3 ms·

Absolute garbage. The study confirms that sicker patients get hydroxychloroquine more frequently than less-sick patients. When sicker patients get drugs, "Treat

Absolute garbage. The study confirms that sicker patients get hydroxychloroquine more frequently than less-sick patients. When sicker patients get drugs, "Treatment with any combination of the four drugs was associated with a higher risk of death than seen in 81,000 patients who didn’t receive them." And...why don't the study authors control for zinc use as well? "Hydroxychloroquine is a zinc ionophore", explains one paper.

fzeroracer 6y ago
You seem to have a post history of dragging any study that calls into question the use of Hydroxychloroquine so it's not hard to see the clear bias in play here. Medical consensus is increasingly becoming apparent that it's either ineffective in healthy patients or dangerous for patients with more severe complications due to the side effects.
- Khelavaster 6y ago
  I agree with data from studies questioning the efficacy of hydroxychloroquine without health zinc and nitric oxide & vitamin D levels. I agree with data from studies questioning the efficacy of hydroxychloroquine when patients are too sick. I don't agree with overly-broad conclusions and I certainly don't agree with wasted time spent approving and writing up underscoped studied. Medical consensus on Covid treatment amongst professionals is overwhelmingly "we're not confident enough to develop changes in our practices based on current science and research. We need to see other professionals we trust, beyond journal editors, use the current science and research before we'll use it."
  - rurban 6y ago
    Medical research on HQC is laughable at best. The first reports from Wuhan talked about the efficiency of it as prescription drug. Then it appeared for a short while in their treatment plan, up to their 7th revision, at around Mid February. In extremely high dosis. At around April Europeans started trying it as treatment. Several studies appeared, the first French one being positive but the study itself was flawed. All other subsequent studies produced failures. But not a single study tried HCQ as prevention drug. Because that's how it works. That's btw also how those disliked presidents use it. The first such study just appeared today, from India. Of course it works as advertised and is now recommended prevention in India. https://www.icmr.gov.in/pdf/covid/techdoc/V5_Revised_advisory_on_the_use_of_HCQ_SARS_CoV2_infection.pdf https://www.icmr.gov.in/pdf/covid/techdoc/V5_Revised_advisor...
rsynnott 6y ago
> The study confirms that sicker patients get hydroxychloroquine more frequently than less-sick patients. Wait, where does it say that in the study? The study specifically says it controls for disease severity (amongst other things), and that it only uses data for people given the drugs within 48 hours of diagnosis.
- Khelavaster 6y ago
  "Within 48 hours of diagnosis" indicates nothing about disease severity, nor how long patients were sick prior to diagnosis. > Wait, where does it say that in the study? The study _supports_ the idea that sicker patients get hydroxychloroquine more frequently than less-sick patients. The study's raw figures show that sicker patients get hydroxychloroquine more than healthier patients. The study states that besides age and BMI, "all other [control] data were treated as categorical variables in the model." It's clear the study's authors don't sensitively control for patients' angiotensin-renin-aldosterone system health. There's strong subject selection bias in "initial disease severity" as well when some subjects die at home and others go to the ER mistaking mild Covid for heart attack symptoms.
jakeogh 6y ago
Garbage confirmed: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23305606 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23305606

fzeroracer 6y ago

You seem to have a post history of dragging any study that calls into question the use of Hydroxychloroquine so it's not hard to see the clear bias in play here. Medical consensus is increasingly becoming apparent that it's either ineffective in healthy patients or dangerous for patients with more severe complications due to the side effects.

Khelavaster 6y ago
I agree with data from studies questioning the efficacy of hydroxychloroquine without health zinc and nitric oxide & vitamin D levels. I agree with data from studies questioning the efficacy of hydroxychloroquine when patients are too sick. I don't agree with overly-broad conclusions and I certainly don't agree with wasted time spent approving and writing up underscoped studied. Medical consensus on Covid treatment amongst professionals is overwhelmingly "we're not confident enough to develop changes in our practices based on current science and research. We need to see other professionals we trust, beyond journal editors, use the current science and research before we'll use it."
- rurban 6y ago
  Medical research on HQC is laughable at best. The first reports from Wuhan talked about the efficiency of it as prescription drug. Then it appeared for a short while in their treatment plan, up to their 7th revision, at around Mid February. In extremely high dosis. At around April Europeans started trying it as treatment. Several studies appeared, the first French one being positive but the study itself was flawed. All other subsequent studies produced failures. But not a single study tried HCQ as prevention drug. Because that's how it works. That's btw also how those disliked presidents use it. The first such study just appeared today, from India. Of course it works as advertised and is now recommended prevention in India. https://www.icmr.gov.in/pdf/covid/techdoc/V5_Revised_advisory_on_the_use_of_HCQ_SARS_CoV2_infection.pdf https://www.icmr.gov.in/pdf/covid/techdoc/V5_Revised_advisor...

rsynnott 6y ago

> The study confirms that sicker patients get hydroxychloroquine more frequently than less-sick patients. Wait, where does it say that in the study? The study specifically says it controls for disease severity (amongst other things), and that it only uses data for people given the drugs within 48 hours of diagnosis.

Khelavaster 6y ago
"Within 48 hours of diagnosis" indicates nothing about disease severity, nor how long patients were sick prior to diagnosis. > Wait, where does it say that in the study? The study _supports_ the idea that sicker patients get hydroxychloroquine more frequently than less-sick patients. The study's raw figures show that sicker patients get hydroxychloroquine more than healthier patients. The study states that besides age and BMI, "all other [control] data were treated as categorical variables in the model." It's clear the study's authors don't sensitively control for patients' angiotensin-renin-aldosterone system health. There's strong subject selection bias in "initial disease severity" as well when some subjects die at home and others go to the ER mistaking mild Covid for heart attack symptoms.

jakeogh 6y ago

Garbage confirmed: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23305606 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23305606