Treatment with Hydroxychloroquine Cut Death Rate Significantly in COVID-19 Patients

[pharmacistking]

It appears that a lot of the information in the first link is not new and in part makes reference to study that has been retracted. I agree with you that a vaccine is the best hope to restore normality but there are no guarantees. Even if we do have a vaccine, it may not be effective on everyone so we still better have some treatments that work as well.

Lancet, New England Journal retract Covid-19 studies, including one that raised safety concerns about malaria drugs

Lancet retracts major Covid-19 paper on malaria drug that sparked backlash.

www.statnews.com

Researcher involved in retracted Lancet study has faculty appointment terminated, as details in scandal emerge

The University of Utah has “mutually agreed” to terminate the faculty appointment of Amit Patel, who was a co-author of two retracted papers on Covid-19 in the Lancet and the New England Journal of Medicine.

www.statnews.com

HCQ is worthless as a lead. Guaranteed. You can quote me. All trials will fail.

 

[easyrider]

Not at all. In fact I welcome studies by recognized institutions. I will read and compare the methodology used in coming to their conclusions and repeatability of the results of double blind studies by multiple institutions. Pardon me if quotes like " Many emergency workers take this drug and many covid 19 patients were treated successfully with this drug." strike me as anecdotal rather than derived from scientific studies.

Jim

The way I see this is that the FDA has an established protocol to follow to vet treatments and Dr Fauci is doing this. Regarding anecdotal , everything found in medical science starts as anecdotal. Some of the great anecdotal discoveries are vaccines, drugs and almost every other medical treatment. Many ER doctors say that Hydroxychloroquine treatment cures covid 19 when administered at the right time.

I'm not saying there is anything wrong with following Dr Fauci's recommendations but I would rather have recomendations from some one that is a practicing doctor involved with treating patients. Dr Fauci doesn't treat patients. I found this talk from Dr Kelly Victory very informative.

Bill

 

[tschwa2]

Except that hydroxychloroquine has been used safely for years, under physician supervision. Usage conditions and risks are well known.

As with any medication, it should only be used under medical supervision. Just like remdesvir, I would add.

I trust, Jim, that you are not really advocating that no drug should be considered if it might cause health problems if not used under medical supervision.

I know of NIH funded clinical trial, double-blind study under medical supervision, that was canceled because after hydrocychloroquine became a political football, not enough people were willing to participate in the program to make a valid study.

But didn't the administration order millions of tablets from factories in India that weren't normally FDA approved? Are those still being distributed or were they destroyed.

 

[Ralph Sir Edward]

HCQ is worthless as a lead. Guaranteed. You can quote me. All trials will fail.

Pardon me, but the first post was a trial - randomized and double-blind - that did not fail.

 

[tschwa2]

Pardon me, but the first post was a trial - randomized and double-blind - that did not fail.

No the article was about a retrospective study-anecdotal but does seem to be peer reviewed have a fairly large pool with similar attributes in terms of age and other factors. They are working on a double blind test for 3000 to take it as a prophylactic (intended to prevent the disease) but have only had just over 600 volunteers who qualified for the study.

 

[cman]

One thing I don't understand from the article.
Mortality rate of those treated
only with Hydroxychloroquine:13%
with Hydroxychloroquine and azithromycin : 20.1%
only with azithromycin: 22.4%
not treated with either: 26.4%

If that is the case why would giving azithromycin with the hydroxychloroquine make the patient more likely to die?...

I think the answer might be the mean age of those that were given only Hydroxychloroquine. That group had a mean age several years younger than the other groups;

only with Hydroxychloroquine:13% Mean age 53
with Hydroxychloroquine and azithromycin : 20.1% Mean age 64
only with azithromycin: 22.4% Mean age 68
not treated with either: 26.4% Mean age 71

We know that the mortality rate for those under 60 is substantially lower than those above 60 anyway. But the variation in the age of the groupings gives me pause.

Here's the link to the actual study https://www.ijidonline.com/article/S1201-9712(20)30534-8/fulltext

 

[PrairieGirl]

I started the video with high hopes of learning something. I stopped watching when she said that the virus could NOT survive at temperatures above 80 degrees and that since they were cyclic in nature it would decline in the summer months. Tell that the the folks in Arizona, it's now July.........

 

[Passepartout]

The way I see this is that the FDA has an established protocol to follow to vet treatments and Dr Fauci is doing this. Regarding anecdotal , everything found in medical science starts as anecdotal. Some of the great anecdotal discoveries are vaccines, drugs and almost every other medical treatment. Many ER doctors say that Hydroxychloroquine treatment cures covid 19 when administered at the right time.

I'm not saying there is anything wrong with following Dr Fauci's recommendations but I would rather have recomendations from some one that is a practicing doctor involved with treating patients. Dr Fauci doesn't treat patients. I found this talk from Dr Kelly Victory very informative.

Bill

World Health Organization has suspended tests on hydroxychloroquine as they were not able to replicate the reduction of deaths reported by other studies. The report is below. Apologies if you find it behind a pay wall.
https://www.upi.com/Top_News/World-...es-trial-on-hydroxychloroquine/7551593886054/

Jim

 

[Mroze]

The WHO [most corrupt] is the last organization I would trust.
They have always played games with peoples lives.
Led by people who make decisions based on which way the money flows.

Pure coincidence that one day after positive news they chose to stop all trials.
What harm could continued trials do? What harm could more data serve?

 

[cman]

Pure coincidence that one day after positive news they chose to stop all trials.
What harm could continued trials do? What harm could more data serve?

They didn't stop "all" trials. Here's what their statement says;

This decision applies only to the conduct of the Solidarity trial in hospitalized patients and does not affect the possible evaluation in other studies of hydroxychloroquine or lopinavir/ritonavir in non-hospitalized patients or as pre- or post-exposure prophylaxis for COVID-19.

 

[bluehende]

The WHO [most corrupt] is the last organization I would trust.
They have always played games with peoples lives.
Led by people who make decisions based on which way the money flows.

Pure coincidence that one day after positive news they chose to stop all trials.
What harm could continued trials do? What harm could more data serve?

How dare them be on the ground doing research and getting a DNA sequence. The gall to warn the world of community spread as early as January and to get prepared. I wonder what our stance was in January?

 

[DannyTS]

It is fascinating that there are studies that have found HCQ to be very effective, others harmful (debunked and retracted), others found no improvement at all. I guess WHO could not learn anything from the studies that found the drug effective (dosage, association with other drugs, stage of the infection etc) to continue the research on a better path, right?

WHO started the research in AprilIt stopped the research in May due to safety concerns (based on a study that was not a study and was retracted)
It restarted the research on June 3rd

WHO resumes hydroxychloroquine study for Covid-19, after reviewing safety concerns

The WHO is resuming a clinical trial exploring whether a malaria drug can effectively treat Covid-19, after pausing enrollment in the study to review safety concerns.

www.statnews.com

the debunked study was retractred on May 22nd

https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(20)31180-6/fulltext

It stopped again the research on June 17th, (2 weeks later !) because it found it ineffective. Wow, that was fast.

 

[Brett]

The WHO [most corrupt] is the last organization I would trust.
They have always played games with peoples lives.
Led by people who make decisions based on which way the money flows.

Pure coincidence that one day after positive news they chose to stop all trials.
What harm could continued trials do? What harm could more data serve?

yeah, follow the money .....

 

["Roger"]

the debunked study was retractred on May 22nd

I am one of those people for whom words matter. There is a difference, for example, between something that is unproven versus disproven.

The study was not debunked (as least as I understand what the word means, maybe you mean something different.) Lancelet retracted the article because the researchers who did the study would not give outsiders access to the names of patients who participated in the study citing medical privacy concerns. This is a legitimate concern, but it also prevents outside scientists from reviewing the actual data. Because of that, Lancelet decided to retract the article. At the same time, the company that did the research stands by the accuracy of their research.

Quotes from the link below ...

The reviewers were unable to conduct “an independent and private peer review” and withdrew from the process, The Lancet said....​

Surgisphere issued a statement saying it provides a “real-time database of over 240 million anonymized patient encounters from over 1,200 health care organizations in 45 countries.”​

The company said its data was solid and said the firm “clearly outlined the limitations of an observational study” to researchers.​

Coronavirus (COVID-19) Overview

COVID-19 is a new type of coronavirus that causes mild to severe cases. Here’s a quick guide on how to spot symptoms, risk factors, prevent spread of the disease, and find out what to do if you think you have it.

www.webmd.com

It is highly unusual (perhaps even unheard of) that Lancelot would have published an article like this without first submitting it to peer review. Why would they have done that? Pretty much for the same reason that we will probably have a coVid-19 vaccine approved for market with it having skipped the usual procedures needed to have a drug approved, something that would normally take several years. The current world situation is considered dire and extreme measures are called for. In the case of Hydroclorroquine, it was suddenly a hot drug being widely tauted. Rather than waiting two years for a formal study and review (about the minimum time normally needed) Lancelot decided to put something in print ASAP. Was that a bad thing?

 

[DannyTS]

I am one of those people for which words matter. There is a difference, for example, between something that is unproven versus disproven.

The study was not debunked (as least as I understand what the word means, maybe you mean something different.) Lancelet retracted the article because the researchers who did the study would not give outsiders access to the names of patients who participated in the study citing medical privacy concerns. This is a legitimate concern, but it also prevents outside scientists from reviewing the actual data. Because of that, Lancelet decided to retract the article. At the same time, the company that did the research stands by the accuracy of their research.

Quotes from the link below ...

The reviewers were unable to conduct “an independent and private peer review” and withdrew from the process, The Lancet said....​

Surgisphere issued a statement saying it provides a “real-time database of over 240 million anonymized patient encounters from over 1,200 health care organizations in 45 countries.”​

The company said its data was solid and said the firm “clearly outlined the limitations of an observational study” to researchers.​

Coronavirus (COVID-19) Overview

COVID-19 is a new type of coronavirus that causes mild to severe cases. Here’s a quick guide on how to spot symptoms, risk factors, prevent spread of the disease, and find out what to do if you think you have it.

www.webmd.com

It is highly unusual (perhaps even unheard of) that Lancelot would have published an article like this without first submitting it to peer review. Why would they have done that? Pretty much for the same reason that we will probably have a coVid-19 vaccine approved for market with it having skipped the usual procedures needed to have a drug approved, something that would normally take several years. The current world situation is considered dire and extreme measures are called for. In the case of Hydroclorroquine, it was suddenly a hot drug being widely tauted. Rather than waiting two years for a formal study and review (about the minimum time normally needed) Lancelot decided to put something in print ASAP. Was that a bad thing?

The company that provided the "data", Surgisphere deleted the website and the Twitter accounts since the retractions on 5 June.

The company did not have the brainpower to gather the information.
A Guardian investigation can reveal the US-based company Surgisphere, whose handful of employees appear to include a science fiction writer and an adult-content model, has provided data for multiple studies on Covid-19 co-authored by its chief executive, but has so far failed to adequately explain its data or methodology.

Surgisphere: mass audit of papers linked to firm behind hydroxychloroquine Lancet study scandal

Questions continue for Surgisphere and CEO Sapan Desai as universities deny knowledge of links to firm behind Lancet’s now-disputed blockbuster study

www.theguardian.com

How is that every study in this universe can produce actual data and not hide behind privacy concern? The company could not even explain the methodology, we are not talking about patient confidential data.

From the same article:

Further inquiries by the Guardian into Surgisphere and its founder and chief executive, Dr Sapan Desai, have confirmed that:

• Major institutions including Stanford University, which were described as research partners on the Surgisphere website, said they were not aware of any formal relationship with the company.
• 
  
• A study that formed the basis of Desai’s PhD may contain doctored images, according to expert claims, and the global medical publishing company Elsevier is conducting a review of his papers published in its journals.
• 
  
• Claims made by Desai about his qualifications gained since his medical degree have been called into doubt, including his claims to hold two PhDs, a master’s, and affiliations with major universities and colleges. Some of these affiliations have now been removed from his website and online profiles.

Another article, from the Scientist:
Several institutions once listed as collaborators on Surgisphere’s website, including the University of Minnesota and Stanford University, tell The Scientist they have no record of anyone at their institutions working with Surgisphere. The mentions of the collaborations have since been removed from Surgisphere’s website.

Lancet, NEJM Retract Surgisphere Studies on COVID-19 Patients

All authors other than company founder and CEO Sapan Desai were "unable to complete an independent audit of the data," The Lancet states.

www.the-scientist.com

So yes, the study was debunked unless anyone believes I have a bridge to sell. Seriously now, I do have a bridge to sell. PM for the details.

 

[DannyTS]

this is from Australia:

But at the time the data was collected on April 21, Australia had fewer than 73 deaths, and local researchers have not been able to identify a single hospital that volunteered its records. The authors subsequently said some of the patients were in Asia and had been incorrectly classified.

'This is not how science works': COVID-19 treatment setback

The WHO restarts its trial of hydroxychloroquine after The Lancet retract a research paper on the drug.

www.smh.com.au

 

[DannyTS]

yeah, follow the money .....

View attachment 23018

So classy. Read above please, you may retract your comment since it backfires.

 

["Roger"]

After looking at the Guardian article, I will accept dubunked as an accurate description. My earlier research led to the Webmd site which is usually very reliable. They should update their message.

 

[Brett]

So classy. Read above please, you may retract your comment since it backfires.

yeah .... it backfires .......... we will soon find out the WHO is part of the New World Order of Illuminati

https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-52833706

 

[easyrider]

World Health Organization has suspended tests on hydroxychloroquine as they were not able to replicate the reduction of deaths reported by other studies. The report is below. Apologies if you find it behind a pay wall.
https://www.upi.com/Top_News/World-...es-trial-on-hydroxychloroquine/7551593886054/

Jim

Like any organization the World Health Organization did make mistakes. When a company makes a mistake it usually cost them some cash flow. When the WHO made mistakes it cost life and livelihoods. I guess it did cost WHO cash flow as well as I think the USA stopped funding WHO.

https://www.marketwatch.com/story/1...blic-health-crisis-in-a-generation-2020-06-18

 

[Ralph Sir Edward]

Another repurpose drug to watch - Ivermectin

Ivermectin: a systematic review from antiviral effects to COVID-19 complementary regimen - The Journal of Antibiotics

Ivermectin proposes many potentials effects to treat a range of diseases, with its antimicrobial, antiviral, and anti-cancer properties as a wonder drug. It is highly effective against many microorganisms including some viruses. In this comprehensive systematic review, antiviral effects of...

www.nature.com

 

[cman]

Deleted. Posted in wrong thread.

 

[Bunk]

I’m afraid that Covid and the political climate have made a lot of us punchy. When I saw this opening post, my immediate reaction was that this post was a good thing. If the article is correct, that would be a great thing. If it is not proven to be correct, we’re no worse off than we are now. At worst, it gives some of us a little more hope during lousy times. In fact, I first thought that for once there might not be any bickering. After all, why should any of us hope that hydrochloroquine doesn’t work.

I don’t see anything in the opening post to justify the 20 + posts of bickering and insults that followed.

I’m no angel. I admit that I’ve been obnoxious in some of the things I’ve said here. And I know the verbal instigation runs both ways.

But might this not be a good time to call a truce. It’s not necessary to constantly repeat the same thing. Is it necessary to use the word “Idiot” in order to stir the pot. I daresay that our spouses and family and friends don’t want to listen to us say the same thing over and over again. Think of Tug as an extended family. Most of us don’t need to read the same things repeated over and over again. It might be appropriate to refrain from sending out your posts for 30 minutes after you’ve written it, just to give you a chance to cool off and read it again, and see if it’s really necessary to post.

 

[DannyTS]

After looking at the Guardian article, I will accept dubunked as an accurate description. My earlier research led to the Webmd site which is usually very reliable. They should update their message.

The fact that the study received so much publicity in the US but its retraction and what was behind it almost none is troubling. Most people are still left with the impression that this is a drug that has caused people to die and many people do not want to participate in studies making its research very difficult.

 

[Ralph Sir Edward]

Another link for Ivermectin trial

US trial of ivermectin cuts coronavirus mortality by 40% - Pharmafile

A US clinical trial of the drug ivermectin found that it reduced the mortality rate of COVID-19 patients by 40%. This study was published in medRxiv and was led by Dr Jean-Jacques Rajter a physician at Broward Health Medical Center. The study assessed 280 coronavirus patients over the age of 18...

www.pharmafile.com