Hydroxychloroquine

GURPS

INGSOC
PREMO Member
What We Know Now About Hydroxychloroquine to Treat COVID-19


Thus, the buzz surrounding hydroxychloroquine began to die down and it nearly was forgotten in the news cycle, until early July when the results of 2,500-person study were published by the Henry Ford COVID-19 Task Force.

That study found that among those who received hydroxychloroquine, the mortality was 13.5%. This compares to those who received none of the studied drugs, among whom the mortality was 26.4%.

The group of patients who received hydroxychloroquine alone suffered about half the mortality of the baseline group. Note that this is different from saying hydroxychloroquine “was responsible for reducing mortality by half.”

The Ford study is a retrospective observational study, which means it looks back on cases that already have happened. These studies often can gather a large amount of data, but they tell only correlation rather than causation. Although it’s a positive study for the drug, it adds to a growing body of mixed results.

To tell definitively whether hydroxychloroquine is responsible for the reduction in mortality, what’s required is a randomized controlled trial. That is, a prospective study designed to test the direct effect of a drug or intervention.
 

Hijinx

Well-Known Member
I would certainly not fear taking it., it seems to be a fairly harmless drug and if it just makes me think it helps thta is good too.
It's not like it would cost me $1,000 dollars per pill.
 

GURPS

INGSOC
PREMO Member
'Don’t speak for me': Yale doctor battles CNN anchor over effectiveness of hydroxychloroquine

“None of those studies that you just cited are random placebo-controlled trials, what Dr. Fauci refers to as the gold standard,” Berman said, as the CNN on-screen chyron stated “Growing body of evidence shows hydroxychloroquine is ineffective.”

Risch responded: “That’s not actually correct. The problem with those randomized controlled trials, is they were trials done on the wrong people. They were trials done on low-risk people with low risks of hospitalization and mortality. You don’t do a study of prostate cancer with women... because nobody is gonna get the outcome.”

Risch said the studies were conducted on “very low-risk people who are not going to get hospitalized or die” from coronavirus.

“We don’t treat those people. We treat high-risk people,” Risch said.

Berman then accused Risch of being inconsistent compared to the op-ed, but the Yale epidemiologist disagreed and the interview grew contentious.

“You’re misstating what I said, I said it had to be in high-risk people,” Risch said. “As I’ve said, you have to treat the right people. You have to study the right people. Those studies did not study the right people, period. That’s the bottom line.”

Berman insisted the studies have included a wide range of participants.

“Again, the question is,” a frustrated Berman continued, “Why haven’t any random, placebo-controlled trials showed benefit? Isn’t that a problem for an epidemiologist?”

“No,” Risch shot back. “In fact, the FDA has a huge history of drugs going into widespread use in the medical community for decades that have not been established in the basis of randomized controlled trials. Half of the chemotherapy drugs used in cancer were used without randomized controlled trials.”

[clip]

“Randomized, placebo-controlled trials, which Dr. Fauci does refer to as the gold standard, are so useful and I know you know that,” Berman said at one point.

“Don’t speak for me,” Risch said as Berman spoke over him.

When Risch was allowed to respond, he told Berman that he made “three or four wrong statements” during the segment and the two continued to bicker over the details of the trials – some of which Berman considers to be “sketchy.”

“None of them are sketchy,” Risch said.




Not Trying to report the news, but editorializing
 

GURPS

INGSOC
PREMO Member
The Key to Defeating COVID-19 Already Exists. We Need to Start Using It | Opinion

On May 27, I published an article in the American Journal of Epidemiology (AJE) entitled, "Early Outpatient Treatment of Symptomatic, High-Risk COVID-19 Patients that Should be Ramped-Up Immediately as Key to the Pandemic Crisis." That article, published in the world's leading epidemiology journal, analyzed five studies, demonstrating clear-cut and significant benefits to treated patients, plus other very large studies that showed the medication safety.

Physicians who have been using these medications in the face of widespread skepticism have been truly heroic. They have done what the science shows is best for their patients, often at great personal risk. I myself know of two doctors who have saved the lives of hundreds of patients with these medications, but are now fighting state medical boards to save their licenses and reputations. The cases against them are completely without scientific merit.

Since publication of my May 27 article, seven more studies have demonstrated similar benefit. In a lengthy follow-up letter, also published by AJE, I discuss these seven studies and renew my call for the immediate early use of hydroxychloroquine in high-risk patients. These seven studies include: an additional 400 high-risk patients treated by Dr. Vladimir Zelenko, with zero deaths; four studies totaling almost 500 high-risk patients treated in nursing homes and clinics across the U.S., with no deaths; a controlled trial of more than 700 high-risk patients in Brazil, with significantly reduced risk of hospitalization and two deaths among 334 patients treated with hydroxychloroquine; and another study of 398 matched patients in France, also with significantly reduced hospitalization risk. Since my letter was published, even more doctors have reported to me their completely successful use.
 

GURPS

INGSOC
PREMO Member
These Two Charts Should Land Dr. Fauci in Prison


Today the AAPS filed a motion for a preliminary injunction to compel the release to the public of hydroxychloroquine by the Food & Drug Administration (FDA) and the Department of Health & Human Services (HHS).

Here are two charts that show hydroxychloroquine’s effectiveness in treating the coronavirus.




And here is another chart proving the effectiveness of hydroxychloroquine.

 

GURPS

INGSOC
PREMO Member
Disconnect between FDA and doctors prescribing hydroxychloroquine

At the root of the disconnect is a medical practice known as "off-label prescribing."

"Let doctors be doctors," said Dr. Alieta Eck, a primary care physician in New Jersey. “We treat people off-label all the time.”

Off-label prescribing is the use of a pharmaceutical not approved by the FDA to treat a condition. The FDA has approved hydroxychloroquine for treating malaria, lupus, and rheumatoid arthritis, not COVID-19. FDA approval only limits what pharmaceutical companies can advertise about a drug, not what doctors can prescribe. An estimated 1 in 5 prescriptions is off-label.

Back in Mid-March, President Trump touted hydroxychloroquine as a treatment for COVID-19. In the following week, prescriptions for the drug jumped nearly 2,000%. In late March, the FDA issued an emergency use authorization for hydroxychloroquine, which allowed state and local supplies of the drug to be supplemented from the strategic national stockpile. On June 15, the FDA reversed that decision, citing research showing the drug was ineffective and created safety concerns.

Since then, the question about whether to use hydroxychloroquine has become politically charged. America's Frontline Doctors suggested that the political atmosphere has led medical professionals to self-censor the benefits of the drug in treating COVID-19.
 

PeoplesElbow

Well-Known Member
This is a typical medicine success rate for a chosen treatment.

Really about the same success rate as cloth masks.....
 

Hijinx

Well-Known Member
The Doctor claimed there has been no correct study of the effects of HQC.

Why hasn't there been.

Why do they keep saying it doesn't really work when there has not been a correct study made.
 

PeoplesElbow

Well-Known Member
I did read the studies they did are on very advanced cases, if they used it earlier the success rate is much better.
 

PeoplesElbow

Well-Known Member
Yes .... with Zinc and a Z-Pack

Its not a be all end all ...... but when used as an early treatment
If people only knew the average success rates of most medicines they would crap.

If aspirin was only half as effective, twice as dangerous and 100x more expensive it would be considered a miracle drug.
 

GURPS

INGSOC
PREMO Member
An Effective COVID Treatment the Media Continues to Besmirch


On April 6, 2020, an international team of medical experts published an extensive study of hydroxychloroquine in more than 130,000 patients with connective tissue disorders. They reaffirmed that hydroxychloroquine was a safe drug with no serious side effects. The drug could safely be given to pregnant women and breast-feeding mothers. Consequently, countries such as China, Turkey, South Korea, India, Morocco, Algeria, and others began to use hydroxychloroquine widely and early in their national pandemic response. Doctors overseas were safely prescribing the drug based on clinical signs and symptoms because widespread testing was not available.

However, the NIH promoted a much different strategy for the United States. The “Fauci Strategy” was to keep early infected patients quarantined at home without treatment until they developed a shortness of breath and had to be admitted to a hospital. Then they would they be given hydroxychloroquine. The Food and Drug Administration cluelessly agreed to this doctrine and it stated in its hydroxychloroquine Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) that “hospitalized patients were likely to have a greater prospect of benefit (compared to ambulatory patients with mild illness).”

In reality just the opposite was true. This was a tragic mistake by Fauci and FDA Commissioner Dr. Stephen Hahn and it was a mistake that would cost the lives of thousands of Americans in the days to come.

At the same time, accumulating data showed remarkable results if hydroxychloroquine were given to patients early, during a seven-day window from the time of first symptom onset. If given during this window, most infections did not progress into the severe, lethal second stage of the disease. Patients still got sick, but they avoided hospitalization or the later transfer to an intensive care unit. In mid-April a high-level memo was sent to the FDA alerting them to the fact that the best use for hydroxychloroquine was for its early use in still ambulatory COVID patients. These patients were quarantined at home but were not short of breath and did not yet require supplemental oxygen and hospitalization.

Failing to understand that COVID-19 could be a two-stage disease process, the FDA ignored the memo and, as previously mentioned, it withdrew its EUA for hydroxychloroquine based on flawed studies and clinical trials that were applicable only to late-stage COVID patients.


By now, however, some countries had already implemented early, aggressive, outpatient community treatment with hydroxychloroquine and within weeks were able to minimize their COVID deaths and bring their national pandemic under some degree of control.
 
Last edited:

GURPS

INGSOC
PREMO Member
Hey why treat people early with HQX .. when you can hospitalize them and get that sweet insurance money
 
Reactions: BOP

GURPS

INGSOC
PREMO Member
Yes they are GURPS - hence the reason Homesick was entirely correct in her assessment that they are the best doctors money can buy. :razz:

Well yes ........ but the assumption with such a statement is someone costing a lot more
 
Top