Get a load of Fauci's financial statements. This will tell you a lot

[Nostra]

Lock him up.

Dimtards wanted to lock Trump up simply for having some of his ties made in China, Dumbfuck.

 

[colfax_m]

Maybe it was the WHO I am thinking of, can't recall. The retracted and possibly fabricated Lancet study caused a ripple affect throughout the medical community, which is exactly what the doctor ordered, no pun intended, for big pharma and those trying to hurt Trump politically in an election year. Many legitimate trials of HCQ were halted permanently following the study, despite the retraction. Print the story, and the MSM was ALL OVER IT, but not so much the retraction. Frame the narrative and then conveniently fail to give equal attention to the fact that it was false. This is they way they roll and amazingly people buy it.

For a guy who claims to check facts, you sure seem to have little idea what you're talking about.

For starters, I'm guessing that you've never really worked with or been around the professionals engaging in research. These people don't sit around watching CNN looking for cues. They, like me, have little regard for the way in which mainstream media reports on scientific topics. Hydroxychoroquine trials were stopped because the interim analysis (which is standard in trials) showed no benefit.

Like all disinformation, this narrative is built around some truth. That's critical for it's believability. I completely agree with you that the media was hyperventilating about the risks of hydroxychloroquine, although that too was based around some truth because the drug does extend QT intervals and that can predispose to arrhythmia. But that high degree of concern was never reflected in any of the medical publications. The overriding theme in the medical literature surrounding hydroxychloroquine was that it simply did not work. That's how the FDA report that I linked shows it. The interim analysis of ORCHID, SOLIDARITY and RECOVERY (the last of which ended before the Lancet paper you reference) all discuss the lack of efficacy rather than ending because of safety concerns.

See:

WHO discontinues hydroxychloroquine and lopinavir/ritonavir treatment arms for COVID-19

WHO today accepted the recommendation from the Solidarity Trial’s International Steering Committee to discontinue the trial’s hydroxychloroquine and lopinavir/ritonavir arms. The Solidarity Trial was established by WHO to find an effective COVID-19 treatment for hospitalized patients. The...

www.who.int

ORCHID: Outcomes Related to COVID-19 Treated with Hydroxychloroquine among In-patients with Symptomatic Disease | PETAL Network

petalnet.org

No clinical benefit from use of hydroxychloroquine in hospitalised patients with COVID-19 — RECOVERY Trial

Statement from the Chief Investigators of the Randomised Evaluation of COVid-19 thERapY (RECOVERY) Trial on hydroxychloroquine, 5 June 2020

www.recoverytrial.net

Your mere impression of what went on is based not on facts (as you tried to claim) but on your false narrative. The narrative that HCQ was abandoned because of falsely overstated risk. Then you extend that risk (a false narrative on top of a false narrative) to paint a conspiracy about kickbacks and financial incentives among the medical establishment. This extended narrative isn't even supported with facts, but merely ridicule for not believing it (claiming I'm naive for not accepting this despite it's complete lack of substantiation).

 

[SweetTea]

For starters, I'm guessing that you've never really worked with or been around the professionals engaging in research. These people don't sit around watching CNN looking for cues. They, like me, have little regard for the way in which mainstream media reports on scientific topics. Hydroxychoroquine trials were stopped because the interim analysis (which is standard in trials) showed no benefit.

Yeah, I would have thought that too but my first clue was when the NOAA's "scientists" were caught adjusting the data to promote their narrative. I lost just a little bit of faith in their ability to separate their work from their political ideology. Unfortunately, science has become polluted by politics and money. If you want the funding, you better tow the party line. We all know that much of the research comes from academic sources, which are extremely left-leaning. Many of these same researchers and those that peer review are also professors and they are notoriously biased. You don't want to be the professor that disagrees or else face wrath and condemnation. Much of science is "woke" unfortunately.

The narrative that HCQ was abandoned because of falsely overstated risk.

Most of the larger HCQ studies were in fact stopped shortly (within a few weeks) after the Lancet study and before its retraction. They were not resumed. Again, don't kid yourself about the hatred for Trump and the lengths some were willing to go to make sure he didn't win a second term. You don't see it, just like you probably don't see the bias in the MSM and have no problem with social media outlets selectively "fact checking" based on politics, not actual facts.

 

[colfax_m]

Most of the larger HCQ studies were in fact stopped shortly (within a few weeks) after the Lancet study and before its retraction. They were not resumed. Again, don't kid yourself about the hatred for Trump and the lengths some were willing to go to make sure he didn't win a second term. You don't see it, just like you probably don't see the bias in the MSM and have no problem with social media outlets selectively "fact checking" based on politics, not actual facts.

Alright, if you are so fact based, let's see which larger HCQ study was stopped before it's retraction.

 

[SweetTea]

Alright, if you are so fact based, let's see which larger HCQ study was stopped before it's retraction.

You should love the left-wing source.

WHO Halts Hydroxychloroquine Trial Over Safety Concerns

Notice the date that WHO halted clinical trials was May 25th and they did so specially because of the Lancet study. Lancet was retracted on June 4th. WHO never really resumed their study and released their final findings on June 20th.

“A final decision on the harm, benefit or lack of benefit of HCQ will be made once the evidence has been reviewed by the Data Safety Monitoring Board,” the body said in a statement. “It is expected by mid-June.”
Those already in its by-now, 17-country study of thousands of patients who have started HCQ can finish their treatment, the WHO said.
Newly enrolled patients will receive other treatments being evaluated in Solidarity, including Gilead Science’s remdesivir and AbbVie’s Kaletra/Aluvia.

The NEJM, a medical journal that liters my home as it frequently subscribed to by physicians and is delivered weekly, published an article shortly after the Lancet study was released that was clearly knee-jerk stating that HCQ was dangerous for treating patients with COVID as they retracted their story immediately after Lancet. One one think that a respected medical journal would not publish articles that didn't fully vet their sources. Directly from the NEJM website:

The New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM) is recognized as the world’s leading medical journal and website. Published continuously for over 200 years, NEJM delivers high-quality, peer-reviewed research and interactive clinical content to physicians, educators, researchers, and the global medical community.

Our mission is to publish the best research and information at the intersection of biomedical science and clinical practice and to present this information in understandable, clinically useful formats that inform health care practice and improve patient outcomes.

To these ends, NEJM sets the highest standards for:

• Editorial, peer, and statistical review processes to evaluate manuscripts for scientific accuracy, novelty, and importance.
• Policies and practices to ensure that authors disclose all relevant financial associations and that such associations in no way influence the content NEJM publishes.

Oopsy, I guess this one just happened to slip through the cracks.

 

[colfax_m]

You should love the left-wing source.

WHO Halts Hydroxychloroquine Trial Over Safety Concerns

Notice the date that WHO halted clinical trials was May 25th and they did so specially because of the Lancet study. Lancet was retracted on June 4th. WHO never really resumed their study and released their final findings on June 20th.

“A final decision on the harm, benefit or lack of benefit of HCQ will be made once the evidence has been reviewed by the Data Safety Monitoring Board,” the body said in a statement. “It is expected by mid-June.”
Those already in its by-now, 17-country study of thousands of patients who have started HCQ can finish their treatment, the WHO said.
Newly enrolled patients will receive other treatments being evaluated in Solidarity, including Gilead Science’s remdesivir and AbbVie’s Kaletra/Aluvia.

The NEJM, a medical journal that liters my home as it frequently subscribed to by physicians and is delivered weekly, published an article shortly after the Lancet study was released that was clearly knee-jerk stating that HCQ was dangerous for treating patients with COVID as they retracted their story immediately after Lancet. One one think that a respected medical journal would not publish articles that didn't fully vet their sources. Directly from the NEJM website:

The New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM) is recognized as the world’s leading medical journal and website. Published continuously for over 200 years, NEJM delivers high-quality, peer-reviewed research and interactive clinical content to physicians, educators, researchers, and the global medical community.

Our mission is to publish the best research and information at the intersection of biomedical science and clinical practice and to present this information in understandable, clinically useful formats that inform health care practice and improve patient outcomes.

To these ends, NEJM sets the highest standards for:

• Editorial, peer, and statistical review processes to evaluate manuscripts for scientific accuracy, novelty, and importance.
• Policies and practices to ensure that authors disclose all relevant financial associations and that such associations in no way influence the content NEJM publishes.

Oopsy, I guess this one just happened to slip through the cracks.

They ended the trial based on analysis of their data:

WHO today accepted the recommendation from the Solidarity Trial’s International Steering Committee to discontinue the trial’s hydroxychloroquine and lopinavir/ritonavir arms. The Solidarity Trial was established by WHO to find an effective COVID-19 treatment for hospitalized patients.

The International Steering Committee formulated the recommendation in light of the evidence for hydroxychloroquine vs standard-of-care and for lopinavir/ritonavir vs standard-of-care from the Solidarity trial interim results, and from a review of the evidence from all trials presented at the 1-2 July WHO Summit on COVID-19 research and innovation.

These interim trial results show that hydroxychloroquine and lopinavir/ritonavir produce little or no reduction in the mortality of hospitalized COVID-19 patients when compared to standard of care. Solidarity trial investigators will interrupt the trials with immediate effect.

WHO discontinues hydroxychloroquine and lopinavir/ritonavir treatment arms for COVID-19

WHO today accepted the recommendation from the Solidarity Trial’s International Steering Committee to discontinue the trial’s hydroxychloroquine and lopinavir/ritonavir arms. The Solidarity Trial was established by WHO to find an effective COVID-19 treatment for hospitalized patients. The...

www.who.int

So tell me again why this was wrong.

 

[SweetTea]

They ended the trial based on analysis of their data:

WHO today accepted the recommendation from the Solidarity Trial’s International Steering Committee to discontinue the trial’s hydroxychloroquine and lopinavir/ritonavir arms. The Solidarity Trial was established by WHO to find an effective COVID-19 treatment for hospitalized patients.

The International Steering Committee formulated the recommendation in light of the evidence for hydroxychloroquine vs standard-of-care and for lopinavir/ritonavir vs standard-of-care from the Solidarity trial interim results, and from a review of the evidence from all trials presented at the 1-2 July WHO Summit on COVID-19 research and innovation.

These interim trial results show that hydroxychloroquine and lopinavir/ritonavir produce little or no reduction in the mortality of hospitalized COVID-19 patients when compared to standard of care. Solidarity trial investigators will interrupt the trials with immediate effect.

WHO discontinues hydroxychloroquine and lopinavir/ritonavir treatment arms for COVID-19

WHO today accepted the recommendation from the Solidarity Trial’s International Steering Committee to discontinue the trial’s hydroxychloroquine and lopinavir/ritonavir arms. The Solidarity Trial was established by WHO to find an effective COVID-19 treatment for hospitalized patients. The...

www.who.int

So tell me again why this was wrong.

Why did they halt the study? They never actually resumed it, the let it fizzle out and came to their conclusion. No comment on the negligence, at best, of the NEJM? You really don't think politics were involved? BTW, there were other studies altered also.

 

[colfax_m]

Why did they halt the study? They never actually resumed it, the let it fizzle out and came to their conclusion. No comment on the negligence, at best, of the NEJM? You really don't think politics were involved? BTW, there were other studies altered also.

They paused the study to evaluate for safety concerns. They halted it because the interim analysis showed no benefit. They halted it AFTER the Lancet study was retracted. Why would they continue the trial that showed no benefit? This is a question you are extremely unlikely to answer.

Not sure by what you mean studies being “altered”. Other large studies showed the exact same lack of efficacy.

Is it political? The results were negative. Politics doesn’t make a study positive or negative.

What negligence from the NEJM? You didn’t post the article.

 

[SweetTea]

They paused the study to evaluate for safety concerns. They halted it because the interim analysis showed no benefit. They halted it AFTER the Lancet study was retracted. Why would they continue the trial that showed no benefit? This is a question you are extremely unlikely to answer.

They paused the study because of the Lancet findings. They never actually fully resumed the study, they simply allowed those that we taking HCQ to continue the course. That was not the original plan for the study.

Not sure by what you mean studies being “altered”. Other large studies showed the exact same lack of efficacy.

Meant to say other studies were halted and never resumed.

Is it political? The results were negative. Politics doesn’t make a study positive or negative.

The politics was in reference to the NEJM article. To my knowledge, they are not typically so quick to post unvetted information, if so, I fear for the future of medicine.

https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa2007621?query=recirc_curatedRelated_article

https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMc2021225

 

[colfax_m]

They paused the study because of the Lancet findings. They never actually fully resumed the study, they simply allowed those that we taking HCQ to continue the course. That was not the original plan for the study.

Meant to say other studies were halted and never resumed.

The politics was in reference to the NEJM article. To my knowledge, they are not typically so quick to post unvetted information, if so, I fear for the future of medicine.

https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa2007621?query=recirc_curatedRelated_article

https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMc2021225

I was confused why you're bringing up the NEJM article since it had nothing to with hydroxychloroquine. It's really a technical detail about the use of a private industry dataset that was being mined. You're ascribing more importance to it because it fits your political agenda.

Placing a pause on a study when there's data showing potential harm is the right thing to do. I don't care who you are, that's the right thing to do. Regardless of the reason it was paused, the reason it was ended is because after 3500 patients the data didn't show any benefit. This isn't something you want to discuss because it doesn't align with your narrative. Why continue the trial if the analysis after 3500 patients didn't show any benefit?

 

[basquebromance]