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

ReubenSherr · Jun 5, 2020

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

As I'm sure you know, they didn't continue the treatment and follow the progression of the illness - they simply concluded that giving patients HCQ after exposure didn't prevent people in the experimental group from contracting the disease

And as I'm sure you also know, no one has ever claimed that giving HCQ after exposure will prevent the person from becoming ill

Stop playing dumb

ReubenSherr · Jun 5, 2020

(Edit)

ReubenSherr · Jun 5, 2020

Visbek said:
If you actually cared about the science, rather than the politics, you would let the studies be your guide

Correct, every study involving giving people HCQ early on has confirmed that the medication lessened the severity of the illness

If you "cared about the science," you would look at the research, instead of referring to the same few faulty studies, two of which have been torn apart by people in the field, and, again, which either treated hospitalized patients, or which tried to prove HCQ couldn't be used as a preventative by giving the medication to people who had already been exposed

Just to clear this up again, "Fauci" is not "the science", and I'm sure you know that

ReubenSherr · Jun 5, 2020

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

Lol tell us again how the researchers concluded that HCQ isn't effective as a preventative by using subjects who had already been exposed :lamo

lol you're clueless:lamo

Threegoofs · Jun 5, 2020

Visbek said:
: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.

Welp... we now have evidence HCQ doesn’t work in prophylaxis. It’s not the greatest quality evidence, but pretty decent.

Now we have pretty good evidence, from a randomized controlled trial, that HCQ is ineffective for hospitalized patients.

New study likely closes door on use of hydroxychloroquine for Covid-19

Not published yet, but there’s good reason to believe it’s a very good quality study.

This leaves a narrow window to use it- ambulatory patients who are initially diagnosed and not severe enough for hospitalization.

But given that it doesn’t work early and doesn’t work late, the Goldilocks hypothesis that it only works st a very specific point is...not looking likely.

Threegoofs · Jun 5, 2020

ReubenSherr said:
Lol tell us again how the researchers concluded that HCQ isn't effective as a preventative by using subjects who had already been exposed :lamo

And repeat that line one more time about the fact that patients in an experimental group cannot be given any form of a virus - lol you're clueless:lamo

As I’ve said.... you literally have no idea what you’re talking about.

ReubenSherr · Jun 5, 2020

Visbek said:
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.

Yes, all those highly dangerous "risks" that are so serious Trump and his physician are trying to kill people lol...

Out of more than 400 people in the experimental group in this study that were given HCQ, No one had any serious side effects

ReubenSherr · Jun 5, 2020

Threegoofs said:
As I’ve said.... you literally have no idea what you’re talking about.

Lol try again

I'll repeat this for you so you can read it slowly...

Lol tell us again how the researchers concluded that HCQ isn't effective as a preventative by using subjects who had already been exposed

zimmer · Jun 5, 2020

Mr Person said:
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.

New England Journal of Medicine retracts report:

Unreliable data: how doubt snowballed over Covid-19 drug research that swept the world | World news | The Guardian

https://www.the-scientist.com/news-...urgispheres-study-on-hydroxychloroquine-67613

Politics poisoning science. Again. From The Guardian:

“It was a royal mess,” Chaccour says. “There was huge political polarisation about hydroxychlorioquine, politics became mixed in with policy... This should be about data, not opinions, and absolutely not about politics. The world had gone crazy.”

Trump Derangement Syndrome... strikes again!

Threegoofs · Jun 5, 2020

ReubenSherr said:
Yes, all those highly dangerous "risks" that are so serious Trump and his physician are trying to kill people lol...

Out of more than 400 people in the experimental group in this study that were given HCQ, No one had any serious side effects

Yet 40% had adverse effects.

That’s bad tolerability by any definition.

The study is too small for safety, especially looking at the most serious, QTc issues, which were not looked at at all anyway.

Cause you know what a long QTc is going to do to someone? (Answer):No...because you literally know nothing about this issue.

ReubenSherr · Jun 5, 2020

Threegoofs said:
Yet 40% had adverse effects..

The left has spent the last month doing nothing but ridiculing Trump and his physician for being so reckless people could be killed from HCQ side effects

In this experimental group of 400+ people, NOT ONE PERSON HAD ANY SEVERE SIDE EFFECTS

JasperL · Jun 5, 2020

ReubenSherr said:
As I'm sure you know, they didn't continue the treatment and follow the progression of the illness - they simply concluded that giving patients HCQ after exposure didn't prevent people in the experimental group from contracting the disease

That's a lie. From the study you won't read:

The most frequent symptoms were cough (44.9% of the 107 participants with Covid-19), fever (34.6%), shortness of breath (18.7%), fatigue (49.5%), sore throat (40.2%), myalgia (37.4%), and anosmia (23.4%). 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).

I've highlighted this for you previously, so you know it's there.

And as I'm sure you also know, no one has ever claimed that giving HCQ after exposure will prevent the person from becoming ill

That's another lie, or your ignorance is 100%. This early study released in April showed it was effective for just that, and any reasonable theory about how the drug works would assume it's effective as a PEP. After all, if it reduces symptoms in those infected, then if administered early enough, and is effective, then surely it can in many cases reduce symptoms to zero.

Anyway, I linked to this study before. Here it is again:

Can post-exposure prophylaxis for COVID-19 be considered as an outbreak response strategy in long-term care hospitals? - ScienceDirect

After a large COVID-19 exposure event in an LTCH in Korea, PEP using hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) was administered to 211 individuals, including 189 patients and 22 careworkers, whose baseline polymerase chain reaction (PCR) tests for COVID-19 were negative. PEP was completed in 184 (97.4%) patients and 21 (95.5%) careworkers without serious adverse events. At the end of 14 days of quarantine, all follow-up PCR tests were negative. Based on our experience, further clinical studies are recommended for COVID-19 PEP.

Stop playing dumb

LOL - irony meter just shattered. Stop lying.

JasperL · Jun 5, 2020

ReubenSherr said:
Correct, every study involving giving people HCQ early on has confirmed that the medication lessened the severity of the illness

Well, the RCT that's the subject of this thread found it had no effect. So there's that. You keep lying about it, but it doesn't change the results.

ReubenSherr · Jun 5, 2020

JasperL said:
That's a lie. From the study you won't read:

The most frequent symptoms were cough (44.9% of the 107 participants with Covid-19), fever (34.6%), shortness of breath (18.7%), fatigue (49.5%), sore throat (40.2%), myalgia (37.4%), and anosmia (23.4%). 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).

I've highlighted this for you previously, so you know it's there.

This has nothing to do with proving clinically that HCQ helps the patient recover more quickly and effectively - There is no documentation of when any of these patients, in either the control or experimental group, recovered from the illness

ReubenSherr · Jun 5, 2020

JasperL said:
That's another lie, or your ignorance is 100%. This early study released in April showed it was effective for just that, and any reasonable theory about how the drug works would assume it's effective as a PEP. After all, if it reduces symptoms in those infected, then if administered early enough, and is effective, then surely it can in many cases reduce symptoms to zero.

You have absolutely no clue what you're talking about

If medication is being used as a preventative, it needs to be in place, blocking the infection before it occurs - otherwise, it's not a preventative

Please provide a link to the study you're referring to

JasperL · Jun 5, 2020

ReubenSherr said:
This has nothing to do with proving clinically that HCQ helps the patient recover more quickly and effectively - There is no documentation of when any of these patients, in either the control or experimental group, recovered from the illness

So you're moving the goal posts after being caught in a lie. NICE!!

Your previous claim: "they simply concluded that giving patients HCQ after exposure didn't prevent people in the experimental group from contracting the disease." That's a lie.

And what is your theory on how this drug works? Based on this RCT, It doesn't reduce the number of exposed who develop symptoms, and it doesn't reduce symptoms in those who do develop them, but somehow it magically impacts who recovers and how fast? Can you explain that for us?

ReubenSherr · Jun 5, 2020

JasperL said:
So you're moving the goal posts after being caught in a lie. NICE!!

Your previous claim: "they simply concluded that giving patients HCQ after exposure didn't prevent people in the experimental group from contracting the disease." That's a lie.

Jasper, lol you're going around in circles again :lamo

The only medically-sponsored claims about using HCQ early in treatment, after exposure, have involved mitigating the course of the illness - meaning, the study would have to document the time it took for patients to RECOVER from the illness, as well as the severity of the symptoms

JasperL · Jun 5, 2020

ReubenSherr said:
You have absolutely no clue what you're talking about

LOL.

If medication is being used as a preventative, it needs to be in place, blocking the infection before it occurs - otherwise, it's not a preventative

Please provide a link to the study you're referring to

I have provided that link to you directly twice, including at #87. Take it up with that study's authors and the people running a dozen or so other studies in testing HCQ as a PEP. If you don't know what that means, look it up. You won't look so stupid and uninformed.

JasperL · Jun 5, 2020

ReubenSherr said:
Jasper, lol you're going around in circles again :lamo

The only medically-sponsored claims about using HCQ early in treatment, after exposure, have involved mitigating the course of the illness - meaning, the study would have to document the time it took for patients to RECOVER from the illness, as well as the severity of the symptoms

That's a lie. See: Can post-exposure prophylaxis for COVID-19 be considered as an outbreak response strategy in long-term care hospitals? - ScienceDirect

ReubenSherr · Jun 5, 2020

JasperL said:
Take it up with that study's authors and the people running a dozen or so other studies in testing HCQ as a PEP. If you don't know what that means, look it up. You won't look so stupid and uninformed.

Lol here's a direct line from the study you're touting as one which followed patients through the entire progression of the illness...

The prevention study was dreamed up by David Boulware at the University of Minnesota

It's a prevention study, that was the intent, and that is how the study was carried out - read, man, it's not very hard...

ReubenSherr · Jun 5, 2020

JasperL said:
I have provided that link to you directly twice, including at #87. Take it up with that study's authors

Again, the study you're linking involves POST-EXPOSURE treatment, not Preventative

And lol, again, it involves HOSPITALIZED PATIENTS

Threegoofs · Jun 5, 2020

ReubenSherr said:
The left has spent the last month doing nothing but ridiculing Trump and his physician for being so reckless people could be killed from HCQ side effects

In this experimental group of 400+ people, NOT ONE PERSON HAD ANY SEVERE SIDE EFFECTS

Get back to me when you understand the issue instead of parroting sentences you read once.

fireflygmf · Jun 5, 2020

JasperL said:
LOL.

I have provided that link to you directly twice, including at #87. Take it up with that study's authors and the people running a dozen or so other studies in testing HCQ as a PEP. If you don't know what that means, look it up. You won't look so stupid and uninformed.

Some studies have been retracted:

https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(20)31324-6/fulltext
Covid-19: Lancet retracts paper that halted hydroxychloroquine trials | Coronavirus outbreak | The Guardian

fireflygmf · Jun 5, 2020

It seems to me that in the effort to disprove Trump, some of these studies involving chloroquine or hydroxychloroquine have been politicized. I'd take any results with a huge spoonful of salt. Such a shame, I expect better of the scientific community, do not let politics affect the objectivity of a study.

And I'm saying this as someone who doesn't even like Trump.

Threegoofs · Jun 5, 2020

fireflygmf said:
It seems to me that in the effort to disprove Trump, some of these studies involving chloroquine or hydroxychloroquine have been politicized. I'd take any results with a huge spoonful of salt. Such a shame, I expect better of the scientific community, do not let politics affect the objectivity of a study.

And I'm saying this as someone who doesn't even like Trump.

But all the positive studies are real results?

I really don’t think the Chinese, French or UK studies that showed ineffectiveness were manipulated to make Trump look bad.

I mean.. most people understand that he can’t really look any worse.

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

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Sophisticated man-about-town

Sophisticated man-about-town

Well-known member

Well-known member

Educating the Ignorant

Sophisticated man-about-town

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Sophisticated man-about-town

Sophisticated man-about-town

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency