Hydroxychloroquine COVID-19 Research Tied to Author Political Party Donations (THE HCQ BIAS STUDY)

The HCQ saga continues, albeit below the radar for those taking their information only from those (news) sources that are "unfavorable" about HCQ, for whom the debate is settled. From their perspective, there is no longer a (scientific) debate, they think it's settled that it doesn't work (settled in the scientific field of medicine that is). As expressed by some posters here on ATS. No doubt there are exceptions who feel slightly differently in spite of taking their information from the same sources and consequently having a similar "unfavorable" view of using HCQ in the fight against the corona virus. Quoting the term "unfavorable" from the video to indicate I'm using it the same way.

Description of the video (Oct 12, 2020):

Our study objectively describes the differences in HCQ/CQ study favorability outcomes from US-based research compared to the rest of the world and the impact of US author political party donations on unfavorable study results.

Unfortunately, the intense media exposure in this US election year has polarized our society and may be injecting various forms of bias into medical research, including from the study authors themselves.

RESULTS:
--Studies with at least one US main author were 20.4% (SE 0.053, p less than 0.05) more likely to report unfavorable results than non-US studies.
--US Studies with at least one main author donating to any political party were 25.6% (SE 0.085, p less than 0.01) more likely to have unfavorable results.
--US studies with at least one author donating to the DEMOCRATIC party were 20.4% (SE 0.045, p less than 0.05) more likely to have unfavorable results.
--Of the US HCQ/CQ papers with listed main author donors, a significantly higher proportion donated to the DEMOCRATIC party (88.2% (15/17)) than for time-matched COVID-19 non-HCQ/CQ controls (40% (8/20)); p less than 0.05.
--Furthermore, US study editorial reviews were largely unfavorable or neutral (95.5%, 21/22), with any listed history of donation all coming from a main author of DEMOCRATIC party donation record (100%, 7/7).
--Although February/March had the fewest total studies listed, 78.6% had results that were favorable, with only 7.1% yielding unfavorable results. A clear shift away from studies with favorable results toward those of unfavorable results occurred starting in April, reaching a paradigm shift in May-July.

The study is in Preprint status on SSRN at papers.ssrn.com... and has been submitted to a large peer-review journal.

“Politically, it is convenient to present an alleged “consensus” and dismiss any contrary findings as inherently illegitimate. But that action overlooks the fact that science often advances the most when presented with contradictory findings that must be resolved. If scientists routinely dismissed research findings just because they differed from previous research, science would make no progress.” (Schumm, WR. Navigating treacherous waters—one researcher’s 40 years of experience with controversial scientific research. Comprehensive Psychology. January 2015)

--Herein, our study and publication experience is a prime example of how objective science has been oppressed by the general public and once-objective medical journals.

***We thereby suggest the addition of “political disclosures” to the already required “financial disclosures” for scientific research submissions going forth.***


[None of the study authors have any political or funding support for this project. It is carried out independent of any listed author institution, rather under each author's sole scientific investigative objective will]

Some impressive results from early outpatient treatment from California: "almost 1800 positive patients", "we treated them all, we treated them early", "we've had 1 hospitalization and no mortalities" (with those kind of numbers, it doesn't even matter how old or sick they were, you also don't need a control group or randomization to know whether or not it was beneficial).

No unfavorable report, study or so-called "gold standard clinical trial" can ever negate these results (or make them go away, nullify their significance in the debate over HCQ). No matter its credentials, no matter how many other reports, studies or so-called "gold standard clinical trials" agree with the unfavorable view. Nothing published in the past or in the future regarding HCQ can do that.

All the naysayers can do, is make him out to be a liar or unintentionally misrepresenting the situation.

HCQ is not a miracle drug, but it does help if used correctly for some people. They do use it in European countries and many hospitals and doctors swear it does help.

I think that the Democrats are very evil in their desire to distort evidence which could lead to more deaths in people just to promote their party. I can understand big Pharma distorting evidence so they can make more profit designing new drugs, even though I do not approve of it. But our politicians should leave the medical to actual doctors, medicine should not be politically motivated. I would take HCQ if I got sick if I did not have the troublesome Q wave, but I doubt if it would be offered. That is why I studied how to keep from getting a serious case of this disease, I would rather just get a cold like symptoms than take the meds. I know of lots of ways to reduce the chance of a serious case, using natural food chemistry that has the same base as many of they drugs they are developing. I have no desire to take antibodies or plasma, I have no wish to take some of the meds they tout as way better than HCQ but have way more severe side effects than HCQ.

Political bias should not be used to interpret or design research or limit a doctors medical treatment options.

A few more details concerning the last video concerning age groups and disease severity:

Curious that this study hasn't created more of a stir on ATS. I guess masks, lockdowns, vaccines and number of new cases or testing procedures are subjects that this system of things* still manages to draw people's attention towards more. *: thinking particular of left- and right-wing media or sources (websites and such).

Vaccines of course being the latest hot topic in the media. Those need to be sold.

This should be interesting (they've switched from azithromycin to doxycycline, apparently that works as well, as already indicated by Dr. Ban in my playlist about the subject; and they've added ivermectin and vitamin D3 to their protocol, D3 already being part of Dr. Ban's protocol as well). So their protocol is now HCQ + Doxycycline + zinc + ivermectin + D3 (this is the same doctor as in the video at the end of the OP in case you didn't notice), oh and aspirin, but I guess that one is not that important, just to alleviate some of the symptoms:


My playlist with Dr. Ban's protocol back in March 2020:

Hydroxychloroquine treatment for Covid 19 Case Studies for Doctors pt1 Doc Talk with Dr Ban Ep.26