Current Events > Looks like Hydroxychloroquine's back on the menu, boys!

(+) Yeah! (+)

That study showing that Hydroxychloroquine is not effective against COVID, if not increase the patient's chance of death, has been retracted.

Turns out hydroxychloroquine is not toxic to the heart, as the original study proclaimed.

Big if true

---

Says you.

---

Conflicting information = I tend to stay away.

Absolute truths make themselves know and leave no room for misunderstandings.

---

Trump can be the first to try it then. No, I never believed he was actually taking it.

---

Bigly

---

Great, yet another fucking drug is gonna be on manufacturer backorder.

---

toon link?

---

I have prescribed this alot, relatively low side effects for sure but most worrisome are arrythmias when combined with other meds that can cause arrythmias, and retinal problems for which people on this medication get eye checkups every 6-12 months. If someone's not on it long term I probably won't expect the retinal problem. But arrythmias are real cuz it's typically combined with azithromycin and both of those meds cause arrythmias the same way.

i'm BOOFING IT

---

divot1338 posted...

Says you.

Yes, I am known to some as being the world's oldest and best known peer-reviewed medical journal.
https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(20)31324-6/fulltext

Master_Bass posted...

Trump can be the first to try it then. No, I never believed he was actually taking it.

Why would he lie about it?
---

TheRealDill2000 posted...

Why would he lie about it?

Because he's Donald Trump? He lies like he breathes.

---

its weird how you care so much about this just because Trump does...is he like the dad you never had or something?

---

Naw.

---

shockthemonkey posted...

This is not what the retraction says

The original study claimed that hydroxychloroquine is toxic to the heart.

Other studies, better designed a.k.a randomized (controlled), proved that it is not.

If you're going to be this ignorant, please stop posting. It's simple enough to search for reasons why the study was in doubt and ultimately redacted.

HiddenRoar posted...

The original study claimed that hydroxychloroquine is toxic to the heart.

Other studies, better designed a.k.a randomized (controlled), proved that it is not.

If you're going to be this ignorant, please stop posting. It's simple enough to search for reasons why the study was in doubt and ultimately redacted.

Please direct me to studies that showed hydroxychloroquine is not toxic to the heart. Thanks.

---

TheVipaGTS posted...

its weird how you care so much about this

It's weird why you're so defensive of the redaction when it caused studies on the effectiveness of hydroxychloroquine to suddenly be halted.

Ooooooranges posted...

Please direct me to studies that showed hydroxychloroquine is not toxic to the heart. Thanks.

RECOVERY, and Boulware, D. R. et al.

Gakk86 posted...

Great, yet another fucking drug is gonna be on manufacturer backorder.

i'm still waiting on some apoquil on manufacturer backorder. my dog needs it or else she breaks out in patchy hair loss.
---

Gakk86 posted...

Great, yet another fucking drug is gonna be on manufacturer backorder.

*screams in pharmacy tech*

---

HiddenRoar posted...

RECOVERY, and Boulware, D. R. et al.

So the RECOVERY trial was stopped early due to hydroxychloroquine being so ineffective. The study found the mortality rate was higher in the hydroxychloroquine group, though the difference was not statistically significant. I can't find a full data set to analyze to see if they were even powered to look for the assumptions that you're making. All this study does is prove even more hydroxychloroquine is NOT back on the menu.

Boulware, D. R et al. enrolled 821 asymptomatic patients and was a post-exposure prophylaxis trial. The median age was relatively low and the vast majority did not have comorbidities, and so these people are clearly at a much lower risk for developing significant cardiac side effects. This absolutely does not prove that hydroxychloroquine is safe for the heart.

HiddenRoar posted...

If you're going to be this ignorant, please stop posting.

It seems this quote would apply better to you than anyone else. Please stop posting. Thanks.

---

Ooooooranges posted...

So the RECOVERY trial was stopped early due to hydroxychloroquine being so ineffective. The study found the mortality rate was higher in the hydroxychloroquine group, though the difference was not statistically significant. I can't find a full data set to analyze to see if they were even powered to look for the assumptions that you're making. All this study does is prove even more hydroxychloroquine is NOT back on the menu.

A total of 1542 patients were randomised to hydroxychloroquine and compared with 3132 patients randomised to usual care alone. There was no significant difference in the primary endpoint of 28-day mortality (25.7% hydroxychloroquine vs. 23.5% usual care; hazard ratio 1.11 [95% confidence interval 0.98-1.26]; p=0.10).

You'd guess that if hydroxychloroquine did result in greater risk of cardiac instances, that they would show in the data, but the lack of significant difference between the groups doesn't support the original study.

As for Boulware,median age was 40, and 35% have reported health conditions, 1 required hospitalization for reasons unrelated to cardiac (no reported arrhythmias), and no deaths. As noted earlier; Side effects were more common with hydroxychloroquine than with placebo (40.1% vs. 16.8%), but no serious adverse reactions were reported.

Also, WHO and other entities are restarting trials examining hydroxychloroquine. So yes, it is back on the menu.

So you can kindly stop posting with your misleading analysis, thanks.

HiddenRoar posted...

It's weird why you're so defensive of the redaction when it caused studies on the effectiveness of hydroxychloroquine to suddenly be halted.

Is it? why is that weird? Also why did you cut off and ignore half my post? hit too close to home?

---

TheVipaGTS posted...

Is it? why is that weird?

Because there should be no reason why a reasonable person would be opposed to a potential cure, or at least clinical trials, for COVID.

TheVipaGTS posted...

Also why did you cut off and ignore half my post?

Care to point out how it added to the discussion?
Oh right, it served nothing more than a petty insult from someone who can't form an intellectual rebuttal

HiddenRoar posted...

A total of 1542 patients were randomised to hydroxychloroquine and compared with 3132 patients randomised to usual care alone. There was no significant difference in the primary endpoint of 28-day mortality (25.7% hydroxychloroquine vs. 23.5% usual care; hazard ratio 1.11 [95% confidence interval 0.98-1.26]; p=0.10).

You'd guess that if hydroxychloroquine did result in greater risk of cardiac instances, that they would show in the data, but the lack of significant difference between the groups doesn't support the original study.

As for Boulware,median age was 40, and 35% have reported health conditions, 1 required hospitalization for reasons unrelated to cardiac (no reported arrhythmias), and no deaths. As noted earlier; Side effects were more common with hydroxychloroquine than with placebo (40.1% vs. 16.8%), but no serious adverse reactions were reported.

Also, WHO and other entities are restarting trials examining hydroxychloroquine. So yes, it is back on the menu.

So you can kindly stop posting with your misleading analysis, thanks.

Lmfao. The RECOVERY trial ended early because of how ineffective hydroxychloroquine was. The study did not go to completion, so how can you say that this PROVES (your words) that it's not cardiotoxic? You can say that it wasn't identified in this individual study, but saying that it proves that shows how little you know about analyzing literature.

And the Boulware study - do you think that 40 year olds are more or less likely than 70+ year olds (ie, the people most significantly impacted by Covid and those that would need medications the most) to have serious adverse effects from it? Population studied is very important and this study does not study a population that would be at a high risk for such events.


---

So this drug is normally taken to keep from getting Malaria. When I was in the middle East we took it for that like the first 9 months we were there.

Then we were all warned that it was so hard on the body it wasn't worth it. So we stopped. Not scientific in any way but I'd seriously be careful about taking this.

---

Sadly, the treatment was politicized because orange man bad, and orange man promote. But thats not allit would appear besides that reason for scrutiny, it came under fire because boatloads of money couldnt be made off it.

See, when a new medicine is created, a patent is created along with it, sealing it up so that only the patent holder can do what they want with it. The patent on Hydroxy expired years ago and is public domain, meaning its dirt cheap (which is one of the reasons it was promoted initially so much by trump). This is the real reason (main reason) its being fought against so much.

They want to get these new drugs and vaccines to market as soon as possible (if you notice, the fastest any vaccine has been created approved and used was like 3-4 years) before any conclusive data can be retrieved about hydroxy.

Unfortunately the circumstanes outlined above are common practice in the pharmaceutical/medical industry, which is why every several years it seems like there is a new treatment, with a similar name, for just about every disease known to man.

Its also important to point out that (if Im not mistaken) theres no evidence that theres ever been a vaccine for a virus like this, thats been proven to to actually work.

---

Ooooooranges posted...

Lmfao. The RECOVERY trial ended early because of how ineffective hydroxychloroquine was. The study did not go to completion, so how can you say that this PROVES (your words) that it's not cardiotoxic? You can say that it wasn't identified in this individual study, but saying that it proves that shows how little you know about analyzing literature.

And the Boulware study - do you think that 40 year olds are more or less likely than 70+ year olds (ie, the people most significantly impacted by Covid and those that would need medications the most) to have serious adverse effects from it? Population studied is very important and this study does not study a population that would be at a high risk for such events.

The onus is on you to prove that hydroxychloroquine is damaging to the heart, as the whole reason that trials were suspended were due to the study claiming it was. WHO and other multinational groups searching for COVID cures wouldn't resume trials if it was conclusive that HCQ causes adverse heart damage.

And the original study did not differentiate cardiac events resulting from HCQ use by age groups. Neither did it claim that hydroxychloroquine was more detrimental to older age groups compared to other groups. What it did claim was cardiac incidents significantly increased among all groups regardless of age or gender.
Disagreeing with the results of a study because it didn't exclusively test a certain population is ignorance at it's finest.

Results of an observational study with a median age group of 60.
In adjusted Cox proportional hazards models, compared with patients receiving neither drug, there were no significant differences in mortality for patients receiving hydroxychloroquine + azithromycin (HR, 1.35 [95% CI, 0.76-2.40]), hydroxychloroquine alone (HR, 1.08 [95% CI, 0.63-1.85]), or azithromycin alone (HR, 0.56 [95% CI, 0.26-1.21]). In logistic models, compared with patients receiving neither drug cardiac arrest was significantly more likely in patients receiving hydroxychloroquine + azithromycin (adjusted OR, 2.13 [95% CI, 1.12-4.05]), but not hydroxychloroquine alone (adjusted OR, 1.91 [95% CI, 0.96-3.81]) or azithromycin alone (adjusted OR, 0.64 [95% CI, 0.27-1.56]), . In adjusted logistic regression models, there were no significant differences in the relative likelihood of abnormal electrocardiogram findings.

HiddenRoar posted...

The onus is on you to prove that hydroxychloroquine is damaging to the heart, as the whole reason that trials were suspended were due to the study claiming it was. WHO and other multinational groups searching for COVID cures wouldn't resume trials if it was conclusive that HCQ causes adverse heart damage.

And the original study did not differentiate cardiac events resulting from HCQ use by age groups. Neither did it claim that hydroxychloroquine was more detrimental to older age groups compared to other groups. What it did claim was cardiac incidents significantly increased among all groups regardless of age or gender.
Disagreeing with the results of a study because it didn't exclusively test a certain population is ignorance at it's finest.

Results of an observational study with a median age group of 60.
In adjusted Cox proportional hazards models, compared with patients receiving neither drug, there were no significant differences in mortality for patients receiving hydroxychloroquine + azithromycin (HR, 1.35 [95% CI, 0.76-2.40]), hydroxychloroquine alone (HR, 1.08 [95% CI, 0.63-1.85]), or azithromycin alone (HR, 0.56 [95% CI, 0.26-1.21]). In logistic models, compared with patients receiving neither drug cardiac arrest was significantly more likely in patients receiving hydroxychloroquine + azithromycin (adjusted OR, 2.13 [95% CI, 1.12-4.05]), but not hydroxychloroquine alone (adjusted OR, 1.91 [95% CI, 0.96-3.81]) or azithromycin alone (adjusted OR, 0.64 [95% CI, 0.27-1.56]), . In adjusted logistic regression models, there were no significant differences in the relative likelihood of abnormal electrocardiogram findings.

1. You made the claim that it's not toxic to the heart. So the onus of proof is on you. Hydroxychloroquine already has known cardiac side effecs including QTc prolongation that increases the risk of torsades de pointes. Do you know what a QTc interval is?
2. Ignorance is thinking that a study done on a group of people at low risk of a specific side effect means you can apply it to all populations. I am not disagreeing with the results of the study; I'm merely saying its incorrect to think that you can extrapolate its results to populations that were not studied. This is a basic principle of resarch.

---

HiddenRoar posted...

Oh right, it served nothing more than a petty insult from someone who can't form an intellectual rebuttal

i was just asking a question. sorry it cut so deep.

---

Ooooooranges posted...

1. You made the claim that it's not toxic to the heart. So the onus of proof is on you. Hydroxychloroquine already has known cardiac side effecs including QTc prolongation that increases the risk of torsades de pointes. Do you know what a QTc interval is?
2. Ignorance is thinking that a study done on a group of people at low risk of a specific side effect means you can apply it to all populations. I am not disagreeing with the results of the study; I'm merely saying its incorrect to think that you can extrapolate its results to populations that were not studied. This is a basic principle of resarch.

Known cardiac side effects from prolonged use of hydroxychloroquine.

As for torsades de pointes, only one patient developed the condition, and that was with taking azithromycin. And seeing how there was no control group, to claim that hydroxychloroquine taken alone had cause it is misleading, especially when no prior literature exists to back that up.

weird TC claims the drug is effective

but everything search result about it says the opposite

that would explain why TC stated it works and avoided posting links no matter how many times he was asked to

---

hockeybub89 posted...

*screams in pharmacy tech*

"What do you mean I'm only getting 30 days worth?!"

---

Politicizing the effectiveness of a drug is the most American thing ever

---

HiddenRoar posted...

That study showing that Hydroxychloroquine is not effective against COVID, if not increase the patient's chance of death, has been retracted.

Turns out hydroxychloroquine is not toxic to the heart, as the original study proclaimed.

Hydroxychloroquine prolongs the QT interval by a lot.
Worse, QT prolongation in ICU patients in particular results in a high rate of arrhythmias.

These are facts we have known in medicine for decades.

And even though the paper was retracted, it doesn't change the fact that the vast majority of then-ongoing studies were showing almost no benefit whatsoever.

0 benefit and minimal risk is still an unnecessary risk.


---

There has been absolutely no evidence to show that hydroxychloroquine helps against COVID in the first place. Just because it's used as treatment against malaria and lupus doesn't mean it should be used as treatment for COVID.

---

CableZL posted...

There has been absolutely no evidence to show that hydroxychloroquine helps against COVID in the first place. Just because it's used as treatment against malaria and lupus doesn't mean it should be used as treatment for COVID.

and i read the drug has a lot side effects and risks for people over 60..... so the ones with a higher risk of dying from covid cant take it

---

Mezcla posted...

i'm BOOFING IT

---

HiddenRoar making an absolute assclown of himself, must be a day that ends in Y
---

At best it doesn't help. So still useless.
---

Do you own stock in the same company the Trump's do for hydroxychloroquine? Only reason I can fathom you pushing it so hard.

---