There have been 65 studies on HCQ. Of all the tests that looked at giving it early in the disease, or prophylactically, they showed HCQ was beneficial. This site summarizes them all: https://c19study.com/
The only studies that have shown HCQ to be ineffective are those where it is given late in the disease progression (when the disease shifts from the viral replication phase to an immune system dysregulation phase <https://www.evms.edu/media/evms_public/departments/internal_medicine/EVMS_Critical_Care_COVID-19_Protocol.pdf> (see page 2)). Even then, 61% of studies have shown some effectiveness even when it is given late. Given the well-established safety <https://www.cdc.gov/malaria/resources/pdf/fsp/drugs/Hydroxychloroquine.pdf> record of HCQ, this is the dilemma we face: HCQ works HCQ doesn't work HCQ widely dispensed 10,000s of thousands of lives saved $20 wasted per patient HCQ use restricted 10,000s of thousands of needless deaths $0 wasted per patient Even in the face of impartial information on its effectiveness, the decision is clear. Jason On Fri, Jul 31, 2020 at 5:52 PM PGC <[email protected]> wrote: > > > On Friday, July 31, 2020 at 3:58:02 PM UTC+2, Bruno Marchal wrote: >> >> >> On 30 Jul 2020, at 22:59, PGC <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> >> >> On Thursday, July 30, 2020 at 10:52:09 PM UTC+2 Brent wrote: >> >>> >>> >>> On 7/30/2020 1:02 PM, spudboy100 via Everything List wrote: >>> >>> Refute this Telmo- >>> https://www.henryford.com/news/2020/07/hydro-treatment-study >>> >>> https://www.ijidonline.com/article/S1201-9712(20)30534-8/fulltext >>> >>> One viewer here indicated this was not a study-but it is a study indeed >>> concluding the benefits of Hydro. >>> >>> Now what do I think? If it works it works, and if it doesn't it doesn't. >>> >>> >>> That's just false. Some things work on some infections in some people >>> using some protocols of care. >>> >> >> Agreed. Ongoing large scale international clinical trials are what they >> are. Nobody claims that they or the papers in their wake are perfect, but >> to pretend that a few tiny studies are "in need of refutation" or that the >> world's epidemiological community is orchestrating conspiracies without >> evidence like some on Twitter and on social media tend to peddle, is naive >> or evidence of the effectivity of disinformation, *not evidence of >> effectivity of medication*. >> >> >> OK in principle. But we can also look at the map of the evolution of the >> virus in country using it and not using it. My own country has used it, >> France has used it, then change its mind, a number of time. >> We can also take into account that the US FDA has lied about “not >> evidence of effectivity of cannabis” since about a century. It is only very >> recently that it has admit its effectivity for some disease in some public >> way (it accepted it more discreetly for some rich patients since long >> though). >> >> >> >> But if Telmo and/or Mitch need, they can always get in touch with their >> closest epidemiologists/docs and ask for the data and emails, and inform >> the coordinating committee of their findings and worries, citing who they >> wish. While data of the majority of ongoing trials and appropriate >> epidemiological discourse may not be accessible on the net or published >> ("ongoing" being somewhat relevant...), it isn't classified or anything. PGC >> >> >> >> I have done that a little bit, but it is hard to interpret. A biologist >> friend of mine seems to believe that the Canadian studies showing that >> Hydroxychoroquine is better than Remdesevir is rather serious. The amount >> of money hidden in the pharmaceutical debate is so big that the >> misinformation is perpetual. But you are right: it is not classified, and >> even just googling on the net shows that hydroxychloroquine, when used >> convenably, *might* be better than some other medication, and perhaps >> cannabis is still better (as more and more studies seem to show). >> > > If you, Mitch, Telmo, your biologist friend, or Trump have data concerning > effectiveness of HCQ with significant sample sizes in randomized > placebo-controlled trials, and can demonstrate that said trials are free of > epidemiologists' long lists of possible issues/bias, then the only thing > stopping you guys from stepping forward and making world history as > non-professionals is your own minds. PGC > > > > > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "Everything List" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to [email protected]. > To view this discussion on the web visit > https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/84ac1e66-92eb-4cf8-85e7-0f9e74f1c3ceo%40googlegroups.com > <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/84ac1e66-92eb-4cf8-85e7-0f9e74f1c3ceo%40googlegroups.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer> > . > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CA%2BBCJUhR3999FBr5sf25kFAbGmFrR-zm71NyJs8yXac9jFb%3D4Q%40mail.gmail.com.
