-
Friendly reminder: The politics section is a place where a lot of differing opinions are raised. You may not like what you read here but it is someone's opinion. As long as the debate is respectful you are free to debate freely. Also, the views and opinions expressed by forum members may not necessarily reflect those of GBAtemp. Messages that the staff consider offensive or inflammatory may be removed in line with existing forum terms and conditions.
Is hydroxycloroquine really efficient at treating covid-19?
- Thread starter SG854
- Start date
- Views 24,837
- Replies 275
- Likes 3
The anecdotes match the data from studies above I posted. Italy, India, etc..
Will summarize for those just joining now.
Dr Harvey Risch, a YALE epidemiologist:
https://justthenews.com/politics-po...accuses-fauci-running-disinformation-campaign
Recent analysis:
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1477893920302817#
India:
https://indianexpress.com/article/i...19-cases-say-docs-as-analysis-begins-6486049/
Italy:
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1201971220306007
An anecdote demonstrates nothing, regardless of whether or not it comports with data.
Let me put it a different way then. The article I posted above about NYC Councilman that ties HCQ to his recovery of Covid-19 reflects recent studies and feedback by an accredited epidemiologist and MULTIPLE positive studies on the effectiveness of the HCQ combination.
While that one article on its own could be considered anecdotal, it reflects what doctors are finding.
The anecdote is 100% irrelevant, regardless of whether or not it comports with what you think your cherry-picked sources are saying. If we pretend all of your sources are correct (they're not), the anecdote does nothing to increase the likelihood that they're correct.
If you want to present cherry-picked evidence that demonstrates your preconceived notion that hydroxychloroquine is an effective treatment against COVID-19, great, but the evidence is all that matters. Anecdotes that comport with evidence don't matter; only the evidence you're claiming the anecdote comports with matters.
Tl;dr, anecdotes are not evidence, regardless of what the actual evidence says.
Last edited by Lacius,
It matches evidence. And since this is a public forum where we are discussing "Is hydroxycloroquine really efficient at treating covid-19?" and this is not a science paper, I think you need to relax.
I never said it should stand on its own.
You are the one that came into this thread saying it does not mean anything. That's your opinion.
It's basic epistemology, not my opinion, that Anecdote+Study is equally demonstrative of a claim as the Study by itself. That's all I am trying to teach you, but you seem to care more about arguing a particular position (that I'm not even arguing with you about) than actually learning about epistemology. I suggest putting your listening ears on.
Again, I never said it should stand on its own. (As direct evidence to HCQ + others being a life saver in regards to early Covid-19 treatment)
There is nothing wrong with me posting that a persons personal experience matches studies and accredited peoples comments on the subject that is being discussed in this thread.
Last edited by crimpshrine,
There is something wrong with it if you are at all suggesting that the anecdote does anything at all to demonstrate the claim that hydroxychloroquine is an effective treatment against COVID-19, vs. not posting the anecdote at all.
If that's not what you're doing, then no, I guess there's nothing wrong with it.
Tl;dr, if you're saying Anecdote+Studies > Studies, you are mistaken.
How many times do I need to say it?
I never said it should stand on its own.
The posting I made today. I did not say, see guys this one link with his testimony proves HCQ works!
Does it reflect what other links I included that is based on studies and comments from accredited people? Yes!
Me stating the above is not breaking some law, this is not some science paper write-up. This is a public forum where we are discussing a subject.
I never said that you said the anecdote should stand on its own. That has never been my point, and it makes me think you're not paying attention. As I said in my last post:
I personally wouldn't go anywhere near it.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/...-died-taking-hydroxychloroquine-COVID-19.html
If Trump wasn't a huge liar & had any knowledge about the drug other than having shares in the company that made it, then maybe I would be more willing to give it the benefit of the doubt.
India seem to have given up on it https://indianexpress.com/article/i...e-hcq-in-treatment-of-covid-patients-6545236/
Last edited by smf,
OK, well carry on then. As I will.
Studies and personal testimonies are OK to be posted in this thread.
Cherry-picked studies (at least some of which are flawed) and irrelevant anecdotes.
What is the point though? I don't think that anyone is going to read gbatemp for medical advice & realistically it's going to be years before there is any evidence worth debating.
Cherry-picked studies (at least some of which are flawed) and irrelevant anecdotes.
Until I see you refute scientifically any of the studies I posted or you post your credentials indicating you are an epidemiologist and have as much knowledge as Dr Harvey Risch (YALE epidemiologist) Then I don't think you are adding anything at all.
I bet you are a blast at gatherings.
--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------
Treatment with Hydroxychloroquine Cut Death Rate Significantly in COVID-19 Patients, Henry Ford Health System Study Shows
https://www.henryford.com/news/2020/07/hydro-treatment-study
https://www.ijidonline.com/article/S1201-9712(20)30534-8/fulltext
Sad that their finding had to come to this then this month:
https://www.henryford.com/news/2020/08/hydroxychloroquine-an-open-letter
"Unfortunately, the political climate that has persisted has made any objective discussion about this drug impossible, and we are deeply saddened by this turn of events. Our goal as scientists has solely been to report validated findings and allow the science to speak for itself, regardless of political considerations. To that end, we have made the heartfelt decision to have no further comment about this outside the medical community – staying focused on our core mission in the interest of our patients, our community, and our commitment to clinical and academic integrity."
A few things.
- Whether or not I have credentials is not at all demonstrative of anything (other than having credentials and having done what it takes to earn those credentials). All that matters is the evidence, so I don't know why you mentioned credentials as if it would demonstrate anything one way or another with regard to hydroxychloroquine.
- Cherry-picking studies you think support your preconceived (perhaps politically-motivated) notion that hydroxychloroquine is an effective treatment against COVID-19 is not a reasonable method of discerning the truth of a claim. In order to make the conclusion about hydroxychloroquine that you've made, you have to arbitrarily ignore the preponderance of evidence that shows hydroxychloroquine is both ineffective and potentially harmful, and you have to arbitrarily pick the evidence that fits with your biases. You have yet to articulate how you made the decision to discard the former and embrace the latter. As I mention below, the latter evidence seems to have flaws. There is also a lot less of the latter evidence. So, how did you make your decision with regard to which evidence to select? My hunch is you went with what supported your biases. Googling "studies that support hydroxychloroquine" and pasting what you find without tackling the larger context isn't particularly convincing, FYI.
- When searching for information about Harvey Risch, it doesn't take long to find that, of the five studies he cites in support of hydroxychloroquine, none of them are randomized controlled trials. One of the five studies is the popularly discredited Raoult study. Two of the five studies have no corresponding data or publications. When you look at studies with the proper methodology, the overwhelming preponderance of evidence suggests hydroxychloroquine is not an effective treatment against COVID-19, and it suggests there are risks to using hydroxychloroquine.
Last edited by Lacius,
Early Hydroxychloroquine Administration for Rapid Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 Eradication
https://icjournal.org/DOIx.php?id=10.3947/ic.2020.52.e43
Our findings suggest that patients confirmed of COVID-19 infection should be administrated HCQ as soon as possible.
https://icjournal.org/DOIx.php?id=10.3947/ic.2020.52.e43
Our findings suggest that patients confirmed of COVID-19 infection should be administrated HCQ as soon as possible.
http://www.francesoir.fr/opinions-e...ienne-sur-3-451-patients-confirme-lefficacite
An Italian study carried out on a group of more than 3,000 patients, hospitalized for Covid-19, concluded that "the use of hydroxycholoroquine is associated with a 30% reduction in mortality".
FS: How many patients are affected by your study?
LI: Our study (COVID-19 RISK and CORIST Collaboration Treatments) was carried out on a cohort of 3451 patients admitted to 33 clinical centers across Italy. This is a retrospective observational study.
FS: What structures are involved in collecting clinical data on patients?
LI: The study focused on 33 structures, among the most recognized and important in Italy: Gemelli, Humanitas, San Matteo di Pavia, San Donato, San Gerardo di Monza, Spallanzani, Cotugno di Napoli, Miulli di Acquaviva delle Fonti, Monzino . University of Napoli Federico II, Catania, Palermo, Cagliari, Chieti.
FS: It's a study involving Italian hospital structures, from North to South. What conclusions did you reach?
LI: We have seen a 30% decrease in the risk of death in patients receiving hydroxychloroquine. The inverse association of hydroxychloroquine with in-hospital mortality was particularly evident in patients with elevated C-reactive protein upon entry.
FS: What do you mean by “they had a high level of C-reactive protein on entry”?
LI: C-reactive protein is a marker of inflammation. Having a high level of C-reactive protein when entering the hospital means that the Sars-Covid II infection has caused a significant inflammatory response. We believe that HCQ acts on this very component of the disease rather than inhibiting viral replication.
FS: What were the mortality rates in the hydroxychloroquine and control groups?
LI: The mortality rate of patients receiving hydroxychloroquine was 8.9 / 1000 patients / day, the mortality rate of those not receiving hydroxychloroquine was 15.7 / 1000 patients / day. Treatment was started on the first day of admission in most clinical centers, at a dose of 400 mg once a day, for an average of 10 days. 76% of patients were on HCQ treatment .
FS: Did the drug have statistically significant side effects?
LI: Our study did not collect information on adverse effects. However, the studies already published by the different centers participating in our study did not show significant cardiovascular clinical events, although there was an increase in the ECG QT. (sources: https://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0167527320322233 and https://www.ahajournals.org/doi/10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.120.048476 )
Funny how the FDA's report differs so much compared to numerous other positive studies out there world wide. Especially regarding cardiac events. If you look into the details on what the FDA determined this on, you had hospitals giving 3x the daily amount that has had success. So yeah maybe there are adverse effects if you give someone way too much. That's how drugs can work. You have to figure out the middle ground and stay there.
An Italian study carried out on a group of more than 3,000 patients, hospitalized for Covid-19, concluded that "the use of hydroxycholoroquine is associated with a 30% reduction in mortality".
FS: How many patients are affected by your study?
LI: Our study (COVID-19 RISK and CORIST Collaboration Treatments) was carried out on a cohort of 3451 patients admitted to 33 clinical centers across Italy. This is a retrospective observational study.
FS: What structures are involved in collecting clinical data on patients?
LI: The study focused on 33 structures, among the most recognized and important in Italy: Gemelli, Humanitas, San Matteo di Pavia, San Donato, San Gerardo di Monza, Spallanzani, Cotugno di Napoli, Miulli di Acquaviva delle Fonti, Monzino . University of Napoli Federico II, Catania, Palermo, Cagliari, Chieti.
FS: It's a study involving Italian hospital structures, from North to South. What conclusions did you reach?
LI: We have seen a 30% decrease in the risk of death in patients receiving hydroxychloroquine. The inverse association of hydroxychloroquine with in-hospital mortality was particularly evident in patients with elevated C-reactive protein upon entry.
FS: What do you mean by “they had a high level of C-reactive protein on entry”?
LI: C-reactive protein is a marker of inflammation. Having a high level of C-reactive protein when entering the hospital means that the Sars-Covid II infection has caused a significant inflammatory response. We believe that HCQ acts on this very component of the disease rather than inhibiting viral replication.
FS: What were the mortality rates in the hydroxychloroquine and control groups?
LI: The mortality rate of patients receiving hydroxychloroquine was 8.9 / 1000 patients / day, the mortality rate of those not receiving hydroxychloroquine was 15.7 / 1000 patients / day. Treatment was started on the first day of admission in most clinical centers, at a dose of 400 mg once a day, for an average of 10 days. 76% of patients were on HCQ treatment .
FS: Did the drug have statistically significant side effects?
LI: Our study did not collect information on adverse effects. However, the studies already published by the different centers participating in our study did not show significant cardiovascular clinical events, although there was an increase in the ECG QT. (sources: https://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0167527320322233 and https://www.ahajournals.org/doi/10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.120.048476 )
Funny how the FDA's report differs so much compared to numerous other positive studies out there world wide. Especially regarding cardiac events. If you look into the details on what the FDA determined this on, you had hospitals giving 3x the daily amount that has had success. So yeah maybe there are adverse effects if you give someone way too much. That's how drugs can work. You have to figure out the middle ground and stay there.
Similar threads
