Hydroxychoroquine or Choroquine Treatment for Covid-19

There's a new study out, which is much more comprehensive than earlier ones,

https://www.thelancet.com/journals/l...180-6/fulltext

Expect physicians to stop prescribing hydroxychloroquine and chloroquine for Covid-19 patients.

The study examines 96,032 patients, of which 14,888 received hydroxychloroquine or chloroquine and the rest were considered the control group. They only included people who started on the drugs within 48 hours of entering the hospital, and measures of the severity of the disease were similar in the control group and the groups that took the drugs.

I'll just quote results for those who took hydroxycholoroquine without an antibiotic. Results are a little better for those who just took chloroquinine and a little worse for those who combined the drugs with antibiotics (macrolides in the paper).

9.3% of the people who didn't take hydroxychloroquine or chloroquine died, and 0.3% suffered ventricular arrhythmias.
For those who took hydroxychloroquine alone, 18% died and 6.1% suffered ventricular arrhythmias.

Does this mean that people like President Trump who are taking hydroxychloroquine as a prophylaxis are more likely to die? Maybe so, maybe not. There's not enough data out there to know. I sure wouldn't take the stuff. He and everyone around him should wear masks instead.

Aside: Anyone like Friendly Fred who's interested in comorbidities should look at Table 1 in the Lancet paper (linked above). 61% of the people who died were obese.

Still a joke of a study. The big thing is that lots of people have been on Hydroxychloroquine for Lupas and arthritus and they don't have those sever of side effects. This study says nothing about dosage, or timing of prescription. There are a number of doctors that have used it to treat covid19 and document success.


Why do so many people want it to fail? Prove Trump wrong? Sell an new drug for 100 times the cost so people can make more money?


It just doesn't make logical sense.

Still a joke of a study. The big thing is that lots of people have been on Hydroxychloroquine for Lupas and arthritus and they don't have those sever of side effects. This study says nothing about dosage, or timing of prescription. There are a number of doctors that have used it to treat covid19 and document success.


Why do so many people want it to fail? Prove Trump wrong? Sell an new drug for 100 times the cost so people can make more money?


It just doesn't make logical sense. Originally Posted by farmstud60

I would surmise they want any existing medication that has promise in the treatment of this virus to fail so they can usher in a vaccine that will make a lot of people involved in it's development, such as Bill gates a lot of money. Effectiveness of the vaccine is not a factor. In fact being that globalist like Bill Gates it will be more detrimental to the population than good.

the high dosage is what kills them also, it needs zinc for the drug to work properly. if you're giving them too much dosage and no zinc, well, its not a surprise that people die.


in some cases, the drug+zinc doesn't work for them, so they die any way.

There's a new study out, which is much more comprehensive than earlier ones,

https://www.thelancet.com/journals/l...180-6/fulltext

Expect physicians to stop prescribing hydroxychloroquine and chloroquine for Covid-19 patients.

The study examines 96,032 patients, of which 14,888 received hydroxychloroquine or chloroquine and the rest were considered the control group. They only included people who started on the drugs within 48 hours of entering the hospital, and measures of the severity of the disease were similar in the control group and the groups that took the drugs.

I'll just quote results for those who took hydroxycholoroquine without an antibiotic. Results are a little better for those who just took chloroquinine and a little worse for those who combined the drugs with antibiotics (macrolides in the paper).

9.3% of the people who didn't take hydroxychloroquine or chloroquine died, and 0.3% suffered ventricular arrhythmias.
For those who took hydroxychloroquine alone, 18% died and 6.1% suffered ventricular arrhythmias.

Does this mean that people like President Trump who are taking hydroxychloroquine as a prophylaxis are more likely to die? Maybe so, maybe not. There's not enough data out there to know. I sure wouldn't take the stuff. He and everyone around him should wear masks instead.

Aside: Anyone like Friendly Fred who's interested in comorbidities should look at Table 1 in the Lancet paper (linked above). 61% of the people who died were obese. Originally Posted by Tiny

u are politicizing a medical issue to try to throw shade at Trump.

Trump is not a physician - but if he chooses to take OGCQ under the direction of his physician - it is his business - and Trump is not "Imposing" any medication on others - unlike the LSM is sceraming, while standing and applauding for an unproven vaccine not yet in clinical trials.



The cardiac arrhythmia problems are well known in clinical usage - as is the low Therapeutic Index. The drug has been used for years successfully for Lupus and other conditions. And here comes the propaganda screaming about "Heart Problems and Complications".

Nanny state DPST's politicizing and trying to Control the populace to their version or Orwell.




So Transparent, and a shame.

If the current POTUS were Democrat - all the DPST's would be lauding OHCQ.

Never before have politicians got involved with what medications doctors prescribe, short of curbing addiction. HCQ has done good for many patients, not so much for others, from what I read it’s best used at the first sign of symptoms and is pretty useless once the infection gets bad. These are decisions that should be left for the doctors to decide, on a case by case basis. The people politicizing it, simply because they hate Trump, are sick fucks.

There's a new study out, which is much more comprehensive than earlier ones,

https://www.thelancet.com/journals/l...180-6/fulltext

Expect physicians to stop prescribing hydroxychloroquine and chloroquine for Covid-19 patients.

The study examines 96,032 patients, of which 14,888 received hydroxychloroquine or chloroquine and the rest were considered the control group. They only included people who started on the drugs within 48 hours of entering the hospital, and measures of the severity of the disease were similar in the control group and the groups that took the drugs.

I'll just quote results for those who took hydroxycholoroquine without an antibiotic. Results are a little better for those who just took chloroquinine and a little worse for those who combined the drugs with antibiotics (macrolides in the paper).

9.3% of the people who didn't take hydroxychloroquine or chloroquine died, and 0.3% suffered ventricular arrhythmias.
For those who took hydroxychloroquine alone, 18% died and 6.1% suffered ventricular arrhythmias.

Does this mean that people like President Trump who are taking hydroxychloroquine as a prophylaxis are more likely to die? Maybe so, maybe not. There's not enough data out there to know. I sure wouldn't take the stuff. He and everyone around him should wear masks instead.

Aside: Anyone like Friendly Fred who's interested in comorbidities should look at Table 1 in the Lancet paper (linked above). 61% of the people who died were obese. Originally Posted by Tiny

So let's say we are in late Feb. early March and the news says "there is no known "effective" cure for Covid-19.


One day you feel like you have a fever and your breathing is labored so you go to your doctor desperate for help and he tells you the only thing being used right now is Hydroxychloroquine.


He tells you this drug has been in use for other medical problems for over 50 years and is considered safe and effective for those other medical conditions but since Covid is new, there are no studies to tell us that it will help but we are pretty sure it won't hurt, as much as we can be sure any medication for any individual won't hurt.


At this point, you are pretty sure you are dying and the doctor says, "Hydroxychloroquine or a ventilator".


And you say? I'll take the ventilator knowing that 80 to 85% of all persons going on a ventilator die? Hey, your choice. Me, I'm taking the H.


Today is a different story. There are many other options today that were not available back in Feb. and March.


Like the VA study, flawed by any rational analysis, the study you quoted, doesn't break down the individuals that died compared to those that lived. Were there two people, one with heart problems, obese and diabetic and another with none of theses problems, both given H and the patient with no underlying conditions died and the obese, diabetic lived?


That's what I want to know not "some died and some lived". That is useless and you don't need to be a doctor to know that.

So let's say we are in late Feb. early March and the news says "there is no known "effective" cure for Covid-19.


One day you feel like you have a fever and your breathing is labored so you go to your doctor desperate for help and he tells you the only thing being used right now is Hydroxychloroquine.


He tells you this drug has been in use for other medical problems for over 50 years and is considered safe and effective for those other medical conditions but since Covid is new, there are no studies to tell us that it will help but we are pretty sure it won't hurt, as much as we can be sure any medication for any individual won't hurt.


At this point, you are pretty sure you are dying and the doctor says, "Hydroxychloroquine or a ventilator".


And you say? I'll take the ventilator knowing that 80 to 85% of all persons going on a ventilator die? Hey, your choice. Me, I'm taking the H.


Today is a different story. There are many other options today that were not available back in Feb. and March.


Like the VA study, flawed by any rational analysis, the study you quoted, doesn't break down the individuals that died compared to those that lived. Were there two people, one with heart problems, obese and diabetic and another with none of theses problems, both given H and the patient with no underlying conditions died and the obese, diabetic lived?


That's what I want to know not "some died and some lived". That is useless and you don't need to be a doctor to know that. Originally Posted by HedonistForever

There are some flaws in your analysis. Hydroxychloroquine or a ventilator isn't an "either or" proposition. You and your physician could decide to do just one, both or neither.

The paper DOES show co-morbidities, like diabetes, in each group -- see Table 2. In addition, it shows qSOFA score (a function of blood pressure, respiratory rate, and altered mentation) and SPO2 (oxygen saturation), as an indication of the severity of the disease in each group. Yes, the numbers look slightly better for the control group. But not enough to explain 2X more deaths and 20X more ventricular arrhythmias in the group that took hydroxychloroquine.

That said, you've got a good point. If you were told in February or March that you were going on a ventilator, and if there were enough data out there at that time for you and your doctor to know there was an 80% or 85% probability you'd die, maybe it made sense to roll the dice and take the drug. I believe some Chinese physicians, who had early experience with it, thought it helped.

u are politicizing a medical issue to try to throw shade at Trump.

Trump is not a physician - but if he chooses to take OGCQ under the direction of his physician - it is his business - and Trump is not "Imposing" any medication on others - unlike the LSM is sceraming, while standing and applauding for an unproven vaccine not yet in clinical trials.



The cardiac arrhythmia problems are well known in clinical usage - as is the low Therapeutic Index. The drug has been used for years successfully for Lupus and other conditions. And here comes the propaganda screaming about "Heart Problems and Complications".

Nanny state DPST's politicizing and trying to Control the populace to their version or Orwell.




So Transparent, and a shame.

If the current POTUS were Democrat - all the DPST's would be lauding OHCQ. Originally Posted by oeb11

Medical decisions should be based on science, not politics.

Trump's a role model. A lot of people do what he does. He should wear a mask and the people around him should wear masks. He should not be taking hydroxychloroquine. Maybe, knowing the results of this study, he's already stopped.

President Trump is kind of like gay men who don't like to use condoms for anal intercourse, so they take PREP. That's a daily pill that prevents HIV transmission. The difference is that condoms and PREP are both effective in preventing HIV transmission. Masks help prevent spread of Covid-19. Hydroxychloroquine may or may not. And it's got some bad side effects.

The cardiac arrhythmia problems are well known in clinical usage - as is the low Therapeutic Index. The drug has been used for years successfully for Lupus and other conditions. And here comes the propaganda screaming about "Heart Problems and Complications". Originally Posted by oeb11

And as I noted in another thread, there is a body of anecdotal evidence building regarding excessive blood clotting in Wuhan Virus patients. In the original article I saw on it, which I can't find now, it actually referred to what was happening to be "Lupus Like".

Here is a little more on it discussing "emergency use" of blood thinners and anit-coagulants.

https://apnews.com/5c0dc863f214d32a53c6280c31cf3f56

So I'll let you put 2 + 2 together and see that if you have a drug like HCQ that is often used for Lupus and has anti-coagulative properties, that it might, just might be providing some relief in those patients experiencing the clotting issues.

Almost every study at this point remains anecdotal as we are not really gathering control groups and when death is imminent we have no idea what else is being given in "emergency" circumstances. It the sudden addition of other blood thinners/anti coagulates contradictory if HCQ is being used/etc.

Are the studies slitting their own throats in methodology?

Is HCQ in and of itself a help but not the right help towards the end? I certainly don't know and apparently at this point neither do any of the experts.

Almost every study at this point remains anecdotal as we are not really gathering control groups and when death is imminent we have no idea what else is being given in "emergency" circumstances. It the sudden addition of other blood thinners/anti coagulates contradictory if HCQ is being used/etc.

Are the studies slitting their own throats in methodology?
Originally Posted by eccielover

The Lancet paper had a control group of 81,144 people, with 14,888 receiving hydroxychloroquine or chloroquine.

In certain circumstances maybe you're right, the drugs could be helpful. It might make sense to use them when a patient's immune response has gone wild. Outside of special circumstances, giving the drugs to Covid-19 patients is a bad idea, based on the paper.

About your link, why would you give hydroxychloroquine instead of tPA if a Covid-19 patient has blood clots?

The Lancet paper had a control group of 81,144 people, with 14,888 receiving hydroxychloroquine or chloroquine.

In certain circumstances maybe you're right, the drugs could be helpful. It might make sense to use them when a patient's immune response has gone wild. Outside of special circumstances, giving the drugs to Covid-19 patients is a bad idea, based on the paper.

About your link, why would you give hydroxychloroquine instead of tPA if a Covid-19 patient has blood clots? Originally Posted by Tiny

Its all about timing, side effects and what was known at the time. TPA is a very powerful blood thinner with potentially severe side effects. I don't even know why you would think about it as "first" line possible defense. HCQ is far milder in that area and could very well be written out of the equation moving forward if "accurate" studies can determined as to when it is and isn't providing some level of therapeutic value.

As it stands, It is known to be a mild version of a therapeutic for certain effects of Wuhan Virus tried in various cases. How valuable unknown.

Trump and his doctor agreed it was possibly a good fit for him. I'll take his doctor's(as well as any of the 6000 or so doctors wanting to try it) word for it.

There are some flaws in your analysis. Hydroxychloroquine or a ventilator isn't an "either or" proposition. You and your physician could decide to do just one, both or neither.


From what I have seen, there are flaws in every bodies analysis of not only this drug but the whole mask and lock down procedures. Literally everything, is changing by the week if not day. There simply hasn't been enough time to draw "correct" conclusions though doctors are required to say something so you say what you think based on the time elapsed. I think most people being given the information I gave would go for the drug first, see if it had any affect and opp for the ventilator if not. That is certainly how I would have approached it but more importantly, who at that time, would have refused H if a doctor offered it? I can't imagine anybody would.


The paper DOES show co-morbidities, like diabetes, in each group -- see Table 2. In addition, it shows qSOFA score (a function of blood pressure, respiratory rate, and altered mentation) and SPO2 (oxygen saturation), as an indication of the severity of the disease in each group. Yes, the numbers look slightly better for the control group. But not enough to explain 2X more deaths and 20X more ventricular arrhythmias in the group that took hydroxychloroquine.


Yes and without an explanation, one is left to wonder, like I just did but I appreciate you pointing out more information that I admittedly, didn't use.


That said, you've got a good point. If you were told in February or March that you were going on a ventilator, and if there were enough data out there at that time for you and your doctor to know there was an 80% or 85% probability you'd die, maybe it made sense to roll the dice and take the drug. I believe some Chinese physicians, who had early experience with it, thought it helped. Originally Posted by Tiny

I guess the point I'm trying to make is, at that point in time, it wasn't really "rolling the dice". Using an off label drug that has been in circulation for over 50 years and used by millions and millions of people all over the world for malaria and lupus was a "this is all we have right now" drug. I just can't imagine anybody turning it down, then. Now, different story but I would still take it if my doctor told me it was the best bet for my condition and how long it might take to use some other therapy.


Bottom line, I think this is being used as a political tool against Trump, plain and simple. There is enough evidence from doctors all over the world and personal testimonies that giving this drug is not the "death kneel" Democrats are making it out to be.


I also believe it was a mistake for Trump to go as far as he did in touting the drug. One or two mentions of it would have been enough to start a conversation that was needed and then it should have been up to the doctors and scientist to debate, not Trump but Trump does things his way much to his political detriment in my opinion. No matter, still can't vote for a Democrat.

Its all about timing, side effects and what was known at the time. TPA is a very powerful blood thinner with potentially severe side effects. I don't even know why you would think about it as "first" line possible defense. HCQ is far milder in that area and could very well be written out of the equation moving forward if "accurate" studies can determined as to when it is and isn't providing some level of therapeutic value.

As it stands, It is known to be a mild version of a therapeutic for certain effects of Wuhan Virus tried in various cases. How valuable unknown.

Trump and his doctor agreed it was possibly a good fit for him. I'll take his doctor's(as well as any of the 6000 or so doctors wanting to try it) word for it. Originally Posted by eccielover

Please note I asked if a patient has blood clots why wouldn't a physician use tPA. Thanks for clarifying. Yeah, you wouldn't want to use it to as a prophylaxis. Going forward if a physician has a concern about blood clots developing in a patient he'll probably prescribe something besides hydroxychloroquine. We've been back and forth about whether this is a mild version of a therapeutic in another thread. I don't think it is. You were honestly right though, as I finally admitted, that my post there was childish and uneducated.

I guess the point I'm trying to make is, at that point in time, it wasn't really "rolling the dice". Using an off label drug that has been in circulation for over 50 years and used by millions and millions of people all over the world for malaria and lupus was a "this is all we have right now" drug. I just can't imagine anybody turning it down, then. Now, different story but I would still take it if my doctor told me it was the best bet for my condition and how long it might take to use some other therapy.


Bottom line, I think this is being used as a political tool against Trump, plain and simple. There is enough evidence from doctors all over the world and personal testimonies that giving this drug is not the "death kneel" Democrats are making it out to be.


I also believe it was a mistake for Trump to go as far as he did in touting the drug. One or two mentions of it would have been enough to start a conversation that was needed and then it should have been up to the doctors and scientist to debate, not Trump but Trump does things his way much to his political detriment in my opinion. No matter, still can't vote for a Democrat. Originally Posted by HedonistForever

This is a well reasoned post that's hard to argue against. A couple of points -

"There is enough evidence from doctors all over the world and personal testimonies that giving this drug is not the "death kneel" Democrats are making it out to be."

When it doubles the death rate among hospitalized patients, it is a death kneel. Granted, we didn't know that until recently.

"Using an off label drug that has been in circulation for over 50 years and used by millions and millions of people all over the world for malaria and lupus was a "this is all we have right now" drug."

Again, looking at the situation a month or two ago, that makes sense.

I pointed this out to Eccielover in another thread - chloroquinine has some nasty side effects. I've spent more time in shithole countries than most here, and about 20 years ago had to decide whether to use a malaria prophylaxis and if so which one. I decided I'd rather risk the malaria than take chloroquinine, or its cousin mefloquine.

But then I prefer barrier methods over drugs. So I'll wear long sleeved shirts and use mosquito repellent instead of chloroquinine, use a condom instead of popping an azithromycin, and wear a KN95 mask instead of taking hydroxychloroquine.