4 ms·

Hospital treatment of Covid-19 with low-dose hydroxychloroquine and azithromycin

12 points by t0bia_s 3y ago

Simulacra 3y ago
I thought hydroxychloroquine was disproven as total junk science. I recall seeing on the news during the pandemic that it was ineffective. What has changed?
- redog 3y ago
  ...This result is remarkable because treatment with hydroxychloroquine was abandoned following the results of the SOLIDARITY and RECOVERY trial, which did not find a clinical benefit [20,21].
- cantSpellSober 3y ago
  That's mentioned several times in the paper. > despite the controversy surrounding its use, treatment with hydroxychloroquine and azithromycin remains a viable option Also keep in mind there were only 400 people in the treatment group, and the study concedes: > our study reports on outcomes from the first half of 2020, before vaccination became available and before the emergence of new COVID-19 variants. Since that time several drugs, like remdesivir, molnupiravir and nirmatrelvir/ritonavir were approved for the treatment of Covid-19
- TacticalCoder 3y ago
  > I thought hydroxychloroquine was disproven as total junk science. I recall seeing on the news during the pandemic that it was ineffective. What has changed? Once again: what has changed is the lies of mainstream media and politicians during the covid outbreaks being exposed. Here's a study on 30 000+ patients made by doctors, not politicians. The results are without any appeal: HCQ works and it works wonder (which many knew and many knew that for whatever reason there was a cabal trying to silence doctors saying HCQ was working): https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37861932 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37861932
jongalt1962 3y ago
Early on in the pandemic a couple of doctors around the world reported that a combination of drugs, including hydroxychloroquine and azithromycin plus zinc was successful in treating Covid-19. As long as it wasn't too late, i.e., the patient wasn't already on a ventilator. Those 2 drugs are inexpensive and plentiful, so they could've stopped the pandemic early on, before the lockdowns and vaccine mandates. I leave it to you, to speculate why this knowledge was suppressed.
- cantSpellSober 3y ago
  "A couple of doctors?" As the paper mentions, earlier studies indicated no benefit: > treatment with hydroxychloroquine was abandoned following the results of the SOLIDARITY and RECOVERY trial, which did not find a clinical benefit "Those 2 drugs are inexpensive and plentiful" Also mentioned in the paper > there is a continued need for widely available, effective and affordable treatment [instead of nirmatrelvir/ritonavir]
  - jongalt1962 3y ago
    Yes, I only recall a couple of doctors - there may have been more. The actual question to ask though, is how many patients? Another question to ask is who financed the "SOLIDARITY and RECOVERY" trial that you seem to place so much faith in. And was it scientifically valid? Too much "science" these days is corrupted by economic, political and ideological incentives, so I am suspicious of all of it. This leads me to trust anecdotal evidence more than I should, but what else is there? Even though anecdotal evidence is a relatively weak form of evidence, it is still evidence and it still counts for something. The only alternative is to do a deep dive into every allegedly scientific study out there, that one is interested in, and evaluate it.
    - r721 3y ago
      Why don't you ask who financed America’s Frontline Doctors organization which was pushing hydroxychloroquine and ivermectin as cure? https://theintercept.com/2021/09/28/covid-telehealth-hydroxychloroquine-ivermectin-hacked/ https://theintercept.com/2021/09/28/covid-telehealth-hydroxy...
blanketcitrus 3y ago
[flagged]

12 points by t0bia_s 3y ago

I thought hydroxychloroquine was disproven as total junk science. I recall seeing on the news during the pandemic that it was ineffective. What has changed?

redog 3y ago
...This result is remarkable because treatment with hydroxychloroquine was abandoned following the results of the SOLIDARITY and RECOVERY trial, which did not find a clinical benefit [20,21].
cantSpellSober 3y ago
That's mentioned several times in the paper. > despite the controversy surrounding its use, treatment with hydroxychloroquine and azithromycin remains a viable option Also keep in mind there were only 400 people in the treatment group, and the study concedes: > our study reports on outcomes from the first half of 2020, before vaccination became available and before the emergence of new COVID-19 variants. Since that time several drugs, like remdesivir, molnupiravir and nirmatrelvir/ritonavir were approved for the treatment of Covid-19
TacticalCoder 3y ago
> I thought hydroxychloroquine was disproven as total junk science. I recall seeing on the news during the pandemic that it was ineffective. What has changed? Once again: what has changed is the lies of mainstream media and politicians during the covid outbreaks being exposed. Here's a study on 30 000+ patients made by doctors, not politicians. The results are without any appeal: HCQ works and it works wonder (which many knew and many knew that for whatever reason there was a cabal trying to silence doctors saying HCQ was working): https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37861932 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37861932

jongalt1962 3y ago

Early on in the pandemic a couple of doctors around the world reported that a combination of drugs, including hydroxychloroquine and azithromycin plus zinc was successful in treating Covid-19. As long as it wasn't too late, i.e., the patient wasn't already on a ventilator. Those 2 drugs are inexpensive and plentiful, so they could've stopped the pandemic early on, before the lockdowns and vaccine mandates. I leave it to you, to speculate why this knowledge was suppressed.

cantSpellSober 3y ago
"A couple of doctors?" As the paper mentions, earlier studies indicated no benefit: > treatment with hydroxychloroquine was abandoned following the results of the SOLIDARITY and RECOVERY trial, which did not find a clinical benefit "Those 2 drugs are inexpensive and plentiful" Also mentioned in the paper > there is a continued need for widely available, effective and affordable treatment [instead of nirmatrelvir/ritonavir]
- jongalt1962 3y ago
  Yes, I only recall a couple of doctors - there may have been more. The actual question to ask though, is how many patients? Another question to ask is who financed the "SOLIDARITY and RECOVERY" trial that you seem to place so much faith in. And was it scientifically valid? Too much "science" these days is corrupted by economic, political and ideological incentives, so I am suspicious of all of it. This leads me to trust anecdotal evidence more than I should, but what else is there? Even though anecdotal evidence is a relatively weak form of evidence, it is still evidence and it still counts for something. The only alternative is to do a deep dive into every allegedly scientific study out there, that one is interested in, and evaluate it.
  - r721 3y ago
    Why don't you ask who financed America’s Frontline Doctors organization which was pushing hydroxychloroquine and ivermectin as cure? https://theintercept.com/2021/09/28/covid-telehealth-hydroxychloroquine-ivermectin-hacked/ https://theintercept.com/2021/09/28/covid-telehealth-hydroxy...

blanketcitrus 3y ago

[flagged]