Getting hydroxychloroquine

[PornAddict]

Professor Didier Raoult Releases the Results of a New Hydroxychloroquine Treatment Study on 1061 Patients

http://covexit.com/professor-didier...chloroquine-treatment-study-on-1061-patients/

Professor Didier Raoult Releases the Results of a New Hydroxychloroquine Treatment Study on 1061 Patients
Posted on April 9, 2020 by covexit
TwitterLinkedInFacebookMessengerWhatsApp
The new study, of which the abstract was released today, was performed at IHU Méditerranée Infection, Marseille, France. A cohort of 1061 COVID-19 patients, treated for at least 3 days with the Hydroxychloroquine-Azithromycin (HCQ-AZ) combination and a follow-up of at least 9 days was investigated.

Key findings are:

No cardiac toxicity was observed.
A good clinical outcome and virological cure was obtained in 973 patients within 10 days (91.7%).
A poor outcome was observed for 46 patients (4.3%); 10 were transferred to intensive care units, 5 patients died (0.47%) (74-95 years old) and 31 required 10 days of hospitalization or more.

The authors conclude that:

“The HCQ-AZ combination, when started immediately after diagnosis, is a safe and efficient treatment for COVID-19, with a mortality rate of 0.5%, in elderly patients. It avoids worsening and clears virus persistence and contagiosity in most cases.”

See the complete abstract below.

The original abstract can be accessed here.

Also, the researchers made this table available.

It’s not clear when the complete study will be made available.

ABSTRACT

Background

In a recent survey, most physicians worldwide considered that hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) and azithromycin (AZ) are the two most effective drugs among available molecules against COVID-19. Nevertheless, to date, one preliminary clinical trial only has demonstrated its efficacy on the viral load. Additionally, a clinical study including 80 patients was published, and in vitro efficiency of this association was demonstrated.

>> Sign this Petition Calling for the Quebec Government to Authorize Doctors to Prescribe Hydroxychloroquine to COVID-19 Patients
Methods http://covexit.com/sign-this-petiti...ribe-hydroxychloroquine-to-covid-19-patients/

The study was performed at IHU Méditerranée Infection, Marseille, France. A cohort of 1061 COVID-19 patients, treated for at least 3 days with the HCQ-AZ combination and a follow-up of at least 9 days was investigated. Endpoints were death, worsening and viral shedding persistence.

Findings

From March 3rd to April 9th, 2020, 59,655 specimens from 38,617 patients were tested for COVID-19 by PCR. Of the 3,165 positive patients placed in the care of our institute, 1061 previously unpublished patients met our inclusion criteria. Their mean age was 43.6 years old and 492 were male (46.4%). No cardiac toxicity was observed. A good clinical outcome and virological cure was obtained in 973 patients within 10 days (91.7%). Prolonged viral carriage at completion of treatment was observed in 47 patients (4.4%) and was associated to a higher viral load at diagnosis (p < 10-2) but viral culture was negative at day 10 and all but one were PCR-cleared at day 15. A poor outcome was observed for 46 patients (4.3%); 10 were transferred to intensive care units, 5 patients died (0.47%) (74-95 years old) and 31 required 10 days of hospitalization or more. Among this group, 25 patients are now cured and 16 are still hospitalized (98% of patients cured so far). Poor clinical outcome was significantly associated to older age (OR 1.11), initial higher severity (OR 10.05) and low hydroxychloroquine serum concentration. In addition, both poor clinical and virological outcomes were associated to the use of selective beta-blocking agents and angiotensin II receptor blockers (P<0.05). Mortality was significantly lower in patients who had received > 3 days of HCQ-AZ than in patients treated with other regimens both at IHU and in all Marseille public hospitals (p< 10-2).

>> Zinc Emerging as a Key in Hydroxychloroquine-Based Treatments
Interpretation

The HCQ-AZ combination, when started immediately after diagnosis, is a safe and efficient treatment for COVID-19, with a mortality rate of 0.5%, in elderly patients. It avoids worsening and clears virus persistence and contagiosity in most cases.

Source: https://www.mediterranee-infection.com/

 

[PornAddict]

Do I need a prescription?

What do I need to tell my doctor if I want to get some?

https://www.propublica.org/article/...escriptions-for-themselves-and-their-families

Doctors Are Hoarding Unproven Coronavirus Medicine by Writing Prescriptions for Themselves and Their Families

You won't able to get it! Very limited supply! Lot Rumours has it doctors already wrote themselves a prescription for themselves and their families.

It just like N95 mask, you won't able to get the drug right now or N95 mask!

 

[PornAddict]

Hydroxychloroquine rated 'most effective therapy' by doctors for coronavirus: Global survey
https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2020/apr/2/hydroxychloroquine-rated-most-effective-therapy-do/

Drug known for treating malaria used by U.S. doctors mostly for high-risk COVID-19 patients




RECOMMENDED

President Donald Trump speaks during a coronavirus task force briefing at the White House, Sunday, April 5, 2020, in Washington. (AP Photo/Patrick Semansky)
Coronavirus pandemic lays bare the limits of the president





HEALTH_MEDICAL_PHARMA
Gopesh Patel, RPh, with VLS Pharmacy in Brooklyn, has filled physician prescriptions for more than 70 COVID-19 patients, supplying a compounded formulation with hydroxychloroquine. (Business Wire via Associated Press) **FILE**

Print

By Valerie Richardson - The Washington Times - Thursday, April 2, 2020
An international poll of more than 6,000 doctors released Thursday found that the antimalarial drug hydroxychloroquine was the most highly rated treatment for the novel coronavirus.
The survey conducted by Sermo, a global health care polling company, of 6,227 physicians in 30 countries found that 37% of those treating COVID-19 patients rated hydroxychloroquine as the “most effective therapy” from a list of 15 options.
Of the physicians surveyed, 3,308 said they had either ordered a COVID-19 test or been involved in caring for a coronavirus patient, and 2,171 of those responded to the question asking which medications were most effective.

 

[PornAddict]

Liberal Treated With Hydroxychloroquine Hopes He Still Dies Of COVID-19 To Prove Trump Is Stupid

https://babylonbee.com/news/liberal...ill-dies-of-covid-19-to-prove-trump-is-stupid

Misleading Title
Did you read the article?

Liberal Treated With Hydroxychloroquine Hopes He Still Dies Of COVID-19 To Prove Trump Is Stupid
April 7th, 2020

253.8k
Shares
196.1k SHARE
26.3k SHARE
SHARE
NEW YORK, NY—When Jeffrey Walton tested positive for COVID-19, he hoped for a speedy recovery. But since he has been treated with hydroxychloroquine, the experimental treatment President Donald Trump has been touting, he now hopes he dies quickly to help prove that Trump is an idiot.

While Trump has been giving people hope that hydroxychloroquine could save lives, his political opponents have called it false hope and claimed Trump has no idea what he’s talking about. Walton, a lifelong Democrat and progressive, had joined in calling Trump “irresponsible” and an “ignoramus” and now has an opportunity to prove it by simply dying. “It’s such an opportunity, I don’t want to pass it up,” Walton said.

Doctor Glenn Logan, Walton’s physician, says he’s been up and down. “After we gave him the hydroxychloroquine, he got really excited about the idea of dying to prove Trump is dumb, and his good mood helped his condition, and he started to improve. Because that would only help Trump, his getting healthier made him depressed, which caused his condition to deteriorate. Which made him really happy. Which helped him recover and... Well, it’s been a weird cycle.”

Dr. Logan has been warning Walton that there is a chance he could fully recover. Walton is trying to prepare himself for this -- a world where everything isn’t black and white and Trump can be right about some things -- but he insists he’d much rather die.

 

[sp free]

Babylonbee is a parody site.

 

[lenny2]

Much evidence? Evidence posted online in news articles or forums when it comes to efficiacy of medications is irrelevant. Lets stick to peer-reviewed scientific evidence? Il try...

First of all I am NOT against HCQ, all I am saying is that people with political bias are rallying for it prematurely they may be correct but lets just wait for more evidence.

There are a number of in vitro (pre-clinical) studies which I will not cite but lets focus on the two big in- vivo papers on this

Chen et al.
This trial is well designed.
Methods:
30 patients positive for COVID total who were randomized to treatment group of HCQ 400mg for 5 days vs. standard supportive care in treatment group. Results were blinded. Primary outcome was NPP swab at day 7. Secondary outcomes were imaging findings, mortality and adverse events.

Results:
The intention-to-treat analysis revealed that the treatment group did not differ from the control group in the number of patients testing negative for COVID-19 on Day 7 (13 versus 14 patients), nor the duration of illness (all P>0.05).

Conclusion:
Inconclusive evidence.


Gautret et al
This study started off strong in its design but the authors failed to withhold their methodology, patients were moved from randomized groups and new therapies were added half way. Also the primary author is a very controvercial figure. Either way the results were promising

Methods:
open-label, non-randomised controlled trial with 36 patients diagnosed with COVID-19, of which six were asymptomatic, 22 had upper respiratory tract infection symptoms, and eight had lower respiratory tract infection symptoms
The twenty patients in the treatment group received HCQ 200mg three times a day for 10 days. Patients declining to take part in the study and not meeting the inclusion criteria were assigned to the control group and received usual care
outcome was polymerase chain reaction (PCR) of SARS-CoV-2 ribonucleic acid (RNA) on nasopharyngeal swabs on day 6.

Results:
Patients in the treatment group were significantly more likely to test negative for SARS-CoV-2 on Day 6 than control

Conclusions: This is preliminary results calling for more to be studied. The MAIN thing people fail to conclude that the authors themselves acknowledge is that their outcome was VIRAL load at day 6 which does not necessarily correlate to clinical findings but it is promising. The study according to the authors themselves was not statistically powered to make inferences but they stopped it early to raise awareness.



Since these two trials there are over 80 clinical trails now registered to study this drug, some are trickeling their findings but none has come out with a smoking gun in either direction. This drug isnt without risk though and untill more evidence comes people shouldn just blindingly start taking it because of what a politician has said based on a non-randomzied non controlled statistically under powered study looking at viral load on day 6.


Adverse events:

serious cutaneous adverse reactions
Fulminant hepatic failure
ventricular arrhythmias (especially when prescribed with azithromycin)
overdose is hazardous and difficult to treat.

The best results with the drug are in combination with another drug, so the two studies you refer to above are rather irrelevant.

I'd suggest taking a look at all the posts by PornAddict.

 

[Ben19]

You just did what you said is irrelevant when i do it.

And provided no link or url to where what you posted (copied & pasted from somewhere?) came from. Why?

I gave links to the original articles and summarized the findings. I included the two key papers that all the news you read are based of including the one in support of the drug. I encourage you to go back and read what I said. What link do you want? everything is cited with peer reviewed medical trials which are relevant.

It’s clear we probably won’t agree on a conclusion to this and that’s fine because I don’t think anyone for sure knows exactly the role this drug plays. What I hope to achieve is to atleast keep an open mind and consider reading things from the source and not through the lense of political biases from news articles or some persons opinion on the internet.

 

[lenny2]

I gave links to the original articles and summarized the findings. I included the two key papers that all the news you read are based of including the one in support of the drug. I encourage you to go back and read what I said. What link do you want? everything is cited with peer reviewed medical trials which are relevant.

It’s clear we probably won’t agree on a conclusion to this and that’s fine because I don’t think anyone for sure knows exactly the role this drug plays. What I hope to achieve is to atleast keep an open mind and consider reading things from the source and not through the lense of political biases from news articles or some persons opinion on the internet.

I already edited my post before reading this, after i found your sources, to say:

"The best results with the drug are in combination with another drug, so the two studies you refer to above are rather irrelevant."

"I'd suggest taking a look at all the posts by PornAddict."

 

[Jasmina]

Funny, people seem to have forgotten about them already. I cant believe it got to page 2 before someone mentioned it.

Go ahead, take it. You might end up like this couple: https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/health/2020/03/24/coronavirus-arizona-man-dies-after-self-medicating-chloroquine/2905841001/

 

[Ben19]

I already edited my post before reading this, after i found your sources, to say:

"The best results with the drug are in combination with another drug, so the two studies you refer to above are rather irrelevant."

"I'd suggest taking a look at all the posts by PornAddict."

The studies I linked to which again are the PRIMARY trials all the evidence is coming from discussed those other drugs. The other drug is an antibiotic that is given to prevent secondary opportunistic hospital acquired pneumonia in those with resp failure and does not ulter viral loads which were the primary outcomes of the studies. That was mentioned in the French trial in support of the drug.

The prelim results of the over 80 trials on this underway are trickiling and again nothing definitive so far. I hope it works but right now we just have to wait for the studies to finish.

 

[sp free]

I’ve seen a few doctors on twitter posting about how you have to start it early and that by the time the patient is in ICU it doesn’t seem to do much, though on the other hand, there have been patients recover from ICU as well.

Trump never said anything other than the treatment looks promising. The media has created this runaway narrative that people predisposed to disliking everything that Trump says and does have latched on to in spite of the truth.

Does it work? It might. It seems to in a lot of cases. Is it a cure? No. Us arguing about it is irrelevant because doctors are trying it regardless.

I really don’t understand the anger directed at Trump. The CCP and WHO lied to the entire world about this virus. Chinese “nationals” have been buying up PPE all over the world and shipping it back to China since January. The crap China ships to “help” ends up being defective or worse, infected.

Where is the anger for that? Where is the anger for our federal government’s lack of response? Parroting WHO bullshit isn’t an acceptable response in my opinion.

We need to take a step back, and stop reacting the way China wants us to. Conflating the issue with nonsense like the name of the virus being racist is just one of many examples.

Politicians pointing the finger at Trump are the same ones that wasted 3 years on Russia or impeachment bullshit. The same ones that went nuts when Trump banned Chinese flights in January. The same ones that bemoaned the lack of diversity on Trump’s coronavirus task force also back in January. Orange man bad! It’s all that matters.

Fuck those people, fuck Trudeau, fuck Tam & Hajdu, and most of all, FUCK CHINA!

 

[jcpro]

http://web.archive.org/web/20200405...ht-have-finally-found-its-secret-91182386efcb
Has anyone seen this? Does it mean anything?

 

[danmand]

http://web.archive.org/web/20200405...ht-have-finally-found-its-secret-91182386efcb
Has anyone seen this? Does it mean anything?

Maybe

 

[mandrill]

http://web.archive.org/web/20200405...ht-have-finally-found-its-secret-91182386efcb
Has anyone seen this? Does it mean anything?

It means that some jackass on the Internet called "Liberty Mavenstock" claims to know more than all the doctors in the world put together, so you'll send him your money.

Just another day in the life of jcpro.

 

[jcpro]

It means that some jackass on the Internet called "Liberty Mavenstock" claims to know more than all the doctors in the world put together, so you'll send him your money.

Just another day in the life of jcpro.

Why assholize everything? I got this from two other sources plus the doctor in question(I did verify that he is who he is) posted his observations on YouTube AND this very new. My link just happens to be concise version. Not interested? Move along.

 

[Ben19]

http://web.archive.org/web/20200405...ht-have-finally-found-its-secret-91182386efcb
Has anyone seen this? Does it mean anything?

It’s just a rant with no evidence. The guy starts off his argument saying that covid does not cause ARDS to argue for the fact that ventilator shortages are a hoax.... I don’t think he understands what ARDS is and gives no evidence for what he is saying.

The whole article is him just coming up explanations without any backup. This guy starts with the argument that hcq works ventilators don’t then goes back and tries to create mental gymnastics to explain the pathophysiology by him self. That’s not how it works. You let the data lead you to a conclusion not the other way around. Also at the end he says “ Whatever, I don’t know the full breadth and scope because I’m not a physician”. This guy read a chapter about hemoglobin oxygenation curve on a pre Med textbook then used that knowledge to create an elaborate explanation jumping many hoops making many assumptions for his arguments. It actually was an interesting read cause it was funny.

 

[mandrill]

Why assholize everything? I got this from two other sources plus the doctor in question(I did verify that he is who he is) posted his observations on YouTube AND this very new. My link just happens to be concise version. Not interested? Move along.

I think Ben19 puts you in your well-deserved place far better than anything I could ever say.

Go find something useful to do.

 

[jcpro]

It’s just a rant with no evidence. The guy starts off his argument saying that covid does not cause ARDS to argue for the fact that ventilator shortages are a hoax.... I don’t think he understands what ARDS is and gives no evidence for what he is saying.

The whole article is him just coming up explanations without any backup. This guy starts with the argument that hcq works ventilators don’t then goes back and tries to create mental gymnastics to explain the pathophysiology by him self. That’s not how it works. You let the data lead you to a conclusion not the other way around. Also at the end he says “ Whatever, I don’t know the full breadth and scope because I’m not a physician”. This guy read a chapter about hemoglobin oxygenation curve on a pre Med textbook then used that knowledge to create an elaborate explanation jumping many hoops making many assumptions for his arguments. It actually was an interesting read cause it was funny.

 

[Ben19]

This video actually is reasonable and it is people trying to understand what they don’t know and argue for alternative ventilator protocols that prioritize oxygenation rather than ventilation (I would have to watch the whole video but that’s my take from it so far). ARDS stands for acute respiratory distress syndrome. So it is a syndrome that causes rapid distress in your lungs. That is a broad definition and includes different pathophysiologies and not every ARDS should be treated the same which is the argument being made by the video. We don’t quite know the best protocol for covid ARDS patients and more importantly we don’t know if the same protocol works for everyone. Even here in Toronto there are differences in practice. Some centres are proning some are not. Some are aggressive with moving to ecmo some are not. And discussions like this video are helpful to come up with alternatives.

The article you posted was less trying to understand unknowns and more making conclusions to support political arguments “fake news” / hcq not being used because of deep state or hate on trump. Also the article was giving a an explanation for mechanism of hcq which is not what we understand from it so far

For a real scientific explanation on the mechanism of hcq refer to this article.

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41421-020-0156-0

Before you say fake news this is an article in support of hcq and shows it’s antiretroviral effects through its action on rentry mechanisms. This is an example of what that author in that blog was trying to achieve .... again my argument is that yes hcq has promise but let’s discover those through the proper channels and not through the loud screams of pundits claiming evidence and conspiracy and coming up with “evidence” while calling others ironacially fake news.

A drug doesent have a political belief and neither does the virus. Let’s figure this out properly.

 

[jcpro]

This video actually is reasonable and it is people trying to understand what they don’t know and argue for alternative ventilator protocols that prioritize oxygenation rather than ventilation (I would have to watch the whole video but that’s my take from it so far). ARDS stands for acute respiratory distress syndrome. So it is a syndrome that causes rapid distress in your lungs. That is a broad definition and includes different pathophysiologies and not every ARDS should be treated the same which is the argument being made by the video. We don’t quite know the best protocol for covid ARDS patients and more importantly we don’t know if the same protocol works for everyone. Even here in Toronto there are differences in practice. Some centres are proning some are not. Some are aggressive with moving to ecmo some are not. And discussions like this video are helpful to come up with alternatives.

The article you posted was less trying to understand unknowns and more making conclusions to support political arguments “fake news” / hcq not being used because of deep state or hate on trump. Also the article was giving a an explanation for mechanism of hcq which is not what we understand from it so far

For a real scientific explanation on the mechanism of hcq refer to this article.

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41421-020-0156-0

Before you say fake news this is an article in support of hcq and shows it’s antiretroviral effects through its action on rentry mechanisms. This is an example of what that author in that blog was trying to achieve .... again my argument is that yes hcq has promise but let’s discover those through the proper channels and not through the loud screams of pundits claiming evidence and conspiracy and coming up with “evidence” while calling others ironacially fake news.

A drug doesent have a political belief and neither does the virus. Let’s figure this out properly.

This is not a political issue and I'm not interested in a pissing match. I found this interesting for the selfish reason, namely I'm getting on in years and the survival rate for the older set is grim. Might as well look at it from all angles, trivial, experimental or not.