The data here comes from five nations, and my spreadsheet included a national comparison where the 0.09% case fatality rate (CFR) among patients receiving hydroxychloroquine, azithromycin, and zinc was 98% lower than the case-weighted CFR of those five nations.
We should group all the PrEP, PEP, and early treatment studies of HCQ together at the point at which we see temporal and dose dependent effects time and again. Such research should certainly be separated out, but at the point at which signs of antiviral action emerge so consistently, that observation ties the body of evidence together.
“Early treatment should have been part of the equation. I’m not against all those other things. Contagion control is important. Washing our hands. Things like that. They’re all important. Do we need vaccination programs? Absolutely. Do we need early treatment programs? Absolutely. So we have basically put the cart before the horse. The tail is wagging the dog. Early treatment should be a mainstay for everything.”
In this tweet, Dr. Robert Malone links here to a page on the globalcovidsummit.org website (in honor of the COVID-19 Summit in Rome) noting that over 3,900 physicians and medical scientists (passed 4,200 now) have signed the Rome Declaration in protest. The declaration was initially passed through the circles of those who attended Rome and gathered in San Juan, but is now open to all physicians and medical scientists. If that includes you, please read it and consider signing.
In San Juan, Puerto Rico, a panel of doctors and scientists convened in an open forum about effective early treatment and evaluated the current one-size-fits-all approach to the treatment of Covid.
This is pulled straight from the same playbook as the propaganda against HCQ. Even if you’re not sure that one or both of these medicines is effective despite uniformly positive results when applied as early treatment, you should at least recognize the pattern, scratch your head, and question whether there is…maybe…just possibly some perverse incentive like power or profit from vaccines driving this absurdity.
Major benefits of ivermectin (IVM) treatment for COVID-19 have been known since the results of 20 such randomized controlled trials (RCTs) were reported
The International Ivermectin for Covid Conference:
Dr. Tess Lawrie presents the latest systematic review evidence from RCTs and a selection of resource, equity, acceptability and feasibility considerations related to ivermectin use for COVID-19
Medical experts from around the world joined together to present the very latest real world research on repurposing this safe drug that has the ability to transform global efforts to fight the pandemic. In this talk, speaker Dr. Mobeen Syed provides an overview of ivermectin and how it works against covid-19.
It was in these very moments in late May when public health officials lost all credibility—a credibility that cannot be restored without major changes taking place. Despite most evidence pointing to a likelihood of HCQ efficacy, they made their call on the back of data supposedly tucked away in a database that nobody had verified, declared it definitive, then swiftly pushed for policy changes around the world.
The primary effect of the article was likely to further ingrain a partisan association with the subject matter, along with the subtext, “Whatever good SCIENCE exists, it can only be on our side [so you won’t need to think any more about it].”
One of the most disturbing aspects of the COVID-19 pandemic is the strange singularity of the ultimate solution, or at least the one preferred by the world’s most powerful people and their media: vaccines.
We discussed the Surgisphere debacle and other stories of “engineered research” during the pandemic, most of which I am currently preparing articles about.
Suppose that we want to rig a medical study despite the participation of mostly or entirely caring doctors and researchers with unimpeachable character and credentials.
While HCQ looks very safe overall for COVID-19 patients, it looks safest when used as a prophylactic or therapeutic for early stage COVID-19 patients, once again affirming the Primary HCQ Hypothesis as the strongest version of the HCQ Hypothesis.
Source: Rounding the Earth Author: Mathew Crawford The story of why hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) has not been used broadly in most Western nations (primarily in the
The Hydroxychloroquine Hypothesis: That there is some appropriate dosage of hydroxychloroquine, alone or in some combination with other medication, that successfully prevents some COVID-19 cases (PrEP/PEP) or treats some COVID-19 sufferers (Early/Late/Critical).
Remaining entirely unblemished after a year of trials and observations, the current evidence in favor of the Primary HCQ Hypothesis fully validates the HCQ Hypothesis. The logic is so simple that it almost feels like your livelihood would have to be on the line to deny it.
This is now one of the most well-studied treatments in the history of medicine, and the evidence is overwhelming. The chance that these results could occur at random is approximately 1 in 208 quadrillion. That is, p = 0.000000000000048. Having read a few thousand research papers, I have never before seen a p-value this low in the testing of medicine.
Why then does the pharmaceutical industry and its promoters insist on conducting RCTs before something is accepted as true? RCTs take substantial amounts of time and significant resources to conduct. This creates a barrier to entry, especially for inexpensive solutions to medical problems. In other words, the myth that RCTs are some necessary “gold standard” is a deception that, along with regulatory agency, prevent any possibility for simpler and less expensive (less profitable) medical solutions to gain traction.
If the argument rests on “RCTs as the gold standard”, there is little doubt that the evidence dramatically favors using HCQ as a standard early stage therapeutic! But it is reasonable to assess the quality of all the evidence to reach beyond gold for the ultimate and supreme standards of scientific evidence. That too we plan to present in future articles.
A famous infectious diseases specialist from France, Dr. Didier Raoult, devised treatments for the bacterial infections that cause Q fever and Whipple’s disease. If all that weren’t enough, hydroxychloroquine has anti-thrombotic properties, meaning it reduces blood clotting for patients suffering excessive clotting. It even inhibits autophagy (cellular self-destruction) setting up hydroxychloroquine for research as a unique cancer medication. No other medicine discovered, isolated, or engineered does all of these things. Most importantly during the recent pandemic, hydroxychloroquine, like quinine, also demonstrates antiviral activity. In short, hydroxychloroquine is a gift from nature—one of the most broadly effective and repurposed drugs in the history of medicine. Billions of doses of hydroxychloroquine are distributed annually, and the WHO includes it in its list of essential medicines.
HCQ is effective for COVID-19. The chance that an ineffective treatment generated results as positive as the 187 studies to date is 1 in 5 quadrillion (p = 0.00000000000000019).
Source: HCQMeta.com HCQ is effective for COVID-19 when used early: meta-analysis of 156 studies (Version 28, December 4, 2020) • HCQ is effective for COVID-19.
WMA DECLARATION OF HELSINKI – ETHICAL PRINCIPLES FOR MEDICAL RESEARCH INVOLVING HUMAN SUBJECTS
HCQ is effective for COVID-19. The probability that an ineffective treatment generated results as positive as the 115 studies to date is estimated to be 1 in 20 million (p = 0.000000049).
It’s a drug. It’s approved in the US. Has been for decades, if a doctor wishes to prescribe it, working with a patient, they may prescribe it for any purpose that they wish to do so.
Source: C19Study A live and ongoing index of studies from around the world documenting the use of hydroxychloroquine in treatment at various stages of SARS-CoV-2 infection
In our study, we found hydroxychloroquine wasn’t associated with significant arrhythmia clearly relating to hydroxychloroquine so it seemed the drug was very, very safe
Hydroxychloroquine + azithromycin had a significant effect on COVID-19 infected patients length of stay in the hospital.
Source: c19 Study A live and ongoing index of study data from around the world documenting the use of hydroxychloroquine in treatment at various stages
Source: Research Gate Conclusions Hydroxychloroquine has been shown to have consistent clinical efficacy for COVID-19 when it is used early in the outpatient setting, and
Source: Open Letter Concerns regarding the misinterpretation of statistical hypothesis testing in clinical trials for COVID-19 This letter is an expression of concern that a
They should be embarrassed but they really need to be held accountable. Physicians have a responsibility to act in the best interests of their patients.
HCQ Studies are overwhelmingly positive, negative studies get lots of attention but have some serious flaws.
Scientists globally are protesting the studies that are biased or cover up the effectiveness of hydroxychloroquine by rendering the results statistically insignificant.
Source: c19study.com The studies continue to roll out, and there has been very positive results in pre and post exposure as well as early treatment
Source: WND By Elizabeth Lee Vliet, M.D. Stunning positive news on hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) was released in early July, potentially opening up medical freedom at the time of America’s
Source: c19 Study A live and ongoing index of study data from around the world documenting the use of hydroxychloroquine in treatment at various stages
The drastic failure to report honestly on HCQ goes far beyond incompetence: it is abetting the unspeakable forces who do not want people to be reliably cured during this pandemic until they can realize pandemic-level profits.
