From the WHO website a perfect example of the misinformation about HCQ: referring to studies on which they based some decision about a particular trial: .
..both showed that hydroxychloroquine does not result in the reduction of mortality of hospitalised COVID-19 patients, when compared with standard
Excuse me, I have to shout: OF COURSE IT DIDN'T RESULT IN THE REDUCTION OF MORTALITY OF HOSPITALIZED COVID-19 PATIENTS: IT ONLY WORKS IN THE VERY FIRST WEEK OF THE ILLENESS AND IS USELESS WHEN THE VIRUS HAS GONE TO THE SECOND STAGE, WHICH IS THE CASE WITH HOSPITALIZED PATIENTS. IT SHOULD BE USED ON OUTPATIENTS AT THE FIRST SIGN OF ILLNESS OR EVEN BEFORE IF THERE HAS BEEN A POSITIVE TEST THOUGH NO SYMPTOMS. EVERYONE WHO HAS DEFENDED THE DRUG HAS SAID THIS, WHY DOESN'T THE WHO KNOW IT? PLEASE READ THE ARTICLE BY STEVEN HATFILL THAT IS No.4 POSTED BELOW:
=======================================
In the rest of this post I want to expand on some of the informatin I've given before on this subject.
1) Here is my abstract of the main points made on the drug HCQ from the video I posted of Drs. Simone Gold and Daniel Wohlgelernter: https://watchpraystand.blogspot.com/2020/07/hydroxychlorophone-another-victim-of.html
As professor of epidemiology at Yale School of Public Health, I have authored over 300 peer-reviewed publications and currently hold senior positions on the editorial boards of several leading journals. I am usually accustomed to advocating for positions within the mainstream of medicine, so have been flummoxed to find that, in the midst of a crisis, I am fighting for a treatment that the data fully support but which, for reasons having nothing to do with a correct understanding of the science, has been pushed to the sidelines. As a result, tens of thousands of patients with COVID-19 are dying unnecessarily. Fortunately, the situation can be reversed easily and quickly.I am referring, of course, to the medication hydroxychloroquine. When this inexpensive oral medication is given very early in the course of illness, before the virus has had time to multiply beyond control, it has shown to be highly effective, especially when given in combination with the antibiotics azithromycin or doxycycline and the nutritional supplement zinc.
3) Here is an interview of Dr. Risch by Mark Levin at You Tube. Lasts about 12 minutes: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d6lNoFBTlfI
4) The disinformation problem was pursued in a Real Clear Politics article by virologist Steven Hatfill , who also gives a rather detailed history of misunderstandings and bad judgments including the use of bad studies like the VA study, that led to the banning of HCQ and still continue to dominate policy and the public consciousness
An Effective COVID Treatment the Media Continue to Besmirch https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2020/08/04/an_effective_covid_treatment_the_media_continues_to_besmirch_143875.htmlI".
Washington Post reporters Ariana Cha and Laurie McGinley were back again on May 22, with a new article shouting out the new supposed news: “Antimalarial drug touted by President Trump is linked to increased risk of death in coronavirus patients, study says.” The media uproar this time was based on a large study just published in the Lancet. There was just one problem. The Lancet paper was fraudulent and it was quickly retracted.
However, the damage from the biased media storm was done and it was long-lasting. Continuing patient enrollment needed for early-use clinical trials of hydroxychloroquine dried up within a week. Patients were afraid to take the drug, doctors became afraid to prescribe it, pharmacies refused to fill prescriptions, and in a rush of incompetent analysis and non-existent senior leadership, the FDA revoked its Emergency Use Authorization for the drug....
When the COVID-19 pandemic began, a search was made for suitable antiviral therapies to use as treatment until a vaccine could be produced. One drug, hydroxychloroquine, was found to be the most effective and safe for use against the virus. Federal funds were used for clinical trials of it, but there was no guidance from Dr. Anthony Fauci or the NIH Treatment Guidelines Panel on what role the drug would play in the national pandemic response. ….
Following a careful regimen developed by doctors in France, some knowledgeable practicing U.S. physicians began prescribing hydroxychloroquine to patients still in the early phase of COVID infection. Its effects seemed dramatic… In contrast --- and in error -- the NIH-funded studies somehow became focused on giving hydroxychloroquine to late-presenting hospitalized patients....
By April, it was clear that roughly seven days from the time of the first onset of symptoms, a COVID-19 infection could sometimes progress into a more radical late phase of severe disease with inflammation of the blood vessels in the body and immune system over-reactions. …, [by then] no antiviral drug could be expected to show much of an effect during this severe second stage of COVID.
On April 6, 2020, an international team of medical experts ...reaffirmed that hydroxychloroquine was a safe drug with no serious side effects. ... Consequently, [many] countries ... began to use hydroxychloroquine widely and early in their national pandemic response. ...
However, the NIH promoted a much different strategy for the United States. The “Fauci Strategy” was to keep early infected patients quarantined at home without treatment until they developed a shortness of breath and had to be admitted to a hospital. Then they would be given hydroxychloroquine. The Food and Drug Administration cluelessly agreed to this doctrine and it stated in its hydroxychloroquine Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) that “hospitalized patients were likely to have a greater prospect of benefit (compared to ambulatory patients with mild illness).”
In reality just the opposite was true. This was a tragic mistake by Fauci and FDA Commissioner Dr. Stephen Hahn and it was a mistake that would cost the lives of thousands of Americans in the days to come.
At the same time, accumulating data showed remarkable results if hydroxychloroquine were given to patients early, during a seven-day window from the time of first symptom onset. ...In mid-April a high-level memo was sent to the FDA alerting them to the fact that the best use for hydroxychloroquine was for its early use in still ambulatory COVID patients....
Failing to understand that COVID-19 could be a two-stage disease process, the FDA ignored the memo and, as previously mentioned, it withdrew its EUA for hydroxychloroquine based on flawed studies and clinical trials that were applicable only to late-stage COVID patients.
By now, however, some countries had already implemented early, aggressive, outpatient community treatment with hydroxychloroquine and within weeks were able to minimize their COVID deaths and bring their national pandemic under some degree of control.
In countries such as Great Britain and the United States, where the “Fauci-Hahn Strategy” was followed, there was a much higher death rate ....
[In Switzerland] Following a lag of 13 days after stopping outpatient hydroxychloroquine use, the country’s COVID-19 deaths increased four-fold .... Early outpatient hydroxychloroquine was restarted June 11 but the four-fold “wave of excess lethality” lasted until June 22, after which the nrCFR rapidly returned to its background value.
Here in our country, Fauci continued to ignore the ever accumulating and remarkable early-use data on hydroxychloroquine and he became focused on a new antiviral compound named remdesivir. This was an experimental drug that had to be given intravenously every day for five days. It was never suitable for major widespread outpatient or at-home use as part of a national pandemic plan. We now know that remdesivir has no effect on overall COVID patient mortality and it costs thousands of dollars per patient.
Hydroxychloroquine, by contrast, costs 60 cents a tablet, it can be taken at home, it fits in with the national pandemic plan for respiratory viruses, and a course of therapy simply requires swallowing three tablets in the first 24 hours followed by one tablet every 12 hours for five days.
There are now 53 studies that show positive results of hydroxychloroquine in COVID infections. There are 14 global studies that show neutral or negative results -- and [those were severely flawed].
=========================================
Want to add here that I ran across an interview at You Tube with a Dr. David Brownstein who has been using what he calls a holistic treatment method with COVID patients, using IV vitamins,A, C and D, and iodine particularly, and claims nobody he's treated has died of the virus.
==========================================
Now want to add one more thing. A Dr. Brian Tyson of El Centro, California, reports positive results of HCQ on over 1700 patients but I want to point out that it was given to patients of all ages, which as Dr. Risch has said is not necessary, and it confuses the data since patients younger than 60 would most likely have recovered without any treatment. It should be given to the high-risk groups who would likely die otherwise. I found the same problem with the Ford study which also reported positive results. That too did not discriminate on the basis of age, and since it was done with hospitalized patients who are already into the inflammatory and immune system overreaction phase, the older patients of course had the highest death rate even with the HCQ.. It's unfortunately likely in that case that only the younger patients survived, and that was credited to the HCQ although it may simply have been that they are low-risk and would probably have survived anyway. There's no way to know since they don't isolate the data for these different conditions.
==================================
Another interesting bit of information: Fox News reported on a study of the use of comercial mouthwashes and nasal irrigations that showed they kill the virus at anything from 30 seconds to two minutes. Good to know.
No comments:
Post a Comment