HCQ studies

[bubbabgone]

You might want to compare that article with

"Timeline: Tracking Trump alongside scientific developments on hydroxychloroquine" (from ABC News)

You might also want to explain why your reference just happened to exclude over 75 other studies (you know, the ones that said that Hydroxychloroquine was both ineffectual and dangerous).

Read #90 and then revisit your 75.

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

Read #90 ...

I already did.

...and then revisit your 75.

Post 75 was not one of mine.

Now, would you like to explain why your reference just happened to exclude over 75 other studies (you know, the ones that said that Hydroxychloroquine was both ineffectual and dangerous), or would you prefer to continue to attempt to deflect and ignore reality?

 

[bluesmoke]

"the further study"? "final study"?
Do you think there's something you can call "the further study" or the "final study"? As though there's a definitive "further study" or "final study"?
There isn't.
The studies in the OP are significant because they reinforce the likely effectiveness as a treatment for early HCQ infections and as a prophylaxis, which is how HCQ has been considered, and used by physicians, from the beginning. Those physicians insist it's effective for their patients.
You should re-review that "further" & "final" study source material (making sure you ignore any material that has since been withdrawn) and be aware of the condition of participants in the study.
If you don't recognize that distinction in the study, then you're being misled. Probably on purpose. But maybe you don't care.

I suppose there is no such thing as "final study".

The OP provided study after which further study, not mentioned in the OP, did not prove HCQ effective, period. The scientific community concludes there is no proof HCQ is effective.

Keep in mind, HCQ trial was never approved by the FDA for purpose of cure or vaccine, but only as therapy to help alleviate condition.

RW idiots have blown this thing all out of proportion. Y'all talk about COVID being a hoax...

 

[bubbabgone]

I already did.



Post 75 was not one of mine.

Now, would you like to explain why your reference just happened to exclude over 75 other studies (you know, the ones that said that Hydroxychloroquine was both ineffectual and dangerous), or would you prefer to continue to attempt to deflect and ignore reality?

I meant revisit those 75 studies you referenced to see what demographic group(s) participated.
I'm not deflecting. I'm trying to get you to realize that what I posted were the results of studies of the effect of HCQ on early cases or as a prophylaxis.
HCQ is not known to be effective for advanced stage of COVID infection.
Didn't you get that?

 

[bubbabgone]

I suppose there is no such thing as "final study".

The OP provided study after which further study, not mentioned in the OP, did not prove HCQ effective, period. The scientific community concludes there is no proof HCQ is effective.

Keep in mind, HCQ trial was never approved by the FDA for purpose of cure or vaccine, but only as therapy to help alleviate condition.

RW idiots have blown this thing all out of proportion. Y'all talk about COVID being a hoax...

HCQ is a therapy currently used by many physicians worldwide as a treatment for their early COVID infected patients.
I can't tell if you actually still don't get it or you just can't bring yourself to admit it for political reasons.

If you're still confused take a look at comment #46 and especially the sentence "the people that got enrolled within one or two days of exposure did better than the people that did three or four days later." that came from a NOTE about one of the studies that appeared to have reported a result that conflicted with the data. Boulware et al., NEJM, June 3 2020, doi:10.1056/NEJMoa2016638 (Peer Reviewed)

 

[RAMOSS]

Funny how the truth keeps rearing its ugly head, eh? :lol:

How are a list of discredited studies 'truth'?

 

[Threegoofs]

HCQ is a therapy currently used by many physicians worldwide as a treatment for their early COVID infected patients.
I can't tell if you actually still don't get it or you just can't bring yourself to admit it for political reasons.

If you're still confused take a look at comment #46 and especially the sentence "the people that got enrolled within one or two days of exposure did better than the people that did three or four days later." that came from a NOTE about one of the studies that appeared to have reported a result that conflicted with the data. Boulware et al., NEJM, June 3 2020, doi:10.1056/NEJMoa2016638 (Peer Reviewed)

Bubba with the post hoc analysis!

Too bad he does t know what that means, or implies.

 

[ReubenSherr]

How are a list of discredited studies 'truth'?

There are 66 studies listed, only one had any kind of discrepancy with the original findings.

HCQ has had some successes, some failures. But not a lot of credible evidence that it is dangerous.

As Hahn put it, simply let personal physicians make the choice along with their patients.

The technocrats are not taking into consideration the number of Americans who have died as a result of receiving no effective medication whatsoever.

 

[Slavister]

There are 66 studies listed, only one had any kind of discrepancy with the original findings.

HCQ has had some successes, some failures. But not a lot of credible evidence that it is dangerous.

As Hahn put it, simply let personal physicians make the choice along with their patients.

The technocrats are not taking into consideration the number of Americans who have died as a result of receiving no effective medication whatsoever.

We've been over this in another thread.

Randomized Control Trials (RCTs) are the gold standard. Rest of studies are there only to suggest that RCTs are needed to see if HCQ is any good.

These studies you keep quoting showed that RCTs should be done. Guess what. They WERE DONE. The results have been in for a while now.

There are 4 RCTs that show HCQ provides NO benefit (but of course has extra side effects)

Show us any RCTs that suggest HCQ has benefits.

So far the score is 4 - 0.

 

[ReubenSherr]

We've been over this in another thread.

Randomized Control Trials (RCTs) are the gold standard. Rest of studies are there only to suggest that RCTs are needed to see if HCQ is any good.

These studies you keep quoting showed that RCTs should be done. Guess what. They WERE DONE. The results have been in for a while now.

There are 4 RCTs that show HCQ provides NO benefit (but of course has extra side effects)

Show us any RCTs that suggest HCQ has benefits.

So far the score is 4 - 0.

Slavister, I’m not going over this RCTs are the Gold Standard BS again. Liberals don’t get to decide their own gold standard.

There are two RCTs in support of HCQ, we’ve been through this already. And several RCTs you have cited that have been criticized.

Why are you SO opposed to physicians, who have studied this all their lives, making the professional decision themselves?

I can think of one reason.

And it is extremely disturbing.

 

[Slavister]

There are two RCTs in support of HCQ, we’ve been through this already. And several RCTs you have cited that have been criticized.

Oh I see. Making up facts as you go along now. At least last time around you were honest and admitted you did not even know what RCTs were or how to identify them. You failed to identify a single RCT that showed any benefit.

I’m not going over this RCTs [Randomized Control Trials] are the Gold Standard BS again. Liberals don’t get to decide their own gold standard.

:lamo :lamo

I rest my case.

 

[ReubenSherr]

Oh I see. Making up facts as you go along now. At least last time around you were honest and admitted you did not even know what RCTs were or how to identify them.

(1)In a POLITICALLY CHARGED ENVIRONMENT, RCTs are NOT the Gold Standard. We have no idea what goes on behind closed doors. If they were, Hahn wouldn't have recommended that the decision be left to the physician and the patient.

(2)We now have so many observational studies, there are clearly thousands of people whose lives have been saved as a result of HCQ. And hardly anyone has experienced dangerous side effects.

(3)Most Importantly:: What is your motivation here?

Why are you SO opposed to physicians making the decision for themselves?

 

[Threegoofs]

(1)RCTs are NOT the Gold Standard. We have no idea what goes on behind closed doors. If they were, Hahn wouldn't have recommended that the decision be left to the physician and the patient.

(2)We now have so many observational studies, there are clearly thousands of people whose lives have been saved as a result of HCQ. And hardly anyone has experienced dangerous side effects.

(3)Most Importantly:: What is your motivation here?

Why are you SO opposed to physicians making the decision for themselves?

Man.

You literally have no idea what you’re talking about.

Or... you may just be lying.

 

[ReubenSherr]

Man.

You literally have no idea what you’re talking about.

Or... you may just be lying.

Let's assume that most of the RCTs show no benefit. We still have over 30 observational studies showing HCQ saves lives, and dozens of anecdotal accounts.

Why are you so opposed to following Hahn's advice, and having personal physicians make the decision for themselves?

If HCQ were dangerous, Hahn would not have made that statement.

 

[Slavister]

(1)RCTs are NOT the Gold Standard. We have no idea what goes on behind closed doors.

:lamo

Thanks for the laughs, keep them coming!

If they were, Hahn wouldn't have recommended that the decision be left to the physician and the patient.

That's just Hahn's go-to phrase for covering Trump's idiocy. He said the same thing as a knee-jerk reaction when asking about Trump's suggestion on injecting disinfectants (see 2:50).

[video]https://www.cnn.com/videos/health/2020/04/24/doctor-hahn-trump-disinfectant-inject-town-hall-gupta-vpx.cnn[/video]

You do know most experts, including FDA do NOT recommend HCQ and even withdrew it's emergency authorization back in June.

(2)We now have so many observational studies, there are clearly thousands of people whose lives have been saved as a result of HCQ. And hardly anyone has experienced dangerous side effects.

No, you don't know how many were saved or harmed by HCQ without RCTs. That's why they are the gold standard conspiracy by the liberals. :lamo

(3)Most Importantly:: What is your motivation here? Why are you SO opposed to physicians making the decision for themselves?

I never said I was opposed to it. You should ask your physician about injecting Clorox too. Maybe your physician that prescribes meds against devil sperm will think it's a great idea.

 

[ReubenSherr]

I never said I was opposed to it.

Lol then why are we even having this conversation? :lamo

Before I waste any more valuable time debating, are you in favor of letting physicians make the choice along with their patients?

 

[RAMOSS]

Let's assume that most of the RCTs show no benefit. We still have over 30 observational studies showing HCQ saves lives, and dozens of anecdotal accounts.

Why are you so opposed to following Hahn's advice, and having personal physicians make the decision for themselves?

If HCQ were dangerous, Hahn would not have made that statement.

Actually, we don't. We have a bunch of anecdotal tales, and we have cases where HCQ was given in conjunction with drugs that were found to actually be effective.

 

[ReubenSherr]

Maybe your physician that prescribes meds against devil sperm will think it's a great idea.

This talking point is dangerous, bud. It is costing lives.

We don't have 20-30 observational studies, and dozens of anecdotal accounts, of devil sperm saving lives.

If you want to keep sacrificing human lives to make this inane cheap joke, keep doing it, and you'll bring down CNN with you.

 

[ReubenSherr]

Actually, we don't. We have a bunch of anecdotal tales, and we have cases where HCQ was given in conjunction with drugs that were found to actually be effective.

???

There are at least 20-30 observational studies on that site. Some involve HCQ being used in conjunction with other drugs, but that's still a positive plan.

 

[RAMOSS]

???

There are at least 20-30 observational studies on that site. Some involve HCQ being used in conjunction with other drugs, but that's still a positive plan.

Show which one in specific you are thinking of, and let's look at each study on an individual basis to view the criticisms and flaws of each one. From the ones I looked up, the ones that claims postiive had flaws. and were not double blind. There were cherry picking of data, or used in combination with other treatments that worked, and didn't work any bette rthan the other drug all by itself.

It would be good if it did, but, it doesn't.

 

[Slavister]

Lol then why are we even having this conversation? :lamo

Before I waste any more valuable time debating, are you in favor of letting physicians make the choice along with their patients?

That is a meaningless phrase. Physicians are always free to make a choice about ANYTHING with their patients. According to Hahn, as I linked for you, doctors are free to make decisions about patients injecting disinfectant too.

The reason for this discussion is just you spreading dangerous nonsense about HCQ that goes against science, while you are pretending that ... wait let me find this again for the laugh ...

I’m not going over this RCTs are the Gold Standard BS again. Liberals don’t get to decide their own gold standard.

Makes me laugh every time!

 

[ReubenSherr]

Makes me laugh every time!

Get off your high horse, Slavister.

Show me a non-liberal source that states that "RCTs are the Gold Standard," and I'll take the statement back.

 

[ReubenSherr]

The reason for this discussion is just you spreading dangerous nonsense about HCQ that goes against science

Bull.

How many patients studied in the past 2 months have had dangerous side effects? Include all the observational studies.

Do you really care about dangerous nonsense, or are you so desperate to get Biden in office that you will risk having Americans die from lack of any medication whatsoever?

 

[Slavister]

Show me a non-liberal source that states that "RCTs are the Gold Standard," and I'll take the statement back.

What fun would that be...? I'll let you roll with it.

:lamo :lamo :lamo

Bull.

How many patients studied in the past 2 months have had dangerous side effects? Include all the observational studies.

Do you really care about dangerous nonsense, or are you so desperate to get Biden in office that you will risk having Americans die from lack of any medication whatsoever?

... yeah, except HCQ has not been shown to be a "medication" any better than placebo. Oops.

And yes, all medications have side effects, including HCQ. Dangerous or not, they are absolutely unnecessary.

And while we are at it, HCQ shortage caused by nonsense like this has caused shortage for people who ACTUALLY need it.

 

[ReubenSherr]

:lamo

What fun would that be...? I'll let you roll with it.

:lamo :lamo

Lol you got that phrase from Oxford, it originates from Liberal Universities. :lamo

Here's an interesting article for you to read...

Why the 'gold standard' of medical research is no longer enough

The whole point of the Trump Movement was to get rid of this kind of clownish conformity.

You think you would have learned something from the 2016 election, no? What went wrong?

I trust real physicians treating real patients. Not technocratic science performed in some room somewhere in a liberal university.