OT: Coronavirus

[Guest]

[Guest]

Hydroxychloroquine drug in University of Minnesota trial does little to prevent COVID-19The first-of-its-kind trial adds badly needed evidence to the politicized debate over whether hydroxychloroquine treats or prevents COVID-19.

By  Jeremy Olson Star TribuneJune 3, 2020 — 7:32pm

An anti-malaria drug that has been trumpeted as a therapy for COVID-19 was unable in a University of Minnesota clinical trial to prevent the onset of the infectious disease.

The results of the nation’s first randomized trial with the drug, hydroxychloroquine, against COVID-19 will disappoint doctors who had hoped for new therapies amid the pandemic. Many prescribers had given it off-label to COVID-19 patients — in the absence of other options — and President Donald Trump had been an early champion of the drug and disclosed in mid-May that he was taking it for the preventive benefit that the U study could not verify.
“While we are disappointed that this did not prevent COVID-19, we are pleased that we were able to provide a conclusive answer,” said Dr. David Boulware, the leader of the U trial. “Our objective was to find an answer.”
Results published online Wednesday, by the New England Journal of Medicine, showed little difference in the onset of COVID-19 in 414 people who took hydroxychloroquine and a comparison group of 407 that took only folic acid vitamins. All participants had at least moderate risk for COVID-19 due to being exposed to others in their homes or workplaces who had the illness.
There was a small difference, as only 11.8% of people taking the drug developed COVID-19, compared to 14.3% of those taking vitamins, the study showed. However, that difference was considered statistically insignificant.
Even if valid, the small difference means that 42 people would have to take the drug prophylactically to prevent one COVID-19 case. That would be costly and expose people to drug side effects. The study showed that 40% experienced mild side effects such as nausea, but it allayed fears that widespread use of the drug could result in cardiac and other complications
https://www.startribune.com/anti-malaria...570989342/

[Guest]

Yale Epidemiologist: Hydroxychloroquine Should Be 'Widely Available And Promoted Immediately' As Standard Treatment
https://www.zerohedge.com/health/yale-epidemiologist-hydroxychloroquine-should-be-widely-available-and-promoted-immediately

https://academic.oup.com/aje/advance-article/doi/10.1093/aje/kwaa093/5847586

[Guest]

Oh jeeze.  

Governments and WHO changed Covid-19 policy based on suspect data from tiny US company
Surgisphere, whose employees appear to include a sci-fi writer and adult content model, (lmao! the company had 4 employees) provided database behind Lancet and New England Journal of Medicine hydroxychloroquine studies
https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/world/2020/jun/03/covid-19-surgisphere-who-world-health-organization-hydroxychloroquine

[Guest]

My memory may be wrong but I thought the drug was being promoted as a treatment along with an antibiotic + zinc, not as a preventative...  The U of Mn study was testing it's use as a preventative.  Doesn't appear to prevent the disease but that doesn't mean it's worthless as a treatment.

[Guest]

@IDVikingfan said:
My memory may be wrong but I thought the drug was being promoted as a treatment along with an antibiotic + zinc, not as a preventative...  The U of Mn study was testing it's use as a preventative.  Doesn't appear to prevent the disease but that doesn't mean it's worthless as a treatment.

Researchers/studies have been all over the map on it, thus far.

Clinicians have mostly been supportive ( of hydroxychloroquine + macrolide &/or zinc. ) Especially in early/mid stages of infection.

We’ll get a definitive answer by the time it won’t matter.  

[Guest]

@savannahskol said:

@IDVikingfan said:
My memory may be wrong but I thought the drug was being promoted as a treatment along with an antibiotic + zinc, not as a preventative...  The U of Mn study was testing it's use as a preventative.  Doesn't appear to prevent the disease but that doesn't mean it's worthless as a treatment.

Researchers/studies have been all over the map on it, thus far.

Clinicians have mostly been supportive ( of hydroxychloroquine + macrolide &/or zinc. ) Especially in early/mid stages of infection.

We’ll get a definitive answer by the time it won’t matter.  

You guys need to pick a side and be consistent...
I see now we are blaming clinicians. Let's go to where it 'originated'. Trump has been at the fore front of this. If someone has been 'all over' as you put it then let's start with him...

1.  To level set... the U of M says the drug does very little to prevent Covid-19. In their words 42 people need to take it for ONE person to be prevented from it
   
2. The President has been taking the drug and also boasting he is COVID-19 Free. He said he is being tested weekly and he has been "positive....positively negative... you know positive towards negative" (his words not mine)
3. Reports say the President was prescribed the drug by his physicians and he took it for two weeks
4. Not once did the President say he was taking HQ alongside zinc and other antibiotics. (I stand corrected here)

Questions

1. If the drug was prescribed to the president was that as a preventative or for treatment?
2. The president says he does not have covid so why was he taking the drug? 
3. If the president was prescribed the drug and he took it for two weeks does that mean he actually has covid-19? I ask this based on the stance above  that the drug was promoted as a treatment 

These are basic questions anyone can answer (I hope) so I don't think we need a two page write up littered with links to divert us and change the conversation.

[Guest]

MBlack,  I need to pick a side?  I have no vested interest in the product nor does it bother me if Trump was right or wrong on the issue.  I don't have TDS.  I was merely pointing out that the U of Mn study evaluated it's use as a preventative in a high risk situation versus it's use as a treatment. 

It is wrong to chortle that the drug is worthless as some are doing based solely on the Minnesota study.  Clinicians are finding it valuable in treating patients with Covid 19.

Should Trump have taken it as a preventative?  Based on the Minnesota study, no.  Was the data from the Minnesota study available when he took it?  NO  Did he take it on the direction of his physician?  Yes, it is a prescription drug.  Did his physician think it may have potential benefit as a preventative?  Apparently so.

 

[Guest]

@IDVikingfan said:
MBlack,  I need to pick a side?  I have no vested interest in the product nor does it bother me if Trump was right or wrong on the issue.  I don't have TDS.  I was merely pointing out that the U of Mn study evaluated it's use as a preventative in a high risk situation versus it's use as a treatment. 

It is wrong to chortle that the drug is worthless as some are doing based solely on the Minnesota study.  Clinicians are finding it valuable in treating patients with Covid 19.

Should Trump have taken it as a preventative?  Based on the Minnesota study, no.  Was the data from the Minnesota study available when he took it?  NO  Did he take it on the direction of his physician?  Yes, it is a prescription drug.  Did his physician think it may have potential benefit as a preventative?  Apparently so.

 

HCQ has been widely used as a prophylactic for other diseases from what I have read, it was at least worth a shot and certainly not worth the fuss that has been made over it,  but again its not about the message, its about who or how it was delivered I guess so let them have their fun.

edit and to a previous post,  yes the treatment that was touted by doctors all over was not HCQ alone,  but used in conjunction with Zpack,  its funny how some are so supportive of this, but yet some are so adamant that it doesnt work.   I even have seen pretty well recognized Dems that have come out and made supportive statements about its positive use on their loved ones.

[Guest]

@IDVikingfan said:
MBlack,  I need to pick a side?  I have no vested interest in the product nor does it bother me if Trump was right or wrong on the issue.  I don't have TDS.  I was merely pointing out that the U of Mn study evaluated it's use as a preventative in a high risk situation versus it's use as a treatment. 

Yes You cant agree with all of the following:
- The drug does not prevent COVID-19 (at least based on that study)
- The drug can treat COVID-19
- People can take it as preventative for COVID-19
That's what I meant by picking a side. if the discussion about the drug is all over the place, it is because Trump made it so.

It is wrong to chortle that the drug is worthless as some are doing based solely on the Minnesota study.  Clinicians are finding it valuable in treating patients with Covid 19.
I don't think anyone said that (maybe I am wrong). People have said there is some change it can/works but it needs to be looked into and researched further. So I don't know how you came to the conclusion about it being 'worthless'. It's the president who wants it prescribed and has been advocating people take it without further research.

Should Trump have taken it as a preventative?  Based on the Minnesota study, no. 
And this is what I am saying so thank you for agreeing. 

Was the data from the Minnesota study available when he took it?  NO.
But many experts said it was not so but he went along. And the drug was prescribed. can I ask on what grounds then?

Did he take it on the direction of his physician?  Yes, it is a prescription drug. 
And I asked on what basis it was prescribed

Did his physician think it may have potential benefit as a preventative?  Apparently so.
So we should question what made him think that. I am sure if a Dr prescribed a drug to anyone with no apparent proof (be it academic or factual) that it works that would be an issue. Don't you think? Especially a Dr for the President of the United States of America