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

[Threegoofs]

??

"Hydroxychloroquine, or chloroquine, can inhibit the attachment of the virus before it engages the ACE2 receptor," Greene said

Here's another source...

Can the antimalarial drug hydroxychloroquine prevent infection with COVID-19?

"Hydroxychloroquine has been used since the early 1950s to prevent malaria and treat autoimmune diseases such as rheumatoid arthritis and lupus. Hydroxychloroquine has a long track record of safety for these conditions, and is being studied in similar or lower doses for the prevention of COVID-19. The medication is hypothesized to prevent COVID-19 from infecting cells."

The NEJM study only gave HCQ to patients AFTER cells had potentially been infected

Guess all the other questions were over your head, or not covered on Laura Ingraham...

 

[Threegoofs]

From the Lancet itself:


In short, the study which was critical of Hydroxychloroquine's effectiveness against the Corvid-19 virus was seriously flawed forcing The Lancet to withdraw the article, a serious blow the the study's legitimacy and credibility and a black eye to The Lancet itself.

It might yet be the case that Hydroxychloroquine is in fact effective against the Corvid-19 virus. Further legitimate studies may find that this is the case or that this may not be the case. :shrug:

Of course, as is usual, when the leftist DNC Pravda political propaganda media's hype disproved, that never gets the same level of coverage and exposure as did the initial and false reporting.

Such is their one sided political activism and such is their political bias that some still deny exists. Such merchants of dishonesty and 1/2 truths they are, and are failed to be called out on it by both sides of the political aisle, except for the exceptional and brave few.

This has gotten a huge amount of coverage.

What you probably missed is the last two studies showing complete ineffectiveness of HCQ in one fairly high quality study and one pretty good one.

 

[ReubenSherr]

Guess all the other questions were over your head, or not covered on Laura Ingraham...

What is your degree in, bud? What edge do you have over me, or anyone else, in analyzing any of this?

Here is another article the nonpartisan editors of the NEJM chose to publish on Health Care in 2007...

https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMp078202

Here are two excerpts from it:

"On the Republican side, no top-tier candidate has released a health plan as detailed or comprehensive as the Democratic proposals — a gap that underscores the difference between the constituencies that each party appeals to in its presidential primaries."

"These Republican plans are also noteworthy for what they do not do: propose the establishment of any major new federal insurance programs or the adoption of any new employer or individual mandates. The focus is on decentralized, market-oriented reforms rather than on achieving universal coverage. Without more details, it is difficult to assess the plans' potential impact, but their incremental measures are unlikely to substantially increase health insurance coverage or effectively control costs."

And, just as a reminder, since your memory isn't always the best, this is what they published 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."

 

[Threegoofs]

What is your degree in, bud? What edge do you have over me, or anyone else, in analyzing any of this?

Here is another article the nonpartisan editors of the NEJM chose to publish on Health Care in 2007...

https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMp078202

Here are two excerpts from it:

"On the Republican side, no top-tier candidate has released a health plan as detailed or comprehensive as the Democratic proposals — a gap that underscores the difference between the constituencies that each party appeals to in its presidential primaries."

"These Republican plans are also noteworthy for what they do not do: propose the establishment of any major new federal insurance programs or the adoption of any new employer or individual mandates. The focus is on decentralized, market-oriented reforms rather than on achieving universal coverage. Without more details, it is difficult to assess the plans' potential impact, but their incremental measures are unlikely to substantially increase health insurance coverage or effectively control costs."

Still not answering the questions.

Guess its time to change gears and talk about the fantastic mythical plans the GOP has for healthcare. Cheaper, better, and everyone is covered. How? Well, our plan is to tell you our plan later.

 

[eohrnberger]

This has gotten a huge amount of coverage.

To be accurate, a large amount of coverage has been on Trump's Hydroxychloroquine statement, and far less that The Lancet has withdrawn the study I referred to.
Typical dishonest, 1/2 truth, DNC Pravda, political propaganda 'news' media in action. :shrug:

What you probably missed is the last two studies showing complete ineffectiveness of HCQ in one fairly high quality study and one pretty good one.

Completely fine with that. As posted: "Further legitimate studies may find that this is the case or that this may not be the case. "
I'm perfectly accepting of what the facts and peer-reviewed studies bring to light.

 

[Addas]

Why does the US help Russia in the fight against coronavirus, send them medical equipment if there are significantly fewer patients in Russia than in the USA? It would be better to help Brazil, where there are more patients than in the United States.

 

[ReubenSherr]

Still not answering the questions.

Typical 3goofs deflection

 

[ReubenSherr]

Surely someone is studying this brilliant idea, right? Show me that study.

You seem to be missing the point lol - the NEJM is avoiding it because it will politically advantage Trump

 

[ReubenSherr]

And what do you think a study giving HCQ to unexposed people would show? How many patients would you need to treat (and how long?! ) to show efficacy?

I've addressed the first question in two extremely lengthy, specific posts.

The second question is out of my field, and isn't relevant to this debate The people conducting the study can make that call

Now I believe there's a question of mine you haven't answered...

What is your degree in?

 

[Threegoofs]

To be accurate, a large amount of coverage has been on Trump's Hydroxychloroquine statement, and far less that The Lancet has withdrawn the study I referred to.
Typical dishonest, 1/2 truth, DNC Pravda, political propaganda 'news' media in action. :shrug:



Completely fine with that. As posted: "Further legitimate studies may find that this is the case or that this may not be the case. "
I'm perfectly accepting of what the facts and peer-reviewed studies bring to light.

The Lancet study was peer reviewed.

 

[eohrnberger]

The Lancet study was peer reviewed.

And even with that peer review, the study was later to be found bogus.
Apparently peer reviewed research are only as good as their peer reviewers? :shrug:
Suspicious that something as fundamental as the math was discovered to be skewed.

I'm rather leaning to 'science isn't an outcome, it's a process' view point. In this case, the science needs more time to fully 'bake', apparently. I'm OK with that.
:shrug: OK.

 

[Threegoofs]

And even with that peer review, the study was later to be found bogus.
Apparently peer reviewed research are only as good as their peer reviewers? :shrug:
Suspicious that something as fundamental as the math was discovered to be skewed.

I'm rather leaning to 'science isn't an outcome, it's a process' view point. In this case, the science needs more time to fully 'bake', apparently. I'm OK with that.
:shrug: OK.

No.

Peer review always assumes the data is real. Also, it’s not hurried unless a global pandemic is occurring.

The issue isn’t ‘the math’, either.

 

[eohrnberger]

No.

Peer review always assumes the data is real. Also, it’s not hurried unless a global pandemic is occurring.

The issue isn’t ‘the math’, either.

The issues are 1). non-political publications making political decisions as to which studies to endorse with publication and 2). those publication's editors not doing their homework before they do so, and then caught up in a fraud.

But little do liberals and leftists care about fraud, just as long as the preferred leftist political narrative is served.

 

[bubbabgone]

??

"Hydroxychloroquine, or chloroquine, can inhibit the attachment of the virus before it engages the ACE2 receptor," Greene said

Here's another source...

Can the antimalarial drug hydroxychloroquine prevent infection with COVID-19?

"Hydroxychloroquine has been used since the early 1950s to prevent malaria and treat autoimmune diseases such as rheumatoid arthritis and lupus. Hydroxychloroquine has a long track record of safety for these conditions, and is being studied in similar or lower doses for the prevention of COVID-19. The medication is hypothesized to prevent COVID-19 from infecting cells."

The NEJM study only gave HCQ to patients AFTER cells had potentially been infected

Remember what I said about recognizing the neediest ones that come to threads to seek self-validation.

 

[Threegoofs]

The issues are 1). non-political publications making political decisions as to which studies to endorse with publication and 2). those publication's editors not doing their homework before they do so, and then caught up in a fraud.

But little do liberals and leftists care about fraud, just as long as the preferred leftist political narrative is served.

I can almost guarantee there’s no political decisions being made at editorial levels.

The only people who consider medical research a political issue are people like you.

 

[Paradoxical]

Or... not.

The last time we went on this merry-go-round, you posted 2 actual (and small) studies that indicated hydroxychloroquine might be beneficial, and a bunch of garbage -- e.g. anecdotes, the discredited French study, and a huge list which turned out to be mostly announcements of new drug trials.

You then failed to acknowledge multiple studies showing major issues with hydroxychloroquine, and insisted that the New England Journal of Medicine was biased because... it's published in New England.

Meanwhile, the studies which show that hydroxychloroquine is ineffective keep piling up. Hmmmm.

Scientists said wear masks, don't wear masks. They said it stays o surfaces a long time, the they said No. The WHO said HCQ doesn't work and said well maybe it does.

Please stop relying on wonky "experts".

 

[Paradoxical]

Remember what I said about recognizing the neediest ones that come to threads to seek self-validation.

Translated: He has the goods and I can't refute, so I will make a personal slur.

 

[eohrnberger]

I can almost guarantee there’s no political decisions being made at editorial levels.

The only people who consider medical research a political issue are people like you.

When any research's claimed results align with the demanded political narrative of the day or week, I become skeptical, and I think with just cause.

Trump says that Hydroxychloroquine might be effective in treating COVID-19 infections based on a number of studies. A true statement.

Media does it's usual taking it out of context, making it a far larger issue than is warranted.

The Lancet publishes an article of a study that concludes Hydroxychloroquine is not effective COVID-19 infections.

The media crow 'We told you so'.

A few weeks later, The Lancet pulls said article because there are issued with it and it's accuracy.

The Media gets to attack Trump over Hydroxychloroquine.
The Left gets to attack Trump over Hydroxychloroquine.
The Democrats gets to attack Trump over Hydroxychloroquine.
The Lancet gets positive press coverage.

Not much truth or honesty there, but hey, everyone should be happy, everyone got to attack who they wanted to attack, right?
Never mind the accuracy. Even in medical research. Sheesh.

 

[Threegoofs]

When any research's claimed results align with the demanded political narrative of the day or week, I become skeptical, and I think with just cause.

Trump says that Hydroxychloroquine might be effective in treating COVID-19 infections based on a number of studies. A true statement.

Media does it's usual taking it out of context, making it a far larger issue than is warranted.

The Lancet publishes an article of a study that concludes Hydroxychloroquine is not effective COVID-19 infections.

The media crow 'We told you so'.

A few weeks later, The Lancet pulls said article because there are issued with it and it's accuracy.

The Media gets to attack Trump over Hydroxychloroquine.
The Left gets to attack Trump over Hydroxychloroquine.
The Democrats gets to attack Trump over Hydroxychloroquine.
The Lancet gets positive press coverage.

Not much truth or honesty there, but hey, everyone should be happy, everyone got to attack who they wanted to attack, right?
Never mind the accuracy. Even in medical research. Sheesh.

Dude- you’ve got a weird filter.

 

[bubbabgone]

Scientists said wear masks, don't wear masks. They said it stays o surfaces a long time, the they said No. The WHO said HCQ doesn't work and said well maybe it does.

Please stop relying on wonky "experts".

When this all settles down, as I hope it will, I think we'll find a lot of it was motivated by the politics of the experts rather than their "science".

 

[Threegoofs]

When this all settles down, as I hope it will, I think we'll find a lot of it was motivated by the politics of the experts rather than their "science".

You, of course, are far above this.

Because you just dispense with the science at the beginning and go with your political belief in the first place.

I applaud your candidness.

 

[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.

Hydroxychloroquine is not dead yet

 

[The AntiDonald]

Given ample precedent I believe Trump lied about taking Covid.

I believed he was lying the first time I heard him say it. This is how Trump attempts to wiggle his way out of a ridiculous statement. He lies. And then he lies to cover up his lies. He is disgusting.