i believe these numbers were commented on here https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMc2023617?query=recirc_curatedRelated_article
1. first, the big numbers like 49%, these are relative reductions. the translated absolute reduction is ~7%.
2. the letter then addresses the size of the trial needed and the potential absolute reduction in incidence, which is from 15% to 12.5%. that is treating 8000 people to maybe have an effect on about 200 of them.
3. you might think to yourself, well that doesn't seem so bad, 8000/200 is like treating 40 to change 1 to reduce symptoms.
4. wait what. you're treating FORTY people to reduce ONE PERSON'S symptoms? and you're doing all of this WITHOUT A MORTALITY BENEFIT? of course nobody is going to buy into this crap. you're better off mandating people wear masks and staying at home than telling them to take these meds.
That was falsified data to show that something worked. Yeah, that would make sense in order to get fame. What is the reason to falsify data to show something doesn't work but more importantly unsafe (through crazy high HCQ dosing)? Then this study becomes the standard that allows the FDA, WHO and other health organizations throughout the world to ban the ability of doctors to prescribe HCQ cocktail. You don't' find that a bit shady?
The new standard of Covid care per Fauci, Remdesivir, does not have a mortality benefit either. They changed the end point half way through the study from mortality rate to hospitalization stay. Did you know that? That Remdesivir study was flawed and we can poke holes in that one as well but somehow it gets fast tracked to become our frontline treatment for Covid.
Define financial stake? Fauci is in bed with Gilead, yes. Look up Truvada for HIV and Tamiflu both owned by Gilead. Both have a checkered and corrupt history. A lot of flawed data there as well to get the intended results. Big Pharma has a ton of power and this is no different.
What is crazy here is, there has never been a bigger movement or effort to disprove something works. As soon as there is a study that shows HCQ coctail does not work, it is published immediately. Not only that, they are hitting patients with crazy high doses in some cases to cause adverse side effects. When a positive study comes out, barely sees the light of day.
I can argue similar points against the studies against HCQ. There is no perfect study to show 100% scientific certainty either way. Unfortunately a lot of studies were cancelled in progress when the fake Lancet study came out. It has been a scramble drill since then. There is enough out there that we as Americans should have the option to sift through the data and procure this cocktail for us and our families. Many governors have banned the use of HCQ in the treatment of Covid. Doctors can lose their license based off the false premise it is dangerous. That's fucked up.
There are 200 FDA approved drugs for other diseases that kill Covid in vitro that could have been trailed for repurpose. Disulfiram being a top one that Harvard Medical School wanted to take to human trials for NIH, CDC couldn't give two shits. Disulfiram has showing promise against borrelia, alzheimers, cancer, but it wasn't worth their time to even look at it? They were already steadfast in repurposing Remdesivir. Now we are stuck with a standard of care that only reduces hospitalization stay from 15 to 11 days with zero mortality benefit. There are no other NIH, CDC or government funded trials that I know of that are under way for any of the other 200 drugs that kill Covid in vitro. That doesn't raise an eyebrow?
studies aren't designed to be against a drug. HCQ studies are designed to detect a benefit if it is randomized against placebo or designed to be non-inferior if there is a known intervetion or standard of care that is already set. you have some weird interpretation of how actual science is conducted and it's blatantly obvious.
show me a randomized controlled trial that has a demographics table as unbalanced as that retrospective analysis
the whole point of randomization, when done properly, is to make sure the two (or more) experimental groups are even, so that you avoid confounders like one group having more older people, etc. that might have an impact on the outcome.
honestly, if you don't believe in the current medical system and how they conduct research and develop guidelines, go find your local alternative medicine healer and just remove yourself from the health care system entirely.
Unfortunately, I along with thousands of tick borne disease sufferers had to go a different route than the CDC guidelines. It is not local alternative but thanks for the snide remark. We are using the drug Disulfiram which kills Borellia in vitro and has helped a lot of people where the CDC guidelines had failed them, me included. If I followed CDC guidelines and the many doctors advice, I'd probably be in a wheel chair. I'm month 3 into my DSF treatment. I also take Azithromycin for Bartonella and Babesia (a malaria like parasite that HCQ is sometime prescribed for) . This non scientific proven protocol has saved my life and thousands like me. This is the best I've felt in over a decade.
Fauci and company has failed us in the lyme community but a $30 a box of repurposed drug meant for alcoholics is going to save me. Not the CDC. Columbia is going to do a trial with private money for Disulfiram to see it's efficacy against "chronic fatigue" - new term form chronic Lymne. You say trials aren't designed to be against a drug? Perhaps not on purpose. This trial is going to give each patient 250 mg of disulfiram on day 1. I started with 62.5 mg every third day and it still kicked my ass. I mean kicked my ass, this shit kills the borrelia right quick. I am currently on 125 mg a day 3 months in. 250 mg a day is fucking insane and extremely dangerous. Many of these patients will end up with psychosis and / or severe liver damage. The outcome of the study will be: 75% of the Disulfiram arm ended up in the loony bin or hospital and we are immediately advising the FDA to ban disulfiram moving forward.
Many studies did the same thing with HCQ administering 4 or 5 times the correct dosage. So yeah, I'm looking that this thing through a slightly different lens.
i'm giving you a snide remark because when discussing the validity of clinical trials and then reverting to your personal anecdote of a sample of one or all of these other small trials or papers, you're just jumping platforms of what we're actually discussing.
clinical trials are designed to find the best treatment option for a POPULATION of people, meaning, serving the benefit to the highest percentage. it does NOT GUARANTEE EVERY INDIVIDUAL will benefit the guideline. this country is too heterogenous for that to ever happen. i'm sorry the guidelines don't work for you, but they worked for a lot more people than it didn't.
posted the credentials of a yale faculty member? good for him. guess what. if his paper was so good, his PEERS are to decide whether or not it deserves to be amongst the higher impact journals. academic medicine is a meritocracy. are there biases and influence? absolutely. but at the end of the day, if scientist X publishes experiment A, and then scientist Y is unable to replicate the results, then the COMMUNITY has a discussion on why the two outcomes are different. If scientist Y has the same results, then the community is likely to agree to the efficacy of the intervention.
all these internet wannabe academics putting x, y, and z together like they are some medical researcher is a waste of energy. your work, at the end of the day, will have zero impact on the guidelines.
if HCQ was so undoubtedly good, there would be no way to falsify the data. at the end of the day, the efficacy is questionable and there is enough data out there currently to suggest that the likelihood if anyone replicating any positive findings is very, very small.
clinical trials are designed to find the best treatment option for a POPULATION of people, meaning, serving the benefit to the highest percentage. it does NOT GUARANTEE EVERY INDIVIDUAL will benefit the guideline. this country is too heterogenous for that to ever happen. i'm sorry the guidelines don't work for you, but they worked for a lot more people than it didn't.
posted the credentials of a yale faculty member? good for him. guess what. if his paper was so good, his PEERS are to decide whether or not it deserves to be amongst the higher impact journals. academic medicine is a meritocracy. are there biases and influence? absolutely. but at the end of the day, if scientist X publishes experiment A, and then scientist Y is unable to replicate the results, then the COMMUNITY has a discussion on why the two outcomes are different. If scientist Y has the same results, then the community is likely to agree to the efficacy of the intervention.
all these internet wannabe academics putting x, y, and z together like they are some medical researcher is a waste of energy. your work, at the end of the day, will have zero impact on the guidelines.
if HCQ was so undoubtedly good, there would be no way to falsify the data. at the end of the day, the efficacy is questionable and there is enough data out there currently to suggest that the likelihood if anyone replicating any positive findings is very, very small.
How did Tamiflu become the standard of care for the flu? That was a massive shit show. How long did it take the CDC to admit the shit doesn't work like they've claimed for years? How many Billions of dollars later? You tell us to trust the data and these esteemed medical professionals but they again and again get caught manipulating the study or data to their benefit.
They also pushed through Remdesivir through without the standards you you mention above. It's got the next Tamiflu written all over it.
My work at the end of day saved my life by trying to find an answer to an infectious disease much more devastating than Covid. I've also helped other long time tick borne disease sufferers get healthy when the best doctors in the country couldn't.
correct.
the whole planet is at this bug full throttle, govt monies and private . Truly incredible .
And for those that have still , somehow @)
, have belief in our Healthcare/public health system this site is undated DAILY.https://www.covid19treatmentguidelines.nih.gov/whats-new/
@)
DO NOT open if u believe govt has an evil plan ;
https://www.covid19treatmentguideli...therapy/hydroxychloroquine-plus-azithromycin/
[h=3]Clinical Trials[/h][FONT="]Clinical trials that are testing the safety and efficacy of chloroquine or hydroxychloroquine with or without azithromycin in people who have or who are at risk for COVID-19 are underway in the United States and internationally. Please check ClinicalTrials.gov for the latest information.[/FONT]
what are you talking about?
it's not the doctor's fault that you can't read.
https://www.gilead.com/news-and-pre...), announced,all common strains of influenza.
there is not a single mention of survival benefit and it was clearly to alleviate symptoms. THAT IS IT.
like i said, there have been thousands of people who have received HCQ already. if it was as potent as you are claiming it to be, the evidence will be consistently shown across the board in multiple studies.
?@)
DO NOT open if u believe govt has an evil plan ;
https://www.covid19treatmentguideli...therapy/hydroxychloroquine-plus-azithromycin/
Clinical Trials
Clinical trials that are testing the safety and efficacy of chloroquine or hydroxychloroquine with or without azithromycin in people who have or who are at risk for COVID-19 are underway in the United States and internationally. Please check ClinicalTrials.gov for the latest information.
that is the standard of how recommendations are made for medicine.
prove efficacy first in a clinical trial. what they are saying is exactly correct.
yes of course, was having a little fun at the expense of the conspiracy theory folks. As a heads up you aint going to change their minds cause their belief is ;the govt/media/pharma/healthcare practitioners /wahtever has/have an agenda. Navigate to 'data' that ''proves'' their belief, even if they cant understand what the data actually says , ..which was on display in this thread , lol . Chasing a tail
with that said, more power to those that read up on their specific health issues , empower themselves try alternative approaches if conventional medicine had no solution and find a resolution or are in a better place .
with that said, more power to those that read up on their specific health issues , empower themselves try alternative approaches if conventional medicine had no solution and find a resolution or are in a better place .
