So now people in here trust random sampling website stating summarized results, over the FDA.
HCQ No Longer Approved Even a Little for COVID-19 — Study after study showed no benefit, and now the FDA has had enough
The FDA rescinded its emergency use authorization (EUA) of hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) to treat COVID-19 patients, citing concerns about efficacy and risks associated with its use, and saying the drug no longer meets the criteria for an EUA, the agency said on Monday.
"The agency determined that the legal criteria for issuing an EUA are no longer met," according to an FDA statement. Both hydroxychloroquine and a related antimalarial drug, chloroquine (CQ), are "unlikely to be effective at treating COVID-19" for uses described in the EUA, the statement continued.
Moreover, the FDA now says the benefits of the drug "no longer outweigh the potential risks," citing the serious cardiac adverse events associated with the drug.
https://www.medpagetoday.com/infectiousdisease/covid19/87066
Don't you think, that you can go a little too far in glorifying 'the gospel of Trump'?
edit: Same story in europe.
https://www.reuters.com/article/hea...ial-paused-as-safety-fears-grow-idUSKBN2340A6
Also - there is this issue:
Chloroquine and hydroxychloroquine should continue to be used in chronic conditions (meaning f.e. Lupus patients). In order to prevent unnecessary strain on supply chains, patients should only receive their usual supply of medicines. Healthcare professionals should not write prescriptions that cover more than the usual duration.
https://www.ema.europa.eu/en/news/c...used-clinical-trials-emergency-use-programmes
Summary:
In the search for COVID-19 treatments, several types of medicines are investigated and tested in clinical trials all over the world – among them the two medicines chloroquine and hydroxychloroquine, which are currently only authorised for malaria and certain autoimmune diseases. However, the efficacy of these medicines in COVID-19 treatment has not yet been shown in any studies.
For this reason, the
EMA has emphasised in an announcement to only use these products in clinical trials or national emergency use programmes for the treatment of COVID-19 patients whose condition is critical.
Chloroquine and hydroxychloroquine are vital medicines for patients with autoimmune conditions such as lupus, which is a chronic condition. It is important these patients can still get their medicines and that no shortages occur due to stockpiling or because the medicines are prescribed off-label, i.e. for other diseases than those they are approved for.
This was the very reason that the Danish Medicines Agency
introduced restrictions on prescribing of all medicines containing hydroxychloroquine on 22 March.
Large clinical trials to get enough evidence
Hundreds of trials are being conducted worldwide to obtain the robust data needed to document if medicines already authorised for other diseases could have an effect on COVID-19 and to establish their safety. A list of studies conducted worldwide is updated on the Danish Medicines Agency’s
COVID-19 theme page.
Independant aggregator with 100s of clinical studies:
edit:
https://laegemiddelstyrelsen.dk/da/...~/media/5B83D25935DF43A38FF823E24604AC36.ashx
Conclusion,
- On that website you dont find "hundreds of clinical trials" you find 65.Those can be picked with a bias to show those showing positive results. In fact, even the website title makes it clear, that the whole purpose of the website is, to promote a 'they are showing positive results!!111!!' narrative.
- The website at the top shows an image of overall infections (log scale), and cycles in a part "clinical trials with HCQ since here". This means that whoever made the website has an agenda and is an idiot, because if you only do clinical trials with HCQ up to that point, it has no impact on overall infection numbers statistically. (Far to few treatment cases).
- HCQ is one of 100s of drugs that are undergoing clinical trials at the moment. Why that website would only focus in on 65 studies on that specific drug, certainly has political reasons.
- The website uses a color scheme of 'green for 'positive' (statistically relevant positive?) and grey for negative and inconclusive. Apart from possible interpretation bias, and possible selection bias, thjs is another strange way of illustrating a point you alread made in the title of the website you registered a domain for.
- The website shows no author or person responsible and doesnt state which method was used to gather those specific 65 studies (some of which are dated from before Covid-19 existed).
Meaning, this website is propaganda.
edit: Looked a little more into what the graph at the top of the website means:
Here is the quality of argument of Moroccos lead Covid scientist (proposedly a follower of a french scientist Didier Raoult), who pronounced a 100% cure rate after treatment with HCQ.
https://www.moroccoworldnews.com/20...hloroquine-success-reveals-european-failures/
Almost all states listed there have one thing in common: Low testing capability, and politically more on the 'illiberal' end.
Morocco is competitive (600 tests per million).
Greece is competitive (500 tests per million).
Turkey has 400 tests per million
Ukraine has 280 tests per million
India has 260 tests per million
Cuba has 260 tests per million
Malaysia has 213 tests per million.
Indonesia has 47 tests per million.
src:
https://ourworldindata.org/coronavirus/country/greece?country=MYS~MAR~TUR~IND~IDN~UKR~CUB
US has 2400 daily tests per million.
The issue with a low daily test rate is, that you would allocate many of those tests to medical personal, which should be protected by PPE.
Also - again, people in Morocco and Greece (lets focus on them - because they are at the top of the 'capabilities' list) would only have been treated, when they reached hospitals. In which case, patients testing positive for Covid-19 would have been isolated anyhow. So how that treatment in those countries should have lead to a lower overall infection rate is questionable.
Impact of overall deathrate per million is hard to gage as well, as this is strongly correlated with overall number of infections.
But the graph itself seems to be less idiotic as first thought, because HCQ was a standard treatment in some of those countries (some, because I didn't check all of them..
).
edit:
One of the world's largest studies - the
Recovery trial run by Oxford University - has involved 11,000 patients with coronavirus in hospitals across the UK and included testing hydroxychloroquine's effectiveness against the disease, along with other potential treatments.
It concluded that "there is no beneficial effect of hydroxychloroquine in patients hospitalised with Covid-19" and the drug has now been pulled from the trial.
There's been some hope that hydroxychloroquine could be effective if used early on when a person gets the virus, before there's a need for them to be hospitalised.
However, there's no clear evidence on this and the jury is very much out as to its effectiveness in the early stages of infection.
There are in fact overall more than 200 trials currently underway around the world on its impact either as a prophylactic or treatment for Covid-19.
https://www.bbc.com/news/51980731
Back at the start of the pandemic, laboratory studies had suggested the malaria drug could affect the virus. Small-scale studies in China and France then hinted it might help patients.
There was a huge amount of hope, as the medicine is cheap and has been safely used to treat malaria and conditions such as lupus and arthritis.
However, the evidence supporting its use for coronavirus has been weak.
'Not a treatment for Covid'
That is why the data from the Recovery trial is crucial. It is the first to test the drug in large numbers of people in a thorough clinical trial.
More than 11,000 patients with Covid-19 are taking part, with 1,542 patients given hydroxychloroquine.
Due to mounting controversy about the drug, the UK's drugs regulator last night asked the Oxford researchers to review their data.
The results showed 25.7% of people taking hydroxychloroquine had died after 28 days. This compared with 23.5% who were given standard hospital treatment.
"This is not a treatment for Covid," said Prof Martin Landray, part of the Recovery trial. The trial immediately stopped using the drug.
The findings come in the wake of deep concern in academic publishing that led to an article being retracted
in the Lancet - one of the world's most prestigious medical journals.
It had published a study involving nearly 15,000 patients, from hundreds of hospitals, given hydroxycholoroquine or the similar drug chloroquine.
It concluded the drug was not beneficial and increased the risk of irregular heart rhythms and death. That publication led to the WHO suspending its trials of the anti-malaria drug.
The data had been collected from hospitals by the little-known healthcare firm Surgisphere.
https://www.bbc.com/news/health-52937153
