Hydroxychloroquine Inneffective in Preventing COVID-19

A surprising vindication for infectious disease expert Anthony Fauci in his position across the aisle from notables such as economist Peter Navarro, lawyer Rudy Giuliani, failed real estate investor/con artist Donald Trump, and some random doctor in New York.

Summary:
* 821 people who had high or moderate risk exposure to a COVID-19 patient, all not displaying symptoms at the beginning.
*Half given a placebo, half hydroxychloroquine over 14 days.
*Since testing was not possible for all patients due to shortage of kits, patients reported symptoms.
* 11.8% of hydroxychloroquine vs 14.3% control group became ill (not statistically significant difference).
* hydroxychloroquine patients reported a higher incidence of side effects than the control group (40.1% vs 16.8% ).
* Results published in the New England journal of medicine.

Lol

Covid is over

@Eladar
Ah, that's why there are about a thousand a day still dying from C19 and closing in on 110,000 dead.
You are a confirmed idiot.

@sonhouse said
@Eladar
Ah, that's why there are about a thousand a day still dying from C19 and closing in on 110,000 dead.
You are a confirmed idiot.

It is nothing, it has always been nothing.

Compare those stats to a population of 328 million people.

The numbers of deaths is dropping every week.

Tell me, how does the number of deaths this year compare to the average expected year?

@Eladar
I don't want to EVER talk to you again. You are nothing but a worthless troll.

@sonhouse said
@Eladar
I don't want to EVER talk to you again. You are nothing but a worthless troll.

You do not like the truth, got it.

@Duchess64

What EVER could go wrong?

"Hydroxychloroquine Inneffective in Preventing COVID-19"

Ok, thanks. But it was never intended to prevent Covid-19. It's not a vaccine. It treats symptoms and anecdotal evidence suggests it reduces recovery times.

@tom-wolsey said
"Hydroxychloroquine Inneffective in Preventing COVID-19"

Ok, thanks. But it was never intended to prevent Covid-19. It's not a vaccine. It treats symptoms and anecdotal evidence suggests it reduces recovery times.

Anecdotes are not evidence.

@tom-wolsey said
"Hydroxychloroquine Inneffective in Preventing COVID-19"

Ok, thanks. But it was never intended to prevent Covid-19. It's not a vaccine. It treats symptoms and anecdotal evidence suggests it reduces recovery times.

It wasn't being used as a vaccine, the patients had already been in a high or moderate risk of exposure within the previous 4 days but were not yet symptomatic. Mostly health care workers who had been exposed or people with exposure to an infected family member at home.

And not sure if it's even accurate to say it wasn't intended to prevent Covid-19 since Trump was taking it exactly for that purpose.

@tom-wolsey said
"Hydroxychloroquine Inneffective in Preventing COVID-19"

Ok, thanks. But it was never intended to prevent Covid-19. It's not a vaccine. It treats symptoms and anecdotal evidence suggests it reduces recovery times.

This study was on post-exposure prophylaxis. Prophylaxis is something that some people have said HCQ is good for. This is another piece of evidence that it's probably not.

However, this study did not shed light on whether HCQ or some sort of HCQ cocktail could ease symptoms, reduce viral load or help lower death rates. There was no viral load measurements in this study (it was done remotely and most of the participants never even got tested).

There were zero deaths of any participants in the study (control of HCQ group) and virtually no hospitalizations.

It was as good a study as they could have done under the circumstances considering logistical constraints they were under in March, and it's a useful data point that HCQ likely has no significant effect of post-exposure prophylaxis, but it did not answer or purport to answer the more important questions (which are still being tested). Dr. Boulware conceded all of this on Twitter. They did another study on early treatment, but the results aren't ready yet. They're also now starting on a pre-exposure prophylaxis study.

Incidentally, the study also showed no serious side effects in the HCQ group, further challenging the conclusion of the now-disgraced Lancet study released 2 weeks ago.

I was disappointed by the results of this study, but in retrospect, it's hard to imagine how HCQ, which use is based on a theory of being used as an anti-inflammatory and/or as a zinc ionophore, ever had a realistic chance of being a useful COVID prophylactic.

@sh76 said


Incidentally, the study also showed no serious side effects in the HCQ group, further challenging the conclusion of the now-disgraced Lancet study released 2 weeks ago.

Didn't read the actual study but the article I read about it said none of the subjects had underlying medical conditions that would put them at an increased risk for complications.

The FDA pulled the drug now:

https://www.fda.gov/emergency-preparedness-and-response/mcm-legal-regulatory-and-policy-framework/emergency-use-authorization#coviddrugs