Pseudo-Science behind the Assault on Hydroxychloroquine

This is a research article published as information for health care professionals and public officials, and for an open peer review. It is not medical advice.


I reviewed the scientific literature on hydroxychloroquine (HCQ), azithromycin (AZ), and their use for COVID-19. My conclusions:

  • HCQ-based treatments are effective in treating COVID-19, unless started too late.
  • Studies, cited in opposition, have been misinterpreted, invalid, or worse.
  • HCQ and AZ are some of the most tested and safest prescription drugs.
  • Severe COVID-19 frequently causes cardiac effects, including heart arrhythmia. QTc prolonging drugs might amplify this tendency. Millions of people regularly take drugs having strong QTc prolongation effect, and neither FDA nor CDC bother to warn them. HCQ+AZ combination, probably has a mild QTc prolongation effect. Concerns over its negative effects, however minor, can be addressed by respecting contra-indications.
  • Effectiveness of HCQ-based treatment for COVID-19 is hampered by conditions that are presented as precautions, delaying the onset of treatment. For examples, some states require that COVID-19 patients be treated with HCQ exclusively in hospital settings.
  • The COVID-19 Treatment Panel of NIH evaded disclosure of the massive financial links of its members to Gilead Sciences, the manufacturer of a competing drug remdesivir. Among those who failed to disclose such links are 2 out of 3 of its co-chairs.
  • Despite all the attempts by certain authorities to prevent COVID-19 treatment with HCQ and HCQ+AZ, both components are approved by FDA, and doctors can prescribe them for COVID-19.


Hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) was accepted as a COVID-19 treatment by the medical community in the US and worldwide by early April. 67% of the US physicians said they would prescribe HCQ or chloroquine CQ for COVID-19 to a family member (Town Hall, 2020-04-08). An international poll of doctors rated HCQ the most effective coronavirus treatment (NY Post, 2020-04-02). On April 6, Peter Navarro told CNN that “Virtually Every COVID-19 Patient In New York Is Given Hydroxychloroquine.” This might explain decrease in COVID-19 deaths in the New York state after April 15. The time lag is because COVID-19 deaths happen on average 14 days after showing symptoms.

But on April 21, several perfectly coordinated events took place, attacking HCQ’s use for COVID-19 patients. 

  1. The COVID-19 Treatment Guidelines Panel of the National Institute of Health issued recommendations with negative-ambivalent stance regarding the use of HCQ as a COVID-19 treatment.  This surprising stance was taken contrary to the ample evidence of the efficacy and safety of HCQ and despite absence evidence of its harm. The panel also strongly recommended against the use of hydroxychloroquine with azithromycin (AZ), the combination of choice among practitioners.
  2. On the same day, a paper (Magagnoli, 2020) was posted on a pre-print server medRxiv, insinuating that HCQ is not only ineffective, but even harmful. This not-yet peer reviewed paper, by unqualified authors with conflicts of interest, received wall-to-wall media coverage, as it if were a cancer cure. It used data from Veterans Administration hospitals, spicing its effects. The paper has shown to be somewhere between junk science and fraud.
  3. Rick Bright, a government official who was probably more responsible for the low level of preparedness to the epidemic than most others, and had been re-assigned to a lower position earlier, emerged as a “whistleblower.” He claimed he had been demoted for opposing hydroxychloroquine, the claim to be soon debunked by documents bearing his signature. The media also gave him a wall-to-wall coverage.

On April 24, the FDA struck its own blow, issuing a stern warning against use of HCQ for COVID-19 treatment.

While these warnings are not binding to doctors, they do produce a chilling effect. Consequently, either patients do not receive necessary treatment, or they receive it with a delay, sharper decreasing its effect. This allows detractors to question HCQ efficacy even more aggressively. Below, I review problems in the NIH COVID-19 Treatment Guidelines and other sources, used to wage anti-HCQ propaganda.

NIH Panel Guidelines

The relevant section of (COVID-19 Treatment Guidelines Panel, 2020) is Potential Antiviral Drugs. The antiviral treatment recommendations (more accurately, failure to provide recommendations) include:


  • There are insufficient clinical data to recommend either for or against the use of the investigational antiviral agent remdesivir for the treatment of COVID-19 (AIII).

Clinical Data to Date:

Only anecdotal data are available.

AIII means a strong position based on expert opinion rather than on evidence.

Chloroquine or Hydroxychloroquine

  • There are insufficient clinical data to recommend either for or against using chloroquine or hydroxychloroquine for the treatment of COVID-19 (AIII).
    • When chloroquine or hydroxychloroquine is used, clinicians should monitor the patient for adverse effects (AEs), especially prolonged QTc interval (AIII).

Clinical Data in COVID-19

The clinical data available to date on the use of chloroquine and hydroxychloroquine to treat COVID-19 have been mostly from use in patients with mild, and in some cases, moderate disease; data on use of the drugs in patients with severe and critical COVID-19 are very limited.

[Follows is a description of some studies]

Notice that CQ and HCQ are addressed together, although these are two different drugs, and HCQ is clearly superior to CQ both in efficiency and safety.

Also notice that the basic recommendation of “insufficient clinical data to recommend either for or against” is given to both HCQ and Remdesivir.  However, the recommendation for HCQ goes further to state that when using HCQ, “clinicians should monitor the patient for adverse effects (AEs), especially prolonged QTc interval”. Practically, this means that HCQ should be used only in hospital settings. No such restrictions are set for Remdesivir, for which there is no clinical data available. It goes against all logic.

The demand to use HCQ only in hospital settings means:

  1. HCQ treatment will be delayed until a patient decides to be admitted to a hospital, thus lowering HCQ’s efficiency
  2. Hospitals will quickly become overwhelmed with COVID-19 patients

Then the Panel nixes HCQ+AZ:

Hydroxychloroquine plus Azithromycin

  • The COVID-19 Treatment Guidelines Panel recommends against the use of hydroxychloroquine plus azithromycin for the treatment of COVID-19, except in the context of a clinical trial (AIII).

This drug combination is the most effective and widely used treatment for COVID-19, and the Panel recommends against it!

The Panel criticizes some studies of patients’ treatment with HCQ+AZ for the absence of a control group. Stephen McIntyre tweeted about this argument long before the Panel used it: “there’s a very large control group of COVID19 patients not receiving this drug combination: hospitals and morgues are full of them.”

There are only two studies, quoted by the Panel against HCQ+AZ, (Molina, 2020) and (Chorin, 2020). Both are misinterpreted by the Panel.

Molina et al.

Despite (Molina, 2020)’s angry tone and aggressiveness, it reports no results contradicting efficiency of HCQ or HCQ+AZ. The paper describes treatment of 11 hospitalized COVID-19 patients, five of which had cancer, one had AIDS, and almost all were in a bad shape: “at the time of treatment initiation, 10 of the 11 patients had a fever and received nasal oxygen therapy.” Using HCQ+AZ, 10 of the patients’ lives were saved. The article’s point of contention is that when they tested these patients, 5-6 days after the treatment initiation, they still found CoV2 RNA in 8 out of 10. Virus RNA is a molecule. Some viral RNA remains in patients for weeks after full recovery, but it is neither harmful nor infectious. Detecting viral RNA depends on the sensitivity of the testing equipment. The study’s title is No evidence of rapid antiviral clearance or clinical benefit with the combination of hydroxychloroquine and azithromycin in patients with severe COVID-19 infection seems to be lost on the Panel.

Chorin et al.

The Panel also quotes (Chorin, 2020) as evidence that HCQ+AZ therapy causes QTc prolongation. QTc prolongation is not a health condition itself, but a warning sign that a person is at higher risk of torsades de pointes (TdP), heart arrhythmia, or tachycardia, which might lead to cardiac arrest and death (Simpson, 2020).

Nevertheless, none of the patients, treated with HCQ+AZ, suffered TdP or arrhythmia. Four patients died, but none of them had an arrhythmia. Other studies, in which COVID-19 patients are treated with HCQ+AZ, reported taking patients off this medicine after QTc exceeds 500ms. But the treatment may have already had its effect at that time or later, while HCQ remained in the bloodstream.

This study has no control group. It provides no information on whether QTc prolongation was caused by the disease or the therapy.

FDA Warning

(FDA WARNING, 2020), issued on April 24, piggybacks on the COVID-19 Panel Guidelines. It says

Hydroxychloroquine and chloroquine can cause abnormal heart rhythms such as QT interval prolongation and a dangerously rapid heart rate called ventricular tachycardia

This statement is confused, and probably not true about hydroxychloroquine. See below.

Be aware that there are no proven treatments for COVID-19 …  

I think that HCQ+AZ is a proven treatment for COVID-19. There is a difference between proven treatment and approved treatment. HCQ+AZ is not approved but proven, because many patients have been treated with this combination and have recovered.

We have reviewed case reports … concerning serious heart-related adverse events and death in patients with COVID-19 receiving hydroxychloroquine and chloroquine, either alone or combined with azithromycin or other QT prolonging medicines.  These adverse events were reported from the hospital and outpatient settings for treating or preventing COVID-19, and included QT interval prolongation, ventricular tachycardia and ventricular fibrillation, and in some cases death. 

These are manifestations of COVID-19! See (Bansal, 2020) and (Wang, et al., 2020). The media hysteria played its role, too. The articles about the supposed dangers of HCQ, with detailed description of the symptoms, triggered complaints even before the April 24 warning. And there are people who tried to self-medicate – in the situation when authorities make it difficult to obtain prescription for HCQ – and took the wrong drug or overdosed. Also, QT interval prolongation is not an event, but an early warning.

To help FDA track safety issues with medicines, we urge patients and health care professionals to report side effects involving hydroxychloroquine and chloroquine or other medicines to the FDA MedWatch program, using the information in the “Contact FDA” box at the bottom of the page.

Such an urging and advertisement guarantee that the FDA will receive mountains of complaints.

HCQ and AZ Safety

HCQ, CQ, and AZ

HCQ & CQ are two different drugs. HCQ is clearly superior to CQ. HCQ has already been selected over CQ. Discussing these two drugs as if they were co-equal in COVID-19 treatment is misleading and a sign of bad faith.

HCQ and AZ are some of the most widely prescribed drugs and have been prescribed for decades. HCQ is as safe as a prescription drug can be. AZ is an antibiotic, and it is as safe as an antibiotic can be.

Because these drugs have been prescribed so widely, their adverse effects have been studied. A few adverse events associated with them have been reported. Combining these few anecdotal cases, some medical researchers have raised some concern, as a precaution. Doctors understand this. Statisticians understand this. But unscrupulous media uses this information to mislead the naïve public and even public figures

Remdisivir is the opposite. It has been developed very recently and has been scarcely used. There is little information about its adverse effects. The corrupt news networks present this lack of evidence of adverse effects as evidence of the absence of adverse effects.


The leading objection against HCQ / HCQ+AZ is possible QTc prolongation. Most professionals refer to (, 2020) which puts both HCQ and AZ in the category of Known Risk of TdP (KR).

I think that HCQ was listed in that category by mistake. A review of the literature reveals only few anecdotal cases. Some of them are poisoning by large overdoses of HCQ. Then there are patients who were on HCQ for years, suddenly got sick and recovered when HCQ was withdrawn. While there are millions of people continuously taking HCQ, only a few cases of cardiac events have been reported. Even if HCQ was the cause of these rare cases, which is usually unknown, it is still statistically insignificant. It is much safer than driving.  Other antivirals are known to cause QTc prolongation too but are not being pulled from practice. In the case of HCQ, it seems that a precaution principle has prevailed over statistical reasoning and common sense.

AZ is in the KR category, just like many other antibiotics, including Erythromycin. I have never heard of patients requiring QTc monitoring, when taking Erythromycin.

Attention of the Trump Derangement Syndrome crowd: many widely used psycho-active drugs are also listed in the KR category. That includes anti-psychotic Haloperidol, anti-depressants Escitalopram (Cipralex, Lexapro) and Citalopram (Celexa).

American College of Cardiology

The most reliable source of information about arrhythmia risks is the American College of Cardiology. (Simpson, 2020) in the Cardiology Magazine:

Chloroquine, and its more contemporary derivative hydroxychloroquine, have remained in clinical use for more than a half-century as an effective therapy for treatment of some malarias, lupus, and rheumatoid arthritis. … Despite these suggestive findings, several hundred million courses of chloroquine have been used worldwide making it one of the most widely used drugs in history, without reports of arrhythmic death under World Health Organization surveillance.

HCQ is even milder than CQ.

Azithromycin, a frequently used macrolide antibiotics lacks strong pharmacodynamic evidence of iKr inhibition [associated with QT prolongation]. Epidemiologic studies have estimated an excess of 47 cardiovascular deaths which are presumed arrhythmic per 1 million completed courses, although recent studies suggest this may be overestimated.

In other words, after over 50 years of effective use, HCQ and AZ have proven their safety and efficacy.  There is no reason for fear, except the fear itself. But some people might be vulnerable, so the article explains how to calculate an individual Risk Score for QTc prolongers. Individuals with higher Risk Score might need QTc monitoring. Also, the authors suggest avoiding other QTc prolonging medications in the time of HCQ+AZ treatment.

The cardiologists who wrote this article did not dismiss the concern. They explained the science pertaining to it and suggest proper mitigation measures.

Other literature also suggests low risk of HCQ and AZ. (Prutkin, 2020):

Limited data on hydroxychloroquine suggest it has a low risk of causing TdP, based on its use for rheumatoid arthritis, systemic lupus erythematosus, and antimalarial therapy. … For these medications [HCQ and AZ], their time window of use is short duration, which is another reason the risk of TdP may be lower

HCQ and AZ have other known contra-indications, but they are out of the scope here.

COVID-19 caused Arrhythmia

Many studies show that COVID-19 causes heart arrhythmia. Cardiac arrest, not directly caused by respiratory damage, is one of the leading direct causes of COVID-19 deaths.

(Bansal, 2020) is a review. It finds that

COVID-19 is primarily a respiratory illness but cardiovascular involvement can occur through several mechanisms.

Acute cardiac injury is the most reported cardiovascular abnormality in COVID-19, with average incidence 8-12%

Both tachy- and brady-arrhythmias are known to occur in COVID-19. A study describing clinical profile and outcomes in 138 Chinese patients with COVID-19 reported 16.7% incidence of arrhythmia. The incidence was much higher (44.4%) in those requiring ICU admission …

It also notes that CoV2 virus might cause cardiac injury directly or indirectly. The possibility of a treatment impact is mentioned as a less likely one.

(Wang, et al., 2020) finds that 44% of the patients transferred to ICU developed arrhythmia. None of them received HCQ or CQ. Most of the patients received an unrelated anti-viral and an antibiotic. Only in 18% of the patients the antibiotic was AZ. At least some of the patients developed an arrhythmia before the treatment.

(Hawryluk, 2020):

Doctors have found that the infection can mimic a heart attack. They have taken patients to the cardiac catheterization lab to clear a suspected blockage, only to find the patient wasn’t really experiencing a heart attack but had COVID-19.

Thus, the hypothesis that CVOID-19 patients experience QTc prolongation and arrhythmia because of the disease, rather than due to HCQ+AZ treatment, is well founded. AZ may increase the odds of QTc prolongation in COVID-19 patients, who would otherwise die from cardiac arrest or multiple organs failure.

The media and professional publications report a sharp increase of mortality from cardiac arrest at home in the last few weeks. Some of these cases are known to be COVID-19, but most of them are not tested. Could many of them be happening due to the cardiac damage caused by COVID-19? Can the cardiac impact of COVID-19 be aggravated by strong QTc prolongers that many people take regularly? There are countless variables confounding this statistic. There is an especially sharp increase in home cardiac arrests in New York, which is usually explained by people’s reluctance to call an ambulance or ER.

(Kochi, 2020) provides in-depth explanation of the cardiac effects of respiratory infections and interaction with QTc prolongation medications.

Positive Cardiac Effects of HCQ

Gone unmentioned are HCQ’s positive cardiac effects. They were widely reported before HCQ had misfortune of being mentioned by President Trump. For example, Taking Hydroxychloroquine for RA or Lupus Can Reduce Heart Risk by 17%

If you take the anti-malarial drug hydroxychloroquine (Plaquenil) as part of your treatment for lupus or rheumatoid arthritis (RA), you may be getting cardiovascular protection as an added bonus.

The article is based on (Jorge, 2019). These findings might be applicable only to long term taking of HCQ, not a 5-day course for COVID-19, but the same can be said about the alleged negative cardiac effects.

Articles/Studies criticizing HCQ

Listed here are several other papers, influential in the media, but not in the science. These papers span the range from erroneous to … non-existent.

Magagnoli et al.

(Magagnoli, 2020) is a not peer-reviewed pre-print. It makes a retrospective statistical comparison of the outcome in COVID-19 patients, who received HCQ or HCQ+AZ treatment prior to April 11, in Veterans Affairs hospitals. In the Abstract, it claims that a larger percentage of HCQ treated patients died compared to untreated patients. This ignores the fact that HCQ or HCQ+AZ treatment was given only in the most desperate cases, frequently as compassionate care. Deep inside of the manuscript, it does acknowledge that initial conditions of the HCQ and HCQ+AZ groups was much worse than those of the untreated group, but then ignores it

The original version (archived) of the “study” was published on April 21. It received crushing criticism in the comments and was replaced with another one on April 23, hiding those comments. Casting even further doubt on the credibility of this study, one of the authors disclosed Gilead funding for another research. This work was funded by a NIH grant.

Despite its multiple flaws, lack of peer review, and obscurity of the authors, this pre-print immediately received wall-to-wall media coverage. Given these circumstances, this work looks like a criminal fraud, rather than a scientific one.

Tang et al.

(Tang, 2020) is a not peer-reviewed pre-print. It reports results of a clinical trial in China, in which HCQ was given to patients 16-17 days after onset of the disease.  This is too late for an anti-viral to work. Thus, this study describes the incorrect use of HCQ, rather than efficacy or safety of the drug. From the comments:

With an average delay of 16 days from symptom onset to enrollment and treatment in this trial, those patients are pretty much past the viral phase of the disease, where an antiviral treatment would have the most value, and are well on their way to pneumonia and a cytokine storm problem, which is ultimately what kills.

Once again, despite its obvious errors, the study was widely covered, including the New York Times and LA Times. Neither headline nor article addresses the obvious lateness of the drug’s application.

Mahevas et al.

(Mahevas, 2020) is another not peer-reviewed pre-print. Didier Raoult and his colleagues replied to it with a bluntness, rare in scientific journals: Scientific fraud to demonstrate the lack of efficacy of hydroxychloroquine compared to placebo in a non-randomized retrospective cohort of patients with Covid: Response to MAHEVAS et al. , MedRxiv, 2020. (Brouqui, et al., 2020). (Mahevas, 2020) also gathered many negative comments on MedRxiv.

Oral Statements of Holtgrave & Cuomo

A study of 600 patients at 22 hospitals in New York is being conducted by the University at Albany School of Public Health under the management of dean David Holtgrave. Although the study was not finished, Mr. Holtgrave already announced that the results are negative: “We don’t see a statistically significant difference between patients who took the drugs [HCQ, HCQ+AZ] and those who did not,” according to CNN. New York Governor Andrew Cuomo referred to the results as neither positive nor negative, per CNN and ABC.

No paper, or even pre-print, reporting these results, has been published, as of April 29 (searches on Google Scholar, PubMed, and medRxiv were conducted for Holtgrave hydroxychloroquine; Holtgrave COVID-19).

New York and other “resistance” states make patients jump through hoops to obtain HCQ. As an anti-viral, it should be taken as soon as possible. Dr. Vladimir Zelenko explained that in his letter, which is worth reading in its entirety:

It is essential to start treatment against Covid-19 immediately upon clinical suspicion of infection and not to wait for confirmatory testing. There is a very narrow window of opportunity to eliminate the virus before pulmonary complications begin. The waiting to treat is the essence of the problem.

He refers to patients in the high-risk category – older than 60, having certain health conditions, or shortness of breath. The resistance states established onerous requirements that delay HCQ treatment for days. This sharply lowers the efficiency of the treatment, and possibly increases TdP risks. The mixed results, promised by Mr. Holtgrave, might be caused by this delay.


On March 28, Russia announced a COVID-19 treatment based on Mefloquine. Mefloquine, invented in the US in 1970s, is another anti-malaria drug, similar to HCQ. In the West, Mefloquine was withdrawn from use after a controversy about its long-term effects. Russia might also use HCQ. From a Russian brochure (Nikiforov, 2020):

These drugs have a comprehensive negative effect on the coronavirus. It may take years of scientific experimentation to understand how and what exactly they affect. Now the fact of a positive effect has been established, and the drugs should and will be used.

The mechanisms of HCQ and HCQ+AZ action are explained (Hache & Raoult, 2020).


On March 27, WHO erected another roadblock to treating COVID-19 patients with HCQ. WHO stated that HCQ was not only insufficiently tested (which was true at that time), but that it was considered for COVID-19 at much higher doses than for malaria.

In the context of the COVID-19 response, the dosage and treatment schedules for chloroquine and hydroxychloroquine that are currently under consideration do not reflect those used for treating patients with malaria. The ingestion of high doses of these medicines may be associated with adverse or seriously adverse health outcomes.

This is dangerous misinformation. HCQ dosage for COVID-19 is the same or lower than for malaria (, 2019).  WHO was aware of this, because it was already conducting clinical trials including HCQ and a number of other Big Pharma drugs. Yet, as of April 29, this paragraph still appears there. This act alone justifies not only defunding but ignoring WHO.

Google and Facebook adhered to WHO on everything related to COVID-19. Together with Twitter, they purged information favorable to HCQ. These is outrageous behavior for telecommunications and computational services providers.


  • It seems that the main contra-indication for HCQ treatment of COVID-19 is that no treatment is needed for healthy individuals below age 50.
  • Persons in the President’s circle were claiming that HCQ / HCQ+AZ are unproven treatments. That might have been true a month ago, but not now. These drugs are proven by practice and by failure of its opponents to disprove their efficacy and relative safety.
  • The Guidelines are accompanied by a financial disclosure of the panel members. Weirdly, this disclosure covers a period of 11 months: May 1, 2019 to March 31, 2020. The latest three weeks were excluded for some reason. Nevertheless, 9 out of 50 members of the panel disclosed financial ties to Gilead. Gilead’s Remdesivir is an inferior competitor to HCQ – more expensive, almost untested, and less efficient (as far as the little testing with it has shown). HCQ is a generic drug with low profit margin. Gilead Sciences directly participates in WHO trials of Remdesivir as a COVID-19 treatment.
  • HCQ / HCQ+AZ are prescribed by a doctor. They are not OTC and should not be used for self-medication.
  • HCQ+AZ is the most common treatment. HCQ acts on its own but is much more effective with Zinc; AZ is an antibiotic and a source of Zinc. See Dr. Zelenko’s regimen is HCQ+AZ+Zinc.
  • There is a live document by Michael J. A. Robb, M.D., tracking effectiveness of HCQ-based treatments


Bansal, M., 2020. Cardiovascular disease and COVID-19. Diabetes & Metabolic Syndrome: Clinical Research & Reviews, 25 March.

Brouqui, P., Million, M. & Raoult, D., 2020. Scientific fraud to demonstrate the lack of efficacy of hydroxychloroquine compared to placebo in a non-randomized retrospective cohort of patients with Covid: Response to MAHEVAS et al. , MedRxiv, 2020. Mediterranee Infection, 24 04.

Chorin, E. e. a., 2020. The QT Interval in Patients with SARS-CoV-2 Infection Treated with Hydroxychloroquine/Azithromycin. medRxiv, 3 April.

COVID-19 Treatment Guidelines Panel, 2020. COVID-19 Treatement Guildelines, s.l.: s.n., 2020. COMBINED LIST OF DRUGS THAT PROLONG QT AND/OR CAUSE TORSADES DE POINTES (TDP). [Online]
Available at:, 2019. Hydroxychloroquine Dosage. [Online]
Available at:

FDA WARNING, 2020. FDA cautions against use of hydroxychloroquine or chloroquine for COVID-19 outside of the hospital …. [Online]
Available at:

Gautret, P. & Raoult, D. e. a., 2020. Clinical and microbiological effect of a combination of hydroxychloroquine and azithromycin in 80 COVID-19 patients with at least a six-day follow up: A pilot observational study. Travel Medicine and Infectious Disease, 4 April.

Hache, G. & Raoult, D. e. a., 2020. Combination of hydroxychloroquine plus azithromycin as potential treatment for COVID 19 patients: pharmacology, safety profile, drug interactions and management of toxicity.. Mediterranee Infection, 22 April.

Hawryluk, M., 2020. Mysterious Heart Damage Hitting COVID-19 Patients. WebMD, 06 April.

Jorge, A. e. a., 2019. Hydroxychloroquine Use and Cardiovascular Events Among Patients with Systemic Lupus Erythematosus and Rheumatoid Arthritis. American College of Rheumatology.

Kochi, A. e. a., 2020. Cardiac and arrhythmic complications in patients with COVID-19.. Journal of Cardiovascular Electrophysiology, 08 April.

Magagnoli, J. e. a., 2020. Outcomes of hydroxychloroquine usage in United States veterans hospitalized with Covid-19. medRxiv, 23 April.

Mahevas, M. e. a., 2020. No evidence of clinical efficacy of hydroxychloroquine in patients hospitalized for COVID-19 infection with oxygen requirement: results of a study using routinely collected data to emulate a target trial. medRxiv, 14 April.

Molina, J. M. e. a., 2020. No evidence of rapid antiviral clearance or clinical benefit with the combination of hydroxychloroquine and azithromycin in patients with severe COVID-19 infection. Médecine et Maladies Infectieuses, 28 March.

Nikiforov, B. B., 2020. Modern Approaches to COVID-19 Therapy. [Online]
Available at:

Prutkin, J. M., 2020. Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19): Arrhythmias and conduction system disease. UpToDate, 24 April.

Simpson, T. e. a., 2020. Ventricular Arrhythmia Risk Due to Hydroxychloroquine-Azithromycin Treatment For COVID-19. [Online]
Available at:

Tang, W. e. a., 2020. Hydroxychloroquine in patients with COVID-19: an open-label, randomized, controlled trial. medRxiv, 14 April.

Wang, D., Hu, B. & Hu, C., 2020. Clinical Characteristics of 138 Hospitalized Patients With 2019 Novel Coronavirus–Infected Pneumonia in Wuhan, China. JAMA Network, 7 February.

5 1 vote
Article Rating
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Peter Miller
May 2, 2020 2:21 am

I, like millions of others, take hydroxychlorquine as an effective remedy for rheumatoid arthritis. I have to have an annual eye test, because one of the very occasional side effects of its long term use is macular deterioration in the eyes.

So what possible harm can taking this drug do to coronavirus victims, if taken early enough and in modest quantities?

In the inevitable autopsies post-pandemic, there is likely to be enough evidence showing that the use of hydroxychlorquine in the early stages of severe infections, was an effective treatment. The question that will be asked is why there were so many nay sayers.

A C Osborn
Reply to  Peter Miller
May 2, 2020 2:24 am

There is no money to be made in hydroxychlorquine.

David Guy-Johnson
Reply to  A C Osborn
May 2, 2020 2:44 am

“no money to be made” A nonsensical, conspiracy theory fuelled statement

Mike Bryant
Reply to  David Guy-Johnson
May 2, 2020 2:56 am

Conspiracy Theory is a term invented by those who want to continue profiting from the ignorance of the people… of course, what I’ve just said is a conspiracy theory too. See how that works?

Jack Black
Reply to  Mike Bryant
May 2, 2020 4:46 am

A conspiracy is an actual covert plot, planned and/or carried out by two or more persons. A conspiracy theory is a constructed postulate of such a plot, real or imagined. Only in the mid twentieth century did the use of such a phrase become used mostly as a pejorative, though its derivation is innocuous and logical enough. If you have a theory about some conspiracy, then it follows that this is a conspiracy theory. However should you have a genuine postulate that you’d wish to promote or warn about, then you’d be better advised to counter such allegations as, “conspiracy hypothesis” as a rejoinder. The term means essentially the same, but does not suffer from being immediately recognised as a pejorative. There is a subtle perceptive difference between a theory, and a hypothesis, or even a conjecture. Choose your words wisely young Padawan.

Reply to  Mike Bryant
May 2, 2020 8:10 am

Let’s not call it a conspiracy theory, which requires people to actually conspire. Instead, think of it as a conflict of interest. A bunch of people make more money if the sheeple use the new, expensive treatment, than the old, cheap treatment. Just because the old treatment is more effective is no reason that I should lose money… right?

Reply to  Mike Bryant
May 4, 2020 10:53 am

Steven F, quick, name one elected representative that HAS NOT taken political contributions from Big Pharma…..

…..still waiting…..

Reply to  Mike Bryant
May 5, 2020 8:45 am

Conspiracy Theory as a means to discredit inconvenient truths or even dangerous hypothesis to the interest of those using it, was invented at the time when the murder of JFK was being investigated…
It was coined by the C-I-A to induce the Sheeple to disregard any clues that would lead to disbelive the “Lone Shooter” myth…. A theory they were pushing.

Reply to  Manny
May 5, 2020 11:40 am

re: “was invented at the time when the murder of JFK was being investigated”

Anachronistic fallacy; assumption/assignment of purported ‘fact’ at the time because pop culture has invented and run with a presumed ‘conspiracy’ for some decades now.

Reading the more ‘accurate’ writers on this event, so-called “conspiracy theories” on the JFK shooting did not emerge UNTIL the known facts of the event began to fade years later …

Chad C. Mulligan
Reply to  David Guy-Johnson
May 2, 2020 3:56 am

Um, it does appear that at least a few panel members openly admit to having financial ties to Gilead.

Jean Parisot
Reply to  Chad C. Mulligan
May 2, 2020 7:17 am

Why wouldn’t you recuse yourself from a panel when you had financial interests at stake? The public nature of those interests will guarantee that the panels recommendations will always be tainted. Gilead should have insisted they be recuse themselves, their product is for patients in a later stage and they can’t produce enough of it to meet demand.

Robert W. Turner
Reply to  Chad C. Mulligan
May 2, 2020 8:49 am

Bingo. The media has been touting Gilead for days and Friday after the markets closed the FDA gives them emergency approval for their unproven drug.

Glad I bought some shares on Friday morning, but not enough to make much as I’m being adversely affected big time by this economic crash. There are many wealthy people that will financially benefit immensely from this manmade disaster.

Reply to  Chad C. Mulligan
May 2, 2020 8:56 am

“…a few panel members openly admit…”

A fact that would have by now been blasted across the entire news media, incessantly, and for days, if the media had the same regard for remdesivir as they do for hydroxychloroquine. Instead, we get crickets.

Reply to  Rod
May 2, 2020 8:59 am

Or if those panel members were Republican, we would never hear the end of how evil Gilead is then.

Reply to  Chad C. Mulligan
May 2, 2020 10:33 am

that at least a few panel members openly admit to having financial ties to Gilead.

Certainly not everyone w/ties to Gilead would admit it, so there are more than a few. Maybe even all of them.

Dennis Kelley
Reply to  Chad C. Mulligan
May 2, 2020 12:40 pm

Here is a disclosure from the NIH panel on Covid-19 treatment and connections to Gilead. Nine of the panel members indicate a relationship with Gilead. Seeing as how the NIH lists this as a financial disclosure, one may assume that the relationships involve some level of remuneration. Hardly what anyone could call a conspiracy.

Steven F
Reply to  Chad C. Mulligan
May 2, 2020 1:21 pm

The news media started looking into why trump was touting Hydroxychloroquine-Azithromycin and found a number of ties between Novartis, a Swiss pharmaceutical company, Rudy Giuliani,MchaelCohen, and Trump attended a dinner with a Navartis chairman. And Rudy Giuliani also purchased $2 million in shares of the company in early February. Well before trump first mentioned the drug on March 19. And a Major Republican doner, billionaire Ken Fisher, is a major share holder of Sanofi, another manufactures of the drug. It is also noteworthy that Trunp never touted Remdesivir or any other drug.

Reply to  Chad C. Mulligan
May 6, 2020 7:30 am

If they have an INTEREST in Gilead, they should have to wear a Gilead Baseball cap while doing interviews….


Reply to  David Guy-Johnson
May 2, 2020 4:44 am

Get a second cup of coffee, sit back, and consider:

1. the price (typical online quotes) for the “replacement” for HCQ using a standard dosage of 50 mg is $1200/pill (US) and is under patent protection produced by one company.
2. the price for HCQ 200 mg is $14/60 pills or about $0.24/pill (US) and is a generic produced by any pharm company that cares to process the paperwork.

Now, apply a tiny bit of analysis when you ask yourself the question, “Does anyone have a profit motive to remove HCQ as a treatment for CV-19?”

As part of your analysis, you could search the internet for books and articles regarding how the FDA actually works, who funds research, as well as the persons going into and out of positions at the FDA. Include how many billions pharm companies, worldwide, have been fined by governments for all sorts of illegal actions from misreporting clinical trials to bribing officials to marketing scams.

If you still conclude there’s not lots of money to be made by denigrating a generic such that the only alternative is a patent-protected immensely expensive drug, then there’s lots of people that will sell you shares of various bridges from New York City to Hong Kong.

Reply to  cedarhill
May 2, 2020 5:44 am

+10,000 cedarhill!

Reply to  cedarhill
May 2, 2020 9:24 am

I’ll see your + 10,000 and raise you another + 10,000

Reply to  cedarhill
May 2, 2020 10:03 am

The misrepresentation of Chloroquine sounds illegal: people in positions of authority, with conflict of interest, knowingly withholding information (or making false statements), resulting in death and huge economic devastation to individuals and to the nation. Where is the FBI ?

Mike Bryant
Reply to  cedarhill
May 2, 2020 7:40 pm

Don’t worry… the FBI is getting their cut…

J. Guidry
Reply to  cedarhill
May 3, 2020 5:37 am

Outstandng! I kinda knew there was skullduggery behind the sudden decrying of the HCQ cocktail when there seemed to be so much success behind its use for the Kung Flu.
Looking into the background of the Fauxi and scarf woman didn’t inspire much in the way of confidence in what they had to say.
Then look at the death stats and how they are being compiled(everyone who dies with a hint of C19 in their body is counted as having died from C19) further convinced me that something was amiss.
Between the already totally corrupt MSM, WHO, and the various “health” agencies there was no place to turn for good info. Well, except for this article and others who have been decried as being non-official and ancedotal. Therefore, not trustworthy.
Yeah, right. What a mess. Time to clean up the debris left behind by the bs being spread by the leftists, both inside and outside the health expert field.
Just sayin’. Thanks for the direction to “follow the money”, as always.

Reply to  cedarhill
May 5, 2020 12:13 am


Reply to  cedarhill
May 13, 2020 2:44 pm

You hit the nail on the head!!!

William Astley
Reply to  David Guy-Johnson
May 2, 2020 9:19 am

A ‘conspiracy’ is the wrong word . This is not a half dozen bad actors. Also this is not a trivial thing.

This is institutional corruption, that has gone on for decades, where everyone has an assigned role and talking points.

Here is the biggest medical ‘conspiracy’ in history.

We can reduce are health care costs by more than 50%, if we correct our population’s Vitamin D deficiency.

4000 UI/day of Vitamin D is sufficient to reduce most common ‘diseases’ by 50% and is the same as daily maximum dosage recommended. Research has been done with Vitamin D dosages from 600 UI/day to 10,000 UI/day. There was absolutely no medical problems observed for daily dosages in that range.

We can reduce the incidences of symptom Covid by more than 50% if our population takes 4000 UI Vitamin D and (333 mg Calcium/167 mg Magnesium, and 17 mg/Zinc)

The Calcium/Magnesium/Zinc is a standard supplement combination.

This single graph, summarize this key issue. rights and content

The RDA for ‘Vitamin’ D is 600 UI, it should be 4000 UI.

The RDA for a chemical that is used in 200 microbiological processes.

There is insufficient sunlight in Canada, the UK, and in US Northern States to produce this key chemical, at the level which has been shown to reduce the incidence of most common diseases, including cancer by more than 50%, for roughly six months of the year.

The Vitamin D scandal explains why blacks in the US are more than twice as likely to die from Covid and HIV as white skin people.

Increasing this key chemical in our body has been shown to also reduce the incidence of multiple scleroses and type 1 diabetes by more than 60%.

Our bodies evolved to lose the skin pigment to enable white skin people, to produce sufficient Vitamin D, to live at higher latitudes, where there is less direct sunlight to produce ‘Vitamin’ D.

mario lento
Reply to  William Astley
May 2, 2020 2:03 pm

This is one of the more cogent posts. I would add strongly that HCQ should be used with supplemental Zn for drastically increased efficacy. It’s the Zinc that is the mechanism for stopping RNA replication in the alveolar cells in the lungs.

I am deeply disappointed with any study that does not point this out.

William Astley
Reply to  William Astley
May 2, 2020 5:00 pm

I totally agree.

The HCQ studies that do not use Zinc,…

… seem to be done to kill a very cheap and non patent protected, covid protection strategy.

The following is a doctor that successfully treated covid patients with Zinc and hydroxychloroquine. This treatment stops the virus from replicating as the Hydroxychloroquine which is a Zinc ionophore, makes the ACE-2 molecule in our cells slightly positive by letting a micro amount of Z +2 into the cell.

Evolutionally I would expect our body to have a natural way to get Zinc into the cell for the same reason. The ACE-2 cell is one of two routes for viruses into our body.

“I blended the two treatments from South Korea and France and made a three drug regimen which are hydroxychloroquine, which is the common denominator by both treatments, then I used zinc, and azithromycin. The virus gets inside the cell and begins to hijack the cell industrial machinery. It is well known that zinc interrupts that. So, the concept is that it interferes in the replication of the virus,” said Dr Zelenko while revealing about his course of treatment.

“But the problem with zinc is that it does not get inside the cell very easily, only very small percent gets in. What is interesting is that hydroxychloroquine is a ionic core; so it is the key that opens the canal and facilitates the work of the zinc. When you have a severe viral infection, it is well known that you can get a secondary infection, so I believe the zithromax is there as a precaution and if there begins a bacteria process, it kills it before it causes a bigger problem,” he went on to add.

This is the Jewish physician that treated 700 sick covid patients with higher dosage Chloroquine and Zinc supplements with close to 100% success rate.

mario lento
Reply to  William Astley
May 2, 2020 5:24 pm

” is a ionic core”

Should be ionophore… but yes, the mechanism is that it helps carry Zn into cells. Quercetin is also a Zn ionophore… so that is what I used when I caught the WuFlu.

mario lento
Reply to  William Astley
May 2, 2020 5:26 pm

William Astley: when I wrote: “This is one of the more cogent posts. ” I was talking about your post by the way.

Reply to  William Astley
May 3, 2020 7:15 am

When Trump is re-elected the first thing on the agenda needs to be, burn the NIH and FDA to the ground and clean all the left over deep state associated scumbags from these once coveted organizations. Rebuild them with real professionals with morals and integrity.

Reply to  David Guy-Johnson
May 2, 2020 9:45 am

Ok then,,,, the Democrats, Rino,s and never Trumpers would rather kill 10s of thousands than see President Trump reelected. Happy Now?

Rick C PE
Reply to  David Guy-Johnson
May 2, 2020 10:15 am

It’s not that there is no money to be made if JCQ+AZ is proven to work best, it’s that there is much, much more money to be made by Gilead if remdesivir becomes the only accepted treatment. The conflict of interest is obvious as is the money needed to pull the right strings at NIH, WHO, etc.

Reply to  David Guy-Johnson
May 2, 2020 10:19 am

Here’s my theory … conspiratorial … or individual … your choice: It is PURE EVIL to denounce a drug regimen that has demonstrably saved lives, and improved outcomes from this novel virus. EVIL. I don’t care what motivates that EVIL … that’s irrelevant to me. It is just sick, twisted, and vile for both individuals and institutions to deny a treatment that saves lives.

Allowing that EVIL to persist within our government institutions is WORSE than a weaponized FBI inventing pretexts to spy on American citizens. Worse than the FBI lying multiple times to the FISA court to persist and expand their evildoing.

mario lento
Reply to  Kenji
May 2, 2020 2:06 pm

I think both the FBI conspiracy to take out Trump and this conspiracy to deny the great effectiveness of HCQ with Zn as a superior treatment are both equally evil!

I do not say this lightly. I have done the right research and have formed this opinion based on good information.

Reply to  David Guy-Johnson
May 2, 2020 11:23 am

Not as bad as the nonsense they use to ban it. But more likely its not the money to be made on the drug. Its the fact that a pause in the hysteria will give folks time to realize the lockdowns are power.

Reply to  David Guy-Johnson
May 2, 2020 12:16 pm

David Guy-Johnson May 2, 2020 at 2:44 am wrote: “no money to be made” A nonsensical, conspiracy theory fuelled statement”

…nevertheless, it is a factual statement 😉

Reply to  David Guy-Johnson
May 2, 2020 3:09 pm

I guess asking where a disease comes from is “conspiracy”, as is asking what started the fire in Notre Dame (we got successively three definitive explanations of an accidental cause and zero evidence), or whether the AZF ammonitrate explosion was really an accident and really started inside the plant…

We never have the right to question unproven allegations of accidental causes in France without being libeled as being “conspiration” minded.

Reply to  niceguy
May 3, 2020 6:25 am

I don’t think you have the technical cojones to properly evaluate one theory as opposed to another; your level of evaluation appears limited to ‘surface’ (evaluation) at best, as if simply comparing the color of child’s alphabet blocks allows one to determine the make-up of the atom

Reply to  niceguy
May 3, 2020 7:28 pm

“I don’t think”


You don’t think. At last, you pinned it down.

Reply to  David Guy-Johnson
May 2, 2020 3:35 pm

HQC is generic = not much money to be made.

Reply to  David Guy-Johnson
May 2, 2020 8:30 pm

Bull. People make decisions all the time that will be of benefit to themselves. They do not have to communicate with others – which is the one essential element in “conspiracy.” All too many of the people involved have good financial reason to see Remdesivir become THE treatment of choice; none of them have good financial reason to see HAZ become the standard. (Note, this does not necessarily make them evil – just human, and altruism is not an innate survival trait.)

Reply to  David Guy-Johnson
May 2, 2020 8:43 pm

No. It literally means that the pharmaceutical industry cannot make the profit off the HCQ (generic medication) vs. Remdesivir. HCQ/AZ/zinc-5 day treatment is approximately $40-50. Remdesivir- $900-1000 for a course of treatment. As a medical professional I can tell you unequivocally the pharmaceutical companies make tons of money on brand name drugs. I can also tell you about the huge kickbacks to doctors, “business” dinners, and conventions held in Las Vegas (my neighbor works in conventions on the Strip. If you are so naive that you can’t see this you should educate yourself. Or are you a “representative” of a large pharmaceutical company and go visit the doctors?

Michael Keal
Reply to  David Guy-Johnson
May 3, 2020 3:02 am

“Practically, this means that HCQ should be used only in hospital settings. No such restrictions are set for Remdesivir, for which there is no clinical data available. It goes against all logic.”
Did I hear ‘conspiracy theory’? Ya mean something like…

Comrades, if we’re not careful the anti-Marxist capitalist pigs will start taking this stuff BEFORE they catch our disease. Then, not only will they not get sick at all, but they might even get IMMUNITY!! If that happens someone will notice, everyone will take it and years of planning will be down the drain! All the lockdowns will end and the destruction of the entire Western economic system will fail. But even worse.
Trump might get re-elected!

Reply to  David Guy-Johnson
May 4, 2020 8:45 am

“Conspiracy Theory” is an Orwellian term made up by the CIA to discredit people who figured out the CIA was involved with the JFK murder. The Oswald “theory” that is believed by nearly nobody including congress in the late 70s is still the official media explanation. Truth investigators don’t do it as a hobby. When official accounts of events have obvious falsehoods and only benefit governments and billionaires, people in harms way want to know the truth. Bill Gates has been “donating” hundreds of millions of dollars to the CDC, NIH, WHO and every other group claiming to be health officials. His stated objective is to vaccinate everyone with digital tracking. His stated goal is depopulation and of course trillions in ROI. The Hillary-loving Dr Fauci is paid by Gates Foundation grants some of which he funneled to the lab in Wuhan. Why would he do that and at the same time predict a Covid19 “surprise outbreak” during Trump’s term. Is it more likely that some virus was spread from a bat to the whole planet or that the Gates big pharma monopoly have orchestrated events to “create a market for vaccines”? Of course a cheap cure for their virus threatens their mulit-trillion dollar payoff. I think it is reasonable to expect them to attempt to not allow it.

Reply to  David Guy-Johnson
May 4, 2020 11:52 pm


1. Did you bother to read the article?

2. Do you work for the NIH, WHO or some other such group or for Gilead?

Reply to  A C Osborn
May 2, 2020 3:50 am

You got it A C!



Reply to  A C Osborn
May 2, 2020 5:29 am

I don’t think money is the primary issue for opposing hydroxychlorquine; I believe it is because if the drug worked, Donald Trump was right and therefore the economy will improve and he will win re-election. It is clear that is DJT adopted a puppy, the media would say he is alienating half the country who loves cats and fiddling with trivialities while Rome burns.

Reply to  Wade
May 2, 2020 6:03 am


Reply to  Aeronomer
May 2, 2020 2:50 pm

^ Ditto.

Reply to  Wade
May 2, 2020 6:08 am

He is going to win a massive re-election vote anyway, this is just more gasoline on the Trump Victory bonfire.

Reply to  A C Osborn
May 2, 2020 6:01 am

Nailed it A C Osborn!

Plus, HCQ does not “reward” panel or board members for supporting HCQ with either funds or glory.

The methods and apparatus of the major pharma companies are well known.
What media and TDS naysayers completely overlook are how many “new” alleged “advanced” drugs utterly fail to achieve promised benefits touted by big pharma.
Most such drugs fade away quickly after launch.

Reply to  ATheoK
May 2, 2020 6:22 am

as do the poor buggers that take em fade away ;-(
ALWAYS read the trials data its very often enlightening
when a placebo isnt saline or a sugar pill but another variant of the same drug(common ploy to hide adverse events
when a trial only has as little as 11 patients and yet gets a drug approved(pschyc meds)
when follow ups are as paltry as 30 days most vaccines
when a drug like the early statins are found to have proven links to50k deaths but the pharmas fight even a blackbox warning and refuse to stop selling them as being safe and good
ditto most antidepressants
or they rebadge them like Champix
used for smoking quitting one script ONLY(in Aus promoted heavily as is another even worse drug)
because it tends to make people so depressed they do stop smoking they also tend to suicide and stop living
I guess you Could? if youre a pharma say thats a solution to depression? but maybe not the best one.

Reply to  ATheoK
May 2, 2020 6:51 am

And we know about what and who the Gates Foundation is funding.

Crispin in Waterloo
Reply to  Krishna Gans
May 2, 2020 2:25 pm

Maybe a vaccine is already the answer.

People who have already received the BCG Danish vaccine (mostly North America) have an interesting tendency to be resistant to SARS-Cov-2 infection. The article is “free public access”.

Reply to  A C Osborn
May 2, 2020 6:12 am

spot on. off patent.
the brazil trial was farcical
huge amounts of chloroquine used way over normal safe doses and they also snuck statins in as well
as azithromycin
remdesivir was on it way to being orphan drug status as pretty much useless for everything they triedi to for ie ebola its reason for being made
like the useless antiviral pills they made bucketloads of millon selling globally on the dud H1N1 pandemic(funny how fast THAT was declared huh?) as well as their less than great vaccine for it.
made billions globally that all they wanted.
youd be better off taking Zinc Vitd and C than any of the antiviral pills they still push.
I refused them and my doc gave me sucj a lecture on how good they were
a possible 24 to 36hrs at BEST reduction in symptoms in standard flu..maybe.

Jeff Alberts
Reply to  ozspeaksup
May 2, 2020 8:50 am

and they also snuck statins in as well

Got enough redundancy there? 😉

mario lento
Reply to  ozspeaksup
May 2, 2020 2:11 pm

“youd be better off taking Zinc Vitd and C than any of the antiviral pills they still push.”

Add quercetin, which is a supplement you can easily get at health food stores, which is a known Zn ionophore and you have the next best thing to HCQ, with no negative side effects, yet certain positive effects!

Michael Fisher
Reply to  mario lento
May 3, 2020 11:03 pm

Spot on Mario….I’ve got my stash of Zn & quercetin….have had it for a month now after learning quercetin is an ionophore….btw I’m at 79 Ng/ml..25OHD

mario lento
Reply to  Michael Fisher
May 4, 2020 9:41 am

Good for you Michael! I learned a lot by questioning ionophore and then reading up on medical sites. What’s cool is that many many holistic professionals know quercetin and zn work well together but do not understand why. They give good advice without knowing why. Whereas today, some medical experts give bad advice and they do know why.

We live in a complicated world my friend!

Rich Davis
Reply to  A C Osborn
May 2, 2020 8:24 am

It couldn’t be more obvious to this observer that the primary reason that so many lefties are exercised about HCQ is that OrangeManBad said it should be looked into as a possible treatment. He must be proven wrong as the highest priority objective, far more urgent than saving the lives of a bunch of boomers who probably vote incorrectly anyway.

As the Cheetos-tinted one himself has noted, he should have kept his mouth shut.

Reply to  Rich Davis
May 2, 2020 1:02 pm

“OrangeManBad ”

Who knew that potentially life-saving drugs could be politically incorrect? And so much so that some people would rather others die than be cured by them.

Rich Davis
Reply to  Ralph Dave Westfall
May 2, 2020 4:57 pm

It’s actually a two-fer for the Democrats. Let the aged Trump voters die, then they can vote multiple times for Dems through mail-in ballots.

Reply to  Ralph Dave Westfall
May 3, 2020 8:32 am

Notice they are not willing to die themselves, or their family members. Put them in an interrogation room and put the screws to them and I bet you will find THEY are using HCQ/Zinc/Antibiotic for themselves and family members, all the while trying to block others from using it.

Michael Jankowski
Reply to  A C Osborn
May 2, 2020 10:09 am

“…There is no money to be made in hydroxychlorquine…”

Sure there is. And there certainly has been. It is manufactured for nothing, and it has been hard to find in stock since it got COVID-19 buzz.

There is plenty to be made in the OTC herbals and supplements market. Most/all not proven to do anything, most/all not even regulated to guarantee that the ingredients are what they say they are, and most/all not even regulated against potentially harmful impurities.

No, not $1200/pill for a few weeks…but several hundred $$$ per year for practically a lifetime. No R&D expenses. No clinical trials. Might just be snake oil but who cares.

Mister Bitcoin
Reply to  A C Osborn
May 3, 2020 8:19 am

it’s true

HCQ is generic not brand. it was FDA approved in 1955

Reply to  Peter Miller
May 2, 2020 3:55 am

The nay sayers are suffering from TDS.

David L Hagen
Reply to  DHr
May 2, 2020 7:20 am

Mortality <0.01% in Lupus/Rheumatoid Arthritis patients on Hydroxychloroquine/Plaquenil
Of those Italian patients, only ~0.03% tested COVID-19 positive (20/65000). Even though Italy has one of the highest COVID-19 infections with 207,428 cases, and 28,236 deaths.
Coronavirus, revealed how it works: that’s why hydroxychloroquine could work
by Peter D’Angelo APRIL 28, 2020 (from Italian via google translate)

Healthcare professionals who are in close contact with contagious patients take the drug (hydroxychloroquine) in advance, precisely to decrease the probability of contracting the infection. For now, in support of this “prophylaxis” effect, there is a recent publication, involving 211 people. It was published on the International Journal of Antimicrobial Agents , the official body of the International Society of Antimicrobial Chemotherapy. Of 211 people exposed to Covid-19 and undergoing hydroxychloroquine prophylaxis, none were infected.
Finally, further confirmation of this hypothesis is the data collected in the register of the SIR (Italian rheumatology society). To assess the possible correlations between chronic patients and Covid19, SIR interrogated 1,200 rheumatologists throughout Italy to collect statistics on infections. Out of an audience of 65,000 chronic patients (Lupus and Rheumatoid Arthritis), who systematically take Plaquenil / hydroxychloroquine, only 20 patients tested positive for the virus. Nobody died, nobody is in intensive care, according to the data collected so far.

Gordon Dressler
Reply to  David L Hagen
May 2, 2020 8:46 am

David Hagen, thank you very much for posting these statistics. They are, to me, astonishing.

I would love to hear a response from the FDA regarding this clear evidence of the efficacy and safety of hydroxychlorquine vis-a-vis COVID-19 . . . but, of course, that will never happen.

As the American saying goes, you can hit a mule across the head with a 2×4, but that won’t make him drink.

Reply to  David L Hagen
May 2, 2020 2:12 pm

David Hagen, many thanks. That Italian survey is a BIG deal. Had not thought to check the Italian literature in Italian since I only speak English, French, and German.

Ian W
Reply to  David L Hagen
May 2, 2020 7:02 pm

Or to put that another way: Had HCQ been given prophylactically to front line doctors and nurses in the USA and UK none would have died. Those that died did so because the media could not allow Trump to be right about anything and HCQ was not made available.

Does nobody else find that disturbing?

Reply to  Ian W
May 3, 2020 8:53 am

It has been disturbing me, and I don’t, on a personal level, even like Trump. He is an arrogant a$$, that said he is OUR arrogant a$$. He is not pushing any political crap, he is doing his dead level best to help all Americans and being resisted at every step by the political establishment and their media(I include fox in that, they are backstabbing liars, too), had his immigration and border security initiatives been put in place to begin with America would be in a far better position than we are right now.

David L Hagen
Reply to  DHr
May 2, 2020 7:54 am

Sermo: COVID-19 Real Time Barometer WEEK 5 (APRIL 21 – APRIL 23)
“The COVID-19 Real Time Barometer Study provides exclusive access into the perspectives and expertise of over 20,000 total physicians across 30 countries, tracked over time.”
“Please indicate which medications you are using to treat COVID-19 patients outside of the hospital (mild symptoms in community setting).”
<blockquotelAzithromycin or similar antibiotics 55%
Hydroxychloroquine (Palquenil) or Chloroquine 37%
“Please indicate which medications you are using to treat COVID-19 patients In the hospital (moderate-severe symptoms, excluding ICU patients).”

Hydroxychloroquine (Palquenil) or Chloroquine 66%
Azithromycin or similar antibiotics 65%

“Please indicate which medications you are using to treat COVID-19 patients in the ICU (critical symptoms).”

Hydroxychloroquine (Palquenil) or Chloroquine 66%
Azithromycin or similar antibiotics 61%

Bob boder
Reply to  Peter Miller
May 2, 2020 4:42 am

We have a study group, all the people taking it for arthritis, what is there infection rate?

Also as I have said a thousand times what is different about India. Of all the places in the world it is a super breading ground for any virus and it has areas that have a modern medical system. Why is the infection rate so much lower there?

Jack Black
Reply to  Bob boder
May 2, 2020 5:05 am

In India in particular many people partake of imbibing Tonic Water containing quinine salts, and also bitter lemon which contains the same. It’s a holdover from the days of the “British Raj”, when the Sahibs & Memsahibs would sit on the verandahs after tiffin sipping their Gin & Tonic water. They did so as a prophylaxis and curative against many sub tropical diseases that were common in India at the time, most notably Malaria. The habit persists and has spread all around the globe in bars and indeed homes and executive offices, wherever the British took the acquired taste. The Gin was added to the Tonic Water originally to allay the bitter taste of the Quinine somewhat. The beverage is still to this day dubbed “Indian Tonic Water”. You can buy it in any supermarket without prescription if you want to give it a try for yourself. That’s certainly one postulation perhaps of why death rates from all coronaviruses are less severe in India. Discuss.

Bob boder
Reply to  Jack Black
May 2, 2020 5:13 am

That may or may not be the case, what is driving me nuts is there are hundreds of possible real world cases that are just begging for data mining and data processing. Yet the medical field is one of the worst at using available data, we need to get a bunch of web industry marketing people to start bringing all the data together and processor.

Jack Black
Reply to  Bob boder
May 2, 2020 5:59 am

Big Pharma can’t make any money from hawking around Indian Tonic Water in Doctor’s surgeries and Hospitals, or get any “research” grants from the Taxpayer, do you see. It’s my guess that what you sensibly suggest will never in fact occur though, simply because there’s no money in it, for the rent seeking boondogglers. Oh, cynic me !

When the panic is over, the public will go back to just discussing the latest baseball picks, or the fashion designs promoted by Madonna, and wrangling over opposing political doctrines on Twitter (orange man bad etc.). I’m afraid that’s my rather jaundiced view.

It isn’t that what you suggest is a bad idea, just that I think it won’t happen for the reasons I’ve give. Maybe I will be proved wrong, and there might be an intricate dissection after the fact, by some independent group perhaps. People are not as altruistic as they used to be.

Reply to  Bob boder
May 2, 2020 6:15 am

How about the situation in Singapore, over 17,000 cases and only 16 deaths and Qatar about 15,000 cases and only 12 deaths?

Reply to  Bob boder
May 2, 2020 7:15 am

The process of getting reliable, consistent data out of a medical lab is one of the most arduous tasks imaginable. It involves writing procedural manuals for specimen collection and analysis as well as comprehensive training and monitoring. It takes years of effort, plus knowlegde of local culture and language. This is just to get useful data out for further analysis.
It is a major reason why global double blind clinical trials are so costly and time consuming.

Rodney Everson
Reply to  Bob boder
May 2, 2020 9:06 am

Bahrain decided upon hydroxychloroquine as their protocol within a few days of their first case.

Deaths per million thus far: Five
Critical/Serious per million: One
Tests Conducted: 8% of population
Confirmed Cases per million: about 1700

U.S. for comparison
Deaths per million: 188
Critical/Serious per million: 55-60
Test conducted: 2% of population
Confirmed Cases per million: about 3200 (many due to uncontrolled spread in nursing homes? Ditto for deaths? Ditto for critical/serious?)

Michael Jankowski
Reply to  Bob boder
May 2, 2020 10:17 am

“Big Pharma” can make a ton of money hawking them. And there are zero R&D expenses to recover.

You think all of the OTC supplements, vitamins, homeopathic remedies, etc, that people buy hand-over-fist for daily use for decades come from Mom and Pop Inc.?

John Endicott
Reply to  Bob boder
May 4, 2020 4:50 am

Rodney, your last statement highlights the dangers of such comparisons. There are many variables at play between different regions of the world in regards the numbers of infected/dead.

Population age and population density among them. (New York city, where the majority of US cases/deaths occurred is something like 8x as densely populated as Bahrain, and the median population age of Bahrain is younger than that of both NYC specifically and the US as a whole. And I rather suspect that the number of nursing homes in Bahrain is relatively few in comparison with either NYC specifically or the US as a whole)

In short, you need to make sure you are comping apples to apples, which is easier said than done.

Reply to  Jack Black
May 2, 2020 6:58 am

On longee car travels, I always have at least one bottle of bitter lemon wih me.
Once, I didn’t pay attention, wasn’t aware, the bottle lied longer in the sun and became very warm, affraied when drinkink, but than I realised how delicious it was now !

David Joyce
Reply to  Bob boder
May 2, 2020 7:58 am

Probably for the same reason the southern hemisphere is doing well. It’s warm there. Australians might be proud of the results of their lockdown, but they are doing about the same Paraguay, Uruguay, and Argentina, but not quite as well as South Africa, or Indonesia. But all of them have orders of magnitude lower death rates (deaths/capita) from Covid-19 than the Western Europe or North America.

A C Osborn
Reply to  David Joyce
May 3, 2020 4:40 am

Vitamin D.

Michael Jankowski
Reply to  Bob boder
May 2, 2020 10:34 am

“…what is different about India. Of all the places in the world it is a super breading ground for any virus…”

Maybe a relatively homogenous gene pool with a higher resistance for whatever reason. I’ve heard medical people use that to explain away why Sweden’s approach would not work in the US. Maybe Italy and Spain have a relatively homogenous gene pool with a lower resistance. In the US we’ve got far more diversity and fall in the middle.

Reply to  Michael Jankowski
May 2, 2020 7:01 pm

a lot of people drink tonic in India ( that why Gin and Tonic became the staple pub mix of choice with the British ) – tonic is quinine

Reply to  Michael Jankowski
May 5, 2020 12:44 pm

Except that Sweden is doing better than their neighbors with lockdowns. I doubt the gene pool in Scandinavia differs much from one country to the next so, I find it difficult to believe it’s their genes that make the difference.

Reply to  Bob boder
May 2, 2020 7:29 pm

Is it possible that Ayurvedic medicine in India could provide immunity?

Reply to  Peter Miller
May 2, 2020 6:29 am

A world wide treatment list overview with results:

Reply to  Peter Miller
May 2, 2020 6:53 am

It is increasingly probable that the Covid-19 virus came from the Wuhan bio-weapons lab.

I recommend this video – 53 minutes.

My relevant posts starting early February 2020:

Published on February 4, 2020

At this point it is an interesting hypothesis. It is notable that the primary biological weapons lab in China is located at Wuhan. It is also notable that many of the earliest patients infected with the coronavirus were never close to the animal market.
I don’t have adequate evidence , but my hunch is that the Covid-19 virus came from the Wuhan bio-weapons lab.

Probability 90:10 it came from the lab, not the animal market.

Probability 80:20 it escaped and was not a deliberate release.

Emphasis on the word “hunch”.

May 2, 2020 8:19 am

At this point whether or not it was “manufactured” or not is a moot point. The facts are CCP blocked travel from Wuhan/Hubei to other parts of China while expanding international travel from Wuhan/Hubei and lied about the outbreak to the rest of the world, that is all that really matters. CCP knew they had a massive and highly contagious viral outbreak in the beginning of December, press reports from that time show that, and they took steps to spread it OUTSIDE of China while restricting movement INSIDE China. CCP intentionally spread this, the reason they did it is irrelevant, they did it with malice of forethought.

Reply to  2hotel9
May 3, 2020 3:29 am

No. When the lockdown was applied it was applied to all transport from Wuhan, domestic and international. The only flights out of Wuhan after the 23rd January were negotiated by foreign governments trying to get their own nationals out of the country.

A C Osborn
Reply to  kribaez
May 3, 2020 4:54 am

But by then 500,000 had already left Wuhan and were NOT prevented from travelling Internationally or anybody else already infected by spread to other regions.
Don’t try and make excuses for what the CCP did, it won’t wash.

Reply to  kribaez
May 3, 2020 9:44 am

And yet Chinese nationals continued to travel out of Wuhan/Hubei to international destinations, while blocked from internal travel. A corporate delegation from Wuhan visited Smithfield meat processing plants in two states in US during March. Same plants where outbreaks happened end of March into April. How did those Chinese nationals travel here if they were being blocked by CCP from coming here? Next, how did they travel here when US DeptState was supposed to be blocking Chinese nationals from traveling here? Lots of questions swirling around this “epidemic”.

Gordon Dressler
May 2, 2020 10:05 am

Just consider the following:

— China has a population currently estimated at 1.4 billion people, more than 4 times that of the US,

— in the last 24 hours preceding today’s WHO report on the status of the COVID-19 pandemic, China reported that they had a total of 3 newly confirmed cases of the virus and no new deaths.

So, I conclude that China (a) is outright lying on the status of COVID-19 in its country, or (b) has secretly developed a highly effective vaccine against COVID-19 and very quietly inoculated the majority of their population with such.

Although I believe (a) is the most probable case, if (b) is true it would indicated that Chinese virologists had all the detailed information on the structure of COVID-19 earlier enough to have developed and tested on humans a highly effective vaccination against it in event it suddenly “appeared” in their citizens.

Either way, China is no friend to the rest of the world.

Russ R.
Reply to  Gordon Dressler
May 2, 2020 11:26 am

China currently has 250 million elderly people above the “official” retirement age. Those people are eligible for a pension that they have paid into during the working years of their life. That pension is a Pay-As-You-Go system that transfers the incoming payments by current workers to the entitled’ recipients. When you have a surplus of workers, you have a surplus of funds, that are “invested” by the CCP government to insure that when you have a shortage of worker receipts due to demographic changes you can maintain your payments by cashing out the investments which allows the system to work without changing the taxes or the payments.
The cost of health care for elderly retirees is mostly carried by the government. Especially for those that worked in a government controlled industry, which is most urban workers.
Over the next decade China will have another 200 million people at or above retirement age, that were born in the 60’s, before the one child policy started in 1979.
If you assume the current retirees die at the trends of recent years, you would expect roughly half of the current retirees to die every decade, so those currently retired still alive in a decade would be 125 million. Add to that another 200 million new retirees and you get 325 million. That would be the largest number of retired workers any country has ever had. In the history of the world.
And it would be financed by the lowest ratio of workers per retiree, that the China’s system has had to deal with since it’s inception.
This is an unstable system.
And the remedy is for retired people to get put down, when their benefit to society is less than their current cost to society. There is symmetry to regulating who can be born, with also regulating who has exceeded their balance of “contributions while working” with their “excessive existence” while retired. But that requires cooperation from the public, and enforcement from the government. A recipe for conflict and rebellion that could end in workers questioning the compassion of the leadership.
It would be much better if people could be encouraged to die on a schedule that was in the best interests of the “community”. And if this could be accomplished through a “natural disaster” that discriminated against the unproductive, while sparing the current productive workers, and the future workers, that would be ideal.
It is a cold analysis of the value of human life, which is why the CCP likes it so much.

Reply to  Gordon Dressler
May 3, 2020 3:35 am

“China…has secretly developed a highly effective vaccine against COVID-19 and very quietly inoculated the majority of their population with such.”
Jeez. Really?

Gordon Dressler
Reply to  kribaez
May 4, 2020 9:46 am

How else do YOU explain the current low occurrence of COVID-19 cases (3 per day) and essentially zero deaths attributed to COVID-19 in a population of 1.3 billion people . . . assuming of course, that the CCP is honorable and would never lie to the rest of the world about what is happening in their country?

Or maybe China just has divine intervention protecting them . . . Really?

Reply to  Gordon Dressler
May 4, 2020 11:08 pm

The virus study in China was funded by the NIH.

Gordon Dressler
Reply to  krollchem
May 5, 2020 11:31 am

krollchem, correction: partly funded by the US (but not sure if was the NIH or some other US organization interested in virology)

May 3, 2020 4:59 am

Nailed it again – I wrote above on May 2, 2020 at 6:53 am:

“I don’t have adequate evidence , but my hunch is that the Covid-19 virus came from the Wuhan bio-weapons lab.

Probability 90:10 it came from the lab, not the animal market.

Probability 80:20 it escaped and was not a deliberate release.”

Peter Hasson, Editor, May 02, 2020. 6:21 PM ET

The majority view among the U.S. intelligence community agencies is that COVID-19 is natural and accidentally leaked out of a laboratory in Wuhan, China, a senior intelligence official told the Daily Caller News Foundation.

While not all of the 17 agencies that make up the IC are fully behind the idea that the novel coronavirus was an accidental laboratory leak, most believe that to be the case, according to the senior official. The official added that the holdouts are still open to the possibility that the virus leaked from a laboratory.

The unanimous view of the IC is that the virus was not the result of an intentional act, the senior official noted. (RELATED: WHO Says China Blocking It From Investigation Into Coronavirus Origin)

That official’s account confirms what Fox News White House reporter John Roberts reported Saturday, and matches with what President Donald Trump has said publicly.

Roberts cited a senior intelligence official in reporting that “there is agreement among most of the 17 Intelligence agencies that COVID-19 originated in the Wuhan lab. The source stressed that the release is believed to be a MISTAKE, and was not intentional.”

“Sources say not all 17 intelligence agencies agree that the lab was the source of the virus because there is not yet a definitive ‘smoking gun’. But confidence is high among 70-75% of the agencies,” Roberts added.

John Roberts
A Senior Intelligence Source tells me there is agreement among most of the 17 Intelligence agencies that COVID-19 originated in the Wuhan lab. The source stressed that the release is believed to be a MISTAKE, and was not intentional.

John Roberts
Sources say not all 17 intelligence agencies agree that the lab was the source of the virus because there is not yet a definitive “smoking gun”. But confidence is high among 70-75% of the agencies.

The Office of the Director of National Intelligence confirmed in a statement Thursday that the IC is “rigorously” investigating whether the virus was a result of a lab leak, while making clear that COVID-19 is not believed to be “manmade or genetically modified.”

Trump said during a press conference Thursday that he has seen information that indicates with a high degree of confidence that the virus originated from the Wuhan Institute of Virology.

“Have you seen anything at this point that gives you a high degree of confidence that the Wuhan Institute of Virology was the origin of the virus?” Roberts asked Trump Thursday.

“Yes, I have,” Trump answered. “And I think the World Health Organization should be ashamed of themselves because they’re like the public relations agency for China.”

May 3, 2020 12:59 pm

To understand the Chinese Communist Party and its philosophy, read these comments. This is the political system that Trudeau admires and stated that he wants for Canada.

Posted 2019:

Legislation to curb transplant tourists receiving illicit organs can have a big impact, says rights lawyer
By Joan Delaney February 26, 2019 Updated: June 18, 2019
China’s organ transplant industry grew exponentially in the early 2000s and today, China is the go-to country for transplant tourists from around the world. Despite the fact that organ donation is minimal in China, organs are plentiful, and the wait-times range between a few days and two months—something out of the question in any other country.

Posted 2012:

Gail Combs says: April 14, 2012 at 5:28 am

There is also the question of how good the data is during the time of Red China’s “Purges” where up to 80 million were killed.

Thank you Gail for remembering these tortured millions. Below is an excerpt from that article.

The CAGW scam is not, as many of us originally believed, the innocent errors of a close-knit team of highly dyslexic scientists. The evidence from the ClimateGate emails and many other sources, and the intransigence of these global warming fraudsters when faced with the overwhelming failures of their scientific predictions, suggests much darker motives.

The lesson of Mao, Hitler and Stalin is that one should not trust, and one should never cede power to those who have no moral compass.

Best regards, Allan
Exiled Chinese historians emerge with evidence of cannibalism and up to 80 million deaths under the communist leader’s regime.
Beth Duff-Brown,
Los Angeles Times,
November 20, 1994

Gong Xiaoxia recalls the blank expression on the man’s face as he was beaten to death by a Chinese mob.

He died without a name, becoming another statistic among millions.

“I remember him so vividly, he really had no expression on his face,” Gong said. “After about 10 or 20 minutes, God knows how long, someone took out a knife and hit him right into the heart.”
He was then strung on a pole and left dangling and rotting for two months.

“I think the most terrible thing, when I recall that period, the most terrible thing that struck me was our indifference,” said Gong, today a 38-year-old graduate student at Harvard researching her own history.

That terrible period was China’s 1966-1976 Cultural Revolution. The blinding indifference was in the name of Chairman Mao Tse-tung and the Communist Party.

Gong is among a new wave of scholars and intellectuals, both Western and Chinese, who believe modern Chinese history needs rewriting.

While the focus of many books and articles today is on China’s successful economic reforms, dramatic new figures for the number of people who died as a result of Mao Tse-tung’s policies are surfacing, along with horrifying proof of cannibalism during the Cultural Revolution.

It is now believed that as many as 60 million to 80 million people may have died because of Mao’s policies-making him responsible for more deaths than Adolf Hitler and Josef Stalin combined.

Gong said killer is not a strong enough word to describe Mao. “He was a monster,” she said.

Gordon Dressler
May 4, 2020 10:06 am

ALLAN MACRAE posted: “Probability 90:10 it came from the lab, not the animal market.
Probability 80:20 it escaped and was not a deliberate release.”

I generally agree. Furthermore, I would add this: Probability 99:1 that the CCP never really considered the “Law of Unintended Consequences” in allowing the intentional lab creation of COVID-19 and the severe economic impact on their country should it escape/be released into the world.

I suspect China has lost many $trillions in exports as the world economies have contracted.

And this: “”Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools.” — Bible, Romans 1:22 (NKJV)

Reply to  Peter Miller
May 2, 2020 8:13 am

Probably because Trump thought it might be helpful. That is the world we live in.

john york
Reply to  Peter Miller
May 2, 2020 8:36 am

A study in Italy of lupus and RA patients who used hydroxychlorquine regularly before the Wuhan flu outbreak, were highly unlikely to contract the flu: 65,000 patients, 20 infected, no deaths. And these are people who had compromised immune systems. Why aren’t the medical professionals worried about cardiac arrhythmia in all the patients all over the world who have used hydroxychlorquine for years?

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  Peter Miller
May 2, 2020 10:54 am

The interesting thing is that is is ONLY recommended (by advocates) for those in the early stages of infection and not in need of intensive care. This is the group most likely to recover on its own.

Your remarks sound to me like you didn’t take advantage of the author’s link to the dosage and contraindications:

Note particularly the section on side-effects:

Reply to  Clyde Spencer
May 3, 2020 2:36 am

What medicament will you give your family in case of Corona infection ?
How long and where will you search for a side-effect free drug for treament, knowing to find none ?

A C Osborn
Reply to  Clyde Spencer
May 3, 2020 4:47 am

Millions of people take hydroxychlorquine every day and have done for decades.
So why are you against it when it’s side effects are so well known?
Compared to say new anti-viral drugs like remdesivir.

Reply to  A C Osborn
May 3, 2020 6:16 am

He fears the side effects more than the possible death by Corona infection ? Who nows….

Reply to  Clyde Spencer
May 3, 2020 5:45 am

As follow-up to our earlier discussion you don’t ride a striped horse, I’ll better say, you try to ride a dead horse.

Reply to  Clyde Spencer
May 3, 2020 5:53 am

Why didn’t you link to Is hydroxychloroquine effective for COVID-19? on the same page ??? TDS ???

Jim Allison
Reply to  Peter Miller
May 2, 2020 1:10 pm

A big reason is TDS in the media. They will (and have) denigrate any suggestion/question by DJT, in favor of any alternative. Facts be damned!

Reply to  Peter Miller
May 3, 2020 6:34 am

The naysayers are the ones who want big pharma to make big bucks off of inoculating the world. They have switched their preferred treatment to a far more expensive treatment. Just imagine the profit from inoculating the world! Thus, this will not go away, because Gates and his elves never have enough money.

Mister Bitcoin
Reply to  Peter Miller
May 3, 2020 8:17 am

there have been zero cases of covid-19 in lupus and rheumatoid arthritis patients

May 2, 2020 2:23 am

“Pseudo-Science behind the Assault on Hydroxychloroquine”

This is pseudo-science (9 out of 10 dentists recommend…):

“Hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) was accepted as a COVID-19 treatment by the medical community in the US and worldwide by early April. 67% of the US physicians said they would prescribe HCQ or chloroquine CQ for COVID-19 to a family member (Town Hall, 2020-04-08). An international poll of doctors rated HCQ the most effective coronavirus treatment (NY Post, 2020-04-02). On April 6, Peter Navarro told CNN that “Virtually Every COVID-19 Patient In New York Is Given Hydroxychloroquine.””

NIH, FDA, WHO etc want to see positive evidence that HCQ works before they will recommend it. Not just criticisms of the trials that cast doubt on its effectiveness.

Mike Bryant
Reply to  Nick Stokes
May 2, 2020 2:52 am

“ NIH, FDA, WHO etc want to see positive evidence that HCQ works before they will recommend it.”
Doctors, apparently, DON’T want the same thing, then? Please, I am so sick of the totalitarian impulses on display.

Reply to  Mike Bryant
May 2, 2020 3:48 am

“totalitarian impulses”
The key word here is recommend. The FDA has permitted usage. Doctors are free to do so. The demand here is not that FDA will allow it, but that those organisations will recommend it. And they should only do so if they are confident it is effective and safe.

Richard (the cynical one)
Reply to  Nick Stokes
May 2, 2020 5:15 am

“The FDA has permitted usage”, couldn’t very well do otherwise since it is a proven treatment for some conditions, but has strongly discouraged usage. The demand is that they stop demonizing it. On a balance of probabilities, there are patients who have died that could have recovered because HCQ is demonized.

Ken Irwin
Reply to  Richard (the cynical one)
May 2, 2020 6:16 am

We can’t wait two years for an FDA approved study.

I don’t like taking medications at the best of times – but I’ll take my chances with HCQ any day of the week.

More so than forced ventilation which appears to be killing 80+% of those placed on one – I’d call that an extremely ineffective if not outright dangerous course of treatment.

Where;s the FDA approved double blind study for the use of respirators – specifically on Covid-19 patients ?

Reply to  Richard (the cynical one)
May 3, 2020 4:36 am

Richard wrote:
“On a balance of probabilities, there are patients who have died that could have recovered because HCQ is demonized.”

I agree. – Allan MacRae

Matthew Schilling
Reply to  Nick Stokes
May 2, 2020 6:06 am

I guess you missed the part about some states forcing the use of HCQ to take place only in a hospital setting. (One of the most common symptoms of TDS is being willfully obtuse.) Yet coming to the hospital has been greatly suppressed. The practical outcome is patients will start receiving the treatment too late.
The governor in MI threatened doctors who prescribe HCQ.

Mike Bryant
Reply to  Nick Stokes
May 2, 2020 7:38 am

You probably defend the climate models too…

Kevin kilty
Reply to  Nick Stokes
May 2, 2020 9:05 am

I think you don’t know the full story here. Where I live the State Medical Board has sent strong warnings about any “misuse” of drugs, while at the same time saying they would not prevent physicians from prescribing medications they felt were effective, and then go on with more “guidance”. Here is an example…

“…And so what this statement would say is that this board supports the AMA call for a stop the inappropriate prescribing and ordering, including, but not limited, to chloroquine hydroxychloroquine, and includes, but isn’t limited to, prescribing medications to patients who are asymptomatic at the time of the writing of the prescription,”

To be clear, the board goes on…

““Failure to meet standard of care inappropriate and overprescribing, and overutilization of treatments medication equipment may constitute violations of the Practice Act, and will not be tolerated.”

While this sounds harsh, Bohnenblust said, it’s just reiterating that the board will uphold the Medical Practice Act and the standard of care requirements for physicians. ”

The entire communication is one of wanting to have things both ways, and be in the right no matter how things go. You practicing physicians…well you are on your own. It was meant to sound simultaneously both flexible and totalitarian. How do you think physicians will respond?

Reply to  Kevin kilty
May 2, 2020 12:28 pm

“You practicing physicians…well you are on your own.”
Yes. It means that if you think it works, you can use it, but have to take responsibility for your decision. It isn’t our recommendation.

This whole exercise it about trying to get an unconvinced FDA etc to take over responsibility (andliability) for the consequences of someone else’s idea.

Reply to  Mike Bryant
May 3, 2020 6:37 am


Reply to  Nick Stokes
May 2, 2020 3:04 am

Nick Stokes
May 2, 2020 at 2:23 am

NIH, FDA, WHO etc want to see positive evidence that HCQ works before they will recommend it. Not just criticisms of the trials that cast doubt on its effectiveness.

And the rest of the world, Nick, me you and the rest of the norm ones, want to see that we do not die simply due and only to wrong treatments.

A very big difference there, Nick, one which the criminals at WHO know very well of.

A wrong treatment that does not kill you is far better than one that kills you.

If you doubt what am saying, “ask” WHO, how was HIV AIDS discovered and detected.
Where “COVID-19” happens to be very similar but not the same, at that point.
Where not the same consist with the “COVID-19”, where actually “COVID-19” being worse on that point than HIV AIDS,
not as only a scary boom from a normal hospitalization to ICU, aka scary severity, but also a boom in the death ratio for those unfortunate enough that ended up in ICU.

Wrong treatment had the early days HIV AIDS sufferers facing a severity of hospitalization, where many went boom to ICU, but with not such a fatality ratio as the
“COVID-19″‘s early day sufferers.
That happens to be the very similar signature of detection in both situations…
still worse with this latest one.

And the very sad thing, the WHO and all of the rest of suspects and culprits there know it Nick, but they do not really care, not at all even one inch,
especially when these “guys” firmly believe the place is too crowded and there is too many of us around for a comfort.


Reply to  whiten
May 2, 2020 7:51 am

Thank you stupid.

Reply to  Nick Stokes
May 2, 2020 3:54 am

Following the text of the article I really can’t imagine, why med. personal is leaving the treatment protocol for use of HCQ + AZ, wrote it even down in their misleading paper for saying later, HCQ doesn’t help.
One problem seems to be, that ill persons with a lower symptome rate doesn’t consult a doctor in time, are not tested, so not treated. (TDS ?)
Should be the moment to reflect about that “politic” of medical care.

Reply to  Nick Stokes
May 2, 2020 5:40 am

In my simpleton understanding, maybe wrongly so in my part, but never the less it happens that a comment of mine to Nick has literally perished.

Any idea, Anthony?!?!

it was there, now it is not!

Any way to explain it?

Reply to  whiten
May 2, 2020 6:06 am

Maybe this got to make it, just maybe.

Imagine Dragons – Natural

Nicholas McGinley
Reply to  whiten
May 2, 2020 9:50 am

You used the K word. It is there now.

Gordon Dressler
Reply to  Nick Stokes
May 2, 2020 8:58 am

Nick Stokes,

For heaven’s sake, please read the above post by David L Hagen, made May 2, 2020 at 7:20 am.

Pseudo-science results from, among other things, people not bothering to read—or just plain ignoring—documented facts contrary to their world view.

Now, you were mentioning something about NIH, FDA and WHO wanting to see positive evidence that HCQ works . . .

Reply to  Nick Stokes
May 2, 2020 11:06 am

“NIH, FDA, WHO etc want to see positive evidence that HCQ works before they will recommend it. “

No they don’t, because if they did proper trials would already have been funded by them that use HCQ plus zinc early in treatment, as soon as covid confirmed or suspected in a patient. These trials would already have finished. There is NO excuse for these trials not having been finished by now.

Richard Mann
Reply to  Stevek
May 2, 2020 3:16 pm

Thanks for the timely and informative article.

Anyone who has tried to publish “contrarian” views knows that the establishment media, academies, regulatory boards and state officials will all resist. This is true in all political fields, including most recently “climate change” and “renewable energy”.

The notion that we have to wait for “double blind” studies to be published is insane. We don’t have time for this, to get funding, to perform the experiments and to push uphill to get them published. For climate change, the official position is still wrong. Do we really expect the medical establishment to change?

Furthermore, doctors who begin treating with HCQ or other medication will be morally compelled to switch their control group to the active group if they believe the treatment is working.

The decision whether to prescribe an FDA approved medication for another use (“off label” prescription) is already well established and is based on a combination of: doctors’ judgement, anecdotal reports, and published case studies. The government and medical boards should be ashamed of their attempts to manipulate the doctors and their patients.

Reply to  Nick Stokes
May 4, 2020 11:12 pm

Most doctors forget to add zinc thus the HCQ effectiveness is limited.

A C Osborn
May 2, 2020 2:23 am

The worst case against HQC was the Brazil trial of Chloroquine with no Zinc which was immediately equated with HQC by the medical world and MSM.
They gave massive overdoses of a more dangerous drug and then said the drug was too dangerous to use for CIVID-19.
A study designed to fail, or complete ignorance by the Doctors?

Jack Black
Reply to  A C Osborn
May 2, 2020 5:27 am

Again, at least in “westernised” countries with branded products in supermarkets and general grocers stores, there is a common source of Zinc for which no prescription is required. Nesquik milk shake powder contains at the recommended concentrations Zinc in such amounts, that the RDA of zinc can be consumed by drinking just a quart of eg. Strawberry milk shake per day (or just one pint if you double the strength). The drink contains other vital vitamins and minerals too, and if using full cream cows milk, will afford sufficient Calcium and Vitamin D3, to assist the human immune system, such that aficionados might never actually suffer from coronavirus diseases at all, even though those virus may be present in their bodies.
There are zero known cases of anybody dying from “overdosing” on Nesquik milkshakes !

Greg S.
Reply to  Jack Black
May 2, 2020 1:01 pm

Or, you know, one can just take a daily multivitamin (which often include 100% (or more) RDA of many different vitamins and minerals). You can bolster it with additional supplements and/or diet as well.

Reply to  Greg S.
May 6, 2020 5:57 pm

Well, chocolate and strawberry Quik both taste better than the vitamin pill. Also, pills can pass through the digestive track before being fully absorbed. Which will be more popular?

Steven Mosher
May 2, 2020 2:29 am

“There is a live document by Michael J. A. Robb, M.D., tracking effectiveness of HCQ-based treatments


that my dear friend is not data.

I hold no opinion in HCQ and the various confusing descriptions of how and when it should be used,
in combination with what… etc.

I would like to actually see data and a proper description of the test.

David Becker
Reply to  Steven Mosher
May 2, 2020 8:47 am

I consulted this report and it is chock full of highly relevant data. I am not sure why Mosher would say “that…is not data.”

Steven Mosher
Reply to  Steven Mosher
May 2, 2020 4:59 pm

I pick an item at random

“Dr. Vladimir
Monroe, New

patients seen 1354.

This is a SUMMARY statistic. Please show me the age/sex/ comorbity cross tabs.
or the actual data for the 1354

SUMMARY stats ain’t the actual data.

1,1,1,2,100 would be data:
105 would be a sum
21 would be an average
Data allows me t calculate relevant stats.
if you just tell me the average is 21, you can hide a lot.

This is not hard

Reply to  Steven Mosher
May 3, 2020 8:46 am

So it works and you still don’t accept it. Fine, that is your choice, let others make their own choice. HCQ has been around a long time, used for multiple conditions, its side effects and drawbacks are well known and documented. Use what works, unless you choose not to.

Full disclosure time, several months ago my ENT specialist talked to me about using HCQ after I began showing early signs of RA, I have had Sjogrens Syndrome for 20 odd years which shares many issues with Lupus, so once all this bruhaha settles down I will be starting HCQ maintenance regime at his direction.

Reply to  Steven Mosher
May 3, 2020 4:12 pm

Steven Mosher May 2, 2020 at 4:59 pm
I pick an item at random

“Dr. Vladimir Zelenko Monroe, New York 4.12.20
patients seen 1354.

Dr. Zelenko – clinician, not a researcher. Probably works in a one-doc office, doesn’t know MS Excel let alone “R”.

We do know the criteria he used in administering HCQ to patients:

“Out of [1,450 patients] those I divided them into two groups:

high risk and low risk.

Low risk I did not treat, because they’re going to get better without any intervention.

High risk was defined as over the age of 60 with symptoms, and under the age of 60 with symptoms but have chronic medical problems, like cancer, diabetes, high blood pressure, things like that.” … anyone [that] looked sick in his office and had difficulty breathing, he put them in the high-risk category.

Method of treatment, working from presenting symptoms and co-morbidities:

The key to Zelenko’s success was not waiting for test results. “I initiated treatment based on clinical suspicion, even without confirmatory testing,” he said. “I did the testing if I had the test, but I did not delay treatment for 72 hours to get the results. Those are the crucial 72 hours.

If we can intervene early, we can reduce the viral load in such a way so that the compromised person’s immune system could actually clear the infection without the development of the acute respiratory distress syndrome or pneumonia.”

And the results:

Out of the 1,450 patients Zelenko saw, 405 fell into the high-risk category. “Statistically,” Zelenko said, out of that number, “you would have expected 20 dead, and a multiple of that, perhaps 30 or 40, on a respirator.”

But Zelenko’s numbers were much different:

only two dead,

four that were temporarily on a respirator, and

five that were admitted to the hospital for pneumonia but are already home.

David Guy-Johnson
May 2, 2020 2:39 am

O have no opinion on this. However, if the evidence is as overwhelming as you state, why for example is my country’s NHS not using it? “Are they all stupid?

Steven Mosher
Reply to  David Guy-Johnson
May 2, 2020 2:53 am

The claims keep changing as far as I can see.

maybe some advocate for it will answer a few questions.
What biology I have looked at suggests it may work, but
I see a bunch of competing claims and no actual data

Jaap Titulaer
Reply to  Steven Mosher
May 2, 2020 3:52 am

Like this?

Association of American Physicians and Surgeons (AAPS):
Hydroxychloroquine Has about 90 Percent Chance of Helping COVID-19 Patients

Where’s the Evidence on COVID-19 Treatment?

Note the date in the below quote:
“However, in 2005, the CDC Special Pathogens Branch described three mechanisms by which chloroquine might work and have both a prophylactic and therapeutic role in coronavirus infections. More than 20 relevant studies have been published in journals indexed in PubMed between Jan 28 and April 20, 2020. ”

It was already discovered during the previous SARS epidemic that it worked.
In combination with Zinc it works better. There is in vitro research that seems to explain why (and most COVID patients seem to be obese, hence are likely Zinc-deficient).

Nicholas McGinley
Reply to  Jaap Titulaer
May 2, 2020 10:06 am

Have you had a look at some of the other things that esteemed medical group endorses?
The AAPS believes that:
-HIV does not cause AIDS
-Abortion causes breast cancer
-Vaccines cause autism

In 1944 the group had the stated purpose of defeating any government group medicine.
IOW…this is a political and economic advocacy group…hard right wing.
I am a lifelong fiscal conservative, but I have never joined a political party, remaining
Independent, and groups like this are one reason why.
Being for or against something, simply because one’s political opposition holds the opposite view, as jackassery, not science, and it is not conservatism either.

How can anyone support a group or think that something is likely to be true because of support for people who have such positions as the AAPS?
They oppose efforts to stop people from smoking.
They have spent millions getting pill mill doctors retried to get them reduced sentences.

In a world gone insane, it is not helping to get in bed with extremists because they agree with you about one thing or another.

Right now we seem to be seeing a mass psychosis that has formed around intense hatred of the people with TDS.
Being a reactionary psychotic is not such a great idea.

Reply to  Steven Mosher
May 2, 2020 7:30 am

What I love about the academic community is they can’t see the forest for the trees 97% of the time. If it doesn’t fit inside there little world, well, it just can’t be true.

Meanwhile in the real world:

Unfortunately this isn’t peer reviewed so it is 100% just a coincidence. These people all had just great immune systems so HCQ/Zn wouldn’t have made one bit of difference.

Reply to  rbabcock
May 2, 2020 7:37 am

I forgot to post the NPR article written about the time this was started (April 10). You can draw you own conclusions on the tone of the article:

I couldn’t find a follow up article by NPR after the results became available.

Crispin in Waterloo
Reply to  rbabcock
May 2, 2020 2:23 pm

I wonder how NPR will react to the increased evidence that COVID-19 is largely an endothelial cell infection with lung complications that are a byproduct, not a main cause.

The CranMed videos (about one a day) are really helpful. Here is one. They are numbered.

Take special note of anything referring to ACE2 and how it is involved.

Robert Smith
Reply to  David Guy-Johnson
May 2, 2020 2:56 am

Well they haven’t exactly covered themselves in glory shipping old people out of hospitals into care homes causing a catastrophic loss of life.

Julian Braggins
Reply to  David Guy-Johnson
May 2, 2020 3:09 am

Your NHS returned still infectious recovering patients to their respective Nursing Homes resulting in ~25% mortality in these homes. “Are they all stupid?” Probably not but some near the top certainly are, or are following a Malthusian agenda.

Steven Mosher
May 2, 2020 2:49 am

“(Tang, 2020) is a not peer-reviewed pre-print. It reports results of a clinical trial in China, in which HCQ was given to patients 16-17 days after onset of the disease. This is too late for an anti-viral to work. Thus, this study describes the incorrect use of HCQ, rather than efficacy or safety of the drug. From the comments:

Too late?

Where is the actual data showing how soon the drug must be started?

A) at the time of infection ?
B) at the time of the first positive test ?
C) at the time of first symptoms?


you are HIDING the actual results of Tang. They also did a POST HOC analysis to test if
the 16 days was important.

you report that the average was 16 days. Well, yes. AVERAGE .. so they split the group into
2 subgroups.

7 days.

Still no effect.

So it would help if the HCQ advocates would make a testable claim about
what will work. Exact protocol and what should the endpoint be and what is the
expected effect size so that a power analysis can be done

Reply to  Steven Mosher
May 2, 2020 6:10 am

Where is the actual data showing how soon the drug must be started?
Steven, look at the papers from Dr. Raoult and others, that may help you..

Steven Mosher
Reply to  Krishna Gans
May 2, 2020 5:01 pm

“Steven, look at the papers from Dr. Raoult and others, that may help you..

I did.

A) he doesnt provide data just summary stats, and withholds the female results
B) the bad outcomes started EARLIER

Reply to  Steven Mosher
May 2, 2020 11:11 am

Not sure why NIH did not fund proper study to test HCQ results claimed by Dr Raoult. The study should have been completed by now. So simple. Not sure if it is pure incompetence or corruption from pharmaceutical ties.

Steven Mosher
Reply to  Stevek
May 2, 2020 5:02 pm

Dr. Raoult had 3000 patients
~1000 agreed to take HCQ
I dont know why he desnt report the results from those who didnt

Reply to  Steven Mosher
May 3, 2020 3:18 am

Steven, I suggest that you read the article which Raoult published with a little more care.

The final version plus Supplementary Data can be found here:-

The study involved ALL COVID-19 positive patients in the AP-IHU upto 31st March, with a 10-day timeframe for collection of clinical data i.e. between the 31st March and 9th April. In reality, because the final corrected article was published 18th April, it includes some updates on fatalities and other information over a 19-day rather than a 10-day look ahead period.

“Dr Raoult had 3000 patients.” Yes, he did by the end of the study, in fact the IHU had 3156 by the 9th April, but it did not have that number at the start of the study.

The eligibility criteria excluded children, pregnant women and people with G6PD deficiency (a genetic disorder). This left 1,411 eligible patients as at 31 March. 350 patients were excluded for reasons detailed in the Supplementary Information. The remaining patients were treated with HCQ + Azithromycin.
The very latest fatality data from the IHU are available here. Of 3207 patients treated, they have seen 15 deaths to date.
It is also of note that the epidemic in Marseilles, a city of 1.6 million people, has been tamed for the present at least. They are recording only a handful of new cases daily, down from 368 at peak.

john cooknell
May 2, 2020 2:53 am

The UK is conducting double blind testing of HQC.

A C Osborn
Reply to  john cooknell
May 3, 2020 4:52 am

But are they using Zinc as required?

Peter Barrett
Reply to  john cooknell
May 3, 2020 8:34 am

If I recall from when Prof. Whitty announced this he mentioned “hospital trials”. Once again we have a situation where an antiviral treatment is started long after the disease is established. When the patient is gasping for their next breath the vascular epithelial damage has already happened, the lack of ACE2 in angiotensin metabolism has already occurred with resulting Factor 8 and VWF effects. If HCQ (+ Zn) is to be trialled properly it should be in those who turn up for antigen testing and are found to be positive – if they are fit enough to drive to the test the virus has probably not yet replicated as much. The problem of randomisation could surely be overcome.

Kiwi Gary
May 2, 2020 2:57 am

Reports that I have read show that Dr Raoult, a virologist, [ mentioned above ] was successful in over 1000 patients using HCQ and this persuaded President Macron to order hospitals to use it under instructions of Dr Raoult. One of the instructions that he made was that treatment must be started within 2 days of diagnosis. A very recent report was that Russia has also switched from Mefliquine to HCQ, probably on the French basis as the Russian medical establishment has close international collaborations.

It must be remembered that HCQ is not a cure, but an ally of the patient’s immune system which must be still operational. HCQ operates by disrupting the ability of the virus to replicate, thus reducing the number of active viruses that the immune system has to combat. Hence the necessity of starting early whilst the immune system is still in good order.

Mike Bryant
Reply to  Kiwi Gary
May 2, 2020 3:12 am

Rather odd that authoritarian Russia and France are bucking WHO recommendations, while free Great Britain and the USA are toeing the WHO line.

May 2, 2020 3:06 am

Google and Facebook adhered to WHO on everything related to COVID-19. Together with Twitter, they purged information favorable to HCQ. These is outrageous behavior for telecommunications and computational services providers.

There are other search engines. link Someone who knows this can bypass Google’s censorship. That’s thing gruel though because of Google’s massive market share. Also beware that some search engines have an explicit environmental mission.

May 2, 2020 3:15 am

On a totally different topic (or not…):

I thought this was “the world’s most viewed site on global warming and climate change”.
It seems to have become a site on which any information from almost any source about COVID-19 is discussed broadly by now.

The credibility of most sources is at least debatable, if not disputable. Apparently anybody is welcome to give his/her two cents.

I suggest we go back to the Global Warming issue, with some Corona information strewn in.


Reply to  Chris
May 2, 2020 8:02 am

Let me help you out, Chris! Climate changes constantly, humans are not causing it and can not stop it. Humans CAN stop a viral infection outbreak, once we get the politicians and billionaire busybodies out of the way so actual virologists can do their job. You are welcome. Oh, and plenty of climate content posted every day, just so you know.

May 2, 2020 3:23 am

It’s illuminating and amusing to see committed advocates on one issue suddenly display a hidden capacity for scepticism on another. WUWT has become quite Alice Through The Looking Glass in recent weeks.

Reply to  Fenlander
May 2, 2020 4:49 am

Recent weeks? It’s been like that from the very beginning of this panic-demic.

Reply to  Fenlander
May 2, 2020 6:24 am

A veracious precautionary principle is to always be skeptical.

john cooknell
May 2, 2020 3:28 am

The Science is underway in UK, double blind trials comparing different treatments.

500 GP surgeries will also prescribe HCQ at an early stage to patients with symptoms, as part of a trial.

David Lilley
Reply to  john cooknell
May 2, 2020 6:32 am

There is nothing in the BBC article about combining the hydroxychloroquine with zinc to inhibit the reproduction of the virus or with an antibiotic to suppress any infection of dead lung tissue. If they are trialling the HCQ on its own then this trial is fairly pointless.

Reply to  john cooknell
May 2, 2020 11:14 am

Well it appears the the UK is not as corrupt as our FDA and NIH.

Ron Long
May 2, 2020 3:30 am

Thanks to Leo Goldstein for assembling this report. From the perspective of CNN International their reporting of Hydroxchloroquine was exactly as their reporting of Trump Derangement Syndrome events, whereas their reporting of Remsdisivir was along the line of their reporting of Dr. Feisty Fauci (especially in contrast to Dr. Deborah Birx comments). Notice I gave Dr. Fauci a new first name, his style and advice are fine with me. CNN now virtually ignores the actual data coming forward on Flynn, who clearly was rail-roaded by the Obama Administration et al. So, from a reporting viewpoint, Hydroxychloroquine is as bad as Trump is, which is to say: Awful! If I had symptoms of Covid-19 I would take HCQ plus AZ without hesitation, especially as now Remsdisivir may becoming scarce. Stay sane and safe (today is walking the dogs day, yahoo!).

Reply to  Leo Goldstein
May 3, 2020 8:23 am

I was searching early on for references to remdesivir and only found a couple which stated it failed at the application it was created for, next found was news reports that it is the miracle drug which will save the world from Trump Virus and insure he is cast into hellfire for all eternity. Now it turns out all the people pushing it are the ones to profit from it. Funny how that works out.

May 2, 2020 3:40 am

In France they are saving all the people by applying the most useful rules ever, among which :
– we were not allowed to bike but now we can bike, but not more than 1 km from our home : clever !
– we are not allowed to do jogging between 10h and 19h : so we all meet at the same time, very smart !
– family doctors are not allowed to give HCQ to their patients to treat COVID19 : this is indeed a very good idea because just looking at a box of these drugs can make you blind while having a heart attack ! This must be true since this drug has been over the counter for decades in France.
– last but not least, the miraculous effects of the lockdown which has been applied in France, the strictest one in the world are clear : indeed, how many have been saved from COVID19 because they committed suicide ?

As expected, the results are staggering :
– one of the best cases/death ratios of the planet, a fantastic 14.7%, for a country which spends only 13 points of GDP in its “healthcare system” !

Marvelous isn’t it ?

I wonder if there is somewhere a championship of fascist idiocy … sorry I mean, health care effectiveness and individual freedom :
– if yes, we are for sure in the running for the final victory !

Jaap Titulaer
May 2, 2020 3:55 am

From the AAPS linked set:
22 August 2005
CDC Special Pathogens Branch
MJ VIncet, E.Bergon, S. Benjannet, BR Erickson, Pierre Rollin, T.G. Ksiazek, NG Seidah,
ST Nichole. Chloroquine is a potent inhibitor of SARS coronavirus infection and spread. Virology Journal. (2005) 2: 69
Chloroquine has strong antiviral effects on SARS CoV infection of primate cells in tissue culture. These inhibitory effects are observed when cells are treated with the drug either before or after exposure to the virus, suggesting both prophylactic preventative and treatment use. The paper describes three mechanisms by which the drug might work and suggest it may have both a prophylactic and therapeutic role in Coronavirus infections.

Jaap Titulaer
May 2, 2020 3:58 am

Lots of references in the AAPS set (

One of the more well known & bigger tests was this:

12 April 2020
Raoult, D. Cohort of 1061 COVID-18 cases treated with HCQ-AZ Combination with 9 day follow-up. IHU Méditerranée Infection, Marseille.
A cohort of 1061 COVID-19 patients, treated for at least 3 days with the HCQ-AZ combination and a follow-up of at least 9 days was investigated. Endpoints were death, worsening and viral shedding persistence. From March 3rd to April 9th, 2020, 59,655 specimens from 38,617 patients were tested for COVID-19 by PCR. Of the 3,165 positive patients placed in the care of our institute, 1061 previously unpublished patients met the inclusion criteria for a Hydroxychloroquine –Azithromycin trial.
Mean age was 43.6 years old and 492 were male (46.4%), As in other studies, no cardiac toxicity was observed in this study.

A good clinical outcome and virological cure was obtained in 973 patients out of a total pf 1061 patients within 10 days (91.7%).

Mortality was significantly lower in patients who had received > 3 days of HCQ-AZ than in patients treated with other regimens both at IHU and in all Marseille public hospitals (p< 10-2).

A poor outcome was observed for 46 patients (4.3%); -10 were transferred to intensive care units, 5 patients died (0.47%) (74-95 years old), 31 required 10 days of hospitalization or more.
Among this group, 25 patients are now cured and 16 are still hospitalized (98% of patients cured so far).

Table 1. Baseline characteristics according to clinical and virological outcome of 1061 patients treated with HCQ + AZ ≥ 3 days at IHU Méditerranée infection Marseille, France with Day 0 between March 3 and March 31, 2020

Steven Mosher
Reply to  Jaap Titulaer
May 2, 2020 4:38 am

That’s not data. Thats a table of results.

can’t even begin to evaluate that

Reply to  Steven Mosher
May 2, 2020 6:52 am

You seem to be of the Joe Biden school of believing the female accuser. Period.

Carlo, Monte
Reply to  Scissor
May 2, 2020 7:41 am

I wonder if SM would want to receive HCQ if he catches the bug in a bad way, or if he would wait enough “data”.

Steven Mosher
Reply to  Carlo, Monte
May 2, 2020 8:51 am

since 2007 I have a consistent track record of always asking for data.
get used to it

Luther Bl't
Reply to  Carlo, Monte
May 2, 2020 10:59 am

This must be the funniest comment I’ve ever read at WUWT in 15 years. It’s like the clairvoyant:

“since 2007 I have a consistent track record of always asking for ectoplasm.
get used to it”

David Becker
Reply to  Steven Mosher
May 2, 2020 8:59 am

When I read a paper in a journal, the first things I consult (after the abstract and conclusions) are the figures and tables of results. They generally give 90% of the whole story. (Maybe my fellow scientists will smile at this because they do the same.) Mosher repeating over and over again “That’s not data” does not make it so. The abstract linked to here is compelling and interesting, with a whole lot of data included, in my opinion.

Reply to  David Becker
May 2, 2020 9:01 am

It is not Steven’s data, so apparently it does not matter.

Pat Frank
Reply to  David Becker
May 2, 2020 12:33 pm

Early-on, I always read the Materials and Methods section. If the experiments or methods are inadequate, the results aren’t trustworthy.

Steve M. knows R and can manipulate data. He doesn’t know how to evaluate its soundness, though. Witness BEST.

Steven Mosher
Reply to  David Becker
May 2, 2020 5:26 pm

Lets explain the difference to you.

Provides a table of RESULTS.

RESULTS ain’t data
RESULTS are what you get when you apply a method to data.

The average is 21.
N is 5

Thats a RESULT.
The first is an average this results from summing and dividing

1,1,1,2,100 is the data
From that data I can calculate a result

21, 21, 21, 21, 21 is the data
From that data I can calculate a result.

Dr. Raoult presents RESULTS.

The problem with his presentation of RESULTS is that he only reported results for the
MALES and somehow forgets to list the FEMALE results.

Other problem. AGE of his patients. the median age of 16000 patients going into
the hospital is 72 . Raoult’s patients, on average, were 43.

See the problem?

The point is if you dont have the data, the 1s and 0s, then you can’t understand
how the results may or may not be skewed

I really cannot believe the skeptics here dont get the need for for data
or understand what data is.

Lets try again

1,2 30 is data
11 is the average.
11 is a RESULT which is obtained by applying a method to DATA.

11,11,11 is data
11 is the average.
11 is a RESULT which is obtained by applying a method to DATA.

As always whether the post is about climate, or finance, or disease, or whatever
i always ask for the data.


because of things like
Dr. Raoult enrolling women in his study and only presenting the male results
because of thing like Dr. Raoult having a sample that skews to the YOUNG
who are typically not hospitalized.

Does this make him wrong?

I just want to check. is there a reason why checking is bad?

Reply to  Steven Mosher
May 2, 2020 2:18 pm

Have you been able to get any raw “hockey stick” data from Michael Mann?

Steven Mosher
Reply to  brians356
May 2, 2020 11:13 pm


yes his data is posted. what he was holding back were R^2 results.

This is covered in detail at climate audit.

But you’ll be glad to know that I remain a critic of Mann.
In fact I coined the term “Piltdown Mann” in 2007 on climate audit.


This is SIMPLE. for every kind of endeavor I ask for code and data.
It’s called Open science. it is the analog of Open source.

no mystery no agenda, same request for over 13 years now.
no playing favorites, no exceptions.

Steven Mosher
Reply to  Jaap Titulaer
May 2, 2020 5:06 am

No actual data, only results

But this can be observed.

1. Medication started days after PCR test.
2. No results presented for women, hmmm
3. Age distribution not shown , The vast majority of people below 60 don’t go to the hospital.
“curing the people who get well anyways”
4. The Poor outcomes started the medicine earliest.

Looks like there is some confounding with co morbidities and age and unreported numbers
for woman.

Cohort looks to be skewed young and healthy.

needs to release the actual data and not just his results.

Missing data; Hospitalization rate by age/sex
ICU admission rate by age and sex
results by gender/age

Since there is no control you have to use a HISTORICAL control and to do the comparision
you need age,sex, and co morbidities

he may have something, but needs to actually publish data

Jaap Titulaer
Reply to  Steven Mosher
May 2, 2020 6:06 am

OK then, here’s another.
( Let me guess: you’ll complain that the peer review hasn’t been finished yet. 🙂 )

This one is in critically ill patients (in hospital).
“Importance: Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is a pandemic with no specific drugs and high mortality. The most urgent thing is to find effective treatments.
Objective: To determine whether hydroxychloroquine application may be associated with a decreased risk of death in critically ill COVID-19 patients and what is potential mechanism.
Design, Setting and Patients: This retrospective study included all 568 critically ill COVID-19 patients who were confirmed by pathogen laboratory tests despite antiviral treatment and had severe acute respiratory distress syndrome, PAO2/FIO2 <300 with need of mechanical ventilation in Tongji Hospital, Wuhan, between February 1 of 2020 to April 8 of 2020. All 568 patients received comparable basic treatments including antiviral drugs and antibiotics, and 48 of them additionally received oral hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) treatment (200 mg twice a day for 7-10 days). Primary endpoint is mortality of patients, and inflammatory cytokines levels were compared between hydroxychloroquine and non-hydroxychloroquine (NHCQ) treatments. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: In-hospital death and hospital stay time (day) were obtained, level of inflammatory cytokine (IL-6) was measured and compared between HCQ and NHCQ treatments.
RESULTS: The median age of 568 critically ill patients is 68 (57, 76) years old with 37.0% being female. Mortalities are 18.8% (9/48) in HCQ group and 45.8% (238/520) in NHCQ group (p<0.001). The time of hospital stay before patient death is 15 (10-21) days and 8 (4 – 14) days for the HCQ and NHCQ groups, respectively (p<0.05). The level of inflammatory cytokine IL-6 was significantly lowered from 22.2 (8.3-118.9) pg/mL at the beginning of the treatment to 5.2 (3.0-23.4) pg/ml (p<0.05) at the end of the treatment in the HCQ group but there is no change in the NHCQ group.
CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Hydroxychloroquine treatment is significantly associated with a decreased mortality in critically ill patients with COVID-19 through attenuation of inflammatory cytokine storm. Therefore, hydroxychloroquine should be prescribed for treatment of critically ill COVID-19 patients to save lives."

Steven Mosher
Reply to  Jaap Titulaer
May 2, 2020 5:28 pm

“OK then, here’s another.
( Let me guess: you’ll complain that the peer review hasn’t been finished yet. 🙂 )

because it does not ensure correctness

This is simple. I want to check his data

WHY are the results from women missing?

Jaap Titulaer
Reply to  Steven Mosher
May 3, 2020 2:45 am

It’s they, not ‘he’. A different study, different country, different group.

As to the data on women, they are mentioned but not split out. Why would they be? Do you suspect monkey business hiding in the fact whether they are male vs female?
See the PDF in the link (direct here:
See table 1 for data, table 2 for results.

Table 1. Baseline characteristics of critically ill COVID-19 patients
All patients
(n = 568)
(n = 48)
(n =520)
Age, years 68 (57-76) 68 (60-75) 68 (57-77) 0.933
Age range, years 0.444
≤60 (%) 157 (27.6) 11 (22.9) 146 (28.1)
>60 (%) 411 (72.4) 37 (77.1) 374 (71.9)
Gender, male (%) 358 (63.0) 32 (66.7) 326 (62.7) 0.585
Original comorbidities
Hypertension (%) 252 (44.4) 23 (47.9) 229 (44.0) 0.605
Coronary heart disease (%) 59 (10.4) 2 (4.2) 57 (11.0) 0.213
COPD (%) 16 (2.8) 0 (0) 16 (3.1) 0.384
Diabetes (%) 97 (17.1) 12 (25.0) 85 (16.3) 0.127
SpO2 on admission (%) 96 (90-98) 94.5 (90-96) 96 (90-98) 0.216
Oxygen therapy, n (%) 547 (96.3) 47 (97.9) 500 (96.2) 0.714
Mechanical ventilation, n (%) 349 (61.4) 28 (58.3) 321 (61.7) 0.644
Abbreviations: HCQ, hydroxychloroquine; COPD, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease;
SpO2, percutaneous oxygen saturation.
The percentage represented the frequency divided by the total cohort size (n=568).
Mechanical ventilation contained Non-invasive ventilation and Invasive ventilation
Data were presented as medians and interquartile range (Q1-Q3).
HCQ, Hydroxychloroquine treatment; NHCQ, non-Hydroxychloroquine treatment.

Table 2. Comparison of clinical outcomes between HCQ treated and non HCQ treated
Total patients, n 48 520
Dead patients, n (%) 9 (18.8) 238 (45.8) <0.001
Hospital stay time before death
(day) 15 (10-21) 8 (4-14) 0.021
Data were presented as medians and interquartile range (Q1-Q3). HCQ,
hydroxychloroquine treatment; NHCQ, non-hydroxychloroquine treatment.

Steven Mosher
Reply to  Steven Mosher
May 4, 2020 6:33 pm

“It’s they, not ‘he’. A different study, different country, different group.

As to the data on women, they are mentioned but not split out. Why would they be? Do you suspect monkey business hiding in the fact whether they are male vs female?
See the PDF in the link (direct here:
See table 1 for data, table 2 for results.”

Different study.
It also does not present data, merely results

Results can only be checked by having access to data.

No checking by a third party? no science.

David L Hagen
Reply to  Steven Mosher
May 2, 2020 7:25 am

Those “results” are still actual medical data at that point in place and time.
Medical Author: William C. Shiel Jr., MD, FACP, FACR

Data: Facts, statistics, and such collected for analysis or reference.

Reply to  David L Hagen
May 2, 2020 10:49 am

He’s been asking for it for years, and he still doesn’t know what it is.

Steven Mosher
Reply to  David L Hagen
May 2, 2020 5:37 pm

really david?

then tell me what are his results for men by age category?
how did the drug work on the 60-70 age group?
what was the death rate on the 30-40 year age group?
How many subjects did he have in the 20-30 year age group?
you cant
tell me his results for Females?
yu cant.

You cant because he presented SELECTED results

hey, when we discuss the data quality act there is No confusing amongst skeptics
about what data is.

Data allows you to calculate results

Data please.
Not results.

Not “the global anomaly is +1c” I want the data, the actual 1s and 0s.
Results? I can check, but ONLY if you supply the data.

Is it really that hard to understand.

I am neither a believer in or disbeliever of HCQ.
If infected I would take it.

However, I would like to see the actual data.
Not results
Not statistics
actual data

mario lento
Reply to  Steven Mosher
May 2, 2020 5:45 pm

Data and how it was collected matters too. As many co variables as possible!

Steven Mosher
Reply to  Steven Mosher
May 2, 2020 11:09 pm

“Data and how it was collected matters too. As many co variables as possible!


it amazes me how quickly people decided that HCQ “worked”
Now any study confirms that belief ( this was an easily predictable reaction)
and any study that finds no effectiveness must be wrong.. also predictable
And anyone who questions the WUWT consensus on HCQ will
be attacked or will be part of a conspiracy.

If I catch a case I will ask for it early + AZt+Zinc+ VitminD +
plus ANYTHING that might help.

That’s what I will do. I’ve done it before when I caught a super bug.
Doctor order up everything he could. We tried all sorts of off label stuff.
Pills, shots, walked around with an IV stuck in for 2 weeks.
Finally found a med that killed it.

During all of this doctor never abused me about asking for whatever data he could

Deciding to act with uncertainty ( HCQ .. maybe works, maybe doesnt )
is just life. Life is uncertain.

Still, I do think it would be a good idea to look at the data.
Apparently HCQ believers think the science is settled.
It is kinda weird to see a site of people who like to check things and remain skeptical
jumping to conclusions

mario lento
Reply to  Steven Mosher
May 3, 2020 10:46 am

@Stephen Mosher:

I am speaking of your post but mostly of this.
You wrote: “Still, I do think it would be a good idea to look at the data.
Apparently HCQ believers think the science is settled.
It is kinda weird to see a site of people who like to check things and remain skeptical
jumping to conclusions”

I think we agree on more than you might think. I think your post is right. But I will add that precision of words matter in this heated argument and or debate.

For example, because “the science” may never be settled; we should act. I think there is very strong anecdotal evidence that HCQ and Zn should be used where it has been “shown to work” (the earlier the better) and if there are signs of secondary infection add the anti bacterial.

It does not have to be settled science for it to work. Settling the science just says that it works scientifically. Whether it works or not does not need to be graced by “the science”

I agree with you on data as such. As we agree… the major problem is that the data can have good statistics applied but the results are only as good as the data. I have aced 3 stats courses in my dual degrees (both EE and IM degrees). I have always been skeptical of data, though so even as I aced the tests, I struggled with the results and finding always. Today, with climate science and Covid 19, the data we do have is at best sparse, and at worst (which is mostly the case) is skewed.

That is why good statistical analysis on the data we have showed mortality rate to be 4% or so early on and still today by some measures! I have ALWAYS felt/known that the denominator is flat wrong because the denominator could not be measured. I have stated it’s off by at least an order or magnitude probably close to two orders! This should have been known to “the scientists and medical professionals who generated the models based on the existing bad data!

That, I think, is where imprecise words/conclusions have led to argument.

Your thoughts from a statistical perspective are very precise. Recall I called you a global treasure. My beliefs from a process control perspective are troubled by the data… which is necessarily imprecise at best and terrible at worst.

Also – I have gotten myself into trouble with people by saying, my hunch is that the mortality rate is on par with the Flu… I said this early on. My hunch to me was more valuable than the scientifically derived mortality rates of 3.4 to 7% or whatever they were.

I have a hunch we both agree to agree 🙂

Nicholas McGinley
Reply to  Steven Mosher
May 3, 2020 2:15 pm

The things you are saying now are in such stark contrast to things you said a month or two ago, it is almost comical.
Tell me I am wrong.

mario lento
Reply to  Steven Mosher
May 3, 2020 5:01 pm

Nicholas McGinley May 3, 2020 at 2:15 pm
The things you are saying now are in such stark contrast to things you said a month or two ago, it is almost comical.
Tell me I am wrong.”

What thing did I say which is in stark contrast to what I said previously? This is the second ambiguous and baseless attack on me in this post. I have no idea what you are referring to.

Steven Mosher
Reply to  David L Hagen
May 2, 2020 7:24 pm

Here David

Read the comments from WUWT regulars.

they understand that if you dont have the data its not reproducable

Here is the thing

I always ask for data and code
When I asked Jones and Mann, WUWT Cheered!
I always argue for Open science. open data, open code
When Pruit demanded this of EPA, WUWT Cheered.

I asked Scaffeta for data and code, WUWT said, its not needed
I ask for Covid data WUWT folks attack me and pretend not to understand the
difference between results and data.

Nicholas McGinley
Reply to  Steven Mosher
May 3, 2020 1:49 pm

One of these days I am gonna be fed up with the liars who have emerged as “thought leaders” on this site, and go back to earlier threads and post things they said a month and two months ago that shown how badly they have begun to alter what actually happened from what they now say.
Mario and Icisil are two of the worst.
That K K K guy is a known internet disinformation troll.

mario lento
Reply to  Steven Mosher
May 3, 2020 4:54 pm

Nicholas: you wrote: “Mario and Icisil are two of the worst.” after some rant regarding liars and thought leaders.

What is this based on? If I am one of the worst (liar and thought leader), please find one lie as you promised you would do, or apologize for the error of your ways. I have never made an ad hominem attack against you, nor lied, ever.

May 2, 2020 4:09 am

“COVID-19 patients be treated with HCQ exclusively in hospital settings.”

A place where they will probably acquire a lot more germs…

Reply to  niceguy
May 2, 2020 4:34 am

No, no, no – that is not the point. As I understand it, COVID 19 has two stages: the development and spread of the virus in the body (the first week) and the body’s aggressive immune response (the second week in critical cases, when patients may need admission to hospital). HCQ can only help in the first stage, so by the time the patient is in hospital it will be ineffective (as will other antiviral treatments)

David L Hagen
Reply to  richardw
May 2, 2020 6:58 am

Please don’t overstate evidence. Yes early treatment with the Zelenko Protocol (HCQ + AZ + ZN) appears highly effective when used immediately. Zelenko saw 395/405 treated kept out of hospital/ICU of ~ 1450 seen. (But he does NOT say “only help in the first stage”.)

Reply to  richardw
May 2, 2020 2:35 pm

HCQ is used for lupus, arthritis. Some doctors suggest it might help in the later phase.

Didier Raoult however doesn’t deal with those, he isn’t an arthritis experts, and he wants to push back on the infection ASAP.

Reply to  richardw
May 2, 2020 3:43 pm

“No, no, no – that is not the point”

My only point was just going to the hospital, in itself, is a risk, esp. when you are sick.

Stuart Nachman
May 2, 2020 4:20 am

The linked protocol authored by a critical care specialist at Eastern Virginia Medical School, produced in collaboration with other doctors at teaching hospitals elsewhere in the country, incorporates the use of Hydroxychloroquine in the treatment plan.

May 2, 2020 4:34 am

Anthony and Mods so is the site which recently had overwhelmingly numbers of articles about covid19 and “I don’t want no stinkin lockdown”, now going to run relentless articles on conspiracy theories? It was bad enough having to wade thru the large number of repeated posts and comments from this small group.

It would be kind if you could answer so I know if I should delete the site from my favorites list now.

Please note I am not interested in the opinions of anyone else except Anthony or Mods to give me an official answer. I really don’t want to interact at all with the rest.

Reply to  LdB
May 2, 2020 5:17 am

If you’re not interested in the opinions of anyone other than the mods or Anthony, then do not read the opinions of anyone other than the mods or Anthony. It is unfortunate that you must wade through the vast sea of stories to find what you want, but sadly, that’s a reality of life.
You know, it’s like going to the store to buy a box of breakfast cereal and having to search over an entire isle to find the one you want. Reality rears its ugly head.

I find that not only is there a vast store of great information in the postings, but there is also much great information to be gleaned from the comments. Sorry this isn’t one, but alas, it’s like the newspaper. You just have to go through the pages to find what you’re interested in.

Thank you Anthony, and mods, for doing what you do.

Reply to  DJ
May 2, 2020 10:51 am


Reality rears its ugly head.

I don’t think you’re quite understanding LdB’s understanding of a Belief System (hereafter, “BS”), and thus what follows as a necessary consequence of his BS in evaluating that which is real.

I think I can help.

In LdB’s worldview (i.e., the view built around his BS), this is an opinion blog wherein he is “not interested in the opinions of anyone” except those in whose opinions he’s interested. He said so himself.

You and I as typical religious miscreant heretics will naturally object against this type of BS on the basis of the law of excluded middle, but we would be wrong. In LdB’s BS, the law of excluded middle doesn’t apply, therefore our objection is rejected as nonsensical.

You’ll see what I mean when I apply that same law to his comments regarding whingeing cited here:

So, given the above, whereas you and I as natural skeptics of contradiction would again point out that whingeing about whiners is really just whining about whinges, our objection resolves to just so much bovine excrement when evaluated against LdB’s BS. In other words, it doesn’t make any sense to point out contradiction where contradiction doesn’t apply.

I think that proves my hypothesis that LdB consistently contradicts himself. You and I know that as a natural consequence of this type of BS, with regard to what’s “really” (h/t Jeff) the Real in LdB’s world, well anything goes and does so at the same time.

Matthew Schilling
Reply to  LdB
May 2, 2020 7:28 am

My guess is, you have no idea how ridiculous your comment is. That’s sad. You poor thing.

Gordon Dressler
Reply to  LdB
May 2, 2020 10:21 am

LdB posted: “It was bad enough having to wade thru the large number of repeated posts and comments from this small group.”

LdB, there is a computer function called “find” that allows one to search for specific words, such as “Anthony” and “mod”. I have used it quite frequently and successfully when viewing WUWT articles and associated comments.

If you learn how to use it you will find that it will eliminate having to “wade thru” this site. But in the process, you will inevitably become poorer in your knowledge base. And I do believe the choice to interact or not with others is always one that you yourself have to make.

Reply to  LdB
May 2, 2020 3:01 pm

1) It isn’t up to you to say who can reply to your comment.
2) Anyone who isn’t a brainwashed idiot knows that the anti chloroquine hysteria is fueled in the US by TDS (Trump Derangement Syndrome).
3) Anyone who isn’t double blinded by his own TDS and the MSM knows that the MSM is biased against both Raoult and Zelenko protocols and biased for Gilead.

The evidence is overwhelming, nearly as overwhelming as for Trump/Moore/Kavanaugh vs. Biden allegations of improper behavior. It’s for anyone with a brain to understand. You don’t need to be an investigator to see a meltdown with a medical doctor or former federal prosecutor or former FBI agents or former JAG. On Twitter all these blue checks have hysterical TDS.

It means we are usually led by mentally unstable people, sell outs, or both.

Michael Spurrier
May 2, 2020 4:40 am

Gilead is also the name of the totalitarian state in the Handmaids Tale by Margaret Atwood……..surely they wouldn’t be so blatant if they were trying to pull something with Remsdisivir and the whole Covid thing.

May 2, 2020 4:43 am

The overheated SARS-CoV-2 and COVID-19 commentary and articles here have done what 10 years of man-made climate change “science” failed to do. They have persuaded me there are more science-deniers and fantasists here than proper sceptics. After 10 years, I’m signing out of WUWT. Good luck to you all.

Reply to  Quelgeek
May 2, 2020 5:40 am

What bemuses me is the conflation of physicians and scientists. Doctors are informed by science, and rightly and necessarily so, but they are also informed by experience, compassion and intuition. A compassionate and knowledgeable doctor who saves lives because he eschews “science”, which many times just means established medical protocols, in favor of informed hunch is immeasurably more valuable than a scientific doctor who lets patients die because he is unwilling or incapable of navigating outside of established medical protocols.

Reply to  icisil
May 2, 2020 8:30 am

Medical doctors and engineers are very similar that way, both groups are trained in science and then go apply that science in the real world.

Apart from the difference in real world experience the main difference between the appliers of science and the academics is accountability for the results of their work.
Failed results in academia are to be expected and not necessarily bad as all results enhance understanding. Failed results in the real world can cause job-loss, litigation and even jail time.

In most cases i would rather trust the people with some ‘skin in the game’.

Stay safe,

Reply to  Willem69
May 2, 2020 8:45 am

There is the problem, failure in academia should have severe consequences, that way they will shut up until they have actual facts with which to make their point. THAT is why we are where we are today, idiots in academia are never punished for their idiocy, they are instead rewarded and praised for being idiots and causing major harm to the rest of us.

Pat Frank
Reply to  Willem69
May 2, 2020 12:49 pm

As a long-time academic experimental chemist, I can tell you that getting a wrong result causes immediate and consequential loss. Your data turn out to be garbage. Go back and do it again. Or your instrument had a pervasive glitchiness. Fix the instrument, go back and do it again. Or your synthesis failed. Or your sample was not homogeneous.

In some cases, you fool yourself, publish wrong data or analysis and get your back-side kicked a few months later.

Academic science is not like the humanities. Error bring consequences. And let’s not hear that consensus climateers are scientists that don’t face consequences. Those people are not scientists. What they do is not science. It’s subjectivist narrativation decorated with math.

The scientists who’ve not faced the consequences of garbage climate-mongering are those manning the institutions. Those who have stood on the sidelines and loudly supported the abuse.

Matthew Schilling
Reply to  icisil
May 2, 2020 10:57 am

Can we start a pool on how long it will be before icisil comments again on this web site?

Reply to  Quelgeek
May 2, 2020 6:34 am

I doubt your sincerity. Stay warm, stay well.

David Joyce
Reply to  Quelgeek
May 2, 2020 7:49 am

It’s not an airport waiting lounge. You don’t have to announce your departure.

Robert of Texas
May 2, 2020 4:58 am

There has been, in my opinion, plenty of time to prove or debunk the effectiveness of HCQ by now used on the many patients in our hospitals. The fact that doctors and researchers are still debating it means:

1) It is not a miracle cure, and the outcomes are confusing enough to mask its benefits at least to some degree
2) It’s benefits are likely strongly linked to how (and with what else) and when it is administered, so that in at least some cases when it is used there appears to be no benefit or possibly even a negative benefit. This is why controlled studies are so important.
3) Once again educated people are letting their egos get in the way of critical thinking – it appears to be impossible for many educated people to simply step back and admit they were wrong in an earlier opinion.
4) People who consider themselves “elite” seem hellbent on controlling the thoughts and actions of everyone else – I find this part of human nature to be inscrutable. I do not need a government bureaucracy deciding what is right for my health – this is between me and my doctor.

WHO has been unmasked as a completely morally bankrupt and incompetent organization. This is no surprise to those who have watched and understood other world organizations run by corrupt and/or incompetent officials. WHO is very much like any organization that undergoes a “Social Justice” evolution – “diversity” (racial, nationality, sex, religion, pick your poison) becomes more important then competence or honesty. Once the management has become corrupt or incompetent, the rest of the organization follows.

If you have a drug that has been used for over 50 years – in many places over the counter – and is essentially safe if taken as directed, then there is no reason not to use it even if it turns out to be nothing more than a placebo. It boils down to individual’s taking responsibility for their own health decisions – if they feel they cannot make such decisions then let their doctor decide. I am so sick of the Nanny State thinking that get to decide for me.

Reply to  Robert of Texas
May 2, 2020 6:48 am

Good comment.

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  Robert of Texas
May 2, 2020 11:19 am

Speaking of placebos, the author does not address the issue of the Placebo Effect; it is real and observable.

Pat Frank
Reply to  Robert of Texas
May 2, 2020 1:54 pm

Plasma vitamin D3 may be another critical variable, that has not been included in the statistics of Covid-19 outcomes.

Perhaps HQC-zinc-azithromycin treatment is most efficacious when plasma D3 is above 40 ng/mL.

Pubmed apparently has nothing on the possibility. But see Marik, et al., (2020) Does vitamin D status impact mortality from SARS-CoV-2 infection? Medicine in Drug Discovery, p. 100041.

Marik has posted a Covid-19 Protocol (600 KB pdf).

His recipe for prophylaxis says:

While there is very limited data (and none specific for COVID-19), the following “cocktail” may have a role in the prevention/mitigation of COVID-19 disease. While there is no high level evidence that this cocktail is effective; it is cheap, safe and widely available.
(updated 4-15-2020)

■ Vitamin C 500 mg BID and Quercetin 250-500 mg BID (“bis in die” = twice a day)

■ Zinc 75-100 mg/day (acetate, gluconate or picolinate). Zinc lozenges are preferred. After 1-2 months, reduce the dose to 30-50 mg/day.

■ Melatonin (slow release): Begin with 0.3mg and increase as tolerated to 1-2 mg at night

■ Vitamin D3 1000-4000 u/day (optimal dose unknown).

Quercetin provides rutin, which is a zinc ionophore like hydroxychloroquine.

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  Pat Frank
May 2, 2020 9:04 pm

Vitamin D probably contributes to the seasonality of conventional flues by making potential hosts more resistant to infection. It may also explain why Blacks and Hispanics in the US seem to be dying disproportionately from COVID-19.

Carlo, Monte
Reply to  Pat Frank
May 3, 2020 6:38 am

Oh no, you can’t take D3 until enough CDC-approved data has been amassed over several years time.

This is unacceptable.

(N.B.: I have been using 6000 U/day of D3 for several years now)

Phil Rae
May 2, 2020 5:17 am

Thanks for assembling this piece, Leo – great job!

If it wasn’t for the mainstream media & their Trump Derangement Syndromes, I have no doubt some combination of chloroquine (or its cogeners), azithromycin plus zinc would already be in widespread “official” use by healthcare professionals.

The drug combination has a clear (but still putative) rationale in terms of pharmacology despite all the doom & gloom pronouncements and hand-waving by those who oppose it. Some of the more vocal opponents have little if any practical understanding of pharmacology so I assume their opposition must be for political or financial reasons rather than anything else.

Agreed many of the early positive results were almost anecdotal but there is a growing body of evidence that this combination of cheap, widely available and extensively-prescribed oral medicines is beneficial.

Gilead’s new patented antiviral Remdisivir is administered parenterally (by injection) only so that pretty-much controls its availability to a hospital setting – not ideal if you want to make this widely available and the cost implications vs HCQ/azithromycin/Zn are just too ridiculous to make any comparison worthwhile.

Curious George
Reply to  Phil Rae
May 2, 2020 7:40 am

Interestingly enough,media and medical elites don’t hesitate to kill people in order to damage Trump. So much for professionalism.

May 2, 2020 5:31 am

Thanks for the excellent article!!! Here in the US we have a dysfunctional political system where the end justifies the means for some. The so called HQC tests that were run were designed to fail. Governors passed executive orders banning the the use by private doctors. More political effort was spent trying to assign blame and increase the death count than trying to find a viable cure. The bias towards the Gilead treatment was just a symptom created by a Deep State crony capitalist faction in our government. To further the revolution, they are more than willing to sacrifice many extra lives.

Some might accuse me of wearing a tin foil hat but I feel that we in the US are just one or two presidential elections away from losing control of our government and having our votes become a meaningless formality due to voter fraud.

Tom in Florida
May 2, 2020 5:35 am

In the end, everyone is being over cautious because they fear lawsuits. Damned if you do, damned if you don’t. The perfect scenario because no matter which way it all goes, the lawyers will be the only winners.

Reply to  Tom in Florida
May 2, 2020 5:54 am

I think the federal government’s granted immunity from liability is going to forestall that.

Tom in Florida
Reply to  icisil
May 2, 2020 7:23 am

One might think so, but when lawyers smell blood in the water……. well that’s why they are referred to as sharks.

Jack Black
May 2, 2020 5:43 am

It would be interesting to know where the tribesmen of the Masai Mara in Africa have suffered any I’ll effects from this disease, because traditionally and to this day they bleed their living cattle, and mixing the blood with milk from the same beast, drink copious amounts on a daily basis. Traditionally this “medicine” sustains the constitution and prevents and cures many diseases. What is the rational scientific reason for that? Many “westerners” think the habit barbaric and disgusting, but they do