Hydroxychloroquine Still Doesn’t Do Anything, New Data Shows

a reply to: TheRedneck

Oh, I absolutely agree. Its why I am so adamant that science is a process rather than some divination of Ultimate Truth. The peer review process should be highly critical, whether we agree with the findings or not. I believe thats how we learn, as we chip away and start to see a bit of the underlying structure. The next study we do, in any given field, should take that criticism on board. That refinement is, imo, the process that we should be married to.

A lot has been thrown around regarding HCQ. From my understanding, I look at it mostly as a zinc ionophore. In that respect, I am solely looking at an antiviral with possible tangential benefits. For other parts of the progression, I believe there are better options. Even as a Zinc ionophore, there may be better options. I dont believe it is a critical medication for seasonal viruses, but the mechanism at play could be. However, HCQ has the "social weight" behind it to actually drive medical science in that direction, instead of the current cycle of patents and profits. Thats a serious consideration for me, personally.

To truly test it in that capacity with the least amount of variables, we would need to test the progression of the virus itself for the first 3-5 days, actually eschewing disease progression. At least every day, ideally constantly and in real-time (not feasible).

The first stumbling block there would be the PCR tests. They identify a relatively short genetic sequence (200-300) that may, or may not, correctly isolate a virus. Itd be like looking for "squares." Sure, those squares may be part of the virus, but they can be seen elsewhere too. Given the amplification nature of the tests, this may exacerbate the issue even further. With your EE stuff, Im sure you are well acquainted with how amplification can affect a signal. Particularly when the shape we are looking for in that signal is ~1% (!! 200-300 vs 20k) of the total shape of the thing we are actually looking to identify.

I think those are some serious issues before we even look at specific methodology of a study. Even if we were looking for the full genetic sequence of 20k, we would still have to expect errors, and account for them, when running it through dozens of amplification cycles. I would think that Mullins (creator of the tests) deeply regretted what he brought into the world.

We run into similar issues with antibody tests; Current data suggests that it is specifically T-Cells that may play the vital role, but testing for T-Cells is limited at best.

Anyway, this specific study begins to indicate about what I would expect; HCQ may halt or stall replication, which is extraordinarily valuable, but the virus takes a relatively normal progression beyond that. I also couldnt find doses of the SoC (I probably just missed it), and no serological data on vitamin levels.

My biggest issue with this study is that it seems to look at one single factor (viral clearance), that I wouldnt expect HCQ to have much impact on anyway. Then extrapolates that out as a general finding with the very language used to name the study. It does indeed "reduce the fog," technically, but its not at the crux of the mechanism we need to explore and they dont indicate that at all.

In that respect, I would argue that this study crosses the line from "imperfect" to "deceptive," though probably not intentionally. Most of that comes from the creative language used in the commentary throughout, as well as the title itself. I like my science dry, tyvm

If I was in charge of things, which I clearly should be (lol), I would test HCQ *explicitly* in terms of viral replication. I would divert a lot of funding that is currently going to PCR tests into designing a modern solution that is accurate and actually applicable for diagnostics. I would also explore the true connection between the disease we call covid and the SARS-CoV-2 virus (we simply assume this to be true, and thats a problem when we have such significant myopism currently). What if covid is caused by something else entirely, and a novel coronavirus just kicks it into high gear? Heck, with the issues with the tests.. its possible there is little connection at all.

I would also explore other ionophores as well as other methods to affect cell membrane potential. Could a manufactured EMF have the same effect, or possibly even a TENS unit type device? In the same vein, explore how we might be able to leverage that beyond just zinc and beyond solely an antiviral application. Id also put funding towards the detrimental effects of the EMF of all of our technology. Its frustrating that that is dismissed so readily, in spite of immense amounts of data.

I would also explore cytokine storms in general. I believe corticosteroids are the most effective tool we have, but there might be better. Id also encourage the study of natural proteases like lumbrokinase in regards to general blood issues, but specifically epithelial health.

Not like what I say is going to have any impact whatsoever, but none of the aspects I feel are critical are being explored or examined at all. As far as I can tell, the study linked by puzzled is the best we have gotten this year. And, it appears to only examine one of the lesser possible benefits of HCQ and frames it with creative language as well as assumptions that may not be true in sections like the introduction.

I know these posts are long, but I feel like this stuff is very, very important. Even if what we are talking about never penetrates the segments of society that it needs to.. we miss 100% of the shots we never take. So, might as well add it into the milieu on the very, very slim chance that it makes a difference.

Maybe a benevolent AI will take it on board ;P

How are we all here? It's been a while.

Anti -malaria drug hydroxychloroquine ineffective against coronavirus, reveal UK RECOVERY Trials

Hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) is no better than usual care in reducing the chances of death in COVID-19 patients, suggest the results of RECOVERY Trials published Thursday in the New England Journal of Medicine.

RECOVERY or Randomised Evaluation of COVID-19 therapy is a set of clinical trials started in the UK to find an effective treatment for those hospitalised with COVID-19 (suspected or confirmed). The trials team included more than 3,500 medical professionals across the UK including doctors, nurses, consultants, researchers, junior doctors and those newly graduated.

HCQ was the first-ever drug the team had started to study in May 2020. However, by June 5, the HCQ arm of the trials stopped taking more patients since the interim results indicated the inefficiency of the drug.

Maybe they missed out the Zinc? A crucial part that our local online medical experts on here claim to be necessary.

Hydroxychloroquine advocates are angry Trump didn’t take it for himself

President Donald Trump has spent months praising hydroxychloroquine as a miracle cure of sorts but, at least according to the White House, Trump hasn’t taken the old malaria drug himself. Understandably, some of the drug’s supporters were very upset.

So why didn’t Trump take it? Presumably, because as doctors pointed out for months, it’s ineffective.

I thought he was taking it on the regular?

Have we moved on from this already? I take it we have.

a reply to: Southern Guardian

Well you chose a great example of overdosing will kill. Go to the 20 minute mark to avoid seeing the efficiency trails of hydroxychloroquine.



We have learnt there are better tools for fighting the disease, but if they are not available hydroxychloroquine is better in the combination with zinc than nothing.

About the Recovery Trial (one of the publications referred to in the news article linked in the OP; the other publication is even more laughable, but I've already responded to this second 'over-the-internet' conducted so-called "study" or even more shamelessly referred to as a "gold standard clinical trial" or "RCT" as the news article does after first expressing the opinion that this is the "gold standard of drug trials"; convenietly ignoring that it's not immune to bias and manipulation by those with an agenda and that 'gold standard' is a marketing term, especially when applied to an 'over-the-internet' conducted so-called "study" with unknown, unverified supposed 'participants' filling in things on the internet, willy-nilly or again with a bias and/or an agenda):

They don't mention anything about the key issues with these trials on hospitalized patients though (including the Recovery trial), which I did mention on this forum (just don't know if I already did in this thread):

- they stop administering HCQ after 5 days and then never give it again, regardless of the condition of the patient, so they can get a relapse (well documented by Dr. Ban in his case studies and by others), or re-infected by other contagious infected patients being put in the same room with them or on the same floor in hospitals where health care workers touch them with contaminated PPE that they haven't swapped out when going from patient to patient; then blame the results on HCQ supposedly not working
- they won't enhance its effectiveness with the right additional substances, again for the right amount of time (at least until they're home again, but supplements and HCQ treatment can continue there as well, just to make sure the patient has truly defeated the virus in their body and won't get re-infected or a relapse at home); then blame the results on HCQ supposedly not working
- they rush people towards intubation, especially those who they know are participants in a HCQ trial and having been on HCQ, just to make things worse for HCQ patients to then blame it on HCQ supposedly not working, basically combining HCQ with "horrible care" rather than quality care (permissive hypoxemia to avoid intubation, Azithromycin, zinc, vitC+D3, copper, at home and early, escalation with the right corticosteroid if needed or warranted, etc.; see for example how Dr. Ban does it in the playlist below, scroll towards the top for his "case studies"; from here on referred to as "quality care, Dr. Ban-style" to contrast it with the "horrible care" in hospitals because of hospital or trial protocols, and sometimes the very nature of hospitals making cross-contamination between patients and health care workers more of an issue than in the outpatient setting, especially when handled poorly again by inadequate PPE and quarantaine protocols, taking into consideration the inherent almost unsolvable issues on this front in a hospital setting, it's just not reasonable to swap out PPE too many times, or have a singular isolated room for every patient, like you can do at home with family members functioning as the health care worker and a rotating PPE system that does not require one to throw away so much PPE so quickly)
- there are other ways to combine HCQ with "horrible care" for the purpose described 3 times above (I'll bold it), such as the overdosing trick used in the Recovery trial, some are also discussed by the nurse below:

Whistleblower NYC Nurse claims the city is 'murdering' COVID-19 patients "Patients are left to rot" (playlist)

The Recovery trial ignores most of these facets of "horrible care" that were also a factor in their so-called "study" (because these are hospital protocol issues, and with a 25% fatality rate, I think we're talking about hospitalized patients here; none or almost none of these patients had to die if they had been given HCQ + quality care early before hospitalization, and even after hospitalization their lives could have been saved if they hadn't been given HCQ + horrible care, or in a way designed to make it appear HCQ doesn't work, in which the 5 days maximum treatment plays a heavy role as well as rushing people onto intubation not allowing permissive hypoxemia to much lower levels of oxygen saturation than are currently tolerated in hospital protocols, or during the period covered by the Recovery trial; another factor is waiting for a positive testresult first before starting the HCQ+extras treatment, losing precious time in which the disease can further escalate and replicate and get to the point of doing the type of damage that HCQ cannot repair, or allowing such an avoidable increase in viral load that such damage can be prevented less, mitigated to a lesser extent than when you would have started with the HCQ treatment before the positive test, when the respiratory symptoms were already pretty obvious for any decent doctor that cares more about his patient than his career, to make appropiate decisions on treatment on time based on that, like Dr. Ban again). And then blame the results on HCQ supposedly not working, when it's the hospital protocols that aren't working. HCQ works fine when doctors are using it who actually want to help their patients with it and already know that it works; not being part or a victim of some propaganda/marketing campaign against HCQ after all:

Some of these hospital protocol (or the protocol of 5 days max. HCQ treatment after a positive testresult often used in RCT's) issues that I mentioned also were a factor in the Henry Ford study that he mentions there at the end. So the 50% reduction in mortality rate that he mentions would actually be even better if you had combined HCQ with quality care, Dr. Ban-style, instead of HCQ with horrible hospital or trial protocols (including subjects such as PPE protocol and how patients are assigned to rooms, the things I discussed before and by the NYC nurse, which is probably a bit on the extreme end of the scale, the situation in the Henry Ford hospital probably wasn't that bad). As his own experiences in treating "almost 1800 positive patients" with Dr. Zelenko's protocol (HCQ+Azithromycin+zinc) and no fatalities already demonstrates (and that's not even the full package that Dr. Ban uses; perhaps the one hospitalization he had was someone who was vitamin D3 deficient, or perhaps they could have benefitted from prednisone to avoid hospitalization; btw, I saw another video where he mentioned the hospitalization was very short).

It still doesn't. Time to close this chapter and move on.

Hydroxychloroquine does not benefit adults hospitalized with COVID-19

A National Institutes of Health clinical trial evaluating the safety and effectiveness of hydroxychloroquine for the treatment of adults with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has formally concluded that the drug provides no clinical benefit to hospitalized patients. Though found not to cause harm, early findings in June when the trial was stopped indicated that the drug was not improving outcomes in COVID-19 patients. Final data and analyses of the trial, which was funded by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute (NHLBI), part of NIH, will appear online Nov. 9 in the Journal of the American Medical Association(link is external)

Further in source.

They forgot Zinc again, mind you. Once again ignored.

a reply to: Southern Guardian
So a long video 1 sensible politician and 4 Experts. Are we going to change the wait and see. If you want to see a change to the current trend start asking for the proper action. Attack the virus early don't allow it to build and Blitzkrieg the body for 2 weeks.
early-outpatient-treatment-an-essential -part-of-a-covid-19-solution

Can you beleive the democrat expert referenced debunk / murderous study from the UK..

Humm 3 experts using HCQ saving patients v SG fake an irrelevant single drug study.

HCQ is effective for COVID-19 when used early: analysis of 145 studies


hcqmeta.com

Conclusion HCQ is an effective treatment for COVID-19. The probability that an ineffective treatment generated results as positive as the 145 studies to date is estimated to be 1 in 235 billion (p = 0.0000000000042).

The estimated number of human lives lost from incorrect HCQ advice is:

So has everyone signed the "Early access to HCQ for Covid-19" petition