Hydroxychloroquine, a drug promoted by Trump, failed to prevent healthy people from getting covid-19

[Moderate Right]

Hydroxychloroquine did not prevent healthy people exposed to covid-19 from getting the disease caused by the coronavirus, according to a study being published Wednesday in the New England Journal of Medicine. The study is the first randomized clinical trial that tested the antimalarial drug, touted by President Trump, as a preventive measure. It showed that hydroxychloroquine was no more effective than a placebo — in this case, a vitamin — in protecting people exposed to covid-19. “As we say in Tennessee, ‘That dog won’t hunt’ — it didn’t work,” said William Schaffner, professor of preventive medicine and infectious diseases at Vanderbilt University Medical Center. Schaffner, who was not involved in the trial, praised it as “rigorously done.”


The results were the latest development on a highly charged medical and political issue — the efficacy of hydroxychloroquine in combating covid-19. President Trump has repeatedly touted the drug as a “game changer” for covid-19, and recently said he took it for several days. But federal regulators have said it should be used only for hospitalized patients or in clinical trials because of possible side effects, including serious heart-rhythm issues.Researchers at the University of Minnesota Medical School launched the trial in mid-March. They enrolled more than 800 adults in the United States and Canada who were exposed to someone with covid-19 because of their jobs as health care workers or first responders, or because they lived with someone with the disease. The study was a randomized placebo-controlled trial, and was double-blinded, meaning neither the participants nor the researchers knew what the participants received. Such a study is considered the gold standard for clinical trials.



[cont].

https://www.washingtonpost.com/health/2020/06/03/hydroxychloroquine-clinical-trial-results/


Yet more evidence that whether or not it is harmful, or how harmful, it is no preventative.

The untold story here is how much the left media attacked Trump for the drug, claiming that it does not work when in fact there were hundreds of studies and trials going on all around the world, many of them not even completed yet to this day. The world medical community felt strongly enough about the drug that they were doing hundreds of studies with it and yet the left failed to report that while claiming that one study done by the VA proved the drug didn't work. That's the real story, the lying by the media blasting Trump and not reporting that there actually were hundreds of studies being done worldwide that had not yet been completed. Anything to attack Trump. Meanwhile the leftist media reported on how dangerous the drug was when, in fact, they were afraid it would be stockpiled and lupus and other patients needing the drug wouldn't be able to find it. So, apparently the drug wasn't as dangerous as the lefty media were trying to claim.

 

[JasperL]

The slew of clinical and observational studies that support the use of HCQ in treating COVID all involve using HCQ in early stages of the disease (which is what I posted lol) - This study only involves using it as a preventative

That's not really true since the study participants were selected based on extended exposure to a COVID 19 positive person, and it was up to 4 days AFTER this exposure that participants received their first dose. So for those who were infected, HCQ was tested to see if it would prevent symptoms, and it had no effect.

But you're just setting up goal posts where you need to to dismiss the results. As you know if you read the study (you didn't) those who were obviously symptomatic or tested positive before the study began were enrolled in a companion study. So it's not a reason to dismiss the study because it wasn't the one you most wanted to see. Others, lots of them, are looking at its early use for symptomatic patients.

So your objection is both ignorant and stupid.

The NEJM has now put out three studies - two study only patients in severe stages of the illness, one studies patients who haven't become sick yet

This makes me even more suspicious of the other two studies:

She says hydroxychloroquine can have serious side effects, although the side effects reported in this study were relatively mild.

The ENTIRE LINE OF CRITICISM, calling Trump crazy and reckless, has centered around the fact that HCQ is "DANGEROUS", and, what do you know, out of 800+ people, there were NO DANGEROUS SIDE EFFECTS

And now you're quoting news outlets again, because you can't read the, you know, study, and support attacking the NEJM. You obviously don't really care about the study or what it showed, but are going to dismiss it because.....something. You know it works, to hell with the RCTs showing otherwise.

It's hackery.

 

[Visbek]

Again, a poster trying to mislead people into ignoring the 3-4 other threads on this topic

No, I'm just trying to counter your nonsense.

I'm sure you know that there are dozens of studies backing up the use of HCQ early in treatment, and as a preventative....

Not for COVID-19.

I'm sure you're also aware that the Lancet has criticized its study the NEJM has criticized one of its studies, and the study on Veterans with underlying conditions is irrelevant

I'm aware of the issues with Surgisphere.

I'm also aware that your claim that the VA study is "irrelevant" is pure Grade A Bull****, and how you seem to bluntly ignore much worse issues with the original French study that kicked off this whole craze.

And I'm also aware that what we're discussing is a randomized control study (not an observational study) which has nothing to do with Surgisphere.

And there are numerous other studies which also have nothing to do with Surgisphere, which show that hydroxychloroquine is ineffective, including but certainly not limited to:

JAMA: Small RCT study finds "more toxic effects and lethality"
Effect of High vs Low Doses of Chloroquine Diphosphate as Adjunctive Therapy for Patients Hospitalized With Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) Infection: A Randomized Clinical Trial | Critical Care Medicine | JAMA Network Open | JAMA Network

RCT study of 150 people found no benefit and some adverse effects
Hydroxychloroquine in patients mainly with mild to moderate COVID-19: an open-label, randomized, controlled trial | medRxiv

French study of 150 patients showed no benefit
Clinical efficacy of hydroxychloroquine in patients with covid-19 pneumonia who require oxygen: observational comparative study using routine care data | The BMJ

Hydroxychloroquine was previously found ineffective against other coronaviruses and influenza; "Antimalarial drugs can cause ventricular arrhythmias, QT prolongation, and other cardiac toxicity"
ACP Journals

Discussion of the many flaws and retraction of the original French study that started all this HCQ hype
Hydroxychloroquine-COVID-19 study did not meet publishing society’s “expected standard” – Retraction Watch

Brazilian study halted because hydroxychloroquine was killing study participants
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/apr/24/chloroquine-study-coronavirus-brazil


So, even if we completely ignore the observational studies involving Surgisphere, it is not looking good for using hydroxychloroquine for COVID-19.

 

[JasperL]

They only studied patients who had ALREADY BEEN EXPOSED TO THE DISEASE

Trump and his physician are advocating taking it as a preventative BEFORE YOU ARE EXPOSED TO THE DISEASE

The slew of clinical and observational studies that support the use of HCQ in treating COVID all involve using HCQ in early stages of the disease (which is what I posted lol) - This study only involves using it as a preventative

LMMFAO. "Trump is advocating taking it as a preventative," and "this study only involves using it as a preventative" which means it's BOGUS!!

:lamo

Good gosh, it's impossible to make your intellectual honesty more obvious than you have here. It's just stupid, ignorant or dishonest hackery. If you know what your'e saying, you're lying. If you don't, then your ignorance is 100%. Do you not realize your two posts completely contradict each other?

And apparently according to you, there are two narrow windows in time when HCQ might work. It might work if you take it before you are exposed. But once you are exposed, if you weren't taking it already, it won't work to prevent symptoms if you don't have them already, but will work after you are infected and after you show symptoms, but only when the symptoms are mild (presumably).

Sorry but that's the dumbest statements I've ever read about HCQ. Congrats!

 

[Visbek]

I had hoped we had reached that point over a month ago.

Studies take time, and there are somewhere around 50 studies still running. I think we'll have a much more solid idea in a few months.

 

[JasperL]

I gotta love the desperation of partisans and the money that can be made by selling new expensive drugs instead of a super cheap one that is out of patent. This study, just like most of these negative studies, is horribly flawed. It was never claimed to prevent it. It was only claimed that it, along with some other treatments, helps reduce the chances of developing serious symptoms if you get it, so long as you treat it early.

The flaw that the other studies have made was they used the treatment on patients that were extremely ill or on respirators already. It's not for that either.

Seems like before someone rejected the study, they'd, you know, read it! Quoting from the study:

https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa2016638?query=featured_home

Among participants who were symptomatic at day 14, the median symptom-severity score (on a scale from 0 to 10, with higher scores indicating greater severity) was 2.8 (interquartile range, 1.6 to 5.0) in those receiving hydroxychloroquine and 2.7 (interquartile range, 1.4 to 4.8) in those receiving placebo (P=0.34).

So it did what you claimed it didn't do. No surprise there. It is after all a very short, easy to read study, so who can be bothered to read it if you're interested in what it actually did? Not you apparently.

 

[JasperL]

Studies take time, and there are somewhere around 50 studies still running. I think we'll have a much more solid idea in a few months.

According to this article in the NEJM:

On June 1, 2020, ClinicalTrials.gov listed a remarkable 203 Covid-19 trials with hydroxychloroquine, 60 of which were focused on prophylaxis.

eace

 

[CaughtInThe]

Our president is an actual idiot.

He's also massively insecure and acts like a child. No country should have to endure this madness.

 

[ReubenSherr]

LMMFAO. "Trump is advocating taking it as a preventative," and "this study only involves using it as a preventative" which means it's BOGUS!!

Lol perhaps you missed the font - maybe I need to increase the size even more next time

This study Only involves people who have ALREADY BEEN EXPOSED to the virus

Trump and his physician are advocating using it as a preventative BEFORE YOU ARE EXPOSED to the virus

Let me know if you need me to increase the font size even more...

 

[ReubenSherr]

And apparently according to you, there are two narrow windows in time when HCQ might work. It might work if you take it before you are exposed. But once you are exposed, if you weren't taking it already, it won't work to prevent symptoms if you don't have them already, but will work after you are infected and after you show symptoms, but only when the symptoms are mild (presumably).

Jasper, this isn't very difficult - try to follow along here...:mrgreen:

Trump and his physician are advocating using HCQ as a PREVENTATIVE - Using it as a preventative means taking HCQ before you are exposed to the virus, so that the drug blocks the infection from occurring - This study used patients who had already been exposed, meaning the drug could not block the infection, the infection had already occurred

IN ADDITION, half a dozen studies, and thousands of anecdotal accounts across the country, have shown that HCQ is effective EARLY IN TREATMENT, which means after the infection has occurred - This study did not continue to follow the progress of the patients' symptoms for an extended period of time - it only noted IF HCQ WAS ABLE TO STOP THE INFECTION FROM OCCURRING

 

[ReubenSherr]

and it was up to 4 days AFTER this exposure that participants received their first dose.

Again, try to follow along here...

Taking HCQ as a preventative means taking it before the infection occurs, not taking the drug "up to 4 days after exposure"

If HCQ is used after exposure, no one is arguing that it will prevent the person from getting sick - the studies have all indicated that HCQ will help relieve symptoms and provide for a more effective recovery, and this study didn't address this, it only categorized results in terms of whether people were able to avoid getting sick

 

[JasperL]

Lol perhaps you missed the font - maybe I need to increase the size even more next time

This study Only involves people who have ALREADY BEEN EXPOSED to the virus

Trump and his physician are advocating using it as a preventative BEFORE YOU ARE EXPOSED to the virus

Let me know if you need me to increase the font size even more...

I see, the new HCQ standard is that HCQ is worthless once you've been exposed to the virus. Interesting.

I haven't seen that claim made by anyone, actually. Can you quote physicians or anyone else saying that once you've been exposed, HCQ is totally worthless, so we need not study whether it's effective as an early treatment, or for moderate or any other symptoms? So it's kind of like a vaccine! Everyone should be taking it daily as a preventative it because if they are exposed then HCQ is worthless. Where is that in the literature? What studies show that result?

 

[ReubenSherr]

I see, the new HCQ standard is that HCQ is worthless once you've been exposed to the virus. Interesting.

No, lol

Once you've been exposed to the virus, HCQ helps alleviate symptoms, it does not prevent the patient from getting sick

 

[JasperL]

Again, try to follow along here...

Taking HCQ as a preventative means taking it before the infection occurs, not taking the drug "up to 4 days after exposure"

If HCQ is used after exposure, no one is arguing that it will prevent the person from getting sick - the studies have all indicated that HCQ will help relieve symptoms and provide for a more effective recovery, and this study didn't address this, it only categorized results in terms of whether people were able to avoid getting sick

It did actually address that, but since you can't be bothered to read the story and instead prefer to invent increasingly stupid arguments about why we should reject the latest study, you wouldn't know.

I've linked the study several times. Read it. You might be surprised what it did do versus what you ignorantly think it did. Will just take you a few minutes.

 

[ReubenSherr]

It did actually address that, but since you can't be bothered to read the story and instead prefer to invent increasingly stupid arguments about why we should reject the latest study, you wouldn't know.

I've linked the study several times. Read it. You might be surprised what it did do versus what you ignorantly think it did. Will just take you a few minutes.

Jasper, stop putting out this crap, and actually read the posts, and respond to the content

The study did not provide data on how quickly patients recovered, it simply gave percentages of patients who failed to get sick - no one is claiming that using HCQ after you are infected will prevent you from getting sick

 

[JasperL]

No, lol

Once you've been exposed to the virus, HCQ helps alleviate symptoms, it does not prevent the patient from getting sick

You can't decide what it's supposed to be used for, and you haven't read the study, or if you did didn't understand it, or if you understood it are lying about it. So why do I care what you think on this subject? Oh, yeah, I don't.

 

[JasperL]

Jasper, stop putting out this crap, and actually read the posts, and respond to the content

I did respond to your post. You claimed the study didn't address illness severity for infected patients who became symptomatic. It did address that - no effect. I quoted the findings at #31, which you also didn't read.

 

[ReubenSherr]

You can't decide what it's supposed to be used for, and you haven't read the study, or if you did didn't understand it, or if you understood it are lying about it. So why do I care what you think on this subject? Oh, yeah, I don't.

Again, try to follow me here... There are 2 proposed uses for HCQ - that's "2", not "1" - I will number them so you are not confused...

(1)Half a dozen studies have shown that HCQ is effective EARLY IN TREATMENT in terms of moderating symptoms and speeding up recovery

(2)Some physicians, including Trump's, have ALSO claimed that using HCQ BEFORE INFECTION can help prevent the patient from getting infected at all and/or moderate the symptoms once the patient is infected

NO ONE HAS EVER CLAIMED THAT USING HCQ AFTER INFECTION WILL PREVENT THE PERSON FROM GETTING SICK

 

[JasperL]

Again, try to follow me here... There are 2 proposed uses for HCQ - that's "2", not "1" - I will number them so you are not confused...

(1)Half a dozen studies have shown that HCQ is effective EARLY IN TREATMENT in terms of moderating symptoms and speeding up recovery

Cool, and this RCT found no impact on symptoms when used early.

(2)Some physicians, including Trump's, have ALSO claimed that using HCQ BEFORE INFECTION can help prevent the patient from getting infected at all and/or moderate the symptoms once the patient is infected

Again, this study didn't find it useful for moderating symptoms in this group of mostly healthcare workers. Very few of them developed serious symptoms, with or without HCQ, but HCQ had no impact on ultimate severity

You'd know this if you read the study, which you didn't. There's much there to criticize if you're interested in legitimate discussion, such as that the median age (or mean...not sure) was about 40, a mostly healthy group, with only moderate pre-existing conditions. So it's not targeted at those who are at highest risk. It's all there - read it.

NO ONE HAS EVER CLAIMED THAT USING HCQ AFTER INFECTION WILL PREVENT THE PERSON FROM GETTING SICK

Right, but that it would moderate symptoms, and this study found no impact on that. Those taking it after exposure but before showing symptoms did as well on the placebo as HCQ.

 

[Schism]

https://www.thelancet.com/lancet/article/s0140673620313246

Retraction: "Hydroxychloroquine or chloroquine with or without a macrolide for treatment of COVID-19: a multinational registry analysis"

 

[Visbek]

https://www.thelancet.com/lancet/article/s0140673620313246

You do know that is a different study, right?

And you do know that the first study which claimed that hydroxychloroquine was beneficial for COVID-19 was also retracted?
Hydroxychloroquine-COVID-19 study did not meet publishing society’s “expected standard” – Retraction Watch

 

[Schism]

You do know that is a different study, right?

Here's what I know for certain. This is a petty thread filled with petty people invested in making Trump look bad.

I don't see anyone who cares about curing COVID. The topic of this thread is, Orange Man Bad.

 

[Jay59]

You do know that is a different study, right?

And you do know that the first study which claimed that hydroxychloroquine was beneficial for COVID-19 was also retracted?
Hydroxychloroquine-COVID-19 study did not meet publishing society’s “expected standard” – Retraction Watch

Here is a lay article on the retraction. It is clear the matter is not yet settled.
Hydroxychloroquine Study Corrected After More Than 100 Scientists Question Findings

The possibility that politics has inserted itself in science is non-trivial. Politics controls funding and funding is what makes the rocket go up.

 

[JasperL]

Here's what I know for certain. This is a petty thread filled with petty people invested in making Trump look bad.

I don't see anyone who cares about curing COVID. The topic of this thread is, Orange Man Bad.

The only ones being "petty" on this thread are idiots dismissing the study for bogus reasons. The rest of us have just noted what it found, and what the shortcomings are of this study. Bottom line is for this group of participants, HCQ was ineffective, didn't do any harm or any good, was about like the placebo. That's the topic.

 

[ReubenSherr]

The only ones being "petty" on this thread are idiots dismissing the study for bogus reasons.

This isn't very complicated, man...

In order for HCQ to work as a PREVENTATIVE, the patient needs to have received the dosage BEFORE being infected, not after being infected - the purpose of a preventative is to block the infection from occurring, not to counteract the infection after it has already occurred

There is no reason the researchers conducting the study couldn't have exposed patients to the virus AFTER giving them the HCQ dosage, instead they chose only patients who had already been exposed to the virus - this is one more NEJM scam designed to try to hurt Trump

In addition, the left has been driving the narrative for the past month that Trump and his physician are insane, they are trying to get people killed because of the dangerous cardiac side effects of HCQ - and what do you know, out of the 400 people or so that were in the experimental group, NONE HAD ANY SORT OF SEVERE SIDE EFFECTS FROM THE MEDICATION