Take our user survey and make your voice heard.
The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.
© Thomson Reuters 2020.Trump-touted hydroxychloroquine shows no benefit in COVID-19 prevention -study
WASHINGTON©2024 GPlusMedia Inc.
20 Comments
Login to comment
Luddite
Yet people still promote it as if it will solve the world’s problems.
albaleo
You've brought this up before. Yet the article you link to regarding the trial in Australia explains why they are not using zinc. Do you see something wrong with this?
*'Human blood and tissues naturally contain zinc and there is currently no evidence to indicate that supplementation with additional zinc is required for people who are not zinc deficient, when using hydroxychloroquine as a preventative therapy for SARS-CoV-2. Pre-screening will ensure participants in the COVID SHIELD trial meet certain health criteria, which means they will be less likely to be zinc deficient and therefore will not need to take additional zinc supplements in conjunction with the hydroxychloroquine used in this trial.'*
virusrex
Demonstrably false, because blood concentrations in blood are perfectly consistent with what is obtained from patients under treatment of HCQ for things where it does have usefulness. Misleading information wants to make it seem as if it was something done for the first time and against the health of the patients, it is just misinformation trying to exploit the ignorance of the people.
False, it is called impregnation dose and its commonly use in medicine to increase the levels in serum quickly and kept at that level with much lower doses later. Neither HCQ nor ivermectin have shown any usefulness against the disease when random asignation of participants is done. The only apparent benefit results from putting all the patients of higher risk of complication on the untreated group, but that would give the same result even for placebo.
False, the money is in the treatment, including charging for treating with something that has no usefulness and only prolong the time that patients remain paying in the hospital, or even develop toxic manifestations that appear even at low doses.
Neither is for dexamethasone, but it is well recognized as safe and effective in the treatment, that is enough to prove the conspiracy theory is baseless.
Fortunately science is not a popularity contest, opinions not based on cold data can be very popular but still they will be wrong. Specially if you conduct a poll without any clear option, so even a marginally low "evidence" can make it so one drug (still useless but talked about everywhere) can appear as if it may have some use. Still surprising that even at this point only 37% were fooled into answering with the non-option.
This is the same doctor that has his paper under investigation for multiple scientific problems, from lack of proper ethical permissions to falsified data and improper analysis. In the world of infection research it is well known that the scientific name of anything where he is involved is tainted by his bad methods in order to "prove" anything he believes, even if wrong.
Which is why badly balanced studies appear to show some kind of positive effect, any patient that has cardiac problems is taken out of the treatment group, but the same is not done for the untreated, so all patients in high risk of dying are systematically selected to "untreated". Not controlling for this well known source of bias is part of what this author should have done.
Since Raoult is being investigated precisely for this motive (including previous problems not related to COVID) he is in no position to judge what is or not malpractice.
This is just another example of wishful thinking, the drug has been proved useless for COVID, but no amount of data can convince people that think they are exceptions and that their instincts are a better guide. They are not.
It is fortunate that politicians are not the ones that conduct scientific trials, they are not specially recognized for their honesty and congruency, and for many science is something useful only when it proves what they already believe as true, and discarded when it does not.
virusrex
It is a well known phenomenon that when something goes against a belief people will find any excuse to refute it, even plainly invalid ones. This time is the zinc, then it will be that not enough zinc was used, then too much, then not the special kind of zinc activated by the forces of nature or something like that.
If the study included zinc would that be enough to make you say HCQ is worthless? if not, then why worry about it?
Studies have purposes and methods suitable to fulfill those purposes. this study purpose was to "To evaluate the efficacy of hydroxychloroquine to prevent transmission of SARS-CoV-2 in hospital-based HCWs with exposure to patients with COVID-19 using a pre-exposure prophylaxis strategy." So criticism about how it does not address a completely different thing is not valid. For that you have to see reports on studies that deal with that.
It is almost as bad as the user that blames vaccines because they cannot prevent every single kind of danger for the patients, from violence to genetic disorders and tries to present this as evidence that vaccines don't work.
virusrex
I have never argued I am involved with virus research, I have never based any of my commentaries in my experience or expertise. If you think I have written something wrong you can address it like I do with the mistakes I find in your comments.
Or you can attribute imaginary jobs and occupations to me, my arguments will remain the same.
virusrex
That solves my previous question, will the next study need more zinc? less zinc? special zinc? is there any condition that could make you accept it is not useful?
Maybe if they mix it with dexamethasone, a cheap drug already demonstrated as useful, at least they would be able to say "dexa and HCQ are better than nothing" even if the HCQ does nothing in the mix.
Luddite
1glenn
I have read that in some studies, using this malaria drug to treat Covid-19 actually increased mortality.
With the thousands of idiotic things Trump has said, why should anyone be surprised at one more thing?
Serrano
Trump-touted hydroxychloroquine shows no benefit in COVID-19 prevention -study
Oh my...
https://www.palmerfoundation.com.au/dr-simone-gold-discusses-benefits-of-hydroxychloroquine-after-video-showing-efficacy-was-censored/
And let's not forget there is a Democratic congresswoman who swears that HCQ saved her life. Oh my...
https://www.newsbreak.com/news/1542151348947/another-hydroxychloroquine-success-story-democratic-michigan-lawmaker-who-gets-covid-19-praises-us-president-trump-says-hydroxychloroquine-saved-her-life
Desert Tortoise
He as showing symptons Thursday and Friday at public appearances, fatigue and hoarse voice.
Desert Tortoise
Now that the rooster actually has Covid-19 we shall see which meds he and his doctors choose to treat him with. This is where the rubber meet the road.
kyronstavic
LudditeToday 03:16 pm JST
Testing positive and and having COVID symptoms aren’t the same thing. We’ll see shortly whether he actually becomes ill or is one of the millions of asymptomatic carriers.
bo
His cure works just fine! and is much cheaper than the alternatives. And we all know who's making them for a tidy little profit
kyronstavic
The media is really insistent on trying to discredit this drug, and this headline is a typical example of poisoning the well - adding Trumps name to it to stimulate an initial negative response before the reader even gets to the story. Pretty standard propaganda.
I wonder if this study included using zinc withe HCQ, as HCQ acts to carry zinc inside the cells to destroy the viruses and stop them replicating. HCQ by itself does very little if anything, hence the unimpressive results.
And taking HCQ doesn't necessarily guarantee a negative result for COVID-19; it may just prevent the symptoms from developing further or developing at all - which this "article" fails to mention.
As I mentioned yesterday, the Walter & Eliza Hill Institute of Medical Research at the University of Melbourne is about to start a new study with hydroxychloroquine on frontline health workers as a preventive measure - what appears to be the same kind of same group as tested above. It will be interesting to see their results.
https://www.wehi.edu.au/covid-shield-faqs
kyronstavic
It's one solution, not the only one.
But you could say the same for a vaccine.
Raw Beer
So what's the problem?
Anyway, it seems that if a study shows that HCQ has no or negative effects, the news will be plastered all over, of course making sure to associate it with Trump. But whenever there are positive results from HCQ: crickets...
kyronstavic
virusrex, for somebody supposedly involved with virus research, you seem to spend a lot of time on this website arguing your case and very little time researching in your field. With all the COVID-19 vaccine research going on, one would thing you'd be run off your feet in the race.
kyronstavic
I did see that, and I look forward to seeing the results of the study. If the results indicate that HCQ is ineffective as trialled under these conditions, will they then re-test with supplemented zinc, or just declare the drug useless? It will be interesting to find out.
neowave
Hydroxychloroquine is already approved for SAFE USE by the FDA and it's been in use for over 65 years at low doses for Malaria (400mg)
Self Gates funded study on Hydroxychloroquine were designed to kill those volunteers for the study FOR DATA to show HCQ is deadly and not effective:
https://oye.news/news/health/gates-funded-hydroxychloroquine-studies-are-designed-to-kill-people/
GATES HCQ STUDY: OVERDOSE YOUR VOLUNTEERS TO SHOW HCQ IS DEADLY
Personally don't support Trump OR Biden. People that HATE Trump want him to be wrong but he is right in this case. The studies were meant to discredit HCQ but IT IS EFFECTIVE as well as IVERMECTIN in helping patients recover at normal safe doses. Those studies were overdosing unsuspecting volunteers: 2400mg MEGA TOXIC dose in the 1st 24 hours.
THE MONEY IS IN THE VACCINES - GLOBAL PANIC & FEAR = DEMAND FOR VACCINES = 80% POPULATION VACCINATED FOR "HERD IMMUNITY" = MASSIVE ANNUAL PROFITS FOR YEARS WITH NO LIABILITY FOR ANY DEADLY SIDE EFFECTS OR INJURIES = WIN-WIN-WIN for BIG PHARMA
Why? The $$$$BIG MONEY$$$$ is in the patented VACCINE where HCQ's patent is already expired and any country can manufacture it on its own without paying royalties to any one company. But the price is incredibly LOW that there is NO MONEY to be made with HCQ. Again...there is absolutely NO MONEY / NO PROFIT in Hydroxychloroquine. Gates himself has said that we must lockdown until 80% of the world is vaccinated (and most likely 1 dose won't be effective so multiple doses = $$$$). Good old Billy has also stated that investing in vaccines (philanthropically through the Gates Foundation - bless his heart) was the best investment he's ever made.
"In one international poll3 of 6,227 doctors in 30 countries, 37% rated the antimalaria drug hydroxychloroquine as “the most effective therapy” for COVID-19. The poll was done by Sermo, the world’s largest health care data collection company and social platform for physicians.
In Spain, where the drug was used by 72% of doctors, it was rated “the most effective therapy” by 75% of them. The typical dose used by a majority of doctors was 400 milligrams per day.
French science-prize winning microbiologist and infectious disease expert Didier Raoult, founder and director of the research hospital Institut Hospitalo-Universitaire Méditerranée Infection,4 reported5,6 that a combination of hydroxychloroquine and azithromycin, administered immediately upon diagnosis, led to recovery and “virological cure” — nondetection of SARS-CoV-27 in nasal swabs — in 91.7% of patients.
According to Raoult, the drug combination “avoids worsening and clears virus persistence and contagiosness in most cases.” No cardiac toxicity was observed using a dose of 200 mg three times a day for 10 days, along with 500 mg of azithromycin on Day 1 followed by 250 mg daily for the next four days. The risk of cardiac toxicity was ameliorated by carefully screening patients and performing serial EKGs.
July 2, 2020, Raoult is quoted as saying failure to prescribe hydroxychloroquine to a COVID-19 patient “should be grounds for malpractice.” Meanwhile, University of Oxford investigators claim the drug is useless and shouldn’t be prescribed at all in hospitalized patients.8
IVERMECTIN - ANOTHER TREATMENT FOR COVID-19 THAT IS EFFECTIVE & SAFE
https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=ivermectin+australia+covid+19
Australian Politician Calls for Criminal Trials of Health Bureaucrats who Banned Hydroxychloroquine as COVID Cure
"Craig Kelly MP, a member of the Australian House of Representatives, has claimed that Health Bureaucrats have "engaged in crimes against humanity and they should be taken to the criminal court in the Hague," for their ban on hydroxychloroquine (HCQ), which has been shown to cure COVID patients by thousands of doctors in the U.S. and around the world. Sky News Australia has published an interview with the MP: "Liberal MP Craig Kelly says the ban placed on COVID-19 treatment hydroxychloroquine by Australian bureaucrats violates the Hippocratic Oath taken by doctors and is based on a study since proven false. Mr Kelly said health bureaucrats interfered in the doctor-patient relationship by prohibiting the use of hydroxychloroquine even if the doctor thought the treatment would save the patient’s life. Health bureaucrats have 'violated the very first principle of the hypocritic oath' which is to ‘do no harm’, he said. Mr Kelly told Sky News technically bureaucrats should only ban the use of hydroxychloroquine if the evidence shows beyond all reasonable doubt that firstly, hydroxychloroquine doesn’t work and secondly, that it is dangerous. 'Recent studies show that proposition is no longer sustainable … and they must lift their bans otherwise they are engaged in crimes against humanity and they should be taken to the criminal court in the Hague,' he said. 'They are withholding medical treatment from Australians that the evidence shows can save their lives.'""