Hydroxychloroquine Still Doesn’t Do Anything, New Data Shows

a reply to: dasman888

EVERY MEDICAL PROPONENT of HCQ states openly and blatantly, that HCQ has efficacy when used early to keep people OUT OF THE HOSPITAL

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.

It seems you're incorrect about that, I pulled that quote from page 1 of fallingdown's thread linked a couple of posts up on this page.

originally posted by: Fallingdown
Here is another study from your OP that you linked this is your claim.

Brazilian chloroquine study halted after high dose proved lethal for some patients

This is from page 4 of the study it’s not my interpretation it’s a direct quote.

The
preliminary
findings from CloroC
ovid
-
19 trial suggest th
at
the
higher dosage of CQ
(
12 g
total dose over
10 days
)
in COVID
-
19
should
no
t
be
recommended because
of
safety
concerns regarding
QTc prolongation and
increased lethality
,
in the Brazilian population
, and
more often in older patients in use of drugs such as azithromycin and oseltamivir, which also
prolong QTc interval
.
Among patients randomized to the lower dosage group (5 days of
tr
eatment
, total dose 2.7 g
)
,
given the limited number of patients so far enrolled, it is still not
possible to estimate a clear benefit of CQ in
patients
with
severe ARDS. Preliminary data on
viral clearance
in respiratory
secretions
in our
confirmed cases
are also indicative of little
effect of the drug at high dosage
.
More studies
initiating
CQ
prior to the onset of the
severe
phase of the disease are urgently needed

Your study deals only with people that were in severely inflicted and hospitalized with COVID-19 infection and had hypoxic pneumonia.

It did not in anyway touch on The viability of hydroxychloroquine to prevent patients from getting to that stage of the infection.

Last time I pointed this out you made up some kind of excuse. And ignored the fact that what I said was 100% accurate.

Here are some more direct quotes from page 10 and 11 of that study. Dealing with the parameters of the patients involved in that study.

Th
e protocol
was
timely
approved by the
Brazilian Committee of Ethics
in Human Research
(
CONEP
a
pproval 3.929.646
/2020). All patients and/or legal representatives in case of
unconsciousness, were
informed
about objectives and risks of participation

Patients that were unconscious due to infection fit the parameters of the study.

. They
were given
time to
carefully
read and then sign an informed consent form (ICF). After recovery, the
patient also signed the ICF. Random online clinical monitoring and quality control was
performed. A virtu
al
independent
Data Safety and Monitoring Board
(DSMB), with
epidemiologists, clinicians and experts in
i
nfectious
d
iseases, was timely implemented to
review the protocol
and with
daily meetings to
follow
-
up
the activities of the study
. The trial
was
reported according to
Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials
(Consort) statement
.
32
Study
design and
site
CloroC
ovid
-
19
was
a parallel, double
-
blind, randomized, phase IIb clinical trial
,
which
started
on March
2
3
rd
,
2020
,
aiming
to assess
safety
and efficacy
of
CQ
in the
treatment of
hospitalized patients with severe respiratory syndrome secondary to SARS

The study was conducted on patients in severe distress not looked upon in any prophylactic way which was mentioned on page 4 in the study

Here’s the part that keeps confusing you. I agree that hydroxychloroquine does not appear to have much benefit for people and the in term of the disease. That’s what the study was about.

The study was an upon the viability of the medication to preventing people from getting to that stage of infection.

Participants
Hospitalized patients aged 18 years or older at the time of inclusion, with respiratory
rate
higher than 24 rpm AND/OR
heart rate higher than 125 bpm (in the absence of fever)
AND/OR peripheral oxygen saturation lower than 90% in ambient air AND/OR shock

(
defined as mean arterial pressure lower than 65 mmHg, with the need for vasopressors
medicines or oliguria or a lower level of consciousness) were included.
Children under 18
years of age were not included due to the known lower
morbidity/mortality from CO
VID
-
19
33
.
Patients were enrolled before laboratorial confirmation of COVID
-
19, considering that
such procedure could delay randomization. For
the
analyses at this point, all patients were
included regardless of the
confirmed
etiolog
y
which f
or safety issues (the focus of this
manuscript)
should
not be an issue. For now, the flowchart of the study presents clinical
-
epidemiological suspected cases and cases already confirmed by RT
-
PCR.

People that were so far gone that they were in shock were included in the study. Not people that tested positive for COVID-19 yesterday. The participants in the study were on deaths door. That’s not my interpretation that is the parameters for the study.


For the love of God read the damn thing and don’t scan a New York Times article and think you got unbiased information .

Brazil study that you used as evidence and didn’t know what you were talking about.


That study, in my opinion, was so crappy and poorly designed, there ought to be a murder investigation around it, given some patients were given lethal doses of an old drug that had more side effects, and that HCQ replaced because the older drug was so harsh.

originally posted by: hopenotfeariswhatweneed
a reply to: dasman888

EVERY MEDICAL PROPONENT of HCQ states openly and blatantly, that HCQ has efficacy when used early to keep people OUT OF THE HOSPITAL

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.

It seems you're incorrect about that, I pulled that quote from page 1 of fallingdown's thread linked a couple of posts up on this page.

In less than 60 seconds, you could find multiple interviews of physicians on video stating EXACTLY what I said.

The Michigan doctors were EXTREMELY CAREFUL in their every utterance, because they knew they were up against a political machine. Their notes read like a lawyer's CYA statements.

Hundreds of thousands of RA and Lupus sufferers take HCQ daily at or below the doses used for Covid, and have for years.

I know 9 or 10 people in my circle of acquaintances who take it daily. They sure as hell aren't in the hospital, and the drug is in common usage everywhere, the majority of those uses, outside hospital settings.

a reply to: dasman888

Here’s the part the orange man mean crowd keeps ignoring .

Page 4

More studies
initiating
CQ
prior to the onset of the
severe
phase of the disease are urgently needed

Why would further studies be urgently needed if Hydroxychloroquine is ineffective ?

Explain that in 50 words or less .

My God your position leaves you with the attitude that you don’t care if people die or not based on half of a study .

By the way I have cited multiple studies in my history more than 10 that reached the same conclusion I’m giving you right now .

The media is only presenting the usefulness of Hydroxychloroquine in worst case scenario cases .

And I am honest I only found one study from China involving 62 patients that refuted my perspective and I included it .

a reply to: dasman888

It's pretty crap that we can find information that is both positive and negative in this fight against covid, it's really difficult to discern where the truth lies in all this.

Personally I take the word of my family members that are doctors and various other therapists that deal with patients with covid on a daily basis.

a reply to: Fallingdown

The Henryford study, one of 7 major studies on this drug, already addressed in the OP.

What did I say about that study again? From the OP:

Others have pointed out to the one Henry-Ford study out of the several major studies in regards to this drug. That study was done from an observational standpoint and concluded there appeared to be benefit from Hydroxychloroquine. Observational studies mean you're going back and looking at patients as opposed to folllowing them and going forward in time. With that particular study, when closely reviewed, 80% of those patients in that study that were given Hydroxychloroquine were also receiving a steroid medication which had been shown to be beneficial, this conflicted with results given the mix of the two treatments.

Moving on now.

a reply to: dasman888

EVERY MEDICAL PROPONENT of HCQ states openly and blatantly, that HCQ has efficacy when used early to keep people OUT OF THE HOSPITAL.

Where's your source for this?

a reply to: hopenotfeariswhatweneed

It's pretty crap that we can find information that is both positive and negative in this fight against covid, it's really difficult to discern where the truth lies in all this.

I didn't have that much trouble.

Hydroxychloroquine has been in widespread use since 1945 (75 years) as a preventative for malaria and as a treatment for lupus and rheumatoid arthritis. That's a long, long time to study side effects, and thus far those side effects are few and manageable. Warnings about hydroxychloroquine only started after President Trump announced it as a possible treatment for the Kung Flu. Before that announcement, it was considered safe for almost everyone.

A ccording to the CDC, it still is.

When there are reports of both benefits and no benefits, and where there is no other optimal treatment available, why would anyone deny a patient the use of a potential lifesaver? There are two possibilities here: either it helps, and potentially saves a life, or it doesn't help and the patient who was going to die anyway still dies. One possibility saves a life; the other does not, but also does not cost a life.

Find another treatment, and that dynamic will change. Until that point in time, I will err on the side of potentially saving a life instead of helplessly watching people needlessly die. The OP apparently prefers to let people die rather than even attempt to save them.

TheRedneck

It’s actually very very EASY to discern where the truth lies

If the mainstream media is saying it - it’s untrue

a reply to: TheRedneck

I disagree the information is not easily discernable, I have no medical background to pull from and understand my bias will determine which side of the fence I'm on, the fact that there is information out there stating HCQ is both beneficial and detrimental is concerning for sure but doesn't imply that it's effective in the fight against covid.

I will stick to what is the preferred method of the medical establishment is to fight this disease, I do love a good conspiracy theory but when it comes to my health I'm sticking with science not hearsay.

a reply to: TheRedneck

Hydroxychloroquine has been in widespread use since 1945 (75 years) as a preventative for malaria and as a treatment for lupus and rheumatoid arthritis.

Nobody is disputing that the drug has been effective for treatment of other diseases. That very fact in itself is also part the problem. The false promotion of this drug against COVID19, increasing demand for it, in turn decreasing availability for people with other illnesses where this drug has been proven to be effective, that's part of the problem. You're not helping anybody. Not at all.

This Is How the Hydroxychloroquine Shortage Is Hurting People with Rheumatoid Arthritis

a reply to: Southern Guardian

Nobody is disputing that the drug has been effective for treatment of other diseases. That very fact in itself is also part the problem. The false promotion of this drug against COVID19, increasing demand for it, in turn decreasing availability for people with other illnesses where this drug has been proven to be effective, that's part of the problem. You're not helping anybody. Not at all.

Is there some reason why we have a limited amount of hydroxychloroquine that can be manufactured? I am not aware of any limitation on that. I am aware that more efficient processes to do so have been recently developed.

High-yielding continuous-flow synthesis of antimalarial drug hydroxychloroquine

That reasoning sounds pretty insincere anyway. These reports you rely on are claiming that hydrochloroquine is actually deadly to someone with the Kung Flu; yet now, when confronted with 75 years of evidence contradictory to that claim, the story suddenly shifts to a lack of resources. Which is it? Are you disputing three quarters of a century of medical experience with the drug, or are you claiming a lack of resources? It sounds to me like you are just using whichever excuse that happens to present itself.

I may not be helping anyone... but you certainly are not. At least I am not trying to weave false stories that could harm others. I am simply stating that hydrochloroquine is not overly dangerous, especially taken under medical oversight, and has some indication of potential. That is a true statement. Your inferences to it being a dangerous drug is the lie. Why not just come out at the forefront of the argument and state that you are concerned we might run out of it?

TheRedneck

a reply to: hopenotfeariswhatweneed

It's not hard to look at the actual reports and see the difference. The successful reports use hydroxycloroquine at historically safe levels in combination with zinc, vitamins C and D3, and a few other medications in early stages of the disease. The unsuccessful reports use hydroxychloroquine alone, often in massive doses beyond what is considered toxic levels, during later stages of the disease. In short, the doctors who are publishing these claims are ignoring the most basic of medical advice: take as prescribed.

According to that methodology, every drug on the market, including most OTC supplements and treatments, should never be used. Are you aware that taking a whole bottle of aspirin at one time can easily cause bleeding ulcers that can in turn become life-threatening? Do we declare that people should never take aspirin because of that?

I believe your issue with hydroxychloroquine treatment lies in the fact that it is difficult for you to admit that certain personalities might have been in any way correct about a report. That's a poor reason for an opinion, and an even poorer reason to suggest that others not receive at least a chance at survival. I would actually classify it as homicidal.

TheRedneck

a reply to: TheRedneck

Who's suggesting anything about not taking it ?

originally posted by: Southern Guardian
a reply to: TheRedneck

Hydroxychloroquine has been in widespread use since 1945 (75 years) as a preventative for malaria and as a treatment for lupus and rheumatoid arthritis.

Nobody is disputing that the drug has been effective for treatment of other diseases. That very fact in itself is also part the problem. The false promotion of this drug against COVID19, increasing demand for it, in turn decreasing availability for people with other illnesses where this drug has been proven to be effective, that's part of the problem. You're not helping anybody. Not at all.

This Is How the Hydroxychloroquine Shortage Is Hurting People with Rheumatoid Arthritis

a reply to: hopenotfeariswhatweneed

Who's suggesting anything about not taking it ?

Hmm... hard question... let me think a moment... I'm sure I can come up with a name... just give me some time... oh, I know who I can answer with.

YOU!

TheRedneck

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: hopenotfeariswhatweneed

Who's suggesting anything about not taking it ?

Hmm... hard question... let me think a moment... I'm sure I can come up with a name... just give me some time... oh, I know who I can answer with.

YOU!

TheRedneck

Utter rubbish I've only ever questioned the effectiveness of the drug for covid patients.

For some reason if I don't jump on board the " let's all take HCQ bandwagon" I must be an advocate for denying it to people, which is typical for you people stuck in the left and right paradigm.

I will say it again so it sinks in, I'm all for going with medical science, if my doctor thinks I need to take HCQ to treat covid if I get it I will take it.

What won't do is pretend I can Dr Google the virus away like so many here think they can, also the irony is astounding when the same people that are anti maskers (yourself included) are pro taking a drug that may or may not help.

a reply to: hopenotfeariswhatweneed

Then I fail to understand why you are arguing against making it available for use? That's what this thread is about... I am not a doctor, and I cannot advise anyone to take any medication. I only support allowing doctors to use hydroxychloroquine for a treatment as they see fit.

Do you agree with that or not?

TheRedneck

a reply to: TheRedneck

Yes I agree with that.

a reply to: hopenotfeariswhatweneed

Then we have nothing to argue about.

TheRedneck