Skip to main content
No. of Recommendations: 7
Last week the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons (AAPS) filed a motion to compel the release to the public of Hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) by the FDA and the Department of Health & Human Services.

What makes things worse is the fact that the federal government, the FDA and HHS, are withholding 100 million doses of HCQ that were donated to these agencies from the public.... https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2020/08/two-charts-put-dr-f...

Here are two charts that clearly show the effectiveness of HCQ in treating the coronavirus:

Chart 1: https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/wp-content/uploads/case-fat...

Chart 2: https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/wp-content/uploads/hcq-effe...

Question: Why are they withholding an effective treatment from the American public? This is murder.


-=Ajax=-
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 4
Question: Why are they withholding an effective treatment from the American public? This is murder.


Because it hasn't been shown to be an effective treatment.

As noted in the other thread, it only appears to be an effective treatment because these types of charts almost always cherry-pick the countries they compare. They always exclude Brazil (which has allowed and encouraged HCQ for many months now, but has one of the highest death tolls in the world both in absolute and per capita figures). They always exclude the many, many countries didn't use HCQ and which also have very low death rates (Japan, Australia, Norway, Finland, Greece, etc.) - instead, they hand-pick the counties that have the very highest death rates.

Nor do they take into account the fact that although India has a low per-capita death rate from the beginning of the pandemic, that's because it is early in its infection cycle - right now, it has the second-highest death rate in the world in absolute terms, at 900 deaths per day. And continually rising every week.

Those results from India and Brazil aren't consistent with the premise that HCQ is an effective treatment.

Albaby
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 5
Last week the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons (AAPS) filed a motion to compel the release to the public of Hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) by the FDA and the Department of Health & Human Services.

------------------

Also there is this (from a Democrat so you know it's true)

https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2020/aug/9/paul-vallone...

Democrat NYC councilman: Hydroxychloroquine 'saved my life'


A Democratic New York City council member has credited hydroxychloroquine with saving his life after he contracted the novel coronavirus in March.

Democrat Paul Vallone, who represents northeast Queens, told the New York Post he was struggling to breathe before his doctor prescribed hydroxychloroquine, which he took with Azithromycin, the antibiotic also known as Zithromax or Z-Pak.

... more at link

“I couldn’t breathe, very weak, couldn’t get out of bed,” said Mr. Vallone in an interview posted Saturday. “My doctor prescribed it. My pharmacy had it. Took it that day and within two or three days I was able to breathe. Within a week I was back on my feet.”
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 4
Here are two charts that clearly show the effectiveness of HCQ in treating the coronavirus:... Question: Why are they withholding an effective treatment from the American public? This is murder.

Because it hasn't been shown to be an effective treatment.

Albaby, Facts are not debatable.

Have a nice day.


-=Ajax=-
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 11
Because it hasn't been shown to be an effective treatment. - albaby

---------------

That is disputable and is an insufficient reason. Nobody is forcing anybody to take but those to want it should be able to get it on an outpatient basis with Dr supervision as necessary. Sheesh, the control freaks seem to want everything to be either prohibited or mandatory. A free citizen should have some decision making over his own affairs.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 5
"Because it hasn't been shown to be an effective treatment."
********

This doctor uses her lifetime experience to diagree with you. HCQ is way more than some panacea...
https://videos.utahgunexchange.com/watch/doctors-on-hydroxyc...

DETROIT – Treatment with hydroxychloroquine cut the death rate significantly in sick patients hospitalized with COVID-19 – and without heart-related side-effects, according to a new study published by Henry Ford Health System...
https://www.henryford.com/news/2020/07/hydro-treatment-study...
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 10
Albaby, Facts are not debatable.

True. Which is why you never respond to the facts I point out to you. Instead, you keep citing the same types of things - comparisons that never include Brazil, never include countries with low death rates that didn't use HCQ, and never recognize the world-leading death rate in India.

Albaby
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 5
"Sheesh, the control freaks seem to want everything to be either prohibited or mandatory. A free citizen should have some decision making over his own affairs."

Well said!
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 6
A free citizen should have some decision making over his own affairs.

Except that hasn't been the case in the U.S. for 115 years. It used to be the case that citizens were perfectly free to buy whatever snake oil, health tonic, liniment, or home remedy that was being pushed as a cure for what ails you. But since about 1906, substances that are sold as medicines have been regulated - and as a general matter, they have to be shown to be both safe and effective in order to be prescribed as medicines.

It's pretty easy to understand the reason that drugs have to be "safe." But the reason they have to be "effective" is that a substance which is safe but ineffective can still do harm. Partially due to fraud (if the substance is claimed to be effective but isn't), and partially because it can lead the taker to avoid courses of treatment that are effective because they (mistakenly) believe that the treatment they are taking will help them.

So yes - free citizens do have decision making over their own affairs, but it is not unrestricted.

Albaby
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 4
Albaby,
Arguing that HCQ is inneffective is a stretch...Detroit's Henry Ford Hospital system study was 2500+ patient strong, and 50% More effective than control group...

And 40yrs+ safe.

Why are Dems so anxious to defeat Trump that they deliberately victimize corona patients???

It may or may not be a cure, but it is here and effective...

Do not let the search for perfection prevent the good.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 5
Arguing that HCQ is inneffective is a stretch...Detroit's Henry Ford Hospital system study was 2500+ patient strong, and 50% More effective than control group...

Which doesn't really tell you much, unfortunately.

To understand why, just take a quick look at the attached comic from XKCD:

https://xkcd.com/882/

That comic humorously illustrates a very serious principle of statistics - if you conduct a large number of "tests" on a particular subject, and only look at the ones that are successful, you can draw the conclusion that there is a statistically significant effect even where one doesn't exist.

So looking at HCQ, you have literally millions of patients being treated at tens of thousands of facilities all across the U.S. - and vastly more worldwide. For any treatment that gets tried out to any material degree - even if it were merely green jelly beans like in the comic - you are certain to have some instances where some facilities/groups of patients are going to have better-than-average outcomes regardless of whether the treatment is effective or not. That's especially the case where, as here, the overwhelming majority of patients who contract the virus will get better.

That's before you get into the various biases that aren't controlled for in these types of retrospective analyses - non-random choices of who gets the drug, who's included in the study, who receives what other kinds of treatment, who is even in that hospital system in the first place, and a host of other factors. And the bias against reporting negative results - no one's going to bother making a big deal (or publishing a paper) of their medical system/hospital that gave out HCQ and nothing unusual happened, or there was a more negative outcome.

You can't assess the relevance of studies like this (or the anecdotal reporting of individual physicians) in isolation. In isolation, they will look as promising as the green jelly bean; but when you look at the entire population of patients in the U.S. (or the world), if you don't see more of these types of studies showing positive results than you would expect by chance, then it very well may end up being due to nothing more than chance.

Albaby
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 4
yes, al,
but i tend to place more faith in doctors than cartoonists, or TDS Dems anxious to climb higher on the gravy train.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 4
but i tend to place more faith in doctors than cartoonists

The question though is why do you put more faith in the few doctors who believe that hydroxychloroquine is effective rather than the many studies done by doctors that indicate it is not?

I've actually read the research article from the Henry Ford Hospitals and found two interesting issues. Just to remind everyone, the study tested four treatments: hydroxychloroquine alone (HCQ); azythromycin (an antibiotic) alone (AZY); 3) HCQ+AZY; and 4) neither drug. The results from lowest mortality to highest was: found the highest mortality was HZY (13%), HCQ+HZY (20%), AZY (22%), and no drug (26%). Wow, seems like HCQ works! However, as I mentioned there are two troubling concerns.

The first is describe in the methods section. One sentence states: "The combination of hydroxychloroquine + azithromycin was reserved for selected patients with severe COVID-19 and with minimal cardiac risk factors."

This means that group HCQ+AZY on average had healthier hearts than the other groups.

Another sentence states: "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."

This means that the groups taking HCQ were provided more extensive heart monitoring than the other groups. Seems like they gave HCQ patients more attention and care. Seems a bit unfair.

The second and perhaps even more troubling issue is buried near the bottom of Table 1. It shows the percent of patients from each group given steroids. This is important because there are lots of evidence that certain steroids (like dexamethasone) can benefit patients with severe Covid symptoms. Here's the percent of patients from each group given steroids from highest to lowest: HCQ (79%); HCQ+AZY (74%); AZY (39%); no drug (36%). Notice how that corresponds exactly with the mortality rankings.

In other words, a good case can be made that the difference in mortality rates was due to the steroid treatments, not HCQ. I suspect there are other issues, but these are the two I saw in my reading.

This is not strong evidence for HCQ. It really isn't.

You can evaluate the paper yourself: https://www.ijidonline.com/article/S1201-9712(20)30534-8/ful...
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 3
Corrected version (sorry about that)

but i tend to place more faith in doctors than cartoonists

The question though is why do you put more faith in the few doctors who believe that hydroxychloroquine is effective rather than the many studies done by doctors that indicate it is not?

I've actually read the research article from the Henry Ford Hospitals and found two interesting issues. Just to remind everyone, the study tested four treatments: hydroxychloroquine alone (HCQ); azythromycin (an antibiotic) alone (AZY); 3) HCQ+AZY; and 4) neither drug. The results from lowest mortality to highest was: HCQ (13%), HCQ+AZY (20%), AZY (22%), and no drug (26%). Wow, seems like HCQ works! However, as I mentioned there are two troubling concerns.

The first is describe in the methods section. One sentence states: "The combination of hydroxychloroquine + azithromycin was reserved for selected patients with severe COVID-19 and with minimal cardiac risk factors."

This means that group HCQ+AZY on average had healthier hearts than the other groups.

Another sentence states: "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."

This means that the groups taking HCQ were provided more extensive heart monitoring than the other groups. Seems like they gave HCQ patients more attention and care. Seems a bit unfair.

The second and perhaps even more troubling issue is buried near the bottom of Table 1. It shows the percent of patients from each group given steroids. This is important because there are lots of evidence that certain steroids (like dexamethasone) can benefit patients with severe Covid symptoms. Here's the percent of patients from each group given steroids from highest to lowest: HCQ (79%); HCQ+AZY (74%); AZY (39%); no drug (36%). Notice how that corresponds exactly with the mortality rankings.

In other words, a good case can be made that the difference in mortality rates was due to the steroid treatments, not HCQ. I suspect there are other issues, but these are the two I saw in my reading.

This is not strong evidence for HCQ. It really isn't.

You can evaluate the paper yourself: https://www.ijidonline.com/article/S1201-9712(20)30534-8/ful...
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 8
"In other words, a good case can be made that the difference in mortality rates was due to the steroid treatments, not HCQ."
*********

Perhaps i am too "pragmatic" but i am not up to counting hands from which doctors are for and which are agaixst....

And it is waayy to ailly to leave it up to politicians..

I would advocate for allowing The Physician to make the determination of efficacy. Not journaliats ahilling for Dems, not trolls and CERTAINLY NOT POLITICIANS.

I am weary of petty autucrats pretending to care for the people while grasping for greater power.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 7
I would advocate for allowing The Physician to make the determination of efficacy. Not journaliats ahilling for Dems, not trolls and CERTAINLY NOT POLITICIANS.

But as pointed out upthread, it is physicians that have reached the conclusion that HCQ is not effective. (No, not cartoonists - I linked that because I thought it was an accessible illustration of the principle).

It's not just Democrats or trolls or politicians. Those are entirely domestic factors that are offered up as an excuse for why HCQ hasn't been approved by the U.S. FDA, but they ignore the fact that this is pretty much a global position. The overwhelming majority of public health agencies worldwide have concluded that there is no evidence that HCQ is effective. They're not making that decision because they're trying to influence U.S. politics - they're making that decision based on their professional analysis of the data.

Almost every country on earth that had an early uncontrolled outbreak of COVID was able to get it under control. And they all used the same 'cure.' A combination of social distancing, voluntarily reducing unnecessary travel, facial coverings in areas of high infection where social distancing wasn't possible, suspension of certain high-density public gatherings, contact tracing, and massive amounts of testing relative to the spread of the virus in the population. No country on earth has controlled an initial high outbreak of the virus using HCQ - and the one country that has tried (Brazil) has failed.

The reason you can't leave it up to individual physicians is because individual physicians won't see enough of the cross-section of patients to form any informed conclusion about the efficacy of the medication. That's the point that the cartoon was trying to illustrate. If you take 1,000 doctors and let them prescribe anything to treat Covid - whether it's HCQ or aspirin or green jelly beans - then some percentage of them will find statistically significant improvement regardless of whether it works. Because they don't know about, and don't take into account, the other doctors who prescribed that treatment and saw no benefit (or saw adverse results), they can't possibly know whether the treatment is effective or not. Only by looking at the entire population - and by using controlled tests - can you actually determine efficacy.

In this case, we want the good to be the enemy of the ineffectual. Instead, we're letting the ineffectual be the enemy of the good. We know how to stop uncontrolled Covid infection - we just have to do what every other country that stopped it has done.

Albaby
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 4
I would advocate for allowing The Physician to make the determination of efficacy. Not journaliats ahilling for Dems, not trolls and CERTAINLY NOT POLITICIANS.

Great idea! I agree that America should stop listening trump, who is just a POLITICIAN, and listen to doctors, particularly those doctors who are trained in doing research and know the proper way to design studies. See, the gold-standard for clinical trials is what is called a randomised study. This is where covid patients who get a treatment, like hydroxychloroquinine (HCQ) are picked at random. This was NOT done in the Henry Ford hospital study.

It was done in the UK, and these doctors concluded: In patients hospitalized with COVID-19, hydroxychloroquine was not associated with reductions in 28-day mortality but was associated with an increased length of hospital stay and increased risk of progressing to invasive mechanical ventilation or death." https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.07.15.20151852v...

So from UK doctors: HCQ not effective for Covid and actually does some harm.

In Canada and Minnesota, doctors did another randomized study: "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." https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa2016638

From North American doctors: HCQ not effective for Covid.

Another randomized study was done in Spain with about 20 doctors as co-authors. Conclusion: "Postexposure therapy with HCQ did not prevent SARS-CoV-2 disease and infection in healthy individuals exposed to a PCR-positive case. Our findings do not support HCQ as postexposure prophylaxis for Covid-19." https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.07.20.20157651v...

From Spanish doctors: HCQ not effective for Covid.

So, by all means listen to the doctors.

I am weary of petty autucrats pretending to care for the people while grasping for greater power.

A very accurate and concise description of trump.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 4
The question though is why do you put more faith in the few doctors who believe that hydroxychloroquine is effective rather than the many studies done by doctors that indicate it is not?

• Faith and dogma deal with religion and they are the instruments of quackery, not science.

• Practicing Medical Doctors do not believe. They know! Big Difference.

• Recall that the Lancet and the New England Journal of Medicine retracted studies they published against HCQ because they were based on fabricated data.

• The editors of the Lancet and the New England Journal of Medicine blamed Big Pharma for the retracted studies. So, who are you going to believe, the liars and the frauds or the Practicing Medical Doctors who know first hand that HCQ works?

• Dr. Fauci, never practiced medicine and never saw a single patient in his life. Fauci is a proven quack and does not qualify to lead the USA against Covid-19.

• Hydroxychloroquine with Zinc has an efficacy that exceeds 99%. Only quacks are unable to read and understand such data.

• And speaking of data...
.... Chart 1: https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/wp-content/uploads/case-fat...

.... Chart 2: https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/wp-content/uploads/hcq-effe...


-=Ajax=-
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
• Hydroxychloroquine with Zinc has an efficacy that exceeds 99%. Only quacks are unable to read and understand such data.

Quackery.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
Two Charts Should Land Dr. Fauci in Prison

This thread title, while pithy and probably appealing to the knuckle-draggers it was meant to incite, illustrates the profound ignorance of the OP. Drugs are approved at the FDA; Fauci is at the NIH. Even if Fauci was at the FDA, no one person is responsible for drug approval; the process is long and arduous for new drugs, somewhat less so for drugs seeking approval for novel uses. There are committees and boards galore, and include industry, academic and governmental representation. See the FDA website for more information: https://www.fda.gov/drugs/drug-information-consumers/fdas-dr...

This kind of talk is irresponsible and contributes to the mob mentality directed at Fauci and other public health officials who have been threatened and injured over the past few months. It seems odd to me that those who are most offended that a few shops have been looted during BLM protests (not by BLM members, btw) seem perfectly happy to join and incite a mob that has done actual damage to actual humans. Shame on you.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 3
that a few shops have been looted during BLM protests - mzee20

------------------

Holy Crap. Open your eyes. A few shops. C'mon man.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 13
"It seems odd to me that those who are most offended that a few shops have been looted during BLM protests (not by BLM members, btw) seem perfectly happy to join and incite a mob that has done actual damage to actual humans."
*******


1.When did senseless violence become harmless with no victims? People have been killed maimed small businesses have gone up in flames people have lost their jobs and the hopes and dreams of a community has been destroyed ...no harm there (yeah right)

2.Is there a roll call taken before each night of mayhem to see who is a non-member?? I did not realize.

Shovel that stuff somewhere else please.

Mob violence has been part and parcel of Marxist/Socialist methodology from the Bolsheviks to the present day. The self avowed Marxists at the core of the BLM organisations have certainly been trained with this tool.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
yes, al,
but i tend to place more faith in doctors than cartoonists, or TDS Dems anxious to climb higher on the gravy train.

==============================

So it Al showed you a cartoon depicting gravity (a glass falling on the floor and breaking into pieces) you would not place much faith in the cartoon being accurate example of gravity.

You do not understand that a medical scientist (doctor) told the cartoonist to draw that cartoon Al posted.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 2
The question though is why do you put more faith in the few doctors who believe that hydroxychloroquine is effective rather than the many studies done by doctors that indicate it is not?

Or the question is why do you place more faith in the few doctors who believe that hydroxychloroquine is ineffective rather than the many studies done by doctors that indicate it is effective?

The runner up question is if hydroxychloroquine is effective in some patients, but not others, why would you deny those it may work for just because it does not work on the others?

Kathleenn
Print the post Back To Top