Started By
Message

re: Hydroxychloroquine was always a scam

Posted on 4/21/20 at 12:01 pm to
Posted by EZE Tiger Fan
Member since Jul 2004
55434 posts
Posted on 4/21/20 at 12:01 pm to
I'm sorry more people aren't dying and this is helping many others.
Posted by LSUA 75
Colfax,La.
Member since Jan 2019
4664 posts
Posted on 4/21/20 at 12:03 pm to
FAKE NEWS!!!! Look at who paid for the study.
Posted by monstranceclock76
Texas
Member since Jul 2019
932 posts
Posted on 4/21/20 at 12:05 pm to
Funny how others are having success with it.
Posted by Jinglebob
Member since Jan 2020
948 posts
Posted on 4/21/20 at 12:07 pm to
Sad that there are a dozen posters here so fricking stupid they would turn away a cure for something because a politician they didn't like was promoting it.
Posted by Wtodd
Tampa, FL
Member since Oct 2013
68474 posts
Posted on 4/21/20 at 12:09 pm to
The VA?????? Tell me you're not serious

The VA couldn't find it's arse with 8 hands in a telephone booth
Posted by Gray Tiger
Prairieville, LA
Member since Jan 2004
36512 posts
Posted on 4/21/20 at 12:10 pm to
quote:

reddy tiger


Thank you Dr. Karen
Posted by GambitAUfan
Member since Nov 2010
3228 posts
Posted on 4/21/20 at 12:10 pm to
Here is a meta review: LINK

Safety profile ok, not curative but slows radiological progression of disease. More data needed.
Posted by GeauxLSUGeaux
1 room down from Erin Andrews
Member since May 2004
25605 posts
Posted on 4/21/20 at 12:11 pm to
What does your wife’s boyfriend think about it?
Posted by Sasquatch Smash
Member since Nov 2007
25851 posts
Posted on 4/21/20 at 12:12 pm to
Briefly looking at the study itself, which is linked in the article you posted, there were a number of significant differences between the populations of the study (using alpha = 0.05; p-value).

They include a table of the demographics and baseline health data of the individuals used. It appears to me, a medical layman, that the two groups that got the hydroxychloroquine (HC) were in worse health than those that did not get it. The most important conditions, with what we know about the virus so far, being that the two HC groups had significantly higher blood pressure than the non-HC group, and looked to have significantly fewer people with > 95 pulseox readings. And over 31% of the people that didn't get the HC still got the antibiotic. Check the table for more.


The people that got the HC were worse off than the people that didn't get it, no wonder their outcomes were worse!
Posted by Stiles
Member since Sep 2017
3454 posts
Posted on 4/21/20 at 12:15 pm to
Posted by OKtiger
Tulsa, OK
Member since Nov 2014
8705 posts
Posted on 4/21/20 at 12:19 pm to
Yeah.. this was, again, a poorly designed study. You cannot make any conclusions based on this because it shows there was selection bias in the HCQ and non-HCQ groups. The HCQ group clearly shows there was a higher severity of illness and a higher frequency of co-morbidities.

Still patiently waiting for better studies to come out on the early use of HCQ with Azithromycin/Doxycycline (~48-72 hrs after onset of symptoms) before saying this is just snake oil.

Posted by rsbd
banks of the Mississippi
Member since Jan 2007
23303 posts
Posted on 4/21/20 at 12:22 pm to
Your mother thought the same thing about birth control, the OT got you
Posted by wdhalgren
Member since May 2013
4632 posts
Posted on 4/21/20 at 12:27 pm to
This wasn't a a clinical trial, it was a retrospective chart review with statistical analysis. The patients were all hospitalized and the group who got HCQ were sicker than the ones who didn't get the drug (unfortunately not mentioned until the discussion section near the bottom and not well explained then).

Nothing wrong with doing an analysis like this, but the conclusions basically depend on statistical outcome weightings assigned to dozens of different comorbidities and pre-treatment clinical parameters. You could tweak those variables and get conclusions all over the board. By leading with raw unadjusted mortality numbers and no mention of treated vs non-treated cohort disparities in their abstract summary, the study (and the article) appears to lean towards bias. In other words, no more useful, probably less useful than most Covid treatment data we've seen so far.
This post was edited on 4/21/20 at 12:51 pm
Posted by Wolfhound45
Member since Nov 2009
126627 posts
Posted on 4/21/20 at 12:28 pm to
quote:

Over/Under on personal insults in this thread - 45.
Shut up you nincompoop.
Posted by Methuselah
On da Riva
Member since Jan 2005
23350 posts
Posted on 4/21/20 at 12:36 pm to
quote:

quote:
Over/Under on personal insults in this thread - 45.
Shut up you nincompoop.




Have an upvote.
Posted by Bullfrog
Running Through the Wet Grass
Member since Jul 2010
60498 posts
Posted on 4/21/20 at 12:38 pm to
Well so much for my medicinal gin and tonics.
Posted by BHS78
Member since May 2017
3474 posts
Posted on 4/21/20 at 12:39 pm to
Maybe the researchers should watch the video of the doctor in Italy going door to door treating people with symptoms before they come to the hospital.
Posted by Jaydeaux
Covington
Member since May 2005
19559 posts
Posted on 4/21/20 at 12:41 pm to
Whatever you say fuqtardius
Posted by brass2mouth
NOLA
Member since Jul 2007
20445 posts
Posted on 4/21/20 at 12:43 pm to
Your mom’s box was always a scam.
Posted by Kjun Tiger
Member since Dec 2014
2147 posts
Posted on 4/21/20 at 12:55 pm to
quote:

Just a way for Trump to get through the news cycle. Everyone with a brain called this.


Well frick! What will I do with 100 cases of fish tank cleaner?
first pageprev pagePage 2 of 3Next pagelast page

Back to top
logoFollow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News
Follow us on X, Facebook and Instagram to get the latest updates on LSU Football and Recruiting.

FacebookXInstagram