Lancet retracts bogus study claiming hydroxychloroquine to be ineffective against COVID-19

[Prayer Warrior]

https://www.thelancet.com/journals/...il&utm_term=0_90d9431cd5-a5c0a299a0-126967137

Covid-19: Lancet retracts paper that halted hydroxychloroquine trials
Retraction made after Guardian investigation found inconsistencies in data

The Lancet paper that halted global trials of hydroxychloroquine for Covid-19 because of fears of increased deaths has been retracted after a Guardian investigation found inconsistencies in the data.

The lead author, Prof Mandeep Mehra, from the Brigham and Women’s hospital in Boston, Massachusetts decided to ask the Lancet for the retraction because he could no longer vouch for the data’s accuracy.

The journal’s editor, Richard Horton, said he was appalled by developments. “This is a shocking example of research misconduct in the middle of a global health emergency,” he told the Guardian.

A Guardian investigation had revealed errors in the data that was provided for the research by US company Surgisphere. These were later explained by the company as some patients being wrongly allocated to Australia instead of Asia. But more anomalies were then picked up. A further Guardian investigation found that there were serious questions to be asked about the company itself.

An independent audit company was asked to examine a database provided by Surgisphere to ensure it had the data from more than 96,000 Covid-19 patients in 671 hospitals worldwide, that it was obtained properly and was accurate.

Surgisphere’s CEO, Sapan Desai, had said he would cooperate with the independent audit, but it is understood he refused to give the investigators access to all the data they asked for.

In a statement on Thursday, Mehra said: “Our independent peer reviewers informed us that Surgisphere would not transfer the full dataset, client contracts, and the full ISO audit report to their servers for analysis as such transfer would violate client agreements and confidentiality requirements. As such, our reviewers were not able to conduct an independent and private peer review and therefore notified us of their withdrawal from the peer-review process.”

The Lancet study had a dramatic impact on attempts to find out whether the antimalarial drug hydroxychloroquine, and its older version, chloroquine, could help treat patients with Covid-19. The US president, Donald Trump was among those who backed the drug before any high-quality trial evidence had been published.

The World Health Organization and several countries suspended randomised controlled trials that were set up to find an answer. Those trials have now been restarted. Many scientists were angry that they had been stopped on the basis of a trial that was observational and not a “gold standard” RCT.

Mehra had commissioned an independent audit of the data after scientists questioned it.

In its investigation, the Guardian put a detailed list of concerns to Desai about the database, the study findings and his background. He responded: “There continues to be a fundamental misunderstanding about what our system is and how it works.

“There are also a number of inaccuracies and unrelated connections that you are trying to make with a clear bias toward attempting to discredit who we are and what we do,” he said. “We do not agree with your premise or the nature of what you have put together, and I am sad to see that what should have been a scientific discussion has been denigrated into this sort of discussion.”

Shortly after the Lancet retracted its study, the New England Journal of Medicine retracted a paper based on the Surgisphere database, also co-authored by Mehra and Desai. The study purported to include data from Covid-19 patients from 169 hospitals in 11 countries in Asia, Europe and North America. It found common drugs given for heart disease were not associated with a higher risk of death in Covid-19 patients.

In a statement, published by the journal, the authors said: “Because all the authors were not granted access to the raw data and the raw data could not be made available to a third-party auditor, we are unable to validate the primary data sources underlying our article, ‘Cardiovascular Disease, Drug Therapy, and Mortality in Covid-19’. We therefore request that the article be retracted.

“We apologise to the editors and to readers of the Journal for the difficulties that this has caused.”

Source: Covid-19: Lancet retracts paper that halted hydroxychloroquine trials

 

[Yehren]

Actually, the study was not discredited. It was retracted:

"The study was withdrawn because the company that provided data would not provide full access to the information for a third-party peer review, saying to do so would violate client agreements and confidentiality requirements, The Lancet said in a statement.

“Based on this development, we can no longer vouch for the veracity of the primary data sources. Due to this unfortunate development, the authors request that the paper be retracted,” The Lancet said in a statement."
The Lancet Retracts Hydroxychloroquine Study

The authors themselves asked for it to be retracted, because the company which owned the data would not release it for review. Nothing "bogus" there; it was simply not acceptable because the data was not available to peer review. We don't know if the data support the conclusion or not; the authors do, but they can't release the data because the corporation that owns it will not authorize release.

There are lots of studies on the effectiveness of Hydroxychloroquine for COVID-19. It's a mixed bag, and not very encouraging...

On Friday, after receiving Wilkie's response, he blasted the VA for not disclosing the outcomes of the 1,300 veterans who took the medication and failing to say where it plans to conduct additional research on hydroxychloroquine.

"We need to know who is authorizing these new trials, what facilities are participating and what families are being told," Schumer said.

A retrospective review of the use of hydroxychloroquine on VA patients with COVID-19 showed that 28% of veterans who received the drug died; 22% of those who received hydroxychloroquine, along with the antibiotic azithromycin, also died, while just 11% of patients in the study who received standard care died.

But the research, which was not a rigorous scientific study but simply an analysis of data, noted that the majority of patients given the medications were severely ill, on ventilators and had underlying health conditions. They were all men, mostly black, with a median age over 65 -- demographics that placed them at higher risk for severe cases of the coronavirus.

Other studies of hydroxychloroquine have shown mixed results. An ongoing study at New York University's Grossman School of Medicine found that patients who received hydroxychloroquine, azithromycin and zinc were 44% less likely to die from COVID-19.

A study of 1,500 patients conducted by the New York State Health Department and State University of New York Albany School of Public Health found that the medications did not reduce hospital deaths.

Wilkie said the VA's own Office of Research and Development is planning a study on hydroxychloroquine's effectiveness as a preventive measure for those exposed, and it is also working with pharmaceutical company Novartis on a "national multi-site clinical trial that will look at the medication, along with azithromycin, as a treatment."

The San Francisco VA Medical Center has another study of hydroxychloroquine underway, and several VA medical centers are examining the effectiveness of other medicines to treat SARS-CoV-2 infections, including the rheumatoid arthritis drug sarilumab and degarelix, a prostate cancer drug.
More than 1,300 Veterans Given Hydroxychloroquine for COVID-19

 

[Enoch111]

Actually, the study was not discredited. It was retracted:

Same difference. Please don't make excuses for bogus studies following a specific agenda.

 

[Enoch111]

It's a mixed bag, and not very encouraging...

That too is nonsense. Please review Dr. Zelenko's results (also reflected by other doctors).

The Leftists worldwide will vehemently deny that there was a plan to sabotage CHEAP HCQ/erethromycin/zinc sulfate so that EXPENSIVE Remdesivir would take first place.

 

[Yehren]

That too is nonsense. Please review Dr. Zelenko's results (also reflected by other doctors).

Sorry, some people have reported some effect, but most have not. And some studies showed that those treated with the drug actually do worse.

The Leftists worldwide will vehemently deny that there was a plan to sabotage CHEAP HCQ/erethromycin/zinc sulfate so that EXPENSIVE Remdesivir would take first place.

Of course. It's all a huge conspiracy. The fact that there's no evidence for it, just shows how clever they are.

 

[Yehren]

"The study was withdrawn because the company that provided data would not provide full access to the information for a third-party peer review, saying to do so would violate client agreements and confidentiality requirements, The Lancet said in a statement.

“Based on this development, we can no longer vouch for the veracity of the primary data sources. Due to this unfortunate development, the authors request that the paper be retracted,” The Lancet said in a statement."
The Lancet Retracts Hydroxychloroquine Study

The authors themselves asked for it to be retracted, because the company which owned the data would not release it for review. Nothing "bogus" there; it was simply not acceptable because the data was not available to peer review. We don't know if the data support the conclusion or not; the authors do, but they can't release the data because the corporation that owns it will not authorize release.

Same difference.

Nope. A "bogus" report would be one that was shown to be false. This one was retracted not because it was false, but because the company that supplied the data would not allow it to be published. That being so, peer review was impossible, and it was retracted at the authors' request.

Please don't make excuses for bogus studies following a specific agenda.

As you now realize, it's not "bogus"; it was not retracted for being wrong. You were no doubt misled about the reason for the retraction. It's time to accept what is real, and go on.

 

[Prayer Warrior]

Actually, the study was not discredited. It was retracted:

"The study was withdrawn because the company that provided data would not provide full access to the information for a third-party peer review, saying to do so would violate client agreements and confidentiality requirements, The Lancet said in a statement.

“Based on this development, we can no longer vouch for the veracity of the primary data sources. Due to this unfortunate development, the authors request that the paper be retracted,” The Lancet said in a statement."
The Lancet Retracts Hydroxychloroquine Study

The authors themselves asked for it to be retracted, because the company which owned the data would not release it for review. Nothing "bogus" there; it was simply not acceptable because the data was not available to peer review. We don't know if the data support the conclusion or not; the authors do, but they can't release the data because the corporation that owns it will not authorize release.

There are lots of studies on the effectiveness of Hydroxychloroquine for COVID-19. It's a mixed bag, and not very encouraging...

On Friday, after receiving Wilkie's response, he blasted the VA for not disclosing the outcomes of the 1,300 veterans who took the medication and failing to say where it plans to conduct additional research on hydroxychloroquine.

"We need to know who is authorizing these new trials, what facilities are participating and what families are being told," Schumer said.

A retrospective review of the use of hydroxychloroquine on VA patients with COVID-19 showed that 28% of veterans who received the drug died; 22% of those who received hydroxychloroquine, along with the antibiotic azithromycin, also died, while just 11% of patients in the study who received standard care died.

But the research, which was not a rigorous scientific study but simply an analysis of data, noted that the majority of patients given the medications were severely ill, on ventilators and had underlying health conditions. They were all men, mostly black, with a median age over 65 -- demographics that placed them at higher risk for severe cases of the coronavirus.

Other studies of hydroxychloroquine have shown mixed results. An ongoing study at New York University's Grossman School of Medicine found that patients who received hydroxychloroquine, azithromycin and zinc were 44% less likely to die from COVID-19.

A study of 1,500 patients conducted by the New York State Health Department and State University of New York Albany School of Public Health found that the medications did not reduce hospital deaths.

Wilkie said the VA's own Office of Research and Development is planning a study on hydroxychloroquine's effectiveness as a preventive measure for those exposed, and it is also working with pharmaceutical company Novartis on a "national multi-site clinical trial that will look at the medication, along with azithromycin, as a treatment."

The San Francisco VA Medical Center has another study of hydroxychloroquine underway, and several VA medical centers are examining the effectiveness of other medicines to treat SARS-CoV-2 infections, including the rheumatoid arthritis drug sarilumab and degarelix, a prostate cancer drug.
More than 1,300 Veterans Given Hydroxychloroquine for COVID-19

I'm not sure why you're saying this. This is the title of this thread that I started:
Lancet retracts bogus study claiming hydroxychloroquine to be ineffective against COVID-19

 

[Yehren]

(Lots of research results, most of which indicate that hyroxychloroquine is not effective, or even dangerous to use for COVID-19 infections)

I'm not sure why you're saying this.

To point out that the retracted study (because the data used was not available to peer-review, not because it was wrong) has a lot of support from similar studies.

This is the title of this thread that I started:

Lancet retracts bogus study claiming hydroxychloroquine to be ineffective against COVID-19

The only false part of that, is the "bogus" claim. But it's important to realize that this isn't the only study that found the drug to be ineffective or even dangerous.

 

[Prayer Warrior]

To point out that the retracted study (because the data used was not available to peer-review, not because it was wrong) has a lot of support from similar studies.

There was more to it than this, but it's late where I am, and I don't have time for a lengthy reply.

 

[Prayer Warrior]

The authors themselves asked for it to be retracted, because the company which owned the data would not release it for review. Nothing "bogus" there; it was simply not acceptable because the data was not available to peer review. We don't know if the data support the conclusion or not; the authors do, but they can't release the data because the corporation that owns it will not authorize release.

Covid-19: Lancet retracts paper that halted hydroxychloroquine trials
Retraction made after Guardian investigation found inconsistencies in data

The Lancet paper that halted global trials of hydroxychloroquine for Covid-19 because of fears of increased deaths has been retracted after a Guardian investigation found inconsistencies in the data.

The lead author, Prof Mandeep Mehra, from the Brigham and Women’s hospital in Boston, Massachusetts decided to ask the Lancet for the retraction because he could no longer vouch for the data’s accuracy.

The journal’s editor, Richard Horton, said he was appalled by developments. “This is a shocking example of research misconduct in the middle of a global health emergency,” he told the Guardian.

A Guardian investigation had revealed errors in the data that was provided for the research by US company Surgisphere. These were later explained by the company as some patients being wrongly allocated to Australia instead of Asia. But more anomalies were then picked up. A further Guardian investigation found that there were serious questions to be asked about the company itself.

An independent audit company was asked to examine a database provided by Surgisphere to ensure it had the data from more than 96,000 Covid-19 patients in 671 hospitals worldwide, that it was obtained properly and was accurate.

Surgisphere’s CEO, Sapan Desai, had said he would cooperate with the independent audit, but it is understood he refused to give the investigators access to all the data they asked for.

In a statement on Thursday, Mehra said: “Our independent peer reviewers informed us that Surgisphere would not transfer the full dataset, client contracts, and the full ISO audit report to their servers for analysis as such transfer would violate client agreements and confidentiality requirements. As such, our reviewers were not able to conduct an independent and private peer review and therefore notified us of their withdrawal from the peer-review process.”

The Lancet study had a dramatic impact on attempts to find out whether the antimalarial drug hydroxychloroquine, and its older version, chloroquine, could help treat patients with Covid-19. The US president, Donald Trump was among those who backed the drug before any high-quality trial evidence had been published.

The World Health Organization and several countries suspended randomised controlled trials that were set up to find an answer. Those trials have now been restarted. Many scientists were angry that they had been stopped on the basis of a trial that was observational and not a “gold standard” RCT.

Mehra had commissioned an independent audit of the data after scientists questioned it.

In its investigation, the Guardian put a detailed list of concerns to Desai about the database, the study findings and his background. He responded: “There continues to be a fundamental misunderstanding about what our system is and how it works.

“There are also a number of inaccuracies and unrelated connections that you are trying to make with a clear bias toward attempting to discredit who we are and what we do,” he said. “We do not agree with your premise or the nature of what you have put together, and I am sad to see that what should have been a scientific discussion has been denigrated into this sort of discussion.”

Shortly after the Lancet retracted its study, the New England Journal of Medicine retracted a paper based on the Surgisphere database, also co-authored by Mehra and Desai. The study purported to include data from Covid-19 patients from 169 hospitals in 11 countries in Asia, Europe and North America. It found common drugs given for heart disease were not associated with a higher risk of death in Covid-19 patients.

In a statement, published by the journal, the authors said: “Because all the authors were not granted access to the raw data and the raw data could not be made available to a third-party auditor, we are unable to validate the primary data sources underlying our article, ‘Cardiovascular Disease, Drug Therapy, and Mortality in Covid-19’. We therefore request that the article be retracted.

“We apologise to the editors and to readers of the Journal for the difficulties that this has caused.”

Source: Covid-19: Lancet retracts paper that halted hydroxychloroquine trials

 

[Prayer Warrior]

This article of from The Federalist:

Lancet Formally Retracts Fake Hydroxychloroquine Study Used By Media To Attack Trump
Tristan Justice 5 days ago

The Lancet, a peer-reviewed medical journal that published a 96,000-subject study indicting the efficacy of the politically controversial hydroxychloroquine for COVID-19 has retracted its findings that the malaria medication led to an increased risk of death.

© The Federalist Lancet Formally Retracts Fake Hydroxychloroquine Study Used By Media To Attack Trump

"Today, three of the authors of the paper, 'Hydroxychloroquine or chloroquine with or without a macrolide for treatment of COVID-19: a multinational registry analysis", have retracted their study," The Lancet said in a retraction statement Thursday. "They were unable to complete an independent audit of the data underpinning their analysis. As a result, they have concluded that they 'can no longer vouch for the veracity of the primary data sources."

"We deeply apologise to you, the editors, and the journal readership for any embarrassment or inconvenience that this may have caused," the authors of the study wrote.

https://twitter.com/jeremyfaust/status/1268615125323272192?s=20

The study was first published in May and was the largest ever conducted analyzing the impacts of hydroxychloroquine after President Donald Trump was reported to be taking the medication as a precautionary measure following possible exposure to the virus.

Legacy media meanwhile, with its animus for Trump, used the study to attack the president and his physician for taking a medication that had anecdotally shown potential promise in treatment of infection while posing few risks. Trump had previously touted the possible benefits of the medication approved by the Food and Drug Administration for emergency use during press briefings to reporters who pinned the death of an uninfected man who drank fish tank cleaner outside of medical guidance on the president.

https://twitter.com/MSNBC/status/1264059254044065795?s=20

https://twitter.com/julianborger/status/1263819256682237953?s=20

https://twitter.com/JenGriffinFNC/status/1263810623605018625?s=20

https://twitter.com/chicagotribune/status/1263844122030456834?s=20

https://twitter.com/CBCAlerts/status/1263813208676143104?s=20

https://twitter.com/politico/status/1265713715334217728?s=20

https://twitter.com/grantstern/status/1263938530235027457?s=20

https://twitter.com/ABCWorldNews/status/1264179275575353345?s=20

https://twitter.com/Alison_Galvani/status/1263891431753691137?s=20

https://twitter.com/SebastianAFP/status/1263898596098945024?s=20

One has to wonder then, how many of the more than 100,000 people to die from the coronavirus in the United States could have been saved from the drug in the absence of the researchers' negligence.

Source: Lancet Formally Retracts Fake Hydroxychloroquine Study Used By Media To Attack Trump

 

[Prayer Warrior]

From The New American:

Friday, 05 June 2020
Study Claiming Hydroxychloroquine Dangerous and Ineffective Is Retracted
Written by Dennis Behreandt




A study that was published to great fanfare in the prestigious journal The Lancet has now been retracted.

The retracted study, titled “Hydroxychloroquine or chloroquine with or without a macrolide for treatment of COVID-19: a multinational registry analysis,” was led by Dr. Mandeep R. Mehra, a cardiologist and medical director of the Brighman and Women’s Hospital Heart and Vascular Center in Boston.

Using data sourced from a small company called Surgisphere, the study’s authors, which also included Sapan Desai, the founder of Surgisphere, reached an alarming conclusion.

“We were unable to confirm a benefit of hydroxychloroquine or chloroquine, when used alone or with a macrolide, on in-hospital outcomes for COVID-19,” the author’s summarized. “Each of these drug regimens was associated with decreased in-hospital survival and an increased frequency of ventricular arrhythmias when used for treatment of COVID-19.”

Shocked by this conclusion, researchers conducting or contemplating clinical trials involving hydroxychloroquine began to reevaluate their efforts based on worries that patients included in such studies might be harmed. “The World Health Organization and a number of national governments have changed their Covid-19 policies and treatments on the basis” of the study, The Guardian newspaper reported.

But almost immediately after the study was published, other researchers began to notice disquieting elements in the work.

“Critics were quick to point out anomalies … including implausible findings that should have been detected during the peer review process — like the … apparent inclusion of a large number of Covid-19 cases very early on in the pandemic, even in Africa, where few hospitals have electronic health records,” the New York Times reported.

The Times continued: Many researchers were astonished to find out that such a database could exist, or that the gathering and analysis of tens of thousands of medical records on multiple continents could have been carried out so quickly.”

A key element of science in general and scientific studies in particular is the idea of reproducibility. In scientific writing, it is expected and required that researchers provide sufficient details in a “materials and methods” section or sections of a paper so that other researchers can reproduce the described experiment. Such reproduction allows other researchers to evaluate the methods and data described while allowing other researchers to derive the conclusions — or not — for themselves. This is the central feedback loop in scientific publishing that prevents fraud and ensures accuracy of results.

This was the central failing of the studies (there were two in total) that were based on the Surgisphere data.

After such concerns were raised, the authors of the paper who were not affiliated with Surgisphere arranged for an independent review of the data.

In their statement retracting their work, they described the outcome of this review:

After publication of our Lancet Article, several concerns were raised with respect to the veracity of the data and analyses conducted by Surgisphere Corporation and its founder and our co-author, Sapan Desai, in our publication. We launched an independent third-party peer review of Surgisphere with the consent of Sapan Desai to evaluate the origination of the database elements, to confirm the completeness of the database, and to replicate the analyses presented in the paper.

Our independent peer reviewers informed us that Surgisphere would not transfer the full dataset, client contracts, and the full ISO audit report to their servers for analysis as such transfer would violate client agreements and confidentiality requirements. As such, our reviewers were not able to conduct an independent and private peer review and therefore notified us of their withdrawal from the peer-review process.

Lancet published the retraction on June 4, noting that the study’s authors “were unable to complete an independent audit of the data underpinning their analysis. As a result, they have concluded that they "can no longer vouch for the veracity of the primary data sources." The Lancet takes issues of scientific integrity extremely seriously, and there are many outstanding questions about Surgisphere and the data that were allegedly included in this study. Following guidelines from the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE), institutional reviews of Surgisphere’s research collaborations are urgently needed.”

According to The Guardian, Surgisphere seems to have a colorful background, one that might not be expected of a professional scientific organization.

In its investigation, The Guardian found:

• “Several” of Surgisphere’s employees “have little or no data or scientific background.”

• One “science editor” for the company “appears to be a science fiction author and fantasy artist.”

• One employee, “listed as a marketing executive is an adult model and events hostess.”

• Until recently, the company’s “get in touch” link on its website “redirected to a WordPress template for a cryptocurrency website.”

• Company founder Desai in 2008 attempted to crowdfund some type of wearable device on Indiegogo described as a “next generation human augmentation device that can help you achieve what you never thought was possible.”

The Lancet study on hydroxychloroquine was not the only study based on “data” from Surgisphere to be retracted. Also retracted was a study led, again, by Mandeep R. Mehra that was published in The New England Journal of Medicine. That study, titled “Cardiovascular Disease, Drug Therapy, and Mortality in Covid-19” concluded that angiotensin-converting-enzyme (ACE) inhibitors and angiotensin-receptor blockers (ARBs) were safe for use in COVID-19 patients with underlying cardiovascular disease.

In a letter to the editor of The New England Journal of Medicine, Mehra and his co-authors not affiliated with Surgisphere requested retraction on similar grounds to the retraction of the Lancet article.

“Because all the authors were not granted access to the raw data and the raw data could not be made available to a third-party auditor, we are unable to validate the primary data sources underlying our article, ‘Cardiovascular Disease, Drug Therapy, and Mortality in Covid-19,’” they wrote. “We therefore request that the article be retracted. We apologize to the editors and to readers of the Journal for the difficulties that this has caused.”

The retractions have led to concerns that the integrity of the peer-review process in particular and of scientific publishing in general has been undermined.

The retractions “raise troubling questions about the state of scientific research as the pandemic spreads,” said the New York Times. “Thousands of papers are being rushed to online sites and journals with little or no peer review, and critics fear long-held standards of even the most discerning journals are eroding as they face pressure to rapidly vet and disseminate new scientific reports.”

It goes without saying that this situation is ripe for abuse by those seeking to use science to push political agendas.

Photo: amlanmathur / iStock / Getty Images Plus

Source: Study Claiming Hydroxychloroquine Dangerous and Ineffective Is Retracted

 

[Yehren]

As you have seen, there are many studies on Hydrochloroquine's safety and effacy for COVID-19. Most of them don't show a benefit, a few show some benefit, and some show that it is not safe.

So the withdrawal of one paper, due to inability to peer-review the raw data, is not the only evidence.

Efficacy of hydroxychloroquine in patients with COVID-19: results of a randomized clinical trial

Virological and clinical cure in COVID‐19 patients treated with hydroxychloroquine: A systematic review and meta‐analysis
Error - Cookies Turned Off

No evidence of clinical efficacy of hydroxychloroquine in patients hospitalized for COVID-19 infection with oxygen requirement: results of a study using routinely collected data to emulate a target trial
No evidence of clinical efficacy of hydroxychloroquine in patients hospitalized for COVID-19 infection with oxygen requirement: results of a study using routinely collected data to emulate a target trial

Should chloroquine and hydroxychloroquine be used to treat COVID-19? A rapid review
Should chloroquine and hydroxychloroquine be used to treat COVID-19? A rapid review

There is enough rationale to justify the continued investigation of the efficacy and safety of HCQ in hospitalized patients with COVID-19. It is critical to reiterate that although viral clearance is important, clinical outcomes are much more relevant to patients. There currently are no data to recommend the use of HCQ as prophylaxis for COVID-19, although we eagerly await data from trials under way. Thus, we discourage its off-label use until justified and supply is bolstered. The HCQ shortage not only will limit availability to patients with COVID-19 if efficacy is truly established but also represents a real risk to patients with rheumatic diseases who depend on HCQ for their survival.
ACP Journals

There's a lot more like this. It's by no means established to be safe and effective, although it might be in some circumstances.

 

[Prayer Warrior]

As you have seen, there are many studies on Hydrochloroquine's safety and effacy for COVID-19. Most of them don't show a benefit, a few show some benefit, and some show that it is not safe.

So the withdrawal of one paper, due to inability to peer-review the raw data, is not the only evidence.

Efficacy of hydroxychloroquine in patients with COVID-19: results of a randomized clinical trial

Virological and clinical cure in COVID‐19 patients treated with hydroxychloroquine: A systematic review and meta‐analysis
Error - Cookies Turned Off

No evidence of clinical efficacy of hydroxychloroquine in patients hospitalized for COVID-19 infection with oxygen requirement: results of a study using routinely collected data to emulate a target trial
No evidence of clinical efficacy of hydroxychloroquine in patients hospitalized for COVID-19 infection with oxygen requirement: results of a study using routinely collected data to emulate a target trial

Should chloroquine and hydroxychloroquine be used to treat COVID-19? A rapid review
Should chloroquine and hydroxychloroquine be used to treat COVID-19? A rapid review

There is enough rationale to justify the continued investigation of the efficacy and safety of HCQ in hospitalized patients with COVID-19. It is critical to reiterate that although viral clearance is important, clinical outcomes are much more relevant to patients. There currently are no data to recommend the use of HCQ as prophylaxis for COVID-19, although we eagerly await data from trials under way. Thus, we discourage its off-label use until justified and supply is bolstered. The HCQ shortage not only will limit availability to patients with COVID-19 if efficacy is truly established but also represents a real risk to patients with rheumatic diseases who depend on HCQ for their survival.
ACP Journals

There's a lot more like this. It's by no means established to be safe and effective, although it might be in some circumstances.

The effectiveness of hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) against COVID-19 is NOT the issue in this thread. This thread covers the problems with the Lancet study, which was evidently characterized by anomalies from its onset. Anecdotal [or rather empirical] evidence offered by some doctors had shown HCQ's effectiveness when combined with other drugs. When research contradicts anecdotal evidence, something is very wrong.

So, we have strong evidence being ignored and a flawed study being used to steer doctors away from prescribing HCQ. Plus, there seem to be some political elements to this whole debacle. I'm sure you would agree that politics should NEVER play a role in determining what medical treatments should or should not be used.
.

 

[Enoch111]

Anecdotal evidence offered by some doctors had shown HCQ's effectiveness when combined with other drugs.

It was more than *anecdotal evidence*. This term was used to denigrate and dismiss what was a very cheap and very effective preventative treatment. There was also an evil agenda afoot to prevent people from access to HCQ and its combinants.

 

[Prayer Warrior]

It was more than *anecdotal evidence*. This term was used to denigrate and dismiss what was a very cheap and very effective preventative treatment. There was also an evil agenda afoot to prevent people from access to HCQ and its combinants.

I agree that the evidence was more than anecdotal, but I used the term because the evidence was not collected in a controlled study. I suppose I should have used the term empirical.

 

[Yehren]

The effectiveness of hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) against COVID-19 is NOT the issue in this thread. This thread covers the problems with the Lancet study, which was evidently characterized by anomalies from its onset.

The fact that the data used in the study could not be given to reviewers for peer review made it impossible to publish. That's all. As you see, the literature on the safety and efficacy of hydroxychloroquine is shows a lot of problems, not the least of which was the VA program, in which those receiving the drug died more often than those who did not.

Anecdotal evidence offered by some doctors had shown HCQ's effectiveness when combined with other drugs. When research contradicts anecdotal evidence, something is very wrong.

Guess why doctors prefer controlled studies to anecdotes.

So, we have anecdotal evidence being ignored and a flawed study being used to steer doctors away from prescribing HCQ.

And the VA study, indicating a higher fatality rate when the drug was used. And many others. There are also some studies that support it. For now, the issue is unresolved.

Plus, there seem to be some political elements to this whole debacle.

Yes. It's not that Trump is looking to make a lot of money from this; it's political:

President Donald Trump indirectly owns a minute stake in a company that makes the anti-malarial drug hydroxychloroquine, which he has been aggressively promoting as a treatment for the coronavirus, and was lobbied to use it by Fox News host Laura Ingraham and two doctors who frequently come on her show, reports The Washington Post.

Ingraham personally lobbied Trump to use hydroxychloroquine during an Oval Office visit last Friday.
Trump Owns Small Stake in Hydroxychloroquine Maker

I'm sure you would agree that politics should NEVER play a role in determining what medical treatments should or should not be used.
.

Unfortunately, he has made it so. The FDA continues to follow scientific guidelines for certifying drugs, and this one remains unproven as a treatment for COVID-19. The bulk of the research indicates that it might even by dangerous.

 

[Enoch111]

I agree that the evidence was more than anecdotal, but I used the term because the evidence was not collected in a controlled study. I suppose I should have used the term empirical.

The CDC, NIAID and NIH had seventeen years to do thorough research on HCQ, since "Effects of chloroquine on viral infections: an old drug against today's diseases" was published in 2003. They had a moral obligation to included zinc sulfate and erethromycin in controlled studies, and then have the combined drugs available by now. Possibly thousands of lives could have been saved.

On the other hand Gilead's remdesivir was not found to be very effective, yet Gilead continued to push its use:
"In a trial in China over February-March 2020, remdesivir was not effective in reducing the time for improvement from COVID‑19 or deaths, and caused various adverse effects, requiring the investigators to terminate the trial...On 29 April 2020, based on results of the ACTT trial, the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID) announced that remdesivir was better than a placebo in reducing time to recovery for people hospitalized with advanced COVID‑19 and lung involvement. The study appeared on The New England Journal of Medicine website almost a month later on 22 May 2020, and despite generally positive results, the study concluded that "given high mortality despite the use of remdesivir, it is clear that treatment with an antiviral drug alone is not likely to be sufficient." Previously a Chinese study published in The Lancet did not show improvement. That study was subsequently criticised as underpowered."
https://populartimelines.com/timeline/Remdesivir

 

[Prayer Warrior]

The CDC, NIAID and NIH had seventeen years to do thorough research on HCQ, since "Effects of chloroquine on viral infections: an old drug against today's diseases" was published in 2003. They had a moral obligation to included zinc sulfate and erethromycin in controlled studies, and then have the combined drugs available by now. Possibly thousands of lives could have been saved.

On the other hand Gilead's remdesivir was not found to be very effective, yet Gilead continued to push its use:
"In a trial in China over February-March 2020, remdesivir was not effective in reducing the time for improvement from COVID‑19 or deaths, and caused various adverse effects, requiring the investigators to terminate the trial...On 29 April 2020, based on results of the ACTT trial, the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID) announced that remdesivir was better than a placebo in reducing time to recovery for people hospitalized with advanced COVID‑19 and lung involvement. The study appeared on The New England Journal of Medicine website almost a month later on 22 May 2020, and despite generally positive results, the study concluded that "given high mortality despite the use of remdesivir, it is clear that treatment with an antiviral drug alone is not likely to be sufficient." Previously a Chinese study published in The Lancet did not show improvement. That study was subsequently criticised as underpowered."
https://populartimelines.com/timeline/Remdesivir

Thanks for this info! It's very telling.

 

[Prayer Warrior]

Guess why doctors prefer controlled studies to anecdotes.

Are you actually reading my posts?? I corrected my use of the term anecdote! You can't win this argument when you look at all the evidence.