• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Hydroxychloroquine. It’s over.

ReubenSherr said:
What post are you referring to where you think I'm posing as a medical expert?
Click to expand...

I am responding to that someone was holding up an opinion piece by a middle school teacher as if it meant something.
 
RAMOSS said:
I am responding to that someone was holding up an opinion piece by a middle school teacher as if it meant something.
Click to expand...

Are you referring to the fact that I taught middle school for two years, or someone else?
 
Last edited:
Threegoofs said:
Tony Heller is a substitute middleschool teacher that writes a denier blog.


It’s not all about you...
Click to expand...

Sorry Threegoofs and Ramoss, I just messed up the last two pages of this thead

Threegoofs was accusing me of being a "substitute middle school teacher" in another thread, just for the record

My bad :mrgreen:
 
‘
Threegoofs said:
There’s a paper out in Lancet today that will probably kill the whole idea of HCQ or chloroquine utility in COVID. It’s observational, but do suggestive of harm that it needs to be taken seriously.

90,000+ COVID patients in hundreds of hospitals worldwide with 15000 getting HCQ or chloroquine.

Results show a substantial INCREASE in mortality, and a quadrupling of ventricular arrhythmias.

This may lead to clinical trials being stopped. It’s also going to be unethical to give this in an outpatient setting with toxicity like that.


Good write up here.

Hydroxychloroquine: Enough Already? | In the Pipeline

e1a206280d3c181192ef94b53eb80608.jpg

6202c9f2fe973e81927d031344d8e7cd.jpg
Click to expand...

Looks like they are taking another look at the drug.

WHO resumes hydroxychloroquine study for Covid-19
 
The thread title sure didn't age well.
 
[h=2]Huge Lancet study that was used to stop HCQ trials has been retracted[/h]
We discussed the inadequacies of the large Lancet study of hydroxychloroquine supposed used on 96,000 Covid patients from 671 hospitals. It was largely useless because it ignored zinc, wasn’t randomized and was mainly used on people who were already very ill, with a terrible 12% death rate. But it is far worse than that and has now been retracted. The number of deaths listed in Australia was higher than the official Australian tally on April 21. The number of Covid cases in Turkey was 80 times higher than official numbers.
All over the world the study spooked doctors and governments (with WHO help) into stopping the use of HCQ in their large trial across in 17 countries .That trial has since been restarted.
The authors have now retracted the paper after Surgisphere refused to transfer the full dataset “due to confidentiality”.
The Guardian investigated the company that came out of nowhere with this enormous dataset which was used in both The Lancet paper and a New England Medical Journal paper. It turned out to be small, with a handful of employees and that include a science fiction writer, an adult content model, and few scientific qualifications. When The Guardian contacted the Australian hospitals that were supposedly included, they denied any role in the database. The firms CEO, Sepan Desai was listed as a co-author. When asked how the company accumulated so much data so quickly, Desai said it was with AI and machine learning.
But look how obviously dodgy this data was. After the Lancet study swept through the media like a breaking wave, will the media now work as hard to undo that news? . . . .
 
Jack Hays said:
[h=2]Huge Lancet study that was used to stop HCQ trials has been retracted[/h]
We discussed the inadequacies of the large Lancet study of hydroxychloroquine supposed used on 96,000 Covid patients from 671 hospitals. It was largely useless because it ignored zinc, wasn’t randomized and was mainly used on people who were already very ill, with a terrible 12% death rate. But it is far worse than that and has now been retracted. The number of deaths listed in Australia was higher than the official Australian tally on April 21. The number of Covid cases in Turkey was 80 times higher than official numbers.
All over the world the study spooked doctors and governments (with WHO help) into stopping the use of HCQ in their large trial across in 17 countries .That trial has since been restarted.
The authors have now retracted the paper after Surgisphere refused to transfer the full dataset “due to confidentiality”.
The Guardian investigated the company that came out of nowhere with this enormous dataset which was used in both The Lancet paper and a New England Medical Journal paper. It turned out to be small, with a handful of employees and that include a science fiction writer, an adult content model, and few scientific qualifications. When The Guardian contacted the Australian hospitals that were supposedly included, they denied any role in the database. The firms CEO, Sepan Desai was listed as a co-author. When asked how the company accumulated so much data so quickly, Desai said it was with AI and machine learning.
But look how obviously dodgy this data was. After the Lancet study swept through the media like a breaking wave, will the media now work as hard to undo that news? . . . .
Click to expand...
Perhaps it is also worth asking "Why" was it so important for a study to come out when it did, to discourage trials of a drug,
that could potentially lessen the severity of covid-19?
 
longview said:
Perhaps it is also worth asking "Why" was it so important for a study to come out when it did, to discourage trials of a drug,
that could potentially lessen the severity of covid-19?
Click to expand...

Politicized research.
 
It's a shame that so many people read so much into a single study.
 
Jack Hays said:
Politicized research.
Click to expand...
I agree, but what is the political advantage? Just to make Trump look bad, that is thin for something that could have global implications.
 
Jack Hays said:
Politicized research.
Click to expand...

LOL.

This from the guy who says everyone ELSE is treating this politically.

It’s apparently a guy with a company who wanted to make a big splash.

He certainly did.

But if he doesn’t produce the actual data, or find a way to defend it, which looks like it won’t happen, he’s merely trashed his company and brought down a couple Harvard researchers who believed it.
 
Taylor said:
It's a shame that so many people read so much into a single study.
Click to expand...

Not at all.

If that data was real- and we still don’t know if it is- it’s a pretty strong signal that the risk benefit in COVID isn’t there.

The observational framework done here is common and useful. The data put into it looks fraudulent. That’s not normal, and that will literally ruin the academic careers of all associated, including the Lancet editor.
 
In case the Cult of Dirtbag are whooping it up about the retraction of The Lancet article it's essential to make it known that that was just one study of many done on HCQ. One study's result from Oxford University was released just today again showing no benefit from HCQ treatment in covid-19 patients.

New study likely closes door on use of hydroxychloroquine for Covid-19

Here's the Wiki page listing many more such studies:
multiple studies show no benefit for hydroxychloroquine - Google Search
 
digitusmedius said:
In case the Cult of Dirtbag are whooping it up about the retraction of The Lancet article it's essential to make it known that that was just one study of many done on HCQ. One study's result from Oxford University was released just today again showing no benefit from HCQ treatment in covid-19 patients.

New study likely closes door on use of hydroxychloroquine for Covid-19

Here's the Wiki page listing many more such studies:
multiple studies show no benefit for hydroxychloroquine - Google Search
Click to expand...

The data isnt published -just the press release.

But if the data is what it says - and its a pretty legit study group - this basically shows its not very effective in hospitalized patients. The UMN study - while not nearly as definitive - showed it was ineffective and not well tolerated in prophylaxis.

The window where it might work is now a lot narrower, and I’d expect the true believers to whine about zinc supplementation and a Zithromax use and fake political issues.

It’s not looking good, and if it does have any benefit, its going to be modest, I think thats pretty clear by now.

So.... its pretty much over.
 
Threegoofs said:
LOL.

This from the guy who says everyone ELSE is treating this politically.

It’s apparently a guy with a company who wanted to make a big splash.

He certainly did.

But if he doesn’t produce the actual data, or find a way to defend it, which looks like it won’t happen, he’s merely trashed his company and brought down a couple Harvard researchers who believed it.
Click to expand...

On the contrary, I do not claim everyone else is treating it politically.
 
ReubenSherr said:
:roll:

There are more clinical and observational studies promoting HCQ than there are studies finding faults with it

Liberal media refers to the same few faulty studies over and over so many times that the anti-HCQ studies end up first in the search engines
Click to expand...

The quality data is the data that tend to show it’s ineffective.

You don’t know this, because, again, you don’t know what you’re talking about.
 
Threegoofs said:
The quality data is the data that tend to show it’s ineffective.

You don’t know this, because, again, you don’t know what you’re talking about.
Click to expand...

Says the guy whose OP touted the now retracted Lancet paper.:roll:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom