Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
Health,
“ Do you use Steroids for Covid 19 and are there exceptions?”
Most inpatient protocols call for steroids when the patients are hypoxic or have elevated CRPs.
Early steroid treatment may be detrimental. Timing is key.
TU
“ AAQ is essentially correct on first 3, and I would qualify #4 that it depends on how much viral load would there be floating around without ventilation and what % is rendered non-viable or is expelled altogether, which can vary widely;”
What is the basis to this?
TU,
Re airplane example with regards to ventilation, there are other factors such as screening patients making sure they are not symptomatic.
Re decadron vs solumedrol as the steroid of choice. If u peak at the studies they are comparing 6mg if decadron to 125mg of solumedrol. The decadron was not a full loading dose (10 or 12mg). Vs the solumedrol that had full loading doses.
AAQ,
You are basing this on the assumption that.
a. More exposure equals greater viral load.
b. Once someone is infected, additional contact with other infected persons will result in a greater viral load.
c. Greater viral load is a factor as to how effective the immune response will be.
d. Better ventilation reduces viral load and additional infections.
aposhiteyid,
Based on the criteria you present, which is having zero active Covid cases. Do you think we will ever achieve that, if yes, based on the past year or two, what is the suggested time frame, and do you think it makes sense to put life as we know it on hold for that period of time?
AAQ,
Will better ventilation eliminate the virus from living amongst us?
With regards to schools, will better ventilation reduce children from contracting the virus, especially if they play together and interact with each other at different times?
Is there anything that points to successful elimination or total reduction in people infected with the virus, or mortality when having better ventilation?
Health,
The post was directed to TU, and in reference to what TU wrote.
“I am on the phone almost every night for hours with people who require treatment/prophylaxis for either covid or the vaccine, and helping them to get the necessary treatments. ”
” I have seen firsthand that Ivermectin works, I know many, many people who were treated with it early, many whom were old &/or comorbidity ridden, and not a single one died.”
Since TU put this out there, I was just curious as to the context of the treatments TU is offering other than Ivermectin and in what context.
I was not asking for advice, nor are you high on my list of people I would reach out for advanced medical knowledge.
Besides, its funny that you mention that you charge for advice, without flouting your credentials but you want us all to accept your online persona. Furthermore, you frequently post what you consider as medical knowledge, for someone that wants compensation in exchange for their knowledge, you do a whole lot of sharing here for free.
ToraUmada,
Since you have put yourself out there, what other treatments do you offer for Covid patients and overall how is the disease managed?
Lastly, under what context is the treatment administered, inpatient? Outpatient? Clinic? Home based care?
The NIH is neither for nor against Ivermectin, its stance is that more studies and data is necessary.
Ivermectin is not as cheap as people make it sound. the FLCCC has a weight-based recommendation, and if you add it up it can cost a few hundred dollars for each patient.
Hmm. I dont consider myself to be old, and we also got the Olomeinu by the English teacher.
Gemara Brachos, (17)
The promise (olam haba) is more than what was promised for men.
Remdesevir, not so much. Dex for the inflammatory phase, budesonide not so much. Plasma (rather monoclonal antibodies) more for the initial phase. Asprin and anti coagulation for those high risk and elevated inflammatory markers.
There is no magic bullet, timing and understanding of the disease is key.
It would be nice if people check the article for themselves. once you’re at it, you can check the report by Shimabukuro et al. which the article is based upon.
“CONCLUSIONS
Preliminary findings did not show obvious safety signals among pregnant persons who received mRNA Covid-19 vaccines.”A little information is a dangerous thing.
torah..
“2scents-According to CDC there are between 12k and 61k annual flu deaths. 34k deaths over a yr and a half is about 11.5k deaths (for the age group we specified)”
And your point is?
always ask questions
“The core question is – all vaccines by now were tested on a very large number of people, but they were not tested over long period of time. So, then the question is: during long-term testing of vaccines in last, say, 40 years: is it often that a vaccine is seen as safe after 1 year, but problems are discovered after a longer time period.”
No, this is not the core question, this is question has one intended purpose to inject fear from the unknown.
Who says 40 years is enough? why not 60 years?
Since the only way to satisfy this question is to wait 40 years, this achieves nothing but to make people hesitate and confused.
Being that hundreds of millions of people have already taken the vaccine, at this point, if your going to make a claim there needs to be some substance to base the claim on.
Unfounded far-fetched hypothetical claims have one purpose, to avoid people from taking the vaccine.
Also, if you were to make a claim about a long-term side effect that would not be evident initially. You would also have to explain the mechanism of action or physiology of what is going on, especially if the entire claim is hypothetical and unfounded.
Otherwise, why would something be an issue down the road, but at this time not be an issue?
Wouldnt it not make sense the other way around? if the substance that is injected actually does harm, why is the harm dormant or delayed and not doing harm right now?
Of course, there is the possibility of anything being true, and I am sure more will be learned with time, but the claim needs to be substantiated or explained, otherwise, it’s unsubstantiated.
From CHOPS.
The misinformation
While concerns about long-term effects of vaccines are legitimate, it is important to be aware that the organized anti-vaccine industry has targeted this issue as a way to sow doubt and confusion about COVID-19 vaccines. According to the Center for Countering Digital Hate, professional anti-vaccine activists organized a meeting in the fall of 2020 to create messaging that would decrease acceptance of COVID-19 vaccines once available.Take a look at counterhate (dot) com/playbook
It gives a glimpse of the anti-vaccination playbook and how to use the Covid19 Vaccine to further their agenda, including making claims such as the vaccine being unsafe in the long term.
Although its a smaller study, but the alleged concern is unfounded so not sure that a more robust study is necessary.
mRNA COVID-19 Vaccines and Male Fertility: Facts and Myths
Hana M. El Sahly, MD, reviewing Gonzalez DC et al. JAMA 2021 Jun 17
Immunization with mRNA COVID-19 vaccines had no effect on sperm parameters.
Although the mRNA COVID-19 vaccines (BNT1262b2 and mRNA-1273) are safe and effective, their rollout was met with some public resistance based on claims of a negative effect on fertility. Despite reassuring findings in animal models, human data are lacking regarding pre- and post-vaccine fertility parameters. Investigators enrolled male volunteers (age range, 18–50) eligible to receive the Emergency Use Authorized (EUA) mRNA COVID-19 vaccines. Semen samples were provided pre-vaccination and 70 days after the second dose; semen volume, sperm concentration, sperm motility, and total motile sperm count (TMSC) were measured.
Among 45 participants (median age, 28), 47% received BNT1262b2 and 53% received mRNA-1273. All semen parameters increased between baseline and after dose 2: volume (2.2 to 2.7 mL), sperm concentration (26 to 30 million/mL), motility (58% to 65%), and TMSC (36 to 44 million). No participants became azoospermic after vaccination.
Why is 34k people an insignificant number?
ujm,
“P.P.S. It is extremely rare for a recovered Covid patient to get a severe case of Covid. Having recovered from Covid is for all practical purposes virtually at least as good as having been vaccinated.”
Not that rare, and I have seen reinfected patients that are not doing well, despite having had a bad case of Covid in the last.
Health,
As noted by a previous poster, the meta analysis is only as good as the studies it includes.
Not going to the feast of Achashveirosh against Dina D’malchusa?
Health,
A decent place to get a better look at current data is http://www.health. gov.z a/covid-19-rapid-reviews/
CONCLUSION
As synthesized in the Cochrane systematic review and meta-analysis, the current evidence for the use of ivermectin in
COVID-19 does not suggest any clear benefits in either inpatients or outpatients with respect to mortality, clinical
improvement, or viral clearance. All domains were assessed as being of low or very low quality evidence. The included RCTs
for the most part have very small sample sizes and suffer from considerable heterogeneity with respect to ivermectin dosing
strategy and outcome measures. They also have several methodological limitations, including a lack of allocation
concealment, subjective and poorly defined endpoints and patient severity allocations, and baseline imbalances between
the various trial arms in co-administered medications and in patients with risk factors for poor outcomes. Many of the trials
included have not yet been peer-reviewed, which adds further uncertainty to the evidence base. Lastly, the potential for
publication bias cannot be excluded; several trials were only added to trial registries after their completion.
Together, these significant limitations limit the confidence in any conclusions with respect to ivermectin, and thus there is
insufficient evidence to recommend ivermectin’s use in any patient population outside a clinical trial. Further data from
large, well-designed RCTs is needed.Mod(s),
Why did I deserve to be thanked?
Was it because my other unapproved post had a link or anything else that prevented it from being posted? Or your just being nice.
Yes to both 😊. But mostly for breaking the links and preventing the holdup. Thanks again.
Health,
“why they approved Redemsivir and Not Other therapies that work better?”
ClinicalTrials. gov Identifier: NCT04280705
Initial trial indicating a quicker recovery for those with Redemsivir, the data was significant which is probably why they approved it.
Other therapies, what are you referring to?
Take a look at https://doi. org/10.7326/M20-4207
Hydroxychloroquine in Nonhospitalized Adults With Early COVID-19
A Randomized TrialConclusion:
Hydroxychloroquine did not substantially reduce symptom severity in outpatients with early, mild COVID-19.thank you!
Health,
At this time there is no high-quality data to support Ivermectin, which may be a reason to why it is not approved at this time.
Should that change, and there would be data to support what you and others are advocating for, I am sure that a lot of practitioners would be thrilled to have more options available for their patients.
The one larger study was done by Elgazzar that showed promising results has been retracted for fraudulent data issues (this is why studies are peer-reviewed, to prevent studies like Elgazzars study from being used as a reference).
Most other studies do not meet the basic criteria of being accepted as quality studies.
So at this point, more data is needed to demonstrate if Ivermectin is effective or not.
Calling people and government agencies derogatory names does not give your position any additional credibility.
There was an article on this topic from R’ Yair Hoffman he lists the different opinions on this topic.
Reb Eliezer,
While what you experience seems to be unfortunate, having the awareness as to the reasons why you were exposed to these behaviors seems like a healthy approach.
RW,
“Who decides what misleading information is”
Either the accepted authoritative bodies or one can delve to the source and see the data/facts for themselves. This can easily be done in today’s age.
Unsubstantiated and unfounded information is misinformation.
RW,
“This is nothing new there are always two sides to a story”
Incorrect, the facts are what they are the story is what it is. You might hear another incorrect version of the story, but that does not change the fact that the facts are what they are, or else they wouldnt be considered facts.
“who decides what misinformation is”
From Webster.
Definition of misinformation
: incorrect or misleading information“ This reality has changed and it will become difficult If not impossible to find truth.”
Yup, it just seems like you thought that the internet was a reliable source for anything. Slanted and gibberish content get posted all over, be it medicine, religion or politics.
Its way easier for propaganda and miss-information to spread very quickly. Pretty darn scary. But there is also more awareness about this, so hopefully people will learn not to take whatever they see online for whatever it’s worth.
Health,
It seems that you have different definitions of lying.
While you have taken your information from the sham website, I simply did a google search and read the actual “study” that was done by the people that manufacture the drug, that you were referring to, which even according to them, was not only extremely limited but was focused on prophylaxis. . (and btw, it has one anonymous peer review, so now they can also write in the subject peer-reviewed..)
Based on your posts it so seems that whatever treatments you were advocating for, were done so without any factual data, rather something as you have stated came up yourself.
When questioned, you stated that it was in some Medscape article, yet that was incorrect. It was in some sham website that is designed to portray legitimacy when it’s anything but legitimate.
People should have a concern as to the objective behind those planting these websites (similar content, different URLs) and misinformation on social media that plants mistrust and confusion that is unfounded and unsubstantiated.
“I always thought Jewish PCP’s cared about the pts.
It’s obvious that most don’t, but some do.
You’re from the “Most”!”You have no clue who I am, what my credentials or area of expertise are, or if I even have any credentials to begin with. All of that is irrelevant in an anonymous forum. It is the content and its substance that matters. I also have no clue who you are, and all the investing you have done in your online persona, and frankly, I don’t care. Let the facts speak for themselves.
Furthermore, we are discussing the efficacy of a treatment for the virus, being engaged, knowledgeable and up to date is a sign of caring, regardless of religious affiliation. Being emotional, locked onto your own treatment without regard to actual data and facts, is not at all a sign of caring.
I hope that reasonable people reading this blog that dont have the time or interest of actually picking these unsubstantiated claims about one treatment or another, as well as unfounded made up hypothetical concerns about the Covid vaccine without realistic means of measuring the mentioned concern to at least have a basic understanding as to why most established providers and authorities in this area have dismissed these notions.
Health,
“ The only one that can be called a Sham is You and anybody else who Blindly follows the Corrupt Government!”
No substance there.
“ I take everything at face value, until I find differently.”
Pretty low standard, don’t expect the rest of us to follow suite.
With regards to the “study” you posted, on the actual study it only has 21 people enrolled (21 in total!).
They make the following remark.
“We are perfectly aware of the pragmatic nature of our study and of the possible limits of our results, having a small number of patients per group, and not being obtained in double-blind and in placebo-controlled conditions. Anyway, these results are preliminary, and the study is still ongoing.“
But more importantly…
Disclosure
“FDP belongs to the Scientific Board of Pharmextracta. AB is a Pharmextracta consultant. PA, ST and AR belong to the Scientific Board of Indena. ST & PA are employees of Indena SpA, producer of Quercetin Phytosome (ingredient used in the trial). AR reports a patent WO2019016146A1 pending.“
So in short, Phatmextracta did a extremely limited “study” using a very low number of participants, which makes any observation limited or useless. Only to promote a drug they manufacture.
I guess this is “evidence” and one of the 278 studys posted on that sham website if yours.
philosopher
“2cents, you are decided that medscape is a sham website because it doesn’t conform to your ideas of how covid-19 should be treated?! Lol!”
Not sure why my response to this got lost somewhere. However, I never said that Medscape is a sham website. You obviously were not following along here.
Health made a statement indicating that Medscape had an article that indicates that HQC is shown to be effective against the Covid virus. It turned out that was incorrect and in fact, it was a sham website that made the statements.
You are accusing others of what you are doing. I would accept any treatment that has acceptable data to prove its efficacy. I will not jump for something and then go searching for silly websites that are designed to give a legitimate perception so that people like yourself can use it to support one thing or another.
The website that Health quoted, per his admission, was a website he found only after being asked for a reference or source that his treatment protocol is effective. There is no indication as to who is behind the website, the statements and data on that site are not real. And lastly, there are many similar websites with similar content, using different URLs but are pointing to the same IP address.
But based on previous posts, I assume you will dismiss this and just move on to find something else that at first glance seems to support your position, and when that doesn’t work out well for you, will you just find something else.
philosopher
“I frequently quote the CDC because they are the ones most pro-gov, pro covid vax, and pro media people believe in but they are always contradicting themselves citing info that desputes their own findings and guidelines”
Pretty funny that you consider yourself as someone with a handle on these topics, one can deduce from your many posts that your position on these matters has no factual or knowledgeable basis, they are primarily emotional.
You have been unable to even present supporting data and most of your so-called arguments are pretty silly, such as alledging that there are broken URL links on the CDC website. (which silly me went to check, and they seem to be functioning pretty fine, they are not intended to point to any pages, rather it gets you to a placeholder on the very same page).
You also keep on moving the goal post and when anything is explained or pointed out, instead of taking a step back and considering changing your position, you then move on to something new.
The concerns you have mentioned against the Covid vaccine are unfounded and unsubstantiated, promoting these concerns will only cause more people to remain unvaccinated and prone to acquiring the virus. This puts people at great risk, especially those with high-risk factors. Why would you do that?
Health,
“Stop lying!”
It was you that made the statement that you found the website that correlates to your own treatment regiment. In fact, you first stated that it was published in medscape, but it really was in a sham website.
Furthermore, it is you that made the following statement earlier.
“That site lists every study name that they base their statement on.
I never go back and check to see if they are being honest.”Which essentially means you are taking them at face value.
Just to demonstrate why it would be important to actually check all these “studies”, they are smaller observations, at best. And some are ridiculous.
The Quercitin “study”, takes 100 subjects, some that took the regiment, others that did not, and after 5 weeks, 6 from the group that took it reported having flu-like symptoms, vs 12 from the control group.
That tells you nothing about treatment, it tells even tells you nothing about prophylaxis, but for some reason, it’s good enough for you.
As you were accusing others, you are simply grasping onto straws. I would recommend that you take a step back and reevaluate your position and base it on actual data.
At this point, there is a lot of data and we can kind of get a sense of what works and what not.
philosopher,
You have drifted from the Covid discussion to a general anti-vaccination or anti-medical establishment discussion. It so seems that target wasn’t really Covid treatments or the Covid vaccine as this thread initially indicated, it was an attempt on furthering your anti-vaccine agenda.
This is how a lot of these discussions end up, and usually due to a lack of substantial arguments as well as being called out for just repeating bogus data.
Your making a lot of assumptions and are buying into baseless conspiracies. You are free to do so, but at least understand why others refuse to go along with these ridiculous thoughts.
Furthermore, you should be concerned about the people behind these conspiracies and what they have to gain from spreading these baseless conspiracies. All it is doing is spreading unfounded mistrust and unnecessary concern for treating and preventing Covid.
Health,
“ I proved to you that the Info in that Website is correct.”
Not at all, your just repeating the content.
Rightwriter,
And there I thought the scary part was the broken links on the CDC website…
When you believe in wild conspiracies, the world becomes a scary place.
But at least we can all appreciate that your a victim ti wild extreme conspiracies and take whatever information supports the agenda at fave value.
Health,
Your making it quite difficult to have a decent mature discussion.
However, I hope everyone appreciates the notion of you coming up on your own on how to treat Covid and only later finding this on a scam website, which seems to work for you.
As someone once said, I already made up my mind, don’t confuse me with the facts.
Health,
The website you have been referring to seems to be a scam website. Others have pointed this out online. There are many similar-sounding websites all pointing to the same IP address with the same content. Alledging that there are many RCTs indicating that some treatment is effective.
Yet, the actual content is bogus and designed to give a legitimate perception so that people will fall for this. It’s a clever sham, but not enough to have those that really care to follow it blindly.
Interesting concept that I have noted, those that go around accusing others about something, usually are guilty of the very same.
For example, those that accuse providers for ‘blindly’ following established treatment protocols, are usually guilty of ‘blindly’ following some garbage extremist agenda.
Those that are soooo concerned about the theoretical potential side effect of the vaccine and accuse others of ignoring these unfounded concerns, will ignore the known and documented side effects of the disease the vaccine is preventing.
More so, it’s very unsettling when people have a position they need to defend and then go around looking for evidence that would support their position, it should work the other way around, your position should be established only after looking at the facts.
rightwriter,
“WOW if that doesnt indicate anything to you nothing will. This is truly scary, not only are they manipulating what pages you see by censoring, they are completely removing accessible information from their own websites to eliminate historical research and evidence.”
Nah, not that scary. Even if what you are stating is correct, it simply is a website error and has nothing to do about the safety of the vaccines. If this is what you are hanging on to, I would say you should reevaluate your position.
Furthermore, those links on the sides that you are referring to, those links simply jump specific places on this same page, they are not linked to any new pages.
Health,
The website seems spammy at best, while it has a legitimate perception there is no way if knowing who is behind this webpage.
The objective of this webpage was to come across as legitimate so people such as yourself will perceive this to be a legitimate source.
There are a few duplicate websites with different Similar URLs, which adds concern.
So no, please dont take their word at face value.
Health,
“I feel bad for you – how many people with Covid could You have saved if you weren’t following the Gov.”
Lets focus at the facts, stooping to low levels and personal insults is inappropriate. Leave me out if this, for all you know I’m a fat single dude living out my parents basement drinking beer all day making believe that I know a thing or so.
The webpage makes the statements about HQC, but your taking then at face value without actually checking the studies they reference.
Which makes one wonder if you truly about facts, or you’ve already made up your opinion and just need something to support it.
If it so turns out that there is an effective treatment, whatever that may be, I (and many many others) will support it.
Rightwriter
“-uh uh stop right there. Since we don’t have a time traveling machine as we have already established, less than a year of trial proves no safety for long term which takes us back to square one”
What is the premise of this hypothetical concern?
If the vaccine has been ok up until now, why would that change in 7 years from now?
Rightwriter
The adverse effects of most of the medications you are referring to were there at the get go, it only got more apparent with time.
There are billions of people already vaccinated. If any adverse effects would have been associated with the vaccine, it would have been apparent at this time.
Rightwriter,
“Can anyone please just show proof that there are no long term side effects say in the next few years from this vaccine?”
Unless there is some sort of time traveling machine that allows us to take a peak at the future, there is no way to know for sure. But we can assume things based on the information we do already have.
Furthermore, there needs to be a rational to the fear. Otherwise, its baseless fear mongering.
A better question would be, does anyone know the long term side effects of acquiring the Covid 19 virus (termed long haulers), the known minor and the more serious side effects?
Yes, we know they exist. However, we are not sure if they will resolve with time, or they will leave permanent scarring.
With regards to the vaccines, is there a reason to believe that there will be side effects down the road, especially when they dont exist now? And if some sort of negative effect does occur in a number of years from now, how would we be able to associate it with the covid vaccine, vs something else?
Therefore, being that the vaccines have gone through the acceptable testing phase, being that billions of people have already gotten the vaccine, including nearly 170-180 million people in the USA, it would be considered a rather safe vaccine.
Health,
I tried finding the alleged Medscape article, but all I got was a website dedicated to HCQ treatment and it has word for word what you wrote. But not any Medscape article.
I did spend a couple of minutes on this site, it states that there are 278 studies showing positive effects. I checked a few of the referenced papers, why was I not shocked to actually see that the paper states there is zero difference between those that were given HQC and those that were not given?
“You just can’t Let people Die!”
Is not an excuse for advocating against an unproven treatment.Health
“Check out the latest Medscape News about HCQ.
They did/brought like 30 studies that HCQ alone works for Covid.”I am not sure as to what article you are referring to, I will paste below from Medscape, which unlike what you stated, is very clear about HCQ not being effective.
If you are not interested in reading the article, or what was posted below, the basic conclusion is that at this point all studies have shown no benefit to any group of patients when it comes to the Covid virus.
I am not sure why some people are hooked on a specific theoretical treatment and keep on repeating it as if it were some religious thing.
Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) Treatment & Management
Updated: Aug 18, 2021
Author: David J Cennimo, MD, FAAP, FACP, FIDSA, AAHIVS; Chief Editor: Michael Stuart Bronze, MD“Based on its ongoing analysis of the EUA and emerging scientific data, the FDA determined that hydroxychloroquine is unlikely to be effective in treating COVID-19 for the authorized uses in the EUA. Additionally, in light of ongoing serious cardiac adverse events and other potential serious adverse effects, the known and potential benefits of hydroxychloroquine no longer outweigh the known and potential risks for the EUA.
Although additional clinical trials may continue to evaluate potential benefit, the FDA determined the EUA was no longer appropriate.
Additionally, the NIH halted the Outcomes Related to COVID-19 treated with Hydroxychloroquine among In-patients with symptomatic Disease (ORCHID) study on June 20, 2020. After the fourth analysis that included more than 470 participants, the NIH data and safety monitoring board determined that, while there was no harm, the study drug was very unlikely to be beneficial to hospitalized patients with COVID-19. [333]”
“Hydroxychloroquine did not improve outcomes when administered to outpatient adults (n = 423) with early COVID-19. Change in symptom severity over 14 days did not differ between the hydroxychloroquine and placebo groups (P = 0.117). At 14 days, 24% (49 of 201) of participants receiving hydroxychloroquine had ongoing symptoms compared with 30% (59 of 194) receiving placebo (P = 0.21). Medication adverse effects occurred in 43% (92 of 212) of participants receiving hydroxychloroquine compared with 22% (46 of 211) receiving placebo (P< 0.001). Among patients receiving placebo, 10 were hospitalized (two cases unrelated to COVID-19), one of whom died. Among patients receiving hydroxychloroquine, four were hospitalized and one nonhospitalized patient died (P = 0.29). [339]”
Various clinical trials in the United States were initiated to determine if hydroxychloroquine reduces the rate of infection when used by individuals at high risk for exposure, such as high-risk healthcare workers, first responders, and individuals who share a home with a COVID-19–positive individual. [340, 341, 342, 343, 344, 345]
Results from the PATCH trial (n=125) did not show any benefit of hydroxychloroquine to reduce infection among healthcare workers compared with placebo. [342]
Another study rerolled 1483 healthcare workers, of which 79% performed aerosol-generating procedures did not show a difference in preventing infection with once or twice weekly hydroxychloroquine compared with placebo. The incidence of SARS-CoV-2 laboratory-confirmed or symptomatic compatible illness was 0.27 events per person-year with once-weekly and 0.28 events per person-year with twice-weekly hydroxychloroquine compared with 0.38 events per person-year with placebo (P = 0.18 and 0.22 respectively). [346]
Results from a double-blind randomized trial (n = 821) from the University of Minnesota found no benefit of hydroxychloroquine (n = 414) in preventing illness due to COVID-19 compared with placebo (n = 407) when used as postexposure prophylaxis in asymptomatic participants within 4 days following high-risk or moderate-risk exposure. Overall, 87.6% of participants had high-risk exposures without eye shields and surgical masks or respirators. New COVID-19 (either PCR-confirmed or symptomatically compatible) developed in 107 participants (13%) during the 14-day follow-up. Incidence of new illness compatible with COVID-19 did not differ significantly between those receiving hydroxychloroquine (49 of 414 [11.8%]) and those receiving placebo (58 of 407 [14.3%]) (P = 0.35). [347]