Death Threats after trial on chloroquine

[Kenemet]

It seems that some members of the public demand science come up with the answers THEY want and not with the answers that are actually given.

Quote

“The only conclusion you can take from the study is that this drug, when used in high doses, is not safe”, declared Marcus Lacerda, the principal investigator of the first randomised controlled clinical trial that tested chloroquine, a congener of the supposedly less toxic hydroxychloroquine, to treat patients with severe symptoms of COVID-19. The study involved 21 research institutions in Brazil, Spain, and Mozambique and was initially available on the reprint repository medRxiv and later published in JAMA.

...the trial was fair, and investigated both high and low dosages.  This was the trial that had to be stopped because of the number of deaths on high-dosage chloroquine

Quote

However, the unfavorable outcome of the study provoked the animosity of those who support using chloroquine to treat COVID-19, first in the USA, and then in Brazil. Micheal Coudrey, an American political activist with 256 700 Twitter followers referred to the study as “a left-wing funded study that intentionally administered extremely high doses and used a less-safe version of the drug hydroxychloroquine, then used this as a pretense to indicate that chloroquine was ineffective and dangerous”. Soon after, Brazilian president's son Eduardo Bolsonaro (who has 2 million Twitter followers) called it “a fake study aimed at demonizing the drug”.
In another inflamed tweet, Eduardo Bolsonaro claimed that the study's authors were affiliated to the party funded by former Brazilian President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva and asked for an investigation. Soon after, Lacerda started to receive death threats through social media and had to request police protection, which was kept for more than 2 weeks. “When the paper was published in JAMA, the threats stopped” revealed Lacerda, indicating that publishing the study in a peer-reviewed high-impact journal may have shielded the researcher and his family.

According to the article, there might be lawsuits against the scientists... again, for correctly reporting the results of their investigations.

https://www.thelancet.com/journals/laninf/article/PIIS1473-3099(20)30383-2/fulltext#.XtCzFgjDxfs.twitter

[+OverSword]

14 minutes ago, Kenemet said:

“The only conclusion you can take from the study is that this drug, when used in high doses, is not safe”

And so what was the consensus on lower doses I wonder?  That little line right there could be seen to be spin.

[Piney]

13 minutes ago, Kenemet said:

However, the unfavorable outcome of the study provoked the animosity of those who support using chloroquine to treat COVID-19, first in the USA, and then in Brazil. Micheal Coudrey, an American political activist with 256 700 Twitter followers referred to the study as “a left-wing funded study that intentionally administered extremely high doses and used a less-safe version of the drug hydroxychloroquine, then used this as a pretense to indicate that chloroquine was ineffective and dangerous”. Soon after, Brazilian president's son Eduardo Bolsonaro (who has 2 million Twitter followers) called it “a fake study aimed at demonizing the drug”.

This is one very good reason why we need to continue fighting woocrap.

 It always becomes harmful in the end. 

[Piney]

Just now, OverSword said:

And so what was the consensus on lower doses I wonder?  That little line right there could be seen to be spin.

It didn't help treat the virus at all. 

[+OverSword]

1 minute ago, Piney said:

It didn't help treat the virus at all. 

Then why wasn't the narrative, this drug is ineffective?   

[+OverSword]

Words are important.  Maybe if they are clearly stated without room for ambiguity there would not be a negative reaction.

[+Desertrat56]

27 minutes ago, Kenemet said:

It seems that some members of the public demand science come up with the answers THEY want and not with the answers that are actually given.

...the trial was fair, and investigated both high and low dosages.  This was the trial that had to be stopped because of the number of deaths on high-dosage chloroquine

According to the article, there might be lawsuits against the scientists... again, for correctly reporting the results of their investigations.

https://www.thelancet.com/journals/laninf/article/PIIS1473-3099(20)30383-2/fulltext#.XtCzFgjDxfs.twitter

With this kind of crap the death will be of science and the result will be the dystopian idocracy world wide.

[Piney]

15 minutes ago, OverSword said:

Then why wasn't the narrative, this drug is ineffective?   

There were studies that said it was. It's all over Stereo's conspiracy thread. 

Edited May 29, 2020 by Piney
Trump's a tosser!

[+and-then]

41 minutes ago, OverSword said:

Then why wasn't the narrative, this drug is ineffective?   

IMO, it's because the issue has become a club to beat the Orange Man with and as such, the narrative HAS to prove that the drug isn't just ineffective for ANYONE, it's down right dangerous, maybe suicidal, and potentially causes anal warts  

 It's ridiculous and eventually the data is going to establish the parameters or the instances where there is the greatest efficacy as a therapeutic.  No one has claimed HCQ is a cure.  No one has claimed that it will help every patient at any stage during the course of infection.  

A LOT of doctors have chosen to use HCQ as part of a treatment regime for their patients and claim that the treatment IN TOTAL has been effective.  Bottom line is that it's stupid to spend so much time and effort demonizing a treatment option that is totally voluntary and is just between the doctor and the patient.  But... this is where we are in the age of Trump the Terrible.  

[+and-then]

43 minutes ago, Desertrat56 said:

With this kind of crap the death will be of science and the result will be the dystopian idocracy world wide.

Or, alternatively and not so dramatically, if a person gets sick from Sars-Cov-2 and their PHYSICIAN recommends HCQ as a treatment O P T I O N. the patient makes the decision to accept or reject that option.  See how that works?  I'll admit, it isn't nearly as exciting as screaming at the sky about HCQ causing the potential downfall of the West but hey, no plan is perfect  

[+Desertrat56]

2 minutes ago, and then said:

Or, alternatively and not so dramatically, if a person gets sick from Sars-Cov-2 and their PHYSICIAN recommends HCQ as a treatment O P T I O N. the patient makes the decision to accept or reject that option.  See how that works?  I'll admit, it isn't nearly as exciting as screaming at the sky about HCQ causing the potential downfall of the West but hey, no plan is perfect  

We aren't talking about suing a physician that recommended something, the OP is about a group of scientists being sued because their study presented evidence someone did not like.

I agree with you that anyone can choose to accept or reject what their physician suggests.  That is not what this thread is about.

[Grim Reaper 6]

Here is an example of the Presidents idea of how to cure the Coronavirus.

Peace and enjoy it!!!!!!!

[+Desertrat56]

13 minutes ago, and then said:

IMO, it's because the issue has become a club to beat the Orange Man with and as such, the narrative HAS to prove that the drug isn't just ineffective for ANYONE, it's down right dangerous, maybe suicidal, and potentially causes anal warts  

 It's ridiculous and eventually the data is going to establish the parameters or the instances where there is the greatest efficacy as a therapeutic.  No one has claimed HCQ is a cure.  No one has claimed that it will help every patient at any stage during the course of infection.  

A LOT of doctors have chosen to use HCQ as part of a treatment regime for their patients and claim that the treatment IN TOTAL has been effective.  Bottom line is that it's stupid to spend so much time and effort demonizing a treatment option that is totally voluntary and is just between the doctor and the patient.  But... this is where we are in the age of Trump the Terrible.  

Was Trump mentioned in the article?

[Setton]

1 minute ago, Desertrat56 said:

We aren't talking about suing a physician that recommended something, the OP is about a group of scientists being sued because their study presented evidence someone did not like.

I agree with you that anyone can choose to accept or reject what their physician suggests.  That is not what this thread is about.

And ideally those physicians will be armed with solid research to support their suggestions.

Such as this study.

[+and-then]

23 minutes ago, Desertrat56 said:

the OP is about a group of scientists being sued because their study presented evidence someone did not like.

Seems to me they were being sued due to the way the study was structured and the specific form of the chloroquine they chose to use.  I'm not a physician and I don't own stock in pharma companies.  Does it really surprise you that the vicious political warfare we see in America wouldn't be seen in other nations as well?  Where this particular drug is concerned, there appears to be a focused effort to demonize its use and to interfere in effective studies of its potential to help some patients.  IOW, the much acclaimed SCIENCE that we're supposed to respect without question, has become nothing but another political fight.  You guys own that just as much as the rest of us do.

 

26 minutes ago, Desertrat56 said:

Was Trump mentioned in the article?

Not that I noticed.  Your point?  Are you really going to claim that demonizing a potentially beneficial therapeutic drug that has a long established record of safety in other applications, ISN'T about proving that Orange Man is still Bad?  Claim anything you like.  People would have to be idiots to believe it these days.  You guys have gone to well a few times too often to be taken seriously any longer.  

[Kenemet]

2 hours ago, OverSword said:

And so what was the consensus on lower doses I wonder?  That little line right there could be seen to be spin.

Wasn't that effective, as multiple studies show.

[Hankenhunter]

[Hankenhunter]

4 hours ago, OverSword said:

Then why wasn't the narrative, this drug is ineffective?   

Where have you been for the last month? 

 

3 hours ago, and then said:

IMO, it's because the issue has become a club to beat the Orange Man with and as such, the narrative HAS to prove that the drug isn't just ineffective for ANYONE, it's down right dangerous, maybe suicidal, and potentially causes anal warts  

 It's ridiculous and eventually the data is going to establish the parameters or the instances where there is the greatest efficacy as a therapeutic.  No one has claimed HCQ is a cure.  No one has claimed that it will help every patient at any stage during the course of infection.  

A LOT of doctors have chosen to use HCQ as part of a treatment regime for their patients and claim that the treatment IN TOTAL has been effective.  Bottom line is that it's stupid to spend so much time and effort demonizing a treatment option that is totally voluntary and is just between the doctor and the patient.  But... this is where we are in the age of Trump the Terrible.  

 

[stereologist]

5 hours ago, Piney said:

There were studies that said it was. It's all over Stereo's conspiracy thread. 

Let's be clear there were small studies that suggested it might be worth investigating. In vitro studies suggested it might work. Dotors in China noticed that their immunosuppressed patients did not get sick, some 80 patients. The real problem begins when Raoult in France claims it cures COVID-19. He was told his study was terrible,. Raoult came up with a larger study which appears to include fake data. Missing data appears to have been filled in from somewhere. Raoult's large study has him headed to China when people realized he used children in his experiments.

At least 4 studies indicate that HCQ increases the likelihood of dying. The latest study includes 96,000 patients.

[stereologist]

5 hours ago, and then said:

IMO, it's because the issue has become a club to beat the Orange Man with and as such, the narrative HAS to prove that the drug isn't just ineffective for ANYONE, it's down right dangerous, maybe suicidal, and potentially causes anal warts  

 It's ridiculous and eventually the data is going to establish the parameters or the instances where there is the greatest efficacy as a therapeutic.  No one has claimed HCQ is a cure.  No one has claimed that it will help every patient at any stage during the course of infection.  

A LOT of doctors have chosen to use HCQ as part of a treatment regime for their patients and claim that the treatment IN TOTAL has been effective.  Bottom line is that it's stupid to spend so much time and effort demonizing a treatment option that is totally voluntary and is just between the doctor and the patient.  But... this is where we are in the age of Trump the Terrible.  

Just because a few doctors are using HCQ is meaningless. That tells us nothing at all. And yes Raoult called HCQ a cure so your claim is dead wrong.

So far HCQ looks like another dead end. The largest study completed with 96,000 patients show it is not effective.

Your argument to support HCQ is without merit. The only people hooked on HCQ are those trying to defend Trump. It' no longer about efficacy but about anecdotes. It's about nameless doctors who have no idea how to do a proer tst and then give it their seal of approval. Who are these doctors and what testing methodology did they employ? Medicine learned decades ago that that such tactics are worthless.

Trump just made this ridiculous statement which is on a par with his HCQ comments.

https://nypost.com/2020/05/26/president-trump-says-i-dont-use-insulin-should-i-be/

Quote

“I don’t use insulin. Should I be? Huh? I never thought about it, but I know a lot of people are very badly affected,” Trump said at the event.

This involves Trump only because the nut promotes a drug which is so far no effective but does increase the chance of death.

 

[stereologist]

5 hours ago, and then said:

Or, alternatively and not so dramatically, if a person gets sick from Sars-Cov-2 and their PHYSICIAN recommends HCQ as a treatment O P T I O N. the patient makes the decision to accept or reject that option.  See how that works?  I'll admit, it isn't nearly as exciting as screaming at the sky about HCQ causing the potential downfall of the West but hey, no plan is perfect  

And if the doctor orders coffee enemas you would be fine with that? And what if the doctors orders ear candling or leeches?

The people pushing for this sort of thing probably don't mind quackery one bit because this is all sounding like you would like people to be ripped off by snake oil sellers.

[stereologist]

4 hours ago, and then said:

Seems to me they were being sued due to the way the study was structured and the specific form of the chloroquine they chose to use.  I'm not a physician and I don't own stock in pharma companies.  Does it really surprise you that the vicious political warfare we see in America wouldn't be seen in other nations as well?  Where this particular drug is concerned, there appears to be a focused effort to demonize its use and to interfere in effective studies of its potential to help some patients.  IOW, the much acclaimed SCIENCE that we're supposed to respect without question, has become nothing but another political fight.  You guys own that just as much as the rest of us do.

 

Not that I noticed.  Your point?  Are you really going to claim that demonizing a potentially beneficial therapeutic drug that has a long established record of safety in other applications, ISN'T about proving that Orange Man is still Bad?  Claim anything you like.  People would have to be idiots to believe it these days.  You guys have gone to well a few times too often to be taken seriously any longer.  

I see you are still detached from reality. No one is demonizing HCQ. There are loonies praising it despite the evidence. I've been saying follow the evidence right from the start. I figured out why this whole crazy circus about HCQ got started.

Some people don't care about evidence. You are an example. You are bringing up nameless doctors who are fooling themselves into thinking it works or maybe they are being purposely dishonest. Maybe they don't even exist. What we do know is that every large study shows it is ineffective and may or does kill people.

The only people making it political are people like you. Scientists are not. You are. You don't care about the science or the evidence.

Here is the typical falsehood you strt with: "a potentially beneficial therapeutic drug"

Show me a level 2 study or better that supports your claim. I can find one but it was a poorly done study with fake data from Raoult.

And you can drop the Trump crap unless you want to introduce an irrelevant issue into this discussion.

[Golden Duck]

2 hours ago, stereologist said:

Let's be clear there were small studies that suggested it might be worth investigating. In vitro studies suggested it might work. Dotors in China noticed that their immunosuppressed patients did not get sick, some 80 patients. The real problem begins when Raoult in France claims it cures COVID-19. He was told his study was terrible,. Raoult came up with a larger study which appears to include fake data. Missing data appears to have been filled in from somewhere. Raoult's large study has him headed to China when people realized he used children in his experiments.

At least 4 studies indicate that HCQ increases the likelihood of dying. The latest study includes 96,000 patients.

Promote Big Pharma fearmongering, while promoting a novel use for an old drug that some strains of malaria have grown resistant. 

We've been hearing about this cytokine storm for a while.

https://www.webmd.com/lung/news/20200417/cytokine-storms-may-be-fueling-some-covid-deaths

Edited May 30, 2020 by Golden Duck

[+OverSword]

20 hours ago, Kenemet said:

Wasn't that effective, as multiple studies show.

I just heard on cbs news this morning that doctors across the country are using it as part of their treatment on certain patients. 

[stereologist]

22 hours ago, OverSword said:

I just heard on cbs news this morning that doctors across the country are using it as part of their treatment on certain patients. 

A potential reason is that the doctors are encouraged by their patients to do it. It's a way of getting demanding patients out of the clinic.