Renowned epidemiologist sees 'massive disinformation campaign' against hydroxychloroquine

[LeafByNiggle]

An appeal to (alleged) authority is not an argument.

When evaluating competing authorities (which is what the OP article is doing with its “Renowned” headline), citing authorities is definitely an argument.

But from the article in post 67:

" In various studies, the drug had demonstrated antiviral activity, an ability to modify the activity of the immune system, and it has an established safety profile at appropriate doses, leading to the hypothesis that it may have also been useful in the treatment of COVID-19."

There is no reason to believe that this one article from the NIH represents the sum total of all the reasoning behind the downgrading of HCQ in general.

 

[Cathoholic]

Ridgerunner . . .

Apparently he won his lawsuit against the purveyors of the last previous slander. Perhaps he will again.

Thanks for doing the homework Ridgerunner.

@Motherwit. Did you KNOW this (and not tell me) when you did your “research” on this guy?

Or did this escape your “research” sources?

Which one is it?

 

[Cathoholic]

LeafByNiggle . . .

There is no reason to believe that this one article from the NIH represents the sum total of all the reasoning behind the downgrading of HCQ in general.

I agree. It looks like (from their actions) other factors played a role in downgrading HCQ that they refuse to let the public know about.

Probably things like wanting a patentable
“medicine” or “vaccine” in consultation with Big Pharma.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

LeafByNiggle . . .

There is no reason to believe that this one article from the NIH represents the sum total of all the reasoning behind the downgrading of HCQ in general.

And here come the conspiracy theories…

How about the more reasonable explanation. That being, that they are experts and know what they are talking about and you and I aren’t?

 

[Cathoholic]

LeafByNiggle explaining his theory . . . .

There is no reason to believe that this one article from the NIH represents the sum total of all the reasoning behind the downgrading of HCQ in general.

I agreed.

Leaf’s response?

And here come the conspiracy theories…

Well if they don’t tell us all of WHY they downgraded it, that is all anyone is left with by definition.
That is theorizing (again, by definition).

What makes your theory any better than anyone elses LeafByNiggle?

 

[Ridgerunner]

Vitamin D isn’t a “cure” either, but it can improve a person’s chances of resisting Covid. It has nearly always been understood that HCQ is an “early” thing to use and is not useful for those who are seriously affected by Covid. The various hospital studies have been terminated for the unsurprising reason that HCQ is of little benefit to hospitalized patients. To the extent it is useful, it is prophylactic or administered within a day or two of exposure. Some data indicate a high degree of usefulness in those circumstances.

But HCQ use has become politicized in order to discredit Trump, so useful or not, it isn’t deemed acceptable treatment in this country, though it’s still used elsewhere. Sometimes those who talk about how the U.S. infection record is worse than many, they might be reflecting on the wisdom of the use of HCQ in other countries.

I do not maintain that HCQ is effective under any circumstance. It might not be, though obviously others of reasonable credentials have thought it does. What I dislike is that, useful or not, its use has been thoroughly denigrated in this country for political reasons, not medical reasons.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

Well if they don’t tell us all of WHY they downgraded it, that is all anyone is left with by definition.

They do tell you why:

https://www.covid19treatmentguidelines.nih.gov/therapies/antiviral-therapy/chloroquine-or-hydroxychloroquine-and-or-azithromycin/

What makes your theory any better than anyone elses LeafByNiggle?

Because it does require belief in a conspiracy.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

Sometimes those who talk about how the U.S. infection record is worse than many, they might be reflecting on the wisdom of the use of HCQ in other countries.

That hypothesis is easily disproven by comparing the best performing nations with the ones using HCQ.

It might not be, though obviously others of reasonable credentials have thought it does.

And many many more of impeccable credentials have concluded it does not.

its use has been thoroughly denigrated in this country for political reasons, not medical reasons.

The medical community has not “denigrated” it. They have determined, for valid medical reasons, that it does not do much.

 

[Cathoholic]

LeafbyNiggle theorizing . . . .

How about the more reasonable explanation. That being, that they are experts and know what they are talking about and you and I aren’t?

The problem with this is you’ve got ivory tower Drs. with KNOWN contracts and collaboration with big pharma over the years saying one thing.

And real actual frontline Drs. who have presented their experience and their evidence (with no financial incentive for themselves to say it) saying another thing.

When they present their reasearch, they get told or implied it is worthless because theirs was anectodal.

Meanwhile the ivory tower guys are not designing studies even now (!) that are congruent with the known physiology and these frontline doctors patient-care experiences.

Enormous BIG Business has joined the fight to supress what these frontline doctors have to say.

We’ve even seen two of the worlds most prestigious medicam journals (The New England Journal of Medicine and The Lancet) get caught simultaneously publishing FAKE research. It was so bad they had to admit and retract it.

Google banning them from being searched for.
Facebook banning them.
Even their webpage provider nuking them.

Yet these same people allow violent leftist hate groups to do their thing. Which is WHY they can show up at a coordinated place at the drop of a hat to cause their trouble against good, hard-working law-abiding citizens.

Anarchists, antifa, and other violent thugs which the leftist politicians have proverbially hitched their star to.

No Leaf. Things are so abnormal here, it tells me things are . . . . Well . . . Abnormal.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

LeafbyNiggle theorizing . . . .

How about the more reasonable explanation. That being, that they are experts and know what they are talking about and you and I aren’t?

As I said, your theory requires belief in a conspiracy - not just a potential conspiracy, but an actual one.

And real actual frontline Drs. who have presented their experience and their evidence (with no financial incentive for themselves to say it) saying another thing.

The vast majority of frontline Drs. say no such thing.

 

[Ridgerunner]

hat hypothesis is easily disproven by comparing the best performing nations with the ones using HCQ.

The U.S. does not use it. India very much does. While India’s statistics are worthy of questioning, their incidence and death rates are much lower than ours. Regardless, there does appear to be some preventive or early treatment utility.

But again, the problem as I see it is that the disuse here is a political result, not a medical one.

https://www.pharmaceutical-journal....nst-covid-19/20208233.article?firstPass=false

 

[Cathoholic]

Did you even read your own treatment guidelines?

Because all their research is aimed at the wrong cohorts except uncited “research”.

Here are the salient quotes from your own article . . . .

In a large randomized controlled trial of hospitalized patients in the United Kingdom . .

. . . In another randomized controlled trial that was conducted in Brazil, neither hydroxychloroquine alone nor hydroxychloroquine plus azithromycin improved clinical outcomes among hospitalized patients . . . .

. . . In addition to these randomized trials, data from large retrospective observational studies do not consistently show evidence of benefit for hydroxychloroquine with or without azithromycin in hospitalized patients . . . .

(They admit mixed results even on poorly designed studies)

. . . Conversely, a large retrospective cohort study reported a survival benefit among hospitalized patients

There are physiologic reasons possible for exceptions and mixed results, but the bulk of their complaints have to do with inappropriate cohorts.

Were the studies designed that way (to fail)? Probably not. But why are there no studies being talked about that are choosing proper cohorts except people like the FrontLineDoctors who at least have their anecdotal experience which has been so good?

Then your article says this (without the citation of one article - so I cannot look at parameters such as O2 sat., baseline chest x-ray reports, comorbidities, dosing, etc.) . . .

Several randomized trials have not shown clinical benefit for hydroxychloroquine in nonhospitalized patients with COVID-19.

What are they? Are they from The NEJM and The Lancet by any chance? Have they attempted to be reproduced by other researchers to see if the alleged research data is reliable and reproducible? That’s how these things are supposed to work in real science.

(They don’t work that way with political junk science like we see in the global warming game.)

We don’t know do we? So like I said. We are not told.

And your “information” simply affirms my point.

 

[Cathoholic]

LeafByNiggle . . .

The vast majority of frontline Drs. say no such thing.

So says you.

Link to me all these doctors treating patients with hydroxychloroquine on a daily basis that quit because it did not work.

I would be interested in hearing from them.

We heard from the doctors treating patients (until they were muzzled).

So let’s see these doctors you are talking about?

 

[RidgeSprinter]

https://www.cnn.com/2020/08/31/health/us-coronavirus-monday/index.html

A CNN poll this month indicated 40% of Americans wouldn’t get a Covid-19 vaccine, even if it’s free and easy to access.

Part of the problem is public skepticism of the FDA after the agency’s premature authorization of hydroxychloroquine and convalescent plasma therapy, said Dr. Rochelle Walensky, chief of infectious diseases at Massachusetts General Hospital.

Both hydroxychloroquine and convalescent plasma therapy have been touted by President Donald Trump, who appointed the FDA commissioner.

“The problem is both with hydroxychloroquine and with the convalescent plasma, we saw a real politicization of that scientific debate in a way that I think has all of us concerned,” Jha said.

 

[Cathoholic]

RidgeSprinter. You pointed out public skepticism of the FDA after the agency’s premature authorization of hydroxychloroquine and convalescent plasma therapy.

Was the public accepting BEFORE that?

Did the FAKE studies against HCQ in the Lancet and NEJM inflame public skepticism against people going to great lengths to discredit HCQ too?

Or were those fiascos OK?

What do you think physiologically the proper cohorts of plasma therapy would be? And why?

Which patients physiologically would be best suited at least on paper to receive HCQ and WHY?

 

[LeafByNiggle]

The U.S. does not use it. India very much does.

Not for the general public in India. Just frontline healthcare workers. And even then there is no evidence that it works in that manner:
https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-01619-8

Pharmaceutical Journal

Down, but not out: hydroxychloroquine could still have a role against COVID-19​

Ongoing research may yet prove that the 4-aminoquinolones are an effective prophylactic medication in those at risk of developing COVID-19.

“Randomised controlled trials such as COPCOV are vital to confirming or refuting this possibility.”

So the authors themselves admit that the question is still an open one.

It is important to keep in mind the distinction between a controlled trial and use by the general public. Which trials can be controlled so that only qualified participants take the drug, general use by the public opens the door to low-probability side-effects from having a large effect due to the number of people taking the drug as a prophylactic. I am all for continued controlled trials. But not for premature promotion.

But why are their no studies being talked about that are choosing proper cohorts

Because it is much harder to conduct a study on prophylactic use than it is to conduct a study on treatment use. You need many more people for meaningful results, and it is hard to get people to volunteer for a study when they are not the least bit sick, and there are potential side-effects to boot.

like the FrontLineDoctors who at least have their anecdotal experience which has been so good?

I dismiss all their so-called evidence because they are not reliable sources.

Several randomized trials have not shown clinical benefit for hydroxychloroquine in nonhospitalized patients with COVID-19.

If you really want to know, contact the NIH. Or ask your doctor to contact them for you.

 

[Cathoholic]

LeafByNiggle pretending I have been talking about prophylaxis instead of early treatment (although there are proper subsets of prophylaxis which should be looked at too) . . . .

Because it is much harder to conduct a study on prophylactic use than it is to conduct a study on treatment use.

This is the fallacy of equivocation. My premise got changed.

 

[Cathoholic]

LeafByNiggle against physicians treating patients . . .

I dismiss all their so-called evidence because they are not reliable sources.

This is the fallacy of ipse dixit. It is so, merely because Leaf says it is so.

If you really want to know, contact the NIH.

But a good start would be you not referencing articles that are irrelevant to my questions.

But maybe I will contact the NIH directly and ask them why these obvious things regarding HCQ have not been done.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

LeafByNiggle pretending I have been talking about prophylaxos instead of early treatment (although there are proper subsets of prophylaxis which should be looked at too) . . . .

Because it is much harder to conduct a study on prophylactic use than it is to conduct a study on treatment use.

But all the sources that have been cited here only cite prophylactic use. Where is the data on early treatment of infected people?

 

[RidgeSprinter]

Was the public accepting BEFORE that?

Which public? Trump’s Core?

Did the FAKE studies against HCQ

FAKE, because they go against your narrative or Trump’s narrative?