If doctors could prescribe HCQ, 'we wouldn't need the lockdowns'

yes and from that paper

https://reader.elsevier.com/reader/...CE9CF617A12C651212E3FCFD8F66A392D57FDAC8ADC00

going to the source eliminates biased media interpretation

 

Yeah... it's evidence,...a full report done on HCQ...as opposed to your opinion.... you lose

 

Diddums upset much? A whole full report? Wow! And yet somehow you still haven't produced the sections you claim support your argument.

As opposed to how many peer reviewed and published papers nay-saying HCQs use in COVID cases - including all the multiple reports linked to this thread by myself and others which you so conveniently ignore.

For some reason you seem think this thread is some kind of card game and that if you can find one study, any study that might support your case well 'snap' your card 'trumps' all the others on the table and you 'win' whatever you think that means. It doesn't work that way. This is an exercise in evidence based debate and as such it relies on all the evidence accumulated over time since COVID first struck, not just random bits of 'news' as opposed to science you want to cherry pick.

And so quoting 'Jonsa' who appears to have tracked down the 'report' Blunt was apparently referring to (post 51 above) but hadn't bothered to read ...

'Many drugs have been tried for the treatment/prevention of COVID-19 with limited success. Direct house- hold contacts of COVID-19 patients are at highest risk for SARS-CoV-2 infection. Hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) has been tried against COVID-19 owing to its in vitro virucidal action against SARS-CoV-2, but the role of HCQ as post-exposure prophylaxis (PEP) remains inconclusive.'

So nope, you lose (again) and you seem to be turning into a real glutton for punishment.

And finally? It may have escaped your notice but no-one on this thread has a bone to pick with HCQ, its an effective drug when used to treat appropriate medical conditions. And if the evidence from trials proved it was effective against COVID we'd all be cheering it along. But all the evidence gathered to date proves the opposite. It doesn't work. Which leaves a small group of people (like yourself ) who insist on disbelieving the science looking rather foolish.

 

You are wrong, I can't be bothered looking up links because if you stretch a finger you could do it yourself.

Evidence is out Hydroxychloroquine works

 

Sigh, Jonsa already did! If you won't read my posts properly at least read his! So once again - this is the paper Blunt appears to have been referring to in his comments as posted by you. But again he obviously didn't bother to read it! Because if he had (for that matter if you had both read it) then you would have seen this this;

'but the role of HCQ as post-exposure prophylaxis (PEP) remains inconclusive.'

No it doesn't.

So, do you own shares in the company or something???

 

Not “evidence”

please learn the academic discipline of critical analysis

 

It’s Bolt

Last time he was right about something the.......actually I can’t remember the last time Andrew Bolt was right about anything.

Is he still maintaining that Climate Change is a hoax?

 

OH MY GOD is this BS still going around here?

Look, safety of a drug is DISEASE-SPECIFIC. HCQ is MORE heart-toxic for patients with Covid-19, because Covid-19 affects the heart. It causes myocarditis (an inflammation of the heart fibers) which delays conduction of the electric stimulus that makes the heart beat, and prolongs a wave interval of the electric stimulus, called QTc. Well, HCQ also prolongs QTc. Adding one problem to the other causes an arrhythmia (irregular heart beat) called Torsade de Pointes, which is often fatal. This does not tend to happen for malaria, lupus, and rheumatoid arthritis patients who do not have a similar heart lesion caused by the Covid-19 virus, therefore HCQ is safe for them but not for Covid-19.

It is also false that heart toxicity for HCQ was not known before Covid-19. Since 2007 the FDA has placed a black box warning on the HCQ insert, warning doctors and patients of the cardiac toxicity problem.

Why is safety disease-specific? Obvious. Give Insulin to a diabetic, it helps with reducing the excessive blood sugar. Give it to a person with some other disease and normal blood sugar, and it makes blood sugar drop too low, to life-threatening levels. So, insulin is safe for Diabetes but NOT for other diseases.

Gee!

Get a chemotherapy drug for leukemia, a blood cancer, a condition with too many white blood cells. It then reduces the number of white blood cells, potentially saving the patient's life. Now, give the same drug to someone who does not have leukemia, but has some other disease. Well, it will wipe out the white blood cells and kill the patient.

Get it?

 

What you asked Bowerbird to do, I just did above. Anyway. About your study suggesting efficacy: there are hundreds of studies out there. In science often you can find contradictory studies; some affirming something, some others affirming something different. So, you got a couple of people - mysterious people; no clue about their affiliation or credentials and no clue about whether or not this "paper" was peer-reviewed.

So, first, let's look at the source. Academia.edu is NOT a scientific journal with a good reputation. It's been criticized for using the suffix EDU as if it were an educational organization like a university. Actually Academia.edu is a COMMERCIAL social networking website.

Second, let's look at what kind of "study" this is. Do realize that the two authors (who the hell are they???) never actually researched anything hands-on. They merely read some studies they pulled from PubMed, Google Scholar, etc. LOL. Likely they cherry-picked to get most of them supporting the conclusion they wanted to see (while including some that didn't, for good measure).

Third, evidence in Medicine depends on something called Categories of Strength of Evidence. Large meta-analyses of prospective, randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blind trials with a large number of subjects, are what is called the gold standard, or #1 category of evidence. What this "paper" did is that they looked at a number of retrospective cohort observations. Well, that's a very weak level of evidence. Hierarchically speaking, RCTs (randomized clinical trials) are a much HIGHER level of evidence. Remember the thing about comparing apples and oranges? So, like I was saying, you can always find some paper saying that something works, but if the evidence is weak and much better evidence says that it doesn't, we go with the latter.

So what does the real thing, that is, the prospective, double-blind, randomized clinical trials with large numbers of patients (like Oxford University's RECOVERY study with 11,000 patients - an organization some 100,000 times more prestigious than Academia.edu) say about HCQ and Covid-19? THAT IT DOESN'T WORK!!! Which has been demonstrated over and over. Which is why the FDA cancelled its Emergency Use Authorization. It was shown to lack efficacy in ALL phases of the disease, unlike these two joe nobodies publishing in a commercial social media website think (or due to some vested interest, want to convey). Not for prophylaxis. Not in early phases of the disease like they say. Not in moderate phases. Not in severe phases. IT. DOESN'T. WORK. RCTs were done for all these phases, and they all failed to show efficacy.

How COULD HCQ work? As a zinc ionophore (that is, a molecule that helps another molecule getting into the cell where it acts). It seems like zinc is what actually works. Now, HCQ is a LOUSY zinc ionophore and it takes 9 to 10 days to reach sufficient blood level in pulmonary tissues. A much better zinc ionophore is quercetin, which reaches level in one day and is a more potent ionophore (and quercetin's action is enhanced by vitamin C). It also happens to be entirely harmless, with no cardiac toxicity whatsoever. Why the hell would we want to use HCQ, then? That's exactly what the best Covid-19 protocol says (the MATH+ protocol): use quercetin with vitamin C. Do NOT use HCQ.

Why are people still beating this dead horse?

You said, you didn't mention Trump. Fine. But I will: this issue is ONLY still going around because somehow the Trump faithful made of it a banner, given that the president at one point in time was promoting this medication. Well, interesting enough, when HE got sick with Covid-19, his doctors didn't give him HCQ, did they? Why, pray tell? Because they knew that it doesn't work, and that it causes cardiac toxicity in patients with Covid-19, which is why the FDA discourages its use for Covid-19 (while keeping the recommendation for malaria, lupus, and rheumatoid arthritis). Ever since, Trump didn't say a peep about HCQ, any longer.

If this issue had never been politicized, nobody would be talking about it, except people like me who do this for a living. In medicine, ten times more repurposed drugs and drugs with in-vitro activity, fail to show in-vivo efficacy and safety. These promising ideas failing is the rule rather than the exception. A few of these succeed but it's the minority.

So, do we see threads and threads and posts and posts talking about any of the other MULTIPLE drugs proposed for studies in Covid-19 that have failed? Are there threads about favipiravir? What about merimepodib? What about amlodipine? What about lopinavir? What about ritonavir? No, you don't see threads about them, right? Well, they were all tried and studied for Covid-19. They didn't work, just like HCQ didn't work. But why do we hear about HCQ and not about these others? Because a politician touted it. It's as simple as that. NO other reason whatsoever, because there is no point in talking about a drug that doesn't work and is toxic for a certain condition, once this is demonstrated by reputable sources.

/thread.

 

A great many aspects of COVID have proved an easy way to pick out the gullible, ideological & just plain unintelligent. The whole HCQ debacle is one of the better examples of this. Being misled by some poor,early data is excuseable. Continuing to hold on to the belief that HCQ works at this point says nothing good about those clinging to that belief.

 

I love Bolt, he says it like it is... not surprised you're allergic to the truth

 

There's a Mountain of Evidence That Hydroxychloroquine Is an Effective Treatment for COVID-19
https://pjmedia.com/news-and-politics/matt-margolis/2020/08/07/theres-a-mountain-of-evidence-that-hydroxychloroquine-is-an-effective-treatment-for-covid-19-n763953


Study Shows COVID-19 Patients Receiving Hydroxychloroquine See Death Rates Cut in Half
https://www.lifenews.com/2020/08/03...droxychloroquine-see-death-rates-cut-in-half/

Treatment with hydroxychloroquine Cut Death Rate Significantly in COVID-19 Patients, Henry Ford Health System Study Shows
https://www.henryford.com/news/2020/07/hydro-treatment-study

 

And I love my dog, he says it like it is to. However that doesn't mean I'd take medical advice from him.

As for being allergic to the truth? You don't seem to be able to recognize it to start with! So again I'm hardly going to accept any 'diagnosis' your proffer.

Read some science textbooks FGS.

 

Bolt is a reporter..not surprised you don't know what that is....probably watch CNN or ABC...they do scriptwriting...like Days of our Lives. If you watched real news you'd know that Hydroxychloroquine is effective treatment

 

At last! You finally admit your statements regarding the efficacy of HCQ are based solely on conservative news reports and not on science based reviews.

As for my news? Not that it matters (because my primary source of information in rebutting your ridiculous fixation with HCQ have been published research in reputable science journals) but I get mine from multiple sources left and right wing. That way I get a diverse range of viewpoints. What I don't do is fixate on one source just because that source panders to my prejudices and/or insecurities. You should try it some time, its educational. And read a science book.

 

Even if it is ineffective, why ban a medicine that has been widely used and proved safe for over 60 years?

 

Because a) it is not repeat NOT “banned” and B) it is only “safe” for a given value of “safe”

 

Bolt is a right wing idiot

And like Monash I do NOT get my evaluation of medication effectiveness from “the news”. I get my informwtion from peer reviewed published research

 

And to add to Bowebird's comments it's not banned, just not prescribed for the treatment of COVID. It IS however still being prescribed when deemed appropriate (in the dosage deemed appropriate) for other medical conditions i.e. ones where it has been shown to be effective.

 

It now cannot be obtained in many countries in the developing world where it was once available over the counter. WHO orders.

 

For the love of God, give up man. The fact (as claimed by you - with no evidence) that it is unavailable in certain (unidentified by you) developing nations is not proof that it counteracts COVID. There are lots of drugs readily available in wealthy nations that are not easily obtained in poorer countries. That says nothing about how effective they are at treating whatever medical conditions they are proscribed for. It just says they are hard to obtain.

You could argue that production (and hence availability) of HCL was ramped up at the beginning of the outbreak because it was initially assumed it was effective in treating COVID (which it wasn't) then dramatically scaled back when it was realized that the anticipated demand as not going to materialize. Now admittedly I have no proof the above statement is correct BUT THEN THAT HAS NEVER STOPPED YOU! In this entire thread not once have you produced a single peer reviewed study proving it does work (hint - because every study done to date proves it doesn't).

For the last time. Present hard evidence that HCL prevents or ameliorates COVID 19 infections and you have a case. Otherwise your just spouting delusional BS. And I say that not because I don't want it to work (for some bizarre reason). I say it because it doesn't, if it did work I'd be all for it.

 

Yes...... it seems like the top of the political pyramid in Australia is essentially as much against the average Australian as is the case here in Canada.

Post number two here may help you to understand why BigPharma does not want doctors free to use Hydroxychloroquine to help their patients.


http://www.politicalforum.com/index...s-of-the-usa-political-model-to-avoid.581389/

 

And yet that same 'political pyramid' by listening to and following the advice of our medical experts has, (to date at least) ensured that Australia has one of the lowest overall infection rates for COVID in the developed world.

And one more time for the slow readers HCL IS NOT BANNED over here. But since the government via the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme subsidizes the cost of this and other drugs for the consumer they do have an interest in seeing it is not over proscribed. Or used in fruitless attempts to to treat COVID, a condition for which, (based on all the available evidence) it has as no impact and is indeed contraindicated.

 

I have friends in different SE Asian countries who would take it regularly to ward off malaria and reported that it became unavailable around March 2020. Go figure.

And it should be noted what the CDC said a couple of years ago, recommending the stronger type, chloroquine:

Chloroquine

Adults: 300 mg base (500 mg salt), once/week.

Children: 5 mg/kg base (8.3 mg/kg salt) (maximum is adult dose), once/week. Begin 1-2 weeks before travel, once/week during travel, and for 4 weeks after leaving.

Page last reviewed: November 15, 2018
Content source: Global Health, Division of Parasitic Diseases and Malaria

https://www.cdc.gov/malaria/travelers/drugs.html

I thought I posted this but apparently not:

Harvey Risch, a professor of epidemiology at Yale as well as the director of that school's Molecular Cancer Epidemiology Laboratory, states in a Newsweek op-ed this week that "the data fully support" the wide use of hydroxychloroquine as an effective treatment of COVID-19:

"As professor of epidemiology at Yale School of Public Health, I have authored over 300 peer-reviewed publications and currently hold senior positions on the editorial boards of several leading journals. I am usually accustomed to advocating for positions within the mainstream of medicine, so have been flummoxed to find that, in the midst of a crisis, I am fighting for a treatment that the data fully support but which, for reasons having nothing to do with a correct understanding of the science, has been pushed to the sidelines. As a result, tens of thousands of patients with COVID-19 are dying unnecessarily. Fortunately, the situation can be reversed easily and quickly.

"I am referring, of course, to the medication hydroxychloroquine. When this inexpensive oral medication is given very early in the course of illness, before the virus has had time to multiply beyond control, it has shown to be highly effective, especially when given in combination with the antibiotics azithromycin or doxycycline and the nutritional supplement zinc.

"On May 27, I published an article in the American Journal of Epidemiology (AJE) entitled, "Early Outpatient Treatment of Symptomatic, High-Risk COVID-19 Patients that Should be Ramped-Up Immediately as Key to the Pandemic Crisis." That article, published in the world's leading epidemiology journal, analyzed five studies, demonstrating clear-cut and significant benefits to treated patients, plus other very large studies that showed the medication safety.

"Physicians who have been using these medications in the face of widespread skepticism have been truly heroic. They have done what the science shows is best for their patients, often at great personal risk. I myself know of two doctors who have saved the lives of hundreds of patients with these medications, but are now fighting state medical boards to save their licenses and reputations. The cases against them are completely without scientific merit.

"Since publication of my May 27 article, seven more studies have demonstrated similar benefit. In a lengthy follow-up letter, also published by AJE, I discuss these seven studies and renew my call for the immediate early use of hydroxychloroquine in high-risk patients. These seven studies include: an additional 400 high-risk patients treated by Dr. Vladimir Zelenko, with zero deaths; four studies totaling almost 500 high-risk patients treated in nursing homes and clinics across the U.S., with no deaths; a controlled trial of more than 700 high-risk patients in Brazil, with significantly reduced risk of hospitalization and two deaths among 334 patients treated with hydroxychloroquine; and another study of 398 matched patients in France, also with significantly reduced hospitalization risk. Since my letter was published, even more doctors have reported to me their completely successful use."

https://www.newsweek.com/key-defeat...exists-we-need-start-using-it-opinion-1519535