The use of the anti-malarial drug, hydroxychloroquine, for the potential treatment of COVID-19, has been one of the most unusual things I’ve observed during this pandemic as it became very political after former President Donald Trump last summer advocated for its use as a treatment option.
Hydroxychloroquine was first touted as a potential cure for COVID-19 by the French doctor Didier Raoult on the basis of a small and inconclusive study at the start of the pandemic.
The FDA cautioned against its use and multiple studies demonstrated potential side effects like cardiac arrhythmias and others showed the drugs effect was not that gr
eat–it did not prevent the development of COVID-19 , it was unlikely to be beneficial in clearing viral infections including the new coronavirus SARS-CoV-2.
Today, I look at a new study in the New England Journal of Medicine that concludes there is no compelling data to suggest that hydroxychloroquine is effective.
A Cluster-Randomized Trial of Hydroxychloroquine for Prevention of Covid-19
c19study.com is chock full of listed studies on Hydroxychloroquine (HCQ).
Overall there is a strong positive view of HCQ.
When I brought up my hope early on that HCQ might be effective, I could not help but notice that so many people were down on even the hope that it might be effective. I was cautioned not to celebrate it because all I had was anecdotal evidence (some testimonials). So, I stopped talking about it.
But now I see all kinds of studies showed positive outcomes.
I also noticed that masks have no proven positive effect in virus pandemics, yet the same people who were against HCQ were citing anecdote after anecdote in favor of masking. They now want forced masking.
The anti-HCQ forces went a step further. They did some administrative things that made it much harder for the average doctor to treat with HCQ. I can tell you this will never leave my memory — the medical administrators trying to force doctors not to prescribe HCQ!
If you will read the study you will find there is actually a 305 reduction in death for those using hydroxy. Here is what I put down bit havent seen it posted:
Just a few observations: If you look at table 3 you will find there is actually a 30% reduction in death for those using hydroxy-and that not necessarily in its recommended protocol. For some reason there is no mention of this in the discussion of results. This is an RCT. I dont know if the number of people included in the study give the 30% reduction a high confidence level-nevertheless there was a reduction in death recorded in the hydroxy group. As an added note, if you will look at Dr Harvey Risch’ testimony(Nov 19) before the senate on early outpatient treatment of covid you will find that every observational (6)trial of early outpatient treatment using hydroxy shoes significant benefit(mathematically sound). In addition, even though each of the 7 RCT,s done with early outpatient hydroxy show benefit(simply not enough participants), combined together as a meta analysis they do show a mathematically sound benefit. A meta analysis of RCTs is still a RCT, and shows benefit, Hence the statement that no RCTs show benefit is simply untrue. As an anecdote, Bryan Tyson MD of El Centro CA. has treated patients for about 9 months now with early treatment hydroxy. He just lost his first patient of 3700 that tested positive for covid. Also Dr Risch includes a study of 900k people who took hydroxy in an outpatient setting and not a single fatal event occurred attributable to hydroxy.
Having looked for ocular side effects in hundreds of patients on large amounts on HCQ for over 20 years I can tell you from literature and research that the side effects of heart arrhythmia’s is over blown. Overall a safe drug.
Secondly there have been multiple studies come out that have shown when given early in high risk patients mortality rates were almost cut in half.
The title of this article gives away the writers bias. He is clearly ignorant of the full scope of studies currently availability.
And/or Google has set their algorithms to select reviews that put HCQ in a negative light while ignoring those that show effectiveness in reducing the mortality rate of HIGH RISK PATIENTS. I can’t prove this but it’s either that or bias writers, or probably both.
Just reading this article makes me think the author is a lay man who “reads a lot” and mouths political talking points
Just a few observations: If you look at table 3 you will find there is actually a 30% reduction in death for those using hydroxy-and that not necessarily in its recommended protocol. For some reason there is no mention of this in the discussion of results. This is an RCT. I dont know if the number of people included in the study give the 30% reduction a high confidence level-nevertheless there was a reduction in death recorded in the hydroxy group. As an added note, if you will look at Dr Harvey Risch’ testimony(Nov 19) before the senate on early outpatient treatment of covid you will find that every observational (6)trial of early outpatient treatment using hydroxy shoes significant benefit(mathematically sound). In addition, even though each of the 7 RCT,s done with early outpatient hydroxy show benefit(simply not enough participants), combined together as a meta analysis they do show a mathematically sound benefit. A meta analysis of RCTs is still a RCT, and shows benefit, Hence the statement that no RCTs show benefit is simply untrue. As an anecdote, Bryan Tyson MD of El Centro CA. has treated patients for about 9 months now with early treatment hydroxy. He just lost his first patient of 3700 that tested positive for covid.
I forgot to mention that Dr Risch also included a study where 900k people were given hydroxy in an outpatient setting-not one of the almost million people died of hydroxy.
Just a few observations: If you look at table 3 you will find there is actually a 30% reduction in death for those using hydroxy-and that not necessarily in its recommended protocol. For some reason there is no mention of this in the discussion of results. This is an RCT. I dont know if the number of people included in the study give the 30% reduction a high confidence level-nevertheless there was a reduction in death recorded in the hydroxy group. As an added note, if you will look at Dr Harvey Risch’ testimony(Nov 19) before the senate on early outpatient treatment of covid you will find that every observational (6)trial of early outpatient treatment using hydroxy shoes significant benefit(mathematically sound). In addition, even though each of the 7 RCT,s done with early outpatient hydroxy show benefit(simply not enough participants), combined together as a meta analysis they do show a mathematically sound benefit. A meta analysis of RCTs is still a RCT, and shows benefit, Hence the statement that no RCTs show benefit is simply untrue. Also Dr Risch includes a study of 900k people given hydroxy in an outpatient setting without a single death attributable to hydroxy. As an anecdote, Bryan Tyson MD of El Centro CA. has treated patients for about 9 months now with early treatment hydroxy. He just lost his first patient of 3700 that tested positive for covid.
To the moderators
I sent this earlier. I don’t know of anything I wrote that wasn’t well documented or incorrect. If so-since I value honesty-please clearly show me any errors. I did see a comment about a 900k study that could be misunderstood. I clarify my meaning in the modified version below. Thank you.
John
Just a few observations: If you look at table 3 you will find there is actually a 30% reduction in death for those using hydroxy-and that not necessarily in its recommended protocol. For some reason there is no mention of this in the discussion of results. This is an RCT. I don’t know if the number of people included in the study give the 30% reduction a high confidence level-nevertheless there was a reduction in death recorded in the hydroxy group. As an added note, if you will look at Dr Harvey Risch’ testimony(Nov 19) before the senate on early outpatient treatment of covid you will find that every observational (6)trial of early outpatient treatment using hydroxy shoes significant benefit(mathematically sound). In addition, even though each of the 7 RCT,s done with early outpatient hydroxy show benefit(simply not enough participants), combined together as a meta analysis they do show a mathematically sound benefit. A meta analysis of RCTs is still a RCT, and shows benefit, Hence the statement that no RCTs show benefit is simply untrue. As an anecdote, Bryan Tyson MD of El Centro CA. has treated patients for about 9 months now with early treatment hydroxy. He just lost his first patient of 3700 that tested positive for covid. Also Dr Risch includes a study of 900k people who took hydroxy in an outpatient setting(for various medical reasons) and not a single fatal event occurred attributable to hydroxy. He included this independent study to simply show the safety profile of outpatient usage of hydroxy generally.
How can you say you dont like to be inaccurate yet you say false things, a malaria pill has nothing to do with sars. I know of a provider who prescribes this shit, the board wouldnt even give it to them without them lying about what its for. So you as a layman might think its cool but explain why professionals dont agree with your qanon bullshit. This is why education is important and not a hand out. Right wing policy and motives are trying to take down the objective with their subjective bullshit.
lol “yet you say false things?”
its painfully obvious by reading your comment that you’re 1) not a scientist 2) not too sharp
If I was marooned on a desert island and there was nothing else available, yes. But otherwise, no.
Alice and Bob:
Did you even read what I wrote? Did you understand it?
Its sad that you have it so backwards. If you study the history of science you would know that there are many times where science has been made a slave to state policy. A classic example is the Soviet Union who (for a season) outlawed Mendelian genetics in favor of a form of evolutionism(lamarck) that fit their Marxist worldview. Its called brainwashing.
I am a scientist by the way-that is a main reason this whole episode has been so fascinating(and frustrating) to me for some months now. Listen, one of us is wrong. Maybe it is me. Maybe it is you.
john, it definitely isn’t you. trump derangement syndrome is 2X more deadly than COVID and the plague combined lmao
John, I’m sure you also see the brainwashing from FAUX News and Right Wing media, right?
1. So you’re saying that you are a scientist and you are going against the grain. You are the true rebel and the 98% of the other scientists are conspiring?
2. So what is the reason for this? Why would the scientists, majority of medical doctors, and Trump’s own state-controlled FDA want Americans to die by denying hydro?
3. Seems most Q-inspired proponents of hydro have a closed minded idea that the USA is the only country on earth. And as a result, don’t look to studies in other countries. Westernized countries had several studies and came out with the same results, no conclusive evidence. So are those countries willing to kill their own citizens for the same reason as the USA?
What scientists are you speaking of Greg? Do not give me the NIH. They are all about putting the jab in every arm in the world backed by the evil Bill Gates. Gates believes in depopulation.