- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
This site has a breakdown of every HCQ study
Posted on 7/30/20 at 8:02 am
Posted on 7/30/20 at 8:02 am
Posting for informational purposes only so people can have a look at the science.
https://c19study.com
https://c19study.com
7
Posted on 7/30/20 at 8:54 am to Landmass
Drug companies won’t like this
Posted on 7/30/20 at 9:26 am to Suntiger
LOL!
Posted on 7/30/20 at 9:34 am to Landmass
I like that it has a ton of studies on there and appears to be open, but I can't help be see the bias in:
1) You can't filter out non peer-reviewed studies, and considering that 40% of the studies listed have yet to be reviewed, that's a pretty large oversight
2) The Twitter account only posts positive studies
1) You can't filter out non peer-reviewed studies, and considering that 40% of the studies listed have yet to be reviewed, that's a pretty large oversight
2) The Twitter account only posts positive studies
This post was edited on 7/30/20 at 10:05 am
Posted on 7/30/20 at 10:00 am to Landmass
There are 3 stages to COVID:
1.Shortness of breath/supplemental oxygen
2.Respiratory distress/hi-flow oxygen
3.Respiratory failure/needing mechanical ventilation/intubation
Every nurse I've talked to agrees that HCQ seems to be most effective in Stage One primarily. Most of these "positive" studies in the link seem to confirm that.
Remdesivir & Ivermectin seem most effective in preventing the distress of Stage 2 moving into Stage 3 failure.
Nothing seems to work once you are on a ventilator in Stage 3 respiratory failure, except your own luck/prayer/body's ability to fight it off.
The Leftist MSM & Dem leaders purposely taking the Stage 3 ineffectiveness of HCQ and equating it wholly as a useless snake oil by OMB. At the same time, HCQ proponents are misguided into thinking it is actually an end-stage cure that is being buried by the Leftists when it is actually an effective Stage One tool.
1.Shortness of breath/supplemental oxygen
2.Respiratory distress/hi-flow oxygen
3.Respiratory failure/needing mechanical ventilation/intubation
Every nurse I've talked to agrees that HCQ seems to be most effective in Stage One primarily. Most of these "positive" studies in the link seem to confirm that.
Remdesivir & Ivermectin seem most effective in preventing the distress of Stage 2 moving into Stage 3 failure.
Nothing seems to work once you are on a ventilator in Stage 3 respiratory failure, except your own luck/prayer/body's ability to fight it off.
The Leftist MSM & Dem leaders purposely taking the Stage 3 ineffectiveness of HCQ and equating it wholly as a useless snake oil by OMB. At the same time, HCQ proponents are misguided into thinking it is actually an end-stage cure that is being buried by the Leftists when it is actually an effective Stage One tool.
Posted on 7/30/20 at 10:12 am to LSUFreek
quote:didn't they pretty much stop this practice because it was doing more harm than good?
/needing mechanical ventilation/intubation
Posted on 7/30/20 at 10:15 am to bee Rye
I'm reading a lot are moving away from it.
Posted on 7/30/20 at 10:15 am to LSUFreek
quote:
1.Shortness of breath/supplemental oxygen 2.Respiratory distress/hi-flow oxygen 3.Respiratory failure/needing mechanical ventilation/intubation Every nurse I've talked to agrees that HCQ seems to be most effective in Stage One primarily. Most of these "positive" studies in the link seem to confirm that
I think the shame in this is, since most of the people in stage 1 were going to survive anyway, it takes a TON of data to be neutrally looked at to gauge an effect - and as soon as COVID hit the US HCQ went political and every single discussion since then has been useless.
Posted on 7/30/20 at 10:16 am to LSUFreek
It being an effective early-stage treatment makes the fact that states are "banning" it even worse. It seems as though early testing and early treatment of symptomatic cases is the best approach. Removing an effective early-stage treatment from consideration seems like a bad call.
Posted on 7/30/20 at 10:17 am to LegendInMyMind
I agree.
Posted on 7/30/20 at 10:23 am to Landmass
just scrolling through there seems to be a lot more greens than reds on the reports...
Posted on 7/30/20 at 10:37 am to LegendInMyMind
quote:
states are "banning" it even worse
There should be no reason for states to 'ban' the prescription of a safe drug. This should never NOT be the doctor's call. This is true regardless of the efficacy.
Posted on 7/30/20 at 10:40 am to Landmass
The uniformity and volume of the blatant lies told by our institutions and media right now is just astounding:
- HCQ
- Peaceful protests
- Church/concerts/beach trips are a crime against humanity but massive protests/riots are not significant for COVID purposes
I'd probably prefer that the way to fight back was in the form of someone more honorable than Trump, but he's probably the only game in town if you want to punish these people.
- HCQ
- Peaceful protests
- Church/concerts/beach trips are a crime against humanity but massive protests/riots are not significant for COVID purposes
I'd probably prefer that the way to fight back was in the form of someone more honorable than Trump, but he's probably the only game in town if you want to punish these people.
Posted on 7/30/20 at 10:43 am to BRIllini07
This is a clear example of why politics should stay out of science. Politics coupled with the Lancet study has tainted any debate over HCQ. To think, this mess started because our president happened to endorse a drug that was showing promise at the time. Now, every study that comes out regarding the efficacy of HCQ will be tainted, and if it isn't, it will be questioned unfairly.
Posted on 7/30/20 at 10:45 am to bee Rye
quote:
didn't they pretty much stop this practice because it was doing more harm than good?
Yea, the vents actually allow the lungs to weaken thereby worsening the condition. The vents were literally killing people
Posted on 7/30/20 at 10:54 am to CarRamrod
well i guess that settles it HCQ doest work. 
Posted on 7/30/20 at 11:05 am to bee Rye
quote:
/needing mechanical ventilation/intubation
didn't they pretty much stop this practice because it was doing more harm than good?
Yes and no. They are using BiPAP and Vapotherm which is preventing a lot of the need for vents but the vent is still a last resort. A higher percentage of people are dying on vents now but a much lower percentage are ever vented.
The link the OP gave is useful but it requires one to drill down into each study. You can't just take the positive and negatives at face value. Many of the studies have either not been peer reviewed and/or originated in China, neither of which I would assign much weight.
Posted on 7/30/20 at 11:25 am to LegendInMyMind
I wholeheartedly agree that you should not mix politics and science, especially medicine. However, to their credit Lancet retracted the study. It may have been too little, too late as their publication of the study certainly tainted HCQ.
LINK
LINK
quote:
June 4, 2020 - The online medical journal The Lancet has apologized to readers after retracting a study that said the anti-malarial drug hydroxychloroquine did not help to curb COVID-19 and might cause death in patients.
quote:
In the study, researchers concluded the drug didn’t help curb COVID-19, caused heart problems, and appeared to increase the risk of death. The study had immediate impact, with the World Health Organization and other groups stopping research into hydroxychloroquine.
quote:
The reviewers were unable to conduct “an independent and private peer review” and withdrew from the process, The Lancet said.
“We deeply apologise to you, the editors, and the journal readership for any embarrassment or inconvenience that this may have caused,” The Lancet said.
Posted on 7/30/20 at 11:47 am to Obtuse1
So I took it upon myself to break this info down as this website just blasts you with data and has no ability to filter or make any use of any of it. Admittedly I definitely did not go through each study to verify whether it's actually positive or negative, or whether the peer review shite all over the study or accepted it as valid. I just wanted to take this website's raw numbers and analyze a bit.
I removed several categories because the website does not include them in their studies number:
1) Meta-Analyses
2) In-Vitro studies
3) Theory
4) Animal
5) News
Let's keep in mind that I'm not a data scientist. Just an idiot with Excel.
Peer-Reviewed Studies
Non Peer-Reviewed Studies
I removed several categories because the website does not include them in their studies number:
1) Meta-Analyses
2) In-Vitro studies
3) Theory
4) Animal
5) News
Let's keep in mind that I'm not a data scientist. Just an idiot with Excel.
Peer-Reviewed Studies
Non Peer-Reviewed Studies
This post was edited on 7/30/20 at 11:54 am
Posted on 7/30/20 at 1:57 pm to Obtuse1
quote:peer reviewed is a bunch of horse shite
Many of the studies have either not been peer reviewed
Page 1 of 2
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News