Posted on 03/25/2020 6:42:39 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
China says it doesn’t work? More evidence that it actuality does work.
The unspoken impetus is to keep treatment on patented more expensive drugs, that’s how I’m reading it. Your understanding is perfectly legitimate as well.
” During the study, those who received conventional treatment were provided anti-virals that are currently recommended for use in China, including Iopinavir and ritonavir, and after a week, 13 of the 15 control patients showed no sign of the virus, while 14 of the 15 who were treated with hydroxychloroquine showed the same.”
So, the “conventional treatment” cured 13 of 15 patients while hydroxychloroquine cured 14 of 15? This is not a negative. The Chinese have merely found another cure that works. This is good news.
The difference between lopinavir/ritonavir (Kaletra) and hydroxychloroquine (Plaquenil) is that the latter is ALSO a potent anti-inflammatory drug.
This study says that both drugs are comparable in reducing viral titers. Other studies of Kaletra show different results.
But the reduction in viral load is only one component of a potential survival benefit. Once someone is dying from inflammation in the lungs, Kaltera reducing their viral load might be of little benefit, whereas HCQ might reduce the viral load AND stop the lung damage before it becomes irreversible.
The article has nothing to do with treatment and everything to do with attacking Trump for endorsing ANY treatment that might solve the problem. Of course, he didn’t endorse, he expressed hope...and libs can’t have Trump giving people hope.
RE: Are 30 patents enough to constitute a serious study? Most people get better anyway, so such a small number proves nothing.
Well, the French study made by Dr. Dideer Rauoult that concluded that HCQ plus Azythromcin works effectively also has about that number of patients.
Professor Raoult reported that after treating nearly 30 patients for six days with Plaquenil, the virus had disappeared in all but a quarter of them.
So, which study to believe?
Yes, and I am not sure if it is a like the tablets we buy or a slight chemical variant.
I wonder if anyone has tried hyrdoxy/chloroquine, Zpac, Zinc, & Vitamin C in combo for a 1, 2, 3, 4 punch....
I’m confused as to the point of this whole study. To me it just means that we have multiple options for treatment. That’s a good thing right?
Simply more BS being slung at our president.
I am speaking strictly as a layman. I have zero background in medicine or biochemistry.
This article is written very strangely - as if its main purpose was to de-legitimize Trump not report on the findings of another study?
The actual study - or the English abstract of the study - showed that HCQ had no additional benefits to the current recommended treatment in China - which already seems to be pretty effective.
The study adds information but, by its design, cannot say whether or not HCQ is effective.
The good news is that the existing preferred treatment in China of Iopinavir and ritonavir - two antivirals.
RE: China says it doesn’t work?
Didn’t read the article thoroughly did you? This article DID NOT DAY it does not work.
China’s goal now is to let the virus do as much harm as possible to the world, so they are not left behind.
Ignore them.
The study, which included 30 patients with a control of 15.
Hardly enough people too make any kind of conclusion.
Horrible stuff
This paragraph appears to say that the "control group" received no treatment, but also they were given lopinavir and ritonavir. It also appears to say that the patients were tested for the drug, as opposed to testing for the virus.
The fact that the study was done in China also casts doubt, because we know that China has lied consistently about this chinese virus.
I bet they know the cure.
This is Chinese government disinformation spread by their captive American Media outlets.
You need zinc with it to work.
Is this treatment effective on other viruses?
I’ll look to them for medical advice when my desktop contracts COVID-19.
Did anybody actual read this? It’s saying the results between the two groups were essentially the same. Actually the HCQ faired slightly better. What exactly is their point?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.