eric76 said:Science is doing what science does. In this case, scientists are stepping up to oppose fraudulent manufacturered data sets.rayneag said:
At this point, why should we believe any study?
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/jun/03/covid-19-surgisphere-who-world-health-organization-hydroxychloroquine
Part of the purpose of publishing research is so that others can verify or refute that research.
Quote:
Professor Peter Horby and Professor Martin Landray, chief investigators of the RECOVERY Trial, said 'In March this year, RECOVERY was established as a randomised clinical trial to test a range of potential drugs for COVID-19, including hydroxycholoroquine.
'The trial has proceeded at unprecedented speed, enrolling over 11,000 patients from 175 NHS hospitals in the UK. Throughout this time, the independent Data Monitoring Committee has reviewed the emerging data about every two weeks to determine if there is evidence that would be strong enough to affect national and global treatment of COVID-19.
'On Thursday 4 June, in response to a request from the UK Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency (MHRA), the independent Data Monitoring Committee conducted a further review of the data. Last night, the Committee recommended the chief investigators review the unblinded data on the hydroxychloroquine arm of the trial.
'We have concluded that there is no beneficial effect of hydroxychloroquine in patients hospitalised with COVID-19. We have therefore decided to stop enrolling participants to the hydroxychloroquine arm of the RECOVERY trial with immediate effect. We are now releasing the preliminary results as they have important implications for patient care and public health.
Quote:
We have concluded that there is no beneficial effect of hydroxychloroquine in patients hospitalised with COVID-19
DTP02 said:
As I mentioned on the other thread, I don't think many were still holding out hope for HCQ as an effective treatment for those who already have severe symptoms, like all of those in the Oxford study.
The jury is still out on HCQ as a prophylactic or early stage treatment.
Dr. Not Yet Dr. Ag said:DTP02 said:
As I mentioned on the other thread, I don't think many were still holding out hope for HCQ as an effective treatment for those who already have severe symptoms, like all of those in the Oxford study.
The jury is still out on HCQ as a prophylactic or early stage treatment.
The jury is in regarding prophylaxis. It doesn't work.
Yes, remdesivir given to hypoxic patients at admit x 5 days, tociluzimab x 1 or 2 to cytokine storm, and convalescent plasma as patients worsen. This cocktail is working. Seeing far fewer deaths.Duncan Idaho said:
So does this mean we are down to plasma and the one or two antivirals that have shown some improvement in case outcomes?
Picadillo said:
Thanks for posting amercer. Removal of the emergency authorization means HCQ can now be used more widely, and not just restricted to inpatient only. It can now be used for outpatient, at home, etc. And also be transacted across state lines.
The previous restrictions applied to the national stockpile of HCQ, most of which came from Pakistan. It had been restricted to inpatient use only so it wouldn't get used up.
More devious was the restriction itself, written by the whilstleblower (Rick Bright?) knowing that covid patients once hospitalized, was too late for HCQ, designed to cast further doubts on the drug.
Bottom line, you can now get a HCQ Rx as an outpatient. Suggest going to an independent physician who is allowed to practice and is not restricted by corporate medicine policies.
HCQ, with zinc sulfate and the Z-Pack, remains the most effective treatment if given EARLY in the process.
Proposition Joe said:Picadillo said:
Thanks for posting amercer. Removal of the emergency authorization means HCQ can now be used more widely, and not just restricted to inpatient only. It can now be used for outpatient, at home, etc. And also be transacted across state lines.
The previous restrictions applied to the national stockpile of HCQ, most of which came from Pakistan. It had been restricted to inpatient use only so it wouldn't get used up.
More devious was the restriction itself, written by the whilstleblower (Rick Bright?) knowing that covid patients once hospitalized, was too late for HCQ, designed to cast further doubts on the drug.
Bottom line, you can now get a HCQ Rx as an outpatient. Suggest going to an independent physician who is allowed to practice and is not restricted by corporate medicine policies.
HCQ, with zinc sulfate and the Z-Pack, remains the most effective treatment if given EARLY in the process.
Source?
be careful, look who is issuing that report.BBQ4Me said:
Yaaay....
https://www.cnn.com/2020/06/17/health/hydroxychloroquine-national-stockpile/index.html
Don't trust the spokesperson for the US Department of Health and Human Services?fullback44 said:be careful, look who is issuing that report.BBQ4Me said:
Yaaay....
https://www.cnn.com/2020/06/17/health/hydroxychloroquine-national-stockpile/index.html
Funny you say that. My wife has lupus and has been on HCQ for about 17 years. She had a really hard time finding it for a couple of months when there was all the hype in the news. Now our local pharmacist holds some back for her and other lupus and RA clients.amercer said:
Well we should be in great shape if a lupus pandemic ever strikes!
amercer said:
That is a low tier journal and I haven't seen this picked up by any news source. If true it would be great news, but I'm going to give it the 48hr rule.
amercer said:
That is a low tier journal and I haven't seen this picked up by any news source. If true it would be great news, but I'm going to give it the 48hr rule.
Both are QT prolonging drugs, and have a high likelihood of inducing a fatal heart rhythm in some people alone, and certainy when combined. But apparently cardiac arrhythmias weren't a big factor here. So perhaps the hypothesized in vitro mechanism didn't match with the actual in vivo physiology.JJMt said:
Why would HCQ + Z pack have a higher mortality rate than HCQ alone?
