Coronavirus COVID-19 Pandemic

[Snooze]

A new research paper just came out: "Deaths induced by compassionate use of hydroxychloroquine during the first COVID-19 wave: an estimate."

I'm just going to quote the highlights here:


Seventeen. Thousand. People.

Enough said.

And that's just the deaths in hospitals.

Click to shrink...

That's what happens when you don't follow the recommanded dosage, for a lot of other meds too.

 

[Aleh]

That's what happens when you don't follow the recommanded dosage, for a lot of other meds too.

Click to shrink...

No. That study was of what happened as a result of "compassionate use" _in hospitals_. The people self-medicating weren't studied.

 

[Snooze]

No. That study was of what happened as a result of "compassionate use" _in hospitals_. The people self-medicating weren't studied.

Click to shrink...

Hydroxychloroquine was tooted as the next best thing since slived bread for a very specific dosage, dosage that wasn't used in any of the studies that went on to disprove how iseful it was.
Said studies were done in the hospitals.

I'm not convinced it was that useful, but maybe it would have been a bit more acting above the minimum dose for some of these studied.

Or maybe a tiny bit less lethal below the threshold were doctors were explicitely warned it became toxic to the patient.

 

[Aleh]

Hydroxychloroquine was tooted as the next best thing since slived bread for a very specific dosage, dosage that wasn't used in any of the studies that went on to disprove how iseful it was.
Said studies were done in the hospitals.

I'm not convinced it was that useful, but maybe it would have been a bit more acting above the minimum dose for some of these studied.

Or maybe a tiny bit less lethal below the threshold were doctors were explicitely warned it became toxic to the patient.

Click to shrink...

Bullshit. The touting of hydroxychloroquine did not involve a specific dosage. The studies attempted to evaluate its efficacy and instead found that it made the COVID patient more likely to die rather than less.

Hospital "compassionate use" involved attempts to use it following all relevant medical recommendations. Notably, hydroxychloroquine is a very well-documented medication, including for human use (it's legitimately used to treat malaria, rheumatoid arthritis, lupus, and porphyria cutanea tarda). This meant that information on the dosing and pharmacokinetics for human use was readily available... and hydroxychloroquine has a very narrow therapeutic window and index, meaning that there's very little difference between a dose so low as to have no effect whatsoever and a dose so high that it'll kill the patient.

This is what your "very specific dose" comment actually means... and yes, the trials were very careful to get the dosing within that sweet spot.

"Oh, but they used the wrong [dose/protocol/whatever]!" is a common way for proponents of a bullshit idea to move the goalposts when evidence is presented against their idea. It's a form of post-hoc special pleading used to rationalize contrary evidence and allow someone to maintain a belief in the face of overwhelming proof to the contrary -- and the evidence against hydroxychloroquine for COVID has been overwhelming for years (note the date on that article).

In actuality, the standards for evaluating treatments are generally well-established -- although the debates on the particulars are very much ongoing. Here is a good resource for learning about them.

And once even basic methodological controls are put into place, the ineffectiveness and harmfulness of hydroxychloroquine for COVID becomes readily apparent. It doesn't work -- and the side effects appreciably increase the odds of death... and extend hospital stays, etc.

 

[Snooze]

Bullshit. The touting of hydroxychloroquine did not involve a specific dosage. The studies attempted to evaluate its efficacy and instead found that it made the COVID patient more likely to die rather than less.

Hospital "compassionate use" involved attempts to use it following all relevant medical recommendations. Notably, hydroxychloroquine is a very well-documented medication, including for human use (it's legitimately used to treat malaria, rheumatoid arthritis, lupus, and porphyria cutanea tarda). This meant that information on the dosing and pharmacokinetics for human use was readily available... and hydroxychloroquine has a very narrow therapeutic window and index, meaning that there's very little difference between a dose so low as to have no effect whatsoever and a dose so high that it'll kill the patient.

This is what your "very specific dose" comment actually means... and yes, the trials were very careful to get the dosing within that sweet spot.

"Oh, but they used the wrong [dose/protocol/whatever]!" is a common way for proponents of a bullshit idea to move the goalposts when evidence is presented against their idea. It's a form of post-hoc special pleading used to rationalize contrary evidence and allow someone to maintain a belief in the face of overwhelming proof to the contrary -- and the evidence against hydroxychloroquine for COVID has been overwhelming for years (note the date on that article).

In actuality, the standards for evaluating treatments are generally well-established -- although the debates on the particulars are very much ongoing. Here is a good resource for learning about them.

And once even basic methodological controls are put into place, the ineffectiveness and harmfulness of hydroxychloroquine for COVID becomes readily apparent. It doesn't work -- and the side effects appreciably increase the odds of death... and extend hospital stays, etc.

Click to shrink...

If you say so.

 

[Aleh]

If you say so.

Click to shrink...

Look, making shit up about medicine kills people. It's that simple.

Most of my entire career has been spent dealing with medical misinformation.

I have a very fucking low tolerance for it.

 

[Snooze]

Look, making shit up about medicine kills people. It's that simple.

Click to shrink...

I know that, that's why I have been so irritated by the last few years of studies regarding Raoult's claims that didn't follow the protocols and dosages that went with said claims.
If the new studies finally use dosages above the minimal threshold and below toxicity that's a leap forward compared to the plethora of studies that tried to disprove something they weren't applying at all.
If the new results are on the level (And I'll trust you on that because I really don't have the patience to read theough the litterature these days) that's a vicotry for science, even if it's not one for the dead patients.

Most of my entire career has been spent dealing with medical misinformation.

I have a very fucking low tolerance for it.

Click to shrink...

I have been lucky enough to share my life with medical profesionnals but not work in the field myself for the last two decades, the last few years must have been a nightmare for you.

 

[Aleh]

I know that, that's why I have been so irritated by the last few years of studies regarding Raoult's claims that didn't follow the protocols and dosages that went with said claims.
If the new studies finally use dosages above the minimal threshold and below toxicity that's a leap forward compared to the plethora of studies that tried to disprove something they weren't applying at all.

Click to shrink...

Again, the studies always were using dosages above the minimal threshold and below toxicity.

Moving goalposts, again.

I have been lucky enough to share my life with medical profesionnals but not work in the field myself for the last two decades, the last few years must have been a nightmare for you.

Click to shrink...

Not... as much as you'd think. I've actually been suffering a dearth of work, as a lot of the stuff I've been doing for a decade-plus has been given to more prominent people who have suddenly become interested in the area.

Did have to write a detailed article on why napping in a uranium mine so that you can breathe large amounts of radon gas won't cure COVID, though. Still not the dumbest I've had to do, but... still kinda hard to beat the wasp's nest thing. Or the bleach enemas.

 

[KonahrikYol]

When I got the virus 2 years ago, I just layed in bed and drank lots of water. I was sick for about 3 weeks before it settled down to bark like coughing on occasion. During that (while sick) I tried to keep food down and gave up halfway an just ate ice cream 24/7. I had eventually figured out that ice cream, pudding, and yogurt was my go to meals during the entire time I was sick. Bathing or showering with warm water helped, but that was more for sanity sake then actually medically helpful. Drinking just made me sleep sweat heavily and consistently.

So In the end, if you got COVID. Just:
-lay around in bed at an angle of about 15 degrees up.
-eat puddings/yogurt, don't try eating solids or hot foods.
-force yourself to take a daily bath.
-change sheets and clothes regularly.

 

[Aleh]

If anyone wants a more thorough and accurate take on the hydroxychloroquine fiasco and how it played out, I just came across this. Suffice it to say that it lays most of what you need to know out for you.

 

[TotalAbsolutism]

If you say so.

Click to shrink...

An entirely appropriate response to a post from Aleh, resident expert in all things pseudoscience and anti-vax bullshit related, that's absolutely loaded with citations.

'Nuh-uh'.

 

[Amazon Climber]

Crossposting this, with the misery portion excised, because I figure you guys might be a little bit receptive.

We just went through the worst surge since Omicron. Things are just finally starting to downturn again. And what does my church, the one fucking church in the fucking county if not state that still has a single service that requires masks do? They celebrate by removing the requirement. I spend like an hour arguing with my pastor, begging him not to. I'm high risk. I can't be stuck in a crowded nave with people coughing and sniffling all around me. But they don't have to care, so they don't. All are welcome in this place, as long as you're not disabled in any way. Then please tithe and then die quietly.

Click to shrink...

I'm so sick of trying to convince people I deserve to live, and having them shrug and say 'but that'd be mildly inconvenient.'

 

[TotalAbsolutism]

Crossposting this, with the misery portion excised, because I figure you guys might be a little bit receptive.

I'm so sick of trying to convince people I deserve to live, and having them shrug and say 'but that'd be mildly inconvenient.'

Click to shrink...

Putting aside whether or not masks '''work''' (heavy sarcasm quotes, ofc they do), the idea that you shouldn't have to mildly inconvenience yourself to make life easier, or even possible, for other people is unbelievably infuriating.

I'm sorry that they can't have sufficient empathy to allow you to participate in an important cultural activity to you without putting your life at risk, and I hope you can find an alternative.

 

[Amazon Climber]

Putting aside whether or not masks '''work''' (heavy sarcasm quotes, ofc they do), the idea that you shouldn't have to mildly inconvenience yourself to make life easier, or even possible, for other people is unbelievably infuriating.

I'm sorry that they can't have sufficient empathy to allow you to participate in an important cultural activity to you without putting your life at risk, and I hope you can find an alternative.

Click to shrink...

I can't. I looked around, but every church in the area is proudly announcing that masking is optional if they mention it at all. I found one that had a single masked service, but when I called to confirm, they said they'd forgotten to change it and that I could still mask if I wanted to. You know, like it's such a massive imposition to let me wear one. Or even remotely effective if nobody who actually has COVID is bothering to.

 

[Gideon]

I can't. I looked around, but every church in the area is proudly announcing that masking is optional if they mention it at all. I found one that had a single masked service, but when I called to confirm, they said they'd forgotten to change it and that I could still mask if I wanted to. You know, like it's such a massive imposition to let me wear one. Or even remotely effective if nobody who actually has COVID is bothering to.

Click to shrink...

Are there any with online services?
I still skip the in person and go with online whenever possible.

 

[Bear Ribs]

Are there any with online services?
I still skip the in person and go with online whenever possible.

Click to shrink...

I know Jehovah's Witnesses took COVID very seriously, and went virtual attendance only for several years, full masks aside from whoever's on the pulpit after that, and even now have every session zoom optional.

in other news I've been down with COVID the last three days according to a home test at least. Feverish out of my mind the first two days but the fever's broken enough for me to be conscious now.

 

[Amazon Climber]

Are there any with online services?
I still skip the in person and go with online whenever possible.

Click to shrink...

Yeah, there's always online services. But it's not the same. It doesn't feel like being part of a community, just being shoved to the outskirts of one. And I honestly can't trust any church that won't mask at this point. Wearing a mask around someone who asks you to is more of a litmus test for whether you're a decent person than returning an entire economy's worth of shopping carts.

 

[Voidlord]

Well the new booster season is starting soon over here in the UK. Appointments go live on the 15th of April and the first appointments themselves are for the 22nd of April. I am the supervisor for the COVID Site at my place of work, as well as the Grocery manager. So I have to deal with that now. It's the Spring campaign so that's usually quieter than the Winter Campaign, so I don't need to go looking for more staff. The girl who has done it from the start is coming back, as she likes doing it as it's easy money to check people in. Which is good.

Because for the last campaign head office dragged their feet about getting people in. I had to ask customers if anyone knew someone who wanted a temp job. I just wanted an additional person as a just in case. Ideally 2 additional. I got one. And was lucky enough it was quiet for a winter campaign.

I hope it's Pfizer again. When we change to other vaccines for one reason or another people get funny. Nothing we can do about it, that's what the NHS has given us. Now in 2022 that was an interesting year. We had to use Moderna Spikevax. "It won't make me ill?", "Nooo you should be fine…" was the common talking point. We ruined so many christmases, as we were vaxxing in Christmas Eve. As an aside we had to use Moderna because a certain current PM was the then Chancellor and had shares in Moderna, hmmm I wonder if there was a connection.

 

[evildice]

 

[zup]

Welp that is two Easters so far that corona has fucked my plans for. First in 2020 the travel restrictions meant I could not go visit my family. Now in 2024 my mother called me good friday morning to tell she has the corona.

 

[Aleh]

If anyone wants a more thorough and accurate take on the hydroxychloroquine fiasco and how it played out, I just came across this. Suffice it to say that it lays most of what you need to know out for you.

Click to shrink...

As an addendum, Didier Raoult's work has been experiencing a wave of retractions and expressions of concern. This isn't limited to his hydroxychloroquine "work" either -- the latest (that I'm aware of) was for a paper entitled "Culturomics and Amplicon-based Metagenomic Approaches for the Study of Fungal Population in Human Gut Microbiota" which was released in 2017.

To wit:

Editors have retracted this Article.

After publication of this paper concerns about ethical oversight of this study were brought to the attention of the Editors. The paper cites approval from an institutional ethics committee in France, but samples used in this study were also sourced from Algeria, Saudi Arabia, and Niger. The Authors were not able to provide documentation of approval from ethics committees in these countries, or of compliance with local regulations regarding the use of such samples in research.

Stéphane Ranque, Esam I. Azhar, Muhammad Yasir, Asif A. Jiman-Fatani, Didier Raoult, and Fadi Bittar disagree with the retraction. Ibrahim Hamad and Hervé Tissot-Dupont did not reply to the correspondence from the Editors.

Click to shrink...

For those of you who aren't experienced with research and the rules surrounding it, this is actually a really fucking serious ethics violation. It's not quite Andy-Wakefield-at-a-birthday-party serious -- that story's genuinely hard to beat -- but it's still utterly shocking conduct by the standards of the scientific community.

You do not play games with ethical oversight. Of course, there's plenty of examples where the ethics oversight was woefully inadequate, or where a study with WTF-level violations was approved anyway, but even those at least usually filled out the ethics requirements on paper, from a bureaucratic standpoint.

This is not his first or only such accusation. Some of the accusations are of actually criminal research misconduct -- as in "the sort that could earn him a jail sentence."
Basically, Raoult's career as a even slightly respectable scientist is over.

Anyway, back to what I've been doing. It's been a rather... "productive"... day in all the wrong ways -- maybe some imodium will help.

 

[evildice]