ChiefsPlanet Mobile
Page 20 of 29
« First < 101617181920 21222324 > Last »
Washington DC and The Holy Land>The geopolitical fight to minimize Hydroxychloroquine
Taco John 02:36 AM 04-09-2020

The #CDC removed several paragraphs of information about #Hydroxychloroquine from its website, including recommended dosing information.

The @CDCgov didn’t immediately respond to a request for comment. https://t.co/OqSVHtCied

— The Epoch Times (@EpochTimes) April 9, 2020

[Reply]
RodeoPants2 05:17 PM 05-22-2020
We tried telling you idiots not to believe in trump's snake oil
[Reply]
SupDock 07:26 PM 05-22-2020
Originally Posted by Bowser:
This




That makes the story a bit more juicy than "they're still doing clinical trials", don't you think?
It makes the most sense. They can really test the hypothesis due to exposure.
[Reply]
JohnnyHammersticks 07:47 PM 05-22-2020
Originally Posted by RodeoPants2:
We tried telling you idiots not to believe in trump's snake oil
Oh the fun I'm going have with this post. You can't even imagine! :-)



I used to think LodeoPanties was just a shill with mild brain damage, now I think he really believes everything CNN tells him to believe.
:-)
[Reply]
Merde Furieux 03:12 PM 05-23-2020

[Reply]
Just Passin' By 04:28 PM 05-23-2020
Originally Posted by :
The Remdesivir Study Is Finally Out: Drug Only Helped Those On Oxygen, Finds Mortality Too High For Standalone Treatment

...According to a pivotal study published in the New England Journal of Medicine late on Friday, Remdesivir, which was authorized to treat Covid-19 in a group of 1063 adults and children (split into two groups, one receiving placebo instead of remdesivir) who need i) supplemental oxygen, ii) a ventilator or iii) extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO), only significantly helped those on supplemental oxygen.

Meanwhile, and explaining the 6pm release on a Friday, the study also found no marked benefit from remdesivir for those who were healthier and didn’t need oxygen or those who were sicker, requiring a ventilator or a heart-lung bypass machine...
https://www.zerohedge.com/technology...ality-too-high

https://www.zerohedge.com/technology...ality-too-high
[Reply]
Eleazar 09:53 PM 05-25-2020
Anti-malaria drug touted by Trump has high death risk in COVID-19 patients, new study shows




Hospitalized COVID-19 patients who were treated with hydroxychloroquine, an anti-malaria drug touted by President Trump had a much higher risk of death than those who were not, according to a new study of 96,000 patients.

The study, published Friday in the medical journal The Lancet, found that patients who were treated with hydroxychloroquine or chloroquine also faced a much higher risk of abnormal heartbeats, called arrhythmias, which could result in cardiac arrest.

The study looked at patients across six different continents, and is the largest analysis to date on the effects of treating COVID-19 patients with hydroxychloroquine or chloroquine.

Nearly 15,000 of the 96,000 patients in the analysis were treated with hydroxychloroquine or chloroquine alone or in combination with an antibiotic called a macrolide, similar to azithromycin, within 48 hours of their diagnosis.

The study was a retrospective analysis of medical records of patients in 671 hospitals located on six continents, but was not a randomized controlled clinical trial, which is seen as the gold standard in science.

Despite this limitation, experts say the findings are important.

"I think it's as convincing as this kind of study can be," said Jesse Goodman, a former Food and Drug Administration (FDA) chief scientist who is currently a professor of medicine at Georgetown University.

"In the light of these results, I think it's fair to say it's not looking good for a benefit of these drugs. And there's accumulating evidence that they may actually be harmful, and a lot of people may end up being harmed by their widespread use," Goodman said.

Tom Frieden, former director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), said he doesn't think the study is the definitive answer on the use of hydroxychloroquine.

"But it means that the likelihood that it’s a dramatic cure, or substantially improves outcomes, is very low," Frieden said.

There have been numerous studies in recent months about the use of hydroxychloroquine to treat COVID-19, and there has been almost no evidence of any benefit. However, many of the studies have shown an increased risk for heart problems.

Although several randomized controlled trials are underway, the study authors said "there is a pressing need to provide accurate clinical guidance because the use of chloroquine or hydroxychloroquine along with a macrolide is widespread, often with little regard for potential risk."

...

https://thehill.com/policy/healthcar...d-patients-new
[Reply]
Merde Furieux 05:58 AM 05-26-2020
Democrats destroy everything they touch. – The utterly feckless and corrupt World Health Organization announced on Sunday that it was temporarily suspending trials studying the effects of hydroxychloroquine related to the Wuhan Virus due to “safety concerns.” So, now this tool of China that helped create this global pandemic through its fealty to ChiCom talking points is now pulling rank political stunts to try to influence the U.S. election.

The Trump Administration should respond by challenging the WHO to show the world the mass graves of lupus and malaria patients who have been successfully and safely using hydroxychloroquine under doctor supervision for over 60 years. After all, if this drug is so dangerous and filled with harmful side effects, there must be thousands, if not millions, of global deaths that can be attributed to it.

Just one more reason to cut the WHO off entirely.

https://dbdailyupdate.com/index.php/...igion-is-born/
[Reply]
Merde Furieux 09:49 AM 05-26-2020
The World Health Organization has urged Indonesia, one of the world’s biggest advocates of two malaria drugs to treat the coronavirus, to suspend such treatment over safety concerns, a source familiar with the advice told Reuters on Tuesday.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-h...-idUSKBN23227L
[Reply]
B_Ambuehl 10:53 AM 05-26-2020
Unfortunately the political attack on HCQ since Trump mentioned it has prevented us from developing consistent valid treatment options which appears to be HCQ used early on & Remdesivir used if a patient needs to be hospitalized. Remdesivir is an IV drug not convenient for anyone to take at home, especially early on in the illness. HCQ appears to work best when used early on. HCQ was working fine for South korea & china months before Trump ever mentioned it. Brazil & India are also using it successfully. Here are a few links of research on it from those countries:

S. Korea's mortality rate has been 2.3% overall from diagnosed cases compared to 6.4% worldwide. Here is a paper on their success with HCQ:

https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1....13.20094193v1

Research from China shows HCQ significantly improved recovery times compared to controls:

https://www.contagionlive.com/news/r...ne-for-covid19

In Brazil early treatment with HCQ reduced hospitalizations 280%:
https://tinyurl.com/y9er7e5h

In India about half of their police force of 10,000 people took HCQ and about half didn't. There have been 9 deaths in the ones that didn't take it and none in the group that did:

https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/...w/75845670.cms

The negative Lancet study was flawed in that people who took it had more severe cases which is clear looking at the number of people on ventilators which was 7.7% in the control group & 20-21% in the treatment group. At that stage of the illness it won't work. There are other issues with that study as well:

The control group had a higher percentage of white patients.

Control 67.1 and HCQ 66.3

White people have been shown to have higher survival rates with covid so this skews in favor of the control group

The control group had a lower percentage of black people.

Control 9.3 and HCQ 10.9

Black people have been shown to have a higher death rate from covid most likely related to lower levels of vitamin D in their systems because of skin pigmentation making vitamin D production lower.

The lower percentage of black people in the control again skews in favor of the control group.

The control group had a lower percentage of hispanics.

Control 6.1 % Hispanics and HCQ 7.4 percent hispanics.

This again skew the results in favor of the control group since hispanics have also had higher death rates from covid.

How about comorbidities ? Did those favor the control group also. Well yes they did.

Control group coronary artery disease = 12.4 % HCQ 13.5

That clearly favors the control group

Control group congestive heart failure = 2.4 % HCQ 3.0

Not by a lot but again another patient demographic that skews the results in favor of the control group.

Control group Arrhythmia 3.5% and HCQ 3.6

Again this slightly favors the control group

Control group Diabetes 13.6% and HCQ 14.7

Another one significantly in favor of the control group

Here is a big one.

Control group hypertension 26.4% HCQ 29.4

That is a full 3 percentage point difference in favor of the control group and this is a very important comorbidity that skews the results of this study in favor of the control group !

I finally found one that doesn't favor the control group.

Control group Hyperlipidaemia 31.5% HCQ with macrolide 31.3

Control group COPD 3.3% HCQ with macrolide 3.5

A small skewing in favor of the control group again.

Control group current smoker 9.7% HCQ 10.4

This would seem to me to be an important one and it skews the results in favor of the control group again.

Baseline disease severity indicators given are two with one skewing in favor of the HCQ with macrolide group and the other skewing in favor of the control group.

Average age skews in favor of the control group with the control group having a lower average age.

There were an awful lot of factors in this study that skewed the results in favor of the control group.
[Reply]
AdolfOliverBush 11:27 AM 05-26-2020
Why stop taking it now, if it's effective against Covid-19?

https://fox8.com/news/president-trum...xychloroquine/
[Reply]
'Hamas' Jenkins 11:30 AM 05-26-2020
Originally Posted by B_Ambuehl:
Unfortunately the political attack on HCQ since Trump mentioned it has prevented us from developing consistent valid treatment options which appears to be HCQ used early on & Remdesivir used if a patient needs to be hospitalized. Remdesivir is an IV drug not convenient for anyone to take at home, especially early on in the illness. HCQ appears to work best when used early on. HCQ was working fine for South korea & china months before Trump ever mentioned it. Brazil & India are also using it successfully. Here are a few links of research on it from those countries:

S. Korea's mortality rate has been 2.3% overall from diagnosed cases compared to 6.4% worldwide. Here is a paper on their success with HCQ:

https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1....13.20094193v1

Research from China shows HCQ significantly improved recovery times compared to controls:

https://www.contagionlive.com/news/r...ne-for-covid19

In Brazil early treatment with HCQ reduced hospitalizations 280%:
https://tinyurl.com/y9er7e5h

In India about half of their police force of 10,000 people took HCQ and about half didn't. There have been 9 deaths in the ones that didn't take it and none in the group that did:

https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/...w/75845670.cms

The negative Lancet study was flawed in that people who took it had more severe cases which is clear looking at the number of people on ventilators which was 7.7% in the control group & 20-21% in the treatment group. At that stage of the illness it won't work. There are other issues with that study as well:

The control group had a higher percentage of white patients.

Control 67.1 and HCQ 66.3

White people have been shown to have higher survival rates with covid so this skews in favor of the control group

The control group had a lower percentage of black people.

Control 9.3 and HCQ 10.9

Black people have been shown to have a higher death rate from covid most likely related to lower levels of vitamin D in their systems because of skin pigmentation making vitamin D production lower.

The lower percentage of black people in the control again skews in favor of the control group.

The control group had a lower percentage of hispanics.

Control 6.1 % Hispanics and HCQ 7.4 percent hispanics.

This again skew the results in favor of the control group since hispanics have also had higher death rates from covid.

How about comorbidities ? Did those favor the control group also. Well yes they did.

Control group coronary artery disease = 12.4 % HCQ 13.5

That clearly favors the control group

Control group congestive heart failure = 2.4 % HCQ 3.0

Not by a lot but again another patient demographic that skews the results in favor of the control group.

Control group Arrhythmia 3.5% and HCQ 3.6

Again this slightly favors the control group

Control group Diabetes 13.6% and HCQ 14.7

Another one significantly in favor of the control group

Here is a big one.

Control group hypertension 26.4% HCQ 29.4

That is a full 3 percentage point difference in favor of the control group and this is a very important comorbidity that skews the results of this study in favor of the control group !

I finally found one that doesn't favor the control group.

Control group Hyperlipidaemia 31.5% HCQ with macrolide 31.3

Control group COPD 3.3% HCQ with macrolide 3.5

A small skewing in favor of the control group again.

Control group current smoker 9.7% HCQ 10.4

This would seem to me to be an important one and it skews the results in favor of the control group again.

Baseline disease severity indicators given are two with one skewing in favor of the HCQ with macrolide group and the other skewing in favor of the control group.

Average age skews in favor of the control group with the control group having a lower average age.

There were an awful lot of factors in this study that skewed the results in favor of the control group.
You have absolutely no idea what you are talking about. Nearly every example you gave is an incorrect analysis and displays a complete misunderstanding of how clinical trials operate.
[Reply]
Eleazar 11:33 AM 05-26-2020
Originally Posted by AdolfOliverBush:
Why stop taking it now, if it's effective against Covid-19?

https://fox8.com/news/president-trum...xychloroquine/
His health is monitored closely. Perhaps they saw signs of one of the potential adverse effects like QT prolongation and discontinued use.
[Reply]
Merde Furieux 11:36 AM 05-26-2020
The drugs are thought to block viruses from entering cells by changing the pH, or acidity, of cellular compartments called lysosomes. That “creates a less friendly environment for the virus, so it might be more difficult for the virus to get into human cells in the first place,” says Michael Avidan, an anesthesiologist at Washington University School of Medicine in St. Louis. Avidan is involved in a clinical trial testing whether chloroquine can protect healthcare workers from infection or from developing serious disease.

In addition, hydroxychloroquine and chloroquine disrupt interactions between some of SARS-CoV-2’s proteins with proteins called sigma receptors in human cells, researchers report April 30 in Nature. Interrupting those protein interactions may make it difficult for the virus to replicate, says study coauthor Adolfo Garcia-Sastre, a microbiologist who directs the Global Health and Emerging Pathogens Institute of Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai in New York City.

Together, those antiviral capabilities make the drugs attractive for use against the coronavirus. But there’s another important reason chloroquine and hydroxychloroquine were some of the first drugs pressed into action: They’re available. Doctors have been prescribing the drugs, already approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, for decades and they’re generally safe, although there are some serious side effects.

“Time is of the essence,” says Adam Spivak, an infectious-disease doctor at the University of Utah in Salt Lake City. “When you have a drug that you understand and can safely administer that’s on the shelf, that’s the drug you reach for first.”

Hydroxychloroquine is better tolerated by most people, so is the one researchers are testing more often.

https://www.sciencenews.org/article/...tment-research
[Reply]
B_Ambuehl 11:57 AM 05-26-2020
Originally Posted by 'Hamas' Jenkins:
You have absolutely no idea what you are talking about. Nearly every example you gave is an incorrect analysis and displays a complete misunderstanding of how clinical trials operate.
We don't have proper clinical trials but all we can go on is what we do have. Here's the full lancet paper:

https://www.thelancet.com/action/sho...2820%2931180-6

The group I pulled from was HCQ with macrolide vs control.

We need actual randomized trials & not just observational studies. I am not trying to be pro HCQ or anti-remdesivir or anything all I'm saying is the science is not done on this deal. Here's a direct quote from the paper:


Originally Posted by :
Our study has several limitations. The association of decreased survival with hydroxychloroquine or chloroquine treatment regimens should be interpreted cautiously. Due to the observational study design, we cannot exclude the possibility of unmeasured confounding factors, although we have reassuringly noted consistency between the primary analysis and the propensity score matched analyses. Nevertheless, a cause-and-effect relationship between drug therapy and survival should not be inferred. These data do not apply to the use of any treatment regimen used in the ambulatory, out-of-hospital setting. Randomised clinical trials will be required before any conclusion can be reached regarding benefit or harm of these agents in COVID-19 patients.
The biggest problem is that if you are sick enough to be in a hospital you are having a immune response. Your RANTES levels are elevated. Its too late for antiviral treatment. By design, its not a study of the efficacy of HCQ. The data is clear that the treatment cohort had much higher ventilator use. The question is why. Their are a couple of different possibilities. One might be that hospitals differed in how they responded to patients with similar disease progression. We just don't know. Or, as I said in an earlier post, the treatment cohort may have been sicker. All we know is that the treatment arm was almost 3x more likely to be put on ventilators.

It should be noted that like HCQ and the other drugs used, ventilator use is a treatment. Ventilator use should have been included in the variables used in calculating hazard ratios. Ventilator use isn't an outcome, its a treatment. They should also have had data on actual blood oxygen levels. Low blood oxygen levels are easily measured and are the best predictor of lung disfunction.

The study is very flawed and as I said the data doesn't support what is being portrayed in the press. We already knew HCQ didn't work in severe cases of hospitalized patients on ventilators.

The recent paper on Remdesivir indicates it showed a slight benefit for patients on oxygen but no benefit earlier on & no benefit for those on ventilators or high flow oxygen, thus, that & data out of S. Korea, China, Brazil, & India leads to my current working theory that HCQ should be best used early on as it's much more convenient & is oral. Do you really want people with mild symptoms at home having to travel in to hospitals every day just to get IVs? Or be admitted to hospitals with very mild symptoms? If one reaches the state where they require oxygen best to use Remdesivir.
[Reply]
'Hamas' Jenkins 12:55 PM 05-26-2020
Originally Posted by B_Ambuehl:
We don't have proper clinical trials but all we can go on is what we do have. Here's the full lancet paper:

https://www.thelancet.com/action/sho...2820%2931180-6

The group I pulled from was HCQ with macrolide vs control.

We need actual randomized trials & not just observational studies. I am not trying to be pro HCQ or anti-remdesivir or anything all I'm saying is the science is not done on this deal. Here's a direct quote from the paper:




The biggest problem is that if you are sick enough to be in a hospital you are having a immune response. Your RANTES levels are elevated. Its too late for antiviral treatment. By design, its not a study of the efficacy of HCQ. The data is clear that the treatment cohort had much higher ventilator use. The question is why. Their are a couple of different possibilities. One might be that hospitals differed in how they responded to patients with similar disease progression. We just don't know. Or, as I said in an earlier post, the treatment cohort may have been sicker. All we know is that the treatment arm was almost 3x more likely to be put on ventilators.

It should be noted that like HCQ and the other drugs used, ventilator use is a treatment. Ventilator use should have been included in the variables used in calculating hazard ratios. Ventilator use isn't an outcome, its a treatment. They should also have had data on actual blood oxygen levels. Low blood oxygen levels are easily measured and are the best predictor of lung disfunction.

The study is very flawed and as I said the data doesn't support what is being portrayed in the press.
And I would call into question your expertise in calling a study flawed given that you don't understand extremely basic concepts like heterogeneity within groups, and a lot of the claims that you make are easily disproven by looking at the data which you claim to reference.

There was no problem with the distribution of age, race, or comorbidity in those treatment arms. They don't have to match equally, and any attempt to get them to do so is usually a pretty good indication of data manipulation. What you can do is ensure that your randomization process gets them close enough that there isn't a statistically significant difference between them, and there wasn't.

As the authors state, "No significant between-group differences were found among baseline characteristics or comorbidities."

As someone who looks at trials fairly often as a part of my career, I can tell you that analysis is correct.

Also, you can't just read the abstract and conclusion, you need to read the entirety of the trial report. This is a rather important piece of information you left out:

For the primary analysis of in-hospital mortality,we controlled for confounding factors, including demographic variables, comorbidities, disease severity at presentation, and other medication use (cardiac medications and other antiviral therapies). Categorical variables are shown as frequencies and percentages, and continuous variables as means with SDs. Comparison of continuous data between groups was done using the unpaired t-test and categorical data were compared using Fisher’s exact test. A p value of less than 0·05 was considered significant.


They already controlled for disease severity at presentation and they used Cox proportional hazard models. Between 80.3% and 83% of every treatment arm had a qSOFA score of <1, which means they didn't have elevated respiratory rates, altered mental status, or hypotension, which indicates all had similar mortality risks.

Regarding oxygenation levels:

Their oxygenation levels were similar between each group. It's on page 5, in baseline disease severity.

Regarding outpatient use:

Of course there isn't going to be use of hydroxychloroquine with a macrolide in the ambulatory setting because both drugs increase the QT interval, and QT prolongation substantially increases your risk of Torsades des Pointes and sudden cardiac death. Given that elective procedures were shut down for weeks, how are you going to get an EKG to establish the QT interval for ambulatory patients?

Regarding other treatments, like ventilator use:

No clinical trial would ever withhold supportive care. In fact, the legacy of doing so, the Tuskegee Experiments, is why it is still difficult to recruit black patients for clinical trials to this day. No institutional review board would ever approve such a study, and any PI that suggested it would likely be kicked out on their ass. Beyond that, consent is needed to participate in a trial according to the Nuremberg Code and almost no patient is going to consent to withholding that level of treatment.

Also, ventilator use does not affect the pharmacokinetics of pharmacodynamics of hydroxychloroquine, chloroquine, or any macrolide antibiotic. That's a non-starter.

Regarding prophylaxis:

No clinical guidelines or evidence support the use of hydroxychloroquine as prophylaxis--this includes guidelines from the NIH and IDSA.

Regarding Antiviral Use:

Your claim that there is no benefit from antiviral use once hospitalized is overstated. Hospitalized patients with elevated viral loads are routinely started on antiviral therapy for Hep-B, Hep C, and HIV when treatment naive. While the effect of antivirals can be diminished (whether with Tamiflu, Epclusa, Genvoya, pick your antiviral and pathogen of choice) it is not zero, and conflating the two again speaks to a lack of understanding in this area.

Regarding the need for RCT:

We do have RCT in place. The WHO is coordinating the Solidarity trial which has five separate treatment arms. They recently paused recruitment in the hydroxychloroquine arm to review data to ensure if it is even worth continuing.
[Reply]
Page 20 of 29
« First < 101617181920 21222324 > Last »
Up