Posted on 03/25/2020 6:42:39 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
In a prime example of why President Trump shouldn’t be endorsing any unproven potential treatments for the novel coronavirus behind the current global pandemic, a new small-scale study by researchers in China indicates that the antimalarial drug hydroxychloroquine actually isn’t any more effective than standard, existing best practice for conventional care of patients with the virus.
The study, which included 30 patients with a control of 15 who received no treatment, with the other half being treated with hydroxychloroquine, showed that there was a statistically insignificant difference in the number of patients who tested negative for the drug after a week. 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.
An earlier small-scale study of 30 patients by French researchers published last week had shown indication that hydroxychloroquine used alone was effective in reducing the duration and severity of COVID-19, while using it in combination with an antibiotic called azithromycin increased its effectiveness. The study has been criticized by some for its methods – which is the entire purpose of scientific study and medical research, wherein people submit their studies for peer review prior to publication, and then other researchers challenge their assumptions, results and findings.
Trump is obviously not a scientist or medical professional, and yet he has been touting the efficacy of hydroxychloroquine and chloroquine during the White House’s daily coronavirus task force press briefings, and on Twitter, including when he called for them to be “put in use IMMEDIATELY” on March 21.
(Excerpt) Read more at techcrunch.com ...
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.