Quote:
Originally Posted by T3rminator
The New England Journal of Medicine study on hydroxxxxx for mild to moderate cases.
https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa2019014
"A total of 18 patients died in the hospital during the trial (5 patients assigned to receive hydroxychloroquine plus azithromycin, 7 in the hydroxychloroquine-alone group, and 6 in the control group). There were no significant between-group differences with regard to the secondary outcomes of thromboembolic complications or acute kidney injury within 15 days, either in the prespecified analyses (Table 2) or in post hoc analyses that accounted for the competing risk of death (Table S11)." |
Every single study promoting HCQ has made clear it must be given early, they state it has the reported ability to stop the virus from replicating within the cells avoiding the immune response that causes the respiratory failure leading to intubation and intimately death.
So yes you are correct in saying that many of the people who have recovered may have recovered anyway had they not taken it, but that also means that the argument can be made of how many people could have been saved had they had HCQ early and avoided being intubated?
This is the question being asked, it’s not in anyway suggesting that it’s a miracle drug that will bring people back from the dead, it’s being suggested it could be used to avoid people ending up in hospital.
There are also mainstream studies out there suggesting vitamin D deficiency has a strong link with C19 infection results, that’s not to suggest if you pump someone in a respirator full of vitamin D that they will all of a sudden recover.
If someone’s health condition means it’s unsafe, then it’s unsafe.