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.
ICU admission was significantly lower in the ivermectin group compared to controls among participants ≥40 year-old (1.2% vs 2.0, odds ratio 0.608; p=0.024).
Similarly, mortality was lower in the ivermectin group in the full group analysis (1.5% vs 2.1%, odds ratio 0.720; p=0.029), as well as in subjects ≥ 40 year- old (2.7% vs 4.1%, odds ratio 0,655; p=0.005).
The May 2021 issue of Antibiotics Review, for example, put out a metanalysis of ivermectin which showed that 100% of 36 prophylaxis and early treatment studies showed positive results, and 26 of the studies showed “statistically significant improvements.”
In a new study, Smith and three other medical experts prove what he and this show have been telling you for more than a year that hydroxychloroquine can save lives. Smith’s landmark study followed 255 COVID patients who required intubation during the first two months of the pandemic, and it found that increased doses of coadministered, hydroxychloroquine and azithromycin were associated with a greater than 100% increase in survival.
Most Covid studies have not considered days of therapy, cumulative dose, or weight-adjusted dosing. We found that when the cumulative doses of two drugs, HCQ and AZM, were above a certain level, patients had a survival rate 2.9 times the other patients. By using causal analysis and considering of weight-adjusted cumulative dose, we prove the combined therapy, >3 g HCQ and > 1g AZM greatly increases survival in Covid patients on IMV and that HCQ cumulative dose > 80 mg/kg works substantially better. These data do not yet apply to hospitalized patients not on IMV. Since those with higher doses of HCQ had higher doses of AZM, we cannot solely attribute the causal effect to HCQ/AZM combination therapy. However, it is likely AZM does contribute significantly to this increase in survival rate. Since higher dose HCQ/AZM therapy improves survival by nearly 200% in this population, the safety data are moot. However, given the data presented here, the studies reporting HCQ’s effect of QTc intervals need to be re-evaluated.
Significant QT prolongation was not observed during the follow‐up period compared with the baseline values in the present study. No ventricular arrhythmias, second and third‐degree heart blocks, or severe pauses were recorded during the treatment period.
Medical experts from around the world joined together to present the very latest real world research on repurposing ivermectin that has the ability to transform global efforts to fight the pandemic. Mr. Andrew Bryant provides an overview of ongoing trials and what they may add to the evidence base.
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.
The authors emphasize the historically significant & relevant role of empiric treatment in an attempt to reduce death. Doing nothing is not good medicine.
Our investigation of a large national cohort appears to support early administration (within the first 3 to 7 days of COVID-19 diagnosis) of HCQ in mild COVID-19 disease in an outpatient setting for reducing hospitalizations and deaths without any serious adverse HCQ-related effects.
If this finding is confirmed in future clinical trials, HCQ as a cheap and available drug may still play a role in a specific population with respect to reducing COVID-19 burden, particularly in resource-poor countries.
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.
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.
Maintaining an average hydroxychloroquine whole blood level above 1,068 ng/mL significantly reduced the risk of thrombosis in adults with systemic lupus.
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).
Figure 3 reported random forest for 10 studies comparing HCQ+AZM. Use of the combination HCQ+AZM was associated with 25% lower mortality risk
This study of critically ill patients with laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 admitted to ICUs in Mexico demonstrated that age and CRP levels upon ICU admission were associated with in-hospital mortality
Ivermectin treatment was associated with lower mortality during treatment of COVID-19, especially in patients with severe pulmonary involvement.
Hydroxychloroquine had a modest effect on hospital length stay and days in ICU compared with Standard Care.
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 this study, SARS-CoV-2 infected non-hospitalized patients hydroxychloroquine exposure was associated with a decreased rate of subsequent hospitalization.
HCQ use was associated with a 30% lower risk of death in COVID-19 hospitalized patients. Our data doesn’t discourage use of HCQ in inpatients with COVID-19.
The evidence shown in this work let us think that Zn(II) indeed may play a role in the viral cell cycle, and zinc ionophores boost zinc’s effects.
The report was based on observational data from China, France, South Korea, Algeria, and the U.S. Of these, 2,137 or 91.6 percent improved clinically.
Source: Medrxiv.org In this analysis of 1645 patients hospitalized with COVID-19 we find that the risk of death was significantly lower for patients treated with
None of the patients died in the studied period and only 6 have to be admitted in conventional hospitalization area.
