"Lancet multinational analysis of Hclorquine" Topic

link

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.

Once again, while hydroxychloroquine continues to look good in vitro, it has failed tremendously in vivo. In other words, it's acting like an army that looks smart on the parade ground and fails utterly in combat.

Ho-hum same old same old. More politics pretending to be "science".

So, YouTube link

Gee, another "Wall of Text" plus I would question that any study was done.

Can I quote wmeyers here?:

wmeyers said: What's idiotic is dismissing something before reading it.

Making a dismissive post before comprehension of content.

Perhaps they did read it before commenting.

They dismissed it; not bashed it, ridiculed it, etc, like Martin and Gunfreak often do.

Ho-hum same old same old. More politics pretending to be "science".

There's only two possible reasons you'd dismiss Lancet; a venerable, apolitical medical journal of impeccable reputation
and sterling research results.
Either, you've never heard of them & you've made your attack out of total ignorance or you are wilfully trying to obfuscate the truth.

Which is it?

(if you are merely ignorant of Lancet, read this:

thelancet.com/lancet/about )

The Lancet is one of the oldest, most respected medical journals on the planet.

They are about as political as a brick.

Everything that doesn't agree mithmee's world view is political or an part of an evil anti mithmee conspiracy.

There's only two possible reasons you'd dismiss Lancet; a venerable, apolitical medical journal of impeccable reputation and sterling research results.

But what about the individuals who are creating these studies?

Come on we are only a couple of months in and we have study after study.

Studies use to take time but gee looks like they can spin these out in just a few days.

Studies use to take time but gee looks like they can spin these out in just a few days.

Normally reviewers get 2-5 weeks to review the paper on their spare time. This is the main reason why papers take so long to go from submission to publication. Now that people aren't in the lab as often and don't have a multitude of meetings to tie up your time, and more importantly, WE'RE IN A CRISIS, reviewers are handing in their reviews with shorter turnaround times.

But what about the individuals who are creating these studies?

Reputable scientists and medical people with decades of experience.

I guess people with qualifications & intelligence shouldn't carry much weight?

Studies use to take time but gee looks like they can spin these out in just a few days.

And yet the only study cited by certain politicians and non-medical types endorsing hydroxychloriquine was the French one involving 26 patients, not peer reviewed at all and taking less than one month.

Whereas the Lancet study covered 96,032 patients in 671 hospitals over 116 days and was peer reviewed.

Which one would seem to have more credibility?

Reputable scientists and medical people with decades of experience.

I guess people with qualifications & intelligence shouldn't carry much weight?

No they shouldn't if they are being driven by bias and agendas.

Which seem to be the case with this.

We were unable to confirm a benefit of hydroxychloroquine or chloroquine

Need to prove that this drug provides no benefit at all because a certain individual made claims that it did.

Well maybe it does for some and not at all for others.

But it is well known that COVID 19 does kill those with either underlying issues or poor life styles which there are millions in this country.

underlying cardiovascular disease and its risk factors, diabetes, underlying lung disease, smoking, immunosuppressed condition,

So given this it really not matter what drug they are taking.

But the goal of this study was to prove no benefit and when you have bias/agenda driven individuals doing the study they can ensure that is the result of the study.

when you have bias/agenda driven individuals doing the study they can ensure that is the result of the study.

Do you have an ounce of proof of any bias or agenda or is it simply your opinion based on some micro-biological, bio-chemical or other medical education?

Rather than baseless innuendo, would you care to make a case against any Lancet researcher or the organisation itself? I thought not. Just baseless & vague accusations.

But it is well known…

Only by you.

The Dunning–Kruger effect is strong within you.

"People in this country have had enough of experts"

- Michael Gove, 2016 UK

Seems to be spreading faster than Covid – or even the FEAR of it.

But it is well known…

Only by you

But it is well known that COVID 19 does kill those with either underlying issues or poor life styles which there are millions in this country.

By your experts and millions of others or are the majority of the deaths to COVID 19 from healthy young individuals?

So it did not run rampant through Nursing Homes across this country?

Do you have an ounce of proof of any bias or agenda or is it simply your opinion based on some micro-biological, bio-chemical or other medical education?

Why did they do this study?

What was the end results that they were driving for.

Plus Do you have any proof that each and every single individual that was behind this study has no bias or agendas?

Why did they do this study?

To see if it worked.

What was the end results that they were driving for.

To see if it worked.

Plus Do you have any proof that each and every single individual that was behind this study has no bias or agendas

Yes.
1) It was in the Lancet which, since October of 1823 has been consistently among the top independent medical journals on the planet, for a reason.
2) It was subject to independent peer review. Feel free to look up that process.

Can we presume from the lack of contradictory evidence that even the Daily Tin Foil Hattery Gazette, The Epoch Times or any equally specious entity can find no genuine scientific documentation proving flaw or bias?

You have not answered about your proof of, or even grounds for, bias other than you not liking the results.

You have not identified the micro-biologic, bio-chemical or medical expertise that you feel invalidates the study.

Do you choose to believe the non-peer reviewed 26 patient, less than a month French doctor's study because it provides a result you like?

Plus Do you have any proof that each and every single individual that was behind this study has no bias or agendas

Using that logic.

Do you have any proof that every single person ignoring global climate change or downplaying the virus is not an eight tentacled alien from Rigel 4 intent on tricking a gullible mass of humans into ignoring existential threats thus preparing the planet for invasion by their future octopus overlords?

Do you have any proof that every single person ignoring global climate change or downplaying the virus is not an eight tentacled alien from Rigel 4 intent on tricking a gullible mass of humans into ignoring existential threats thus preparing the planet for invasion by their future octopus overlords?

No, we are here to ensure humans are not tricked by those who have an agenda of eugenics and population control under the guise of global climate change.

And the 8 tentacles is a bit of an exaggeration …

Ah, ochoin and McKinstry, you're arguing with "opinions" again. No gain there, my friends.

I do note that the pro-tentacle minority wants opinions in favor of existential threats to prevail.

Bill needs to add Rigel 4 to the location list.

Do you have any proof that every single person ignoring global climate change or downplaying the virus is not an eight tentacled alien from Rigel 4 intent on tricking a gullible mass of humans into ignoring existential threats thus preparing the planet for invasion by their future octopus overlords?

Well I can attest that I only have two arms and two legs and I do not see any Global Climate Change and well my views on this should be petty clear by now.

I note with the cold and long delayed spring weather Martin hasn't been posting any hockey stick denials.

Plus Do you have any proof that each and every single individual that was behind this study has no bias or agendas

Again using your logic, I've seen no proof that every single individual espousing this is not an eight tentacled alien from Rigel 4.

Your views may be clear but they may be merely part of the Alien Octopus Agenda.

Well I can attest that I only have two arms and two legs

I'm assuming you haven't read anything about the Dunning-Kruger Effect?

"The Dunning-Kruger effect is a type of cognitive bias in which people believe that they are smarter and more capable than they really are. Essentially, low ability people do not possess the skills needed to recognize their own incompetence. The combination of poor self-awareness and low cognitive ability leads them to overestimate their own capabilities."

link

I really think it provides answers to all your objections.

Yup trying to use "Rules for Radicals" against me.

But sorry to say I am smarter than you think and yes I am highly capable as well.

But you go on thinking that I am not because it makes you feel better.

I think I have a pretty accurate grasp of why you write the nonsense you write.

The opposite of Dunning-Kruger is no doubt an effect called the ‘Anti-knowledge Effect.'

Anti-knowledge is in essence different to knowledge in that it refers to knowledge which is in fact incorrect, and experts who hold this knowledge, due to having spent many years studying and learning information and theories in relation to this knowledge, actually are bound by a paradox which entails them knowing less about reality the more that they learn.

These experts are blinded by the time spent in accumulating their knowledge of the world, and are often emotionally and/or financially bound to reinforcing false knowledge they have spend years accumulating.

In these instances, less (knowledge) can indeed be more; and the Dunning-Kruger effect does not hold for these rare instances.

This has commonly been called "educated into imbecility".

These individuals usually deny objective reality and instead make claims for subjectivism also known as the "Dictatorship of Relativism".

But should I take the blue pill or the red one?

The opposite of Dunning-Kruger is no doubt an effect called the ‘Anti-knowledge Effect.'

I'm assuming this is satire. As a dominie with at least some pretensions of scholarship, something you've made up cannot be held as a parallel to a work of scholarship by reputable psychologists based on research and field testing.

Indeed, if you actually thought this valid, I'd have to say D-K applies to you as well.

This has commonly been called "educated into imbecility".

This perhaps depends upon where you pursued further study. I know various rural colleges have dubious reputations in terms of scholastic validity. In case you're wondering, my Alma Mater ranked 42 in 2020 in terms of world ranking. To put this in perspective as to this thread, I'd prefer the testimony of a learned team of doctors to that of someone who thinks the right to have an opinion translates into the right to have that opinion taken seriously.

I am just stating my opinions which seem to annoy you to the point where you post falsehoods by claiming I stated things that I never did not once but twice.

Oh and it does not matter where you Alma Mater ranks.

I'm assuming this is satire.

Sadly, it is not.

I'd have to say D-K applies to you as well.

Personal attacks, again?

Looks like just ignore them like I do.

It would be nice if a person didn't have to …