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

[ReubenSherr]

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.

?? It wasn't supposed to be targeted at high risk individuals - that was the entire criticism of the last two NEJM studies

You need to get more background on this before responding

 

[ecofarm]

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

:lol:

 

[Metric Mouse]

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.

Meh. People are dying from this stuff now. Just because a few New Yorkers were hyping it doesn't mean we need to waste time and resources on studying this. Has there been any actual evidence that it works? Every study I've read has been varying degrees of ineffectual and outright harmful.

 

[ReubenSherr]

:lol:

History of NEJM-Published Studies:
2 studies have used only patients in extreme stages of the illness
1 study tried to prove that HCQ could not be used as a preventative by testing patients who had already been exposed
0 studies have tested patients in early stages of the illness, where all data indicates HCQ is effective

Quote from article published in the NEJM in 2017:
"The presidential candidacy of Donald Trump appeared to bring further to the surface preexisting hostile attitudes toward racial and ethnic minorities, immigrants, and Muslims."

Lol you accuse Trump of conspiracies each week (including an entire Impeachment Inquiry lol), but the very thought that there could possibly be a conspiracy against Trump....my God, insanity, all hell is breaking loose!!:lamo

Accusing Republicans of conspiracies - being realistic
Accusing Democrats of conspiracies - being a crazy Conspiracy theorist :roll:

 

[JasperL]

?? It wasn't supposed to be targeted at high risk individuals - that was the entire criticism of the last two NEJM studies

You need to get more background on this before responding

I see, so we don't want to know if older people, such as in nursing homes, or with serious conditions like heart disease or COPD or diabetes would benefit from taking HCQ as a preventative or after a possible exposure to the virus to reduce the chances they develop serious illness, or, you know, DIE.

Makes sense..... :2rofll:

 

[ReubenSherr]

I see, so we don't want to know if older people, such as in nursing homes, or with serious conditions like heart disease or COPD or diabetes would benefit from taking HCQ as a preventative or after a possible exposure to the virus to reduce the chances they develop serious illness, or, you know, DIE.

Makes sense..... :2rofll:

Dude, you have no idea what you're talking about - you're way behind on this topic

The studies arguing that HCQ is effective all promote its use when used early in treatment - There have not been any studies indicating the HCQ is effective in later-stage patients, that's not even something Trump is arguing

 

[Visbek]

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.

lol

Here's what I know for certain. This is a thread where a few Trumpettes are trying to (yet again) deny the science in order to make Trump look good.

I don't see any Trumpettes who care about curing COVID, which is why they don't rally around zinc sulfate or resevimir, or care what RCTs are saying. The topic of this thread for them is "Defend Trump at all costs."

See how that works?

 

[Visbek]

Here is a lay article on the retraction.

Yes, I'm aware of the reasons for retracting the Surgisphere-linked studies. In case you missed it, I'm not defending them. There are plenty of other studies that don't have those issues.

However, the study in the OP of this thread is not linked to Surgisphere in any way. It's not an observational study at all. It's an RCT examining whether taking hydroxychloroquine shortly after exposure to an infected person can stop the infection before the incubation period. And, well, it doesn't.

And again... The original study which kicked off interest in hydroxychloroquine was also retracted. Did you miss that part?

It is clear the matter is not yet settled.

Uhh... Yes, we know it's not settled. However, the evidence that hydroxychloroquine works against COVID-19 is currently very weak.

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

Uhh... In case you missed it, it was Fox News (especially Laura Ingrahm) and the POTUS who are politicizing hydroxychloroquine.

 

[JasperL]

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

Right, so your new theory, which you assert then abandon on this thread, is we don't CARE and DO NOT WANT TO KNOW if HCQ after exposure prevents the illness from showing symptom, or if it mitigates the symptoms in those exposed! So if you get exposed, then HCQ is worthless. That's your assertion here.

It's stupid, and you contradict yourself with every other post, but that's the theory on this reply! Brilliant. You've really thought this through we can tell. Do you have a medical newsletter so we can get more insights like this?

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

Uh, yeah, there is a reason. No researcher in this country at least would purposely expose study participants to a virus that can kill them, and/or if the exposed person gets sick, infect and kill those they come in contact with, which in this case since most participants were healthcare workers means patients, other hospital personnel. It's literally the dumbest thing you could say about a proposed study.

 

[Jay59]

Yes, I'm aware of the reasons for retracting the Surgisphere-linked studies. In case you missed it, I'm not defending them. There are plenty of other studies that don't have those issues. However, the study in the OP of this thread is not linked to Surgisphere in any way. It's not an observational study at all. It's an RCT examining whether taking hydroxychloroquine shortly after exposure to an infected person can stop the infection before the incubation period. And, well, it doesn't.
And again... The original study which kicked off interest in hydroxychloroquine was also retracted. Did you miss that part? Uhh... Yes, we know it's not settled. However, the evidence that hydroxychloroquine works against COVID-19 is currently very weak. Uhh... In case you missed it, it was Fox News (especially Laura Ingrahm) and the POTUS who are politicizing hydroxychloroquine.

Defensive a little? In case you missed it, I was not disagreeing with you. I posted the article because it's a lot more readable.

I don't do Fox. I had not for years and now I can't (cut the cable). That said, I am not surprised. If Trump is for something, 25 Million TDS cultists will be against it. Regardless, it seems clear that both sides have gone off the edge. There is good reason to believe that HCQ is helpful in controlling symptoms and is not dangerous at low dosages. On the other side, that's all it is, the metaphorical two aspirin.

 

[ReubenSherr]

Right, so your new theory, which you assert then abandon on this thread, is we don't CARE and DO NOT WANT TO KNOW if HCQ after exposure prevents the illness from showing symptom, or if it mitigates the symptoms in those exposed! So if you get exposed, then HCQ is worthless. That's your assertion here.

:roll: I don't even know where to start - you're going around in circles...

There are TWO claims about the benefits of using HCQ - they are separate:

CLAIM #1 HCQ can be used early in treatment in order to lessen the severity of symptoms and increase recovery time

CLAIM #2 HCQ can be used as a Preventative, BEFORE BEING EXPOSED TO THE VIRUS, and will block the virus from infecting the body

There is NO CLAIM that HCQ can be used after infection, but before symptoms begin, and then prevent the person from getting sick - This is how the study was set up - No one, including Trump and his physician, or any clinical or observational study out there, even claimed this was true

Please Read Through This Post Carefully Before Responding

 

[ReubenSherr]

No researcher in this country at least would purposely expose study participants to a virus that can kill them, and/or if the exposed person gets sick, infect and kill those they come in contact with, which in this case since most participants were healthcare workers means patients, other hospital personnel. It's literally the dumbest thing you could say about a proposed study.

There is no other way to study clinically if HCQ can prevent the body from being infected - this is the only way it can be done

Having people purposely expose themselves to sick household members, friends, etc., is just as dangerous

 

[JasperL]

:roll: I don't even know where to start - you're going around in circles...

There are TWO claims about the benefits of using HCQ - they are separate:

CLAIM #1 HCQ can be used early in treatment in order to lessen the severity of symptoms and increase recovery time

I think you meant decrease recovery time, but, yes, lessen the symptoms is a claim. So what you're saying is if you start HCQ soon after being infected, it can lessen symptoms but no one claims it can prevent symptoms from happening. Of course that makes no sense at all.

So someone sick coughs on you. Two days later, you aren't showing symptoms, but you take HCQ, which one way or another allegedly kills the virus. Now what you're saying is that HCQ is effective, but it won't slow the disease enough to prevent symptoms from emerging, it will just make the symptoms that HCQ cannot prevent from occurring less severe. How exactly is the drug good enough to be useful, but not good enough to prevent an exposure from developing to symptoms?

After all, if the drug is effective, then lessening symptoms to zero would seem to be the hope and the goal, and achievable if the drug is effective. I can't imagine a theory of how the drug works that would include lessening the severity of symptoms, but of course NOT to zero!

CLAIM #2 HCQ can be used as a Preventative, BEFORE BEING EXPOSED TO THE VIRUS, and will block the virus from infecting the body

There is NO CLAIM that HCQ can be used after infection, but before symptoms begin, and then prevent the person from getting sick - This is how the study was set up - No one, including Trump and his physician, or any clinical or observational study out there, even claimed this was true

Well, again, if HCQ is an effective treatment for COVID, then at some level it kills the virus, directly or by preventing it from replicating. So of course if the drug is effective in killing the virus, then it's use as a PEP (post exposure prophylaxis) would seem natural. In fact it's the subject of numerous studies, like this one, completed in April. HCQ was used as a PEP in a nursing home after a major exposure event, almost all residents and staff were treated with HCQ, and none developed symptoms. A good result! At least 10 more are ongoing or planned. So you are just wrong, as usual. It's like you're trying to be wrong. Weird.

 

[RAMOSS]

You are falling right into Mr. Person's trap - There are dozens of studies backing up the use of HCQ early in treatment and as a preventative

At this point, they are discussed in 3-4 other threads in great detail

So you say, but the ones you have linked to have been discredited, and the results can not be reproduced.

 

[ReubenSherr]

So you say, but the ones you have linked to have been discredited, and the results can not be reproduced.

??

The only studies that have been discredited so far are two studies claiming HCQ is NOT effective - the study in the Lancet, and one study from the NEJM

No other studies have been "discredited" that I know of, please share links...

 

[JasperL]

There is no other way to study clinically if HCQ can prevent the body from being infected - this is the only way it can be done

That's ignorant, as in your ignorance about clinical studies is 100%.

Having people purposely expose themselves to sick household members, friends, etc., is just as dangerous

Yes, it is and no one would suggest that. If you're in a study, and are living with a sick family member, of course the study will recommend you take all the appropriate precautions, PPE, hand washing, quarantine to the extent possible, etc. Same way in a healthcare setting. There will not be a study where they enroll nurses or doctors and one group treats COVID 19 patients without gloves, masks or other PPE but WITH HCQ and the other also uses no PPE and gets a placebo, because the study will KNOW 100% that many of the nurses/doctors will get sick, will go home, will spread it to others, and then the study team get sued, and bankrupt the hospital, and the idiots who approved the study get sued personally, and maybe some go to jail.

You're digging a bigger hole. Quit digging!

 

[ReubenSherr]

So what you're saying is if you start HCQ soon after being infected, it can lessen symptoms but no one claims it can prevent symptoms from happening.

Correct - There are two completely separate ways HCQ can help, according to medical professionals - one way is by blocking the virus from entering the body BEFORE the person is exposed, the other way (which is backed up by half a dozen studies) is by mitigating the disease after the symptoms begin

There is absolutely no claim made by anyone in the medical field, that I've seen, claiming that starting a course of HCQ after being infected can prevent symptoms completely, or prevent the person from falling ill - This study tried to disprove a claim which was never made, not by medical professionals, and not by Trump or his physician

 

[ReubenSherr]

That's ignorant, as in your ignorance about clinical studies is 100%.

So then what's your suggestion lol? How would you suggest researchers clinically study whether HCQ can PREVENT infections, without exposing people in the experimental group to the disease?

Maybe we could use hamsters?:roll:

 

[Schism]

Even if a liberal contracted Malaria, they wouldn't take it because Trump hate.

I believe that even the DP Glamour Shot would grind it under his pointy boot while cursing The Drumph.

 

[JasperL]

Correct - There are two completely separate ways HCQ can help, according to medical professionals - one way is by blocking the virus from entering the body BEFORE the person is exposed, the other way (which is backed up by half a dozen studies) is by mitigating the disease after the symptoms begin

There is absolutely no claim made by anyone in the medical field, that I've seen, claiming that starting a course of HCQ after being infected can prevent symptoms completely, or prevent the person from falling ill - This study tried to disprove a claim which was never made, not by medical professionals, and not by Trump or his physician

If you want to address the rest of my comment, please do. I don't appreciate responding to your point, you quote me but omit 90% of my response, then repeat points I've already addressed extensively, including with links to studies completed and ongoing that prove you are just ignorant and wrong. It's rude and it's bull****.

Here's part of it:

"Well, again, if HCQ is an effective treatment for COVID, then at some level it kills the virus, directly or by preventing it from replicating. So of course if the drug is effective in killing the virus, then it's use as a PEP (post exposure prophylaxis) would seem natural. In fact it's the subject of numerous studies, like this one, completed in April. HCQ was used as a PEP in a nursing home after a major exposure event, almost all residents and staff were treated with HCQ, and none developed symptoms. A good result! At least 10 more are ongoing or planned. So you are just wrong, as usual. It's like you're trying to be wrong. Weird."

 

[JasperL]

So then ...tl/dr.

First of all, here's what you ignored. If you think I'm wrong, say so and explain why you think I'm wrong. If not, then I'm not going to address your comments further.

"Yes, it is and no one would suggest that. If you're in a study, and are living with a sick family member, of course the study will recommend you take all the appropriate precautions, PPE, hand washing, quarantine to the extent possible, etc. Same way in a healthcare setting. There will not be a study where they enroll nurses or doctors and one group treats COVID 19 patients without gloves, masks or other PPE but WITH HCQ and the other also uses no PPE and gets a placebo, because the study will KNOW 100% that many of the nurses/doctors will get sick, will go home, will spread it to others, and then the study team get sued, and bankrupt the hospital, and the idiots who approved the study get sued personally, and maybe some go to jail."

 

[ReubenSherr]

First of all, here's what you ignored. If you think I'm wrong, say so and explain why you think I'm wrong. If not, then I'm not going to address your comments further.

"Yes, it is and no one would suggest that. If you're in a study, and are living with a sick family member, of course the study will recommend you take all the appropriate precautions, PPE, hand washing, quarantine to the extent possible, etc. Same way in a healthcare setting. There will not be a study where they enroll nurses or doctors and one group treats COVID 19 patients without gloves, masks or other PPE but WITH HCQ and the other also uses no PPE and gets a placebo, because the study will KNOW 100% that many of the nurses/doctors will get sick, will go home, will spread it to others, and then the study team get sued, and bankrupt the hospital, and the idiots who approved the study get sued personally, and maybe some go to jail."

Lol Jasper I can't respond to this, you have a sentence that's four lines long:lamo

 

[Visbek]

I don't do Fox. I had not for years and now I can't (cut the cable). That said, I am not surprised. If Trump is for something, 25 Million TDS cultists will be against it....

That's nice, but it doesn't describe my position -- e.g. he talked about resevimir in exactly the way he should, as something that can help and should be researched, not as a "miracle drug" that everyone should take because "what have you got to lose?"

Oh, and you somehow forgot to mention that if Trump is for something, 25 million Trumpettes will be for it -- no matter what any science or research or experts or experience or evidence proves, or who gets hurt as a result. (E.g. the demand for hydroxychloroquine, in no small part fueled by Trump, resulted in shortages that hurt people who we know benefit from this medication, such as patients with lupus.)

So no, I don't object to the medication. What I object to is irresponsible promotion of hydroxychloroquine by ideologically driven hacks.

There is good reason to believe that HCQ is helpful in controlling symptoms and is not dangerous at low dosages. On the other side, that's all it is, the metaphorical two aspirin.

No, it really isn't.

There is very little evidence that hydroxychloroquine offers any benefit whatsoever for COVID-19, and well-documented evidence that it has significant risks for many of the groups that are also at risk for a severe COVID-19 infection (e.g. people with heart disease).

Research is justified. Taking it prophylactically, outside of a study? That wasn't really justified before this study, and is less justifiable after it was published.

 

[Visbek]

There are TWO claims about the benefits of using HCQ - they are separate...

:roll:

No, there is no such limitation that is arbitrarily convenient for your position. They are testing hydroxychloroquine in a variety of situations, with and without other medications.

In this case, they tested the use of hydroxychloroquine after exposure to the virus, but before incubation. It offered no benefit.

As more RCT studies like this are conducted and completed, we will have a better idea whether hydroxychloroquine offers any benefit, in any situation, alone or in any combination with other medications. And we already know the risks.

But for now, the evidence we have indicates that it does not offer a significant prophylactic benefit, certainly not given the risks for many potential patients.

If you actually cared about the science, rather than the politics, you would let the studies be your guide -- rather than attack any study because it draws a conclusion you don't like.

 

[JasperL]

Lol Jasper I can't respond to this, you have a sentence that's four lines long:lamo

No, it's because you don't know what you're talking about, are completely ignorant about clinical studies, and have decided that the study is BS because...something... and all this is you desperately failing to find a legitimate reason to dismiss it.

:shrug:

Tell us again how the researchers should have deliberately exposed the participants to a deadly virus. That's a good one. :lamo