| Submit your comments on this article |
| Science & Technology |
| Hydroxychloroquine, remdesivir fail to improve COVID-19 outcomes in study |
| 2021-07-14 |
| h/t Instapundit --> UPI --->UPI July 12 (UPI) -- Neither remdesivir nor hydroxychloroquine boosts recovery in patients hospitalized with COVID-19, according to the findings of a clinical trial led by the World Health Organization, and published Monday by the Annals of Internal Medicine. Nearly 8% of patients treated with hydroxychloroquine and just over 7% of those given remdesivir died in the hospital, the data showed. In comparison, between 4% and 7% of those who received "standard care" -- typically treatment with steroids and other drugs to reduce inflammation and manage respiratory symptoms -- died during their hospital stay, the researchers said. Similarly, 10% of those given remdesivir and 15% of those who received hydroxychloroquine required mechanical ventilation to breathe, compared with 7% to 11% of those treated with standard care, they said. For a true, non-vaccine cure to COVID try the following folk remedy (1) Mix wasabi powder with jalapeno tabasco until you obtain a uniform slurry. (2) Fill a turkey buster with the slurry. (3) Inject it into the digestive tract from the alimentary end. |
| Posted by:g(r)omgoru |
| #19 g(r)omgoru you have officially lost all credibility. findings of a clinical trial led by the World Health Organization Right. We completely trust those chicom bastards. |
| Posted by: Woodrow 2021-07-14 22:50 |
| #18 If that "folk remedy" is used (whether or not it has any effect on COVID-19) one result is certain: The patient will have 100% amnesia for whatever he thought might have been wrong with him before he took the stuff. |
| Posted by: Bubba Lover of the Faeries8843 2021-07-14 20:51 |
| #17 The original studies were such obvious hitjobs that the Lancet had to retract them both: "On June 4th, the Lancet and the New England Journal of Medicine retracted two high-profile COVID-19 papers after critics challenged the data in those studies. The Lancet paper found COVID-19 patients treated with hydroxychloroquine and chloroquine were associated with more deaths and adverse effects, resulting in the World Health Organization halting its clinical trials that use hydroxychloroquine to treat COVID-19 patients. The NEJM study found that certain blood pressure drugs, including ACE inhibitors, were not associated with an increased risk of death among COVID-19 patients. Last month, the New York Times profiled Dr. Sapan Desai, founder of Surgisphere, the company that supplied the data for both retracted studies. Desai is a co-author on both the Lancet and NEJM papers. The Times story should be a case study on the importance of “normative errors” and why they cannot be brushed aside in medicine (or, frankly, anywhere else). The Times article details a history of normative errors by Dr. Desai according to different sources. Former colleagues said he often did not follow through on directives about treating patients and was dishonest when confronted. In one instance, he didn’t return pages to the nurses while he was on call, and when asked about why he missed them, Desai said he was busy resuscitating an infant by performing a rare and complicated procedure: an incident the charge nurse and another doctor present for his explanation said never occurred. Several doctors recalled Dr. Desai saying he had a law degree—and a license plate listing it among his credentials: M.D., J.D., and Ph.D.—but there is no evidence of this being true. He became involved in at least four medical malpractice cases that are still pending, including three filed last year. As for the Surgisphere data, Desai said his data analytics product, called QuartzClinical, accumulated a registry with patient data from more than 1,200 hospitals and health centers, with data about more than 240 million (the WSJ reports 240 billion) patient encounters in 45 countries. One former Surgisphere employee told the Times that by the end of 2019, she knew of only one hospital that had signed a contract with QuartzClinical. Typically, nobody shows up with the degree of corruption out of the gate to falsify and publish data concerning treatments for hospitalized patients in life-and-death situations. There’s usually a history of normative errors preceding it. If the accounts of colleagues and critics are correct, Desai left a trail spanning at least two decades in his wake." |
| Posted by: Angstrom 2021-07-14 17:39 |
| #16 >"Finally, if HCQ worked we would hear about it - >from one of the poor countries where they can't >afford anything else!" It's more like, the "poor" countries that refused to commit suicide by malaria because Dr. Fauci suddenly decided the drug was dangerous have a mysteriously lower death rate per million people than anywhere else. But they all signed up for the Sino Vax and are having outbreaks now. Cambodia's had a thousand or so deaths, but mostly since March of this year. I suspect because all the ways the antimalarial drugs protect against transmission don't function when the virus is injected. |
| Posted by: Thing From Snowy Mountain 2021-07-14 14:04 |
| #15 Well, I had a chinese-american friend who was briefly looking stuff up on chinese and russian search engines for me and was finding studies in both chinese and russian on the subject, where it's away from the censorship of goolag, but it doesn't do me much good because I can't read Russian and Chinese. |
| Posted by: Thing From Snowy Mountain 2021-07-14 13:58 |
| #14 Groovy. Except, two things. (1) The first ref is literature survey. (2) If it works at all then it should show some effect at smaller doses. Finally, if HCQ worked we would hear about it - from one of the poor countries where they can't afford anything else! |
| Posted by: g(r)omgoru 2021-07-14 13:34 |
| #13 I'm going out the door. Note the French study cited in one of the links in comment 5 used _wildly_ different dosages for profalaxis than the Norwegian study you're citing. |
| Posted by: Thing From Snowy Mountain 2021-07-14 12:52 |
| #12 #11 The links (bold) in comment #5 |
| Posted by: g(r)omgoru 2021-07-14 12:38 |
| #11 There's just the link at the top that goes to UPI which also has a link to the abstract at the journal but they want money for enough details to show that this is basically scientific fraud. As a side question: Do you realize that all the people you're pushing as experts, who say we're all Covid Skeptics, in _this_ country, are also simultaneously pushing Remdesivir as the Standard of Care here? The same Remdesivir that this study says also doesn't work... Anyway, I looked at the paper, it says they used 2400 mg in the first 48 hours when the online version of the PDR says the limit should be 2000 mg in the 1st 48 hours. This 2010 PDR I bought doesn't seem to have an entry but I think I know where one is that does. BBL. |
| Posted by: Thing From Snowy Mountain 2021-07-14 12:19 |
| #10 The article costs $ 35.00 I don't have. No it doesn't - just click on the link that I've provided and download. This IS the most pathetic excuse I've heard from one of you covid-sceptics yet. |
| Posted by: g(r)omgoru 2021-07-14 10:40 |
| #9 some of the pro HCQ people have stated that many of the studies - didn't administer the HCQ at the right time, which is just after first diagnosis - didn't give a sufficient dosage of HCQ some time ago I read thru some of the studies; I was horrified by the general bad design and incomplete follow up - perhaps this happens when there is so much study money that there is no incentive to think the problem all the way through |
| Posted by: Lord Garth 2021-07-14 10:22 |
| #8 The article costs $ 35.00 I don't have. Do I need to spend $ 35.00 to find out it's just like all the other studies where they gave patients a lethal dose and pretended they proved something in their paper? (I blew my budget last week buying a used copy of the PDR). |
| Posted by: Thing From Snowy Mountain 2021-07-14 09:00 |
| #7 HCQ as prophylactic: Look at Brazil |
| Posted by: g(r)omgoru 2021-07-14 08:39 |
| #6 #4 Look up second paragraph in #5. |
| Posted by: g(r)omgoru 2021-07-14 08:22 |
| #5 #2 & #3 There isn't any evidence that HCQ works as prophylactic. The entire magic cure hysteria was started by an in vitro experiment and received no support from in vivo experiments. Reviewed in Gbinigie, K., & Frie, K. (2020). Should chloroquine and hydroxychloroquine be used to treat COVID-19? A rapid review. BJGP open, 4(2). That is, no experimental support, except from your pals from Wuhan Chen, Z., Hu, J., Zhang, Z., Jiang, S., Han, S., Yan, D., ... & Zhang, Z. (2020). Efficacy of hydroxychloroquine in patients with COVID-19: results of a randomized clinical trial. medrxiv. |
| Posted by: g(r)omgoru 2021-07-14 08:21 |
| #4 To me and likely many others, given the World Health Organizations clear political agenda obedience, repeated failures to present timely and factually correct data. How do we trust a damn thing they say now? |
| Posted by: NN2N1 2021-07-14 08:06 |
| #3 Neither remdesivir nor hydroxychloroquine boosts recovery in patients hospitalized with COVID-19 Well yea! Once hospitalized and hooked up to a ventilator, you have become a statistic. I believe R&H are prescribed to prevent the need for hospitalization. |
| Posted by: Besoeker 2021-07-14 07:58 |
| #2 It's now also widely known which study "results" will be looked upon with favor by the dispensers of grants. |
| Posted by: M. Murcek 2021-07-14 07:55 |
| #1 Yes, once again we learn that if you wait for the disease to take serious hold, its not going to be helpful. It's to be taken when the first signs are identified before it takes serious hold. Waiting kills. |
| Posted by: Procopius2k 2021-07-14 06:33 |