7 ms·

Lots of conflicting research happening[1], until we get multiple controlled trials we won't really know. Here's one that shows improvements. [1] French ~50 pat

Lots of conflicting research happening[1], until we get multiple controlled trials we won't really know. Here's one that shows improvements. [1] French ~50 patient study that tried Control, Hydroxychloroquine, and Hydroxychloroquine + Azithromycin combo: https://www.mediterranee-infection.com/hydroxychloroquine-and-azithromycin-as-a-treatment-of-covid-19/ https://www.mediterranee-infection.com/hydroxychloroquine-an...

war1025 7y ago
> Lots of conflicting research happening That's my main take-away at this point. I have seen enough reports saying it worked, and enough saying it didn't that I believe the answer is probably somewhere in the middle. My understanding is the best guess for how it works is by keeping the viral infection from becoming serious enough to require hospitalization. Similar to how proper treatment of wounds early on keeps them from getting to the gangrene stage where you need amputation. Unfortunately, politics. So the Left wants it to be completely no use at all, and the Right wants it to be a miracle drug. Most of the population really probably just wants effective treatments if they end up getting sick.
- the_af 7y ago
  I'm out of the loop here: why would any political faction not want an alleged cure to work? What's the goal here?
  - VBprogrammer 7y ago
    Trump all but prescribed it to the nation a miracle drug "a real chance to be one of the biggest game changers in the history of medicine". Questioning the wisdom of that, given how little we knew, is seen as a partisan attack on Trump.
  - winstonewert 7y ago
    Trump said positive things about it. The left wants Trump to be wrong about everything, so wants this it to fail. The right wants Trump to be right about everything, so wants it to work.
    - jbeam 7y ago
      I think it’d be far more accurate to say that the left wants Trump to stop spreading misinformation on the topic than to say the left is so Machiavellian that it isn’t interested in a cure. For the most part the left seems very happy to just amplify anything Fauci says.
    - the_af 7y ago
      I seriously doubt anyone on the planet right now (short of being deranged) wants a treatment not to work. I understand wanting to chastise Trump for being exaggerated and reckless about an unproven treatment, but wanting it not to work? That can't be true.
      - cabaalis 7y ago
        A proven successful use of this drug would be very inconvenient for multiple media outlets who jumped at the (described as) unfounded claim. It would mean that either (a) the authorities had more information than they did, or that (b) the authorities bet successfully with the same amount of information, which doesn't align with their constant reporting of idiocy.
        epistasis 7y ago
        Not true, it wouldn't inconvenience anybody if this worked out as a treatment, because nobody has claimed that it couldn't be proven to work.
        davrosthedalek 7y ago
        You are right, but b) has an obvious logical fallacy. It assumes essentially that only intelligent people can win the lottery. Of course, this won't matter for the political discourse.
        rsynnott 7y ago
        > A proven successful use of this drug would be very inconvenient for multiple media outlets who jumped at the (described as) unfounded claim. Eh? Even if it did turn out to work, it would still have been an unfounded claim for Trump to claim it did without evidence, and a stupid and dangerous thing to do. That's what 'unfounded' means.
  - downerending 7y ago
    Trump pushed it as a miracle cure, at least at one point, and he evokes bitter opposition in many. (I think this is quite irrational, but that's your answer.)
    - Goronmon 7y ago
      People are in opposition to the president promoting drugs with unproven effectiveness as a miracle cure for an ongoing pandemic. I didn't think testing drugs before giving them to people was considered "irrational" as you state, but I guess that is where we are now.
      - downerending 7y ago
        It's "irrational" to oppose an idea just because it comes from someone you despise. It's not like this is coming from the National Enquirer--he has access to some of the brightest minds in the world. The efficacy picture on these drugs is quite confusing, and it's not out of the question that they will turn out to be crucially useful. Giving up on them without further investigation doesn't seem wise at this point. Beyond that, sometimes being a leader means giving people hope, even if that might involve shading things. Trump may not be an Adama, but I do think he's pretty good at making people feel better, or at least distracting them from their troubles. And right now, that probably is saving lives.
        Goronmon 7y ago
        It's "irrational" to oppose an idea just because it comes from someone you despise. Giving up on them without further investigation doesn't seem wise at this point. I don't disagree with these ideas on the surface, but they seem largely strawmen-style arguments. I'm not convinced a significant number of people somehow "hate" hydroxychloroquine or are against research solely on the basis that Trump mentioned it.
        fzeroracer 7y ago
        Let's say Trump instead proposed that people taking, I don't know, silver supplements was a proper treatment for covid-19. Would you say it's irrational to oppose that idea? I mean it's not been proven to not work, so you gotta try anything you can, right? And he's giving people hope.
  - code_duck 7y ago
    It’s somewhat more complex: one political faction claims that the other wants more people to die so that side can have a political victory. Supposedly, one side wants ‘the cure’ not to work, which means the other side can play victims. Nothing new, it’s just like claiming that liberals want to sell out to communists or Satan or whatever.
  - phkahler 7y ago
    President Trump encouraged trying hydroxycloroquine early on when there were early indications it might work. The problem is that he is considered such a villain by the left that they want it not to work just to prove him wrong. Such is the state of politics in the US. IMHO he was right to lean on the FDA to find out if its effective. Since it's already available, it would make sense for doctors to try it, but most are not trained in doing controlled trials so the results are all over the map. Most noticable to me is that when referring to this issue/drug, the media always points out that HCQ is not approved for covid-19. They neglect to point out that there is no approved treatment at all. It seems like an attempt to make Trump look reckless and irresponsible. Objectivity and politics dont mix.
    - tobessebot 7y ago
      The problem wasn't that Trump encouraged trying it, but that he clearly exaggerated what we knew about its effects and continued to do so for a long time even after having been confronted about it.
      - bluGill 7y ago
        Trumps history of exaggeration goes before and anyone sane accounts for it.
        tobessebot 7y ago
        I can personally discount everything he says, that doesn't make it any less legitimate to say that the President of the United States shouldn't hold press conferences in which he over-hypes the proven effectiveness of certain drugs during a pandemic. Otherwise anyone can just claim anything whenever they want without any proof whatsoever.
        bluGill 7y ago
        One must live in the world as it is, not as we wish it would be. Thus we need to consider actions, words and results separately.
- nodamage 7y ago
  > That's my main take-away at this point. I have seen enough reports saying it worked, and enough saying it didn't that I believe the answer is probably somewhere in the middle. The initial study indicating HCQ was effective was recently withdrawn by the publisher for failing to meet their journal's publishing standards [1]. And for good reason, as the study conveniently dropped patients that deteriorated from their final numbers. None of the follow up studies I have seen (including the one in the OP) have shown anywhere near the same level of effectiveness. > Unfortunately, politics. So the Left wants it to be completely no use at all That is such a twisted, uncharitable interpretation of the situation that I have to wonder if it is intentional. Do you really think "the Left" would rather have the drug be completely ineffective so the entire planet has to keep this lockdown going? Really? I guarantee you every single fucking person on this planet, left, right, or center, would love to have an effective drug against this virus right now. The primary point I've seen made by "the Left" on this matter is the President of the United States should not be tweeting out unproven drug combinations until their efficacy has been demonstrated by clinical trials. Particularly when: 1) such drug combinations can potentially increase the risk of heart failure [2], and 2) people rushing out to buy these drugs has constrained the supply for patients who actually need it to treat their existing illnesses. Unfortunately, politics, indeed. The world has gone insane when the position of "don't taken unproven drugs with risky side effects without medical supervision" is construed as a "leftist position" instead of COMMON SENSE. [1] https://www.isac.world/news-and-publications/official-isac-statement https://www.isac.world/news-and-publications/official-isac-s... [2] https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.04.08.20054551v1 https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.04.08.20054551v...
muglug 7y ago
That study has been widely condemned as lacking any sort of rigour – the journal that published it has since issued a statement of concern around the methods. For example, their "control" group were just arbitrarily-chosen patients treated at different hospitals, not people treated in the same hospital as where the study was conducted.
- watwut 7y ago
  If I recall right, they removed people who got worst and needed ICU from study. (Study was based on taking samples and since it was impossible to take samples, people did not counted.)

war1025 7y ago

> Lots of conflicting research happening That's my main take-away at this point. I have seen enough reports saying it worked, and enough saying it didn't that I believe the answer is probably somewhere in the middle. My understanding is the best guess for how it works is by keeping the viral infection from becoming serious enough to require hospitalization. Similar to how proper treatment of wounds early on keeps them from getting to the gangrene stage where you need amputation. Unfortunately, politics. So the Left wants it to be completely no use at all, and the Right wants it to be a miracle drug. Most of the population really probably just wants effective treatments if they end up getting sick.

the_af 7y ago
I'm out of the loop here: why would any political faction not want an alleged cure to work? What's the goal here?
- VBprogrammer 7y ago
  Trump all but prescribed it to the nation a miracle drug "a real chance to be one of the biggest game changers in the history of medicine". Questioning the wisdom of that, given how little we knew, is seen as a partisan attack on Trump.
- winstonewert 7y ago
  Trump said positive things about it. The left wants Trump to be wrong about everything, so wants this it to fail. The right wants Trump to be right about everything, so wants it to work.
  - jbeam 7y ago
    I think it’d be far more accurate to say that the left wants Trump to stop spreading misinformation on the topic than to say the left is so Machiavellian that it isn’t interested in a cure. For the most part the left seems very happy to just amplify anything Fauci says.
  - the_af 7y ago
    I seriously doubt anyone on the planet right now (short of being deranged) wants a treatment not to work. I understand wanting to chastise Trump for being exaggerated and reckless about an unproven treatment, but wanting it not to work? That can't be true.
    - cabaalis 7y ago
      A proven successful use of this drug would be very inconvenient for multiple media outlets who jumped at the (described as) unfounded claim. It would mean that either (a) the authorities had more information than they did, or that (b) the authorities bet successfully with the same amount of information, which doesn't align with their constant reporting of idiocy.
      - epistasis 7y ago
        Not true, it wouldn't inconvenience anybody if this worked out as a treatment, because nobody has claimed that it couldn't be proven to work.
      - davrosthedalek 7y ago
        You are right, but b) has an obvious logical fallacy. It assumes essentially that only intelligent people can win the lottery. Of course, this won't matter for the political discourse.
      - rsynnott 7y ago
        > A proven successful use of this drug would be very inconvenient for multiple media outlets who jumped at the (described as) unfounded claim. Eh? Even if it did turn out to work, it would still have been an unfounded claim for Trump to claim it did without evidence, and a stupid and dangerous thing to do. That's what 'unfounded' means.
- downerending 7y ago
  Trump pushed it as a miracle cure, at least at one point, and he evokes bitter opposition in many. (I think this is quite irrational, but that's your answer.)
  - Goronmon 7y ago
    People are in opposition to the president promoting drugs with unproven effectiveness as a miracle cure for an ongoing pandemic. I didn't think testing drugs before giving them to people was considered "irrational" as you state, but I guess that is where we are now.
    - downerending 7y ago
      It's "irrational" to oppose an idea just because it comes from someone you despise. It's not like this is coming from the National Enquirer--he has access to some of the brightest minds in the world. The efficacy picture on these drugs is quite confusing, and it's not out of the question that they will turn out to be crucially useful. Giving up on them without further investigation doesn't seem wise at this point. Beyond that, sometimes being a leader means giving people hope, even if that might involve shading things. Trump may not be an Adama, but I do think he's pretty good at making people feel better, or at least distracting them from their troubles. And right now, that probably is saving lives.
      - Goronmon 7y ago
        It's "irrational" to oppose an idea just because it comes from someone you despise. Giving up on them without further investigation doesn't seem wise at this point. I don't disagree with these ideas on the surface, but they seem largely strawmen-style arguments. I'm not convinced a significant number of people somehow "hate" hydroxychloroquine or are against research solely on the basis that Trump mentioned it.
      - fzeroracer 7y ago
        Let's say Trump instead proposed that people taking, I don't know, silver supplements was a proper treatment for covid-19. Would you say it's irrational to oppose that idea? I mean it's not been proven to not work, so you gotta try anything you can, right? And he's giving people hope.
- code_duck 7y ago
  It’s somewhat more complex: one political faction claims that the other wants more people to die so that side can have a political victory. Supposedly, one side wants ‘the cure’ not to work, which means the other side can play victims. Nothing new, it’s just like claiming that liberals want to sell out to communists or Satan or whatever.
- phkahler 7y ago
  President Trump encouraged trying hydroxycloroquine early on when there were early indications it might work. The problem is that he is considered such a villain by the left that they want it not to work just to prove him wrong. Such is the state of politics in the US. IMHO he was right to lean on the FDA to find out if its effective. Since it's already available, it would make sense for doctors to try it, but most are not trained in doing controlled trials so the results are all over the map. Most noticable to me is that when referring to this issue/drug, the media always points out that HCQ is not approved for covid-19. They neglect to point out that there is no approved treatment at all. It seems like an attempt to make Trump look reckless and irresponsible. Objectivity and politics dont mix.
  - tobessebot 7y ago
    The problem wasn't that Trump encouraged trying it, but that he clearly exaggerated what we knew about its effects and continued to do so for a long time even after having been confronted about it.
    - bluGill 7y ago
      Trumps history of exaggeration goes before and anyone sane accounts for it.
      - tobessebot 7y ago
        I can personally discount everything he says, that doesn't make it any less legitimate to say that the President of the United States shouldn't hold press conferences in which he over-hypes the proven effectiveness of certain drugs during a pandemic. Otherwise anyone can just claim anything whenever they want without any proof whatsoever.
        bluGill 7y ago
        One must live in the world as it is, not as we wish it would be. Thus we need to consider actions, words and results separately.
nodamage 7y ago
> That's my main take-away at this point. I have seen enough reports saying it worked, and enough saying it didn't that I believe the answer is probably somewhere in the middle. The initial study indicating HCQ was effective was recently withdrawn by the publisher for failing to meet their journal's publishing standards [1]. And for good reason, as the study conveniently dropped patients that deteriorated from their final numbers. None of the follow up studies I have seen (including the one in the OP) have shown anywhere near the same level of effectiveness. > Unfortunately, politics. So the Left wants it to be completely no use at all That is such a twisted, uncharitable interpretation of the situation that I have to wonder if it is intentional. Do you really think "the Left" would rather have the drug be completely ineffective so the entire planet has to keep this lockdown going? Really? I guarantee you every single fucking person on this planet, left, right, or center, would love to have an effective drug against this virus right now. The primary point I've seen made by "the Left" on this matter is the President of the United States should not be tweeting out unproven drug combinations until their efficacy has been demonstrated by clinical trials. Particularly when: 1) such drug combinations can potentially increase the risk of heart failure [2], and 2) people rushing out to buy these drugs has constrained the supply for patients who actually need it to treat their existing illnesses. Unfortunately, politics, indeed. The world has gone insane when the position of "don't taken unproven drugs with risky side effects without medical supervision" is construed as a "leftist position" instead of COMMON SENSE. [1] https://www.isac.world/news-and-publications/official-isac-statement https://www.isac.world/news-and-publications/official-isac-s... [2] https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.04.08.20054551v1 https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.04.08.20054551v...

muglug 7y ago

That study has been widely condemned as lacking any sort of rigour – the journal that published it has since issued a statement of concern around the methods. For example, their "control" group were just arbitrarily-chosen patients treated at different hospitals, not people treated in the same hospital as where the study was conducted.

watwut 7y ago
If I recall right, they removed people who got worst and needed ICU from study. (Study was based on taking samples and since it was impossible to take samples, people did not counted.)