COVID-19: The conspiracy related remedies proven not to work!

Discussion in 'Coronavirus (COVID-19) News' started by Betamax101, Nov 12, 2024.

PF does not allow misinformation. However, please note that posts could occasionally contain content in violation of our policies prior to our staff intervening. We urge you to seek reliable alternate sources to verify information you read in this forum.

  1. Betamax101

    Betamax101 Banned

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2011
    Messages:
    7,527
    Likes Received:
    1,422
    Trophy Points:
    113
    One of the more distasteful sides of the Sars2 pandemic relates to the insane levels of off-book prescribing of drugs. Even when vast numbers of studies performed show these quack medicines do virtually nothing and in some cases make it worse, there are still fringe websites and activists pushing their use. Clearly this amounts to a problem, not just for those people who are easily led but to the ones they then further influence with their poor understanding.

    This thread seeks to look at all these so called Sars2 "remedies". It will examine numerous reports/studies and show how these quack-fixes are being foisted on the whole world as a means to discredit the highly successful vaccination program.

    https://www.phc.ox.ac.uk/news/new-study-shows-ivermectin-lacks-meaningful-benefits-in-covid-19-treatment

    "New study shows ivermectin lacks meaningful benefits in COVID-19 treatment


    13 March 2024

    The study evaluated two important main outcomes: time to self-reported recovery and COVID-19-related hospitalisations or deaths. While the study found a statistically significant reduction of approximately two days in the time to self-reported recovery for those taking ivermectin (a reduction from 16 to 14 days), the researchers emphasise that this difference is unlikely to be clinically meaningful. The hazard ratio was only 1.14, which fell short of the study’s pre-defined threshold for a clinically significant benefit (a hazard ratio of 1.2). Moreover, and importantly for both patients and reducing the burden on healthcare systems, ivermectin did not reduce the risk of COVID-19-related hospitalisations or deaths compared to usual care.

    The study also examined whether ivermectin had any effect on long-term health outcomes following COVID-19 infection. Over the course of twelve months after their infection, participants were asked to report on their wellbeing, symptoms, healthcare contacts, and time away from work or studies. While the researchers found that there were statistically significant differences between the ivermectin and usual care groups in some of these outcomes, the size of these differences was not large enough to be considered clinically meaningful.

    In other words, although the mathematical analysis showed that the differences between the groups were unlikely to be due to chance alone, the actual impact of these differences on the participants' daily lives was quite small. This suggests that ivermectin did not provide any meaningful benefit to long-term health outcomes after COVID-19 infection compared to the usual care group.

    "The results of this study add certainty to the existing evidence that ivermectin has no place in the treatment of COVID-19 in a largely vaccinated population," said Professor Chris Butler, Professor of Primary Care at the Nuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences and Co-chief investigator of PRINCIPLE. "Completing rigorous clinical trials which evaluate long-term health outcomes is vital to establish effective treatments for those at higher risk from severe illness. Findings from the PRINCIPLE trial fill gaps in our understanding of how to treat COVID-19, helping policymakers and healthcare professionals make informed decisions about patient care and resource allocation. Finding out what does not work is critically important, because it saves people from unnecessary risk of drug side effects andreduces waste in the healthcare system.

    The PRINCIPLE trial also discovered that the anti-inflammatory drug, colchicine, did not make people with COVID-19 feel better, and that the antibiotics doxycycline and azithromycin should not be used to treat COVID-19. This changedpractice world-wide, and enhanced antimicrobial stewardship. On the other hand, we found that inhaled budesonide, a steroid commonly used to treat asthma, improved recovery and had a high probability of reducing the need for hospital admission.""


    https://www.who.int/news-room/questions-and-answers/item/coronavirus-disease-(covid-19)-hydroxychloroquine
    WHO does not recommend hydroxychloroquine to prevent COVID-19. This recommendation is based on findings from 6 trials, with more than 6000 participants, who did not have COVID-19 and received hydroxychloroquine. Using hydroxychloroquine for prevention had little or no effect on preventing illness, hospitalization or death from COVID-19. Taking hydroxychloroquine to prevent COVID-19 may increase the risk of diarrhoea, nausea, abdominal pain, drowsiness and headache. More information can be found here.

    Hydroxychloroquine is used to treat autoimmune diseases including arthritis. While considered generally safe, several adverse events are associated with its use, and it should only be used under medical supervision.


    WHO does not recommend hydroxychloroquine as a treatment for COVID-19. This recommendation is based on findings from 30 trials with more than 10 000 COVID-19 patients. Hydroxychloroquine did not reduce mortality, the need for or duration of mechanical ventilation. Taking hydroxychloroquine to treat COVID-19 may increase the risk of heart rhythm problems, blood and lymph disorders, kidney injury, liver problems and failure.
    More information can be found here.

    Hydroxychloroquine is used to treat autoimmune diseases including arthritis. While considered generally safe, several adverse events are associated with its use, and it should only be used under medical supervision."


     
    Last edited: Nov 12, 2024
  2. AFM

    AFM Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Dec 15, 2014
    Messages:
    41,395
    Likes Received:
    10,991
    Trophy Points:
    113
    They do work. Your post misrepresents their application.
     
  3. Bowerbird

    Bowerbird Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 13, 2009
    Messages:
    100,164
    Likes Received:
    79,623
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Female
    Any time you want to I will challenge that assertion. You can supply your meta-analysis/systematic reviews and I will supply mine but since your response to Betamax’s scholarly post is the equivalent of “Duh! I don’ fink so” I personally do not hold out much hope for an academically sound response
     
    MuchAdo likes this.
  4. AFM

    AFM Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Dec 15, 2014
    Messages:
    41,395
    Likes Received:
    10,991
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I already have posted evidence of the effectiveness of the HQ and Ivermectin protocols. You can dig as many rabbit holes as you should desire. No interest here in entering them.
     
  5. Betamax101

    Betamax101 Banned

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2011
    Messages:
    7,527
    Likes Received:
    1,422
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Once again when provided with studies, data, reports etc. yet another thread is subject to a response of "yeah I already posted it"! Bare assertion is absolutely useless to convince any fence-sitters.

    So, for any viewer reading this, I put it to you: I and others will be providing links to in-depth investigations as to the merits of quack Covid-19 treatments, spewed out all over the internet. I expect the response to this will not involve any medical rebuttal. It will almost certainly be repeated denial, more bare-assertion and insistence that somewhere on this forum, hidden amongst thousands of pages of antivax dross, lies the "already posted" information.

    Which of these two lines of argument do you feel the more comfortable with?

    ******************************************************************

    https://www.ndm.ox.ac.uk/news/moru-study-shows-ivermectin-not-effective-treatment-against-covid
    MORU study shows ivermectin not effective treatment against COVID
    23 February 2023

    Researchers at NDM's Mahidol Oxford Tropical Medicine Research Unit found that high doses of the drug ivermectin, controversially recommended by some high-profile political and media figures during the COVID-19 pandemic, are ineffective at treating the COVID-19 virus.

    The findings support claims that the drug has little antiviral activity against SARS-CoV-2 - and help resolve the controversy about the effectiveness of ivermectin in treating COVID-19.

    “Our study shows there is no support for the continued use of ivermectin in treating COVID-19,” says senior author and PLATCOV co-PI Prof Sir Nicholas White, Professor of Tropical Medicine at the Mahidol Oxford Tropical Medicine Research Unit (MORU), Mahidol University, Bangkok, Thailand, and the Centre for Tropical Medicine and Global Health (CTMGH), Nuffield Department of Medicine.

    Several different drugs have been suggested for the early treatment of COVID-19. Monoclonal antibodies, a type of targeted drug therapy, have been shown to be effective in preventing and treating COVID-19. However, they are expensive and they require an intravenous injection to be administered. Similarly, the new drugs molnupiravir and nirmatrelvir have shown promise in clinical settings, but they are largely unavailable outside of high-income settings. Repurposed drugs, such as ivermectin, have therefore been explored in treating COVID-19, as they are more affordable and generally available. However, trials of these drugs have often been flawed and/or underpowered. This has led to uncertainty and confusion over the effectiveness of these drugs, especially in the case of ivermectin.

    In patients treated with ivermectin, the average estimated rate of SARS-CoV-2 viral clearance was 9.1% slower than in those treated with the non-study drugs. Those treated with casirivimab/ imdevimab had a viral clearance rate that was 52.3% faster than in those treated with the non-study drugs, consistent with the proven clinical benefit of this medicine against susceptible viruses. These results suggest that ivermectin does not have measurable antiviral activity in early symptomatic COVID-19. The positive preliminary results from casirivimab/imdevimab confirmed that PLATCOV is able to identify treatments with clinically relevant antiviral effects against COVID-19."
     
    Last edited: Nov 13, 2024
  6. MuchAdo

    MuchAdo Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2022
    Messages:
    2,213
    Likes Received:
    1,206
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Female
    Ivermectin and Hydroxychloroquine have been shown to work for some illnesses but not for covid-19.

    Let me state what they do work for:

    Ivermectin: treats roundworm infection, Onchocerciasis (River Blindness), scabies, and head lice.

    Hydroxychloroquine: treats malaria, Rheumatoid arthritis, Systemic lupus erythematosus, and Porphyria cutanea tarda (a skin condition)

    None of the conditions are similar to covid-19. The reason why anti-virals work is because they either inhibit viral entry into cells, inhibit viral replication, prevent viral assembly, block viral release, or enhance the immune response. Antivirals are specific to the type of virus they target and are designed based on the unique characteristics of that virus.

    The above is why neither ivermectin or hydroxychloroquine are use for the covid-virus because they don’t have any effect on the viral mechanisms that allow proliferation of the virus through the body.

    You have not posted evidence of the effectiveness of the HQ and Ivermectin protocols. What you have mainly done is posted comment after comment stating they work without any links to scientific evidence. The opinion of Joseph Mercola is not evidence.

    Let’s go over it one more time to demonstrate to members that your comments are not true.

    There have been several studies that demonstrate the ineffectiveness of ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine against COVID-19:

    PRINCIPLE Trial (2024): is a large-scale trial found that ivermectin did not provide clinically meaningful benefits for treating COVID-19 in a largely vaccinated population. The study concluded that ivermectin should not be prescribed for COVID-19 treatment. — https://www.phc.ox.ac.uk/news/new-s...ks-meaningful-benefits-in-covid-19-treatment?

    JAMA Study (2024): a study published in JAMA found that ivermectin, even at higher doses and longer durations, was not effective against COVID-19 — https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2801828?

    BMJ Open Review (2024)**: a systematic review and meta-analysis concluded that there is limited evidence to support the clinical use of ivermectin for treating COVID-19 — https://bmjopen.bmj.com/content/11/9/e050532?

    COPCOV Trial (2024): a large clinical trial found that hydroxychloroquine provided only a moderate benefit in preventing COVID-19, with a 15% reduction in symptomatic cases compared to placebo — https://www.tropicalmedicine.ox.ac....vid-19-prevention-large-clinical-trial-shows?

    WHO Recommendations (2023): The World Health Organization (WHO) does not recommend hydroxychloroquine for preventing COVID-19 based on findings from multiple trials involving over 6000 participants — https://www.who.int/news-room/questions-and-answers/item/coronavirus-disease-(covid-19)-hydroxychloroquine?

    PLOS Medicine Study (2022): a study found that hydroxychloroquine was ineffective in treating patients hospitalized with COVID-19 — https://journals.plos.org/plosmedicine/article?id=10.1371/journal.pmed.1004428

    These studies collectively suggest that neither ivermectin nor hydroxychloroquine are effective treatments for COVID-19.

    I always wonder why people continue to insist that an ivermectin/HQ protocol is effective despite lack of evidence. Mostly it’s down to misinformation especially coming from unverified claims and anecdotal evidence on social media. There were some early promising results led to widespread interest and hope. Despite larger and more rigorous studies, some still cling to older information because it fits into their belief system. Some people distrust authorities so much that they only believe in alternative treatments and believe in conspiracy theories.
     
    Betamax101 likes this.
  7. AFM

    AFM Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Dec 15, 2014
    Messages:
    41,395
    Likes Received:
    10,991
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Clinicians practice medicine. Their data is clearly shows the effectiveness of the protocols.
     
  8. AFM

    AFM Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Dec 15, 2014
    Messages:
    41,395
    Likes Received:
    10,991
    Trophy Points:
    113
    They have been shown to be effective which is why they are widely used in very many other countries. Their use was suppressed here in the US to facilitate the release of the experimental mRNA vaccines.
     
    Last edited: Nov 13, 2024
  9. Betamax101

    Betamax101 Banned

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2011
    Messages:
    7,527
    Likes Received:
    1,422
    Trophy Points:
    113
    https://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/coronavirus/in-depth/hydroxychloroquine-treatment-covid-19/art-20555331
    "Is hydroxychloroquine a treatment for COVID-19?
    By Mayo Clinic Staff

    Hydroxychloroquine is not recommended as a treatment for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Also, hydroxychloroquine doesn't prevent infection with the virus that causes COVID-19.

    In March 2020, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, also called the FDA, allowed emergency use of hydroxychloroquine and chloroquine to treat COVID-19. The FDA based this authorization on data collected from healthcare professionals and tests done on cell lines, not humans.

    The FDA also began tracking the health of people taking these medicines.

    In April 2020, the FDA warned healthcare professionals against using hydroxychloroquine and chloroquine to treat COVID-19 unless people were in the hospital or a clinical trial. Data collected by the FDA found heart problems at a higher rate among people taking these medicines compared with those who didn't take them.

    In June 2020, the FDA ended the emergency use of hydroxychloroquine and chloroquine for treatment of COVID-19.

    Over time, clinical trials showed hydroxychloroquine:

    • Led to serious heart problems in some people.
    • Did not effectively treat COVID-19.
    • Did not prevent infection with the virus that causes COVID-19."
     
    Last edited: Nov 13, 2024
  10. Giftedone

    Giftedone Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 7, 2010
    Messages:
    66,768
    Likes Received:
    14,366
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Why would one expect hydroxychloroquine to prevent infection .. .. and what does "effectively treat Covid 19" even mean .. and mRNA treatment also led to serious heart problems in some people . and even death and all kinds of other nasty things ..

    I don't know much about hydroxychloroquine but these ridiculously worded clinical trial findings clearly demonstrate that the investigators don't know much either or about Covid. Why would you expect hydroxychloroquine to prevent infection / transmission. .. and why would anyone say "Did not effectively Treat Covid" . this can not have come from the scientists doing the research .. but from someone writing an article .. giving a summary of what they thought.. someone who knows nothing about what they are talking about... hydroxychlor is not for the treatment of the Covid Virus .. but for the various symptoms .. this treatment is not like a vaccine.. which acts against the virus itself.
     
  11. Betamax101

    Betamax101 Banned

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2011
    Messages:
    7,527
    Likes Received:
    1,422
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Well duh, the whole premise of the thread! One wouldn't!
    That's repeating what you just said. One still wouldn't! Suppose you read the damn OP huh?
    Well duh, that would be the purpose of the trial!
    And repeating again!
     
    Last edited: Nov 13, 2024
  12. Betamax101

    Betamax101 Banned

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2011
    Messages:
    7,527
    Likes Received:
    1,422
    Trophy Points:
    113
    RETRACTED: Hydroxychloroquine or chloroquine with or without a macrolide for treatment of COVID-19: a multinational registry analysis - The Lancet
    "Background
    Hydroxychloroquine or chloroquine, often in combination with a second-generation macrolide, are being widely used for treatment of COVID-19, despite no conclusive evidence of their benefit. Although generally safe when used for approved indications such as autoimmune disease or malaria, the safety and benefit of these treatment regimens are poorly evaluated in COVID-19.
    Methods
    We did a multinational registry analysis of the use of hydroxychloroquine or chloroquine with or without a macrolide for treatment of COVID-19. The registry comprised data from 671 hospitals in six continents. We included patients hospitalised between Dec 20, 2019, and April 14, 2020, with a positive laboratory finding for SARS-CoV-2. Patients who received one of the treatments of interest within 48 h of diagnosis were included in one of four treatment groups (chloroquine alone, chloroquine with a macrolide, hydroxychloroquine alone, or hydroxychloroquine with a macrolide), and patients who received none of these treatments formed the control group.
    Findings
    96 032 patients (mean age 53·8 years, 46·3% women) with COVID-19 were hospitalised during the study period and met the inclusion criteria. Of these, 14 888 patients were in the treatment groups (1868 received chloroquine, 3783 received chloroquine with a macrolide, 3016 received hydroxychloroquine, and 6221 received hydroxychloroquine with a macrolide) and 81 144 patients were in the control group. 10 698 (11·1%) patients died in hospital. After controlling for multiple confounding factors (age, sex, race or ethnicity, body-mass index, underlying cardiovascular disease and its risk factors, diabetes, underlying lung disease, smoking, immunosuppressed condition, and baseline disease severity), when compared with mortality in the control group (9·3%), hydroxychloroquine (18·0%; hazard ratio 1·335, 95% CI 1·223–1·457), hydroxychloroquine with a macrolide (23·8%; 1·447, 1·368–1·531), chloroquine (16·4%; 1·365, 1·218–1·531), and chloroquine with a macrolide (22·2%; 1·368, 1·273–1·469) were each independently associated with an increased risk of in-hospital mortality. Compared with the control group (0·3%), hydroxychloroquine (6·1%; 2·369, 1·935–2·900), hydroxychloroquine with a macrolide (8·1%; 5·106, 4·106–5·983), chloroquine (4·3%; 3·561, 2·760–4·596), and chloroquine with a macrolide (6·5%; 4·011, 3·344–4·812) were independently associated with an increased risk of de-novo ventricular arrhythmia during hospitalisation.
    Interpretation
    We were unable to confirm a benefit of hydroxychloroquine or chloroquine, when used alone or with a macrolide, on in-hospital outcomes for COVID-19. Each of these drug regimens was associated with decreased in-hospital survival and an increased frequency of ventricular arrhythmias when used for treatment of COVID-19."
     
  13. MuchAdo

    MuchAdo Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2022
    Messages:
    2,213
    Likes Received:
    1,206
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Female
    Nobody expects it to prevent infection. Nobody expects it to treat covid infection either, unless they don’t have the ability to understand the results of research. Multiple studies are summarized in the following link as to the efficacy of hydroxychloroquine.

    https://www.drugs.com/medical-answers/hydroxychloroquine-effective-covid-19-3536024/
     
  14. AFM

    AFM Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Dec 15, 2014
    Messages:
    41,395
    Likes Received:
    10,991
    Trophy Points:
    113
    The FDA has been captured by big pharma. The government official went against the directive from the executive branch and issued the EUA for HQ only for use with hospitalized patients which is too late in the disease cycle.

    HQ has been in use since 1955. It has anti viral capabilities. It has been in long term use in the treatment of lupus and RA. Heart performance in these long term applications is monitored.

    The successful clinical use of the HQ and ivermectin protocols in treating high risk covid patients is proof of efficacy.
     
  15. Betamax101

    Betamax101 Banned

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2011
    Messages:
    7,527
    Likes Received:
    1,422
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Conspiracy-related batshit bare assertion fallacy. Viewers may note that this is the pattern in this thread and numerous others. Continued assertions that have no evidence attached to them.
    A complete pile of horseshit. YET AGAIN the same spammed argument about an Emergency Use Authorization! The US account for less than 5% of total global vaccines administered.

    Anyone suggesting that EVERY country would do similar with every one of the vaccines is living in "everything-is-possible-in-conspiracy-fantasy-land" Again, as well as the spam statement, it is bare assertion. Viewers will see that there is NO evidence provided to support this multiple-spammed and very irrelevant claim.

    SO damn what! Hundreds of drugs have AV properties and it doesn't mean they work on all viruses!
    My god! And with a wave of the hand, the negative effects of these drugs is dismissed!
    Spam statement, bare assertion and circular reasoning.

    Viewers will note, all through this thread you will be provided with study after study showing this claim to be a lie. Early in vitro trials showed promise but when trialled on humans the results didn't work out the same. Papers have been provided explaining this.

    Notice absolutely NOTHING is given in return except the "yeah I already posted it" spam line. Apparently, all viewers must wade through thousands of pages to "find it", if you can!
     
  16. Betamax101

    Betamax101 Banned

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2011
    Messages:
    7,527
    Likes Received:
    1,422
    Trophy Points:
    113
    https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/14656566.2021.1898589#abstract
    "ABSTRACT
    Introduction
    : The 4-aminoquinolines, chloroquine, and hydroxychloroquine have been used for over 70 years for malaria and rheumatological conditions, respectively. Their broad-spectrum antiviral activity, excellent safety profile, tolerability, low cost, and ready availability made them prime repurposing therapeutic candidates at the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic.

    Areas covered: Here, the authors discuss the history of hydroxychloroquine and chloroquine, the in vitro data which led to their widespread repurposing and adoption in COVID-19 and their complex pharmacokinetics. The evidence for the use of these drugs is assessed through in vivo animal experiments and the wealth of conflicting data and interpretations published during COVID-19, including the more informative results from randomized controlled trials (RCTs). The safety aspects of these drugs, in particular cardiotoxicity, are then reviewed.

    Expert opinion: The evidence from clinical trials in COVID-19 supports the well-established safety record of the 4-aminoquinolines at currently recommended dosage. In hospitalized patients with severe COVID-19 RCTs show clearly that the 4-aminoquinolines are not beneficial. The only treatments with proven benefit at this stage of infection are immunomodulators (dexamethasone, IL-6 receptor antagonists). No antiviral drugs have proven life-saving in late-stage COVID-19."
     
  17. AFM

    AFM Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Dec 15, 2014
    Messages:
    41,395
    Likes Received:
    10,991
    Trophy Points:
    113
    My post is completely accurate.
     
  18. Giftedone

    Giftedone Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 7, 2010
    Messages:
    66,768
    Likes Received:
    14,366
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Yes .. thank you for repeating exactly my point :) ... obviously those conducting or assessing the study that Beta put up have no clue about the subject they are commenting on. .. Right !
     
  19. AFM

    AFM Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Dec 15, 2014
    Messages:
    41,395
    Likes Received:
    10,991
    Trophy Points:
    113
    The HQ and ivermectin protocols are effective in keeping people out of the hospital by reducing the viral replication stage of the covid progression before the cytokine storm begins.
     
  20. Betamax101

    Betamax101 Banned

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2011
    Messages:
    7,527
    Likes Received:
    1,422
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Did you even read the link? It was made from hospital staff at the Mayo clinic from the results of numerous studies. Whatever "point" you think you are making is needless and irrelevant. The whole point of the OP is to show how these quack treatments didn't work. It also indirectly highlights the sheer failure of those who continue to make claims that they do, with nothing more than nuh-uh.
     
  21. Betamax101

    Betamax101 Banned

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2011
    Messages:
    7,527
    Likes Received:
    1,422
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Eagle-eyed viewers will be shaking their heads in bafflement as the goal-posts are moved with not an iota of evidence to support them

    This user went to great pains to complain (dozens of times) about hospitals turning away sick patients. Well, PROVEN! is that use of the quack remedies would be a waste of time - now an indirect admission that that is the case.

    So the schtick now is that "they only work before they get really ill" huh?

    That is HORSESHIT!


    https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa2115869
    "A total of 3515 patients were randomly assigned to receive ivermectin (679 patients), placebo (679), or another intervention (2157). Overall, 100 patients (14.7%) in the ivermectin group had a primary-outcome event, as compared with 111 (16.3%) in the placebo group (relative risk, 0.90; 95% Bayesian credible interval, 0.70 to 1.16). Of the 211 primary-outcome events, 171 (81.0%) were hospital admissions. Findings were similar to the primary analysis in a modified intention-to-treat analysis that included only patients who received at least one dose of ivermectin or placebo (relative risk, 0.89; 95% Bayesian credible interval, 0.69 to 1.15) and in a per-protocol analysis that included only patients who reported 100% adherence to the assigned regimen (relative risk, 0.94; 95% Bayesian credible interval, 0.67 to 1.35). There were no significant effects of ivermectin use on secondary outcomes or adverse events.
    CONCLUSIONS
    Treatment with ivermectin did not result in a lower incidence of medical admission to a hospital due to progression of Covid-19 or of prolonged emergency department observation among outpatients with an early diagnosis of Covid-19. (Funded by FastGrants and the Rainwater Charitable Foundation; TOGETHER ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT04727424.)"
     
    Last edited: Nov 13, 2024
  22. Betamax101

    Betamax101 Banned

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2011
    Messages:
    7,527
    Likes Received:
    1,422
    Trophy Points:
    113
    https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamanetworkopen/fullarticle/2779044
    Findings In this trial that included 685 patients, rates of COVID-19–associated hospitalization in patients treated with hydroxychloroquine or lopinavir-ritonavir were not significantly different compared with those who received placebo.

    Results Of 685 participants, 632 (92.3%) self-identified as mixed-race, 377 (55.0%) were women, and the median (range) age was 53 (18-94) years. A total of 214 participants were randomized to hydroxychloroquine; 244, lopinavir-ritonavir; and 227, placebo. At first interim analysis, the data safety monitoring board recommended stopping enrollment of both hydroxychloroquine and lopinavir-ritonavir groups because of futility. The proportion of patients hospitalized for COVID-19 was 3.7% (8 participants) in the hydroxychloroquine group, 5.7% (14 participants) in the lopinavir-ritonavir group, and 4.8% (11 participants) in the placebo group. We found no significant differences between interventions for COVID-19–associated hospitalization (hydroxychloroquine: hazard ratio [HR], 0.76 [95% CI, 0.30-1.88]; lopinavir-ritonavir: HR, 1.16 [95% CI, 0.53-2.56] as well as for the secondary outcome of viral clearance through day 14 (hydroxychloroquine: odds ratio [OR], 0.91 [95% CI, 0.82-1.02]; lopinavir-ritonavir: OR, 1.04 [95% CI, 0.94-1.16]). At the end of the trial, there were 3 fatalities recorded, 1 in the placebo group and 2 in the lopinavir-ritonavir intervention group.

    Conclusions and Relevance In this randomized clinical trial, neither hydroxychloroquine nor lopinavir-ritonavir showed any significant benefit for decreasing COVID-19–associated hospitalization or other secondary clinical outcomes. This trial suggests that expedient clinical trials can be implemented in low-income settings even during the COVID-19 pandemic.
     
    Last edited: Nov 13, 2024
  23. AFM

    AFM Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Dec 15, 2014
    Messages:
    41,395
    Likes Received:
    10,991
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I have always made that point.
     
  24. AFM

    AFM Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Dec 15, 2014
    Messages:
    41,395
    Likes Received:
    10,991
    Trophy Points:
    113
    The HQ protocol consists of a cocktail of medications. The data from the multiple clinicians useing these protocols clearly show the benefits.
     
    Last edited: Nov 13, 2024
  25. MuchAdo

    MuchAdo Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2022
    Messages:
    2,213
    Likes Received:
    1,206
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Female
    See below.

     

Share This Page