Fake news.
I mean there was a reason these two drugs were picked, right? The malarial drug suppresses an over active immune system and the antibacterial drug treats pneumonia.
The point my cousin has is that it’s criminal to not try and test anything that might work, and you seem to not even want to investigate it. Meanwhile he’s got frontline doctors who firmly believe in it, and some data which suggests it may work really well, is cheap, and relatively harmless. He’s not a crazy mouth breather. He’s loud because he thinks liberals with an agenda are helping cause unneccessary death.
None of those clinical trials have combined the two drugs and at least since May that’s been recommended. Why the aversion to even run a clinical trial on it? It’s not like we have a lack of patients.
It's all about that blood type.
Hard to know where to start here...
-Azithromycin treats some bacterial pneumonia - it doesn't treat viral pneumonia. COVID is a virus.
-The drugs were picked because they are inexpensive and readily available throughout the world, so any clinician can prescribe them and pretend to be a COVID expert.
-I have no problem whatsoever with investigating medications for COVID. But these meds have now been investigated thoroughly and show no good signal for benefit, so we should be investigating other options. Additionally, there is no biologic mechanism to think that these drugs should work in the first place, so we have wasted a lot of resources on meds that are unlikely to work.
-Yes, the combination of HCQ and azithromycin has been used in clinical trials. The NEJM study last week looked at HCQ vs HCQ+azith vs placebo.
-HCQ was not politicized by liberals, it was politicized by the president. Again, I have no problem investigating it (which has now been done extensively), but once it's clear there is no effect, then we have to move on, especially since it was unlikely to work in the first place.
Link to the HCQ + azith vs placebo NEJM study?
yeah, they share a bed and both have been home full-time with each other for over a week leading up to the test
one possibility is that they both already had it and that explains my brother's negative test and my SIL's mild symptoms
both had a mystery illness for four or five days back in January or February that could have been COVID
the whole ordeal plays with your head
It's the study we just discussed yesterday! Remember, we discussed the median time from symptom onset to starting a treatment was 7 days? Here it is https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa2019014
Hope all continues to be okay on that front.
I too had a mystery illness in the middle of February (negative for the flu). Fever for five days and the worst I've felt in years.
why are we back here to HCQ? I have not seen one reputable study has come back saying HCQ helps against C-19. In fact most say is does nothing or can be harmful in a combination of drugs.
stop going backwards people. move fucking on
Ah yes, I believe it was you that mentioned only 10% were taking the drugs before being placed in the trial, meanwhile he quoted 50%. Can you link me to where in there those numbers were discussed?
why are we back here to HCQ? I have not seen one reputable study has come back saying HCQ helps against C-19. In fact most say is does nothing or can be harmful in a combination of drugs.
stop going backwards people. move fucking on
Look at table 1. The investigators wanted to enroll people that were not on either med, to keep the results clean, but many patients were on HCQ and/or azithro. So, they only allowed those that were taking either med for fewer than 24 hours to enroll. About 10% were on HCQ and 30% on azithro - with many likely on both.
Because political actors are trying to prove Trump right. It’s ridiculous.
Got it. Hard to tell the effects of the previous use of the drugs on this particular study, but I do think you or others posted here are right that you'd see more "noise" than this if this were a "game-changer" in this particular study. However, on the study Connor El posted, it did seem like there was a 15-20% benefit in outcomes, which while isn't a cure, surely when you're talking about 150k deaths and counting is a material number. So it seemed strange to me that the conclusion was "there was no benefit" with hospitalization rates dropping from 30% to 24%, or a death rate dropping from 7.5% to 6%. With enough seemingly smart people thinking it's worth investigating whether administering it earlier than a median of 7 days, the attitude of "why look further" seems silly to me. There's no shortage in people to test, and there doesn't appear to be material harm in doing so other than political harm. The Yale doc indicated there were such studies underway, so I imagine those results will come out starting in September.
Got it. Hard to tell the effects of the previous use of the drugs on this particular study, but I do think you or others posted here are right that you'd see more "noise" than this if this were a "game-changer" in this particular study. However, on the study Connor El posted, it did seem like there was a 15-20% benefit in outcomes, which while isn't a cure, surely when you're talking about 150k deaths and counting is a material number. So it seemed strange to me that the conclusion was "there was no benefit" with hospitalization rates dropping from 30% to 24%, or a death rate dropping from 7.5% to 6%. With enough seemingly smart people thinking it's worth investigating whether administering it earlier than a median of 7 days, the attitude of "why look further" seems silly to me. There's no shortage in people to test, and there doesn't appear to be material harm in doing so other than political harm. The Yale doc indicated there were such studies underway, so I imagine those results will come out starting in September.