Further study? There have been further studies BEFORE this meta analysis and they found no result. A double blind clinical trial is like a scientific experiment to prove a theory. They did them and in thousands of patients. A metaanalysis is just reading up data to try to find some indications and make theories so as to make CLINICAL TRIALS to prove the theory. Since clinical trials have already be done what further studies? The theory is already disproven in the proper way. Stop politicising hydroxicholoroqinue. If it worked everyone would be happy. It sadly doesnt and Trump has nothing to do with that.
Seriously? You don't think it's important that people's lives may have been forfeited due to politics? I found this interesting:- "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." You do know what "peer reviewed" means?
Why on god's green earth would I do that if my primary concern is with thousands of lives and a possible cover up?
The irony of you writing: Please, learn about what you are attempting to promote. The FDA ended trials after finding the drug wasn't effective. and again, the leaders of the study you are promoting acknowledge that their study was observational, not clinical. A flawed Covid-19 study gets the White House’s attention — and the FDA may pay the price https://www.statnews.com/2020/07/08...uses-attention-and-the-fda-may-pay-the-price/
Jesus Christ are we back on this? There are multiple studies that are less flawed than the Ford study and they all found no appreciable benefit from the drug in the treatment of COVID19. Indeed they found severe side effects in some cases. There is no cover up. This shouldn’t even be a political issue except the President ignorantly decided a drug he knew little about was a wonder cure. Trump has been wrong on almost everything COVID19 related because he doesn’t trust science.
what cover up? Can you even read? A peer reviewed meta analysis study is TRASH in comparison with many double blind CLINICAL TRIALS on thousands of patients on multiple countries. Go look up what meta analysis and what clinical trials mean in a dictionary and stop the bullcrap.
Okay then. But what do you make of this from your C&P? "Not only was it not randomized, outside experts noted, but patients who received hydroxychloroquine were also more likely to get steroids, which appear to help very sick patients with Covid-19." Seems significant to me.
...which Ford noted and explained. The drug has been in use since 1955. From Wiki:- "It is on the World Health Organization's List of Essential Medicines, the safest and most effective medicines needed in a health system."
Of course it is. It's an effective medicine against malaria and rheumatoid conditions. Insulin is also on the list. I'd probably cause severe harm to myself if I took insulin
True man, and Ford acknowledged that notion. However, we seem to be missing a point in this thing - when Ford makes the claim of a 50% success rate in treating Covid19 cases, are they lying?
Read and understand the studies. It's been pointed out in this thread why the Ford study is flawed. If they want to continue the study...fine, but to simply continue treating folks with an unproven drug is potentially dangerous and wasteful. There is a finite amount of the drug, and people need it for proven use.
You do realize that the first sentence you wrote is the key... it was not randomized. And read the second sentence you wrote... "were more likely to get steroids, which appear..."
On the news they are discussing that the change in tone of the Trump's recent briefing by saying that it is important to wear a mask and that this crisis will get worse before it gets better is because of new campaign manager Bill Stepian. Stepian has gotten to Trump that he's losing the suburbs badly because of a credibility gap from what he is saying and what they seeing. To win them back he needed to change the tone to acknowledge what is happening rather than continue to be defensive. Speaking personally this is something I expected to happen and that one thing that Trump has is a very low bar and I wouldn't be surprised to see a lot of talk about how Trump is now sounding presidential and has "grown into the office". Whether it's enough for him to turn things around I don't know but this why I've been saying this election cannot be taken for granted and to quote the late Ann Richards, "No election in November was decided in July."
So you are saying Ford cherry picked their findings to make it look like they were on to something - thus in effect, cheating and lying?
Maybe he can stay on message for a few days, but I have my doubt it will last. Reference: since 2016 and recently with his daily COVID briefings where he started on message and then... well we all know what happen. Yes, a masking message is such a low bar.
