CDC quietly deletes hydroxychloroquine guidance as study hyped by Trump comes into question

[Dashinka 24,743]

1 hour ago, nykolos said:

I watched most of the press briefings and I don't think he hyped it all, Trump makes a comment that Covid19 patients should have the right to try hydroxychloroquine in severe cases and that it's helped patients, What followed was the media picking it apart, asking more questions at every press conference, trying to trip him up, And Trump has a bad habit of repeating answers, that's not hyping, it's repetition. 

 

Interesting, Andrew Cuomo was actually one of the first to suggest using chloroquine, and hydroxychloroquine in his state, and yet the media had NO problem with it at all, didn't have anything negative to report about it, That was until Trump came out and made the same suggestion, only then did it become the most unproven and unsafe drug in the world.

 

Are newsmen and women born intellectually dishonest? or is the money they earn so great that they sell their souls?

 

 

 

The media today are political activists, and not actually journalist.

[Steeleballz 7,550]

 

   Another study shows no evidence that HCQ has any benefit in treating severe cases of Covid-19. Not sure if this one was posted yet or not.

 

    https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.04.10.20060699v1.full.pdf

Edited April 15, 2020 by Steeleballz

[yuna628 9,700]

Here is a doctor that was saved from near-death. They used a combination of things but the main drug was Actemra, which is used for RA but also cancer. This seemed to have success in other patients that were younger and were not dying from the virus itself, but from their own body's reaction to it. https://www.latimes.com/world-nation/story/2020-04-13/coworkers-save-coronavirus-doctor

 

I think we're seeing cases where some patients overreact with immune system response and may benefit from suppressing. Then there are patients that aren't reacting much at all and the virus kills them outright.

 

Saw a few other articles showing that another odd symptom may be a body rash that can be mistaken for measles or dengue. Another one describes rashes on the bottoms of the feet and another describes pins/needles buzzing or burning sensation which could be the virus interacting with nerves. In these cases I wonder if B12 could help. Which brings me to this study: https://www.preprints.org/manuscript/202003.0347/v1

[90DayFinancier 910]

7 hours ago, Steeleballz said:

 

   Another study shows no evidence that HCQ has any benefit in treating severe cases of Covid-19. Not sure if this one was posted yet or not.

 

    https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.04.10.20060699v1.full.pdf

I am positive that Donald Trump will read this study in detail and adjust his promotion of hcq. /S

[Voice of Reason 10,298]

On 4/9/2020 at 1:37 AM, 90DayFinancier said:

The unproven treatment has been repeatedly hyped by President Donald Trump in spite of the warnings of Dr. Anthony Fauci. 

 

Do you mean the same Dr. Anthony Fauci who predicted this "surprise pandemic" back in 2017?

[OriZ 3,157]

Just read an interview with the CEO of a hospital in Israel, who also said they have not found it to be effective.

[Voice of Reason 10,298]

https://www.foxnews.com/media/dr-oz-on-hydroxychloroquine-the-u-s-government-respects-that-reality

[90DayFinancier 910]

On 4/15/2020 at 1:51 AM, nykolos said:

I watched most of the press briefings and I don't think he hyped it all, Trump makes a comment that Covid19 patients should have the right to try hydroxychloroquine in severe cases and that it's helped patients, What followed was the media picking it apart, asking more questions at every press conference, trying to trip him up, And Trump has a bad habit of repeating answers, that's not hyping, it's repetition. 

 

Interesting, Andrew Cuomo was actually one of the first to suggest using chloroquine, and hydroxychloroquine in his state, and yet the media had NO problem with it at all, didn't have anything negative to report about it, That was until Trump came out and made the same suggestion, only then did it become the most unproven and unsafe drug in the world.

 

Are newsmen and women born intellectually dishonest? or is the money they earn so great that they sell their souls?

 

 

 

 

NEWS
French study finds hydroxychloroquine doesn't help patients with coronavirus
Wednesday, April 15th 2020, 7:46 PM AKDT
By: CNN News
Image
A drug that's been touted by President Donald Trump as a "game changer" didn't help hospitalized patients with coronavirus and was associated with heart complications, according to a new study.

"This provides evidence that hydroxychloroquine does not apparently treat patients with COVID-19," said Dr. Paul Offit, an infectious disease specialist at Children's Hospital of Philadelphia. "Even worse, there were side effects caused by the drug — heart toxicities that required it be discontinued."

 

Trump has said that hydroxychloroquine shows "tremendous promise" and has made it sound like the drug is harmless.

"I think it's going to be great," Trump said at a White House briefing on March 19.

"What do you have to lose? Take it," he said on April 4

https://www.bing.com/amp/s/amp.cnn.com/cnn/2020/04/15/health/new-french-study-hydroxychloroquine/index.html

 

[Dashinka 24,743]

59 minutes ago, 90DayFinancier said:

 

NEWS
French study finds hydroxychloroquine doesn't help patients with coronavirus
Wednesday, April 15th 2020, 7:46 PM AKDT
By: CNN News
Image
A drug that's been touted by President Donald Trump as a "game changer" didn't help hospitalized patients with coronavirus and was associated with heart complications, according to a new study.

"This provides evidence that hydroxychloroquine does not apparently treat patients with COVID-19," said Dr. Paul Offit, an infectious disease specialist at Children's Hospital of Philadelphia. "Even worse, there were side effects caused by the drug — heart toxicities that required it be discontinued."

 

Trump has said that hydroxychloroquine shows "tremendous promise" and has made it sound like the drug is harmless.

"I think it's going to be great," Trump said at a White House briefing on March 19.

"What do you have to lose? Take it," he said on April 4

https://www.bing.com/amp/s/amp.cnn.com/cnn/2020/04/15/health/new-french-study-hydroxychloroquine/index.html

 

You do know that President Trump has mentioned other drugs and therapeutics as well right?  I don’t remember him ever saying hydroxychloroquine being a cure.  He said he hoped it would be and in some studies it seemed to have some effect.  Who knows, I know if I was sick, I would ask my Dr. about trying it.

[Voice of Reason 10,298]

10 hours ago, Voice of Reason said:

https://www.foxnews.com/media/dr-oz-on-hydroxychloroquine-the-u-s-government-respects-that-reality

Give the video in that link a watch.

 

Quote

Cardiac surgeon Dr. Mehmet Oz appeared "Hannity" Tuesday where he once again highlighted hydroxychloroquine to treat against the coronavirus saying he spoke to the lead doctor in France whose study showed benefits of the drug.

"I had the opportunity to interview Dr. Raoult. I was very impressed by him. And I told the vice president today that what he told me at the end of the interview stunned me," Oz said. "He said that he thought it was unethical to withhold this treatment based on what he knew. Again, this is not a fly by night fella, he's very well respected."

 

The risks of HCQ have been known for decades.  Patients with Lupus take it in spite of those risks, and they aren't dying.  

[Steeleballz 7,550]

20 minutes ago, Voice of Reason said:

Give the video in that link a watch.

 

 

The risks of HCQ have been known for decades.  Patients with Lupus take it in spite of those risks, and they aren't dying.  

 

  The video is from March 26th. There have been at least four clinical trials since then, and none have shown HCQ to have any effect in treating severe cases. I've linked another below from Brazil. Two of the four studies I have come across were actually ended early due to the number people having cardiac arrhythmia. So far nothing showing anything more than minor benefit, and nothing in severe cases. 

 

   In 2009, tamiflu was used to decrease recovery time form H1N1 form 7 days to 6 days. That's about all they are seeing with HCQ. You may want to take note of the doses being used for Covid-19 vs what they use for other auto-immune diseases. We have already discussed the narrow range between therapeutic and toxic levels for HCQ. Ultimately the trials are showing little benefit and significant risks associated with HCQ use.

 

    https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.04.07.20056424v2

[Dashinka 24,743]

11 minutes ago, Steeleballz said:

 

  The video is from March 26th. There have been at least four clinical trials since then, and none have shown HCQ to have any effect in treating severe cases. I've linked another below from Brazil. Two of the four studies I have come across were actually ended early due to the number people having cardiac arrhythmia. So far nothing showing anything more than minor benefit, and nothing in severe cases. 

 

   In 2009, tamiflu was used to decrease recovery time form H1N1 form 7 days to 6 days. That's about all they are seeing with HCQ. You may want to take note of the doses being used for Covid-19 vs what they use for other auto-immune diseases. We have already discussed the narrow range between therapeutic and toxic levels for HCQ. Ultimately the trials are showing little benefit and significant risks associated with HCQ use.

 

    https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.04.07.20056424v2

Remdesivir has shown promise in severe cases.

[Steeleballz 7,550]

5 minutes ago, Dashinka said:

Remdesivir has shown promise in severe cases.

 

  It's looking very good. I hope they get it out there soon. It was one of the treatments I was most optimistic about from the start, and they have had success with it in the past. As a side note with Remdesivir and some of the other treatments, one of the most annoying things I keep coming across is how much of the research started with SARS in 2003, and then was just dropped because it was no longer profitable to continue. A lot of it has ended up being helpful with Covid-19, but it seems like they could have had this ready sooner.

 

  I still think HCQ has a place, but I don't think it's for treating severe cases. They probably should be monitoring things like ferritin levels rapidly increasing and seeing if getting those people on HCQ earlier would make a difference. I just don't think it has potential in advance infection. The damage is already done. 

[OriZ 3,157]

And.....here we go....

 

https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.04.14.20062463v1?__cf_chl_jschl_tk__=0a1f86a419058d3eda100af0c5d7071b7f4b45d3-1587140556-0-AR6po6pAQePCGLtg6zam3Za9qW_VJcr7KlbYSZG976gOvAIwJFrsEX5bxfDP0mLCyUVyvrfbV28fMsQbNrCzg-pKRc3d-tcMvAps2nWWjq9gZI5IgBUlQSq13JHRCxZVDALxtGBMjfUKQyw6yXLyX-AY1_R0W67gEu06bV6w9EwYjgEqNppfFK8tfx15CPM5DBbmYqo0EbWOWx6dMT_qenfueUBobxhQg5ZrBmkb0loshCd-ts4GpkKfatm1r1C8J71ASeNfttRRLfB0_AN36g-HuFnSMgMU4EaSG__7cJtstj4zdGbBsSQ9iJ91O9sehl50-R4uh-enWKFQoQmWi14

 

We report the prevalence of antibodies to SARS-CoV-2 in a sample of 3,330 people, adjusting for zip code, sex, and race/ethnicity. We also adjust for test performance characteristics using 3 different estimates: (i) the test manufacturer's data, (ii) a sample of 37 positive and 30 negative controls tested at Stanford, and (iii) a combination of both. Results The unadjusted prevalence of antibodies to SARS-CoV-2 in Santa Clara County was 1.5% (exact binomial 95CI 1.11-1.97%), and the population-weighted prevalence was 2.81% (95CI 2.24-3.37%). Under the three scenarios for test performance characteristics, the population prevalence of COVID-19 in Santa Clara ranged from 2.49% (95CI 1.80-3.17%) to 4.16% (2.58-5.70%). These prevalence estimates represent a range between 48,000 and 81,000 people infected in Santa Clara County by early April, 50-85-fold more than the number of confirmed cases.

Edited April 17, 2020 by OriZ

[Steeleballz 7,550]

3 minutes ago, OriZ said:

And.....here we go....

 

https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.04.14.20062463v1?__cf_chl_jschl_tk__=0a1f86a419058d3eda100af0c5d7071b7f4b45d3-1587140556-0-AR6po6pAQePCGLtg6zam3Za9qW_VJcr7KlbYSZG976gOvAIwJFrsEX5bxfDP0mLCyUVyvrfbV28fMsQbNrCzg-pKRc3d-tcMvAps2nWWjq9gZI5IgBUlQSq13JHRCxZVDALxtGBMjfUKQyw6yXLyX-AY1_R0W67gEu06bV6w9EwYjgEqNppfFK8tfx15CPM5DBbmYqo0EbWOWx6dMT_qenfueUBobxhQg5ZrBmkb0loshCd-ts4GpkKfatm1r1C8J71ASeNfttRRLfB0_AN36g-HuFnSMgMU4EaSG__7cJtstj4zdGbBsSQ9iJ91O9sehl50-R4uh-enWKFQoQmWi14

 

We report the prevalence of antibodies to SARS-CoV-2 in a sample of 3,330 people, adjusting for zip code, sex, and race/ethnicity. We also adjust for test performance characteristics using 3 different estimates: (i) the test manufacturer's data, (ii) a sample of 37 positive and 30 negative controls tested at Stanford, and (iii) a combination of both. Results The unadjusted prevalence of antibodies to SARS-CoV-2 in Santa Clara County was 1.5% (exact binomial 95CI 1.11-1.97%), and the population-weighted prevalence was 2.81% (95CI 2.24-3.37%). Under the three scenarios for test performance characteristics, the population prevalence of COVID-19 in Santa Clara ranged from 2.49% (95CI 1.80-3.17%) to 4.16% (2.58-5.70%). These prevalence estimates represent a range between 48,000 and 81,000 people infected in Santa Clara County by early April, 50-85-fold more than the number of confirmed cases.

 

 

    I actually expected it to be higher, and I'm not sure it won't be when they do more research. I am still curious to see what the data looks like when they aggregate data from different areas, especially from places that had larger outbreaks.