Seriously, would really enjoy a discussion on HCQ/Zinc/Zpack combination. What is the deal with this? I thought HCQ had died down after multiple studies had proven that HCQ was not good treatment tool for COVID but suddenly I see conservatives touting this as "the cure". A minority of doctors are even speaking out that it could save lives and we should stop politicizing this medicine. Here is a small part of a press conference, where several doctors spoke about COVID and HCQ. Dr. Immanuel from Houston, works in emergency medicine, gave a passionate speech and touted it "as the cure" even suggesting that mask usage is not needed because we have the cure. It almost seems like she is implying that taking this combination of medicine, even if you don't have COVID is a good idea. I'd like to think I thoroughly research everything, but I don't understand why so many doctors would put their license on the line speaking like this lady. There is a full press conference on Breitbarts Facebook page if y'all are interested in watching. Personally I feel this is a reckless message to spread, but I may be wrong. Would love it if some of the resident doctors on clutchfans would chime in. I was discussing with @JayZ750 in hangout but thought it should be brought to the D&D.
I know Breitbart is not a good source, but these are actual doctors speaking out. Figured it would be good to discuss it.
my feeling is that its a drug that might be useful in certain situations. I belive reading studies that said it helped for certain patients at a certain designation within their case. I dont think its a savior tho. I think any theraputic that works is great, but at the end of the day you still have to do the basic mitigation before relying on any treatment. I havent heard anything about remsdevir in a while either and i thought that was supposed to be way better than hydroxycut. This is a relatively new illness , we are just learning about the full scope of effects and after effects ... not to many any potential mutations that come our way. Talking about treatments with certainty seems to me to be foolish. Hydroclorox prolly does certain things that it was deisgned to do ... maybe that is useful . I think any attempt to start talking about it now is likely an attempt to try to break from negativity , or political in nature ... not a new breakthrough. Like i've said , its not that i think it cant be useful ... but i think its help is still of a limited nature.
*******. She is a quack. https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa2016638 BACKGROUND Coronavirus disease 2019 (Covid-19) occurs after exposure to severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). For persons who are exposed, the standard of care is observation and quarantine. Whether hydroxychloroquine can prevent symptomatic infection after SARS-CoV-2 exposure is unknown. METHODS We conducted a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial across the United States and parts of Canada testing hydroxychloroquine as postexposure prophylaxis. We enrolled adults who had household or occupational exposure to someone with confirmed Covid-19 at a distance of less than 6 ft for more than 10 minutes while wearing neither a face mask nor an eye shield (high-risk exposure) or while wearing a face mask but no eye shield (moderate-risk exposure). Within 4 days after exposure, we randomly assigned participants to receive either placebo or hydroxychloroquine (800 mg once, followed by 600 mg in 6 to 8 hours, then 600 mg daily for 4 additional days). The primary outcome was the incidence of either laboratory-confirmed Covid-19 or illness compatible with Covid-19 within 14 days. RESULTS We enrolled 821 asymptomatic participants. Overall, 87.6% of the participants (719 of 821) reported a high-risk exposure to a confirmed Covid-19 contact. The incidence of new illness compatible with Covid-19 did not differ significantly between participants receiving hydroxychloroquine (49 of 414 [11.8%]) and those receiving placebo (58 of 407 [14.3%]); the absolute difference was −2.4 percentage points (95% confidence interval, −7.0 to 2.2; P=0.35). Side effects were more common with hydroxychloroquine than with placebo (40.1% vs. 16.8%), but no serious adverse reactions were reported. CONCLUSIONS After high-risk or moderate-risk exposure to Covid-19, hydroxychloroquine did not prevent illness compatible with Covid-19 or confirmed infection when used as postexposure prophylaxis within 4 days after exposure. (Funded by David Baszucki and Jan Ellison Baszucki and others; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT04308668. opens in new tab.) https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa2019014?query=featured_home BACKGROUND Hydroxychloroquine and azithromycin have been used to treat patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (Covid-19). However, evidence on the safety and efficacy of these therapies is limited. METHODS We conducted a multicenter, randomized, open-label, three-group, controlled trial involving hospitalized patients with suspected or confirmed Covid-19 who were receiving either no supplemental oxygen or a maximum of 4 liters per minute of supplemental oxygen. Patients were randomly assigned in a 1:1:1 ratio to receive standard care, standard care plus hydroxychloroquine at a dose of 400 mg twice daily, or standard care plus hydroxychloroquine at a dose of 400 mg twice daily plus azithromycin at a dose of 500 mg once daily for 7 days. The primary outcome was clinical status at 15 days as assessed with the use of a seven-level ordinal scale (with levels ranging from one to seven and higher scores indicating a worse condition) in the modified intention-to-treat population (patients with a confirmed diagnosis of Covid-19). Safety was also assessed. RESULTS A total of 667 patients underwent randomization; 504 patients had confirmed Covid-19 and were included in the modified intention-to-treat analysis. As compared with standard care, the proportional odds of having a higher score on the seven-point ordinal scale at 15 days was not affected by either hydroxychloroquine alone (odds ratio, 1.21; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.69 to 2.11; P=1.00) or hydroxychloroquine plus azithromycin (odds ratio, 0.99; 95% CI, 0.57 to 1.73; P=1.00). Prolongation of the corrected QT interval and elevation of liver-enzyme levels were more frequent in patients receiving hydroxychloroquine, alone or with azithromycin, than in those who were not receiving either agent. CONCLUSIONS Among patients hospitalized with mild-to-moderate Covid-19, the use of hydroxychloroquine, alone or with azithromycin, did not improve clinical status at 15 days as compared with standard care. (Funded by the Coalition Covid-19 Brazil and EMS Pharma; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT04322123. opens in new tab.)
https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(20)31180-6/fulltext This paper was retracted because it was quickly identified as a fraud. Summary Background Hydroxychloroquine or chloroquine, often in combination with a second-generation macrolide, are being widely used for treatment of COVID-19, despite no conclusive evidence of their benefit. Although generally safe when used for approved indications such as autoimmune disease or malaria, the safety and benefit of these treatment regimens are poorly evaluated in COVID-19. Methods We did a multinational registry analysis of the use of hydroxychloroquine or chloroquine with or without a macrolide for treatment of COVID-19. The registry comprised data from 671 hospitals in six continents. We included patients hospitalised between Dec 20, 2019, and April 14, 2020, with a positive laboratory finding for SARS-CoV-2. Patients who received one of the treatments of interest within 48 h of diagnosis were included in one of four treatment groups (chloroquine alone, chloroquine with a macrolide, hydroxychloroquine alone, or hydroxychloroquine with a macrolide), and patients who received none of these treatments formed the control group. Patients for whom one of the treatments of interest was initiated more than 48 h after diagnosis or while they were on mechanical ventilation, as well as patients who received remdesivir, were excluded. The main outcomes of interest were in-hospital mortality and the occurrence of de-novo ventricular arrhythmias (non-sustained or sustained ventricular tachycardia or ventricular fibrillation). Findings 96 032 patients (mean age 53·8 years, 46·3% women) with COVID-19 were hospitalised during the study period and met the inclusion criteria. Of these, 14 888 patients were in the treatment groups (1868 received chloroquine, 3783 received chloroquine with a macrolide, 3016 received hydroxychloroquine, and 6221 received hydroxychloroquine with a macrolide) and 81 144 patients were in the control group. 10 698 (11·1%) patients died in hospital. After controlling for multiple confounding factors (age, sex, race or ethnicity, body-mass index, underlying cardiovascular disease and its risk factors, diabetes, underlying lung disease, smoking, immunosuppressed condition, and baseline disease severity), when compared with mortality in the control group (9·3%), hydroxychloroquine (18·0%; hazard ratio 1·335, 95% CI 1·223–1·457), hydroxychloroquine with a macrolide (23·8%; 1·447, 1·368–1·531), chloroquine (16·4%; 1·365, 1·218–1·531), and chloroquine with a macrolide (22·2%; 1·368, 1·273–1·469) were each independently associated with an increased risk of in-hospital mortality. Compared with the control group (0·3%), hydroxychloroquine (6·1%; 2·369, 1·935–2·900), hydroxychloroquine with a macrolide (8·1%; 5·106, 4·106–5·983), chloroquine (4·3%; 3·561, 2·760–4·596), and chloroquine with a macrolide (6·5%; 4·011, 3·344–4·812) were independently associated with an increased risk of de-novo ventricular arrhythmia during hospitalisation. Interpretation We were unable to confirm a benefit of hydroxychloroquine or chloroquine, when used alone or with a macrolide, on in-hospital outcomes for COVID-19. Each of these drug regimens was associated with decreased in-hospital survival and an increased frequency of ventricular arrhythmias when used for treatment of COVID-19. Funding William Harvey Distinguished Chair in Advanced Cardiovascular Medicine at Brigham and Women's Hospital.
If HCQ worked -- we would be using it without hesitation to go back to normal. This pandemic has put the hurt on the US health care system because it relies so heavily on elective outpatient procedures and these cannot be safely or ethically done when COVID risk remains high. If HCQ worked -- other countries would be using it too to let their economies restarts. What has worked is distancing, masks, and contact tracing. Germany and South Korea are the poster countries for successful responses against COVID. Dexamethasone has good evidence for severe COVID. Prone ventilation has good evidence. Anticoagulation has good evidence to prevent blood clots from COVID. But HCQ and AZT, it has poor evidence and its support is purely political. What's next? Are you going to suggest eating semen?
One of the doctors in the press conference has a vested interest in seeing the drug work considering he was one of the "co-authors" of a misattributed and withdrawn paper. https://www.politico.com/news/2020/04/07/twitter-thread-launched-trump-coronavirus-drug-170557
It was not so much Breitbart bro, it was just in general a group of doctors speaking out on this. It so happened that Breitbart broadcasted since I guess no one else carried it. I looked up a couple of these doctors just to make sure they weren't actors and they were doctors which blew my mind. I found myself arguing with some conservatives over the weekend over a video that Senator Bob Hall (Texas Senate) posted an she posted some bullshit statistic about early treatment would have led to 90% less deaths. Then you also had the Yale epideomologist releasing his article over the weekend and it just blew my mind as well. I think it's fair to be a little confused. I mean some of these people have medical licenses and they are prescribing this **** to their patients because they truly believe it works. It seems incredibly reckless yet we should at least be willing to listen and understand where some people are picking up their **** from. It's not like I posted one of their articles.
Someone tag the Dr that posted on here a while back. I want an educated response that I am not able to find about this from a google search.
I find it amazing how individuals will put their reputation on the line like that. I am so careful about anything I put out as a licensed engineers that I find it incredible when people are reckless with their "professional opinion". I guess, as I've learned in my industry, you can be bought. **** man.
They need to learn to present themselves better. Also, Emmanuel needs to now present a paper since she said one would be forthcoming. I have no confidence in Todaro based on the article I posted and the fact he is an eye doctor (kudos to that, but he hasn't been treating COVID patients). If I were their group, I'd have left him out of any public appearance. His history on this screams fake news.
Imagine if this was the doctor that treated you. I won't lie, I don't look up a doctor's information unless I am going for some specialty type stuff where I need to have an extreme amount of confidence in their judgment. I just looked up her license and her primary license is pediatrics followed by emergency medicine.
