Professor Raoult Releases Results of New Hydroxychloroquine Treatment Study on 1061 Patients

Cool. Do you think we need a formal study to figure out who the vector for Covid-19 into nursing homes is as well?

The medical community had one job and it f'd it up. Protect the at risk in its care. The medical profession killed thousands through incompetence. This is an engineered failure. If it were a bridge that failed the professionals involved would be facing criminal charges.

 

3.4 v. 0.47

Seven times as effective it seems.

Get back to us when your double blind Meta-analytic formal study is done next year.

 

Vs. .47 in the treatment group.

 

What are you talking about? 91% is pretty darn good.

 

Great, until we get different leadership. The fool running the WHO recently had to withdraw his idiot decision to make the dictator Robert Mugabe a goodwill ambassador. On 1/14 the WHO told us not to worry, their Chinese masters told them it wasn't contagious. They are pawns of the Chicoms.

 

It's all they have, other than a candidate with dementia.

 

.47% died in the treated group, not 4%.

If this drug drastically reduces deaths, we need to send people who pass the antibody test back to work and quarantine at risk groups.

 

Evidence based practice involves more than formal studies. You really don’t know this?
https://www.amsn.org/practice-resources/evidence-based-practice
And the relevant pull quote from the link.

The results we are seeing in the studies being discussed with the use of chloroquine are definitely data points that are imperative to consider if we are going to invoke evidence based practice. As are the opinions of the growing number of physicians etc. who are seeing good results.

I don’t wait for freaking double blind random large sample formal study when I find a hypothermic newborn calf. I take it home and put it in the bathtub and slowly warm it up. There is no formal research on calves in bathtubs, yet I use the practice to great effect. We can, and doctors are obligated to, do the same sort of thing.

Evidence is much more than formal studies. Science after all is simply observation. We can and should move into the formal experimentation arena at the proper time, but we ought not be artificially constrained by what we deem formal today. What is accepted as formal today didn’t even exist when some of the most important scientific discoveries were made.

 

I am keeping it simple for the public but yes I know and I also know how to read research and what I have read so far about HCQ is not impressive.

EBP only relies on consensus statements where there is either no research or where research would be unethical. Even within EBP sites some are very questionable. There was one site I reviewed for my employer which had outsourced the systematic reviews to third world countries and it had pharmacists reviewing literature on the best way to give an enema. There was some really dodgy research papers included.

Several sites though are well recognised

Uptodate
DynaMed
Nursing consult
BMJ
Etc

I am glad you are warming your calves slowly because if you don’t you will put them into cardiac arrest

Internal warming is better than external

 

Really?

And what statistical tool did you use to come to that conclusion?

4% had adverse outcomes including hospitalisation and admission to icu - there was no evidence that the outcome of the patients admitted to icu

A poor outcome was observed for 46 patients (4.3%); 10 were transferred to intensive care units, 5 patients died (0.47%) (74-95 years old) and 31 required 10 days of hospitalization or more.

 

I hope it pans out. This is why we test drugs before blindly promoting them based on Trump-style anecdotes and self-admitted feeeeeelings.

 

The second one is only known to work in test tubes.

 

The study actually does not include ultimate end points for all patients

His previous study was widely criticised by healthcare professionals and it seems this one is no better

Unfortunately the medical popularism of HCQ has made it difficult to recruit patients into alternative treatment studies

Again it is putting all your eggs in one very leaky basket

Ivermectin not only looks promising but has been used successfully in other viral illnesses

 

You do realize the popularism stems from the political fight. Had we chosen not to politicize this, it would've been among the many other clinical drugs.(Which Trump did state, although not by name like he did HCQ). But because we have to RESIST, it goes both ways.

The resistance to using the drug, and the resistance to the ban.

And this is what happens when Democracies fall apart. When time's are testing of the values and commitments of 'democracy', it dropped the ball. That's why WInston Churchill called it the worst form of government. It's the one least capable of withstanding scrutiny.

 

What ****ing “ban”?

WHO aid trying to run parallel international trials of several drugs

 

There is no "resistance to using the drug." Testing isn't resistance. Testing is the sane thing we normally do because the medical community generally prefers facts over feelz. Yes, even if those feelz are Trump feelz.

 

Guess we didn't get the memo that the same testing methods that we've used for decades are actually all part of a global conspiracy (teh jooz I'm guessing?) to undermine the dear leader.

 

Repurposing of drugs has/had been done before. And the use of these drugs to treat patients used to be a discretionary choice between patient and doctor. This discussion should have remained behind closed doors between patients and their physicians/treating doctors.

But it wasn't, precisely because of FEELS.

 

Repurposing of drugs has been done before and still is. That hasn't changed, so why pretend it has? Doctors still have plenty of discretion. That hasn't changed, so why pretend it has?

FDA-approved drug testing for widespread recommendation has never been "behind closed doors between patients and their physicians/treating doctors. That hasn't changed, so why pretend it has?

 

Because they're not "drug testing". Doctors have to make split second decisions to save lives, or in dealing with chronically ill patients, to make a management plan with various medical treatments. The last thing they need, is what happened in Michigan and other States.

These politicians aren't saving lives, they're putting them in danger to stick it to Trump. So here's what we can say realistically about HCQ: It's effective for some, maybe even many. But not for all. Guess what that means? Case-by-case. Doctor/patient basis. As it should have ALWAYS been.

We don't polticize treatments because we used to believe to stay out of people's medical decisions. Oh wait, that was prior to Corona.

 

Yeh, in a previous post you made it clear you didn’t think a 50% reduction in morbidity was interesting or worth pursuing. I would think any treatment for any disease or condition that cut morbidity by half would generate some interest.

Yep. That’s my point. We don’t have all the research we would like. We must not discount evidence that isn’t formal research when lives are at stake.

Yep, it’s a slow, tedious process, but amazingly effective. The only thing I do that is more satisfying from a miraculous results standpoint is treating hypocalcemia in postpartum dairy cows. Veterinarians say they love “milk fever” calls because they end up looking like heroes. It’s impressive to see a completely incapacitated animal get up and be asymptomatic in a matter of minutes. The hypothermia cases are almost as miraculous in appearance, just takes longer.

Yeh, I agree. But I’m pretty low tech there too. Here is my esophageal heat transfer device for calves.


And for goats/sheep. I’ll bet you’ve seen these before.

 

You understand that in a randomized, double-blind, study, you pick half the people to possibly die and half to possibly live, right? People are dying today; testing can continue later - but probably only in vitro since the in vivo test KILLS PEOPLE because they were denied a known helpful drug! Medical professional, my ass.

So, 41 patients had less dramatic results - but no evidence given that there was zero benefit, and 5 out of 1061 died. That's troubling to you? Is 5 dead just too few to meet your objectives? Really; what's troubling?

 

No resistance? How about states where Democratic politicians with zero medical training have issued executive orders banning the use for coronavirus? How about states where governors are threatening to strip doctors of their license to practice medicine?

People are literally dying because of the Democratic war on hydroxychloroquine. People are literally dying because of Trump hating social media warriors who are giving support and comfort to those governors. If that Trump-hating support didn't exist in social media, those governors would never issue orders to restrict doctors from giving safe medications to their patients.

 

The problem is that doctors are under threat of losing their licenses by politicians who are banning treatments just to make Trump look bad. That's an absolute fact.

 

Statistical tool? Just kindergarten math mam. 5/1061=0.00471253

At printing 16 remained hospitalized per the abstract. If they all passed away, the cure rate would be 98%. Not to be overlooked, the hospitalization rates and ICU rates are very low compared to what NYC is reporting.

Well see the full study very soon.

Cheers