroid, methylprednisolone to be precise, one of the ones that causes blood vessel constriction):

I know, the video above is about red blood cells, so a little less relevant to treatment with blood plasma. But consider it in light of what's mentioned concerning blood plasma in the first video and the use of blood in medicine in general in the second video (infected blood is an issue for blood plasma as well for example; what's mentioned at 2:57 also counts for treatment with blood plasma).

The video above and below is mostly about red blood cells (although in the video above some crucial things are mentioned regarding research into longterm side-effects that also count for treatment with blood plasma) so it might not be so relevant to treatment with blood plasma, but I wanted to share it anyway for its general message about blood transfusions:

a reply to: Phage
Your yet more link care to discuss

fails to mention the lead writer works at a heavily Gilead fund institute Emory


Doesn't clarify the number of days of infection only days of hospitalization. The period of time in question most people were sent home and to come back if breathing problems occur. When should you go to the hospital with COVID-19?

It also mentions the stopping of trials that were restarted after the fake dataset was revealed. So brings the whole question of what they are using to base their analyst on.

There was also complaints of bias by the studies for not giving HCQ to patients with cardiac risks which seems a strange thing to want knowingly give patients a drug that could cause heart related problems for them whilst they are extremely sick already. ???? very puzzling ????

So would you agree the is more than enough to cast doubt on the reviewers conclusions?

originally posted by: whereislogic
a reply to: RickyD

...
I think it's interleukins in general that he mentions towards the end.

Interleukins are a group of cytokines btw, in case that wasn't clear what I meant earlier with IL-6 being an important component in the cytokine storm. That's the cytokine that causes the most problems. And HCQ can inhibit and modulate the production of these. That's what Dr. Raoult is referring to there at the end.

For those that like to read Low-dose Hydroxychloroquine Therapy and Mortality in Hospitalized Patients with COVID-19: A Nationwide Observational Study of 8075 Participants


For those that like to watch a review by someone.



Seems those that like Evidence Based Medicine i.e. RCT or nothing Failed to properly dose the patients, using known evidence.
They knew before using HCQ its dosing levels and knew the dangers of overdosing yet still overdosed the patients and got the known reactions.
Deliberate failure with disregard for human health or genuine attempt to force the hcq into the lungs??????