That means what? That the RCT's were run by idiots and you know better? I classify that as extremely unlikely.
You haven't shown any RCT's whose participants were strictly recently exposed/infected patients.
Those are the patient characteristics on which HCQ is said to be effective.
If you have those particular RCTs let's look at them.
If you don't have them your wasting our time.
If you still don't understand, I can't make it any clearer
You don't understand that if it shows no benefit that means it does not show any benefit. Either it kills the virus or it does not. All the RCT studies found that it does not kill any virus. 95% of all "recently exposed/infected" patients recover with no treatment. You cannot use that fact to make HCQ appear 95% effective on those patients. That is quackery.
Show me those RCT studies.
The effect is therapeutic.
It doesn't have to kill the virus.
It allows you to kill the virus.
The Science of Treating Covid-19 with Hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) << Think.HansMast.com.
What about "shows no benefit" is too difficult for you to grasp? Not one patient who recovered from Covid19 has been because of HCQ. That is not hard to understand is it?
What about "Show me those RCT studies." is too difficult for you to grasp?
What about "Show me those RCT studies." is too difficult for you to grasp?
Now it is too difficult for you to find the HCQ studies? No wonder you are making such ridiculous assertions about HCQ . I think you know what they say and you don't care. You would rather say that 95% of covid 19 patients recovered when given HCQ. That is a meaningless statistic since 95% also recover with no HCQ too.
That's the Boulware study and it's listed in the collection of studies included in the link in #31.
If you look at the NOTE at that entry it offers the explanation ...
Post Exposure Prophylaxis study Source Study Page
Boulware et al., NEJM, June 3 2020, doi:10.1056/NEJMoa2016638 (Peer Reviewed)
A Randomized Trial of Hydroxychloroquine as Postexposure Prophylaxis for Covid-19
COVID-19 cases are reduced by [49%, 29%, 16%] respectively when taken within ~[70, 94, 118] hours of exposure (including shipping delay). The treatment delay-response relationship is significant at p=0.002. PEP delayed treatment RCT.
Currently this is the only study where we have evaluated the result as positive while the authors indicate it is negative. We provide a detailed explanation of why the results presented here are positive [1]. Note that author comments also differ from the published conclusion.
Also see: [2, 3]
[1] c19study.com/boulware.html
[2] drive.google.com/file/d/1NZOJ57fM0RTaHD1t_9w2iua7lUJhOgWT/view
[3] arxiv.org/abs/2007.09477
1. Ok, so authors own conclusions are ignored? Even if criticisms are valid, they are arguing only about first 3 days after the HCQ. After that, whether you took HCQ or not, there is NO difference (but MORE side effects) as both authors and critics agree.
So, no, your site saying it's positive for HCQ is a lie.
2. Next, here is another RCT for you that Threegoofs told you about. You care to try to explain this one away as well?
A Cluster-Randomized Trial of Hydroxychloroquine as Prevention of Covid-19 Transmission and Disease | medRxiv
3. I am still waiting for YOU to provide a reference to SINGLE RCT where authors show positive outcomes.
In the absence of that kind of time consuming study, anecdotal/observational studies are typical and are useful because of the urgency.
I wonder how long it's been a practice, to just find one person who can side with your own agenda and then you can take their comment. Then use it to invalidate basically anything, that anyone says, ever.
Because this little song and dance is getting rather annoying. You can say "it seems" and allege all you want. But you have no power to actually determine anything of the sort and neither does someone like Dr. Topal.
This idiotic rat race of politicizing anything and everything, for every wrong reason imaginable. Is started to get old.
They may have said "shown" or "indicate" but did they say "proven"? You'll have to produce the entire transcript so we cane see.
Choose what word you want - nothing in the study 'showed' or 'indicated' much less proved the claims made. The claim was dishonest, Hahn recognized it within a day, and corrected himself, although that correction was deliberately vague and would mean nothing to regular people who don't know the difference between relative and absolute risk reduction.
1. Ok, so authors own conclusions are ignored? Even if criticisms are valid, they are arguing only about first 3 days after the HCQ. After that, whether you took HCQ or not, there is NO difference (but MORE side effects) as both authors and critics agree.
So, no, your site saying it's positive for HCQ is a lie.
2. Next, here is another RCT for you that Threegoofs told you about. You care to try to explain this one away as well?
A Cluster-Randomized Trial of Hydroxychloroquine as Prevention of Covid-19 Transmission and Disease | medRxiv
3. I am still waiting for YOU to provide a reference to SINGLE RCT where authors show positive outcomes.
No, they're potentially very dangerous and cannot be relied on-like the stupid recklessness of recommending HCL-a drug never properly tested for anything other than malaria and arthritis.
Physicians worldwide have their patients using it. Maybe they know more about it and have more experience than you, bruv.
Choose what word you want - nothing in the study 'showed' or 'indicated' much less proved the claims made. The claim was dishonest, Hahn recognized it within a day, and corrected himself, although that correction was deliberately vague and would mean nothing to regular people who don't know the difference between relative and absolute risk reduction.
Which physicians; the one's who have presented nothing but ANECDOTAL retrospective 'evidence' without revealing how their 'trials' were carried out, if at all?
That was bad- and for those people who literally deal with this every day- physicians and researchers- REALLY bad to do on a national stage, but it’s even more important to realize what that ‘35%’ was referring to.
It was a post hoc subgroup of a subgroup- a specific age and without vent support. And that data was from an observational trial!
This is incredibly weak evidence to begin with, and then touting a specific mortality number (wrongly!)is really horrible.
The FDA head is not going to be trusted after this. It’s not just some slip up- it’s deliberate misinformation.
Right, because he knew exactly what he was saying, and did it anyway. He shredded his integrity in real time on TV. It's one thing if this is a person who doesn't understand the science or the terminology and misspoke out of ignorance, quite another for someone well versed in the terms and what they mean.
The randomized trials didn't isolate participants by their characteristics for which the HCQ is effective.
I shouldn't have to keep repeating that.
The RR and AR is a common screwup- I’ve seen it done on platform presentations in large meetings from very competent researchers.
But NEVER have I heard it in what were basically prepared remarks, and to tout a mortality difference in a post hoc subgroup of a subgroup??
Nuts.
This doesn’t bode well for any vaccine data rollout, especially under this administration.
I'll stick with the words that were used.
- "if the data continue to pan out" ...
- "suggest" and "promising"...
- "safe and shows promising efficacy, thereby meeting the criteria for an emergency use authorization"
The Food and Drug Administration's top spokesperson is out after precisely one Scaramucci at the helm.
FDA Commissioner Stephen Hahn fired Emily Miller as the agency's assistant commissioner for media affairs and top spokesperson, according to emails he sent to senior leaders Friday. Miller just joined the department 10 days ago, and one of her first press releases contained an exaggeration regarding a coronavirus treatment that made it to President Trump's Republican National Convention speech, The New York Times reports.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?