Jump to content

Hydroxychloroquine is useless


Oxx

Recommended Posts

Yes, it doesn't look promising. What may help till a vaccine is here is convalescent antibody therapy. Survivors plasma is separated and low dosed into folks for the antibodies it contains. It has shown success in the past with other viruses. imo a magic bullet is not going to appear till trials are finished on vaccines though I understand why people are reaching for these types of straws..

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In my latest post I referred to this Paris study as the "French follow-up". The study design was better than the Marseille study. 

 

Another recent randomised study (not French),  also scientifically sound, found some efficacy, statistically significant. (Improvement with drugs in about 25 cases versus about 17 in the placebo group - treatment was begun early, when the patients were still doing ok)

All these studies are small.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

One more data point. There are some issues with this study:

 

1. It was much smaller with just 9 patients completing the study.

2. 8 patients had  "significant co morbidities associated with poor outcomes".

3. They did not look for a decrease in viral load, the used PCR to detect its presence.

4. Their results only measured if it had disappeared or not after 5 days.

 

Yes it is a data point, but one of the weakest so far. Cholorquine will not treat comorbidities.

Edited by rabas
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, from the home of CC said:

Yes, it doesn't look promising. What may help till a vaccine is here is convalescent antibody therapy. Survivors plasma is separated and low dosed into folks for the antibodies it contains. It has shown success in the past with other viruses. imo a magic bullet is not going to appear till trials are finished on vaccines though I understand why people are reaching for these types of straws..

Plasma hasn't proven all that effective, these people are using computer simulations to modify antibodies from SARS-CoV epidemic in 2003, might be more effective and is in test phase: 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, DrTuner said:

Plasma hasn't proven all that effective, these people are using computer simulations to modify antibodies from SARS-CoV epidemic in 2003, might be more effective and is in test phase: 

 

It is not a cure all but possibly will give time to patients to allow them to live long enough to produce their own antibodies.  

https://www.latimes.com/science/story/2020-04-02/blood-centers-begin-collecting-coronavirus-antibodies-from-covid-19-survivors

 

The kicker is that this can be tried now. The world can't afford to wait out researchers without at least trying something that has worked before..

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

45 minutes ago, Oxx said:

Despite some individuals (most notably the President of the United States of America) having suggested that hydroxychloroquine is effective against the virus, despite only anecdotal evidence for this, it has now been demonstrated that it is ineffectual.  

 

"No Evidence of Rapid Antiviral Clearance or Clinical Benefit with the Combination of Hydroxychloroquine and Azithromycin in Patients with Severe COVID-19 Infection" - Molina et al. (2020)

 

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.medmal.2020.03.006

i think (not being a doctor) the thread title is incorrect, and your understanding of the study title may be as well.

 

there have been studies showing a correlation between use of hyd+azi being effective in treatment, so there is some evidence.  this was one study among many attempting to confirm it.

 

this study used a very small sample so the value of any findings would be limited.  the extract even stated further investigation would be required for a definitive answer.

 

as the study title stated, THIS trial found no evidence, not that there was no evidence showing the combination of drugs to be promising.  as they stated, other studies have suggested efficacy.

 

this study did not demonstrate the drug to be ineffectual; it was unable to demonstrate the drug to be effectual.  that's my understanding.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Seems to me folks don't want there to be a "natural" aid to help fight & recover, Vit C, Zinc, Lysine and any thing else that is natural is deemed useless as is the body's immune system! Stopping people taking the sun especially in the West is ludicrous!

People will only be happy when "Big Pharma" save the day, strange times..........................

What on earth has happened to the world that we now have to rely on "others" to save us! Are we no longer able to live in a "natural" world? ????

End times? 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

His trial was flawed. Tamiflu didnt do much after 48 hrs. It had to be used early. Same with these other drugs. Early treatment will show best results.

 

Plus these drugs can provide a pathway for Zinc to enter cells and fight it.

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, from the home of CC said:

It is not a cure all but possibly will give time to patients to allow them to live long enough to produce their own antibodies.  

https://www.latimes.com/science/story/2020-04-02/blood-centers-begin-collecting-coronavirus-antibodies-from-covid-19-survivors

 

The kicker is that this can be tried now. The world can't afford to wait out researchers without at least trying something that has worked before..

More studies I bumped into about using plasma: https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2763983

 

Quote

These preliminary findings raise the possibility that convalescent plasma transfusion may be helpful in the treatment of critically ill patients with COVID-19 and ARDS, but this approach requires evaluation in randomized clinical trials.

 

Edited by DrTuner
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

31 minutes ago, Sheryl said:

 

the thread title is the title of the paper.

 

The study's actual conclusion was:

 

"In summary, despite a reported antiviral activity of chloroquine against COVID-19 in vitro, we
found no evidence of a strong antiviral activity or clinical benefit
of the combination of
hydroxychloroquine and azithromycin for the treatment of our hospitalized patients with
severe COVID-19. Ongoing randomized clinical trials with hydroxychloroquine should provide
a definitive answer
regarding the alleged efficacy of this combination and will assess its safety."

 

(bold is mine).

 

All the studies to date have been very small and lacked a control group. The evidence so far is at best very mixed but proper studies are underway which will give a clear answer.

 

It is certainly premature at best (and dangerously inaccurate at worst) to advertise or promote this as a treatment now.

The title of the paper is "No Evidence of Rapid Antiviral Clearance or Clinical Benefit with the Combination of Hydroxychloroquine and Azithromycin in Patients with Severe COVID-19 Infection"

 

The thread title is "Hydroxychloroquine is useless"

 

The last sentence is "Ongoing randomized clinical trials with hydroxychloroquine should provide a definitive answer regarding the alleged efficacy of this combination and will assess its safety. " which indicates more trials need to be done.   We cannot say at this time "Hydroxychloroquine is useless"

Edited by Kelsall
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, Sheryl said:

 

the thread title is the title of the paper.

 

The study's actual conclusion was:

 

"In summary, despite a reported antiviral activity of chloroquine against COVID-19 in vitro, we
found no evidence of a strong antiviral activity or clinical benefit
of the combination of
hydroxychloroquine and azithromycin for the treatment of our hospitalized patients with
severe COVID-19. Ongoing randomized clinical trials with hydroxychloroquine should provide
a definitive answer
regarding the alleged efficacy of this combination and will assess its safety."

 

(bold is mine).

 

All the studies to date have been very small and lacked a control group. The evidence so far is at best very mixed but proper studies are underway which will give a clear answer.

 

It is certainly premature at best (and dangerously inaccurate at worst) to advertise or promote this as a treatment now.

Sincere question for you...

 

Given the dearth of alternate therapies, and given the decades of low risk profile of both drugs... if you were in a higher risk group (older, underlying conditions, etc) AND you were positive for the coronavirus, would you not take it?

 

From my reading, if you are in the group that decline quickly, waiting is (literally) a deadly choice. Alternatively, taking these 2 drugs is decidedly NOT a deadly choice. Several treating doctors have noted the the efficacy of the drug combo is much greater with early treatment. Anecdotal, sure. But time isn't on your side to wait for trials if you're in the situation I've laid out.

 

I genuinely cannot see where, confronted with such a reality, the phrase "what have you got to lose" is incorrect or reckless.

 

If the 2 drugs were very dangerous... ok, there is at least an argument. But we're talking about drugs with decades of use by billions of people. When there is no known cure and you're in a high risk group, it seems the decision to withhold (or even advise against their use) is irresponsible.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Topic should read "... useless in severe infections" - it remains to be seen if it is useful earlier on in the infection cycle, and in combination with other drugs.

 

And who's racing to find a vaccine?  - if it's big-pharma, they'll only be interested in the trillions of dollats they'll make from a vaccine - and will happily put out "reports" that existing drugs are "useless" ( as per the OP).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, idiot farang said:

Sincere question for you...

 

Given the dearth of alternate therapies, and given the decades of low risk profile of both drugs... if you were in a higher risk group (older, underlying conditions, etc) AND you were positive for the coronavirus, would you not take it?

 

From my reading, if you are in the group that decline quickly, waiting is (literally) a deadly choice. Alternatively, taking these 2 drugs is decidedly NOT a deadly choice. Several treating doctors have noted the the efficacy of the drug combo is much greater with early treatment. Anecdotal, sure. But time isn't on your side to wait for trials if you're in the situation I've laid out.

 

I genuinely cannot see where, confronted with such a reality, the phrase "what have you got to lose" is incorrect or reckless.

 

If the 2 drugs were very dangerous... ok, there is at least an argument. But we're talking about drugs with decades of use by billions of people. When there is no known cure and you're in a high risk group, it seems the decision to withhold (or even advise against their use) is irresponsible.

I understand your position but these are not the only 2 drugs out there being looked at. There is a current drug available that in the laboratory has killed this virus within 48 hours and it is being prepaid for the clinical test now. The drug, Ivermectin is being tested by Monash University in Australia and so far their tests have shown that the coronavirus dies within 48 hours in the laboratory test.

https://www.monash.edu/discovery-institute/news-and-events/news/2020-articles/Lab-experiments-show-anti-parasitic-drug,-Ivermectin,-eliminates-SARS-CoV-2-in-cells-in-48-hours

So now there are becoming more and more possibilities that this virus might be defeated.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, uhuh said:

In my latest post I referred to this Paris study as the "French follow-up". The study design was better than the Marseille study. 

 

Another recent randomised study (not French),  also scientifically sound, found some efficacy, statistically significant. (Improvement with drugs in about 25 cases versus about 17 in the placebo group - treatment was begun early, when the patients were still doing ok)

All these studies are small.

So, if you got infected, we're over 60, and ended up with serious pulmonary issues, would you take your doctor's advice and just roll the dice? I would not. I have both hydro and the suggested antibiotic at home. Enough for my wife and I. And it will be used if necessary. I prefer a few small studies with success, than nothing at all. Some prefer no hope. That is not the way I roll. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Toosetinmyways said:

The other problem is that the only place that has the stocks that Trump wants is India and Modi has already said no deal. 

 

The next time Modi asks for an increase in H1B quotas for his army of economic refugees, the answer will also be 'no deal'.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.





×
×
  • Create New...