Umm, they halted the study after just 3 weeks because the "treated" patients had a higher death rate (cardiac problems) than the Untreated ones...not exactly a "win"......
NNote, the study was in May....reading more carefully would be a good idea!

Sounds about right but I don’t know what a ‘W’ is. Too old to keep up culturally I guess.

Actually this drug was being touted by doctors around the world before Trump said anything about it. I even made a post on this forum about groups of doctors who were pleading for tests well before that Trump thing.

@AnneWimsey Oh...

@AnneWimsey, @WilliamFleming Not a sports fan? A 'W' is a WIN!
Jury still out though, which is why I edited my comment.

@AnneWimsey Tough to assess the credibility of your claim without supporting evidence.

@Storm1752 Storm, can you straighten this out? If I am wrong I’ll apologize and take down this whole mess, but the study is clearly labeled as published July 1, 2020.

I don't see how this has anything to do with Trump because he touted Hydroxychloroquine for prevention but this study only tests it with respect to treatment.

@AnneWimsey Can you please cite some evidence to back up your claim that this is an old study that was discontinued? That makes no sense. It was a retrospective study, looking back at the results of what was done in the past.

Links please!

@WilliamFleming Just going by what I'm reading here, William. Since I hope to be fortunate enough, 'sheltering in place' as I am, to never contract said virus, I further hope it's, for me at least, a moot point!

@LovinLarge see above, the Latest WHO shut-down of trials.

@WilliamFleming oh, I dunno, you could Google "hydochloroquinine studies" and educate yourself, BEFORE you post cruel BS leading to false hope & promoting possible deadly self-medication......but maybe that's just me?

@AnneWimsey If you will google “Michigan hydrochloroquine study you’ll see this study reported in at least twenty major news sources. Do you consider it cruel and misleading BS for all those news outlets to report on a study just published in a peer-reviewed professional journal?

Yesterday I learned about a French study that reports success and I’ve posted that article also. I will continue to point to hopeful new developments because I am an optimistic person who promotes optimism and happiness over fear and sadness.

Interesting remark. I think I understand what you are saying. It’s no longer the law of the jungle. Just about anybody can survive and reproduce in this environment. How long do you think we can keep it up though?

@WilliamFleming A few billion years the star closest to Earth is supposed to explode or expand into a Red giant star and burn every thing up on Earth. Will intelligence capabilities get off Earth and survive to bring life from earth to outer solar system and beyond?

@Word Even if not, a trillion years without conscious awareness would seem no longer than the blink of an eye. Time is a product of awareness.

Are you postulating 'evolutionary processes' bring about 'population control and eradication of homo sapiens,' and intelligent people slow those processes down?
Does that mean de-evolution is the norm, or evolution naturally is arranging for human extinction?
How does that make sense?

@WilliamFleming Tine is a measurement. We are aware and things happen. People overlook "duration " as I will use that word for lack of better. Time measures duration. There is a duration between events or the duration of an event and it is measured in time. Then consider the word event or occurence. We can start measurement of time for an event that has a duration.

I think the word "time" is used so much and so synonymous with "duration" it is basically so conflated that it is difficult for people to understand Slight subtle differences in.

@WilliamFleming Anothef thought, duration is labeling the fact or occurence, where as time is the measurement. Does that help you understand how I understand differences?

@Storm1752 Planet of the apes, movie? If we already deal with racism across the world and current homo sapiens are not specifically any better than one another, what would happen if some homo sapiens evolved into homo superduperious and began a true separation of 2 distinctly different yet fully intelectual capable species and one more so superior. Strongest/smartest survive live biblical text giving stories of some people along a family lines killing off others.

Do you understand evolutionary processes?

Gee, I dunno, smallpox, cholera & the Black Death, to name but a very few, never actually slowed any of us down permanently, or we wouldn't have this massive overpopulation, would we?!?

I don’t understand all the hostility either. You would think that something like this would generate nothing but hope and excitement. Most of the commenters apparently haven’t even read the thing.

It appears that most of the people on this forum have allowed themselves to become so hateful that they can’t think straight.

@WilliamFleming Well, thank you for posting the study, it was well worth noting and no contrary evidence has been cited. I think civility can and should prevail in all circumstances (violence excepted). Hopefully this study moves us a step forward in the direction we all want to go.

@WilliamFleming generating FALSE HOPE is cruel, at best, and could lead to more deaths if people try self-medicating! A lot of the drugs mentioned are out there doing other stuff!

I agree the 'combativeness' of this forum is sometimes disheartening. You get inexorably sucked into it sometimes, particularly the vitrol directed at the odious personage of Donald Trump, when the problem is actually more symptomatic of a much larger 'right-wing conspiracy.'
AND at many sentiments expressed about Agnostics in general, as if any 'spiritual' thoughts or notions are automatically 'beliefs' and/or endorsements.
Anyway, it's still a fun and unique place to hang out, if you can deflect or sidestep some of the negativity.

@WilliamFleming it is CRUEL and IMO wrong to raise false hopes!

@TheMiddleWay It's a peer reviewed study accepted by the International Journal of infectious Diseases.

I'm certainly not qualified to do a thorough analysis, I just hope it ends up having some utility even if that is only excluding these drugs as safe and effective treatment.

Yes, another study is coming:

[henryford.com]

July 2, 2020. It’s dangerous to comment without even looking at the articles

@WilliamFleming nice try. First one says May.

@redhog The first one says the article was submitted on May 28 and accepted by the Journal on June 29, which was this week.

@WilliamFleming you are generating False Hope & Falsehoods without checking the facts, which have been pointed out on just this thread by about a dozen people! One wonders what your actual agenda is.....

@redhog yes, mMr Fleming changed the date when he got called on it...see below, where because of this, I have lost all respect for him! He has some agenda......

@redhog, @WilliamFleming it is also dangerous to change things from your original post, causing me to question what your agenda is. Most of us on here REMEMBER that you changed the original dates in jsut the last 2 days! Why???? Unlike drump, and you, apparently, we stick to the Facts......

@AnneWimsey Good lord! I haven’t changed any dates!

This story is all over the news—all you have to do is Google and you’ll get all the confirmation you need.

@AnneWimsey yeah he definitely gives off trumper vibes

@AnneWimsey I take issue with your claim that you stick to facts. You've insisted repeatedly throughout this thread that this study was halted after three weeks as dangerous. You were asked repeatedly for a citation so that we could consider all the relevant facts but never supplied any evidence to support your claim. Turns out your claim has no application to this study. Even if you'd had some relevant evidence, it would have been more effective to reference it in a civil manner.

@LovinLarge but wait! Read the top couple of posts! MORE confirmation! And BTW, I use a 10" tablet exclusively, I have no idea how to post a citation, pretty sure I do not have that capability. We all, however, have Google...type in "failed hydrochloquinone studies" and prepared to oh, I dunno, educate yourself?

@AnneWimsey Factual claims require evidence to establish credibility and the onus of proof lies with the professor. You littered this thread with the false claim that this study was halted for safety reasons. If you had any integrity, you would remove each and every one of those comments and apologize for trying to mislead us and for the way you addressed the OP.

In a very short time, I have witnessed that being rude is a pattern for you. That coupled with lack of credibility means that your comments are not worthy of my time so I won't be reading them anymore. I would prefer that you not address me again.

Outdated.....May?! They Halted the trials because death rates from cardiac issues soared to much higher #s than if no treatment was given......

@AnneWimsey yup

Interesting means interesting. I needed to read the literature.

Look at the date of the study, Google it, it was Halted because deaths by cardiac arrest were attributed to these drugs & the death rate was Much Higher than if the patients had Not received the drugs!

@AnneWimsey The onus of proof is on the professor.

Yes, the same people are launching a more detailed study:

[henryford.com]

@AnneWimsey The study was published day before yesterday. A new study by the same people is on the way:

[henryford.com]

@WilliamFleming this same study was published in May...the post you made is dated May. WTF?

@AnneWimsey Not so. What are you looking at? The heading clearly states that it was published July 1, 2020.

If I am wrong I will apologize. The study looked back over past cases. Can you give me a link to that study published in May and a link to where it was halted?

@WilliamFleming republished..I have no idea why..and your original WAS dated May, which Ma isywhen I read the original post...I am fast losing respect t for you!

@AnneWimsey I don’t understand why you keep insisting that this is a study that was published in May. All you have to do is click on

[henryford.com]

You are clearly off track. The study was just published.

You might be losing respect for me but I respect myself, and I continue to respect you. I can only assume that you are angry at me for my teasing response the other day about Florida and the washing of hands. I can’t believe that my posting of a legitimate report that was just published in in the International Journal of Infectious Diseases, the peer-reviewed, open-access online publication of the International Society of Infectious Diseases (ISID.org) would generate all this hostility.

Please reconsider.

Apparently you have not been following this story fully. Doctors around the world were reporting positive results from the start of the epidemic, and they were pleading for studies to be done. The drugs were said to be useful for treating the early stages of the disease only.

Studies that gave the drug to advanced cases are useless anyway, but in fact at least one of those studies was determined to be faulty and was withdrawn, leading to the resumption of studies in various places. I posted a news item a couple of days ago about the resumption of a study in the UK.

But this is a complete report of a thorough and professional study done here in the US, and the result is phenomenal—a 71% reduction in mortality with the drug combination!

In a sane world this news would be shouted from the rooftops! It is good news of the highest order, yet the news outlets are ignoring the study. Apparently they don’t want DT to score a single point, even if their neglect leads to millions of deaths. DT is only a minor side-player here.

@WilliamFleming sorry, actually Halting a study is only done if the study (the drugs used) are killing the participants faster than if they were left alone.
Not good news, in any way, and these drump-recommended drugs were debunked 2+ months ago! You need to listen to Fauci, not Faux/drump

@WilliamFleming oh, so you think random people & their families would suppress an actual cure/help because they would prefer Grandma to die rather than give drump a "win"???? Just wow.....do you even Hear yourself?

@WilliamFleming This is literally rrom he summary of results in the link you posted: "However, our results should be interpreted with some caution and should not be applied to patients treated outside of hospital settings. 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." Addditionally, there is a section named "conflict of interest" this report and study was funded by Bayer makers of the drugs. I would wait until the prospective, randomized controlled trials are validated befor I crow anything about this report.

@AnneWimsey Did you even read the report?

@WilliamFleming we read what we want and put our own bias on all things

@whiskywoman I read it when it was first issued, in May, and read enough now to confirm it was the exact same one....

@whiskywoman Ha! How true! This post is living witness to your statement.

@WilliamFleming Well Sir, IF you are so 100% certain that this regimen of drugs is so 100% safe hen why haven't you VOLUNTEERED to take part in these trails yourself?

@Triphid Could you point out where he says that because I can not find it.

@Triphid The study is away off up in Michigan, but if I got the Coronavirus I would take the drugs in a heartbeat and be grateful. The drugs have been in use for many decades for the treatment of malaria.all around the world.

The drugs are said to work in treating the early stages of the disease.

@Mofo1953 To clarify, this study was not funded by Bayer, who did issue honoraria to a few people involved with the study. Also, Bayer is not the maker of the drugs involved.

@LovinLarge do you know what honoraria means, it means to give . That is the definition of funding a study. Perhaps they did or did not pay for the whole thing but they gave funds to the people doing the study. And also they are listed as "conflict of interest" because they synthesised Chloroquine, an amine acidotropic form of quinine in Germany in 1934 and have ownership of this substitute for natural quinine.

@Mofo1953 Only one person received an honoraria from Bayer, a "speakers' bureau honoraria", and that person's name is not on the study, so no, Bayer did not fund this study according to this information, which undermines the significance of the involvement of Bayer, but can you direct me to the evidence regarding Bayer's ownership of synthesized Chloroquine because I couldn't find it?

@LovinLarge i didnt go that deep into research to defend my POV, just read the article and it clearly shows Bayer in the Confluct of Interest section. Not sure why would Bayer's name be in that section if they didn't an important . And I really don't care. My concern is the disclaimer in tbe summary of results and that is the reason I will wait if I get COVID instead of taking this medicine that is controversial to say the least. There are 2 medicines fully tested, dexamethasone and remdezivir, so I will go with those if ever I need them, hopefully never. The Bayer ownership is common knowledge among people in the pharma industry. But since you asked, here it is [web.stanford.edu]

@WilliamFleming yes, and prescribed very cautiously even for the illness(es) they help, because they have known cardiac effects, not good effects, either. Why are you so well-being on insisting on False, Unproven "treatments" that can kill? Or giving people false hope, which is just plain CRUEL?

@AnneWimsey I am not a doctor and I am not urging or insisting on any sort of treatment. All I am doing is reporting on a study that I read from a reliable source.

To me it sounds like promising news, offering hope at a critical time. Why is this article a source of so much hostility? Are you angry with me about something else?

@Mofo1953 The only evidence of a conflict regarding Bayer is the one speakers' honoraria to someone not named in the study and no evidence at all that Bayer funded the study.

I am not in the pharmaceutical industry and I can't be an expert in every field so thank you for the link. Unfortunately it didn't work. Got anything else?

@LovinLarge there are other mentions of conflict by pharms that do make the product. Also the WHO decided today not to continue funding the use of it[msn.com] , as I said, I don't really care if Bayer or the other pharms funded it or not, the fees were significant enoughto show in the conflicts of interests and that is a caveat for me, the results of the study itself says this needs further study, not sure why are you so adamant in trying to debate an inconclusive study, seems that it is more important for you to save face than to have a treatment, but as I said, I will stick with the WHO rcommended and approved treatments as mentioned above. Also not sure why the link doesn't work for you, this is what I get when I click on it (screen capture).

@Mofo1953 Honoraria are not fees. There's no evidence that Bayer funded the study. The study may have some utility. Your link doesn't work. Stop moving the goalpost.

@WilliamFleming So, and correct me if I'm wrong, out of a WHOLE 50 State in America they ONLY did these tests in 1 SINGLE State.
Some test protocol that is imo.
I just finished doing a test/trial with an Aussie Research Organisation that asked for as many Retired Nurses from the late 60's - 70's who had had the BCG Immunisation for Tuberculosis to see if that immunisation actually created anti-bodies that could combat Covid.
They ended up with 5,000+ volumteers from EVERY State and Territory in Australia.
Now THAT is what I call a REAL Testing Protocol.

@LovinLarge
Sorry but you are 100% wrong on everything.

honorarium
[ˌänəˈrerēəm]
NOUN
honoraria (plural noun)
a payment given for professional services that are rendered nominally without charge.
synonyms:
fee · payment · consideration · allowance · remuneration · pay · expenses · [more]
I sent you a photo of the scteen capture.

Now stop already. You are just embarrasing yourself.

@Triphid More extensive testing is being started right now. Click on the second link and you’ll learn more. This retrospective study showed enough promise to justify a real-time study.

Meanwhile, a large study in France has shown great promise, and a very extensive study in the UK has been resumed.

@WilliamFleming The World Health Organisation, yes, the one your vaunted PotUS has withdrawn funding to btw, HAS HALTED ALL testing into the efficasy of those drugs as remedies for and against Covid since the proven , CLINICALLY proven, side-effects ARE extremely dangerous, etc, etc.

@Triphid I guess we’ll learn more later.

@Triphid thank you for weighing in, but it will make. No difference to WilliamFleming, it's just Facts......

@Mofo53 You've made factual claims unsupported by evidence so yes, I am embarrassed for you. Perhaps I am holding you to too high a standard if it is commonplace in this forum for supporting evidence not to accompany factual assertions. If you come across any accessible evidence regarding that common knowledge of Bayer's ownership of Chloroquine, I remain interested.

@Triphid, @AnneWimsey

[bbc.com]

@AnneWimsey Yes sadly there are often those who are 'blind' that they will NOT see as well as those who are so 'deaf' that they will not hear.
Graveyards everywhere contain ever so many of them sadly.

@WilliamFleming what is the “ earlier stages of the disease “?
That’s what I will like to know
I can only speak for what I ve seen first hand :
By the time people come to the hospital ( either through ER either from home / pcp referral ), w symptoms , it’s estimated that they have been infected a week prior . They walk in w their mild or medium intense symptoms , and a CT of the lungs already reveals images consistent w covid 19.
I can assure u , it’s not the early stage of the disease .
Giving them this drug , we did for over 5 weeks , resulted at cardiac arrhythmias and death to some .
We were then told to add ekgs prior to loading dose , and every 2 hrs after ea dose . And of course everyone on tele monitoring regardless .
What we seen by doing this , was the need to start many of them on cardiac drips meds just to weather the side effect of this drug .
Here is the deal : if I hospital has 100 nurses let’s say , only 30 are qualified to initiate , monitor , and adjust cardiac drips . Do u guys understand what that means ?

If “ early stage of disease “ means take it at home as prophylaxis , I want to know who is the physician that will px this knowing that people can go home and end up at ER w a STEMI . And who is stupid enough to take it .

@Pralina1 I do not know the answer to your question and I don’t have the credentials to evaluate medical treatments.

I posted this article because it seemed interesting and hopeful. It surprises me to see so much anger and hostility in response.

The authors of the study, when questioned, said that the best results were obtained when a particular drug combination was administered when the patients were first admitted to a hospital, or within a day or two.

There are some online analyses, and there’s a new French retrospective study that might address some of your questions. I certainly hope that this drug combination turns out to be useful, but if it doesn’t then that’s life, or death as it were.

@WilliamFleming "not life or death"???!!! tell that to Carolyn Lee Davis, or those 2 Carolinians who died from taking hydrochloquinone....I repeat, try Listening: False Information KILLS!

@WilliamFleming nothing wrong w posting any information . We all hope for anything to work and to work as fast as possible . I also don’t understand half of the research thing , that’s above my pay level .
I can only offer what I ve seen / do / learn at hospital settings as we go by . Nothing wrong w posting info as u find it .

@WilliamFleming, @AnneWimsey Anne , it also takes a special of stupid to take a drug recommended by a politician / clown . . I am pretty sure neither of us will take a drug just bcz we ve been told .
We did administered that drug bcz we were told by studies that it might help . We were wrong . And we gave it w zinc and azithromycin and vit c , and vit d , and Pepcid , and even w melatonin , and anything else that studies suggested back there . The moment people started coding , all bets are off .
This drug will not get the signature of any patient on an informed consent form prior to administer regimen . Hospitals don’t like law suits for some reason .
If they work on it and find people to test more and find out time and timing , who knows . For now , a vaccine is what we need .