Democrats Warn Hydroxychloroquine May Save Your Life And Then You'd Have To Keep Living In A Reality Where Trump Is Still President

submitted by scrubking from (babylonbee.com)

all 6 comments
sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun

[–]zyxzevn 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (3 children)

Sorry for spamming, but here are some sources to backup that HCQ works well

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

And here are some randomized controlled studies (RCTs) that conclude it doesn't:

  1. Hydroxychloroquine with or without Azithromycin in Mild-to-Moderate Covid-19

https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa2019014

Among patients hospitalized with mild-to-moderate Covid-19, the use of hydroxychloroquine, alone or with azithromycin**, did not improve** clinical status at 15 days as compared with standard care.

  1. A Randomized Trial of Hydroxychloroquine as Postexposure Prophylaxis for Covid-19

https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa2016638

After high-risk or moderate-risk exposure to Covid-19, hydroxychloroquine did not prevent illness compatible with Covid-19 or confirmed infection when used as postexposure prophylaxis within 4 days after exposure.

  1. Hydroxychloroquine in patients with mainly mild to moderate coronavirus disease 2019: open label, randomised controlled trial

https://www.bmj.com/content/369/bmj.m1849

Administration of hydroxychloroquine did not result in a significantly higher probability of negative conversion than standard of care alone in patients admitted to hospital with mainly persistent mild to moderate covid-19. Adverse events were higher in hydroxychloroquine recipients than in non-recipients.

  1. A Cluster-Randomized Trial of Hydroxychloroquine as Prevention of Covid-19 Transmission and Disease

https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.07.20.20157651v1

There was no significant difference in the primary outcome of PCR-confirmed, symptomatic Covid-19 disease (6.2% usual care vs. 5.7% HCQ; risk ratio 0.89 [95% confidence interval 0.54-1.46]), nor evidence of beneficial effects on prevention of SARS-CoV-2 transmission (17.8% usual care vs. 18.7% HCQ).

  1. Hydroxychloroquine for Early Treatment of Adults with Mild Covid-19: A Randomized-Controlled Trial

https://academic.oup.com/cid/article/doi/10.1093/cid/ciaa1009/5872589#.XxCYlMdGoJM

No significant differences were found in the mean reduction of viral load at day 3 (-1.41 vs. -1.41 Log10 copies/mL in the control and intervention arm, respectively; difference 0.01 [95% CI -0.28;0.29]) or at day 7 (-3.37 vs. -3.44; d –0.07 [-0.44;0.29]). This treatment regimen did not reduce risk of hospitalization (7.1%, control vs. 5.9%, intervention; RR 0.75 [0.32;1.77]) nor shortened the time to complete resolution of symptoms (12 days, control vs. 10 days, intervention; p = 0.38). No relevant treatment-related AEs were reported.

  1. Hydroxychloroquine in Nonhospitalized Adults With Early COVID-19: A Randomized Trial

https://www.acpjournals.org/doi/10.7326/M20-4207

Of 491 patients randomly assigned to a group, 423 contributed primary end point data. Of these, 341 (81%) had laboratory-confirmed infection with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) or epidemiologically linked exposure to a person with laboratory-confirmed infection; 56% (236 of 423) were enrolled within 1 day of symptoms starting. Change in symptom severity over 14 days did not differ between the hydroxychloroquine and placebo groups (difference in symptom severity: relative, 12%; absolute, −0.27 points [95% CI, −0.61 to 0.07 points]; P = 0.117). At 14 days, 24% (49 of 201) of participants receiving hydroxychloroquine had ongoing symptoms compared with 30% (59 of 194) receiving placebo (P = 0.21). Medication adverse effects occurred in 43% (92 of 212) of participants receiving hydroxychloroquine versus 22% (46 of 211) receiving placebo (P < 0.001). With placebo, 10 hospitalizations occurred (2 non–COVID-19–related), including 1 hospitalized death. With hydroxychloroquine, 4 hospitalizations occurred plus 1 nonhospitalized death (P = 0.29).

  1. Effect of Hydroxychloroquine in Hospitalized Patients with COVID-19: Preliminary results from a multi-centre, randomized, controlled trial.

https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.07.15.20151852v1

Conclusions: In patients hospitalized with COVID-19, hydroxychloroquine was not associated with reductions in 28-day mortality but was associated with an increased length of hospital stay and increased risk of progressing to invasive mechanical ventilation or death.

RCTs almost perfectly control for variation between the tested groups. The only difference between the 2 groups in a good RCT is the treatment. Unlike observational studies that have unmeasured/unobserved confounding factors between the groups. It's why RCTs are the gold standard in research.

[–]zyxzevn 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Thanks for information. It will take some while to dig through them.

But have you seen the fake science reports earlier?
Fake data or bad timing or bad samples, etc.
That is what I had collected a month earlier. If any of these reports are more than 1 to 2 months old, I am certain it was already mentioned in one of the videos of the Peak Prosperity Channel. And can be added to the fakes.

In practice there are very very good reports by doctors in the field. With very large groups of patients. And new good reports keep coming. This is great, because this is often MORE accurate than the what the scientists can produce. As the scientists often do not have the same contact with the patients, nor do they see how the disease develops. They have to dumb all the data down to a few numbers that may tell how they work. That is before any bias come in. Science only works when scientists are working together with the doctors in the field, otherwise it is just theoretical garbage science.

But there is a real push against HCQ that keeps going on. Based on all the reports that were already known to me. This made me very sceptical of the scientists claiming that it does not work. Especially with the 98% success rate reported by doctors.

To bring good science back into the successful work by the doctors, the scientists have to explain WHY their results are so good. After all the reported successes, claiming that HCQ does not do anything is not enough! Did they use the exact same treatment? Maybe they need to use Zinc? Did they use HCQ too late? Did they have patients on ventilators? How was tested for Covid-19 and how accurate was the diagnose? What was the null-group and how well did it get treated? What is the exact difference? How did they compare with each other?

Because there is no Zinc mentioned, it seems that they were setup to fail. And because billions are involved, and some scientists are just working for their companies, it is easy to understand why such tests were setup to fail.

So I start with the claim that ALL the above reports are FRAUDS. Many will using the common tactic of P-hacking as was used to promote Remdesevir. But in some occasions there will be just fake data as in the Lancet report and more and more.

Not denying the important of science, but it is actually very common and also normal that fake reports get published in Science and Nature, pushed by powerful companies. These companies pay the scientists and the journals to do that. It is not science but marketing for them.

But again, do not see this as a personal attack.
Thanks for posting the reports. And I want to see good science and not the corruption that I have seen until now.

I will see if I can find counter reports, but that will take a while..

Quick addition: I see that some studies have more deaths with HCQ than the control group.
This can only be achieved with malpractice or very bad science.
Either they have selected a group that was close to dying, which happened in one science study.
Or they have overdosed the patients with too much HCQ, which happened in more recent science study.
So clearly these science studies are FAKE science.

[–]chadwickofwv 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Nice fraud you found there.

[–]whistlepig 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (1 child)

Not sure if these things write themselves or if the writer really is that good. I mean.. that last sentence.. so holy effin' hilarious that it also makes me cry.

[–]FediNetizen 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Yeah I love the Bee. I'm left-leaning but still find most of their articles hilarious.