3 ms·

The data indicates that Hydroxychloroquine doesn't work for COVID19. It is by far the most studied existing drug for this purpose, and it didn't pan out. The s

The data indicates that Hydroxychloroquine doesn't work for COVID19. It is by far the most studied existing drug for this purpose, and it didn't pan out. The study that indicates first that it was dangerous was retracted, that one was bad science and probably outright fraud. But several other studies later have shown that it does not work. This has nothing to do with Trump, though him pushing the drug without evidence is just fundamentally wrong. This is about the science, and that simply does not support using Hydroxychloroquine for COVID19. Here's one of the larger trials for hospital use of Hydroxychloroquine that didn't find any benefit: https://www.bmj.com/content/369/bmj.m2263?ijkey=355d5085a0aeed4493a778233d1ae2127edd2cc4&keytype2=tf_ipsecsha https://www.bmj.com/content/369/bmj.m2263?ijkey=355d5085a0ae...

dariusj18 6y ago
The danger is that Trump will say whatever he wants, no matter how dangerous for short term gain, because nothing seem to stick to him long term. He can tell people that the moon is cheese, and there will be an overreaction of media "blasting" him, and a similar overreaction of his supporters defending him. But two weeks later he'll say something else, and the same people will react the same way. The insidiousness about his strategy is that one in a hundred times he guesses right, and then he gets all smug and his supporters feel like they have ammunition to use against those "elites" with their "being right all the time." (Not to mention all the times he just lies about what he was wrong about to frame it as if he was right all along.)
CWuestefeld 6y ago
The data indicates that Hydroxychloroquine doesn't work for COVID19. That's not what the data says, and it's people who claim to be championing science but are actually regurgitating headlines that are causing this problem. "doesn't work for COVID-19" covers a lot of ground, and only some of it has actually been studied. I believe it's now been shown that it doesn't provide significant benefit for those already suffering from severe cases. However, I don't believe there's any real data on prophylactic use at all thus far, just some anecdotal stuff. Science is complicated, and doing it right requires a kind of finesse that just can't be captured in headlines - or apparently at all by our current media establishment.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- fabian2k 6y ago
  There has been at least one study on prophylaxis already: A Randomized Trial of Hydroxychloroquine as Postexposure Prophylaxis for Covid-19 https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa2016638?query=featured_coronavirus https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa2016638?query=fe... Covid-19: Hydroxychloroquine was ineffective as postexposure prophylaxis, study finds https://www.bmj.com/content/369/bmj.m2242?ijkey=2811796ab15e2b1f6ecc0a1fd760c6540ff0b04d&keytype2=tf_ipsecsha https://www.bmj.com/content/369/bmj.m2242?ijkey=2811796ab15e... There have been far more studies on Hydroxychloroquine than on any other existing drug that had any indication of potentially being effective. And many experts have argued that given what we know about HCQ, we have spent far too much effort on a drug that is unlikely to be effective.
  - CWuestefeld 6y ago
    Thanks for the pointer; I'll take this for the specific question of prophylactic use of HCQ. But I'm going to stand behind my broader point that the media is doing a lousy job of communicating science with any finesse, and that this is leading a lot of people to mistakenly believe that "being scientific". Last week a post on a local town Facebook page said something like My family is into science so we understand that wearing masks is beneficial to the whole community. Also, covid-19 may cause male infertility so that may drive your decision as well. Two things caught my eye here. First is the implication that there's some "being into science" that's binary, and if you follow the news headlines then you'll always be in possession of absolutely true facts. (I won't belabor all the various ways in which this is false.) And second is that while they like to think that they're even doing that much, they're still picking up on anecdata, presumably being it sounds vaguely science-y.
  - giardini 6y ago
    FWIW we all might pause to look at the graph posted at https://aapsonline.org/preliminary-injunction-sought-to-release-hydroxychloroquine-to-the-public/ https://aapsonline.org/preliminary-injunction-sought-to-rele... showing that countries using HCQ have much lower case fatality rates than countries such as the USA where use of HCQ is either banned or discouraged. [There's another graph similar but with many more countries. I can't find it at the moment. It is even more dramatic.] Concerning your post: HCQ+Zinc+Zithromax was initially proposed as an early treatment for Covid-19. The two studies you name test for something completely different: whether HCQ can prevent Covid-19 in someone who has been recently exposed to Covid-19. But no one ever claimed that HCQ could prevent someone from getting Covid-19. The claim was instead that, if given early in the course of the disease, HCQ+ZINC+ZITHROMAX would alleviate Covid-19. That is, HCQ+ZINC+ZITHROMAX, when given to people who have a recent diagnosis of Covid-19, usually proves beneficial. In particular it lowers the hospitalization rate and death rate significantly. There are - a. drugs that prevent illnesses(e.g., vaccines) from becoming established in the human body, - b. drugs that alleviate illnesses(HCQ for Covid-19) once they are already established in the human body, -c. drugs that do both (HCQ in the case of malaria, which HCQ can both prevent and treat (indeed, cure the disease)). Testing protocols for these differ accordingly.

dariusj18 6y ago

The danger is that Trump will say whatever he wants, no matter how dangerous for short term gain, because nothing seem to stick to him long term. He can tell people that the moon is cheese, and there will be an overreaction of media "blasting" him, and a similar overreaction of his supporters defending him. But two weeks later he'll say something else, and the same people will react the same way. The insidiousness about his strategy is that one in a hundred times he guesses right, and then he gets all smug and his supporters feel like they have ammunition to use against those "elites" with their "being right all the time." (Not to mention all the times he just lies about what he was wrong about to frame it as if he was right all along.)

CWuestefeld 6y ago

The data indicates that Hydroxychloroquine doesn't work for COVID19. That's not what the data says, and it's people who claim to be championing science but are actually regurgitating headlines that are causing this problem. "doesn't work for COVID-19" covers a lot of ground, and only some of it has actually been studied. I believe it's now been shown that it doesn't provide significant benefit for those already suffering from severe cases. However, I don't believe there's any real data on prophylactic use at all thus far, just some anecdotal stuff. Science is complicated, and doing it right requires a kind of finesse that just can't be captured in headlines - or apparently at all by our current media establishment.

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
fabian2k 6y ago
There has been at least one study on prophylaxis already: A Randomized Trial of Hydroxychloroquine as Postexposure Prophylaxis for Covid-19 https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa2016638?query=featured_coronavirus https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa2016638?query=fe... Covid-19: Hydroxychloroquine was ineffective as postexposure prophylaxis, study finds https://www.bmj.com/content/369/bmj.m2242?ijkey=2811796ab15e2b1f6ecc0a1fd760c6540ff0b04d&keytype2=tf_ipsecsha https://www.bmj.com/content/369/bmj.m2242?ijkey=2811796ab15e... There have been far more studies on Hydroxychloroquine than on any other existing drug that had any indication of potentially being effective. And many experts have argued that given what we know about HCQ, we have spent far too much effort on a drug that is unlikely to be effective.
- CWuestefeld 6y ago
  Thanks for the pointer; I'll take this for the specific question of prophylactic use of HCQ. But I'm going to stand behind my broader point that the media is doing a lousy job of communicating science with any finesse, and that this is leading a lot of people to mistakenly believe that "being scientific". Last week a post on a local town Facebook page said something like My family is into science so we understand that wearing masks is beneficial to the whole community. Also, covid-19 may cause male infertility so that may drive your decision as well. Two things caught my eye here. First is the implication that there's some "being into science" that's binary, and if you follow the news headlines then you'll always be in possession of absolutely true facts. (I won't belabor all the various ways in which this is false.) And second is that while they like to think that they're even doing that much, they're still picking up on anecdata, presumably being it sounds vaguely science-y.
- giardini 6y ago
  FWIW we all might pause to look at the graph posted at https://aapsonline.org/preliminary-injunction-sought-to-release-hydroxychloroquine-to-the-public/ https://aapsonline.org/preliminary-injunction-sought-to-rele... showing that countries using HCQ have much lower case fatality rates than countries such as the USA where use of HCQ is either banned or discouraged. [There's another graph similar but with many more countries. I can't find it at the moment. It is even more dramatic.] Concerning your post: HCQ+Zinc+Zithromax was initially proposed as an early treatment for Covid-19. The two studies you name test for something completely different: whether HCQ can prevent Covid-19 in someone who has been recently exposed to Covid-19. But no one ever claimed that HCQ could prevent someone from getting Covid-19. The claim was instead that, if given early in the course of the disease, HCQ+ZINC+ZITHROMAX would alleviate Covid-19. That is, HCQ+ZINC+ZITHROMAX, when given to people who have a recent diagnosis of Covid-19, usually proves beneficial. In particular it lowers the hospitalization rate and death rate significantly. There are - a. drugs that prevent illnesses(e.g., vaccines) from becoming established in the human body, - b. drugs that alleviate illnesses(HCQ for Covid-19) once they are already established in the human body, -c. drugs that do both (HCQ in the case of malaria, which HCQ can both prevent and treat (indeed, cure the disease)). Testing protocols for these differ accordingly.