Monday, June 1, 2020

Yale Epidemiologist: Hydroxychloroquine Should Be Used As Standard COVID-19 Treatment Despite Being Potentially Harmful

https://www.sciencetimes.com/articles/25885/20200601/yale-epidemiologist-hydroxychloroquine-used-standard-covid-19-treatment-despite-being-harmful.htm

 Basically says why not use it until it has been proven either worthless or harmful since it is better to do something than nothing. Hardly a strong endorsement. I think we should wear garlic around our necks and smell bleach several times a day until it can be shown to be worthless or harmful.

Dr. Harvey Risch, an epidemiologist at Yale, disputes that hydroxychloroquine should be "widely available and promoted for prescription by physicians". In an article published by Oxford University Press, aided by the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, he explains why it is essential that scientists shouldn't only "stand by" while knowing the drug's efficacy and potential.
All treatments have costs and benefits. In an ideal world, randomized double-blinded controlled clinical trials establish evidence for the relative degree of benefit, and if large enough, for estimatesof the frequenciesof adverse events. These trials take time to conduct: to get formal approval, to get funding, to enroll enough eligible patients, to wait for the outcomes to occur, and to analyze the data. In the context of the Covid-19 pandemic, we are presently averaging about 10,000 deaths per weekin the US, under moderately strong isolation policies that have put more than 36million people out of work. Results of currently ongoing or planned randomized trials for use of a number of outpatient medications are many weeks or months off, and there are no guarantees that the results for these agents, even if statistically significant, will show sufficient magnitudes of effectiveness to be useful clinically. We are rapidly reaching a breaking point in the ability to maintain the status quo;states have begun the process of lifting their restrictions, and we thus need to evaluate what evidence we do have for promising outpatient treatments.Review of Evidence Based on laboratory and other preliminary evidenceto-date,among many others, two candidate medication regimens have been widely discussed for outpatient treatment: remdesivir(Gilead Sciences, Inc., Foster City, California),and hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) plus azithromycin (AZ). Remdesivir has been studied extensively in laboratory work and in animals (8) and for other viral diseases and has good biological properties,suggesting utilityfor SARS-CoV-2infection. In a study of remdesivir compassionate use in 53 hospitalized patients with severe disease (9), 13% died, which appear slower than what might have been expectedwithout treatment, though greater than the deaths in the placebo arm of the Adaptive COVID-19 
 In this context, we cannot afford the luxury of perfect knowledge and must evaluate, now and on an ongoing basis, the evidence for benefit and risk of these medications(23). Available evidence of efficacy of HCQ+AZhas been repeatedly described in the media as “anecdotal,” but most certainly is not. The evidence is not perfect either.
 There is a small chance that it may not work. But the urgency demands that we at least start to take that risk and evaluate what happens, and if our situation does not improve we can stop it, but we will know that we did everything that we could instead of sitting by and letting hundreds of thousands die because we did not have the courage to act according to our rational calculations

 

22 comments :

  1. Kalonymus HaQatanJune 1, 2020 at 3:51 PM

    That's what you want him to say (anti Trump bias /davka). However is saying something different he's saying that clinicians are reporting good results with it and that the negative trial data is not very well conducted. The number of deaths per 100,000 due to heart events, is relatively small compared to the 10000 deaths per week due to covid-19.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Kalonymus HaQatanJune 1, 2020 at 6:34 PM

    this is a poorly written and misleading article. The mortality of ,20% refers to the 9 deaths out of the 47 with cardiac irregularities per 10,000 patients treated. hence the 20% is referring to the fraction of the 47. The total mortality is the 9 deaths per 10,000 patients. That is contrasted with 10,000 deaths due to covid19 per week in USA.

    ReplyDelete
  3. The modeler should stick to modeling

    ReplyDelete
  4. on a different topic:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cgwdzHALPsw

    ReplyDelete
  5. https://matzav.com/u-s-supplies-brazil-with-2-million-doses-of-hydroxychloroquine/

    ReplyDelete
  6. Kalonymus HaQatanJune 1, 2020 at 11:26 PM

    That isn't proof that it heals. Perhaps they are just donating to help with trade deals, with clinical trials, or out of their kind heart.

    ReplyDelete
  7. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8RC1AfOdSvg

    ReplyDelete
  8. Kalonymus HaQatanJune 2, 2020 at 11:14 AM

    Perhaps you are a beheimah

    ReplyDelete
  9. Kalonymus HaQatanJune 2, 2020 at 8:08 PM

    Sorry Dr fauci, https://www.independentsciencenews.org/health/the-case-is-building-that-covid-19-had-a-lab-origin/

    Lab origin is becoming more likely..

    ReplyDelete
  10. Indeed it is. When the preferred narrative was found empty of facts, all possibilities now have to get equal consideration and evaluation even by those who very much wished for the preferred narrative to be the truth. Sometimes investigation leads to uncomfortable conclusions

    ReplyDelete
  11. Kalonymus HaQatanJune 3, 2020 at 1:40 PM

    Hydroxychloroquine study questioned as journal issues 'expression of concern' about research


    https://www.nbcnews.com/health/health-news/hydroxychloroquine-study-questioned-journal-issues-expression-concern-about-research-n1222636

    ReplyDelete
  12. Kalonymus HaQatanJune 4, 2020 at 1:50 AM

    Exclusive: Coronavirus began 'as an accident' in Chinese lab, says former MI6 boss
    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2020/06/03/exclusive-coronavirus-began-accident-disease-escaped-chinese/?utm_content=telegraph&utm_medium=Social&utm_campaign=Echobox&utm_source=Facebook&fbclid=IwAR19YCtivzh2Qos-Wsp7BAxR5Uq2srb84EAZEAc-ZH0wF4ZFYc1BFLuZyCg#Echobox=1591217377

    ReplyDelete
  13. Is he saying this so that we should be prepared to get the vaccine twice a year every year??

    Maybe Fauci should look at this information that just came out about the
    hydroxy study published in the Lancet in May. It is possible that the
    study was fraudulent, and thus maybe hydroxy is what we need, not the
    vaccine:


    https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2020/06/mysterious-company-s-coronavirus-papers-top-medical-journals-may-be-unraveling

    ReplyDelete
  14. It would appear that Surgisphere are a bunch of fraudsters.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Fauci was never relying his opinion on that recent study in Lancet. There are plenty of other studies already reported on, including one that was a randomized trial that came out today from University of Minnesota, that dispute the notion of meaningful benefit from hydroxychloroquine for covid19

    ReplyDelete
  16. or this report /Data-fueling-governments-reversal-on-hcq-may-be-fraudulent!














    https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/data-fueling-governments-reversal-on-hcq-may-be-fraudulent-report

    ReplyDelete
  17. Kalonymus HaQatanJune 4, 2020 at 12:24 PM

    That study was fake. However, still no proof that hcq works.
    This has nothing to do with a vaccine.
    Either we get a vaccine, or we suffer many deaths to achieve immunity.
    You need to learn statistics esp related to drug trials. You are fixing your hopes on 1 molecule , when potentially there are many more effective molecules that can treat covid.

    ReplyDelete
  18. BREAKING NEWS
    Hydroxychloroquine Study jumped on by the media to discredit Donald J Trump pulled from the Lancet!


    The medical journal The Lancet on Thursday retracted a large study on the
    use of hydroxychloroquine to treat COVID-19 because of potential flaws
    in the research data. The study, published two weeks ago, found no
    benefit to the drug — and suggested its use may even increase the risk
    of death.


    Thursday's retraction doesn't mean that the drug is
    helpful — or harmful — with respect to the coronavirus. Rather, the
    study authors were unable to confirm that the data set was accurate.


    Researchers from Brigham and Women's Hospital in Boston had worked with a health care analytics company, Surgisphere Corp., on the study.


    "After publication of our Lancet article, several concerns were raised with
    respect to the veracity of the data and analyses conducted by
    Surgisphere Corporation," the study authors wrote in their retraction.


    The study authors said they launched an independent review to confirm the findings, but said the company would not provide access to all of the data.


    "Based on this development, we can no longer vouch for the veracity of the primary data sources," the authors wrote.


    So they refused to hand over the sources of their data, why would they do
    that unless it was a fake study just to make Trump look bad. This needs investigating.

    ReplyDelete
  19. https://www.thelancet.com/lancet/article/s0140673620313246?utm_campaign=tlcoronavirus20&utm_source=twitter&utm_medium=social

    ReplyDelete
  20. Wow see how it was all lies all along never trust the SODOM government again

    https://www.cnbc.com/amp/2020/06/08/asymptomatic-coronavirus-patients-arent-spreading-new-infections-who-says.html?__twitter_impression=true

    ReplyDelete

ANONYMOUS COMMENTS WILL NOT BE POSTED!
please use either your real name or a pseudonym.