Drug championed by Trump for coronavirus shows no benefit, possible harm in study awaiting validation

[Eric Loh]

31 minutes ago, Chiphigh said:

Nonsense, refer to Dr Stephen Smith and his ongoing success in treating his patients with the combination of hydrochloroquine and Zithromax, and clearly stating that early treatment is necessary for success. 

He said that he was optimistic and clearly avoided saying that it was successful. He relying a lot of his optimism on China data. That’s quite a change of heart lol. 

[Rimmer]

Youtube video from an unapproved source removed:

 

18) Social Media content is not to be used as  source material unless it is from a recognized or approved news media source,  the source of any such material (Twitter, Facebook  etc.) should always be shown

 

 

[Phoenix Rising]

 

Hydroxychloroquine expert suggests doctors should halt prescriptions for COVID-19 patients after 'concerning' study

 

"Dr. Chrisopher Plowe, a professor of global health at Duke University and a world-renowned expert on malaria drugs (including hydroxychloroquine), has been cautioning about prescribing the drug for weeks, telling Yahoo Life in an April 7 interview that “really serious cardiac issues,” including “potentially fatal cardiac arrhythmias,” can occur even with the first dose of the drug."

Edited April 23, 2020 by Phoenix Rising

[WaveHunter]

3 minutes ago, Phoenix Rising said:

 

Hydroxychloroquine expert suggests doctors should halt prescriptions for COVID-19 patients after 'concerning' study

The study that these claims are based on is seriously FLAWED!  Check out links provided in previous posts and take the time to become better informed with genuine facts, not fiction that's being promoted by irresponsible members of mass media.

Edited April 23, 2020 by WaveHunter

[Sujo]

2 minutes ago, Phoenix Rising said:

 

Hydroxychloroquine expert suggests doctors should halt prescriptions for COVID-19 patients after 'concerning' study

 

"Dr. Chrisopher Plowe, a professor of global health at Duke University and a world-renowned expert on malaria drugs (including hydroxychloroquine), has been cautioning about prescribing the drug for weeks, telling Yahoo Life in an April 7 interview that “really serious cardiac issues,” including “potentially fatal cardiac arrhythmias,” can occur even with the first dose of the drug."

Yes, from an expert. Not an alternative facts doctor or a tv talking head.

[WaveHunter]

1 minute ago, Sujo said:

Yes, from an expert. Not an alternative facts doctor or a tv talking head.

It doesn't take a genius to see how flawed the study is, and just because someone has credentials doesn't necessarily make their view correct. 

 

Did you even bother to listen to Martinson's analysis of the study.  It is very compelling, and completely science-based.

 

And by the way, this so-called "talking head" as you put it, is also doctor with a PHD from Duke, and has a consistent track record for debunking false claims by such esteemed members of the medical professions, especially those who conduct flawed studies, and those who also serve as "talking heads" for personal gain and notoriety.

[Phoenix Rising]

6 minutes ago, WaveHunter said:

The study that these claims are based on is seriously FLAWED!  Check out links provided in previous posts and take the time to become better informed with genuine facts, not fiction that's being promoted by irresponsible members of mass media.

If I had to choose whom to believe, world renowned experts or retired nurses with a Youtube channel, guess who I'd go with.

[metisdead]

Posts with links to unapproved YouTube sources have been removed:

 

18) Social Media content is not to be used as  source material unless it is from a recognized or approved news media source,  the source of any such material (Twitter, Facebook  etc.) should always be shown.

 

[WaveHunter]

7 minutes ago, Phoenix Rising said:

If I had to choose whom to believe, world renowned experts or retired nurses with a Youtube channel, guess who I'd go with.

That's pretty flawed reasoning.  I happen to believe the person who makes the most compelling argument and supports it with indisputable science-based facts, not simply opinion; and not blindly accept someone's credentials as proof that they are all-knowing, and that their words are the gospel truth.

 

The analysis and discussion made by Martinson (Peak Prosperity) are well founded; extremely well founded, and it doesn't take a rocket scientist to appreciate this...if you were to actually listen to what he says.  And the same can be said of Dr. Campbell.

Edited April 23, 2020 by WaveHunter

[Phoenix Rising]

Head of vaccine development alleges 'cronyism' after being removed from post

 

Didn't think Trump could go any lower? Think again.

[stevenl]

4 minutes ago, WaveHunter said:

It doesn't take a genius to see how flawed the study is, and just because someone has credentials doesn't necessarily make their view correct. 

 

Did you even bother to listen to Martinson's analysis of the study.  It is very compelling, and completely science-based.

 

And by the way, this so-called "talking head" as you put it, is also doctor with a PHD from Duke, and has a consistent track record for debunking false claims by such esteemed members of the medical professions, especially those who conduct flawed studies, and those who also serve as "talking heads" for personal gain and notoriety.

What is so difficult to understand about 'it may work, it may not work. There are side effects, so until it is proven beneficial or not, please don't use it.

[Phoenix Rising]

1 minute ago, WaveHunter said:

That's pretty flawed reasoning.  I happen to believe the person who makes the most compelling argument and supports it with indisputable science-based facts, not simply opinion; and not blindly accept someone's credentials as proof that they are all-knowing.

It seems our definitions of "indisputable science-based facts" are very different. Yours seems to be anything found while trawling the Internet that supports your political narrative.

[WaveHunter]

9 minutes ago, Phoenix Rising said:

It seems our definitions of "indisputable science-based facts" are very different. Yours seems to be anything found while trawling the Internet that supports your political narrative.

There's no "political narrative"; I'm only interested in science based facts.  It's obvious you have not even bothered to review the videos being discussed, and just seem content to believe whatever you hear on the news. 

 

It's a big mistake these days to just blindly accept whatever some mass media commentator is pushing; most of which have huge political agendas, and can hardly be thought of as legitimate unbiased journalists.

 

Believe what you wish; time will prove you wrong in your unfounded viewpoint. 

Edited April 23, 2020 by WaveHunter

[djecali]

As a medical professional, I look for the evidence when I read such articles. This article amounts to nothing more than an opinion piece. I will give the author credit as it is stated that this was not a study but merely an analysis of numbers. But the numbers don’t take into consideration the general health of the patients before and after becoming sick. This drug has been around and widely used for 65 years. It was championed by the liberal media until Trump chose to mention it as a possible treatment. After that, the liberal media did a complete 180 and are now calling it potentially harmful and pointing out that there is no evidence that it is effective. It is true, there is no empirical or statistical data showing that these drug combinations are effective. These studies take time and large numbers of patients before the evidence becomes apparent. Articles like this end up being nothing more than smear pieces and leave you with the impression that you’ve been given facts when you’ve only been given opinions. 

[WaveHunter]

28 minutes ago, djecali said:

As a medical professional, I look for the evidence when I read such articles. This article amounts to nothing more than an opinion piece. I will give the author credit as it is stated that this was not a study but merely an analysis of numbers. But the numbers don’t take into consideration the general health of the patients before and after becoming sick. This drug has been around and widely used for 65 years. It was championed by the liberal media until Trump chose to mention it as a possible treatment. After that, the liberal media did a complete 180 and are now calling it potentially harmful and pointing out that there is no evidence that it is effective. It is true, there is no empirical or statistical data showing that these drug combinations are effective. These studies take time and large numbers of patients before the evidence becomes apparent. Articles like this end up being nothing more than smear pieces and leave you with the impression that you’ve been given facts when you’ve only been given opinions. 

You pretty much hit it right on the head.  Kudus to you! ????

 

Pretty much the same thing happened with the incredibly flawed Stanford study on Covid-19 prevalence, for which the researchers had to do a lot of back-pedalling afterwards, but not before dangerously swaying public sentiment into believing that lockdown policies were being over-emphasized, and which led to massive protests, thereby jeopardizing the gains those lockdowns are starting to make.

 

These days, the liberal media (Trump haters) just eats this stuff up with no thought for fact-checking or analysis, or for the welfare of the public, who they are supposed to be serving!  It is completely irresponsible, and such news-commentators are nothing more than politically biased hacks and don't deserve the title of "journalists"

 

The truly great journalists from history like Walter Cronkite would be turning over in their graves if they heard the garbage coming from present-day news outlets such as the Washington Post, the New York TImes, CNN or MSNBC.

 

Edited April 23, 2020 by WaveHunter

[heybruce]

41 minutes ago, djecali said:

As a medical professional, I look for the evidence when I read such articles. This article amounts to nothing more than an opinion piece. I will give the author credit as it is stated that this was not a study but merely an analysis of numbers. But the numbers don’t take into consideration the general health of the patients before and after becoming sick. This drug has been around and widely used for 65 years. It was championed by the liberal media until Trump chose to mention it as a possible treatment. After that, the liberal media did a complete 180 and are now calling it potentially harmful and pointing out that there is no evidence that it is effective. It is true, there is no empirical or statistical data showing that these drug combinations are effective. These studies take time and large numbers of patients before the evidence becomes apparent. Articles like this end up being nothing more than smear pieces and leave you with the impression that you’ve been given facts when you’ve only been given opinions. 

First, "As a medical professional..." implies some expertise on the subject.  Care to expand on that?

 

Second, "It is true, there is no empirical or statistical data showing that these drug combinations are effective. These studies take time and large numbers of patients before the evidence becomes apparent. "  I very much agree.  That's why it is inappropriate at best, and often dangerous, to promote an unproven remedy for an often lethal disease.  That is what Trump did.

 

Initial studies, base on limited numbers, indicate the hydroxychloroquine is not a miracle cure for those with advanced cases of Covid 19.  These studies indicate that it may increase mortality. 

 

You allude to other studies that indicate that hydroxychloroquine may have some benefit when applied early in the infection.  So what?  That is not what the topic is about.  The majority of patients who are infected by the virus experience mild to no symptoms.  If I can suffer through an infection without medication, I will.  I hate unnecessary medication.

Edited April 23, 2020 by heybruce

[riclag]

1 hour ago, Phoenix Rising said:

 

Hydroxychloroquine expert suggests doctors should halt prescriptions for COVID-19 patients after 'concerning' study

 

"Dr. Chrisopher Plowe, a professor of global health at Duke University and a world-renowned expert on malaria drugs (including hydroxychloroquine), has been cautioning about prescribing the drug for weeks, telling Yahoo Life in an April 7 interview that “really serious cardiac issues,” including “potentially fatal cardiac arrhythmias,” can occur even with the first dose of the drug."

I think the fine Dr. Plowe should give a shout out to his colleague, the head of the  Federal Drug Administration who currently says,consult your doctor!By the way, the FDA allows doctors to prescribe drugs off-label all the time!

 The bias media doesn't mention this!  Simple enough to find,surprisingly! 

 

"You may be asking yourself why your healthcare provider would want to prescribe a drug to treat a disease or medical condition that the drug is not approved for.  One reason is that there might not be an approved drug to treat your disease or medical condition.  Another is that you may have tried all approved treatments without seeing any benefits".

 

https://www.fda.gov/patients/learn-about-expanded-access-and-other-treatment-options/understanding-unapproved-use-approved-drugs-label

 

 

 

 

Edited April 23, 2020 by riclag

[WaveHunter]

23 minutes ago, heybruce said:

... Initial studies, base on limited numbers, indicate the hydroxychloroquine is not a miracle cure for those with advanced cases of Covid 19.  These studies indicate that it may increase mortality. ...

Have you even bothered to acquaint yourself with the current findings of hydroxychloroquine use for Covid-19?  It sounds like you have not...at all. 

 

It's efficacy has been in the early stages of infection (not advanced stages), as a means of preventing the virus from attaching, and then entering into the cell membrane, and as a means of allowing the passage of zinc inside the cell membrane so as to possibly interfere with replication.

 

In early stage use, it has been shown to be highly effective based on anecdotal accounts...and just because these are anecdotal does not diminish the veracity of such claims since these claims are being made by credentialed and knowledgable medical doctors! 

 

It's a well accepted fact by its' proponents that once the virus has entered the cell and been able to begin replicating, hydroxychloroquine has no efficacy at all.

 

And furthmore, none of the proponents of its' use claim that it is a "cure".  Rather, it is intended to slow the progression of symptoms, perhaps allowing the patient some more time to develop a stronger immune response, to avoid a trip to ICU, or at least minimize the time in ICU which helps avoid the health care system from becoming overwhelmed.

 

If you are going to promote "initial studies", at least know what you are talking about.  There are now well over 3,000 documented cases of patients who have successfully been treated.

Edited April 23, 2020 by WaveHunter

[riclag]

8 minutes ago, WaveHunter said:

Have you even bothered to acquaint yourself with the current findings of hydroxychloroquine use for Covid-19?  It sounds like you have not...at all. 

 

It's efficacy has been in the early stages of infection (not advanced stages), as a means of preventing the virus from attaching, and then entering into the cell membrane, and as a means of allowing the passage of zinc inside the cell membrane so as to possibly interfere with replication.

 

In early stage use, it has been shown to be highly effective based on anecdotal accounts...and just because these are anecdotal does not diminish the veracity of such claims since these claims are being made by credentialed and knowledgable medical doctors! 

 

It's a well accepted fact by its' proponents that once the virus has entered the cell and been able to begin replicating, hydroxychloroquine has no efficacy at all.

 

And furthmore, none of the proponents of its' use claim that it is a "cure".  Rather, it is intended to slow the progression of symptoms, perhaps allowing the patient some more time to develop a stronger immune response, to avoid a trip to ICU, or at least minimize the time in ICU which helps avoid the health care system from becoming overwhelmed.

 

If you are going to promote "initial studies", at least know what you are talking about.

The drug is championed by Trump,need I say more!

[WaveHunter]

1 minute ago, riclag said:

The drug is championed by Trump,need I say more!

You kind of say it all by your comment; you seem to be politically biased and blind to science-based facts.

[Eric Loh]

As a layman, I will be very concern with the data that found 28%  of 97 patients given hydroxychloroquine along with standard care died, compared with a death rate of 11% for the 158 patients that did not receive the drug. The death rate was 22% for the 113 patients given hydroxychloroquine plus the antibiotic azithromycin. Granted the data is not officially published, it’s nevertheless medical records and ought to give cause for pause. It will be highly irresponsible for any person less a President to promote without sufficient studies and FDA approval. 

[riclag]

6 minutes ago, WaveHunter said:

You kind of say it all by your comment; you seem to be politically biased and blind to science-based facts.

Ya! Who ya gonna trust with your health ! 

Edited April 23, 2020 by riclag

[riclag]

28 minutes ago, Eric Loh said:

As a layman, I will be very concern with the data that found 28%  of 97 patients given hydroxychloroquine along with standard care died, compared with a death rate of 11% for the 158 patients that did not receive the drug. The death rate was 22% for the 113 patients given hydroxychloroquine plus the antibiotic azithromycin. Granted the data is not officially published, it’s nevertheless medical records and ought to give cause for pause. It will be highly irresponsible for any person less a President to promote without sufficient studies and FDA approval. 

No, it doesn't give approval but non the less it says!

As I mentioned above

"You may be asking yourself why your healthcare provider would want to prescribe a drug to treat a disease or medical condition that the drug is not approved for.  One reason is that there might not be an approved drug to treat your disease or medical condition.  Another is that you may have tried all approved treatments without seeing any benefits".

 Apparently the head of the FDA is throwing a wrench into the bias media narrative imop! Ask your Dr. 

 

Edited April 23, 2020 by riclag

[WaveHunter]

35 minutes ago, Eric Loh said:

As a layman, I will be very concern with the data that found 28%  of 97 patients given hydroxychloroquine along with standard care died, compared with a death rate of 11% for the 158 patients that did not receive the drug. The death rate was 22% for the 113 patients given hydroxychloroquine plus the antibiotic azithromycin. Granted the data is not officially published, it’s nevertheless medical records and ought to give cause for pause. It will be highly irresponsible for any person less a President to promote without sufficient studies and FDA approval. 

I know the study you are referring to; the Veterans Administration Study, right?  Or are you just going by news reports you read?  Well, if you examine that actual study you will see it is complete garbage!

 

1) First of all this study was of hydroxychloroquine only, and did not include zinc or Azithromycin.  Zinc is an extremely important part of treatment because it's thought that it interferes with viral replication for any particles of virus that are able to enter cell membrane, and hydroxychloroquine allows Zinc to pass through cell membrane so that it can do this.

 

2) The study was not randomized or controlled.  It was based only on a reading of medical charts.  The baseline demographic consisted only male, african american patients...hardly a random cross-section of the public.

 

3) The methods section of the study said that administration of hydroxychloroquine was more likely to be prescribed in patients in more advanced stages of disease.  Not only is this an example of being non-randomized, but more importantly, it was not administered early enough! 

 

It is accepted by proponents that hydroxychloroquine has little if any efficacy in advanced stages because the whole point of administration is to prevent the virus from entering the cell membrane...in other words in the EARLY stages of infection.  Once the virus has been able to enter, hydroxychloroquine can do very little.

 

If you carefully read the study, there are many other gross flaws to it.  No discussion is made of dosages administered, how often they were administered, or when treatment was started...none at all.

 

For this study to be a "real study" would require a fully randomized trial.  Treatment would need to begin as soon as symptoms appeared.  Doses and timing would need to be recorded.  Zinc and Azithromycin would need to be included, and blood levels would need to be tracked.

 

So basically, the study proves nothing at all regarding efficacy and it certainly does not show any scientific correlation between administering  hydroxychloroquine and patient death.  By any scientific standard that is purely an unfounded and totally irresponsible conclusion played up more by media sources than the research study itself.

 

Edited April 23, 2020 by WaveHunter

[simple1]

35 minutes ago, WaveHunter said:

Have you even bothered to acquaint yourself with the current findings of hydroxychloroquine use for Covid-19?  It sounds like you have not...at all. 

 

It's efficacy has been in the early stages of infection (not advanced stages), as a means of preventing the virus from attaching, and then entering into the cell membrane, and as a means of allowing the passage of zinc inside the cell membrane so as to possibly interfere with replication.

 

In early stage use, it has been shown to be highly effective based on anecdotal accounts...and just because these are anecdotal does not diminish the veracity of such claims since these claims are being made by credentialed and knowledgable medical doctors! 

 

It's a well accepted fact by its' proponents that once the virus has entered the cell and been able to begin replicating, hydroxychloroquine has no efficacy at all.

 

And furthmore, none of the proponents of its' use claim that it is a "cure".  Rather, it is intended to slow the progression of symptoms, perhaps allowing the patient some more time to develop a stronger immune response, to avoid a trip to ICU, or at least minimize the time in ICU which helps avoid the health care system from becoming overwhelmed.

 

If you are going to promote "initial studies", at least know what you are talking about.  There are now well over 3,000 documented cases of patients who have successfully been treated.

It is extremely unfortunate trump jumped the gun with promoting a treatment without a solid basis in empirical data which has led to furthering deep partisan divide. IMO poor Presidential behaviour throughout the Covid-19 crisis. 

 

On the other side of the coin to your claims as more experience is gained using  hydroxychloroquine many doctors are saying the drug is not a suitable treatment when taking into account the risk of side effects e.g.

 

https://www.marketwatch.com/story/hydroxychloroquine-treatment-for-covid-19-shows-no-benefit-and-more-deaths-in-va-study-2020-04-21

[Phoenix Rising]

37 minutes ago, riclag said:

The drug is championed by Trump,need I say more!

True. I would be skeptical of any drug "championed" by a snake oil salesman.

[stevenl]

1 hour ago, WaveHunter said:

You pretty much hit it right on the head.  Kudus to you! ????

 

Pretty much the same thing happened with the incredibly flawed Stanford study on Covid-19 prevalence, for which the researchers had to do a lot of back-pedalling afterwards, but not before dangerously swaying public sentiment into believing that lockdown policies were being over-emphasized, and which led to massive protests, thereby jeopardizing the gains those lockdowns are starting to make.

 

These days, the liberal media (Trump haters) just eats this stuff up with no thought for fact-checking or analysis, or for the welfare of the public, who they are supposed to be serving!  It is completely irresponsible, and such news-commentators are nothing more than politically biased hacks and don't deserve the title of "journalists"

 

The truly great journalists from history like Walter Cronkite would be turning over in their graves if they heard the garbage coming from present-day news outlets such as the Washington Post, the New York TImes, CNN or MSNBC.

 

That is a compliment worth, you're making it sound it are the liberals protesting the lockdowns.

[WaveHunter]

35 minutes ago, riclag said:

Ya! Who ya gonna trust with your health ! 

Personally, I would trust my own doctor to help ME decide whether or not HCQ was a good option or not.  That decision should be up to the patient and his/her doctor...and nobody else.

[WaveHunter]

14 minutes ago, stevenl said:

That is a compliment worth, you're making it sound it are the liberals protesting the lockdowns.

What does your comment mean?  I said that liberal (left leaning) media will do anything to attack Trump, even if it put's public health in jeopardy.  They heavily touted this flawed Stanford study which encouraged the public to start protesting lockdown measures as being too severe, based on these flawed findings. 

 

Why did the liberal media tout this study without first doing some serious fact-checking and analysis?  Because it would make the Administration's strategy for controlling the virus look draconian and beyond reason...pure and simple.  It doesn't take a PhD to see their motivation. 

 

Their actions jeopardize the gains being made to flatten the curve of this pandemic, and in a very real sense, put everybody at increased risk...all for political gain.

Edited April 23, 2020 by WaveHunter

[spidermike007]

Total nonsense. There is so much misunderstanding of this issue. Dr. Zalenko treated nearly 1,000 infected patients with this drug cocktail, just north of NYC, and how many of them died? Zero.  Compared to a national average of 5%!

 

It is about combining the correct amounts of Zithro, Hydro and Zinc. Not chloro, which is the old version, but hydro, which is far less toxic. And it works!

 

For those who insist on long clinical studies, what are the alternatives? Ventilators? They are a death sentence. An 80% mortality rate. 

 

The CDC, WHO, and especially the emtremely toxic and corrupt FDA all have an agenda. Support big pharma, at any cost. Let's wait and let them die. Wait for a costly vaccine, so Big Pharma can cash in, at the expense of humanity, and once again dominate the agenda. As hard as they are trying to deceive us, truth cannot be suppressed. I am usually accusing Trump of being incompetent. But, in this case he got it half right. Now, he needs to do some reading, to determine the correct formula. Pushing hydro on it's own is useless. But, the formula of the three drugs works like a charm, and knocks Covid out cold. 

 

Sorry, but this homey does not play the sucker game. I have a nice supply here at home just in case. I do not take my directions from corrupt agencies with a foul agenda.

 

For those of you who are interested in facts and truth here it is. The Israeli government hired him. And guess what their mortality rate has been since they started using the cocktail? Very, very low. 

 

https://pulseofisrael.com/2020/04/05/does-this-dr-have-the-miracle-cure-for-coronavirus/

 

 

Edited April 23, 2020 by spidermike007