Hydroxychloroquinine updates (and other potential treatments)

[TSmith34, Inc.]

Sure, but I can say the same thing about taking Zyrtec.  Scientists don't set up double blind randomized tests with several hundred subjects in the hope that the crap they've thrown against the wall sticks.

In other words, scientists don't do massive expensive studies on things that don't work in a clinical setting.  There are phases to testing, and you don't blindly move forward on something that lacks evidence of efficacy.

You know, I think this is just wrong. Unless we set up a study, how are we ever going to know if disinfectant by injection inside, or almost a cleaning, is effective or not?

[pacearrow02]

I do appreciate the posters supplying the unintended humor and satire.    Unintentional irony is the best

My post was not an endorsement of the AAPS but just a link to an article that seemed to have taken a look at the totality of all the anecdotal evidence out there showing there are benefits to its use.  I guess my point was that there is ample evidence out there showing success using it and there is evidence showing the value is minimal as well. Either way to totally write it off seems silly.

[pacearrow02]

LOL.

"AAPS opposes mandated evidence-based medicine and practice guidelines".

You know, I wish the stupid actually did burn.

Nice man. 

[TSmith34, Inc.]

Nice man.

To be clear, I was referring to that group (and anyone willing to be treated by them). They don't believe in evidence-based medicine. They also don't believe there should be penalties for doctors that make mistakes. They don't believe HIV causes AIDS. They DO believe vaccines cause autism. In short, their medical practices are informed by their politics, not what the evidence shows.

Good luck to anyone unfortunate enough to have one of their members as their doctor.

[muwarrior69]

Sure, but I can say the same thing about taking Zyrtec.  Scientists don't set up double blind randomized tests with several hundred subjects in the hope that the crap they've thrown against the wall sticks.

In other words, scientists don't do massive expensive studies on things that don't work in a clinical setting.  There are phases to testing, and you don't blindly move forward on something that lacks evidence of efficacy.

But the French and the Chinese saw evidence of improvement with patients on chloroquine and Z-pac in a clinical setting, the VA saw just the opposite, the jury is still out. There is also the question if it can be used as a prophylactic for frontline health providers.

[forgetful]

Is there a published link to a double blind randomized study of several hundred subjects that definitively demonstrates that, otherwise it is just all speculation one way or the other.
Let's wait and see what the science tells us not just some observations from a small set of patients that come to opposite conclusions.

At face value, that is not an unfair criticism of my statement and stances on previous issues. Here is why, though, I disagree with the sentiment.

The default stance is drugs do not have a benefit for a treatment pathway, unless their is evidence to support that benefit/treatment. There was some anecdotal data to support hydroxychloroquine + Zpack, which then warranted the hypothesis that "HC + Z can function as a COVID treatment"

That then has to either be proven by a rigorous double bind study. Or it can be falsified, by data showing one of two things. In larger numbers of patients, there is no benefit, or the treatment has negative side effects that prohibit the treatment.

In this case we both have larger studies, showing no statistically significant effect, and we have studies that had to be ceased, because of dangerous side effects. In normal research, the side effect results would end all current studies, but these are not normal times.

So since there is falsifying evidence, and dangerous side effects, that is enough to prove, no benefit.

The biggest study in NY looked at 600 patients, and found no benefit. It was enough to get the FDA to recommend the drug not be used outside of hospitals or research trials, because of dangerous side effects.

[The Hippie Satan of Hyperbole]

Cheers to a reasonable, level headed, patient approach to see what works and what doesn’t!  Linked is a great article listing out all the various clinical trials going on for a whole host of therapeutics including hydroxy.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.politico.com/amp/news/2020/04/27/tracking-the-hunt-for-coronavirus-drugs-and-vaccines-211416

Exactly. That’s 100% different than the other article you posted. These are trials. The article was a declarative statement.

[pacearrow02]

Exactly. That’s 100% different than the other article you posted. These are trials. The article was a declarative statement.

Then you only read the headline and not the article. 

Article literally talks about the failed VA study, the new FDA warning regarding heart arrhythmia, etc.  The article was far from a declarative statement but I thought did a decent job telling both the good and the bad from various anecdotal trials. 

[pacearrow02]

At face value, that is not an unfair criticism of my statement and stances on previous issues. Here is why, though, I disagree with the sentiment.

The default stance is drugs do not have a benefit for a treatment pathway, unless their is evidence to support that benefit/treatment. There was some anecdotal data to support hydroxychloroquine + Zpack, which then warranted the hypothesis that "HC + Z can function as a COVID treatment"

That then has to either be proven by a rigorous double bind study. Or it can be falsified, by data showing one of two things. In larger numbers of patients, there is no benefit, or the treatment has negative side effects that prohibit the treatment.

In this case we both have larger studies, showing no statistically significant effect, and we have studies that had to be ceased, because of dangerous side effects. In normal research, the side effect results would end all current studies, but these are not normal times.

So since there is falsifying evidence, and dangerous side effects, that is enough to prove, no benefit.

The biggest study in NY looked at 600 patients, and found no benefit. It was enough to get the FDA to recommend the drug not be used outside of hospitals or research trials, because of dangerous side effects.

Was the 600 patient any trial double blind randomized?  If not could those results have been falsified?  And if it’s now known to have zero benefit and have possible dangerous side effects why haven’t the multiple phase III trials been shut down?

[pacearrow02]

Was the 600 patient any trial double blind randomized?  If not could those results have been falsified?  And if it’s now known to have zero benefit and have possible dangerous side effects why haven’t the multiple phase III trials been shut down?

NY*

[Jockey]

But the French and the Chinese saw evidence of improvement with patients on chloroquine and Z-pac in a clinical setting, the VA saw just the opposite, the jury is still out. There is also the question if it can be used as a prophylactic for frontline health providers.

The jury is not out. There are just a few posters determined to show that quack suggestions have merit.

[forgetful]

Was the 600 patient any trial double blind randomized?  If not could those results have been falsified?  And if it’s now known to have zero benefit and have possible dangerous side effects why haven’t the multiple phase III trials been shut down?

The release doesn't say if it was double blind. But it was randomized, and did have placebo controls. The Brazil study was double blind, but had to be stopped because of dangerous and possibly fatal side effects.

As I said, if this was normal times, this would stop any and all clinical trials, but these are not normal times.

And you misunderstand "falsified." It is a philosophy of science concept, that to qualify as science a hypothesis has to be falsifiable, in general meaning that an experiment can be constructed that would prove false a hypothesis.

It is part of the idea that science is never proven, but advances through the collection of disconfirming evidence forcing the revision of ideas/hypotheses. The Brazil and NY studies falsify the hypothesis that hydroxychloroquine is a safe and effective treatment.

[The Hippie Satan of Hyperbole]

Then you only read the headline and not the article. 

Article literally talks about the failed VA study, the new FDA warning regarding heart arrhythmia, etc.  The article was far from a declarative statement but I thought did a decent job telling both the good and the bad from various anecdotal trials. 

I read both.  You apparently don't understand what you are posting.

[pacearrow02]

I read both.  You apparently don't understand what you are posting.

By all means help me understand what I’m posting.  Does the article not talk about failed VA trial, FDA warning, while also talking about some of the positive results of anecdotal trials? 

[pacearrow02]

The release doesn't say if it was double blind. But it was randomized, and did have placebo controls. The Brazil study was double blind, but had to be stopped because of dangerous and possibly fatal side effects.

As I said, if this was normal times, this would stop any and all clinical trials, but these are not normal times.

And you misunderstand "falsified." It is a philosophy of science concept, that to qualify as science a hypothesis has to be falsifiable, in general meaning that an experiment can be constructed that would prove false a hypothesis.

It is part of the idea that science is never proven, but advances through the collection of disconfirming evidence forcing the revision of ideas/hypotheses. The Brazil and NY studies falsify the hypothesis that hydroxychloroquine is a safe and effective treatment.

You are 100% right in that I misunderstood falsified.  I have no idea what you just said 🤪

[pacearrow02]

The jury is not out. There are just a few posters determined to show that quack suggestions have merit.

Up until now I was trying to keep an open mind and holding out hope that hydroxy might be one of many successful therapies.  But now that Jockey has weighed in and assured me the jury is no longer out and it’s a done deal I guess I’ll just close that door.  Thanks Jockey!

[Jockey]

Up until now I was trying to keep an open mind and holding out hope that hydroxy might be one of many successful therapies.  But now that Jockey has weighed in and assured me the jury is no longer out and it’s a done deal I guess I’ll just close that door.  Thanks Jockey!

I believe in science. You apparently believe in our leader.

[GooooMarquette]

I believe in science. You apparently believe in our leader.

I wish they were the same, but alas....

[pacearrow02]

I believe in science. You apparently believe in our leader.

No Jockey, I believe in neither of those.  I believe in you.

[MU82]

Bill Maher's monologue, April 24:

Trump was pissed off this week because they finally got back the largest study so far about Hydroxychloroquine ... this is the crap that Trump has been saying, "What do you have to lose?" He's been pushing this like a Buick dealer trying to unload last year's Skylark.

But the study came back and it turns out it doesn't work, it's dangerous and it hasn't been vetted. If it was a person, he would have hired it.

But what is this, "What do you have to lose?" About a dangerous unvetted drug that has side effects? This is why my mother told me, "Never take medical advice from a fat guy in clown makeup." ... Are we sure that the makeup is not lead based?

Trump's having a bad week so he's going back to his greatest hits. He announced a travel ban on everywhere. No more immigrants till he figures out where Fauci's from. ... So all of you who are planning to move to the most infected country on earth, tough luck on you!

[Jockey]

No Jockey, I believe in neither of those.  I believe in you.

Not up to defending your position, huh?

[pacearrow02]

Not up to defending your position, huh?

I’ve defended my position in previous posts as to why I believe you cant shut the door on hydroxy yet. 

The fact there are on going phase III trials should be enough to leave an open mind to what those results might show.

What is your defense (besides putting down other people’s opinions and name calling) for your position?

[Hards Alumni]

I’ve defended my position in previous posts as to why I believe you cant shut the door on hydroxy yet. 

The fact there are on going phase III trials should be enough to leave an open mind to what those results might show.

What is your defense (besides putting down other people’s opinions and name calling) for your position?

Look, you're not wrong.  There is hope, but I'd place it alongside as much hope as the Bears winning the Super Bowl this year.

Personally, I hope it works out.  But since you posed about the Phase III trials yesterday, I had to go back and do some more reading.  I believe that researchers are more hopeful that the zpack is the important part of the therapy.

[pacearrow02]

Look, you're not wrong.  There is hope, but I'd place it alongside as much hope as the Bears winning the Super Bowl this year.

Personally, I hope it works out.  But since you posed about the Phase III trials yesterday, I had to go back and do some more reading.  I believe that researchers are more hopeful that the zpack is the important part of the therapy.

Cheers mate!  Whether it’s the zpack, hydroxy, or another combination of medications that are readily available I hope we can all get behind the idea we should be leaving no stone unturned!!

[MU82]

Cheers mate!  Whether it’s the zpack, hydroxy, or another combination of medications that are readily available I hope we can all get behind the idea we should be leaving no stone unturned!!

I think most reasonable people are right here with you.

What some were less keen about was an ignorant reality TV host screaming at press briefings mini-campaign rallies: "Go get this! What do you have to lose?"