Dr. Fauci’s own career-making medical research had no clinical control group, used historic controls #coronavirus

Guest post by Alec Rawls

For weeks Dr. Anthony Fauci has dismissed all of the mounting evidence for the efficacy of Hydroxychloroquine treatments for Covid-19 as “anecdotal” and “the slightest hint of evidence” because it doesn’t come from clinically controlled trials.  That is just wrong. Valid statistics do need a control group but the control does not have to be clinical.

New York alone has recently amassed many thousands of case histories of Corona patients who were given various HCQ treatments (HCQ plus zinc and/or Azithromycin in various dosages) as doctors swapped information about what seemed to be working. Despite the lack of a clinical control group (doctors are not withholding what they estimate to be the best medicine from half of their gravely ill patients), there still is a massive control group in place: the hundreds of thousands of case histories of Corona patients all around the world who never received any Hydroxy treatments.

The outcomes from large samples of both groups just need to be tallied and the statistical significance of the difference in mortality will far exceed what could ever be achieved through clinical trials (unless the CDC is planning on killing an awful lot of people by withholding already known to be life-saving medicine from them).

But Dr. Fauci has no plans to look at this huge body of field data. He plans to wait instead until clinically controlled trials are completed sometime this summer. From April 9th:

It’ll probably be months, sometime in the summer—we’ll start to see which are working, which are not and to focus on those that are we developing and will work.

Forget the fantastic progress that hundreds of doctors working feverishly on thousands of patients have already made in discovering “which [treatments] are working and which are not.” What’s the hurry? We’ll just re-invent the wheel.

Denigration of trials that use non-clinical controls is a 180° turn for Dr. Fauci

It turns out that Dr. Fauci knows as well as anybody that non-clinical control groups support perfectly valid statistical evidence because his own career-making medical research was entirely dependent on historic controls (comparing his treatment outcomes to historic mortality rates), with no clinical control groups ever involved.

This bit of Fauci history was mentioned by Dr. Stephen Smith in an interview with Laura Ingraham on April 6th. Ingraham asks what Dr. Smith thinks about Fauci’s skepticism and he responds:

What he’s saying Laura is that we don’t have randomized controls of the trials and that’s true but we have plenty of diseases including the disease that doctor Wolff and Dr. Fauci [unintelligible] got famous for: Wegner’s Granulomatosis. They developed a treatment for it in the 70s and 80s that saved lives. But if memory serves their article in Annals and their article in 1973, Annals [was] in 1983 I believe, they didn’t use, it was not randomized, it was not controlled. They didn’t even have contemporaneous controls, they used historical controls, and I’m not blaming them. I believe they did great work and that the treatment DID work.

But we use the data we have, and then we build up on experience. Now the experience that we have had treating patients with a combination of Hydroxychloroquine and Azithromycin is that the data accumulated, and if you get to it, the more you are on it, the lower your chances of being intubated or being on a ventilator are. Those are observational data but very very powerful data.

Dr. Smith is right, Fauci’s own medical research is rife with non-clinical controls

Here is a 1973 article that Dr. Fauci wrote on Wegman’s Granulomatosis with a Dr. Wolff (abstract, full text):

FAUCI AS, WOLFF SM. Wegener’s granulomatosis: studies in eighteen patients and a review of the literature. Medicine (Baltimore). 1973;52:535-61.

On p. 551 they use a pair of past studies to establish a baseline mortality for the disease they are trying to treat:

They found that the average time of survival of these patients was 12 ½ months as compared with the untreated patients in Walton’s review (106) where survival was 5 months.

106. Walton. E.W.: Giant-cell granuloma of the respiratory tract (Wegener’s granulomatosis). Brit. Med. J., 2: 265. 1958.

Ten years later in January of 1983 The Annals of Internal Medicine published another Fauci-Wolff study (abstract; full text):

Wegener’s Granulomatosis: Prospective Clinical and Therapeutic Experience With 85 Patients for 21 Years


For the mortality of an untreated control Fauci, Wolff et al. cite in this 1983 paper the same Walton review article they cited in their 1973 paper:

The mean survival of untreated Wegener’s granulomatosis was 5 months with 82% of patients dying within 1 year, and more than 90% of patients dying within 2 years (9).

9. WALTON EW. Giant-cell granuloma of the respiratory tract (Wegener’s granulomatosis). Br Med J. 1958;2:265-70.

Of course using a historical control is perfectly sound science. It is just 180 degrees opposite from what Fauci is for some reason insisting today, and the change is definitely recent.

Googling Fauci “historical control” also brings up from the New England Journal of Medicine a November 4th 2016 Fauci etal. abstract that concludes:

VRC01 slightly delayed plasma viral rebound in the trial participants, as compared with historical controls, but it did not maintain viral suppression by week 8.

So at least until November 2016 Fauci was fine with historical controls.

The CDC and Fauci’s NIAID are shirking their immediate responsibility to tally the massive existing field trial evidence

Dr. Fauci’s pretense that non-clinically controlled trials are unscientific keeps our public health bureaucracies from taking up their most immediate responsibility. Fauci is the head of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID). His group and the CDC are the ones who ought to sending a small part of their large federal workforces to New York and around the country to compile the massive number of existing case-histories into a data set that can be analyzed.

From the CDC’s mission statement page:

CDC in the 21st Century – confronting global disease threats through advanced computing and lab analysis of huge amounts of data to quickly find solutions.

Except they are not interested in collecting the already existing data that can quickly provide an accurate assessment of how much the HCQ treatments lower mortality for at-risk patients. Their official position under the guidance of Fauci et al. is that real-world data isn’t good enough to bother with. Instead they will wait until they can generate their own clinical data.

Listen to CDC chief Dr. Robert Redfield dismiss evidence from field trials about the effectiveness of HCQ treatments (at 1:10 here):

Yeah, I’m not going to recommend it and I’m not going to not recommend it. I think that you and I are very similar. We’re probably similar to my friend, Dr. Fauci. We-we-we we’re very comfortable to responding when we have data.

He is following Fauci, refusing to regard field trials as having statistical significance. Because field controls are not clinical they supposedly produce no “data.” These are the heads of the two bureaucracies that need to be out processing this data and they both at least claim to believe that real-world data isn’t actually data.

We might have a substitute for social distancing in eight days

In his initial interview Dr. Smith spoke to this perverse phenomenon of health bureaucrats badmouthing the attempts of doctors in the trenches to tell each other and the world what is working for them. Instead these agencies ought to be coming in to collect and process the field data for themselves.

Here is what Smith said about Fauci denigrating the early French study as “anecdote”:

The French had the virologic study first.  I think that was March 17 maybe? They showed that if you used these two drugs together [HCQ + Azithromycin] the patients stopped shedding virus, or cleared virus, by day six.  American researchers — I’m a private practicing I.D. Doc [Infectious Disease] — If American researchers were worried about that [about the validity of the French findings] they could come up here to New Jersey and have that study done in eight days. I don’t understand the hand ringing. I don’t understand the hesitation. If you’re worried about getting studies done, do them.

Yes, and if steep drops in the level and duration of viral load is borne out it means we have a way to dramatically lower Corona transmission rates independent of social distancing and economic shut-down. Just ask everyone who gets flu-like symptoms to drive through for a Corona test and if they come up positive give them 5 days of Hydroxy and zinc, then we can all get back to our normal lives tomorrow.

But getting this crucial information in eight days doesn’t interest the CDC and NIAID. They only consider clinically controlled trials to be meaningful (at least since November 2016), so they aren’t going out and running virology tests on patients in the field. Neither are they collecting the existing patient data from Dr. Smith’s practice and a hundred other New York area practices and a thousand other practices around the country. What actually happens in the world is not evidence as far as they are concerned.

Doctors in the trenches are doing what bits they can of the data analysis that our AWOL CDC and NIAID should be doing

With Fauci and Redfield refusing to let NIAID and CDC do their jobs it gets left to the overworked doctors in the trenches to tally the small chunks of data from their own practices, yet even those small chunks of data show great therapeutic efficacy of strong statistical significance.

Smith says that his treatment results can be analyzed as an inter-cohort control. Out of 72 very sick patients the 20 who he had to put on ventilators had all been on Hydroxy treatments for two days or less. None of the patients who had done a full five day treatment went on a ventilator. His amateur statistician sons tell him the probability of that result being chance instead of a product of the treatment is “point zero, zero, zero, something.”

Assuming the CDC would want a more professional estimate Dr. Smith invites the CDC to come do its job and analyze his data for themselves.

“Point zero, zero, zero something” is pretty good but the CDC could really drive the uncertainty down by pulling together the case histories from hundreds of such practices.

Dr. Zelenko, an hour to the north of Dr. Smith, is up to 911 patients. As part of his ongoing effort to get the word out about the success he is having with his HCQ + Azithromycin + zinc Coronavirus treatments he tallied his own numbers in this April 4th YouTube video:

Zelenko (at 12:20): Now let’s do some statistics. Depending on which country you look at the mortality rate in the high risk patients is between five and ten percent. We’re an advanced country so let’s take the lower number of 5%. Out of those 350 patients [the number of Zelenko’s patients who he categorized as high risk] we statistically should have seen 17 dead people and a multiple of that on respirators. What did I see? Zero dead people and only three people on the respirator.

Set aside the exact statistical significance of that finding. If a full tally of all the case histories in all the practices in the New York area show similar reductions in mortality and morbidity the statistical significance/certainty of that finding will be extreme. Get it done. In the meantime Zelenko’s quick and dirty estimate is telling in itself.

Is a well controlled 1061 patient sample still “anecdote”?

Doctor Didier Raoult, the French doctor who Fauci originally discounted for running a small non-clinically controlled trial, just released a larger non-clinically controlled trial. For his control group Raoult used “patients treated with other regimens both at IHU and in all Marseille public hospitals,” which is a lot closer to Raoult’s treated-patient population than the control that Fauci used for his own research.

Raoult’s new trial involved 1061 patients and examined the effects of early intervention. His conclusion:

The HCQ-AZ combination, when started immediately after diagnosis, is a safe and efficient treatment for COVID-19, with a mortality rate of 0.5%, in elderly patients. It avoids worsening and clears virus persistence and contagiosity in most cases.

That’s the Case Fatality Rate, not the Infection Fatality rate, which is probably an order of magnitude lower. IFR for a normal flu is about .1% so the IFR of Corona when Raoult’s treatment is used should be about half that, and that is in elderly patients who have the highest Corona fatality rates.

Clinical trials don’t even know what to look at without field experience on what works

Some doctors, like Dr. Cardillo in Los Angeles, are finding that HCQ treatments are more effective with the zinc. Is the CDC planning to drag out its clinical trials by running separate trials for all the different drug combinations and dosages being tested now by doctors in the field?

They should do that, just don’t make us wait for it. Tally the field data now. It already exists and is perfectly adequately controlled and it has the numbers to yield a high level of statistical certainty.

The CDC and NIAID need to do their jobs and get on this. It is dereliction of duty that data compilation and analysis is being left for doctors in the trenches to pick up piecemeal.

For whatever reason Fauci and Redfield don’t want to analyze real world data. They need to be fired (if not court-martialed, to employ President Trump’s war metaphor) and replaced by people who will get the job done instead of blocking the job from getting done.

Only a very dishonest person can pretend that statistics are not valid unless they are based on clinical controls, which makes it not so surprising that the leading proponent of this claim is someone who professed the exact opposite until November 2016.

0 0 votes
Article Rating
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
April 14, 2020 10:36 pm

Hey – where’s the inducement to excel? They get paid either way.

Richard of NZ
Reply to  _Jim
April 15, 2020 1:59 am

It looks very much like Parkinson’s Law, the Peter Principle and Gall’s Systemantics are alive and well.

Reply to  _Jim
April 15, 2020 8:05 am

Including the entire Army of CDC bureaucrats … who would rather not leave the comfort of their home offices for all that annoying field work.

Reply to  _Jim
April 15, 2020 9:07 am

Jim, here it is all done in MS Excel 🙂
the UK’s Covid-19 today’s (Wednesday) update:

Reply to  Vuk
April 15, 2020 9:12 am

Verb, not noun or copyrighted product!

Reply to  _Jim
April 15, 2020 9:42 am

Jim, these are sad times, but we still occasionally could do with a bit of humour.
See denotation 🙂

Reply to  Vuk
April 15, 2020 11:37 am

Because field controls are not clinical they supposedly produce no “data.”
Fauci is wrong on this. He has failed to account for “large data”, as occurs during an epidemic.

When you have the results from 2 patients, the variance in their treatment could have been quite large. However, when you have 200 thousand patients, the variance in their treatment will be quite small. This is a well known statistical effect.

So in effect, the large number of patients becomes your clinical control. You don’t need a clinical setting to control for the variance in treatment, you simply need to collect lots of data,

This means we could evaluate the results of widespread anecdotal evidence by simply comparing it to the large body of people that have not received the treatment, and we would likely receive a more accurate result than if we conducted a controlled trial.

The relative accuracy would depend on the size of the sample vs the size of the trial. But certainly if someone was comparing tens of thousands of HCQ treatments in the field, vs 20 patients in a clinical trial, I would expect the field results to be more representative.

After all, when the target patient down the road receives the treatment, they are in the field, not in a clinical trial. How do you correct for this? Answer, you cannot. Instead it becomes another false positive.

Gary Pearse
Reply to  _Jim
April 15, 2020 8:48 pm

Alec, you and most here are missing conflict of interest with Dr F. In an earlier thread their was an interview (facebook video i think) with a viroligist who knew him personally and who mentioned that this doc has patents on competing medicines. I didn’t understand a lot of it but the gist is clear if this fellow is correct. If this is so, we have a huge scandal in the making. The video was just a day or two back on a WUWT article.

Caroline C
April 14, 2020 10:37 pm

Please get someone to ask him about this at a press conference!

Reply to  Caroline C
April 15, 2020 3:26 am

Just the proverbial pot calling the kettle black….
Anecdotal can after time be proven right on balance of expanded experimentation… go figure

Reply to  Caroline C
April 15, 2020 3:30 am

Maybe he should look at “historical” data from Spain, where a survey of doctors found 60% said they had been prescribing HCQ . Spain has by far the highest number of RECOVERIES in Europe.

Maybe someone should look to see whether there is some linkage there.

Recovery / Cases:
Spain 67k/174k 39%
Italy 37k/162k 23%
Germany 28k/103k 27%
UK 94k/WTF = WTF%

Italy 25% reported using HCQ.

Despite Germany’s super health system which is not over loaded and much wider testing of population other than A&E admissions, they are well behind Spain in rate of successful treatments.

All these figures are muddy and confounded by multiple other factors, but there is something merits more constant wittering on about 22 cases which is now ancient history in the development of COVID-19.

The one thing Macron did get right in his public address was that he has authorised doctors to prescribe HCQ and just as significantly, he put Pr. Raoult in charge of defining the protocol to be used.

Reply to  Greg
April 15, 2020 3:54 am

then see this at scialert yesterday
this “trial” is bloody near criminal in the massive overdosagesgiven
way way over safe known dosages
sort of dseigned to fail to my mind


safe avg dose is 2x200gm tabs a day
they hit the poor buggers with about 6 tabs worth and azithromycin doses arent mentioned
but using both and they DO have effects on people with heart issues at high doses is totally irresponsible
(being very polite)

Reply to  ozspeaksup
April 15, 2020 6:01 am

The criminality there is using chloroquine which is very nasty stuff. That is why it was replaced with hydrocholorquine which is decidedly less toxic.

I’m not even interested in looking at who is behind “SciAlert” but this deceitful story has been doing the rounds. Note they start off talking about stupidly high doses of a nasty outdated drug and then link to Raoult’s paper as though it is using the same substance.

looking into whether the drug could …

Only problem is , it’s not the same “the drug”. That’s like Guardian blaming Trump for idiots drinking fish tank cleaner and claiming it is the same chemical.

The Brazilian test was criminally negligent in view of the known toxicity and side-effects of chloroquine. Attempts by media pundits to link this to Pr Raoult’s paper and his carefully designed tests are criminally irresponsible attempts to destroy testing of a potentially important treatment for nothing better than a nasty case of TDS.

These cretins are willing to see thousands die, if it gives them the means to have a snipe at Trump while totally misreporting what Trump said in the first place.

Fortunately Macron has authorised use in France and this should start to move.

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  Greg
April 15, 2020 11:04 am

You said, “The criminality there is using chloroquine which is very nasty stuff. That is why it was replaced with hydrocholorquine which is decidedly less toxic.”

Can you provide a citation to support your claims? It is my impression that hydroxychloroquine sulfate was developed because the malarial parasite was developing resistance to the chloroquine phosphate.

Reply to  Greg
April 15, 2020 4:46 am

I don’t know where and when you got the numbers of recoverd people in Germany, but actual it’s over 70k, last week 60k

Charles Ellison
Reply to  Caroline C
April 26, 2020 2:24 pm

asking fauci anything will only get you an answer that may benefit him monetarily. His last statement about HCQ was it is toxic. 76 years of use and now it is toxic? HQC was not available in 1939. It was 1944. The soldiers in WWII were using Sulfa Drug for malaria.

April 14, 2020 10:53 pm

Someone also needs to collect data on COVID-19 outcomes with arthritis and lupus patients who have been on hydroxychloroquine for years.

Reply to  Ralph Dave Westfall
April 15, 2020 1:05 am

And on those on ACE inhibitors – there’s still huge controversy about whether they make you more vulnerable to serious infection.

Reply to  Phoenix44
April 15, 2020 5:36 am

I don’t think there really can be any question about that. What I think may be a much bigger problem is doctors taking patients off of ACE inhibitors when they go into ICU, or possibly at hospital admittance (I’ve read both happen, particularly the former).

ACE up-regulates cytokines, ACE2 down-regulates them. Corona-chan infection reduces ACE2 cytokine down-regulation. Removing ACE inhibitors increases ACE expression and cytokine up-regulation. Sounds like a recipe for immune system overreaction and cytokine storm.

Also, ACE inhibitors reduce PAI-1 production. PAI-1 inhibits tPA that destroys blood clots. So removing ACE inhibitors increases PAI-1, which increases inhibition of tPA, which increases risk of thrombosis.

What do patients die of? Cytokine storms and pulmonary microvascular thrombosis.

Reply to  icisil
April 15, 2020 6:11 am

And it’s not just ACE inhibitors that increase ACE2 expression, ibuprofen does so as well. How many elderly people frequently take ibuprofen for rheumatoid arthritis? Probably quite a lot. How many ibuprofen-taking covid patients keep taking it after being admitted to hospitals? Probably zero.

Peter Miller
April 14, 2020 11:03 pm

Fauci will probably confirm hydroxychlorquine works after an effective mass producable antidote is discovered.

That will be a great comfort to the families of the many thousands who died because of his prevaricating.

Reply to  Peter Miller
April 14, 2020 11:46 pm

The trials show the same results as normal treatments , ie most have no or minimal symptoms and don’t require treatment , most of the rest don’t require hospital treatment and death is closely related to age and pre existing conditions.
Having the same or similar results isn’t a ‘cure’

Jaap Titulaer
Reply to  Duker
April 15, 2020 12:46 am

The French trials were only on the hospitalized & very sick patients.
Efficienvy of more yhan 90% for (hydto) chloroquine plus zinc in all trails. The penecillin (which varies) is needed for those who also have a bacterial lung infection, or were one is suspected.

In the NL 90%+ patients in tne ICU are obese, the same is reported elsewhere. The obese almost all have a serious zinc deficiency, which may explain the relationship with severity of the disease.

Reply to  Duker
April 15, 2020 2:30 am

Where is the data?

The Dark Lord
Reply to  Duker
April 15, 2020 3:27 am

They didnt treat those with no symptoms

Reply to  Peter Miller
April 15, 2020 12:32 am

Fauci may be prevaricating, but he’s not withholding hydroxychlorquine. It’s been made available for treatment. No one is dying because of Fauci’s cautious statements about the efficacy of hydroxychlorquine. Doctors can prescribe it for the Wuhan flu.

Reply to  Alec Rawls
April 15, 2020 2:07 am

As of last night, 15,729 people have died from the virus in France.
The average age of the deceased is 81.

Reply to  Vuk
April 15, 2020 4:27 am

Covid-19 is “front loading” (is no one else familiar with this term?) this flu cycle’s (2019-2020) “mortality count” with a death count which would otherwise likely appear in next year’s flu cycle (2020-2021) and “mortality count”. The ‘weak and infirm’ are the demographic Coronavirus affects most (it appears from statistics.)
To arrange or plan (a schedule, project, or process, for example) so that a large portion of activity occurs in an early period. Example 1: front-load the primaries so that most of them occur early rather than later in the election year. Example 2: Enter ‘sales orders’ early in the year rather than late in the year in order to look good for the summer sales convention and allow fall to be scheduled for vacation.

Reply to  Alec Rawls
April 15, 2020 3:28 am

Totally agree -particularly if a vaccine can never be realised…

Reply to  Greg
April 15, 2020 5:40 am

Doesn’t look promising for a safe one.

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  Alec Rawls
April 15, 2020 11:22 am

You said, “… because if we have an effective cure we can end the social and economic shutdown the next day.” Not so fast! What distinguishes COVID-19 from the ‘un-novel’ seasonal flues is a claimed higher death rate. HCQ is being claimed to be useful for those with early, mild symptoms, but of no use to those who have severe symptoms. Therefore, if people wait to go to the doctor because they don’t have medical coverage, or are ‘de-Nyeing’ they are infected because they are concerned about dying, or don’t want to be hospitalized, HCQ isn’t going to help the ones most in need of help. What is needed is an alternative to respirators and intubation. HCQ doesn’t provide that alternative!

Inasmuch as the majority of people who don’t have co-morbidities appear to get well quickly on their own, the use of HCQ will only impact a small percentage of cases, at best, and NOT end the deaths. You and others here appear to be engaging in wishful thinking.

Dyspeptic Curmudgeon
Reply to  Clyde Spencer
April 15, 2020 7:00 pm

You have it exactly backwards. HCQ does not *appear* to do much for those who are lightly affected but likely does the same thing as it does for the severely affected: together with zinc it greatly reduces viral replication in cells and thus reduces viral shedding.
For those who are asymptomatic that will likely stop them infecting others. For rhose who are ill Dr. Raoult has shown that a 5 day regimen cures most (but not all) patients. It does that by reducing the viral loading which reduces the chemical inflammation / hypoxia and possible resulting cytokine storm
It appears that vitamin C and ACE inhibitors are effective wrt the immune reaction side of things while high oxygen flows can help the hypoxia
Pressure ventilation appears to cause more damage than it helps
Because HCQ can act so early it should be prescribed prophylacticly to everyone who is not sheltering expanding as quantities are available and testing can be done to catch the start of the infectiom.
If *everyone* gets it but have no bad effects because of HCQ there is no need for quarantine. The ones who get it ‘bad’ then are likely to be those who don’t take the pills.

Gary Pearse
Reply to  Alec Rawls
April 16, 2020 5:20 pm

Dr. F is working on a vaccine. He doesn’t want a simple cure like hcq. There is a video interview with a former colleague of Fauci that seems very genuine on a thread here on wuwt of just yesterday or the day before. I don’t know how to search it.

Crispin in Waterloo
Reply to  stinkerp
April 15, 2020 2:45 am

Consider the other effective treatment that has produce no discussion – and it is amazingly cheap:


Molecular hydrogen gas supplied at a concentration of 5% is claimed to produce very positive results. The theory behind it is explained in detail in the video. Near the beginning, the scene with last patient interviewed, you can see a machine on the floor with a blue light and bubbles. That is the hydrolysis device producing O2 and H2 in a ratio of 1:2.

For those who want to build your own in remote places, the required volume is 1 litre of gas per minute, assuming you measure the total produce by electric hydrolysis (mixing both outputs – no need to separate them). The whole volume should be breathed plus any additional air required (10-11 litres per minute). This produces a mix that is 5% hydrogen. This concentration is on the lower limit of hydrogen combustion so the room must be spark free and ventilated.

Note that chlorinated water should not be used. If that is all you have, at the least boil it first to de-gas it which will remove the residual chlorine and CO2. Do not add salt which is often suggested for table-top experiments. The salt contains chlorine which will emerge as chlorine gas which will create hydrochloric acid in the lung. You can add NATRON.

The basic analysis in the video is that doctors are treating “the wrong disease”. The virus-induced cytokine storm is causing chemical pneumonia, not viral pneumonia. The symptoms are the same as for CO poisoning. Adding hydrogen to the air supply directly corrects the excess oxidants. This is even more interesting a discovery than the Great Quinine Find. He explains why hydroxychloroquine works so well. It is protecting the red blood cells.

Phil Rae
Reply to  Crispin in Waterloo
April 15, 2020 4:23 am

Molecular hydrogen produced by electrolysis of water?

Come on! You can’t be serious! There is no possible mechanism that would allow diatomic hydrogen gas to become a reducing agent (antioxidant) under such conditions (biological pH and temperature range). This is just a scam IMHO!

Not even vaguely credible……and you, Crispin, normally post better things than this snake oil.

Chloroquine & its congeners ganged with azithromycin & Zinc at least have a putative mechanism of action that is credible given their chemistry and the life processes of the virus! But “molecular hydrogen”? Come on, don’t be ridiculous!!!

Reply to  Crispin in Waterloo
April 15, 2020 7:11 am

That’s a hand waving infomercial. https://youtu.be/-oh9Ztgjm4A

Roger Knights
Reply to  stinkerp
April 15, 2020 5:19 am

“Doctors can prescribe it for the Wuhan flu.”

But didn’t the FDA say that was only for severe cases?

Alec Rawls
Reply to  Roger Knights
April 15, 2020 10:20 am

Doctors can use HCQ off label however they want but can they get it? THAT is where the FDA hospitalization requirement comes in.

Trump has succeeded in getting HCQ supplies to pour into a national stockpile but then it is in federal hands where it is controlled by Fauci et al.

Senator Ron Johnson is getting doctors to petition Trump to force the FDA to give doctors access to the stockpile at their own discretion.

Really hard to stop the FDA from being the FDA. Zelenko and Raoult both got their very low mortality results by early intervention. FDA is still blocking that through its control of supply.

Thats what the blow up between Navarro and Fauci was about at the Task Force meeting. Navarro wanted to put the stockpile supplies in doctors’ hands. Fauci complained. Navarro won, and of course the press tried to savage him for presuming to challenge the great Fauci.

Reply to  stinkerp
April 15, 2020 7:59 am


Right and wrong. Fauci hasn’t prevented the use but partially because of Fauci’s cautious statements some governors have restricted the use of Hydroxychlorquine. In my own state I can’t go to my PCP and get a prescription for hydroxychloroquine to treat COVID-19 symptoms, only hospitals are allowed to issue that prescription. So instead of allowing my PCP to potentially arrest the COVID-19 symptoms he has to just let me suffer until bad enough for admittance to a hospital to get relief… Why you ask? I can only presume (no reason issued) that the governor was convinced that any patient receiving hydroxychloroquine had to be closely monitored due to the potential side effects.

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  Darrin
April 15, 2020 11:25 am

You said, “… some governors have restricted the use …” Two that I know of.

Reply to  stinkerp
April 15, 2020 8:16 am

That wasn’t Fauci’s call … last I checked. It was pressure from PDJT on the FDA to allow Emergency Authorization of the drug. Fauci has consistently poo-poohed its use … and gave political cover to the MI Gov. who actually threatened the medical licenses of any Doctor who prescribed it.

We have already seen our intelligence (sic) Agencies weaponized against the Bad Orange Man … and the 98% leftist deep state Federal medical bureaucracies are piling on. How much longer can our Nation survive with these hyper-partisan idiotocrats in charge?

Reply to  stinkerp
April 15, 2020 8:30 am

“Doctors can prescribe it for the Wuhan Flu” … yes they can.

BUT if they follow the Fauci guidelines, when you call, they tell you to hunker down, stay away from doctors offices & the hospital until you are having trouble breathing or throwing up blood (yes, this was a specific response).

If you don’t have your own personal doctor that you can talk to (most people fit this category) you are going to be told to “just stay home”;

You are not going to be told “hey, based on your health history, here is a benign quasi prophylactic/remedy that will, at a minimum, significantly reduce the amount of virus that you spew out for the next two weeks. As such it will help protect your family and neighbors”.

Your statement is wrong. Fauci is wrong.

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  stinkerp
April 15, 2020 11:07 am

And, from what I have read, about 30% of the doctors are using it. One might ask why the other 70% aren’t.

Gary Pearse
Reply to  Clyde Spencer
April 16, 2020 5:36 pm

Gee Clyde, Ive worked in Africa using one quinine type and another over about10 years and know of 100+ others and their families that did without problems. Yeah they list stuff and they do tests using large doses, but this alarm is part of our new age, largely fake news and exaggeration by folks who have other agendas. Don’t relax your scepticism too easily. There is a lot of stuff out there also claiming conflict of interest on Fauci’s part (his company is working on vaccine) which of course isn’t proof, but he did act wierdly at the press conf where hcq was raised.

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  Gary Pearse
April 16, 2020 8:50 pm

I hope that Fauci is successful because that means people won’t get sick and won’t have to be cured.

In the meantime, if everyone is convinced that HCQ works as a cure, then there won’t be much incentive to look for something better. While there are something like 60 different drugs being tested at the moment, most of the commenters here have expressed the opinion that should they get COVID-19, they will ask to have HCQ prescribed. Why are we looking at 60 different drugs if most here are happy with what we have?

I’m probably the most consistently skeptical person commenting here. I want proof, not unsupported opinions from laymen.

Weylan McAnally
Reply to  Clyde Spencer
April 17, 2020 10:10 am

Pharmacist here. You know, those guys who study medications for 4 years in school and then deal with them and their usage and side effects for the next 35 years. So over 75,000 hours of experience with them.
I have read all the studies using hydroxy and regular chloroquine as an anti-viral. These studies go back to the 70s. The most recent is the NIH study in 2005. HCQ works on corona-type viruses both in vitro and in vivo. There is some debate on the exact mechanism of action, but it dramatically lowers the virus’ ability to enter healthy cells. Essentially the virus’ key no longer fits the cell receptor lock.

The reasons HCQ is ideal at the moment – 1. Cheap 2. Effective 3. very well known side effect profile due to 65 years of clinical usage. 4. until recently, readily available.
Other drugs may prove to be more effective, but that is for a later date. After reading the recent study of ivermectin on C-19, I think it will replace HCQ as the go-to drug. Only 3 doses needed to rid the body of virus. It too is cheap, effective, readily available and has a very well known side effect profile.

If my 74 year old mother (smoker) starts getting C-19 symptoms, she will be on HCQ by the end of the day.

Reply to  stinkerp
April 16, 2020 4:39 am

Except maybe in Michigan and a few other states where the local dictators – sorry, governors – threatened doctors for so doing. https://www.teaparty247.org/michigans-democrat-governor-issues-threat-to-doctors-and-pharmacists-who-prescribe-hydroxychloroquine-for-coronavirus-heres-what-she-said/

April 14, 2020 11:06 pm

Fauci is a liberal:
1. He’s won’t endorse anything Pharma can’t greatly profit from.
2. He certainly won’t endorse anything Trump could gain kudos from.
He’d rather let them die . . .

Farmer Ch E retired
Reply to  Warren
April 15, 2020 8:15 am

Warren – Is yours a hypothesis, a theory, or a fact based on reproducible evidence? (Or is it confirmation bias, etc, etc, etc based on prejudices?)

Reply to  Farmer Ch E retired
April 15, 2020 8:22 am

Here’s something that is NOT hypothetical. I have read a series of recent articles that have SLAMMED the French Doctor … Didier Raoult … as some wild-haired, weirdo, who clearly “looks” unhinged and insane … compared to the very proper, conservative-looking, highly respected Dr. Fauci. After all … that’s how most Americans make life’s most important choices … esp. our Presidential votes … based on “looks”. Certainly not science.

Farmer Ch E retired
Reply to  Kenji
April 15, 2020 8:36 am

AOC anyone?? Or any of a number of Ad hominem attacks on (_______) Just fill in the blank. Not a characteristic limited to Americans unless you have reproducible evidence that it is an American condition only. (is yours confirmation of bias confirmation??)

Reply to  Farmer Ch E retired
April 15, 2020 8:58 am

re: “AOC anyone??”

Oh – the “puppet” candidate! She won the audition (‘a casting call’) and they ran her against a lackadaisical democrat in NY’s 14th congressional district in a dem primary against the man who was presumed to be a shoe-in in the general fall election. She is a product of the “Justice Democrats” founded by Cenk Uygur (among others).

Part 1 – The Brains Behind AOC Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez
. . . . . . . https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1h5iv6sECGU

Part 2 – https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V-3_FGyhg4k

Reply to  Farmer Ch E retired
April 15, 2020 10:35 am

Last I checked, AOC was being criticized for what she’s SAID … such as the world is going to end in 12 years because “Global Warming” … not because of how she “looks”. And Puhleeze … don’t give me the “brown woman” nonsense. She’s young, dumb, and a puppet … as highlighted above. Dr. Didier was being slammed for his “hippie”-looks … not his Study.

April 14, 2020 11:07 pm

Thank you for presenting the truth. I am shocked that there has been no data mining by our armature national health organizations. Trillions of dollars spent and no work on the actual problem. How can the heads of these organizations still be left in place.

John K.
April 14, 2020 11:09 pm

It would be interesting to hear Dr. F. explain why the difference in the treatment of the data for Wegener’s disease vs what he now insists he must wait for, for the ChiCom virus. Do you think he’s doing this voluntarily? /s

April 14, 2020 11:12 pm

Posted: Mar 25, 2020 10:00 AM

—“If you’re a doctor listening to me right now and a patient with coronavirus feels like they want to try that,” Stigall asked, “and you’re their doctor, you’re not Anthony Fauci the guy running the coronavirus task force, would you say ‘alright, we’ll give it a whirl’?”
“Yeah, of course, particularly if people have no other option,” Fauci said. “These drugs are approved drugs for other reasons. They’re anti-malaria drugs, and they’re drugs against certain autoimmune diseases like lupus. Physicians throughout the country can prescribe that in an off-label way. Which means they can write it for something it was not approved for.”

This blows away the newest, fake non-controversy between Fauci and the president that he is unhappy that the president announced the possibility that hydroxychloroquine could provide a treatment option for patients suffering from COVID-19. Of course, there needs to be further testing on the efficacy of this drug and this treatment, the president has always acknowledged that and so has Fauci, he did so in the interview with Stigall.–

Reply to  gbaikie
April 14, 2020 11:40 pm

I am not a medical doctor, but if I went to Hospital or got medical treatment for the Flu. And I don’t care if Doctor even says I don’t have the Chinese Flu, I would ask to use hydroxychloroquine AND the zinc pack thing.
And if Doctor didn’t know what I meant by “zinc pack thing”. I thank him/her and get another doctor.
But I would say, if I go to ventilator, I no longer want to take hydroxychloroquine AND the zinc pack thing- because I have read it doesn’t seem to help much at that stage of the illness.
Which might be wrong, but I would go with it, until I hear/read something different {and not sure I would listen to doctor on this particular matter. I don’t want it on ventilator- but I will take Zinc, D-3, and other vitamins and anything else doctor thinks is good idea, when on a ventilator}

Crispin in Waterloo
Reply to  gbaikie
April 15, 2020 4:28 am


The decision as to when to put someone on a ventilator varies widely. In China 80% of those who went on a ventilator died. The video I linked in the message above to the hydrogen gas treatment has the guy saying the ventilator can actually damage the lungs because they are treating the wrong problem. They are trying to increase the oxygen passage through the lung, when the direct cause cause of hypoxia is the virus attacking the red blood cells. Molecular hydrogen mops up the free radicals restoring the red blood cell’s oxygen-carrying capacity. The virus is having the same effect as breathing carbon monoxide: interfering with the red corpuscle’s ability to carry O2.

It is quite a remarkable finding.

Reply to  Crispin in Waterloo
April 15, 2020 7:24 am

This is perhaps all speculation, however, a single clinical trial is recruiting volunteers. That would be great if it shows promise but to date all positive claims have been promoted by the manufacturer of the electrolysis equipment.


Farmer Ch E retired
Reply to  Crispin in Waterloo
April 15, 2020 8:22 am

The science is almost always more complex than meets the eye. We humans are not all created equal despite popular opinion. Something as simple as blood type can increase or decrease our risk to disease and treatment outcomes – like other preexisting conditions.

Reply to  gbaikie
April 15, 2020 5:46 am

Z-Pak is an antibiotic that has nothing to do with zinc. Supplemental zinc is what you need with HCQ.

Reply to  gbaikie
April 15, 2020 1:03 am

Why would Fauci say HCQS was an anti-malarial drug?? Malaria has developed an immunity to it so either Fauci is unaware or he’s diverting people from a substance where some are claiming 98% effectiveness!

Just running to President Trump with the initial claim that 2.2 million people would die in the US alone (and why Trump implemented an equally harsh reaction) makes me wonder if Fauci has had a hidden agenda all along!

Obviously the model he, along with Dr. Birx, used was so flawed it was useless and completely sensationalized! Talk about medical malpractice! It ranks right up there with AOC’s prediction that the earth is going to end in 12 years!

I wonder if the two predictions have common provenance!?!

Crispin in Waterloo
Reply to  RockyRoad
April 15, 2020 4:44 am

Just say that the COVID-19 death models are not better than the climate models. Most people will understand.

Jaap Titulaer
Reply to  RockyRoad
April 15, 2020 9:41 am

Because chloroquine is an anti-malaria drug. Nowadays it only really works in Mexico, all other places are resistant & there you must use stuff like Lariam, which you can use for 3 weeks max (or so). Ive used it (chloroquine) for Mexico, Guatamale, Belize. Also used it in Indonesia, although we carried Lariam in the backpack just in case, but that was 25 years ago. indonesia used to be borderline.

The standard doses are safe enough for such puposes, it has been for many decades in that way. Of course for people with heart conditions it might be just as unsafe as constantly popping NSAIDs… Some day that will bite you.

Anyways the Zinc component of the treatment is very important. Without it the efficacy in vitro and in vivio is lower. That makes sense when you know that the great majority of CIVID19 patients are obese (hence usually zinc deficient).

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  RockyRoad
April 15, 2020 11:37 am

You asked, “Why would Fauci say HCQS was an anti-malarial drug??” Because, when the original drugs, quinine, and chloroquine phosphate started becoming ineffective, HCQS was developed to replace them. HCQS is now showing signs of being ineffective in some places, and newer drugs have been developed to replace it. This is an ongoing process that will probably never stop. In the meantime, HCQS has shown utility in lupus and RA.

April 14, 2020 11:12 pm

Hydrochloroquine “cure” is deadlier that the virus.


From 81 patients “cured” with chloroquine, 14 died from heart failure.

Forget this “cure”

Remdesivir also does not work.
This virus removes remdesivir safely from it’s RNA.

Dodgy Geezer
Reply to  Alex
April 14, 2020 11:32 pm

I can’t understand this finding.

HCW is known to be toxic at high levels. Looking at the dose levels, it seems that the doctors gave one group a very high HCQ dose, and then reported that it was more lethal….. which is already known….

Reply to  Dodgy Geezer
April 15, 2020 12:14 am

Furthermore they only say that the high dose “arm” was discontinued, implying the the normal does “arm” is on going and not experiencing the same negative effects. Not to mention that the side effects from both short and long term use have been documented for decades, and in regular dosage there are almost none. To dismiss the drug out of hand based on one arm of a small high dose study isn’t just folly, it smacks of manipulative politics.

Reply to  Dodgy Geezer
April 15, 2020 12:21 am

Pharma sponsored assassination of an effective low-cost treatment.
Classic stuff they can’t even proof-read their paper to any reasonable accuracy given their rush to get the hatchet job done!

Crispin in Waterloo
Reply to  Dodgy Geezer
April 15, 2020 4:37 am


The issue is not the toxicity – yes some people react badly to the quinine molecule. Skin issues are one example. The issue is that some people have heart palpitations directly attributable to the drug. That is a sensitivity reaction, not because of toxicity (poison).

Heart rhythm should be monitored when using the drug (cheap and easy) because some people react badly to it. If problems arise, they are taken off the drug or the dosage is reduced. Normally the dose is 2 x 200 mg per day but I see they tried Brazil 600 mg/day and some people had problems, but it is not known if they were sensitive to it, or if that was something else. It is unlikely it was “toxic” because people with Lupus are taking 2 x 500 mg / day (for example).

Reply to  Crispin in Waterloo
April 15, 2020 5:17 am

Dr. Raoult wrote about ECG surveillance in his first paper.

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  Crispin in Waterloo
April 15, 2020 12:03 pm

You comment, “If problems arise, they are taken off the drug or the dosage is reduced.” Unfortunately, stopping the administration of HCQ doesn’t immediately cease the effects. The half-life is at least about a month, although one citation I posted indicated there may be traces in the system for years. It isn’t like turning off the faucet when the sink overflows!

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  Dodgy Geezer
April 15, 2020 11:57 am

One of the issues is that the typical dose for chloroquine is about half of what is known to be a toxic level. However, not everyone is equally sensitive. Some will be more sensitive to both side-effects and poisoning. LD50 (Lethal Dose for 50% of subjects) is what is reported for toxins. It takes into account the individual variability in sensitivity to the toxin. However, some toxins have a smaller (conversely, some larger) range in toxicity than others. While not usually reported, it is known that some toxins will be more dangerous if there is an interaction with other drugs/chemicals. These are all reasons why the public should demand controlled trials to explore the potential problems. While there is a long history of quinine-based anti-malarials, the users haven’t typically encountered drugs that those in ICUs are given for supplemental and palliative care.

My best friend from high school and college died after open heart surgery because he was prescribed drugs that were antagonistic to each other. He developed a blood clot that killed him. It should never have happened because the drugs were known to be antagonistic. Now, many here are advocating rushing in to use a drug for which most historical data are for younger, healthy individuals not using other drugs.

Fools rush in where angels fear to tread.

Reply to  Alex
April 15, 2020 12:05 am

That study only enrolls patients with severe COVID disease, probably many days after initial diagnosis. And the complications were only seen within the very high dosage group, where the lethality overlapped with that of untreated historical controls (17% vs 13 – 19%).

What that study tells me is that Trump is right that people and their doctors should consider taking hydroxychloroquine immediately upon diagnosis, before disease gets severe and it’s too late.

All the lib governors who are outlawing hydroxychloroquine prophylactic use so they can maintain stockpiles for the sickest patients need to read this study because they’re pushing hard for the one use scenario that creates the highest risk and the lowest benefit.

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  Ktm
April 15, 2020 12:08 pm

You advise, “… people and their doctors should consider taking hydroxychloroquine immediately upon diagnosis, before disease gets severe and it’s too late.” Then how do we learn anything about who gets well on their own and how quickly? We could just as easily throw some salt over our left shoulder and claim that because most of the people got well quickly, the act of throwing the salt was responsible, just like blowing a whistle will keep pink elephants away!

Reply to  Clyde Spencer
April 15, 2020 4:42 pm

There are plenty of irrational trump haters out there. If their doctor dares recommend HCQ, they will say they would rather die and storm out.

That’s your control group.

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  Ktm
April 15, 2020 5:50 pm

That isn’t really responsive to my question. It sounds like an emotional rationalization.

Reply to  Ktm
April 15, 2020 6:23 pm

Sure, it was flippant.

Let me ask you something. According to the WHO there is zero evidence that healthy people wearing masks in public has any protective effect against COVID19.

So where is the public outcry condemning Cuomo or other politicians who are enacting MANDATES (not having you and your doctor decide for yourself like Trump likes) that everyone wear masks in public?

According to you, such a mandate can’t work because there is no hard science supporting it, and only ensures that we can never know whether masks are effective because it’s like blowing a whistle to keep pink elephants away.

Just so you know where I’m coming from, I would say that both HCQ and healthy people wearing masks in public have a sound scientific basis from our general knowledge of related respiratory diseases, both are low risk interventions for the vast majority of people, and if we want to do a proper clinical trial along the way so be it. Oh yeah, and orange man bad.

Reply to  Ktm
April 16, 2020 11:36 am



(the very weird logic that reasonable individual treatment should be avoided because, then, they wouldn’t be useful Guinea pigs really doesn’t even merit a non-flippant response)

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  Ktm
April 16, 2020 9:06 pm


I think that the public was initially lied to about the efficacy of masks because there was a concern that the public would go out and buy them all up, leaving the first-responders and hospital workers without protection.

There are two ways to stop the spread of the virus; 1) prevent those who are sick from expelling droplets, 2) prevent those who are well from inhaling viruses. Almost any mask can be effective in catching expelled large, wet droplets. However, only the N95 masks have a reasonable chance of preventing someone from inhaling viruses. If people are not congregating in crowds, but are staying home, then they cannot spread or be infected with viruses. That is, they don’t need masks while at home.

Locally, (and maybe nationwide) Harbor Freight and Tools donated their stock of N95 masks to hospitals and first-responders. If the public had been told that such masks would protect them, there wouldn’t have been any more masks on the shelves at HF&T than there was (is) toilet paper and hand sanitizer in grocery stores.

Reply to  Alex
April 15, 2020 12:19 am

Inaccurate. Therefore unreliable.

Reply to  Alex
April 15, 2020 12:52 am

Alex, how can they have been cured if they died (of any cause)?
Your statement makes no sense.

Your statement only identifies the need for conducting a treatment trial with proper controls to know what is from the drug effect and what is from the drug side-effects of the treatment .

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  Alec Rawls
April 15, 2020 12:14 pm

You and others have claimed, “… Hydroxy is a lot less toxic [than] Chloroquine.” Can you provide a citation to support that claim?

I have previously posted a link to documentation on the toxicity of HCQ that specifically stated that they assumed the toxicities were the same.

We are dealing with people’s lives here. I’d appreciate seeing more than unsupported opinions with regard to important issues such as toxicity and side-effects.

A C Osborn
Reply to  Alex
April 15, 2020 1:56 am

hydroxychloroquine is NOT chloroquine, it has less side effects.

Reply to  A C Osborn
April 15, 2020 2:40 am

I am not responsible for their study.
The fact is, there is no clear remedy for this virus yet.
I hope they develop a vaccine.
When they engineered the chimeric CoV virus based on SARS-CoV backbone (named SHC014-MA15 virus) back in the year 2015, they looked for a vaccine in mice.
They failed.

Reply to  Alex
April 15, 2020 4:00 am

re: “The fact is, there is no clear remedy for this virus yet.”

hcq (et al) is indicating to be an effective treatment when the patient is treated early enough; this poster indicates to be hopelessly entertained by contrary notions appearing in the ‘press’ by stories written by know-nothing journos …

Reply to  Alex
April 15, 2020 4:08 am

re: “When they engineered the chimeric CoV virus based on … ”

Writing with such certitude; surely, you know more, and aren’t “telling” us?

Ever taken a virology course? Want to review the lecture series in a superb course? Here is your opportunity. The professor giving this lecture even addresses SARS-COV-2.

Virology Lectures 2020 #1: What is a Virus?
Vincent Racaniello, Ph.D.

This is the first in a series of lectures for a course in Virology.

Reply to  _Jim
April 15, 2020 7:38 am

“Writing with such certitude; surely, you know more, and aren’t “telling” us?”
I gave you the reference. Did you mention?
It is Nature and not “tube”.
They engineered that virus 2015.
And published it.
It is not THIS virus.
But you know, they continued their work for the 5 years…

Reply to  Alex
April 15, 2020 8:01 am

That’s not what the study says.

They found that SARS antibodies worked very well against SARS but not against the new chimeric strain.

Young mice could be immunized with the new chimeric strain, and that immunity was protective. Old mice couldn’t tolerate the immunizing dose of live chimeric virus.

Nothing about that paper suggests that a vaccine can’t be made, or wouldn’t be effective.

John Dilks
Reply to  Alex
April 15, 2020 9:55 am

Did you miss that the study used chloroquine not hydroxychloroquine? They also used it at extremely high dosages. This study was stupid.

Hydroxchloroquine is safe when used responsibly.
Check out Dr. Zelenko,Dr. Bon Truong(weightless4life on youtube), Dr.Seheult(MedCram on youtube)
These are doctors in the front line working with patients all using Hydroxychloroquine+Zinc+Z-Pack. All have great success and all have adapted to special patients (such as diabetics and heart patients).

Reply to  Alex
April 15, 2020 9:28 pm

Chloroquine isn’t Hydroxychloroquine Chloroquine is very toxic high doses
The malaria dose of Chloroquine is 500mg once a WEEK!
This study was dosing Chloroquine in two groups of severely ill CoVid19 patients at 600mg or 450 mg twice a DAY!

Reply to  Tommyboy
April 17, 2020 7:44 am

Chloroquine is very toxic high doses
The malaria dose of Chloroquine is 500mg once a WEEK!
This study was dosing Chloroquine in two groups of severely ill CoVid19 patients at 600mg or 450 mg twice a DAY!

The weekly dose is the prophylactic dose not the treatment, the ‘low dose’ in the study is the recommended dose for malaria treatment.

April 14, 2020 11:16 pm

Why would he be in public health if he was any good as a medic?

April 14, 2020 11:22 pm

There were no trials using the bark of a Willow tree to treat headaches either, but it was done for centuries, before asprin was isolated from it.

Same with Fever Tree. There is even a clue is in the name. It has been used for centuries to treat fever.

Anyway, a French doctor trialed it recently, with success. Needs rolling out, but it is worth doing, since we know quinine is a safe drug, it is also used to treat night cramps for example.

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  Matt_S
April 15, 2020 12:24 pm

You can hardly fault our ancestors for not using the Scientific Method when it hadn’t been invented. The ‘trials’ that were done were some of the most extensive and long-lasting of ANY medical trials. They also had ‘controls’ composed of those who didn’t have access to either the drug or physicians who knew about Salicylic acid. However, even with centuries of informal trials, we have only recently learned about Reye’s Syndrome.


April 14, 2020 11:39 pm

There are 160 drugs and combos currently in clinical trials around the world with everything from retrovirals to viagra. The latest to be hyped is remestemcel-L . So far few have shown anything like amazing results.

Robert of Texas
April 15, 2020 12:07 am

It is one thing to “endorse” a treatment which has not gone through critical trial studies, and another to reject a rather tried and true innocuous drug whose only effect might be placebo, but it’s doing no harm and “seems” to be helping. I sense someone’s ego is getting in the way. Personally, I say let the doctors treating the disease make case-by-case decisions until enough data is available to make statements of certitude – government and WHO stay the heck out of it.

As for using it widely on the public outside of a clinic or hospital, maybe – but again I would want a doctor involved to be monitoring the people taking the drug. I have no personal experience with the drug and so remain somewhat cautious about its widespread use. It could be this turns out to be something not requiring a prescription, but we need the data first.

Reply to  Robert of Texas
April 15, 2020 5:08 am

Robert don’t we have the data already?

Shouldn’t the CDC be reaching out to Doctors asking for information? The data should be in their EMRs.

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  Robert of Texas
April 15, 2020 12:29 pm

You said, “Personally, I say let the doctors treating the disease make case-by-case decisions until enough data is available to make statements of certitude …’ More important is to allow the patient to provide an informed consent to “off label” experimentation. That is difficult when they are reading from a bunch of laymen that the drug is “innocuous.”

High Treason
April 15, 2020 12:25 am

Fauci is on the board of the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. There is a massive conflict of interest here.
Fauci will hopefully get himself in to some very hot water- have enough rope and hang himself.
He is a traitor that has been giving Trump BS advice. Luckily, Trump is keeping him there for the optics. Media fawning over Fauci will get more people to wake themselves up that mainstream media are the propaganda wing of the deep state and not worth a piece of dung beetle food.

Reply to  High Treason
April 15, 2020 12:42 am

Fauci is Trump’s figleaf.

Crispin in Waterloo
Reply to  Loydo
April 15, 2020 4:53 am

Loydo, sometimes what you write makes no sense. Explain what you intended. Fauci isn’t figleaf for anyone. I doubt you understand the metaphor.

Reply to  Crispin in Waterloo
April 15, 2020 5:10 am

Loydo suffers from TDS. Haven’t you figured that out by now?

Jeff Alberts
Reply to  High Treason
April 15, 2020 8:25 am

“for the optics.”

For the binoculars?

Oh, you mean visuals.

Tim Bidie
April 15, 2020 12:35 am

As Mole once asked Badger ‘I wonder why that first shivery bloke started drinking coffee?

‘Must have been the quinine in it.’ said Badger ‘And that’s a fact, and no mistake!’

April 15, 2020 12:43 am

I had never heard of Fauci before he began appearing at the daily cvd-19 pressers a few weeks ago. People spoke about him in hushed tones, like they had secretly known about this superhero for decades.

Then he said the wrong thing in an interview last week, now everyone wants him fired. Its hilarious.

April 15, 2020 12:45 am

Remdesivir is getting promoted because it is on patent and Gilead and investors will fork over the big bucks to get it through Phase 2. Then if it still looks promising they’ll get even more investors to pony-up for the even more expensive Phase 3 (double-blind, placebo-controlled) studies.

Remdisivir even if it is moderately to highly efficacious in the trials and early use in patients (unlikely), it will likely have short life for profitability ( a few years at best) for Gilead because IF the nucleotide analog antiviral is used enough, then resistant corona virus strains will eventually and emerge begin circulating under the antiviral selection pressure. That is the clear history and lesson of ALL mono-therapy nucleotide analogs that target the viral RDRP (RNA-dependent RNA polymerase) of fast spreading, fast evolving RNA viruses. And eventually, herd immunity and a vaccine will mean widespread use of a therapy drug will taper off to a low incidence clinical usage.

Hydroxychloroquine’s (and Chloroquine’s) biggest disadvantage in getting through an expensive clinical trial is the fact it is off-patent. Thus anyone can make it and sell it as a generic. So there is zero profit motive to fund the necessary clinical trials.
IMO, that is the biggest reason no one in the big pharma industry and the many doctors who get fat Rx bonuses from big pharma wants to see a cheap, decades old generic out-perform an expensive on-patent antiviral drug. No one can make any money on that.

Reply to  Joel O'Bryan
April 15, 2020 4:37 am

$1,000 for a course of Remdesivir. Less than $100 for HCQ + azithromycin + zinc supplement. Follow the money. (Not to mention the wife of Democrat Alan Grayson, who wrote a vicious anti-Trump editorial – who also just happens to own a big chunk of a patent for another, even more expensive, anti-viral.)

I am hoping this protocol is “officially” approved very soon. I am STILL seeing advertisements (on Amazon, no less) for cinchona bark! Even if it is the real thing, and not just ground up bark from random trees around the production plant – besides the nasty side effects of base quinine, there are a lot of quite dangerous alkaloids in it.

Reply to  Writing Observer
April 15, 2020 5:59 am

Even cheaper for quercetin and/or epigallocatechin-gallate (EGCG). And no prescription necessary. Don’t forget the zinc.

Zinc ionophore activity of quercetin and epigallocatechin-gallate: from Hepa 1-6 cells to a liposome model

Reply to  icisil
April 15, 2020 12:51 pm


People do not realize that various foods block the zinc from doing its job.

What should I avoid while taking zinc gluconate?
Avoid taking this medication with foods that are high in calcium or phosphorus, which can make it harder for your body to absorb zinc gluconate. Foods high in calcium or phosphorus include milk, cheese, yogurt, ice cream, dried beans or peas, lentils, nuts, peanut butter, beer, cola soft drinks, and hot cocoa.

Reply to  john
April 15, 2020 12:55 pm

Cadmium is another one that stops zinc in it’s tracks. A lot of water wells have it. Just ask Dave Middleton.

I also see study after study where cancer patients have much lower serum Zinc than the controls.

Reply to  john
April 15, 2020 2:15 pm

Zinc gluconate has the lowest cadmium levels of any zinc supplement. Or so I’ve read.

April 15, 2020 1:09 am

In France we have to groups :
Group 1 :
– 2628 people at the UHI Méditerranée Infection : those who are treated with HQC + azythromycin
– applied policy : people with COVID 19 symptoms must as soon as possible be tested and if positive (and without HQC contraindication) treated.
– 10 deaths
– apparent death ratio : 0.38%
Group 2 : French policy :
– 143303 – 2628 : Others, who are in their vast majority not treated with HQC + azythromycin
– applied policy : people must stay at home and contact emergencies only if their symptoms are serious (respiratory distress).
– 15729 – 10 deaths
– apparent death ratio : 11.17%

Data as of April 15 :

BTW, the French government banned the sale of HQC (since decades, in France HQC could be bought without a prescription from pharmacies before that) and also banned its prescription by family doctors.
Furthermore, many pseudo experts spread all the day long ridiculous disinformation on the French media about the dangerosity of HQC and pseudo methodologists spread nonsense about the methodology which must be applied with respect to HQC, blatantly ignoring famous counter-examples as the tri-therapy / HIV.

It seems the usual climate charlatans have already infected the medical field.

Reply to  Petit_Barde
April 15, 2020 3:07 am

From studies that I have seen HCQ needs to be given ASAP. Test for covid19 needs to been done quickly, as soon as any symptoms occur that match with covid19. If test is positive prescribe HQC.

And as others have said hydro chloroquine is NOT chloroquine. Chloroquine dosage is MUCH more dangerous than hydro chloroquine equivalent dosage.

The media is an embarrassment, filled with very stupid journalists that know nothing about science.

April 15, 2020 1:09 am

But the lockdown itself is a huge experimental treatment with no control group, no evidence that it will work and huge, known side-effects. Moreover, the treatment is bring applied to everyone, regardless of the fact that perhaps 98% of us (though I think it’s more like 80%) don’t have the disease.

And a large percentage of us haven’t consented.

Reply to  Phoenix44
April 15, 2020 5:25 am

Correct, almost no one consented, it was forced upon us by law.

This is an experiment in social control, not in epidemic mitigation. Its a leftists dream come true and lots of people want it to continue indefinitely.

When this experiment is over, I’ll wager many of these new social control laws will inexplicably remain in force. All ready for the next scary bogeyman to appear.

And folks wonder why gun sales are up.

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  Phoenix44
April 15, 2020 12:33 pm

There is a control group — Sweden

Ed Danczak
April 15, 2020 1:16 am

Case studies can be indicative of a way to go, but the aisles of medical research are littered with these, where there is no double blind or cross over. This is the way the U.K. has set up. Drug studies must always be done like this: FDA and U.K. Medicines control won’t allow anything else. Now is the time we need a steady hand on the tiller.

It is a breach of medical ethics to withhold a proven treatment but if the treatment is not proven then using it is equally a breach especially if the treatment is as poisonous at HCL . HCL hits the eyes and heart and in febrile sick patients the heart may be especially sensitive. This is part of the reason Brazil has withdrawn its use.

Firing blanks in a war is of no help if the opposition is unaffected: properly constructed trials is the only way to go and anecdotal talk of effect is fraught with risk.

Reply to  Ed Danczak
April 15, 2020 5:20 am

re: “It is a breach of medical ethics to withhold a proven treatment but if the treatment is not proven then using it is equally a breach especially if the treatment is as poisonous at HCL

Oops – Did I miss something? Where is “HCL” listed as poisonous? A dose of 400mg a day (of hcq, shorthand for Hydroxychloroquine) does not seem to be indicated anywhere that I have seen cautioned as “poisonous”.

BTW, HCl (not hcq) would indicate to be Hydrochloric acid

Reply to  Ed Danczak
April 15, 2020 7:13 am

There is a difference between chloroquine and hydroxychloroquine. If I remember well, in Brasil they used chloroquine, why ever.
Btw, why do you mention HCL – Hydrochloric acid ?

John Endicott
Reply to  Ed Danczak
April 15, 2020 7:26 am

then using it is equally a breach especially if the treatment is as poisonous at HCL

Who is using HCL (Hydrochloric Acid) as a treatment? Any why are they doing so??????

Ed Danczak
Reply to  John Endicott
April 15, 2020 11:33 am

Sorry guys it was simple typo (HCL) writing at early hours for me. Both Hydroxychloroquine, and Chloroquine are poisons, that’s how drugs work. There is no effective drug which is not a poison

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  Ed Danczak
April 15, 2020 12:42 pm

Indeed, there is nothing that is not poisonous if taken in excessive quantities, including water and oxygen (particularly at high pressures!).

As Paracelsus observed, “The poison is in the dose.” Therein lies the problem with HCQ. The typical dose is close enough to the toxic level that there are risks with super-sensitive people and people who go off the regimen to get well quicker. It may well have utility in treating COVID-19, but those who claim that there are no side-effects, or that everyone who shows flu-like symptoms should immediately start using it, are being irresponsible.

Weylan McAnally
Reply to  Clyde Spencer
April 17, 2020 12:00 pm

The incidence of cardiac QT elongation is about 1 in 2500 with HCQ at normal dosages. With the short duration of treatment, there are no ocular side effects. A routine ECG will quickly identify anyone who has this problem. That means for the entire US, we have about 140,000 people who could possibly be impacted. By comparison, 1 in 33 infants are born with a defect.

Alan Tomalty (@ATomalty)
April 15, 2020 1:25 am

They will get the death rate close to zero if they replace the azithromycin with doxycycline which is a much safer antibiotic . Azithromycin creates heart problems.

Reply to  Alan Tomalty (@ATomalty)
April 15, 2020 4:21 am

“Overall, 20 patients were treated in the study, which demonstrated a significant reduction of the viral carriage at D6-post inclusion compared to controls, and much lower average carrying duration than reported of untreated patients in the literature. In cases where azithromycin was added to hydroxychloroquine, the combination was found to be significantly more efficient for virus elimination”

“Rutgers Cancer Institute of New Jersey has announced that they will be offering a clinical trial exploring whether azithromycin (Zithromax) combined with hydroxychloroquine (Plaquenil) is better than hydroxychloroquine alone as a potential treatment for patients diagnosed with coronavirus disease”
Ah, “Zithromax” is z pak
So, doxycycline is better than z pak?
Here some young Dr that says it is Zinc you suppose to add to hydroxychloroquine.
And from there wandered into this video:
Which didn’t finish watching.
But it seems I would take hydroxychloroquine and Zinc.
Because it I heard hydroxychloroquine makes you deficient zinc.
But also cause I want something safe to take as placebo.
And after looking around doxycycline and azithromycin seem to have scary side effects.

Reply to  Alan Tomalty (@ATomalty)
April 15, 2020 6:02 am

An antibiotic is probably not even necessary.

Alec Rawls
Reply to  icisil
April 15, 2020 10:41 am

Yeah, I don’t know why the antibiotic would be given early, before there is any onset of pneumonia, but it is part of the French regimen for early intervention. Maybe they are just trying to keep it simple.

Early means as soon as they can for a given patient but some patients come in late. To serve as a trial for a particular regimen they can’t go tailoring to particular circumstances.

Or maybe there is a benefit to Azithromycin even at the early stage.

Jaap Titulaer
Reply to  Alec Rawls
April 15, 2020 11:51 am

Because they are all in hospital and those (in France) are gray areas with high risk of hospital bacteria.

But yeah in most countries they would wait for blood tests to show a potential bacterial infection (fingertip blood test, with quick results while you wait, nothing big or profound).

But once those do show some kind of bacterial infection they tend to give penicillin for any patient with pneumonia, without any further testing.
It’s fairly common to get a secondary bacterial infection in places where you already have a viral infection (such as the lungs), hence this is fairly standard.

Use prior to known infection is not standard in NL, DE etc, but (was?) fairly common in BE & FR (you could even buy penicillin in many shops, no prescription needed … hence many resistant strains over there; I think they stopped that nonsense, not sure though).

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  Alec Rawls
April 15, 2020 12:44 pm

You said, “Or maybe there is a benefit to Azithromycin even at the early stage.” Funny how little we know about treatments that are being promoted!

April 15, 2020 1:37 am

Why do these studies take so long? In 10 days the viral loads for patients can be checked. Compare that against placebo patients viral loads.

Study should take 2 weeks max, not months.

Steve Case
April 15, 2020 2:04 am

For whatever reason Fauci and Redfield don’t want to analyze real world data. They need to be fired…

comment image

So far that hasn’t happened.

April 15, 2020 2:13 am

but when you want to shut a country down all you need is some hokey old figures.

“Several researchers have apparently asked to see Imperial’s calculations, but Prof. Neil Ferguson, the man leading the team, has said that the computer code is 13 years old and thousands of lines of it “undocumented,” making it hard for anyone to work with, let alone take it apart to identify potential errors. He has promised that it will be published in a week or so, but in the meantime reasonable people might wonder whether something made with 13-year-old, undocumented computer code should be used to justify shutting down the economy. Meanwhile, the authors of the Oxford model have promised that their code will be published “as soon as possible.”

Reply to  richard
April 15, 2020 3:17 am

Richard – I think your quote must be old – there’s loads of code on the Imperial COVID site, links to GitHub repositories, etc:


April 15, 2020 2:52 am

If you randomly sample the outcomes of a large group of patients receiving various therapies and adjust for the number of patients in each group, you have performed a random controlled trial via statistics.

So long as you select randomly and keep your sample size under square root of population, your error rates should be similar. And you could resanple to validate and improve the accuracy

If someone has a dataset showing unmedicated and medicated outcomes, I’d be happy to do a couple of runs and report the results.

Bottom line, with data you can simulate a controlled trial. All that really changes us the time order of the events under study, which can be corrected by numerical methods.

Otherwise, in a real trial, you end up denying half the patients potentially life saving medicine. In effect using humans as guinea pigs..

Reply to  ferdberple
April 15, 2020 4:35 am

re: “Otherwise, in a real trial, you end up denying half the patients potentially life saving medicine. In effect using humans as guinea pigs..”

Ala, the Tuskegee experiment*.


* Any issues with the name – I’m using the name as shown here: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29311536

April 15, 2020 4:22 am

As a retired MD researcher I couldn’t agree more. Though RCTs are the gold standard, often drugs are approved using alternative study designs, particularly for life threatening conditions. Real world data on thousands of treated and untreated patients having the same clinical severity ratings are readily available today, and the question could be answered in 1 week, with very high confidence. Fauci doesn’t want that for whatever reason, he should be sacked yesterday.

April 15, 2020 4:31 am

https://wattsupwiththat.com/daily-coronavirus-covid-19-data-graph-page/ and no mention of Sweden metrics exactly the same as countries with extreme lockdowns

Wes Warner
April 15, 2020 4:48 am

In the news this am the US emergency management agency says they have 20 million doses of HCQ available. Also this am the US avation authority FAA have ruled that pilots are prohibited from flying for 48 hours after taking HCQ. Seems inconsistent yet both agencies report to Pres. Trump. Odd that a drug on the market for 60 or so years should just now fall under the eagle eyes of the same agency that blessed the Boeing MAX.

John Endicott
Reply to  Wes Warner
April 15, 2020 7:22 am

Presumably the previously wasn’t much chance of pilots flying after taking HCQ (how many pilots suffering from Malaria are there each year? not many I suspect), so not much need for the ruling before.

Also remember, the FAA, like most government agencies, are run by deep state bureaucrats. They don’t always agree with Trump nor rule I ways Trump would agree with (ever notice how many tweets Trump has made railing against deep state bureaucrats at agencies within the Executive branch). Trump maybe in charge of the executive branch, but he’s had to battle the deep state bureaucrats at the various agencies within the executive branch every step of the way. It’s not called the deep state for nothing.

Reply to  John Endicott
April 15, 2020 12:46 pm

From what I have read, HCQ is no longer much use for Malaria but still taken for Lupus and RA. Odds are there are pilots flying with a touch of RA. Wikipedia says “This (having RA) is between 0.5 and 1% of adults in the developed world..” The lady at the FAA who issued this rule got the job in 2012.

This whole thing smells of the “deep state” and political bias issues that you mention. To me it also illustrates the opportunistic even cancerous overlapping growth of bureaucracy equipped with excessive funding. I don’t know if the FAA has a SWAT team, or a division of them, but I’m willing to bet they do. In this case the FAA are making rulings outside their lane. They should look after Avation (doing a crappy job recently) the center letter in their name. The FDA should be issuing Drug rules; Drugs are the center letter in their name.

John Endicott
Reply to  Wes
April 15, 2020 2:50 pm

Pilots with RA already have other hoops to jump through to get permission to fly.

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  Wes Warner
April 15, 2020 12:53 pm

Well, one difference is that HCQ has much more public visibility than at any time in its history. Inasmuch as the typical malarial treatment is one pill a week, it shouldn’t be much of an inconvenience to wait 48 hours to see if the known issues of mood changes or suicidal thoughts manifest in the pilots before allowing them to fly. The FAA may just be 60 years late in taking prudent measures. What do you expect from a federal bureaucracy?

Nicholas McGinley
Reply to  Clyde Spencer
April 19, 2020 3:38 pm

The report actually says that the FAA has long had a ban on flying within 48 hours after taking either of the malaria drugs.

April 15, 2020 4:59 am

I wonder if Fauci is deliberately misleading us.

At the beginning of the epidemic, faced with a looming face mask shortage, the authorities lied and told us that face masks weren’t necessary. link

Is Fauci trying to prevent a run on quinine?

Reply to  commieBob
April 15, 2020 5:17 am

Very interesting commieBob.

I always thought it was strange the medical personnel were wearing them but they were of no use to us plebes.

Reply to  commieBob
April 15, 2020 7:00 am

Possibly so. I suspect many hospital staff are taking it as a prophylactic.

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  icisil
April 15, 2020 12:56 pm

On what do you base your suspicion? Speculation is not the same as evidence. That’s like saying global warming could, may, might, or possibly have catastrophic effects.

Reply to  Clyde Spencer
April 15, 2020 2:20 pm

I don’t know what my suspicion is based on. Just a suspicion. Maybe it’s because I have a good idea how people think and the way the world works.

April 15, 2020 5:20 am

The bioavailability of zinc is best when delivered as a chelate, e.g. ZMA zinc aspartate. It also contains magnesium aspartate.

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  wsbriggs
April 15, 2020 12:57 pm

Why are the cold lozenges made of zinc gluconate?

Reply to  Clyde Spencer
April 15, 2020 2:24 pm

The best is zinc acetate. Minimum 75 mg per day (for only a few days). Other zinc forms and lesser doses weren’t as effective. There’s a scientific study that determined all that. You could probably easily find it based on the words I provided. Good luck finding zinc acetate now, though. Every place I’ve found is sold out.

April 15, 2020 5:24 am

Doing double-blind control drug tests for life-threatening diseases is immoral because it forces doctors to play god by arbitrarily deciding who may live or who may die…

If researchers wish to double-blind test new hair-growth medication, fine… the control group just loses some hair, not their lives…

There is plenty of historic data to compare a new drug’s efficacy by comparing it other therapies that didn’t include the new drug, with very high statistical relevance..

Ending double-blind testing for life-saving drugs is now being debated by the FDA, as it should be.

Reply to  SAMURAI
April 15, 2020 5:51 am

A statement, Dr. Raoult made in his first study too, no control group without treatment, when live is in question.
Don’t understand someone may have the idea of doubble-blind studies in cases like this.

Nicholas McGinley
Reply to  SAMURAI
April 15, 2020 7:20 am

“Ending double-blind testing for life-saving drugs is now being debated by the FDA, as it should be.”

Fake news, thank God.

Reply to  Nicholas McGinley
April 15, 2020 7:53 am

re: “Fake news, thank God.”

Thank you, Loydo, I mean Nicholas McGinley. That forced me to do a little searching, in which I found the following article:



The FDA doc the article links to:

“Placebos and Blinding in Randomized Controlled Cancer Clinical Trials for Drug and Biological Products Guidance for Industry”


Thank you again, Loy -er- Nicholas McGinley for the inspiration to pursue this.


Nicholas McGinley
Reply to  _Jim
April 15, 2020 9:52 am

The man with the reading comprehension of an exceptionally stupid turnip, thinks these two sentences are equivalent:

“Now” and “September 8th, 2018”

“Ending double-blind testing for life-saving drugs is now being debated by the FDA”

“Placebos, defined as inert substances with no pharmacologic activity, are commonly used in
double-blind, randomized controlled clinical trials. Blinding investigators and patients in these trials to the treatment patients are receiving decreases the likelihood of biased observations of the effectiveness outcomes, may decrease differential patient drop out, and allows for unbiased observation of outcome measures, which are particularly important when the assessment includes subjective endpoints. For example, a placebo-controlled study design may be useful or preferred in maintenance therapy, in add-on trial designs, in trials of adjuvant therapies (for which standard of care is surveillance), and for indications where no treatment is available (best supportive care can be added to both arms to ensure all available care is provided to patients).”

Did you even read what you posted, Jimbo?
I sincerely doubt it, since it is clear the statement by Whiten was wrong, as stated.
They never debated anything of the sort.
The question was regarding a specific circumstance where it is already considered unethical to use placebos (a deadly disease for which treatments exist), and during which it will be very obvious to everyone who gets a placebo…namely in trials for treatments for “certain malignant hematologic and oncologic diseases.”
Got that?
In trials for new drugs for treating cancers, everyone will know who gets the placebo because they are the ones not throwing up and do not have their hair falling out.

The second document (thanks for that) is the final guidelines. There is no debate. The questions are settled, and guidance issued.
It is more of a clarification than anything else.
It is already unethical to use placebos for “hematologic malignancy and oncologic disease” for which treatments are available.
And everyone knows who gets a chemo drug and who gets saline, because chemo patients typically start throwing up immediately and stuff like that, so blinding makes no sense anyway.

There was never any question about ending all such studies for any life saving drugs…only when there are already treatments available, and particularly when the condition is a cancer or leukemia. IOW, the people are gonna die soon.
They are clarifying when placebos are unethical.
There are other such situations, such as with vaccines. But it was particularly addressing new cancer drugs in cases where their are existing treatments.
In which case you compare the study drug to the existing treatment.
But you have to read the documents to understand any of this.

No one is debating ending double blind placebo controlled clinical trials for any drugs that might be “life saving”.

As usual you have no idea what on Earth you are talking about.
Maybe if you learn to read one of these days you will stop embarrassing yourself.
Better yet, stop talking about subjects of which you know less than nothing.

Of course, I cannot call you by your full name, because no one has any idea who you are, being that you cravenly hide your identity.
But you go ahead and keep mentioning my name.
I am gonna be right here and everyone knows who I am.

I will be demanding a full apology quite soon, and an admission from you that you were completely wrong and said things that may well have gotten Lord only knows how many people k!lled in this pandemic.
If, that is, anyone was stupid enough to pay one single bit of attention to medical advice from someone named “-Jim”, who knows less about health matters than my least intelligent cat.

Reply to  Nicholas McGinley
April 15, 2020 2:02 pm

only when there are already treatments available, and particularly when the condition is a cancer or leukemia. IOW, the people are gonna die soon.
They are clarifying when placebos are unethical.

That’s exact the question we are talking about, not more, not less.

What ever your name is, I hope nobody takes your statements for in any way serious.

Nicholas McGinley
Reply to  Nicholas McGinley
April 16, 2020 7:57 am

I am not the one cowering like a frightened kitten behind a pseudonym, Krishna.

Reply to  Nicholas McGinley
April 16, 2020 6:47 pm


I was actually reading his posts until he tried to make a point by saying zinc is the most abundant metal …

Then said opps … meant it in this manner …

which more supported an argument agin his point.

Nicholas McGinley
Reply to  Nicholas McGinley
April 19, 2020 3:40 pm

Most abundant trace metal Don.
Sorry I left a word out of one post, but in many others I did not omit the word.
I am heartbroken you have deserted me.

Nicholas McGinley
Reply to  Nicholas McGinley
April 19, 2020 3:51 pm

You see Don, I am not presenting a point of view by excluding contrary information.

Soon enough, we will have results from many trials and huge numbers of people at all stages of illness.
I am very confident I will be holding my head high no matter what the results show, and I am also sure many here will not be able to run from the fact they made many many false assurances that were so proven to be ill advised and poorly informed.
I will challenge you to go back and find any statements I have made that were poorly supported or declared I knew anything which was not supportable any evidence.
If you want to point to one post out of hundreds and hundreds of lost posts in which I omitted a word, I can show you others before and since that one, made right here, in which I did not omit that one word.
So here you are, criticizing me for one sentence, and supporting people who have made long lists of factually incorrect assertions over and over again.
Good judgement, bud.

Reply to  SAMURAI
April 15, 2020 7:27 am

For most drugs, the efficacy is rather low. It doesn’t matter much which group you’re in. Where there are early signs of high efficacy, the trial will be terminated and both groups will be treated.

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  SAMURAI
April 15, 2020 1:12 pm

You raise an interesting point. But, what would you recommend as an alternative to prove that the trial drug actually works, rather than it being coincidence or the well-known placebo effect? What if efficacy is assumed when unwarranted, and people die with treatment from something that is ineffective? What if something is found through double-blind testing that is far better than the assumed effective treatment, and over the long run more lives are saved with the new treatment? Isn’t it immoral to allow people to die because unwarranted assumptions are made from a poor study-protocol?

You said, “There is plenty of historic data to compare a new drug’s efficacy by comparing it other therapies that didn’t include the new drug, with very high statistical relevance.” Isn’t that functionally equivalent to having a control group that is not taking the new drug of unknown efficacy? That is, if there is an existing treatment that has some success, but those given the proposed new drug are denied the old treatment, isn’t that “playing God?” How do you propose finding the most effective treatment out of the 60 some being tried without withholding the ultimate winner from those taking the other 59 treatments?

April 15, 2020 5:26 am

Even with clinical trial results, once a drug is approved, the actual use in practice will trump (pun) their clinical trials. Scan the list of withdrawn drugs and note those that were withdrawn because of serious outcomes that were not “flushed out” during the clinical trials.


The short version of why they were approved and later failed during use stems from not having sufficient number of patients in the trials to uncover the “other effects” of a drug. It’s like testing a teenager at home then releasing them out, unsupervised, on the world (just kidding) but only through clinical treatments can the other effects, if any, be discovered.

The point is a clinical trial of, say, 4,000 patients, sliced and diced, only point to the safety of the group selected whereas clinical treatments of 10,000+ patients and their outcomes is the final arbiter.

Hydroxychroloquine has passed the treatment trials – the amount of this drug taken worldwide since it’s approval is measured literally in tons.

Plus, it’s used not only for malaria treatment but for prevention and even off label in oncology. Millions of clinical treatment doses. Any critical thinker should conclude that Dr. Fauci has an agenda. A very dangerous agenda during a crisis and should be removed. Even if he has no agenda (ignoring his I love you Hillary emails, etc.) he should be considered a befuddled thinker and not a treatment doctor.

Reply to  cedarhill
April 15, 2020 7:44 am

“Global Health Leaders Launch Decade of Vaccines Collaboration | Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation”


Conflict of interests…?

April 15, 2020 5:39 am

For weeks Dr. Anthony Fauci has dismissed all of the mounting evidence for the efficacy of Hydroxychloroquine treatments for Covid-19 as “anecdotal” and “the slightest hint of evidence” because it doesn’t come from clinically controlled trials.

The criminal intent of the Faucis of this world, the incompetent gutless moronic minority dictating the medical health care response globally, by utilizing and abhorring the same logic-rationale towards
antibody test, by causing unnecessary delay, which actually leads to increased aggressivity response of all other programs.

There is no excuse or justification for unfounded delays in consideration of the antibody tests.
It is already too far delayed;
already a lot of unfounded and unbearable damages from such very highly aggressive response to COVID-19… due to such delays.

The antibody test should have being there since the first moment and already applied hand to hand with the other tests and by now should have overtaken the other tests and other monitoring programs.

Further delay simply will support further harsher aggressive responses,
where the claim that delaying because it will help with herd mentality and keep the trust of the herd with the “authority” in this case, will simply be counterproductive and at some point backfiring badly.

Silly nit-picking towards the antibody test, like in the case of Hydroxychloroquine, has only one objective;
delaying it as much as possible.

In life is the efficiency of antibody response to a disease that keeps immune system from going full tilt aggressive and killing you, or causing too much harm… where timing is of paramount importance.

Same parallel here in consideration of antibody test versus the response programs contemplated and applied… time is of paramount importance, where time lost may not ever be recovered.

In concept and principle, antibody test is easier and simpler than other tests…but still not properly applied yet… where in the case of high and deep responses, like for COVID-19,
is very very much needed… with it’s own fully functional and well established platform…
As else the response will be blindfolded and in full “darkness”, where many programs will end up to be too aggressive and resembling a “whack a mole” game… and very dangerous.


April 15, 2020 6:04 am

Trump has the necessary information to send everybody back to work tomorrow. He can easily have his people devise a treatment strategy for workers who get sick and for a prophylactic strategy for their co-workers. Some localities may have to be temporarily exempted and certain governors will have to be dealt with. The under 65 workforce may experience some sickness but few or no deaths. The MSM will howl loudly, but so what?

John Endicott
Reply to  pochas94
April 15, 2020 7:09 am

I don’t think you can say no deaths. Just for a point of reference, of the 45 or so cases in my county all but 4 where in the 60+ age range (so close to 10%). only one was below the age of 50 (she was in her 30s according to the country reports).

In other words 10% of the current death rate for the under 60 crowd of 2% for the under 50 crowd. That’s still means a good sized number of deaths when you are talking a work force measured in the millions.

So a “few”, but by no means no, deaths would certainly be expected (at a minimum) assuming a work force of only the under 60 crowd, even fewer for an under 50 workforce The workforce however, does not only consist of those under 50 or 60. There are many 65+ workers still in the workforce. And the younger members of the workforce are not immune from getting the worst of it, particularly for those with underlying conditions (which people can have at any age), not to mention the possibility for the younger workers to bring the virus back home to their older relatives.

So yes, the workforce could be sent back to work tomorrow, the only question is how much death that would bring with it (and it’s not as simple an answer as you seem to think, nor as small a number as you seem to think it certainly wouldn’t be the “no deaths” you posit as a possibility).

April 15, 2020 6:22 am

It seems reasonable to expect that Fauci, along with the media’s support, was responsible for X number of deaths.

Reply to  E.Martin
April 15, 2020 7:14 am

April 15, 2020 at 6:22 am

Not necessary in consideration of COVID-19 disease itself,
and that is and happens to the most ugly thing there…
the unnecessary Xtra harm and pain… inflicted due to this crazy pressure from all sides lead and achieved by people like Fauci, organizations like W.H.O and UN, and further supported by certain political and industrial affiliations.


James Otton
April 15, 2020 6:31 am

Are French national health officials now recommending the CHQ-AZ treatment? If not, why not?

Reply to  James Otton
April 15, 2020 7:41 am

They did.

Nicholas McGinley
April 15, 2020 7:09 am

In addition to the ever growing list of countries that are warning of fatalities from the malaria drugs and Zpak, and new clinical trial of 150 patients shows no signal of efficacy and a large number of adverse events.
Ample warnings are emerging, and yet people who are not paying any attention to the growing chorus of warnings continue to hype a dangerous experimental treatment.

“When testing new treatments, we are looking for signals that show that they might be effective before proceeding to larger studies,” said Allen Cheng, an infectious diseases physician and a professor of epidemiology at Melbourne’s Monash University. “This study doesn’t show any signal, so it is probably unlikely that it will be of clinical benefit.”


Nicholas McGinley
April 15, 2020 7:13 am

Because it is showing to be dangerous and increasingly clear to have little if any benefit.


And a large number of harms are occurring, including many de@ths.
Wake up.
Before we hand November to the socialists.

Reply to  Nicholas McGinley
April 15, 2020 7:18 am

McGinley – a new name for “short-circuited Brain syndrome”?

I think you are safely settling into the background noise, Nicholas, like a milder case of Loydo.

Nicholas McGinley
Reply to  _Jim
April 15, 2020 9:01 am

“Despite a lack of evidence on efficacy, HCQ and HCQ+AZM have become the most popular treatment/s
for COVID-19. This is the largest ever analysis of the safety of such treatments worldwide, examining over
900,000 HCQ and more than 300,000 HCQ+AZM users respectively.
The results on the risk of SAEs associated with short-term (1 month) HCQ treatment as proposed for
COVID-19 therapy are reassuring, with no excess risk of any of the considered safety outcomes compared
to an equivalent therapy (SSZ). However, long-term treatment with HCQ as used for RA is associated with
a 65% increase in cardiovascular mortality.”


Reply to  Nicholas McGinley
April 15, 2020 9:46 am

From the study:

Conclusions Short-term hydroxychloroquine treatment is safe, but addition of azithromycin may induce heart failure and cardiovascular mortality, potentially due to synergistic effects on QT length. We call for caution if such combination is to be used in the management of Covid-19

Where is your problem ?
It’s written in the study that the treatments went over two weeks, short enough ?
HCQ as treament

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  _Jim
April 15, 2020 1:22 pm

Are you capable of engaging in adult-like dialog without insulting those you disagree with? You are settling into my “background noise” precisely because you have demonstrated more talent for juvenile insults than objective discourse on what are obviously contentious subjects. Ad hominem attacks add nothing to the dialog.

Reply to  Nicholas McGinley
April 15, 2020 7:27 am

What I read was a newspaper pamphlet bcause of Trump, nothing about more letal victims, some little harmless side effects. Do you have a lecture problem ? Btw, the article refers to the study you linked before.
The protocoll of Raouls treatment wasn’t followed.

Nicholas McGinley
Reply to  Krishna Gans
April 15, 2020 8:47 am

Because he is a quack and that combination is very dangerous.

Reply to  Nicholas McGinley
April 15, 2020 9:08 am

re: “Because he is a quack and that combination is very dangerous.”

Yes, a quack. And also a French physician and microbiologist holding M.D. and Ph.D. degrees and specializing in infectious diseases. In 1984, Raoult created the Rickettsia Unit at Aix-Marseille University (AMU). He teaches infectious diseases in the Faculty of Medicine of Aix-Marseille University and since 1982 has supervised many M.D. and Ph.D. degrees.

Since 2008, Dr. Raoult has been the director of the Research Unit in Infectious and Tropical Emergent Diseases), collaborating with CNRS (National Center for the Scientific Research), IRD (Research for the Development Institute), INSERM (National Institute of Health and Medical Research) and the Aix Marseille University, in Marseille. His laboratory employs more than 200 people, including 86 researchers who publish between 250 and 350 papers per year and have produced more than 50 patents. Raoult has also been involved in the creation of eight startups.

I think that about does it for Nicholas McGinley’s credibility, perhaps even less than duck soup now?

Nicholas McGinley
Reply to  _Jim
April 15, 2020 10:22 am

Aaand another one:
“Michigan Medicine just changed its guidelines on prescribing these drugs. There’s a lot of excitement about whether these already existing options for malaria could be useful in COVID-19, but so far that excitement hasn’t materialized in patient care data.

“Our infectious disease division and our antimicrobial pharmacists have reviewed all the available data and we found no convincing evidence that these drugs were effective in treating people with COVID-19,” Kaul says.

That’s consistent with what’s been observed firsthand in Michigan Medicine’s hospitals.

“We haven’t seen any clear evidence of benefit so we aren’t going to use hydroxychloroquine routinely anymore,” Chopra says. “We were initially recommending it to both inpatients and outpatients, but we’re no longer doing that routinely. That’s based upon the fact that we’ve been prescribing hydroxychloroquine for a few weeks, did not see therapeutic benefit, but did see adverse effects.””


Oh, BTW…have you begun drafting your apology?
I think I am really gonna have to insist on some groveling.

Reply to  _Jim
April 15, 2020 10:35 am

Out of the _Jim link:

In October 2013, Raoult published an article in the French magazine Le Point in which he expressed his scepticism about mathematical models for climate prediction.[79] He said in particular that mathematical models are the modern version of divination. In an article dated 1 November 2014,[80] he ironically notes, in reference to the “pause” in global warming since the late 1990s, that “nature has forgotten to obey predictions”. In the same publication, in reference to an article published shortly before in the journal Nature, according to which the Earth’s global temperature is no longer a good indicator of global warming, he commented: “It’s better to break the thermometer that contradicts you!”

In Le Point, in June 2014, he estimates that “after a significant thermal surge in the 1990s, the Earth has generally stopped warming since 1998”. He concludes that “global warming is uncertain and human responsibility is questionable”.

😀 😀
Now I found, why he isn’t liked from certain media 😀 😀

Reply to  _Jim
April 15, 2020 10:42 am

You read about the mentioned contra-indications in Raoults paper ?

What you linked wasn’t a study.

Reply to  _Jim
April 16, 2020 9:30 am

Jim you wrote, “I think that about does it for Nicholas McGinley’s credibility, perhaps even less than duck soup now?”

“I think that about does it for Nicholas McGinley’s credibility, perhaps even less than bat soup now?”

There, fixed!

Reply to  Nicholas McGinley
April 15, 2020 9:51 am

He is a quack ? 😀 😀 😀
And you, what are you ?
I’ll better be silent about 😀

Nicholas McGinley
Reply to  Krishna Gans
April 16, 2020 7:56 am

I am not a doctor, offer no medical advice, and do not claim to have “the cure” with very weak evidence to back it up, while refusing to follow standards of medical reportage, like he does.
A quack is a doctor like Raoul.
If someone who is not a doctor can be a quack, try looking in a mirror.
You rewrite the textbook on viral pharmacology on a daily basis.

Nicholas McGinley
Reply to  Krishna Gans
April 15, 2020 9:04 am

““Worryingly, significant risks are identified for combination users of HCQ+AZM even in the short-term as proposed for COVID19 management, with a 15-20 percent increased risk of angina/chest pain and heart failure, and a two-fold risk of cardiovascular mortality in the first month of treatment,” said the report, according to Science Translational Medicine.

In France, where the initial buzz started about treating COVID-19 with a combination of antimalarial drugs and azithromycin, data released by the country’s drug safety agency showed 43 cases of heart incidents linked to hydroxychloroquine, highlighting the risk of providing unproven treatments to COVID-19 patients, as The Hill reported.”


Reply to  Nicholas McGinley
April 15, 2020 10:01 am

You caan’t read ??
Out of your pamphlet linked:

A small study in Brazil published online by medRxiv had to be cut short after patients taking high-doses of chloroquine to treat their COVID-19 symptoms started to develop heart arrhythmias. “Within three days of starting the drugs, researchers started noticing heart arrhythmias in patients taking the higher dose. By the sixth day of treatment, 11 patients had died, leading to an immediate end to the high-dose segment of the trial,” The New York Times reported.

They talk about chloroquine, something completely different.

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  Krishna Gans
April 15, 2020 1:33 pm

How do you define “completely different?” They are both synthetic drugs based on quinine, developed to prevent malaria. The general assumptions are that they have similar toxicities in animal studies.

Reply to  Krishna Gans
April 15, 2020 2:35 pm

If I follow the thread here I see, these are completely different drugs, with different side effects, with different doses, HCQ was developed for better tolerance than CQ. That both are based quinine says nothing. Take Chinosol or Neo-Chinoseol, both are only for external use, but in case of N-CL for gargling, nothing happens if you swallow it.

Reply to  Krishna Gans
April 17, 2020 6:58 am

Krishna Gans April 15, 2020 at 10:01 am
You caan’t read ??
Out of your pamphlet linked:

Yes he can, the French study he referred to in that article was about Hydroxychloroquine, it also referred to the Brazilian study of Chloroquine but Nicholas didn’t mention it.

Reply to  Nicholas McGinley
April 15, 2020 7:32 am

There seems to be something to it. Whether and how it should be used are key questions. Form your link, “The drug did help alleviate some clinical symptoms of Covid-19, however, and the patients who took it showed a greater drop in C-reactive protein, a measure of inflammation.”

Nicholas McGinley
Reply to  Scissor
April 15, 2020 12:45 pm

There are far safer drugs that reduce inflammation and provide immunomodulation.

Reply to  Nicholas McGinley
April 15, 2020 2:54 pm

No one hinders you to use vitamine C as much as you want, start with 3 g daily 😀
Add curcumin together with black pepper, don’t forget ginger and argil.
No, I don’t tease you, seriously !

Nicholas McGinley
Reply to  Nicholas McGinley
April 15, 2020 8:41 am

Wait until the longer post that is in moderation is posted.
Countries now warning about adverse events, deaths, halted trials, cessation of usage due to dangerous side effects, ect, is longer and growing dailt.
China, Brazil, Sweden, Germany, France, Denmark.
Agencies in the US warning not to use:
FAA has warned pilots are not allowed to fly within 48 hours of taking either drug.
CIA has advised against using it to all of it’s people.

I have a question: What number of deaths due to following your advice are you willing to accept before you admit you were wrong?

Jeff Alberts
Reply to  Nicholas McGinley
April 15, 2020 9:03 am


You should see a doctor about that.

Nicholas McGinley
Reply to  Jeff Alberts
April 15, 2020 10:34 am

I have top men working on it.

Reply to  Jeff Alberts
April 16, 2020 4:38 pm

You should see a doctor about that.

“Really,” Jeff?

Why is the man supposed to “see” a doctor about a medical procedure that’s “only” done when you “see” a doctor?!?

What are you saying, Jeff, and “why” are you saying it?!?


Jeff Alberts
Reply to  sycomputing
April 17, 2020 8:35 am


Reply to  Nicholas McGinley
April 15, 2020 10:29 am

How many deaths will you accept not giving HCQ+AZ+ZN ?
Btw, what is your proposal ???

Reply to  Nicholas McGinley
April 15, 2020 10:27 am

You forget these patients using it over month and years against malaria without suffering any side effect.
What’s about them ????

What I see is a campaign against Trump, the other what I see is the problem, no patent on HCQ and no money in sight.

Nicholas McGinley
Reply to  Krishna Gans
April 15, 2020 12:43 pm

Speak for yourself.
I have no problems with my memory.
What patients used it over month and years with zero side effects?

Oh, here is another new study.
We should be getting a lot of these now:

Reply to  Nicholas McGinley
April 15, 2020 2:42 pm

Requiring O2 – to late, the earlier the better, as symptoms start.

Reply to  Nicholas McGinley
April 16, 2020 2:22 am

Nicholas McGinley
April 15, 2020 at 12:43 pm

There is nothing “with zero side effects”.

For some, the peanut butter side effect is lethal.
For some a normal antibiotic dose could be lethal.
For some sugar could be lethal.

And so on and so forth.

Everything that has an effect has a side effect, for all.
The point is the pro and cons in consideration of the side effect V the effect.

Well known overall low-small side effects can not and should not block a medical promising treatment even in the case of an expected but not yet validated positive effect… especially in the case of a medical emergency… when all is expected to be managed and handled by the professional medical structure.


Clyde Spencer
Reply to  Krishna Gans
April 15, 2020 1:40 pm

You said, “You forget these patients using it over month and years against malaria without suffering any side effect.” The implication of your statement is that it is safe for everyone. It is not! Some people cannot take it.

Lets assume that it is around 1%. That is the same order of magnitude of the elderly who are dying from COVID-19. You don’t want the cure to be as bad as the disease!

Reply to  Clyde Spencer
April 15, 2020 2:39 pm

Yes, and that why it has to be prescribed, there are known contra indications, and should be used under medical control in case of Corona, including ECG – follow the Raoult protocol.

Nicholas McGinley
April 15, 2020 7:23 am

I only wish I could buy stock in malpractice attorneys at this point.
We are watching the disintegration of judgement and credibility on a scale I have never seen in my life.

Reply to  Nicholas McGinley
April 15, 2020 10:22 am

If you will lose your money, start buying 😀 😀

H.I. McDonnough
April 15, 2020 7:32 am

I’ll just say it. Fauci knows better. His agenda is more death and economic destruction. His motives are anybody’s guess.

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  H.I. McDonnough
April 15, 2020 1:45 pm

This sort of speculation on a person’s motives, which you have no way of knowing, does not reflect well on you or this blog. If you have evidence to support your claim, present it. Otherwise, I can get all of this kind of unsupported speculation I want from climate alarmists.

Nicholas McGinley
Reply to  Clyde Spencer
April 19, 2020 3:59 pm

Some of us are going to have what we have said vindicated by the results of the many trials now underway, and many will be utterly refuted.
I think we both know who is who.
At some point in the near future, everyone will know who is who.

April 15, 2020 7:51 am

Dr Fauci and Dr Redfield won’t accept real world data as actual data, then what is real world data and where does it come from.

I think I may have a headache but won’t know until clinically tested under controlled conditions. This may take a year. Or so.

These two should go.

Nicholas McGinley
Reply to  Olen
April 15, 2020 12:40 pm

Real world data from France.
New study, just released a few hours ago:
Treatments are urgently needed to prevent respiratory failure and deaths from coronavirus
disease 2019 (COVID-19). Hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) has received worldwide attention
because of positive results from small studies.
We used data collected from routine care of all adults in 4 French hospitals with documented
SARS-CoV-2 pneumonia and requiring oxygen ≥ 2 L/min to emulate a target trial aimed at
assessing the effectiveness of HCQ at 600 mg/day. The composite primary endpoint was
transfer to intensive care unit (ICU) within 7 days from inclusion and/or death from any
cause. Analyses were adjusted for confounding factors by inverse probability of treatment
This study included 181 patients with SARS-CoV-2 pneumonia; 84 received HCQ within
48 hours of admission (HCQ group) and 97 did not (no-HCQ group). Initial severity was well
balanced between the groups. In the weighted analysis, 20.2% patients in the HCQ group
were transferred to the ICU or died within 7 days vs 22.1% in the no-HCQ group (16 vs 21
events, relative risk [RR] 0.91, 95% CI 0.47–1.80). In the HCQ group, 2.8% of the patients
died within 7 days vs 4.6% in the no-HCQ group (3 vs 4 events, RR 0.61, 95% CI 0.13–2.89),
and 27.4% and 24.1%, respectively, developed acute respiratory distress syndrome within 7
days (24 vs 23 events, RR 1.14, 95% CI 0.65–2.00). Eight patients receiving HCQ (9.5%)
experienced electrocardiogram modifications requiring HCQ discontinuation.
These results do not support the use of HCQ in patients hospitalised for documented SARSCoV-2-positive hypoxic pneumonia”


Reply to  Nicholas McGinley
April 15, 2020 2:44 pm

To late if the need O2. The earlier the better.

Nicholas McGinley
Reply to  Krishna Gans
April 16, 2020 4:29 am

So we should ignore people who say they were about to die but were saved by these drugs?

Reply to  Nicholas McGinley
April 16, 2020 9:43 am

I thought you will us make belive it doesn’t help, so what ??

Nicholas McGinley
Reply to  Nicholas McGinley
April 16, 2020 2:52 pm

I never stated “it doesn’t help”.
That is what you hallucinated I said when your brain did not want to accept what I have actually said.
Just like when warmistas hear anyone who is not a rabid warmista, all their brain hears is “denier”.

Nicholas McGinley
Reply to  Krishna Gans
April 16, 2020 4:36 am

The fact is you are just making it up as you go at this point.
This assertion from you contradicts nearly everything else that other proponents are saying about the malaria drugs.
But according to you, they should not be given to anyone with serious illness because it is too late?
But the vast majority of people with no serious symptoms will be fine with no treatment.
So what percentage of people are you saying can be helped with this pronouncement?
Only those with no O2 (how you know this is a complete mystery) need bother?
And of those with no serious illness, how many are going to die?
Everyone thinks this number is very low.

At this point, HCQ and zinc proponents are making warmistas look like the most educated people on the planet.
You are using all the same logic and argumentative reasoning.

April 15, 2020 8:13 am

Fauci also has financial interests in things going one way …

Reply to  TRM
April 15, 2020 8:50 am


I found the last paragraph enlightening.

Jeff Alberts
Reply to  john
April 15, 2020 9:02 am

You mean the Acknowledgements?

Reply to  Jeff Alberts
April 15, 2020 1:23 pm

Sorry. The information regarding Quercetin in the document.

Here’s more on zinc.


Jeff Alberts
April 15, 2020 8:14 am

In Coupeville, WA, there is a small rural hospital (the only non-Naval hospital on Whidbey Island). Over the past month or so they have had ~9 COVID-19 patients, all of them from the local skilled nursing facility – meaning all very elderly.

All but two have recovered enough to be sent back to the SNF. I don’t know what methods they used to treat them, but none have died.

April 15, 2020 8:36 am

I’m taking 500mg Quercetin, 50mg zinc as a precautionary measure due to age and arthritis issues. The Quercetin and zinc have dramatically helped my arthritis out and have a good supply of Amoxicillin just in case.

Located just south of Boston and do residential/ commercial electrical work.

We are essential and also do work in nursing homes. Not taking chances and let you all know if I contract virus. I’m surprised I haven’t so fat.


Reply to  john
April 15, 2020 8:38 am

So far…

Reply to  john
April 15, 2020 10:46 am

What form of zinc supplement are you using? oxide, sulfate, gluconate, etc?

Reply to  icisil
April 15, 2020 12:35 pm


April 15, 2020 9:38 am

Dr Didier Raoult who became noted during this crisis by publishing the results of his first small test where he combined hydroxychloroquine with azithromycin as a new Covid-19 treatment has released the results of his latest test where he has 1061 patients. The most basic result is he saw 5 deaths.
Perhaps we should do some simple math since the “so called experts in the medical profession” still seem to me mathematically challenged.
7 deaths out of 1061 patients is 0.66%
As of today France has recorded 143,303 confirmed cases and 15,729 deaths.
This is a death rate of 10.98% per confirmed case.
Currently the same random population in France shows a death rate that is 17 times as large in the population who was not treated compared to the 1061 in this test that were treated. This incredible result is the definition of statistically significant.
For those asking for a “control group” as some magical requirement for statistical significance in their rigid illogical and unthinking brain, I recommend they use 1061 of the 143,303 confirmed cases which has resulted in the 15,729 dead French who are available in the morgues of France. They represent a truly random group and the only significant difference in their outcome compared to this treated group is they were blocked from a treatment the Chinese and Koreans have been dispensing FOR MONTHS and have published generally positive if not “PERFECT” results.
I personally could not care less if Dr Raoult is arrogant, or labeled a quack by other self important quacks during any previous studies. I only care about results of any useful treatment to reduce the suffering from this deadly virus. This treatment has never been called a cure for this disease, it is a treatment when used early can limit the number of people who eventually DIE. This is not a study on the latest treatment for hair loss, or skin dryness, this is an attempt to have less DEATH. Any fear mongering about a drug which has been safely prescribed for 70 years is the mindless blathering of a fool. I don’t see any indication this drug came close to KILLING 10.98% of the 1061 patients who took if for the short term of this test. We would expect 10.98% of these patients would be DEAD using the average death rate from the rest of France. What is so difficult to understand between 0.66% and 10.98% DEAD.
At this point anyone who is blocking this treatment should be removed due to there being only 2 possible reasons for their obstruction. Either they are grossly incompetent, or they are criminally blocking a viable safe treatment for financial or professional benefit.

Reply to  Ken
April 15, 2020 11:31 pm


James F. Evans
April 15, 2020 9:43 am


Moving the goalpost is okay when I do it.

Doctors treating patients and getting good results: Fauci says merely “anecdotal”… (foot-dragging from Fauci)

What we’ve seen from Fauci: inconsistent statements, foot dragging, wildly off projections (models) justifying lock-downs.

Oh, boy, he’s the leader we need… not!

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  James F. Evans
April 15, 2020 1:59 pm

I believe that Fauci, as well are many US leaders, is using the model from the University of Washington, considered by most to be the premiere epidemiological modelers in the world.

Reply to  Clyde Spencer
April 15, 2020 2:38 pm

Epidemiologists are idiots. They never get it right because they’re working from a false paradigm.

Nicholas McGinley
Reply to  icisil
April 16, 2020 4:38 am

Does anyone dare ask what exactly you are claiming is a false paradigm?
The entire field is a fools errand, is that what you are saying?

April 15, 2020 9:47 am

I believe that we are starting to see the beginning of mass protests against Lockdownds re Michigan This is just the beginning this will become a worldwide movement very soon my 2 cents worth Governments everywhere beware except Sweden!

Reply to  Eliza
April 15, 2020 5:03 pm

And Belarus

Jeffery P
April 15, 2020 9:47 am

Is it true we shutdown the country based on Professor Neil Ferguson’s faulty model? Is it true Fauci, et all, based their recommendations based on that model?

April 15, 2020 11:20 am

Where are the medical ethics in randomized controlled trials, where the outcome of withholding treatment is death? How many other deadly diseases were subject to randomly controlled testing? Did Jenner inoculate half his patients, then not inoculate the other half, to discover a treatment for smallpox?

Sure, if you are looking for a small difference between two modes of treatment, and you have not tie constraints, the controlled trial makes sense because you can ensure that every patient receives nearly identical care. However, even in an environment that is not controlled, if your sample size is large enough, the variance shrinks due to the Law of Large Numbers.

for example: If you have the results of treatments by 2 doctors, they could be widely different. But if you have the results from 2000 doctors, the results will be roughly the same. This effect allows you to construct a controlled trial without actually needing the controls. Let the data size be your control.

The medical profession needs to move away from its fascination with randomized controlled trials when dealing with epidemics. There is simply not enough time available for controlled trials.

What the medical professions should recognize that what we have in epidemics is patients, lots of patients. And it is this volume of patients that can be analysed using “large data” methods to determine the efficacy of treatment alternatives, long before clinical trials can be completed.

Nicholas McGinley
Reply to  ferdberple
April 16, 2020 4:26 am

Bioethics is at the core of all research into new medications.
Is this really a carefully considered point?
Just look it up.

April 15, 2020 11:45 am

We hope Willis does an update on the coronavirus data becuause as far as I can see all countries and USA states with or without lockdown are following the same trend. The people of Michigan are starting the first worlwide protests against these stupid lockdowns. Watch them increase exponentially tommorow USA first then worldwide.

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  Eliza
April 15, 2020 2:04 pm

Actually, there were protests in Columbus (OH) last Thursday that could be heard over the governors press briefing. There were more protests this week. Those people who are losing their incomes, jobs, and businesses are losing patience with the lockdowns. The press hasn’t been saying much about the protests.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  Eliza
April 15, 2020 2:12 pm

The Michigan governor overstepped her bounds with the restrictions she imposed. That’s the reason for the protests.

Seventy-five percent of Americans polled support the social distancing policy.

April 15, 2020 12:54 pm

Fauci needs to go urgently for the future survival of the USA. Trump needs to fire him immediately he must not have no input to any health decisions in the USA. look at what happening in Michigan NOW the people have had enough! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sGTpUISRv8A. this is a normal virus look at Willis graph all countries including Sweden are showing normal metrics this is just a normal flu vuris that has been exagerrated that kills millions of old peolple every year. Mockton is way wrong and Jo anne nova is is also. Applying these lockdowns will kill millions from starvation no jobs WILLIS IS RIGHT wake up before you are all in dire straights

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  Eliza
April 15, 2020 2:14 pm

I think that the one thing factual about the situation is that people have strong opinions on what is happening, and the best course(s) of action. The problem is that it seems to be driven more by emotion than hard facts. I personally disagree with Monckton and Jo, but I respect that they hold positions on other things that I agree with, and they otherwise appear to have the ability to analyze difficult problems; however, they are human. I think that all would be served best if they give thought to what others say, and give the benefit of the doubt to those who have a history of wisdom, and reject the claims of commenters who offer only their personal opinions and no citations or hard facts to support their claims.

[Disclaimer: I have no hard facts to support the above opinion.] 🙂

Nicholas McGinley
Reply to  Clyde Spencer
April 16, 2020 4:27 am