I believe it all started with this article on The Conversation by dr. Katherine Seley-Radtke (Department of Chemistry and Biochemistry, University of Maryland) a couple of days ago, which telling was not published in an academic journal but on the internet:
A small trial finds that hydroxychloroquine is not effective for treating coronavirus
April 3, 2020 1.40pm BST Updated April 3, 2020 3.10pm BST
The president promoted the combination of hydroxychloroquine and an antibiotic for treating COVID-19. But a new study suggests it provides no benefits.
theconversation.com
archive: http://archive.is/aao27
This article referred to a tiny French study with 11 patients that dismissed the effectiveness of the C&A combo (hydroxychloroquine and azithromycin) in severe and comorbid Covid-19 cases:
No Evidence of Rapid Antiviral Clearance or Clinical Benefit with the Combination of Hydroxychloroquine and Azithromycin in Patients with Severe COVID-19 Infection
www.sciencedirect.com
Quoting from the study:
There were 7 men and 4 women with a mean age of 58.7 years (range: 20-77),
8 had significant comorbidities associated with poor outcomes (obesity: 2; solid cancer: 3; hematological cancer: 2; HIV-infection: 1).
At the time of treatment initiation, 10/11 had fever and received nasal oxygen therapy. Within 5 days, one patient died, two were transferred to the ICU. In one patient, hydroxychloroquine and azithromycin were discontinued after 4 days because of a prolongation of the QT interval
from 405 ms before treatment to 460 and 470 ms under the combination. Mean through blood concentration of hydroxychloroquine was 678 ng/mL (range: 381-891) at days 3-7 after treatment initiation.
Repeated nasopharyngeal swabs in 10 patients (not done in the patient who died) using a qualitative PCR assay ... were still positive for SARS-CoV2 RNA in 8/10 patients (80%, 95% confidence interval: 49-94) at days 5 to 6 after treatment initiation.
These virologic results stand in contrast with those reported by Gautret et al. and cast doubts about the strong antiviral efficacy of this combination. Furthermore, in their report Gautret etal also reported one death and three transfers to the ICU among the 26 patients who received hydroxychloroquine, also underlining the poor clinical outcome with this combination.
In addition, a recent study from China in individuals with COVID-19 found no difference in the rate of virologic clearance at 7 days with or without 5 days of hydroxychloroquine, and no difference in clinical outcomes (duration of hospitalization, temperature normalization,
radiological progression) (4). These results are consistent with the lack of virologic or clinical benefit of chloroquine in a number of viral infections where it was assessed for treatment or prophylaxis with sometimes a deleterious effect on viral replication (5-
.
In summary, despite a reported antiviral activity of chloroquine against COVID-19 in vitro, we found no evidence of a strong antiviral activity or clinical benefit of the combination of hydroxychloroquine and azithromycin for the treatment of our hospitalized patients with severe COVID-19. Ongoing randomized clinical trials with hydroxychloroquine should provide a definitive answer regarding the alleged efficacy of this combination and will assess its safety.
www.sciencedirect.com
This article from The Conversation was then picked up and highlighted by Snopes, who are once again revealing their own political bias by doing so:
A trial of an anti-malaria drug in France found different results from a similar study published the previous month.
www.snopes.com
The article by dr. Katherine Seley-Radtke on The Conversation prompted 67 responses, many of which poked holes in the author's argument and proceeded to reveal
the author's own industry affiliation with a company that's currently working on a Covid-19 vaccine which she tellingly did not disclose in her article. The problem is that these 67 responses are at the very bottom of the page and you will only see them if you specifically choose to unroll them:
The latest news (April 2) from new-York concerning the testing of chloroquine was done with 1,500 mgs daily doses rather than the 600 mgs dosage in this article. Also, the drug has to be given early to obese people who are the majority of the critical patients
The president promoted the combination of hydroxychloroquine and an antibiotic for treating COVID-19. But a new study suggests it provides no benefits.
theconversation.com
Yes, and there is also a doctor using lower does in combination with Zinc and claims excellent results. https://www.nytimes.com/2020/04/02/technology/doctor-zelenko-coronavirus-drugs.html
The president promoted the combination of hydroxychloroquine and an antibiotic for treating COVID-19. But a new study suggests it provides no benefits.
theconversation.com
This author has contributed two articles to this website. Both articles are critical of treatment of COVID-19 with hydroxychloroquine. The first article’s disclosure statement begins as follows:
“Katherine Seley-Radtke has previously consulted for Gilead Pharmaceuticals…”
This article’s disclosure statement is missing this important disclosure.
Gilead Pharmaceuticals is currently developing a potential vaccine for COVID-19.
I am not a conspiracy theorist. But this sort of selective disclosure only feeds the conspiracy theorists who believe that a potential treatment is being disparaged for profit motive.
The president promoted the combination of hydroxychloroquine and an antibiotic for treating COVID-19. But a new study suggests it provides no benefits.
theconversation.com
This article seems misleading, you are comparing apples to oranges to bananas. One study uses Hydroxychloroquine as a stand-alone treatment, another study uses Hydroxychloroquine and Azithromycin in patients with severe illness, and another study uses Hydroxychloroquine and Azithromycin in patients in early onset of the disease.
The president promoted the combination of hydroxychloroquine and an antibiotic for treating COVID-19. But a new study suggests it provides no benefits.
theconversation.com
The “Secret”, my dear friends, is the concomitant use of ZINC! My view(layman’s) is that many/ most patients are relatively ZINC deficient. When the virus comes along, seroavailable Zinc is quickly used up in the fight together with any present Zinc Ionophores (Quercetin, Methylxanthine, Theobromine, theophylline etc) from one’s Diet. THAT causes the “loss of taste and smell” symptom that shows up in 30 percent of cases. Hydroxychloroquine and Chloroquine are Zinc Ionophores AND raise the pH of the Blood. Thus THE ADDED ZINC can stop the RNA replication by entering affected cells and effectively killing the Virons,and any excess keeps floating around looking for “the rest of the enemy”. IMHO
The president promoted the combination of hydroxychloroquine and an antibiotic for treating COVID-19. But a new study suggests it provides no benefits.
theconversation.com
Largest Statistically Significant Study by 6,200 Multi-Country Physicians on COVID-19 Uncovers Treatment Patterns and Puts Pandemic in Context:
“Hydroxychloroquine was overall chosen as the most effective therapy amongst COVID-19 treaters from a list of 15 options (37% of COVID-19 treaters)75% in Spain, 53% Italy, 44% in China, 43% in Brazil, 29% in France, 23% in the U.S. and 13% in the U.K.”
Who wants to actually know about how hydroxychloroquine can be effective should search for Dr. Zelenko results. The combination of hydroxychloroquine and antibiotics is not very effective, but he added zinc and his results are amazing. Saying hydroxychloroquine just doesn’t work is IRRESPONSIBLE.
The president promoted the combination of hydroxychloroquine and an antibiotic for treating COVID-19. But a new study suggests it provides no benefits.
theconversation.com
My personal opinion is that even if the C&A(& Zinc, which has been brought up in this thread before) combo only saves 2 out of 10 critically ill patients, it should not be dismissed. Saving a few is still better than none. If it supposedly only works on relatively healthy patients without underlying conditions, why the hell dismiss it just because it doesn't work on the comorbid ones? This is clearly a case of different horses for different courses. As I pointed out earlier with
the link from Clinicaltrials.gov, there are multiple Covid-19 related trials announced testing all sorts of drugs and supplements,
only one of which is hydroxychloroquine. We are seeing all sorts of news items come out about other succesful in vitro experiments with other drugs, which are of couse exploited to create name recognition and thus build a future market for these drugs. Medical professionals need to have a wide array of options available to them to help their patients recover. Even if hydroxychloroquine,
or any other drug currently under trial for that matter, does turn out to be "the new Tamiflu"*, it's too early to make statements either way.
* For those of you that don't remember
the Tamiflu controversy, this was a drug that governments around the world spent billions stockpiling in anticipation of a birdflu pandemic. Tamiflu was supposed to reduce the rate of fatal complications, pneumonia and death. Turns out, all the hype was due to bad trials. When academics found out, the manufacturer dragged their feet for years. It eventually led to a formal inquiry in the UK.
news.yahoo.com
