Hydroxychloroquine Still Doesn’t Do Anything, New Data Shows

a reply to: TheRedneck

Maybe the president (and his son) shoulda used a little more discretion in his use of sources. Because Stella didn't really help add credibility.

a reply to: Phage

Here's one that looked at your precious zinc.

It's not "my precious zinc," Phage. Hydroxychloroquine is a zinc ionophore, as others have stated and which you continue to ignore. At this point, your snark is becoming more of an indication of your considerable bias.

Here's from the report you claim included zinc:

Hydroxychloroquine was prescribed at 800 mg (4 tablets) once, then 600 mg (3 tablets) 6 to 8 hours later, then 600 mg (3 tablets) once daily for 4 more days (5 days in total). This dose was chosen on the basis of simulations that used previously published pharmacokinetic parameters and were designed to rapidly achieve and maintain a hydroxychloroquine concentration above the estimated half-maximal effective concentration (EC50) for SARS-CoV-2

No mention of zinc as a part of the intervention. However, look at those dosages! 800 mg initially, 600 mg 6-8 hours later, then 600 mg once daily for the next four days. So what is the normal dosage of hydroxychloroquine?

Acute attack:

Typical starting dose is 800 mg. This is followed by 400 mg three times: 6 hours after the first dose, 24 hours after the first dose, and 48 hours after the first dose.

Prevention:

Typical dosage is 400 mg once per week, taken on the same day each week, starting 2 weeks before exposure to malaria.

Continue using this medication during exposure and for 4 weeks after leaving the area that has malaria.

Wow, we went from 800 mg initial, followed by 400 mg at intervals of 6, 24, and 48 hours to 800 mg initial to 600 mg at 6-8, 24, 24, 24, and 24 hours. And no zinc supplement (again, hydroxychloroquine is a zinc ionophore), no axithromycin (also used in the treatments promoted), and no additional supplements such as D and C. A completely different treatment than what has shown success.

Oh, and here's some interesting information on dosages for SARS-2 here:
Treatment with Hydroxychloroquine Cut Death Rate Significantly in COVID-19 Patients, Henry Ford Health System Study Shows

“The findings have been highly analyzed and peer-reviewed,” said Dr. Marcus Zervos, division head of Infectious Disease for Henry Ford Health System, who co-authored the study with Henry Ford epidemiologist Samia Arshad. “We attribute our findings that differ from other studies to early treatment, and part of a combination of interventions that were done in supportive care of patients, including careful cardiac monitoring. Our dosing also differed from other studies not showing a benefit of the drug. And other studies are either not peer reviewed, have limited numbers of patients, different patient populations or other differences from our patients.”

I take it the Henry Ford Health Center is now a bunch of quacks, right? Why don't you call them up and explain how wrong they are because you know CPR?

TheRedneck

a reply to: Phage

Oh? Are you now claiming that because one doctor making a report may be less than optimal as a spokesperson, all the doctors who have reported success are as well?

That is one seriously broad anti-scientific brush you're swinging around there! I bet I can find someone similar who is a hang glider... sorry, hang glider pilot... so maybe we should start looking at outlawing hang gliding? After all, he/she must be representative of all hang gliders... sorry, hang glider pilots...

TheRedneck

a reply to: TheRedneck

No mention of zinc as a part of the intervention.

But ad hoc use was accounted for, as my quote states. And there is a full scale trial (including wonderful zinc) in the works, as I said.

I take it the Henry Ford Health Center is now a bunch of quacks, right?

No. But I'm familiar with that study, since it's been so highly touted.

Limitations to our analysis include the retrospective, non-randomized, non-blinded study design. Also, information on duration of symptoms prior to hospitalization was not available for analysis.

Does it say that it's an effective treatment?

However, our results should be interpreted with some caution and should not be applied to patients treated outside of hospital settings. Our results also require further confirmation in prospective, randomized controlled trials that rigorously evaluate the safety and efficacy of hydroxychloroquine therapy for COVID-19 in hospitalized patients.

study



But since it's not "my field", here's some further commentary.

Dr. Le explained that the average age of those who received neither HCQ nor azithromycin was significantly higher than those who received HCQ.

Specifically, the average age in the group who received other COVID-19 treatments was 68.1 years, the median age was 71 years, and 64.1% were over the age of 65. In the HCQ group, on the other hand, the average age was 63.2 years, the median age was 53 years, and 48.9% were over 65.

Patients in the HCQ group were also significantly more likely to receive steroids in addition to the drug. While 78.9% of patients in this group received steroids, only 35.7% of patients in the other COVID-19 treatment groups did.

“In addition, white race is a risk factor they identified, and it too was unbalanced,” Dr. Le added.

In the group receiving other COVID-19 treatments, 45.5% were white, while in the HCQ group, 27.6% were white.

Some commentary

Retrospective, non-randomized, non-blinded studies can be problematic.

Oh? Are you now claiming that because one doctor making a report may be less than optimal as a spokesperson, all the doctors who have reported success are as well?

No. Just saying that Stella didn't help make the case much. Not a good choice, methinks. Has she presented her study for publication? That might be informative.

a reply to: Phage

But ad hoc use was accounted for, as my quote states. And there is a full scale trial in the works, as I said.

It is still not the same treatment. Not even close.

Does it say that it's an effective treatment?

It says they have had some limited success, but that more trials are needed, a position I have no issue with.

Dr. Zervos also pointed out, as does the paper, that the study results should be interpreted with some caution, should not be applied to patients treated outside of hospital settings and require further confirmation in prospective, randomized controlled trials that rigorously evaluate the safety and efficacy of hydroxychloroquine therapy for COVID-19.

I have no problem with that. My only argument is that the possibility exists for a hydroxychloroquine/azithromycian based treatment to be beneficial to some patients. As there are no proven treatments available now, the idea of outlawing the use of hydroxychloroquine, or the unabashed slandering of anyone who proposes it as a possible treatment, borders on homicide and proves one unscientifically biased.

I also am anxiously awaiting the results on Remdesivir. I would have as much trouble with someone trying to outlaw it as "unproven" or trying to slander the trials.

Let the damn science speak. It don't need your help.

Just saying that Stella didn't help make the case much. Not a good choice, methinks.

No argument there, but it is a moot point. I don't care what any one doctor thinks... I care what multiple doctors have reported after actually treating patients.

TheRedneck

a reply to: TheRedneck

As there are no proven treatments available now, the idea of outlawing the use of hydroxychloroquine, or the unabashed slandering of anyone who proposes it as a possible treatment, borders on homicide and proves one unscientifically biased.

In general, I agree.
But your hyperbole is about effective as that of Stella.

a reply to: TheRedneck

I was talking about doctors in general who have reported success.

Reporting is one thing. Substance is another.

a reply to: Phage

In general, I agree.
But your hyperbole is about effective as that of Stella.

My attitude on this issue is a direct result of two things: the regular if spratic attempts to literally outlaw a potential treatment, and the false narrative that supports those attempts.

If and when a clinical trial is completed which mirrors the actual treatments, I will be very interested in seeing it and much more open to an actual discussion. Until then, the trials which do not mirror the full treatments are about as useful as tits on a boar hog.

TheRedneck

a reply to: Southern Guardian

Reporting is one thing. Substance is another.

A report in a journal (or lack thereof) does not make something true or false.

Relativity existed long, long before Einstein formulated the first theory.

Penicillin existed long, long before Alexander Fleming ever thought of using it.

Electricity existed eons before Ben Franklin ever flew a kite.

The Earth has never been the "center of the universe."

Aerodynamics existed millennia before the Wright Brothers tried to jump off a cliff.

Your view of science is short-sighted and limited to the point you have no concept of how studies and research even work. The fact that you are here now trying to tell others what you have no clue about is not impressive.

TheRedneck

a reply to: TheRedneck

There seem to be variations on what a "full treatment" may be. You quote treatment for a parasitic disease, malaria. What is the "proper dosage" for COVID-19, a viral disease? Or is there no difference between the two, in your professional opinion?

Until then, the trials which do not mirror the full treatments are about as useful as tits on a boar hog.

And as long as no trials meet your definition of "full treatment" you can forever claim homicide if they don't show efficacy. Cozy. And confirmation bias ridden.

a reply to: Southern Guardian

I dont know about Hydroxychloroquine not doing anything.

I mean look at the state of Trump as of late?

Should probably change the warning label to include.

"Longterm side effects may cause babbling buffoons to praise pedophiles, slurred language, and poor vision."

Yosemite.

originally posted by: andy06shake
a reply to: Southern Guardian

I dont know about Hydroxychloroquine not doing anything.

I mean look at the state of Trump as of late?

Should probably change the warning label to include.

"Longterm side effects may cause babbling buffoons to praise pedophiles, slurred language, and poor vision."

Yosemite.

Hard to believe this all comes from the leader of the U.S.A, it's even worse than babbling some of its idiotic, like the whole inject cleaner, you should really look into that

Just when you think he's reached highest level of stupid he has another hold my beer moment, and his supporters defending every stupid thing he does, unreal.

a reply to: TheRedneck

All that blabber is irrelevant to the fact at hand here. 18 pages on, you still have nothing of substance to prove that HCQ is an effective treatment against COVID-19. It's telling.

a reply to: Phage

There seem to be variations on what a "full treatment" may be. You quote treatment for a parasitic disease, malaria. What is the "proper dosage" for COVID-19, a viral disease? Or is there no difference between the two, in your professional opinion?

That's a good question that I have no answer for. Safety using hydroxychloroquine is well-established where not contraindicated at the malaria doses. I am assuming the doctors reporting success used the known safe dosage, although I have no verification of that.

I do know that overdose is a concern with hydroxychloroquine, as it can be fatal. That's probably one reason it is still prescription. That is concerning to me with these trials as well: where are they getting their dosage information?

And as long as no trials meet your definition of "full treatment" you can forever claim homicide if they don't show efficacy. Cozy. And confirmation bias ridden.

i know that was intended to be more snark, but yes... as long as the trials do not include the full applicable treatment they are useless to test the full applicable treatment. Duh?

Someone told me gasoline and water will burn if ignited. Must be false... I tried it with the water and it never would catch fire.

TheRedneck

a reply to: Southern Guardian

All that blabber is irrelevant to the fact at hand here. 18 pages on, you still have nothing of substance to prove that HCQ is an effective treatment against COVID-19.

"All that blabber" is science. Somehow it doesn't surprise me that you didn't know that.

18 pages in and you still haven't shown anything of substance to show that the treatments being reported as successful are not. If you want to dismiss reports, it is up to you to show they are not repeatable.

TheRedneck

a reply to: andy06shake
a reply to: hopenotfeariswhatweneed

I'm sorry; the Political Mud Pit forum is two doors down. Trump bashing; no waiting.

Forgive me if I ignore you. I'm kinda busy laughing at the expert on science that doesn't know what a test parameter is.

TheRedneck

a reply to: TheRedneck

i know that was intended to be more snark, but yes... as long as the trials do not include the full applicable treatment they are useless to test the full applicable treatment. Duh?

How is "the full applicable treatment" for COVID-19 to be determined?
Just keep increasing dosage until it works, or causes problems?

a reply to: TheRedneck

Someones been on the Hydroxychloroquine me thinks.

Where are the ""experts"" touting Hydroxychloroquine?

Next to the Dr who got her medical degree from Hogwarts School of Witchcraft and Wizardry per-chance?

Don't be sorry just stop promoting the use of drugs that doesn't help and may very well hinder one's health, COVID 19 or otherwise.

And if your POTUS is going to keep spouting crap about dangerous drugs that don't work unless you have malaria, lupus, or the like, i think ile continue to point out the error of his ways. x

a reply to: Phage

How is "the full applicable treatment" for COVID-19 to be determined?
Just keep increasing dosage until it works, or causes problems?

The purpose of the trials is to test whether reported successes by front line doctors (and since some seem bent on making a big deal out of that, read: medical doctors in a practice who have actually treated active cases). To do that, the treatment tested must be the same as those treatments claimed successful. That includes dosage, regularity of treatment, the same medications used, etc. If one changes those parameters, one is then testing something else.

TheRedneck

a reply to: andy06shake

just stop promoting the use of drugs

OK, stop right there.

I am promoting no use of drugs. Period. Do NOT try slandering me like that. I've seen your creeping accusations in the past. They do not fly here with me.

I am promoting actual clinical trials on claimed successes using a variety of drugs, under the supervision and care of licensed medical professionals, performed under parameters that mirror the success reports.

Get your damn facts straight before you go accusing me of stuff.

TheRedneck