Hydroxychloroquine Has about 90 Percent Chance of Helping COVID-19 Patients - AAPS | Association of American Physicians and Surgeons
By: AAPSonline (AAPS Association of American Physicians and Surgeons)
Practical experience from around the world shows that hydroxychloroquine does provide benefit as a prophylactic treatment. Other countries are using HCQ to protect medical staff. According to this reporting, administering hydroxychloroquine after hospitalization is too late to obtain benefit. The FDA restrictions (and political directives) are preventing utilizing HCQ in the most effective manner.
Why are politicians inserting themselves between patients and doctors?
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
In a letter to Gov. Doug Ducey of Arizona, the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons (AAPS) presents a frequently updated table of studies that report results of treating COVID-19 with the anti-malaria drugs chloroquine (CQ) and hydroxychloroquine (HCQ, Plaquenil®).
To date, the total number of reported patients treated with HCQ, with or without zinc and the widely used antibiotic azithromycin, is 2,333, writes AAPS, in observational data from China, France, South Korea, Algeria, and the U.S. Of these, 2,137 or 91.6 percent improved clinically. There were 63 deaths, all but 11 in a single retrospective report from the Veterans Administration where the patients were severely ill.
The antiviral properties of these drugs have been studied since 2003. Particularly when combined with zinc, they hinder viral entry into cells and inhibit replication. They may also prevent overreaction by the immune system, which causes the cytokine storm responsible for much of the damage in severe cases, explains AAPS. HCQ is often very helpful in treating autoimmune diseases such as lupus and rheumatoid arthritis.
Additional benefits shown in some studies, AAPS states, is to decrease the number of days when a patient is contagious, reduce the need for ventilators, and shorten the time to clinical recovery.
Peer-reviewed studies published from January through April 20, 2020, provide clear and convincing evidence that HCQ may be beneficial in COVID-19, especially when used early, states AAPS. Unfortunately, although it is perfectly legal to prescribe drugs for new indications not on the label, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has recommended that CQ and HCQ should be used for COVID-19 only in hospitalized patients in the setting of a clinical study if available. Most states are making it difficult for physicians to prescribe or pharmacists to dispense these medications.
As the letter to Gov. Ducey notes, "Many nations, including Turkey and India, are protecting medical workers and contacts of infected persons prophylactically. According to worldometers.info, deaths per million persons from COVID-19 as of Apr 27 are 167 in the U.S., 33 in Turkey, and 0.6 in India."
After Morocco and Algeria began using HCQ, a trend break and sharp reduction in their COVID-19 case fatality rate occurred.
Vaccines and results of randomized double-blind controlled trials of new drugs are at best months away. But patients are dying now, while affordable, long-used drugs would be available except for government restrictions, AAPS states.
The Association of American Physicians and Surgeons (AAPS) has represented physicians of all specialties in all states since 1943. The AAPS motto is omnia pro aegroto, meaning everything for the patient.
Tags
Who is online
115 visitors
Why isn't practical experience of physicians of any medical value? Politicians and bureaucrats, attempting to practice medicine, are manipulating science; they aren't being guided by science.
Trump Bad and if he says something might be good it must be bad. If Trump said food is good the Left would starve. If Trump said don't jump off bridges we'd be able to walk across rivers on the bodies.
It is. However the AAPS is a conservative political lobbyist organization that anyone can join.
They are opposed to the ACA and health care reform in general, as well as gun control and some aspects of Social Security.
The 5,000 members are arguably the fringe of something but they are not all doctors by a long shot
Tragic source for serious scientific discussion.
That is a perfect description of the AAPS,
not to be confused with the legitimate groups representing Plastic Surgeons and Pharmaceutical Sciences.
...
On the other hand, the AMA which requires an MD or DO to join it's 245,000 members is a real physicians organization.
The AMA appears to be firmly against rogue off label usage of HCQ and other drug cocktails in spite of a few positive anecdotal articles about HCQ
Just to be fair, here's the closest article I could find disagreeing with the AMA.
although it's 20 days old, like an eternity ago as far as COVID research is concerned.
I knew there was something about that group that I was suspicious of. Thanks for your comment
I'm not a doctor, I just play one on the web.
I'm not a lawyer, I just watch a lot of Law and Order...so if you need an attorney for practicing medicine on internet forums without a license...I'm your gal!
To hard core leftist liberals, sheer unadulterated hatred of Donald Trump over rides any logic and common sense...
Which has what to do with the topic of the AAPS or their insane reporting on HCQ?
The fact that AAPS is a conservative lobbying organization promoting the use and results of HCQ is more than enough reason to make hard core leftist liberals discount what they are saying. If a liberal Democrat based organization had produced the same info, many people on the left would be praising it like a message from the heavens.
The fact is that they pretend to be speaking for Physicians and Surgeons should be criminal...
They should not have anything to do with politics but that's the false image they portray and foster.
The Library of Congress collects political cartoons but won't publish anything by the AAPS?
Sometimes dumbfuckery is just that, neither right or left.
Ed, did you read SP's comment? This "organization" does not require their members to be MDs or DOs where that is a strict requirement of the AMA.
And this group lobbies against vaccines
and homosexuality and abortion....
One stop shopping.
Homosexuality and abortion make some conservatives nuts so I went with vaccines because thinking people agree that they are a good idea
They are also headquartered in Tucson AZ. Maybe that's meaningful, maybe not.
Did I say anywhere that I support or agree with the positions of said group? No I did not. I merely stated that they are a conservative lobbying group.
They ought to be in Phoenix or Scottsdale...
No, Sir, you didn't. My apologies
No problem.
”Listen to the experts!”, they cry . . . Until they say something that makes one of their political rivals (i.e. Trump) look good. Then the science is no good.
Did you read ANY of my comments?
The Library of Congress which collects almost everything from classic literature to political cartoons will not collect the AAPS Journal, due to it's unscientific promotions.
Their "peers" in the medical community deny their legitimacy based on science and accreditation, not politics.
Should I have? I don’t really think so. I replied to Nerm, not you. Maybe think about that. If I want to read your comments, and reply to them, I’ll get around to it. Or maybe I won’t.
The short answer is that Donald Trump said the drug showed promise. There has been a war on the drug ever since!
"...only in hospitalized patients in the setting of a clinical study if available."
The tardiness of HCQ therapy, (as a last chance) precludes it's getting a fair empirical shake. Other countries, who are taking a chance, see a prophylactic benefit.
Doctors in other countries are not taking a chance, they are practicing medicine. COVID-19 is new so there isn't any information available. Practicing doctors are forced to make practical choices from experience to treat the unknown. And doctors in other countries have to deal with diseases that are uncommon in the United States.
Which could be a placebo effect.
The more controlled the study, the less impressive HCQ appears.
Apparently, without a lot of fanfare those other countries have moved on to remsidivar with better, if not earthshaking results.
Something to build on.
Placebo effect for an infectious disease? Really?
According to the reported results, administering HCQ after hospitalization or the appearance of symptoms is too late. According to the reported experience with HCQ, a clinical trial would involve administering HCQ when a patient tests positive for SARS-CoV-2 infection and before symptoms appear. That's why HCQ is being suggested as a prophylactic treatment after infection to avoid appearance of severe symptoms.
The clinical trials can be manipulated by when drugs are administered during the progression of the infection.
Remdesivir is being touted as treatment after symptoms become severe enough to require hospitalization. And the reported results are statistically significant but not spectacular.
Which results would they be Nerm? The ones in the seed?
The AAPS you are promoting is considered an unscientific pariah by the AMA and the Library of Congress to name a few.
Might as well quote Mad Magazine as factual.
Are they doing a blind study to determine that the person they are treating with HCQ may be an asymptomatic carrier? One can test positive but never show any symptoms. Does the HCQ lower the viral load in the infected patient? Or is it just for treating symptoms?
A link for the table of cited studies is provided in the seed article.
The AAPS has not claimed to have performed studies. The AAPS is citing peer reviewed reports of results obtained around the world.
Claiming that doctors who are politically conservative are not qualified physicians is really carrying politics too far. That opens the door to disregarding doctors who are politically liberal by claiming they are politically motivated to produce biased results.
According to the argument being made, only results reported by apolitical doctors are valid. Any sort of political association or activism is a disqualifying factor for information reported by doctors.
I read it, did you? Pure unscientific crap. In essence they conclude, study by study, that if the patient survived that equaled "improvement".
The results listed in the table are not from clinical trials. But that does not mean the results are unscientific.
The table is not the only information provided in that particular document; there is discussion at the end. And more information is provided (through links) in the seeded article.
Science isn't limited to statistically controlled experimentation. The scientific method is also applicable for drawing conclusions from uncontrolled observations. Comparing the results from practical treatment protocols to a baseline of untreated patients is scientifically valid. (That's the scientific methodology utilized for climate change; comparing observations to a baseline.)
The science presented by the AAPS is no better or worse than the science pertaining to other issues being used to guide policy and decisions to address problems. Baseline information is just as scientifically valid as placebo information.
I stand by the opinion of the Library of Congress that the Journal of AAPS is not admissible as scientific
or scholarly material worthy of collection.
The article and it's findings are a classic example of bending and interpreting the data to fit one's
preconceived opinion.
Let's stick with the AMA and the CDC, real doctors and real medical researchers uninfluenced by politics.
That's much more realistic in my opinion.
AAPS is a conservative political organization representing a fraction of a percent of medical doctors. It's attacking Obamacare on constitutional grounds, not medical grounds. AAPS really couldn't care less that Obamacare gets 20 million working class Americans healthcare; so much for "omnia pro aegroto".
So, politics is more important than peer reviewed practical results observed around the world?
BTW, even Democrats are advocating replacing Obamacare with universal health care. And Democrats are known to use the Constitution for politically expedient purposes, too. Democrat's use of the Constitution for political purposes may well have impeded early response to the COVID-19 pandemic.
BS.
What are the statistics now?
3.3 million infected that had symptoms severe enough to seek treatment.
233,000 deaths
Approximately 1 million declared "cured"
A review of 2300 cases by a highly questionable lobbyist organization
that pretends to represent Physicians and Surgeons.
The kindest thing to say about them is their data, review and conclusions are suspect.
More off topic nonsense and personal prejudices, but hey it's your seed, take it anywhere you like.