That's the bottom line folks.

I wish it were not so, but in general Americans are not in good health to begin with, maybe results and conclusions would be different in a younger demographic and healthier demographic country.

That's the bottom line for treating folks with severe cases. Not the bottom line for use as a prophylaxis.

Again, why be an ahole?

16/20 is 80%, I did show the math. Follow along.

You could have labelled it as a ratio, instead of assuming. You also said:

Which is not reflected in anything you show. How do you leap from 4 out of 52 (roughly 8%) to 60% chance of catching covid?

what is it, oklahoma or nebraska or one of those other dip**** states is trying to get rid of its 2 million dollar stockpile of the stuff, so if you believe it works (it doesn't), then buy some from them. they want to sell it because it doesn't work.

20/52 were in the non hcq category...

I thought the world had moved on to Ivermectin?

a believer? talk is cheap.
choke it down. - it's a free country.

If there were more studies on it being used the way this one is using it, I'd take it in a second if those showed the same or close to the same results this one did. I mean... I've already had a needle poked in my arm based on trials showing the stuff going in being better than 90% effective.

I don't get why the word hydroxycholorquine elicits some of the responses this thread has generated. Some of the folks responding almost seem like they've been programmed to respond in a certain manner when they see a certain word.

I'm not a "believer". I just thought it was interesting that it was being used in the manner it is and that it showed some benefit. And for posting the thread I get kach suggesting I don't think masks work and you suggesting I choke it down. W...T...F...?:confused:

A pre-print. Not (yet?) peer reviewed. Lots of that around.

Peer review is not of course a panacea.

Retrospective, not prospective.

Surveys... lots there.

Alternatively.... after a quick google search....

NEJM:https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/nejmoa2016638

Prospective, randomized, placebo controlled and double blind.

Take a peek at the comments...

Lots for folks to wade through and will be for decades to come.

Who do we believe and why?

Who do we trust and why?

Complex questions.

Another data point: I suspect that people taking it preventatively might also subconciously take other steps to mitigate their exposure.

A lot of info here:
https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fphar.2020.605185/full

The thing that caught my eye from my second link was that it was being used pre exposure rather than post exposure.

Lots more review articles to come. Dozens... and for decades to come.

From many many fields... infectious disease, virology, immunology, public health and on and on.

If you are not familiar with the term "review article," it basically means a report from a study of other publications. The authors pick which studies and talk about them.

Most work "debunking" HCQ+Zinc were either leaving out the Zinc, or not using it as it is supposed to work.

It works not as a cure, but as a preventative, changing the cell structure make up, which reduces the ability of a virus to re-produce.
If you take it after massive viral reproduction has gone on it isn't effective.

Treating end of life symptomatic patients and showing it doesn't work, well, that wasn't how it is supposed to work.

Same goes for leaving out he Zinc.

The HCQ is an agent to help your cells with Zinc levels.
Leave out the Zinc, and well, it doesn't work.

Bait and switch to show studies to say it doesn't work when the studies are on the wrong uses, or leaving out an ingredient.

And of course all of you know that doctors in the US can prescribe this stuff off label. It is not banned or anything.

Folks in the US can find doctors willing to prescribe all kinds of things off label.

The problem with this treatment is that it doesn’t FIT with our modern medicine where we usually treat once symptoms develop. A friend of mine is a doctor and we had the discussion about this last summer. For HCQ to have any significant benefit, it must be given early on, either before or shortly after initial exposure.

I don’t think (just a guess) that it’s prevention benefits are as long lived as a vaccine would be hence it being ‘poo-poo’d’.

Interestingly enough (and this supports my guess), I think Trump took HCQ early on yet he still got Covid. Perhaps he picked it up after the effects of the HCQ wore off?

I’m not an expert on any of this and will default to Tobra and the other medical professionals on this board.

Funny you mention that! I was thinking of replying to someone else that I can think of one case where a high profile person said they were taking HCQ and ended up getting the virus. We don't know if he was actually taking it or just saying he was taking it to make a point.

Yea, that's how most of the favorable results on certain diet pills are accounted for.

Because they are in a study they tend to watch what they eat more.

Read the fine print, and those in the study on average lost 4lbs, those taking the $20 a bottle pills lost 5 lbs, lose 20% more weight!, or lose 50% more weight! are common claims.

Science marches on, do NOT be surprised that these studies keep coming out, this thing ain't over by a long shot folks.

I'm all for more studies, no need for anyone to get upset.

There was also a point he stopped taking HCQ+Z some time prior to picking up CV19.
They probably switched him off once a low quantity of the treatment he ended up being given was availible and had made it through some testing.

As long as we can agree that 80.7% reduction in getting Covid-19 per the article is not misunderstood to be an 80.7% chance of NOT getting Covid-19 when taking Hydroxycholorquine I will be happy.

You just took it that way.

Let's revisit the math.

With drug 4/54 x 100 = 7.5% infected

Without drug 20/52 x 100 = 38.5% infected

Nice improvement.

Russian roulette (assuming 6 holes in gun cylinder) 1/5 x 100 = 20% so this drug does best Russian roulette, I was wrong, my bad.

Russian roulette equivalent with drug would be 14 round capability revolver, one bullet and thirteen holes, really not that bad.

Went from 39/59 to 8/92 ratios.

Agree, and quite frankly I'm not arguing the merits of the drug. Just trying to figure out how you came up "60 percent chance of someone getting Covid-19 while talking this drug" from the numbers presented.

Its not a valid data point, but my sister was travelling extensively overseas last February, just before the sheet hit the fan. She is routinely prescribed Hydroxycholorquine when travelling, as she has a compromised immune system. However there is no way to know if she was exposed, or if it did anything.