patf wrote:
Kay Serrar wrote:
patf wrote:
Calamityjane88 wrote:
Kay Serrar wrote:
Calamityjane88 wrote:
The people who don’t have ulterior motives who see the potential benefits from this medicine just have to quietly go about their work, I guess. They might confirm that the drug is not worthwhile. I don’t know.
But this is what is happening. Why are you trying to complicate it? The studies are not finding any significant medical benefits, only risks.
You are a lawyer, and yet you're here on the internet doubting the validity of medical studies, because...?
I’m sorry— I wasn’t clear. I don’t doubt the study. I love it. It looks like a good study.
I meant to say that we should carefully read the conclusion of this study. The conclusion is that the drug is not good for hospitalized covid patients. It’s not a broad condemnation of the drug.
I don't think this is a study at all. it is a data analysis of records. The standard we were told was needed is double blind placebo clinical trials. Those are underway and eventually we will get some answers about this drug's use at various points in the infection and as a prophylactic. This is not such a study. And as you point out at the point of time these cases were occurring, the only people being hospitalized were the very sick. At least in NJ were my son was working in and ED you did not get admitted until you were very sick. You were sent home and told to come back if you had serious symptoms like difficulty breathing. So good studies still need to be completed before we know how this drug could help.
The study looked at close to 100,000 patients treated with hydroxychloroquine both with and without simultaneous administration of azythromycin. The harm found heart rhythm disturbances with both, and with the combination of drugs those disturbances were higher. That’s not immaterial information.
The bottom line is that all the information we have so far is that hydroxychloroquine is a drug that we tried when desperate but unfortunately there appears to be no evidence it helps.
Unlike remdesivir, where there has been some benefit shown.
Do you understand that this is a review of data? hospital records, death certs, etc. I.e. not clinical study. We need to see what the properly run studies say before reaching any conclusions.
How can you ethically give it to people in a double blind study when an analysis of the data indicates it does no good and in fact kills people? If it had shown promise in an analysis of the data then you would put the time and effort into the sort of thing you are looking for. It did not. It did the opposite. When preliminary results from studies show excess people dying they shut down the study.
I'm beginning to think that we are much more fucked than I thought.