COVID-19 could affect more races this year.

[Just_a_fan]

The study you're are touting was conducted by people who had a vested interest in Redestivir and there fore wanted to talk hydroxychloroquine down. The head author had a $247,000 grant from Gilead the manufacturer of Redesivir. Gilead stands to make a fortune off of Redesivir where as no one stands to make big bucks off hydroxychloroquine. There was a huge conflict of interest. How do you explain all the studies that showed hydroxychloroquine worked when taken early on in the progression of Covid? Or the thousands of Dr.s and workers who take it as a prophylactic or the many many Lupus and arthritis and malaria patients with NO harmful side effects? I'm not here to tout hydroxychloroquine but there is far more information on the plus side than on the negative side. Everyone is entitled to their opinion however
I'm beginning to wonder why you are so dead set on running hydroxychloroquine down.

The study was blind - the people giving the drugs, taking the drugs and assessing the results weren't told who had which drug. That removes bias or vested interests from the results. If you have evidence that the results were tampered with, please do tell all.

What similar studies showed that it worked? Not the doctor who said " I've been using it and it was great". That's not a study of any worth.

I'm against people touting treatments that have no real evidence of working. What next, recommending homeopathy? There's bound to be people out there saying it's effective.

[nzjrs]

......
I'm happy the result showing H was dangerous was false.

I'm not happy our BBC takes £153 from my bank account every year .....
and tells us that the antimalarial we've taken many times .... gives us heart attacks

that's bloody Chris Morris and his so-called 'fact checkers'
(whose 'facts' lie to us, saying that UK exports transhipped via EU ports to customers outside the EU are UK exports to the EU)

I'm not really clued into the details of your culture war and how BBC fits into it, what's true and what not about the UK and the EU propaganda. It's not my problem.

My opinion remains that politics ruins everything, the first death and the death that will hurt the world the longest is the death of trust or the belief in objective truth.

[Wouter]

The study you're are touting was conducted by people who had a vested interest in Redestivir and there fore wanted to talk hydroxychloroquine down. The head author had a $247,000 grant from Gilead the manufacturer of Redesivir. Gilead stands to make a fortune off of Redesivir where as no one stands to make big bucks off hydroxychloroquine. There was a huge conflict of interest. How do you explain all the studies that showed hydroxychloroquine worked when taken early on in the progression of Covid? Or the thousands of Dr.s and workers who take it as a prophylactic or the many many Lupus and arthritis and malaria patients with NO harmful side effects? I'm not here to tout hydroxychloroquine but there is far more information on the plus side than on the negative side. Everyone is entitled to their opinion however
I'm beginning to wonder why you are so dead set on running hydroxychloroquine down.

.
The study was blind - the people giving the drugs, taking the drugs and assessing the results weren't told who had which drug. That removes bias or vested interests from the results. If you have evidence that the results were tampered with, please do tell all.

What similar studies showed that it worked? Not the doctor who said " I've been using it and it was great". That's not a study of any worth.

I'm against people touting treatments that have no real evidence of working. What next, recommending homeopathy? There's bound to be people out there saying it's effective.

In Turkey, general practitioners gave hydroxychloroquine in combination with zinc to infected people who were still at home. As a result, far fewer people had to be admitted to hospital and many fewer people died.
Just to mention two countries, GPs in the Netherlands and Belgium were not allowed to prescribe it, and see the results here.
Coincidence? I don't think so. I totally agree with what @Strad writes. Remdesivir makes a lot of money and hydrochloroquine does not make any money at all. That costs 5€ per whole treatment!

Country ...Total Deaths ...Tot Cases/1M pop ...Deaths/1M pop ...Tests/1M pop ...Population
Turkey ........... 4,692 ... 2,019 ... 56 ... 27,749 ... 84,277,161
Belgium ........ 9,595 ... 5,112 ... 828 ... 80,756 ... 11,586,352
Netherlands 6,013 ... 2,777 ... 351 ... 22,654 ... 17,132,455

[LM10]

The study you're are touting was conducted by people who had a vested interest in Redestivir and there fore wanted to talk hydroxychloroquine down. The head author had a $247,000 grant from Gilead the manufacturer of Redesivir. Gilead stands to make a fortune off of Redesivir where as no one stands to make big bucks off hydroxychloroquine. There was a huge conflict of interest. How do you explain all the studies that showed hydroxychloroquine worked when taken early on in the progression of Covid? Or the thousands of Dr.s and workers who take it as a prophylactic or the many many Lupus and arthritis and malaria patients with NO harmful side effects? I'm not here to tout hydroxychloroquine but there is far more information on the plus side than on the negative side. Everyone is entitled to their opinion however
I'm beginning to wonder why you are so dead set on running hydroxychloroquine down.

.
The study was blind - the people giving the drugs, taking the drugs and assessing the results weren't told who had which drug. That removes bias or vested interests from the results. If you have evidence that the results were tampered with, please do tell all.

What similar studies showed that it worked? Not the doctor who said " I've been using it and it was great". That's not a study of any worth.

I'm against people touting treatments that have no real evidence of working. What next, recommending homeopathy? There's bound to be people out there saying it's effective.

In Turkey, general practitioners gave hydroxychloroquine in combination with zinc to infected people who were still at home. As a result, far fewer people had to be admitted to hospital and many fewer people died.
Just to mention two countries, GPs in the Netherlands and Belgium were not allowed to prescribe it, and see the results here.
Coincidence? I don't think so. I totally agree with what @Strad writes. Remdesivir makes a lot of money and hydrochloroquine does not make any money at all. That costs 5€ per whole treatment!

Country ...Total Deaths ...Tot Cases/1M pop ...Deaths/1M pop ...Tests/1M pop ...Population
Turkey ........... 4,692 ... 2,019 ... 56 ... 27,749 ... 84,277,161
Belgium ........ 9,595 ... 5,112 ... 828 ... 80,756 ... 11,586,352
Netherlands 6,013 ... 2,777 ... 351 ... 22,654 ... 17,132,455

In Austria patients were treated with hydroxychloroquine, zinc and vitamine c in combination as well. Then they stopped giving hydroxychloroquine for reasons of no significant effects being shown in studies. I don’t think that they stopped because they weren’t allowed to give it anymore.
Also, Belgium has the highest number of deaths per cases because they counted every death you can imagine - even those who had Covid-like symptoms, but no diagnosis by a positive test or in any other way.
I’m not so sure about other countries regarding numbers.

[nzjrs]

Just to mention two countries, GPs in the Netherlands and Belgium were not allowed to prescribe it, and see the results here.
Coincidence? I don't think so.

I think it's very tempting to believe the cause for one countries success or another's failure is a nice simple explanation like the policy or prevalence to use a single drug.

When all is said and done, and we understand the true reasons for the difference in lethality between countries, I'd bet my house it won't be a univariate explanation.

[Just_a_fan]

In Turkey, general practitioners gave hydroxychloroquine in combination with zinc to infected people who were still at home. As a result, far fewer people had to be admitted to hospital and many fewer people died.

Sorry, but unless you also have a similar group that weren't treated that way as a comparison, you can't say that the drug was an effective treatment. Without control groups and proper studies, just saying "we gave them this and they were ok" is entirely worthless. Those people may, or may not, have had the same outcomes without being given the treatment.

That's the point - the only proper studies undertaken, those that use control groups and proper methodology, have shown no useful benefit from the use of hydroxychloroquine.

[hollus]

Many studies are continuing, in many countries, by many bodies. The results will eventually come out, we’ll know in due time.

This perceived need for answers and solutions now, that’s not how science and biology works. It is like hoping that your oven will bake the bread faster just because you are hungry now. A good bread takes the time it takes.

Science is already working at turbo speed now on this. This is dizzying speed, but quality and cross control and time to pitch ideas against each other, to identify and get out of blind alleys, are the victims.

[Just_a_fan]

An F1 analogy about claims for drugs: Williams launch their latest car claiming it's the fastest they've ever made and will be a winner. Their own data shows it to be true. Then they get to the first test and their results aren't great. At the first race, they're 2 seconds off the pace. The first bit is like the claims by individual doctors for a given drug, the second is like the results of poor medical data collected haphazardly, and the third is like the fully researched, randomised, double blind assessments of a drug.

No one should be pushing any drug unless and until it is fully researched to show efficacy.

[nzjrs]

No one should be pushing any drug unless and until it is fully researched to show efficacy.

I would add more than that, I think in medicine, even though apparently the Hippocratic oath like pledge seems to vary between countries, "do no harm" is usually very high on the the ethical and practical considerations for medical professionals.

[Jolle]

No one should be pushing any drug unless and until it is fully researched to show efficacy.

I would add more than that, I think in medicine, even though apparently the Hippocratic oath like pledge seems to vary between countries, "do no harm" is usually very high on the the ethical and practical considerations for medical professionals.

What do you mean by that?

[nzjrs]

I mean that "do no harm" likely sits above "efficacy" in a ethical hierarchy.

I.e. The medical community reacted swifter (see principle above) to evidence of harm (retracted) from H, rather than mere ineffectiveness

[Jolle]

I mean that "do no harm" likely sits above "efficacy" in a ethical hierarchy.

I.e. The medical community reacted swifter (see principle above) to evidence of harm (retracted) from H, rather than mere ineffectiveness

There a healthy distance between politics/economics and medical professionals (at least where I live) to prevent pushing of untested vaccines and medicines.

[nzjrs]

I mean that "do no harm" likely sits above "efficacy" in a ethical hierarchy.

I.e. The medical community reacted swifter (see principle above) to evidence of harm (retracted) from H, rather than mere ineffectiveness

There a healthy distance between politics/economics and medical professionals (at least where I live) to prevent pushing of untested vaccines and medicines.

Me too, long may it continue!

[Morteza]

COVID-19 warning signs in Mercedes' garage

[Just_a_fan]

Nice bit of corporate self-protection there. "No, you can't sue us for you getting COVID19 - you were warned and provided with PPE".