Positive Results From Hydroxychloroquine Study

  • Thread starter Thread starter josie_L
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Here is the problem with all retrospective studies like this one. The studies do not control anything. They only look back on data collected during a chaotic time under uncontrolled conditions. Such studies cannot take into account biases from the decisions of who to treat and who not to treat with HCQ. How were those decisions made? Who knows? For each individual patient the decision is by the doctor in the best interests of the patient. If a doctor thinks HCQ might be appropriate for a particular patient, he is more likely to prescribe it. The patients who did not get HCQ were likely to be patients that did not appear to the doctors to be good candidates for it, especially ones who were so sick already that their death was imminent. Whatever the criteria were, it may very well be criteria that also happen to correlate with the patient’s likelihood of surviving. Therefore the results published (26% vs 13% death rate) could very well be reflective of the biases in prescribing and not due to actual benefit of the drug. The original researchers warned as much. This is from the Henry Ford Health System announcement:
Henry Ford Health System:
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.

“Currently, the drug should be used only in hospitalized patients with appropriate monitoring, and as part of study protocols, in accordance with all relevant federal regulations,” Dr. Zervos said.
Click to expand...
The part I bolded shows that even the study authors do not consider these results sufficient to recommend non-study use of HCQ.

It is interesting that Townhall cites a CNN article, but they ignored everything except what they wanted from that article (also called cherry-picking). If you want to read the full story, it is here. For example, the headline is Study finds hydroxychloroquine may have boosted survival, but other researchers have doubts.

And if you like going to the original source, read the actual study report here:

https://www.ijidonline.com/article/S1201-9712(20)30534-8/fulltext

Or, you can just satisfy yourself with spoon-fed right-wing pre-digested food from Townhall and let them do all your thinking for you.
 
I actually don’t mind reading from both conservative and liberal media outlets so I get a more well-rounded perspective.

I don’t think your the type however who would bother getting her news from anything other than a liberal source.
 
Last edited:
So I just accessed the original study and the conclusions were thus:

Conclusions and Relevance​

In this multi-hospital assessment, when controlling for COVID-19 risk factors, treatment with hydroxychloroquine alone and in combination with azithromycin was associated with REDUCTION in COVID-19 associated mortality. Prospective trials are needed to examine this impact.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Talk about cherry-picking, the doctor involved in the study explains why their results were different from previous studies:
Dr. Marcus Zervos, division head of infectious disease for Henry Ford Health System, said 26% of those not given hydroxychloroquine died, compared to 13% of those who got the drug. The team looked back at everyone treated in the hospital system since the first patient in March.
“Our results do differ from some other studies,” Zervos told a news conference. “What we think was important in ours … is that patients were treated EARLY. For hydroxychloroquine to have a benefit, it needs to begin before the patients begin to suffer some of the severe immune reactions that patients can have with Covid,” he added.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
And if I’m not mistaken that was one of the arguments used in previous discussions on CAF regarding the effective use of hydroxychloroquine, that is, it needed to be used in the earlier stages of the disease.
 
Last edited:
This is what I don’t get… why the heck is a DRUG a conservative vs liberal issue? To me that is literally INSANE. If this wasn’t a matter of lives on the line, it would be laughable. Of all the things to make a political issue…
 
I know. I don’t understand it either. I’m just happy to hear that something, anything can help to possibly reduce the mortality rate.
 
Last edited:
From the CNN article:
CNN:
Researchers not involved in the Henry Ford study pointed out it wasn’t of the same quality of the studies showing hydroxychloroquine did not help patients, and said other treatments, such as the use of the steroid dexamethasone, might have accounted for the better survival of some patients.
. . .
“As the Henry Ford Health System became more experienced in treating patients with COVID-19, survival may have improved, regardless of the use of specific therapies,” Dr. Todd Lee of the Royal Victoria Hospital in Montreal, Canada, and colleagues wrote in a commentary in the same journal.

“Finally, concomitant steroid use in patients receiving hydroxychloroquine was more than double the non-treated group. This is relevant considering the recent RECOVERY trial that showed a mortality benefit with dexamethasone.” The steroid dexamethasone can reduce inflammation in seriously ill patients.
Click to expand...
That last paragraph is very important. What it says is that the patients who received HCQ were also mostly the ones who received the steroid dexamethasone, which suggests that perhaps the inflammation-fighting properties of the steroid was what actually accounted for the reduction in death rates, and not the HCQ. Or maybe it was the combination of HCQ and the steroid. We don’t know. The point is the result is promising, but not definitive. The researchers and the media were correct in tamping down the exaggerated enthusiasm for HCQ. That is not to say that HCQ definitely doesn’t work. Perhaps some combination of HCQ and something else will turn out to be the “game changer” that Trump predicted. I hope so. But we just don’t know yet. However we do know that standard treatment is getting better and better as we learn more about this virus. The death rate as a fraction of the hospitalization rate has gone down overall. That is good news.
 
LeafByNiggle . . . .
The researchers and the media were correct in tamping down the exaggerated enthusiasm for HCQ.
Click to expand...
“Tamping down . . . enthusiasm” is not the role of researchers.

“Tamping down . . . enthusiasm” is also not the role of the press.

(But I am glad you admit they were engaging in these activities.)

As soon as President Trump had positive things to say, the leftists went into overdrive attacking what President Trump said (as the left does on every issue).

There was no “Tamping down . . . enthusiasm” from the left.
Just politicization (in this case, of medicine).

The left politicizes everything.

Despite its claims otherwise, the left is very BIG Business oriented as well.

Beneficial generic drugs do not spell much profit and there was an element of attempts to destroy HCQ as a viable treatment option for business purposes in some cases in my opinion.

The left and BIG Business was a natural alliance.
 
Last edited:
Does this mean we should at least give a second look at injecting bleach or opening lungs to expose them to UV light…Why not? “You have nothing to lose!”
 
That’s ridiculous, hydroxycholoroquine is an actual drug that is used in multiple treatments.
 
Funny how science is fake until one of dozens of studies confirm political beliefs, then its golden. We’ll see who’s buying it in 118 days! Tick Tock!
 
Last edited:
Hydroxychloroquine is not the equivalent of bleach. Your statement was nothing more than the politicization you decry!

You are part of the problem.
 
There is no credible medical or scientific evidence, other than outlying studies that prove Hydroxycholoroquine is any less harmful than bleach injections.
 
I learned long ago “alternative facts” are now a thing, and are fair game, so yes, I will.
 
Let’s just hope you’re never in a position to put that theory to the test.
 
twf said:
This is what I don’t get… why the heck is a DRUG a conservative vs liberal issue? To me that is literally INSANE. If this wasn’t a matter of lives on the line, it would be laughable. Of all the things to make a political issue…
Click to expand...
This was turned into a political football as soon as Trump said a positive word about it. To many in the media, and likewise some posters here, anything that Trump says is good must inherently be bad.
Cathoholic said:
“Tamping down . . . enthusiasm” is not the role of researchers.
Click to expand...
Actually…it kind of is. It is good science to point out the flaws of your research, thus “tamping down” enthusiasm. Leaf has done a good job in explaining some of the deficiencies in this research. However, everyone should understand that most ALL medical research has significant flaws, yet we are only given what knowledge we are given, so we use it.
Cathoholic said:
Tamping down . . . enthusiasm” is also not the role of the press.
Click to expand...
The role of the press has been to denigrate President Trump since he won the Republican nomination.
dscath said:
Does this mean we should at least give a second look at injecting bleach or opening lungs to expose them to UV light…Why not? “You have nothing to lose!”
Click to expand...
No, it means perhaps you can stop with the useless inflammatory posts like this. But you won’t, because it’s about all you have to contribute.
 
josie_L said:
Talk about cherry-picking, the doctor involved in the study explains why their results were different from previous studies:
Click to expand...
That wasn’t the only explanation:

https://www.ijidonline.com/article/S1201-9712(20)30530-0/fulltext
While there was a hospital treatment protocol in place, unmeasured clinical factors likely influenced the decision not to treat 16.1% of patients, in a center where 78% received treatment. These factors are often difficult to capture in an observational study. Were the decision to withhold treatment related to poor prognosis (e.g. palliative intent), it stands to reason that patients receiving neither hydroxychloroquine nor azithromycin would have the highest mortality. Indeed, the non-treated group had an overall mortality that was higher than the rate of admission to the ICU (26.4% vs. 15.2%), suggesting that many patients were not considered appropriate for critical care.
Click to expand...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top