patrick.net

More than 50% were mislabeled to pad the numbers, and 80% of the real cases, death could have been avoided.

I believe less than 20,000 actually died from it, and they died because Governors sent young sick people to their hospital beds to snuff them out.

The latest studies all show that it's highly effective. The few cited against it were cherry picked and are outdated by now. Plus many countries are relying on it heavily that should tell you something.

Is there a large peer reviewed clinical study that came to this conclusion? The latest I looked at was not peer reviewed. That is what sinks a lot of these studies, pro and con. At best the evidence I've seen is mixed for this drug. Even Trump seems to have moved on. Down in Texas they have apparently come up with a fairly effective treatment protocol that throws a lot of inexpensive stuff at it, less than 100 dollars a day. I cant find a list.

But why do we need it I thought the pandemic was over and we were to just go about our lives? You know, buy shit and throw it away to gin up the economy. What happened?

Hand washing!

rdm says

Is there a large peer reviewed clinical study that came to this conclusion? The latest I looked at was not peer reviewed. That is what sinks a lot of these studies, pro and con. At best the evidence I've seen is mixed for this drug. Even Trump seems to have moved on. Down in Texas they have apparently come up with a fairly effective treatment protocol that throws a lot of inexpensive stuff at it, less than 100 dollars a day. I cant find a list.

But why do we need it I thought the pandemic was over and we were to just go about our lives? You know, buy shit and throw it away to gin up the economy. What happened?

Have fun:

https://www.ijidonline.com/article/S1201-9712(20)30534-8/fulltext

But orrangeman still bad, wrong about HCQ

rd6B says

Have fun:

https://www.ijidonline.com/article/S1201-9712(20)30534-8/fulltext

But orrangeman still bad, wrong about HCQ

Observational and not peer reviewed.

It certainly looks like Orange Man was right about HCQ.

rd6B says

https://www.ijidonline.com/article/S1201-9712(20)30534-8/fulltext

Results
Of 2,541 patients, with a median total hospitalization time of 6 days (IQR: 4-10 days), median age was 64 years (IQR:53-76 years), 51% male, 56% African American...

Why so many blacks? They certainly seem to get this a lot more than anyone else.

Patrick says

certainly looks like Orange Man was right about HCQ.

He took it as a prophylactic treatment, this study, as was said not peer reviewed, has nothing to do with that use of the drug. So we don't know. But hey if you think it works, cause Donnie took it, feel free to take it and good luck to you.

If you think it doesn't work just because Trump thinks it does, and you get Wuhan virus, feel free not to take it and good luck to you.

Patrick says

you think it doesn't work just because Trump thinks it does

Don't care what Trump thinks (if you can call it that) or says or does about anything related to medical issues. He knows nothing and shows little no ability to understand and assimilate and espouse scientific information in a coherent manner. You know, for example, the whole bleach/UV light "thing" that came spurting out his pie hole.

rdm says

Observational and not peer reviewed.

that journal publishes only peer reviewed papers

Patrick says

rd6B says

https://www.ijidonline.com/article/S1201-9712(20)30534-8/fulltext

Results
Of 2,541 patients, with a median total hospitalization time of 6 days (IQR: 4-10 days), median age was 64 years (IQR:53-76 years), 51% male, 56% African American...

Why so many blacks? They certainly seem to get this a lot more than anyone else.

Because of where they undertook studies, I believe - hospital is in Detroit.

Patrick says

If you think it doesn't work just because Trump thinks it does, and you get Wuhan virus, feel free not to take it and good luck to you.

@Patrick, as you see from above, TDS is very strong here. First, a demand for "peer-reviewed large scale studies". When I provide a link to that, suddenly they are "not peer-reviewed". I do not know how anyone can come to conclusion that these studies are not peer-reviewed, other than individual having no idea what peer-review is. But even then, journal which I reference states that
"The International Journal of Infectious Diseases (IJID) is published monthly by the International Society for Infectious Diseases. IJID is a peer-reviewed, open access journal and publishes original clinical and laboratory-based research, together with reports of clinical trials, reviews, and some case reports dealing with the epidemiology, clinical diagnosis, treatment, and control of infectious diseases with particular emphasis placed on those diseases that are most common in under-resourced countries."

So, the only reason why HCQ can not be efficient is because trump said it is efficient, and admitting ones own TDS is impossible. It is fucking hopeless and on par of creationist stubbornness in being anti-science just because

rd6B says

as you see from above, TDS is very strong here

First this should be flagged under the new "rules" but that aside you were right it is a peer reviewed but still observational study I asked for a peer reviewed clinical study that is not what this is. This is far from a definitive answer to the question at hand which the OP and others make it out to be, though it does have value.

Here is the caveat at the end of study "

Findings of this observational study provide crucial data on experience with hydroxychloroquine therapy, providing necessary interim guidance for COVID-19 therapeutic practice. These findings do support the recent NIH guidelines (Antiviral Therapy, 2020), indicating a potential role for hydroxychloroquine in treatment of hospitalized COVID-19 patients without co-administration of azithromycin. 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. Considered in the context of current studies on the use of hydroxychloroquine for COVID-19, our results suggest that hydroxychloroquine may have an important role to play in reducing COVID-19 mortaliy

rdm says

feel free to take it and good luck to you.

As long as you’re in a state without a NAZI Democrat Governor so that’s an option for you. In New York their NAZI Cuomo banned it and they had more deaths than the next three states combined. They put healthy people on ventilators and killed them to plump the numbers. But they used people of color for this purpose... so nobody important died... at least that’s how Democraps feel about it.

Patrick says

rd6B says

https://www.ijidonline.com/article/S1201-9712(20)30534-8/fulltext

Results
Of 2,541 patients, with a median total hospitalization time of 6 days (IQR: 4-10 days), median age was 64 years (IQR:53-76 years), 51% male, 56% African American...

Why so many blacks? They certainly seem to get this a lot more than anyone else.

Because raycism, duh.

rdm says

Our results also require further confirmation in prospective, randomized controlled trials that rigorously evaluate the safety

Why would we need another study to evaluate the safety of an old drug? Shouldn't the side effects be know to a T by now? I mean, the shit has been approved for use in US at least half a century ago, the safety or lack of thereof should y be well established by now.

Eric Holder says

Patrick says

rd6B says

https://www.ijidonline.com/article/S1201-9712(20)30534-8/fulltext

Results
Of 2,541 patients, with a median total hospitalization time of 6 days (IQR: 4-10 days), median age was 64 years (IQR:53-76 years), 51% male, 56% African American...

Why so many blacks? They certainly seem to get this a lot more than anyone else.

Because raycism, duh.

Wait. Black men make it to the age of 64???? This has to be an Onion piece. I thought they all died at 22 from cops or their fellow brothers because of oppression and all.

WookieMan says

Wait. Black men make it to the age of 64???? This has to be an Onion piece. I thought they all died at 22 from cops or their fellow brothers because of oppression and all.

The only ones who make it to 64 are these who were incarcerated for being black at the age of 14 and have been kept in a solitary cofinement for 50 years, duh.

rdm says

rd6B says

as you see from above, TDS is very strong here

First this should be flagged under the new "rules" but that aside you were right it is a peer reviewed but still observational study I asked for a peer reviewed clinical study that is not what this is. This is far from a definitive answer to the question at hand which the OP and others make it out to be, though it does have value.

Here is the caveat at the end of study "

Findings of this observational study provide crucial data on experience with hydroxychloroquine therapy, providing necessary interim guidance for COVID-19 therapeutic practice. These findings do support the recent NIH guidelines (Antiviral Therapy, 2020), indicating a potential role for hydroxychloroquine in treatment of hospitalized COVID-19 patients without co-administration of azithromycin. However, our results should be interpreted with some cau...

constant movement of goal posts

Eric Holder says

Why would we need another study to evaluate the safety of an old drug

The drug is approved for malaria and lupus but when giving to people that are very very sick, what might be a minor side effect in treating malaria can push someone over the edge. Also it is good CYA language.

rd6B says

constant movement of goal posts

Its called science. Not everything is black and white, works doesn't work. Good or bad Trumpian dualism.

This is apparently a decent observational study, it is not the double blind placebo clinical study that can be more definitive. Hey like I said if its enough for you go for it. It would not be my first choice if I got the virus.

rdm says

observational study I asked for a peer reviewed clinical study

Clinical studies can be divided into two broad categories: trials, in which the investigator intervenes to prevent or treat a disease, and observational studies, in which the investigator makes no intervention and patients are allocated treatment based on clinical decisions.

mell says

The latest studies all show that it's highly effective.

Actually it's the opposite. I doubt it's being used much at this point. At least not by competant doctors in the first world.

That's possibly even the reason the death rate hasn't spiked at all since the new cases did. Always sounded like a stab in the dark wishful thinking to me. And stupid considering so many people need the drug for other reasons. Fortunately most doctors aren't that stupid, but a lot of the public is. And if the patient insists their doctor use something with unknown efficacy (when the FDA says you can experiment with it) becasue the President is promoting it, the doctor will do it, unless he's certain it's a mistake.

https://www.biospace.com/article/large-study-suggests-malaria-drug-hydroxychloroquine-doesn-t-help-covid-19/

https://www.politico.com/news/2020/06/05/uk-trial-on-hydroxychloroquine-it-doesnt-work-303275

https://www.fda.gov/drugs/drug-safety-and-availability/fda-cautions-against-use-hydroxychloroquine-or-chloroquine-covid-19-outside-hospital-setting-or

https://www.wsj.com/articles/hydroxychloroquine-doesnt-help-hospitalized-covid-19-patients-new-research-finds-11591385885

https://www.nih.gov/news-events/news-releases/nih-halts-clinical-trial-hydroxychloroquine

Patrick says

If you think it doesn't work just because Trump thinks it does, and you get Wuhan virus, feel free not to take it and good luck to you.

If you think it works just becasue Trump says so, and you get CV, good luck to you. (and for that matte RIP to all the dumb asses that died becasue of Trump promoting it when they might have used something more effective in the absence of his stupid advice).

That whole episode of Trump promoting a drug in a pandemic, with totally unknown efficacy, is just one more reason behind hoping we never have such a moronic President again. Not that his intentions weren't good. But he's so thoughtless and arrogant, just stupid.

mell says

How 25%-50% of Covid-19 deaths could have been avoided: HCQ

By not using HCQ ?

We'll never know. But since it does nothing more than placebo against CV, one would hope that without Trump promoting it, other better ideas might not have been crowded out in late match and early April by the HCQ TDS.

"The American College of Physicians says doctors should not treat COVID-19 patients with hydroxychloroquine outside the context of a clinical trial."

https://whyy.org/articles/dont-treat-covid-19-with-hydroxychloroquine-american-college-of-physicians-says/

But then after a couple months of the multiple large rigorous clinical trials (double blind etc.).

"NIH halts clinical trial of hydroxychloroquine Study shows treatment does no harm, but provides no benefit"

https://www.nih.gov/news-events/news-releases/nih-halts-clinical-trial-hydroxychloroquine

rd6B says

So, the only reason why HCQ can not be efficient is because trump said it is efficient, and admitting ones own TDS is impossible. It is fucking hopeless and on par of creationist stubbornness in being anti-science just because

@rd6B I think you are right, TDS is exactly analogous to creationism.

At least I understand creationists' internal logic to some degree, and therefore can sympathize. They have put their hope of salvation from the pain of this world into the bible. If the bible is not literally true, maybe they are not actually going to heaven, and this is all there is. That's a pretty dark picture, especially if this life is not going all that well. So they have a profound gut-level motive to believe in creationism. This leads to the necessary mental gymnastics to re-attain equilibrium, and hope.

But for TDS, what is it exactly? Why do they see Trump as threat to themselves? What are the unspoken fears?

My guess at the moment is that they are afraid of the masses of people in "flyover country" who they know they have screwed over for decades by outsourcing their jobs and insourcing illegals. Or they are afraid for their own status as "superior" people who got an "education" at very expensive universities which entitles them to rule over the masses. Trump, as a populist, is a direct threat to the value of their elite education.

To debate on the level of facts is "fucking hopeless" as you say. It's not about facts, it's about fear and loathing of Trump as a representative of... what?

marcus says

Fortunately most doctors aren't that stupid,

I don't care about the drug being discussed in this thread. This comment is extremely naive though. You put way too much faith in educated people, doctors specifically. The assumption of being correct because of knowledge means dick. The most educated are the ones that usually fuck up the most because of their perceived superiority and knowledge. They're infallible. That's not who I want working on my physical body in most cases. Dead serious.

Trump derangement Syndrome is matched by the equally strong and opposite insane force called Trump Delusion Syndrome. You are actually well situated to gain insight in to what causes that.

When history looks back on this era, the question "Why did so many people have such a Problem with Trump ?" will not be nearly as big a question as:

1) How and why was he elected in the first place ?

2) What does it say about the state of America and the character of it's people that they not only elected him, but they didn't reject him either, as he embarrassed the majority of it's citizens on a daily basis ?

And conversely, I admit that some of the joy and hope I feel due to Trump's election is a not-quite-subconscious feeling of vindication after being dragged to HR or not hired for things I have said on my own forum, on my own time.

I used to be firmly on the left. It all seemed obvious to me from listening to NPR. Right-wingers must be idiots, easily manipulated, so dangerous, so violent, horrible people.

Then I was told "You can't say that" or will lose my job, or not get a new one in the Bay Area. And these were about points which are factual, and which I will repeat here once again out of defiance:

- Women are not inclined toward engineering nearly to the degree that men are, and this seems to be biological.
- Human races are more widely divergent than dog breeds, so if it is clear that dogs vary in temperament, human races should also.
- There is no evidence that being gay is inborn, but there is much evidence that it is learned and self-destructive behavior.
- Islam is by far the most violent religion, and that follows directly from the example of Mohammed himself.

So the good news is that leftist ideology does eventually attack and alienate all of its own. There is an end to the Reign of Terror in sight.

WookieMan says

The most educated are the ones that usually fuck up the most because of their perceived superiority and knowledge. They're infallible. That's not who I want working on my physical body in most cases. Dead serious.

@WookieMan You might really enjoy a lot of the writing of Nassim Taleb. One of his favorite phrases is "Intellectual Yet Idiot":

https://medium.com/incerto/the-intellectual-yet-idiot-13211e2d0577

What we have been seeing worldwide, from India to the UK to the US, is the rebellion against the inner circle of no-skin-in-the-game policymaking “clerks” and journalists-insiders, that class of paternalistic semi-intellectual experts with some Ivy league, Oxford-Cambridge, or similar label-driven education who are telling the rest of us 1) what to do, 2) what to eat, 3) how to speak, 4) how to think… and 5) who to vote for.

But the problem is the one-eyed following the blind: these self-described members of the “intelligentsia” can’t find a coconut in Coconut Island, meaning they aren’t intelligent enough to define intelligence hence fall into circularities — but their main skill is capacity to pass exams written by people like them.

Patrick says

- Human races are more widely divergent than dog breeds, so if it is clear that dogs vary in temperament, human races should also.

No offense but such statements (from my pov) seem more emotional than anything else. I disagree with the first part, but also there is no logic to "should" of the second part. Possibly "could." But dog populations are bred over a relatively short period of time. Also dogs are bred with intention, and some breeds are woefully inbred.

In another way, your argument works against your belief. Dog breeding shows for example that temperament changes can easily be bred in to or out of dogs. E.g. the example of paranoid and aggressive foxes, bred in a few short generations to being docile and friendly. This suggests a mutability depending on cultural emphasis on the types of mates that are most desirable, matriarchy versus patriarchy and so on, that imply that through assimilation into a multicultural diverse society the differences if they don't disappear become irrelevant.. Even the differences withing racial groups which are obviously far far greater than differences between groups are mutable over time depending on culture.

And then finally, who cares ? If you are treating people as individuals, why obsess about group differences ? This is why to me, your point seems so racist.

marcus says

Trump derangement Syndrome is matched by the equally strong and opposite insane force called Trump Delusion Syndrome. You are actually well situated to gain insight in to what causes that.

When history looks back on this era, the question "Why did so many people have such a Problem with Trump ?" will not be nearly as big a question as:

1) How and why was he elected in the first place ?

2) What does it say about the state of America and the character of it's people that they not only elected him, but they didn't reject him either, as he embarrassed the majority of it's citizens on a daily basis ?

@marcus, I don't like him and did not vote for him. He behaves like a stereotypical Yankee asshole, who he undoubtedly is. But given choice between him and statue-toppling vandals, I will choose him every day.

rd6B says

But given choice between him and statue-toppling vandals, I will choose him every day.

Of course.

But if you make the leap to generalizing that democrats are statue toppling vandals, then you are identifying the entire left with some crazies on far left.

Remember, the left couldn't even nominate Bernie Sanders.

It will be interesting to see whether Biden can present an objective and sensible position on what the extreme left is doing.

It's interesting, the degree to which the noise on the far left, strengthens the right. I too find myself recoiling against the stupidity. For example, as an objective person, seeing BLM stupidity only makes me more respectful of and more interested in listening to conservative black voices. (by conservative - I don't mean necessarily republican).

marcus says

But if you make the leap to generalizing that democrats are statue toppling vandals, then you are identifying the entire left with some crazies on far left.

It's only natural taking into account that no prominent democrats voiced their opposition to vandalism. Silence is violence, remember?

marcus says

But if you make the leap to generalizing that democrats are statue toppling vandals, then you are identifying the entire left with some crazies on far left.

From my daily experience, that identity does seem to be valid.

I do not find Democrats objecting to statue toppling, or defunding the police, or even suspecting that BLM's 4-year cycle might have something to do with the election.

Among Democrats, I see only true believers in The Narrative, or those too intimidated by leftist violence to speak up.

But if you make the leap to generalizing that democrats are statue toppling vandals, then you are identifying the entire left with some crazies on far left.

Elected Dems seem to agree with the statue toppling, and only elected Dems can defund the police, as in Minneapolis and New York.

marcus says

Remember, the left couldn't even nominate Bernie Sanders.

Haha - the left probably DID nominate Bernie Sanders.

You have no way to validate the vote at all, but have been programmed since birth to believe that the US is really a dumbocracy - your guvernment skools said so!

So, let me get this straight. The "left" nominated a senile old man, that has said he enjoys having children jump on his lab, who said he's learned about roaches from black people, who was involved in blatantly obvious corruption in Ukraine, and looks to all the world to be a pedophile.

That's what the "left" nominated?

Oh, and he promises to change nothing, has no platform, speaks in completely empty platitudes. He was also an outspoken supporter of the Iraq War - you know, that war over non existent weapons of mass destruction EVERYBODY loved so fucking much that they elected a black man with a Muslim sounding name.

Here's a thought: he wasn't actually nominated...

Oh, but that's just crazy talk isn't it?? OF COURSE he was. How silly to think we are in a sham democratic system, and not a real one. We all want another fucking war right, and although it's impossible to scrounge up $20 billion dollars for a wall between Mexico and the US, it's entirely affordable to spend $2 billion a day on bombing a bunch of nations for which you have no fucking idea why the US is bombing those nations.

marcus says

It's interesting, the degree to which the noise on the far left, strengthens the right.

I think it helps the collective Right to a great degree. Many of my acquaintances have shifted their opinions to the right; many minority students are now telling that they will vote third party and not D after seeing that D's do not really condemn antifa (unless their mansions are threatened). We may see resurgence of Racist Right as well, caused by racists on the left (as in any action will cause counter-reaction to it overshooting reasonable boundaries).
marcus says

listening to conservative black voices. (by conservative - I don't mean necessarily republican).

I have started listening to them also, mostly libertarians because mainstream R's are not that great.

marcus says

If you are treating people as individuals, why obsess about group differences ?

exactly. if we start obsessing with group differences, we slide to level of BLM. Treat people like individuals, no matter who they are.