The "Lancet" about hydroxychloroquine

From the Lancet*: Hydroxychloroquine or chloroquine with or without a macrolide for treatment of COVID-19: a multinational registry analysis

Once again, Donald Dork gets it wrong, wrong, wrong and a great many swallow his BS wholeheartedly. They merit the consequences ...

*Renowned British medical journal.

 

The Lancet is up there among the most prestigious of journals NONE of whom have supported the drug regime Trump is promoting in fact just the opposite

JAMA( journal of American Medical Association)

https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamainternalmedicine/fullarticle/2765360

This was with a warning reminding all of the physicians creed “first do no harm”

 

The British can’t even upkeep their teeth. How the hell can they dissect a virus.

 

I have the best prevention from the virus. All who are afraid and hysterical stay locked inside your homes. All who are strong and want to live life then get your ass back to work.

 

Yeah, but were the 95,000 + patients given the following remedies WITH hydroxychloroquine?

Zinc
Vitamin C
Ginseng
Garlic
Honey
Basil
Lemon


If not, then, STILL NOT A FAIR STUDY!

 

According to AFM, hydroxychloroquine PREVENTS hospitalization for Covid19.

In other words, when taken BEFORE you get infected, hydroxychloroquine WILL SIGNIFICANTLY reduce the severity of Covid19- associated symptoms, and PREVENT hospitalizations.

In other words; We don't need a vaccine.

Question; Where's the credible evidence of said claim?

Answer; It was published.

 

I bet they even forgot leeches

 

Pansy yourself!

We are proud of being the First Democracy on earth. And I tell you, it is nothing whatsoever to be proud about. We started with "system" that manipulates the popular vote AND IT STILL DOES!

When Europe was looking at the manner in which it should rebuild itself after WW2, it did not take the US as the prime-example of what it wanted. There are damn few countries on earth that "elect" presidents popularly.

This is due to the quirky way that America has developed its political structure and "ways&means". We can't blame anybody but ourselves. First of all, let's admit that the 12th Amendment was an historical mistake. The presidency is the Head-of-state and that position is US-wide. The election is thus NOT a state 1 election and it should be subject to a codified law dictating how a PotUS does and does not get elected in the US.

The political-battle between the Left and the Right in America, which was one of extremes, is over. A great much of the vote comes from the middle-ground - as people shift from left to right and back as they feel (about candidates). So, first of all, it should be considered a National Duty - and like military-service once was, it should be considered a unavoidable duty. (With a fine if one does not vote.)

Moreover, we need to get broaden our two-party political system, which has become highly-corrupted. That is a lot more difficult. But worth seriously considering. Above all, we must DUMP THE ELECTORAL COLLEGE which misrepresents the popular-vote. For this fact alone, it should be considered worth ridding ourselves of it!

And that's only the beginning. Then the nation must tackle the matter of who spends what, when and where. We have driven the country far into Financial Debt - and thus jeopardizing its economic stability.

Mark my words, we have not yet seen what damage Covid-19 may have done to our economy. And, in that regard, Congress needs to pass that spending bill ASAP* ...

*And, on the other hand, the more it waits on that bill, the more Donald Dork will be tainted with the colossal economic-failure that just might result.

 

In an effort to prove a point/glorify POTUS, I recommend another mass study based on the following criteria;

1. Number of people; Preferably 100,000 Trump loyalists, no pre-existing conditions.

2. Preparation; Have them swallow the miracle hydroxychloroquine tablet, 400mg daily, and over a two week period, and then,

3. Infect them with Covid19

NOTE: Said study will be deemed a success if its mortality rate equates to less than the current rate.

Any volunteers?

 

You go on Ignore ...

 

And quite likely we wont get one. The SARS epidemic of 2002/4 in China resulted in an effort to develop a vaccine. It never happened. So by 2014, after all had been tried but failed for ten years, the WHO defunded the effort.

The same is likely to happen for Covid-19..

But, for the moment, the game's not over in the US. Some states, especially those managed by governors who know what they are doing, do not want to stop the shutdown too early. The shutdown is imperative for as long as the number of deaths is expanding.

The EU is coming out of shutdown now that the death-rate is diminishing daily. Which, I suggest, is the action to take.

But the US is nowhere near that point in the infection. For those places in America not under shutdown but with no serious contagion does not mean "'shutdown is unnecessary". It means that the contagion cycle was not sufficiently lasting. IOW - they got lucky most likely because population density was insufficient.

But, it does not mean that shut-down was not necessary for high-density population states or such areas within states ...

 

Some people are really thick.

From here: The Lancet

 

In response to data that hinted at Hydroxychloroquines efficacy, Fauci said "“We’ve got to be careful that we don’t make that majestic leap to assume that this is a knockout drug. We still need to do the kinds of studies that definitely prove whether any intervention is truly safe and effective"

He was referring to the lack of prospective,randomized, controlled trials, which are the gold standard when assessing the effectiveness of a particular medicine. Make no mistake about it, the "multinational registry analysis" that you have linked to from the Lancet is ALSO not definitive proof of its lack of efficacy, because it too does not meet the scientific rigor necessary to make such a declaration. That can only be accomplished via a prospective randomized controlled trial, which this most certainly is not. A retrospective analysis such as this carries little if any scientific weight.

 

After controlling for multiple confounding factors (age, sex, race or ethnicity, body-mass index, underlying cardiovascular disease and its risk factors, diabetes, underlying lung disease, smoking, immunosuppressed condition, and baseline disease severity),

That's funny right there.

 

And those trials are in process.

But this was orders of magnitude more reliable than any anecdotes that led trump to start promoting this drug. trump was pushing this on little more than hearsay. We now have far better information and it blows trump's claims right out of the water.

There is no evidence that this drug is of any use for Covid 19 whatsoever. And there is evidence that it can kill you.

 

As someone that has spent many years presenting medical studies as part of my job, I can tell you unequivocally that you cannot correctly claim that a retrospective analysis is "orders of magnitude better" than anything.

To give a very elementary explanation, a prospective, randomized, controlled study takes patients with a set inclusion criteria, it then randomizes the treatment for those patients with that set inclusion criteria into either the control or active group. This randomization process does not exist in the real world which is what a retrospective analysis is measuring. More often than not, a medical facility will have a certain type of patient with which they choose to use a certain type of intervention, for that reason you do not have the same type of patients being compared. In truth, this difference renders a retrospective analysis as almost useless because you are NOT comparing apples to apples. To call it "orders of magnitude" better is simply not true. Those are truly hollow words.

 

Check the 'Limitations' It says nothing about the effectiveness of chloroquine,or Hydro C. This was an observational study. Was listening to a South Korea virologist last night and he was speaking about the medicine they used which works. One of course was hydroxychloroquine which was for the first stage and very good if started early.

Both China and South Korea had been using one of those before Trump even heard of a French Doctor who was also doing it and finding it helpful with early stage Covid-19. I really do not know why there appears to be a determination to prove this drug is no good when it is very cheap and could be available to people regardless of their income.

Trump was right in that it had proved to be successful. Just because Trump said this does not mean it was wrong. The only tests I have heard of on it have been on late stage when no one says it works. It has to be given early. The Lancet at least had the grace to make clear in its limitations and that was nothing like papers were reporting......Oh I should say chloroquine,or Hydro C with Zinc that is what has been shown in a study to be good enough to half the death rate!!!!...but it must be given early. I have now heard people talking about giving it in order to prevent people getting the disease. There is at last a proper test announced. However it is one which would not give results until something like 2022 and so seems designed not to be available for treatment certainly in the near term.

All that being said there is a list of vitamins and amino acids which people can take which ought to boost the immune system and stop inflamation and so should result in you having far better resistance to the virus itself. For some reason this is not being given air time. They are cheap and will do no harm.

 

Talking about using Vitamins and amino acids as a prophylaxis for Covid 19, here is where I got the information from

https://www.evms.edu/media/evms_pub...cine/EVMS_Critical_Care_COVID-19_Protocol.pdf

 

Playing ostrich? If you can’t see me then I must not exist? That’ll be easy for you because the left has been ignoring the truth since Obama took office.

 

From the Lancet Report

“for those receiving hydroxychloroquine and an antibiotic — the cocktail endorsed by Trump — there was a 45 percent increased risk of death

 

Well, they did invent the first mass produced toothbrush, discovered DNA, gave us ISAAC NEWTON, the first modern torpedo, invented the Steam Engine, and voila, they invented the tin can.

And they gave the world the greatest playwright who ever lived, plus a long assortment of writers and poet laureates.

Not to mention dry wit, the likes of which Americans have always held a particular admiration, and not the least of which is the world wide web, invented by Tim Berners-Lee, a BRIT.

I cut them a better notch than that except for their cuisine, they have none.

 

I live in France. The doctor in question does indeed have a trial test of the product (at his hospital in Marseilles), but so far has not reported any results. His research is still ongoing on no more than a handful of patients..

The Lancet study (of which the results I presented) was vast and thorough. And its reputation in covering medicinal studies has been proven over decades.

The research in this Lancet article was carried out on almost 100,000 patients in over 670 hospitals across six continents and in real-world hospital settings.There is thus no reason whatsoever to doubt its findings ...

 

MUCH ADO ABOUT NOTHING

May I suggest you read the original article posted here (by me) before blathering in the forum? It is all "much ado about nothing".

The testing reported in the Lancet study was authentic and through. Moreover, just like the previous SARS infestation in China of 2002/4, Covid-19 will likely pass away without any study having been able to verify its source or any preventive medicinal treatment being developed.

There was no miraculous cure ever found for SARS in 2002/4 and it is highly likely that neither will there be any cure for Covid-19. The WHO then funded research for to find a SARS antidote and finally closed down fruitless research in 2014 ...

 

In response to data that hinted at Hydroxychloroquines efficacy, Tony Fauci famously replied, “We’ve got to be careful that we don’t make that majestic leap to assume that this is a knockout drug. We still need to do the kinds of studies that definitely prove whether any intervention is truly safe and effective"

He was referring to the lack of prospective,randomized, controlled trials, which are the gold standard and sole recognized means of assessing the effectiveness of a particular medicine. Make no mistake about it, the "multinational registry analysis" that you have linked to from the Lancet is ALSO not definitive proof of its lack of efficacy, because it too does not meet the scientific rigor necessary to make such a declaration. That can only be accomplished via a prospective randomized controlled trial, which this most certainly is not. A retrospective analysis such as this carries little if any scientific weight, regardless of how many patients were involved in that analysis.

 

Why persist in running trials on a drug that is not showing a measurable in vitro effect but is showing increased toxicity?

If this were any other drug BUT Trumps favourite we would have already abandoned further research