A LARGE scale study consisting of 2541 patients on hydroxychloroquine.

A LARGE scale study consisting of 2541 patients over six hospitals. Found that 13% of those treated with Hydroxychloroquine alone died compared with 26.4% not treated and died.

The study also blow holes in the con job perpetuated on the World by most other medical industry. None I repeat none of the patients in this study had documented serious heart abnormalities. Nor were they on deaths door and the medicine was given as a last resort. .......

The study was published today in the International Journal of Infectious Diseases, the peer-reviewed, open-access online publication of the International Society of Infectious Diseases (ISID.org).

This is a large scale study published in a peer reviewed publication with all controls.

It rips every excuse Quacky Fauci has made from his lips. Yep peer reviewed, nope not a small study no antidotal evidence here.

The findings have been highly analyzed and peer-reviewed,” said Dr. Marcus Zervos, division head of Infectious Disease for Henry Ford Health System, who co-authored the study with Henry Ford epidemiologist Dr. Samia Arshad. “We attribute our findings that differ from other studies to early treatment, and part of a combination of interventions that were done in supportive care of patients, including careful cardiac monitoring. Our dosing also differed from other studies not showing a benefit of the drug. And other studies are either not peer reviewed, have limited numbers of patients, different patient populations or other differences from our patients.”
Zervos said the potential for a surge in the fall or sooner, and infections continuing worldwide, show an urgency to identifying inexpensive and effective therapies and preventions.

Sorry Fauci you snake water salesman that’s for you. You and your buddy Martin you’ve known since 2001 won’t be counting the bucks despite the dollar signs in your eyes. Let’s look at the cost of Remdesivir and Gilead pharmaceutical CEO John C. Martin which is around $300 for one treatment. Hydroxychloroquine One round treatment will be around $37.

Dr Fauci you and everyone else involved in this fraud should be treated for multiple counts of intentional manslaughter if not premeditated for the tens if not hundreds of thousands of people you’ve murdered.

People with hydroxy pneumonia weren’t held up as normal patients to validate your lies. Selecting patients over 60 years old weren’t the norm in your study.

Basically this study cut your studies trials and arguments off at the knees. The obvious strawman presented has been denied.

I demand charges I demand letting them know there will be charges come in then let’s see how they change their tune!!!!!!! Grrrrrrrr

The study also found those treated with azithromycin alone or a combination of hydroxychloroquine and azithromycin also fared slightly better than those not treated with the drugs, according to the Henry Ford data. The analysis found 22.4% of those treated only with azithromycin died, and 20.1% treated with a combination of azithromycin and hydroxychloroquine died, compared to 26.4% of patients dying who were not treated with either medication.

Announce tomorrow wild and for everyone to hear that a grand jury is being impaneled to look into this fraud committed on the American people.

We’ve got you this time.


It’s time to pay the piper

The main takeaway from this study should be that

and the medicine was given as a last resort

Hydroxychloroquine with Zinc is a preventative and treatment.

Its efficacy increases the earlier in the infection it is taken.

I am surprised it did this well used as medication of the last resort.

S&F for the truth.

P

a reply to: Fallingdown
I would be curious if zinc was added to the protocol?

The U.S. sent 2 million doses of Hydroxychloroquine to Brazil last month.

www.forbes.com... avirus/#64a659ac75be

Ironic that our own FDA is standing in the way of U.S. citizens readily receiving this preventative and cure.

These findings do support the recent NIH guidelines (Antiviral Therapy, 2020), indicating a potential role for hydroxychloroquine in treatment of hospitalized COVID-19 patients without co-administration of azithromycin. However, our results should be interpreted with some caution and should not be applied to patients treated outside of hospital settings. Our results also require further confirmation in prospective, randomized controlled trials that rigorously evaluate the safety, and efficacy of hydroxychloroquine therapy for COVID-19 in hospitalized patients.

source

A non-randomized, not well controlled, and non-blinded study. A retrospective study. What is a retrospective study?

A retrospective study looks backwards and examines exposures to suspected risk or protection factors in relation to an outcome that is established at the start of the study. Many valuable case-control studies, such as Lane and Claypon's 1926 investigation of risk factors for breast cancer, were retrospective investigations. Most sources of error due to confounding and bias are more common in retrospective studies than in prospective studies. For this reason, retrospective investigations are often criticised. If the outcome of interest is uncommon, however, the size of prospective investigation required to estimate relative risk is often too large to be feasible. In retrospective studies the odds ratio provides an estimate of relative risk. You should take special care to avoid sources of bias and confounding in retrospective studies.

www.statsdirect.com...

originally posted by: pheonix358
The main takeaway from this study should be that

and the medicine was given as a last resort

Hydroxychloroquine with Zinc is a preventative and treatment.

Its efficacy increases the earlier in the infection it is taken.

I am surprised it did this well used as medication of the last resort.

S&F for the truth.

P

Actually I thought this was the most pertinent part of this article. The main stream media screamed of death from heart complications but neglected to mention people with heart complications were sold out for the trials .

[quuote]Treatment with hydroxychloroquine cut the death rate significantly in sick patients hospitalized with COVID-19 – and without heart-related side-effects, according to a new study published by Henry Ford Health System.[\quote]


Then there was this .........

Patients treated with hydroxychloroquine at Henry Ford met specific protocol criteria as outlined by the hospital system’s Division of Infectious Diseases. The vast majority received the drug soon after admission; 82% within 24 hours and 91% within 48 hours of admission. All patients in the study were 18 or over with a median age of 64 years; 51% were men and 56% African American.

One of our main complaints have been did they didn’t study the effect of this of the drug soon enough. Not to mention the claim that it disproportionately targeted African-Americans .

This study shoots holes in all of their previous excuses .

a reply to: carewemust

Ironic that our own FDA is standing in the way of U.S. citizens readily receiving this preventative and cure.

Seems like those in the study received the treatment quite readily. But where do you get the "preventative" and "cure" from"

a reply to: carewemust

I read one of the studies from Brazil. They administered it to patients that were unconscious and on ventilators. In order to do so they had to get the next of kin‘s approval. Not to mention that some of the patients included in that study where in shock .,

a reply to: Phage

You didn’t mention peer review like you normally do what happen ?

a reply to: Fallingdown

I seldom mention peer review. Instead, I read the actual study.

a reply to: Fallingdown

I wish we could nail him on corruption charges.

a reply to: Phage

So let’s put you on the record.

Here’s some clothes from the hitpiece you used a Phage .

In this multi-hospital assessment, when controlling for COVID-19 risk factors, treatment with hydroxychloroquine alone and in combination with azithromycin was associated with reduction in COVID-19 associated mortality. Prospective trials are needed to examine this impact.

G it seems like they took into account all the doom and gloom trials you base your opinion on. Like with prior heart problems and such .

But in their conclusion they immediately ignore that .

As of May 27, 2020, there were over 1,678,843 confirmed cases of COVID-19 claiming more than 100,000 lives in the Unites States.

And as is evident by every post you make on this subject you hope to keep it this way. Let hundreds of thousands of people die because if not orange man would’ve been right . You can’t make a Objective scientific diagnosis when your when your ego which is bigger than the titanic is involved .

Here’s the studies quoted in your paper that I read before I posted this one .

Other early studies of hydroxychloroquine have reported conflicting results (Gao et al., 2020, Gautret et al., 2020b, Jun et al., 2020, Tang et al., 2020, Chen et al., 2020, Yu et al., 2020, Geleris et al., 2020, Rosenberg et al., 2020, Magag

Since your refuting a peer reviewed paper. Could you please point out to me any of your sources that were peer reviewed ?

Here’s some more data from your source .

The US FDA as of June 15, 2020 has revoked the prior emergency use authorization (EUA) to use hydroxychloroquine and chloroquine to treat COVID-19 in certain hospitalized patients when clinical trial data is unavailable or participation is not feasible (Anon, 2020).

You are aware that it is July and this is a new study aren’t you ?

I’ll tell you what fill me in on what the most significant virus mutation has done to the ACE2 receptor .

Then will carry on to the next paper you’re going to .

a reply to: Phage

I bet I’ve I’ve read more than you have . But to get you on record you’re telling me peer review studies don’t matter correct ?

I want to go back and search and see how often you mentioned them .

a reply to: Fallingdown

But to get you on record you’re telling me peer review studies don’t matter correct ?

No. That's not what I said.

a reply to: Phage

Then you’re saying it does matter except in this instance ?

You were dismissive with the information for some reason why ?

sent you a pm a reply to: Fallingdown

This also goes against the small WHO studies that they quit prematurely because it showed no benefit but no increased harm. WHO then did not recommend the medicine that TRUMP mentioned. WHO is not a scientific organization, they are an opinionated group of jerks.

Hydrochloraquine is a treatment option, not a miracle drug to treat this disease, it helps sometimes but does not work sometimes. Most medicines have the same properties, some can treat one person and actually make another person worse based on their physiology. There are quite a few people that can not take the Z-pac, it can actually cause them harm, but many of those who are alergic to Z-pac already know they are allergic to it and will opt out of that....what about those who do not know they are allergic to azithromyacin though? They will fair worse.

The medical industry....note I called it an industry....is filled with opinions and corruption, lots of the high level people are invested in Pharma companies.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: carewemust

Ironic that our own FDA is standing in the way of U.S. citizens readily receiving this preventative and cure.

Seems like those in the study received the treatment quite readily. But where do you get the "preventative" and "cure" from"

Not all people believe the Bull coming from the Trump haters at WHO that are pissed because they could have a million dollar reduction in their paychecks because Trump backed out of giving them donations.

I researched these organizations a lot, I do not disagree with all of their conclusions, but see a lot of corruption there too. The FDA should be revamped, and the AMA needs to listen to their doctors better, lots of doctors at low levels know stuff that the high ranking doctors will not approve them using on patients like using a combination of natural dietary changes along with approved medications if they cannot completely control the problem with diet alone. I know a doctor who is doing great with helping people but he is not allowed to treat his patients if they go into the local hospital even though he is a medical doctor...but he uses natural medicines. Also he cannot bill the insurance directly...but that is alright, people can bill the insurance on their own. He actually spends an hour per appointment discussing things with people for his two hundred twenty bucks he charges...plus you can call him to inform him how things are going and that is free. I cannot get medicare approval though, I know him a little but would have to pay on my own. Also, tests to find out your metabolic state cost about two grand....very impressive tests, my daughter had some done and she likes this doctor...he pushes natural ways instead of pills to control health conditions.

news.yahoo.com...

There are studies out there that clearly show that it does help protect healthcare workers from getting the disease, that is what the above article states, the UK knows how corrupt that WHO can be because WHO never finished the studies and purposely set the parameters so it would not show benefit. They need to replace the head people of WHO with some decent management, real scientific people, not people chasing the almighty buck.

I always look at the research itself, and often see it is being steered to show what someone wants it to show. I reduced the amount of articles I read now, down from fifteen thousand a year to maybe five thousand...But I usually scan them looking for parameters, why the studies were done, what the figures actually mean or relate to, and the discussion and conclusion and relativity.

There are so many articles out there saying that there is a fifty percent increase risk...yeah, it applies to three people out of ten thousand in stead of two who have a disease...evidence is being twisted to gain recognition and future funding.

Then the research has to be accepted by the FDA, CDC, and AMA here in America to be considered real....which seems to conflict with reality. These organizations are receiving funding and research grants from pharma companies.

It boils my blood to think how many people might've been saved if there hadn't been a politically-motivated hackjob on this drug.

Let's not forget the pharmaceutical industry is the biggest lobbying force in Congress. Not the "military-industrial complex" or the "gun lobby," it's drug companies.