Source: Rounding the Earth Author: Mathew Crawford

In the last two editions of The Chloroquine Wars, we showed that,

Now we delve into what the RCTs testing the efficacy of hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) demonstrate about their efficacy in treating SARS-CoV-2/COVID-19 patients. We begin with the big picture of all 29 such RCTs, summarized by the COVID Analysis team at hcqmeta.com.

First, let us analyze the totality of results without sorting out which studies we consider of superior quality—a task we save for future articles.

While not all the results were well-powered to achieve statistically significant results on their own, a meta-analysis of effects shows that the likelihood of achieving these results at random is less than one in a thousand (this is the correct meaning of p < 0.001). On face, this meta-analysis seems demonstratively to indicate HCQ helps sufferers of COVID-19.

And, as we should predict, the distribution of results in these RCTs looks a great deal like the results of other studies, including many observational studies.

blank

This similarity suggests that we look at the entire body of research to get a true sense of the likelihood that HCQ effectively treats the infection or disease:

blank

Most people do not realize that there are well over 200 studies to date on HCQ efficacy in treating COVID-19 patients.

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.

I put the question to numerous experienced researchers, with none able to find such a result. (If you happen upon one, please comment with a link for the sheer trivia value.)

Next, we would be remiss if we did not point out that the RCT headed by Grau-Pujol showed no serious adverse events among healthy HCWs using a low dose of HCQ as pre-exposure prophylaxis. This and nearly all of these other studies, not to mention the long safety history of HCQ, properly lay to rest the notion that HCQ is dangerous for COVID-19 patients—at least at the doses studied in around 98% of these studies.

And, as we discuss in future articles, some of the least favorable studies, including those conducted by the WHO, used doses far higher than those used by any other doctors around the world, and for which there is evidence of harm.

Finally, let us consider the common sense notion that the best use of HCQ is as an early treatment medication. The reason that HCQ and CQ were the first medicines off the shelf to be tested was due to previous studies showing their in vitro antiviral action against other coronaviruses.

It makes sense to focus in on those studies testing HCQ prior to significant disease advancement (no later than the fifth day of symptoms).

blank

It is hard to fathom looking at these results and not thinking they make an overwhelming case for HCQ efficacy against SARS-CoV-2 and COVID-19.







Related: Journal of Medicine Says HCQ + Zinc Reduces COVID Deaths

HCQ Peer-reviewed: Pathophysiological Basis and Rationale for Early Outpatient Treatment of SARS-CoV-2 (COVID-19) Infection

The Chloroquine Wars: Part I

The Chloroquine Wars Part II

The Chloroquine Wars Part III

The Chloroquine Wars Part IV

The Chloroquine Wars Part VI – The Simple Logic of the Hydroxychloroquine Hypothesis

The Chloroquine Wars, Part VII – Why Did Dr. Anthony Fauci Leave Hydroxychloroquine Off the Early Pandemic Research Priority List?

The Chloroquine Wars Part VIII – Hydroxychloroquine’s Safety Profile and a Cost-Benefit Analysis

The Chloroquine Wars Part IX – How Research Can be Rigged by Statistically Stacking the Deck (A Simpson’s Paradox Tale)

The Chloroquine Wars Part X – A Discussion of the Insanity of the Chloroquine Wars

The Chloroquine Wars Part XI – See No Good, Hear No Good, Speak No Good

The Chloroquine Wars Part XII – Manufactured Fear During Hydroxychloroquine’s Trump Moment

The Chloroquine Wars Part XIII -A Clockwork Orange Man

Share on facebook
Share on twitter
Share on whatsapp
On Trend

Latest Stories

A Judge Stands up to a Hospital: “Step Aside” and Give a Dying Man Ivermectin

The judge’s finest moment may have been when he dashed the most glaring myth about ivermectin—that it is not safe, despite decades of use that shows otherwise. Noting that all drugs have side effects, Judge Fullerton listed ivermectin’s effects from a government website.
“(N)umber one, generally well tolerated; number two, dizziness; number three, pruritus; number four, nausea/diarrhea. These are the side effects for the dosage that’s being asked to be administered,” he said. “The risks of these side effects are so minimal that Mr. Ng’s current situation outweighs that risk by one-hundredfold.”

Read More »

How Dr. Paul Marik Saved a Grandmother & The World (Part 3)

Recently Merck issued a stern warning that seemed written by marketing, Kory says, “as it had no scientific data to support the conclusion,” that ivermectin was suddenly dangerous. Another pharmaceutical company’s CEO privately noted that “People must think Merck knows what they’re talking about because it’s their drug,” but Merck has “tremendous disincentives” to say nice things about the generic pill, as it has already spent hundreds of millions of dollars developing an oral anti-viral COVID-19 treatment, rival to ivermectin, that may be priced at $3,000 a dose.

Read More »

How Dr. Paul Marik Saved a Grandmother & The World (Part 2)

They also restricted the use of essential off-label and generic drugs with blatant disinformation campaigns that reminded Kory of big tobacco’s efforts to hide the dangers of smoking. In effect, the public health authorities eliminated the full toolbox of essential scientific methods and drugs that doctors use every day, including the most effective early, prophylactic, and late-stage treatments for COVID-19, which were developed by frontline doctors, not pharmaceutical companies.

Read More »

How Dr. Paul Marik Saved a Grandmother & The World (Part I)

In the professor’s continual review of “the latest (and best) literature,” he picked up a surprising “data signal” in October from emerging studies in Latin America. ivermectin, a safe, cheap, FDA-approved anti-parasitic drug, was showing remarkable anti-viral and anti-inflammatory activity as a repurposed drug—the most powerful COVID-19 killer known to science. 

Read More »