Minnesota’s Democrat Governor quietly rescinds Hydroxychloroquine ban

[two_iron]

Dims feel more comfortable looking stupid and laughable. It's in their DNA.

 

[colfax_m]

This was probably the study that caused Walz to reverse his position but it is far from the only study that has shown hydroxychloroquine to be an effective therapy for covid 19 when administered early.

Going off one study is not how it’s done. This story is fine, but limited. It’s observational and retrospective, meaning it’s not well controlled. Not like a randomized placebo controlled prospective trial. Those trials are far less prone to error by confounding factors which probably existed in the Henry Ford study (the treatment arm received far more steroids than the controlled arm for example). The randomized controlled trials demonstrated no efficacy.

Retrospective studies are commonplace today and well respected within the medical community. This study was peer reviewed and published in a prestigious medical journal, it is being taken seriously by the medical profession even if it is not by CNN. Since there is no established dosage for the drug, studies can't be easily compared. They state that the dosage they used was different from studies that showed no improvement, and a retrospective study that has been carefully peer reviewed that used the right dosage is clearly more valuable than a randomized controlled study that used too low a dosage.

Retrospective studies are commonplace and they can be helpful, but they're always going to be inferior quality to prospective studies. Retrospective studies are quick and easy. Prospective trials are far more difficult. I'm not saying the International Journal of Infectious Diseases is a bad journal by any means, but i'd hardly call it prestigious.

Their dosing was identical to the ORCHID study which was a negative prospective trial, the one that was ended early due to lack of benefit and which the FDA used as it's primary evidence to revoke the emergency authorization for hydroxychloroquine.

Sorry, but that one paper does not outweigh the rest of the evidence against hydroxychloroquine.

 

[JustAGuy1]

It was available for inpatient treatment only. Outpatient treatment was restricted so that the drug supply could be utilized for people who actually needed it rather than shoveling it out to people who just wanted a placebo.

Since the drug is no longer being prescribed in any significant frequency for COVID because of lack of efficacy, there is no need for the restriction anymore.

And yet the proven efficacy was for early treatment; that's why it didn't help as much in the intensive care centers, idiot. The reason it's not being prescribed for Covid any more in Minnesota is because it was banned for use for Covid in Minnesota, idiot. Now, months later, probably a hundred thousand dead later across the country, there have been other, patented, far more expensive, treatments that the Democrat Party has approved for medical use for Covid so, rather than lose their jobs and not be able to treat anyone, doctors are choosing the expensive drug over the inexpensive drug.

Gilead............greases the palms of their favorite politicians........and are dirty to the core.

Not to mention the labs are making a fortune off the testing now...........imagine that.

Total nonsense. You have no idea what you’re talking about.

Yawn.......early on I posted about all of this..........including the orphan status on Gilead pushing to make a mint............you just don't like my opinions because you have a narrative of TDS.

No, you’re posting information that you don’t understand and coming up with baseless conspiracies all to bend reality so that Trump can be right.

I studied this shit early on a over 5 months ago.............I was right then..........and right now.......

This is a safe drug......I've taken it.......and would again.............you are just a TDS moron looking for something to whine about.

Yeah. Sure. “Studied” internet conspiracy theory forums?

You have no idea what you’re talking about.

Projection kid.

 

[toomuchtime_]

This was probably the study that caused Walz to reverse his position but it is far from the only study that has shown hydroxychloroquine to be an effective therapy for covid 19 when administered early.

Going off one study is not how it’s done. This story is fine, but limited. It’s observational and retrospective, meaning it’s not well controlled. Not like a randomized placebo controlled prospective trial. Those trials are far less prone to error by confounding factors which probably existed in the Henry Ford study (the treatment arm received far more steroids than the controlled arm for example). The randomized controlled trials demonstrated no efficacy.

Retrospective studies are commonplace today and well respected within the medical community. This study was peer reviewed and published in a prestigious medical journal, it is being taken seriously by the medical profession even if it is not by CNN. Since there is no established dosage for the drug, studies can't be easily compared. They state that the dosage they used was different from studies that showed no improvement, and a retrospective study that has been carefully peer reviewed that used the right dosage is clearly more valuable than a randomized controlled study that used too low a dosage.

Retrospective studies are commonplace and they can be helpful, but they're always going to be inferior quality to prospective studies. Retrospective studies are quick and easy. Prospective trials are far more difficult. I'm not saying the International Journal of Infectious Diseases is a bad journal by any means, but i'd hardly call it prestigious.

Their dosing was identical to the ORCHID study which was a negative prospective trial, the one that was ended early due to lack of benefit and which the FDA used as it's primary evidence to revoke the emergency authorization for hydroxychloroquine.

Sorry, but that one paper does not outweigh the rest of the evidence against hydroxychloroquine.

Actually, it does since there are only a few stuidies that found it has no value and none of those were peer reviewed. However, if you want moe proof of the value of hydroxychloroquine, here are 53 more studies, 31 of which have been peer reviewed, that show Hydroxychloroquine is of value.

48 studies (28 peer reviewed) showing "very positive" results using HCQ as pre & post exposure prophylaxis & early treatment.

A live and ongoing index of study data from around the world documenting the use of hydroxychloroquine in treatment at various stages of SARS-CoV-2 infection including pre-exposure prophylaxis and post-exposure prophylaxis is available at https://c19study.com/ Overwhelmingly, PrEP, PEP, and...

www.palmerfoundation.com.au

It is sad that Democrats insane hatred of the President has led them to prefer to see people die of the disease rather than recover with the help of this drug.

 

[jwoodie]

Nope the drug was never banned and I can pull up the executive order which proves what the link stated.
5. I authorize the Minnesota Board of Pharmacy, established pursuant to Minnesota Statutes 2019, section 151.02, to enforce the following medication dispensing limitations, until termination of the peacetime emergency declared in Executive Order 20-01. A prescription drug order for chloroquine or hydroxychloroquine must contain a diagnosis appropriate for the use of these medications and be dispensed for no more than 30 days at a time.
https://mn.gov/boards/assets/March ...ive Order 20-23_tcm21-425387_tcm21-426612.pdf

So did he rescind his order or not?

 

[colfax_m]

This was probably the study that caused Walz to reverse his position but it is far from the only study that has shown hydroxychloroquine to be an effective therapy for covid 19 when administered early.

Going off one study is not how it’s done. This story is fine, but limited. It’s observational and retrospective, meaning it’s not well controlled. Not like a randomized placebo controlled prospective trial. Those trials are far less prone to error by confounding factors which probably existed in the Henry Ford study (the treatment arm received far more steroids than the controlled arm for example). The randomized controlled trials demonstrated no efficacy.

Retrospective studies are commonplace today and well respected within the medical community. This study was peer reviewed and published in a prestigious medical journal, it is being taken seriously by the medical profession even if it is not by CNN. Since there is no established dosage for the drug, studies can't be easily compared. They state that the dosage they used was different from studies that showed no improvement, and a retrospective study that has been carefully peer reviewed that used the right dosage is clearly more valuable than a randomized controlled study that used too low a dosage.

Retrospective studies are commonplace and they can be helpful, but they're always going to be inferior quality to prospective studies. Retrospective studies are quick and easy. Prospective trials are far more difficult. I'm not saying the International Journal of Infectious Diseases is a bad journal by any means, but i'd hardly call it prestigious.

Their dosing was identical to the ORCHID study which was a negative prospective trial, the one that was ended early due to lack of benefit and which the FDA used as it's primary evidence to revoke the emergency authorization for hydroxychloroquine.

Sorry, but that one paper does not outweigh the rest of the evidence against hydroxychloroquine.

Actually, it does since there are only a few stuidies that found it has no value and none of those were peer reviewed. However, if you want moe proof of the value of hydroxychloroquine, here are 53 more studies, 31 of which have been peer reviewed, that show Hydroxychloroquine is of value.

48 studies (28 peer reviewed) showing "very positive" results using HCQ as pre & post exposure prophylaxis & early treatment.

A live and ongoing index of study data from around the world documenting the use of hydroxychloroquine in treatment at various stages of SARS-CoV-2 infection including pre-exposure prophylaxis and post-exposure prophylaxis is available at https://c19study.com/ Overwhelmingly, PrEP, PEP, and...

www.palmerfoundation.com.au

It is sad that Democrats insane hatred of the President has led them to prefer to see people die of the disease rather than recover with the help of this drug.

No, no it doesn't. The strongest, best evidence is consistent that hydroxychloroquine has no effect. If the best designed and controlled trials don't show a benefit, it's just not going to be accepted by the medical community. Strength of evidence isn't just determined by volume but mostly by design.

And it's not just one prospective trial, it's numerous. It was ORCHID in the US. It was RECOVERY in the UK and it was SOLIDARITY in international trials. They all failed.

Furthermore, I question your website at least a little bit. A lot of this is unpublished data. A lot of it comes from random journals such as "Hosp. Pharm. and Clinician" (that study was purely observational, stated they gave the drug to 68 people and 7 died, that's somehow listed as a positive study even though they made zero attempts to do anything like case matching). Another study printed in NEJM August 6th I just read. It was about post exposure prophylaxis and was a negative study, the authors showed no benefit. Somehow this website reinterpreted the results to show there is a benefit.

This has nothing to do with politics. These decisions aren't being made by the Democratic Party, but by large physician groups, everywhere from the FDA to the individual medical societies.

 

[colfax_m]

It was available for inpatient treatment only. Outpatient treatment was restricted so that the drug supply could be utilized for people who actually needed it rather than shoveling it out to people who just wanted a placebo.

Since the drug is no longer being prescribed in any significant frequency for COVID because of lack of efficacy, there is no need for the restriction anymore.

And yet the proven efficacy was for early treatment; that's why it didn't help as much in the intensive care centers, idiot. The reason it's not being prescribed for Covid any more in Minnesota is because it was banned for use for Covid in Minnesota, idiot. Now, months later, probably a hundred thousand dead later across the country, there have been other, patented, far more expensive, treatments that the Democrat Party has approved for medical use for Covid so, rather than lose their jobs and not be able to treat anyone, doctors are choosing the expensive drug over the inexpensive drug.

Gilead............greases the palms of their favorite politicians........and are dirty to the core.

Not to mention the labs are making a fortune off the testing now...........imagine that.

Total nonsense. You have no idea what you’re talking about.

Yawn.......early on I posted about all of this..........including the orphan status on Gilead pushing to make a mint............you just don't like my opinions because you have a narrative of TDS.

No, you’re posting information that you don’t understand and coming up with baseless conspiracies all to bend reality so that Trump can be right.

I studied this shit early on a over 5 months ago.............I was right then..........and right now.......

This is a safe drug......I've taken it.......and would again.............you are just a TDS moron looking for something to whine about.

Yeah. Sure. “Studied” internet conspiracy theory forums?

You have no idea what you’re talking about.

Projection kid.

This particular poster believes (I guess) that Gilead has paid off everyone who has ever published a negative study about hydroxychloroquine. It's bat shit crazy.

I swear, the Republican and conservative wing of this country is nuttier than a bag of squirrels.

 

[toomuchtime_]

This was probably the study that caused Walz to reverse his position but it is far from the only study that has shown hydroxychloroquine to be an effective therapy for covid 19 when administered early.

Going off one study is not how it’s done. This story is fine, but limited. It’s observational and retrospective, meaning it’s not well controlled. Not like a randomized placebo controlled prospective trial. Those trials are far less prone to error by confounding factors which probably existed in the Henry Ford study (the treatment arm received far more steroids than the controlled arm for example). The randomized controlled trials demonstrated no efficacy.

Retrospective studies are commonplace today and well respected within the medical community. This study was peer reviewed and published in a prestigious medical journal, it is being taken seriously by the medical profession even if it is not by CNN. Since there is no established dosage for the drug, studies can't be easily compared. They state that the dosage they used was different from studies that showed no improvement, and a retrospective study that has been carefully peer reviewed that used the right dosage is clearly more valuable than a randomized controlled study that used too low a dosage.

Retrospective studies are commonplace and they can be helpful, but they're always going to be inferior quality to prospective studies. Retrospective studies are quick and easy. Prospective trials are far more difficult. I'm not saying the International Journal of Infectious Diseases is a bad journal by any means, but i'd hardly call it prestigious.

Their dosing was identical to the ORCHID study which was a negative prospective trial, the one that was ended early due to lack of benefit and which the FDA used as it's primary evidence to revoke the emergency authorization for hydroxychloroquine.

Sorry, but that one paper does not outweigh the rest of the evidence against hydroxychloroquine.

Actually, it does since there are only a few stuidies that found it has no value and none of those were peer reviewed. However, if you want moe proof of the value of hydroxychloroquine, here are 53 more studies, 31 of which have been peer reviewed, that show Hydroxychloroquine is of value.

48 studies (28 peer reviewed) showing "very positive" results using HCQ as pre & post exposure prophylaxis & early treatment.

A live and ongoing index of study data from around the world documenting the use of hydroxychloroquine in treatment at various stages of SARS-CoV-2 infection including pre-exposure prophylaxis and post-exposure prophylaxis is available at https://c19study.com/ Overwhelmingly, PrEP, PEP, and...

www.palmerfoundation.com.au

It is sad that Democrats insane hatred of the President has led them to prefer to see people die of the disease rather than recover with the help of this drug.

No, no it doesn't. The strongest, best evidence is consistent that hydroxychloroquine has no effect. If the best designed and controlled trials don't show a benefit, it's just not going to be accepted by the medical community. Strength of evidence isn't just determined by volume but mostly by design.

And it's not just one prospective trial, it's numerous. It was ORCHID in the US. It was RECOVERY in the UK and it was SOLIDARITY in international trials. They all failed.

Furthermore, I question your website at least a little bit. A lot of this is unpublished data. A lot of it comes from random journals such as "Hosp. Pharm. and Clinician" (that study was purely observational, stated they gave the drug to 68 people and 7 died, that's somehow listed as a positive study even though they made zero attempts to do anything like case matching). Another study printed in NEJM August 6th I just read. It was about post exposure prophylaxis and was a negative study, the authors showed no benefit. Somehow this website reinterpreted the results to show there is a benefit.

This has nothing to do with politics. These decisions aren't being made by the Democratic Party, but by large physician groups, everywhere from the FDA to the individual medical societies.

Now you're just being silly. 31 peer reviewed studies that found Hydroxychloroquine was valuable in fighting the virus but three failed studie that disagreed are the gold standard. If President Trump had no recommended this drug, you would not be making such ridiculous arguments.

 

[colfax_m]

This was probably the study that caused Walz to reverse his position but it is far from the only study that has shown hydroxychloroquine to be an effective therapy for covid 19 when administered early.

Going off one study is not how it’s done. This story is fine, but limited. It’s observational and retrospective, meaning it’s not well controlled. Not like a randomized placebo controlled prospective trial. Those trials are far less prone to error by confounding factors which probably existed in the Henry Ford study (the treatment arm received far more steroids than the controlled arm for example). The randomized controlled trials demonstrated no efficacy.

Retrospective studies are commonplace today and well respected within the medical community. This study was peer reviewed and published in a prestigious medical journal, it is being taken seriously by the medical profession even if it is not by CNN. Since there is no established dosage for the drug, studies can't be easily compared. They state that the dosage they used was different from studies that showed no improvement, and a retrospective study that has been carefully peer reviewed that used the right dosage is clearly more valuable than a randomized controlled study that used too low a dosage.

Retrospective studies are commonplace and they can be helpful, but they're always going to be inferior quality to prospective studies. Retrospective studies are quick and easy. Prospective trials are far more difficult. I'm not saying the International Journal of Infectious Diseases is a bad journal by any means, but i'd hardly call it prestigious.

Their dosing was identical to the ORCHID study which was a negative prospective trial, the one that was ended early due to lack of benefit and which the FDA used as it's primary evidence to revoke the emergency authorization for hydroxychloroquine.

Sorry, but that one paper does not outweigh the rest of the evidence against hydroxychloroquine.

Actually, it does since there are only a few stuidies that found it has no value and none of those were peer reviewed. However, if you want moe proof of the value of hydroxychloroquine, here are 53 more studies, 31 of which have been peer reviewed, that show Hydroxychloroquine is of value.

48 studies (28 peer reviewed) showing "very positive" results using HCQ as pre & post exposure prophylaxis & early treatment.

A live and ongoing index of study data from around the world documenting the use of hydroxychloroquine in treatment at various stages of SARS-CoV-2 infection including pre-exposure prophylaxis and post-exposure prophylaxis is available at https://c19study.com/ Overwhelmingly, PrEP, PEP, and...

www.palmerfoundation.com.au

It is sad that Democrats insane hatred of the President has led them to prefer to see people die of the disease rather than recover with the help of this drug.

No, no it doesn't. The strongest, best evidence is consistent that hydroxychloroquine has no effect. If the best designed and controlled trials don't show a benefit, it's just not going to be accepted by the medical community. Strength of evidence isn't just determined by volume but mostly by design.

And it's not just one prospective trial, it's numerous. It was ORCHID in the US. It was RECOVERY in the UK and it was SOLIDARITY in international trials. They all failed.

Furthermore, I question your website at least a little bit. A lot of this is unpublished data. A lot of it comes from random journals such as "Hosp. Pharm. and Clinician" (that study was purely observational, stated they gave the drug to 68 people and 7 died, that's somehow listed as a positive study even though they made zero attempts to do anything like case matching). Another study printed in NEJM August 6th I just read. It was about post exposure prophylaxis and was a negative study, the authors showed no benefit. Somehow this website reinterpreted the results to show there is a benefit.

This has nothing to do with politics. These decisions aren't being made by the Democratic Party, but by large physician groups, everywhere from the FDA to the individual medical societies.

Now you're just being silly. 31 peer reviewed studies that found Hydroxychloroquine was valuable in fighting the virus but three failed studie that disagreed are the gold standard. If President Trump had no recommended this drug, you would not be making such ridiculous arguments.

Not at all. I quoted the three strongest, best studies that were all negative. Of course there were numerous other studies which were likewise negative. As for those studies you are quoting, if those 31 studies are poorly controlled, small, not well designed or all the above, their strength of evidence remains quite weak. A lot of weak evidence is still pretty weak. A couple very strong studies will outweigh them.

This isn't silly, this is exactly how medicine works.

I don't care what Trump says about hydroxychloroquine. That has zero effect on the strength of the evidence.

Why do you think the FDA pulled their approval? Is it just because they hate Trump? Is that really what you want me to believe?

 

[Levant]

Even if we pretend the anti-HCQers really believe it doesn't work, you'd have to admit that there are actual medical doctors, you know, with actual medical degrees from actual medical schools and having actual patients that they've actually treated with the medication who disagree with you. Given that you can't prove it doesn't work any more than you claim we can't prove it does, then for all of history in the United States, we left the decision to the doctors - until now.

 

[LordBrownTrout]

The drug wasn't banned it was still prescribed.


Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz has lifted restrictions he set in March on how the malaria drug hydroxychloroquine is dispensed, saying a run on the drug is no longer feared because it has no proven benefit in treating COVID-19.

Why MN Gov. Walz lifted prescribing limits on the malaria drug Trump touted as COVID-19 treatment

Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz has lifted restrictions he set in March on how the malaria drug hydroxychloroquine is dispensed, saying a run on the drug is no longer feared because it has no proven benefi…

www.twincities.com

Walz initially limited how hydroxychloroquine and chloroquine could be prescribed to ensure patients with lupus, rheumatoid arthritis and other chronic medical conditions who relied on the drug didn’t face shortages.
I use my links because this link is not connected to the echo chamber.

It was banned for off label use, which means it was not legally available for the treatment of covid 19. When a governor tells you doctor what to prescribe for you, it's time to look for a new governor.

It was available for inpatient treatment only. Outpatient treatment was restricted so that the drug supply could be utilized for people who actually needed it rather than shoveling it out to people who just wanted a placebo.

Since the drug is no longer being prescribed in any significant frequency for COVID because of lack of efficacy, there is no need for the restriction anymore.

That's simply not true.


DETROIT – Treatment with hydroxychloroquine cut the death rate significantly in sick patients hospitalized with COVID-19 – and without heart-related side-effects, according to a new study published by Henry Ford Health System.

In a large-scale retrospective analysis of 2,541 patients hospitalized between March 10 and May 2, 2020 across the system’s six hospitals, the study found 13% of those treated with hydroxychloroquine alone died compared to 26.4% not treated with hydroxychloroquine. None of the patients had documented serious heart abnormalities; however, patients were monitored for a heart condition routinely pointed to as a reason to avoid the drug as a treatment for COVID-19.

The study was published today in the International Journal of Infectious Diseases, the peer-reviewed, open-access online publication of the International Society of Infectious Diseases (ISID.org).

Patients treated with hydroxychloroquine at Henry Ford met specific protocol criteria as outlined by the hospital system’s Division of Infectious Diseases. The vast majority received the drug soon after admission; 82% within 24 hours and 91% within 48 hours of admission. All patients in the study were 18 or over with a median age of 64 years; 51% were men and 56% African American.


“The findings have been highly analyzed and peer-reviewed,” said Dr. Marcus Zervos, division head of Infectious Disease for Henry Ford Health System, who co-authored the study with Henry Ford epidemiologist Samia Arshad. “We attribute our findings that differ from other studies to early treatment, and part of a combination of interventions that were done in supportive care of patients, including careful cardiac monitoring. Our dosing also differed from other studies not showing a benefit of the drug. And other studies are either not peer reviewed, have limited numbers of patients, different patient populations or other differences from our patients.”

Zervos said the potential for a surge in the fall or sooner, and infections continuing worldwide, show an urgency to identifying inexpensive and effective therapies and preventions.

“We’re glad to add to the scientific knowledge base on the role and how best to use therapies as we work around the world to provide insight,” he said. “Considered in the context of current studies on the use of hydroxychloroquine for COVID-19, our results suggest that the drug may have an important role to play in reducing COVID-19 mortality.”

Read "Hydroxychloroquine: An Open Letter to the Community & Beyond" here

The study also found those treated with azithromycin alone or a combination of hydroxychloroquine and azithromycin also fared slightly better than those not treated with the drugs, according to the Henry Ford data. The analysis found 22.4% of those treated only with azithromycin died, and 20.1% treated with a combination of azithromycin and hydroxychloroquine died, compared to 26.4% of patients dying who were not treated with either medication.

“Our analysis shows that using hydroxychloroquine helped save lives,” said neurosurgeon Dr. Steven Kalkanis, CEO, Henry Ford Medical Group and Senior Vice President and Chief Academic Officer of Henry Ford Health System. “As doctors and scientists, we look to the data for insight. And the data here is clear that there was benefit to using the drug as a treatment for sick, hospitalized patients.”

Treatment with Hydroxychloroquine Cut Death Rate Significantly in COVID-19 Patients, Henry Ford Health System Study Shows

www.henryford.com

This was probably the study that caused Walz to reverse his position but it is far from the only study that has shown hydroxychloroquine to be an effective therapy for covid 19 when administered early.

Debunked joke of a study....

I know four people who have taken it and have gotten over the virus in about 4 days.

 

[colfax_m]

The drug wasn't banned it was still prescribed.


Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz has lifted restrictions he set in March on how the malaria drug hydroxychloroquine is dispensed, saying a run on the drug is no longer feared because it has no proven benefit in treating COVID-19.

Why MN Gov. Walz lifted prescribing limits on the malaria drug Trump touted as COVID-19 treatment

Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz has lifted restrictions he set in March on how the malaria drug hydroxychloroquine is dispensed, saying a run on the drug is no longer feared because it has no proven benefi…

www.twincities.com

Walz initially limited how hydroxychloroquine and chloroquine could be prescribed to ensure patients with lupus, rheumatoid arthritis and other chronic medical conditions who relied on the drug didn’t face shortages.
I use my links because this link is not connected to the echo chamber.

It was banned for off label use, which means it was not legally available for the treatment of covid 19. When a governor tells you doctor what to prescribe for you, it's time to look for a new governor.

It was available for inpatient treatment only. Outpatient treatment was restricted so that the drug supply could be utilized for people who actually needed it rather than shoveling it out to people who just wanted a placebo.

Since the drug is no longer being prescribed in any significant frequency for COVID because of lack of efficacy, there is no need for the restriction anymore.

That's simply not true.


DETROIT – Treatment with hydroxychloroquine cut the death rate significantly in sick patients hospitalized with COVID-19 – and without heart-related side-effects, according to a new study published by Henry Ford Health System.

In a large-scale retrospective analysis of 2,541 patients hospitalized between March 10 and May 2, 2020 across the system’s six hospitals, the study found 13% of those treated with hydroxychloroquine alone died compared to 26.4% not treated with hydroxychloroquine. None of the patients had documented serious heart abnormalities; however, patients were monitored for a heart condition routinely pointed to as a reason to avoid the drug as a treatment for COVID-19.

The study was published today in the International Journal of Infectious Diseases, the peer-reviewed, open-access online publication of the International Society of Infectious Diseases (ISID.org).

Patients treated with hydroxychloroquine at Henry Ford met specific protocol criteria as outlined by the hospital system’s Division of Infectious Diseases. The vast majority received the drug soon after admission; 82% within 24 hours and 91% within 48 hours of admission. All patients in the study were 18 or over with a median age of 64 years; 51% were men and 56% African American.


“The findings have been highly analyzed and peer-reviewed,” said Dr. Marcus Zervos, division head of Infectious Disease for Henry Ford Health System, who co-authored the study with Henry Ford epidemiologist Samia Arshad. “We attribute our findings that differ from other studies to early treatment, and part of a combination of interventions that were done in supportive care of patients, including careful cardiac monitoring. Our dosing also differed from other studies not showing a benefit of the drug. And other studies are either not peer reviewed, have limited numbers of patients, different patient populations or other differences from our patients.”

Zervos said the potential for a surge in the fall or sooner, and infections continuing worldwide, show an urgency to identifying inexpensive and effective therapies and preventions.

“We’re glad to add to the scientific knowledge base on the role and how best to use therapies as we work around the world to provide insight,” he said. “Considered in the context of current studies on the use of hydroxychloroquine for COVID-19, our results suggest that the drug may have an important role to play in reducing COVID-19 mortality.”

Read "Hydroxychloroquine: An Open Letter to the Community & Beyond" here

The study also found those treated with azithromycin alone or a combination of hydroxychloroquine and azithromycin also fared slightly better than those not treated with the drugs, according to the Henry Ford data. The analysis found 22.4% of those treated only with azithromycin died, and 20.1% treated with a combination of azithromycin and hydroxychloroquine died, compared to 26.4% of patients dying who were not treated with either medication.

“Our analysis shows that using hydroxychloroquine helped save lives,” said neurosurgeon Dr. Steven Kalkanis, CEO, Henry Ford Medical Group and Senior Vice President and Chief Academic Officer of Henry Ford Health System. “As doctors and scientists, we look to the data for insight. And the data here is clear that there was benefit to using the drug as a treatment for sick, hospitalized patients.”

Treatment with Hydroxychloroquine Cut Death Rate Significantly in COVID-19 Patients, Henry Ford Health System Study Shows

www.henryford.com

This was probably the study that caused Walz to reverse his position but it is far from the only study that has shown hydroxychloroquine to be an effective therapy for covid 19 when administered early.

Debunked joke of a study....

I know four people who have taken it and have gotten over the virus in about 4 days.

I know people who got over the virus in the same amount of time and didn’t take it.

This is a problem with measuring efficacy of a drug in a disease with extremely high spontaneous recovery rate.

 

[LordBrownTrout]

The drug wasn't banned it was still prescribed.


Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz has lifted restrictions he set in March on how the malaria drug hydroxychloroquine is dispensed, saying a run on the drug is no longer feared because it has no proven benefit in treating COVID-19.

Why MN Gov. Walz lifted prescribing limits on the malaria drug Trump touted as COVID-19 treatment

Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz has lifted restrictions he set in March on how the malaria drug hydroxychloroquine is dispensed, saying a run on the drug is no longer feared because it has no proven benefi…

www.twincities.com

Walz initially limited how hydroxychloroquine and chloroquine could be prescribed to ensure patients with lupus, rheumatoid arthritis and other chronic medical conditions who relied on the drug didn’t face shortages.
I use my links because this link is not connected to the echo chamber.

It was banned for off label use, which means it was not legally available for the treatment of covid 19. When a governor tells you doctor what to prescribe for you, it's time to look for a new governor.

It was available for inpatient treatment only. Outpatient treatment was restricted so that the drug supply could be utilized for people who actually needed it rather than shoveling it out to people who just wanted a placebo.

Since the drug is no longer being prescribed in any significant frequency for COVID because of lack of efficacy, there is no need for the restriction anymore.

That's simply not true.


DETROIT – Treatment with hydroxychloroquine cut the death rate significantly in sick patients hospitalized with COVID-19 – and without heart-related side-effects, according to a new study published by Henry Ford Health System.

In a large-scale retrospective analysis of 2,541 patients hospitalized between March 10 and May 2, 2020 across the system’s six hospitals, the study found 13% of those treated with hydroxychloroquine alone died compared to 26.4% not treated with hydroxychloroquine. None of the patients had documented serious heart abnormalities; however, patients were monitored for a heart condition routinely pointed to as a reason to avoid the drug as a treatment for COVID-19.

The study was published today in the International Journal of Infectious Diseases, the peer-reviewed, open-access online publication of the International Society of Infectious Diseases (ISID.org).

Patients treated with hydroxychloroquine at Henry Ford met specific protocol criteria as outlined by the hospital system’s Division of Infectious Diseases. The vast majority received the drug soon after admission; 82% within 24 hours and 91% within 48 hours of admission. All patients in the study were 18 or over with a median age of 64 years; 51% were men and 56% African American.


“The findings have been highly analyzed and peer-reviewed,” said Dr. Marcus Zervos, division head of Infectious Disease for Henry Ford Health System, who co-authored the study with Henry Ford epidemiologist Samia Arshad. “We attribute our findings that differ from other studies to early treatment, and part of a combination of interventions that were done in supportive care of patients, including careful cardiac monitoring. Our dosing also differed from other studies not showing a benefit of the drug. And other studies are either not peer reviewed, have limited numbers of patients, different patient populations or other differences from our patients.”

Zervos said the potential for a surge in the fall or sooner, and infections continuing worldwide, show an urgency to identifying inexpensive and effective therapies and preventions.

“We’re glad to add to the scientific knowledge base on the role and how best to use therapies as we work around the world to provide insight,” he said. “Considered in the context of current studies on the use of hydroxychloroquine for COVID-19, our results suggest that the drug may have an important role to play in reducing COVID-19 mortality.”

Read "Hydroxychloroquine: An Open Letter to the Community & Beyond" here

The study also found those treated with azithromycin alone or a combination of hydroxychloroquine and azithromycin also fared slightly better than those not treated with the drugs, according to the Henry Ford data. The analysis found 22.4% of those treated only with azithromycin died, and 20.1% treated with a combination of azithromycin and hydroxychloroquine died, compared to 26.4% of patients dying who were not treated with either medication.

“Our analysis shows that using hydroxychloroquine helped save lives,” said neurosurgeon Dr. Steven Kalkanis, CEO, Henry Ford Medical Group and Senior Vice President and Chief Academic Officer of Henry Ford Health System. “As doctors and scientists, we look to the data for insight. And the data here is clear that there was benefit to using the drug as a treatment for sick, hospitalized patients.”

Treatment with Hydroxychloroquine Cut Death Rate Significantly in COVID-19 Patients, Henry Ford Health System Study Shows

www.henryford.com

This was probably the study that caused Walz to reverse his position but it is far from the only study that has shown hydroxychloroquine to be an effective therapy for covid 19 when administered early.

Debunked joke of a study....

I know four people who have taken it and have gotten over the virus in about 4 days.

I know people who got over the virus in the same amount of time and didn’t take it.

This is a problem with measuring efficacy of a drug in a disease with extremely high spontaneous recovery rate.

So do I but the hydroxy does work.......so does ivermectin and budesonide. Ive had friends take those two and recover.

 

[colfax_m]

The drug wasn't banned it was still prescribed.


Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz has lifted restrictions he set in March on how the malaria drug hydroxychloroquine is dispensed, saying a run on the drug is no longer feared because it has no proven benefit in treating COVID-19.

Why MN Gov. Walz lifted prescribing limits on the malaria drug Trump touted as COVID-19 treatment

Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz has lifted restrictions he set in March on how the malaria drug hydroxychloroquine is dispensed, saying a run on the drug is no longer feared because it has no proven benefi…

www.twincities.com

Walz initially limited how hydroxychloroquine and chloroquine could be prescribed to ensure patients with lupus, rheumatoid arthritis and other chronic medical conditions who relied on the drug didn’t face shortages.
I use my links because this link is not connected to the echo chamber.

It was banned for off label use, which means it was not legally available for the treatment of covid 19. When a governor tells you doctor what to prescribe for you, it's time to look for a new governor.

It was available for inpatient treatment only. Outpatient treatment was restricted so that the drug supply could be utilized for people who actually needed it rather than shoveling it out to people who just wanted a placebo.

Since the drug is no longer being prescribed in any significant frequency for COVID because of lack of efficacy, there is no need for the restriction anymore.

That's simply not true.


DETROIT – Treatment with hydroxychloroquine cut the death rate significantly in sick patients hospitalized with COVID-19 – and without heart-related side-effects, according to a new study published by Henry Ford Health System.

In a large-scale retrospective analysis of 2,541 patients hospitalized between March 10 and May 2, 2020 across the system’s six hospitals, the study found 13% of those treated with hydroxychloroquine alone died compared to 26.4% not treated with hydroxychloroquine. None of the patients had documented serious heart abnormalities; however, patients were monitored for a heart condition routinely pointed to as a reason to avoid the drug as a treatment for COVID-19.

The study was published today in the International Journal of Infectious Diseases, the peer-reviewed, open-access online publication of the International Society of Infectious Diseases (ISID.org).

Patients treated with hydroxychloroquine at Henry Ford met specific protocol criteria as outlined by the hospital system’s Division of Infectious Diseases. The vast majority received the drug soon after admission; 82% within 24 hours and 91% within 48 hours of admission. All patients in the study were 18 or over with a median age of 64 years; 51% were men and 56% African American.


“The findings have been highly analyzed and peer-reviewed,” said Dr. Marcus Zervos, division head of Infectious Disease for Henry Ford Health System, who co-authored the study with Henry Ford epidemiologist Samia Arshad. “We attribute our findings that differ from other studies to early treatment, and part of a combination of interventions that were done in supportive care of patients, including careful cardiac monitoring. Our dosing also differed from other studies not showing a benefit of the drug. And other studies are either not peer reviewed, have limited numbers of patients, different patient populations or other differences from our patients.”

Zervos said the potential for a surge in the fall or sooner, and infections continuing worldwide, show an urgency to identifying inexpensive and effective therapies and preventions.

“We’re glad to add to the scientific knowledge base on the role and how best to use therapies as we work around the world to provide insight,” he said. “Considered in the context of current studies on the use of hydroxychloroquine for COVID-19, our results suggest that the drug may have an important role to play in reducing COVID-19 mortality.”

Read "Hydroxychloroquine: An Open Letter to the Community & Beyond" here

The study also found those treated with azithromycin alone or a combination of hydroxychloroquine and azithromycin also fared slightly better than those not treated with the drugs, according to the Henry Ford data. The analysis found 22.4% of those treated only with azithromycin died, and 20.1% treated with a combination of azithromycin and hydroxychloroquine died, compared to 26.4% of patients dying who were not treated with either medication.

“Our analysis shows that using hydroxychloroquine helped save lives,” said neurosurgeon Dr. Steven Kalkanis, CEO, Henry Ford Medical Group and Senior Vice President and Chief Academic Officer of Henry Ford Health System. “As doctors and scientists, we look to the data for insight. And the data here is clear that there was benefit to using the drug as a treatment for sick, hospitalized patients.”

Treatment with Hydroxychloroquine Cut Death Rate Significantly in COVID-19 Patients, Henry Ford Health System Study Shows

www.henryford.com

This was probably the study that caused Walz to reverse his position but it is far from the only study that has shown hydroxychloroquine to be an effective therapy for covid 19 when administered early.

Debunked joke of a study....

I know four people who have taken it and have gotten over the virus in about 4 days.

I know people who got over the virus in the same amount of time and didn’t take it.

This is a problem with measuring efficacy of a drug in a disease with extremely high spontaneous recovery rate.

So do I but the hydroxy does work.......so does ivermectin and budesonide. Ive had friends take those two and recover.

And your friends hadn’t taken those drugs, what, they would have died?

 

[toomuchtime_]

This was probably the study that caused Walz to reverse his position but it is far from the only study that has shown hydroxychloroquine to be an effective therapy for covid 19 when administered early.

Going off one study is not how it’s done. This story is fine, but limited. It’s observational and retrospective, meaning it’s not well controlled. Not like a randomized placebo controlled prospective trial. Those trials are far less prone to error by confounding factors which probably existed in the Henry Ford study (the treatment arm received far more steroids than the controlled arm for example). The randomized controlled trials demonstrated no efficacy.

Retrospective studies are commonplace today and well respected within the medical community. This study was peer reviewed and published in a prestigious medical journal, it is being taken seriously by the medical profession even if it is not by CNN. Since there is no established dosage for the drug, studies can't be easily compared. They state that the dosage they used was different from studies that showed no improvement, and a retrospective study that has been carefully peer reviewed that used the right dosage is clearly more valuable than a randomized controlled study that used too low a dosage.

Retrospective studies are commonplace and they can be helpful, but they're always going to be inferior quality to prospective studies. Retrospective studies are quick and easy. Prospective trials are far more difficult. I'm not saying the International Journal of Infectious Diseases is a bad journal by any means, but i'd hardly call it prestigious.

Their dosing was identical to the ORCHID study which was a negative prospective trial, the one that was ended early due to lack of benefit and which the FDA used as it's primary evidence to revoke the emergency authorization for hydroxychloroquine.

Sorry, but that one paper does not outweigh the rest of the evidence against hydroxychloroquine.

Actually, it does since there are only a few stuidies that found it has no value and none of those were peer reviewed. However, if you want moe proof of the value of hydroxychloroquine, here are 53 more studies, 31 of which have been peer reviewed, that show Hydroxychloroquine is of value.

48 studies (28 peer reviewed) showing "very positive" results using HCQ as pre & post exposure prophylaxis & early treatment.

A live and ongoing index of study data from around the world documenting the use of hydroxychloroquine in treatment at various stages of SARS-CoV-2 infection including pre-exposure prophylaxis and post-exposure prophylaxis is available at https://c19study.com/ Overwhelmingly, PrEP, PEP, and...

www.palmerfoundation.com.au

It is sad that Democrats insane hatred of the President has led them to prefer to see people die of the disease rather than recover with the help of this drug.

No, no it doesn't. The strongest, best evidence is consistent that hydroxychloroquine has no effect. If the best designed and controlled trials don't show a benefit, it's just not going to be accepted by the medical community. Strength of evidence isn't just determined by volume but mostly by design.

And it's not just one prospective trial, it's numerous. It was ORCHID in the US. It was RECOVERY in the UK and it was SOLIDARITY in international trials. They all failed.

Furthermore, I question your website at least a little bit. A lot of this is unpublished data. A lot of it comes from random journals such as "Hosp. Pharm. and Clinician" (that study was purely observational, stated they gave the drug to 68 people and 7 died, that's somehow listed as a positive study even though they made zero attempts to do anything like case matching). Another study printed in NEJM August 6th I just read. It was about post exposure prophylaxis and was a negative study, the authors showed no benefit. Somehow this website reinterpreted the results to show there is a benefit.

This has nothing to do with politics. These decisions aren't being made by the Democratic Party, but by large physician groups, everywhere from the FDA to the individual medical societies.

Now you're just being silly. 31 peer reviewed studies that found Hydroxychloroquine was valuable in fighting the virus but three failed studie that disagreed are the gold standard. If President Trump had no recommended this drug, you would not be making such ridiculous arguments.

Not at all. I quoted the three strongest, best studies that were all negative. Of course there were numerous other studies which were likewise negative. As for those studies you are quoting, if those 31 studies are poorly controlled, small, not well designed or all the above, their strength of evidence remains quite weak. A lot of weak evidence is still pretty weak. A couple very strong studies will outweigh them.

This isn't silly, this is exactly how medicine works.

I don't care what Trump says about hydroxychloroquine. That has zero effect on the strength of the evidence.

Why do you think the FDA pulled their approval? Is it just because they hate Trump? Is that really what you want me to believe?

First you have no rational basis for calling these three studies the strongest or the the best, nor do you have any rational basis for dismissing the assessments of the scientists who did peer reviews of the many studies that found the drug valuable.

 

[colfax_m]

This was probably the study that caused Walz to reverse his position but it is far from the only study that has shown hydroxychloroquine to be an effective therapy for covid 19 when administered early.

Going off one study is not how it’s done. This story is fine, but limited. It’s observational and retrospective, meaning it’s not well controlled. Not like a randomized placebo controlled prospective trial. Those trials are far less prone to error by confounding factors which probably existed in the Henry Ford study (the treatment arm received far more steroids than the controlled arm for example). The randomized controlled trials demonstrated no efficacy.

Retrospective studies are commonplace today and well respected within the medical community. This study was peer reviewed and published in a prestigious medical journal, it is being taken seriously by the medical profession even if it is not by CNN. Since there is no established dosage for the drug, studies can't be easily compared. They state that the dosage they used was different from studies that showed no improvement, and a retrospective study that has been carefully peer reviewed that used the right dosage is clearly more valuable than a randomized controlled study that used too low a dosage.

Retrospective studies are commonplace and they can be helpful, but they're always going to be inferior quality to prospective studies. Retrospective studies are quick and easy. Prospective trials are far more difficult. I'm not saying the International Journal of Infectious Diseases is a bad journal by any means, but i'd hardly call it prestigious.

Their dosing was identical to the ORCHID study which was a negative prospective trial, the one that was ended early due to lack of benefit and which the FDA used as it's primary evidence to revoke the emergency authorization for hydroxychloroquine.

Sorry, but that one paper does not outweigh the rest of the evidence against hydroxychloroquine.

Actually, it does since there are only a few stuidies that found it has no value and none of those were peer reviewed. However, if you want moe proof of the value of hydroxychloroquine, here are 53 more studies, 31 of which have been peer reviewed, that show Hydroxychloroquine is of value.

48 studies (28 peer reviewed) showing "very positive" results using HCQ as pre & post exposure prophylaxis & early treatment.

A live and ongoing index of study data from around the world documenting the use of hydroxychloroquine in treatment at various stages of SARS-CoV-2 infection including pre-exposure prophylaxis and post-exposure prophylaxis is available at https://c19study.com/ Overwhelmingly, PrEP, PEP, and...

www.palmerfoundation.com.au

It is sad that Democrats insane hatred of the President has led them to prefer to see people die of the disease rather than recover with the help of this drug.

No, no it doesn't. The strongest, best evidence is consistent that hydroxychloroquine has no effect. If the best designed and controlled trials don't show a benefit, it's just not going to be accepted by the medical community. Strength of evidence isn't just determined by volume but mostly by design.

And it's not just one prospective trial, it's numerous. It was ORCHID in the US. It was RECOVERY in the UK and it was SOLIDARITY in international trials. They all failed.

Furthermore, I question your website at least a little bit. A lot of this is unpublished data. A lot of it comes from random journals such as "Hosp. Pharm. and Clinician" (that study was purely observational, stated they gave the drug to 68 people and 7 died, that's somehow listed as a positive study even though they made zero attempts to do anything like case matching). Another study printed in NEJM August 6th I just read. It was about post exposure prophylaxis and was a negative study, the authors showed no benefit. Somehow this website reinterpreted the results to show there is a benefit.

This has nothing to do with politics. These decisions aren't being made by the Democratic Party, but by large physician groups, everywhere from the FDA to the individual medical societies.

Now you're just being silly. 31 peer reviewed studies that found Hydroxychloroquine was valuable in fighting the virus but three failed studie that disagreed are the gold standard. If President Trump had no recommended this drug, you would not be making such ridiculous arguments.

Not at all. I quoted the three strongest, best studies that were all negative. Of course there were numerous other studies which were likewise negative. As for those studies you are quoting, if those 31 studies are poorly controlled, small, not well designed or all the above, their strength of evidence remains quite weak. A lot of weak evidence is still pretty weak. A couple very strong studies will outweigh them.

This isn't silly, this is exactly how medicine works.

I don't care what Trump says about hydroxychloroquine. That has zero effect on the strength of the evidence.

Why do you think the FDA pulled their approval? Is it just because they hate Trump? Is that really what you want me to believe?

First you have no rational basis for calling these three studies the strongest or the the best, nor do you have any rational basis for dismissing the assessments of the scientists who did peer reviews of the many studies that found the drug valuable.

Sure, there’s rational basis. A prospective placebo controlled trial eliminates many confounding factors that aren’t controlled for in retrospective observational studies such as the Henry Ford study.

Everyone in medicine knows this.

I’m not dismissing anyone’s assessment but a retrospective observational study is inherently limited and authors of these studies acknowledge that fact too. Read the discussion of the Henry Ford study you referred to:
“Our results also require further confirmation in prospective, randomized controlled trials that rigorously evaluate the safety and efficacy of hydroxychloroquine therapy for COVID-19 in hospitalized patients.”

 

[toomuchtime_]

This was probably the study that caused Walz to reverse his position but it is far from the only study that has shown hydroxychloroquine to be an effective therapy for covid 19 when administered early.

Going off one study is not how it’s done. This story is fine, but limited. It’s observational and retrospective, meaning it’s not well controlled. Not like a randomized placebo controlled prospective trial. Those trials are far less prone to error by confounding factors which probably existed in the Henry Ford study (the treatment arm received far more steroids than the controlled arm for example). The randomized controlled trials demonstrated no efficacy.

Retrospective studies are commonplace today and well respected within the medical community. This study was peer reviewed and published in a prestigious medical journal, it is being taken seriously by the medical profession even if it is not by CNN. Since there is no established dosage for the drug, studies can't be easily compared. They state that the dosage they used was different from studies that showed no improvement, and a retrospective study that has been carefully peer reviewed that used the right dosage is clearly more valuable than a randomized controlled study that used too low a dosage.

Retrospective studies are commonplace and they can be helpful, but they're always going to be inferior quality to prospective studies. Retrospective studies are quick and easy. Prospective trials are far more difficult. I'm not saying the International Journal of Infectious Diseases is a bad journal by any means, but i'd hardly call it prestigious.

Their dosing was identical to the ORCHID study which was a negative prospective trial, the one that was ended early due to lack of benefit and which the FDA used as it's primary evidence to revoke the emergency authorization for hydroxychloroquine.

Sorry, but that one paper does not outweigh the rest of the evidence against hydroxychloroquine.

Actually, it does since there are only a few stuidies that found it has no value and none of those were peer reviewed. However, if you want moe proof of the value of hydroxychloroquine, here are 53 more studies, 31 of which have been peer reviewed, that show Hydroxychloroquine is of value.

48 studies (28 peer reviewed) showing "very positive" results using HCQ as pre & post exposure prophylaxis & early treatment.

A live and ongoing index of study data from around the world documenting the use of hydroxychloroquine in treatment at various stages of SARS-CoV-2 infection including pre-exposure prophylaxis and post-exposure prophylaxis is available at https://c19study.com/ Overwhelmingly, PrEP, PEP, and...

www.palmerfoundation.com.au

It is sad that Democrats insane hatred of the President has led them to prefer to see people die of the disease rather than recover with the help of this drug.

No, no it doesn't. The strongest, best evidence is consistent that hydroxychloroquine has no effect. If the best designed and controlled trials don't show a benefit, it's just not going to be accepted by the medical community. Strength of evidence isn't just determined by volume but mostly by design.

And it's not just one prospective trial, it's numerous. It was ORCHID in the US. It was RECOVERY in the UK and it was SOLIDARITY in international trials. They all failed.

Furthermore, I question your website at least a little bit. A lot of this is unpublished data. A lot of it comes from random journals such as "Hosp. Pharm. and Clinician" (that study was purely observational, stated they gave the drug to 68 people and 7 died, that's somehow listed as a positive study even though they made zero attempts to do anything like case matching). Another study printed in NEJM August 6th I just read. It was about post exposure prophylaxis and was a negative study, the authors showed no benefit. Somehow this website reinterpreted the results to show there is a benefit.

This has nothing to do with politics. These decisions aren't being made by the Democratic Party, but by large physician groups, everywhere from the FDA to the individual medical societies.

Now you're just being silly. 31 peer reviewed studies that found Hydroxychloroquine was valuable in fighting the virus but three failed studie that disagreed are the gold standard. If President Trump had no recommended this drug, you would not be making such ridiculous arguments.

Not at all. I quoted the three strongest, best studies that were all negative. Of course there were numerous other studies which were likewise negative. As for those studies you are quoting, if those 31 studies are poorly controlled, small, not well designed or all the above, their strength of evidence remains quite weak. A lot of weak evidence is still pretty weak. A couple very strong studies will outweigh them.

This isn't silly, this is exactly how medicine works.

I don't care what Trump says about hydroxychloroquine. That has zero effect on the strength of the evidence.

Why do you think the FDA pulled their approval? Is it just because they hate Trump? Is that really what you want me to believe?

First you have no rational basis for calling these three studies the strongest or the the best, nor do you have any rational basis for dismissing the assessments of the scientists who did peer reviews of the many studies that found the drug valuable.

Sure, there’s rational basis. A prospective placebo controlled trial eliminates many confounding factors that aren’t controlled for in retrospective observational studies such as the Henry Ford study.

Everyone in medicine knows this.

I’m not dismissing anyone’s assessment but a retrospective observational study is inherently limited and authors of these studies acknowledge that fact too. Read the discussion of the Henry Ford study you referred to:
“Our results also require further confirmation in prospective, randomized controlled trials that rigorously evaluate the safety and efficacy of hydroxychloroquine therapy for COVID-19 in hospitalized patients.”

Yes, and they are undertaking new studies right now, but the scientists who did peer review on the study found the methodology sound and the results credible. Again, you have no rational basis for dismissing the assessments of the scientists who did the peer review of this study.

 

[BigDave]

Nolte: Minnesota's Democrat Governor Quietly Rescinds Hydroxychloroquine Ban

Minnesota is "the second state to reject regulations that effectively ban the controversial drug hydroxychloroquine."

www.breitbart.com

Minnesota’s Democrat Governor Quietly Rescinds Hydroxychloroquine Ban



This includes Yale School of Public Health epidemiology professor Dr. Harvey A. Risch, who wrote, “When this inexpensive oral medication is given very early in the course of illness, before the virus has had time to multiply beyond control, it has shown to be highly effective, especially when given in combination with the antibiotics azithromycin or doxycycline and the nutritional supplement zinc.”



Miltimore notes other recent studies that land on the side of hydroxychloroquine’s effectiveness in treating the coronavirus, especially in its early stages, which is “key,” according to Risch. Other proponents include:

• Steven Hatfill, a veteran virologist and adjunct assistant professor at the George Washington University Medical Center, says the literature supporting hydroxychloroquine is overwhelming.
• “There are now 53 studies that show positive results of hydroxychloroquine in COVID infections,” Hatfill wrote[.]
• One of the positive studies, published by Henry Ford Health System, was a large-scale retrospective of six hospitals. Analyzing 2,541 patients, it found that those treated with hydroxychloroquine alone died at about half the rate of patients not treated with it.

Eat crow you leftist wankers.

Finally the stupid son of a bitch did something smart

 

[LordBrownTrout]

The drug wasn't banned it was still prescribed.


Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz has lifted restrictions he set in March on how the malaria drug hydroxychloroquine is dispensed, saying a run on the drug is no longer feared because it has no proven benefit in treating COVID-19.

Why MN Gov. Walz lifted prescribing limits on the malaria drug Trump touted as COVID-19 treatment

Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz has lifted restrictions he set in March on how the malaria drug hydroxychloroquine is dispensed, saying a run on the drug is no longer feared because it has no proven benefi…

www.twincities.com

Walz initially limited how hydroxychloroquine and chloroquine could be prescribed to ensure patients with lupus, rheumatoid arthritis and other chronic medical conditions who relied on the drug didn’t face shortages.
I use my links because this link is not connected to the echo chamber.

It was banned for off label use, which means it was not legally available for the treatment of covid 19. When a governor tells you doctor what to prescribe for you, it's time to look for a new governor.

It was available for inpatient treatment only. Outpatient treatment was restricted so that the drug supply could be utilized for people who actually needed it rather than shoveling it out to people who just wanted a placebo.

Since the drug is no longer being prescribed in any significant frequency for COVID because of lack of efficacy, there is no need for the restriction anymore.

That's simply not true.


DETROIT – Treatment with hydroxychloroquine cut the death rate significantly in sick patients hospitalized with COVID-19 – and without heart-related side-effects, according to a new study published by Henry Ford Health System.

In a large-scale retrospective analysis of 2,541 patients hospitalized between March 10 and May 2, 2020 across the system’s six hospitals, the study found 13% of those treated with hydroxychloroquine alone died compared to 26.4% not treated with hydroxychloroquine. None of the patients had documented serious heart abnormalities; however, patients were monitored for a heart condition routinely pointed to as a reason to avoid the drug as a treatment for COVID-19.

The study was published today in the International Journal of Infectious Diseases, the peer-reviewed, open-access online publication of the International Society of Infectious Diseases (ISID.org).

Patients treated with hydroxychloroquine at Henry Ford met specific protocol criteria as outlined by the hospital system’s Division of Infectious Diseases. The vast majority received the drug soon after admission; 82% within 24 hours and 91% within 48 hours of admission. All patients in the study were 18 or over with a median age of 64 years; 51% were men and 56% African American.


“The findings have been highly analyzed and peer-reviewed,” said Dr. Marcus Zervos, division head of Infectious Disease for Henry Ford Health System, who co-authored the study with Henry Ford epidemiologist Samia Arshad. “We attribute our findings that differ from other studies to early treatment, and part of a combination of interventions that were done in supportive care of patients, including careful cardiac monitoring. Our dosing also differed from other studies not showing a benefit of the drug. And other studies are either not peer reviewed, have limited numbers of patients, different patient populations or other differences from our patients.”

Zervos said the potential for a surge in the fall or sooner, and infections continuing worldwide, show an urgency to identifying inexpensive and effective therapies and preventions.

“We’re glad to add to the scientific knowledge base on the role and how best to use therapies as we work around the world to provide insight,” he said. “Considered in the context of current studies on the use of hydroxychloroquine for COVID-19, our results suggest that the drug may have an important role to play in reducing COVID-19 mortality.”

Read "Hydroxychloroquine: An Open Letter to the Community & Beyond" here

The study also found those treated with azithromycin alone or a combination of hydroxychloroquine and azithromycin also fared slightly better than those not treated with the drugs, according to the Henry Ford data. The analysis found 22.4% of those treated only with azithromycin died, and 20.1% treated with a combination of azithromycin and hydroxychloroquine died, compared to 26.4% of patients dying who were not treated with either medication.

“Our analysis shows that using hydroxychloroquine helped save lives,” said neurosurgeon Dr. Steven Kalkanis, CEO, Henry Ford Medical Group and Senior Vice President and Chief Academic Officer of Henry Ford Health System. “As doctors and scientists, we look to the data for insight. And the data here is clear that there was benefit to using the drug as a treatment for sick, hospitalized patients.”

Treatment with Hydroxychloroquine Cut Death Rate Significantly in COVID-19 Patients, Henry Ford Health System Study Shows

www.henryford.com

This was probably the study that caused Walz to reverse his position but it is far from the only study that has shown hydroxychloroquine to be an effective therapy for covid 19 when administered early.

Debunked joke of a study....

I know four people who have taken it and have gotten over the virus in about 4 days.

I know people who got over the virus in the same amount of time and didn’t take it.

This is a problem with measuring efficacy of a drug in a disease with extremely high spontaneous recovery rate.

So do I but the hydroxy does work.......so does ivermectin and budesonide. Ive had friends take those two and recover.

And your friends hadn’t taken those drugs, what, they would have died?

Doubtful, but, you never know right..........thats what we're told........right? Supposedly, this virus lasts about 10 days. They had it 4 days and were fully recovered. 80 percent of the people who get it never get a symptom, never know they have it. Now, we're finding out that the pcr test being given is flawed since it looks for a specific 18 block sequence, gcat. One human chromosome has that exact same sequence. What do you know.

 

[colfax_m]

This was probably the study that caused Walz to reverse his position but it is far from the only study that has shown hydroxychloroquine to be an effective therapy for covid 19 when administered early.

Going off one study is not how it’s done. This story is fine, but limited. It’s observational and retrospective, meaning it’s not well controlled. Not like a randomized placebo controlled prospective trial. Those trials are far less prone to error by confounding factors which probably existed in the Henry Ford study (the treatment arm received far more steroids than the controlled arm for example). The randomized controlled trials demonstrated no efficacy.

Retrospective studies are commonplace today and well respected within the medical community. This study was peer reviewed and published in a prestigious medical journal, it is being taken seriously by the medical profession even if it is not by CNN. Since there is no established dosage for the drug, studies can't be easily compared. They state that the dosage they used was different from studies that showed no improvement, and a retrospective study that has been carefully peer reviewed that used the right dosage is clearly more valuable than a randomized controlled study that used too low a dosage.

Retrospective studies are commonplace and they can be helpful, but they're always going to be inferior quality to prospective studies. Retrospective studies are quick and easy. Prospective trials are far more difficult. I'm not saying the International Journal of Infectious Diseases is a bad journal by any means, but i'd hardly call it prestigious.

Their dosing was identical to the ORCHID study which was a negative prospective trial, the one that was ended early due to lack of benefit and which the FDA used as it's primary evidence to revoke the emergency authorization for hydroxychloroquine.

Sorry, but that one paper does not outweigh the rest of the evidence against hydroxychloroquine.

Actually, it does since there are only a few stuidies that found it has no value and none of those were peer reviewed. However, if you want moe proof of the value of hydroxychloroquine, here are 53 more studies, 31 of which have been peer reviewed, that show Hydroxychloroquine is of value.

48 studies (28 peer reviewed) showing "very positive" results using HCQ as pre & post exposure prophylaxis & early treatment.

A live and ongoing index of study data from around the world documenting the use of hydroxychloroquine in treatment at various stages of SARS-CoV-2 infection including pre-exposure prophylaxis and post-exposure prophylaxis is available at https://c19study.com/ Overwhelmingly, PrEP, PEP, and...

www.palmerfoundation.com.au

It is sad that Democrats insane hatred of the President has led them to prefer to see people die of the disease rather than recover with the help of this drug.

No, no it doesn't. The strongest, best evidence is consistent that hydroxychloroquine has no effect. If the best designed and controlled trials don't show a benefit, it's just not going to be accepted by the medical community. Strength of evidence isn't just determined by volume but mostly by design.

And it's not just one prospective trial, it's numerous. It was ORCHID in the US. It was RECOVERY in the UK and it was SOLIDARITY in international trials. They all failed.

Furthermore, I question your website at least a little bit. A lot of this is unpublished data. A lot of it comes from random journals such as "Hosp. Pharm. and Clinician" (that study was purely observational, stated they gave the drug to 68 people and 7 died, that's somehow listed as a positive study even though they made zero attempts to do anything like case matching). Another study printed in NEJM August 6th I just read. It was about post exposure prophylaxis and was a negative study, the authors showed no benefit. Somehow this website reinterpreted the results to show there is a benefit.

This has nothing to do with politics. These decisions aren't being made by the Democratic Party, but by large physician groups, everywhere from the FDA to the individual medical societies.

Now you're just being silly. 31 peer reviewed studies that found Hydroxychloroquine was valuable in fighting the virus but three failed studie that disagreed are the gold standard. If President Trump had no recommended this drug, you would not be making such ridiculous arguments.

Not at all. I quoted the three strongest, best studies that were all negative. Of course there were numerous other studies which were likewise negative. As for those studies you are quoting, if those 31 studies are poorly controlled, small, not well designed or all the above, their strength of evidence remains quite weak. A lot of weak evidence is still pretty weak. A couple very strong studies will outweigh them.

This isn't silly, this is exactly how medicine works.

I don't care what Trump says about hydroxychloroquine. That has zero effect on the strength of the evidence.

Why do you think the FDA pulled their approval? Is it just because they hate Trump? Is that really what you want me to believe?

First you have no rational basis for calling these three studies the strongest or the the best, nor do you have any rational basis for dismissing the assessments of the scientists who did peer reviews of the many studies that found the drug valuable.

Sure, there’s rational basis. A prospective placebo controlled trial eliminates many confounding factors that aren’t controlled for in retrospective observational studies such as the Henry Ford study.

Everyone in medicine knows this.

I’m not dismissing anyone’s assessment but a retrospective observational study is inherently limited and authors of these studies acknowledge that fact too. Read the discussion of the Henry Ford study you referred to:
“Our results also require further confirmation in prospective, randomized controlled trials that rigorously evaluate the safety and efficacy of hydroxychloroquine therapy for COVID-19 in hospitalized patients.”

Yes, and they are undertaking new studies right now, but the scientists who did peer review on the study found the methodology sound and the results credible. Again, you have no rational basis for dismissing the assessments of the scientists who did the peer review of this study.

The methodology was as good as it could be, but inherently limited by the design. The reviewers made sure the limitations were noted, which they were.

You don’t get it. This isn’t about the study being “bad”, it’s about the study being limited.

Ive already posted the rational basis for “dismissing” the assessment but I’ll post it again. It’s because the study could not eliminate confounding factors that could affect its outcome.