Randomized, double blind, placebo controlled trial
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 3 มิ.ย. 2020
- A Randomized Trial of Hydroxychloroquine as Postexposure Prophylaxis for Covid-19 (3rd June)
BACKGROUND
Whether hydroxychloroquine can prevent symptomatic infection after SARS-CoV-2 exposure is unknown.
METHODS
Randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial
United States and Canada
Testing hydroxychloroquine as postexposure prophylaxis
High risk, less than 6 ft for more than 10 minutes while wearing neither a face mask nor an eye shield
Moderate risk, while wearing a face mask but no eye shield
n = 821 asymptomatic participants (719 of 821) reported a high-risk exposure
Randomly assigned, placebo or hydroxychloroquine groups within 4 days of exposure
Primary outcome, incidence positive test of clinical diagnosis
RESULTS
Incidence of new illness
Hydroxychloroquine group (49 of 414), 11.8%
Placebo group (58 of 407), 14.3%
P=0.35
Side effects in hydroxychloroquine group = 40.1%
Side effects in control group = 16.8%
No serious adverse reactions were reported.
(Nausea, upset stomach, dizziness, headache)
Hydroxychloroquine group
Taking zinc 15% developed new disease
Not taking zinc 10.8% developed new disease
Placebo group
Taking zinc 15.4% developed new disease
Not taking zinc 14% developed new disease
Relative risk with zinc use was 1.23
Hydroxychloroquine group
Taking Vit C 14.3% developed new disease
Not taking Vit C 10.6% developed new disease
Placebo group
Taking Vit C 20.8% developed new disease
Not taking Vit C 11.2% developed new disease
Relative risk with vitamin C use was 1.60
The Lancet (and NEJM)
Hydroxychloroquine or chloroquine with or without a macrolide for treatment of COVID-19: a multinational registry analysis, (May 22nd)
Serious scientific questions about the validity of data
‘Expression of Concern’
www.thelancet.com/journals/la...
Issued a correction regarding location of some patients
Conclusions were not changed.
WHO resumed its trial of hydroxychloroquine
Crisis of trust
Medical journals
WHO
Governments
Scientific / medical advisors
Yesterday, the authors proactively initiated an independent audit of the data used in the New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM) paper after discrepancies and concerns were raised about the reliability of the database. The third-party auditors will provide their findings directly to the editors of NEJM upon completion.
Scientists are questioning the validity of two influential studies of COVID-19 patients as concerns grow about the provenance of the dataset underpinning them. Despite assurances from Surgisphere Corporation, an Illinois-based company that owns the data, hundreds of researchers have now signed open letters to The Lancet and the New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM), voicing their concerns. Today, NEJM and The Lancet issued expressions of concern about the reliability of the papers’ conclusions.
Surgisphere will either very rapidly produce rock solid proof that their data is both real and has been obtained and reproduced correctly, or they will find themselves at the business end of Legal action likely involving Law enforcement officials. Considering what has been revealed about the company so far, I think the latter is looking inevitable.
I am totally with you, but can you please give me a source on that: "hundreds of researchers have now signed open letters" - I'd like to show it to my community.
@Henrik Wallin I'll give you a small tip here. Any little known company or individual spraying buzzwords like "A.I"., "machine learning" and "Big Data" around their every action should be regarded with the same skepticism as BitCoin get rich quick schemes until rock solid evidence is forthcoming that they aren't full of s**t. Those terms have been overused so much they have ceased to have much meaning. They rank alongside "Blue Sky Thinking" and "Synergy" as 'tells' that someone may well be the type of individual that would start a website Indiegogo promoting a wearable “next generation human augmentation device that can help you achieve what you never thought was possible”. Exactly like the Surgisphere CEO did. The device, curiously, never materialised. We can only speculate on what it may have been, an invisible hat perhaps. Or a nifty shoulder bag containing magic beans.
Wow. Is your comment up to date. To me this is more implications of the war in research for profit. Truly sad. I miss the days when universities and governments funded instead of corporations. Very sad.
Cant be to reliable if these "Scientists" are saying Protests & Riots are ok. AFTER PREVIOUSLY Stating 50% of black & brown people DIE when they catch it???? Oh wait, that was last week!!! Small Business owners were sited, Fined & Arrested for wanting to go bk to work in N.Y.??? Alterior MOTIVES =YES COMMUNIST SYMPATHIZERS ARE OUR POLITICIANS
Breaking: The Lancet have just retracted the paper that halted hydroxychlorochine trials. The Guardian.
I predict this one will also be retracted. Or called out for it’s utter uselessness.
He forgets to tell you only 2% got tested for covid.
The underlying data in this study seems to be available; it was not in the study published in the Lancet. That makes all the difference.
Michelle Glo if you’re such a great expert on experimental design, go run your own study?
@@CivicPetunia Could you please provide a link for the underlying data?
The prescribed regimen consists of Hydroxychloroquine, Zinc, and Azithromycin. Of these medications, zinc is the most important. Yet it was excluded from the trial.
Done purposely I'm afraid
@Steve Sheldon 16:30
Are we watching the same video? The one I watched said 20% of the patients used HCQ + Zinc.
BREAKING NEWS.... THE LANCET HAVE PUBLISHED A RETRACTION OF THE ARTICLE
Do the staff of WHO have the ability for their assignments?
Funny how much shit the 'never-trumpers' were talking about Hydroxychloroquine with no scientific basis to back it up.... They aren't talking now.
Whilst attempting to RETROSPECTIVELY peer-review the article, it turns out Surgisphere have "lost" the data to support the article. The Lancet - a great journal like this have been caught publishing non-peer-reviewed junk designed to discredit Trump.
Will Dr. John give a retraction????? Well John?????
@@Curling12341 Um. An unfair troll. Out of bounds. Unacceptable misrepresentation.
This helpful man is summarizing novel work for you. To help you. He doesn't do the work. He curates it (..look it up..) so you don't have to.
He is hard-working,scrupulous and transparent and generous. Your comment is an undeserved slur.
If the rouge country who birthed this mess were led by men of Dr. John's caliber, we wouldn't be in this mess.
(I'm sure 10 million troubled souls in Hong Kong agree...)
I thought the antiviral we're after is ZINC with the h.c.q. acting as the ionophore to get it into the cell to do its work. If zinc isn't part of the trial, what's going on?
Are you surprised that the establishment will not push a vitamin? I mean come on really.
I think why he was careful as the paper only deals with people already infected, if it works prior to infection, still no studies.
This shows we do not understand well enough the mechanisms involved
Neither those of the immune system, nor those of the virus
We (the scientists among us) have a working hypothesis of the mechanisms
This changed time after time, not sure we are at the end of our journey of knowledge
If history is an indication, we know not much
Imagine a caveman with a cone of ice and a running computer
By accident the caveman fumbles the ice cone and shorts the computer
Now the caveman knows that, at least once, an ice cone switched the computer off.
Not knowing that there is an on-off switch or even a command, screen button that does almost the same (just not damaging the computer)
There was zinc in the study. Watch the last half of the video
There is a trial that compares HCQ vs HCQ+zinc and the zinc group fared better.
This study says the opposite...
I hope there is a double blind study of the effects of Vitamin D at some point.
Nicole double-blind or not the study can be manipulated.
We should be shouting from the rooftops about this study for 2 reasons
(1) Only 4 people were hospitalised and none died which highlights the non-lethal nature of this illness.
(2) Secondly, only 13% of people who were put in a high-risk environment contracted the disease which means this disease spreads less rapidly than first thought.
With this new data, we should all sleep easy and John needs to rethink all the data and percentages he has been feeding you.
Other than the great news about it's a pretty useless study.
John just because it's Double-Blind Placebo-Controlled doesn't make it a good study. Just a few things to consider.
1. This is not a high-risk age group so why do the study?
2. Many people are asymptomatic so without antibody testing, you have no idea as to how many people actually contacted the disease which makes the data quite useless.
3. Talking about Zn when it wasn’t part of the protocol highlights the poor science
4. All participants self-assessed which again is very poor science. To do a study like this with a product that is so politically charged is ridiculous.
John you need to do a better analysis of junk science. Just like your analysis of the NIH study www.nejm.org/doi/pdf/10.1056/NEJMoa2012410
Instead of jumping from the rooftops because the study showed that patients on HCQ died 31% of the time compared to 65% of non HCQ patients. That alone makes this a miracle drug but instead, you preferred to praise the junk science.
Come on you can do better.
here is the analysis of this study if you want it
Here are just 7 reasons why this study was designed to fail.
(1) First, the study is funded by the NIH. This is a “Fauci study” who has a vested interest in it not working.
(2) The Study is using a “multivariable Cox model” with inverse probability weighting according to the propensity score, which allows for massive data manipulation.
(3) it took up to “48 hours for 85.9% of patients to be treated. Why would you delay treatment? The next point helps to explain why.
(4) "Hydroxychloroquine-treated patients were more severely ill at baseline than those who did not receive hydroxychloroquine" Yes this is written in the study.
(5) No Zn was given with the HCQ. It is well established by many Drs treating patients that the HCQ allows for the movement of Zn into the cell which then stops the viral replication.
(6) Death or Intubation endpoints are considered the same outcome, so even if they recovered after intubation they were still considered a negative outcome.
(7) All patients in the HCQ group had more older, male and comorbidity patients.
Note
In-fact if you look at the most important result hidden in the appendix Table S1 you would see that of all patients put on a ventilator only 32% of the HCQ and 65% of non HCQ died. Therefore HCQ halved the death rate of ventilated patients. This is an incredible result and yet it is not mentioned because the study is manipulated to fail
Table S1
HCQ / No HCQ
Primary Outcome 262 / 84
Death 157 / 75
Intubated 154/ 26
Intubated then Death 49 / 17
Death after Intubation%. 31/ 65
This study is a joke and doctor who references it should have their medical licence revoked. How was this allowed to be published?
Surrey scientists have said vitamin D could cause death.
Ese Callum
yeah， potentially everything could casue death
@@garyfumeaux9226 To be fair, John has already, and rather cap in hand, withdrawn his support for the Lancet study in a previous video.
Thanks for the points that you made though. I'll add that p=0.35 simply answers this question: do we have enough data to be certain of the difference? No, we need more data.
Ese Callum what Surrey scientists?
I'm not seeing anything regarding the severity of the infection, maybe I missed it. The argument for prophylactic use was not that people would not develop infection but rather it would mitigate effects of infection, leading to less damage and fewer deaths.
There is not enough here to dispel HCQ as a treatment especially with other sources showing very conflicting data from medical professionals.
The real story is that we should have had this data months ago and the fact that we didn't is very suspect. Trust issues indeed.
Exactly right. The point to using HCQ was that it allowed Zinc to get into the infected cell and disrupt the virus replication process. I don't recall anyone saying that if you take HCQ you won't get the disease. So, this study dispels something that was never at issue as far as I'm aware. What we're hoping for is that HCQ or HCQ + Zinc (if you are deficient) and/or + Z pack will be effective at disrupting virial replication. If it does that, you'll have an easier, perhaps shorter course of the disease.
@@mikemclaurin2889 Right - no mention of zinc.
@@mikemclaurin2889 It's not a complex argument, is it? Every debunk of HCQ I have seen does not contain relevant data and it's always outside of the capabilities suggested of the drug.
They give it as a hail mary to people in late-stage and/or on ventilators as though that may magically heal the full system damage.
Here, they focus on base infection statistics as though anyone with half an interest in this is saying it can 100% prevent infection.
How long did it take them to admit masks work? Why did it take months to listen to virologists explain the concept of viral load at and beyond the point of infection?
Damn right I have trust issues, that's for sure.
Tangent
Don’t confuse us with the facts mate! In the words of my future President...”We chose truth over facts” (Joe Biden). We just keep moving the goalposts to make sure that expensive hospitalization is the only acceptable therapy, not a cheap and widely available pill. Get with the program.
We should be shouting from the rooftops about this study for 2 reasons
(1) Only 4 people were hospitalised and none died which highlights the non-lethal nature of this illness.
(2) Secondly, only 13% of people who were put in a high-risk environment contracted the disease which means this disease spreads less rapidly than first thought.
With this new data, we should all sleep easy and John needs to rethink all the data and percentages he has been feeding you.
Other than the great news about it's a pretty useless study.
John just because it's Double-Blind Placebo-Controlled doesn't make it a good study. Just a few things to consider.
1. This is not a high-risk age group so why do the study?
2. Many people are asymptomatic so without antibody testing, you have no idea as to how many people actually contacted the disease which makes the data quite useless.
3. Talking about Zn when it wasn’t part of the protocol highlights the poor science
4. All participants self-assessed which again is very poor science. To do a study like this with a product that is so politically charged is ridiculous.
John you need to do a better analysis of junk science. Just like your analysis of the NIH study www.nejm.org/doi/pdf/10.1056/NEJMoa2012410
Instead of jumping from the rooftops because the study showed that patients on HCQ died 31% of the time compared to 65% of non HCQ patients. That alone makes this a miracle drug but instead, you preferred to praise the junk science.
Come on you can do better.
here is the analysis of this study if you want it
Here are just 7 reasons why this study was designed to fail.
(1) First, the study is funded by the NIH. This is a “Fauci study” who has a vested interest in it not working.
(2) The Study is using a “multivariable Cox model” with inverse probability weighting according to the propensity score, which allows for massive data manipulation.
(3) it took up to “48 hours for 85.9% of patients to be treated. Why would you delay treatment? The next point helps to explain why.
(4) "Hydroxychloroquine-treated patients were more severely ill at baseline than those who did not receive hydroxychloroquine" Yes this is written in the study.
(5) No Zn was given with the HCQ. It is well established by many Drs treating patients that the HCQ allows for the movement of Zn into the cell which then stops the viral replication.
(6) Death or Intubation endpoints are considered the same outcome, so even if they recovered after intubation they were still considered a negative outcome.
(7) All patients in the HCQ group had more older, male and comorbidity patients.
Note
In-fact if you look at the most important result hidden in the appendix Table S1 you would see that of all patients put on a ventilator only 32% of the HCQ and 65% of non HCQ died. Therefore HCQ halved the death rate of ventilated patients. This is an incredible result and yet it is not mentioned because the study is manipulated to fail
Table S1
HCQ / No HCQ
Primary Outcome 262 / 84
Death 157 / 75
Intubated 154/ 26
Intubated then Death 49 / 17
Death after Intubation%. 31/ 65
This study is a joke and doctor who references it should have their medical licence revoked. How was this allowed to be published?
1. Lowest p value in this is 0,35
2. Only 13 PCR confirmed
3. Asymptomatic not registered
4. Only 75% adhered to the treatment plan
5. Biased sample with mainly healthcare workers (probability of higher inoculum load higher)
6. Stopped after 14 days, serious cases develop later
7. Only 2 out of 113 symptomatic in hospital which supports 6.
8. Oldest participant was 51
9. No zinc
10. Only 5 day treatment with hcq
11. Hcq + zinc supposedly reduces severeness not prevent infection. It is not a vaccine.
If you ignore 1-10 you could say hcq does not prevent infection. Well another thing confirmed we already knew.
2 and 3 boggles my mind, specially this part
""Clinical Criteria for Reporting1 In outpatient or telehealth settings at least two of the following symptoms:fever (measured or subjective), chills, rigors, myalgia, headache, sore throat, new olfactory and/or taste disorder(s)ORat least one of the following symptoms:cough,shortness of breath, ordifficulty breathingORSevere respiratory illness with at least one of the following:Clinical or radiographic evidence of pneumonia, orAcute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS).""
Basically their false postiive and negative diagnosis for covid-19 is all over the place. They can mis-categorize muscle pain and self-measured fever for covid.
Isthis I agree with you totally this is junk science and John is not prepared to call it out???
We should be shouting from the rooftops about this study for 2 reasons
(1) Only 4 people were hospitalised and none died which highlights the non-lethal nature of this illness.
(2) Secondly, only 13% of people who were put in a high-risk environment contracted the disease which means this disease spreads less rapidly than first thought.
With this new data, we should all sleep easy and John needs to rethink all the data and percentages he has been feeding you.
Other than the great news about it's a pretty useless study.
John just because it's Double-Blind Placebo-Controlled doesn't make it a good study. Just a few things to consider.
1. This is not a high-risk age group so why do the study?
2. Many people are asymptomatic so without antibody testing, you have no idea as to how many people actually contacted the disease which makes the data quite useless.
3. Talking about Zn when it wasn’t part of the protocol highlights the poor science
4. All participants self-assessed which again is very poor science. To do a study like this with a product that is so politically charged is ridiculous.
John you need to do a better analysis of junk science. Just like your analysis of the NIH study www.nejm.org/doi/pdf/10.1056/NEJMoa2012410
Instead of jumping from the rooftops because the study showed that patients on HCQ died 31% of the time compared to 65% of non HCQ patients. That alone makes this a miracle drug but instead, you preferred to praise the junk science.
Come on you can do better.
here is the analysis of this study if you want it
Here are just 7 reasons why this study was designed to fail.
(1) First, the study is funded by the NIH. This is a “Fauci study” who has a vested interest in it not working.
(2) The Study is using a “multivariable Cox model” with inverse probability weighting according to the propensity score, which allows for massive data manipulation.
(3) it took up to “48 hours for 85.9% of patients to be treated. Why would you delay treatment? The next point helps to explain why.
(4) "Hydroxychloroquine-treated patients were more severely ill at baseline than those who did not receive hydroxychloroquine" Yes this is written in the study.
(5) No Zn was given with the HCQ. It is well established by many Drs treating patients that the HCQ allows for the movement of Zn into the cell which then stops the viral replication.
(6) Death or Intubation endpoints are considered the same outcome, so even if they recovered after intubation they were still considered a negative outcome.
(7) All patients in the HCQ group had more older, male and comorbidity patients.
Note
In-fact if you look at the most important result hidden in the appendix Table S1 you would see that of all patients put on a ventilator only 32% of the HCQ and 65% of non HCQ died. Therefore HCQ halved the death rate of ventilated patients. This is an incredible result and yet it is not mentioned because the study is manipulated to fail
Table S1
HCQ / No HCQ
Primary Outcome 262 / 84
Death 157 / 75
Intubated 154/ 26
Intubated then Death 49 / 17
Death after Intubation%. 31/ 65
This study is a joke and doctor who references it should have their medical licence revoked. How was this allowed to be published?
Wasn't the lancet study debunked the other day? They've had to retract it.
Different study, different research question, but yes. spinstrangenesscharm.wordpress.com/2020/06/03/covid19-update-june-3-2020-serological-study-in-israel-surgisphere-data-scandal/
Yeah, but wasn’t that a different trial? This trial was only published yesterday.
Yes. Right now I don't trust anything that comes from the US badmouthing hydroxychloroquine.
Probably funded by WHO
Which can't even do there job they were set up to do !
To busy jet setting it and living it up in 5 star hotels, and.....
It was a retrospective survey of clinicians.
Trust is lost. The big question is this. Will hydroxychloroquine/zinc prevent or reduce SEVERE COVID 19 disease. Will it prevent hospitalization, intubation, death.
its a question of money....
Hopefully the researchers have continued the study more important questions.
th-cam.com/video/WZq-K1wpur8/w-d-xo.html
Dragana P Thank you.
The WHO trial has restarted and other studies may be forthcoming with severity of illness as an endpoint. This study is still valuable in ruling out one possible use for HCQ. while Vitamin D still has excellent evidence in preventing respiratory tract infections. For other prophylactics MedCram 59 is superb. th-cam.com/video/NM2A2xNLWR4/w-d-xo.html
OK, now we have a trial showing no prophylactic effect. How about a trial on post symptom early use of hydroxychloroquine to alleviate or reduce severity of symptoms.
That is why this video is garbage
It was Postexposure Prophylaxis
emacro65 because we have no reason to believe it will do anything, just think, why are these studies even happening? It’s all based on an anecdote from a french doctor and trump’s escalation. Giant waste of money, we can do a couple more of your suggestions but don’t get shitty about them not all getting done. Not every chemical gets this special treatment you know.
@@inquaanate2393 stop making everything about Trump.
Its a shame they didn't record severity and duration of symptoms while they were at it. Surely that's the main point? I wonder if this one makes the headlines.
"Science is a self-correcting process." This is what makes science and the scientific method one of the most important tools human beings have. Just like any other group of people, the scientific community is filled with those who are corrupt in small and sometimes large ways. Everybody is looking to increase the flow of money and prestige coming to themselves, so it is unsurprising that the pursuit of truth is sometimes not the foremost thing in scientists' minds. However, over time the truth will tend to emerge. Science does not run on rails, and the "truth" is often more elusive than people might think, but, broadly speaking, the scientific impulse is one of the most ennobling aspects of mankind.
It's taking over half a century to get a definitive conclusion on climate change and still waiting. Hope that's not the case with HCQ and Zinc. Remember, it's the reduction of severity of symptoms and reduction of death rate that should be evaluated not whether HCQ prevents you getting a positive diagnosis.
@@briank10101 The biosphere is perhaps the most difficult to model of all earth's systems, as it includes everything else on earth as subsets. A single virus in a single bat in a single cave in a remote canyon in China can impact climate change... and it is!
@@briank10101, the conclusion on climate change was known since the 1980s. But it did take decades because the data gathering and climate science were still being pioneered. HCQ and zinc will be resolved very quickly.
Brian K it is difficult to do experiments on the whole atmosphere to test a model. We have to make models first and see if what humans do pumping various gases into the air outside of the study conforms to the model. It is no where near as easy as just testing a drug.
Hear you. But in my mind, science us effected by money and pride, , , ,, so we get crap science from time to time. Soviets and Fascists loved science....that served their purposes.
My God! why no zinc? This is so bias. All the time.
Harry Roger Dr Campbell talk about zinc in the video. Why are you so biased all the time?
No zinc in the original set up proves it is biased from the start.
No zinc. Therefore, not the methodology the biochemists were arguing for since January.
You have to ask why there isn't a clinical study of severity of symptoms and death rate being conducted when HCQ and zinc are used prophylactically. Every widely reported study so far is architected to make HCQ predestined to fail. No prophylaxis, no zinc, administration too late, administration to those intubated, etc. This is incredibly suspect. Waiting on official results of Dr.Zelenko's study being prepared by top German researchers.
I do feel that hydroxychloroquine may have efficacy against covid19, but only when combined with zinc, as an ionophore.
The ionophore makes the cell membrane porous to the Zinc ion ZN+2. The RNA of the virus needs to be converted into proteins for the virus to replicate.
The Zinc is the hero of the story as it inhibits this process. The viral RNA is inhibited from creating a new copy of the viral body. The virus data is transcribed in multiple runs over the viral rna.
I am praying the authors of the study/clinical trial, OR someone else, will offer this combined protocol as a treatment , to stop unnecessary deaths and infections.
Also to look at quercetin as a zinc ionophore instead of hydroxychloroquine, or combined with lower doses of hcq.
@@Mulinaster What's the medical or "scientific" (translate: "theory-based") reason for including placebos? There isn't one. Placebos are included because it is known that belief affects perception. How is this known? Not from any scientific theory, but from experimental observation. This is why when a claim is made, e.g. "Chemical X + Chemical Y improves symptoms", you can't test this claim by saying "Well, my theory says that Chemical Y is irrelevant, so I'll just test Chemical X and when it fails I'll conclude that your treatment is bunkum". Experimental science relies on experimentation, not just theory. Otherwise we're back to making up stories to explain the world without ever confirming them.
They did look at many of the subjects taking zinc with the HCQ/placebo. again, the zinc alone offers no protection, and the zinc with HCQ offers no protection either. Pay attention.
@@planesandbikes7353 It means those doctors that are recommending HCQ with Zinc, so passionately, have some ulterior motive. But the testimonials from their patients look very convincing. Something is amiss.
I find it funny that this study concludes that Hydroxychloroquine is deemed ineffective in preventing the infection when the study itself says that the people in the study take up to 4 days to start the treatment (either with Hydroxychloroquine or placebo) and the accepted infection time could be as low as 2 days. That right there says that people could be infected BEFORE starting the treatment which completely blows this study's results to shreds. Also, these are all self reported results, very few were actually verified by testing.
I find it interesting that this study does not look at severity of disease or disease outcome. Is there any data on that? My understanding is that hydroxychloroquine is a treatment that when given early in the course, slows viral replication; not necessarily preventing disease, but resulting in a milder infection...
Yes, one of the latest Medcram video talks about it, as the disease gets more severe, HCQ is less effective in saving lives.
Given early in the course, it decreases viral shedding.
Rosemary Spurll Why is that interesting? The study had a narrow focus, as it should have. Other studies will answer other questions concerning hydroxychloraquine.
Diane Taylor maybe what I should have said is “we should keep this in mind, and not dismiss its value based on this one study”.
Rosemary Spurll Yes, the data is not complete. It’s one narrow study.
I find it interesting who funded the study.
I like it when he says, "What we conclude from this" and he pauses, I think he is going to say "What a load of bullshit"
I felt the same
Campbell turning Walter White lol
The French professor said it treats the disease when given early.
First study shows it is no good when given late.
Second study shows it doesn't stop you getting the disease, but doesn't even mention the outcome of the patients.
When is there going to be a study to see if what the professor said is the truth, instead of studies showing how crappy it is at doing things he never said it does?
Words! You are 100% right.
They tested his drug and it is found wanting.
@@CharlesvanDijk-ir6bl - no the study doesn't show anything
There was a massive scale observational study that showed outcomes, it was something like 12-25% more likely to die if taking it. If I can find it I’ll post it here.
Not that it will matter, Donnie Doofus fans have never cared about facts and aren’t going to start now.
That is why published and peer reviewed papers exist. There are wacked out doctors because there are wacked out people. If you take the word of one wacko over the entire community something is wrong with you.
Mortality rate ? The most important question not answered. Remdesivir has no impact on mortality rate. HCQ mortality impact ? Still unanswered with and without Zinc.
There is great news about the mortality rate
We should be shouting from the rooftops about this study for 2 reasons
(1) Only 4 people were hospitalised and none died which highlights the non-lethal nature of this illness.
(2) Secondly, only 13% of people who were put in a high-risk environment contracted the disease which means this disease spreads less rapidly than first thought.
With this new data, we should all sleep easy and John needs to rethink all the data and percentages he has been feeding you.
Other than the great news about it's a pretty useless study.
John just because it's Double-Blind Placebo-Controlled doesn't make it a good study. Just a few things to consider.
1. This is not a high-risk age group so why do the study?
2. Many people are asymptomatic so without antibody testing, you have no idea as to how many people actually contacted the disease which makes the data quite useless.
3. Talking about Zn when it wasn’t part of the protocol highlights the poor science
4. All participants self-assessed which again is very poor science. To do a study like this with a product that is so politically charged is ridiculous.
John you need to do a better analysis of junk science. Just like your analysis of the NIH study www.nejm.org/doi/pdf/10.1056/NEJMoa2012410
Instead of jumping from the rooftops because the study showed that patients on HCQ died 31% of the time compared to 65% of non HCQ patients. That alone makes this a miracle drug but instead, you preferred to praise the junk science.
Come on you can do better.
here is the analysis of this study if you want it
Here are just 7 reasons why this study was designed to fail.
(1) First, the study is funded by the NIH. This is a “Fauci study” who has a vested interest in it not working.
(2) The Study is using a “multivariable Cox model” with inverse probability weighting according to the propensity score, which allows for massive data manipulation.
(3) it took up to “48 hours for 85.9% of patients to be treated. Why would you delay treatment? The next point helps to explain why.
(4) "Hydroxychloroquine-treated patients were more severely ill at baseline than those who did not receive hydroxychloroquine" Yes this is written in the study.
(5) No Zn was given with the HCQ. It is well established by many Drs treating patients that the HCQ allows for the movement of Zn into the cell which then stops the viral replication.
(6) Death or Intubation endpoints are considered the same outcome, so even if they recovered after intubation they were still considered a negative outcome.
(7) All patients in the HCQ group had more older, male and comorbidity patients.
Note
In-fact if you look at the most important result hidden in the appendix Table S1 you would see that of all patients put on a ventilator only 32% of the HCQ and 65% of non HCQ died. Therefore HCQ halved the death rate of ventilated patients. This is an incredible result and yet it is not mentioned because the study is manipulated to fail
Table S1
HCQ / No HCQ
Primary Outcome 262 / 84
Death 157 / 75
Intubated 154/ 26
Intubated then Death 49 / 17
Death after Intubation%. 31/ 65
This study is a joke and doctor who references it should have their medical licence revoked. How was this allowed to be published?
The most important question is how well Diethylcarbamazine combined with copper works. Nobody is looking into that, there must be some sort of agenda behind it
They followed only for 14 days. One hospitalization in each group. No deaths.
Most deaths and hospitalizations would happen after 14 days of exposure, though. The study wasn’t designed to look at those things.
Gary Fumeaux thank you for your comment.
Jack M. Can you provide a link to this clinical data so that I can update my opinion based on scientific fact. Statements without a link to the a peer reviewed publication is the reason we are here. So please send it on. The data I have seen to date for Remdesivir shows no impact on mortality only 4 days less hospital stay.
*BUT* did the study show whether or not the people given hydroxychloroquine were less likely to develop severe disease and/or die?
It showed no difference with or without it. Granted it would be nice to learn if those who took it also suffered from the drugs side effects. It has some serious side effects.
Exactly, HCQ is not meant to prevent the disease but to reduce severity and viral shedding which has not been talked about in this study.
@@hizzlemobizzle Certainly it would be good to know the number of people getting side effects to get the fear of it out of your head. HCQ has side effects because it has been researched upon extensively, remdesevir is a new drug and vaccine which hasn't been even developed might be more dangerous which we probably might come to know about in future.
@@hizzlemobizzle It can take up to a year, but most will show cytotoxic effects to other biologic systems within six months of administration. Some don't have the initial adverse reaction, but will suffer later effects. They need to follow them to see. Most times it is ignored and attributed to auto immune disease rather than the quinolone exposure because of the late onset.
@@hizzlemobizzle They did, if you read the study. The study said no one experience serious side effects but the treatment group did experience side effects at a higher rate than the placebo group.
Seems odd that the paper didn't study the severity of symptoms, just whether or not you get them. Medicine is mostly about improving something, not preventing it.
well, I wouldn't say that, but I get your point.
It didn't prominently show the numbers for severity and deaths. Which makes me suspect it doesn't match the narrative and people actually lived.
Poor reasoning when he says that you wouldn’t get on a plane with only a 65% chance of surviving. A better analogy would be you’re already on a plane flying with engine problems and you can do something to increase your chance of landing safely a little and it has a 65% of working, but it may be do nothing and has minimal side effects you would do it. 🤔
This study from Uni of Minnesota. FROM a former employee of there ..Quote ""Corruption, cronyism abound."
Links or it didn't happen.
@Big Deeper hahah well said
May be true, but it needs evidence. If you have a quote, you should have a link.
If you search Minnesota university and corruption, you’ll have your pick of scandals. From basketball to research.
Unfortunately, could do that for too many universities.
I'm fed up with cronyism. It's ubiquitous.
What I get from this is that the trial was done to determine ONLY the effect of the drug in PREVENTING disease after exposure to the virus. But it does not deal with its use in treatment once the disease is contracted. It also does not state what amounts of zinc and vitamin C were being taken during the trial, and whether these amounts were consitstent from patient to patient.
If the 'study' did not include zinc, it was already flawed from the beginning. Zinc acts as an ionophore. three drugs are needed here(HCQ, Z-Pack, Zinc) they create a synergistic effect. Also, Dr. Raoult in France has been taking the approach of using this treatment EARLY before more serious symptoms set in.
How much zinc and when? How much C and when? Was their vitamin D levels monitored? Your conclusions are made from data or beliefs?
Data, I went and checked the study. People just stop talking about zinc working with HCQ
I downloaded and checked the appendix. They asked participants whether they were taking zinc or vitamin C. But it was just yes or no. They didn't ask specifics about the formulation, or the dosage or duration for either supplement, and therefore stated that the results were not conclusive. This is certainly NOT a test of the Zelenko Protocol.
@@hilarymcclure4138 Where in the appendix did you find the mention of zinc and vitamin C? Under Appendix all I can see is list of the authors' names and a bibliographical list of references. Would really like to see the zinc and vit c references myself! Can't find it anywhere it either the online or downloaded version... I pored through the whole study too. Could you give me a page number???
@@hilarymcclure4138 Oops never mind! I found it - it's in the "supplemental appendix", page 14.
P=10 when science is corrupted by politics and money it stays corrupted!!
RESPECT GONE, TRUST GONE, HONESTY IS A FRAGILE COMMODITY
Thanks Dr John. SOME of us come here to see what your latest take on this mess is and appreciate what you're doing with what you have to share. I can't speak for the ones coming back time and again that clearly DON'T appreciate it. Cheers!
The Wall Street Journal had an article today about about an HCL study in the Lancet. In summary the Lancet HCL was based on questionable data. the Lancet had also published anti-Trump editorials questioning the bias in their research reporting. Also reported anti American bias. Frankly Dr. Cambell, I am disappointed in your reporting on HCL, and refusal to report on where HCL works with ZInc. Yes, there are many situations where HCL doesn't work, but why waste our time with those, unless you are biased, why not report on where it IS USEFUL? I'm really disappointed in you doc, and I stopped watching your videos after I saw how biased they are, but just came back to report that the Lancet politically motivated fraud is out of the bag now.
“We have to believe the evidence”. In these times it is really truly hard to believe anything including “the evidence”
Seine O'More what evidence? what’s the evidence?
My friends that took it where in the hospital and the Drs admitted it cut the virus short. 7 days vs 14 days of fever and severe respiratory problems. I have not heard that it has been used here at Emory prophylactic at all. So the study is good but not the way Emory is using it.
Connie the study is not good
We should be shouting from the rooftops about this study for 2 reasons
(1) Only 4 people were hospitalised and none died which highlights the non-lethal nature of this illness.
(2) Secondly, only 13% of people who were put in a high-risk environment contracted the disease which means this disease spreads less rapidly than first thought.
With this new data, we should all sleep easy and John needs to rethink all the data and percentages he has been feeding you.
Other than the great news about it's a pretty useless study.
John just because it's Double-Blind Placebo-Controlled doesn't make it a good study. Just a few things to consider.
1. This is not a high-risk age group so why do the study?
2. Many people are asymptomatic so without antibody testing, you have no idea as to how many people actually contacted the disease which makes the data quite useless.
3. Talking about Zn when it wasn’t part of the protocol highlights the poor science
4. All participants self-assessed which again is very poor science. To do a study like this with a product that is so politically charged is ridiculous.
John you need to do a better analysis of junk science. Just like your analysis of the NIH study www.nejm.org/doi/pdf/10.1056/NEJMoa2012410
Instead of jumping from the rooftops because the study showed that patients on HCQ died 31% of the time compared to 65% of non HCQ patients. That alone makes this a miracle drug but instead, you preferred to praise the junk science.
Come on you can do better.
here is the analysis of this study if you want it
Here are just 7 reasons why this study was designed to fail.
(1) First, the study is funded by the NIH. This is a “Fauci study” who has a vested interest in it not working.
(2) The Study is using a “multivariable Cox model” with inverse probability weighting according to the propensity score, which allows for massive data manipulation.
(3) it took up to “48 hours for 85.9% of patients to be treated. Why would you delay treatment? The next point helps to explain why.
(4) "Hydroxychloroquine-treated patients were more severely ill at baseline than those who did not receive hydroxychloroquine" Yes this is written in the study.
(5) No Zn was given with the HCQ. It is well established by many Drs treating patients that the HCQ allows for the movement of Zn into the cell which then stops the viral replication.
(6) Death or Intubation endpoints are considered the same outcome, so even if they recovered after intubation they were still considered a negative outcome.
(7) All patients in the HCQ group had more older, male and comorbidity patients.
Note
In-fact if you look at the most important result hidden in the appendix Table S1 you would see that of all patients put on a ventilator only 32% of the HCQ and 65% of non HCQ died. Therefore HCQ halved the death rate of ventilated patients. This is an incredible result and yet it is not mentioned because the study is manipulated to fail
Table S1
HCQ / No HCQ
Primary Outcome 262 / 84
Death 157 / 75
Intubated 154/ 26
Intubated then Death 49 / 17
Death after Intubation%. 31/ 65
This study is a joke and doctor who references it should have their medical licence revoked. How was this allowed to be published?
@@garyfumeaux9226 Speaking of data manipulation, you left out part of the table. The difference between Death after Intubation between HCQ and non-HCQ group is due to patients still being intubated and hospitalized in the HCQ group (89) without death outcome or discharge yet. This is much less in the non-HCQ group (only 6 still intubated after experiment)
tl;dr: your conclusions are entirely invalid
Nobody not even a doctor know’s the length of time somebody is going to have a fever for.
@@garyfumeaux9226 These are research hacks to promote the use of ICU and ventilators because they create more income to the hospital. Our medical system in the U.S. is in itself a pre-existing condition to us all.
I've posted a separate reply to Dr. Campbell's video from a research done early on and published on Nature journal on cell research section. And another article at BBC, reviewing case in Turkey which has significantly managed Covid-19 by administering HCQ at early stage. Here they are:
Research done and published on Nature journal (Feb, 4, 2020):
www.nature.com/articles/s41422-020-0282-0
"Our findings reveal that remdesivir and chloroquine are highly effective in the control of 2019-nCoV infection in vitro. Since these compounds have been used in human patients with a safety track record and shown to be effective against various ailments, we suggest that they should be assessed in human patients suffering from the novel coronavirus disease.
"
"Coronavirus: How Turkey took control of Covid-19 emergency"
www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-52831017
"Chief doctor Nurettin Yiyit ... says it's key to use hydroxychloroquine early. "Other countries are using this drug too late," he says, "especially the United States. We only use it at the beginning. We have no hesitation about this drug. We believe it's effective because we get the results."
"
To look at the economy:
It is less than 50 cents in the U.S. per pill for Hydroxychloroquine, but they can charge as much as up to $100,000 per day if you lay in the ICU with ventilators. No wonder.
Hi John,
Thanks for your videos as always. Your dedication is admirable. One note I couldn't help make as an aerospace engineer: your explanation of a p value as the % chance that an effect occurred by chance is not accurate. A p value is the probability of obtaining an effect at least as extreme as the one in your sample data, assuming the truth of the null hypothesis (which in this case is that the drug does not work). The difference is subtle but very important. A p value of 0.35 indicates that 35% of random experiments of this size that included 2 identical control groups like this would result in a difference between control and "experimental" (2nd control) groups that is as large or more than was reported in this study.
Please consider correcting this in a future video and editing the description to reflect this as the p value is a commonly misunderstood concept.
Source: blog.minitab.com/blog/adventures-in-statistics-2/how-to-correctly-interpret-p-values
It's all about the money.
And population reduction.
Very interestingly, today on my COVID symptom Study from Kings College London, they asked me for the first time how long I had been taking vitamins and Vitamin D, C and zinc were mentioned. Does this mean at last they are listening to you Dr J? I really hope so.
Let's hope so - and Medcram, and Chris Martenson and their ilk. They've all been saying this now for months. It's only the experts who are lagging behind.
@@elainemagson213 This latest study indicates that taking Vitamin C is very dangerous!
@@endintiers let's ban it.
@Stephen Morris ban all vitamins. they can cause death if taken wrongly.
endintiers and where is the proof, do you have a link?
I watch your videos every day. I *really* appreciate the time you spend doing these.
The Lancet retracted the study that concluded that hydroxychloroquine was dangerous for COVID 19 patients, today.
Oh, I see these are two different studies.
What was the severity? This study is almost worthless if it didn't report on the severity of the cases. I don't expect a prophylaxis treatment to prevent a highly contagious illness: but I do hope it will reduce the severity.
Dr. Campbell, thank you very much for these more scientific presentations.
Dr John Campbell is working for Big Pharma. The ‘protests’ seem to have cured the disease. Oh wait, neo Marxist politics was the disease. The covid scam deconstructed: edwardjblack.com/2020/04/24/the-invisible-war/
@@fasteddiejs get profession help 🤦
@@fasteddiejs stupid BOT. Ignore.
@Fran Simms A classic case of projection. That’s all you people have: mocking and attacking those who expose the emperor’s nakedness.
Please at least question the science...
We should be shouting from the rooftops about this study for 2 reasons
(1) Only 4 people were hospitalised and none died which highlights the non-lethal nature of this illness.
(2) Secondly, only 13% of people who were put in a high-risk environment contracted the disease which means this disease spreads less rapidly than first thought.
With this new data, we should all sleep easy and John needs to rethink all the data and percentages he has been feeding you.
Other than the great news about it's a pretty useless study.
John just because it's Double-Blind Placebo-Controlled doesn't make it a good study. Just a few things to consider.
1. This is not a high-risk age group so why do the study?
2. Many people are asymptomatic so without antibody testing, you have no idea as to how many people actually contacted the disease which makes the data quite useless.
3. Talking about Zn when it wasn’t part of the protocol highlights the poor science
4. All participants self-assessed which again is very poor science. To do a study like this with a product that is so politically charged is ridiculous.
John you need to do a better analysis of junk science. Just like your analysis of the NIH study www.nejm.org/doi/pdf/10.1056/NEJMoa2012410
Instead of jumping from the rooftops because the study showed that patients on HCQ died 31% of the time compared to 65% of non HCQ patients. That alone makes this a miracle drug but instead, you preferred to praise the junk science.
Come on you can do better.
here is the analysis of this study if you want it
Here are just 7 reasons why this study was designed to fail.
(1) First, the study is funded by the NIH. This is a “Fauci study” who has a vested interest in it not working.
(2) The Study is using a “multivariable Cox model” with inverse probability weighting according to the propensity score, which allows for massive data manipulation.
(3) it took up to “48 hours for 85.9% of patients to be treated. Why would you delay treatment? The next point helps to explain why.
(4) "Hydroxychloroquine-treated patients were more severely ill at baseline than those who did not receive hydroxychloroquine" Yes this is written in the study.
(5) No Zn was given with the HCQ. It is well established by many Drs treating patients that the HCQ allows for the movement of Zn into the cell which then stops the viral replication.
(6) Death or Intubation endpoints are considered the same outcome, so even if they recovered after intubation they were still considered a negative outcome.
(7) All patients in the HCQ group had more older, male and comorbidity patients.
Note
In-fact if you look at the most important result hidden in the appendix Table S1 you would see that of all patients put on a ventilator only 32% of the HCQ and 65% of non HCQ died. Therefore HCQ halved the death rate of ventilated patients. This is an incredible result and yet it is not mentioned because the study is manipulated to fail
Table S1
HCQ / No HCQ
Primary Outcome 262 / 84
Death 157 / 75
Intubated 154/ 26
Intubated then Death 49 / 17
Death after Intubation%. 31/ 65
This study is a joke and doctor who references it should have their medical licence revoked. How was this allowed to be published?
In my opinion you are far to negative on HCQ and risk doing much harm if research turns out that there is a benefit.
Hello Dr. I wonder if the group taking zinc w/ Hydroxy. Can the the zinc affect the hydroxy. Or visaversa would the hydroxy. Affect the vitamin Zinc . So is it possible has a neg. Results of effectiveness because of chemical comparability in the cells.? From a C.N.A. in Pa. Of U.S.A.
Hello John.. I wonder if the clinical course in comparable patients was different in those that took HCQ? Ie less severe. We’re the + patients I’ll or just a positive test?What was the viral load in these patients? This is a good start but does not r/o early efficacy .
It would also be nice to know how many patients in the trial went on to develop serious symptoms. Even though that would likely be statistically insignificant as well. Thanks doc
They already have studies to show the side effects of the drug. Nasty side effects. No idea how many in the trial had side effects, but we know they exist.
Exactly. Was the mortality reported in this study? That's what everyone really wants to know.
hizzle mobizzle your ignorance and repetition of things you don’t understand is not helping.
@@hizzlemobizzle I wouldn't call a headache or a tummy ache a "nasty" side effect. This drug has been around for decades and doctors already know who shouldn't be taking it.
@@glynnec2008 Hydroxychloroquine side effects. Serious side effects
Call your doctor right away if you have serious side effects. Call 911 if your symptoms feel life threatening or if you think you’re having a medical emergency. Serious side effects and their symptoms can include the following:
blurred vision or other vision changes, which may be permanent in some cases
heart disease, including heart failure and issues with your heart rhythm; some cases have been fatal
ringing in your ears or hearing loss
angioedema (rapid swelling of your skin)
hives
mild or severe bronchospasm
sore throat
severe hypoglycemia
unusual bleeding or bruising
blue-black skin color
muscle weakness
hair loss or changes in hair color
abnormal mood changes
mental health effects, including suicidal thoughts
What a weird paper! I thought they were supposed to be studying whether people who were taking it when exposed, died from or needed a hospital/icu stay from their symptoms?
This was discussing Hydroxychloroqine as a prophylactic. It doesn't appear to work and gives side effects in around 20% of users.
@@allangibson8494
it was not discussing a prophylactic, they were giving it up to 4 days after exposure
The claim is that it will prevent the disease. Already know it will not help when you have the disease.
@@hizzlemobizzle They are changing it now. It has to be given with Zinc and Strawberry jam. Without the strawberry jam it won't work. Obvious.
M Ball you clearly don’t understand the difference between exposure and infection
They have fudged every study, i wonder if its done on purpose. Here in iran as soon as you show symptoms you are prescribed hydroxochloroquine and antibiotics and our death rates have severly decreased since the first initial weeks of the outbreak. I have many students and friends who are doctors nurses etc. So i am well informed on the daily statistics here for my area. There needs to be a decent study on covid19 patients who start on this regiment within the first 48 hours of symptoms.
Off topic but I'd be grateful if you could tell me the setup for your videos and the overhead camera? I'm trying to do something similar for my company. Rough tech stack would be appreciated. Thanks for all your hard work.
Thank you for reviewing this research. You certainly get a lot of highly emotional responses to a review!
Because he's no good at reviewing trials. He should stick to what he knows.
@@klondike444 Please share with us how one should present the results of a trial
Peak Prosperity, watch him and learn.
@@dMoniker First you learn how to read and understand a trial. John has shown that he can't do that well enough to report on one.
@Seine O'More No need to be a professor to you know you're hearing bad science. Pity you're not even at that level.
Very strange it's a anti inflammatory ! California at Sinai Hospital using it with zinc and oxgen therapy ! They are having good results ! Best keep testing? Thank you ! Research test research ..
Yes. As soon as possible. 4 days is too long.
I understood that Hydroxychloroquine with Zinc and Oxygen therapy, reduces the severity of the symptoms, which sounds like a God send. I know it wont stop people getting the virus but reducing the severity is fantastic as that can save lives.
MW: Lots of medical teams have started using it and then rapidly abandoned doing so because of alarming side effects from Covid-19.
@@crusindc5282
Really?
Where?
Branch 4 how gas been used for decades with many millions of doses given, it was studied and promoted by the who with absolute minimums of side effects, it’s only since covid hit the US and big pharma sees $$$ that these ‘studies’ came out
Chris Martin son from peak prosperity gives a great run down of this
So Dr Campbell would you advise against taking Zinc and Vitamin C supplements? Quite confused after that video on that aspect? Can you clarify?
Conclusion:
"Forget vitamins and Zinc. Only vaccine is good four you.
Your not-sincerely Bill G."
The "good" HydroxyChloroquine study has some limitations. The drug was given several days after symptoms show (after the virus already taken off in the body) or some eight day after first infection. The participants were not in a high risk group. The participants were selected based on 'self-reported' symptoms but only 3% were later confirmed to have the virus based on the PCR antigen test. This test is notoriously unreliable but the "infected" were not later checked with blood serology to check for the presence of anti-bodies and confirm that they were infected with corona-virus. Also 3% of a 800 sample size is not a very large group. Further the group that were taking Zinc was only 15%, so that infected group shrinks further. Split that group into two (experimental vs placebo) and its a tiny sample. Worse, the placebo group were on vitamin D which is known to improve your immune defence.
I thought the whole point of taking the HCQ, zinc and an antibiotic was to reduce the severity of the systems. NOT to prevent the disease. If we can prevent hospitalization then the goal is achieved.
Good morning from Alpine, Texas!
Morning from France
Hiya regards from ne england
Science paper on antibodies of mild COVID19 infection
www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.05.19.20101832v2
Dr john was wondering your thoughts on recent articles i read about type A blood having worse symptoms with covid 19
Dr Campbell, what data shows that taking a Zinc supplement would increase the chance of any agent (hydroxychloroquine or other) to engage it to prevent the infection, since Zinc is already in the body?
Just a thought, the ppl taking zinc and vitamin c, are mayb higher risk group? If your "high risk" its more likely that u take the supplements?
Ruzhki That could be true.
I think the same. But in the end it wasn't significant data so it could also just be by chance. After a quick read of this paper I was thinking about getting some zinc supplement
www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3724376/
Love how he just glosses over how the placebo vit c results make no sense and cast all the results into question.
Saying that it doesn't work when the severity of the disease isn't talked about and the fact that the death rate isn't talked about seems like jumping the gun. Also I would like to see the average time from infection for the hydroxychloroquine group versus the time from infection on the placebo group since that obviously has the most bearing when you're dealing with something which has an average viral replication phase of 5 days
Thanks Dr Campbell. After I retired I did a unit of introductory statistics at uni and therefore found your explanation of the study terrific. As can be seen by the comments below personal bias has a very strong influence on people so double blind studies are the only ones worth taking time to look at. After a good study like this is completed there are ALWAYS more questions to be asked. "Ok we know this so what about that". That is what science is all about building on properly conducted, repeatable experiments. I particularly liked your explanation of P values. Thank you.
Pretty worthless study... :-( The trial did not demonstrate a significant benefit of hydroxychloroquine as postexposure prophylaxis for Covid-19 BECAUSE THE SUBJECTS DID NOT GET A TEST TO CONFIRM WHETHER OR NOT THEY HAD THE VIRUS!!! A quote from the study, "We acknowledge that this trial has limitations. Because of the lack of availability of diagnostic testing in the United States, the vast majority of the participants, including health care workers, were unable to access testing."
I study with you everyday- one of my favorite professors of all time💙
I’m not convinced! What’s the p value of the flu vaccine or Remdesovir?
Dr John , can you please provide a link to the original article, your report and discussion of Zinc and vitamin C , has me very concerned and anxious. I would like to read the report myself but the url you show brings up page 404.
Correct me if I’m wrong (please) but my understanding of taking HCQ with or without Zn is not to prevent the disease but to prevent going on to develop fulminate acute respiratory distress syndrome?
Thank you for reading through the studies for all of us. And, for sharing it in an intelligent, informative way.
Except the way he explains is incredibly deceptive.
Chuck Schumer are you qualified to say that or do you have an agenda. Just asking
@@chuckschumer7783 You are, of course , a doctor?
@@chuckschumer7783 Not deceptive, just wrong.
What effect does HDC+zinc have on severity of symptoms?
Based on the NYU study, it increases treatment effectiveness by 150% compared to HCQ alone.
Full study in lnk posted above
*post-exposure* and in the US we're still not where we need to be with testing, so exactly how far along are people getting before they're included?
Hydroxychloroquine is most effective in the very beginning of exposure, but it's anti-inflammatories that you'll be needing for the next phase of the disease
I love the way you stick to data that is generally trusted. All the same, I am not happy with this study because so many respected medicos say that taken BEFORE infection takes hold and with ZINC the results are more than interesting. Lets hope there is more data soon on which you can report. I am getting a bit sceptical these days with the mainstream science pronouncements!
The human body has thrown spanners in the works before.
There is zinc in the study- he talks about it about 3/4 way in
no money in it.
Why is everyone obsessed with hcq? Its not over the counter.
First you need to carted to hospital then you need qualified staff to give it plus 2 other drugs.
You people are very stupid.
Just take 10000 to 20000 d3 plus cofactors and be immune. ...
The hcq treatment was given for 4 days only, given the incubation period and the immune response, it should have been given for 10-14 days
So 25% of the patients became symptomatic. How many of them experienced severe symptoms? No deaths? Sounds like a great result to me.
So - compulsory face coverings on public transport. Does that mean if I go shopping I have to keep the mask on the whole time. If so that will definitely discourage me from returning to the shops.Or could I just take the mask off, bag it and put a fresh one on for the return journey?
At today's government briefing Grant Shapps (Transport Secretary) seemed to emphasise it was face 'coverings', not 'masks'. I think the implication is something like a scarf pulled up is sufficient - no need for people to buy actual masks.
@@parlabaneisback OK - so a scarf that can just be lowered once you get off the bus or train. I want to get back to visiting the non-essential shops for the good of the economy and for my own sanity! Can't stay locked up forever.
However they're now suggesting face coverings should be worn in shops pubs and restaurants (sorry you have to smile at the last one!).
The way tests are done I'm not so sure the dosage was adequate. Don't they publish the dosages when they report the findings? I didn't gather that from the vid. Thanks for your comment on this matter.
"Randomized, double blind, placebo controlled trial" of vitamin D? B12? Zinc?! No, Hydroxychloroquine. :(
The placebo in this study was folate.
@@mballer Folate...? It's a B-vitamin (B9) mostly needed to help pregnant women to protect their child! It's not an inert drug!!
Not yet, but this is definitely interesting.
A cohort study to evaluate the effect of combination Vitamin D, Magnesium and Vitamin B12 (DMB) on progression to severe outcome in older COVID-19 patients.
www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.06.01.20112334v1
It's not without problems, not least the small size and not enough attention paid to keeping the control and trial groups equivalent in comorbities and age, but, more RCTs and studies are coming it seems.
Ok, I searched the entire report for "zinc" and "Zinc", but NOTHING was found. Dr. Campbell, where did your zinc data come from? Did you get this report, and the one from the Lancet mixed up? Should we add YOU to the list of untrusted medical sources? What page or section was your zinc data taken from?
It's in the complete report, not in the article. There is a link to the data at the end. www.nejm.org/doi/suppl/10.1056/NEJMoa2016638/suppl_file/nejmoa2016638_appendix.pdf
Hello from Arkansas in the good old USA. I have been following your blogs since January 2020 and this is the first time I have commented or ask a question. First of all thanks so much for the data you have provided. My question after listening to this blog is: what is your personal opinion addressing this virus. Do you think a vaccination will be developed, a treatment, the virus will burn out or will stay seasonal or all the time?? I know it is a Noval virus and there are a lot of questions just wanted you thoughts. Thanks and have a blessed day.
The Lancet retracting a study is not a ‘bombshell’.
What is an absolute bombshell is The Lancet publishing GARBAGE in the first place.
And they absolutely deserve what consequences they get and more. I would burn them to the ground.
@Andrew Ongais The Lancet are supposed to publish material from recognised sources - not a science fiction writer and an adult model who wrote the paper this video is based on.
I believe Tedros' term is over with the WHO. I believe the new head is from India. Hence the HCQ re-trial.
@Stephen Morris I suspect you 2 are liars as well.
Thank you for your work
How much zinc were they taking? Maybe they needed much more? Or a different type of zinc?
th-cam.com/video/NM2A2xNLWR4/w-d-xo.html
Does it help once got disease..to stop it replicating,with Zinc and Euromiacin?
With this lack of trust, we need more than one serious study.
This wasn't a serious study
This is not the first or last study. They have determined it was not effective earlier, but so much heat is generated by Trump's claim it does they have to do more studies to prove what they already know. A malaria drug will not stop this.
@@chuckschumer7783 because it does not tell you what you want to hear?
This may have been first attempt to a serious study. All previous studies have been seriously flawed.
Did that study include the data when (what day) the stage of infection the HCQ was given?
Watch the video, he said 4 days, why are you commenting without watching?
It wasn't given during infection, it was given to people who had a high risk contact, within 4 days of their contact to see if HCQ could prevent infection, which it didn't.
Day 4. Too late for an anti-viral to be of benefit... predictably.
@@ivermec-tin666 so it's useless then, we need a critical care drug since most people go to the hospital already in bad shape.
@@ucouco78 So far the only thing that has been shown to be effective against people in bad shape is plasma with neutralizing antibodies. We also need something that helps against the cytokine storm as that is the biggest killer...
Is there a chance that the people that took zn or vit c were a high risk group or had a high risk event, so they startet to take them ? so taking zn or vit c was based on symptoms or situations and therefore the results do not represent the values of zn and vit c, but the behaviour of these people?
The article reads (the final paragraph) "Whether preexposure prophylaxis would be effective in high-risk populations is a separate question, with trials ongoing. 1. The whole point of giving HCQ is about profilaxing high risk patients. 2. No mention of the dosage of Zink
As always. How embarrassing.
I'm disappointed to see some seriously poor analysis of the data re Zinc and Vitamin C. They were not part of the double-blind trial, but some people, on their own initiative, were taking Zinc and/or Vit C.
The most likely thing is that the people taking these for protection, were people who believed themselves to be at greater risk. Therefore this data is completely worthless, there is absolutely no reason to believe that they do not work, or even increase the risk.
I'm basing these comments on the analysis in this video, I haven't looked at the trial writeup.
This RCT has indeed shown that HQC no real efficacy as a prophylactic to prevent developing COVID19. Disappointing, but that is what it shows. The WHO are continuing their HCQ arm of the solidarity trial. It's results are still to come. There may be other studies / RCTs hopefully coming with the efficacy of HCQ in mitigating severity of illness as a primary endpoint. Zinc too needs more study.
The study doesn't show anything because the results aren't statistically significant
@@chuckschumer7783 For you, clearly. The rest of us will continue to monitor the science and simply not care about political agendas. If an RCT of a similar size shows HCQ has efficacy in preventing onset of severe COVID19 I will be delighted. If it doesn't I will still regard the data as valuable. Same with Zinc or any other treatment.
Cheers John and thx for all the work you are doing making these videos for us.
I'm struggling to see why they keep doing these half tests. hcq is given in advance as an anti-viral. So far I've seen no test where it was given noticably in advance (usual is a week taking it before travel/potential exposure).
Why would it work after the horse has bolted? Thats like topping up your engine oil after its seized.
What we should be looking at is hcq, zinc, vitD for a week or two then test it.
A group out of the UK proved that previous study on HCQ was totally false. The information that has come out on the people that wrote it is very disturbing, I recently saw an interview with a doctor in Dallas the prescribes HCQ for positive people with symptoms and she has experienced 100% success. patients showed dramatic improvement in as little as 24 hours. I have an aunt who is 82 that takes it for RA and she has no side affects.
Carol Rosini exactly, my arthritis dr at a VERY large clinic, in Shreveport La said everyone of his partients who had lupus and rheumatoid are on It and the people who had covid had a VERY mild case, it didn’t prevent it. . I overheard my ENT doctor prescribing to a positive patient also with the antibiotic, no drug is perfect .. but if it will help prevent a serious case of getting in the lungs,, that’s what we want.
Carol you are absolutely right this is junk science
We should be shouting from the rooftops about this study for 2 reasons
(1) Only 4 people were hospitalised and none died which highlights the non-lethal nature of this illness.
(2) Secondly, only 13% of people who were put in a high-risk environment contracted the disease which means this disease spreads less rapidly than first thought.
With this new data, we should all sleep easy and John needs to rethink all the data and percentages he has been feeding you.
Other than the great news about it's a pretty useless study.
John just because it's Double-Blind Placebo-Controlled doesn't make it a good study. Just a few things to consider.
1. This is not a high-risk age group so why do the study?
2. Many people are asymptomatic so without antibody testing, you have no idea as to how many people actually contacted the disease which makes the data quite useless.
3. Talking about Zn when it wasn’t part of the protocol highlights the poor science
4. All participants self-assessed which again is very poor science. To do a study like this with a product that is so politically charged is ridiculous.
John you need to do a better analysis of junk science. Just like your analysis of the NIH study www.nejm.org/doi/pdf/10.1056/NEJMoa2012410
Instead of jumping from the rooftops because the study showed that patients on HCQ died 31% of the time compared to 65% of non HCQ patients. That alone makes this a miracle drug but instead, you preferred to praise the junk science.
Come on you can do better.
here is the analysis of this study if you want it
Here are just 7 reasons why this study was designed to fail.
(1) First, the study is funded by the NIH. This is a “Fauci study” who has a vested interest in it not working.
(2) The Study is using a “multivariable Cox model” with inverse probability weighting according to the propensity score, which allows for massive data manipulation.
(3) it took up to “48 hours for 85.9% of patients to be treated. Why would you delay treatment? The next point helps to explain why.
(4) "Hydroxychloroquine-treated patients were more severely ill at baseline than those who did not receive hydroxychloroquine" Yes this is written in the study.
(5) No Zn was given with the HCQ. It is well established by many Drs treating patients that the HCQ allows for the movement of Zn into the cell which then stops the viral replication.
(6) Death or Intubation endpoints are considered the same outcome, so even if they recovered after intubation they were still considered a negative outcome.
(7) All patients in the HCQ group had more older, male and comorbidity patients.
Note
In-fact if you look at the most important result hidden in the appendix Table S1 you would see that of all patients put on a ventilator only 32% of the HCQ and 65% of non HCQ died. Therefore HCQ halved the death rate of ventilated patients. This is an incredible result and yet it is not mentioned because the study is manipulated to fail
Table S1
HCQ / No HCQ
Primary Outcome 262 / 84
Death 157 / 75
Intubated 154/ 26
Intubated then Death 49 / 17
Death after Intubation%. 31/ 65
This study is a joke and doctor who references it should have their medical licence revoked. How was this allowed to be published?
Just Judy you clearly have no idea of medicine if you’re spouting this...what are your qualifications?
George Buchanan mine are none,, this is what my doctors said, .. I said this is what I was told,,, why did you say that to me.. when I was relaying what I was told by my doctors.. and others are clearly giving the same message, I never once said I had any qualifications to treat anyone. But truth is many doctors are treating patients in the USA with this.. i was told by 2 of my doctors.
I respect dr Campbell a LOT. I wanted to put out there what I was told in person by my medical doctors.
You're an excellent educator. Thank you for teaching us all about epidemiology and how to interpret clinical research. That said, I'm fascinated by the comments here that reflexively defend hydroxychloroquine...and sometimes I wonder if it's politically motivated for some, because their political leader recommended the drug. Hmm.
This has all become political but not for the reasons you think. Don't accept this junk science and do more of your own analytical thinking. This is not a good study.
We should be shouting from the rooftops about this study for 2 reasons
(1) Only 4 people were hospitalised and none died which highlights the non-lethal nature of this illness.
(2) Secondly, only 13% of people who were put in a high-risk environment contracted the disease which means this disease spreads less rapidly than first thought.
With this new data, we should all sleep easy and John needs to rethink all the data and percentages he has been feeding you.
Other than the great news about it's a pretty useless study.
John just because it's Double-Blind Placebo-Controlled doesn't make it a good study. Just a few things to consider.
1. This is not a high-risk age group so why do the study?
2. Many people are asymptomatic so without antibody testing, you have no idea as to how many people actually contacted the disease which makes the data quite useless.
3. Talking about Zn when it wasn’t part of the protocol highlights the poor science
4. All participants self-assessed which again is very poor science. To do a study like this with a product that is so politically charged is ridiculous.
John you need to do a better analysis of junk science. Just like your analysis of the NIH study www.nejm.org/doi/pdf/10.1056/NEJMoa2012410
Instead of jumping from the rooftops because the study showed that patients on HCQ died 31% of the time compared to 65% of non HCQ patients. That alone makes this a miracle drug but instead, you preferred to praise the junk science.
Come on you can do better.
here is the analysis of this study if you want it
Here are just 7 reasons why this study was designed to fail.
(1) First, the study is funded by the NIH. This is a “Fauci study” who has a vested interest in it not working.
(2) The Study is using a “multivariable Cox model” with inverse probability weighting according to the propensity score, which allows for massive data manipulation.
(3) it took up to “48 hours for 85.9% of patients to be treated. Why would you delay treatment? The next point helps to explain why.
(4) "Hydroxychloroquine-treated patients were more severely ill at baseline than those who did not receive hydroxychloroquine" Yes this is written in the study.
(5) No Zn was given with the HCQ. It is well established by many Drs treating patients that the HCQ allows for the movement of Zn into the cell which then stops the viral replication.
(6) Death or Intubation endpoints are considered the same outcome, so even if they recovered after intubation they were still considered a negative outcome.
(7) All patients in the HCQ group had more older, male and comorbidity patients.
Note
In-fact if you look at the most important result hidden in the appendix Table S1 you would see that of all patients put on a ventilator only 32% of the HCQ and 65% of non HCQ died. Therefore HCQ halved the death rate of ventilated patients. This is an incredible result and yet it is not mentioned because the study is manipulated to fail
Table S1
HCQ / No HCQ
Primary Outcome 262 / 84
Death 157 / 75
Intubated 154/ 26
Intubated then Death 49 / 17
Death after Intubation%. 31/ 65
This study is a joke and doctor who references it should have their medical licence revoked. How was this allowed to be published?
SherriSLC Political leader? Trump is garbage, like this study.
He didn't just reccomend the drug he is taking it himself. This guy on here is just a paid liar for Bill Gates. Will Gates be taking one of his Vaccines. Of course not, and how come his three kids don't get vaccinated either.
No. I didn't vote for that man. Contain your TDS.
This study is statistically meaningless, and the hypothesis is irrelevant in any case. Might as well test to see if HCQ cures acne. Who cares?
J Anders Your wrong! Its HCQ with Zinc! A life can be saved! Or do you want to wait for the vaccin?
So when are we getting a trial that uses HCQ + Zpac + Zinc Sulphate.
Omitting either Zpac or Zinc is where all these trials fall down isnt it?
How much Zinc were they taking? Right dose?
So the official study didnt include Zinc Sulphate.
Whole thing falls down then.
Please add a link to the NEJM study your are discussing, to your video description. Thanks.
The article this video was based on has been revealed as a fake - the Lancet published a non-peer-reviewed hit-piece written by a science fiction writer and an "adult model". The Lancet are now trying to figure out a way of retaining any credibility as a renowned medical journal starting with this embarrassing retraction: www.thelancet.com/journals/lanpub/article/PIIS0140-6736(20)31290-3/fulltext
Once again... John needs to subscribe to Chris Martenson’s channel !!
John quit telling what your told by Dommic Cummlye. Please?
My daughter who is an A&E nurse in a mid Kent hospital says the severity of the virus in people entering hospital now, appears to be less
Serious, how can this be?
Hi Dr. Campbell,
Has there been any kind of study about this disease and blood type? Like , which blood type is prone to more severe disease vs. Mild disease.? Sorry if you've already answered this question.
Awesome video today!
Better, well balanced, including timing, double bling.
No deaths from the test group is even better.
2.5% improvement on new symptoms with HCQ is not statistically significant.
40% reported side effects for HCQ, 17% of placebo group reported side effects.
No zinc though.
No in depth data on test cases. Better than nothing but disproves nothing either.
Almost a waste of time.
Did you see where ha talks about the zinc though
the outcomes would have been interesting.
@@RGBEAT The zink part is not only not blind, its also not randomized, that make the data totally useless.
What you can use, is to compare the zink group with HCQ to the one with out, then you get a random diffrance
I hope there will be a study like this with early treatment and the severity of COVID. personally I didn't expect an antiviral given after exposure to protect. It may help with the severity hopefully. Then we can reduce the risk.
If finally there have been studies for this with HCW, and they show no change, we finally can put a lid on it. Personally I hope they find it to be effective, because nothing else seems to be.
PLUS ZZZZZIIINK
Zink is an essential for HCQ's workings as an anti-viral treatment. And they didn't study it.
Absurd. These are our brains !?
Pretty worthless study... :-( The trial did not demonstrate a significant benefit of hydroxychloroquine as postexposure prophylaxis for Covid-19 BECAUSE THE SUBJECTS DID NOT GET A TEST TO CONFIRM WHETHER OR NOT THEY HAD THE VIRUS!!! A quote from the study, "We acknowledge that this trial has limitations. Because of the lack of availability of diagnostic testing in the United States, the vast majority of the participants, including health care workers, were unable to access testing." Read it for yourself here: www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa2016638?mod=article_inline
@@particleconfig.8935 About a third of patients in the study took either zinc or vitamin c along with HCQ and they didn't find any statistical difference.
Did they compare the people from the two groups as to the severity of their illness after catching the virus? Did the studied treatment affect the course of the disease, even if it did not greatly impact risk of getting the virus? Did they study recovery times, death rates, etc.?
The Lancet retracts large study on hydroxychloroquine
NBC News-9 hours ago
"A first-year statistics major could tell you about major flaws in the design of the analysis," one expert said.
Thank you Dr. Campbell. This type of review [by yourself] , interpretation for the audience is most valuable for your viewers. Please continue with such as these analyses will not be offered by media or governments; unfortunately.
No. He's very bad at this. He should stick to what he knows.
@@klondike444 You should stick to what you want to hear, elsewhere.
65 per cent I would take it, if Iwas going to die. What have you got to lose
Yep, I didn't get the airplane analogy. If the flight was the last one out of the path of a tsunami, I'd be on it for a 65% change of escape - it all depends on the context.
lindman399 this is not at all well argued .. it’s a 65% probability that the 2.5% recorded reduced rate of infection between the two groups is not coincidental .. it’s not a 65% lower probability of developing the disease ...
lindman399 furthermore you have to take into account side effects
@@jsquire5pa What side effects? Those were not delineated, and they were self diagnosed. Bad design.
@@jsquire5pa Not quite (there's a subtle difference): It means that if HCQ really has no effect, that in 35% of experiments we would find a greater positive disparity between HCQ and placebo than we found in this study. In other words, HQC would appear to do even better (higher than 2.5% reduced rate of infection) 35% of the time, even if it really does nothing. That basically means there's no significant evidence to reject the hypothesis (called the Null hypothesis) that HCQ does nothing, since the result could very easily be obtained by chance alone.
There's no way to calculate the probabilities that the null hypothesis is true or false though. It doesn't tell us that there's a 65% chance the result is not coincidental. Hope that makes sense.
Thanks from Florida. I am a Biologist and enjoy you so much. U are like a interesting professor.
Thank you for explaining "not significant" so well. I finally understand it!