Hydroxychloroquine WILL Save US

Information from China. Very reliable source.
Yes, more studies in the U.S.A., Europe and Australia are underway.

For example: " South Dakota announces clinical trial of hydroxychloroquine" UPI.

How about this one:

International Journal of Antimicrobial Agents
Available online 20 March 2020, 105949
In Press, Journal Pre-proofWhat are Journal Pre-proof articles?
International Journal of Antimicrobial Agents
Hydroxychloroquine and azithromycin as a treatment of COVID-19: results of an open-label non-randomized clinical trial

Author links open overlay panelPhilippeGautretab$Jean-ChristopheLagierac$PhilippeParolaabVan ThuanHoangabdLineMeddebaMorganeMailheaBarbaraDoudieraJohanCourjonefgValérieGiordanengohVera EstevesVieiraaHervé TissotDupontacStéphaneHonoréijPhilippeColsonacEricChabrièreacBernardLa ScolaacJean-MarcRolainacPhilippeBrouquiacDidierRaoultac
Show more
doi.org/10.1016/j.ijantimicag.2020.105949Get rights and content
Abstract
Background
Chloroquine and hydroxychloroquine have been found to be efficient on SARS-CoV-2, and reported to be efficient in Chinese COV-19 patients. We evaluate the role of hydroxychloroquine on respiratory viral loads.
Conclusion
Despite its small sample size our survey shows that hydroxychloroquine treatment is significantly associated with viral load reduction/disappearance in COVID-19 patients and its effect is reinforced by azithromycin.

Would you like me to go on?

Yes, please do go on. So far, we have a small study that finds little to no benefit, but has side effects. Another small study shows it has benefits. Which should we believe? I now! Why don't we wait until trials and studies are complete before statements like "Hydroxychloroquine WILL Save US" are made.

If it works - Great! If not, then let's find something else to combat the virus. But let's not think this is a wonder drug, based upon Trump's insistence.

To: Thehammer who wrote (711246) 4/15/2020 10:36:59 AM
From: skinowski
5 Recommendations
711252
of 711295

Docs are very good at picking up on things. Hospital labs will circulate lists of their own stats about what have been the most common infections they’ve identified recently. This will have an impact on choice of antibiotics. No one will wait for any CDC guidance - which wouldn’t come anyway.

The whole HCQ issue is a bullsh*t power grab. Practicing docs have a legal right to prescribe any medication off label. There is more potential liability this way, but if the reasoning is sound, that’s fine. Had the docs been allowed to prescribe it, believe me, if the treatment is not good, they’d notice that very fast. And if it’s good, they’d notice that, too.

www.siliconinvestor.com/readmsgs.aspx?su...0&batchtype=Previous

"Yes, please do go on. So far, we have a small study that finds little to no benefit, but has side effects. Another small study shows it has benefits. Which should we believe?" sayeth Koobookie.

Well, Koobookie, you choose the Communist Chinese' studies. I choose The studies in the U.S. and France. I can provide many other studies but with a little bit of effort you can find them easily.
Your confidence in the Chinese is not shared by me.

Do you honestly think that the French investigators did their studies because of what the President of the United States said?

ramage wrote: "Yes, please do go on. So far, we have a small study that finds little to no benefit, but has side effects. Another small study shows it has benefits. Which should we believe?" sayeth Koobookie.

Well, Koobookie, you choose the Communist Chinese' studies. I choose The studies in the U.S. and France. I can provide many other studies but with a little bit of effort you can find them easily.
Your confidence in the Chinese is not shared by me.

PLEASE do.....I am extremely interested in those studies....the FDA has a track record of
approving drugs (fast track) BECAUSE of pressure from the pharmco industry.....SIDE EFFECTS are always going to be a concern,the REAL question is HOW SEVERE......FDA has approved many drugs over the decade...only to pull them later...because the testing was
rushed/OR pharmco rolled the dice, thinking the faulty factors would not be discovered...in
other words PHARMCO KNEW,but released the drug anyway...same for med. devices.

You realize this drug has been approved for lupus and malaria treatment for decades. It shows side effects of taken on high dosage or for extended periods of time but has very few if any at the low dosage they are using for this and for a few days.

Pony Soldier wrote: You realize this drug has been approved for lupus and malaria treatment for decades. It shows side effects of taken on high dosage or for extended periods of time but has very few if any at the low dosage they are using for this and for a few days.

I truly don't see HOW that is an analogy.it is like saying we use--drug(u name it) for diabetes,so
it could be used for cancer....the biological/genetic markers are NOT the same....the virus is
new,we have NO real grasp of what we are dealing with....we are throwing strings of spaghetti on
the refrigerator to see what sticks.....it will take time...we DID NOT know about asymptomatic
carriers until recently....yes it is similar to the other viruses,BUT not the same....an analogy would
be HIV/AIDS epidemic an what a herculean effort it took to bring it to a workable drug.

I get what you’re saying and agree to a certain extent. I know from the stories I have heard that there have been mixed results mostly having to do with how bad of shape the patient is in when given the drug. Not on ventilator-high success. On ventilator-low success. May be the same as a control group but I’d chance it personally. You have an 80% chance of dying if you land on a ventilator.

Koobookie,
First, I went to your reference regarding the test from China that came from MSN, read the abstract that was referenced, it can be found at Medrxiv.org.
What was omitted from the msn article:
"A significant efficacy of HCQ on alleviating symptoms was observed when the confounding effects of anti-viral agents were removed in the post-hoc analysis (Hazard ratio, 8.83, 95%CI, 1.09 to 71.3). This was further supported by a significantly greater reduction of CRP (6.986 in SOC plus HCQ versus 2.723 in SOC, milligram/liter, P=0.045) conferred by the addition of HCQ, which also led to more rapid recovery of lymphopenia, albeit no statistical significance. Adverse events were found in 8.8% of SOC and 30% of HCQ recipients with two serious adverse events. The most common adverse event in the HCQ recipients was diarrhea (10%). Conclusions The administration of HCQ did not result in a higher negative conversion rate but more alleviation of clinical symptoms than SOC alone in patients hospitalized with COVID-19 without receiving antiviral treatment, possibly through anti-inflammatory effects. Adverse events were significantly increased in HCQ recipients but no apparently increase of serious adverse events."
Translation: HCQ alleviated the symptoms of Covid-19, i.e. the patients got better.

From your MSN article: "The pill didn’t help patients clear the virus better than standard care and was much more likely to cause side effects, according to a study of 150 hospitalized patients by doctors at 16 centers in China." Somewhat misleading to say the least!!

Second, I am sure that you are able to conduct an internet search. Try Hydroxychloroquine, studies, Covid-19.
You will find articles such as this, from Virology.ws: "Hydroxychloroquine reduces viral load in COVID-19 patients
19 MARCH 2020