Drug touted by Trump to treat COVID-19 linked to higher death risk - study

[Jingthing]

Perhaps there is a protocol where the malaria meds would be useful for Covid that isn't known yet. For example with a specific demographic of patients at a specific stage of the disease at a specific dosage combined with other specific medications or supplements. But so far absolutely nothing appears to be scientifically proven on this. It shouldn't matter either way that a few bombastic populist non-medical celebrities (45 and Bolsonaro) have irrationally and bizarrely touted these meds. But they should never have been given special first in line consideration (as has obviously already happened) for political reasons over other possibly much more promising medications. Finding effective therapies is important and can make a big difference. But we do not need fake snake oil or bleach drinks. We need the real thing.

[rabas]

On 5/23/2020 at 5:54 AM, rooster59 said:

In the study https://www.thelancet.com/lancet/article/s0140673620311806 that looked at more than 96,000 people hospitalized with COVID-19, the respiratory disease caused by the novel coronavirus, those treated with hydroxychloroquine or the related chloroquine had higher risk of death and heart rhythm problems than patients who were not given the medicines.

Follow-up.

 

--The study has serious problems, a lack of transparency, and even questionable peer review.

-- All the data came from a single database, founded and owned by one of the paper's authors.

 

Scientists Question Validity of Major Hydroxychloroquine Study

 

More than 100 scientists and clinicians have questioned the authenticity of a massive hospital database that was the basis for an influential study published last week that concluded that treating people who have Covid-19 with chloroquine and HCQ did not help and might have increased the risk of abnormal heart rhythms and death.

“Data from Africa indicate that nearly 25 percent of all Covid-19 cases and 40 percent of all deaths occurred in [database associated] hospitals which had sophisticated electronic patient data recording,” the scientists wrote. “Both the numbers of cases and deaths, and the detailed data collection, seem unlikely.”

[Phil McCaverty]

9 minutes ago, rabas said:

Follow-up.

 

--The study has serious problems, a lack of transparency, and even questionable peer review.

-- All the data came from a single database, founded and owned by one of the paper's authors.

 

Scientists Question Validity of Major Hydroxychloroquine Study

 

More than 100 scientists and clinicians have questioned the authenticity of a massive hospital database that was the basis for an influential study published last week that concluded that treating people who have Covid-19 with chloroquine and HCQ did not help and might have increased the risk of abnormal heart rhythms and death.

“Data from Africa indicate that nearly 25 percent of all Covid-19 cases and 40 percent of all deaths occurred in [database associated] hospitals which had sophisticated electronic patient data recording,” the scientists wrote. “Both the numbers of cases and deaths, and the detailed data collection, seem unlikely.”

Shame you didn't quote your source.

 

Most scientists (apart from the scientist in chief, Professor Trump) now accept that Hydroxychloroquine has an overall negative effect on Covid-19 patients. France has banned its use for Covid-19 patients.

[rabas]

22 minutes ago, Phil McCaverty said:

Shame you didn't quote your source.

Oh come on, Phil...

 

Click the really, really big blue letters with a line below.

 

(... MSM brain freeze)

 

Edited June 1, 2020 by rabas

[Chiphigh]

On 6/1/2020 at 7:59 AM, Phil McCaverty said:

Shame you didn't quote your source.

 

Most scientists (apart from the scientist in chief, Professor Trump) now accept that Hydroxychloroquine has an overall negative effect on Covid-19 patients. France has banned its use for Covid-19 patients.

Phil, the bogus study has just been officially withdrawn due to the bogus data used. 

 

This is what happens when you use a political view instead of reality and common sense. 

 

 

So, will you apologize for being grossly wrong? 

[Phil McCaverty]

And here's the latest study by NHS in conjunction with Oxford University, who are likely to produce the first approved vaccine and are one of the worlds leading (if not the leading) virology research centres. Case closed.

 

https://www.statnews.com/2020/06/05/hydroxychloroquine-had-no-benefit-for-hospitalized-covid-19-patients-possibly-closing-door-to-use-of-drug/

 

"A major clinical trial showed the malaria drug hydroxychloroquine had no benefit for patients hospitalized with Covid-19, likely closing the door to the use of the highly publicized medicine in the sickest patients — a use for which it was widely prescribed as the pandemic hit the U.S."

 

So will you apologise (and Trump) for promoting a dangerous and completely useless drug?

 

 

Edited June 6, 2020 by Phil McCaverty

[VincentRJ]

3 hours ago, Phil McCaverty said:

"A major clinical trial showed the malaria drug hydroxychloroquine had no benefit for patients hospitalized with Covid-19, likely closing the door to the use of the highly publicized medicine in the sickest patients — a use for which it was widely prescribed as the pandemic hit the U.S."

 

So will you apologise (and Trump) for promoting a dangerous and completely useless drug?

 

Trump was not using the drug because he was one of the sickest patients. He was using it as a prophylactic in conjunction with a Zinc supplement because there was some scientific evidence that hydroxychloroquine with Zinc might reduce his risk of infection.

 

There's a distinction to be made between a 'cure for the very sick', and a 'prevention of sickness'. I've seen no sound scientific studies that prove that Hydroxyquinoline with Zinc has no prophylactic effect against Covid-19 infection.

[metisdead]

A post using a trolling reference to POTUS has been removed, keep using that trolling reference and a warning will be coming soon. 

[Phil McCaverty]

23 minutes ago, VincentRJ said:

There's a distinction to be made between a 'cure for the very sick', and a 'prevention of sickness'. I've seen no sound scientific studies that prove that Hydroxyquinoline with Zinc has no prophylactic effect against Covid-19 infection.

And none for because the research hasn't been done. Ergo, you don't proscribe a dangerous drug to someone who is not sick if you have no idea if its of benefit or not.

[rabas]

49 minutes ago, Phil McCaverty said:

And none for because the research hasn't been done. Ergo, you don't proscribe a dangerous drug to someone who is not sick if you have no idea if its of benefit or not.

Research on zinc and chloroquine's antiviral properties, even for SARS, goes back 17 years. Google "zinc sars" or "chlorquine antiviral".  100s of research papers.

 

2003 Effects of Chloroquine on Viral Infections

2009 Antiviral Activity of Chloroquine against Human Coronavirus

 

This is why the medical world had put chloroquine near the top of their list of potentially repurposeable drugs to evaluate around the time Trump spoke.

Edited June 6, 2020 by rabas

[Chiphigh]

5 hours ago, Phil McCaverty said:

And here's the latest study by NHS in conjunction with Oxford University, who are likely to produce the first approved vaccine and are one of the worlds leading (if not the leading) virology research centres. Case closed.

 

https://www.statnews.com/2020/06/05/hydroxychloroquine-had-no-benefit-for-hospitalized-covid-19-patients-possibly-closing-door-to-use-of-drug/

 

"A major clinical trial showed the malaria drug hydroxychloroquine had no benefit for patients hospitalized with Covid-19, likely closing the door to the use of the highly publicized medicine in the sickest patients — a use for which it was widely prescribed as the pandemic hit the U.S."

 

So will you apologise (and Trump) for promoting a dangerous and completely useless drug?

 

 

Actually I won't because the real life results are obvious.. How sad is it that you merely don't want it to work just because trump endorsed it. 

 

 

Dcxxo

https://www.ny1.com/nyc/all-boroughs/news/2020/05/12/nyu-study-looks-at-hydroxychloroquine-zinc-azithromycin-combo-on-decreasing-covp8id-19-deaths

 

There is no doubt that it is not dangerous for use and has shown effective when treatment is administered early enough. Stop the ridiculous unfounded rumors. 

 

 

https://medicine.yale.edu/yigh/news-article/25085/

 

 

You list, your rabid hatred is showing. 

 

I'll wait for the apology after your irrational emotional unhinged outrage has subsided 

[Sujo]

5 hours ago, Chiphigh said:

Phil, the bogus study has just been officially withdrawn due to the bogus data used. 

 

This is what happens when you use a political view instead of reality and common sense. 

 

 

So, will you apologize for being grossly wrong? 

And trump based his statement that its ok and cant hurt on what?

[Phil McCaverty]

12 minutes ago, rabas said:

Research on zinc and chloroquine's antiviral properties, even for SARS, goes back 17 years. Google "zinc sars" or "chlorquine antiviral".  100s of research papers.

 

2003 Effects of Chloroquine on Viral Infections

2009 Antiviral Activity of Chloroquine against Human Coronavirus

 

 

The study you quoted was to study morbidity survival in mice and in vitro. Apples and oranges.

[VincentRJ]

44 minutes ago, Phil McCaverty said:

And none for because the research hasn't been done. Ergo, you don't proscribe a dangerous drug to someone who is not sick if you have no idea if its of benefit or not.

Nonsense. Chloroquinine, or the safer version, Hydrochloroquinine, has been used for years to prevent Malaria. There's a lot of research on its role in preventing Covid-19 infection, but no conclusion yet due to a shortage of time and a shortage of subjects for experimentation. The view is still 'it might be an effective prophylactic' against Covid-19.

 

Obviously, a person who already has medical conditions such as heart disease, obesity or diabetes, which can be negatively affected by the side-effects of Hydroxychloroquine, should not take the drug. Trump believes his heart condition is okay, and although he is overweight, he's not obese.

 

Here's a list of research papers you can find on the internet, if you are really interested.

 

"Colson P, Rolain JM, Lagier JC, Brouqui P, Raoult D. Chloroquine and hydroxychloroquine as available weapons to fight COVID-19. Int J Antimicrob Agents. 2020 Apr;55(4):105932. doi: 10.1016/j.ijantimicag.2020.105932. Epub 2020 Mar 4.
Devaux CA, Rolain JM, Colson P, Raoult D. New insights on the antiviral effects of chloroquine against coronavirus: what to expect for COVID-19? Int J Antimicrob Agents. 2020 Mar 12:105938. doi: 10.1016/j.ijantimicag.2020.105938. [Epub ahead of print]
Cortegiani A, Ingoglia G, Ippolito M, Giarratano A, Einav S. A systematic review on the efficacy and safety of chloroquine for the treatment of COVID-19. J Crit Care. 2020 Mar 10. pii: S0883-9441(20)30390-7. doi: 10.1016/j.jcrc.2020.03.005. [Epub ahead of print]
Gao J, Tian Z, Yang X. Breakthrough: Chloroquine phosphate has shown apparent efficacy in treatment of COVID-19 associated pneumonia in clinical studies. Biosci Trends. 2020 Mar 16;14(1):72-73. doi: 10.5582/bst.2020.01047. Epub 2020 Feb 19.
Dong L, Hu S, Gao J. Discovering drugs to treat coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Drug Discov Ther. 2020;14(1):58-60. doi: 10.5582/ddt.2020.01012.
Kruse RL. Therapeutic strategies in an outbreak scenario to treat the novel coronavirus originating in Wuhan, China. F1000Res. 2020 Jan 31;9:72. doi: 10.12688/f1000research.22211.2. eCollection 2020. Review.
Song P, Karako T. COVID-19: Real-time dissemination of scientific information to fight a public health emergency of international concern. Biosci Trends. 2020 Mar 16;14(1):1-2. doi: 10.5582/bst.2020.01056. Epub 2020 Feb 25.
Lake MA. What we know so far: COVID-19 current clinical knowledge and research. Clin Med (Lond). 2020 Mar;20(2):124-127. doi: 10.7861/clinmed.2019-coron. Epub 2020 Mar 5. Review.
Cunningham AC, Goh HP, Koh D. Treatment of COVID-19: old tricks for new challenges. Crit Care. 2020 Mar 16;24(1):91. doi: 10.1186/s13054-020-2818-6.
Plantone D, Koudriavtseva T. Current and Future Use of Chloroquine and Hydroxychloroquine in Infectious, Immune, Neoplastic, and Neurological Diseases: A Mini-Review. Clin Drug Investig. 2018 Aug;38(8):653-671. doi: 10.1007/s40261-018-0656-y. Review."

[connda]

5 hours ago, Phil McCaverty said:

"A major clinical trial showed the malaria drug hydroxychloroquine had no benefit for patients hospitalized with Covid-19, likely closing the door to the use of the highly publicized medicine in the sickest patients — a use for which it was widely prescribed as the pandemic hit the U.S."

And that "major clinical trail" was retracted from the journal that published it due to "After publication of our Lancet Article,

several concerns were raised with respect to the veracity of the data and analyses conducted by Surgisphere Corporation and its founder and our co-author, Sapan Desai, in our publication. We launched an independent third-party peer review of Surgisphere with the consent of Sapan Desai to evaluate the origination of the database elements, to confirm the completeness of the database, and to replicate the analyses presented in the paper."

The bottom line is that the researchers would not provide their data for an independent peer review by the publisher, and as such the publication was retracted, officially, by the publisher. 

I prefer the hard science over the opinion pieces and main-stream news sound-bites that people pull out of their butts for partisan politics. 

I dislike Trump as much as I dislike partisan politics, but I dislike fraudulent science even more.

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

[Phil McCaverty]

7 minutes ago, connda said:

And that "major clinical trail" was retracted from the journal that published it due to "After publication of our Lancet Article,

Do your due diligence. Different trial altogether.

 

 

Edited June 6, 2020 by Phil McCaverty

[Chiphigh]

45 minutes ago, Phil McCaverty said:

I don't call a study by Oxford University, one of the worlds leading virology research labs, and the NHS irrational, unhinged and outrageous.

 

It certainly is dangerous. many cases of it causing cardiac arrhythmia, sometimes resulting in death.

 

Maybe you could try it to see if it cures your TDS.

You lost this one before you started. 

 

But being in the orange man bad cult really doesn't require any reason to deal with reality, all it takes is pure unbridled hatred. 

 

4 more years will really bring out the banshee in you. 

 

Which is hilarious 

[candide]

3 hours ago, VincentRJ said:

Trump was not using the drug because he was one of the sickest patients. He was using it as a prophylactic in conjunction with a Zinc supplement because there was some scientific evidence that hydroxychloroquine with Zinc might reduce his risk of infection.

 

There's a distinction to be made between a 'cure for the very sick', and a 'prevention of sickness'. I've seen no sound scientific studies that prove that Hydroxyquinoline with Zinc has no prophylactic effect against Covid-19 infection.

When Trump touted this drug, he never specified it was for prophylactic use only.

Edited June 6, 2020 by candide

[candide]

7 hours ago, Phil McCaverty said:

And here's the latest study by NHS in conjunction with Oxford University, who are likely to produce the first approved vaccine and are one of the worlds leading (if not the leading) virology research centres. Case closed.

 

https://www.statnews.com/2020/06/05/hydroxychloroquine-had-no-benefit-for-hospitalized-covid-19-patients-possibly-closing-door-to-use-of-drug/

 

"A major clinical trial showed the malaria drug hydroxychloroquine had no benefit for patients hospitalized with Covid-19, likely closing the door to the use of the highly publicized medicine in the sickest patients — a use for which it was widely prescribed as the pandemic hit the U.S."

 

So will you apologise (and Trump) for promoting a dangerous and completely useless drug?

 

 

After reading the OP, it is safer to wait that the scientific community checks the validity of this study.

However, at first glance, it seems to have been quite seriously conducted:

"A total of 1,542 received hydroxychloroquine, and 3,132 received usual care. After 28 days of treatment, 25.7% of those on hydroxychloroquine and 23.5% of those received usual care had died, meaning those on hydroxychloroquine were 11% more likely to die. That difference was not statistically significant.

There was “no beneficial effect” on how long patients stayed in the hospital, or on other outcomes."

[xylophone]

On 5/23/2020 at 9:05 AM, johnnybangkok said:

Surprise, surprise Trump, the eminent virologist and world class scientist has got it wrong.

Who would have guessed?

 

Trump fits the bill here.....a cockwomble:

 

Cockwomble (noun) – A person, usually male, prone to making outrageously stupid statements and/or inappropriate behavior while generally having a very high opinion of his own wisdom and importance.

Edited June 6, 2020 by xylophone

[from the home of CC]

1 hour ago, connda said:

And that "major clinical trail" was retracted from the journal that published it due to "After publication of our Lancet Article,

several concerns were raised with respect to the veracity of the data and analyses conducted by Surgisphere Corporation and its founder and our co-author, Sapan Desai, in our publication. We launched an independent third-party peer review of Surgisphere with the consent of Sapan Desai to evaluate the origination of the database elements, to confirm the completeness of the database, and to replicate the analyses presented in the paper."

The bottom line is that the researchers would not provide their data for an independent peer review by the publisher, and as such the publication was retracted, officially, by the publisher. 

I prefer the hard science over the opinion pieces and main-stream news sound-bites that people pull out of their butts for partisan politics. 

I dislike Trump as much as I dislike partisan politics, but I dislike fraudulent science even more.

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

I'm surprised due diligence wasn't performed prior to publication (peer review was done but apparently data was not checked) with the worldwide implications involved. What was once a credible source in the past needs to questioned consistently now - a new world indeed..

[rabas]

3 hours ago, Sujo said:

And trump based his statement that its ok and cant hurt on what?

The Chinese were doing it.

[connda]

2 hours ago, Phil McCaverty said:

Do your due diligence. Different trial altogether.

 

 

Of course it was.

 

[candide]

28 minutes ago, rabas said:

The Chinese were doing it.

From Feb. 29, it has been forbidden in China for patients over 65.

 

[Phil McCaverty]

5 minutes ago, candide said:

From Feb. 29, it has been forbidden in China for patients over 65.

 

France has already banned it, in the UK it was only ever approved for clinical trials. Trump and Bolsonaro are its only real proponents.

[Bluespunk]

It doesn’t work against coved-19

 

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/jun/05/hydroxychloroquine-does-not-cure-covid-19-say-drug-trial-chiefs?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other

[rabas]

4 hours ago, candide said:

After reading the OP, it is safer to wait that the scientific community checks the validity of this study.

However, at first glance, it seems to have been quite seriously conducted:

"A total of 1,542 received hydroxychloroquine, and 3,132 received usual care. After 28 days of treatment, 25.7% of those on hydroxychloroquine and 23.5% of those received usual care had died, meaning those on hydroxychloroquine were 11% more likely to die. That difference was not statistically significant.

There was “no beneficial effect” on how long patients stayed in the hospital, or on other outcomes."

No zinc.

[rabas]

3 hours ago, candide said:

From Feb. 29, it has been forbidden in China for patients over 65.

They (the Chinese) did not forbid it. That only appears in the usual anti-Trump MSM sources.

 

It was simply one of several recommendations in their 7th bulletin update. Another recommended high doses of chloroquine, 1 gram per day. They also recommend that patients should take less than three anti viral drugs. Nothing anti-Trump.

 

 

Edited June 6, 2020 by rabas

[candide]

29 minutes ago, rabas said:

They (the Chinese) did not forbid it. That only appears in the usual anti-Trump MSM sources.

 

It was simply one of several recommendations in their 7th bulletin update. Another recommended high doses of chloroquine, 1 gram per day. They also recommend that patients should take less than three anti viral drugs. Nothing anti-Trump.

 

 

Ok not forbidden, only not recommended.

Anyway, it's interesting  to learn that by mid-March, according to you, Trump was still trusting the Chinese! ????

[rabas]

3 hours ago, candide said:

From Feb. 29, it has been forbidden in China for patients over 65.

Here is more about China's work at that time from a joint Chinese/Marseille University Public Health Department paper. Chinese Guidelines related to NovelCoronavirus Pneumonia.

 

Conclusions: China has generated a plethora of guidelines covering almost all aspects of COVID-19. Chloroquine, as one widely affordable treatment, holds great potential to become the gold standard choice as more clinical evidence is shared by researchers from China as well as other countries.