什么时候用是关键，和tamiflu是一个道理 https://c19study.com/ Global HCQ studies. PrEP, PEP, and early treatment studies show high effectiveness, while late treatment shows mixed results.
https://www.newsweek.com/key-defeating-covid-19-already-exists-we-need-start-using-it-opinion-1519535 The Key to Defeating COVID-19 Already Exists. We Need to Start Using It | Opinion As professor of epidemiology at Yale School of Public Health, I have authored over 300 peer-reviewed publications and currently hold senior positions on the editorial boards of several leading journals. I am usually accustomed to advocating for positions within the mainstream of medicine, so have been flummoxed to find that, in the midst of a crisis, I am fighting for a treatment that the data fully support but which, for reasons having nothing to do with a correct understanding of the science, has been pushed to the sidelines. As a result, tens of thousands of patients with COVID-19 are dying unnecessarily. Fortunately, the situation can be reversed easily and quickly. I am referring, of course, to the medication hydroxychloroquine. When this inexpensive oral medication is given very early in the course of illness, before the virus has had time to multiply beyond control, it has shown to be highly effective, especially when given in combination with the antibiotics azithromycin or doxycycline and the nutritional supplement zinc. On May 27, I published an article in the American Journal of Epidemiology (AJE) entitled, "Early Outpatient Treatment of Symptomatic, High-Risk COVID-19 Patients that Should be Ramped-Up Immediately as Key to the Pandemic Crisis." That article, published in the world's leading epidemiology journal, analyzed five studies, demonstrating clear-cut and significant benefits to treated patients, plus other very large studies that showed the medication safety. Physicians who have been using these medications in the face of widespread skepticism have been truly heroic. They have done what the science shows is best for their patients, often at great personal risk. I myself know of two doctors who have saved the lives of hundreds of patients with these medications, but are now fighting state medical boards to save their licenses and reputations. The cases against them are completely without scientific merit. Since publication of my May 27 article, seven more studies have demonstrated similar benefit. In a lengthy follow-up letter, also published by AJE, I discuss these seven studies and renew my call for the immediate early use of hydroxychloroquine in high-risk patients. These seven studies include: an additional 400 high-risk patients treated by Dr. Vladimir Zelenko, with zero deaths; four studies totaling almost 500 high-risk patients treated in nursing homes and clinics across the U.S., with no deaths; a controlled trial of more than 700 high-risk patients in Brazil, with significantly reduced risk of hospitalization and two deaths among 334 patients treated with hydroxychloroquine; and another study of 398 matched patients in France, also with significantly reduced hospitalization risk. Since my letter was published, even more doctors have reported to me their completely successful use. My original article in the AJE is available free online, and I encourage readers—especially physicians, nurses, physician assistants and associates, and respiratory therapists—to search the title and read it. My follow-up letter is linked there to the original paper. Beyond these studies of individual patients, we have seen what happens in large populations when these drugs are used. These have been "natural experiments." In the northern Brazil state of Pará, COVID-19 deaths were increasing exponentially. On April 6, the public hospital network purchased 75,000 doses of azithromycin and 90,000 doses of hydroxychloroquine. Over the next few weeks, authorities began distributing these medications to infected individuals. Even though new cases continued to occur, on May 22 the death rate started to plummet and is now about one-eighth what it was at the peak. A reverse natural experiment happened in Switzerland. On May 27, the Swiss national government banned outpatient use of hydroxychloroquine for COVID-19. Around June 10, COVID-19 deaths increased four-fold and remained elevated. On June 11, the Swiss government revoked the ban, and on June 23 the death rate reverted to what it had been beforehand. People who die from COVID-19 live about three to five weeks from the start of symptoms, which makes the evidence of a causal relation in these experiments strong. Both episodes suggest that a combination of hydroxychloroquine and its companion medications reduces mortality and should be immediately adopted as the new standard of care in high-risk patients. Why has hydroxychloroquine been disregarded? First, as all know, the medication has become highly politicized. For many, it is viewed as a marker of political identity, on both sides of the political spectrum. Nobody needs me to remind them that this is not how medicine should proceed. We must judge this medication strictly on the science. When doctors graduate from medical school, they formally promise to make the health and life of the patient their first consideration, without biases of race, religion, nationality, social standing—or political affiliation. Lives must come first. Second, the drug has not been used properly in many studies. Hydroxychloroquine has shown major success when used early in high-risk people but, as one would expect for an antiviral, much less success when used late in the disease course. Even so, it has demonstrated significant benefit in large hospital studies in Michigan and New York City when started within the first 24 to 48 hours after admission. In fact, as inexpensive, oral and widely available medications, and a nutritional supplement, the combination of hydroxychloroquine, azithromycin or doxycycline, and zinc are well-suited for early treatment in the outpatient setting. The combination should be prescribed in high-risk patients immediately upon clinical suspicion of COVID-19 disease, without waiting for results of testing. Delays in waiting before starting the medications can reduce their efficacy. Third, concerns have been raised by the FDA and others about risks of cardiac arrhythmia, especially when hydroxychloroquine is given in combination with azithromycin. The FDA based its comments on data in its FDA Adverse Event Reporting System. This reporting system captured up to a thousand cases of arrhythmias attributed to hydroxychloroquine use. In fact, the number is likely higher than that, since the reporting system, which requires physicians or patients to initiate contact with the FDA, appreciably undercounts drug side effects. But what the FDA did not announce is that these adverse events were generated from tens of millions of patient uses of hydroxychloroquine for long periods of time, often for the chronic treatment of lupus or rheumatoid arthritis. Even if the true rates of arrhythmia are ten-fold higher than those reported, the harms would be minuscule compared to the mortality occurring right now in inadequately treated high-risk COVID-19 patients. This fact is proven by an Oxford University study of more than 320,000 older patients taking both hydroxychloroquine and azithromycin, who had arrhythmia excess death rates of less than 9/100,000 users, as I discuss in my May 27 paper cited above. A new paper in the American Journal of Medicine by established cardiologists around the world fully agrees with this. In the future, I believe this misbegotten episode regarding hydroxychloroquine will be studied by sociologists of medicine as a classic example of how extra-scientific factors overrode clear-cut medical evidence. But for now, reality demands a clear, scientific eye on the evidence and where it points. For the sake of high-risk patients, for the sake of our parents and grandparents, for the sake of the unemployed, for our economy and for our polity, especially those disproportionally affected, we must start treating immediately. Harvey A. Risch, MD, PhD, is professor of epidemiology at Yale School of Public Health. The views expressd in this article are the writer's own.
Immanuel has often claimed that gynecological problems like cysts and endometriosis are in fact caused by people having sex in their dreams with demons and witches.
Immanuel has often claimed that gynecological problems like cysts and endometriosis are in fact caused by people having sex in their dreams with demons and witches. junezj 发表于 2020-07-28 12:13
什么时候用是关键，和tamiflu是一个道理 https://c19study.com/ Global HCQ studies. PrEP, PEP, and early treatment studies show high effectiveness, while late treatment shows mixed results. 默雨润苗 发表于 2020-07-28 10:00
系统提示：若遇到视频无法播放请点击下方链接
https://twitter.com/i/videos/1287890451769352192
和Fauci专家意见不和
然后再说说反面的消息 1 柳叶刀那篇文章 -- 柳叶刀上有一篇文章为了证明羟氯喹无效，捏造了整一个clinical trial出来。杂志只有审稿的责任，没有负责调查数据真假的责任。那暂且柳叶刀不追究，但是这个捏造的人在我看来真的是应该负刑事责任。 2 英国有个clinical trial说羟氯喹不安全 -- 那篇文章的trial很有问题。用药剂量是标准用药剂量的三倍（或以上，我记不太清楚了) 这个得出的结论实在是要打板子。 3 WHO跑出来乱咬说羟氯喹不安全 -- 这是一个WHO使用了多年的，在非洲用来预防和治疗疟疾的药，怎么忽然就变成不安全了呢?!
再补充两个正面的讯息，我觉得也是为什么现在又开始吵这个事。 文章我老公看了（他是生物方面的，在研究机构，带一个团队)，我没仔细看。最近有两篇paper出来，都是retrospective的统计比较了 用了羟氯喹 vs 没有用羟氯喹，两篇文章都得出结论是羟氯喹的那一组明显死亡率降低。主意，这个不是casual - effect，是相关。所以casual - effect还是需要临床试验来验证。 还有我有个朋友在FDA批药的，她总结的很好，有时候trial 失败了只是trial失败了，并不一定是药不行，有可能是设计或者适用不是最佳。比如羟氯喹好像so far我听到的是早期用比较好，晚期好像一般般 （个人印象，不是结论）。如果设计了一个实验试的是晚期插管病人，那就会得出不work的结论。但是是适用不对，不是药不work。
这次这个药被这样的政治化，真的是害了很多美国人的命! 连CNN最近也没办法，出来承认这个药有效了。
羟氯喹有安全剂量，但临床试验结果说对covid-19作用不显著吧，包括上海瑞金医院的结果。 https://www.nih.gov/news-events/news-releases/nih-halts-clinical-trial-hydroxychloroquine https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/nejmoa2012410 https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa2016638
还有这个链接可以看！ https://mobile.twitter.com/prageru/status/1287905496104484871
这个是所有医生发言的完整版 https://dlive.tv/v/realpersonpltcs+5cbgLcVMR
大家努力定这个贴！ 真相必须被更多的人知道
这个上百万点击率的视频下的评论区，很多人也提到视频被删的问题，越来越觉得Fauci太神秘了。
系统提示：若遇到视频无法播放请点击下方链接
https://www.youtube.com/embed/PRa6t_e7dgI
这些人都应该被起诉
谢谢分享信息
氯喹 主要很早就知道对sars有效果，所以钟南山在广州用氯喹 对新病毒肺炎医治。
什么时候用是关键，和tamiflu是一个道理
https://c19study.com/
Global HCQ studies. PrEP, PEP, and early treatment studies show high effectiveness, while late treatment shows mixed results.
The Key to Defeating COVID-19 Already Exists. We Need to Start Using It | Opinion
As professor of epidemiology at Yale School of Public Health, I have authored over 300 peer-reviewed publications and currently hold senior positions on the editorial boards of several leading journals. I am usually accustomed to advocating for positions within the mainstream of medicine, so have been flummoxed to find that, in the midst of a crisis, I am fighting for a treatment that the data fully support but which, for reasons having nothing to do with a correct understanding of the science, has been pushed to the sidelines. As a result, tens of thousands of patients with COVID-19 are dying unnecessarily. Fortunately, the situation can be reversed easily and quickly.
I am referring, of course, to the medication hydroxychloroquine. When this inexpensive oral medication is given very early in the course of illness, before the virus has had time to multiply beyond control, it has shown to be highly effective, especially when given in combination with the antibiotics azithromycin or doxycycline and the nutritional supplement zinc.
On May 27, I published an article in the American Journal of Epidemiology (AJE) entitled, "Early Outpatient Treatment of Symptomatic, High-Risk COVID-19 Patients that Should be Ramped-Up Immediately as Key to the Pandemic Crisis." That article, published in the world's leading epidemiology journal, analyzed five studies, demonstrating clear-cut and significant benefits to treated patients, plus other very large studies that showed the medication safety.
Physicians who have been using these medications in the face of widespread skepticism have been truly heroic. They have done what the science shows is best for their patients, often at great personal risk. I myself know of two doctors who have saved the lives of hundreds of patients with these medications, but are now fighting state medical boards to save their licenses and reputations. The cases against them are completely without scientific merit. Since publication of my May 27 article, seven more studies have demonstrated similar benefit. In a lengthy follow-up letter, also published by AJE, I discuss these seven studies and renew my call for the immediate early use of hydroxychloroquine in high-risk patients. These seven studies include: an additional 400 high-risk patients treated by Dr. Vladimir Zelenko, with zero deaths; four studies totaling almost 500 high-risk patients treated in nursing homes and clinics across the U.S., with no deaths; a controlled trial of more than 700 high-risk patients in Brazil, with significantly reduced risk of hospitalization and two deaths among 334 patients treated with hydroxychloroquine; and another study of 398 matched patients in France, also with significantly reduced hospitalization risk. Since my letter was published, even more doctors have reported to me their completely successful use.
My original article in the AJE is available free online, and I encourage readers—especially physicians, nurses, physician assistants and associates, and respiratory therapists—to search the title and read it. My follow-up letter is linked there to the original paper.
Beyond these studies of individual patients, we have seen what happens in large populations when these drugs are used. These have been "natural experiments." In the northern Brazil state of Pará, COVID-19 deaths were increasing exponentially. On April 6, the public hospital network purchased 75,000 doses of azithromycin and 90,000 doses of hydroxychloroquine. Over the next few weeks, authorities began distributing these medications to infected individuals. Even though new cases continued to occur, on May 22 the death rate started to plummet and is now about one-eighth what it was at the peak.
A reverse natural experiment happened in Switzerland. On May 27, the Swiss national government banned outpatient use of hydroxychloroquine for COVID-19. Around June 10, COVID-19 deaths increased four-fold and remained elevated. On June 11, the Swiss government revoked the ban, and on June 23 the death rate reverted to what it had been beforehand. People who die from COVID-19 live about three to five weeks from the start of symptoms, which makes the evidence of a causal relation in these experiments strong. Both episodes suggest that a combination of hydroxychloroquine and its companion medications reduces mortality and should be immediately adopted as the new standard of care in high-risk patients.
Why has hydroxychloroquine been disregarded?
First, as all know, the medication has become highly politicized. For many, it is viewed as a marker of political identity, on both sides of the political spectrum. Nobody needs me to remind them that this is not how medicine should proceed. We must judge this medication strictly on the science. When doctors graduate from medical school, they formally promise to make the health and life of the patient their first consideration, without biases of race, religion, nationality, social standing—or political affiliation. Lives must come first.
Second, the drug has not been used properly in many studies. Hydroxychloroquine has shown major success when used early in high-risk people but, as one would expect for an antiviral, much less success when used late in the disease course. Even so, it has demonstrated significant benefit in large hospital studies in Michigan and New York City when started within the first 24 to 48 hours after admission.
In fact, as inexpensive, oral and widely available medications, and a nutritional supplement, the combination of hydroxychloroquine, azithromycin or doxycycline, and zinc are well-suited for early treatment in the outpatient setting. The combination should be prescribed in high-risk patients immediately upon clinical suspicion of COVID-19 disease, without waiting for results of testing. Delays in waiting before starting the medications can reduce their efficacy.
Third, concerns have been raised by the FDA and others about risks of cardiac arrhythmia, especially when hydroxychloroquine is given in combination with azithromycin. The FDA based its comments on data in its FDA Adverse Event Reporting System. This reporting system captured up to a thousand cases of arrhythmias attributed to hydroxychloroquine use. In fact, the number is likely higher than that, since the reporting system, which requires physicians or patients to initiate contact with the FDA, appreciably undercounts drug side effects.
But what the FDA did not announce is that these adverse events were generated from tens of millions of patient uses of hydroxychloroquine for long periods of time, often for the chronic treatment of lupus or rheumatoid arthritis. Even if the true rates of arrhythmia are ten-fold higher than those reported, the harms would be minuscule compared to the mortality occurring right now in inadequately treated high-risk COVID-19 patients. This fact is proven by an Oxford University study of more than 320,000 older patients taking both hydroxychloroquine and azithromycin, who had arrhythmia excess death rates of less than 9/100,000 users, as I discuss in my May 27 paper cited above. A new paper in the American Journal of Medicine by established cardiologists around the world fully agrees with this.
In the future, I believe this misbegotten episode regarding hydroxychloroquine will be studied by sociologists of medicine as a classic example of how extra-scientific factors overrode clear-cut medical evidence. But for now, reality demands a clear, scientific eye on the evidence and where it points. For the sake of high-risk patients, for the sake of our parents and grandparents, for the sake of the unemployed, for our economy and for our polity, especially those disproportionally affected, we must start treating immediately.
Harvey A. Risch, MD, PhD, is professor of epidemiology at Yale School of Public Health. The views expressd in this article are the writer's own.
狼疮病人吃HCQ不得新冠是谣言。
wow...
疫苗利益集团下了大血本了。
是个尼日利亚医生，让大家别带口罩
柳叶刀那篇文章，怎么知道数据是假的呢？
我记得是澳大利亚那边先怀疑的。上面引用了澳大利亚上百人的covid病例，可是那时候澳大利亚根本没有那么多确诊病例。还有很多假数据也陆续被指出。大概是这样
补充一下。一般羟氯喹第一天400毫克，后面200毫克。英国牛津大学的研究使用2400毫克。这简直就是杀人
俺们对于gates这些有钱人就是cattle，用来赚钱的。
吃药vs戴口罩，我宁可戴口罩
以为吃药是吃饭了吧？
同情被牛津大学做实验的病人， 简直是被喂毒啊。 给人每天喝水强灌一吨也会死人的。
Jamaica 读的医学院吧，很多外国人甚至美国人去那读医院院，便宜，考证也认学厉。
那个非裔医生应该是移民到美国的， 口音不是美国口音。 但她看起来特别爱美国，爱美国人。 当她说她站出来说话是不想美国人枉死，我感觉那时候她特别真诚。
说强奎宁早期使用有效果。结果被主流媒体宣判聚众传播假消息，被封了。好像有威胁要吊销她的行医执照。
两手空空移民到美国然后打拼成功的外国人最能体会老美国的伟大
被主流媒体宣判聚众传播假消息，被封了
对， 所以我们这些移民不能让某些人把老美国祸害没了 投票投票投票，重要的事情说三遍
疫情以后，这些so-called 名校要垮一批。
Really ?
那需要引进巫术哦
国内的问题是已经把自己放在抗疫成功完全清零的制高点上了 屁民都沉醉于体制优越性中不可自拔 所以一定不能有再次爆发能治好那种都不行
你搞什么搞，你真中招了就宁死不吃不就得了吗，你管人家别人吃不吃的！ 有病！
是的，利用黑人的那些太混蛋了！
糖尿病人每天喂大量白米饭也是要命的
让我想起了star war。 There goes the Republic. Galactic Republic --->> Galactic Empire
你果然和你头像中一样眼瞎
哪凉快哪呆去
CNN 这样了，那还 真不错，是不是 CNN 记者都偷着吃，因为他们也是高危人群！
你这个说法是不对的
硫酸和磷酸氯喹一直都在生产 只不过国内现在几乎没有疟疾了所以磷酸氯喹的确产量不高
然而磷酸氯喹仍然是大量生产 在欧美都有的
另外硫酸氯喹并没有替代磷酸的
磷酸用于治疗疟疾
硫酸的是免疫调节 比如红斑狼疮
没有互相替代一说 没人开硫酸的给疟疾患者 也没人给红斑狼疮患者开磷酸的
补充下 前面我说的不太对 硫酸和磷酸的都可以抗疟疾 硫酸的通常在治疗有抗磷酸氯喹药性的疟原虫上面
是的 现在很多人宣传预防的时候 我都跳出来要纠正 这个预防不是维生素泡腾片每天早上来一杯 是有极大暴露风险的时候提前吃上预防
福奇为啥还没被起诉， 不过应该有soros 和盖茨作为后台
深切同感！
还包括Google，我最近因为工作关系去查Google要资料，很多跟左派主媒不一致的新闻都显示被删除，我猜是Google配合大选开始新一轮禁声操作，大家不相信可以去试试查查
你是暗搓搓想暗示她非法行医？真是非法行医请举报，我支持你。
早都不用Google了。用duckduckgo
我也支持你去这位宗教狂人"医生”的教堂里吃羟氯喹
WE NEED YOUR HELP.
We are being attacked, ridiculed and discredited. We need our patients to SPEAK UP.
If you have been cured by this drug, share your story online using this hashtag.
#HCQWorks
系统提示：若遇到视频无法播放请点击下方链接
https://twitter.com/i/videos/1288149788534493184
你要是病了千万别吃啊，吃了就是狗。
视频又被删了 这速度太可怕了
这么说就太无聊了。 支持这药的医生都说要在医生指导下，按剂量服用。 倒是在lancet发表了又撤回的文章说这药不仅无效还有毒，用了大剂量2400 （实验用的剂量） vs 200（医生开药的剂量）， 简直是谋害参与实验的病人。 我真不相信那些医生不知道任何药物过量都是毒药。 不得不怀疑那么大剂量给病人用药的目的。
在美国，根本就没这个危险。 这药是处方药。如果有需要预防的高危人群，也得是医生开处方。 哪儿能想吃就吃当泡腾片吃。
It’s worth noting that #Hydroxychloroquine prevented a catastrophic Covid disaster in an Indian slum. @stella_immanuel is not alone in her findings! #HCQworks
https://www.lifesitenews.com/opinion/this-indian-slum-contained-a-possible-covid-19-disaster-with-hydroxychloroquine
如果这些话的确是她自己说的，又何来抹黑一说呢？
我是医生，我不会吃，至于你就随意好了
exactly, 最基本的口罩和社交距离都不做，很难相信这些医生的观点没有被政治或其他原因绑架，科学被政治等利用操纵是非常可怕的。
对的，mm说的太对了。
这个真的不是拜登派来的卧底么？？？。。。
层主啊，她是个儿医，你摸摸良心，你会带着你的孩子去找她看病吗？会的话当我没说就是了。
You asked a very good question. Without proper research, how can we know the proper dosage?
自己去听一听今天Trump的记者会，为什么要看这些二手加工后的东西，当笑料看看就可以了。
别老骂别人川粉了，白粉们赶快去隔壁辟谣吧 https://forums.huaren.us/showtopic.html?topicid=2578844&fid=398
嗯， 在全世界开这个处方药都是200mg的情况下， 有人拿病人实验直接就上2400mg, 你替他们辩解是科学实验的需要？ 怎么也得从200开始， 逐步加量吧？ 参与实验的病人的命也是命啊。 有些人为了博眼球发paper， 也太没底线了吧？