Hydroxychloroquine and Azithromycin as a treatment of COVID-19 Promising Trial

originally posted by: whereislogic
a reply to: Grimpachi
All the usual government and Big Pharma controlled media channels were immediately promoting the NEJM publication you didn't link (for which you linked a related news article), quite heavily, as if their news articles were already ready to go; it was hard to miss. ...

Note what's mentioned below regarding preparing news articles ahead of time that follow an agenda of shaping people's thinking about a subject:

If it's not in the scene above it's in something he says just before that scene starts. Ah never mind, it's not in the scene above, whatever, don't wanna go look for it. I'll just leave everyone with some commentary from Twitter about the NEJM study and related news articles that I pointed out in the other thread (linked in my previous comment):

Babak Javid

Gotta love the Press release before the data published trend in Covid-times!!

Hakim Dehbi

A concerning trend!

originally posted by: whereislogic

Yes, I noticed that as well, if you look at the Twitter post it says: "to be published @NEJM later today", yet below it are already a bunch of press releases with titles like "Hydroxychloroquine, a drug promoted by Trump, failed to prevent healthy people from getting COVID-19 in trial" and "Hydroxychloroquine does not prevent COVID-19 infection if exposed, study says".

Source: Eric Topol op Twitter: "A randomized, placebo controlled trial of hydroxychloroquine for prevention of #COVID19 shows lack of efficacy ...

QAnon, MD, PhD

"The study was conducted in an unusual way: over the internet, without patients being seen by study doctors"

Yep, that was my biggest gripe in my previous commentary about it. How can we know these are even real people reporting honestly and accurately? How can we know this electronic data wasn't tampered with by outside influences with a motive to do so (Big Pharma)? Or tampered with by inside sources with a similar motive of wanting to cover their own asses for that matter?

Jaspreet S Photography

Indian study wasn't done on Internet but health care workers were taking it. they said it reduces viral load compared others who were not taking it.

Yep, the South Korean study isn't the only one whose statistical results don't even come close to matching the NEJM study, who is lying? These Indian and South Korean researchers or those involved in the NEJM publication again, for the umpteenth time? The results are supposed to at least somewhat match up if all publications are reflective of the reality of the matter (whether HCQ works or not). We're all talking post-exposure prophylaxis here, why does it work in India and South Korea but not in the US, supposedly (if you have to believe these results)?

JoshticeMed

Just skimming it I don't think it was possible to assess the question with the study design and sample size. Only 2 severe cases/hospitalizations in entire study (1 in each group)

Yep, brought that up as well, focusing on 1 of those 2 (the one in the HCQ group, who I like to see on camera to do his/her testimony).

Hakim Dehbi

absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence. When you say "... shows a lack of efficacy", you're falling into this trap. The CI is from - 2 to 7%. This is large and include potentially very large treatment effect (as well as harm), because of a small sample size.

All relevant remarks before blindly going along with the news article titles I earlier referred to. That love to jump the gun on this one, cause they've got their precious so-called "randomized double-blinded controlled trial" to wave up in the air as if showing off their excellent report card to their parents. The type I earlier described as being better 'dressed up' than the VA study, but is just more of the same (less recognizable for what it is because of being better dressed up as a 'scientific gem of integrity' compared to the VA study).

PSK

Some scientists and doctors must have spent more time in proving ineffectiveness (by hook or by crook) of hydroxychloroquine- then anything good about it. ...

Sad, but true.

Oh, earlier I talked about my biggest gripe with this study, but my biggest gripe is actually that it doesn't match up with the other studies concerning HCQ used as post-exposure-prophylaxis, such as the South Korean one with very similar numbers of participants taking HCQ following the protocol completely (312 vs 205 if comparing the NEJM with the South Korean one, linked on the previous page of this thread under the title "Can Post-Exposure Prophylaxis for COVID-19 Be Considered as an Outbreak Response Strategy in Long-Term Care Hospitals? - PubMed"). So either this NEJM publication is giving a false impression, or the other ones that do attribute efficacy to HCQ in this regards are, such as the South Korean one. They can't both (or all if you include other positive reports about HCQ working as a prophylaxis) be reflecting the truth of the matter, one must give a false impression. I know where my money is on, the one with the clearest motive for giving a false impression and a history of promoting a false impression about HCQ. The one that doesn't emphasize the need for actual positive PCR tests before padding the numbers of "probable" infections, an irrelevant number for accurate reliable statistical analysis, but wonderful for manipulation, bias and marketing purposes.

The other aspect of that gripe is that I already expected such negative publications about HCQ based on motive and for marketing purposes. Making me even more skeptical cause I'm not supposed to know the results ahead of time, unless I'm right about their willingness to fudge the numbers to show what they want them to show, and their ability to do that while still maintaining that appearance of a gold standard clinical trial, honest research and science and scientific integrity.

originally posted by: Grimpachi
a reply to: whereislogic

...
You keep bringing up that Trump used HCQ like it means something. ...

What utter nonsense, in the comment you were responding to, I only mentioned Trump to refer to my commentary in the thread about Trump taking HCQ prophylactically. Not to actually refer to Trump taking HCQ prophylactically. I try to avoid distracting people with that subject the way the media does, both left and right. In that thread as well I try to avoid the subject most of the times, exactly so that people won't read what you just described into any of my commentary. Cause it means squat and I don't care about Trump taking it or not (another ridiculous and distracting debate promoted by the media and you just now to think about or suggest as an option for debate, who cares man?! He was already wrong when he merely described HCQ as "promising" right along with "Remdesivir" as he set Fauci up to knock HCQ down with 'not proven effective', 'not sufficient evidence', 'no randomized double-blinded placebo-controlled gold standard clinical trial proving efficacy' etc. on March 19, after HCQ's efficacy and safety against Covid-19 was already sufficiently proven and well-established; which sadly no one wanted to admit, not even the pro-HCQ doctors that started prescribing it to their Covid-19 patients, also nicely conditioned by the philosophy of vagueness that I spoke about in April, as if you need randomized clinical trials on humans to prove efficacy conclusively, which you still don't. When the writing is on the wall by means of case studies, observational reports, and in vitro laboratory details concerning mechanism of action and achievability of a certain level of cell saturation with HCQ in vivo, it's ok to accept the realities/facts/certainties/truths staring you right in the face: HCQ works great! Not just a little bit or unclear whether or not it works, the actual results are absolutely amazing; fevers and other Covid-19 related symptoms that have lasted for days are gone in one day, the fever at least, other symptoms show improvement immediately but may take a few more days to be completely gone. Of course, that is HCQ + max. quality care, Dr. Ban-style; but others have had similar results with semi-quality care, or slightly less quality care, excluding minor details like copper or bigger details such as treating patients before a positive testresult, which will significantly improve the effectiveness of any treatment, especially antiviral treatments. And you can definitely tell the difference between the common flu or cold and Covid-19 merely from the severity of symptoms*, as Dr. Ban does when he decides to treat someone with HCQ + Azithromycin + zinc + copper + vitamin C+D3).

*: you don't get 12 days of fever and an oxygen saturation of < 95% from the flu or common cold, you can bet your ass that it's Covid-19, "treat the patient!", as Dr. Ban puts it, don't wait for a damn test and let it get worse (following protocol and not treating the patient, believing all the exaggerated crap about side effects of HCQ + Azithromycin supposedly outweighing the supposedly unproven benefits and using that as your primary excuse not to prescribe this at this point, and not having it in the protocol as your first and foremost line of defence against corona; but not having any issues prescribing azithromycin on its own, which has similar qt prolongation side effects, but is pretty useless on its own as an antiviral, Dr. Ban has it in his protocol for its anti-inflammatory effects, which doesnt fix the cause of the inflammatory reactions, the virus, that's why you need HCQ as the main ingredient). Sending them home from the ER with the toxic paracetamol (less safe to give than HCQ if they don't even have Covid-19) because they're too young and healthy in your eyes and you think they can let the disease run its course and let their immune systems handle it on their own without any help, all because the protocol says only to admit patients with < 94% oxygen saturation*. When you could have fixed their fever issue in one day with Dr. Ban's HCQ treatment protocol. So much damage you can prevent with that.

*: yes, that's how they determin who to sent home again without helping them, or giving them something useless, as demonstrated in Dr. Ban's case studies that you refuse to look at or take seriously, otherwise you would have known that HCQ works great, there would have been no doubt*; and if you look at the mechanism of action later in the playlist, there should be little to no doubt left in your mind as to HCQ's prophylactic value, the concept, approach or mechanism by which it functions so well against malaria, is not much different; talking about increasing Ph levels in cell organelles like lysosomes, endosomes and bacterial food vacuoles in the malaria parasite, to reduce their function.

*: that is...if you trust what Dr. Ban has to say about the subject and his experience with saving lives of actual Covid-19 patients. And if you trust him more than scientists who don't even treat patients, but are getting a lot more money out of this whole corona crisis, as they usually are already getting paid and funded better than a doctor like Dr. Ban. Hmm, interesting question, can anyone find any doctor prescribing something that at least approaches HCQ + max. quality care, Dr. Ban-style to Covid-19 patients, who claims it doesn't work (and who has done so since mid or late March, I think Dr. Ban started around March 20; not interested in those trying to cover their asses and using HCQ much later)? Remember, HCQ + horrible care doesn't count (Dr. Ban responds to a doctor who says HCQ didn't work for him, but he explains how this doctor could never do proper follow-up on his patients to make such a claim as he works in shifts in the hospital, long story, but this is also "horrible care", not properly adjusting to the patients needs at the time, keeping close track of where they are in the disease, their state in terms of which supplements they need, etc. And actually doing you best to make a patient better, cause if it works for Dr. Ban, why doesn't it work supposedly for this doctor who works in the hospital? Again, either one must not be telling the whole story, perhaps the doctor was not doing anything to treat the cytokine storm which is usually already in full rage when patients finally are admitted to the hospital after so many denials, at which point, if they still haven't been given HCQ + Azithromycin + zinc + copper + Vitamin C+D3, you have caused the situation, by means of delaying a treatment because of admittal policies, that maybe corticosteroids are required to dampen the cytokine storm rather than rushing specifically your HCQ patients to damaging intubation to make a point against HCQ cause you want to cover your ass for not having given it on time or not treating the cytokine storm or using anticoagulants to deal with the blood clotting*?)

*: remember, anticoagulants don't fix the cause of the blood clotting, you need to dampen the cytokine storm (now you know why Dr. Mehra from the Lancet study likes to emphasize the use of anticoagulants so much as if that's the key treatment here and as if he's pointing out something really significant that physicians should realize, as mentioned in another thread on ATS in case you read that comment; but it's just something that needs to be done if you let it get that worse by not treating the outpatients with Dr. Ban's HCQ protocol; and it's been known for a while before Dr. Mehra started emphasizing it after his publication against the use of HCQ in the Lancet study that had such a drastic impact on people's opinion and doctor's reluctance to prescribe it, on time, preferrable in the outpatient setting and before a positive test if it's clear that someone has Covid-19).

I wonder if the media and anti-HCQ crowd is as eagerly awaiting the publication of these results as they seem to be with any officially sanctioned clinical trial that is predictably negative about HCQ (not done by doctors trying to help patients get better as best they can, for which Dr. Ban, Dr. Raoult and Dr. Zelenko seem to qualify):

Just remember "regarding Dr. Zelenko using 5% as the expected death of high risk patients -
On pg 12 of Yale's Dr. Risch's review, he points out that 20% of Connecticut cases 60 yrs of age and older, mortality was 20%."

As mentioned in the comment section there. I expect it to be even higher than that for people sent into the hospital, which is usually what is required if you don't treat Covid-19 and just let it run its course without any help in this group (not that it's guaranteed they will be admitted, especially not in my country where they like to let people die without even testing them and without counting them as part of the official Covid-19 statistics based on positive tests, or that it's the best option with the "horrible care" protocol in place in hospitals; something to keep in mind when evaluating Dr. Zelenko's statistics above, these patients are no longer treated with HCQ + Azithromycin + zinc when they are admitted to a hospital, at that point, Dr. Zelenko loses control over their treatment, including how quickly they are intubated and whether or not HFNC and/or CPAP/BiPAP is skipped for unreasonable unevidenced concerns of viral transmission to health care workers in full PPE, used as an excuse in hospital protocols to encourage HCW to follow a protocol that goes straight to mechanical ventilation long before that is necessary if you are willing to use less invasive methods such as HFNC or CPAP/BiPAP first, along with a proper treatment to dampen the cytokine storm and anticoagulants if necessary, but only after having tried Dr. Ban's complete HCQ protocol, specifically vitamin C and D3 to help regulate the immune system and dampen the cytokine storm, which HCQ+Azithromycin has beneficial effects on as well).

So should the 2 deaths he counted even count in relation to the HCQ + Azithromycin + zinc protocol? Did they die in the hospital? Did that protocol stop after 5 days like in most officially sanctioned clinical trials? Dr. Ban's case studies already show that 5 days is not enough, you'll get a rebound of the disease if you don't finish it off.

You know I would have thought you figured out by now that I am not going to read your walls of text and spend my time watching inane videos. Get to the point sum it up because I refuse to sift through your gish gallop of trite.

originally posted by: Grimpachi
a reply to: whereislogic

...

And for the record, the original post you responded to with insults showed the article link and pertinent info within. I didn't add any exposition to it denouncing or praising the info. Maybe try it sometime. I bet more people will read it instead of skimming or skipping over the bulk of your posts then.

No thank you, I'm not a media/Big Pharma chatbot. Emphasizing only those articles that I want people to look at and then pointing the finger at someone else being "highly prejudiced and more than willing to throw objectivity away" as I accuse them for being insulting for having an opinion about my media chatbot-like (programmed) behaviour, opinions and articles I take an interest in and value highly (psychological projection, a useful tool; 'you started it, no you started it, you're doing it, no, you're doing it'; what a useful distaction from the numbers that don't lie and haven't been fiddled around with to create a false impression and paint a misleading picture; or the reality that you've been linking only publications that paint a negative picture of HCQ's efficacy, gosh, what a coincidence, even if it only was "2 or 3"; as I said "I eagerly await your link to the clinical trial where Dr. Zelenko is involved." The one mentioned by Dr. Zelenko in my comment above as being about to be published, the one with a fatality rate of 0.25% for approx. 800 vulnerable Covid-19 infected patients treated with HCQ + Azithromycin + zinc, twice as low as Dr. Raoult's results with HCQ + Azithromycin, and more than 60 times as low as the fatality rate for the whole of France based on the numbers on worldometers.info, and 200 times as low as the patients Dr. Rob Elens in my country was forced to send to the hospital after he was shut down from treating Covid-19 patients with HCQ + Azithromycin + zinc, all 10 of whom that he still could treat before that, he saved from death and the irreversible lung damage the other 50% that didn't die in the hospital are probably now stuck with, courtesy of a hospital protocol that doesn't include HCQ, zinc, Vitamin C, D3, corticosteroids as immunosuppressors, anticoagulant treatment if needed, on time, not too late, HFNC and/or CPAP/BiPAP, but is quite happy to condition HCW to rush people to mechanical ventilation when it's already known to cause more death and damage).

My commentary is not for those with a short attention span or heavy media/Big Pharma/government-programming. Those types can troll my comments as much as they want though, gives me a good excuse to elaborate some more.

a reply to: whereislogic
Have dropped you a message whereislogic

a reply to: whereislogic

Please learn how to use paragraphs because I am not going to strain my eyes on a wall of text.

a reply to: whereislogic

One word about Dr. Zelenko though, I'm getting a wrong vibe from him, as if something isn't 'right', something is 'up'. But I can't quite pinpoint what it is. That's why he's not in my playlist concerning Real frontline reports. I'm getting a much better 'vibe' from Dr. Ban (based on analysis of body language, behaviour and what he chooses to point out or emphasize or how he chooses to phrase things, his whole modus operandi and demonstrated attitude in his podcasts, etc.).

Videos are very useful for that kind of analysis, keeping the advice in the article linked in my signature and preceding pages (2 pages precede the one linked there) in mind.

They are therefore of more value to me than so-called, so-perceived or so-marketed "scientific papers". I don't expect fans of scientism to understand.