Intelligent Design Medicine Peer review

The big COVID-19 retraction: Top people don’t notice the smell?

Spread the love

A science journalists’ site weighs in on the historic retraction of Lancet anti-hydroxychloroquine paper:

Only one of the four authors of the paper had access to the data, Dr. Sepan Desai, who is the founder of the company Surgisphere that allegedly collected the data. The Lancet article indicates that he provided the statistical analysis of the dataset, which was subsequently discussed in the paper by the other authors. Since they had known one another for several years and had no reason to doubt his veracity, they accepted the analysis sight unseen. And while that approach frequently works in one-to-one relationships, should that be the standard for co-authorship?

“Mandeep Mehra, a Harvard University doctor who was a co-author on that study, said: “It is now clear to me that in my hope to contribute this research during a time of great need, I did not do enough to ensure that the data source was appropriate for this use. For that, and for all the disruptions — both directly and indirectly — I am truly sorry.” [1]

While this explanation is not quite “the dog ate my homework,” it is not an apology.

Chuck Dinerstein, “Eminence Over Evidence: The Lancet’s COVID-19 Retraction” at American Council on Science and Health

Hit the source for more.

For the record, Uncommon Descent has no official opinion on this mess except to say, yes, a fumigator is badly needed at The Lancet.


ee also: Why not to trust “science” just now: COVID-19 edition We’ve been hearing complaints about Lancet and other journals for years. Trust but verify. “Science” is a discipline, not an incantation.

61 Replies to “The big COVID-19 retraction: Top people don’t notice the smell?

  1. 1
    polistra says:

    Of course they notice it. They don’t care because they know that “viruses” have exactly zero connection to their tyranny. They also don’t care if WE know, because they have absolute total control of everything. There is no counterforce, no negative feedback.

  2. 2
    Latemarch says:

    Why Most Published Research Findings Are False
    An enlightening article which lists bias as one of the big problems.

  3. 3
    Seversky says:

    Latemarch @ 2

    Why Most Published Research Findings Are False

    Does that include Ioannidis’s findings?

  4. 4
    jerry says:

    Dr Zelenko strikes again.

    Top People (whoever they are) will also miss this.

    Download the Youtube video before it disappears.

    Zelenko with some other professionals started a website for crowdsourcing medical information.

    Can’t wait for the hit pieces and irrelevant comments.

  5. 5
    Latemarch says:

    That was actually one of my first thoughts as I began the article “;^) The “All Cretans are liars” problem.
    But of course Loannidis’ article isn’t research so much as a review of statistics and how to, and not to, set up a research study.
    I’ve always found it “interesting” how few scientists actually know how to do science.

  6. 6
    kairosfocus says:

    Sev, MOST is a key term, where this is really a form of the pessimistic induction on the long term life of theories. KF

  7. 7
    FourFaces says:

    Jerry @4,
    Thank you for that YT link. Christians should keep in mind that not all Jews are globalists, propagandists and truth suppressors. Most orthodox Jews, the ones who believe in their God Yahweh, do not subscribe to the subversive agenda of their secular brethren. Dr Zelenko is one of them.

    “Science is no longer about finding truth in America or the world. It’s nothing more than a tool for a false narrative.”

  8. 8
    rhampton7 says:

    Just look at the RCT studies. Go ahead. I can post the results if you wish

  9. 9
    jerry says:

    Just look at the RCT studies. Go ahead. I can post the results if you wish

    I am not aware of any relevant studies. So post a few for us to discuss.

    You may want to look at this first

    He revealed that at a recent Chatham House top secret, closed door meeting attended by experts only, the editors of both, The Lancet and the New England Journal of Medicine expressed their exasperation citing the pressures put on them by pharmaceutical companies.

    He states that each of the editors used the word “criminal” to describe the erosion of science…

    “If this continues, we are not going to be able to publish any more clinical research data because pharmaceutical companies are so financially powerful; they are able to pressure us to accept papers that are apparently methodologically perfect, but their conclusion is what pharmaceutical companies want.”…

    A media blitz against hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) created panic: clinical trials aimed at testing hydroxychloroquine for COVID-19 were suspended by International public health institutions including the World Health Organization the UK government regulatory agency and the French government.

    But maybe all this is propaganda too.

  10. 10
    rhampton7 says:

    I’ve posted the results before in other threads, but you probably dismissed them out of hand.

  11. 11
    rhampton7 says:

    Professor Peter Horby and Professor Martin Landray, chief investigators of the RECOVERY Trial, said ‘In March this year, RECOVERY was established as a randomised clinical trial to test a range of potential drugs for COVID-19, including hydroxycholoroquine.

    ‘The trial has proceeded at unprecedented speed, enrolling over 11,000 patients from 175 NHS hospitals in the UK. Throughout this time, the independent Data Monitoring Committee has reviewed the emerging data about every two weeks to determine if there is evidence that would be strong enough to affect national and global treatment of COVID-19.

    ‘On Thursday 4 June, in response to a request from the UK Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency (MHRA), the independent Data Monitoring Committee conducted a further review of the data. Last night, the Committee recommended the chief investigators review the unblinded data on the hydroxychloroquine arm of the trial.

    ‘A total of 1542 patients were randomised to hydroxychloroquine and compared with 3132 patients randomised to usual care alone. There was no significant difference in the primary endpoint of 28-day mortality (25.7% hydroxychloroquine vs. 23.5% usual care; hazard ratio 1.11 [95% confidence interval 0.98-1.26]; p=0.10). There was also no evidence of beneficial effects on hospital stay duration or other outcomes.

    ‘These data convincingly rule out any meaningful mortality benefit of hydroxychloroquine in patients hospitalised with COVID-19. Full results will be made available as soon as possible.

  12. 12
    rhampton7 says:

    We conducted a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial across the United States and parts of Canada testing hydroxychloroquine as postexposure prophylaxis. We enrolled adults who had household or occupational exposure to someone with confirmed Covid-19 at a distance of less than 6 ft for more than 10 minutes while wearing neither a face mask nor an eye shield (high-risk exposure) or while wearing a face mask but no eye shield (moderate-risk exposure). Within 4 days after exposure, we randomly assigned participants to receive either placebo or hydroxychloroquine (800 mg once, followed by 600 mg in 6 to 8 hours, then 600 mg daily for 4 additional days). The primary outcome was the incidence of either laboratory-confirmed Covid-19 or illness compatible with Covid-19 within 14 days.

    We enrolled 821 asymptomatic participants. Overall, 87.6% of the participants (719 of 821) reported a high-risk exposure to a confirmed Covid-19 contact. The incidence of new illness compatible with Covid-19 did not differ significantly between participants receiving hydroxychloroquine (49 of 414 [11.8%]) and those receiving placebo (58 of 407 [14.3%]); the absolute difference was ?2.4 percentage points (95% confidence interval, ?7.0 to 2.2; P=0.35). Side effects were more common with hydroxychloroquine than with placebo (40.1% vs. 16.8%), but no serious adverse reactions were reported.

    After high-risk or moderate-risk exposure to Covid-19, hydroxychloroquine did not prevent illness compatible with Covid-19 or confirmed infection when used as postexposure prophylaxis within 4 days after exposure.

  13. 13
    rhampton7 says:

    A second large postexposure prophylaxis (PEP) trial has come up empty as well, its leader tells Science. Carried out in Barcelona, Spain, that study randomized more than 2300 people exposed to the virus to either hydroxychloroquine or the usual care. There was no significant difference between the number of people in each group who developed COVID-19, says Oriol Mitjà of the Germans Trias i Pujol University Hospital. Mitjà says he has submitted the results for publication.

    The data are important because they come from large randomized trials. So far, most data came from small trials or case series.

  14. 14
    rhampton7 says:

    Sanford Health announced Friday, June 5 that the South Dakota hydroxychloroquine trial has been discontinued.

    According to a Sanford Health release, it was cut after new research finds the drug was not helping prevent COVID-19.

    The results of that research by the University of Minnesota was published in the New England Journal of Medicine earlier this week. It was one of the country’s first randomized trials of the drug. Sandford’s release stated that the university study was similar to the South Dakota trial and “found no benefit of hydroxychloroquine over a placebo as a post-exposure preventative therapy.”

    “After closely reviewing the new research, our clinical trial team determined that the South Dakota study is unlikely to see different results,” said Dr. Susan Hoover, Sanford Health infectious disease doctor and principal investigator of the study. “We’re focused on our goal of advancing the science around this disease and will continue to pursue other COVID-19 research.”

  15. 15
    rhampton7 says:

    Many more RCTs are in the pipeline, with results due later this year. For example,

  16. 16
    jerry says:


    You posted four irrelevant links to support your point which means you provided no basis for your assertions. You don’t seem to understand the issues surrounding this virus.

  17. 17
    Bob O'H says:

    Jerry – why are they irrelevant? They are all RCTs, and RHampton7 wrote “Just look at the RCT studies.”. Providing links to RCTs when suggesting you look at RCTs does seem to be relevant.

  18. 18
    kairosfocus says:

    RH7 & BO’H: so soon as we are giving people facing a life threatening fast moving disease deliberately mislabeled sugar pills or the equivalent we are in gross ethical violation. When we use such exercises at the wrong point on the U or design protocols that undermine and dismiss actual real world evidence, we are in further trouble. There is too much evidence on the table being suppressed through gold standard selective hyperskepticism fallacies, for there to be the sort of conclusion that is being pushed on already ethically challenged protocols of testing. I have already called attention to the Kennedy School remarks. the persistent refusal to reckon with them seriously tells us a lot. KF

  19. 19
    kairosfocus says:

    F/N: Raoult Abstract:

    COVID-IHU #15

    Version 1 du 27 Mai 2020
    Early diagnosis and management of COVID-19 patients: a real-life cohort study of 3,737 patients, Marseille, France


    In our institute in Marseille, France, we proposed early and massive screening for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Hospitalization and early treatment with hydroxychloroquine and azithromycin (HCQ-AZ) was proposed for the positive cases.

    We retrospectively report the clinical management of 3,737 patients, including 3,054 (81.7%) treated with HCQ-AZ for at least three days and 683 (18.3%) patients treated with other methods (“others”). Outcomes were death, transfer to the intensive care unit (ICU), ? 10 days of hospitalization and viral shedding.

    By testing 101,522 samples by polymerase chain reaction (PCR) from 65,993 individuals, we diagnosed 6,836 patients (10.4%), including 3,737 included in our cohort. The mean age was 45 (sd 17) years, 45% were male, and the fatality rate was 0.9%. We performed 2,065 low-dose computed tomography (CT) scans highlighting lung lesions in 581 of the 933 (62%) patients with minimal clinical symptoms (NEWS score = 0). A discrepancy between spontaneous dyspnoea, hypoxemia and lung lesions was observed. Clinical factors (age, comorbidities, NEWS-2 score), biological factors (lymphopenia; eosinopenia; decrease in blood zinc; and increase in D-dimers, lactate dehydrogenase (LDH), creatinine phosphokinase (CPK), and c-reactive protein (CRP)) and moderate and severe lesions detected in low-dose CT scans were associated with poor clinical outcome. Treatment with HCQ-AZ was associated with a decreased risk of transfer to the ICU or death (HR 0.19 0.12-0.29), decreased risk of hospitalization ?10 days (odds ratios 95% CI 0.37 0.26-0.51) and shorter duration of viral shedding (time to negative PCR: HR 1.27 1.16-1.39). QTc prolongation (>60 ms) was observed in 25 patients (0.67%) leading to the cessation of treatment in 3 cases. No cases of torsade de pointe or sudden death were observed.

    Early diagnosis, early isolation and early treatment with at least 3 days of HCQ-AZ result in a significantly better clinical outcome and contagiosity in patients with COVID-19 than other treatments. Long-term follow-up to screen for fibrosis will be the next challenge in the management of COVID-19.>>


  20. 20
    kairosfocus says:

    F/N: Raoult again

    Adjusting series of patients for trial comparisons for COVID

    19 treatments
    Author list
    3Audrey GIRAUD -GATINEAU1,2,3,4 (PhD student); Jean Christophe LAGIER 1,4,5 (MD); 4 Yolande OBADIA 1
    (MD); Hervé CHAUDET 1,2,3 (MD); Didier RAOULT

    : SARS

    COV-2 has emerged and spread around the world since December 2019. 26 Studies initiated in Marseille by our hospital centre have suggested significant clinical 27 effectiveness of treatment
    by combining hydroxychloroquine and azithromycin (HCQ+AZ). 28 However, due to the
    urgency of responding to the pandemic, they were not obtained through 29 randomized controlled trials. Alternative assessment methods are therefore needed. 30 31
    We compared our data in silico with those published by two studies comparing 32
    other antiviral drugs. For this purpose, random sampling was performed in our cohort to
    33 obtain similar groups for disease severity, gender, age and comorbidities associated with
    34 chronic diseases with patients included in the remdesivir and lopinavir-ritonavir trials.
    Dual HCQ+AZ therapy was associated with 3 times fewer deaths than
    similar 37groups treated either with lopinavir-ritonavir(9% vs 20%, p-value = 0·03) or standard care 38 (8% vs 25·2%, p-value = 0·001). Compared with patients included in the remdesivir
    study by 39 Wang et al., we also showed a significant difference in the clinical outcome (proportion of 40cured patients with negative viral load) in favour of HCQ+AZ (77.8% versus 58·2% p = 0·0001). 42 43

    Although comparison of HCQ+AZ with other antiviral drugs has limitations 44due to aggregated data, this study provides additional evidence showing that HCQ+AZ should 45 be the systematic treatment of choice after diagnosis of COVID -19 -positive cases. 46 47

    This work was supported by the French Government under the “Investments for the 48 Future”
    programme managed by the National Agency for Research (ANR), Méditerranée-49 Infection 10-
    IAHU – 03 , and was also supported by Région Provence Alpes Côte d’Azur and 50
    European funding FEDER PRIMMI (Fonds Européen de Développement Régional -51
    Plateformes de Recherche et d’Innovation Mutualisées Méditerranée Infection)>>


  21. 21
    kairosfocus says:

    F/N: Raoult, again, on sugar pills games:

    Randomised Controlled Trials during epidemic
    Philippe Brouqui, Pierre Verger, Didier Raoult
    Aix Marseille Université, IRD, MEPHI, VITROME,
    ORS Paca, IHU-Méditerranée Infection, Marseille,

    In epidemics there is an urgent need for new knowledge on drug efficacy to help policymakers fight
    the crisis. Yet the best research methodology to do this is a matter of de bate, write
    Philippe Brouqui, Pierre Verger and Didier Raoult
    The outbreak of an emerging infectious agent needs the rapid involvement of research to bring new
    knowledge. Past experience with Ebola virus outbreaks and, more recently SARS-CoV 2, have raised a
    question over the place of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) as the methodology of choice to
    answer clinical questions in an novel epidemic situation. Drug safety and effectiveness is a long process which can take years. For antimicrobials, just 25% of drugs submitted to phase 1 succeed to Phase 3 and further licensing (1). This is why, in an epidemic, drug repurposing is often looked at, because drug toxicity has already been evaluated (2).

    An RCT isdesigned to attempt to reduce bias, particularly in trials evaluating new drugs. The principle
    is to random assign volunteers into two or more treatment options and then compare them against a measured outcome. As RCTs reduce causality and spurious bias, they are considered to be the most reliable form of scientific evidence. For these reasons, they are required for market authorisation of a new pharmaceutical drug and cited by healthcare policies as a mandatory means for decision -making about treatments.

    When gold standard becomes unethical
    In emerging disease outbreaks, there is an urgent lack of treatments for the new pathogen. When a
    particular therapeutic option is supported by scientifically demonstrated efficacy in vitro and or
    in animal model, and supported further by clinical case reports and/or pilot series in humans, it is ethically difficult to argue that the data still needs to be confirmed in an RCT before it can be made available to patients. Especially if it seems “obvious” that control (untreated) subjects will have
    poorer outcomes than those receiving treatment. As one study mocked, there would be few volunteers for the placebo group in an RCT on the parachute’s effectiveness in avoiding death by
    jumping out of an airplane, unless the jump had an average height of 0.6 m (3).
    When even imperfect scientific data show a particularly obvious effect, it is no longer ethical to
    perform an RCT since it forces patients to accept either not to be treated (in the control arm), or to be treated with a molecule known to be effective. Consider the advent of penicillin. It took five
    patients before Sir Edward Abraham could definitively demonstrate that penicillin saved 100% of
    patients with staphylococcus or streptococcus infections. Nobody today would dare to test the
    efficacy of penicillin on pneumococcal pneumonia compared to placebo . . . >>


  22. 22
    kairosfocus says:

    Some of what needs to be squarely faced. KF

  23. 23
    jerry says:

    Jerry – why are they irrelevant?

    Strange question. You must not be aware of the issues even after about a thousand plus comments on treating the infection by the virus and probably 50+ in answer to your specific comments. Just because something is a RCT does not mean it is relevant.

    They were done on the wrong populations with the wrong treatment.

    So what have we learned – the wrong treatment (HCQ alone) does not work on an inappropriate population(hospitalized patients for which the treatment is too late.) Or that nothing bad happened to an inappropriate population (young people) for which nothing bad was the expected outcome.

    Let me try to design a relevant study.

    1) People have been identified as having C19 either through a test or a clinical diagnosis. If clinical diagnosis then test as soon as possible but administer treatment immediately.

    2) they are in a high risk group – over 60 years of age or younger with comorbidities

    3) given HCQ + zinc + Azithromycin as the treatment or just two alone that includes HCQ

    The relevant outcome is lack of hospitalization or given hospitalization a quick recovery.

    None of the studies RHampton linked to comes close to this. No study done with the above treatment has been shown to be negative.

    So apparently after two months of posts here neither you or he understands the relevant issues.

  24. 24
    rhampton7 says:

    Some 10 hospitals, including the Utrecht and Maastricht teaching hospitals, were involved in testing the use of chloroquine and the related hydroxychloroquine, which started on April 15. Work was halted two weeks ago after a report in medical journal The Lancet which said that use of the drug had led to more deaths. That report has since been withdrawn, but the Dutch researchers have decided to abandon their project anyway. In particular, other unpublished British research involving 5,000 patients had shown no difference in the results between patients given the drug and a control group, project leader Andy Hoepelman told the AD. In addition, there were too few coronavirus patients taking part in the Dutch study, which needed at least 1,000, Hoepelman said. The Dutch study aimed to look at the impact of the drugs on patients who had been admitted to hospital but were not in intensive care, comparing their effects with those on standard treatment.

  25. 25
    rhampton7 says:

    Currently, there are 398 COVID19 clinical trials using hydroxychloroquine and/or chloroquine as a primary or secondary intervention. Of these, 216 (54%) of them are currently in ‘ongoing’ status. This signals that much more data are on the way to determine if hydroxychloroquine is an effective treatment against COVID19.

  26. 26
    rhampton7 says:

    KF, you do know that clinical trials are voluntary and upfront about possible risks, being randomly assigned to placebos or alternative treatments, etc. right?

  27. 27
    jerry says:

    RHampton continues to indicate that he does not understand when and how HCQ should be administered as a valid treatment for C19. He continues to present irrelevant information. My guess by doing so he has not been able to find any relevant information.

    Some 10 hospitals, including the Utrecht and Maastricht teaching hospitals, were involved in testing the use of chloroquine and the related hydroxychloroquine

    Are these hospitalized patients? If so then the studies are irrelevant. The purpose of the HCQ + treatment is to prevent hospitalization among the target group before it the infection becomes too severe and requires hospitalizaztion.

    Currently, there are 398 COVID19 clinical trials using hydroxychloroquine and/or chloroquine as a primary or secondary intervention. Of these, 216 (54%) of them are currently in ‘ongoing’ status

    Confusing at best. First, there are 398 C19 clinical trials. But then there are only 216 ongoing. Does that mean 183 are over or have not began? If they are over than none are relevant as far as I know. At least I have not seen any relevant ones reported.

  28. 28
    kairosfocus says:

    RH7, those fig leaves make not 10c worth of difference to the ethical dilemma. Without significant evidence of potential no drug would be considered for use on people. In this situation, the business as usual option [BAU] is Flu with complications treatments, in absence of broad spectrum antivirals. The idea of exposing people instead to deliberately mislabelled sugar pills in the face of a fast acting potentially deadly disease implies disrespect for human life. Especially when comparison of such ALTS to BAU is more than adequate for inductive, empirical warrant of effectiveness and to guide a gap analysis. There is no need to construct an artificial no treatment control group. Worse, the trials process, it is known, will credibly take a year to a year and half, thus forcing us to not have an accepted treatment when it is needed. Compounding all of this, obstacles have been set up in many cases that try to force doctors to try to treat too far down the U and to not use the true candidate, a cocktail. And such are precisely the sort of issues that have long been on the table. See Dr Raoult above. Note his results. KF

  29. 29
    ET says:

    Check it out- 2 papers on vitamin D and covid-19:

    1. Ilie PC, et al. “The role of vitamin D in the prevention of coronavirus disease 2019 infection and mortality.” Aging Clin Exp Res. 2020;1:4.

    2. Grant WB, et al. “Evidence that vitamin D supplementation could reduce risk of influenza and COVID-19 infections and deaths.” Nutrients. 2020;12(4):E988.

  30. 30
    rhampton7 says:

    Arizona’s largest hospital system warned over the past week that its intensive care units are filling up, ventilator use was on the rise and capacity was reached for extracorporeal membrane oxygenation treatment.

    “We have seen a steady climb of COVID-19 cases in Arizona over the last two weeks,” Banner Health tweeted Monday. “This trend is concerning to us, and also correlates with a rise in cases that we are seeing in our hospital ICUs.”

    Dr. Kacey Ernst, an infectious disease epidemiologist at the University of Arizona, said all signs seem to point to the increasing transmission of the disease. Increased testing could explain increased cases, but not increased hospitalizations, she said. Arizona does appear to be increasing more than other states, she said.

  31. 31
    rhampton7 says:

    Covid-19 hospitalizations in Utah are still rising. This is leading the state’s healthcare providers to worry about future hospital capacity. Hospitalizations for COVID-19 are up 42% in Utah over the past 11 days. Why?

    “Anecdotally, we’re seeing fewer masks on people. We’re also seeing instances where people are gathering. We saw that with the protests over the last two weeks, where a lot of people are coming together and some are wearing masks, others are not. But a large group of people that are gathering close together, we’re seeing that in other areas as well,” Gomez says.

    University of Utah Chief Medical Officer Dr. Thomas Miller says “More and more people are coming back to work, and are coming in contact with one another, and that’s unfortunately how the virus spreads,”

    Dr. Miller thinks it’s important for people to go back to work, but also for employees to use face masks and hand sanitizer to keep COVID-19 from spreading.

  32. 32
    rhampton7 says:

    Arkansas will further ease its coronavirus restrictions on businesses next week, Gov. Asa Hutchinson said Wednesday, despite recent dramatic increases in the state’s active cases and hospitalizations.

    The Republican governor decided to further reopen businesses even with the state in the midst of what he’s called a second peak of the outbreak. The number of active cases, meaning ones that don’t include people who have recovered or died, has increased by more than 85% since Memorial Day. Hospitalizations have increased by more than 82% in that same period.

  33. 33
    rhampton7 says:

    At Wednesday’s news conference with Gov. Henry McMaster, State epidemiologist Dr. Linda Bell said she’s more concerned about COVID-19 in South Carolina than she’s ever been before.

    In the past two weeks, Bell said South Carolina has reported its highest new daily case counts since the pandemic began.

    Bell also addressed testing. She said though an increase in testing does typically yield more positive results, the recent uptick is not due to testing but is a consequence of not social distancing and not wearing masks.

    The governor said slowing the virus rests on the shoulders of the community and people need to be smart.

    “There’s a lot of stupid floating around out there,” he said referring to the lack of social distancing and people not taking the virus seriously.

  34. 34
    rhampton7 says:

    The number of people hospitalized with Covid-19 in Texas has hit record highs each day this week as the state enters a third phase of reopening its economy, a situation that the Republican governor acknowledged is worth keeping an eye on.

    “I’m concerned, but not yet alarmed,” Governor Greg Abbott said Tuesday during an interview with Dallas CBS affiliate KTVT.

    Numbers from the Texas Department of State Health Services show 2,153 people were hospitalized with the disease caused by the novel coronavirus on Wednesday, up from 2,056 the day before and 1,878 on Sunday.

    Before Sunday, the state’s previous record of 1,888 hospitalizations was set back in early May.

  35. 35
    Bob O'H says:

    kf @ 18 –

    RH7 & BO’H: so soon as we are giving people facing a life threatening fast moving disease deliberately mislabeled sugar pills or the equivalent we are in gross ethical violation.

    It’s better than giving them an equally ineffective treatment that also has side effects, though.

  36. 36
    Bob O'H says:

    Jerry –

    So what have we learned – the wrong treatment (HCQ alone) does not work on an inappropriate population(hospitalized patients for which the treatment is too late.)

    I think that came out wrong. Surely that’s the most appropriate population to try to cure.

    Or that nothing bad happened to an inappropriate population (young people) for which nothing bad was the expected outcome.

    As far as I can see, these studies haven’t been restricted to young people – the University of Minnesota study had a median age of 40, and 25% of participants were aged over 50.

    Also, why does age matter for deciding if HCQ + X works? Yes, older people are more likely to have a severe case, but unless there’s something more going on, that will only affect the power of the study (i.e. you need more patients to get a good estimate of the effect).

  37. 37
    kairosfocus says:

    BO’H, no treatment makes it to tests without significant evidence. You need to interact with Raoult above and onward. The persistent ignoring of the elephant in the room is speaking. KF

  38. 38
  39. 39
    kairosfocus says:

    BO’H: deaths from CV19 are heavily biased to the aged and to those with vulnerabilities; which of course is a strongly overlapping pair of clusters. KF

  40. 40
    Bob O'H says:

    kf @ 37 –

    BO’H, no treatment makes it to tests without significant evidence.

    I don’t think “no treatment” is used by anyone, that would be deeply unethical. What is being discussed is looking at one component of treatment.
    kf @ 39 –

    BO’H: deaths from CV19 are heavily biased to the aged and to those with vulnerabilities

    yes, I know. That’s why I wrote “Yes, older people are more likely to have a severe case …”.

  41. 41
    kairosfocus says:

    BO’H: that’s a grammar stretch there. I am speaking of basic prudence, given serious financial costs of tests and medical issues. No treatment will go into testing without some basis, simply on risk analysis. Further to this, you need to respond to the retraction of the Lancet paper i/l/o earlier remarks and to both the Kennedy School of Government article and Raoult’s submission to BMJ about HCQ+, pandemics and when gold standards fail ethically. KF

  42. 42
    jerry says:

    I think that came out wrong

    No it came out exactly right. It is just that you continually make non sequiturs. The purpose of the treatment with HCQ + is to prevent hospitalization. So how is evaluating it on this population appropriate.

    The best analogy I have seen is using a fire extinguisher to put out a small fire before the house is ablaze. Once the house is ablaze a fire extinguisher is useless even a lot of them. So one has to use other more drastic but less effective techniques for a burning house to save the house when ithe burning house could have been prevented in the first place. Just as one has to use more dire approaches for the widespread internal virus.

    People pointing to the lack of success for HCQ alone in a hospital setting is like evaluating a fire extinguisher on putting out a blazing fire.

    The Minnesota study was on an inappropriate population for which the outcome was the desired one. No hospitalization. So while the study was done on the wrong population the desired outcome happened.

    Also the oldest person was 51 in one cohort and50 in the other. You should check with someone who understands the concept of averages.

    By treatment we have meant for the last couple months treatment to eliminate the virus by some procedure. The only treatment so far as I know of is amelioration of symptoms with the hope that the immune system fights the virus.

    You probably should read the comments that have been written as well as the links provided. All this has been addressed to you several times. My guess is that you don’t read about this much.

  43. 43
    jerry says:

    It looks like RHampton has gone back to doom and gloom rather than answering questions about inappropriate posts.

  44. 44
    Bob O'H says:

    kf – Sorry, I misread what you wrote. I agree that there is a process (at least for drugs) where treatments are first tested in vitro before being tested on humans.

  45. 45
    kairosfocus says:

    BO’H, understood, we are all tired and distracted. Please note Raoult. KF

  46. 46
    john_a_designer says:

    wrong thread

  47. 47
    rhampton7 says:

    A new study published on the preprint server medRxiv* in June 2020 shows that the drug hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) suppresses a form of immunity called ‘trained immunity,’ with repercussions for its potential use to treat COVID-19.

    the current study adds to this knowledge via the findings that HCQ prevents the development of trained immunity via epigenetic regulation. This may be via its effect on mTOR signaling since this is a lysosome-associated enzyme transmitting information from the lysosome to the cell, and thus mediates inflammation. The data on the changes in lipids that play a key role in mTOR activation supports this reading.

    Since trained immunity is required to upregulate the innate immune response and so prevent infection, HCQ is less likely to be of use in preventing or clearing SARS-CoV-2 infection. This agrees with the findings of a recent randomized controlled trial that HCQ given post-exposure does not help prevent symptomatic COVID-19.

    The question remains whether the immunomodulatory effects of HCQ could mediate its effectiveness in severe COVID-19 by muting the cytokine storm. The researchers say this is likely to be less useful than IL-6 receptor antibodies or IL-1 receptor antagonists, and an observational study lends some support to this prediction. More research is required to test this hypothesis. They sum up: “Our findings suggest that hydroxychloroquine may not have a beneficial effect on the antiviral immune response in SARS-CoV-2 infection.”

  48. 48
    rhampton7 says:

    A Catholic church in Wichita has temporarily closed after a priest tested positive for COVID-19.

    Matt Davied of the Church of the Magdalen said in a Facebook post on the church’s account that he underwent testing after waking up feeling ill on Wednesday.

    He said he is now in isolation.

    Since the priests live together in the rectory, a second priest is in quarantine.

    The Wichita Eagle reports that all Masses at the church have been suspended and live streams will be temporarily discontinued.

  49. 49
    rhampton7 says:

    Less than one percent of the general population in India is inflicted with Covid-19, Indian Council of Medical Research (ICMR) said on Thursday citing the findings of the sero-survey it conducted across 83 districts. The study covered 28,595 households and 26,400 individuals.
    The ICMR said that 0.73% of the population in surveyed districts had evidence of past exposure to SARS CoV-2 but the susceptibility to the highly infectious disease cannot be undermined. ICMR calculated that compared to rural areas, risk of spread is 1.09 times higher in urban areas and 1.89 times higher in urban slums.
    “Lockdown and the containment measures have been successful in keeping the positivity low in these districts preventing the rapid spread. However, it means that a large proportion of the population is still susceptible,” said Dr Balram Bhargava, Director General, ICMR. The sero-surveillance was aimed at monitoring the trend of SARS-CoV-2 infection transmission in general population in India.

  50. 50
    rhampton7 says:

    Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu on Thursday decided to place new coronavirus restrictions on the public as the rate of infection began to rise again in Israel.

    the government will define “red zones” where the infection rates are high. Restrictions will be imposed in the red zones as needed and enforcement will be stepped up.

    The threat of a “second wave” of the virus appeared to be growing on Thursday, with the release of new data showing 22 new infections in 24 hours. The death toll has risen to 300, and 93 children and 25 nurses in the city of Sderot have been quarantined as a result of an outbreak.

    Professor Eli Waxman, who leads the Israeli government’s advisory board on the coronavirus, told Kan, “The epidemic is continuing to spread and the number of new patients is growing. This is no surprise, but we need to ensure the required tools so we won’t have to impose a closure on the country again.”

  51. 51
    rhampton7 says:

    Brazilian officials on Thursday announced an agreement with China’s Sinovac Biotech to produce its coronavirus vaccine in the state of Sao Paulo, where tests involving 9,000 volunteers are to begin next month.
    Brazil has the world’s second-highest coronavirus caseload after the United States, with more than 770,000 confirmed infections and nearly 40,000 deaths.

    Sao Paulo governor Joao Doria told a news conference that the Butantan Institute, Brazil’s leading research centre, had reached a technology transfer agreement with Sinovac Biotech.
    “The studies show that the vaccine could be distributed by June 2021,” if tests prove conclusive, Doria said.

  52. 52
    ET says:

    How many is a Brazilian?

  53. 53
    rhampton7 says:

    Utah Gov. Gary Herbert instituted a “pause” on lifting any additional virus-related restrictions on Thursday as the state’s rate of positive COVID-19 tests continues to skyrocket.

    “I know we’ve asked a lot of everybody over the past several months, but you know we’re not at the end yet,” Dunn told reporters Thursday. “So it’s going to really take us a lot of discipline to continue taking these measures individually.”

    Dr. Samuel Brown, a critical care researcher at Intermountain Healthcare, has said he’s concerned that Utah may have to shut down again if people don’t practice mask wearing and social distancing in the rush to get the economy jump started.

  54. 54
    rhampton7 says:

    In late March 2020, Drew McDonald of Trussville, Alabama, started noticing some backaches and body pains along with a low-grade fever after eating dinner with his family on a Friday night. The father of two went to bed and woke up the next morning to a fever of more than 102, and aches that he recalls “hitting” his bones.

    Upon arrival and admission to UAB, McDonald was approached by Division of Infectious Diseases physicians about potentially enrolling in a clinical trial for COVID-19 treatment that he could be a candidate for. He agreed, with little hesitation.

    As the trial was randomized, double-blinded and placebo-controlled, McDonald and his doctors still are unsure if he received the remdesivir or placebo as part of his role in the trial; however, he believes that his quick recovery and subsequent discharge from the hospital just five days after admission is due to receiving remdesivir.

    “I had confidence in the research being done at UAB. Sometimes we hear conflicting information, whether from social media or different news outlets that we are listening to; but these doctors who are approaching people like me to enroll in a trial live and breathe this every day and truly want to find the answer,” McDonald shared. “Helping research in any way, if anyone has the capacity, that’s how we get answers and how drugs get discovered. I’m grateful for all that UAB is doing to help further research and save lives.”

  55. 55
    kairosfocus says:

    RH7, the pivotal issue remains, what Dr Raoult has put on the table. Until and unless that is squarely addressed, all else becomes drowning out of key but unwelcome evidence, often by making resort to irrelevancies. KF

  56. 56
    jerry says:

    Helping research in any way, if anyone has the capacity, that’s how we get answers and how drugs get discovered. I’m grateful for all that UAB is doing to help further research and save lives.”

    Nice sentiment but a hundred thousand are dead in the US waiting for the answer which was obvious from the beginning. Wonder what the dead in the study had to say. Somehow they are never interviewed.

  57. 57
    rhampton7 says:

    The clinical trial carried out by the researcher Oriol Mitjà to fight the coronavirus with hydroxychloroquine It has not been effective. The study has concluded that the antimalarial does not serve to prevent infections, as Mitjà himself has revealed in the scientific journal Science.

    “Given the vast global implications, we have shared the results of the BCN-PEP-VOC study on #hydroxychloroquine with regulatory agencies while the scientific journal is doing the external evaluation. We cannot provide more data until we have your approval.”

    The investigation raised a double strategy: administer the antiviral Darunavir to about 200 positives of COVID-19 to reduce viral load and try hydroxychloroquine with 3,000 people that they were contacts of the first, to see if it could be useful.

    Finally, the results have not been as expected. After monitoring the contacts, it was confirmed that the same percentage of people in both groups had been infected, which showed that hydroxychloroquine was not effective against coronavirus.

  58. 58
    ET says:

    I am starting to wonder if the people running these trials understand how and why HCQ, alone, can prevent infection. If HCQ doesn’t affect the person’s pH enough to have an effect on the ACE2 receptors, then the drug will be ineffective. If the virus has mutated to account for that change, then all bets are off. Then it would be on to HCQ as an ionophore and zinc as the element that prevents the virus from replicating.

  59. 59
    kairosfocus says:

    RH7, all these reports and researchers need to address Raoult and others in their review of literature. That would force explicit addressing of the U-trajectory of the disease and would then so highlight design flaws that the research designs and purposes of experiment would naturally become very different. There needs to be significant respect for in vitro facts of chemical effectiveness at relevant concentrations, for the reality of established drugs that demonstrate ability to get into the body and become active (hence, value of off-label use and repurposing), for the existence of synergistic cocktails and for the further fact from 500 CAT scans showing lung damage from early in the disease process. In that context, the thousands of cases put on the table also cumulatively reinforce a reasonable conclusion on effectiveness. In that context, we would see more exercises like exploring how Ivermectin enhances ability of cocktails to push further down the U, or how doxycycline can substitute for azithromycin, etc. Much of what, instead, is going on is little more than showing that intervening late in the falling arm of the U is unlikely to do much good or that synergistic cumulative effects require the presence of an adequate cluster in the cocktails. Which, we already knew. Sadly, thousands are paying with needless harm for the research and research ethics failure in the face of pandemic. KF

  60. 60
    jerry says:

    RHampton’s search turned up an article that touts the Lancet study as valid and is best vague on results of another study from Spain. All the article said was HCQ didn’t work as expected. It’s hard to understand just what happened.

    The tone of the article comes off as another hit piece.

    It is a drug that began to increase in popularity when Donald Trump, President of the United States, revealed that he consumed it as prevention against a possible contagion.

    But that theory was dismantled in an extensive study published in The Lancet, which concluded that its consumption was associated with an increased risk of death

    From another source, about 5.7% of those who received HCQ tested positive for. the virus compared to 6.2% of the control group. So as a prophylactic alone it is not much different.

  61. 61
    Peer says:

    Please note that, even if it might not be effictive against the virus itself, in combination with Az (which is also not affective agaiants the virus) hcq increases survival. Steroids also do not work against the virus itself, still dexametasone has benificial effect on the outcome.

Leave a Reply