3 ms·

https://pjmedia.com/vodkapundit/2020/07/13/hcq-helps-contain-covid-19-cases-new-evidence-and-a-major-retraction-n636361 https://pjmedia.com/vodkapundit/2020/07/

https://pjmedia.com/vodkapundit/2020/07/13/hcq-helps-contain-covid-19-cases-new-evidence-and-a-major-retraction-n636361 https://pjmedia.com/vodkapundit/2020/07/13/hcq-helps-contain... https://www.henryford.com/news/2020/07/hydro-treatment-study https://www.henryford.com/news/2020/07/hydro-treatment-study https://drive.google.com/file/d/1w6p_HqRXCrW0_wYNK7m_zpQLbBVYcvVU/view https://drive.google.com/file/d/1w6p_HqRXCrW0_wYNK7m_zpQLbBV...

shadowgovt 6y ago
The biggest concern with these is they're observational, not controlled and randomized. It's therefore risky to say they prove HCQ had positive effect, because there's no control for, for example, the possibility that doctors are prescribing HCQ to patients who would get better anyway. Detroit Free Press has details (including why Henry Ford has backed off on the study). https://www.freep.com/story/news/health/2020/08/03/henry-ford-fauci-trump-hydroxychloroquine-covid-19/5573656002 https://www.freep.com/story/news/health/2020/08/03/henry-for... The average person doesn't understand the difference between these studies (which, at most, indicate to the medical community that "hey, there's correlation here, a full double-blind study is probably justified") and double-blind, controlled studies (which can tease out confounding effects to demonstrate a correlation is likely causal), which is why HCQ has become such a controversial topic. At best, the answer to the question of whether HCQ helps fight COVID-19 is "it might."
- Fjolsvith 6y ago
  > The average person doesn't understand the difference between these studies The average person relies on their personal medical doctor. If that doctor is restricted from using all possible treatments by government bodies [1][2] or drug suppliers [3], the COVID-19 fight is going to be drawn out and will result in further deaths and hospitalizations. You might argue that citation [2] proves the drug totally unsafe, but I counter that the person's physician would be the only one able to judge this, and not some panel of experts in DC. Edit: If it can be safely used for malaria, lupus, and rheumatoid arthritis, then it probably can be safely used for COVID-19. 1. https://aapsonline.org/why-are-some-governors-blocking-physicians-attempts-to-save-lives-in-coronavirus-pandemic/ https://aapsonline.org/why-are-some-governors-blocking-physi... 2. https://www.fda.gov/drugs/drug-safety-and-availability/fda-cautions-against-use-hydroxychloroquine-or-chloroquine-covid-19-outside-hospital-setting-or https://www.fda.gov/drugs/drug-safety-and-availability/fda-c... 3. https://www.ama-assn.org/system/files/2020-04/board-of-pharmacy-covid-19-prescribing.pdf https://www.ama-assn.org/system/files/2020-04/board-of-pharm...
  - shadowgovt 6y ago
    Government bodies restrict "all possible treatments" all the time, especially when they are unproven and have side-effects. There's a whole FDA for that purpose. It came into being, among other reasons, because history taught us that those with a deadly disease are some of the most desperate of our fellow citizens, and are vulnerable to becoming victims of charlatans and snake oil salesmen. It is, perhaps, conservative in its risk estimates, but that conservatism grows from experience paid for in blood and lives. And it's not just the FDA. As you've observed, multiple standards bodies and professional organizations have cautioned against off-label use of HCQ for this purpose. These bodies don't all have the same incentives, when they agree on a topic, It can be taken as a signal that their consensus is probably correct. And the larger concern isn't even doctors prescribing it. As citstion 2 indicates, the larger concern is the public deciding (partially based on the words of our president... for all the concern that your first citation expresses about politicians interfering with medical care, she sure seems to give a pass on the most powerful man in the federal executive speaking well beyond his experience and understanding) that this thing is a miracle cure and trying to self-dose with black market acquired medication, which will increase the death toll. Although, I suppose, it may have an unfortunate net positive side effect for the community at large... Not all of those overdoses will make their way to the hospital before they die, So there will be more resources freed up to treat covid cases and other medical conditions. That is not a solution we should pursue or encourage, of course. Not if our goal is saving lives.
    - Fjolsvith 6y ago
      Perhaps you are right. A drug with 60 years of safe use in humans could be dangerous.
      - shadowgovt 6y ago
        It's known precisely how it is dangerous (well-understood side-effects) and it's understood, given those side-effects, to be safer than having the diseases it treats. Since it's not proven to treat COVID-19, and it has side-effects that can include an irregular heart rhythm, administering it to treat COVID-19 does harm without proven good and may violate a practitioner's Hippocratic oath (and, for an individual self-dosing, may just make the situation worse).

shadowgovt 6y ago

The biggest concern with these is they're observational, not controlled and randomized. It's therefore risky to say they prove HCQ had positive effect, because there's no control for, for example, the possibility that doctors are prescribing HCQ to patients who would get better anyway. Detroit Free Press has details (including why Henry Ford has backed off on the study). https://www.freep.com/story/news/health/2020/08/03/henry-ford-fauci-trump-hydroxychloroquine-covid-19/5573656002 https://www.freep.com/story/news/health/2020/08/03/henry-for... The average person doesn't understand the difference between these studies (which, at most, indicate to the medical community that "hey, there's correlation here, a full double-blind study is probably justified") and double-blind, controlled studies (which can tease out confounding effects to demonstrate a correlation is likely causal), which is why HCQ has become such a controversial topic. At best, the answer to the question of whether HCQ helps fight COVID-19 is "it might."

Fjolsvith 6y ago
> The average person doesn't understand the difference between these studies The average person relies on their personal medical doctor. If that doctor is restricted from using all possible treatments by government bodies [1][2] or drug suppliers [3], the COVID-19 fight is going to be drawn out and will result in further deaths and hospitalizations. You might argue that citation [2] proves the drug totally unsafe, but I counter that the person's physician would be the only one able to judge this, and not some panel of experts in DC. Edit: If it can be safely used for malaria, lupus, and rheumatoid arthritis, then it probably can be safely used for COVID-19. 1. https://aapsonline.org/why-are-some-governors-blocking-physicians-attempts-to-save-lives-in-coronavirus-pandemic/ https://aapsonline.org/why-are-some-governors-blocking-physi... 2. https://www.fda.gov/drugs/drug-safety-and-availability/fda-cautions-against-use-hydroxychloroquine-or-chloroquine-covid-19-outside-hospital-setting-or https://www.fda.gov/drugs/drug-safety-and-availability/fda-c... 3. https://www.ama-assn.org/system/files/2020-04/board-of-pharmacy-covid-19-prescribing.pdf https://www.ama-assn.org/system/files/2020-04/board-of-pharm...
- shadowgovt 6y ago
  Government bodies restrict "all possible treatments" all the time, especially when they are unproven and have side-effects. There's a whole FDA for that purpose. It came into being, among other reasons, because history taught us that those with a deadly disease are some of the most desperate of our fellow citizens, and are vulnerable to becoming victims of charlatans and snake oil salesmen. It is, perhaps, conservative in its risk estimates, but that conservatism grows from experience paid for in blood and lives. And it's not just the FDA. As you've observed, multiple standards bodies and professional organizations have cautioned against off-label use of HCQ for this purpose. These bodies don't all have the same incentives, when they agree on a topic, It can be taken as a signal that their consensus is probably correct. And the larger concern isn't even doctors prescribing it. As citstion 2 indicates, the larger concern is the public deciding (partially based on the words of our president... for all the concern that your first citation expresses about politicians interfering with medical care, she sure seems to give a pass on the most powerful man in the federal executive speaking well beyond his experience and understanding) that this thing is a miracle cure and trying to self-dose with black market acquired medication, which will increase the death toll. Although, I suppose, it may have an unfortunate net positive side effect for the community at large... Not all of those overdoses will make their way to the hospital before they die, So there will be more resources freed up to treat covid cases and other medical conditions. That is not a solution we should pursue or encourage, of course. Not if our goal is saving lives.
  - Fjolsvith 6y ago
    Perhaps you are right. A drug with 60 years of safe use in humans could be dangerous.
    - shadowgovt 6y ago
      It's known precisely how it is dangerous (well-understood side-effects) and it's understood, given those side-effects, to be safer than having the diseases it treats. Since it's not proven to treat COVID-19, and it has side-effects that can include an irregular heart rhythm, administering it to treat COVID-19 does harm without proven good and may violate a practitioner's Hippocratic oath (and, for an individual self-dosing, may just make the situation worse).