Since everyone in the study had been admitted for hospitalization, it doesn't seem that high to me (9% for the control group).That's an unfortunate result. I'm wondering why the mortality rates in the trial were so high?
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Since everyone in the study had been admitted for hospitalization, it doesn't seem that high to me (9% for the control group).That's an unfortunate result. I'm wondering why the mortality rates in the trial were so high?
more info out today
details in this blog post: https://blogs.sciencemag.org/pipeline/archives/2020/05/22/hydroxychloroquine-enough-already
This morning brings this paper from The Lancet. It’s a retrospective look at registered patients across 671 hospitals around the world, and it covers four patient groups: treatment with chloroquine, chloroquine plus a macrolide antibiotic (azithromycin, doxycycline), hydroxychloroquine, or hydroxychloroquine with a macrolide. All of these patients were started on these treatment regimens within 48 hours of diagnosis. The study specifically excludes those patients whose treatment started later, anyone whose therapy was started while they were on mechanical ventilation, or anyone received remdesivir as well. Early treatment in less severe patients only, in other words.
The mortality in the control group was 9.3%. The mortality in the chloroquine group was 16.4%. The mortality in the chloroquine plus macrolide group was 22.2%. The mortality in the hydroxychloroquine group was 18%. And the mortality in the hydroxychloroquine plus macrolide group was 23.8%.
Let’s look at cardiac arrhythmia. The 0.3% of the control group developed new arrhythmias during their hospitalization. But 4.3% of the chloroquine treatment group did. And 6.5% of the chloroquine plus macrolide group. As did 6.1% of the hydroxychloroquine group. And 8.1% of the hydroxychlorquine plus macrolide group.
There was no evidence whatsoever of any benefit with any of these treatment regimes.
There was significant evidence of harm.
In other news, a May 11 preprint from France that had claimed benefit for the combination was just withdrawn by the authors, who say that they are revising the manuscript.
It.
Doesn't.
Work,
Unfortunately.
I was talking about the combos being used in covid. As far as I know hospital acquired pneumonia would still be treated using standard algorithmsIt is arguably standard-of-care for pneumonia, though, so the logic as i understand it is that it can thwart the secondary bacterial infection, which can amplify the inflammatory response post COVID19 infection.
That's an unfortunate result. I'm wondering why the mortality rates in the trial were so high?
Trump's "input" definitely hindered the unbiased study of whether HCQ works in any capacity."What do you have to lose? "
Fecking moron from hell running this country.
It was a stat analysis. The article was just an opinion of that analysis, but the net result is that a possible solution has been politicized to the point that people dont want to be associated with HCQ, whether it works or not.This was NOT a trial.
It was a stat analysis. The article was just an opinion of that analysis, but the net result is that a possible solution has been politicized to the point that people dont want to be associated with HCQ, whether it works or not.
It was a stat analysis. The article was just an opinion of that analysis, but the net result is that a possible solution has been politicized to the point that people dont want to be associated with HCQ, whether it works or not.
Science is reliable, but scientists aren't. The opinion piece you cited is not a conclusion based on a preponderance of any evidence. It does burst the bubbles of people who hope an inexpensive and readily available treatment could be implemented that would allow the world to start spinning again at normal speed.the net result is that the preponderance of the now-available evidence suggests that, unfortunately, this potential treatment does. not. work.
It has indeed been politicized to the point that certain people cling to this false hope with a religious-like fervor, abandoning all logic in the process.
It was not personal at all. It was a serious statement that I recall denigration of ANYONE's religious beliefs as bening prohibited here. The rest of your post is gratuitous. Should that rule be enforced or not?What you really mean is that you expect to have preferential treatment - privilege - for your religious beliefs and want to assert that privilege.
The fact is that Christianity has always understood that Christians will be persecuted for their beliefs. (see Acts and most of Paul's letters, particularly 2 Timothy 3:12) It's not something to use as a sword against others, but rather to use as a preparation - an internal strengthening - so that one is ready for the persecutions, ready to forgive those who persecute you, and ready to heal by having faith in Jesus.
Is that where you are? If not, I would invite you to do a little reflection about where you are in your faith . . . .
I'm not aware of that being a rule.It was not personal at all. It was a serious statement that I recall denigration of ANYONE's religious beliefs as bening prohibited here. The rest of your post is gratuitous. Should that rule be enforced or not?
Why would a personal choice be off limits when people have no problems saying racist crap on this board?I'm not aware of that being a rule.
You started the "anything goes" posting here, Ladoga, years ago under Buzz.
Sow the wind . . . here's just a bit of your whirlwind . . . .
the net result is that the preponderance of the now-available evidence suggests that, unfortunately, this potential treatment does. not. work.
It has indeed been politicized to the point that certain people cling to this false hope with a religious-like fervor, abandoning all logic in the process.
It's not a rule, and never has been. The last time Ladoga whined about it, I was still a regular mod, and I offered him the consequences of it being a rule, i.e., that we'd have to enforce the etiquette of each and every religion, which meant that no one could take the Lord's name in vain, and in exchange, everyone, including Ladoga, would have to append "(PBUH)" whenever they mentioned Muhammad. Ladoga was silent on the issue after that.I'm not aware of that being a rule.
You started the "anything goes" posting here, Ladoga, years ago under Buzz.
Sow the wind . . . here's just a bit of your whirlwind . . . .
Thanks Goat.It's not a rule, and never has been. The last time Ladoga whined about it, I was still a regular mod, and I offered him the consequences of it being a rule, i.e., that we'd have to enforce the etiquette of each and every religion, which meant that no one could take the Lord's name in vain, and in exchange, everyone, including Ladoga, would have to append "(PBUH)" whenever they mentioned Muhammad. Ladoga was silent on the issue after that.
"What do you have to lose? "
Fecking moron from hell running this country.