It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
originally posted by: Willtell
UK trial on hydroxychloroquine: ‘It doesn’t work’
link
A large, randomized U.K. trial found “no clinical benefit” of hydroxychloroquine to treat hospitalized Covid-19 patients, researchers announced Friday.
“It doesn’t work,” declared Martin Landray, one of the lead researchers, at a briefing. Patients receiving hydroxychloroquine died at about the same rate — about one in four — as those receiving regular care in a randomized trial being conducted by the University of Oxford and the U.K. National Health Service.
Ironically, the WHO who Trump condemns still thinks it might have some use( Though as of now most of the studies say it doesn't work) and will continue to test it.
Yet Trump calls them clueless.
Goes to show us...
Trump is NEVER right about anything
originally posted by: whereislogic
What a surprise, another negative marketing/sales-pitch report. More to follow, as predicted.
All produced by scientists who were quiet about the blatant bias and scientific fraud concerning the VA study, providing evidence that none of their publications can be trusted in the future.
...
And as also predicted before, the newer reports will be much better at giving the appearance of being legit and having no conflict of interest compared to the VA study (which almost looks intentional, the VA study was so blatantly corrupt and deceitful, that any negative report about HCQ thereafter looks like a scientific gem of integrity in comparison, even though it's just more of the same, but dressed better), where almost halve the scientists on that study are known to have received funding from Gilead or otherwise have significant financial ties with Gilead (Remdesivir).
Here's the last time I responded to another one of these attempts to present these marketing/sales-pitch reports under the marketinglabel "Science":
originally posted by: whereislogic
a reply to: Grimpachi
...
The New England Journal of Medicine (your source of publication) has lost all credibility. Anyone who thinks they've got something worth your while to publish, check out the 2nd video of Dr. Raoult for a response to the NEJM and their behaviour in terms of scientific integrity and honesty vs a conflict of interest with Big Pharma pulling the strings.
From the piece you quoted yourself, as if you don't even get how such a negative marketing/sales-pitch report works:
Hydroxychloroquine-treated patients were more severely ill at baseline than those who did not receive hydroxychloroquine...
Basically the same trick as the VA study. ...
originally posted by: whereislogic
a reply to: Phage
Here's my prediction [edit: expectation] regarding the ongoing (mostly) government-funded clinical trials ...:
Each and every one will paint a negative picture on HCQ's already well-established and proven effectiveness both as a prohylaxis and treatment of Covid-19 (more so when optimized with ...).
... How can I know ahead of time that none will send out the message that HCQ has clear benefits (that outweigh any minimal risks concerning QT prolongation, i.e, ventricular arrhythmia*)? Even though frontline experience and honest statistics have already shown clear benefits in spite of all the denial that we already have sufficient data and don't need manipulated so-called "randomized clinical trials" that are really better described as marketing/sales-pitch reports once they are published (again by publishers who said nothing about the VA study akin to what Dr. Raoult had to say about it)? Why is NEJM still in business publishing so-called "scientific articles"? NEJM = The New England Journal of Medicine (who published something about Remdesivir, as discussed by Dr. Raoult in the video of my longer comment on the previous page, and was also the publisher of the article about HCQ that Grimpachi brought up in another thread, another favorite publication of the mainstream media, in particular on the left).
*: something easily fixed in those extremely rare cases where it does occur, by switching from Azithromycin to Doxycycline, showing that it's not HCQ that is the problem here; not to mention all the other drugs that are prescribed for minor issues that also can cause QT prolongation, psych drugs that often do more harm than good for actual unproven benefits. Used all the time with no one complaining about how dangerous they are.
originally posted by: JBurns
a reply to: Sookiechacha
Not breaking any rules. What you refer to are mere guidelines, and a Doctor can prescribe it for whatever they want its called an Off Label Use
Perfectly legitimate
The agency said recent clinical trial failures mean chloroquine and hydroxychloroquine may not be effective at treating COVID-19 or preventing it in people who have been exposed, and that their potential benefits do not outweigh the risks.
Doctors have warned that the drugs can cause serious heart problems, but the FDA had previously allowed their use for hospitalized patients and during clinical trials.
originally posted by: Sookiechacha
Ruh Roh!
FDA withdraws emergency use authorization for hydroxychloroquine thehill.com...