2019-2020 coronavirus pandemic (Vaccination 2021 Edition)

[Agema]

The WHO temporarily suspended hydroxy investigation because of the fraudulent article.

Exactly: paused, not ended.

Both your studies you linked to gave overdoses of hydroxy to the patients

If they'd given overdoses there would be a really major problem, people would lose their jobs and be up before a professionalism tribunal. They gave them relatively high doses - more specifically, loading doses. Drugs distribute to certain tissues preferentially over others, so this sometime requires giving people large amounts of the drug to ensure enough gets to the right target tissue quickly. Holy fuck, one paper says hydroxychloroquine has a Vd of around 44,000 litres, that's some impressive sequestration.

Out of 70 hydroxy studies, 56 of them showed benefits (40 were peer reviewed). Of the 14 studies that were negative or neutral, 10 of them were done on ICU patients (which hydroxy doesn't help with). It's not that smart of an idea to give hydroxy to ICU patients and especially not at those doses.

I'm deeply skeptical about those figures, never mind that they look like a crude attempt to bludgeon a message through apparent quantity over quality. Not least because I know it's far more complex than that: in lots of studies, hydroxychloroquine was administered with other drugs - such as corticosteroids, which have been identified as useful.

 

[Johnny Novgorod]

Day 196 of quarantine.

 

[lil devils x]

Day 196 of quarantine.

Has Argentina just stayed in quarantine this entire time? What precisely does that entail? * has been wondering this since you started posting this updates* LOL

 

[Johnny Novgorod]

Has Argentina just stayed in quarantine this entire time? What precisely does that entail? * has been wondering this since you started posting this updates* LOL

Yes and no. Quarantine was declared March 20 and while it has since relaxed (mostly in the form of allowing certain businesses to reopen) it has never been officially declared over. Intercity travel is still strictly forbidden (every week there's a story about someone not being allowed travel to say goodbye to a dying relative), and use of public transport or even leaving your house requires a special work permit. Also social gatherings are only allowed outdoors in parks and such during certain days and for certain hours.

Thing is most people break quarantine one way or the other because there's practically no control anymore; more to the point it doesn't seem to have made much of a difference other than ruining the economy (there's record poverty, bankruptcy, inflation, devaluation, etc). At the end of six and a half months of this gauntlet the country is N°8 in the world in cases of COVID despite minimal testing (N°122 in the world) and the government has sort of slunk into the background and given up managing the quarantine it instated, beyond extending it for 2-3 weeks at a time via social media posts.

So yes, we're technically still in quarantine. Even this government's Fox News calls it that, to give you an idea that calling it quarantine isn't just me being bitter and stubborn about it.

 

[lil devils x]

Yes and no. Quarantine was declared March 20 and while it has since relaxed (mostly in the form of allowing certain businesses to reopen) it has never been officially declared over. Intercity travel is still strictly forbidden (every week there's a story about someone not being allowed travel to say goodbye to a dying relative), and use of public transport or even leaving your house requires a special work permit. Also social gatherings are only allowed outdoors in parks and such during certain days and for certain hours.

Thing is most people break quarantine one way or the other because there's practically no control anymore; more to the point it doesn't seem to have made much of a difference other than ruining the economy (there's record poverty, bankruptcy, inflation, devaluation, etc). At the end of six and a half months of this gauntlet the country is N°8 in the world in cases of COVID despite minimal testing (N°122 in the world) and the government has sort of slunk into the background and given up managing the quarantine it instated, beyond extending it for 2-3 weeks at a time via social media posts.

So yes, we're technically still in quarantine. Even this government's Fox News calls it that, to give you an idea that calling it quarantine isn't just me being bitter and stubborn about it.

Yea, I don't think that is much of a quarantine from the sound of it, comparably, New Zealand was pretty effective at theirs early on allowing them so much more freedom now than the rest of us because of how badly we actually failed at that. I think all of our countries that failed miserably at lockdowns early economies are being utterly destroyed though, so you're not alone in that. TBH, I have been trying to take my mind off of the fact we are heading into flu season in such bad shape, as things are expected to take a turn for the worse as people come down with both at the same time. We are expecting like 30-40 million evictions to hit in November as of right now so with how little safety net exists here, I have no idea how they are expecting people to weather winter with so many families becoming homeless at once when we already have our shelters overflowing and our food banks empty.

They are not even allowing family into the hospitals to say good bye to their loved ones dying of COVID-19 here, they are at most allowing for video conferencing, so they are saying goodbye over the phone and on tablets here. Even my friends Mom who died from Cancer here a couple of Month's back was not allowed to say goodbye to family in person. It is really sad, and difficult for families to have closure that way. I think we might all a bit bitter and stubborn right now considering the circumstances, so I don't think anyone would hold it against you either way.

 

[Shadyside]

 

[Phoenixmgs]

I'm not here to defend any particular treatment. I'm asking why people like Trump and the My Pillow asshole who have financial stakes in Hydroxy are not considered to have a conflict of interest for incessantly whoring it?

Sadly, an ICU setting is kind of what we're concerned with.

I know Trump has some stake in the company that makes the name brand hydroxy, but I have no clue how much money he would make from better sales of it. It's not like Trump is actually a good businessman... Ba Dum Tish. There's objectively a lot more money to be made elsewhere though than hydroxy. I'm pretty sure other countries were using hydroxy before Trump said anything and they still are. I don't know what his play was; maybe money, maybe be seen as a "hero/savoir", maybe be seen as smarter than the experts.

The point is to catch it early like most things. Hydroxy helps in the early stages and hopefully stops it from moving out of the head to other areas of the body. Saving people from going to the ICU is just as important as helping those in the ICU.

Exactly: paused, not ended.

If they'd given overdoses there would be a really major problem, people would lose their jobs and be up before a professionalism tribunal. They gave them relatively high doses - more specifically, loading doses. Drugs distribute to certain tissues preferentially over others, so this sometime requires giving people large amounts of the drug to ensure enough gets to the right target tissue quickly. Holy fuck, one paper says hydroxychloroquine has a Vd of around 44,000 litres, that's some impressive sequestration.

I'm deeply skeptical about those figures, never mind that they look like a crude attempt to bludgeon a message through apparent quantity over quality. Not least because I know it's far more complex than that: in lots of studies, hydroxychloroquine was administered with other drugs - such as corticosteroids, which have been identified as useful.

The point is the purposefully fraudulent paper helped influence the vilification of hydroxy. Again, I'm not a medical expert so excuse for using terms like overdose incorrectly. I understand why you initially give more than a recommended dose but they kept giving the patients double to quadruple the recommended dose (200-400mg) after the initial day.

Don't you find it extremely odd in some of things that have happened with hydroxy? I think you get demonitized on Youtube for saying the word that's why some doctors on Youtube bleep it out or just not really talk about it. One doctor said he got death threats for talking about it. The aforementioned purposefully fraudulant paper. When I was googling to see if South Korea is using hydroxy, as they seem like a country that just cares about results and has been on top the pandemic since the start, the 1st google result for "south korea hydroxychloroquine" is this, which was withdrawn because "The authors have withdrawn this manuscript because of the controversy about hydroxychloroquine." That just seems really odd to me that a paper/study would be withdrawn over controversy, that doesn't seem like how science/studies are supposed to work. I couldn't find if South Korea is still using hydroxy as a treatment or not. I do know Spain is still using it from the Vitamin D trial they recently did as hydroxy was part of standard care. Africa is using it like candy.

There's definitely a rabbit hole to go down with regards to hydroxy (politics and money). From what I've gathered myself, I'm on the side for it because the overall data does show it helps at least somewhat to pretty good maybe (not a miracle drug), it's extremely safe (especially for the few days to a week one would take it), and it's extremely cheap. It's kinda a "why not?" situation really; no harm, no foul at worst. Hydroxy is definitely better than say remdesivir.

HCQ for COVID-19: real-time analysis of all 263 studies

HCQ for COVID-19: real-time analysis of all 263 studies

c19study.com

Research studies and clinical trials

The studies continue to roll out, and there has been very positive results in pre and post exposure as well as early treatment of confirmed COVID-19 patients ( near 100%). There is also considerable efficacy (62%) when treating late. Most studies concur.

www.palmerfoundation.com.au

 

[lil devils x]

I know Trump has some stake in the company that makes the name brand hydroxy, but I have no clue how much money he would make from better sales of it. It's not like Trump is actually a good businessman... Ba Dum Tish. There's objectively a lot more money to be made elsewhere though than hydroxy. I'm pretty sure other countries were using hydroxy before Trump said anything and they still are. I don't know what his play was; maybe money, maybe be seen as a "hero/savoir", maybe be seen as smarter than the experts.

The point is to catch it early like most things. Hydroxy helps in the early stages and hopefully stops it from moving out of the head to other areas of the body. Saving people from going to the ICU is just as important as helping those in the ICU.


The point is the purposefully fraudulent paper helped influence the vilification of hydroxy. Again, I'm not a medical expert so excuse for using terms like overdose incorrectly. I understand why you initially give more than a recommended dose but they kept giving the patients double to quadruple the recommended dose (200-400mg) after the initial day.

Don't you find it extremely odd in some of things that have happened with hydroxy? I think you get demonitized on Youtube for saying the word that's why some doctors on Youtube bleep it out or just not really talk about it. One doctor said he got death threats for talking about it. The aforementioned purposefully fraudulant paper. When I was googling to see if South Korea is using hydroxy, as they seem like a country that just cares about results and has been on top the pandemic since the start, the 1st google result for "south korea hydroxychloroquine" is this, which was withdrawn because "The authors have withdrawn this manuscript because of the controversy about hydroxychloroquine." That just seems really odd to me that a paper/study would be withdrawn over controversy, that doesn't seem like how science/studies are supposed to work. I couldn't find if South Korea is still using hydroxy as a treatment or not. I do know Spain is still using it from the Vitamin D trial they recently did as hydroxy was part of standard care. Africa is using it like candy.

There's definitely a rabbit hole to go down with regards to hydroxy (politics and money). From what I've gathered myself, I'm on the side for it because the overall data does show it helps at least somewhat to pretty good maybe (not a miracle drug), it's extremely safe (especially for the few days to a week one would take it), and it's extremely cheap. It's kinda a "why not?" situation really; no harm, no foul at worst. Hydroxy is definitely better than say remdesivir.

HCQ for COVID-19: real-time analysis of all 263 studies

HCQ for COVID-19: real-time analysis of all 263 studies

c19study.com

Research studies and clinical trials

The studies continue to roll out, and there has been very positive results in pre and post exposure as well as early treatment of confirmed COVID-19 patients ( near 100%). There is also considerable efficacy (62%) when treating late. Most studies concur.

www.palmerfoundation.com.au

I don't think Trump is even being treated with hydroxychloroquine anymore. He hasn't said much about since before that whole " needing two hands to lift his glass" incident, which is a possible side effect from taking hydroxychloroquine in the first place, as it can cause muscle and nerve issues:

"This medicine may cause muscle and nerve problems. Check with your doctor right away if you have muscle weakness, pain, or tenderness while using this medicine. Hydroxychloroquine may cause some people to be agitated, irritable, or display other abnormal behaviors. "

Hydroxychloroquine (Oral Route) Side Effects - Mayo Clinic

.

It hasn't been listed in any of the reports I have seen thus far for medications he is currently being treated with at all.

 

[lil devils x]

I know Trump has some stake in the company that makes the name brand hydroxy, but I have no clue how much money he would make from better sales of it. It's not like Trump is actually a good businessman... Ba Dum Tish. There's objectively a lot more money to be made elsewhere though than hydroxy. I'm pretty sure other countries were using hydroxy before Trump said anything and they still are. I don't know what his play was; maybe money, maybe be seen as a "hero/savoir", maybe be seen as smarter than the experts.

The point is to catch it early like most things. Hydroxy helps in the early stages and hopefully stops it from moving out of the head to other areas of the body. Saving people from going to the ICU is just as important as helping those in the ICU.


The point is the purposefully fraudulent paper helped influence the vilification of hydroxy. Again, I'm not a medical expert so excuse for using terms like overdose incorrectly. I understand why you initially give more than a recommended dose but they kept giving the patients double to quadruple the recommended dose (200-400mg) after the initial day.

Don't you find it extremely odd in some of things that have happened with hydroxy? I think you get demonitized on Youtube for saying the word that's why some doctors on Youtube bleep it out or just not really talk about it. One doctor said he got death threats for talking about it. The aforementioned purposefully fraudulant paper. When I was googling to see if South Korea is using hydroxy, as they seem like a country that just cares about results and has been on top the pandemic since the start, the 1st google result for "south korea hydroxychloroquine" is this, which was withdrawn because "The authors have withdrawn this manuscript because of the controversy about hydroxychloroquine." That just seems really odd to me that a paper/study would be withdrawn over controversy, that doesn't seem like how science/studies are supposed to work. I couldn't find if South Korea is still using hydroxy as a treatment or not. I do know Spain is still using it from the Vitamin D trial they recently did as hydroxy was part of standard care. Africa is using it like candy.

There's definitely a rabbit hole to go down with regards to hydroxy (politics and money). From what I've gathered myself, I'm on the side for it because the overall data does show it helps at least somewhat to pretty good maybe (not a miracle drug), it's extremely safe (especially for the few days to a week one would take it), and it's extremely cheap. It's kinda a "why not?" situation really; no harm, no foul at worst. Hydroxy is definitely better than say remdesivir.

HCQ for COVID-19: real-time analysis of all 263 studies

HCQ for COVID-19: real-time analysis of all 263 studies

c19study.com

Research studies and clinical trials

The studies continue to roll out, and there has been very positive results in pre and post exposure as well as early treatment of confirmed COVID-19 patients ( near 100%). There is also considerable efficacy (62%) when treating late. Most studies concur.

www.palmerfoundation.com.au

A leading coronavirus-treatment researcher says Trump shouldn't take hydroxychloroquine as a COVID-19 treatment. Here are his best options.

"I would not give him magic beans, so I would not give him hydroxychloroquine," Dr. David Boulware told Business Insider.

www.businessinsider.com

Coronavirus Drug and Treatment Tracker (Published 2022)

An updated list of potential treatments for Covid-19.

www.nytimes.com

I think you are jumping the gun here. Remdesivir has been consistently showing promising results since the beginning, unlike hydroxychloroquine, which has been pretty inconclusive. There is a reason why Trump took hydroxychloroquine when well and Remdesivir when he actually became ill. Hydroxychloroquine is cheap is why they are using it in less wealthy nations, it may be nothing more than a placebo at this point, so patients will " believe" they are doing something, but in reality they really need the more expensive treatments if they want something more effective.

Here's Why Hydroxychloroquine Doesn't Block The Coronavirus in Human Lung Cells

A paper came out in Nature on July 22 that further underscores earlier studies that show that neither the malaria drug hydroxychloroquine nor chloroquine prevents SARS-CoV-2 – the virus that causes COVID-19 – from replicating in lung cells.

www.sciencealert.com

UK halts trial of hydroxychloroquine as 'useless' for COVID-19 patients - ET HealthWorld

"This is not a treatment for COVID-19. It doesn't work," Martin Landray, an Oxford University professor who is co-leading the RECOVERY trial, told reporters.

health.economictimes.indiatimes.com

Hydroxychloroquine Doesn’t Help Hospitalized Covid-19 Patients, New Research Finds

U.K. Researchers testing whether the antimalaria drug hydroxychloroquine helped hospitalized Covid-19 patients said Friday they halted the study after a preliminary analysis showed the drug provided no benefit.

www.wsj.com

It’s time to move on from hydroxychloroquine, scientists say | Science News

Hydroxychloroquine doesn’t work as antiviral or a treatment for COVID-19, an abundance of scientific data suggest.

www.sciencenews.org

 

[Buyetyen]

I know Trump has some stake in the company that makes the name brand hydroxy, but I have no clue how much money he would make from better sales of it. It's not like Trump is actually a good businessman... Ba Dum Tish. There's objectively a lot more money to be made elsewhere though than hydroxy. I'm pretty sure other countries were using hydroxy before Trump said anything and they still are. I don't know what his play was; maybe money, maybe be seen as a "hero/savoir", maybe be seen as smarter than the experts.

The point is to catch it early like most things. Hydroxy helps in the early stages and hopefully stops it from moving out of the head to other areas of the body. Saving people from going to the ICU is just as important as helping those in the ICU.

Lot of words there. None of them address the conflict of interest directly.

 

[Phoenixmgs]

I don't think Trump is even being treated with hydroxychloroquine anymore. He hasn't said much about since before that whole " needing two hands to lift his glass" incident, which is a possible side effect from taking hydroxychloroquine in the first place, as it can cause muscle and nerve issues:

"This medicine may cause muscle and nerve problems. Check with your doctor right away if you have muscle weakness, pain, or tenderness while using this medicine. Hydroxychloroquine may cause some people to be agitated, irritable, or display other abnormal behaviors. "

Hydroxychloroquine (Oral Route) Side Effects - Mayo Clinic

.

It hasn't been listed in any of the reports I have seen thus far for medications he is currently being treated with at all.

Taking a drug as a prophylaxis (which Trump was doing or at least implying way back when he told reporters he was taking it) and taking a drug for a few days to a week are 2 different things. All drugs have some kind of side effects. Hydroxy is very widely used, it wouldn't be if it had serious and common side effects.

A leading coronavirus-treatment researcher says Trump shouldn't take hydroxychloroquine as a COVID-19 treatment. Here are his best options.

"I would not give him magic beans, so I would not give him hydroxychloroquine," Dr. David Boulware told Business Insider.

www.businessinsider.com

Coronavirus Drug and Treatment Tracker (Published 2022)

An updated list of potential treatments for Covid-19.

www.nytimes.com

I think you are jumping the gun here. Remdesivir has been consistently showing promising results since the beginning, unlike hydroxychloroquine, which has been pretty inconclusive. There is a reason why Trump took hydroxychloroquine when well and Remdesivir when he actually became ill. Hydroxychloroquine is cheap is why they are using it in less wealthy nations, it may be nothing more than a placebo at this point, so patients will " believe" they are doing something, but in reality they really need the more expensive treatments if they want something more effective.

Here's Why Hydroxychloroquine Doesn't Block The Coronavirus in Human Lung Cells

A paper came out in Nature on July 22 that further underscores earlier studies that show that neither the malaria drug hydroxychloroquine nor chloroquine prevents SARS-CoV-2 – the virus that causes COVID-19 – from replicating in lung cells.

www.sciencealert.com

UK halts trial of hydroxychloroquine as 'useless' for COVID-19 patients - ET HealthWorld

"This is not a treatment for COVID-19. It doesn't work," Martin Landray, an Oxford University professor who is co-leading the RECOVERY trial, told reporters.

health.economictimes.indiatimes.com

Hydroxychloroquine Doesn’t Help Hospitalized Covid-19 Patients, New Research Finds

U.K. Researchers testing whether the antimalaria drug hydroxychloroquine helped hospitalized Covid-19 patients said Friday they halted the study after a preliminary analysis showed the drug provided no benefit.

www.wsj.com

It’s time to move on from hydroxychloroquine, scientists say | Science News

Hydroxychloroquine doesn’t work as antiviral or a treatment for COVID-19, an abundance of scientific data suggest.

www.sciencenews.org

I've only found a small handful of trials of remdesivir and it's not showing results better than the 100+ studies/trials of hydroxy. The most recent (I believe) remdesivir trial didn't show any significant results. And the drug is super expensive and Gilead has a history of charging ridiculous amounts for their drugs in the past, they're going to charge more than the $3,000 "wholesale" price that were selling it for.

None of those articles debunk what I'm saying about hydroxy. It's not supposed to be used once the infection gets so bad someone needs hospitalization, the goal is to stop it before it gets there (leaves the head area and gets to the lungs and whatnot). Here's 126 hydroxy studies with 76 being peer reviewed vs like 2 or 3 remdesivir studies. There's people out there that don't want hydroxy to work for several reasons, the fraudalant article that the Lancet removed proves that.

Lot of words there. None of them address the conflict of interest directly.

There's bigger conflicts of interest on the "other" side. I'm not dismissing Trump's conflicts of interest, Trump is gonna Trump (which is about ego as much or more than money at times). Just pointing out that far more money is to be made on expensive drugs like remdesivir and the vaccines than on hydroxy. I wonder why health organizations and governments aren't telling people to take vitamin d especially as flu season comes around everyone's levels drop.Fauci takes 6,000 IUs of vitamin d per day but I very much doubt his mentioned vitamin d once in the hours and hours of press conferences he's done.

 

[lil devils x]

Snip

I have taken 4,000 to 6,000 IU of vitamin D daily too for years now but that is just normal for people who are unable to be in the sun long. The reason why that would not normally be mentioned is that this is what we already recommend for people to take if they do not get enough sun as it is prior to the Pandemic, so it is not seen as something done JUST for COVID-19 alone. Maintaining healthy levels of vitamin D are important for your immune system function in general, and is necessary to fight off many viruses, this isn't just specific to COVID-19, We give plenty of medications with serious side effects, you act like that is uncommon, it really is not, that is why medications require prescriptions or and some should only be given in a hospital setting , and not over the counter. For example, Cymbalta is widely prescribed, yet, luckily my physician was aware of serious side effects due to having multiple patients have severe reactions and even at the 1/4 dose he had me test for chronic pain, I had a seizure from it and it almost killed me. If he had given me the full dose, I would have had the Seizure+Coma+Death reaction, and likely would not be here. This happens more than you realize. I have never had a seizure of any type before or after, and hope to never have one again as that was terrifying tbh. Nerve and muscle issues are a well known side effect of taking hydroxychloroquine, muscle weakness is not all that uncommon, as the Mayo Clinic stated. The Mayo Clinic is well known for being one of the best if not the best hospital in the world, just in case you are not aware of who they are here:

World's Best Hospitals 2020 - Top 100 Global

World's Best Hospitals 2020 - Top 100 Global

www.newsweek.com

This is not new information, it has been known for years and why those side effects are required by law to be listed on the medication when prescribed. They have stopped using it for COVID-19 in the US , as they have seen no benefit for doing so. Hospitals in the US are still giving Remdesivir, and thus why the President and now Governor Christie as well as numerous others are being given it in a hospital setting right now, and is the only antiviral currently authorized for emergency use in the US currently, the FDA has revoked hydroxychloroquine's emergency use. Keeping in mind this is Trump's own appointee here telling us the evidence is showing it to be ineffective here, so he is on " Trump's side" that was why he agreed to give it emergency authorization in the first place.If Trump believed hydroxychloroquine to be so effective, why didn't he or his physicians insist upon him using it rather than choosing to use Remdesivir? There are other studies going on using Remdesivir that are comparing it to other drugs being studied right now, including PF-00835231, which is also showing promising results as being more potent at preventing COVID-19 from replicating inside the body than even Remdesivir.

"Remdesivir works differently. As a nucleoside analog, it is woven into viral genetic material by the enzyme polymerase, which stops SARS-CoV-2 from copying itself inside human cells. Having been shown to reduce the length of hospital stays in patients with severe respiratory distress, remdesivir is currently the only antiviral drug authorized for emergency use against COVID-19. "

Experimental COVID-19 Drug Shows Promise in Preliminary Cell Research

Researchers from NYU Grossman School of Medicine and Pfizer find an experimental protease inhibitor can block the reproduction of SARS-CoV-2. Learn more.

nyulangone.org

I am skeptical that they would give the president Remdesivir + REGN-COV2 instead of hydroxychloroquine if they didn't believe it would be more effective than hydroxychloroquine. The president can access the best treatments and physicians money can buy from all over the world, so I wouldn't think they would give him anything they were not confident in.

 

[Buyetyen]

I'm not dismissing Trump's conflicts of interest,

Yes you are. In fact, you end the sentence by doing exactly that.

 

[Agema]

The point is the purposefully fraudulent paper helped influence the vilification of hydroxy. Again, I'm not a medical expert so excuse for using terms like overdose incorrectly. I understand why you initially give more than a recommended dose but they kept giving the patients double to quadruple the recommended dose (200-400mg) after the initial day.

Okay, but if hydroxychloroquine impedes viral replication, why doesn't taking more of it work better? It should be a concentration-dependent effect.

Don't you find it extremely odd in some of things that have happened with hydroxy?

No, I don't think it's odd, I think it's the predictable result of a lot of public scrutiny suddenly turned on a process which the public don't much know about or understand; and a load of hucksters and amateurs jumping on the bandwagon and greatly expanding the bullshit quotient.

I get that people are fascinated with this massive upheaval that's dominated global attention for months, and their curiosity has driven them to suddenly pay attention to things that before they didn't care about, but it's mostly been harmful. Politicians have certainly intervened in deeply unhelpful ways. Cranks and conmen have got going to feed on conspiracy theory or tout their stupid snake oil. Cynical scientists and medics have leapt at the chance for grant funding and publications ("publish or perish") with more ambition than sense. All this stuff goes on anyway normally outside of health crisis conditions, just at a lower and less visible level.

Take that now retracted hydroxychloroquine study published in The Lancet on bogus Surgisphere data. Surgisphere have been going at least three years cooking up bullshit, in quite a lot of publications. They got away with it because they were low impact publications on small issues and (I would assume) supporting theoretically likely results so they seemed innocuous. I'd bet you Surgisphere looked at the early data coming out suggesting hydroxychloroquine was ineffective, and threw in a paper going with the flow - except their study this time was so notable that it drew a lot of attention, and their scam promptly collapsed under the scrutiny. Had they not been overambitious, how many more years would they have got away with it, I wonder?

which was withdrawn because "The authors have withdrawn this manuscript because of the controversy about hydroxychloroquine."

It's not withdrawn in that sense. It's on a preview system where aspects of the study are available to read before it is finished. In other words, the preview has been withdrawn, but it will be published when finished and peer reviewed. This is because inappropriate politicisation is making it difficult for scientists and medical professionals to do their research without risk of misinterpretation. If people are going to abuse this sort of information, the appropriate thing to do is to not release it until it's finished and ready.

 

[Satinavian]

I know that hydroxychloroquine is nowadays linked to US party politics and election.


But if you really want to know whether it works or not, look at all the countries around the globe where politicians had the sense to not endorse a specific treatment. There hydroxychloroquine is politically irrelevant and not linked to left or right or any political movements.

Is it used in those countries where no political pressure is appplied for it or against it ?

It is not. Some studies were conducted but people regardless of political orientation decided that it is not useful comparing proven benefits to proven side-effects.

 

[Agema]

But if you really want to know whether it works or not, look at all the countries around the globe where politicians had the sense to not endorse a specific treatment. There hydroxychloroquine is politically irrelevant and not linked to left or right or any political movements.

Is it used in those countries where no political pressure is appplied for it or against it ?

Potentially, yes.

Hydroxychloroquine is cheap and mostly safe. Consequently, some doctors might offer it on the rationale even if they don't know whether it does any good, it's unlikely to do severe harm to most people so on the chance it does do any good, go for it. In some places patients may have plenty of influence, and can make it in the best interests of medical doctors to prescribe it because they've heard it works. In some cases, perhaps particularly with limited resources (ventilators, expensive drugs) it may be given just to be seen to be trying to do something.

I was reading a friend's comments on Facebook - who I did my degree with and now practices medicine in the US - and he and a couple of colleagues were discussing and objecting to Trump's hospital medication being publicised. They're bothered because some of that hasn't passed clinical trials, and stands the risk of (again) causing people to want untested drugs. VIPs are apparently an ethical minefield for treatment.

 

[Phoenixmgs]

Snip

The majority of many populations are known to be vitamin d deficient and there's a pandemic happening to where tons of data is pointing towards vitamin d being important, why wouldn't health organizations and governments pass that message along? Why not have people be proactive in the pandemic and also the coming flu season (+ covid obviously) when even the people with good levels of vitamin d drop during the fall/winter? For the time being, there's a new normal obviously.

Hydroxy doesn't have those type of serious and near as common side effects as say Cymbalta; it's handed out like candy in some countries. Are we doing that with Cymbalta? I very much doubt it.

Hydroxy and remdesivir are for 2 different purposes. It seems like remdesivir can help when patients are doing rather poorly (the studies don't show great results either, it seems like it helps a bit) while hydroxy is there (outpatient) to hopefully stop hospitalizations from happening.

Yes you are. In fact, you end the sentence by doing exactly that.

No, I didn't. I said the other side has bigger conflicts of interest.

Snip

Hydroxy's job isn't impeding the viral replication.

Just look at the data on all the studies, how do they not show hydroxy offers benefits? Looking at the 5 most recent hydroxy studies that had negative results; 4 were in already hospitalized patients, 1 was an observational study for people that had hydroxy prescriptions sometime in the preceding 6th months (if I summarized that properly). How are you gonna say there's more data saying hydroxy doesn't do anything or is harmful?

Why did anyone take the Surgishpere data seriously then? Also, some of the studies that have caused hydroxy to be seen as not working gave the patients nearly averaging 1,000mg of it per day over 10 days; 1 was 9,200mg over 10 days, 1 was 8,800 over 10 days. The WHO's own trial didn't even specify dosage. The fact that we have "low-dose" hydroxy studies when they are just giving people the recommended dosage the drug has had for 50+ years says something.

I know that hydroxychloroquine is nowadays linked to US party politics and election.

But if you really want to know whether it works or not, look at all the countries around the globe where politicians had the sense to not endorse a specific treatment. There hydroxychloroquine is politically irrelevant and not linked to left or right or any political movements.

Is it used in those countries where no political pressure is appplied for it or against it ?

It is not. Some studies were conducted but people regardless of political orientation decided that it is not useful comparing proven benefits to proven side-effects.

Just check out the map:

https://c19study.com/plot/earth.svg

 

[Agema]

Hydroxy's job isn't impeding the viral replication.

It depends to some extent on how precise you want to be about the steps of viral action: as a simplification, it is according to most likely theory.

Just look at the data on all the studies, how do they not show hydroxy offers benefits?

Because the devil is in the detail of how reliable individual studies are: methodology, sample size, statistical analysis, etc.

For instance, that takes a median of individual studies, but that's completely unreasonable. Is a study that says a 30% decrease in mortality in 100 patients the same weight as one that says that there was no difference in mortality with 100,000 patients? Obviously not. A randomised controlled trial is better than a post-hoc observation. What about matching of age, sex, race, etc. in many papers?

Why did anyone take the Surgishpere data seriously then?

Why would they not?

Also, some of the studies that have caused hydroxy to be seen as not working gave the patients nearly averaging 1,000mg of it per day over 10 days; 1 was 9,200mg over 10 days, 1 was 8,800 over 10 days.

Why would this higher dosage make hydroxychloroquine less likely to work? From a scientific perspective, the way to work out dosing would be a proper randomised controlled trial looking at the effectiveness of different doses. No such trial of sufficient standard exists, so we don't know what the best dose is.

On that basis, to simply discount those studies is just cherry-picking data.

 

[Buyetyen]

No, I didn't. I said the other side has bigger conflicts of interest.

Exactly, you're downplaying Trump's conflicts of interest. You're still doing it by insisting that there is some inherent quantity of conflict of interest and that we have agreed to an acceptable amount of conflict of interest. This isn't a question of who can accuse the other harder, bro. It's not a measuring contest.

 

[lil devils x]

The majority of many populations are known to be vitamin d deficient and there's a pandemic happening to where tons of data is pointing towards vitamin d being important, why wouldn't health organizations and governments pass that message along? Why not have people be proactive in the pandemic and also the coming flu season (+ covid obviously) when even the people with good levels of vitamin d drop during the fall/winter? For the time being, there's a new normal obviously.

Hydroxy doesn't have those type of serious and near as common side effects as say Cymbalta; it's handed out like candy in some countries. Are we doing that with Cymbalta? I very much doubt it.

Hydroxy and remdesivir are for 2 different purposes. It seems like remdesivir can help when patients are doing rather poorly (the studies don't show great results either, it seems like it helps a bit) while hydroxy is there (outpatient) to hopefully stop hospitalizations from happening.


No, I didn't. I said the other side has bigger conflicts of interest.


Hydroxy's job isn't impeding the viral replication.

Just look at the data on all the studies, how do they not show hydroxy offers benefits? Looking at the 5 most recent hydroxy studies that had negative results; 4 were in already hospitalized patients, 1 was an observational study for people that had hydroxy prescriptions sometime in the preceding 6th months (if I summarized that properly). How are you gonna say there's more data saying hydroxy doesn't do anything or is harmful?

Why did anyone take the Surgishpere data seriously then? Also, some of the studies that have caused hydroxy to be seen as not working gave the patients nearly averaging 1,000mg of it per day over 10 days; 1 was 9,200mg over 10 days, 1 was 8,800 over 10 days. The WHO's own trial didn't even specify dosage. The fact that we have "low-dose" hydroxy studies when they are just giving people the recommended dosage the drug has had for 50+ years says something.


Just check out the map:

https://c19study.com/plot/earth.svg

Here is the strangest thing here. I am not " defending" any current treatment because the reality is it is much too soon to do so, and it would be irresponsible to do so. The responsible thing to do is to wait and see. You have no educational background that would make you an expert in this area. You are not presently researching hydroxychloroquine nor do you even understand how to. You keep calling it "hydroxy" when that actually means something else entirely. " Hydroxy" is not even short for hydroxychloroquine, HCQ is. Please stop promoting a medication you know nothing about. It is to the point of being ridiculous tbh. Even our best physicians all over the world are not doing that, but you keep doing this with a number of things when you are not capable and discerning that information from the current data we have. It will still be a while before even out best scientists and physicians in the world are confident enough to promote one treatment over another and you doing so repeatedly on a gaming forum is irresponsible. I mean, sure we have seen investors or people who have something to financially gain from doing irresponsibly do this, but that is also why it is important that those who are actually prescribing this medication in a clinical environment are capable of being able to evaluate the medication themselves. "Widely used"=\= effective, like at all, btw nor does it mean without side effects. If you notice on that map, most western nations are NOT widely using this medication.

And yes, Cymbalta is widely prescribed as an antidepressant and to treat chronic pain. It is a SNRI, all of which can result in the seizure reaction I had and yes, even death. I am one of those who cannot take antidepressants, SNRI's or SSRI's at all, which you do not find out if that is the case until you actually take it and have a reaction, which could then be fatal. These medications are all widely used, and yes, they are also linked to first time seizures:

https://www.webmd.com/mental-health/news/20150408/antidepressants-first-time-seizures

This is not as uncommon as you believe it to be.