• 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, a drug promoted by Trump, failed to prevent healthy people from getting covid-19

Mr Person

Mr Person

A Little Bitter
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Monthly Donator
Joined
Oct 14, 2015
Messages
64,268
Reaction score
62,677
Location
Massachusetts
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
Hydroxychloroquine did not prevent healthy people exposed to covid-19 from getting the disease caused by the coronavirus, according to a study being published Wednesday in the New England Journal of Medicine. The study is the first randomized clinical trial that tested the antimalarial drug, touted by President Trump, as a preventive measure. It showed that hydroxychloroquine was no more effective than a placebo — in this case, a vitamin — in protecting people exposed to covid-19. “As we say in Tennessee, ‘That dog won’t hunt’ — it didn’t work,” said William Schaffner, professor of preventive medicine and infectious diseases at Vanderbilt University Medical Center. Schaffner, who was not involved in the trial, praised it as “rigorously done.”


The results were the latest development on a highly charged medical and political issue — the efficacy of hydroxychloroquine in combating covid-19. President Trump has repeatedly touted the drug as a “game changer” for covid-19, and recently said he took it for several days. But federal regulators have said it should be used only for hospitalized patients or in clinical trials because of possible side effects, including serious heart-rhythm issues.Researchers at the University of Minnesota Medical School launched the trial in mid-March. They enrolled more than 800 adults in the United States and Canada who were exposed to someone with covid-19 because of their jobs as health care workers or first responders, or because they lived with someone with the disease. The study was a randomized placebo-controlled trial, and was double-blinded, meaning neither the participants nor the researchers knew what the participants received. Such a study is considered the gold standard for clinical trials.



[cont].

https://www.washingtonpost.com/health/2020/06/03/hydroxychloroquine-clinical-trial-results/


Yet more evidence that whether or not it is harmful, or how harmful, it is no preventative.
 
Lol every single time an HCQ thread gets filled with studies supporting Trump and his physician’s claims, you guys start a brand new thread thinking it will erase the 20 pages of data in all the other threads.

Seems pretty devious...
 
ReubenSherr said:
Lol every single time an HCQ thread gets filled with studies supporting Trump and his physician’s claims, you guys start a brand new thread thinking it will erase the 20 pages of data in all the other threads.

Seems pretty devious...
Click to expand...

How utterly self-impressed of a post. I pretty much never read the stupid crap you put up around here and I could not care less about a blog about one single person claiming to be a doctor who treated people with it. This article, like the others, are about actual double-blind studies that mean something.

You need to watch less movies. The weird ostracized dude who lives in a shack in the woods is not there because he has found the One Truth and all the scientists are conspiring to stop him from revealing it. He lives there because he collects his urine in jars and enjoys shouting at trees. Take your spam from the weird ostracized dude elsewhere.
 
ReubenSherr said:
Lol every single time an HCQ thread gets filled with studies supporting Trump and his physician’s claims, you guys start a brand new thread thinking it will erase the 20 pages of data in all the other threads
Click to expand...

By all means...drink it, sprinkle it on your food, bathe in it. Spend all of your money on it. At this point, why should anyone spend any effort trying to keep Trump supporters from killing themselves. It's post after post after post about how the hot stove really isn't that hot.

Sure.. retinaltoxicity is a common side effect of normal usage, and cardiotoxicity is a known side effect in otherwise healthy patients, let alone people suffering from a disease that causes blood clots and strokes... . But It's not like Trump supporters are capable of using their eyes or hearts.

FYI... this is 2014

Hydroxychloroquine cardiotoxicity presenting as a rapidly evolving biventricular cardiomyopathy: key diagnostic features and literature review
 
ReubenSherr said:
Lol every single time an HCQ thread gets filled with studies supporting Trump and his physician’s claims, you guys start a brand new thread thinking it will erase the 20 pages of data in all the other threads.
Click to expand...
Or... not.

The last time we went on this merry-go-round, you posted 2 actual (and small) studies that indicated hydroxychloroquine might be beneficial, and a bunch of garbage -- e.g. anecdotes, the discredited French study, and a huge list which turned out to be mostly announcements of new drug trials.

You then failed to acknowledge multiple studies showing major issues with hydroxychloroquine, and insisted that the New England Journal of Medicine was biased because... it's published in New England.

Meanwhile, the studies which show that hydroxychloroquine is ineffective keep piling up. Hmmmm.
 
Mr Person said:
How utterly self-impressed of a post. I pretty much never read the stupid crap you put up around here and I could not care less about a blog about one single person claiming to be a doctor who treated people with it. This article, like the others, are about actual double-blind studies that mean something.

You need to watch less movies.
Click to expand...

Lol how about going through some of the threads that have 10-20 pages of data, instead of spewing out trash like this? ;)

And how about not starting up a new thread on HCQ in order to distract people from the dozens of studies already referenced in the other threads?

Show some intelligence, and actually read the other threads, then we'll talk

Here's an article to start with...
A mysterious company’s coronavirus papers in top medical journals may be unraveling | Science | AAAS
 
Last edited:
Mithros said:
By all means...drink it, sprinkle it on your food, bathe in it. Spend all of your money on it. At this point, why should anyone spend any effort trying to keep Trump supporters from killing themselves. It's post after post after post about how the hot stove really isn't that hot.

Sure.. retinaltoxicity is a common side effect of normal usage, and cardiotoxicity is a known side effect in otherwise healthy patients, let alone people suffering from a disease that causes blood clots and strokes... . But It's not like Trump supporters are capable of using their eyes or hearts.

FYI... this is 2014

Hydroxychloroquine cardiotoxicity presenting as a rapidly evolving biventricular cardiomyopathy: key diagnostic features and literature review
Click to expand...

You are falling right into Mr. Person's trap - There are dozens of studies backing up the use of HCQ early in treatment and as a preventative

At this point, they are discussed in 3-4 other threads in great detail
 
Visbek said:
Meanwhile, the studies which show that hydroxychloroquine is ineffective keep piling up. Hmmmm.
Click to expand...

Again, a poster trying to mislead people into ignoring the 3-4 other threads on this topic;)

I'm sure you know that there are dozens of studies backing up the use of HCQ early in treatment, and as a preventative - I'm sure you're also aware that the Lancet has criticized its study, the NEJM has criticized one of its studies, and the study on Veterans with underlying conditions is irrelevant

A mysterious company’s coronavirus papers in top medical journals may be unraveling | Science | AAAS

I'm guessing that you're purposely playing dumb, so that people won't bother to read the evidence presented in the other threads
 
Last edited:
It's nice to finally get results from a real study. Just to be clear, this study looked only at effects of hydroxychloroquine as a post-exposure preventative, meaning it was typically administered several days after high or medium risk exposure to someone with a confirmed case.

There seem to be numerous limitations. In most cases, they didn't actually test people for Covid-19, they just looked for symptoms. The sample also doesn't generalize to those most at risk of getting Covid-19, consisting primarily of healthcare workers in their 30's and 40's. Look forward to the results of more studies.
 
Visbek said:
Non-paywall: No Evidence Hydroxychloroquine Is Helpful In Preventing COVID-19, Study Finds : Shots - Health News : NPR

Of course, we can't treat one single study as though it's authoritative. However, this is just yet another study which shows little benefit to hydroxychloroquine.

If the remaining trials don't show any benefit, then it seems like we should just... move on.
Click to expand...

Lol another study published in the New England Journal of Medicine - what a surprise

Visbek, you know there are dozens of studies supporting the benefits of early HCQ use, you've been in all the other threads;)
 
ReubenSherr said:
Lol every single time an HCQ thread gets filled with studies supporting Trump and his physician’s claims, you guys start a brand new thread thinking it will erase the 20 pages of data in all the other threads.

Seems pretty devious...
Click to expand...

It's a legitimate RCT. That's the standard for drug trials. There's no need to "erase" any "data" but comparing anecdotal accounts to an RCT isn't a good thing to do if you're actually interested in whether HCQ is more than perhaps marginally effective for some people.

We'll get results from more studies as we go along and then we'll know for sure, or reasonably so.
 
JasperL said:
It's a legitimate RCT. That's the standard for drug trials. There's no need to "erase" any "data" but comparing anecdotal accounts to an RCT isn't a good thing to do if you're actually interested in whether HCQ is more than perhaps marginally effective for some people.

We'll get results from more studies as we go along and then we'll know for sure, or reasonably so.
Click to expand...

See, this is why I'm suspicious of it - same line that was included in the last NEJM study...

The study is the first randomized clinical trial that tested the antimalarial drug, touted by President Trump, as a preventive measure

An unbiased person, conducting a strictly apolitical study, would not type that sentence

Also, there are half a dozen studies leaning the other way, not just anecdotal
 
ReubenSherr said:
See, this is why I'm suspicious of it - same line that was included in the last NEJM study...

The study is the first randomized clinical trial that tested the antimalarial drug, touted by President Trump, as a preventive measure

An unbiased person, conducting a strictly apolitical study, would not type that sentence

Also, there are half a dozen studies leaning the other way, not just anecdotal
Click to expand...

That line was not in the study. Trump is not mentioned anywhere in any context. It's not all about him. Here's a link to the study. Read it first before making up stuff about what it says.

https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa2016638?query=featured_home

Here's a companion article discussing the study. Conclusion:

The results reported by Boulware et al. are more provocative than definitive, suggesting that the potential prevention benefits of hydroxychloroquine remain to be determined.
Click to expand...

So if you want to quote the study or the article, please do, versus bull**** ad hominem attacks based on falsehoods. It will work better for your arguments.
 
Last edited:
JasperL said:
That line was not in the study. Trump is not mentioned anywhere in any context.
Click to expand...

Ehhh...It was the lead in the Washington Post, this is all political, I'm suspicious

Every clinical study that has come out opposing the use of HCQ (except for the Veterans Study) has come from the New England Journal Of Medicine

Remember, the New England Journal of Medicine published this in 2017:

https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMms1702111

"The presidential candidacy of Donald Trump appeared to bring further to the surface preexisting hostile attitudes toward racial and ethnic minorities, immigrants, and Muslims."

More importantly to your post, there are a slew of clinical observational studies supporting evidence that HCQ is effective if used early in treatment - not just anecdotal studies
 
Last edited:
ReubenSherr said:
Ehhh...It was the lead in the Washington Post, this is all political, I'm suspicious
Click to expand...

So you lied about the study containing those words, and when you are caught, say it doesn't matter because the WaPo that reported on the study said "Trump" followed by a true statement, but no matter what a third party says about the study, it doesn't impact the study results at all, zero, none, nada, it's a distraction, a red herring, a way for you to use ad hominem attacks to dismiss the results.

I don't really care what else follows. You haven't read the study, and haven't cited it, or the article accompanying it, so you're not really interested in the evidence. That's clear.
 
JasperL said:
So you lied about the study containing those words, and when you are caught, say it doesn't matter because the WaPo that reported on the study said "Trump" followed by a true statement, but no matter what a third party says about the study, it doesn't impact the study results at all, zero, none, nada, it's a distraction, a red herring, a way for you to use ad hominem attacks to dismiss the results.

I don't really care what else follows. You haven't read the study, and haven't cited it, or the article accompanying it, so you're not really interested in the evidence. That's clear.
Click to expand...

Post #14 was so articulate, man - how could you devolve yourself into this?
 
ReubenSherr said:
Post #14 was so articulate, man - how could you devolve yourself into this?
Click to expand...

If you want to discuss the study, I'm game with that. Read it for the first time, tell us why you aren't impressed. Taylor on this thread started it off, the article I cited went further. Those are legitimate avenues of discussion.

What's useless is entertaining your nonsense red herrings and ad hominem attacks on the study and the NEJM.
 
Mr Person said:
Hydroxychloroquine did not prevent healthy people exposed to covid-19 from getting the disease caused by the coronavirus, according to a study being published Wednesday in the New England Journal of Medicine. The study is the first randomized clinical trial that tested the antimalarial drug, touted by President Trump, as a preventive measure. It showed that hydroxychloroquine was no more effective than a placebo — in this case, a vitamin — in protecting people exposed to covid-19. “As we say in Tennessee, ‘That dog won’t hunt’ — it didn’t work,” said William Schaffner, professor of preventive medicine and infectious diseases at Vanderbilt University Medical Center. Schaffner, who was not involved in the trial, praised it as “rigorously done.”


The results were the latest development on a highly charged medical and political issue — the efficacy of hydroxychloroquine in combating covid-19. President Trump has repeatedly touted the drug as a “game changer” for covid-19, and recently said he took it for several days. But federal regulators have said it should be used only for hospitalized patients or in clinical trials because of possible side effects, including serious heart-rhythm issues.Researchers at the University of Minnesota Medical School launched the trial in mid-March. They enrolled more than 800 adults in the United States and Canada who were exposed to someone with covid-19 because of their jobs as health care workers or first responders, or because they lived with someone with the disease. The study was a randomized placebo-controlled trial, and was double-blinded, meaning neither the participants nor the researchers knew what the participants received. Such a study is considered the gold standard for clinical trials.

[cont].

https://www.washingtonpost.com/health/2020/06/03/hydroxychloroquine-clinical-trial-results/


Yet more evidence that whether or not it is harmful, or how harmful, it is no preventative.
Click to expand...

I gotta love the desperation of partisans and the money that can be made by selling new expensive drugs instead of a super cheap one that is out of patent. This study, just like most of these negative studies, is horribly flawed. It was never claimed to prevent it. It was only claimed that it, along with some other treatments, helps reduce the chances of developing serious symptoms if you get it, so long as you treat it early.

The flaw that the other studies have made was they used the treatment on patients that were extremely ill or on respirators already. It's not for that either.
 
JasperL said:
If you want to discuss the study, I'm game with that. Read it for the first time, tell us why you aren't impressed.
Click to expand...

The slew of clinical and observational studies that support the use of HCQ in treating COVID all involve using HCQ in early stages of the disease (which is what I posted lol) - This study only involves using it as a preventative

The NEJM has now put out three studies - two study only patients in severe stages of the illness, one studies patients who haven't become sick yet

This makes me even more suspicious of the other two studies:

She says hydroxychloroquine can have serious side effects, although the side effects reported in this study were relatively mild.

The ENTIRE LINE OF CRITICISM, calling Trump crazy and reckless, has centered around the fact that HCQ is "DANGEROUS", and, what do you know, out of 800+ people, there were NO DANGEROUS SIDE EFFECTS
 
Last edited:
No matter the subject, if Trump says something, the same chorus of screechers is going to spend themselves into debt to prove him wrong.

So much negative energy. Gypsy, sell me your tears or I will take them from you.
 
JasperL said:
If you want to discuss the study, I'm game with that. Read it for the first time, tell us why you aren't impressed.
Click to expand...

They only studied patients who had ALREADY BEEN EXPOSED TO THE DISEASE

Trump and his physician are advocating taking it as a preventative BEFORE YOU ARE EXPOSED TO THE DISEASE

In addition, out of 821 participants in the study, there were NO SERIOUS SIDE EFFECTS OF THE MEDICATION, which has been the running leftist narrative now for months - Trump is endangering the safety of the public:roll:

And, just to repeat, the NEJM has now published three studies, two only on severe cases, and one only on people who weren't sick yet - They seem to be avoiding publishing a study on PATIENTS WHO ARE IN EARLY STAGES OF THE ILLNESS, which is when most of the research indicates that HCQ is most effective
 
Last edited:
ReubenSherr said:
Lol another study published in the New England Journal of Medicine - what a surprise

Visbek, you know there are dozens of studies supporting the benefits of early HCQ use, you've been in all the other threads;)
Click to expand...

What are these "dozens of studies"? Were they carried out using established clinical trial protocols? Have they been randomised, double-blinded, peer reviewed? What was the size of the trial cohort? Do you actually know?
The NEJM, along with The Lancet, are two of the most prestigious and universally respected medical journals, but I expect you know better. I guess you must do otherwise you wouldn't be scoffing.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom