DawgTalkers.net Forums DawgTalk Palus Politicus Hydroxychloroquine: A Case Study In Bad Science

I agree with this, in addition I would point out that they were predicting 100k-200k deaths. Yesterday we were at 14k and had 1,400 deaths, we would have to sustain 1,400 deaths for two more FULL MONTHS to get to the low end of the estimate.

So, the anecdotal evidence supports that this drug may help in addition to us not even being close to the death totals Dr. Fauci stated we would see.

ORANGE MAN BAD though.

I am just disgusted by the absolute partisanship in a time of crisis. (that in no way is directed at you charger)

Drug has been out of patent for how long? This drug has been around for decades, this is an irrelevant partisan "gotcha" fact.

And I can count them all. I point out facts and you can't refute them. So this is all you can do. I use sources and data. You just throw crap with nothing to back it up. A true Trumpian.

Imagine that.

If any of you lefties get the virus and get really sick you'll be begging for that drug.

If any of you lefties get the virus and get really sick you'll be begging for that drug.

If any of you lefties get the virus and get really sick you'll be begging for that drug.

As of this moment, taking a B Complex shot and an aspirin may be just as helpful.

I'm not sure what people don't get about the fact that over 96% of people that get the virus live. So the fact that people recover after taking these drugs pretty much means nothing.

Former FDA leaders decry emergency authorization of malaria drugs for coronavirus.

https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2020/04/...gs-coronavirus#

I feel like a number of people, who like to doubt science, have this weird habit of throwing around "peer review", without really knowing how it works...

My point was that just because you survived the disease doesn't mean it was due to Hydroxychloroquine. The survival rate is high enough that you can't really attribute survival to that. Fauci has said the same thing. That it's anecdotal.

My point was that just because you survived the disease doesn't mean it was due to Hydroxychloroquine. The survival rate is high enough that you can't really attribute survival to that. Fauci has said the same thing. That it's anecdotal.

Now somebody has to tell Trump he's wrong... again...

An antimalarial drug touted as a potential treatment for coronavirus might have no benefit to patients at all, according to a new study by French scientists.

Researchers compared more than 180 patients – some receiving hydroxychloroquine treatment and others who were not treated with the drug – and found their outcomes were almost identical.
The research by doctors and scientists from 12 hospitals and public research institutes across France, is the most comprehensive study so far of the performance of the controversial drug in hospitals and involves the most Covid-19 patients.

“These results do not support the use of hydroxychloroquine in patients hospitalised for documented Sars-CoV-2-positive hypoxic pneumonia,” the authors said in a non-peer reviewed paper released by medRxiv.org on Tuesday.

Hydroxychloroquine was invented in 1945. It is a chemical compound derived from chloroquine, a drug used by troops to combat malaria in the Pacific jungles during World War II, with similar effect.

Early this year, soon after the first strain of the new coronavirus was isolated, Chinese scientists used a supercomputer to screen for potential drugs. They found chloroquine and its derivatives had a chemical structure that could interact with the virus.

Preliminary laboratory experiments suggested this family of drugs could suppress viral replication in the test tube, though it remained far from clear what effect it would have on the human body.
US President Donald Trump was the first – and the only – world leader promoting the drug as a hopeful cure for Covid-19 to the general public. The US Food and Drug Administration last month granted an emergency approval that allowed American hospitals to use chloroquine and hydroxychloroquine on Covid-19 patients without clinical trials.

An uncontrolled study by a research team in Marseille, France, involving 26 patients found 100 per cent viral clearance in nose swabs in six patients treated by a combination of hydroxychloroquine and antibiotics, raising hope for the drug.

In a study from Wuhan, China, on 62 patients, researchers also found “significant improvement” on the general outcome. These results, however, were not replicated in follow-up research involving 11 patients in Paris.

So a French team, led by Matthieu Mahevas of the University of Paris-Est, decided to investigate what happened in a “real-world setting”. They pulled the medical records from four hospitals in France of 181 patients of similar gender, age and health conditions. All the patients required oxygen because of lung infections caused by the virus.

The researchers said these patients were more representative of those admitted to hospitals swamped by the pandemic than those in some previous studies. The Wuhan trial, for instance, recruited only patients with mild symptoms, whose chance of recovery was high, even without treatment.

Among the patients who took hydroxychloroquine upon admission, 20.5 per cent had entered the intensive care unit or had died within a week. Among the patients who did not take the drug, the rate of ICU admission or mortality within a week was 22.1 per cent. The researchers said statistically there was no difference between the two groups.

“In conclusion, we found that hydroxychloroquine did not significantly reduce admission to ICU or death at day seven after hospital admission, or acute respiratory distress syndrome in hospitalised patients with hypoxemic pneumonia due to Covid-19,” the authors said.
“These results are of major importance and do not support the use of hydroxychloroquine in patients hospitalised for a documented Sars-CoV-2 pneumonia,” they added.
The conflicting observations have confused the public and health authorities around the world.

The doctors’ other concern was side effects. The hydroxychloroquine, although safer than chloroquine, could still cause a wide range of negative effects, including sudden cardiac death.
The French study found nearly 10 per cent of patients taking the drug experienced abnormal heartbeats that required discontinuation of the treatment after about four days. In most of these cases, the heart muscle took longer than normal to recharge between beats.

“One patient who received no other medication that might interfere with cardiac conduction presented a first-degree atrioventricular block after two days of hydroxychloroquine treatment,” the researchers said.

Zhong Nanshan, a senior Chinese government scientist in Guangzhou, told local media that his team would soon publish a paper with positive results for chloroquine phosphate, another derivative drug in the chloroquine family.

“The average time [with chloroquine phosphate treatment] for the virus to turn negative is four days, and the control group [without the treatment] is eight or nine days. This improvement of symptoms is very certain,” Zhong told state television on Tuesday.
“It can be a very effective cure.”

Research on the chloroquine family of drugs continues around the world as nations try to get the Covid-19 pandemic under control.

Roughly half the study participants were given a dose of 450 milligrams of chloroquine twice daily for five days, while the rest were prescribed a higher dose of 600 milligrams for 10 days. Within three days, researchers started noticing heart arrhythmias in patients taking the higher dose. By the sixth day of treatment, 11 patients had died, leading to an immediate end to the high-dose segment of the trial.

A malaria drug widely touted by President Donald Trump for treating the new coronavirus showed no benefit in a large analysis of its use in U.S. veterans hospitals. There were more deaths among those given hydroxychloroquine versus standard care, researchers reported.

The nationwide study was not a rigorous experiment. But with 368 patients, it’s the largest look so far of hydroxychloroquine with or without the antibiotic azithromycin for COVID-19, which has killed more than 171,000 people as of Tuesday.

The study was posted on an online site for researchers and has been submitted to the New England Journal of Medicine, but has not been reviewed by other scientists. Grants from the National Institutes of Health and the University of Virginia paid for the work.

Researchers analyzed medical records of 368 male veterans hospitalized with confirmed coronavirus infection at Veterans Health Administration medical centers who died or were discharged by April 11.

About 28% who were given hydroxychloroquine plus usual care died, versus 11% of those getting routine care alone. About 22% of those getting the drug plus azithromycin died too, but the difference between that group and usual care was not considered large enough to rule out other factors that could have affected survival.

Hydroxychloroquine made no difference in the need for a breathing machine, either.

Researchers did not track side effects, but noted hints that hydroxychloroquine might have damaged other organs. The drug has long been known to have potentially serious side effects, including altering the heartbeat in a way that could lead to sudden death.

Earlier this month, scientists in Brazil stopped part of a hydroxychloroquine study after heart rhythm problems developed in one-quarter of people given the higher of two doses being tested.

Many doctors have been leery of the drug.

At the University of Wisconsin, Madison, “I think we’re all rather underwhelmed” at what’s been seen among the few patients there who’ve tried it, said Dr. Nasia Safdar, medical director of infection control and prevention.

Patients asked about it soon after Trump started promoting its use, “but now I think that people have realized we don’t know if it works or not” and needs more study, said Safdar, who had no role in the VA analysis.

The NIH and others have more rigorous tests underway.

Same thing with the "theory" that the virus came from a lab. 23% or more of the USA believe the virus was created by China in a lab .... despite overwhelming opinion from experts in the field that say that's not the case.

https://www.foxnews.com/science/controve...ent-doctors-say

It is still being used and used quite often. More lies!

FWIW: "Came from a lab" and "created in a lab" are NOT the same thing.
It very much can be a naturally occurring virus AND still have had the entire thing have come from a lab. What people are saying is that this virus was being studied in the lab in Wuhan. Patient 0 worked at that lab, and visited the wet market.

I'm in the camp that it doesn't really matter.... BUT, that little factoid, if true, sure would explain a LOT about China's actions and motives.