I guess everyone here realized COVID is real

hookem365

Well-Known Member
Jul 12, 2020
106
96
28
If it just saves one life.


I've heard several people of certain beliefs say that before.

If it just saves one life.

Well, HCQ has just saved one life. That means it works. Does it work for everyone in every situation? Nope.

And guess what else doesn't work for everyone--- flu shots. But a crap ton of people take them. So HCQ works. It saved a life.
I am not challenging that this life was saved by HCQ.
There are plenty of idiots out there who are looking for any reason to justify why they do need to wear masks. I just wanted to emphasize that at this time prevention should still be the primary focus.
 

westx

Well-Known Member
Dec 6, 2009
5,869
2,737
113
For those of you that believe in science. According to randomized control trials hydroxychloroquine works as well as the standard treatment. I don't know why more people aren't talking about remdesivir. Randomized control tirals actually show it helps

IF you want to do a little reading here are the studies.

Boulware DR, Pullen MF, Bangdiwala AS, et al. A randomized trial of hydroxychloroquine as postexposure prophylaxis for Covid-19. N Engl J Med. DOI: 10.1056/NEJMoa2016638.

https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa2019014?query=featured_coronavirus

Tang W, Cao Z, Han M, et al. Hydroxychloroquine in patients with mainly mild to moderate coronavirus disease 2019: open label, randomised controlled trial. BMJ 2020;369:m1849-m1849.

This is the big one from the UK.

No clinical benefit from use of hydroxychloroquine in hospitalised patients with COVID-19. Press release from the chief investigators of the Randomised Evaluation of COVid-19 thERapY (RECOVERY) Trial. June 5, 2020 (https://www.recoverytrial.net/news/statement-from-the-chief-investigators-of-the-randomised-evaluation-of-covid-19-therapy-recovery-trial-on-hydroxychloroquine-5-june-2020-no-clinical-benefit-from-use-of-hydroxychloroquine-in-hospitalised-patients-with-covid-19. opens in new tab).

‘A total of 1542 patients were randomised to hydroxychloroquine and compared with 3132 patients randomised to usual care alone. There was no significant difference in the primary endpoint of 28-day mortality (25.7% hydroxychloroquine vs. 23.5% usual care; hazard ratio 1.11 [95% confidence interval 0.98-1.26]; p=0.10). There was also no evidence of beneficial effects on hospital stay duration or other outcomes.

For those of you with a stats background pay attention to the confidence interval and p value.
I will get the Remdesivir out of the way first. It helps along with corticosteroids if you are in the hospital setting-That is it. The biggest takeaway is treating patients in the outpatient setting to prevent the inflammatory phase of the infection. That is what will
1) prevent suffering/save lives, Any viral infection from herpes to influenza is most effective with best outcomes when there is early intervention-most often less severe symptoms and shortens the duration of the infection. Who can sanely make the argument to send people home for quarantine and let the infection get worse and then require hospitalization 7-10 days later when the inflammatory phase sets in resulting in the person's ability to breathe?
2)fraction of the cost: For about $20-$30 dollars, a patient can take HCQ and zinc (I would only recommend Azithromycin in certain cases at this point until better information) as opposed to showing up at the ER and being hospitalized. At that point most all will be given oxygen, inpatient hospitalization and some ventilators and then the >$3,000 treatment with Remdesivir. Does this make sense to anybody? Unbelievably expensive when you can prevent most (yes most) of those hospitalizations in the first place. What would you do for your elderly parents if given the control?

The studies you posted:
1) patients were already hospitalized which means the whole idea of early treatment is bypassed and the inflammatory phase of the disease is in full swing.
2) I didn't happen to see zinc as part of the therapy
3) Your Brazilian study had patients 51 years old +/- 14 years. Well, most at risk of the deaths are >75 years old, then the 2nd at risk of death is >65yo then the 3rd biggest risk obesity. Come on, man.

The Henry Ford Health Center retrospective study had 100% better outcomes for HCQ/Zinc (13% death) vs No therapy (26%)
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2300 Nueces

oldhorn2

Well-Known Member
Jan 2, 2013
4,886
3,518
113
For those keeping score at home.....HCQ now banned in the state of Ohio....
 

westx

Well-Known Member
Dec 6, 2009
5,869
2,737
113
For those keeping score at home.....HCQ now banned in the state of Ohio....
The Ohio State Board of Pharmacy is “asshoe”. I hope they get the heat they deserve. We have some regulation from the board here inTexas and a few other states, but not to that extent. Btw, does it surprise anybody that in New York it is banned (not by pharmacy or medical board), but by Cuomo’s executive order. Criminalizing it is one way to inflict your will over people and put yourself between the doctor-patient relationship.
 

speedstrength

Well-Known Member
Mar 5, 2008
1,567
587
113
I will get the Remdesivir out of the way first. It helps along with corticosteroids if you are in the hospital setting-That is it. The biggest takeaway is treating patients in the outpatient setting to prevent the inflammatory phase of the infection. That is what will
1) prevent suffering/save lives, Any viral infection from herpes to influenza is most effective with best outcomes when there is early intervention-most often less severe symptoms and shortens the duration of the infection. Who can sanely make the argument to send people home for quarantine and let the infection get worse and then require hospitalization 7-10 days later when the inflammatory phase sets in resulting in the person's ability to breathe?
2)fraction of the cost: For about $20-$30 dollars, a patient can take HCQ and zinc (I would only recommend Azithromycin in certain cases at this point until better information) as opposed to showing up at the ER and being hospitalized. At that point most all will be given oxygen, inpatient hospitalization and some ventilators and then the >$3,000 treatment with Remdesivir. Does this make sense to anybody? Unbelievably expensive when you can prevent most (yes most) of those hospitalizations in the first place. What would you do for your elderly parents if given the control?

The studies you posted:
1) patients were already hospitalized which means the whole idea of early treatment is bypassed and the inflammatory phase of the disease is in full swing.
2) I didn't happen to see zinc as part of the therapy
3) Your Brazilian study had patients 51 years old +/- 14 years. Well, most at risk of the deaths are >75 years old, then the 2nd at risk of death is >65yo then the 3rd biggest risk obesity. Come on, man.

The Henry Ford Health Center retrospective study had 100% better outcomes for HCQ/Zinc (13% death) vs No therapy (26%)
The Henry Ford study was not a RCT it was a cohort study and it was of hospitalized patients. They self selected who got what treatment and they left of 236 patients who were in two of the treatment groups who ended up getting worse. Come on man.

People make it sound like there is this big conspiracy against HCL. There are 203 clinical trials going on in the US. 60 are looking at the Prophylaxis properties of HCL. The RCTs are showing it isn't working.

A Randomized Trial of Hydroxychloroquine as Postexposure Prophylaxis for Covid-19

https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa2016638

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.

Guess science tells us that hydroxychloroquine works as well as a sugar pill on COVID patients.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: HornsRuleU

westx

Well-Known Member
Dec 6, 2009
5,869
2,737
113
The Henry Ford study was not a RCT it was a cohort study and it was of hospitalized patients. They self selected who got what treatment and they left of 236 patients who were in two of the treatment groups who ended up getting worse. Come on man.

People make it sound like there is this big conspiracy against HCL. There are 203 clinical trials going on in the US. 60 are looking at the Prophylaxis properties of HCL. The RCTs are showing it isn't working.

A Randomized Trial of Hydroxychloroquine as Postexposure Prophylaxis for Covid-19

https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa2016638

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.

Guess science tells us that hydroxychloroquine works as well as a sugar pill on COVID patients.
Look at it how you choose. If you want to disregard my initial reasoning that is up to you, I have no motivation to convince you otherwise. My reasoning still stands. I will add that the Brazilian Study had around 600 patients compared to over 3000 in the Henry Ford Health Center. HCQ works plain and simple unless you want to wait until the patient is on ventilator in the icu-then, it won’t be effective
 

speedstrength

Well-Known Member
Mar 5, 2008
1,567
587
113
The Henry Ford Study
Treatment with hydroxychloroquine, azithromycin, and combination in patients hospitalized with COVID-19
https://www.ijidonline.com/article/S1201-9712(20)30534-8/fulltext

From the limitations of the study
However, our results should be interpreted with some caution and should not be applied to patients treated outside of hospital settings. Our results also require further confirmation in prospective, randomized controlled trials that rigorously evaluate the safety and efficacy of hydroxychloroquine therapy for COVID-19 in hospitalized patients

The UK study was almost 4800 and it was an RCT. When you start to combine the RCTs in a meta analysis you are are over 10000 participants RCT tirals.
 

westx

Well-Known Member
Dec 6, 2009
5,869
2,737
113
Feo
The Henry Ford Study
Treatment with hydroxychloroquine, azithromycin, and combination in patients hospitalized with COVID-19
https://www.ijidonline.com/article/S1201-9712(20)30534-8/fulltext

From the limitations of the study
However, our results should be interpreted with some caution and should not be applied to patients treated outside of hospital settings. Our results also require further confirmation in prospective, randomized controlled trials that rigorously evaluate the safety and efficacy of hydroxychloroquine therapy for COVID-19 in hospitalized patients

The UK study was almost 4800 and it was an RCT. When you start to combine the RCTs in a meta analysis you are are over 10000 participants RCT tirals.
From your link above:

“According to a protocol-based treatment algorithm, among hospitalized patients, use of hydroxychloroquine alone and in combination with azithromycin was associated with a significant reduction in-hospital mortality compared to not receiving hydroxychloroquine.”
 

speedstrength

Well-Known Member
Mar 5, 2008
1,567
587
113
Feo

From your link above:

“According to a protocol-based treatment algorithm, among hospitalized patients, use of hydroxychloroquine alone and in combination with azithromycin was associated with a significant reduction in-hospital mortality compared to not receiving hydroxychloroquine.”
Yes but it isn't a RCT. It's and observational cohort study. They didn't have sufficient controls in place. Are you intentionally being obtuse or do you not understand basic research principles?
 

westx

Well-Known Member
Dec 6, 2009
5,869
2,737
113
Are you intentionally being obtuse or do you not understand basic research principles?
Okay, cool man. I don't mind going back and forth, but if you want take this conversation in this direction-no thanks. I will just end my input here for what it is worth to anybody.
1) We were discussing treatment, but you interjected a study for post exposure prophylaxis. These are very different and I haven't recommended HCQ in this way. I am only referring to positive cases. Anybody in healthcare knows of the incentives to do double blinded placebo controlled studies. These incentives are for patented brand name drugs. There is no money to be made on old generic drugs, which is why t there is very little funding to do these studies.

2) I would like to see some of these studies with older patients where the risk is highest. Many of these studies will have patients 18yo-60yo. Why bother if that isn't the age groups that are dying. I looked at deaths by age on the CDC website to get the current numbers. Here they are:
Total deaths due to Covid19: 135,579
age >=85 is 44,055
age 75-84 is 35,806
age 65-74 is 28,353
108,214 deaths of people in the US 65 and older make up 79.8% of the deaths due to Covid.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 2300 Nueces

Belldozer1

Well-Known Member
Aug 20, 2014
7,040
2,440
113
If it just saves one life.


I've heard several people of certain beliefs say that before.

If it just saves one life.

Well, HCQ has just saved one life. That means it works. Does it work for everyone in every situation? Nope.

And guess what else doesn't work for everyone--- flu shots. But a crap ton of people take them. So HCQ works. It saved a life.
Que @outhereincali with the ol’ “the number of deaths don’t matter anymore and aren’t a true barometer of the severity of the covid pandemic, we’re now focusing on number of new and second wave cases instead”
 

speedstrength

Well-Known Member
Mar 5, 2008
1,567
587
113
Okay, cool man. I don't mind going back and forth, but if you want take this conversation in this direction-no thanks. I will just end my input here for what it is worth to anybody.
1) We were discussing treatment, but you interjected a study for post exposure prophylaxis. These are very different and I haven't recommended HCQ in this way. I am only referring to positive cases. Anybody in healthcare knows of the incentives to do double blinded placebo controlled studies. These incentives are for patented brand name drugs. There is no money to be made on old generic drugs, which is why t there is very little funding to do these studies.

2) I would like to see some of these studies with older patients where the risk is highest. Many of these studies will have patients 18yo-60yo. Why bother if that isn't the age groups that are dying. I looked at deaths by age on the CDC website to get the current numbers. Here they are:
Total deaths due to Covid19: 135,579
age >=85 is 44,055
age 75-84 is 35,806
age 65-74 is 28,353
108,214 deaths of people in the US 65 and older make up 79.8% of the deaths due to Covid.
Maybe you haven't been paying attention. There are currently 206 RCTs for HCQ registered with the FDA. There is tons of funding For RCTs for HCQ. The reason there are that many trials is that the individual case reports, observational studies and cohort studies starting as early as December were showing some positive results for various different HCQ. Now that we have early large scale RCTs we are seeing that it doesn't really work better than placebo or standard treatment in any condition other than possibly pre-exposure prevention in high risk health care workers.

Have you looked at the UK study. It enrolled 11,000 people across 175 hospitals and was funded by the NHS. They had a vested interest because the NHS is fully funded by government and low cost options would be ideal. They stopped the research becuase it wasn't working.

‘A total of 1542 patients were randomised to hydroxychloroquine and compared with 3132 patients randomised to usual care alone. There was no significant difference in the primary endpoint of 28-day mortality (25.7% hydroxychloroquine vs. 23.5% usual care; hazard ratio 1.11 [95% confidence interval 0.98-1.26]; p=0.10). There was also no evidence of beneficial effects on hospital stay duration or other outcomes.

They set the p- value at .10 instead of .05 and they still didn't get any significant findings after roughly 4700 data points. That is a massive amount of statistical power. Its hard not to have some kind of minimal findings with that many participants so it really means nothing is there. Especially since they couldn't get anything at the .10 level. This is the 4th large scale study with similar results but for some reason you keep pointing to an observational study from Ford that said

"However, our results should be interpreted with some caution and should not be applied to patients treated outside of hospital settings. Our results also require further confirmation in prospective, randomized controlled trials that rigorously evaluate the safety and efficacy of hydroxychloroquine therapy for COVID-19 in hospitalized patients

This is dangerous because its doesn't work and we need to be shifting research into something that does work. Unless of course you have something other that a gut feeling to back up your claim that HCQ does work.
 

speedstrength

Well-Known Member
Mar 5, 2008
1,567
587
113
I can't believe there are still people who doesn't think it works, I am living proof at 83 that it does.
I am glad you recovered but N=1. In some cases you can draw conclusions with an N of 1 but in this case you can't. When you got sick there were 4 possible outcomes and now that you recovered thank god there are only 2. The null hypothesis is that the HCQ did not have an affect and you would have recovered with the standard treatment. The alternative hypothesis is that the HCQ aided your recovery. In this case you cant serve as your own control and you need more statistical power to generalize findings to a larger population

Randomized Control trials allow for a more systematic evaluation of the efficacy of HCQ by adding multiple treatment conditions plus control conditions. They add statistical power by adding data points. Usually you are looking for at least 500 participants for a RCT to gain sufficient statistical power. I have read 4 different studies. One from Brazil, One from Vanderbilt Medical Center, One from Spain and One from the UK. Based on the results from those studies it is pretty clear that there is no difference in outcomes between the standard care and the standard care + HCQ.
 
  • Like
Reactions: HornsRuleU

speedstrength

Well-Known Member
Mar 5, 2008
1,567
587
113
Okay, cool man. I don't mind going back and forth, but if you want take this conversation in this direction-no thanks. I will just end my input here for what it is worth to anybody.
1) We were discussing treatment, but you interjected a study for post exposure prophylaxis. These are very different and I haven't recommended HCQ in this way. I am only referring to positive cases. Anybody in healthcare knows of the incentives to do double blinded placebo controlled studies. These incentives are for patented brand name drugs. There is no money to be made on old generic drugs, which is why t there is very little funding to do these studies.

2) I would like to see some of these studies with older patients where the risk is highest. Many of these studies will have patients 18yo-60yo. Why bother if that isn't the age groups that are dying. I looked at deaths by age on the CDC website to get the current numbers. Here they are:
Total deaths due to Covid19: 135,579
age >=85 is 44,055
age 75-84 is 35,806
age 65-74 is 28,353
108,214 deaths of people in the US 65 and older make up 79.8% of the deaths due to Covid.
Siri Göpel, Wolfgang Bethge, Peter Martus, et al. Test and treat covid 65 plus - hydroxychloroquine versus placebo in early ambulatory diagnosis and treatment of older patients with covid19: a structured summary of a study protocol for a randomised controlled trial. Trials. 2020;21(1):1-2. doi:10.1186/s13063-020-04556-z

In clinical trials right now. Recruiting participants over 64 who have a positive throat swab for COVID but less than 3 days onset symptoms.
 
  • Like
Reactions: westx

oldhorn2

Well-Known Member
Jan 2, 2013
4,886
3,518
113
a hospital in SW Austin has been tabbed to begin a study with that rithmidisphere or what ever it was ya'll mentioned. St Davids or something like that.
 

TX1972

Well-Known Member
Oct 31, 2012
1,205
533
113
It's because a dose of HCQ is about $14 and there's enough supply to treat the whole freaking world several times over. Big pharma and their political swamp partners in Congress and DC can't make any money or get rich with HCQ. They prefer several other potential vaccines and therapeutics that are much more expensive. Like everything else you follow the money. They want the most expensive treatments and medications so they can bilk insurance companies and line their pockets. It's also why they were scrambling to build ventilators for all the hospitals. Each time a ventilator was used on a Covid patient it would generate a $40k bill to Medicare or a private insurance carrier. I guarantee you there were thousands of patients put on ventilators unnecessarily just so they could juice up the hospital income.
I only heard this from Andrew Cuomo, so it may not be correct: only 20% of patients put on ventilators survived.
 

Belldozer1

Well-Known Member
Aug 20, 2014
7,040
2,440
113
I’m agreeing with those calling on Trump to delay the election due to this pandemic. With all the flip flopping Fauci is doing, now he recommends wearing goggles and a face visor, a lot of folks won’t feel comfortable getting out to vote and mail in ballots won’t be an option for many so Trump should go ahead do what’s fair for the country. The libs will crap themselves.
 

hookem365

Well-Known Member
Jul 12, 2020
106
96
28
I’m agreeing with those calling on Trump to delay the election due to this pandemic. With all the flip flopping Fauci is doing, now he recommends wearing goggles and a face visor, a lot of folks won’t feel comfortable getting out to vote and mail in ballots won’t be an option for many so Trump should go ahead do what’s fair for the country. The libs will crap themselves.
We thought that you did not believe that there is a pandemic.

Based on his own stance on the pandemic, Trump cannot use the pandemic as an excuse to delay the polls. If it is safe to reopen schools, it ought to be safe to vote.
 

soonersoldier

Well-Known Member
Jul 22, 2001
75
47
18
I’m agreeing with those calling on Trump to delay the election due to this pandemic. With all the flip flopping Fauci is doing, now he recommends wearing goggles and a face visor, a lot of folks won’t feel comfortable getting out to vote and mail in ballots won’t be an option for many so Trump should go ahead do what’s fair for the country. The libs will crap themselves.
What is the mechanism in place for the sitting President to delay the Presidential election? Also, do you know of any other Presidential election in the U.S. which has been previously delayed? I only ask because it would seem odd to delay a Presidential election for a "common" flu when other elections during times of war, depressions, etc. have not delayed said election.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Belldozer1

StrangerHorn

Well-Known Member
Jan 6, 2020
1,086
1,067
113
This thread is sure getting Political! Pretty soon ya'll gonna be fightin on this crap...and the MM gonna close it down...

 

dj701919

Well-Known Member
Nov 20, 2012
2,250
1,111
113
What is the mechanism in place for the sitting President to delay the Presidential election? Also, do you know of any other Presidential election in the U.S. which has been previously delayed? I only ask because it would seem odd to delay a Presidential election for a "common" flu when other elections during times of war, depressions, etc. have not delayed said election.
gooner on gooner crime
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: weevilcatch

hookem365

Well-Known Member
Jul 12, 2020
106
96
28
This thread is sure getting Political! Pretty soon ya'll gonna be fightin on this crap...and the MM gonna close it down...

Did you even read the very first post in this whole thread?
Or, are you just coming to Belldozer's defense?

The recent posts have been very respectful and stating the obvious without any political opinions.....
 

oldhorn2

Well-Known Member
Jan 2, 2013
4,886
3,518
113
the obvious huh?....that depends on what your definition of " is" is
 

Belldozer1

Well-Known Member
Aug 20, 2014
7,040
2,440
113
We thought that you did not believe that there is a pandemic.

Based on his own stance on the pandemic, Trump cannot use the pandemic as an excuse to delay the polls. If it is safe to reopen schools, it ought to be safe to vote.
Whether I believe it effects everyone as the bullshitters would have you believe is beside the point, the WHO declared it a pandemic and chaos and bullshit has ensued. If it was me no way would I label it a pandemic.
 

Belldozer1

Well-Known Member
Aug 20, 2014
7,040
2,440
113
What is the mechanism in place for the sitting President to delay the Presidential election? Also, do you know of any other Presidential election in the U.S. which has been previously delayed? I only ask because it would seem odd to delay a Presidential election for a "common" flu when other elections during times of war, depressions, etc. have not delayed said election.
My comment is tongue and cheek because I call the virus a souped up flu.
 

westx

Well-Known Member
Dec 6, 2009
5,869
2,737
113
https://www.theepochtimes.com/texas...tributing-225-deaths-to-covid-19_3446709.html

They are fudging the numbers on purpose for more than one reason.
I think they should fire anybody that is misreporting numbers such as these if it has the appearance of political motivation. In addition, it should be reported it the news, newspapers... with the misreported’s name (again, only if it is politically motivated). One more thing, every state should circulate a memo from the top down that anybody caught from now going forward will be get fired and prosecuted.
 

Belldozer1

Well-Known Member
Aug 20, 2014
7,040
2,440
113
Here’s another covid success story, congrats fear mongers. I was hoping to post a pic but it won’t let me, anyway @LonghornMM , New Braunfels Smokehouse is closing down after 75 years due to unsustainable economy brought in by covid
 

hookem365

Well-Known Member
Jul 12, 2020
106
96
28
I think they should fire anybody that is misreporting numbers such as these if it has the appearance of political motivation. In addition, it should be reported it the news, newspapers... with the misreported’s name (again, only if it is politically motivated). One more thing, every state should circulate a memo from the top down that anybody caught from now going forward will be get fired and prosecuted.
Agreed....starting with the person who said this back in Jan 2020..."We have it totally under control.”
 

dj701919

Well-Known Member
Nov 20, 2012
2,250
1,111
113
Agreed....starting with the person who said this back in Jan 2020..."We have it totally under control.”
I'm am not a fan of the president, but to suggest that The Rona is his fault is laughable.

If we found out that a meteor the size of India was headed straight for Earth and that we only had a month to live, would that be his fault for not discovering it Sooner?