Evidence against Hydroxychloroquine

Status
Not open for further replies.
There are many studies underway. One recently leaked showed no benefit
I think they misapplied the drug as with several HCQ studies
 
LeafByNiggle said:
40.png
Xystus:
Coming back to this comment… Here we have CBS saying it this morning.
Click to expand...
CBS correctly qualified the President’s remarks as a suggestion that he partially walked back. CBS did not accuse the President of telling people to inject themselves with anything.
Click to expand...
It’s interesting to see how Fox News handled this. According to an article in the New York Times:
Even Steve Doocy had to admit it wasn’t a great idea.

The morning after President Trump mused at a nationally televised briefing that injecting disinfectant could be a treatment for Covid-19 patients, Mr. Doocy, a co-host of “Fox & Friends,” issued a warning to his Fox News viewers.

Injecting disinfectants “is poisonous ,” Mr. Doocy said, holding up his hands for emphasis, during an otherwise upbeat segment that praised Mr. Trump for his other health tip: Get more sunlight. (The guest, Dr. Mehmet Oz, did not address the disinfectant idea.)

“Please don’t try this at home,” said the Fox Business anchor Stuart Varney, one of Mr. Trump’s favorite hosts. The anchor Chris Wallace — not a Trump favorite — felt the need to clarify on-air: “The answer is no, it’s not safe. A lot of the major manufacturers say it isn’t.”

When Mr. Trump made an effort to walk back his remarks on Friday, claiming to reporters at the White House that he had made the comment “sarcastically,” John Roberts, Fox News’s chief White House correspondent, did not sound convinced.

“I was watching very closely,” Mr. Roberts, who attended the briefing, said on the air. “At no time did I seem to think that the president was sarcastically asking the question.”
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
sallybutler said:
And that is the problem. People who get a lot of air time need to realize that there are people who are at least one bottle short of a six pack listening to them.

And yes, we are responsible for what comes out of our mouths.
Click to expand...
I saw this in an article in the Washington Post:
Trump’s latest fantasy cure mushroomed into a potential crisis for public health officials. In Maryland alone, the state government’s emergency hotline received more than 100 calls from residents inquiring whether injecting a disinfectant really was a cure.
Click to expand...
 
Criteria for EUA Authorization—The FDA will issue an EUA if the FDA commissioner finds all of the following:

The CBRN agent specified in the declaration of emergency can cause a serious or life-threatening disease or condition.
  • Based on the scientific evidence available, it is reasonable to believe that the product may be effective in diagnosing, treating, or preventing the disease or condition specified in the declaration of emergency or caused by another medical product to diagnose, treat, or prevent a disease or condition caused by the specified agent.
  • The known and potential benefits outweigh the known and potential risks of the product when used to diagnose, prevent, or treat the serious or life-threatening disease or condition that is the subject of the declaration.
  • There is no adequate, approved, and available alternative to the product for diagnosing, preventing, or treating the disease or condition.1,5,6
Click to expand...
https://www.astho.org/Programs/Prep...eral-Food,-Drug,-and-Cosmetic-Act-Fact-Sheet/

.

FDA (Bright no less!) on the FDA’s emergency approval of Hydroxychloroquine . . .
Based on the totality of scientific evidence available to FDA, it is reasonable to believe that chloroquine phosphate and hydroxychloroquine sulfate may be effective in treating COVID-19, and that, when used under the conditions described in this authorization, the known and potential benefits of chloroquine phosphate and hydroxychloroquine sulfate when used to treat COVID-19 outweigh the known and potential risks of such products
Click to expand...
https://www.fda.gov/media/136534/download
 
Last edited:
It is confusing. I wonder what drives the stories for things that are not authentically what is claimed.
Follow the money is an all time favorite place to start. We have a new," cod has liver pills," stockpile paid by someway to someone.
We have a potential strategy to offer a reassurance of safety to the swimmers of Amity reluctantly leaving the safety of the beach blanket.
 
Honestly those who don’t like Trump wouldn’t say that.
As a narcissistic person Trump simply acts in self interest and is oblivious to others
 
Just look on Twitter, that narrative is everywhere.
 
Last edited:
Zzyzx_Road said:
Nothing that has been cited by the anti-HCQ posters says “clinical trial”. Which just so happens to be their standard criticism of pro-HCQ articles.

What’s good for one is not good for the other?

There are posters here who is on the warpath regarding clinical trials when it comes to pro-HCQ articles, but who categorically refuse to specifically criticize any anti-HCQ article for the exact same flaw. Hypocrisy much?

Do tell: what’s wrong with holding the anti-HCQ articles to the same standard that pro-HCQ articles are held to?

Or is it about telling us that doctors are too stupid to be allowed to read the available literature for HCQ and make their own decisions under the FDA off-label guidelines? Some posters have essentially implied that.

Or is it about carrying water for Big Pharma and Big Medicine who are allergic to cheap treatments from which they can’t make any money? I have posted regarding Big Medicine and Big Pharma’s undue influence on Congress in the writing of the ACA; not too many posters have been willing to admit there might be something there. More recently I posted about those same companies touted as partners in the CDC Foundation that acts as adjunct to the CDC itself. But some people think there is nothing to see there.

You decide. I suggest you follow the money with an open mind. Remember that the ACA was passed with Big Medicine help under the Obama Administration and has been continued with Republican collusion. Follow the money.
Click to expand...
Well Trump says we should shoot light at the person or inside them to flush out the virus. “Big Pharma” certainly isn’t going to make any $$ off that so many you are onto something.
 
sloancaprice said:
Your desire to know exactly what will happen is unrealistic, but knowing that a lot will happen is enough to weigh in a moral judgement.
Click to expand...
It’s every bit as unrealistic to suppose it will reduce the food supply. And if we don’t know what will happen, we don’t know “…a lot will happen…”, and certainly not enough to make a “moral judgment” about it. Moral judgment as to what? Burning gasoline in an SUV? Burning diesel in a 200 hp tractor that plants crops? What? Shut down the tractors and I guarantee there will be food shortages so severe the world has never seen anything like it.
sloancaprice said:
This is a sure sign of the kind of violence that a disrupted food supply would cause.
Click to expand...
So then don’t shut down the tractors or the irrigation pumps or the harvesters or the trucks that ship food or the trains that ship fertilizer or the plants that make fertilizer out of natural gas, or the oil fields that generate the petroleum, or the refineries that turn it into gasoline and diesel. But that’s just the U.S. Wouldn’t want to shut down the ships that bring much of the world’s grain and meat to it, would we? Well, then there are the trucks that haul it from the docks, the plants that process it, the trucks that ship it, the plants that package it or the energy that cooks it.

So, given that you don’t want to reduce the food supply, what does your “moral judgment” want to shut down, and how much CO2 will it demonstrably reduce and more than that, how much will it reduce global temperatures?
 
sloancaprice said:
And what makes you think that the United States will be able to grow these crops if the climate changes?
Click to expand...
Changes to what? More rain in west Texas? Warmer winters in Montana? Without knowing what climate changes anyone is talking about, it’s idle to simply assume they will have a negative effect on food production.

Of much more certain danger is the desertification caused by improper use of the land. Much of Central Asia has been desertified by growing cotton where nature wouldn’t support it. Much of north China has been desertified by attempts to grow crops in drylands. Much of north Africa has been desertified by the same thing. No small part of southern Africa has too, particularly in Zimbabwe and South Africa. Even in the U.S., government misuse of vast tracts of drylands in the West has caused a great deal of desertification.

Since desertification also raises air temperatures, we might do well to try to address that knowable and definite problem than cause misery by attempting to address a purely speculative one.
 
MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: In-hospital death and hospital stay time (day) were obtained, level of inflammatory cytokine (IL-6) was measured and compared between HCQ and NHCQ treatments. RESULTS: The median age of 568 critically ill patients is 68 (57, 76) years old with 37.0% being female. Mortalities are 18.8% (9/48) in HCQ group and 45.8% (238/520) in NHCQ group (p<0.001). The time of hospital stay before patient death is 15 (10-21) days and 8 (4 - 14) days for the HCQ and NHCQ groups, respectively (p<0.05). The level of inflammatory cytokine IL-6 was significantly lowered from 22.2 (8.3-118.9) pg/mL at the beginning of the treatment to 5.2 (3.0-23.4) pg/ml (p<0.05) at the end of the treatment in the HCQ group but there is no change in the NHCQ group.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Hydroxychloroquine treatment is significantly associated with a decreased mortality in critically ill patients with COVID-19 through attenuation of inflammatory cytokine storm. Therefore, hydroxychloroquine should be prescribed for treatment of critically ill COVID-19 patients to save lives.

www.medrxiv.org

Hydroxychloroquine application is associated with a decreased mortality in critically ill patients with COVID-19

Importance Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is a pandemic with no specific drugs and high mortality. The most urgent thing is to find effective treatments. Objective To determine whether hydroxychloroquine application may be associated with a decreased risk of death in critically ill...
www.medrxiv.org www.medrxiv.org
 
Cue the usual criticisms in 3 … 2 … 1

No peer review. Check.
Not a trial. Check.
Retrospective only. Check.
Chinese disinformation. Check.
Throw it out. Check.
Bury it deep. Okay they haven’t called for that. I’ll yield on this one.
 
Took the words out of my mouth. Does the fact that you predicted it somehow invalidate it?

To clarify, it is a retrospective study. That means nothing was controlled. The decision of who to give the HCQ to was uncontrolled, for example. Unless you ensure that the decision to given HCQ or not give it is independent of the patient’s apparent chances of survival, the outcome correlations are unreliable.

www.contagionlive.com

Review: Chloroquine, Hydroxychloroquine Likely Ineffective For COVID-19

Studies should be done in humans to gain insight, before making recommendations solely on lab results, the study authors said.
www.contagionlive.com www.contagionlive.com
 
Last edited:
Arizona still prohibits the use of HCQ to treat Covid-19 patients.

For or against?
 
Zzyzx_Road said:
Arizona still prohibits the use of HCQ to treat Covid-19 patients.

For or against?
Click to expand...
I tried to verify this statement, but was unable. The only thing I could find was that HCQ was allowed in Arizona only with a doctor’s prescription and for confirmed patients, but not as a preventative.
 
sloancaprice said:
There is ample reason to assume that climate change will result in food shortages as it had before.
Click to expand...
Like what? No speculation now. Known facts about the physical nature of the earth and its systems that will predictably be changed in such a way that the overall production of crops will decline.
sloancaprice said:
What makes you think that the United States will be able to meet the food production if the climate changes?
Click to expand...
Exactly what kind of climate change, and where, exactly, will affect what specific crops negatively? Let’s say climate changes so that the “desert southwest” gets ample rain. Will that reduce food production or increase it?
 
sloancaprice said:
If you look at the Little Ice Age as an example, there was the Great Famine in the 1310s, the bubonic plague which may have been able to flourish because humans were less nourished during that time, witch hunts (Pope Innocent VIII blamed them for cold temperatures, the eventual ending of Viking settlements on Greenland, and the French Revolution (driven by food shortages), among others.

So, we have historical examples of food reduction as a result of climate change.
Click to expand...
Looks like you finally admitted that global cooling could have an effect on food production. After you’ve been going on about warming. Now have another look at the Maunder and Dalton Minimums. Just maybe you might understand why I am much more afraid of cooling than warming. We might be headed into a similar cooling episode, but you will never hear that from the media that you read. Need another few years to have more certainty about the current cooling, but the signs are there for those open minded enough to see.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top