WHO halts hydroxychloroquine trials after failure to reduce death
And here I thought I read hydroxychloroquine was worth a damn...butt I guess not!
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
By Tal Axelrod
The World Health Organization (WHO) announced Saturday it is halting its trials of the malaria drug hydroxychloroquine and HIV treatment lopinavir-ritonavir in patients hospitalized with the coronavirus after results showed the drugs did not reduce mortality rates.
"These interim trial results show that hydroxychloroquine and lopinavir/ritonavir produce little or no reduction in the mortality of hospitalized COVID-19 patients when compared to standard of care. Solidarity trial investigators will interrupt the trials with immediate effect," the WHO said in a statement, referencing multicountry trials it is conducting.
The group, a United Nations agency, said it was ending the tests on the recommendation of the drug trial's international steering committee. The pause does not impact other studies in which the drugs are used for patients who are not hospitalized.
The WHO is also examining the potential effect of remdesivir, an anti-viral drug from Gilead, on COVID-19.
The WHO's announcement comes two days after a study was released linking the use of hydroxychloroquine by COVID-19 patients to lower death rates.
In patients who received the drug, the death rate was 13 percent, compared with a death rate of 26.4 percent in patients who weren't administered the treatment.
Studies have offered a scattershot assessment of hydroxychloroquine's effectiveness in battling the coronavirus. The Food and Drug Administration earlier this year yanked the drug's emergency use authorization, citing data from a large randomized controlled trial that showed no difference between using hydroxychloroquine and standard COVID-19 treatment.
President Trump had emerged as a chief cheerleader for the drug, at one point even saying he was taking it himself as a preventative measure.
Tags
Who is online
217 visitors
I told you so...
Oh, come on, if the conservatives' demi-god, lord and master, says it does the trick, how can anyone argue with that?
Are you talking about Bad Fish?
The words "Bad Fish" make me think of the time at my lakeside home in Ontario when a carcass of a dead fish washed up on my shore, teaming with maggots. Nothing in my life ever smelled so rotten.
Some don't argue it. That's the problem. They simply go along and parrot the same spiel. It's doubtful they actually understand the science behind the drug or the studies conducted. It boggles the mind that some people would look to a politician for medical advise rather than an actual doctor.
WHO. The same organization that told us.
"There is no specific evidence to suggest that the wearing of masks by the mass population has any potential benefit. In fact, there's some evidence to suggest the opposite in the misuse of wearing a mask properly or fitting it properly," Dr. Mike Ryan, executive director of the WHO health emergencies program"
Then turned around and stated:
"in light of evolving evidence, the WHO advises that governments should encourage the general public to wear masks where there is widespread transmission and physical distancing is difficult, such as on public transport, in shops or in other confined or crowded environments"
Now I'm supposed to believe what they tell us about hydroxychloroquine? Sorry if I don't have full confidence in their "guidance".
Would you prefer the World Health Organization operate like a religion and hold fast to its original positions and never change when new information becomes available?
Or would you prefer the WHO not make any statement until they are certain they will never have to make a change in their statement? (That is impossible by the way.)
One needs to factor in the reality that the human body and viruses are a complex business and science, in spite of the amazing accomplishments, still has plenty of unknowns. The best we can get, realistically, is ' this is what we know today ' qualified by the implied ' we are continuing to learn more and will update accordingly '. And that is how science typically operates.
That said, let's look more carefully at your example quotes (with more context from your sources):
Here the WHO has revised its position based on new information ('in light of evolving evidence'). As I noted, when science gains new information do you want this information to be suppressed and have the public operate only on obsolete recommendations?
Both of these quotes have plenty of supporting details and explanations suitable for anyone to investigate and come to a sensible conclusion — one that actually considers the scientific reasoning behind the recommendations. If one considers that early information on a virus will be sketchy and that, given time, science will naturally gain more information which will naturally cause a change in early recommendations, one can see the value in a process of staying abreast of the current recommendations while doing enough research to understand why these recommendations are made and the qualifications associated with them.
It's ironic how agencies can't change their views on an evolving virus but I'm expected to change my political views by the comments shared here.
More importantly the World Health Organization did not indicate that hydroxychloroquine caused harm. The drug is important for treating malaria which is a much larger global problem than the coronavirus. 200 to 250 million cases of malaria are reported annually with 400,000 to 500,000 deaths annually.
COVID-19 is an academically interesting disease. But malaria has been causing more sickness and death around the world without any indication that the death toll will be abated in the foreseeable future. Politicizing the use of hydroxychloroquine really can kill a lot of people.