War on Hydroxychloroquine.

[SorryPeasants]

Dadgumit.

Just when we just KNEW Trump had been defeated on his HCQ nonsense, questions suddenly arise about multiple flaws/questions/concerns involving the study liberal media so joyously celebrated....

here's some more in addition to the comments pointed out in the actual study pre print linked by 3rd base heckler...


As we said countless times in many of our articles, hydroxychloroquine has become the most controversial drug since President Trump touted the malaria drug as a potential game-changer. Ever since, the mainstream media has repeatedly labeled the drug has “unproven.” With anecdotal evidences that the drug has saved many lives, it seems that anti-Trump sentiment is driving the news cycle about hydroxychloroquine.

Yesterday, there was a study published on Medrxiv by Maganoli et al that claimed that more evidence now hints that hydroxychloroquine doesn’t help treat COVID-19. In the study, the researchers found no evidence that use of hydroxychloroquine, either with or without azithromycin, reduced the risk of mechanical ventilation in patients hospitalized with Covid-19.

Now, renowned French Dr. Didier Raoult is responding to the authors, citing biases in the conclusion of the study. “The study published in pre-print on 04/21 on Medrxiv by Maganoli et al has three major biases which invalidate its conclusions, in any case absurd and incompatible with the literature,” Dr. Raoult wrote.

In a two-page response paper, Dr. Raoult said the following:

“In the current period, it seems that passion dominates rigorous and balanced scientific analysis and may lead to scientific misconduct. The article by Magagnoli et al. (Magagnoli, 2020) is an absolutely spectacular example of this. Indeed, in this work, it is concluded, in the end, that hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) would double the mortality in patients with COVID with a fatality rate of 28% (versus 11% in the NoHCQ group), which is extraordinarily hard to believe. The analysis of the data shows two major biases, which show a welling to be convinced before starting the work :

The first is that lymphopenia is twice as common in the HCQ groups (25% in the HCQ, 31% in the HCQ+AZ group versus 14% in the no HCQ group, p =.02) and there is an absolute correlation between lymphopenia (<0.5G/L) and fatality rate, which is well known (Tan, 2020) and confirmed here : 28% deaths, 22% and 11% in the HCQ, HCQ+AZ and No HCQ group, respectively. Lymphopenia is the most obvious criterion of patient severity (in our cohort, lymphocytes in dead individuals (n=22, mean ± standard deviation, 0.94 ± 0.45), versus in the living (n=2405, 1.79 ± 0.84, p < .0001)). As the authors acknowledge, the severity of the patients in the different groups was very different, and their analysis can only make sense if there is a selection of patients with the same degree of severity, i.e. the same percentage of lymphopenia.

The second major bias is that in an attempt to provide meaningful data, by eliminating the initial severity at the time of treatment, two tables are shown: one table where drugs are prescribed before intubation, and which shows no significant difference in the 3 different groups (9/90 (10%) in the HCQ group, 11/101 (10. 9%) HCQ+AZ, and 15/177 (8.5%) in the group without HCQ, chi-square = 0.47, ddl = 2, p = 0.79), and one table, where it is not clear when the drugs were prescribed, where there are significant differences.

These differences are most likely related to the fact that the patients had been intubated for some before receiving hydroxychloroquine in desperation. It is notable that this is unreasonable at the time of the cytokine storm, as it is unlikely that hydrochloroquine alone would be able to control patients at this stage of the disease.

Moreover, incomprehensibly, the “untreated” group actually received azithromycin in 30% of cases, without this group being analyzed in any distinct way. Azithromycin is also a proposed treatment for COVID (Gautret, 2020) with in vitro efficacy (Andreani, 2020), and to mix it with patients who are supposedly untreated is something that is closer to scientific fraud than reasonable analysis.

Altogether these 3 voluntary biases are all pushing to the idea of dangerosity of hydroxychloroquine safest drug as reported on nearly 1 million people (Lane, 2020). All in all, this is a work that shows that, in this period, it is possible to propose things that do not stand up to any methodological analysis to try to demonstrate that one is right.”
https://techstartups.com/2020/04/22...nse-biases-study-critical-hydroxychloroquine/

This may be hard spin even for Roller

 

[Rollerdude123]

Maybe you should read this and the comments on this link... This is without the bullshit media staying it didn't work...

Outcomes of hydroxychloroquine usage in United States veterans hospitalized with Covid-19

https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.04.16.20065920v1

Uh, that Link states

“In this study, we found no evidence that use of hydroxychloroquine, either with or without azithromycin, reduced the risk of mechanical ventilation in patients hospitalized with Covid-19. An association of increased overall mortality was identified in patients treated with hydroxychloroquine alone. These findings highlight the importance of awaiting the results of ongoing prospective, randomized, controlled studies before widespread adoption of these drugs.”



I am not sure why we should care what the comments say. My goodness. Why would anyone care what random people say about the study. It’s irrelevant.

 

[Rollerdude123]

This may be hard spin even for Roller

Many of you are consumed with this one drug because a trump mentioned it. That’s very strange.
For your mental health, I hope it eventually proves useful to someone.

 

[lr1007]

Uh, that Link states

“In this study, we found no evidence that use of hydroxychloroquine, either with or without azithromycin, reduced the risk of mechanical ventilation in patients hospitalized with Covid-19. An association of increased overall mortality was identified in patients treated with hydroxychloroquine alone. These findings highlight the importance of awaiting the results of ongoing prospective, randomized, controlled studies before widespread adoption of these drugs.”



I am not sure why we should care what the comments say. My goodness. Why would anyone care what random people say about the study. It’s irrelevant.

Why should we be concerned about the comments? Seriously?
Have you read them?
Did any arouse any curiosity on your part?

 

[SorryPeasants]

Why should we be concerned about the comments? Seriously?
Have you read them?
Did any arouse any curiosity on your part?

You can have that bro. You know the answers to those questions.

 

[scbirdhunter]

Maybe the dog breeder recommended it
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/poli...ndemic-task-force/ar-BB133s3f?ocid=spartandhp

 

[SorryPeasants]

Why should we be concerned about the comments? Seriously?
Have you read them?
Did any arouse any curiosity on your part?

I agree with your post and appreciate the content by the way. Think maybe I could have been a little more clear. It was a dig at Roller

 

[Rollerdude123]

Why should we be concerned about the comments? Seriously?
Have you read them?
Did any arouse any curiosity on your part?

No. Comments on an internet board don’t make me curious regarding a medical study.,

 

[Rollerdude123]

interview with Dr Leila Hojat
Assistant Professor of Medicine, Case Western Reserve University
Director, Anitmicrobial Stewardship Program
Division of Infectious Diseases & HIV Medicine


In this interview she talks about the ongoing trials of the drug Remdesivir. She calls it “probably better than anything else we are looking at for this particular virus”

https://www.fullcourtgreta.com/vide...e-remdesivir-once-clinic-trials-are-complete/

 

[Dizzy01]

Maybe the dog breeder recommended it
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/poli...ndemic-task-force/ar-BB133s3f?ocid=spartandhp

Best and brightest!

 

[lr1007]

No. Comments on an internet board don’t make me curious regarding a medical study.,

Obviously you haven't read them.

 

[lr1007]

interview with Dr Leila Hojat
Assistant Professor of Medicine, Case Western Reserve University
Director, Anitmicrobial Stewardship Program
Division of Infectious Diseases & HIV Medicine


In this interview she talks about the ongoing trials of the drug Remdesivir. She calls it “probably better than anything else we are looking at for this particular virus”

https://www.fullcourtgreta.com/vide...e-remdesivir-once-clinic-trials-are-complete/

Haven already proven yourself as someone who only takes a 100% apolitical approach on medicine...

I find it odd that you bring up another potentially beneficial drug without pointing out that it hasn't gone through exhaustive double blind clinical trials

 

[SOSUSC]

Dadgumit.

Just when we just KNEW Trump had been defeated on his HCQ nonsense, questions suddenly arise about multiple flaws/questions/concerns involving the study liberal media so joyously celebrated....

here's some more in addition to the comments pointed out in the actual study pre print linked by 3rd base heckler...


As we said countless times in many of our articles, hydroxychloroquine has become the most controversial drug since President Trump touted the malaria drug as a potential game-changer. Ever since, the mainstream media has repeatedly labeled the drug has “unproven.” With anecdotal evidences that the drug has saved many lives, it seems that anti-Trump sentiment is driving the news cycle about hydroxychloroquine.

Yesterday, there was a study published on Medrxiv by Maganoli et al that claimed that more evidence now hints that hydroxychloroquine doesn’t help treat COVID-19. In the study, the researchers found no evidence that use of hydroxychloroquine, either with or without azithromycin, reduced the risk of mechanical ventilation in patients hospitalized with Covid-19.

Now, renowned French Dr. Didier Raoult is responding to the authors, citing biases in the conclusion of the study. “The study published in pre-print on 04/21 on Medrxiv by Maganoli et al has three major biases which invalidate its conclusions, in any case absurd and incompatible with the literature,” Dr. Raoult wrote.

In a two-page response paper, Dr. Raoult said the following:

“In the current period, it seems that passion dominates rigorous and balanced scientific analysis and may lead to scientific misconduct. The article by Magagnoli et al. (Magagnoli, 2020) is an absolutely spectacular example of this. Indeed, in this work, it is concluded, in the end, that hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) would double the mortality in patients with COVID with a fatality rate of 28% (versus 11% in the NoHCQ group), which is extraordinarily hard to believe. The analysis of the data shows two major biases, which show a welling to be convinced before starting the work :

The first is that lymphopenia is twice as common in the HCQ groups (25% in the HCQ, 31% in the HCQ+AZ group versus 14% in the no HCQ group, p =.02) and there is an absolute correlation between lymphopenia (<0.5G/L) and fatality rate, which is well known (Tan, 2020) and confirmed here : 28% deaths, 22% and 11% in the HCQ, HCQ+AZ and No HCQ group, respectively. Lymphopenia is the most obvious criterion of patient severity (in our cohort, lymphocytes in dead individuals (n=22, mean ± standard deviation, 0.94 ± 0.45), versus in the living (n=2405, 1.79 ± 0.84, p < .0001)). As the authors acknowledge, the severity of the patients in the different groups was very different, and their analysis can only make sense if there is a selection of patients with the same degree of severity, i.e. the same percentage of lymphopenia.

The second major bias is that in an attempt to provide meaningful data, by eliminating the initial severity at the time of treatment, two tables are shown: one table where drugs are prescribed before intubation, and which shows no significant difference in the 3 different groups (9/90 (10%) in the HCQ group, 11/101 (10. 9%) HCQ+AZ, and 15/177 (8.5%) in the group without HCQ, chi-square = 0.47, ddl = 2, p = 0.79), and one table, where it is not clear when the drugs were prescribed, where there are significant differences.

These differences are most likely related to the fact that the patients had been intubated for some before receiving hydroxychloroquine in desperation. It is notable that this is unreasonable at the time of the cytokine storm, as it is unlikely that hydrochloroquine alone would be able to control patients at this stage of the disease.

Moreover, incomprehensibly, the “untreated” group actually received azithromycin in 30% of cases, without this group being analyzed in any distinct way. Azithromycin is also a proposed treatment for COVID (Gautret, 2020) with in vitro efficacy (Andreani, 2020), and to mix it with patients who are supposedly untreated is something that is closer to scientific fraud than reasonable analysis.

Altogether these 3 voluntary biases are all pushing to the idea of dangerosity of hydroxychloroquine safest drug as reported on nearly 1 million people (Lane, 2020). All in all, this is a work that shows that, in this period, it is possible to propose things that do not stand up to any methodological analysis to try to demonstrate that one is right.”
https://techstartups.com/2020/04/22...nse-biases-study-critical-hydroxychloroquine/

Thank you for posting this.

I wanted to respond to this study and had little time to do it all day. But, I don't want to let it go because the study is so misleading.

First, this is not a properly controlled, randomized study. A survey? Also, the severity of the patients in the different groups were so disparate that it renders any conclusions (that HCL shows no efficacy) useless. That this was even made public is a disservice to those suffering from the virus. Playing with the hopes of the victims (covid sufferers) in this way is criminal. Second, the established media is hurting with the slanted coverage. I was told that the Left media types kept referring to this study all day - what bias, and all because Trump touted it as a cure. Shame on them.

What is emerging from the many trials is that HCL (and Azithro) must be administered in the early stages. I know Physicians who are stocking up on the drug for use with their patients and in some cases for use with their kin who have contracted the virus. While we await the results of a well-aceepted randomized, controlled study, for now the anecdotal evidence (as we see as anecdotal) from across the globe is very encouraging. China has figured it out.

The downside is that it is cheap. Big Pharma may not like this. The Left they don't like it. Politics playing a huge role in this crisis, both medical and economic. The blind hate has to stop. Lives are in jeopardy. JMO.

 

[Rollerdude123]

Haven already proven yourself as someone who only takes a 100% apolitical approach on medicine...

I find it odd that you bring up another potentially beneficial drug without pointing out that it hasn't gone through exhaustive double blind clinical trials

I’ve already mentioned that very fact on this board several times.
too many of you folks don’t read, or if you do, you don’t remember anything.

Proper, controlled testing is needed.

Gilead Sciences Inc.’s experimental drug, Remdesivir, for patients with severe Covid-19 infections showed promise in an early analysis.

Remdesivir was considered to be the most promising therapeutic candidate based on its broad antiviral spectrum, and existing data based on human and animal studies, a World Health Organization panel said in January.

 

[jonesz21]

Of course more people who took it died than people who didn't take it. People were only given it if they were in really bad shape to begin with.

No chit. Are Democrats really as stupid as they act?

 

[world famous 3rd base hecklers]

Dadgumit.

Just when we just KNEW Trump had been defeated on his HCQ nonsense, questions suddenly arise about multiple flaws/questions/concerns involving the study liberal media so joyously celebrated....

here's some more in addition to the comments pointed out in the actual study pre print linked by 3rd base heckler...


As we said countless times in many of our articles, hydroxychloroquine has become the most controversial drug since President Trump touted the malaria drug as a potential game-changer. Ever since, the mainstream media has repeatedly labeled the drug has “unproven.” With anecdotal evidences that the drug has saved many lives, it seems that anti-Trump sentiment is driving the news cycle about hydroxychloroquine.

Yesterday, there was a study published on Medrxiv by Maganoli et al that claimed that more evidence now hints that hydroxychloroquine doesn’t help treat COVID-19. In the study, the researchers found no evidence that use of hydroxychloroquine, either with or without azithromycin, reduced the risk of mechanical ventilation in patients hospitalized with Covid-19.

Now, renowned French Dr. Didier Raoult is responding to the authors, citing biases in the conclusion of the study. “The study published in pre-print on 04/21 on Medrxiv by Maganoli et al has three major biases which invalidate its conclusions, in any case absurd and incompatible with the literature,” Dr. Raoult wrote.

In a two-page response paper, Dr. Raoult said the following:

“In the current period, it seems that passion dominates rigorous and balanced scientific analysis and may lead to scientific misconduct. The article by Magagnoli et al. (Magagnoli, 2020) is an absolutely spectacular example of this. Indeed, in this work, it is concluded, in the end, that hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) would double the mortality in patients with COVID with a fatality rate of 28% (versus 11% in the NoHCQ group), which is extraordinarily hard to believe. The analysis of the data shows two major biases, which show a welling to be convinced before starting the work :

The first is that lymphopenia is twice as common in the HCQ groups (25% in the HCQ, 31% in the HCQ+AZ group versus 14% in the no HCQ group, p =.02) and there is an absolute correlation between lymphopenia (<0.5G/L) and fatality rate, which is well known (Tan, 2020) and confirmed here : 28% deaths, 22% and 11% in the HCQ, HCQ+AZ and No HCQ group, respectively. Lymphopenia is the most obvious criterion of patient severity (in our cohort, lymphocytes in dead individuals (n=22, mean ± standard deviation, 0.94 ± 0.45), versus in the living (n=2405, 1.79 ± 0.84, p < .0001)). As the authors acknowledge, the severity of the patients in the different groups was very different, and their analysis can only make sense if there is a selection of patients with the same degree of severity, i.e. the same percentage of lymphopenia.

The second major bias is that in an attempt to provide meaningful data, by eliminating the initial severity at the time of treatment, two tables are shown: one table where drugs are prescribed before intubation, and which shows no significant difference in the 3 different groups (9/90 (10%) in the HCQ group, 11/101 (10. 9%) HCQ+AZ, and 15/177 (8.5%) in the group without HCQ, chi-square = 0.47, ddl = 2, p = 0.79), and one table, where it is not clear when the drugs were prescribed, where there are significant differences.

These differences are most likely related to the fact that the patients had been intubated for some before receiving hydroxychloroquine in desperation. It is notable that this is unreasonable at the time of the cytokine storm, as it is unlikely that hydrochloroquine alone would be able to control patients at this stage of the disease.

Moreover, incomprehensibly, the “untreated” group actually received azithromycin in 30% of cases, without this group being analyzed in any distinct way. Azithromycin is also a proposed treatment for COVID (Gautret, 2020) with in vitro efficacy (Andreani, 2020), and to mix it with patients who are supposedly untreated is something that is closer to scientific fraud than reasonable analysis.

Altogether these 3 voluntary biases are all pushing to the idea of dangerosity of hydroxychloroquine safest drug as reported on nearly 1 million people (Lane, 2020). All in all, this is a work that shows that, in this period, it is possible to propose things that do not stand up to any methodological analysis to try to demonstrate that one is right.”
https://techstartups.com/2020/04/22...nse-biases-study-critical-hydroxychloroquine/

I'm not a doctor, but someone with a half a brain (like me) could see that this study published has issues and when the doctor who have been using this drug treating patients with great success, then something isn't right...

 

[alston]

Let me see if I get this right, you haven't heard from a single doctor who spoke promising about this drug... I mean, other than the medical doctors on TV who have said they've had promising results.

No. Not a single doctor. And I’ve talked to plenty. I don’t watch TV so not sure what they are saying on TV