Professor Raoult Releases Results of New Hydroxychloroquine Treatment Study on 1061 Patients

They drank fish cleaner, they didn't take medication in oral form. Come on dude, that ****'s been debunked.

 

And there it is, someone else who doesn't understand the difference between fish cleaner and a Dr prescribed treatment.

 

Well, it seems that ventilators have harmful effects, a low survival rate, and in New York City 80% of patients on ventilators die.

https://www.sacbee.com/news/coronavirus/article241893476.html

"Amid a global ventilator shortage during the coronavirus pandemic, some doctors are trying to find other ways to treat patients due to the high percentage of people who die while on ventilators, media outlets reported.

Typically, 40 to 50 percent of patients with severe respiratory illness (other than COVID-19) will die on ventilators, the Associated Press reported. Yet so far, in New York City, 80 percent or more of the COVID-19 patients put on ventilators have died. And a small study of the patients on ventilators in Wuhan found that 86 percent had died. Numbers out of the U.K. are slightly more promising, with 66 percent dying."

A patient might be as well off with Jim Beam and aspirin as being on a ventilator. Maybe better off.

 

Fish tank cleaner does not contain the same molecule as the prescribed pill version, but it's close enough for propaganda work.

 

And without ventilators what happens to those people?

A testament to how deadly and strange this bug is

 

At least on a ventilator you get the standard protocol, like bleeding with leeches was once standard.

 

You know nothing. I have a good friend who just came off a vent. He was DYING before he went on

 

I know what they did (and why they did it)

I was talking about you

 

You really think I'm that stupid?

 

The lucky 20% who come off the ventilator alive.

 

Yes after seeing what offshoring has wrought I have little doubt perot would have beat the traitors of bush and Clinton.

Americans had no idea what this scheme would lead to and not end up creating even when perot was clear on what it would do to working Americans and even to the health of our society and fabric.

Years later Clinton admitted if he knew then what he knows now he would have never agreed to offshore what allowed our people to prosper with some security .

Remember when perot said he had talked to several economists and the free trade deal would hurt workers overall and fundamentally change an economy that benefits workers into one that did not.

Perot was right about the effects and voiced it as a giant sucking sound .The benefits to workers that happened when farmers became factory workers was a step up for our people long ago . But changing into a low wage and 1099 gig service sector economy was a middle class killing step down.

The economic and social damage is unforgivable and if we could vote again perot would have taken the wise path as our founders gave us.

Perot a very rich man cared about this nation and her people. Unlike every president since he ran.

Trump won because he was challenging the policy and thinking that gave us a disemboweled working middle class. DC has been a sell out to rich globalists since the 80s z
.

I watched old video of trump and he railed against giving away our eeconomy to double dealing cheaters and thieves for years .

The election when perot ran was a fork in the road that changed America for the worse . And both parties are guilty bastards . The only challenge to them has been Nader , Sanders and Trump.

 

I think you have the real issue backwards: whenever someone does a study, and wants to extrapolate the results of their study to the targeted population, the onus is on them to establish that the test group they used has similar characteristics including as it relates to the demographics/age (particularly when age is a relevant statistical barometer in prognosis of patients as is the case with this virus). I admit I haven't looked at the issue closely, but just seeing the argument you are having at a distance, I still don't know the median age of the population who test positive for the virus. But if the median age is above 46 by any significant measure, and if the median age of the tested group was 46, then that is a huge red flag already that his sample isn't representative even of the target population of people testing positive. (Never mind if that is the right target, since (for reasons I have explained already) what is needed more is a test to establishing efficacy of a treatment with those who have fallen ill by the virus).

Now, based on the data presented in the study being touted here, what is the median age of the target population who test positive for the new Coronavirus? And what is the median age of the tested group? You tell me.

The statistically marginal improvements that appear to be shown by the treatment are simply too small compared to the target population for any significant difference in demographics not to be a possible factor in explaining them. But here is the good news: this issue can be somewhat corrected even retroactively if the person who is pushing this study was truly interested to replicate the target population and present a scientific study. He would need to do the work you are asking 'truth and justice' to do, namely calculate the median age of those who test positive in the targeted population in France or wherever, and if that median age is higher than the median age of the tested group, randomly 'take out' the results from as many people below the median line and recalculate the results and see if there is a statistical difference between the two groups? If there is, we can then see what this study might imply as for treatment options for this Coronavirus more generally.

 

The role of the politician in an emergency is to remove obstacles, not create them.

 

The politifact links this article as its reference for Nevada.

The politifact articles says this about NY:

Since COVID-19 is not an FDA approved indication (doctors are using it off-label for that) then the only way a doctor can prescribe hydroxychloroquine is in a "state approved clinical trial".

For Michigan, this is what politifact says:

If that isn't stifling enough to keep doctors from prescribing, I don't know what is. It is a ban unless or until bowerbird's randomized, double-blind, peer reviewed, studies are done sometime in the late summer or fall. Until then, let 'em die; it's for the cause.

 

Since we aren’t getting the details from Down Under, I’m taking the liberty of informing the PF members on this issue. First, the claim.

Now the data. Let’s go with lopinavir–ritonavir first. Here’s a link to a trial.

https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa2001282

Here’s the conclusion from the authors.

CONCLUSIONS
“In hospitalized adult patients with severe Covid-19, no benefit was observed with lopinavir–ritonavir treatment beyond standard care. Future trials in patients with severe illness may help to confirm or exclude the possibility of a treatment benefit. (Funded by Major Projects of National Science and Technology on New Drug Creation and Development and others; Chinese Clinical Trial Register number, ChiCTR2000029308. opens in new tab.)”

I’d also like to point out something for those who read the study on the “ modified intention to treat” claim of one less day to recovery for those receiving the Lopinavir–ritonavir treatment. Simply put, “modified intention to treat” means after data is collected, some is discarded, negating the randomization the study is initially founded upon. Here’s a link that goes into more detail, but essentially when modified intention to treat is used, there is bias from researchers or from the funding organization.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3055831/

Also of note is the list of side effects of this treatment. It would likely be contraindicated in those with structural heart disease and it could have negative effects on the liver. Nausea and severe diarrhea are also common. I think 13 subjects discontinued the trial based on gastrointestinal distress.

An early Chinese study did not show good results. Concentrations of the drug needed at the cellular level were not achievable.

Moving on to Remdesivir. So far the results published on this treatment are similar to what we have on Chloroquine. Clinical improvement with no real large scale randomized trials with controls. What is encouraging is the anecdotal improvement in ventilated patients. Very encouraging if this result can be replicated. Here is the link.
https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa2007016

So here we have unconfirmed (by critics of chloroquine standards) anecdotal clinical improvement. Effects on the liver are a concern. Trials on Ebola were stopped after mortality rates increased with use. China should have data out in a few days as their trials have ended. Because of the way this treatment works, I’m confident it should be relatively safe. For those who care, it disrupts viral replication by mimicking the nucleotide adenosine.

This treatment shows some promise, but from what we know now, no more than chloroquine. Also, there is no data on this drug keeping people out of the hospital. Only helping them survive severe cases. Personally I’m more attracted to treatment that can help avoid all that.

Next is the inclusion of Interferon. It’s being tried in combination with chloroquine as well as Lopinavir. Based on its long term use for treating a multitude of other immunity related conditions, it’s pretty safe. Except for late stage C19 where it’s inflammatory effects are further damaging to lung tissue. It’s theorized, based on research on SARS etc. it will be effective in early stages of infection. I’m not aware of any trials being concluded. Cuba calls it a “wonder drug” for what that’s worth...

Based on my knowledge of autoimmune disease this would be contraindicated in those individuals. It’s well known interferon can induce autoimmune disease in those predisposed to it but not yet symptomatic. Anyone with thyroid issues for example would need to be wary.

For early treatment, especially in combination with chloroquine and Lopinavir I’d say this one has promise but there is no hard evidence for this. Less hard evidence than for chloroquine.

Finally, ivermectin. What we have is all in vitro data. We have been told repeatedly such data is meaningless in respect to chloroquine. In spite of this, the fact it is a very safe drug is encouraging. What’s confusing to me is the lack of data. This should be one of the easiest treatments to trial or learn from clinically, yet we have nothing concrete yet. It’s all theoretical at this point unfortunately. This makes me suspicious, but I’m hopeful this will change soon.

In conclusion, while there are other options to chloroquine, none are any more promising at this point and most are far behind the curve.
.

 

the left has said the same thing... let the scientist figure it out, the right is trying to make it political

if Trump never said it would work, then what is the right going on about, I will save your post though in case it ever works, so can show you said Trump never said it woudl work

both sides say it has potential as that is what science says, so far testing has not shown that, though some new testing is showing that maybe if one adds zinc it could work

 

My point is T&J’s criticism is unwarranted because it’s based on a false premise. We don’t know what he claims to know. We do know the French study parallels the median age globally. We know that the 43 year mean is a mean and that not everyone obviously is 43 years old. So we can look at the results of the study broken down into whatever age groups we want.

If someone wants to pick a mean age grouping based on positive tests and hand select subjects to match that’s subjective because every country is different and every region is different. It doesn’t matter how you set up the study someone will be able to claim it’s biased based on the demographics they are most concerned with. Such criticism is absurd. To me, the French study is close enough to what mean data we have and right on the median globally. If you know the mean in the US then let us know. Our CDC doesn’t know. Only about half our positive tests even include age data.

 

they do, it can cause blindness and heart problems... that is why we need to be sure it actually works before prescribing it to millions of people.. not to mention the shortage it would cause for people that need the drug already

I am surprised that the Trump admin has not sped up official testing of this drug, how long has it been now? we were saying this drug had potential a month ago.. we should know by now

many Doctors have tested on their own and said they see no difference

there is one new doctor that says adding zinc makes it work, we will have to see if that is confirmed

the thing that tells me the science is not there yet, no republican senator is taking it yet, Trump is not taking it yet - when they all do, you know it works

 

Those who are truly worried about the quickest possible way for us to find an effective treatment for this virus, and like to see objective science drive this issue as opposed to political and partisan considerations, should be doing what I suggested. Ask for the data on the age (and should be median age*, not mean age*) of the target population in France who had tested positive for the Coronavirus, compare that to the median age of the group tested by this doctor, and have a number of results from those who are under the median age dropped out of the study and then recalculate the results. At that time, if there is a statistically meaningful difference between the two groups, we can more comfortably take some tentative conclusions from these tests.

*bu the age brackets generally need to be similar proportionally. Mean age of the target population, however, would not be easy to replicate randomly in a study that has already concluded. Also, the data (which would be easily available as it is part of the data for any laboratory tests of those tested for the Coronavirus and can even be extrapolated from a random sample of it) would need to be one from the same country, here France.

 

could you list all those doctors praising it as a cure?

 

It seems to me that they would have to be political hacks if they are basing it merely on this 'study' and not something else.

To be sure, if this study was otherwise performed correctly, it could give some insights. But this French doctor (or someone else for him) would need to first do what I have suggested, namely obtain the relevant demographic information from the French public testing positive, broken down in brackets by age (and other statistically relevant conditions), and then replicate (using random methods for tested people who would need to be discarded) proportionally similar age brackets for the group he has tested -- and then see what the data really show? He needs to compare, as best as possible, apples with apples and not apples with apples and oranges.

 

The ventilator had nothing to do with it. He was going to get better anyway. You can't prove the ventilator had anything to do with his recovery without a randomized, double-blind, peer-reviewed, study. Purely anecdotal.

 

I already posted the link to the survey of thousands of doctors. 65% said they'd use it for their family, 67% said they'd use it for themselves... I can't list 65% of all the doctors in the US.

 

I would just be happy if they did some double-blind studies in the USA and published the results, it's been a month now, this could of easily been done, we have plenty of patients that would have volunteered to test - yet here we are, still just saying it has potential

 

I know someone that drank water, he survived, it's a cure, it works for 99% of people

the problem is, 99% of those that get the virus survive, so most people will survive, 99% could pray and call that the cure....

most people that get so bad they need a ventilator will die, how many that need a ventilator that do not get one will die?