Jump to content


Photo

Covid-19 Pandemic

WorldWarC SARS-CoV-2 DoomsDayPreppers SterilliumIsTheNewFragrance

  • Please log in to reply
3588 replies to this topic

#3581 RETAC21

RETAC21

    A la lealtad y al valor

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 14,212 posts

Posted Yesterday, 03:24 AM

https://www.nejm.org...PYeCao0.twitter

 

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. (Funded by David Baszucki and Jan Ellison Baszucki and others; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT04308668. opens in new tab.)

 

 

Two takeaways:

- chloroquine by itself (notably, without simultaneous zinc supplementation) is not a panacea,

- chloroquine is not the death sentence its opponents are claiming.

 

You are missing the key take away: it doesn't work. 

 

The incidence of new illness compatible with Covid-19 did not differ significantly between participants receiving hydroxychloroquine and those receiving placebo 


  • 0

#3582 Stuart Galbraith

Stuart Galbraith

    Just Another Salisbury Tourist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 58,410 posts

Posted Yesterday, 07:57 AM

I can almost imagine Trump tweeting 'Why dont we have enough Placebo! We must lead the world in producing Placebo!' :)


  • 0

#3583 Ivanhoe

Ivanhoe

    purposeful grimace

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 32,932 posts

Posted Yesterday, 07:59 AM

Didn't miss a thing. Its been known that chloroquine needs sufficient zinc to do its thing. Fer crissakes there have been preprints and Youtube videos out for a month or more.

 

What's not mentioned in the above preprint summary is the percentage of each group needing hospitalization. If any treatment fails to prevent illness but does prevent illness to the point of requiring advanced treatment, that's kinda huge.

 

Though I can understand that for political reasons, a lot of folks now need higher hospitalization rates, to justify outlawing "elective" procedures (like angioplasty).


  • 0

#3584 Ivanhoe

Ivanhoe

    purposeful grimace

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 32,932 posts

Posted Yesterday, 08:00 AM

I can almost imagine Trump tweeting 'Why dont we have enough Placebo! We must lead the world in producing Placebo!' :)

 

And I can imagine Trump laughing his ass off at the pearl-clutchers when they freak out at a silly joke.


  • 0

#3585 RETAC21

RETAC21

    A la lealtad y al valor

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 14,212 posts

Posted Yesterday, 09:18 AM

Didn't miss a thing. Its been known that chloroquine needs sufficient zinc to do its thing. Fer crissakes there have been preprints and Youtube videos out for a month or more.

 

What's not mentioned in the above preprint summary is the percentage of each group needing hospitalization. If any treatment fails to prevent illness but does prevent illness to the point of requiring advanced treatment, that's kinda huge.

 

Though I can understand that for political reasons, a lot of folks now need higher hospitalization rates, to justify outlawing "elective" procedures (like angioplasty).

 

https://blogs.scienc...e-may-19-update

https://blogs.scienc...-enough-already

 

"Overall, there was no difference in viral clearance. No difference in symptomatic improvement. No difference in overall mortality. The only clear difference between the two groups was in adverse effects, which were (on again) higher in the HCQ treated population.

...

There was no evidence whatsoever of any benefit with any of these treatment regimes. There was significant evidence of harm. Here’s how it works: when something is real, you continue to see a real signal as you collect more and better data. When something is not real, it disappears. "

 

I can understand the kneejerk reaction of the left to Trump defending anything would be to deny it, but sometimes things don't work out.


Edited by RETAC21, Yesterday, 09:19 AM.

  • 0

#3586 Der Zeitgeist

Der Zeitgeist

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 1,677 posts

Posted Yesterday, 09:38 AM

Maybe it tastes good.


  • 0

#3587 Jeff

Jeff

    Godfather of Tanknet Birthday Greetings

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 9,671 posts

Posted Yesterday, 03:57 PM

Add that to the model garbage.

 

Lancet, NEJM Retract Surgisphere Studies on COVID-19 Patients
All authors other than company founder and CEO Sapan Desai were “unable to complete an independent audit of the data,” The Lancet states.

 


  • 0

#3588 cjpaul

cjpaul

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 210 posts

Posted Yesterday, 08:14 PM


Didn't miss a thing. Its been known that chloroquine needs sufficient zinc to do its thing. Fer crissakes there have been preprints and Youtube videos out for a month or more.
 
What's not mentioned in the above preprint summary is the percentage of each group needing hospitalization. If any treatment fails to prevent illness but does prevent illness to the point of requiring advanced treatment, that's kinda huge.
 
Though I can understand that for political reasons, a lot of folks now need higher hospitalization rates, to justify outlawing "elective" procedures (like angioplasty).

 
https://blogs.scienc...e-may-19-update
https://blogs.scienc...-enough-already
 
"Overall, there was no difference in viral clearance. No difference in symptomatic improvement. No difference in overall mortality. The only clear difference between the two groups was in adverse effects, which were (on again) higher in the HCQ treated population.
...
There was no evidence whatsoever of any benefit with any of these treatment regimes. There was significant evidence of harm. Heres how it works: when something is real, you continue to see a real signal as you collect more and better data. When something is not real, it disappears. "
 
I can understand the kneejerk reaction of the left to Trump defending anything would be to deny it, but sometimes things don't work out.

One is talking about prophylaxis the other is treatment. Quite different.

The other thing to point out is the blog author you reference as an authority based his argument solely on the now discredited paper. Poor to rely on a single work.
  • 0

#3589 RETAC21

RETAC21

    A la lealtad y al valor

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 14,212 posts

Posted Today, 02:30 AM

 

 

Didn't miss a thing. Its been known that chloroquine needs sufficient zinc to do its thing. Fer crissakes there have been preprints and Youtube videos out for a month or more.
 
What's not mentioned in the above preprint summary is the percentage of each group needing hospitalization. If any treatment fails to prevent illness but does prevent illness to the point of requiring advanced treatment, that's kinda huge.
 
Though I can understand that for political reasons, a lot of folks now need higher hospitalization rates, to justify outlawing "elective" procedures (like angioplasty).

 
https://blogs.scienc...e-may-19-update
https://blogs.scienc...-enough-already
 
"Overall, there was no difference in viral clearance. No difference in symptomatic improvement. No difference in overall mortality. The only clear difference between the two groups was in adverse effects, which were (on again) higher in the HCQ treated population.
...
There was no evidence whatsoever of any benefit with any of these treatment regimes. There was significant evidence of harm. Heres how it works: when something is real, you continue to see a real signal as you collect more and better data. When something is not real, it disappears. "
 
I can understand the kneejerk reaction of the left to Trump defending anything would be to deny it, but sometimes things don't work out.

One is talking about prophylaxis the other is treatment. Quite different.

The other thing to point out is the blog author you reference as an authority based his argument solely on the now discredited paper. Poor to rely on a single work.

 

 

Did you bother to read both posts? because he addresses its use both as a prophylactic and a treatment, and references multiple studies, not just the one from the Lancet. And it's pretty clear from the text:

 

- there’s this preprint from a group in Madrid,

- We also have this retrospective study from Northwell in New York

-  here’s a review of everything in the literature on COVID-19 and hydroxychloroquine treatment up to May 13. It summarizes eleven studies (3 controlled trials and 8 observational/retrospective efforts), totaling 2354 patients receiving HCQ (alone or in combination) and 1952 controls.

- Well, here’s an open-label randomized study from China in February and March 

- And here’s an observational study from France,

- here’s a preprint from NYU on the combination of HCQ/azithromycin and HCQ/azithromycin/zinc.


  • 0