health

Steroids confirmed to help severely ill coronavirus patients

16 Comments
By MARILYNN MARCHIONE

The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.

© Copyright 2020 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed without permission.

©2020 GPlusMedia Inc.


16 Comments
Login to comment

Steroid drugs are inexpensive, widely available and have been used for decades.

It would be good if these kind of news, about cheap drugs being studied and proved effective could convince people that the supposed world conspiracy to hide this kind of information is just nonsense.

Unfortunately some of the people believing those kind of myths take pride on being irrational and will insist that effective drugs are being suppressed by scientists and doctors, even if such a clear example as steroids exist.

4 ( +6 / -2 )

Unfortunately some of the people believing those kind of myths take pride on being irrational and will insist that effective drugs are being suppressed by scientists and doctors, even if such a clear example as steroids exist.

Scientists, doctors, and others who had positive things to say about hydroxychloroquine have been censored, despite the positive data. And still no mention by leading health authorities and the MSM of the benefits of vitamin D. Why the MSM covers certain medicines and not others is not clear, but it is clearly not due to scientific data alone.

-3 ( +3 / -6 )

The benefits of. vitamin D and hydroxyvhloroquine have not been proven

4 ( +6 / -2 )

There is increasing evidence that hydroxychloroquine and vitamin D, probably comparable to or greater than the other solutions.

We never hear anything positive about hydroxychloroquine, probably because Trump recommended it.

And we never hear about vitamin D because its dirt cheap, or even free if you get it from the sun.

-4 ( +2 / -6 )

There is increasing evidence that hydroxychloroquine and vitamin D, probably comparable to or greater than the other solutions.

There isn't.

We never hear anything positive about hydroxychloroquine, probably because Trump recommended it.

It's because there's nothing positive to say. Even the White House accepts this.

And we never hear about vitamin D because its dirt cheap, or even free if you get it from the sun.

Vitamin D is good, but in general, probably not specifically for Covid-19. No-one has recovered from Covid-19 without drinking water, but no-one would claim water is a cure for Covid-19. Or maybe you would, I don't know.

4 ( +7 / -3 )

The Rock (Dwayne Johnson) must be excited to hear this news.

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

Treatment guidelines in the U.S. now recommend dexamethasone or others only when it’s not available for hospitalized COVID-19 patients needing extra oxygen, but that could change with the new information.

Recommend when it's not available?

1 ( +1 / -0 )

Yes, uncountable similar stories out there. You don’t even need any vaccine , because according to Pritzker (Chicago) some antioxidants will do. And so on and on....

3 ( +3 / -0 )

Scientists, doctors, and others who had positive things to say about hydroxychloroquine have been censored, despite the positive data. And still no mention by leading health authorities and the MSM of the benefits of vitamin D. Why the MSM covers certain medicines and not others is not clear, but it is clearly not due to scientific data alone

Nobody has been censored, terribly bad trials, some of which are now under investigation for scientific malpractice, appeared to give some positive data, much better done ones with higher statistical power demonstrated without any room left for doubts that hydroxychloroquine is useless for the treatment of Covid-19 and may even be toxic. No conspiracy, no censoring, just people doing badly their jobs that got corrected by other people doing a much better one.

Vitamind D is included in the dietary deficiencies already mentioned as part of the preexisting conditions that can exacerbate the complications, people without deficiency receive no benefit from any extra vitamin D

And again, how come the positive results for steroids were not "censored"? they are dirt cheap but still have shown extremely good results, much better than any study for hydroxychloroquine (yes, even the bad ones). The only explanation left is that there is no censoring, just people unable to understand science.

2 ( +3 / -1 )

Raw BeerSep. 8  03:12 pm JST

Scientists, doctors, and others who had positive things to say about hydroxychloroquine have been censored, despite the positive data. And still no mention by leading health authorities and the MSM of the benefits of vitamin D. Why the MSM covers certain medicines and not others is not clear, but it is clearly not due to scientific data alone.

exactly . pharmaceutic companies want to sell their vaccines or whatever to the world and make money. the hydroxychloroquine  has been used with great success including on presidents! GOV members are protecting laboratories interest. it smells BIG bribes and scam. some doctors who are highly regarded have been lynched on TV to discredit successful treatment that is hydroxychloroquine. GOVs want this pandemic growing to reach their greedy goals and hide responsibility for the economy collapse.

-3 ( +1 / -4 )

exactly . pharmaceutic companies want to sell their vaccines or whatever to the world and make money. 

How come then this extremely cheap kind of medicines have demonstrated to be efficient? answer there is no censoring.

the hydroxychloroquine has been used with great success including on presidents! GOV members are protecting laboratories interest. it smells BIG bribes and scam. some doctors who are highly regarded have been lynched on TV to discredit successful treatment that is hydroxychloroquine.

That is false, there have been no instance where it has been used and demonstrated any success, only badly made trials give that appearance, but precisely because the trials are so badly done is why those responsible have been validly qualified as terribly bad scientists, Steroids have not been discredited, and they are even cheaper than hydroxychloroquine, but that is because they actually demonstrated to be effective.

GOVs want this pandemic growing to reach their greedy goals and hide responsibility for the economy collapse.

So they hide results from a mediocre drug that helps nobody, but promote another very cheap drug that is much more effective? that makes no sense.

2 ( +3 / -1 )

Nobody has been censored, terribly bad trials, some of which are now under investigation for scientific malpractice, appeared to give some positive data, much better done ones with higher statistical power demonstrated without any room left for doubts that hydroxychloroquine is useless for the treatment of Covid-19 and may even be toxic.

I did hear of a study being investigated for malpractice, but it's the study that showed that hydroxychloroquine is useless for Covid-19 and potentially toxic. They used hydroxychloroquine concentrations that were up to 20X the recommended upper limit. The same study that was constantly used by the MSM to criticize Trump.

So you find one article about a cheap treatment for Covid-19 and conclude that there's not censoring. Where have you been? For months doctors and scientists have been censored.

-4 ( +0 / -4 )

I did hear of a study being investigated for malpractice, but it's the study that showed that hydroxychloroquine is useless for Covid-19 and potentially toxic. 

Then you heard wrong, the first "proof" came from the invalid data from a company, but none of the different studies based on that data has ever been accused of anything regarding their methods, much less malpractice.

The study that is being investigated is the french one in March that showed some kind of effect of hydroxy chloroquine, that has already been retracted for multiple scientific problems and now the people responsible are being investigated because none of the problems are justified.

https://retractionwatch.com/2020/07/19/french-hydroxychloroquine-study-has-major-methodological-shortcomings-and-is-fully-irresponsible-says-review-but-is-not-being-retracted/

They used hydroxychloroquine concentrations that were up to 20X the recommended upper limit. The same study that was constantly used by the MSM to criticize Trump.

A reference would be good then, because you are describing more the study that supposedly supported hydroxychloroquine. And many different studies from laboratories around the world have been used for the irresponsible and anti-scientific recommendation of Trump, they have proved the recommendation, in absence of evidence, was wrong and mistaken since the evidence proved the contrary. Thinking that hundreds of scientist would do that (and deprive their own friends, family and themselves) from an effective treatment just because they don't like one person is irrational.

So you find one article about a cheap treatment for Covid-19 and conclude that there's not censoring. Where have you been? For months doctors and scientists have been censored.

One article? steroids have been on the news for months, and so they prove that a dirt cheap drug can be proven successful without any kind of problem. Just google "covid" and "steroids" and you will get literally millions of articles about it. What kind of censoring would it be if every doctor in the world could easily get the information without problems?

Your misunderstanding is thinking that proving that bad scientists were doing bad science (with perfectly objective and valid arguments) is censoring, it is not, It is just doing something perfectly normal and positive in science, which is discarding bad data that can be proved as such.

2 ( +3 / -1 )

The research that used massive doses of HCQ and found no positive effects were by the Oxford Center for Evidence Based Medicine:

https://www.recoverytrial.net/results/hydroxychloroquine-results

and a WHO-led study:

https://www.who.int/news-room/detail/04-07-2020-who-discontinues-hydroxychloroquine-and-lopinavir-ritonavir-treatment-arms-for-covid-19

 

The studies that used lower doses and found positive effects were from Belgium, France, and US:

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0924857920303423

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1477893920302817?via%3Dihub

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11606-020-05983-z

And there are additional studies showing the benefit of combining HCQ and zinc.

We often heard or read in the MSM about the negative HCQ studies, but they never mention the positive ones. Doctors who have successfully treated patients with HCQ get their videos deleted...

My impression is that HCQ directly fights the infection while steroids prevent the body's immune system from freaking out. It's not that steroids are better or worst than HCQ, they each have their own target and purpose, it depends on the situation. But for some reason, were are not allowed to hear about the benefits of HCQ. Perhaps, we'll start hearing about it after the election....

Your misunderstanding is thinking that proving that bad scientists were doing bad science (with perfectly objective and valid arguments) is censoring, it is not, It is just doing something perfectly normal and positive in science, which is discarding bad data that can be proved as such.

Right... any research that produces a result you don't like is simply bad scientists doing bad science, and anyone that does not agree with your view is "misunderstanding", "anti-science"...

-3 ( +1 / -4 )

Democrat Minnesota governor issued a state-ban on HCQ for COVID patients in March when Trump started promoting the cheap drug. Other Dem states followed the ban.

In mid-August the MN Governor quietly... and as silently like a thief in the night..... lifted the ban on HCQ as other states followed quietly as well ...like a news blackout.

Makes me wonder why.....hhmmmm.

-3 ( +1 / -4 )

The research that used massive doses of HCQ and found no positive effects were by the Oxford Center for Evidence Based Medicine:

Cannot find any kind of evidence of malpractice investigation, and the preprint clearly says "Consistent results were seen in all pre-specified subgroups of patients" and in the manuscript is clearly written "The dose regimen was designed to result in rapid attainment and maintenance of plasma concentrations that were as high as safely possible. These concentrations were predicted to be at the upper end of those observed during steady state treatment of rheumatoid arthritis with hydroxychloroquine."

There is nothing "massive" about a perfectly safe dose used for other disease (where HCQ is actually useful) there was not even an increase of the known complications for HCQ.

and a WHO-led study:

No accusation about anything improper about this study either, and what is the supposed massive dose that you have a problem with? since the details of the study have not been published on what do you base your comment that the "massive" doses are why it does not work? how are the results for lower dosages? I mean, if you criticize the study it means you know how it was done, else that would just be imagining things.

The studies that used lower doses and found positive effects were from Belgium, France, and US:

See? you can easily find all kind of results very easily, because they are NOT censored as you mistakenly thought. If you think any minimally prepared physician could have any trouble reading any of those reports you would be completely mistaken.

The dose on the Belgian study are about half in total from the first study that you classify as "massive" and from the second day the difference is only between 600 and 800mg/day. That is completely different from what you said was the reason for the difference. In reality it is more likely to be because of the reasons the authors from this report actually write in the discussion (observational study from non-randomized patients, based on information collected for another purpose, patients with preexisting conditions that are more likely to die were selectively included in the non-HCQ wing, etc. etc.)

The french study has other kind of problems, it compares over 3500 patients that recieve different dosages of HCQ (again, at 600mg/day instead of the "massive" 800mg/day) and/or AZ against a grand total of only 167 patients that did not received any of the two drugs. The authors recognize that patients more likely to complicate and die (with hearth problems for example) were only included on the groups without HCQ, something that increases a lot the probability that the differences are not only because of the treatment. That is why the authors focus so much on the safety of the treatment instead of the efficacy, the groups of patients were not random, patients without HCQ were more likely to die at the point of being admitted for treatment etc. And that is without mentioning the problems resulting from repeated undue manipulation of the results from several of the studies of the last author (Didier Raoult), it does not mean that this study must also be manipulated, but it does mean it should be treated with extra care because it would not be the first time.

The New York study is better, but precisely because it can recognize the problems, as they write "Due to the inherent limitations of our retrospective study design, there was no conclusive determination on the efficacy of hydroxychloroquine in patients with COVID-19. More robust studies such as randomized clinical trials are needed."

We often heard or read in the MSM about the negative HCQ studies, but they never mention the positive ones. Doctors who have successfully treated patients with HCQ get their videos deleted...

That may be because you apparently have a lot of trouble with scientific literature and depend completely on non scientific media. Videos are deleted when people insist on repeating proven lies that are dangerous for the public health, not for successfully treating patients, true scientific reports, the primary sources of knowledge are much better screened against this problem and that is why repeating liars cannot publish their papers and depend exclusively on trying to fool other people on videos.

Right... any research that produces a result you don't like is simply bad scientists doing bad science, and anyone that does not agree with your view is "misunderstanding", "anti-science"...

No, that would be the scientific illiterate position, for everybody else people who have published deficient, false or misleading reports, including retracted articles with recycled images, imaginary data and falsified ethical approvals are the ones that can be validly qualified ad bad scientist. It does not matter what are the results they want to push around. The people of Surgisphere are terribly bad scientists, even if the reports based on their supposed data conclude HCQ is useless, the problem is not what they say, but the bad quality of the methods used to say it.

2 ( +3 / -1 )

Login to leave a comment

Facebook users

Use your Facebook account to login or register with JapanToday. By doing so, you will also receive an email inviting you to receive our news alerts.

Facebook Connect

Login with your JapanToday account

User registration

Articles, Offers & Useful Resources

A mix of what's trending on our other sites