Lancet: Study says doxycycline doesn't help w/Covid

quote:

---

. Lancet

---

Has no credibility.

There is no medication on this planet that helps with Covid 19. Your only option is vaccines developed by big pharma.

Are we supposed to believe this??

Ah, this takes me back to the time they published a completely fabricated study on hydroxychloroquine as a hit piece for their vaccine makers. I don’t know if it works or not, but don’t listen to them

The Lancet decided to stop being a standard bearer for science and instead be a propaganda tool for certain powerful people with a control agenda.

It’s sad but Lancet is a joke now.

Just like the CDC, NIH, WHO.

These medical establishments have destroyed their reputations and people don’t trust them.

quote:

---

Lancet had to do one of the biggest retractions in modern history. How could this happen? | James Heathers

---

quote:

---

Public trust in science may have been shaken by the publication of academic papers based on false data in leading medical journals, according to world-renowned infectious disease doctors and former advisers to the World Health Organization.

---

quote:

---

Lewin said when the paper about the impact of anti-malaria drug hydroxychloroquine was published in the Lancet in May, she thought “on the face of it, it looked very impressive”. The study involved 96,000 patients across six continents, using a database called Surgisphere owned by a co-author of the paper, Dr Sapan Desai, which purported to collect anonymised patient information. It found that the drug was associated with heart problems and a higher risk of death in Covid-19 patients.

---

quote:

---

The Peter Doherty Institute is leading a trial of hydroxychloroquine’s effect on Covid-19, known as the Australasian COVID-19 trial (Ascot). “What we did of course is take the Lancet study seriously,” Lewin said. “The lead investigator of Ascot assembled his leadership group and a number of governance committees which oversee the study, and given the possibility of harm the usual response is to pause and review the trial, which is what we did.”

---

quote:

---

But higher numbers of Australian patients were reported in the paper than Lewin knew had been in hospital at the time, something that made Lewin highly suspicious of the findings. It was an error also identified by the Guardian.

---

quote:

---

“For this to happen in the midst of a pandemic it’s a wake-up call. Once a paper gets through peer-review there are standards we expect. I don’t think it was intentional by the journals, but the speed by which these journals are publishing Covid-19 research and the pressure they’re under means it’s a good, very clear wake-up call that standards should not be compromised.”

---

quote:

---

“Not being able to answer an important scientific question about where this data came from raises doubt amongst community members about the value of studies, or they may make up their minds based on misinformation. If a finding is in a journal like the Lancet it can also affect clinicians and their biases. These journals change clinical practice. Science is powerful. [R]esearch is really important to advance the field and to us finding treatments that work and save lives. We need to bring the community along with us and that requires trust.”

---

quote:

---

In 2011, Desai led a paper that was published in the Journal of Vascular Surgery titled: Conflicts of Interest for Medical Publishers and Editors: Protecting the Integrity of Scientific Scholarship. In the piece, Desai wrote: “It is incumbent upon the publisher, editors, authors, and readers to ensure that the highest standards of scientific scholarship are upheld. Doing so will help reduce fraud and misrepresentation in medical research and increase the trustworthiness of landmark findings in science.”

---

The Guardian

quote:

---

Has no credibility.

---

I dunno, it seems to be a well done study. 2500 participants who were randomized to one of three groups:

1) Usual care (n=948)

2) Usual care + doxycycline (n=780)

3) Usual care + other interventions (n=780)

Results for each group:

1) 43 people (4.5%) were hospitalized or died (2 deaths)

2) 41 people (5.3%) were hospitalized or died (5 deaths)

3) No data

So, as you can see, the percentage of people who went to the hospital were about the same in both groups (a little worse in the doxy group, in fact).

They also ran stats on how quickly patients felt recovered in both groups and found no statistical difference in the time to recovery.

TL;DR - it doesn't work.

Our poster here found it in his gf's old arsenal and was used successfully to keep pneumonia at bay. Was this study for a general therapeutic?

I thought the doxy was just to fight off any secondary infections while you are fighting off covid.

Not that it actually did anything for the covid side other than give your immune system more of a one front battle instead of multiple fronts.

2 years in, havent stopped working and havent been sick. Been prescribed doxy and ivermectin, for skin issues, So who knows.

When my wife had COVID this past summer, I started having doxy side effects (strange hallucinations, cottonmouth). I took doxy in 2003, 2006, 2011 and 2015.

quote:

---

We included people aged 65 years or older, or 50 years or older with comorbidities (weakened immune system, heart disease, hypertension, asthma or lung disease, diabetes, mild hepatic impairment, stroke or neurological problem, and self-reported obesity or body-mass index of 35 kg/m2 or greater), who had been unwell (for <=14 days) with suspected COVID-19 or a positive PCR test for SARS-CoV-2 infection in the community.

---

They chose really old people or older people with a shite ton of health problems, some of which could have been sick for up to 13 days prior.

quote:

---

Participants were randomly assigned using response adaptive randomisation to usual care only, usual care plus oral doxycycline (200 mg on day 1, then 100 mg once daily for the following 6 days), or usual care plus other interventions.

---

After giving a 200mg dose on day 1, they gave these people 1 pill a day for six days at a very conservative dosage. They could have given up to 2 doses a day or a max of 300mg for 21 days.

academic.oup




Let's see who paid for this study!






So the NIH, who co-owns the Moderna vax, helped fund a study that gave really old people, who have a ton of medical problems and were sick up to 13 days prior to receiving this medicine? I'm utterly SHOCKED that it didn't do much to help them.

Last, but not least: