GWBe-lying You are a lying dangerous fuck of a piece shit human.
You know damn well there are studies which show that it worked...
Yes... and we know plenty studies saying it did not work in their studies...
If someone cares they need to study this and determine things for themselves...
Only a horrible human would mislead with the unequivocally and clearly uniformed or lying statements you make when you have no background to make them.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7534595/
A total of 43 reports were found that examined HCQ treatment for COVID-19 patients. Twenty-five reported positive clinical efficacy from providing HCQ to for COVID-19 patients; 15 showed no improvement with HCQ and three showed worse clinical results in patients who received HCQ.
Eleven studies in our review examined HCQ efficacy in patients in the outpatient or ‘day hospital’ setting; all reported positive results [8]. However, in two of the studies [9,10], the positive results, while clinically important (decreased risk of hospitalization and improvement in symptom resolution), were not statistically significant.
We found 32 reports of HCQ treatment in hospitalized patients with COVID-19. Of these 32 reports of hospitalized patients, 14 reported good results, 15 reported no improvement and three reported worse results. Fourteen studies reported the time during treatment during which HCQ was initiated. In nine studies, HCQ was administered within 48 hours of admission. In six [[11], [12], [13], [14], [15], [16]] of these nine, improvement was noted. In three, no improvement was noted [3,17,18]. In five studies, HCQ was administered more than 48 hours after admission or in the intensive care unit (ICU). In two [19,20] of these five improvement was noted. In three it was not [[21], [22], [23]]. In 18 studies, the time of administration was not specified.
Seven of the 43 total studies [12,17,20,[24], [25], [26], [27]] were chartless retrospective studies that used only billing codes. These studies all allowed initiation of HCQ treatment at times that differed with initiation of the control treatment, with HCQ presumably being chosen at the physician's discretion in worsening patients who were more in need of treatment. All such studies were thought to exhibit selection bias against a positive result. Four additional studies [9,10,15,16] had positive trends towards efficacy that did not reach statistical significance. In one study [22], 8% of the treatment group was untreated but not excluded from the treatment group calculations. In addition, the median level of treatment was only 67% of the specified treatment. Nineteen of the 43 reports were preprints or otherwise not peer reviewed. Twenty-four of the articles were from peer-reviewed journals. Of the 11 outpatient reports, all of which reported positive results, seven were peer reviewed and four were not. Of the 32 hospitalization reports, 17 were peer reviewed and 15 were not. Overall, 12 (50%) of the 24 peer-reviewed reports and 11 (58%) of 19 non–peer reviewed reports showed positive efficacy.
Some studies provided HCQ alone; some included the addition of AZ and/or zinc. No difference in outcome was observed with the addition of AZ (Table 1), although all of the outpatient studies that provided AZ had positive results. There were no deaths reported as a result of HCQ, AZ or zinc treatment. Increased QTc was seen but not torsades de pointes (TDP). Adverse events that were thought to be likely due to HCQ treatment were not life threatening. No permanent sequelae were described. Adverse events are listed in Table 2, Table 3, Table 4. Table 5 provides a comparison of study treatments, settings and results.
more at the link...
You know damn well there are studies which show that it worked...
Yes... and we know plenty studies saying it did not work in their studies...
If someone cares they need to study this and determine things for themselves...
Only a horrible human would mislead with the unequivocally and clearly uniformed or lying statements you make when you have no background to make them.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7534595/
A total of 43 reports were found that examined HCQ treatment for COVID-19 patients. Twenty-five reported positive clinical efficacy from providing HCQ to for COVID-19 patients; 15 showed no improvement with HCQ and three showed worse clinical results in patients who received HCQ.
Eleven studies in our review examined HCQ efficacy in patients in the outpatient or ‘day hospital’ setting; all reported positive results [8]. However, in two of the studies [9,10], the positive results, while clinically important (decreased risk of hospitalization and improvement in symptom resolution), were not statistically significant.
We found 32 reports of HCQ treatment in hospitalized patients with COVID-19. Of these 32 reports of hospitalized patients, 14 reported good results, 15 reported no improvement and three reported worse results. Fourteen studies reported the time during treatment during which HCQ was initiated. In nine studies, HCQ was administered within 48 hours of admission. In six [[11], [12], [13], [14], [15], [16]] of these nine, improvement was noted. In three, no improvement was noted [3,17,18]. In five studies, HCQ was administered more than 48 hours after admission or in the intensive care unit (ICU). In two [19,20] of these five improvement was noted. In three it was not [[21], [22], [23]]. In 18 studies, the time of administration was not specified.
Seven of the 43 total studies [12,17,20,[24], [25], [26], [27]] were chartless retrospective studies that used only billing codes. These studies all allowed initiation of HCQ treatment at times that differed with initiation of the control treatment, with HCQ presumably being chosen at the physician's discretion in worsening patients who were more in need of treatment. All such studies were thought to exhibit selection bias against a positive result. Four additional studies [9,10,15,16] had positive trends towards efficacy that did not reach statistical significance. In one study [22], 8% of the treatment group was untreated but not excluded from the treatment group calculations. In addition, the median level of treatment was only 67% of the specified treatment. Nineteen of the 43 reports were preprints or otherwise not peer reviewed. Twenty-four of the articles were from peer-reviewed journals. Of the 11 outpatient reports, all of which reported positive results, seven were peer reviewed and four were not. Of the 32 hospitalization reports, 17 were peer reviewed and 15 were not. Overall, 12 (50%) of the 24 peer-reviewed reports and 11 (58%) of 19 non–peer reviewed reports showed positive efficacy.
Some studies provided HCQ alone; some included the addition of AZ and/or zinc. No difference in outcome was observed with the addition of AZ (Table 1), although all of the outpatient studies that provided AZ had positive results. There were no deaths reported as a result of HCQ, AZ or zinc treatment. Increased QTc was seen but not torsades de pointes (TDP). Adverse events that were thought to be likely due to HCQ treatment were not life threatening. No permanent sequelae were described. Adverse events are listed in Table 2, Table 3, Table 4. Table 5 provides a comparison of study treatments, settings and results.
more at the link...
