Coronavirus

More Evidence That Hydroxychloroquine Is Not a COVID-19 Silver Bullet

Trump: "We'll take a look at that. We're always willing to take a look."

|

Some small preliminary studies published a month ago suggested that the anti-malarial drugs chloroquine and hydroxychloroquine, in combination with the antibiotic azithromycin, might be a potent treatment for COVID-19. Subsequently, at a March 19 press conference, President Trump touted chloroquine, an analog of hydroxychloroquine, as a treatment for COVID-19. "It's shown very encouraging, very, very encouraging early results, and we're going to be able to make that drug available almost immediately, and that's where the FDA has been so great," said the president.

Obviously, it would be tremendously good news if chloroquine and hydroxychloroquine turn out to be really effective in treating COVID-19. Unfortunately, more recent research is not validating that hope.

A new nationwide retrospective study of patients treated at Veterans Administration medical centers is providing the largest dataset yet reported on the outcomes of COVID-19 patients treated with hydroxychloroquine, with or without azithromycin, anywhere in the world. The results are unfortunately not promising.

"Hydroxychloroquine use with or without co-administration of azithromycin did not improve mortality or reduce the need for mechanical ventilation in hospitalized patients," reported the researchers, who are affiliated with the Universities of Virginia and South Carolina. "On the contrary," they added, "hydroxychloroquine use alone was associated with an increased risk of mortality compared to standard care alone."

The fact that this is an observational study rather than a randomized controlled trial is an important caveat with respect to evaluating its conclusions. The study assessed 368 male patients treated for COVID-19 at Veterans Health Administration medical centers. In the study, 97 patients were treated with hydroxychloroquine (HC), another 113 received hydroxychloroquine in combination with the antibiotic azithromycin (HC+AZ), and 158 were not treated with hydroxychloroquine (no HC), receiving standard supportive management.

The researchers reported that "there were 27 deaths (27.8%) in the HC group, 25 deaths (22.1%) in the HC+AZ group, and 18 deaths (11.4%) in the no HC group. Mechanical ventilation occurred in 13.3% of the HC group, 6.9% of the HC+AZ group, and 14.1% of the no HC group." In other words, the patients not treated with hydroxychloroquine (No HC) had the lowest rate of death compared to the HC and HC+AZ cohorts. It is worth noting that the HC + AZ group were less likely to require mechanical ventilation.

President Trump, when asked about the disappointing results of the Veterans Administration study, replied, "I don't know of the report. Obviously, there have been some very good reports, and perhaps this one is not a good report. But we'll be looking at it."

In the meantime, new treatment guidelines issued by an expert panel convened by the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases recommended against the use of the combination of hydroxychloroquine plus azithromycin because of the potential for toxicities. The panel also observed that there "are insufficient clinical data to recommend either for or against using chloroquine or hydroxychloroquine for the treatment of COVID-19." If physicians choose to use either of the two antimalarials, the panel recommends that they should carefully monitor patients for dangerous heart rhythms problems known to be associated with the two drugs.

The researchers who analyzed the efficacy of hydroxychloroquine in treating Veterans Administration patients conclude, "These findings highlight the importance of awaiting the results of ongoing prospective, randomized, controlled studies before widespread adoption of these drugs."

While further research may eventually show that these drugs could offer some therapeutic benefits, they are right now not looking like the anti-COVID-19 silver bullets many people had hoped they would be.

Advertisement

NEXT: The Attorney General Defends Civil Liberties Against Overreaching COVID-19 Control Measures

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. >> The results are unfortunately not promising.

    “Riding it out” completely ignored …

    1. They basically set it up to fail. The reporting on cases where there was success in mitigating symptoms employed hydroxychloroquine + the z-pack or doxycycline + zinc. This study notably left out the zinc application.

      1. Have any of the studies included zinc? I heard none of them had. Curious…

        1. None that I’ve heard of. Both the ones who reported successful symptom mitigations explicitly mentioned that they included zinc in the treatments.

          1. Dr. Vladimir Zelenko indicates that he has successfully treated over 700 patients who tested positive for CoVid-19 with HCL, Zinc Sulfate and Zithromyacin in a 5 day regime. He reports a Very high success rate. The failed VA “trial” was an “observational study” where HCL and Antibiotics (without Zinc) was administered as a measure of “last resort” the the sickest patients with 30% on respirators.

            That is a record of what they did. It is not any sort of study to prove anything. They did not administer Zinc (Chloroquine uses zinc to block sites on cell where the virus enters. Its not much good without it. So why even administer the Chloroquine? That’s like trying to turn over the engine of a car with an empty gas tank and wondering why it won’t start.

            They only used it as a treatment of “last resort” after its effects would have been minimal as organ damange had already been done.

            This “observational study” is nothing more than a collection of random hospital records of people who did Not use Chloroquine as proscribed to treat the virus. It was just tossed in ad-hoc too late in the advancement of the disease (and then without zinc).

            Basically, garbage.

        2. …And if that doesn’t work, try adding a single hair pulled from a cat in heat’s tail.

          If you’re not testing that, you’re just a partisan shill rooting for America’s failure.

          1. Yes, if it’s one thing that defines Science!, it’s conducting studies that don’t replicate the conditions of previous incidents.

          2. Zinc, LOL! That cat hair is a better bet since it *might* have some attenuated virus on it which might induce production of the right anti-bodies. By what possible mechanism could zinc reduce the harm of a viral disease?

            1. Mr. Polk, you are not familiar with ionophores. HDQ is a zinc ionophore that drives zinc into the cell, where it does not allow the ribonucleic acid of the virus to reproduce.

              THAT is the mechanism. Copper is also used as a substance to treat cancer that is driving into the cell by another Cu ionophore.

              Mr. Polk, I’m glad to explain this to you. I hope you look up things before you comment on them. Obviously this is the first time you’ve heard of ionophores. Look them up.

              Sanjosemike (no longer in CA)
              Retired surgeon.

            2. Mr. Polk, HCQ is an ionophore for Zinc, which opens the cell membrane to allow zinc into the cell to not permit the virus to reproduce in the cell.

              There are other ionophores that will guide trace elements into other cells, most notably copper, for treatment of certain prostatic tumors.

              I’m happy to explain ionophores to you.

              Sanjosemike (no longer in CA)
              retired surgeon

              1. Well if the major purpose is to get zinc into the cells, then there are plenty of ways to include zinc ionophores in your diet without heading down the hydroxychloroquin route.

                Quercetin – found in asparagus, red grapes/wine, red onion, cranberries and other berries, kale, most herbs, bell peppers, spinach, etc

                Pyrithione. Probably best to just drink dandruff shampoo so you get the pyrithione and the zinc together. Hey – can’t be as bad as fish tank cleaner.

                EGCG – tea – esp green tea

                You act like transporting zinc around the body is some weird phenomenon that requires doctors

                Course if Dear Leader had said ‘Eating spinach, asparagus, and green tea has some pretty good results in beating this virus’, then he would have lost all his voting base.

                1. HCQ is a delivery system that helps the some penetrate the viral cell.

                  1. ‘Helps the zinc’

            3. Look up zinc deficiency. It’s not clear how zinc works in the body, but if it’s missing bad things happen. The idea that an increased or reduced amount of an essential mineral in the body is inconsequential is nuts. The evidence of zinc helping with malaria is mixed, but it suggests at least the possibility that it affects the ability of viruses to take root in certain human cells.

              I got Cs in biochemistry, so I won’t claim to have all the answers here. But I can tell you that the absence or presence of different vitamins and minerals can have major effects on cell health because they are needed as either catalysts for certain biochemical reactions or to allow molecules of which they are a part to bind to other molecules. Keeping a cell healthy and keeping foreign elements from entering it and reproducing inside of it faster than it can expel them is a matter of having everything balanced just so. Zinc may play a role in that balance. If it does, that’s awesome because it gives us one more element in dealing with this virus. If it doesn’t, we’re going to have find something else. But thinking that it might be possible for the presence or absence of an essential mineral to affect a series of biochemical reactions isn’t a silly superstition. It’s basic biochemistry.

            4. Damn, James, the least Mike and Geoff could have done is offered you some lube before they assfucked you.

            5. The regime doesn’t produce antibodies. It blocks the sites where the virus enters the cell….. with Zinc. Without the zinc…. it doesn’t work (Ever try to build a sandbag dam without sandbags?) The virus must enter the cell to reproduce. The regime does not kill it or stimulate anti-body production. It prevents it from multiplying, buying (a lot) of time for the body to naturally produce them and rid itself of the virus which has lost its ability to overwhelm the immune response.

              The proscribed combination is 200mg HCL 2x/day, Zinc Sulfate, Zitromyacin – administered over 5 days. Way too little HCL and for too short a time to produce the much dreaded side effects.

              In short – it uses zinc to put the virus on “hold” while the body’s immune response catches up.

              So yeah. Zinc is important.

        3. Search YouTube for Dr. Vladimir Zelenko. He explains the rationale for including the zinc, which is that hydroxychloroquine lets zinc into the cell, where it interrupts viral replication.

          If the patient has enough zinc in their diet, they benefit. If not, they need a supplement.

          -jcr

      2. //They basically set it up to fail.//

        Seems to be a common pattern.

        Set up shit studies, publish shit results, and then watch the runaway media disseminate the nonsense like a celebrity sex tape all because Trump has no business either offering people hope, or informing them of a potential treatment option without them subsequently downing a fish tank cleaner martini.

        A perfect storm of vindictive idiocy.

        1. This one was not peer reviewed, not under a control setting (at least Ronnie admitted this), was not population representative (The patients’ ages ranged from 59 to 75, with a median age of 70 – why did you ignore this ronnie?), covered basically only the most severe patients (same problem as Ronnie’s last takedown, hydroxychlorine is meant to take down virus replication, or early stage treatments, not late stage), and the study actually calls for a controlled study if Ronnie has bothered to read it.

          Why the dishonesty Ronnie?

      3. Zinc aside, these stats mean nothing unless starting with controls for patients with the same age, general physical condition, medical conditions, the same viral load, and at the same point in the illness. All of these and more are critical to a legitimate study. And 368 patients that are divided even just a few of these categories are not enough of a sample population to learn anything. Also, what did these patients who died actually die from? Was it the flu itself or was it a secondary infection?

        How long had each patient been on it? Time on the med is considered a crucial factor in treatment of lupus patients, and they have been shown to be remarkably unaffected by COVIS, even by normal standards, but particularly for people whose immune system is compromised. Theoretically speaking, they could have started some patients on it the day before they died and then said they died while on it.

        If you have one group that has significantly older subjects or are significantly advanced in their illness, there will be skewed results. And a few variables will make huge difference in the outcome.

        I’m not remotely suggesting that the drug has any value at all. But when “scientists” come up with studies and numbers that are small samples that haven’t been normalized for the variables, I call bullshit on their science.

        1. I’d say if doctors have had success in mitigating symptoms with a specific treatment combination, then a good-faith counter-study would employ the exact same combination and see what they found.

          Anecdotal data is still data, and if we’re going to assume that corona-chan is a massively virulent bug that will put most of its victims in the hospital and kill 5% of them like the doomers have been claiming, then setting up studies that pointedly avoid testing the very combination that provided those successful cases is shady as fuck. It smacks of a petty vindictiveness that these guys embarrassed the “experts,” and they are looking to discredit the doctors’ successes with cooked-up studies designed to ensure that they keep whatever shreds of their credibility are left after counseling the nation’s leaders and state governors to neck the economy in order to save lives.

        2. Zinc aside

          And that’s the point–if you’re going to do a counter-study, replicate the exact treatment combo. Don’t do a study that leaves it out, then claim that the treatment doesn’t work when you don’t get the results of the cases where it was included.

          1. Better yet: set up a totally blind four way study with placebo as one “treatment’, no one knowing who gets what. One group get CHQ, a second group get CHQ + Azm, group three get CHQ, Azm, Zn, fourth gets the empty capsule.

            Even better, after the groups one and two get non-Zn treatment and do not improve, and group 3 gets Zn and DOES, start giving half of each of the first two groups the threesome Zn whammy, then see what happens……. but make CERTAIN those actually distributing the capsules have no idea who is getting which capsule…. randomise the numbers on the batches of caps so on one can guess….. THAT would be a statsitcally relevant study.

            1. Yeah, but that makes sense and doesn’t allow the AMA or CDC to continue playing God.

      4. I encountered several reviews online that bashed pretty much every aspect of the VA “study”. Apparently they just started giving Hydroxychloroquine to patients who were in the advanced stages of the illness, and there was reportedly little or no documentation of the amount/frequency of dosage, as well as whether it was given with/without z-pack and zinc. Of course the VA is where non-diabetic patients in WV were injected with insulin resulting in a number of deaths. I would hesitate to put much stock in anything coming out of the VA.

    2. “Obviously, it would be tremendously good news if chloroquine and hydroxychloroquine turn out to be really effective in treating COVID-19. Unfortunately, more recent research is not validating that hope.”

      Correction: “Obviously, it would be tremendously bad news if chloroquine and hydroxychloroquine turn out to be really effective in treating COVID-19…” Signed – Every Never Trumper

    3. This study has not been peer-reviewed nor published in a medical journal. I have seen a ton of articles suggesting it works.

      1. None of those articles were about peer-reviewed studies, either.

        1. Some are, but they are not clinical trials. The only thing we know for sure is that it works well in vitro.

    4. I don’t see zinc being used. It is needed with the other two.

      1. cem4881. You are correct. Zinc is required. By itself, HCQ has only a moderate to low ability to fight viruses. It works somewhat, but not enough by itself.

        Zinc is the ENEMY of viruses. They cannot replicate in the presence of zinc. This includes the common cold virus.

        I personally take 22 mgs of Zn every day, 11 in a pill, and 11 as a lozenge. I don’t know if it will work because it is not DIRECTLY inside my cells. But in case I get infected, I want a GOOD blood level, so when I take the HCQ, it will have a “head start” against the virus.

        I cannot give medical advice on line. I could be wrong. I’m just telling you what I do.

        Sanjosemike (no longer in CA)
        Retired: surgery practice

        1. I appreciate the insight, and also the disclaimer. I was about to stuff a roll of pennies in mouth.

        2. I’ll just mention, since the left are scaremongering about HCQ and cardiac symptoms, that I took plain old natural quinine daily for five years as a kid living in the tropics. I didn’t drop dead from a heart attack, and I didn’t get malaria.

          -jcr

          1. I drink gin and tonic. I’ve never gotten malaria either

        3. shame there are not better studies on which kinds of zinc are more effective… even for normal colds this is very unclear… and there are so many forms of zinc, and even more methods of delivery

        4. “They cannot replicate in the presence of zinc.”

          You are going to have to provide a serious citation for that.

          Virus do not self replicate, they require a biologically active host cell and zinc is an essential element for human cellular activity. Therefore all human viral infections replicate in the presence of zinc.

    5. The study is limited to chloroquine and hydroxychloroquine, in combination with the antibiotic azithromycin. Until you read the actual study instead of bad reporting you don’t know what the conclusion of the study is. Nor has the study been peer reviewed, one of the complaints made about non-sanctioned studies.

    6. https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=9&v=dLSYRqcg0wo&feature=emb_logo

      Is specifically about this “study.” I am afraid there are people who hate Trump so badly they want people to suffer or die to make him look bad.

      That would be a textbook example of what deranged is.

      1. Anyone who hopes/wishes to form an opinion about the effect of hydroxychloroquine and azithromycin that is based on or even “colored” by this specific study, definitely needs to watch the youtube video linked above by the commenter “theomore”. It shows how journalists lacking a strong background in research, especially medical research, are ill-equipped to write stories that could affect our society. I have watched highly respected doctors working “hands on” in the eye of this medical hurricane (with no axe to grind) recount their experience with the treatment, including their knowledge about when it works (early on, not for patients who are already on death’s doorstep), and how important the correct dosage is over a period of days. Please watch it before commenting further.

    7. It’s a poorly controlled study that doesn’t prove anything one way or the other. The only prospective, controlled study that I’ve seen didn’t probably didn’t have enough power to detect a difference. In regards to adverse events, it’s likely the combination with azithromycin that’s the main problem.

      My bottom line: Any of these medications being tested should be done within a controlled, clinical trial whenever possible. I wouldn’t be afraid of taking the medication without azithromycin but I’d also prefer trying some other classes instead.

    8. The “good” results are only if HCQ is given when symptoms first appear… along with Zinc and along AZM. It is NOT a drug of last resort, but rather of first resort.

  2. I’m thinking about buying some InfoWars Super Male Vitality elixir to ward off any possible disease.

    1. Too bad it can’t ward off Infowars Bubblechamber Bends Syndrome

  3. Wow, I included links to medical studies in a post and it immediately got held for moderation. Moderation! on Reason!

    1. spammers such as yourself should be banned for not contributing to the conversation

    2. One link — ok. Two or more — moderation. Been that way for a while. Used to accept three links, but no longer.

      1. Depends. At times one link simply erases the comment.
        I’m sure there are shittier web sites, but my nephew stopped doing them for friends.

    3. A week or so ago I pointed out in a comment that the US government had admitted to inflating the death statistics. That comment was removed, and the account (which I’d had for years) was suddenly unable to post. I created this one just to mention this. When Reason says they don’t moderate, they’re lying.

    4. You can’t post multiple links in the same message.

    5. Since a day later my post is STILL being “moderated” I split the links into two posts and re-posted.

  4. Hydroxychloroquine was reflexively brushed off as an ineffective treatment option by many due to a dearth of good studies or trials, and the absence of adequate controls, blinding, etc. As such, many treatment providers and researchers became skeptics (and, understandably so.)

    Still, it seems that the solution to allay the concerns of the skeptics would be them what they want, which would be good studies and trials.

    And yet, it seems all we seeing are more and more bad studies, suffering from the very same infirmities as the initial studies that suggested hydroxychloroquine was effective, but which are then touted as surefire support for the skeptics’ initial belief that the drug is useless.

    Call me paranoid, and maybe I am, but it seems like many in the media are deliberately publicizing poorly designed trials and studies, with inconclusive results, to support their preconceived notions.

    If our metric for reliability is going to be “good studies and trials, properly controlled, rigorously reviewed,” then perhaps it is best to wait until this can be done before publishing inconclusive results one way or the other.

    1. GG: I trust that you will advise @realDonaldTrump to wait too?

      1. So, are you still pretending you are pumping out these articles without an agenda, solely for the purity of science? I think your response speaks for itself.

        1. GG: Actually it’s your response that speaks loudly for itself.

          And yes, I don’t have an agenda with respect to reporting other than being as fair and accurate as I can be.

          1. Funny, because I didn’t mention Trump, and you mentioned him the first chance you got.

            1. Really? Who’s the more disingenuous here? Because I guarantee the full lineup of usual suspects wouldn’t be here talking “zinc ionophores” and dark mutterings about trials “set up to fail” if Trump hadn’t spent weeks shilling an unproven treatment.

              Is this trial conclusive? Of course not, which is why DJT shouldn’t have hawked the results of an equally inconclusive trial for mere press-conference-filler. He’s not some guy sitting on the adjoining barstool, he’s the president of the United States, for God’s sake. Why won’t he act it? Why do make so many excuses when he doesn’t?

              1. //Really? Who’s the more disingenuous here?//

                Bailey. And, you.

                Trump wasn’t hawking shit, you deranged bitch. He mentioned a potential treatment that showed promise. He didn’t force anyone to take it. He didn’t require doctors to treat anyone with it. He presented an option.

                What exactly is the problem, then? Still salty about those retards that drank fish tank cleaner?

                Fuck off.

                1. I guess Trump has you at the point where you lie even to yourself. Bailey asked a simple question : Doesn’t all the whining in these comments about overselling one study (con) apply equally well to the POTUS and his one study (pro)?

                  You get all huffy, saying who brought up Trump…. Exactly who is that supposed to fool? It’s like you learned at the feet of a man who claimed he won the popular vote by millions and his inauguration crowd was the yugesy ever (photos be damned). Tell me, when Trump is gone do you think you can relearn to be honest? You might find it hard….

                  The President of the United States should not be systematically peddling unproven medical treatments, particularly in the midst of a pandemic. Why is that so difficult for you to understand? It would be stupidly wrong if the President was a Democrat, Socialist, or Martian. Because. it. is. just. wrong.

                  Try thinking it over calmly. I bet you’ll get it.

                  1. Nobody was overselling anything. Trump suggested an alternative, and said it should be explored. He pointedly admitted it may, or may not work. But, instead of recognizing the reality of the situation, you deranged dingbats keep trying to slide in the same false premise, as though nobody will notice, that Trump shoved hydroxychloroquine down people’s throats and assured the world it was THE CURE!

                    It never happened. Nobody peddled anything, you deranged bitch.

                  2. God you’re such a disingenuous piece of shit. Calling something promising isn’t ‘peddling’.

                    1. Ah, I see Mr. Bailey.

                      If Mr. Trump says that jumping off a bridge is unhealthy, you will jump off the bridge simply because Mr. Trump said it was bad. (ok, Hugely Bad) LOL

                      By that same token, in YOUR world, any one who agrees with Mr. Trump based on the evidence that splattering your face across the rocks is not a good move, is just a shill for Mr. Trump.

                      The possibility that one might examine the evidence and say “hey, you know, Trump might be right” is not even a consideration.

                      I have, at this point, read a fair number of small studies along with various interviews with Doctors treating using the HCQ cocktails and I agree with Dr. Fauci, it is unproven, but it is currently the best we have and I would take it.

                      If I began to have trouble breathing I would want Prednisone as was used in Brazil with success against the the cytokine storm that destroys the lung tissue. No full phase 1 or 2 study on that one either. But the choice is not between a proven guaranteed treatment and a poorly documented untested treatment. It is between treatments that seem to help and medical professionals waiting until time to pull the plug.

                      Piss Off Bailey

                    2. Shitlord of the Woodchippers : “God you’re such a disingenuous piece of shit. Calling something promising isn’t ‘peddling’”

                      And you, sir, are a grotesquely inept liar. As of 19April, Trump had mentioned hydroxychloroquine over 45 times. Guess what, clown? That’s a shit-ton more simply than “calling something promising”. Why, you could even call it “peddling”……

                      Questions :

                      (1) When you “peddled” your bullshit reply, didn’t it occur to you I could do a simple Google search and make you look like a fool? If not, why not?

                      (2) Don’t you find it troubling you can’t make an honest argument as a Trump supporter?

            2. He’s got you there Ron.

          2. Wouldnt it require you to post positive studies if you wanted to be fair? You dont. You even left out many of the problems of this study, only pointing out it wasnt a controlled study.

            1. Check out the studies I posted.

        2. The point here, I think, is that if scientists should wait until they have rock-solid studies before reporting results, don’t you think that the President should wait until the science is rock-solid before publicizing those results? Otherwise, he is (at best) giving false hope, and at worst, harming people who take a dangerous treatment on Trump’s word alone.

          1. Trump suggested it may be an effective drug. He never called it a “silver bullet” or said it is a guarantee of any sort. There are reports it works, and people are free to discuss treatment options with their healthcare providers. Nobody is forced to take hydroxychloroquine.

            Further, nobody is taking “a dangerous treatment” on Trump’s word alone, unless you’re talking about those morons that drank fish tank cleaner, which isn’t treatment at all but raw stupidity. This isn’t exactly over the counter medication that you can pick up at a pharmacy like cough drops.

            You are the perfect combination of obtuse and dishonest, and this is why people shit on you.

            Fuck off, moron.

            1. Don’t TEST Bailey.

              1. The phrase is don’t SUMMON Bailey.

                Because if you do he will appear, drop the mic (usually on his own feet, so that it rolls awkwardly off the stage and into the crowd while deafening everyone with feedback) and promptly disappear.

                Unless he cannot control himself, in which case he keeps reappearing to pester the commenters, but usually to insist that while they’re all useless idiots, he’s as straight as an arrow and has no political opinions, biases, or leanings that would ever tilt the balance of his writing.

            2. Trump’s actual words “it may work it may not.” Ronnie “must only post negative studies on drug!!”

            3. who care about the Reason commentariat and are tired of boorish behavior. Join me in writing to Reason management and asking for stronger moderation (all email addresses @reason.org):
              – David Nott, President, Reason Foundation, davidnott
              – Jennifer Kambara, Director of Supporter Relations, jennifer.kambara
              – Nick Gillespie, nick
              – Katherine Mangu-Ward, kmward
              – Ronald Bailey, rbailey
              Let’s stop putting up with it.

              1. There’s an easier solution: Don’t read the comments. Alternative solution? Kill yourself; then all the problems go away.

            4. Fun fact, the couple who drank fish tank cleaner were democrats.

              1. Just another example of Trump’s VOTER SUPPRESSION!

          2. Jeffrey is now promoting the safety and regulatory standards of the FDA. Better to wait 2 years prior to using a drug with minimal side effects. Not a statist at all baby jeffrey.

            1. Well, the FDA is an “authority”
              And Jeff does love his appeals

            2. Better to DIE waiting 2 years prior to using a drug with minimal side effects.
              FTFY

        3. Wow. Ronnie just proved his actual purpose of these articles with that statement. He should be fucking embarrassed.

      2. Actually, like everyone else, Donald Trump is entitled to his own opinion, which he had the honesty to state as his opinion.

        Have you always been this dishonest, or have you just been working up to it?

        By the way, if moderation ever clears my previous post, it contains links to two other studies including a new one from Marseilles, France with over 1000 patients.

        1. Don’t post more than one link at a time.

      3. Ronald Bailey: Will you write about this study?

        2020-04-20: IHU Méditerranée Infection, Marseille, France: Early treatment of 1061 COVID-19 patients with hydroxychloroquine
        and azithromycin

        Quotes:
        BACKGROUND: Hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) and azithromycin (AZ) are promising drugs
        against COVID-19.

        METHODS: We conducted an uncontrolled non-comparative observational study in a cohort
        of 1061 infected patients treated with HCQ+AZ combination for at least three
        days.

        RESULTS: Good clinical outcome and virological cure were obtained in 973 patients within
        10 days (91.7%). Prolonged viral carriage was observed in 47 patients (4.4%) and was
        associated to a higher viral load at diagnosis (p < 10-2) but viral culture was negative at day
        10. All but one were PCR-cleared at day 15.

        A poor clinical outcome was observed for 46 patients (4.3%) and 8 died (0.75%) (74-95 years old).
        Mortality was lower than in patients
        treated with other regimens in all Marseille public hospitals (p< 10-2). Five patients are still
        hospitalized (98.7% of patients cured so far). Poor clinical outcome was associated to older
        age (OR 1.11), initial higher severity (OR 10.05) and low HCQ serum concentration. Poor
        clinical and virological outcomes were associated to the use of selective beta-blocking agents
        and angiotensin II receptor blockers (P<0.05). No cardiac toxicity was observed.

        CONCLUSION: Early HCQ+AZ combination is a safe and efficient treatment for COVID19.

        1. K: Yes, of course. But as you no doubt realize the researchers published the abstract that you cite have provided so far no the data on their study. That makes their claims kind of hard to evaluate.

          1. My link is to the full article, not the abstract.

            1. Actually that first link seems to go to “Combination of hydroxychloroquine plus azithromycin as potential treatment for COVID 19 patients: pharmacology, safety profile, drug interactions and management of toxicity. ”

              This one is the one I think you meant to use: http://mediterranee-infection.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/MS.pdf

              1. Yes, you’re correct, I mixed up the links. Damn, no edit button.

                I have sent the correct PDF by email to Ron Bailey who is reviewing it.

                Raoult has made a response to this study to Magagnoli:

                http://www.mediterranee-infection.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/Response-to-Magagnoli.pdf

                1. His spam folder is reviewing it, no doubt.

                  1. No, he actually wrote back and said that he is reviewing it.

          2. Um… I mean the one you wrote the article about only provides about the same. They both have demographic data and calculate a CFD odds ratio.

            You did find the actual article, right? Google brings it right up:
            http://mediterranee-infection.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/MS.pdf

            1. promising, wonder if results would have been better with zinc

    2. You are in support for more testing. Hallelujah.

      1. I keep reading your name as “jew.” Fucking annoying.

        1. a friend asked me to ask should he get a name change to change his initials or should someone get their eyes examined? I told him I’d get back to him

          1. That was pretty funny.

    3. The media is definately reporting with an agenda (much to everyone’s surprise to be sure). I look for information on this on scientific communications pretty regularly, and most seem to still think it is a probable, but not certain treatment.

      That said the one thing the pro-chloroquine side seems to keep missing is that even if it works, it’s not so much a “cure” as an inhibitor. My understanding is that antivirals are almost never a true silver bullet.

      1. Nobody was ever arguing it was a “silver bullet.” Pharmaceuticals rarely are, which is why it is disingenuous for the coverage around this issue to get lost in false premise of whether or not hydroxychloroquine is a “cure.” It was never touted as a cure, so I don’t understand why that is suddenly the standard against which its efficacy is being measured. This isn’t science, it’s pure polemics.

    4. NBC news has been running stories talking about Remdesivir as a potential treatment for the virus showing promise. They started doing this after a study was published in the New England Journal of Medicine detailing an uncontrolled trial with 53 patients. They have been doing exactly what Trump did, making vague hopeful noise about a treatment that had some anecdotal success before solid scientific studies could establish its efficacy. But the narrative requires you to believe that Trump is an irresponsible know-nothing pushing a harmful drug based on bad science, while news outlets are noble public servants informing people on the real science from expert sources. Chloroquine Drug Bad.

      1. March 19, 2020

        //At a news conference Thursday, President Donald Trump said the malaria drug chloroquine and the experimental antiviral drug remdesivir are being tested as possible COVID-19 therapies and could slow the epidemic.

        “It could have a very positive effect, or a positive effect, maybe not very, but maybe positive,” Trump said. “It’s very, very exciting.”//

        https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2020/03/19/trump-touts-chloroquine-remdesevir-possible-coronavirus-treatments/2875965001/

        This is what they are jumping down his throat for. Presenting treatment options, and giving people information. And one of those options was remdesivir ….

        Wait until they find out, and then remdesivir is going to be the second coming of thalidomide.

  5. Well Ron, no good. Here you are, distributing current facts, and all anybody will accept is either future facts or fake facts. Too bad, Ron, you had such a promising start.

  6. Five Problems With the Study That Claims ‘More Deaths’ From Treating Coronavirus With Hydroxychloroquine

    https://pjmedia.com/trending/five-problems-with-the-study-that-claims-more-deaths-from-treating-coronavirus-with-hydroxychloroquine/

    1. Succinctly summarized, “the entire study wasn’t worth the paper it was printed on.”

      Rather than exploring the scientific literature to see if the drug actually works, and perhaps reserving judgment, it seems there is now an entire media movement dedicated to unabashedly publishing bad science, over and over, just to generate a never ending barrage of spiteful headlines designed to skewer Trump.

      Why? Because Trump had the audacity to suggest that a treatment option was promising and may be effective. And I guess also as revenge for those bright young folks that drank fish tank cleaner with their lemonade in the morning.

      1. The media pushing back against HCQ with poorly done studies looks to be a fit of pique by the media. It’s almost as if they’re saying “How dare you tamp down the fear and panic we have worked so hard to establish! How can people believe our doom & gloom if you give them hope?”
        Keep in mind there’s not a lot of money to be had by using relatively inexpensive drugs like HCQ, azithromycin or doxycyline and a zinc supplement. Those won’t bring big government bucks for R&D of a vaccine or the high prices of a patented vaccine.

    2. Oh Matt Margolis who wrote three books about Obama and…

      So he brings up five points.

      5. It was a small, non-peer-reviewed study, not a clinical trial

      Yes the authors state that from the beginning. It is a retrospective review of VA patients.

      4. The patients were not representative of the entire population

      See above. VA patients are obviously not representative of the entire population.

      3. The most severe cases disproportionately received the drug

      The study correlates to more than a dozen measurable clinical signs and lab parameters. They did that. It is all there. Look at vital signs table 2 the three groups are near evenly matched (respiratory rate, temperature, pulse ox, blood pressure)

      2. Other studies and anecdotal reports suggest it helps

      We know.

      1. The study concluded that controlled trials are still needed

      Of course. Those are ongoing.

      So what does it mean? Just something on the radar screen.

      1. The bottom line is that they had a non-representative sample of 368 patients. The only way you’re going to get a result that is statistically significant out of that is if the effect is really, really strong.

        And, as they say, ” There were significant differences among the three groups in baseline demographic characteristics, selected vital signs, laboratory tests, prescription drug use, and comorbidities”

        IOW, there were confounding variables up the wazoo.

        It’s just a lousy study, all it tells us is that the stuff is neither a miracle drug nor a deadly poison.

        1. which we already knew, from the billion or so previous uses

      2. I see no real problems with the study for what it is, but the media isn’t reporting it correctly (what else is new?).

        That said number 3 concerns me. I’ve no personal experience with epidemiology, but in sensor work multivariate factor normalization like that is a big red flag especially when the actual variable significances are obfuscated. I mean, if the driving factors aren’t properly normalized, the whole thing is junk. I don’t know the FIne and Gray proportional hazards model well enough to know how hard that would be. But all their references to that predate COVID19 and they do not report model numbers, which makes me suspicious that they used a general mortality normalization rather than a COVID-19-specific one. The discrepancy between ventilator hazard ratio and death hazard ratio makes this seem like it might be a big problem to me.

        I mean, if this weren’t a pandemic where every day counts, there’s no way this paper get’s published as is. It’s clearly rushed, but that’s the nature of the beast right now. Until the randomized clinical trial results start to roll in, the scientific question will not be fully answerable.

        1. By the time all those randomized peer reviewed clinical trials come in the crisis will be over and the people who might have benefited will be dead.

  7. >>Unfortunately, more recent research is not validating that hope.

    Simpsons Season 16, episode 8 has a quote by Burns “I’ve been looking for a way to launder the money I made peddling club soda as a flu vaccine”

    the Simpsons burned it … in 2005

  8. and NY will report the results of a 20-hospital test on Monday.
    Then we can do more Monday-morning QB stuff.
    If they were promising results, Trump would already be trumpeting them.
    Any reports of therapies that are working?

    1. Here you go:

      IHU Méditerranée Infection, Marseille, France: Hydroxychloroquine-Azithromycin and COVID-19

      Quotes:
      More recently, we provided the
      clinical and viral outcomes of our cohort of 1061 COVID-19 patients, treated at least three days
      with the hydroxychloroquine-azithromycin combination. We described good clinical
      outcomes with virological cure obtained for 91.7% of the patients, and with prolonged viral
      carriage at completion of the treatment for 4.4% of them. Poor clinical outcomes were
      described for 4.3% of the patients, including five death (0.5%). These observations suggest that
      the combination is safe and may avoid worsening, virus persistence and subsequent
      contagiosity.

      DOSE REGIMEN
      We initially suggested hydroxychloroquine sulfate at a dose of 200 mg morning, noon and
      evening at the end of meals for ten days in accordance with the daily dose recommended in the
      marketing authorization for initial treatment for rheumatoid polyarthritis. In addition,
      azithromycin was given at a dose of 500 mg on the first day, then 250 mg in the morning from
      day two to day five.

      Also see: Table 2. Main contra-indications of both hydroxychloroquine and azithromycin.

  9. “Some good. Others bad. We’ll look”

    Is your boy’s go-to response. It has whatever meaning the listener/reader wants it to have.

    1. As opposed to “If you like your doctor or health care provider, you can keep them. If you like your health care plan, you can keep that too.” which was quite specific. And incorrect for those on the now denuded ACA.

  10. Shorter version;

    The study was non-scientific in nature and can’t prove correlation vs. causation.

    Noted.

    1. But, at least, it definitively proved that hydroxychloroquine is not a “silver bullet,” because that is now the operative standard against which the efficacy of all drugs is measured.

      1. Nope, a number of studies indicate that the cocktail with hydroxychloroquine improves patient outcomes, but no silver bullet.

        1. Are there any silver bullets, for anything? There are not, at least not in the world of pharmacology.

          And, it was also a dishonest portrayal. Nobody ever said hydroxychloroquine was a “silver bullet.” Yet, Bailey is entirely comfortable crafting a narrative in which Trump was irrationally promising a complete cure and, therefore, because one bad study (not even a trial) failed to prove it was a “complete cure” it means that hydroxychloroquine has no value at all.

          And, to boot, Bailey obliquely implies that hydroxychloroquine actually hurts and/or kills people that take it.

          Frankly, this entire article is just a regurgitation the equally stupid article printed in the Washington Post. Bailey may as well have just posted a link to that other article and called it a day.

          1. It really boils down to opportunistic anti-Trumpism. The mere thought that he could be right about something is so galling to the TDS crowd that they have to discredit the idea even when it’s shown success in off-label use.

            It’s not supposed to be a “cure,” and anyone framing it as such is being dishonest. The way it’s been used is just as a means for helping to mitigate symptoms and make it easier for the body’s immune system to throw the virus off.

            1. Perfectly stated.

              Apparently “if it saves just one life” only applies to authoritarian crackdowns in response to a government manufactured “crisis.”

              Bailey is a hack. When he’s not plugging his books, he is desperately auditioning for MSNBC. I suppose everyone has their priorities.

          2. I do appreciate Bailey for backing up everything I wrote about him yesterday.
            Must be a cry for help

            1. It’s a cycle of arrogance, and complete disdain for the readers.

              The ludicrous part about it all is that, at the end of the day, there is nothing wrong with taking a stance against Trump. But why lie about it? Why continue to lie even as you crank out thinly veiled propaganda hit pieces lifted almost verbatim from the pages of the Washington Post? Why continue to skew the drug as a Trump approved “silver bullet”? I mean, what the fuck? Why go through all that trouble?

              And, perhaps I missed it, but where’s the libertarian angle to any this? Shouldn’t the libertarian position be to explore as many drug options as possible, give people as much information as is available, and let them make their own decisions?

              And, if it ever turns out that hydroxychloroquine is effective, you can bet the farm that Bailey and the rest of his friends will be the first to accuse Trump of botching its rollout with confusing statements or destroying people’s confidence in the scientific community which slowed down trials and, as a result, killed thousands of people. None of these articles are presenting any sound science, or anything libertarian.

              So why does Bailey keep pumping this shit out? I think it’s fairly obvious to anyone with even a modicum of honesty.

              1. True.
                As for the libertarian article, it’s pretty much impossible for Bailey to consistently espouse. He may have some ideas that kinda, sorta coincide (“private sector solutions to geoengineer a solution for global climate change warming” for example) but he’s a devout transhumanist.
                There isn’t a more progressive philosophy in existence.
                It’s the belief in conscious (central) planned replacement of biological humanity

          3. So, do you think Bailey INTENDED to lie, do you think he is uneducated, or do you think he is stupid?

  11. Empty story, the author playing both sides of the dime.

  12. A new nationwide retrospective study of patients treated at Veterans Administration medical centers is providing the largest dataset yet reported on the outcomes of COVID-19 patients treated with hydroxychloroquine, with or without azithromycin, anywhere in the world.

    Mr. Bailey….you forgot a few things.

    – The results are not peer-reviewed
    – This was not a trial

    Your ‘reporting’ failed to mention that. Why?

    If you want to be taken seriously as the science guy, you need to add these caveats which the authors did and you failed to do.

    1. To be fair to Ron, just this one time, he did write that it was a retrospective study and “an observational study rather than a randomized controlled trial . . . an important caveat with respect to evaluating its conclusions.” In other words, it was researchers analyzing medical records, nothing more.

      My gripe with Ron on this particular article is that like most of the other usual suspects (i.e. Washington Post, CNN, Salon, etc.) the headline is completely absurd, and the article obliquely pushes the conclusion that not only is hydroxychloroquine ineffective, it actually harms and/or kills people.

      So, while Ron lays out the typical caveats, the presentation is still misleading. He is pumping up a study that is entirely meaningless if for not other reason than to show that nobody should listen to Trump, about hydroxychloroquine or anything else.

      1. And if people die because of that, who cares?
        Certainly not a tranny, whose entire religion is misanthropy

  13. Swallowing coronavirus snake oil from Fox, InfoWars , and the Climate Change ? What Climate Change ? blogs may entail a higher risk of death than the disese itself.

    These long-lived antimalarials have scary margins of safety– less than a gram can kill a child, let some coronapundits are touting megadoses.

    https://vvattsupwiththat.blogspot.com/2020/04/of-quinine-and-chloroquine-willis.html

    1. Entelechy: You are correct and incorrect at the same time. Chloroquine is a VERY dangerous drug at blood levels of 6 gms.

      It is occasionally used for suicide. HCQ is a little less dangerous, but still needs to have CLOSELY monitored doses. Here’s the problem: Chloroquine comes as 50/150/500 mgs. THE 500 mg size is way to large! It should be abolished. An underweight person could easily take an overdose.

      HJCQ and Chloroquine should be prescribed and monitored by a physician. I spend those years in medical school and surgical residency to earn the privilege of a prescribing license (including narcotics).

      I need to be frank with you: Every doctor I know has a drawer in their bedroom with HCQ in it for them and their spouse. I don’t necessarily agree with it, because it is a form of hoarding. I’m convinced it works with Zn. Most doctors are.

      As far as “hoarding” is concerned, that is another moral issue. I am not smart enough to know the answer.

      Sanjosemike (no longer in CA)
      Retired: surgery practice

      1. Sorry, Chloroquine comes at 50/250/500 mgs.

        The 500 dose size should be abolished!

        Sanjosemike (no longer in CA)
        Retired: surgery practice

    2. Have you heard of Tylenol?

    3. wasn’t the megadose he took for malaria, not coronavirus?

  14. Who is Donald Trump kidding?!? People have died from taking Hydroxychloroquine, which is used in a lot of really strong cleaning solutions.

    1. You gotta stop drinking that stuff, Dude.

    2. So it’s a deadly disease that requires that everyone be locked up in their homes while the economy and their livelihoods crumble, but a potential treatment shouldn’t be honestly pursued because Trump touted it…

    3. Only heavy Democratic donors, to this point.

  15. Yep, a gram will kill a child. Of course the recommended dosages for malaria are FAR below that level:

    Dosage on the basis of body weight:
    First dose: 10 mg base/kg (not to exceed 620 mg base)
    Second dose: 5 mg base/kg (not to exceed 310 mg base) 6 hours after first dose
    Third dose: 5 mg base/kg 18 hours after second dose
    Fourth dose: 5 mg base/kg 24 hours after third dose

    The recommended dosage for autoimmune deseases are:
    Initial dose: 400 to 600 mg (310 to 465 mg base) orally once a day
    Maintenance dose: 200 to 400 mg (155 to 310 mg base) orally once a day

    Most side effects are rare. The most common are (1% to 10%): Blurred vision, this normally clears up on maintenance dosage, common (10% or more): Headache, also clears up on maintenance dosage, and the constantly mentioned but VERY rare Cardiomyopathy (can result in fatal cardiac failure).

    Treatment of hydroxychloroquine, azthromycin and zinc-sulfate is typically 10 to 14 days.
    Drug Information from http://www.drugs.com

    1. A current toxicology textbook, Poisoning & Drug Overdose reports:
      “Chloroquine overdose is common, especially in countries where malaria is prevalent, and the mortality rate is 10–30%… The terminal half-life of chloroquine is 2 months, and that of hydroxychloroquine is 40 days.”

      “Toxic dose.
      The therapeutic dose of chloroquine phosphate is 500 mg once a week for malaria prophylaxis or 2.5 g over 2 days for treatment of malaria.

      Deaths have been reported in children after ingesting one or two tablets—doses as low as 300 mg; the lethal dose of chloroquine for an adult is estimated at 30–50 mg/kg.”

      The Coronapundit linked above recommends:

      ” take three weekly doses at once (1500 mg, or 900 mg of base), then the same thing 24 hours later, then the same thing on the third day…

      Just take nine weeks worth of chloroquine [ 4.5 grams ] in three days… no problem…

      I’ll guarantee you that if I get the ‘rona, I will take chloroquine and azithromycin and zinc.

      Nothing to lose, everything to gain…”

      If you weigh 185 pounds, that will put 60mg/kg in your system.
      Anyone who treats himself with 3500 mg tablets a day for 3 days may reasonably expect to end up with a dead fool for a patient.

      1. Should have spelled out the first three in :
        3 500 mg tablets a day for 3 days

        That’s a total dose of 4,500 milligrams –

        1. Entelechy: You are correct about the fact that quinones are drugs that can be dangerously over-dosed.

          Chloroquine is certainly in that category for “smaller” people with a low body weight. HCQ is usually given (by European physicians), in much higher doses than American doctors use.

          To be honest, I think you are correct about this. The purpose of HCQ is to serve as an ionophore to get zinc into the cell. I am not certain why a large dose is necessary to do that.

          Sanjosemike (no longer in CA)
          Retired surgeon.

          1. The drug has a long residence time in the body, so for maintenance purposes you’d use a small dose. But if you’re using it to treat an acute condition like COVID 19, you start out with a big dose to get the circulating level up fast. The nice thing about that is that you can predict the concentration that will be achieved that way fairly well, because it’s not a result of some delicate balance between dose and clearance rates, and it has a high and consistent bioavailablity taken orally. So you just need to weigh the patient and dose accordingly.

          2. Have you any information about Tocilizumab, another anti inflammatory drug also used for RA?

            1. Apparently research is under way as a treatment for Covid19. It is used to combat the “cytokine storm” that is one of the causes of death in Covid patients.

      2. that dosage was for malaria, not corona

      3. this is what he actually wrote… he didn’t recommend anything
        ——-
        45 seconds that second time. Crazy weakness and pain. I’d never felt anything like the combination of malaria and quinine, and I definitely don’t recommend it no matter how bored you are.

        After that, I never took quinine again. I would take its chemical cousin, chloroquine, instead. But this time I was taking it curatively, not preventatively. It was not fun in the high doses, but it beat the malaria back, and it was much more tolerable than quinine.

        Finally, after suffering a couple more bouts of malaria over the next couple years, my mad mate Mike told me that when you feel malaria coming on, and you can definitely can feel it coming on, to take three weekly doses at once (1500 mg, or 900 mg of base), then the same thing 24 hours later, then the same thing on the third day. He swore it fended off the malaria.

        So I started using his plan, and I never got full-blown malaria again. Just take nine weeks worth of chloroquine in three days, it aborts the onset of the chills and fever, no problem.

        In addition, at the time, I knew dozens and dozens of expatriates in the Solomons and maybe half or more of them used chloroquine for either prophylaxis or cure of malaria.

        In summary: yes, as with any medicine, some people suffer side effects from chloroquine. But it is widely tolerated. In addition, it’s cheap because it’s been used since the 1930s, so it’s been off-patent for decades, and the side effects are well known

      4. My entire post is about HYDROXYCHLORIQUINE not CHLOROQUINE PHOSPHATE which is a different medication. Chloroqine is much more toxic and has much more serious side effects.

        It is a mistake to confuse the two.

  16. It is interesting all the journalists, many of whom studied journalism because they could not pass algebra, chemistry or biology, become experts on double blind studies. I had a physician client, now retired, that was very wise, and he and I had long discussions on how little medicine in practice is truly “evidence based”. As I recall, there is no double blind study to establish penicillin as an effective treatment for syphilis, yet it is the standard treatment. A few years ago there was a huge brouhaha over studies published in the New England Journal of Medicine that were overseen by physicians on the boards of the big pharma. There are dozens of articles on the harsh side effects of statins, but almost all are published outside the US. (See research from Beatrice Golomb, MD). A good physician is trained in empirical skills, the bedrock of scientific inquiry; the double blind studies are massaged and run by statisticians. Remember Vioxx? It was successfully documented in a double blind randomized study, until it was revealed that the data was cut off when it became to indicate heart complications (yes, torture the data until it confesses). I dont know why the hydroxycholoquin or whatever it is works, when it works, how it works or whatever, but I am increasingly alarmed by the infiltration of politics and contempt of the left and right for one another into the relationship with my Dr. Should I ask my Dr. if he is democrat, republican or libertarian? Maybe that’s got more to do with the treatment he prescribes than his training. Some do ask you now if you have guns in your home (“of course, would not be home without a few of them laying around). It seems to me that the VA sample is a highly biased sample. So anyone with a little knowledge in statistics knows that it is not a good sample from which to extrapolate to the public generally. But the hell with that little troublesome tidbit; its good enough to villify Trump, so let’s run with it. Look Trump talks to much, he rambles and he pontificates. And the media responds by doubling down on their own dogma, leaving the rest of us confused about how we divide our total contempt between the two.

    1. It is interesting all the journalists, many of whom studied journalism because they could not pass algebra, chemistry or biology, become experts on double blind studies.

      Amen. Most journalists don’t know anything about anything but feel qualified to write about it.

  17. Mr. Bailey,
    There is a lot missing from this study…but on the face of it…they are not comparing likes to likes.
    there is an important ‘leave-out’ in your article. Digging into the study there is this caveat….

    >>>>….. across the three treatment groups. . HOWEVER, HYDROXYCHLOROQUINE, WITH OR WITHOUT AZITHROMYCIN, WAS MORE LIKELY TO BE PRESCRIBED TO PATIENTS WITH MORE SEVERE DISEASE,. Thus, as expected, increased mortality was observed in patients treated with hydroxychloroquine, both with and without azithromycin. Nevertheless……<<<

    That should give you 'pause'. (It could be a self-fulfilling prophecy…where HCQ is only given to the deathly ill).That could reflect an SOP where HCQ is held off until patients are in dire straits, in the same way ventilators are. A similar methodology might yield that ventilators are deadly as well…

    or similarly it could mean an HCQ regimen for severe patients was adopted later and that is why some earlier non-HCQ patients died without it.

  18. President Trump touted chloroquine, an analog of hydroxychloroquine, as a treatment for COVID-19.

    No, he didn’t. He said it was a possible treatment.

    More lies to keep the anti-Trump narrative going.

  19. This is a total BS anti-Trump hit piece. Trump NEVER call it a “silver bullet”, he called it “promising” at a time where there was NOTHING other than hand washing. Studies in France had shown it worked, the Euros use a larger dose that the US, and BTW thousands have taken in the US with good results. If Trump said that drinking H2O will quell thirst, the leftist maggots will rise, deny it and get “experts” to prove that water did not work on somebody somewhere.

    1. Well we know incorrect dosing of H2O is deadly so lets not let anyone use it

  20. This is about making a lot of money and this drug is in the way of that.

  21. This was not a trial but an analysis of existing cases that they tried to glue together into something statistically significant. They came up short as 3 primary factors deviated from anything resembling a representative population as pointed out in the PJMedia article. First, over 2/3 of the data was from African Americans. Second, the average age was around 70. Third, treatments were not randomized in that the worse the symptoms the more likely the patients would receive the actual drugs.
    One thing that has been missing in ALL of the linked articles is the actual study. Anyone interested in the actual report that they are all talking about …
    https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.04.16.20065920v1.full.pdf

  22. My first question was going to be, since this drug is not a standard treatment, to which patients was it administered. Per the PJ Media link another commenter left my question was answered. The 3rd point (and the one I find most importartant) is that it was given to those with the worst cases, i.e. already likely to die. So this study is not worth anything other than it proves that the drug is not a magic bullet when the disease has progressed. That doesn’t mean that the drug works either, but surprised to see REASON jump on this as if it carries weight. I mean if it shows up in the AP, you can almost guarentee theere are flaws in the study

    1. exactly!!

      Neither Bailey nor any of the other reports mention that!

      Why?

      1. Why? Because Bailey is a political partisan and has an agenda.

  23. IMO, the bigger issue is not the success or failure of one drug (or drug combo). It’s that government and the medical establishment have learned little since the onset of the AIDS crisis. During that time, people were dying in hospitals while the medical establishment clinged to normal protocalls for drug testing.

    Roughly 40 years later, and…little seems to have substantively changed. I know if I was dying in a hospital with COVID-19 right now, I’d want them to hook me up to a DieHard if there was even a glimmer of hope it would help. Same goes for pretty much everyone I know. Instead, we get the medical establishment who’d rather stick to protocalls that are totally sensible when mass amounts of people aren’t dying from a disease.

    What would make far more sense is to operate on two tracks with any possible treatment: go thorough the normal testing protocalls AND give people who literally are running out of hope a chance at survival. Time is the luxury these people don’t have.

    1. Well, the guy who was in charge of the AIDS investigation back then is the lead medical officer for the COVID effort now, so that’s a pretty big clue as to where the problem lies.

    2. Instead, we get the medical establishment who’d rather stick to protocalls that are totally sensible when mass amounts of people aren’t dying from a disease.

      It’s the same medical establishment that is monopolizing our medical system, charging massive monopolistic prices, keeping us from being adequately prepared for emergencies, have manipulated politicians into keeping us locked up in our own homes, and are actively fighting political protests while they themselves are working and getting a good salary. And for all that, Americans are supposed to thank them.

  24. A good friend who has been a pharmacist for more than 55 years tells me he has dispensed hydroxychloroquine for many things over the years. He doesn’t know whether it would help against the PRC virus but does know that pharmacists are keeping supplies of the drugs for themselves and their families, possibly causing shortages to some patients. He warned that hydroxychloroquine is not an acceptable solution because he can get a bottle of 100 for about $6. Big Pharma can’t make money that way. Now, the Gilead solution at many thousands of dollars per month, that’s an acceptable solution. I don’t know but …

    1. >Antibiotics can sometimes be pretty close to a silver bullet for bacteria, but there’s never really a silver bullet for viruses.

      Get rid of anti-gouging laws and the hoarding can fix that.

      1. Opps, my copy paste failed to copy and thus pasted a previous thing. I fail at the internet. Meant to quote: “He warned that hydroxychloroquine is not an acceptable solution because he can get a bottle of 100 for about $6. Big Pharma can’t make money that way. “

  25. “Hydroxychloroquine Is Not a COVID-19 Silver Bullet”

    But, according to the same author of this article, moar testing! is…

  26. This guy (doctor) takes apart the VA “study”……get to the middle of this podcast and see what he is complaining about……hint, the result of te survey actually does NOT match the news headlines:
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dLSYRqcg0wo

  27. Who ever claimed it was a silver bullet?

  28. imagine being this ignorant. a VA study giving HCQ to dying vets? great study simpletons…..you sound like the dolts defending labeling any death as a chink flu death to pad the numbers the “Experts” keep miscalculating. So far, the only person who’s been right about EVERYTHING is Trump.

    1. It IS interesting that nearly no-one is dying from the flu or pneumonia this year. Is it because they are catching the Wuhan Virus first or because anyone who dies with Wuhan similar symptoms is getting listed as a Wuhan victim?

  29. Lily EMily, Work from your house for two to six hrs every day, and start getting averaging 1000-3000 bucks at the end of every week. Read more information here> Read More

  30. Utterly worthless article, comparing HCQ administration to end-stage patients with treatment designed to thwart the disease in its earlier stages. TDS at its finest.

    1. Fox Story on French Dr. Didier Raoult on VA Junk Report Disputing #Hydroxychloroquine Effectiveness
      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7H7_pwhINDA

      1. Dr. Didier Raoult on #Hydroxychloroquine Effectiveness
        https://facebook.com/583616638514930/posts/1317446621798591/

    2. Yep. That was what the French doctor said.

      It’s very weird. It’s a manifestly bogus study. It could only have been created for the *purpose* of discrediting #hydroxychloroquine. I can understand having a bias against it, but this is just a propagandistic scientific fraud. About treatment for a pandemic.

      Is our DeepState really just as bad as the CCP, blithely creating mountains of corpses to further their power and privilege?

  31. I find it an odd choice of words “Silver Bullet” being used to describe what the malaria drugs are NOT by Fauchis group meanwhile in China the head of the CDC used that exact phrase to describe the vaccine. Very coincidental

    1. Good catch

  32. Whether hydroxychloroquine helps depends on whether it is needed to reduce the immune system’s harmful response to the infection. It doesn’t kill the virus.

  33. So draft dodging Donald listened to some long haired, fancy french hippy scientist instead of real American scientists with short back and sides and now some veterans, some good ol boys is dead.

  34. i make money extra pachup $17 k in a month .its really change my life. if you want change your your life. just now COPY THIS WEB………►►► Read More

  35. Here for the entertainment value, watching tRumpists try to spin usage of hydroxychloroquine. Thank you. 🙂

  36. [ For USA ] LAST MONTH i earned yextra pachup $17 k in a month .its really change my life. if you want change your your life….. Read More

  37. Funny stuff really , I watch the briefing each day and have repeatedly seen Trump say that it is up to Doctors. He also has to remind the idiots out there that he is not a Doctors. Lots of people are taking this drug and the studies that the Liberal Media like to quote are from studies where the people were already very sick and the drug was used as a last resort. One would expect high mortality rates from this. Funny how the studies that suggest that it works well for early cases and that it is being used by health professionals is never mentioned by The folks with TDS.

  38. Dear Mr. Bailey,
    Your take on this study is wrong. This is a weak study showing a weak beneficial effect of hydroxychloroquine+ azithromycin (HC+AZ) on preventing patients from being put on a ventilator.
    It is a weak study because the treatment and control cases had different severities of disease– the patients receiving hydroxychloroquine (HC or HC+AZ) were significantly worse off than those receiving normal care (p.12). The authors did not directly compare mortality rates because of this bias, instead they constructed a propensity analysis model. Propensity analysis means they constructed a demographic risk model and then compared outcomes in the treatment and control cases. They used a hazard ratio (HR) to compare control and treatment groups. The HR is a ratio of treatment rate over control rate (they looked at 2 rates: the rate of intubation, the rate of mortality). In both cases a low HR indicates a beneficial effect. The HC+AZ case was associated with decreased intubation (p=0.09, HR =0.47–i.e. a reduction by 50%, p.2) and no change in mortality (p=0.7, HR=1.1, p.2). On the other hand, the HC case is as you said– disappointing. It was associated with increased mortality and intubation.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.