HCQ studies

[year2late]

There are upwards of 30 observational studies supporting HCQ. What source do you have indicating that they are all flawed?

It sounds like you're referring to someone, probably Fauci lol, who stated that all observational studies are flawed, because they are not double blind.

We have been over this.

The studies have to be appropriate too weed out inaccurate results.

The studies that I remember you posting before - most hydroxychloroquine recipients were also receiving steroids. We already know steroids can help Which was it?

I think I gave you this example before:

You get strep throat. On same say you start taking vitamin c and penicillin. Next day you feel much better. Which do you think helped the strep. Would you proclaim vitamin c as definitely helpful?

I am not saying hydroxychloroquine does not help. I am saying the studies that "prove" that it works are flawed in terms of showing "proof"

Another example, a lawmaker proclaimed that she was very ill and felt much better the next day after taking the drug.. She had an underlying condition of chronic lyme disease (which can affect many organ systems) in which hydroxychloroquine can help. It is common in medicine that treating an underlying condition can drastically improve the acute condition. Did hydroxychloroquine directly attack covid? I don't know. But using her case anecdotally would be difficult because she had a serious underlying health condition that could be improved by hydroxychloroquine.

The studies need to be controlled properly.

We had a poster talk about either her or her friend and family taking hydroxychloroquine and either not having symptoms or only mild symptoms. When I asked, they were all in an age and health group that would likely never see serious illness. But the poster was sure it was the reason.

Anecdotal information needs to be placed in the proper context.

 

[bubbabgone]

What I did "get" was that the bulk of the studies (and the overwhelming bulk of the properly conducted ones) indicated that Hydroxychloroquine had next to no THERAPEUTIC or PREVENTIVE effect on COVID-19 whatsoever AND that the negative effects of Hydroxychloroquine were greater than any PALLIATIVE effects which it might have.

How much the "Observer Effect" had on the studies which did produce positive results with respect to Hydroxychloroquine had, I do not know.

However I do know that one of the major correlations between "stimulus" and "healing" is the BELIEF that the "stimulus" will cause "healing".

What appears to be the operative situation right now is that some people are so panicked by COVID-19 that they will believe anything that sounds even remotely like it might defuse the effects of COVID-19 RIGHT NOW_!!_ (and make it "magically" vanish [the way that Mr. Trump said it was going to]).

On a related note, what would your position be (assuming that the Russian vaccine ["Scientists uneasy as Russia approves 1st coronavirus vaccine" - from Associated Press] proves out) if Russia were to offer the vaccine to the United States of America in return for cash (or cash equivalent) in the amount of $5,000 per person (up front) PLUS the return of Alaska (the inflation adjusted original purchase price could be deducted from the $1,656,070,050,000 [which is less than the US government is spending on "COVID-19 relief"] purchase cost of the vaccine)?

The studies in the OP and the physicians who prescribe HCQ to their patients at an early stage indicate that it works for them. It's meant to act on the symptoms so they don't get worse.
Read about the studies in the OP.
HCQ is not ideal for late stage hospitalized patients.
Those are your "bulk of the studies".
How could you not understand the difference.
You should ask yourself why they would ever be described as proving no therapeutic or preventive effect of HCQ at all when the infection stage of patients was beyond when HCQ would have the most effect.
The answer is that you're being played to advance a political narrative and you appear eager to play.

 

[bubbabgone]

Did you know that every study of every disease has shown that "the people that got enrolled within one or two days of exposure did better than the people that did three or four days later" and that was REGARDLESS of what treatment modality was used?

What do you think that means?

The comment in context was ...
"Note that author's comments also differ from the published conclusion, for example Dr. Lewis notes: "I personally spoke to Boulware about this study. He points out its many flaws. He also points out that day 1-3 use had statistical significance and he’s gearing his other studies accordingly. He intends to investigate this significance further." (https://twitter.com/lewistlc/status/1280293210858946567), and in the OFID podcast Dr. Boulware has said: "There’s probably two reasons – one is either it just doesn’t work, or the other option is we just didn’t get it to them quick enough. So if you read the tea leaves and look at the subgroup analyses, the people that got enrolled within one or two days of exposure did better than the people that did three or four days later."
We don't know how many people will get COVID-19 in the future, but based on deaths to date, a treatment which is x% effective could have saved:

17% effective could have saved 126,112 lives.
30% effective could have saved 222,551 lives.
49% effective could have saved 363,500 lives."

Why didn't you provide the entire quote?

 

[Threegoofs]

What do you think that means?

The comment in context was ...
"Note that author's comments also differ from the published conclusion, for example Dr. Lewis notes: "I personally spoke to Boulware about this study. He points out its many flaws. He also points out that day 1-3 use had statistical significance and he’s gearing his other studies accordingly. He intends to investigate this significance further." (https://twitter.com/lewistlc/status/1280293210858946567), and in the OFID podcast Dr. Boulware has said: "There’s probably two reasons – one is either it just doesn’t work, or the other option is we just didn’t get it to them quick enough. So if you read the tea leaves and look at the subgroup analyses, the people that got enrolled within one or two days of exposure did better than the people that did three or four days later."
We don't know how many people will get COVID-19 in the future, but based on deaths to date, a treatment which is x% effective could have saved:

17% effective could have saved 126,112 lives.
30% effective could have saved 222,551 lives.
49% effective could have saved 363,500 lives."

Why didn't you provide the entire quote?

Still dont know what a post hoc analysis is and how incredibly weak it is, huh?

 

[ReubenSherr]

The studies that I remember you posting before - most hydroxychloroquine recipients were also receiving steroids. We already know steroids can help Which was it?

I think I gave you this example before:

You get strep throat. On same say you start taking vitamin c and penicillin. Next day you feel much better. Which do you think helped the strep. Would you proclaim vitamin c as definitely helpful?

I am not saying hydroxychloroquine does not help. I am saying the studies that "prove" that it works are flawed in terms of showing "proof"

Another example, a lawmaker proclaimed that she was very ill and felt much better the next day after taking the drug.. She had an underlying condition of chronic lyme disease (which can affect many organ systems) in which hydroxychloroquine can help. It is common in medicine that treating an underlying condition can drastically improve the acute condition. Did hydroxychloroquine directly attack covid? I don't know. But using her case anecdotally would be difficult because she had a serious underlying health condition that could be improved by hydroxychloroquine.

The studies need to be controlled properly.

We had a poster talk about either her or her friend and family taking hydroxychloroquine and either not having symptoms or only mild symptoms. When I asked, they were all in an age and health group that would likely never see serious illness. But the poster was sure it was the reason.

Anecdotal information needs to be placed in the proper context.

It's ambigous whether you are criticizing all observational studies, or just the ones where HCQ was given with other medications. Most observational studies involve patients being given HCQ alone, there are nearly 30 studies like this.

You do understand that observational studies are a valid form of research. Scientists are conducting them. If you are seriously questioning the legitimacy of any observational study, now you are the one who is questioning science.

You described several issues that might corrupt observational studies. You do understand that there are also issues that might corrupt RCTs. The pharmaceutical industry hardly has a clean record. And with RCTs, everything is being done behind closed doors.

Physicians have been studying all this their entire lives. They are the experts, especially when it comes to the specific needs of their patients.

RCTs control the pharmaceutical industry, that's a given. But liberals seem to be making an assumption that people in the pharmaceutical industry have more expertise regarding medications than physicians.

Which is why the FDA commissioner is leaving the choice to personal physicians. They are the experts. And they are perfectly capable of looking at all the studies, both observational and RCTs, and making the decision themselves.

 

[iguanaman]

Chew on this for a bit. Put this in your pipe, smoke it, and offer some honest and rational comments. Thanks in advance.

Chloroquine is a potent inhibitor of SARS coronavirus infection and spread

And so it turns out, Anthony's very own CDC acknowledged many years ago formally that HCQ has good efficacy against SARS virus and others. Read it and weep dude.

Anthony is a lying terrorist and YOU have fallen for it. You and half or less of the US public.

LOL Why would Fauci lie about this? He has no reason. Not to mention that the article is about a totally different virus. The testing that was done with Covid 19 show that it does not work on it. The idea that there is a huge conspiracy because of Trump is insane. Trump is an idiot but that would never stop a drug that actually demonstrated that it worked.

 

[iguanaman]

It's ambigous whether you are criticizing all observational studies, or just the ones where HCQ was given with other medications. Most observational studies involve patients being given HCQ alone, there are nearly 30 studies like this.

You do understand that observational studies are a valid form of research. Scientists are conducting them. If you are seriously questioning the legitimacy of any observational study, now you are the one who is questioning science.

You described several issues that might corrupt observational studies. You do understand that there are also issues that might corrupt RCTs. The pharmaceutical industry hardly has a clean record. And with RCTs, everything is being done behind closed doors.

Physicians have been studying all this their entire lives. They are the experts, especially when it comes to the specific needs of their patients.

RCTs control the pharmaceutical industry, that's a given. But liberals seem to be making an assumption that people in the pharmaceutical industry have more expertise regarding medications than physicians.

Which is why the FDA commissioner is leaving the choice to personal physicians. They are the experts. And they are perfectly capable of looking at all the studies, both observational and RCTs, and making the decision themselves.

The FDA said that the drug was dangerous and killed people who took it while showing no real effect on the virus or disease progression. That is not any sort of recommendation that a reputable physician would take lightly.

 

[ReubenSherr]

The FDA said that the drug was dangerous and killed people who took it while showing no real effect on the virus or disease progression. That is not any sort of recommendation that a reputable physician would take lightly.

The FDA commissioner encouraged personal physicians to make the choice themselves.

The FDA DID NOT say that the drug "was dangerous and killed people." If this was true, Hahn would not have made that statement.

 

[iguanaman]

The FDA commissioner encouraged personal physicians to make the choice themselves.

The FDA DID NOT say that the drug "was dangerous and killed people." If this was true, Hahn would not have made that statement.

The agency determined that the legal criteria for issuing an EUA are no longer met. Based on its ongoing analysis of the EUA and emerging scientific data, the FDA determined that chloroquine and hydroxychloroquine are unlikely to be effective in treating COVID-19 for the authorized uses in the EUA. Additionally, in light of ongoing serious cardiac adverse events and other potential serious side effects, the known and potential benefits of chloroquine and hydroxychloroquine no longer outweigh the known and potential risks for the authorized use

Coronavirus (COVID-19) Update: FDA Revokes Emergency Use Authorization for Chloroquine and Hydroxychloroquine | FDA

For the laymen "in light of ongoing serious cardiac adverse events" means it killed people.

 

[ReubenSherr]

Coronavirus (COVID-19) Update: FDA Revokes Emergency Use Authorization for Chloroquine and Hydroxychloroquine | FDA

For the laymen "in light of ongoing serious cardiac adverse events" means it killed people.

This is a far cry from stating that HCQ killed people...

"Additionally, in light of ongoing serious cardiac adverse events and other potential serious side effects, the known and potential benefits of chloroquine and hydroxychloroquine no longer outweigh the known and potential risks for the authorized use."

Seems like a legal disclaimer to me. A select few people, out of thousands, experienced cardiac side effects.

Bottom line, Hahn recommends the choice be left to physicians. If he thought HCQ killed people, he would never have made that statement.

 

[iguanaman]

This is a far cry from stating that HCQ killed people...

"Additionally, in light of ongoing serious cardiac adverse events and other potential serious side effects, the known and potential benefits of chloroquine and hydroxychloroquine no longer outweigh the known and potential risks for the authorized use."

Seems like a legal disclaimer to me. A select few people, out of thousands, experienced cardiac side effects.

Bottom line, Hahn recommends the choice be left to physicians. If he thought HCQ killed people, he would never have made that statement.

More people died who took it than those that did not. That was the reason for withdrawing approval. That is not a good result was it? Not only did it show no benefits it caused harm.

 

[year2late]

It's ambigous whether you are criticizing all observational studies, or just the ones where HCQ was given with other medications. Most observational studies involve patients being given HCQ alone, there are nearly 30 studies like this.

You do understand that observational studies are a valid form of research. Scientists are conducting them. If you are seriously questioning the legitimacy of any observational study, now you are the one who is questioning science.

You described several issues that might corrupt observational studies. You do understand that there are also issues that might corrupt RCTs. The pharmaceutical industry hardly has a clean record. And with RCTs, everything is being done behind closed doors.

Physicians have been studying all this their entire lives. They are the experts, especially when it comes to the specific needs of their patients.

RCTs control the pharmaceutical industry, that's a given. But liberals seem to be making an assumption that people in the pharmaceutical industry have more expertise regarding medications than physicians.

Which is why the FDA commissioner is leaving the choice to personal physicians. They are the experts. And they are perfectly capable of looking at all the studies, both observational and RCTs, and making the decision themselves.

The studies you presented before had a large percentage of the patients being given steroids,

Can you point me to a study that was done properly where enrollees had no steroids given. There should be clear indication of lack of steroid use. Thanks.

Again, I am not saying it does not work. There just are no properly run trials that I have seen that point to the clear positive effect of the hydroxychloroquine.

 

[ReubenSherr]

More people died who took it than those that did not.

Iguanaman, this is an absolute lie.

Thousands of patients in both RCTs and Observational Studies took HCQ, a very small percentage died, evenly dispersed between control and experimental groups.

 

[year2late]

The FDA said that the drug was dangerous and killed people who took it while showing no real effect on the virus or disease progression. That is not any sort of recommendation that a reputable physician would take lightly.

My guess (and it is only a guess) the people who died were already seriously ill and had serious electrolyte abnormalities (which can be ever changing and replaced regularly)or other major heart/metabolic issues on top of the prolonged QT that likely caused the lethal arrhythmias I have no doubt that hydroxychloroquine could tip them over the edge. But there are multiple drugs that can do that.

 

[ReubenSherr]

Can you point me to a study that was done properly where enrollees had no steroids given. There should be clear indication of lack of steroid use. Thanks.

There are a slew of them linked on the website...

COVID-19 Treatment - Analysis of 70 global studies showing high effectiveness for early treatment

The first ones I came across were the studies dated 7/24, 7/3, 7/1, 6/17, and 6/9.

The summary of the study dated 7/3 clearly states that HCQ showed benefits, independent of the effect of steroids.

 

[year2late]

There are a slew of them linked on the website...

The first ones I came across were the studies dated 7/24, 7/3, 7/1, 6/17, and 6/9.

One summary clearly states that HCQ showed benefits, independent of the effect of steroids.

Link the one that is clear that it was a properly run study that was independent of steroids that clearly showed benefits. Thanks

 

[ReubenSherr]

Link the one that is clear that it was a properly run study that was independent of steroids that clearly showed benefits. Thanks

I need you to look at all five, because you're being ambiguous about what consistutes a "properly run study."

We have liberals trying to argue that the only properly run studies are RCTs.

 

[Threegoofs]

Iguanaman, this is an absolute lie.

Thousands of patients in both RCTs and Observational Studies took HCQ, a very small percentage died, evenly dispersed between control and experimental groups.

You did a meta analysis of the trials?

Surprising since you don’t seem to be aware of most of them and certainly haven’t read any.

The best two trials from the UK and Spain clearly showed trends in worsening mortality.

This isn’t surprising for a drug that doesn’t work at all and can have severe affects on QT intervals in patients.

 

[Threegoofs]

I need you to look at all five, because you're being ambiguous about what consistutes a "properly run study."

We have liberals trying to argue that the only properly run studies are RCTs.

No, you have professionals telling you this.

I realize these days that ‘educated’ seems to be synonymous with ‘liberal’ tho.

 

[year2late]

There are a slew of them linked on the website...

COVID-19 Treatment - Analysis of 70 global studies showing high effectiveness for early treatment

The first ones I came across were the studies dated 7/24, 7/3, 7/1, 6/17, and 6/9.

The summary of the study dated 7/3 clearly states that HCQ showed benefits, independent of the effect of steroids.

Here is the study you speak of.

COVID-19 Outpatients – Early Risk-Stratified Treatment with Zinc Plus Low Dose Hydroxychloroquine and Azithromycin: A Retrospective Case Series Study[v1] | Preprints

Did you see the small sample size? And of that small sample they excluded quite a few.

They left out alot of information and it is not clear if the ones included in the study would likely survive anyway.

 

[RAMOSS]

There are upwards of 30 observational studies supporting HCQ. What source do you have indicating that they are all flawed?

It sounds like you're referring to someone, probably Fauci lol, who stated that all observational studies are flawed, because they are not double blind.

Oh. So, you don't seem to wish to review any specific study in detail. That is not surprising to me.

 

[Thoreau72]

and you are wrong again. How many times do I have to tell you I look at a variety of sources. One of the is VT as well as some of the others you use. Thanks for the link even if it is for something from VT.

I will use one of your statements (paraphrased). "Why would you believe the words of a known liar". Gordon Duff has admitted that much of what he writes is false.
Besides T, you pretty much in other threads dismiss any information from Universities because you claim they are just mouth pieces of the Government. So why believe the information from UNC? We all know the Government lies all the time.:mrgreen:

Have you read these?
Scientists: 'Exactly zero' evidence COVID-19 came from a lab | CIDRAP

The coronavirus was not engineered in a lab. Here's how we know. | Live Science

If the mainstream media were as honest as VT things would be much better.

Shoot the messenger, but never discuss the message.

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

The studies in the OP and the physicians who prescribe HCQ to their patients at an early stage indicate that it works for them. It's meant to act on the symptoms so they don't get worse.

The studies in the OP were carefully selected so to NOT include the majority of the studies. That majority of the studies showed the exact opposite of what the cherry-picked studies showed.

You would likely benefit from viewing "COVID-19 Treatments August Update: Can Hydroxychloroquine Be Used? What Are The Recommendations For Prioritizing Limited Supplies of Remdesivir? How To Use Corticosteroids and When?" (from VuMedi)

How you obtain access to that professional video is up to you.

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

What do you think that means?

It means that the sooner any treatment modality is implemented the more likely it is that the treatment modality will show positive results.

Why?

Because the disease has had less of a chance to become firmly established and the patient's own belief that the treatment modality will work has an easier target to work on.

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

If the mainstream media were as honest as VT things would be much better.

Shoot the messenger, but never discuss the message.

VT's "journalism standards" are slightly lower than those of WWN.