Coronavirus (COVID-19) Update: FDA Revokes Emergency Use Authorization for Chloroquine and Hydroxychloroquine

  • mwolverine

    Posts: 7478

    Jun 17, 2020 6:04 AM GMT
    Coronavirus (COVID-19) Update: FDA Revokes Emergency Use Authorization for Chloroquine and Hydroxychloroquine

    || Based on its ongoing analysis of the EUA and emerging scientific data, the FDA determined that chloroquine and hydroxychloroquine are UNLIKELY TO BE EFFECTIVE IN TREATING COVID-19

    || Recent results from a large randomized clinical trial in hospitalized patients, a population similar to the population for which chloroquine and hydroxychloroquine were authorized for emergency use, demonstrated that hydroxychloroquine showed no benefit on mortality or in speeding recovery. This outcome was consistent with other new data, including data showing that the suggested dosing regimens for chloroquine and hydroxychloroquine are unlikely to kill or inhibit the virus that causes COVID-19. The totality of scientific evidence currently available indicate a lack of benefit.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 17, 2020 5:34 PM GMT
    Unfortunately, this is not science, but pandering to the political. They do not even linked the study for us to see the data and for us to take the same conclusion - what phase study? who was the sponsor? inclusion and exclusion criteria, morbidity, outcome, p-value, etc. Other doctors are using it with combination or Azithromycin, Zinc etc. and seen successes I will wait for the results of those studies that are outline in clinical trials gov.
  • mwolverine

    Posts: 7478

    Jun 17, 2020 11:12 PM GMT
    Going back to the original French studies that sparked the conversation, here's my take in March:


    I'm unimpressed. Briefly about the the original (n=20 after excluding the 6 patients that didn't complete it, including 4 who were transferred to the ICU or died), consider that no one in the small control group (n=16) went to ICU or died. The claim is that the regimen shortened the Length Of Stay (LOS). But why not also claim that it made 4 cases worse? (I'm not saying it did, just that we shouldn't be selective about the conclusions drawn from a small scale study).

    How was a 14 day study run from March 6th to 16th (and the paper already published on the 17th)?

    In the follow-up study (n=80, no control group),the median age was 52.5 with 3/4 below 62. Only 5 patients in their 70s and 5 who were 80+. One of each of those (as well as a 40s and 50s YO) had to be evacuated to the ICU. The 86 YO died.

    While other chronic conditions were present, the group seemed healthier, with only 4 presenting with a NEWS of 5-6 and 2 with >7. At discharge, 4 patients were at 5-6 and 0 at >7, so evidently those ended up in the ICU (or the 1 death).

    The claim is that LOS is reduced by a few days, but after March 18th the clinic pushed patients out the door as soon as they tested negative (to let in new patients). However, French guidelines for discharge are for two negative test results with a 48 hour (or 24 if needed) interval.

    The control group was "the literature", so it's not clear if within France or some other country or global. But if French practice is to keep patients hospitalized for an extra 2 days, and you don't follow that, is it any surprise that Length Of Stay is reduced?

    || Criteria for discharge changed over the course of the study. Initially, patients with two successive negative nasopharyngeal samples resulting from PCR assay (CT value ≥35) were discharged. From 18 March, patients with a single nasopharyngeal sample with a PCR CT value ≥34 were discharged to their homes or transferred to other units for continuing treatment, Ultimately, because of a crucial need to admit new, untreated inpatients, inpatients already receiving treatment with a PCR CT value <34, with good clinical outcome and good adherence to treatment were also discharged. When possible, further follow-up was continued in other units or through out-patient consultations.

    While they publish their mean LOS (4.6 ± 2.1), I'm not sure what I should compare it to. I may have missed it, or maybe they don't say.

    The authors conclusion are therefore guarded (a lot more than their follow-up tweet explaining that a control group would be a violation of the Hippocratic Oath):

    || In conclusion, we confirm the efficacy of hydroxychloroquine associated with azithromycin in the treatment of COVID-19 and its potential effectiveness in the early impairment of contagiousness. Given the urgent therapeutic need to manage this disease with effective and safe drugs and given the negligible cost of both hydroxychloroquine and azithromycin, we believe that other teams should urgently evaluate this therapeutic strategy both to avoid the spread of the disease and to treat patients before severe irreversible respiratory complications take hold.

    I'm not saying it doesn't help at all. Just wish they followed better methodologies in their study.

    The retractions came in early April:

    Hydroxychloroquine-COVID-19 study did not meet publishing society’s “expected standard”

    || The paper that appears to have triggered the Trump administration’s obsession with hydroxychloroquine as a treatment for infection with the novel coronavirus has received a statement of concern from the society that publishes the journal in which the work appeared.

    || The study was led by Didier Raoult, of the University of Marseille, whose publication history has come under scrutiny.

    || Last month, Elisabeth Bik took a close look at the IJAA article and detailed a long list of serious problems with the study, including questions about its ethical underpinnings, messy confounding variables, missing patients, rushed and conflicted peer review, and confusing data.

    || Others have used PubPeer to report additional issues with the Raoult article.

    || Raoult has not responded to a request for comment from Retraction Watch.

    || Of course, the horse has left the proverbial barn on this one. An untold number of patients have been receiving hydroxychloroquine, as well as chloroquine, for Covid-19 infection, thanks in large part to cheerleading for the drugs from President Trump
  • mwolverine

    Posts: 7478

    Jun 17, 2020 11:20 PM GMT

    || Of the medications you have personally prescribed or have seen used, please indicate which ones are most effective.

    37% listed Hydroxychloroquine/Chloroquine and 32% Azithromycin

    32% listed "nothing".

    Doctors most likely to list the above were in Italy and Spain.
    2 of the countries with the highest fatality rates (12.3% and 9.5%).

    31% listed Analgesics (e.g., Paracetamol/Acetaminophen)


    That it was most favored in hard hit Italy & Spain I see as a sign of desperation.
  • mwolverine

    Posts: 7478

    Jun 17, 2020 11:22 PM GMT
    By April 8th or 9th:


  • mwolverine

    Posts: 7478

    Jun 17, 2020 11:26 PM GMT

    || "We've been using it," said Dr. Hugh Cassiere, a pulmonologist and medical director of Respiratory Care Services at North Shore University Hospital in Long Island, New York, a hot spot for the pandemic in the United States. "But we really haven't seen any efficacy."

    || "I'm not convinced it works," said Lyn-Kew ["a pulmonologist in the critical care department at National Jewish Health, a hospital in Denver"], adding, "I've not seen anybody have anything near what I would call a miraculous recovery because of hydroxychloroquine."

    || In Louisiana, Dr. Josh Denson, a pulmonary medicine and critical care physician at the Tulane University Medical Center in New Orleans, said that "many patients do fine and tolerate it, but I don't think it's making a difference."

    || "I can't honestly say that I think that it's necessarily an effective agent at this point," said Diaz, of the Providence Regional Medical Center in Washington state. Diaz was involved in the treatment of the first patient in the U.S. diagnosed with the coronavirus.

    || "UC San Diego Health does not support the use of medications in ways for which there is not yet scientific evidence to support safety and efficacy,"

    || Critical care physicians at Northwestern Medicine in Chicago aren't using it either. "It's the view of our ICU group here that the data supporting its use are insufficient for routine use for COVID-19 patients, particularly when they become critically ill," Dr. Ben Singer, assistant professor of medicine in pulmonary and critical care at Northwestern University's Feinberg School of Medicine, said.

    || the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention pulled back on its guidance for hydroxychloroquine usage for COVID-19 on the agency's website, no longer offering recommendations for dosage. The CDC has also deleted information on those early [flawed] studies of the drug. ..The journal that published the French study, however, later said that the article did not meet their expected standard.

    || "People take these tiny studies, and quote them as gospel," Lyn-Kew said. "We need real science behind this disease

    || The drug can lead to an irregular heartbeat, which can be deadly in some patients. Very sick people in intensive care units may be at particular risk, Self [of Vanderbilt University Medical Center] said, because they tend to be more susceptible to drug side effects in general. "We have to understand whether the side effects of this drug are worse than any benefits," Self said.

    || Hydroxychloroquine "clearly has promise," Self said. "But we really need the clinical trial data to understand what this is doing in our patients.... We have a duty to know that before we start prescribing to thousands and potentially millions of people."
  • mwolverine

    Posts: 7478

    Jun 17, 2020 11:32 PM GMT
    A quick interlude here between studies:

    Seems as if the best argument laymen have for Hydroxy/Chloroquine is "what could it hurt?" By that metric, doctors should dispense chicken soup or root beer (tastes medicinal, like cough syrup, non-Americans say).

    The serious answer is that prescribing a dubious medication to scores of thousands of patients will lead to a shortage for those who already take this medication for diseases against which it is proven effective.

    Curious, too, the reactions from the peanut gallery:

    Doctor 1: You have to prescribe it early, later on is too late.

    Peanut gallery: See? It works!

    Doctor 2: We didn't see an effect early, only in the most sick in ICU.

    Peanut gallery: See? It works!

    I've noted (with all due respect given the circumstances) that the doctors most supportive were in Italy and Spain (which had the most deaths until surpassed in April by the USA - which is much more populous).

    Back in 1918, at wits end, doctors only had one option, aspirin. The favored dose was 30 grams - which today is known to be toxic. Worse, the aspirin poisoning has the same effect (hyperventilation and pulmonary edema) as the flu. Doctors didn't even know they were contributing to this.

    Today we can only guess how many died not from the flu but from Aspirin poisoning.
  • mwolverine

    Posts: 7478

    Jun 18, 2020 12:47 AM GMT
    Trial of chloroquine to treat COVID-19 stopped early due to heart complications

    || In the Brazilian study, some patients taking a high dose of the drug developed dangerous heart rhythm problems.

  • mwolverine

    Posts: 7478

    Jun 18, 2020 12:50 AM GMT
    A study from a different group in France showed no benefits and adverse effects in almost 10% of patients, while only benefiting 1.5%

    No evidence of clinical efficacy of hydroxychloroquine in patients hospitalized for COVID-19 infection with oxygen requirement

    || Results This study included 181 patients with SARS-CoV-2 pneumonia; 84 received HCQ within 48 hours of admission (HCQ group) and 97 did not (no-HCQ group). Initial severity was well balanced between the groups. In the weighted analysis, 20.2% patients in the HCQ group were transferred to the ICU or died within 7 days vs 22.1% in the no-HCQ group (16 vs 21 events, relative risk [RR] 0.91, 95% CI 0.47-1.80). In the HCQ group, 2.8% of the patients died within 7 days vs 4.6% in the no-HCQ group (3 vs 4 events, RR 0.61, 95% CI 0.13-2.89), and 27.4% and 24.1%, respectively, developed acute respiratory distress syndrome within 7 days (24 vs 23 events, RR 1.14, 95% CI 0.65-2.00). Eight patients receiving HCQ (9.5%) experienced electrocardiogram modifications requiring HCQ discontinuation. Interpretation These results do NOT support the use of HCQ in patients hospitalised for documented SARS-CoV-2-positive hypoxic pneumonia.

  • mwolverine

    Posts: 7478

    Jun 18, 2020 12:51 AM GMT
    Sweden has also moved away from using HCQ:

    || Malaria drug testing for coronary illness is stopped - can have the opposite effect

    || Several seriously ill covid-19 patients in Sweden have been treated with chlorikin, the active substance in malaria medicine - something praised by researchers in other parts of the world. Now there are alarming reports that the drug can be dangerous on the contrary. That is why we have decided in Gothenburg and in Västra Götaland that we do not use it, says Magnus Gisslén, chief physician at the Eastern Hospital.

    || we knew it had been used in China and Italy, and then we started using it as well. We thought it was a pretty harmless medicine with some side effects, ”says Magnus Gisslén, professor and chief physician at the infection clinic at Östra hospital in Gothenburg.

    || However, Gothenburg and Västra Götaland now choose to interrupt the experiment. This is after several reports that the treatment can cause serious side effects
  • mwolverine

    Posts: 7478

    Jun 18, 2020 12:52 AM GMT
    From China....

    No Hydroxychloroquinte Benefit in Randomized COVID-19 Trial
  • mwolverine

    Posts: 7478

    Jun 18, 2020 12:53 AM GMT
    Outcomes of hydroxychloroquine usage in United States veterans hospitalized with Covid-19

    || METHODS: We performed a retrospective analysis of data from patients hospitalized with confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection in all United States Veterans Health Administration medical centers until April 11, 2020. Patients were categorized based on their exposure to hydroxychloroquine alone (HC) or with azithromycin (HC+AZ) as treatments in addition to standard supportive management for Covid-19. The two primary outcomes were death and the need for mechanical ventilation.

    || RESULTS: A total of 368 patients were evaluated (HC, n=97; HC+AZ, n=113; no HC, n=158 ). Rates of death in the HC, HC+AZ, and no HC groups were 27.8%, 22.1%, 11.4%, respectively. Rates of ventilation in the HC, HC+AZ, and no HC groups were 13.3%, 6.9%, 14.1%, respectively. Compared to the no HC group, the risk of death from any cause was higher in the HC group (adjusted hazard ratio, 2.61; 95% CI, 1.10 to 6.17; P=0.03) but not in the HC+AZ group (adjusted hazard ratio, 1.14; 95% CI, 0.56 to 2.32; P=0.72). The risk of ventilation was similar in the HC group (adjusted hazard ratio, 1.43; 95% CI, 0.53 to 3.79; P=0.48 ) and in the HC+AZ group (adjusted hazard ratio, 0.43; 95% CI, 0.16 to 1.12; P=0.09), compared to the no HC group.

    || CONCLUSIONS: 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.
  • mwolverine

    Posts: 7478

    Jun 18, 2020 12:59 AM GMT
    A Randomized Trial of Hydroxychloroquine as Postexposure Prophylaxis for Covid-19

    || METHODS: We conducted a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial across the United States and parts of Canada testing hydroxychloroquine as postexposure prophylaxis. We enrolled adults who had household or occupational exposure to someone with confirmed Covid-19 at a distance of less than 6 ft for more than 10 minutes while wearing neither a face mask nor an eye shield (high-risk exposure) or while wearing a face mask but no eye shield (moderate-risk exposure). Within 4 days after exposure, we randomly assigned participants to receive either placebo or hydroxychloroquine (800 mg once, followed by 600 mg in 6 to 8 hours, then 600 mg daily for 4 additional days). The primary outcome was the incidence of either laboratory-confirmed Covid-19 or illness compatible with Covid-19 within 14 days.

    || RESULTS: We enrolled 821 asymptomatic participants. Overall, 87.6% of the participants (719 of 821) reported a high-risk exposure to a confirmed Covid-19 contact. The incidence of new illness compatible with Covid-19 did not differ significantly between participants receiving hydroxychloroquine (49 of 414 [11.8%]) and those receiving placebo (58 of 407 [14.3%]); the absolute difference was −2.4 percentage points (95% confidence interval, −7.0 to 2.2; P=0.35). Side effects were more common with hydroxychloroquine than with placebo (40.1% vs. 16.8%), but no serious adverse reactions were reported.

    || CONCLUSIONS: After high-risk or moderate-risk exposure to Covid-19, hydroxychloroquine did not prevent illness compatible with Covid-19 or confirmed infection when used as postexposure prophylaxis within 4 days after exposure.

    || This randomized trial did not demonstrate a significant benefit of hydroxychloroquine as postexposure prophylaxis for Covid-19. Whether preexposure prophylaxis would be effective in high-risk populations is a separate question, with trials ongoing. In order to end the pandemic, a reduction in community transmission is needed.
  • stemkin

    Posts: 217

    Jun 19, 2020 2:19 PM GMT
    uombroca saidUnfortunately, this is not science, but pandering to the political. They do not even linked the study for us to see the data and for us to take the same conclusion - what phase study? who was the sponsor? inclusion and exclusion criteria, morbidity, outcome, p-value, etc. Other doctors are using it with combination or Azithromycin, Zinc etc. and seen successes I will wait for the results of those studies that are outline in clinical trials gov.

    The thing is that no peer-reviewed publications could show a statistically siginificant benefit of this treatment, while at the same time plenty of dangerous side effects have been observed. So obviously they wouldn't approve of a drug that brings serious health risks without a proven clinical benefit.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 19, 2020 2:24 PM GMT
    GASP!!! This can't mean that Dr. Trump was wrong?!?! After selling us this snake-oil cure for months?

    And didn’t he say the government was buying & stockpiling it? As others apparently hoarded it, too. Patients who need it for its legitimate FDA intended purposes were left with none. Well, I guess a con man’s gotta con.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 20, 2020 2:15 AM GMT
    Art_Deco saidGASP!!! This can't mean that Dr. Trump was wrong?!?! After selling us this snake-oil cure for months?

    And didn’t he say the government was buying & stockpiling it? As others apparently hoarded it, too. Patients who need it for its legitimate FDA intended purposes were left with none. Well, I guess a con man’s gotta con.

    Once again our Nutty Professor cracks me up laughing. Suce a sore, and bitter loser; a tipical Democrat.
  • mwolverine

    Posts: 7478

    Jul 06, 2020 6:38 AM GMT
    The flaw in the recently released Henry Ford Hospital study that showed HCQ beneficial

    It piqued my interest that patients on HCQ alone did so much better than on HCQ + AZM or only on AZM and on neither (13.5% fatality vs 20.1%, 22.4% and 26.4%).


    Also looks like they avoided side effects by not including sicker patients with potential comorbidities in the treatment group:

    || The combination of hydroxychloroquine + azithromycin was reserved for selected patients with severe COVID-19 and with MINIMAL CARDIAC RISK FACTORS. An electrocardiogram (ECK) based algorithm was utilized for hydroxychloroquine use. QTc>500 ms was considered an elevated cardiac risk and consequently hydroxychloroquine was reserved for patients with severe disease with telemetry monitoring and serial QTc checks.


    Full disclosure: Henry Ford Hospital is a client but obviously we had nothing to do with this study.
  • mwolverine

    Posts: 7478

    Jul 11, 2020 1:01 PM GMT
    WHO discontinues hydroxychloroquine and lopinavir/ritonavir treatment arms for COVID-19

    WHO today accepted the recommendation from the Solidarity Trial’s International Steering Committee to discontinue the trial’s hydroxychloroquine and lopinavir/ritonavir arms. The Solidarity Trial was established by WHO to find an effective COVID-19 treatment for hospitalized patients.

    The International Steering Committee formulated the recommendation in light of the evidence for hydroxychloroquine vs standard-of-care and for lopinavir/ritonavir vs standard-of-care from the Solidarity trial interim results, and from a review of the evidence from all trials presented at the 1-2 July WHO Summit on COVID-19 research and innovation.

    These interim trial results show that hydroxychloroquine and lopinavir/ritonavir produce little or no reduction in the mortality of hospitalized COVID-19 patients when compared to standard of care. Solidarity trial investigators will interrupt the trials with immediate effect.

    For each of the drugs, the interim results do not provide solid evidence of increased mortality. There were, however, some associated safety signals in the clinical laboratory findings of the add-on Discovery trial, a participant in the Solidarity trial. These will also be reported in the peer-reviewed publication.

    This decision applies only to the conduct of the Solidarity trial in hospitalized patients and does not affect the possible evaluation in other studies of hydroxychloroquine or lopinavir/ritonavir in non-hospitalized patients or as pre- or post-exposure prophylaxis for COVID-19. The interim Solidarity results are now being readied for peer-reviewed publication.
  • mwolverine

    Posts: 7478

    Aug 02, 2020 11:46 PM GMT
    Nation's testing czar: It's "time to move on" from talk about hydroxychloroquine
    Brett Giroir says emphasis should be on "effective" ways to curb the virus despite Trump's continued promotion of hydroxychloroquine.

    WASHINGTON — Brett Giroir, the assistant secretary for health who coordinates the administration’s coronavirus testing, said Sunday that there is no evidence that hydroxychloroquine is an “effective” treatment for COVID-19, despite President Donald Trump’s repeated boosting of the drug over objections from experts.

    In an interview on “Meet the Press,” Giroir did not specifically mention the president, but he made clear that the scientific consensus is that the drug does not help treat the disease.

    “Most physicians and prescribers are evidence-based and they’re not influenced by whatever is on Twitter or anything else. And the evidence just does not show hydroxychloroquine is effective right now,” he said.

    “We need to move on from that and talk about what is effective,” he added, pointing to public hygiene measures like hand-washing and mask-wearing, as well as treatments like the drug remdesivir and steroids.

    "At this point in time, there has been five randomized controlled, placebo controlled trials that do not show any benefit to hydroxychloroquine. So, at this point in time, we don't recommend that as a treatment."

    Since the early days of the pandemic, Trump has promoted his belief that hydroxychloroquine, an anti-malarial drug, could help treat the disease. In May, he said he took the unproven treatment for two weeks prophylactically.

    While the Food and Drug Administration briefly issued the drug an emergency use authorization that allowed it to be used as treatment for COVID-19, the FDA withdrew that authorization in June. In removing the authorization, it pointed to “a large, randomized clinical trial in hospitalized patients that found these medicines showed no benefit for decreasing the likelihood of death or speeding recovery.”

    Despite similar statements from public health officials, as well as an FDA warning against using the drug outside of a hospital setting because of a risk of serious heart problems, Trump has remained steadfast in boosting of the drug.

    Last week, Trump retweeted a video of a Houston-area doctor arguing in favor of using the drug and calling it a cure for coronavirus. Twitter removed the video calling it “in violation of our COVID-19 misinformation policy” and Dr. Anthony Fauci, the nation’s top infectious disease expert, said the video was “spouting something that isn’t true.”

    But Trump defended his decision to share the video during a White House press briefing, saying, “I happen to believe in it.” He was later pressed to answer for the doctor’s past statements, which include blaming certain medical problems on demonic possession.

    “She was on air along with many other doctors," Trump said. "They were being fans of hydroxychloroquine, and I thought she was very impressive in the sense that — from where she came, I don't know which country she comes from — but she said that she's had tremendous success with hundreds of different patients, and I thought her voice was an important voice. But I know nothing about her."
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 03, 2020 6:33 PM GMT
    I was listening to Iggy Azalea when I started to recover from Covid. So obviously, Iggy cures Covid! SPREAD THE WORD!

    But seriously, I think the people who are making Covid treatments (or lack thereof), are absolutely evil. Same with the mask debate.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 05, 2020 3:49 AM GMT
    "The Key to Defeating COVID-19 Already Exists.
    We Need to Start Using It"

    "I am referring, of course, to the medication hydroxychloroquine."

    "When this inexpensive oral medication is given very early in the course of illness, before the virus has had time to multiply beyond control, it has shown to be highly effective, especially when given in combination with the antibiotics azithromycin or doxycycline and the nutritional supplement zinc."


  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 05, 2020 4:28 AM GMT
    Experts Explain: The case for using hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) to treat Covid-19

    HCQ has been widely used as a drug to treat malaria and to prevent malaria in travellers to malaria-endemic zones, for decades. Once its anti-inflammatory and immune suppressant properties were identified, it began to be used the world over in autoimmune diseases such as rheumatoid arthritis and systemic lupus erythematosus. In fact, in developed countries without malaria, it is widely but almost exclusively used by rheumatologists. The side-effect profile has been well characterised and protocols for monitoring side effects are taught in all medical colleges. The drug has withstood the test of time.
  • mwolverine

    Posts: 7478

    Aug 05, 2020 6:24 AM GMT
    It's hard to discuss science with people who don't understand it and keep repeating the same things like a broken record, but I'll try.

    Jockjoy's source> it has demonstrated significant benefit in large hospital studies in Michigan

    Muskelprotz's source> A study on more than 2,500 patients in six units under the Henry Ford Hospitals group in Detroit, Michigan, USA, peer-reviewed, accepted and ready for publication in the International Journal of Infectious Diseases, has found good evidence that HCQ reduces Covid-19 mortality significantly. It should be noted that conditions apply.

    But the article never addresses those "conditions" and instead actually covers them up:

    || The Detroit study on Covid-19 patients aged 18 to 76, the majority with co-morbidities... swung the pendulum all the way back, favourable to HCQ use in Covid-19.

    1. Jockjoy's source insists that HCQ must be administered along with AZM.
    But as I noted above (30 days ago), the HFH study showed improvement with only HCQ (no AZM).

    2. Amazing that the HFH study allegedly had ages ranging from 18 to 76, yet the median age of the control group was 71 while the median age of the HCQ treated group was 53. Think that might have had more to do with the rate of mortality than the medication?

    3. The banter about decreasing Length Of Stay is actually disproven by this study. The mean for the control group was 5.6 days vs 8.0 for HCQ and 10.7 for HCQ+AZM. Which is pretty amazing given that the control group was not just older but sicker (the study steered sicker patients to the control group to avoid adverse effects).

    4. Still, 1 out of 7 patients on HCQ died (compared to about 1 of 4 in the older/sicker control group).
    Even IF it is an effective treatment in some cases, it is not a "cure".
    Contrary to the advice of Dr. Demon Sperm
    It's not like you want to go out and contract the disease because you well be "cured".
    It's still Russian Roulette.

    Muskelprot'z source actually anticipates this:

    || dexamethasone [treatment] in those who do not improve with early use of HCQ


  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 07, 2020 1:05 AM GMT
    "The Left is Weaponizing Medicine" Fireside Chat by Dennis Prager
    "Blood on their hands."

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 07, 2020 1:20 AM GMT