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.
The Roman/Hernandez meta-analysis comes at a politically contentious moment. Their language and behavior appear political. Their work is error-laden, takes research out of its true context, uses numbers that don’t seem to come from the actual studies, chooses papers testing ivermectin under the least favorable circumstances, gives unexplained and inappropriate weights to the small amount of data that stands as outliers to the bigger picture, and still drives a conclusion of “don’t use this” from a massive average mortality reduction that did not quite reach statistical significance. At the same time the authors consistently complain about the “low quality of evidence” represented by the studies they do and do not include, nearly all of which I would describe as produced by higher quality scientists who can at least tally numbers correctly.
The death rate from COVID-19 is dramatically low at United Memorial Medical Center in Houston, TX compared to other hospitals across the nation and the world. Despite Dr. Joseph Varon’s popularity on TV, news personalities avoid questions of why he’s having success treating his patients. As it turns out, he’s using drugs the WHO and CDC recommend against.
Large reductions in Covid-19 deaths are possible using ivermectin.
Using ivermectin early may reduce the numbers progressing to severe disease.
Ivermectin is low cost.
The authors concluded based on this extensive review that ivermectin actually reduced the risk of death compared with no ivermectin (average risk ratio 0.38, 95% CI 0.19-0.73; n = 2438; I2 = 49%; moderate-certainty evidence).
Moderate-certainty evidence finds that large reductions in COVID-19 deaths are possible using ivermectin. Using ivermectin early in the clinical course may reduce numbers progressing to severe disease. The apparent safety and low cost suggest that ivermectin is likely to have a significant impact on the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic globally.
HCQ is effective for COVID-19. The probability that an ineffective treatment generated results as positive as the 235 studies to date is estimated to be 1 in 6 quadrillion (p = 0.00000000000000018).
Early treatment is most successful, with 100% of 29 studies reporting a positive effect (13 statistically significant in isolation) and an estimated reduction of 65% in the effect measured (death, hospitalization, etc.) using a random effects meta-analysis, RR 0.35 [0.25-0.50].
92% of Randomized Controlled Trials (RCTs) for early, PrEP, or PEP treatment report positive effects, the probability of this happening for an ineffective treatment is 0.0017.
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.
Reductions in covid-19 deaths and infections may be possible by using ivermectin. Employing ivermectin early on may reduce the number of people progressing to severe disease. The apparent safety and low cost suggest that ivermectin could have an impact on the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic globally.
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.
