cancel
Showing results for 
Search instead for 
Did you mean: 
     
Highlighted
Participant ○○○

Re: Yale Epidemiology Professor says the science is clear: Hydroxychloroquine Works


@Juris2 wrote:

I think it could be a good additive to the laundry detergent. But if I had COVID I'd rather tough it out than take this chemical. I've been to New Haven, and to Yale, and spent some formative days at Yale New Haven hospital, but what the heck.


@Juris2, don't knock Yale-New Haven Hospital. I was born there! The "cove". Plus, the Black Panther Trials were fun times. Sally's, Pepe's, and Louie's Lunch (the first hamburger in the US and still served on toast). No city in the country with better restaurants with a population of 3 x 130,000.

Be nice now!

Hootz

0 Kudos
Highlighted
Participant ○○

Re: Yale Epidemiology Professor says the science is clear: Hydroxychloroquine Works

I've had some pretty numbskulled doctors.  I might consult another before deciding. I think it was the nurses at Yale New Haven that saved me. According to my Mom. But that was over 70 years ago. And I honestly can't recall the event.

P.S. I've been to Pepe's, about 20 years ago.

0 Kudos
Highlighted
Frequent Contributor

Re: Yale Epidemiology Professor says the science is clear: Hydroxychloroquine Works

“We divided a subset of our cohort in three groups who started treatment a median of 1 day after admission: those receiving hydroxycholoroquine alone, those receiving hydroxycholoroquine + azithromycin, and those receiving neither .... The percent of death in the 3 groups was 27%, 23% and 51%.

https://www.ijidonline.com/article/S1201-9712(20)30600-7/fulltext?fbclid=IwAR3vYOXPtM7JFiqJIeezynU86...

Highlighted
Participant ○○○

Re: Yale Epidemiology Professor says the science is clear: Hydroxychloroquine Works


@chang wrote:

A new study demonstrated 50% fewer deaths for hospitalized patients.

“We divided a subset of our cohort in three groups who started treatment a median of 1 day after admission: those receiving hydroxycholoroquine alone (N = 197), those receiving hydroxycholoroquine + azithromycin (N = 94), and those receiving neither (controls) (N = 92). Of the latter group, 10 started HIV antivirals (boosted-lopinavir or –darunavir), 1 teicoplanin, 12 immunomodulatory drugs or corticosteroids, 23 heparin and 46 remained untreated. The percent of death in the 3 groups was 27%, 23% and 51%.”

https://www.ijidonline.com/article/S1201-9712(20)30600-7/fulltext?fbclid=IwAR3vYOXPtM7JFiqJIeezynU86...

 


Glad to see you introduced work on hydroxychloroquine + azithromycin. Of course, Risch did not.

 

 

 

0 Kudos
Highlighted
Frequent Contributor

Re: Yale Epidemiology Professor says the science is clear: Hydroxychloroquine Works

The numbers—for those who can bring themselves to look at them—speak for themselves. 

0 Kudos
Highlighted
Explorer ○○○

Re: Yale Epidemiology Professor says the science is clear: Hydroxychloroquine Works

The FDA issued an advisory notice directing physicians NOT to use HCQ in combination with remdesivir.  The reason is that Informal studies and anecdotal evidence - but no clinical trials - Have shown that HCQ diminishes The effectiveness of remdesivir substantially.  I have seen no published data showing otherwise.  So the question is:  If you cannot use both, which one do you pick?  

Highlighted
Frequent Contributor

Re: Yale Epidemiology Professor says the science is clear: Hydroxychloroquine Works


@Juris2 wrote:

That might depend on which doctor recommended it. Dr. Fauci made the case for "not proved" in his testimony today.


There are two sides to the story. Some people only see the side they want to see.

https://justthenews.com/politics-policy/coronavirus/yale-epidemiologist-accuses-fauci-running-disinf...

Highlighted
Participant ○○○

Re: Yale Epidemiology Professor says the science is clear: Hydroxychloroquine Works


@chang wrote:

@Juris2 wrote:

That might depend on which doctor recommended it. Dr. Fauci made the case for "not proved" in his testimony today.


There are two sides to the story. Some people only see the side they want to see.

https://justthenews.com/politics-policy/coronavirus/yale-epidemiologist-accuses-fauci-running-disinf...


chang, who are the "Some people"?

0 Kudos
Highlighted
Participant ○○○

Re: Yale Epidemiology Professor says the science is clear: Hydroxychloroquine Works


@Hootz wrote:

@chang wrote:

A new study demonstrated 50% fewer deaths for hospitalized patients.

“We divided a subset of our cohort in three groups who started treatment a median of 1 day after admission: those receiving hydroxycholoroquine alone (N = 197), those receiving hydroxycholoroquine + azithromycin (N = 94), and those receiving neither (controls) (N = 92). Of the latter group, 10 started HIV antivirals (boosted-lopinavir or –darunavir), 1 teicoplanin, 12 immunomodulatory drugs or corticosteroids, 23 heparin and 46 remained untreated. The percent of death in the 3 groups was 27%, 23% and 51%.”

https://www.ijidonline.com/article/S1201-9712(20)30600-7/fulltext?fbclid=IwAR3vYOXPtM7JFiqJIeezynU86...

 


Glad to see you introduced work on hydroxychloroquine + azithromycin. Of course, Risch did not.

 

 

 


I'm curious @Hootz.  Is the implication of your comments healthy skepticism about Dr. Risch's conclusion, or do you think it should have been obvious from the beginning that he was a quack and his arguments were a joke because they didn't conform to the groupthink concensus?

Isn't asking questions healthy?  Does he have a record of taking extreme, baloney positions?

If not, shouldn't Risch's many apparent qualifications (professor of epidemiology at Yale School of Public Health, MD and PhD, 300+ published and peer-reviewed articles, and seats on the boards of several journals) at least qualify him to bring something to the attention of the medical and scientific community that maybe a mistake or an oversight may have been made?  

Or should science be run by a commission of the right thinking to squelch even reasonable dissent?  Seems a bit like the Catholic Church and Galileo, at least potentially.

Now, I'm not saying he's right.  He may be a quack.  But shouldn't his credentials and seemingly exemplary record mean his ideas at least get a fair hearing and he isn't simply subject to character assassination for deviating from the party line?

I'm no fan of the charlatan in chief who would try to twist such into vindication of him and his policies, but shouldn't peoples' lives potentially matter more than that?  Or do we add the corruption of science itself to the dubious potential achievements of the mind warper?

 

0 Kudos
Highlighted
Frequent Contributor

Re: Yale Epidemiology Professor says the science is clear: Hydroxychloroquine Works


@BD wrote:

The FDA issued an advisory notice directing physicians NOT to use HCQ in combination with remdesivir.  The reason is that Informal studies and anecdotal evidence - but no clinical trials - Have shown that HCQ diminishes The effectiveness of remdesivir substantially.  I have seen no published data showing otherwise.  So the question is:  If you cannot use both, which one do you pick?  


Based on what I've read, HCQ might be more effective when used early on, in an out-patient situation. Remdesivir would be the drug of choice during hospitalization with more advanced symptoms. I don't know that anyone has proposed using the two drugs together.

What I don't get is that HCQ is being treated with disdain by various pundits on these boards and elsewhere, almost the equivalent of injecting acetone or something crazy. In fact, HCQ has been around for years and is used worldwide by many millions of people to safely treat other medical issues.

HCQ is also cheap and easily obtained; remdesivir less so.

There's evidence that HCQ actually works, when used as prescribed during the onset of Covid-19 symptoms (not after the virus has made itself at home in our lungs). There's also evidence that masks are very effective / essential in helping prevent the spread of the disease. Yet, both measures are leading to shrill, politicized screeching by the Usual Suspects. 

N.

0 Kudos
Highlighted
Participant ○○○

Re: Yale Epidemiology Professor says the science is clear: Hydroxychloroquine Works


@Bizman wrote:

@Hootz wrote:

@chang wrote:

A new study demonstrated 50% fewer deaths for hospitalized patients.

“We divided a subset of our cohort in three groups who started treatment a median of 1 day after admission: those receiving hydroxycholoroquine alone (N = 197), those receiving hydroxycholoroquine + azithromycin (N = 94), and those receiving neither (controls) (N = 92). Of the latter group, 10 started HIV antivirals (boosted-lopinavir or –darunavir), 1 teicoplanin, 12 immunomodulatory drugs or corticosteroids, 23 heparin and 46 remained untreated. The percent of death in the 3 groups was 27%, 23% and 51%.”

https://www.ijidonline.com/article/S1201-9712(20)30600-7/fulltext?fbclid=IwAR3vYOXPtM7JFiqJIeezynU86...

 


Glad to see you introduced work on hydroxychloroquine + azithromycin. Of course, Risch did not.

 

 

 


I'm curious @Hootz.  Is the implication of your comments healthy skepticism about Dr. Risch's conclusion, or do you think it should have been obvious from the beginning that he was a quack and his arguments were a joke because they didn't conform to the groupthink concensus?

Isn't asking questions healthy?  Does he have a record of taking extreme, baloney positions?

If not, shouldn't Risch's many apparent qualifications (professor of epidemiology at Yale School of Public Health, MD and PhD, 300+ published and peer-reviewed articles, and seats on the boards of several journals) at least qualify him to bring something to the attention of the medical and scientific community that maybe a mistake or an oversight may have been made?  

Or should science be run by a commission of the right thinking to squelch even reasonable dissent?  Seems a bit like the Catholic Church and Galileo, at least potentially.

Now, I'm not saying he's right.  He may be a quack.  But shouldn't his credentials and seemingly exemplary record mean his ideas at least get a fair hearing and he isn't simply subject to character assassination for deviating from the party line?

I'm no fan of the charlatan in chief who would try to twist such into vindication of him and his policies, but shouldn't peoples' lives potentially matter more than that?  Or do we add the corruption of science itself to the dubious potential achievements of the mind warper?

 


 @Bizman  you are reading way too deeply into my 14-word post. I was commenting on hydroxychloroquine + azithromycin. Risch did not address this combination.
0 Kudos
Highlighted
Participant ○○○

Re: Yale Epidemiology Professor says the science is clear: Hydroxychloroquine Works


@Hootz wrote:

@Bizman wrote:

@Hootz wrote:

@chang wrote:

A new study demonstrated 50% fewer deaths for hospitalized patients.

“We divided a subset of our cohort in three groups who started treatment a median of 1 day after admission: those receiving hydroxycholoroquine alone (N = 197), those receiving hydroxycholoroquine + azithromycin (N = 94), and those receiving neither (controls) (N = 92). Of the latter group, 10 started HIV antivirals (boosted-lopinavir or –darunavir), 1 teicoplanin, 12 immunomodulatory drugs or corticosteroids, 23 heparin and 46 remained untreated. The percent of death in the 3 groups was 27%, 23% and 51%.”

https://www.ijidonline.com/article/S1201-9712(20)30600-7/fulltext?fbclid=IwAR3vYOXPtM7JFiqJIeezynU86...

 


Glad to see you introduced work on hydroxychloroquine + azithromycin. Of course, Risch did not.

 

 

 


I'm curious @Hootz.  Is the implication of your comments healthy skepticism about Dr. Risch's conclusion, or do you think it should have been obvious from the beginning that he was a quack and his arguments were a joke because they didn't conform to the groupthink concensus?

Isn't asking questions healthy?  Does he have a record of taking extreme, baloney positions?

If not, shouldn't Risch's many apparent qualifications (professor of epidemiology at Yale School of Public Health, MD and PhD, 300+ published and peer-reviewed articles, and seats on the boards of several journals) at least qualify him to bring something to the attention of the medical and scientific community that maybe a mistake or an oversight may have been made?  

Or should science be run by a commission of the right thinking to squelch even reasonable dissent?  Seems a bit like the Catholic Church and Galileo, at least potentially.

Now, I'm not saying he's right.  He may be a quack.  But shouldn't his credentials and seemingly exemplary record mean his ideas at least get a fair hearing and he isn't simply subject to character assassination for deviating from the party line?

I'm no fan of the charlatan in chief who would try to twist such into vindication of him and his policies, but shouldn't peoples' lives potentially matter more than that?  Or do we add the corruption of science itself to the dubious potential achievements of the mind warper?

 


 @Bizman  you are reading way too deeply into my 14-word post. I was commenting on hydroxychloroquine + azithromycin. Risch did not address this combination.

I apologize whole-heartedly @Hootz .  I thought I picked up from other posters and perhaps by implication in your messages the ideas that:

1). I was a fool for even considering the possibility that there may be something to Dr. Risch's ideas.

2). I didn't have the standing to post on the topic.

3). Dr. Risch didn't have the standing to raise questions despite his glowing qualifications.

4). Anyone questioning the dogma/consensus of the bien pensant was a tool of nefarious forces.

5). That @chang and I were perhaps idiots for even considering the possibility of the truth deviating from the consensus and bringing it to the attention of the message board.

 

I stand corrected and chastened for having jumped to these conclusions.  The written word isn't as easy to read when no human face is delivering the message sometimes.

0 Kudos
Highlighted
Frequent Contributor

Re: Yale Epidemiology Professor says the science is clear: Hydroxychloroquine Works


@chang wrote:

“We divided a subset of our cohort in three groups who started treatment a median of 1 day after admission: those receiving hydroxycholoroquine alone, those receiving hydroxycholoroquine + azithromycin, and those receiving neither .... The percent of death in the 3 groups was 27%, 23% and 51%.

https://www.ijidonline.com/article/S1201-9712(20)30600-7/fulltext?fbclid=IwAR3vYOXPtM7JFiqJIeezynU86...


Thank you for posting the link. 

The paper you reference is a cohort study reporting the observations from patients in the Clinic of Infectious Diseases in Milan. The main limitation of the study is that patients were not randomized into the different groups and as a result, there is a risk of assignment bias. For example, we don't know if those in the HCQ cohort were younger, or with a better prognosis than the control group (the authors acknowledge that more people with cardiovascular conditions were present in the control group). In contrast to this study, the NIH as well as the WHO were (placebo) controlled randomized clinical trials, and the evidence provided by them is stronger.  

Whereas this new publication may argue for additional randomized control trials in HCQ, we ought to follow the best evidence for the time being.   

0 Kudos
Highlighted
Frequent Contributor

Re: Yale Epidemiology Professor says the science is clear: Hydroxychloroquine Works

Chang:

I am sorry to say "International Journal of ..... (you can fill up anything in the dotted place - including my area Electronics) " is not a reviewed publication. They publish anything and everything. How do I know? I have also published in "International Journal of Electronics" almost 50 years ago. I did not know about these facts as a young graduate then. I learnt about this later in life. So, I would not even trust the data from this journal because no body has questioned and verified the data.

0 Kudos
Highlighted
Frequent Contributor

Re: Yale Epidemiology Professor says the science is clear: Hydroxychloroquine Works


@norbertc wrote:


What I don't get is that HCQ is being treated with disdain by various pundits on these boards and elsewhere, almost the equivalent of injecting acetone or something crazy. In fact, HCQ has been around for years and is used worldwide by many millions of people to safely treat other medical issues.

There's evidence that HCQ actually works, when used as prescribed during the onset of Covid-19 symptoms (not after the virus has made itself at home in our lungs). There's also evidence that masks are very effective / essential in helping prevent the spread of the disease. Yet, both measures are leading to shrill, politicized screeching by the Usual Suspects. 

N.


Norbert,

Admiral Brett Giroir MD, a Top Health Official in the trump Administration says it is time to MOVE ON from hydroxychloroquine insisting that there is no evidence that it is an effective COVID treatment.  Admiral Gioir MD will state his reasoning for hydroxycloroquine later in THIS INTERVIEW. The entire interview is worth watching but fast forward to 8:01 if you are impatient.

Meanwhile, trumps tweets and facebook video's are being deleted because they contain false COVID-19 information

So, you argue that someone who routinely makes bizarre statements and recommends "injecting disinfectant" because "it does a tremendous number on the lungs" is the REAL medical expert?

Given the evidence Norbert, I am forced to conclude that you are a little out of your depth here. Admiral Brett Gioir MD pretty much refutes every single one of your "opinions". 

Thank you,

Holiday

 

 

 

0 Kudos
Highlighted
Frequent Contributor

Re: Yale Epidemiology Professor says the science is clear: Hydroxychloroquine Works

Look at the Switzerland graph.

Highlighted
Frequent Contributor

Re: Yale Epidemiology Professor says the science is clear: Hydroxychloroquine Works

 

Some people are all politics.

  • Twitter's editorial policy demonstrates HCQ's ineffectiveness?
  • Finding a MD who disagrees with another MD represents scientific proof against HCQ?

Thanks for your "insight", Holiday.  Don't call us, we'll call you.

N.

Highlighted
Frequent Contributor

Re: Yale Epidemiology Professor says the science is clear: Hydroxychloroquine Works

How many Denver GPs does it take to equal one Admiral?

https://denver.cbslocal.com/2020/04/06/denver-doctor-coronavirus-hydroxycholoroquine/#.Xyeaot1ioK1.f...

Quit playing politics. Look at the Switzerland graph.

Highlighted
Frequent Contributor

Re: Yale Epidemiology Professor says the science is clear: Hydroxychloroquine Works


@CarlosDS wrote:

@chang wrote:

“We divided a subset of our cohort in three groups who started treatment a median of 1 day after admission: those receiving hydroxycholoroquine alone, those receiving hydroxycholoroquine + azithromycin, and those receiving neither .... The percent of death in the 3 groups was 27%, 23% and 51%.

https://www.ijidonline.com/article/S1201-9712(20)30600-7/fulltext?fbclid=IwAR3vYOXPtM7JFiqJIeezynU86...


Thank you for posting the link. 

The paper you reference is a cohort study reporting the observations from patients in the Clinic of Infectious Diseases in Milan. The main limitation of the study is that patients were not randomized into the different groups and as a result, there is a risk of assignment bias. For example, we don't know if those in the HCQ cohort were younger, or with a better prognosis than the control group (the authors acknowledge that more people with cardiovascular conditions were present in the control group). In contrast to this study, the NIH as well as the WHO were (placebo) controlled randomized clinical trials, and the evidence provided by them is stronger.  

Whereas this new publication may argue for additional randomized control trials in HCQ, we ought to follow the best evidence for the time being.   


From what I know, you are correct that no statistically-significant, double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled trial of HCQ for treatment of Covid-19 exists.  We only have various medical testimony, country statistics for HCQ use, and imperfect studies that indicate HCQ may be preventing more serious symptoms and death when used during the early stages of infection. 

Unfortunately, we have a problem.  Our problem is that no proven treatment for Covid-19 exists, period. 

Remdesivir is somewhat promising, but no statistically-significant trials have yet been conducted ...

  • Recovery times are just slightly shorter than for a placebo (11 vs 15 days, on average);
  • 14-day mortality rates are slightly less than for a placebo (7.1% vs. 11.9%)

 ... as demonstrated in one trial HERE.   Also, it is expensive and supplies are limited. 

Given that NO proven, high efficacy treatment for Covid-19 exists at this time, the question is whether HCQ might save lives under certain conditions, in the absence of a better alternative.  In other words, if a high-risk patient is diagnosed with Covid-19, should his physician consider using HCQ early on?  

If I'm trapped in a 3rd floor apartment being consumed by flames, do I jump out the window despite the risk of injury?  I think, "Yes".  I take my chances:  x% chance of injury vs. near- certain death with excruciating pain. 

What would you do?

N.

Highlighted
Frequent Contributor

Re: Yale Epidemiology Professor says the science is clear: Hydroxychloroquine Works


@norbertc wrote:

@CarlosDS wrote:

@chang wrote:

“We divided a subset of our cohort in three groups who started treatment a median of 1 day after admission: those receiving hydroxycholoroquine alone, those receiving hydroxycholoroquine + azithromycin, and those receiving neither .... The percent of death in the 3 groups was 27%, 23% and 51%.

https://www.ijidonline.com/article/S1201-9712(20)30600-7/fulltext?fbclid=IwAR3vYOXPtM7JFiqJIeezynU86...


Thank you for posting the link. 

The paper you reference is a cohort study reporting the observations from patients in the Clinic of Infectious Diseases in Milan. The main limitation of the study is that patients were not randomized into the different groups and as a result, there is a risk of assignment bias. For example, we don't know if those in the HCQ cohort were younger, or with a better prognosis than the control group (the authors acknowledge that more people with cardiovascular conditions were present in the control group). In contrast to this study, the NIH as well as the WHO were (placebo) controlled randomized clinical trials, and the evidence provided by them is stronger.  

Whereas this new publication may argue for additional randomized control trials in HCQ, we ought to follow the best evidence for the time being.   


From what I know, you are correct that no statistically-significant, double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled trial of HCQ for treatment of Covid-19 exists.  We only have various medical testimony, country statistics for HCQ use, and imperfect studies that indicate HCQ may be preventing more serious symptoms and death when used during the early stages of infection. 

Unfortunately, we have a problem.  Our problem is that no proven treatment for Covid-19 exists, period. 

Remdesivir is somewhat promising, but no statistically-significant trials have yet been conducted ...

  • Recovery times are just slightly shorter than for a placebo (11 vs 15 days, on average);
  • 14-day mortality rates are slightly less than for a placebo (7.1% vs. 11.9%)

 ... as demonstrated in one trial HERE.   Also, it is expensive and supplies are limited. 

Given that NO proven, high efficacy treatment for Covid-19 exists at this time, the question is whether HCQ might save lives under certain conditions, in the absence of a better alternative.  In other words, if a high-risk patient is diagnosed with Covid-19, should his physician consider using HCQ early on?  

If I'm trapped in a 3rd floor apartment being consumed by flames, do I jump out the window despite the risk of injury?  I think, "Yes".  I take my chances:  x% chance of injury vs. near- certain death with excruciating pain. 

What would you do?

N.


NC, you are misinformed on many counts. We do have randomized controlled trials done by the NIH and WHO showing that HCQ is not beneficial. I produced the links many times before. 

We do have randomized clinical trials showing the ability of Remdesivir to reduce the time of recovery of COVID patients and that of Dexamethasone to reduce the mortality rate of hospitalized patients. 

Other treatments being successfully used that lack RCT are anticoagulant therapy (low-mw heparin) and injection of plasma for people that have recovered from COVID.

In answer to your question, I would follow the advice evidence-based medicine  

Announcements