- 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
re: Lancet: Study says doxycycline doesn't help w/Covid
Posted on 12/31/21 at 12:16 pm to AUstar
Posted on 12/31/21 at 12:16 pm to AUstar
quote:
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
quote:
TL;DR - it doesn't work.
How can there be a completed study with NO DATA reported for 1/3 of the participants?
What were the "other interventions"?
1
Posted on 12/31/21 at 12:24 pm to prplhze2000
Generally antibiotics don’t work against viruses unless it’s luck.
Now, Pneumonia from COVID is a different situation.
Now, Pneumonia from COVID is a different situation.
Posted on 12/31/21 at 12:31 pm to BeNotDeceivedGal6_7
quote:
How can there be a completed study with NO DATA reported for 1/3 of the participants?
I don't know. All I found in the paper was this sentence:
quote:
To protect the integrity of the platform trial and other interventions, here we only provide descriptive summaries of participants assigned to usual care plus doxycycline and usual care only.
This is an ongoing rolling study where they are bringing in new treatments periodically. I guess the "other intervention" group is still undergoing study.
But really, it doesn't matter that much. The point is that they compared the Doxy group to an identical group (without Doxy) and found no difference in the two groups.
Posted on 12/31/21 at 12:36 pm to xxTIMMYxx
quote:
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
Was that the study that was only conducted on COVID patients already in the vent?
Posted on 12/31/21 at 12:41 pm to AUstar
quote:
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
This doesn't make you wonder?
*edit
quote:
But really, it doesn't matter that much.
You serious Clark?
This post was edited on 12/31/21 at 12:45 pm
Posted on 12/31/21 at 12:42 pm to BestBanker
quote:
Wha happened?
They’re still running that portion of the trial.
It will depend on how much money those companies have to spend on Lancet advertising to determine the result of the study.
Posted on 12/31/21 at 12:46 pm to prplhze2000
Oh look another study using therapeutics less than 14 days into infection. I mean if these idiots haven’t figured out by now therapeutics need to be used within 5-7 days of infection then they shouldn’t be in the business of conducting these studies. So it’s quite possible the drug was effective on those that took it within the timeframe required same as hydroxychloroquine and ivermectin. The Lancet has no credibly anymore.
Posted on 12/31/21 at 12:52 pm to LuckyTiger
You summed the medical situation concisely. I would be afraid to go get a broken arm set at an emergency room. They might put you on a vent and administer resdemivir or whatever it's called.
Posted on 12/31/21 at 12:54 pm to jwill37
quote:
Oh look another study using therapeutics less than 14 days into infection. I mean if these idiots haven’t figured out by now therapeutics need to be used within 5-7 days of infection then they shouldn’t be in the business of conducting these studies. So it’s quite possible the drug was effective on those that took it within the timeframe required same as hydroxychloroquine and ivermectin. The Lancet has no credibly anymore.
Posted on 12/31/21 at 1:20 pm to the808bass
Posted on 12/31/21 at 1:23 pm to ShockTroop
Posted on 12/31/21 at 1:25 pm to BeNotDeceivedGal6_7
Thank you for digging that up. Hard to decipher anything without knowledge of the background bias.
Posted on 12/31/21 at 1:39 pm to AUstar
quote:
But really, it doesn't matter that much. The point is that they compared the Doxy group to an identical group (without Doxy) and found no difference in the two groups.
The proportion of patients requiring admission to hospital in the UK was lower than initially expected. Therefore, the trial management group and steering committee recommended amending the primary outcome to include a measure of illness duration. Duration of illness is an important outcome for patients and has important economic and social impacts. Furthermore, treatments that do not shorten illness duration are also unlikely to provide a benefit in COVID-19-related hospitalisations or deaths.
They moved the goalposts mid-trial because patients weren't being hospitalized or dying. Their hypothesis was disproved so they changed course!!!
quote:
There was a relatively higher proportion of individuals who reported recovery on day 1 among those without a positive SARS-CoV-2 test (figure 2). This finding might be an artifact of the recruitment and screening strategy that was implemented early on in the COVID-19 pandemic during 2020, when there were difficulties obtaining data to confirm eligibility from some general practices. Difficulties in obtaining this information resulted in delays between trial screening and randomisation for some participants, who are likely to have then reported recovery sooner after randomisation.
This "study" is flawed. This is classic "science". Manipulate the parameters until you get the results those providing funding are looking for.
Posted on 12/31/21 at 1:51 pm to Tigers2010a
quote:
Thank you for digging that up. Hard to decipher anything without knowledge of the background bias.
The first thing I do whenever someone tries to use one of these studies, is to go look for the "limitations of this study" section. I see those less and less though and have to dig.
They're all pretty much clickbait at this point.
Posted on 12/31/21 at 5:49 pm to prplhze2000
Everyone knows antibiotics only work on bacterial infections, not viral infections
Posted on 12/31/21 at 5:54 pm to prplhze2000
Of course it doesn't it's an antibotic, but it can prevent bacterial infections that pop up when your body is fighting the virus.
Page 2 of 2
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News