Jump to content
To change color scheme, click on themes at bottom of page ×
RightNation.US
Sign in to follow this  
pepperonikkid

Stop the 'anecdotal' nonsense

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

Taggart Transcontinental

I'd be more than happy to live by results... IF there were any. Proven ones, that is.

 

  • New York state is currently on their 17th day of trials for which they purchased 70,000+ doses.
  • Duke University is currently leading a $50Million study with 15,000 volunteers across hundreds of healthcare systems in the US. Half get chloroquine either by itself or with zinc or other things, half get a placebo.
  • Oxford University of England is currently testing Chloroquine, Hydroxychloroquine, and placebo amongst 40,000 volunteers in Europe and Asia.
  • Istinye University School of Medicine in Istanbul Turkey is two weeks into a trial with 98 volunteers with an interesting theory that it takes not just Chloroquine + zinc but that along with Vitamin A and D supplements.

 

If this was really the "6 Day Miracle Cure" that some of the Bullscheisse Artists are touting, you don't think someone from one of these LEGIT studies would be shouting "Eureka!" by now???

 

 

EtA: This just in: Swedish hospitals stop chloroquine trials as patients complain of dangerous side effects

 

They gave Chloro not Hydro so of course there are more effects.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Taggart Transcontinental

This is a good point. For example, positive pressure ventilation hasn't specifically been tested for covid19. Why doesn't Adam object to that too? Etc. Etc.

 

Specially when it's been proven now to destroy lung tissue.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
zurg

I'd be more than happy to live by results... IF there were any. Proven ones, that is.

 


  •  
  • New York state is currently on their 17th day of trials for which they purchased 70,000+ doses.
     
  • Duke University is currently leading a $50Million study with 15,000 volunteers across hundreds of healthcare systems in the US. Half get chloroquine either by itself or with zinc or other things, half get a placebo.
     
  • Oxford University of England is currently testing Chloroquine, Hydroxychloroquine, and placebo amongst 40,000 volunteers in Europe and Asia.
     
  • Istinye University School of Medicine in Istanbul Turkey is two weeks into a trial with 98 volunteers with an interesting theory that it takes not just Chloroquine + zinc but that along with Vitamin A and D supplements.

 

If this was really the "6 Day Miracle Cure" that some of the Bullscheisse Artists are touting, you don't think someone from one of these LEGIT studies would be shouting "Eureka!" by now???

 

 

EtA: This just in: Swedish hospitals stop chloroquine trials as patients complain of dangerous side effects

And this just in: Adam doesn’t know the difference between chloroquine and hydroxychloroquine.

 

https://www.medicinenet.com/chloroquine_aralen_vs_hydroxychloroquine_plaquenil/article.htm#what_are_the_side_effects_of_chloroquine_and_hydroxychloroquine

 

Noticeable differences for anyone to see for themselves.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dean Adam Smithee

This is a good point. For example, positive pressure ventilation hasn’t specifically been tested for covid19. Why doesn’t Adam object to that too? Etc. Etc.

 

AHEM. :tongue2:

 

(Not exactly objecting to it, but at least questioning it... for well-published reasons.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dean Adam Smithee

Maybe he's compiling his data for a peer reviewed document he will later publish. Do you think that following the guidelines he's written will kill a patient? If the person is otherwise healthy Hydro will not kill them. Hell I took it for a year.

 

 

With your life on the line, would you sign up for a study that says you MAY get a sugar pill instead of the drug, or worse, not knowing what a double blind study is accept participation in the study and not be told you may receive a placebo instead? I don't think I would sign up for a study. I would want the damn drug.

 

You raise a legit question in another thread: "...This anecdotal crap is a study, what is a study but a bunch of stories strung together with some math at the end?" for which there's a legit answer:

 

A study becomes a LEGIT study when there's enough data that an independent team can do EXACTLY the same thing under controlled circumstances and get at least similar results. The original non-controlled French study by Drs. Gautriet et al from March 1-16 that was published on March 20 that got everyone excited?? Hydroxychloroquine and azithromycin as a treatment of COVID-19: results of an open-label non-randomized clinical trial?

 

Well, that's been sufficiently long ago that since then AT LEAST two teams have tried to replicate it without getting ANYWHERE NEAR the same results:

 

No Evidence of Rapid Antiviral Clearance or Clinical Benefit with the Combination of Hydroxychloroquine and Azithromycin in Patients with Severe COVID-19 Infection

Journal Pre-proof

Received Date:28 March 2020

 

In France, following the results of a clinical study in Marseille, there is considerable interest for the use of hydroxychloroquine to treat COVID-19 disease, and the French Ministry of Health recently allowed the use of hydroxychloroquine to treat COVID-19 disease pending the results of ongoing clinical trials (3). In their study, Gautret et al. reported a 100% viral clearance in nasopharyngeal swabs in 6 patients after 5 and 6 days of the combination of hydroxychloroquine and azithromycin (3).

 

This rate of viral clearance was lower with hydroxychloroquine alone (57.1%) and was only 12.5% in patients who did not receive hydroxychloroquine (p< 0.001).Such a rapid and full viral clearance was quite unexpected and we wished to assess in a prospective study virologic and clinical outcomes of 11 consecutive patients hospitalized in our department who received hydroxychloroquine (600 mg/d for 10 days) and azithromycin (500 mg Day 1 and 250 mg days 2 to 5) using the same dosing regimen reported by Gautret et al. (3)....

 

 

... skip a bit, brother, to their results....

 

...These virologic results stand in contrast with those reported by Gautret et al. and cast doubts about the strong antiviral efficacy of this combination. Furthermore, in their report Gautret et al also reported one death and three transfers to the ICU among the 26 patients who received hydroxychloroquine, also underlining the poor clinical outcome with this combination. In addition, a recent study from China in individuals with COVID-19 found no difference in the rate of virologic clearance at 7 days with or without 5 days of hydroxychloroquine, and no difference in clinical outcomes (duration of hospitalization,temperature normalization, radiological progression) (4). These results are consistent with the lack of virologic or clinical benefit of chloroquine in a number of viral infections where it was assessed for treatment or prophylaxis with sometimes a deleterious effect on viral replication (5-8). In summary, despite a reported antiviral activity of chloroquine against COVID-19 in vitro, we found no evidence of a strong antiviral activity or clinical benefit of the combination of hydroxychloroquine and azithromycin for the treatment of our hospitalized patients with severe COVID-19. Ongoing randomized clinical trials with hydroxychloroquine should provide a definitive answer regarding the alleged efficacy of this combination and will assess its safety.

 

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

 

Yes, there may be some minor benefit to this regimen. I have no objection to studying it further, as plenty are doing. And I CERTAINLY have no objection to anyone joining any of the studies that are looking for volunteers.

 

But there's no need to 'rush' this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
zurg

You raise a legit question in another thread: "...This anecdotal crap is a study, what is a study but a bunch of stories strung together with some math at the end?" for which there's a legit answer:

 

A study becomes a LEGIT study when there's enough data that an independent team can do EXACTLY the same thing under controlled circumstances and get at least similar results. The original non-controlled French study by Drs. Gautriet et al from March 1-16 that was published on March 20 that got everyone excited?? Hydroxychloroquine and azithromycin as a treatment of COVID-19: results of an open-label non-randomized clinical trial?

 

Well, that's been sufficiently long ago that since then AT LEAST two teams have tried to replicate it without getting ANYWHERE NEAR the same results:

 

No Evidence of Rapid Antiviral Clearance or Clinical Benefit with the Combination of Hydroxychloroquine and Azithromycin in Patients with Severe COVID-19 Infection

Journal Pre-proof

Received Date:28 March 2020

 

In France, following the results of a clinical study in Marseille, there is considerable interest for the use of hydroxychloroquine to treat COVID-19 disease, and the French Ministry of Health recently allowed the use of hydroxychloroquine to treat COVID-19 disease pending the results of ongoing clinical trials (3). In their study, Gautret et al. reported a 100% viral clearance in nasopharyngeal swabs in 6 patients after 5 and 6 days of the combination of hydroxychloroquine and azithromycin (3).

 

This rate of viral clearance was lower with hydroxychloroquine alone (57.1%) and was only 12.5% in patients who did not receive hydroxychloroquine (p< 0.001).Such a rapid and full viral clearance was quite unexpected and we wished to assess in a prospective study virologic and clinical outcomes of 11 consecutive patients hospitalized in our department who received hydroxychloroquine (600 mg/d for 10 days) and azithromycin (500 mg Day 1 and 250 mg days 2 to 5) using the same dosing regimen reported by Gautret et al. (3)....

 

 

... skip a bit, brother, to their results....

 

...These virologic results stand in contrast with those reported by Gautret et al. and cast doubts about the strong antiviral efficacy of this combination. Furthermore, in their report Gautret et al also reported one death and three transfers to the ICU among the 26 patients who received hydroxychloroquine, also underlining the poor clinical outcome with this combination. In addition, a recent study from China in individuals with COVID-19 found no difference in the rate of virologic clearance at 7 days with or without 5 days of hydroxychloroquine, and no difference in clinical outcomes (duration of hospitalization,temperature normalization, radiological progression) (4). These results are consistent with the lack of virologic or clinical benefit of chloroquine in a number of viral infections where it was assessed for treatment or prophylaxis with sometimes a deleterious effect on viral replication (5-8). In summary, despite a reported antiviral activity of chloroquine against COVID-19 in vitro, we found no evidence of a strong antiviral activity or clinical benefit of the combination of hydroxychloroquine and azithromycin for the treatment of our hospitalized patients with severe COVID-19. Ongoing randomized clinical trials with hydroxychloroquine should provide a definitive answer regarding the alleged efficacy of this combination and will assess its safety.

 

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

 

Yes, there may be some minor benefit to this regimen. I have no objection to studying it further, as plenty are doing. And I CERTAINLY have no objection to anyone joining any of the studies that are looking for volunteers.

 

But there's no need to 'rush' this.

Two things.

 

What were the numerical (statistical) results of the second study? You don’t tell us, but you state they were “in contrast” to the first reporterred results.

 

You quote a Chinese study? Really? That’s like asking Marlboro if smoking is linked to lung cancer. That particular stuff from the Chinese either doesn’t count at all, OR counts against you because they too eagerly report results that agree with you.

 

I’ll wait for the actual numbers from the French study, please.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dean Adam Smithee

Two things.

 

What were the numerical (statistical) results of the second study? You don’t tell us, but you state they were “in contrast” to the first reporterred results.

 

You quote a Chinese study? Really? That’s like asking Marlboro if smoking is linked to lung cancer. That particular stuff from the Chinese either doesn’t count at all, OR counts against you because they too eagerly report results that agree with you.

 

I’ll wait for the actual numbers from the French study, please.

 

The Chinese study was obliquely mentioned in the French study I've posted. I'm no MD so I'm still trying to wade through the French study in between the "introduction" and "conclusion". "Dammit, Jim, I'm an Engineer not a Doctor". Still, though, there seems to be enough there to report that, in my best Mark Twain voice that, "The reports of COVID-19's death seem to be premature".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
zurg

The Chinese study was obliquely mentioned in the French study I've posted. I'm no MD so I'm still trying to wade through the French study in between the "introduction" and "conclusion". "Dammit, Jim, I'm an Engineer not a Doctor". Still, though, there seems to be enough there to report that, in my best Mark Twain voice that, "The reports of COVID-19's death seem to be premature".

I think the point is that the regiment doesn’t HAVE to be super effective. It just needs to give hope, and help at least some people. That’s better than waving the white flag, throwing in the towel, blaming red tape, etc.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dean Adam Smithee
Posted (edited)

I think the point is that the regiment doesn’t HAVE to be super effective. It just needs to give hope, and help at least some people. That’s better than waving the white flag, throwing in the towel, blaming red tape, etc.

 

I concur, up to a point. Doesn't seem to be a "Silver Bullet", but is MAYBE a part of it all.

 

EtA: I'm not against Hope. Sometimes that's a thing all of it's own. I'm just AGAINST publishing (alleged) panaceas as the be-all end-all.

Edited by Dean Adam Smithee

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
zurg

I concur, up to a point. Doesn't seem to be a "Silver Bullet", but is MAYBE a part of it all.

Cool. But now what, if we agree?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dean Adam Smithee

Cool. But now what, if we agree?

 

Well, that would suck. I wouldn't want to jeopardize my status as a contrarian here.

 

So... you're wrong. :tongue2:

 

SERIOUSLY, though, I've no dog in the fight; I'll accept the results of LEGIT studies, EITHER WAY, and they've HAD enough time, but still there's a glimmer there for minor possibilities.

 

Wernher von Braun said it best:

 

34020f508d63822ccf888cab98150939.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
mjperry51

Cool. But now what, if we agree?

 

Your agreement must be subject to a double blind study and peer-reviewed. . .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
kestrel
Posted (edited)

Your agreement must be subject to a double blind study and peer-reviewed. . .

I mean..Duh!...How do we know they agree?..has this agreement been tested in a viable clinical atmosphere? Has there been double deaf/dumb/blind/ridiculous to the absurd studies?..I mean if there ain't no "good guy" and there ain't no "bad guy" then there's only he and he and they just (dis) Agree. To sum up in my best Dave Mason Voice "So lets leave it alone"

 

 

Kestrel...

Edited by kestrel

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
JerryL

In the long-term, OK. Fair enough.

 

In the short-term, why? Is the drug that has been around for 60 years, when prescribed and administered by a licensed physician, making things worse?

 

Are there "anecdotal" studies that show that using the drug has exacerbated the virus and the illness in any significant number of patients?

 

If not, and since we DO have all the snippets indicating that it is pretty darn effective, WTF Adam? Why WOULDN'T you want it used?

 

IF you get COVID-19, which I hope you don't, will you refuse treatment with Hydroxychloroquine? Simple question...will you give a straight answer?

A whole bunch of questions that I guess don't rise to required level to merit responses.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
MontyPython

A whole bunch of questions that I guess don't rise to required level to merit responses.

 

They sure seem like reasonable questions to me...

 

:tap:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dean Adam Smithee

A whole bunch of questions that I guess don't rise to required level to merit responses.

 

Yes, there are 'anecdotes' that hydroxychloroquine works... countered by at least 3 controlled studies that say it doesn't - and least not to the extent of being a "6 day miracle cure" as claimed in the anecdotes - plus a 4th study in Sweden that had to be cancelled because of side effects plus a 5th study at NYU med school in New York that found potentially dangerous heart irregularities in about 10% of the test subjects.

 

Yes there are 'anecdotes', just as there are anecdotes that Bigfoot and Nessie and the Easter Bunny all exist and that Elvis is still alive.

 

Some may choose to believe in the Easter Bunny. I choose to believe in the science.

 

For that matter, I've heard 'anecdotally' that Socialism is a good thing. Never mind that it fails every time it's tried. Say, maybe HCQ is just like that will fail every time it's tried until the "right" people are put in charge, eh?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
zurg

Yes, there are 'anecdotes' that hydroxychloroquine works... countered by at least 3 controlled studies that say it doesn't - and least not to the extent of being a "6 day miracle cure" as claimed in the anecdotes - plus a 4th study in Sweden that had to be cancelled because of side effects plus a 5th study at NYU med school in New York that found potentially dangerous heart irregularities in about 10% of the test subjects.

 

Yes there are 'anecdotes', just as there are anecdotes that Bigfoot and Nessie and the Easter Bunny all exist and that Elvis is still alive.

 

Some may choose to believe in the Easter Bunny. I choose to believe in the science.

 

For that matter, I've heard 'anecdotally' that Socialism is a good thing. Never mind that it fails every time it's tried. Say, maybe HCQ is just like that will fail every time it's tried until the "right" people are put in charge, eh?

You’re all over the place. Meds running low?

 

WHEN WILL YOU ACKNOWLEDGE THE HUGE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN HYDROXYCHLOROQUINE AND CHLOROQUINE?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
mjperry51

You're all over the place. Meds running low?

 

WHEN WILL YOU ACKNOWLEDGE THE HUGE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN HYDROXYCHLOROQUINE AND CHLOROQUINE?

 

When it doesn't get in the away of his narrative. . .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dean Adam Smithee
Posted (edited)

You’re all over the place. Meds running low?

 

WHEN WILL YOU ACKNOWLEDGE THE HUGE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN HYDROXYCHLOROQUINE AND CHLOROQUINE?

 

I'm well aware of the difference between the two and so are the researchers; they're not idiots either and have been and continue to be studying BOTH.

 

April 7: Sweden shut their CQ study because of side effects. Side Effects Halt Use of Chloroquine Vs. COVID-19

 

April 9: A major French hospital halts their HCQ study for similar reasons. COVID-19: French Hospital Stops Use Of Hydroxychloroquine In Treatment

 

April 3: A study published by NYU school of medicine preliminarily seem to confirm the French study's side effects. The QT Interval in Patients with SARS-CoV-2 Infection Treated with Hydroxychloroquine/Azithromycin (pre-print).

 

There's been plenty of time to the confirm the initial optimistic results from the French doctor and the upstate NY doctor. And yet, nobody's been able to, and not for lack of trying. Meanwhile, evidence increasingly mounts of the potentially dangerous side effects.

 

At what point will people stop believing that there's an Easter Bunny with magic jelly beans that can cure 100% of everyone in 6 days?

Edited by Dean Adam Smithee

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dean Adam Smithee
Posted (edited)

In the long-term, OK. Fair enough.

 

In the short-term, why? Is the drug that has been around for 60 years, when prescribed and administered by a licensed physician, making things worse? Are there "anecdotal" studies that show that using the drug has exacerbated the virus and the illness in any significant number of patients?

 

If not, and since we DO have all the snippets indicating that it is pretty darn effective, WTF Adam? Why WOULDN'T you want it used?

 

IF you get COVID-19, which I hope you don't, will you refuse treatment with Hydroxychloroquine? Simple question...will you give a straight answer?

 

I gave a straight answer to that in a different thread a week or so ago. And, YES, my answer has since changed.

 

A week ago? YES, I'd have taken it.

 

Today, NO, I wouldn't.

 

What I thought I knew a week ago - based on "wonder drug" stories from a couple of doctors and no reason to disbelieve them - is DIFFERENT than what I know today now that there's not only reasons to be at least skeptical but ALSO concerned about the now-known side effects.

Edited by Dean Adam Smithee

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Severian

From your 2nd link Adam:

 

Amidst the coronavirus pandemic, a French hospital has recently announced that it will immediately stop testing the effectiveness of hydroxychloroquine on one patient due to severe cardiac side effects

 

And the Swedish study mentioned was of chloroquine, not hydroxychloroquine. Details, details.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dean Adam Smithee

From your 2nd link Adam:

 

Amidst the coronavirus pandemic, a French hospital has recently announced that it will immediately stop testing the effectiveness of hydroxychloroquine on one patient due to severe cardiac side effects

 

The French study had one person who almost died; they stopped the entire study, not just on the one person. How many had the same thing but didn't almost die? I dunno, but the NYU study found it to a dangerous degree in 11% of their 84 subjects.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
zurg

The French study had one person who almost died; they stopped the entire study, not just on the one person. How many had the same thing but didn't almost die? I dunno, but the NYU study found it to a dangerous degree in 11% of their 84 subjects.

I also noticed that one of the studies used 600mg of HYQ instead of the recommended 400mg first day and then 200mg for another four days.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
kestrel

The French study had one person who almost died; they stopped the entire study, not just on the one person. How many had the same thing but didn't almost die? I dunno, but the NYU study found it to a dangerous degree in 11% of their 84 subjects.

Hope this helps!

French Doctor Didier Raoult Claims Solid Results in Study of Hydroxychloroquine and Azithromycin

Chris Menahan

InformationLiberation

French microbiologist Didier Raoult on Friday released some early results from his treatment of 1061 coronavirus patients with a combination of hydroxychloroquine and the antibiotic azithromycin.

 

Raoult says the treatment had a good outcome in 91.7 percent of patients, a poor virological

outcome in 4.4 percent (viral shedding persistence at day 10) and a poor clinical outcome in 4.3 percent (either death or transfer to intensive care unit or hospitalization for 10 days or more).

 

He says 98 percent were eventually cured.

 

There were 5 deaths.

 

L'abstract et le tableau récapitulatif des données de notre article portant sur le traitement de 1061 patients sont en ligne !

The abstract and the summary table of our paper on the treatment of 1061 patients are online !

 

— Didier Raoult (@raoult_didier)

From the paper:

ABSTRACT

 

Background In a recent survey, most physicians worldwide considered that hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) and azithromycin (AZ) are the two most effective drugs among available molecules against COVID-19. Nevertheless, to date, one preliminary clinical trial only has demonstrated its efficacy on the viral load. Additionally, a clinical study including 80 patients was published, and in vitro efficiency of this association was demonstrated.

 

Methods

 

The study was performed at IHU Méditerranée Infection, Marseille, France.

 

A cohort of 1061 COVID-19 patients, treated for at least 3 days with the HCQ-AZ combination and a follow-up of at least 9 days was investigated. Endpoints were death, worsening and viral shedding persistence.

 

Findings

 

From March 3rd to April 9th, 2020, 59,655 specimens from 38,617 patients were tested for COVID-19 by PCR. Of the 3,165 positive patients placed in the care of our institute, 1061 previously unpublished patients met our inclusion criteria. Their mean age was 43.6 years old and 492 were male (46.4%). No cardiac toxicity was observed. A good clinical outcome and virological cure was obtained in 973 patients within 10 days (91.7%). Prolonged viral carriage at completion of treatment was observed in 47 patients (4.4%) and was associated to a higher viral load at diagnosis (p < 10-2 ) but viral culture was negative at day 10 and all but one were PCR-cleared at day 15. A poor outcome was observed for 46 patients (4.3%); 10 were transferred to intensive care units, 5 patients died (0.47%) (74-95 years old) and 31 required 10 days of hospitalization or more. Among this group, 25 patients are now cured and 16 are still hospitalized (98% of patients cured so far). Poor clinical outcome was significantly associated to older age (OR 1.11), initial higher severity (OR 10.05) and low 2 hydroxychloroquine serum concentration. In addition, both poor clinical and virological outcomes were associated to the use of selective beta-blocking agents and angiotensin II receptor blockers (P<0.05). Mortality was significantly lower in patients who had received > 3 days of HCQ-AZ than in patients treated with other regimens both at IHU and in all Marseille public hospitals (p< 10-2 ).

 

Interpretation

 

The HCQ-AZ combination, when started immediately after diagnosis, is a safe and efficient treatment for COVID-19, with a mortality rate of 0.5%, in elderly patients. It avoids worsening and clears virus persistence and contagiosity in most cases.

Raoult on Friday was also visited by French President Emmanuel Macron.

 

J'ai eu le plaisir d'accueillir hier le Président de la République
à l'
: un lieu qui met en synergie diagnostic, recherche et soin.

Aujourd'hui, nous pouvons tester jusqu'à 4000 prélèvements par jour. Notre expérience doit servir au pays.

 

— Didier Raoult (@raoult_didier)

Follow InformationLiberation on Twitter, Facebook, Gab and Minds.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
johnnybravo

You want to know what is also anecdotal? If we have reached the peak and flattened the curve everybody will say, see the lockdowns worked. Since there were no double blind scientific studies, we should not believe what they say about the stay at home orders. Any relation to flattening the curve is coincidental and not causation. It is “anecdotal”.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...