Professor Raoult Releases Results of New Hydroxychloroquine Treatment Study on 1061 Patients

Oh I don't know...when the study is available perhaps...

It's amazing that how the left scurries around yelling as if the sky is falling during this yet wants medical studies to be run exactly as if nothing was going on....

I've no ideal about the murder rate in NOLA as I never commented on it. That historic city is run very poorly by the Dems is what I do know. Saw their utter incompetence during Katrina, no surprise we are seeing it again.

 

As if you have the knowledge to use that information in any meaningful if you had it. Comical, your going to breakdown the legitimacy of the study are you? I think we can do a bit better than you in a pandemic.

 

Nevada, New York, Michigan.

 

Nope. You go to the hospital in any of those states and they are using hydrochloride

It isn't helping much but they are using it

 

And it's been shown that the best effectiveness is early, not when you're hospitalized. If people are dying on the medication after only getting it when hospitalized it is because they were prevented, by politicians with agendas, from having it when it works best. That's a ban; that's politicians telling doctors they can't give hydroxychloroquine.

 

Nothing of the kind has been shown...and given the potentially lethal side effects it is NOT something to be dispensed over the counter

 

The study is in no way “legitimate”

His previous study was withdrawn from the publication that initially published it due to the poor quality of the research and the quality of this one looks little better
Other studies have failed to replicate Raoult’s claims

http://atomicfifteen.com/~TREATMENT_INEFFECTIVE_HYDROXYCHLOROQUINE.pdf

 

It's as effective as elephant repellent.

I sell it out of my backyard.Guess what...no one I have sold it to has seen an elephant anywhere near them

 

Oh no, that couldn't be, they were just actors, hired by the Trump hating deep Brazilian State

Nobody, including me, is saying it shouldn't be given to people to save lives, but you think that if it's not immediately spread by helicopters and put into babies formula it's because the Evil Liberals want to kill the entire world rather than listen to the Holy Wisdom. Several thousands in the US have died because Trump lied and dithered. Their blood is on his hands and now on yours if you continue to support him

 

That is a very dishonest post. No one has suggested it be dispensed over the counter. It's only dispensed on the orders of someone who has had more years of training and education than you: actual doctors.

But there are a lot of over-the-counter drugs that can cause heart problems and death.. I was looking for your thread on those things but I don't find it.. Can you send me a link?

 

Oh pardon me for not being exact. The potentially deadly side effects are such that it should ONLY be dispensed in a hospital setting.

There...better?

 

Oh look more negativity towards something that may help.

Like I posted, he is doing something to help end this, you are complaining about it from the sidelines.

Guess which one matters more?

 

Hey if snake oil makes you feel good...drink it.

At this point that's all this is.

It's available. No one is stopping you

 

No realism and not relying on “clickbait” to guide medical care

If you want to read the research it is collected here http://www.politicalforum.com/index...earch-drug-trials-and-pathophysiology.571138/

 

http://www.politicalforum.com/index...earch-drug-trials-and-pathophysiology.571138/

 

So how is it people are on this long term? Something like 300,000 in the US, and to our knowledge not one of them has come down with coronavirus. I heard an MD on the radio today who said in 42 years of using this drug for lupus, etc. he hasn't seen one fatality.

 

So, here we have the self-proclaimed expert on medical studies quoting and linking the summary and not the actual paper. Why is that, the curious might ask?

There are a lot of problems with the report that Internet Medical Expert Bowerbird chose to pretend to quote but didn't link.

1. Raoult had 26 patients that received the medication in his first study and 16 that did not - total 42. Molina's study (the one almost quoted by Bowerbird) had 11.
2. Raoult had 1 patient die - out of 26. Molina had 1 die out of 11.
3. Raoult had 3 patients go to the ICU. Molina had 2.
4. There's no comparison, and no way to compare, patient condition before the study started.
5. There's nothing that tells the medical background of the 1 patient that died, really in either study. In Molina's 1 patient had HIV. Getting coronavirus is probably not good for HIV patients - my own comment, not the study's.
6. For 1 patient, Molina stopped the hydroxychloroquine because QT intervals extended to "460 and 470 ms". There's no information on the patient but this is normally considered within normal range, even if at the high end of normal. At 460 to 470, it seems that the doctor would want to monitor progression but until it goes over 500 ms, there may not have been an emergency. These doctors may have chickened out on the one patient - I can't say since I'm not a doctor. And there's no indication whether this is the patient that died or if it is one of the two transferred to the ICU. It's really nothing more than a footnote on their weak study.
7. In any case, they stopped treatment, one died, and two were transferred so their actual study is 7 patients and was not peer reviewed, randomized, or double-blind.. and yet Bowerbird pretended to quote it.
8. Molina claims that China found no benefit to hydroxychloroquine but he may have been using selective research since in early February, China had documented positive results in over 100 patients, compared to CONTROL GROUPS, and in a conference held on February 15, 2020, to review the findings, recommended that hydroxychloroquine be added to the guidelines for coronavirus treatment - and the recommendation was followed and it was added.

 

And every crackpot MD in the world is now crawling out of the woodwork

Let’s see what the Annals of Internal Medicine says about HCQ (AIM is up there with the BMJ and JAMA etc as reliable and reputable)

https://annals.org/aim/fullarticle/2764199

 

Thanks for quoting my least favourite text “Nursing made incredibly Easy” it makes good bonfire material and nothing else since the pages are too thick to.........

I have a whole thread on the various research relating to Covid with multiple posts linking to research papers published. Happy to publish a valid paper but your link to the paper from China does not seem to work

http://www.politicalforum.com/index...earch-drug-trials-and-pathophysiology.571138/

 

That's fantastic news.. if you are a petri dish. In the lab... in vitro.. you and others tell us we're stupid because we don't know the difference between in vitro and in vivo... So a cure has been found for test tubes.

But, in reality, if it is so promising, why aren't doctors' using it? If they are, those are the links we want from you, not stories about petri dishes. Please share some if you have them... Oh, wait.. as of April 3, according to the article you linked, they were still trying to determine the correct human dosage since it is usually given as a single-dose or annual dose treatment.

Also, please share the links where this discovery was known on February 15, back when China was publishing it's positive results for hydroxychloroquine. Or that it was known before March 19, when Trump repeated what the medical experts had told him... You can't, of course, because it wasn't known to be helpful then, back when Trump "touted" hydroxychloroquine or when the Chinese first touted it back in early February.

I hope they can try it in the field and save some lives.. and, like you, I'm not calling for any fully randomized, double-blind, peer reviewed tests before using it.. I just can't figure out why you're not screaming for all of that for this drug but you are for hydroxychloroquine..... Oh.. I remember... TRUMP.

 

We're.. actually, there's no we is there? Doctors.. .are not using both because they're just discovering that Ivermectin is helpful as of a couple weeks ago and, as of the article Bowerbird linked still did not know what an appropriate dosage was... Her link is to curing the virus in test tubes or petri dishes, not in people. We have documented success using hydroxychloroquine in actual human beings for over 2 months... Probably, as long as the left stays out of the way, we'll know much more about Ivermectin in 2 months, as well, and can have a thread about all the success it had - and credit Trump for mentioning it weeks ago - since it is on his word alone that doctors prescribe treatments.

 

Have you checked out the research thread I linked to? No?

http://www.politicalforum.com/index...earch-drug-trials-and-pathophysiology.571138/

I have just linked to two new articles on the use of Ivermectin. One was a research study, limited but promising.

 

Still haven’t checked out the research thread?

Not going to post the same information multiple times

 

How many went blind getting hydroxychloroquine for coronavirus? You've got to quit reading the side-effects page on drugs.com.

Who benefited are all of those whose lives were saved between early February and whenever, if ever, it is shown that Ivermectin is a superior treatment... You are completely ignoring that we needed treatment months ago.. and need it now.. not months from now.

 

No; it's not better. It's stupid. 5 million prescriptions a year are given in the US. That's about 50 million doses.. Over a billion doses given, often for very long-term daily use in Americans working in very remote jungle areas far, far, away from any hospital.... No, it's just plain stupid for you, a non-medical person, to suggest that hydroxychloroquine should only be administered in a hospital setting.