Here's what Medrxiv has to say about "preprint" studies... https://www.medrxiv.org/content/what-unrefereed-preprint "Before formal publication in a scholarly journal, scientific and medical articles are traditionally certified by “peer review.” In this process, the journal’s editors take advice from various experts—called “referees”—who have assessed the paper and may identify weaknesses in its assumptions, methods, and conclusions. Typically a journal will only publish an article once the editors are satisfied that the authors have addressed referees’ concerns and that the data presented support the conclusions drawn in the paper. Because this process can be lengthy, authors use the medRxiv service to make their manuscripts available as “preprints” before certification by peer review, allowing other scientists to see, discuss, and comment on the findings immediately. Readers should therefore be aware that articles on medRxiv have not been finalized by authors, might contain errors, and report information that has not yet been accepted or endorsed in any way by the scientific or medical community. We also urge journalists and other individuals who report on medical research to the general public to consider this when discussing work that appears on medRxiv preprints and emphasize it has yet to be evaluated by the medical community and the information presented may be erroneous." So, by my understanding, while it's "just" a preprint, I think calling the conclusions "complete and utter BULL ****" is a) premature and b) unjustified. The correct answer more likely is, "We'll see." But, hey, the establishment scoffs at all kinds of things before they become accepted as the norm. I'm not saying I know ONE WAY OR THE OTHER, but silencing people isn't the answer. If the study falls flat on its' face, that's that. However, if it doesn't, then those who've tried to silence it are a part of the problem and shouldn't be trusted. Regarding peer reviewed articles, they aren't infallible. Recall Climategate? And, the Earth was considered flat. Until it wasn't. Worse, even our scientific leadership's reliance upon science has been, in this pandemic, challenged repeatedly. Even the smallest untruth undermines confidence in everything else they may say. I accept that, as we learn more, the understanding of the problem and solutions may change, but we're talking about alleged conflicts of interest and monetary gains, too. And, no matter how "saintly" people may appear, they are still just people and are subject to mistakes, avoiding ridicule and hiding their own bad conduct. Consequently, I think it's appropriate to question all the edicts. Especially, when they're being imposed by individuals who may have already been impugned at some level. CW
Is that you Donald? Here read this and deal with it https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2772921 “This issue of JAMA contains yet another study, and certainly among the best published to date, demonstrating the lack of efficacy of hydroxychloroquine as a treatment of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19).1 This study, from the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute PETAL Clinical Trials Network, focused on hospitalized patients with moderate to severe disease. In this well-conducted, appropriately powered clinical trial, the authors randomized 479 patients to receive hydroxychloroquine (400 mg twice daily for 2 doses, then 200 mg twice daily for 8 doses) (n = 242) or placebo (n = 237). The trial was stopped early at the fourth interim analysis for futility. For the primary outcome, clinical status at 14 days measured on a 7-category ordinal scale, there was no significant difference between the hydroxychloroquine and placebo groups (median [interquartile range {IQR}] score, 6 [4-7] vs 6 [4-7]; adjusted odds ratio, 1.02 [95% CI, 0.73-1.42]). None of the 12 secondary outcomes were significantly different between groups, including mortality at 28 days: 10.4% in the hydroxychloroquine group vs 10.6% in the placebo group (absolute difference, −0.2% [95% CI, −5.7% to 5.3%]; adjusted odds ratio, 1.07 [95% CI, 0.54 to 2.09]).1 Thus, the results conclusively show no benefit of hydroxychloroquine over placebo. 2-4 to individuals at risk of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection, in whom the drug was used as primary prophylaxis5; these studies failed to show any beneficial effect of the drug. This raises the question: How did medicine get to the point where so many studies were conducted assessing the possible benefit of hydroxychloroquine, that led to nearly identical findings, and have been published in major journals? 6 (followed 4 days later as a preprint in the International Journal of Antimicrobial Agents) and purportedly demonstrated “a rapid and effective speeding up of their healing process, and a sharp decrease in the amount of time they remained contagious.” This open-label, nonrandomized study included only 36 hospitalized patients with documented SARS-CoV-2 infection at admission, regardless of clinical status. Among 26 patients who received hydroxychloroquine, 6 were lost during follow-up because of early cessation of treatment, and of the remaining patients, at day 6 after treatment, 70% (14/20) were virologically “cured” compared with 12.5% (2/16) in the control group (P = .001).6 All 6 patients who received the combination of hydroxychloroquine plus azithromycin (500 mg on day 1 followed by 250 mg per day for the next 4 days) were polymerase chain reaction negative for SARS-CoV-2 in the nasopharynx. The preliminary data from this small study was “heard round the world.” 7 Of note, no health official in the US government endorsed use of hydroxychloroquine owing to the absence of robust data and concern about adverse effects. Nonetheless, use of hydroxychloroquine increased substantially, and the US Food and Drug Administration had issued an Early Use Authorization for the use of hydroxychloroquine as treatment for COVID-19 on March 28, 2020,7 which was later revoked on June 15, 2020, following further examination of preliminary data.8 9 Several lessons are gleaned from the experience with hydroxychloroquine in the treatment of COVID-19. First, a single report based on a small, nonrandomized study must be considered preliminary and hypothesis generating, not clinically actionable. Likewise, anecdotal case reports and case series that include several cases likewise must be considered anecdotal and preliminary. Second, US health officials, such as members of the Coronavirus Task Force, leaders from the National Institutes of Health, and officers of physician organizations and societies, who resisted being forced to promote the politically motivated use of hydroxychloroquine were correct and should be recognized for their steadfast commitment to science. Third, patients who have a potentially life-threatening disease are desperate and will accept any treatment that appears to be effective, especially when such treatment is promoted by individuals who ordinarily should be trusted, such as the US president. The clear, unambiguous, and compelling lesson from the hydroxychloroquine story for the medical community and the public is that science and politics do not mix. Science, by definition, requires diligence and an honest assessment of findings; politics not so much. The number of articles in the peer-reviewed literature over the last several months that have consistently and convincingly demonstrated the lack of efficacy of a highly hyped “cure” for COVID-19 represent the consequence of the irresponsible infusion of politics into the world of scientific evidence and discourse. For other potential therapies or interventions for COVID-19 (or any other diseases), this should not happen again.”
Here's a tool you can put to good use,unfortunately, when 'Donald' and his Aussie mates come a knocking: Image Unavailable, Please Login
Um, I can "deal with it" just fine. Because I have no interest in anything other than what works. Or doesn't. So... From an article in Johns Hopkins Medical (or the American Journal of Epidemiology, maybe) ... https://thewatchtowers.org/breaking-report-from-john-hopkins-journal-great-news-on-hydroxychloroquine-zinc/ "Hydroxychloroquine+azithromycin has been widely misrepresented in both clinical reports and public media, and outpatient trials results are not expected until September. Early outpatient illness is very different than later hospitalized florid disease and the treatments differ. Evidence about use of hydroxychloroquine alone, or of hydroxychloroquine+azithromycin in inpatients, is irrelevant concerning efficacy of the pair in early high-risk outpatient disease. Five studies, including two controlled clinical trials, have demonstrated significant major outpatient treatment efficacy. Hydroxychloroquine+azithromycin has been used as standard-of-care in more than 300,000 older adults with multicomorbidities, with estimated proportion diagnosed with cardiac arrhythmias attributable to the medications 47/100,000 users, of which estimated mortality is <20%, 9/100,000 users, compared to the 10,000 Americans now dying each week. These medications need to be widely available and promoted immediately for physicians to prescribe." Here's another... https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32205204/ "Despite its small sample size, our survey shows that hydroxychloroquine treatment is significantly associated with viral load reduction/disappearance in COVID-19 patients and its effect is reinforced by azithromycin." And, why terminate a promising study early? https://www.niaid.nih.gov/news-events/bulletin-nih-clinical-trial-evaluating-hydroxychloroquine-and-azithromycin-covid-19 But, here's more to chew on... https://faculty.utrgv.edu/eleftherios.gkioulekas/zelenko/index.html https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1477893920302817 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2052297520301281 https://www.henryford.com/news/2020/07/hydro-treatment-study https://www.drugs.com/medical-answers/hydroxychloroquine-effective-covid-19-3536024/ "Use of hydroxychloroquine is controversial, and has been politicized in the U.S. by various groups. Mixed studies have reported both a positive and negative effect, and data may not be robust or reliable: it can include data from study reviews, nonrandomized groups, retrospective research, observational data or from a statistically small sample size of patients." Anyway, whatever. If you've decided, you've decided. That's your prerogative, I suppose. The point, however, is that there would seem to be a lot of contrarian evidence. This isn't my field, so I cannot say what's what. I just have to learn by reading about it all. And, it's the same people who are seeking to promote a vaccine, apparently, while simultaneously dismissing HCQ + AZ. The vaccines may NOT be sufficiently tested. Rather, they were rushed to market as experimental drugs. So, please place your bets as to what we're going to learn about it. CW
This is the only true statement you’ve made. It’s not your field, you can’t simply work it by googling and you’re an antivaxxer conspiracy theorist by the sounds of it, pretty much sums it up. Anyway, get back to me once you’ve had 30 years in the practice of Medicine and we can have a sensible discussion
