The "Lancet" about hydroxychloroquine

COVID-TWO?

"Ought to boost the immune system"? And prevent Covid-3 from happening? What planet do you live on? What you are proposing is wholly ineffective and already has been proven so!

There was NO ANTIDOTE to SARS_2002/4! There is so far NO ANTIDOTE to Covid-19! And, given the past experience, there is not likely to be one in the future any time soon. Does that mean we should give up research? No!

It means we should fund the WHO to maintain continued research in the matter, which they abandoned for SARS 2002/4 in 2014 when all attempts to find an antidote proved futile. And Donald Dork proposes to withhold any future spending on the WHO? (First-class JERK that he is!)

Having told the WHO to go to hell, DD has suddenly become Very Dangerous to mankind as a whole! Because Covid-19 has proven fully that it is a real threat of that order*!

Given the present context, this is what must be done:
*We must not abandon the research for an antidote. SARS_2002/4 has shown how difficult such research can be. Nonetheless, it must be done and accomplished.
*Moreover, somebody had better get the message to China that they must do better because these viruses seem to take hold in their country. They are therefore WHOLLY RESPONSIBLE for exporting death to the rest of mankind on this planet!
*And the best way to do that is to collectively refuse to purchase Chinese made goods in the future - and also refuse entry to any Chinese studying abroad. THAT will most certainly get their attention! We should not be taking any chances that they infest the world with COVID-TWO!

And if you have a better solution, then let's see it here. But vitamins and amino-acids are a pathetic response to a technically highly complex threat to mankind ...

 

Mankind need not worry about about Donald Dork and his refusal to fund the WHO's research on a final solution. Europe will pick-up the thread and fund any research necessary for this new brand of wholesale mankind-killer.

What will happen then is that if the WHO does obtain a solution, effort will be prioritized to distribute first the antidote to those who funded its research. All others will have to wait their turn!

Happy Covid-Redux, America ... !

 

And, pray tell, what might that "multinational registry analysis" be? Did you READ THE ORIGINAL LANCET ARTICLE?

Did you see this (from the article in question here)?:

'Nuff said? Methinks, You Betcha ... !

 

That being said, the evidence that it is not only ineffective, but dangerous, is orders of magnitude better than any claim that it works.

Trump was promoting this based on little more than hearsay. There no evidence at all that it works. Far less than the gold standard, the evidence to support any claims of efficacy barely meet the gossip standard.

 

There is no evidence that HE works at all.

Donald Dork lost a popular-vote election for the presidency by a significant greater than 2% margin but because we do not know how to count the popular-vote, he get's into the White House! He then lowers upper-income taxation to assure that the kitty-is-full for the fight to win a second term of office.

What has this guy done correctly? Americans think he boosted employment when in fact that started happening (finally) in Obama's last term. (See the history of the Employment-to-population Ratio here. The exact date is December 2013.

It had taken 5-years of zero-change in the stagnated Employment-to-population Ratio before it finally started increasing. Why? Because the Replicants "owned" the HofR and had refused to fund any Obama effort to boost government spending to spark employment. So Americans suffered four long years of a stagnant economy.

That's a key sign of a democracy gone crazy...

 

You are confused. Hydroxychloroquine has shown great results invitro which is why it drew so much attention in the first place. What is in question is in vivo. If you truly knew what you were talking about instead of throwing around words you dont understand while trying to sound smart, you would not make that mistake. When talking about the need for scientific proof, that is referring specifically to prospective, randomized, controlled trials. Unless you are referring to that specifically, you do not have proof one way or the other. In other words, you do NOT have proof of an increase in toxicity, and you do not have proof whether it does or does not work. A retrospective analysis proves absolutely nothing for the reasons that I have already outlined in this thread.

This drug has been a focal point of treatment around the world. The fact that you honestly think this is about Trump even a little bit shows just how skewed your mindset is. The use and subsequent study of this drug has absolutely nothing to do with Trump. This drug was in widespread use long before Trump mentioned anything. All he did was point to a reason for optimism at that time. TDS is clearly alive and well.

 

Yes, I did read it. A multinational registry analysis is a retrospective analysis. A retrospective analysis is not capable of determining a drugs efficacy or lack thereof. In order to do that you need a prospective, randomized, controlled trial. That is literally the ONLY way. It is the sole means of determining whether a drug works or not.

A retrospective analysis looks at how a drug was used in the real world at a given time. A prospective analysis decides how a drug is going to be used and then it randomly assigns the same patient types (severity etc) to either the control (placebo) or active group. It is this randomization that enables you to compare the control group to the active group to see whether it works better or not. For an elementary explanation of this lets look generically at cancer patients. For a very early well formed tumor that has not spread anywhere, they will often just prescribe radiation, and opt to not use chemo. If it is not well formed and/or it has spread, they will use both radiation and chemo. If you go in and do a retrospective analysis on the death rate of patients using chemo, it is going to be far higher than those just using radiation alone. This does not however mean that chemo increases death rate. It means that in real world use, doctors prescribe chemo to the more severe subset of patients, and that more severe subset of patients has a higher death rate. It is for this reason that a retrospective analysis is wholly useless in determining the effectiveness of any particular therapy. With chemotherapy, a retrospective analysis is going to show a higher death rate every time. With a prospective analysis, chemo is going to show a lower death rate than the placebo group.

I am not sure what your "'Nuff said? Methinks, You Betcha"....is supposed to mean, but one thing is for sure, your Lancet study literally proves nothing. They could look retrospectively at 20 million patients. It would still mean nothing.

 

see post above

 

You are getting your terms mixed

In vitro = works in the lab

In vivo - works in humans

Yes HCQ had a measurable in vitro effect but studies on similar viruses (SARS and MERS) failed to show an In Vivo effect. I doubt it would have had much e phases put on it as a therapy we’re it not for the insistence of Trump and his blinded followers

https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(20)31180-6/fulltext

 

It's all about the ZINC! I agree, the study is BOGUS because they did not include ZINC.
Even Trump knows that because he stated that he's taking Zinc along with the hydroxychloroquine.

Hydroxychloroquine works best at the earliest stages of a COVID19 infection because it drives the body's natural zinc stores into the cells and this is what provides the protection. Zinc helps prevent the virus from spreading from cell to cell. So any treatments or studies that don't include additional zinc are bogus!!

In addition, any Hydroxychloroquine studies that don't begin treatment at the earliest stages of the COVID19 disease are also BOGUS because Hydroxychloroquine & Zinc are only beneficial at the earliest stages.

The next thing we need to do is find out the names & organizations of those responsible for conducting or funding this study and place them on the suspect list.

--pete--

 

I am not the one mixing up those terms. That is you. You said... "Why persist in running trials on a drug that is not showing a measurable in vitro effect but is showing increased toxicity?"

It HAS shown an in vitro effect. Nobody disputes that. It is in vivo that is in question, and In Vivo that actually matters. You are incorrectly claiming that it is in vitro that is in question.

...and for crying out loud, none of this has anything to do with Trump. That drug was in widespread use before he mentioned it. He was mentioning the reason for optimism at that moment which was the drug of choice at that moment. He is not driver of that therapy and most certainly not the reason why so many countries have been using it. It is not being studied because of him. It literally has not one thing to do with him in that regard. He saw the therapy and pointed to it. Stop with the TDS already. It is ridiculous. Your claim makes no sense.

 

Which brings up the question.... is subjecting this POTUS to risky medication actually harm in the global sense??

Something for historians to ponder...

 

I don't believe a word of what you say above. There is NO BETTER ANALYSIS of a drugs efficacy than that of actual employment in life-or-death medical situations - and particularly with human beings for whom the drug is intended.

The Lancet simply contacted officials in the countries to obtain the results of medicinal care with the subject drug. The very high number of cases in which it was applied and the statistical evidence of resulting deaths is sufficiently patent evidence of it lack of efficacy. Your additional ifs-and-buts are of no consequence whatsoever.

The results speak for themselves!

And the Lancet was correct to make the world know about it. Because the product being employed is of a highly dangerous chemical nature.

End of story and time to move on ...

 

Hell of a lot better than “ what have you got to lose?”

 

Rubbish! You are effing about with the "formula". The medicine has to work "by itself" with no if, ands or buts. Because it is the result of the medecin applied that is being measured and not extraneous "add-ons". Any really scientific investigation would need to assure that was the case.

Which, yes, I am sure that was not guaranteed in the test because the testing procedure did not call for it. You are thus posing a "cop-out" as regards the medecin efficacity. Because you've got market-shares in the companies involved?

Nothing identifies a scoundrel better than one who profits monetarily from the death of others ...

 

LOL....you are too ignorant to understand how grossly you have revealed your ignorance. Prospective randomized controlled trials are the ONLY scientific means of assessing a treatments effectiveness. I have provided links AND explained it in laymans terms. This is not a subject for debate. Only the truly ignorant would dare try to argue that "there is no better analysis of a drug's efficacy" than anything outside of a prospective, randomized, controlled trial which is the singular gold standard on the subject. Sincerely, NOBODY makes this argument. It is not a left or right thing. It is an evidence based medicine thing. If you dont believe me, than at least believe the NIH


https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6235704/


I have provided you with more than ample support via link for my position. I have even explained my position in a more elementary, less esoteric manner.

THERE ARE NONE SO BLIND AS THOSE WHO REFUSE TO SEE.

 

What I see is this:

From here (23/05/2020):

The WHO has stopped all treatments (under its care) with hydoxychlorofin and is reviewing the process. It will investigate its findings before taking any future action.

 

I actually envy how you are able to wear your ignorance on your sleeve as if it were somehow a badge of honor. Good on you. I perhaps worry too much about my image and try too hard to be credible and knowledgeable about that of which I speak... and you simply let it all hang out. You babble on about things you clearly do not understand, but by golly that doesnt stop you even when confronted with reality directly in your face. You hold your head high regardless. There is perhaps a virtue in being shameless. You wear it well.

 

Where is your evidence that it works?

 

I will happily answer that as soon as you show where I said that it does.

 

My doctor and his staff came down with covid. They took the drug + zinc. All recovered in a week, very light symptoms. If I get covid I'm taking the drugs.

 

All recovered in a week, very light symptoms. If I get covid I'm taking the drugs.[/QUOTE]

Bollocks. You're lying!

Go away, piss into some other forum ...

 

Bollocks. You're lying!

Go away, piss into some other forum ...[/QUOTE]

Huh? I hope you're either being sarcastic or possibly had some sort of a mini stroke or something. I'm going to take them and gladly do it. My doctor would recommend it wholeheartedly and told me so himself.

 

Your understanding of what constitutes "definitive proof" is lacking. The investigation relating the outcome of almost 100,000 cases is more than relevant. It is highly convincing.

Believe what you want - the doctor who "invented the treatment" has not been able to show positive recovery from his own tests in a Marseilles, France hospital - unless the infection is identified very early in the process. Moreover, it depends very much upon age of the person infected. The young can probably shake the infection with minimum effort.

But for the elders it is a fast-forward to death, regardless of their treatment, and they are the far larger group that is doing the dying ...

 

Huh? I hope you're either being sarcastic or possibly had some sort of a mini stroke or something. I'm going to take them and gladly do it. My doctor would recommend it wholeheartedly and told me so himself.[/QUOTE]
No, he's right, you lied