Hydroxychloroquine in COVID-19 Treatment, Actual Usage in the USA

Preprint. August 23, 2020.

Key Words: hydroxychloroquine, COVID-19, SARS-CoV-2, Wuhan


Three population surveys were performed, seeking information about the drugs prescribed for COVID-19 patients. The August 16 national survey (USA-0816, 868 valid responses) and the August 3 national survey (USA-0803, 1,059 valid responses) covered the entire US. Another smaller survey (TX-0711, 116 valid responses) covered the state of Texas. All responses to all three surveys are attached in anonymized form for further analysis by the scientific community as one of the deliverables.

The analysis was focused on Hydroxychloroquine (HCQ). This study has found that Hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) was used for the treatment of COVID-19 in the US since January 2020. From January to August 16, 13.5% of COVID-19 patients ages 40+ were prescribed Hydroxychloroquine in the US.

The New England and Middle Atlantic census divisions suffered from the largest COVID-19 mortality and accounted for most COVID-19 deaths from mid-March through mid-June. This study has found that they had the lowest utilization of HCQ (average 6.1% for patients ages 40+) in the matching period early March — late May.

Everywhere in the US, prescribing HCQ nearly ceased in the last third of May but resumed in June and have been fluctuating around 16%, for patients ages 40+.

The author declares no competing interest.

No funding was provided for this work.

All relevant ethical guidelines have been followed.


Hydroxychloroquine + Azithromycin (with or without Zinc), given upon early symptoms of COVID-19, have been reported to provide significant benefits in clinical trials 1 2, improving patients’ odds  up to 5 times 3 3b 4 5. Since Hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) had no sponsor who would determine the best treatment regimen and conduct clinical trials accordingly, many treatment regimens were tried. Unfortunately, some meta-reviews commingled results from various regimens and included borderline fraudulent papers. That created confusion about the effectiveness of early HCQ-based treatment for COVID-19.

In some countries, HCQ-based treatment for COVID-19 became a de-facto standard6. At the same time, only a small number of relatively small randomized controlled trials were performed. Conducting further RCTs with endpoints in the patient’s health, length or strength of symptoms, hospitalization, or mortality is unethical and impractical.

Luckily, modern science is based on using real-world evidence, rather than on regurgitating prior literature. The gap between the clinical practice and academic world can be bridged by surveying physicians who treated COVID-19, and patients who received treatment from COVID-19. In one survey7, published on April 8, 60%-70% of physicians reported that they would take HCQ and give it to family members on symptoms of COVID-19. Sermo released regular doctor surveys regarding the drugs used for COVID-198. These surveys 9 10 11, now discontinued, have shown that doctors of the world used HCQ very broadly and rated it as being very effective or extremely effective against COVID-19. A systematic review of surveys of physicians12 was conducted by the author and confirmed these conclusions.

In academic meta-analyses of studies repurposing existing drugs for COVID-19, Hydroxychloroquine was not studied a lot13. A registry of self-reported use of medications by physicians14 is not very helpful. Surprisingly, statistics on COVID-19 patients treated with HCQ in the US are hard to find. The pharmacy’s data is not publicly available, shared insufficiently and selectively, and the shared information is more15 or less16 useful. Under the US FDA Emergency Use Authorization, the Strategic National Stockpile dispensed about 2.4 million HCQ 7-day treatment courses to state and local authorities from March 28 to May 22. Then the FDA claimed no knowledge of how these doses were used17.

This study collected data directly from the people who knew COVID-19 patients personally or otherwise, including information about the drugs prescribed, period, region, and the patient’s age. Limited analysis was performed, attempting to quantify the actual usage of HCQ.  The word “patient” is used throughout the paper to stress that the surveys asked only about people who saw a doctor for COVID-19 symptoms.


Data Collection

All three surveys were conducted using SurveyMonkey. Each survey was sent to the general US population. Each survey asked the respondent the following:

  1. Whether he or she knew anybody diagnosed with or treated for COVID-19. Depending on the answer, the response was assigned weight from 1.0 (personal knowledge, friends, or family) to 0.2 (second-hand knowledge) or disqualified at all. Qualified respondents were asked to provide information about a single case best known to them.
  2. The age bracket of the patient was selected from the options <40, 40-49, 50-59, 60-69, 70+.
  3. When the treatment took place.
  4. Which of the following drugs were prescribed or recommended:

Hydroxychloroquine (Plaquenil)

Ibuprofen (Advil)

Acetaminophen (Paracetamol, Tylenol)



The order of the drugs was random, except for Other. The respondent was asked to select everything that applied. TX-0711 also included Azithromycin as an option. In the analysis, it was considered as any drug other than Hydroxychloroquine.

The geographical location of the respondent was provided by SurveyMonkey, at the resolution of census division (i.e., multiple states). It was assumed that the patient was in the same division. Also, TX-0711 was limited to Texas. USA-0816 has explicitly asked about the state of the patient.

Responses that were fulfilled in less than 30-40 seconds (depending on the survey length) or gave the date of treatment in the future or before 2020 were discarded as invalid.

The author has not conducted and did not have access to any other similar surveys.

Specific Details per Survey

USA-0816: A small number of responses were received the next day, on 08/17.

USA-0803 had an additional question Q7. How severe was the disease? (select one: Mild – like a common cold; Moderate; Severe; but without hospitalization; Severe, with hospitalization)

TX-0711 was sent to the ages 40-90 years in Texas.

See the Attachment for the exact wording of questions, audiences, and other details of the surveys.


The data were analyzed with the time granularity of one-third of a month: 1-10, 11-20, 21-end. The January and February treatments were included in the data for the first third of March. The results from the first third of March to the second third of August have been calculated.

A data entering anomaly was detected in USA-0803 and US-0816. A disproportionately large number of responses were on the 3rd and 16th of each of the previous months for these surveys, respectively. On the assumption that some of the respondents wanted to specify a month, but the not exact day, the excess data on these days were spread among all thirds of the same month, proportionately to the weighted number of responses in these thirds, with additional weighing for USA-0803.

The patients younger than 40 were included in the analysis, but weighted down with the coefficient 0.5, except when stated otherwise. There are different ways to think about the treatment of such patients. On the one hand, they have a low risk of death or hospitalization. On the other hand, they might want such treatment anyway. Also, they are capable of the coronavirus transmission, so early anti-viral therapy of such patients might benefit the public at large. Finally, some respondents might have entered <40 in error.

The responses do not provide information on how early a patient was able to obtain HCQ if prescribed. Also, the study did not use any data on what share of symptomatic COVID-19 infected persons consulted a doctor. That limits its interpretation. To partially compensate for that, the data on the total number of the cases in a certain location/time was used and expressed as a percentage of the total number of treatments in that location. See even lines (small font) in the attached Summary.xlsx.

Super Regions

To achieve better statistical significance, and because of strong interdependence between New England and Middle Atlantic, some census divisions (called “regions” by SurveyMonkey) were combined, yielding six super-regions.

Table 1. Regions and Super Regions

NE + MANew EnglandMaine, New Hampshire, Vermont, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Connecticut
NE + MAMiddle Atlantic  New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania
East North CentralEast North CentralOhio, Indiana, Illinois, Michigan, Wisconsin  
South AtlanticSouth AtlanticDelaware, Maryland, District of Columbia, Virginia, West Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, Florida
WNC + ESC + MountainWest North CentralMinnesota, Iowa, Missouri, North Dakota, South Dakota, Nebraska, Kansas
WNC + ESC + MountainEast South Central  Kentucky, Tennessee, Alabama, Mississippi
WNC + ESC + MountainMountainMontana, Idaho, Wyoming, Colorado, New Mexico, Arizona, Utah, Nevada
PacificPacificWashington, Oregon, California, Alaska, Hawaii
West South CentralWest South CentralArkansas, Louisiana, Oklahoma, Texas


The data from USA-0803 and USA-0816 were combined. The results were calculated for the US and each of six super-regions, broken down by month thirds.

Separately, the data from TX-0711 and USA-0816 were combined to calculate results for Texas.


The responses do not explicitly reveal which HCQ-based treatment regimen was used. Outside of clinical trials16, most doctors probably have been prescribing HCQ + AZ, with or without Zinc, starting at the end of March. Also, responses do not reveal how early or late in the disease, the treatment was prescribed.

Suspension of the HCQ usage in the last third of May coincides with the publication by The Lancet of Mehra et al.19, published on May 22. That paper was retracted on June 4, after the damage had been done.

It is unclear how the number of patients (i.e., individuals who were infected, had symptoms of COVID-19, and consulted with a doctor) relates to the number of infection cases. Some individuals with COVID-19 did not get tested or received false-negative results. There were also false positives. Some COVID-19 sufferers never sought testing or treatment. The share of people who were incorrectly diagnosed or did not seek treatment has been changing throughout time.

The data on small size HCQ prescriptions20 allows us to estimate that ~25,000 small prescriptions were filled weekly in April, translating into an average 3,600 prescriptions per day. Additionally, some patients were treated with HCQ in hospitals, allowing the number of daily prescriptions to be rounded up to 4,000. There were, on average, 30,000 new daily cases reported in April21. 4,000 daily HCQ prescriptions are 13.3% of the 30,000 daily positive test results. In this study, 15.9% of the patients were prescribed HCQ in April. That might be interpreted as 84% of individuals with positive test results consulted with a doctor, in the absence of other factors.

From late March to early May, about 150,000 US patients received HCQ for COVID-19. HHS OSE found 97 adverse reports22 of all kinds (misspelled as 347 in the FDA Memorandum17) associated with HCQ and chloroquine during that period.

This study shows that Remdesivir was widely used in March-April before its emergency approval on May 1. Surprisingly, its usage throughout the epidemic was, on average, 70% of the HCQ usage. It sharply declined in the last third of June, possibly on disappointing clinical results23 and evidence of liver toxicity24, but resumed at the nearly previous level in July.

Study Limitations

There are limitations usual for studies based on a population survey. Most values in the Summary spreadsheet are computed from small sample sizes. Other limitations are mentioned in subsection Processing.


Patients’ side statistical information about the use of hydroxychloroquine for COVID-19 patients was collected. Using it, this study has found:

  • HCQ was used for the treatment of COVID-19 in the US since January 2020. From January to August 16, 13.5% of COVID-19 patients ages 40+ were prescribed Hydroxychloroquine in the US.
  • The New England and Middle Atlantic census divisions suffered from the largest COVID-19 mortality and accounted for most COVID-19 deaths from mid-March through mid-June. They also had the lowest utilization of HCQ (average 6.1% for patients ages 40+) in the matching period early March — late May.
  • Everywhere in the US, prescription of the HCQ nearly ceased in the last third of May but resumed in June and has been fluctuating around 16% for patients ages 40+.

The raw responses data is attached. It can be mined further, especially when combined with publicly available statistics on the COVID-19 hospitalizations, deaths, tests, infection cases, and how many days pass from the first COVID-19 symptoms and the start of HCQ based treatment. Eventually, more data would allow testing hypotheses:

  • Early HCQ-based treatment of adults of all ages with COVID-19 symptoms correlates with decreased COVID-19  infection and/or hospitalizations cases 10-20 days later25.
  • Early HCQ-based treatment of ages 40+ with COVID-19 symptoms correlates with decreased COVID-19 deaths and/or ICU admissions 20-35 days later.

No Competing Interests

The author declares no competing interest.

No funding was provided for this work.

All relevant ethical guidelines have been followed.





1.         Davido, B. et al. nImpact of medical care including anti-infective agents use on the prognosis of COVID-19 hospitalized patients over time. Int. J. Antimicrob. Agents 106129 (2020) doi:10.1016/j.ijantimicag.2020.106129.

2.         Bernaola, N. et al. Observational Study of the Efficiency of Treatments in Patients Hospitalized with Covid-19 in Madrid. medRxiv 2020.07.17.20155960 (2020) doi:10.1101/2020.07.17.20155960.

3.         d’Arminio Monforte, A., Tavelli, A., Bai, F., Marchetti, G. & Cozzi-Lepri, A. Effectiveness of Hydroxychloroquine in COVID-19 disease: A done and dusted situation? Int. J. Infect. Dis. (2020) doi:10.1016/j.ijid.2020.07.056.

3b. Arshad, S. et al. Treatment with hydroxychloroquine, azithromycin, and combination in patients hospitalized with COVID-19. Int. J. Infect. Dis. 97, 396–403 (2020). https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1201971220305348

4.         Lagier, J.-C. et al. Outcomes of 3,737 COVID-19 patients treated with hydroxychloroquine/azithromycin and other regimens in Marseille, France: A retrospective analysis. Travel Med. Infect. Dis. 36, 101791 (2020). https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1477893920302817

5.         Scholz, M., Derwand, R. & Zelenko, V. COVID-19 Outpatients – Early Risk-Stratified Treatment with Zinc Plus Low Dose Hydroxychloroquine and Azithromycin: A Retrospective Case Series Study. (2020) doi:10.20944/preprints202007.0025.v1.

6.         Anonymous. Early treatment with hydroxychloroquine: a country-based analysis. https://hcqtrial.com/.

7.         Coker, J. &. Physicians-Poll-on-COVID-19_Medications. Jackson & Coker https://jacksoncoker.com/landing-pages/physicians-poll-on-covid-19_medications/ (2020).

8.         Sermo. Breaking Results: Sermo’s COVID-19 Real Time Global Barometer. app.sermo.com/covid19-barometer https://app.sermo.com/covid19-barometer.

9.         Sermo. WAVE I: March 25 – 27, Sermo’s COVID-19 Real Time Barometer Study. https://public-cdn.sermo.com/covid19/1f/34e6/e6afc7/afc7c94663b1ff7c89f54478ee/wave-i-sermo-covid-19-global-analysis.pdf (2020).

10.       Sermo. WAVE 2: March 30 – April 2. TOPIC: Treatments & Efficacy. Sermo’s COVID-19 Real Time Barometer Study. https://public-cdn.sermo.com/covid19/72/2314/1447ce/47ce8d4abd94b5da7124cb64fe/wave-2-sermo-covid-19-global-analysis.pdf (2020).

11.       Sermo. WAVE III: April 6 – 9, Sermo’s COVID-19 Real Time Barometer Study. https://public-cdn.sermo.com/covid19/dd/c7f7/f7344a/344a00427889ec27e2b8df1c15/w3-sermo-covid-19-barometer.pdf (2020).

12.       Goldstein, L. Hydroxychloroquine-based COVID-19 Treatment, A Systematic Review of Clinical Evidence and Expert Opinion from Physicians’ Surveys. Watts Up With That? https://wattsupwiththat.com/2020/07/07/hydroxychloroquine-based-covid-19-treatment-a-systematic-review-of-clinical-evidence-and-expert-opinion-from-physicians-surveys/ (2020).

13.       Fajgenbaum, D. C. et al. Treatments Administered to the First 9152 Reported Cases of COVID-19: A Systematic Review. Infect. Dis. Ther. (2020) doi:10.1007/s40121-020-00303-8.

14.       CORONA is the COVID19 Registry of Off-Label & New Agents. A project of the Center for Cytokine Storm Treatment & Laboratory (CSTL) and the Castleman Disease Collaborative Network (CDCN). Tableau Software

15.       Vaduganathan, M. et al. Prescription Fill Patterns for Commonly Used Drugs During the COVID-19 Pandemic in the United States. JAMA 323, 2524–2526 (2020).

16.       Shehab, N., Lovegrove, M. & Budnitz, D. S. US Hydroxychloroquine, Chloroquine, and Azithromycin Outpatient Prescription Trends, October 2019 Through March 2020. JAMA Intern. Med. (2020) doi:10.1001/jamainternmed.2020.2594.

17.       FDA. Memorandum Explaining Basis for Revocation of Emergency Use Authorization for Emergency Use of Chloroquine Phosphate and Hydroxychloroquine Sulfate. (2020).

18.       Worldometers. Texas Coronavirus: 510,101 Cases and 8,613 Deaths (COVID-19 ) – Worldometer. https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/usa/texas/.

19.       Mehra & et al. RETRACTED: Hydroxychloroquine or chloroquine with or without a macrolide for treatment of COVID-19: a multinational registry analysis – The Lancet. https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(20)31180-6/fulltext.

20.       Prescription Fill Patterns for Commonly Used Drugs During the COVID-19 Pandemic in the United States | Clinical Pharmacy and Pharmacology | JAMA | JAMA Network. https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2766773.

21.       Coronavirus Pandemic Data Explorer. Our World in Data https://ourworldindata.org/coronavirus-data-explorer.

22.       OSE (Department of Health and Human Services. Pharmacovigilance Memorandum. (2020).

23.       Covid-19: Remdesivir probably reduces recovery time, but evidence is uncertain, panel finds | The BMJ. https://www.bmj.com/content/370/bmj.m3049.

24.       Zampino, R. et al. Liver injury in remdesivir-treated COVID-19 patients. Hepatol. Int. (2020) doi:10.1007/s12072-020-10077-3.

25.       Goldstein, L. Hypothesis: Restrictions on Hydroxychloroquine Contribute to the COVID-19 Cases Surge. Watts Up With That? https://wattsupwiththat.com/2020/07/05/hypothesis-restrictions-on-hydroxychloroquine-contribute-to-the-covid-19-cases-surge/ (2020).

0 0 votes
Article Rating
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
August 24, 2020 2:15 pm

Fact 1: Covid 19 penetrates and replicates inside cells.
Fact 2: In the laboratory Zinc interferes with coronavirus replication.
Fact 3: Zinc cannot penetrate the cell wall.
Fact 4: Hydroxychloroquine does penetrate the cell wall.

Probability 1: Hydroxychloroquine will pull available Zinc into the cell when it penetrates where the Zinc will interfere with virus replication

Reply to  rleewinters
August 24, 2020 2:40 pm

New insights on the antiviral effects of chloroquine against coronavirus: what to expect for COVID-19?

The multiple molecular mechanisms by which chloroquine can achieve such results remain to be further explored. … preliminary data indicate that chloroquine interferes with SARS-CoV-2 attempts to acidify the lysosomes and presumably inhibits cathepsins, which require a low pH for optimal cleavage of SARS-CoV-2 spike protein

It acts as a border guard, facilitating entry of Zn, and inhibiting entry of SARS-CoV-2, which makes it a viable prophylactic treatment for at risk individuals.

Reply to  rleewinters
August 24, 2020 2:40 pm

Zinc seems to be very important for HCQ efficacy.

It’s been reported that the predominant strains of the virus hitting the NE are more more virulent. I’m unable to open the attachments but was wondering what do results look like within regions?

Reply to  Scissor
August 24, 2020 2:52 pm

I think it’s more likely that some of the NE hospitals are more virulent, e.g., Elmhurst in NYC.

Reply to  Scissor
August 25, 2020 5:02 am

It could also be related to the much lower use of HCQ (mainly for political reasons). It sucks to be one of the people that died because your doctor didn’t like Trump.

Robert W. Turner
Reply to  Scissor
August 25, 2020 7:08 am

I doubt the “more virulent” strain claim. The outlier death rate in NY, NJ, CT, etc. were due to their seemingly genocidal nursing home policy.

Lower CFR during this second wave is due to lower vitamin D deficiency. It’s quite obvious to me, you can see it in the global statistics. CFR is higher now in southern hemisphere nations during their winter and CFR is decreased globally at this moment because the northern hemisphere has a much higher population. It will begin to go back up again in October when the northern hemisphere moves into winter months.

Reply to  Scissor
August 25, 2020 8:29 am

Now the attachment links work

Bob boder
Reply to  Scissor
August 25, 2020 10:50 am

Well since most of the virus hitting other parts of the US can from NYers fleeing NY I am guess the strain is the same.

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  rleewinters
August 24, 2020 2:44 pm

You said (without support), “Zinc cannot penetrate the cell wall.” Perhaps you would explain why so many people take zinc supplements, and zinc gluconate is available OTC for the early treatment of colds.

Reply to  Clyde Spencer
August 24, 2020 2:59 pm

There are natural ionophores in foods, e.g., quercetin in apples, onions and other things; EGCG in green teas and other things.

Just because someone takes a zinc supplement doesn’t mean that it’s necessarily doing optimum good. Some forms absorb better than others, and a selenium deficiency can keep Zn+2 bound to it’s serum transport protein (metallothionein, I think it’s called) and not be bio-available.

mario lento
Reply to  icisil
August 24, 2020 3:37 pm

HA I responded much the same, but can see you beat me to it. Same page again! Thank’s icisil

Ian W
Reply to  icisil
August 24, 2020 4:28 pm

Indeed – have one Brazil nut a day to maintain selenium sufficieny

Bob boder
Reply to  Ian W
August 25, 2020 10:51 am

I hate Brazil nuts

Reply to  Ian W
August 27, 2020 4:02 am

Thanks for that; I didn’t know about the Brazil nuts. Naturally, right now they are in a world wide recall, as the crop from Bolivia seems to come with free salmonella.

William Astley
Reply to  icisil
August 24, 2020 5:41 pm

I totally agree the mechanism by which HCQ stops the virus from replicating is it acts a zinc ionosphere and zinc once in our cells makes the ACE-2 connector molecule, slight positive which stops the entire class of viruses replicating.

Obviously our cells would have and have developed using evolution a bioactive chemical that works as the best evolutionary designed zinc ionosphere for our cells to protect them from ACE-2 connecting viruses.

We have zinc in our blood system. It would be unbelievable that our body does not protect using the zinc by developing using evolution a perfect zinc ionophere.

Vit. D enables our cells to access their copy of our DNA. Our cells access the DNA to make micro chemical factories that sit on our cells.

The micro chemical factories, on command of from our cells and stimulus to our cells, produce bioactive chemicals to protect the cells and hence the groups of cells that are our heart, our lungs, our throat, our nerves, and so on.

So in the case of the micro factory that produces our cell’s zinc ionophere, when active free Vit. D is low only a small percentage of our cells get these micro factories and the natural internal zinc ionophere.

If almost all of our cells have our internal cellular zinc ionosphere, the virus cannot replicate.

The percentage of our cells that have the special micro chemical factories, is dependent on the level of Vit. D in our blood stream.

An observational fact, to support the above statement is there is an astonishing multiplication in the number of Covid deaths in Vit. D deficient people

Regardless of sex or age there is a 19 times more ‘chance’ of dying from covid or having damage to organs for those people who have a Vit D level of less than 20 ng/ml as compared to those who have a Vit. D level in their blood (measured) that is greater than 30 ng/ml.

Coronavirus: Black African deaths three times higher than white Britons – study


82% of the US black population, 69% of the US Hispanic, and 42% of the US general population is Vitamin D deficient.

Prevalence and correlates of vitamin D deficiency in US adults.


4000 UI/day of Vitamin D supplements is required to raise the serum 25(OH)D of the entire population above 30 ng/ml.


Patterns of COVID-19 Mortality and Vitamin D: An Indonesian Study

Vitamin D Insufficient Patients 12.55 times more likely to die, blood serum 25(OH)D level from 21 to 29 ng/ml

Vitamin D Deficient Patients 19.12 times more likely to die, Vitamin D blood serum level less than 20 ng/ml

Vitamin D ‘normal’ for this study is 25(0H)D above 30 ng/ml.

For Vitamin D status, cases were classified based on their blood serum of activated Vit. D 25(OH)D levels:

(1) normal – serum 25(OH)D of greater than 30 ng/ml,
(2) insufficient – serum 25(OH)D from 21 to 29 ng/ml, and
(3) deficient – serum 25(OH)D of less than 20 ng/ml.

Nicholas McGinley
Reply to  Clyde Spencer
August 24, 2020 3:02 pm

And as well… substances which are known to be zinc ionophores are common in various foods and supplements.
Zinc above a certain level is toxic inside of cells…it causes them to undergo apoptosis…programmed cell death.
This was the whole point of the research into zinc ionophores…to induce apoptosis in cancer cells.
(The trick of course, with any treatment, is how exactly does one target certain cells and not others? Drugs and molecules and atoms and ions do not care where we want them to go when we ingest them)
Decades of study have failed to show an antiviral effect except in cells in a dish.
And the effect in vitro has been known since at least 1968. A long time for no known beneficial effect to have been demonstrated in live subjects. It took less than five years after the drugs were introduced for the positive effect on RA and lupus to be found, purely by association in people taking the drugs for malaria who also had RA or lupus.
When beneficial effects are strong and useful and consistent, it gets noticed quickly…even in drugs not taken by millions of people over several decades.
No one can explain how it could possibly be the case this drug or this combo helps but only for this virus and only when no one is actually conducting a careful clinical trial.

Reply to  Nicholas McGinley
August 24, 2020 5:54 pm

You are free not to take it.
Good luck!

mario lento
Reply to  Clyde Spencer
August 24, 2020 3:34 pm

Zn can penetrate, but it’s hard. Ionophores have show to carry the mineral that they attract, through the barrier and increase their cellular concentration. There, fixed it.

Zn works better when it can more effectively go to where it does what it does. Since diet provides us with ionophores, but varies greatly, supplementing with ionophoric compounds enhances the effect!

Reply to  Clyde Spencer
August 24, 2020 3:57 pm

It has been known for some time that zinc interferes with coronavirus replication.


The problem is cellular introduction.

Nicholas McGinley
Reply to  rleewinters
August 24, 2020 4:27 pm

Posting the same comment over and over again is annoying and insulting.
This is the definition of trolling.

Reply to  Nicholas McGinley
August 24, 2020 5:23 pm

+1 McGineley

Reply to  Nicholas McGinley
August 24, 2020 6:36 pm

Clyde asked for a source.

Foley Hund
Reply to  Nicholas McGinley
August 25, 2020 6:43 am

Are you the troll police ?

Matthew Schilling
Reply to  Nicholas McGinley
August 25, 2020 7:42 am

Irony alert.

paul courtney
Reply to  Nicholas McGinley
August 25, 2020 7:51 am

NO, I’m the troll police, and I’d point out all these trolls but I’ve been defunded. Damn dems.

Cathy logan
Reply to  Clyde Spencer
August 24, 2020 4:03 pm

I take 25 mg zinc daily along with tonic water. I also take the rind from 2 grapefruit, cover with 3 to 4 inches of water and simmer for 2 hours, covered,on the stove. Turn off the heat and ket sit on the stove covered until morning. Take 2 tablespoons of the liquid along with a tsp of honey every 3 to 4 hours until you feel better. It works, breaks up congestion…my mom’s cure for us when the cold/flu season started.

Steve Case
Reply to  Cathy logan
August 24, 2020 5:54 pm

Ever since I read Dr. Ror Spencer’s March 18th post about HCQ I’ve been doing Tonic water and one a day pills that list zinc. I turn 76 in a few days, so far so good.

Cathy logan
Reply to  Steve Case
August 24, 2020 7:59 pm

8 kids now in our 50’s and 60’s, all followibg min’s ‘treatment’, very little illness! Hmmmm…mom was right!

Pat from Kerbob
Reply to  Steve Case
August 24, 2020 9:39 pm

I started taking tonic via my sodastream, my problem is when i take zinc i feel awful that day, have tried a couple different forms, following directions, just in general feel awful, like a bad hangover.
Does anyone know what that means, maybe i have good levels of zinc already and the supplement puts me over the edge to detrimental levels?

Nicholas McGinley
Reply to  Clyde Spencer
August 24, 2020 11:29 pm

Metals in general kill all microorganisms and cells.
That is why these are trace nutrients.
The effect is powerful and seems to be close to universal, with little evidence of resistance even when metals like copper are used for years on end on crops as fungicides and bactericides.
The effect has a name…the Oligodynamic effect:
“a toxic effect of metal ions on living cells, algae, molds, spores, fungi,viruses, prokaryotic and eukaryotic microorganisms, even in relatively low concentrations.”

It has been well known for centuries, although probably not why or how.

There is a darn good reason for tightly regulating metal ions inside of a cell.
It makes them die.

Bob boder
Reply to  Nicholas McGinley
August 25, 2020 10:56 am

Yep, copper handrails, copper door knobs, copper filters, copper piping, copper utensils, copper pots and pans all kill viruses, often in just a few minutes

Nicholas McGinley
Reply to  Clyde Spencer
August 24, 2020 11:58 pm

Snake oil salesmen have been pushing something called “colloidal silver” on the unwary for years and years, often charging huge amounts of money for something that is ineffective and can be dangerous or cause other problems…like the skin turning some weird color and staying that way for years…or more likely forever!
See here:
“Is Colloidal Silver Safe?
Colloidal silver can cause serious side effects. The most common is argyria, a bluish-gray discoloration of the skin, which is usually permanent.”

Silver will most definitely kill microorganisms on surfaces. As will copper.
But if these metals had any way of tipping the scales in the billions of years old war between viruses and cells, it would have already happened by evolution.

And since people are using info from the NIH to imply that the NIH is saying what these advocates are implying, here is what the NIH says about zinc:
“Can zinc be harmful?
Yes, if you get too much. Signs of too much zinc include nausea, vomiting, loss of appetite, stomach cramps, diarrhea, and headaches. When people take too much zinc for a long time, they sometimes have problems such as low copper levels, lower immunity, and low levels of HDL cholesterol (the “good” cholesterol).

The daily upper limits for zinc are listed below. ”

The chart gives 40mg as the safe limit for an adult for long term daily supplementation.

As I have said repeatedly, anyone who focuses on one or another nutrient instead of adhering to the common sense proposition that we need to get the correct amount of ALL nutrients, is putting themselves at an unnecessary risk.
Having adequate amounts of all nutrients is essential. This is why they are called essential nutrients.
One cannot take a huge amount of one thing and alleviate a deficiency of another thing.
And many of the nutrients are in a delicate balance within our body and our cells.
We need zinc for a healthy immune system, but that is also true of a list of nutrients.
The idea we can pump zinc into our cells and act as an intracellular antiviral is pure quackery from a medical perspective.
Too much zinc can have a deleterious impact on immune health, as well as other body systems.

“What is zinc and what does it do?
Zinc is a nutrient that people need to stay healthy. Zinc is found in cells throughout the body. It helps the immune system fight off invading bacteria and viruses. The body also needs zinc to make proteins and DNA, the genetic material in all cells. During pregnancy, infancy, and childhood, the body needs zinc to grow and develop properly. Zinc also helps wounds heal and is important for proper senses of taste and smell.”

But also,
“Can zinc be harmful?
Yes, if you get too much. Signs of too much zinc include nausea, vomiting, loss of appetite, stomach cramps, diarrhea, and headaches. When people take too much zinc for a long time, they sometimes have problems such as low copper levels, lower immunity, and low levels of HDL cholesterol (the “good” cholesterol).”


Here is a summary of body of clinical research on zinc:

“Zinc has been used for colds in forms that are taken orally (by mouth), such as lozenges, tablets, or syrup, or used intranasally (in the nose), such as swabs or gels.
Oral Zinc
A 2012 evaluation of 17 studies of various types of zinc lozenges, tablets, or syrup found that zinc can reduce the duration of colds in adults. Two evaluations of three studies of high-dose zinc acetate lozenges in adults, conducted in 2015 and 2016, found that they shortened colds.
Some participants in studies that tested zinc for colds reported that the zinc caused a bad taste or nausea.
Long-term use of high doses of zinc can cause low copper levels, reduced immunity, and low levels of HDL cholesterol (the “good” cholesterol). Zinc may interact with drugs, including antibiotics and penicillamine (a drug used to treat rheumatoid arthritis).

Intranasal Zinc
The use of zinc products inside the nose, such as gels or swabs, may cause loss of the sense of smell, which may be long-lasting or permanent. In 2009, the FDA warned consumers to stop using several intranasal zinc products marketed as cold remedies because of this risk.
Prior to the warnings about effects on the sense of smell, a few studies of intranasal zinc had suggested a possible benefit against cold symptoms. However, the risk of a serious and lasting side effect outweighs any possible benefit in the treatment of a minor illness.”


Anyone making claims that go beyond this is stating an opinion which is contradicted by years of careful research.

Robert W. Turner
Reply to  Clyde Spencer
August 25, 2020 7:12 am

Some people take vitamin supplements with non-Beta Carotene vitamin A which actually does harm to the body. Some people drink tiger’s pee and mix rhino horn into their bird nest soup. Some people wear copper bracelets to ward off every imaginable disease/syndrome.

Nicholas McGinley
Reply to  rleewinters
August 24, 2020 2:52 pm

All viruses replicate inside of cells.
Does this work for all viruses, in your view, or only for this particular strain of this particular virus?

BTW…no one has yet posted any evidence that HCQ has been studied and proven by evidence to be a zinc ionophore. CQ has such a study. And it may be one. But one study with no replication efforts does not prove anything beyond doubt.
The original in vitro research that was the justification for using HCQ and CQ to see if they helped with viral infections did not involve zinc, nor did it involve antibiotics.

The research that showed CQ was a zinc ionophore was not studying an antiviral effect…it was looking for evidence of some justification to try the drug as an anticancer treatment. After the in vitro research, the drugs were both tried against cancers, and against viruses…many times, over many years.
None ever found any cause to believe the drugs were useful as cancer drugs or as antiviral drugs in people with cancer or with viral illnesses.

So what is the explanation for how this drug could work against one virus…this one, and not others?
Large doses of zinc have been shown in some studies but not others to help with the common cold…not to prevent one, but to help some people get over one sooner. It did not work for flu or any other infections…and the effect was NOT confirmed in all studies. Like most studies involving nutritional supplements to treat diseases, the results were not especially strong in the studies that found some benefit, and were non existent in other studies.
And the investigations that looked at zinc in common colds used zinc lozenges, dissolved slowly in the mouth. It helped some people have a shorter duration of a cold…slightly. In some studies. Not in others.

The Henry Ford hospital retrospective study that some people find so compelling, found that adding the z pak antibiotic to HCQ gave a result only slightly better than taking neither. The opposite of what would be expected if both drugs had a benefit.
And incredibly, some people have asserted, with no evidence (not that evidence ever was important to HCQ assertions), that hospital studies that used the gold standard to test HCQ, failed because they used TOO MUCH of it! Even though no one has ever shown a result that even IMPLIED that the drug’s effectiveness was inversely dose dependent…IOW that too much would not work, you have to take JUST THE RIGHT AMOUNT! Although these same people have no research to show how on Earth they could possibly know any such thing. And it is illogical and unscientific. Toxicity issues do not make antiviral or antibiotic drugs stop working…they simply make it dangerous.
Most commonly, the the idea is to take as much as something as is not toxic enough to be more harmful than the illness being treated.

In short, HCQ advocates make ever argument one can dream up…and even though they are mutually contradictory, none of the advocates ever criticizes other advocates who advance contradictory assertions.
Or notes the moving goalpost effect.
Or pays one bit of attention to any of the studies that disprove any benefit.
I know what all of this reminds me of…it reminds of warmista jackassery.
In nearly every way I can think of.
Stating with the saintly prophets who knew it was “the cure” before they had any possibility of anything like proof, or even strong evidence, and who are known to have lied.
Right through to people who just believe it, no matter what evidence to the contrary exists.

There is not one consistent argument for a benefit that holds any water, whatsoever.

Reply to  Nicholas McGinley
August 24, 2020 4:11 pm

Except that doctors who treat coronavirus patients (such as a doctor in my immediate family) with the HCQ/AZ/Z protocol have seen very good results and continue to use it.

Reply to  MM
August 24, 2020 5:10 pm

Has this doctor ever heard of double-blind controlled experiments? I didn’t think so. Using it because it might work and it’s relatively harmless is one thing; claiming that it actually works is different.

mario lento
Reply to  mcswell
August 24, 2020 5:44 pm

You propagate a meme that you do not understand when you rhetorically write: “Has this doctor ever heard of double-blind controlled experiments?” This torture of language preclude thoughtful discourse.

Let’s just assume it works as well as many think. The cost of NOT using HCQ + Zn, results in a death rate by up to an order of magnitude while waiting for the double blind study that many hope never takes place.

What you do not understand, is that evidence and placebo based double blind study are not mutually exclusive, as you are want to believe.

Reply to  mcswell
August 24, 2020 6:04 pm

Good doctors are informed and guided by RCTs, but they are not ruled by them, and can function apart from them when necessary. The goal is health and well being, not conformity to protocols.

Nicholas McGinley
Reply to  mcswell
August 24, 2020 9:06 pm

“The goal is health and well being…”
Which necessitates making distinctions between things that might do some good and those known to not have any value for a specific ailment.
Zpak is not without contraindications, and HCQ certainly is not.
Both together have a known risk which is more than additive, particularly for those who are old and sick to begin with, particularly those that have heart issues, and MOST particularly for those that have a prolonged Q-T interval.

There is a risk for a certain percentage of people who take HCQ and/or zpak which is very definitely nonzero.
The risk for death for everyone who becomes infected with SARS-CoV-2 is thought to be somewhere around 0.5%, and is almost surely somewhere between 0.1% and 1%.
But that is the risk for everyone collectively. The risk for anyone who is not infected is miniscule. The risk of death from COVID-19, for anyone who is not old with comorbidities, is way below that percentage…perhaps one tenth to one hundredth as much risk of death for someone who is healthy and/or young.
There are estimates as high as 10% for the number of people who might be at some risk from HCQ and/or Zpak, but especially for both at once, and especially for anyone who is elderly with any cardiac issues.

From this set of facts, it should be plainly evident to anyone who really wants to think about it, that the very people who are at most risk from the virus are the ones who may well be at grave risk from the drugs, namely those who have the virus and are old or have cardiac issues.
For everyone else, the risk from these drugs might easily be in excess of the risk from the virus…which is very low for the the young, the otherwise healthy, and for those who are not even infected and having a serious/severe case.

What actual doctors (and other medical professionals, and anyone else concerned about ethics) do is weigh the potential risk against the possible benefit.
Even if it is a wash, it is a bad risk.
But this drug combo may easily have a greater risk of harm than the virus for any particular person.
And inappropriate antibiotic usage surely does have a very bad risk overall benefit profile for us all when used on people who do not actually have a bacterial infection. It is just plain stupid and contrary to medical ethics and common sense.
As is giving a drug when a large amount of clinical data indicates it has no benefit for treating this virus.
So, to blithely claim

Unnecessary antibiotic usage has it own set of very serious concerns that could have grave implications for every person in the world down the road, and Z-pak is one that already has such a concern made more immediate by it’s status as being in a distinct class of antibiotic. And there is no surer way to make antibiotics useless and create superbugs than using them inappropriately and recklessly. And once a gene for resistance evolves in a single bacterium, the gene can be spread far and wide to other bacteria. The whole thing is foolhardy in the extreme.

Anyone who blithely asserts it(this “treatment”) cannot hurt, so why the hell not just hand it out to everyone who has the virus, is being IMO the very worst sort of jackass, and is an actual dangerous person…again IMO.
An opinion backed up by evidence and logic and attention to all of the available information and things to be considered.

It is so far beyond what is ethical it is difficult to think of exactly how to describe it.

Reply to  mcswell
August 25, 2020 2:41 am

Please stop with your whinging about HCQ safety. It’s safer than acetaminophen and other OTC medications.

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  mcswell
August 25, 2020 9:42 am

You whined, “Please stop with your whinging about HCQ safety. It’s safer than acetaminophen and other OTC medications.”

In other words, “Don’t confuse me with facts! My mind is made up.”

Reply to  mcswell
August 25, 2020 2:14 pm

No Clyde, my mind is not made up, though I am impressed by the evidence. Also, I don’t give a damn what Trump thinks about HCQ. Do you realize how foolish and biased you look by responding the way you did to my stating a fact. You can get into trouble with acetaminophen much easier and quicker than you can with HCQ. Look up how many cases of acetaminophen poisoning there are every year. Yet it is sold OTC and HCQ is not.

Nicholas McGinley
Reply to  mcswell
August 26, 2020 10:53 am

“You can get into trouble with acetaminophen much easier and quicker than you can with HCQ. Look up how many cases of acetaminophen poisoning there are every year. Yet it is sold OTC and HCQ is not.”

I am not gonna bother debunking that obvious malarkey, except to point out the relative amounts of each that is taken.
There is a long list of things we all need to have every day, that would kill us if we took too much.
A tablet of pure vitamin A as big as an aspirin would be a one way ticket to the morgue.
So what?
As as for whinging…I am not the one telling other people to shut up.
Whinging means complaining…like getting your panties in a knot because someone disagrees with you.
You want me to shut up because there is nothing factual or logic based that you can counter me with.
In case you missed it…this entire thread is about an article which is about…HCQ!

Nicholas McGinley
Reply to  mcswell
August 26, 2020 11:07 am

That should be vitamin D of course, not A.
Vitamin D is sandwiched between cyanide and strychnine on oral LD 50 charts for common substances.
comment image


Listed as “extremely toxic”.

Slightly to moderately toxic.
It causes toxicity of the liver.
But it is not because it is toxic in small doses…it is because some people take it like it is candy…they have no concept of toxicity.
And since it is in so many homes, it is a common cause of children getting poisoned.

LD50 for acetaminophen is given as 3000mg/kg.
Three grams per kilogram.
So a 100 kilogram man would need to take 300 grams to have a 50% chance of dying.

Some small children have died from a single pill of chloroquine. The lethal dose threshold is about twice the therapeutic dose.

Reply to  Clyde Spencer
August 24, 2020 8:47 pm

Yes, the mind is obviously inextricably involved in the healing as well as the deterioration of the body. Neuropeptides are very powerful.

Reply to  Nicholas McGinley
August 24, 2020 4:28 pm

…except that nations that use it frequently in their treatment of covid patients have one-fifth the death rate per million population as those countries that use it only infrequently!

Uganda uses more HCQ than any other nation and has reported just 13 deaths from C-19!

Magic wand effect?

AI virus?

Reply to  RockyRoad
August 25, 2020 10:53 am

The median age of the population in Uganda is below 16. That is why the death rate is so low. The young don’t get sick.

Other countries in the region have similarly low rates of infection and death, so why do you just focus on Uganda?

Reply to  Nicholas McGinley
August 24, 2020 4:33 pm

No kidding, I mean when the patient is almost dead they sprinkle a little HCQ on them and proclaim “see this sh*t doesn’t work.”

Reply to  Nicholas McGinley
August 24, 2020 5:08 pm

Well said, Nicholas.

Reply to  Nicholas McGinley
August 24, 2020 5:17 pm

Chloroquine, and by extension hydroxychloroquine, has been known to be effective against coronaviruses for years. See this study for proof:


mario lento
Reply to  Wade
August 24, 2020 5:52 pm

Wade: Some people have faith and cannot be reasoned with.

This link, that we have known for a decade and a half, is so inconvenient that you will see 1000’s of words from people trying to confuse other people by torturing words to death. I call it torture because it’s a futile attempt to reframe claims and then strike them down.

To some people seeking an outcome is more important than seeking truth.

Nicholas McGinley
Reply to  Wade
August 24, 2020 10:26 pm

By extension?
What principle of pharmacopeia guides that assertion?
In any case, Wade, you are referring to a single study using cells in a glass dish.
And not human cells, and not epithelial cells, and not cells from any part of the respiratory system, but a particular line of special immortal cells from the kidney of a green monkey that died over 55 years ago.

In vitro studies say nothing about efficacy in live animals, let alone sick people.
Anyone who knows the first thing about drug research knows this and has known it for as long as they have been familiar with the subject.

So, not only is one study not “proof” of anything, but only one data point of evidence that can only be taken as factual if and when it is shown to be repeatable and reproducible.
And even then, it is only valid to say what the actual evidence indicates: That CQ blocks infection of Vero cells with the virus it was tested with.

It says nothing about what happens in an actual green monkey kidney.
It certainly says nothing about what happens in human airway epithelium cells.
It comes no place close to saying anything at all in a actual live human being.
And it says nothing about any ability to cure a viral infection in a person who has an infectious disease.

So the assertion, “Chloroquine, and by extension hydroxychloroquine, has been known to be effective against coronaviruses for years” is only proof of one thing: That the person who said it is either woefully and almost comically ignorant (this is too serious a subject to call it comical, no matter how clownishly uninformed) or a deliberate liar.

I do not known about Wade, but I know Mario knows all of this very well…as it has been discussed here over and over again for month after month.

But here is is again, for anyone who is new here or slow on the uptake:

The drugs CQ and HCQ have been tested in animals and people against viruses for years, both before and after the linked “proof” study.
And recently against have been tested against this virus in actual human airway epithelial cells.
Not to mention a fat of very large gold standard clinical trials.

First the older news…the follow up work in animals to test for actual activity in a live host vs SARS-CoV (the old one). This study tested the malaria drugs and a bunch of other stuff that showed activity in vitro, and found no antiviral effect vs the actual virus, and here is a quote and a link to the study:
“…in vitro inhibitors of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus (SARS-CoV) were evaluated for inhibition in the mouse SARS-CoV replication model.”
“Anti-inflammatory agents, chloroquine, amodiaquin and pentoxifylline, were also inactive in vivo…”

Note this research was conducted and published by the same organization, but years later…it is follow research, and demonstrated that the in vitro effects did not translate into live animals. Note also that a whole raft of compounds needed to be tested for efficacy in animals…because lots of stuff blocked the virus in vitro.
It is extremely common for drugs to work in cell cultures but not in animals.
In fact, no drug ever gets to even phase 1 human trials if it does not work in live animals.
Having an effect in vitro means nothing.

CQ also prevents cells in vitro from getting Influenza A, but has no value in animals (or people).
Here is that research paper:

But there is so much more. These drugs have been tested for decades against anything anyone can think of…the only thing more amazing for the endless optimism is the endless funding for drugs that do not work on one thing after another.

Here is a look at actual primates and this actual virus, in which the actual virus was used on live animals to see if HCQ with or without z pak, cured or blocked infection, the result of which was that there was no benefit and the drugs flat out do not work:
Hydroxychloroquine use against SARS-CoV-2 infection in non-human primates

“We evaluated the antiviral activity of HCQ both in vitro and in SARS-CoV-2-infected macaques. HCQ showed antiviral activity in African green monkey kidney cells (VeroE6) but not in a model of reconstituted human airway epithelium. In macaques, we tested different treatment strategies in comparison to placebo, before and after peak viral load, alone or in combination with azithromycin (AZTH). Neither HCQ nor HCQ+AZTH showed a significant effect on the viral load levels in any of the tested compartments. When the drug was used as a pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP), HCQ did not confer protection against acquisition of infection. Our findings do not support the use of HCQ, either alone or in combination with AZTH, as an antiviral treatment for COVID-19 in humans.”

That last one referenced using the drugs in actual human airway epithelial cells.
Here is an article that explores why virologists do not use human cells, and use instead kidney cells from a green monkey that died in the early 1960s:

“It’s not at all uncommon for individual scientists—or even entire subfields of research—to waste their time in just this way, by choosing the most familiar animal or “model system” as the basis for their work, even when it’s not well suited to the question at hand. Rodent research findings, for example, have been notoriously misleading on a number of important topics, including potential treatments for amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS) and tuberculosis. Cell lines, too, can be misapplied out of habit or convenience. The ones derived from an African green monkey kidney, known as Vero cells, are especially popular among virologists, in part because they contain fewer antiviral proteins known as interferons than other cells, and thus provide a fertile breeding ground for certain viruses that are otherwise quite fickle and difficult to grow in the lab. (Lab mice have long been used to study cancer for the same reason: They happen to be startlingly adept at getting tumors.)”

Here, let me single out the money quote: “The ones derived from an African green monkey kidney, known as Vero cells, are especially popular among virologists, in part because they contain fewer antiviral proteins known as interferons…”

Virologists use them not because they are good at giving useful information, but because they are familiar and easy.

Now here is where it gets interesting.
Pay attention!
See here:
“Whereas hydroxychloroquine does appear to stop SARS-CoV-2 from infecting Vero cells, it fails to do the same for human lung cells in a dish. According to research from Stefan Pöhlmann, head of the Infection Biology Unit at the German Primate Center in Göttingen, and his collaborators, the devil was in the details of how the cells interact with the SARS-CoV-2’s dreaded ‘spike’ protein. Human lung cells contain at least two different enzymes that can help the virus sneak through their membranes. With Vero cells, however, only one of those modes of entry is available—and it turns out to be the one that hydroxychloroquine will block.”

I have been pointing this out here since March that no one who actually studies viruses or immunology thinks HCQ or CQ work by being a zinc ionophore.
For one thing, none of that cell research on blocking corona virus infection used zinc or any antibiotics.
A human body is nothing whatsoever like a plate full of cells, and green monkey kidney cells are nothing like human cells that line out airway.

BTW…that wired article has dozens of links to relevant research on this set of topics.
Including this one, to a paper showing that this effect seen in Vero cells in not seen in human airway epithelial cells:

Chloroquine does not inhibit infection of human lung cells with SARS-CoV-2

Anyone who wants to really have all the information ought to be reading all of this stuff, and all of the references. It is months of reading. I have spent the past six+ months reading this stuff…over and over again.

Here is a great discussion of the entire subject with a large number of excellent references:
Rethinking the role of hydroxychloroquine in the treatment of COVID‐19

Nest time you talk to scientists (and many of us here are actual scientists) about “proof, Wade, try harder to know what you are talking about.

Matthew Schilling
Reply to  Nicholas McGinley
August 25, 2020 12:10 pm

HCQ = Windmill; Nicholas McGinley = Don Quixote
Or is it…
HCQ = White Whale; Nicholas McGinley = Ahab

The invective has me leaning toward the second entry… how are your legs, Nicholas?

Nicholas McGinley
Reply to  Nicholas McGinley
August 26, 2020 11:23 am

This article and this thread is about this topic and these drugs.
What is the matter…you have nothing substantive to contradict what I just said…or you did not read a word of any of those reports?
Or both?
I am gonna go with both.

You obviously have no idea what the idiom you referenced means.
For one thing, nothing I said is an attack.
And I was not responding to anything imaginary, but specific comments with specific information.
Highly relevant information.
I know what I am talking about, and on this subject I am knowledgeable.

If you want to find people tilting at windmills here…maybe look at the comments from people who have an emotional need to insist that anyone who disagrees with their view on these drugs, of course also has TDS.

Which is the exact opposite of true.

Doug Sloan
Reply to  Nicholas McGinley
August 28, 2020 5:20 am

McGinley says:
“Pay attention!
See here:
‘Whereas hydroxychloroquine does appear to stop SARS-CoV-2 from infecting Vero cells, it fails to do the same for human lung cells in a dish.’ ”

Just one perhaps oh so slight problem with this study. The Calu-3 cell line used is a lung cancer cell line, not a normal lung cell line. That might make no difference at all or it might make all the difference in the world. Most certainly it should have been discussed as an important qualification. That it wasn’t even mentioned by the study authors or by McGinley is a huge red flag. I call foul. Stop trying to pull the wool over our eyes.

mario lento
Reply to  Doug Sloan
August 28, 2020 8:47 am

Yes, Doug we all know this and I am glad you brought it up.

At some point a naysayer seeks confirmation bias at all cost. Once we find the complete inability for objective thought on even basic facts, I need to bow out.

Clinging to a bad study is an example of self destructive behavior we sometimes see some humans.

Reply to  Nicholas McGinley
August 24, 2020 5:38 pm

Posting the same comment over and over again is annoying and insulting.
This is the definition of trolling.

Reply to  Nicholas McGinley
August 24, 2020 5:40 pm

You are free not to take it.
Good luck!

Reply to  Nicholas McGinley
August 24, 2020 5:55 pm

failed because they used TOO MUCH of it! Even though no one has ever shown a result that even IMPLIED that the drug’s effectiveness was inversely dose dependent…IOW that too much would not work

What utter and total bsh*t. “Too much of it” had nothing to do with it being inversely dose dependent , “too much of it” had to with the dose levels themselves being lethal. IOW they overdosed patients and then said look, it kills them. Well duh. There’s many other points in your diatribe that are similarly misleading. It is attacks like this by people like you that convince me that HCQ used properly has merit . Why else knowingly use it improperly and then claim it doesn’t work?

mario lento
Reply to  davidmhoffer
August 24, 2020 10:36 pm

Plus 1000.

At this point, I am simply amazed at how people can be so ignorant with their use of the language to deceive. Your points are well informed and spot on.

Nicholas McGinley
Reply to  davidmhoffer
August 25, 2020 12:30 am

Who overdosed patients and killed them with it, David?
As for my comment being an “attack”, you sound like some sort of hypersensitive snowflake now.
What exactly makes my comment a “diatribe”?
I was not even addressing anyone specific.
a forceful and bitter verbal attack against someone or something.”

I did no such thing.
But you said something that is almost by definition utter and total BS: You gave no particulars, but said that “…attacks like this by people like you that convince me that HCQ used properly has merit.”

That is what you are going with?
That argument reminds me of one particularly loathesome one used by the antiracists…that denying one is a racist is proof of their racism.

You are stating that me, all by myself, and/or “people like me”, are how you decide things.
By automatically believing the opposite.

The whole world of medicine is lying, and your proof is you do not like me.
I can only pity anyone having to live inside a mind like that.

So, being that you are a clownishly illogical whining crybaby snowflake who has no facts but decides things based on your “feelings” about people you dislike, I can say with 100% certainty that I do not give one tiny rats ass what you think.

David Hoffer
Reply to  Nicholas McGinley
August 25, 2020 11:01 am

For someone who doesn’t give a tiny rats ass what I think, you wrote an awful lot of protest.

Methinks you doth protest too much….

Nicholas McGinley
Reply to  Nicholas McGinley
August 26, 2020 11:28 am

Very Weak.
Please…do better than that.
I may go from not caring to feeling sorry for you.
So please…have a heart.

Gerald Machnee
Reply to  Nicholas McGinley
August 24, 2020 5:59 pm

**There is not one consistent argument for a benefit that holds any water, whatsoever.**
Unsubstantiated. Trolling.

Nicholas McGinley
Reply to  Gerald Machnee
August 25, 2020 12:56 am

So, we have a winner folks…Gerald gets the Pee Wee Herman award for the first one to use a variation on the “I know you are, but what am I” routine!
Take a bow…
You so funny!

You may disagree with every word I said, but I am not trolling, never have, and offer all the substantiation anyone asks for.
And you know it.
Got anything that moves the conversation forward in any way whatsoever, Gerald?
Something you need assistance comprehending, perhaps?
No shame in it…just say so.

John Endicott
Reply to  Nicholas McGinley
August 25, 2020 2:37 am

Nicholas, you are known by your behavior. Yes you are trolling, you do it every time the subject of hcq comes up. it’s predictable and boring. You can pretend otherwise, but you are fooling no one except maybe yourself.

mario lento
Reply to  John Endicott
August 25, 2020 9:07 am

John: You are spot on. I will not engage with this person. The pattern of behavior when it gets frustrated is as follows.

First, it starts with Ad Hominem attacks.
Then, it invents things that were never said, pins those things onto others and then attacks those things.

The attacks I can take. The lies, and defamatory words, I will not tolerate.

I do not engage with this person, since it is a sink-hole of depravity.

Nicholas McGinley
Reply to  Gerald Machnee
August 25, 2020 12:57 am

See that last part?
That is trolling.
But only if you are not an actual moron, and I know it.

Reply to  Nicholas McGinley
August 24, 2020 10:08 pm

In your “Henry Ford paragraph” you inadvertently wrote “the the idea”. It’s near the end.

Nicholas McGinley
Reply to  Micah
August 25, 2020 1:05 am

I saw that*!
And the sad fact is, it will stay like that, right here, for forever and a day!
Oh, the humanity!

*If only I learned to type the proper way, instead of looking at the keyboard while I do it, we might have avoided this calamity.
But I was too busy taking stuff like science and math classes for all those years.
I did spend some time drinking beer and playing Ultimate Frisbee, but as all can tell, the rest of my college years time was wasted!

paul courtney
Reply to  Nicholas McGinley
August 25, 2020 8:10 am

John Endicott: Could not disagree more that McGinley is a troll. He does comment on HCQ posts, and I disagree with him (if I could refute him, I would, but it’s not my field- it’s obviously his field) but if you can’t see that he brings cites and valid, SCIENCE-BASED comments that should be appreciated at this site, I can’t help you see that calling him a troll is a waste of type strokes. Frankly, I wish HCQ would succeed, if only to make Gretchen Whitmer and the other dem govs look as stupid as possible. Then the press couldn’t overlook it without really trying.

Matthew Bergin
Reply to  Nicholas McGinley
August 25, 2020 2:55 pm

Sounds like you are one of the people receiving some of that 21 billion the vaccine companies are handing out. I would be ashamed.

Nicholas McGinley
Reply to  Nicholas McGinley
August 26, 2020 9:07 am

“Sounds like you are one of the people receiving some of that 21 billion the vaccine companies are handing out. I would be ashamed.”

I would be ashamed if I made stuff up inside my head and projected it onto someone else.
I would also be ashamed if I was actually against life saving medical research, and considered anyone involved in it to be a bad person.
Or if I expected educated people to work for free, or for people to give away things they manufactured because I am against capitalism.

Yup…those things would make me ashamed, Matthew.

BTW…what makes you think “vaccine companies” are “handing out” billions and billions of dollars?
For one thing, I never heard of a vaccine company, per se.
For another, most for-profit companies I am aware of try to make money, or at least break even.
Drug research is expensive, to be sure.
Volunteers need to be paid.
Are you actually saying that people who volunteer to be test subjects in new drug research, and receive some compensation for it, need to be ashamed of themselves?
Or is it the doctors and clinicians who need to be ashamed, in you view?
Whichever is the case, it is very bizarre to feel this way, IMO.
Do you work for free?
Does the work you do for which you get paid (assuming you have ever ben gainfully employed) involved helping sick people and saving lives?
If not, why are you not ashamed to be taking money for something which does not even involve helping any of the millions of people who are in need of care?

Mike T
Reply to  Nicholas McGinley
August 25, 2020 6:37 am

Pretty much everything you write about zinc is dead wrong. Zinc does work to inhibit virus replication allowing the immune system to defeat viruses including SARs. HCQ has been shown to increase zinc in cells but more more importantly in the right type of cells. People, especially elderly, can show normal zinc levels in the blood but be deficient where it counts. Read the work of Dr. Ananda Prasad. The use of HCQ as an ionosphere for zinc has been confirmed by South Koreans who have built upon Dr. Prasad’s research. I recently had the chance to discuss Dr. Prasad’s research with him. It is a randomized, double-blind study and will follow patients zinc levels in T-Cells and other cells over time (every three months) even after the virus is defeated. It is a long-term study. Given that he is 92 I just hope he can complete and publish the results. He has had tremendous success with his clinical treatment with HCQ and zinc but as you keep carping on you need the typical methods in order for adequate proof.

mario lento
Reply to  Mike T
August 25, 2020 10:21 am

“HCQ has been shown to increase zinc in cells but more more importantly in the right type of cells”

You, I and many doctors and scientists agree with this. We know this, yet, there are people who distract by saying “No proof HCQ is an ionophore”

It’s cheap salesmen tricks to distract from what we know… The level of misapplied science is nauseating.
Thank you for your post!

Reply to  Nicholas McGinley
August 25, 2020 6:40 am

Nicholas, you rely entirely too much on statistics and percentages. These numbers have a near 0 basis for making decisions. Counting the number of people who died with Covid in their blood by test versus people who didn’t test positive for it only gives the “grossest” estimate of what is going on. The problem is made worse by policies and incentives to assign Covid as the cause of death(died with Covid is listed as a Covid death). Trying to apply small percentage from broad surveys is a waste of time. While the statistics may show a significant R value that does not mean there is an effect when the desired effect is the patient walking out the door healthy again weeks ahead of schedule.

From what I have seen from actual practicing physicians is that it is absolutely critical that HCQ treatment as early as possible during the infection. The later treatment starts the less effective it appears to be. This seems to be even more important in older patients with other diseases. While no drug has been shown to be completely innocuous HCQ azithromycin and the other choices used are very low risk- comparable or lower than acetaminophen, which is used by tons everyday.

Random controlled trials were devised by he FDA to show that the drug being tested was at least not more dangerous than other treatments. The FDA also requires that the test drug shows at least as much positive response as the comparable treatments. This is difficult to do because the placebo effect can be very powerful. I take too many drugs for symptoms that are not a “yes or no”. Every RCT shows a placebo effect in the range of 30-50%. Antibiotics tend to show 70-90% positive effect. Others such as the biologicals, often barely show an effect. They are approved because they do help some people a lot while other peoples might as well get a normal saline infusion since they do nothing much. Unfortunately the drug companies expect patients to pay $6-50,000 per does to find out if it works on a particular patient.

Nicholas McGinley
Reply to  Philo
August 26, 2020 8:55 am

It is not true that “every RCT shows a placebo effect of 30-50%”.
That is ridiculous.
Maybe if the drug is for some subjective condition like depression.
In fact it is common for placebo to outperform the study drug for such conditions.
And for infections which are commonly not fatal or chronic, simply waiting and giving supportive care will eventually result in clearing an infection.
Which is actually part of the point about determining if some drug is beneficial.
It does no good to observe that patient A got drug z and subsequently recovered.

But find me one RCT for Hepatitis C or AIDS drugs that showed any significant placebo effect.

You know…the kinds of conditions where the efficacy is determined by lab tests for viral RNA in the blood.

Besides for that, what exactly do you mean when you say I rely to much on statistics and percentages?
Looking at the big picture, rather than at one particular person, is the only way to say anything about how well a treatment works or does not work.
And it is not me relying on anything.
I am passing along information, explaining things.

And I do not think I spent any time talking about the numbers of people who tested one way or another.
I think you are projecting something inside your own head onto me…cause I never said anything about “Counting the number of people who died with Covid in their blood by test versus people who didn’t test positive for it only gives the “grossest” estimate of what is going on.”

As for all that after, “From what I have seen…”, I do not think you have seen anything. I think you have read about it, maybe talked to some people.
But I am pretty sure you are not someone working on this stuff.
Your inane statistical BS at the end of your comment proves you are speaking off the top of your head and do not really know what you are talking about.
One thing is for sure, if one is going to make factual or persuasive arguments about something , and you want to use statistics as part of your argument (even when it is not at the conclusion), you gotta make sure you have the numbers correct.
You started out by saying something incoherent about my relying on something I never said about statistics, and ended by making some fake statistics up that are wild exaggerations, in order to lend credence to what you said. Well, to someone like me, it does the opposite.
I will not look up how often antibiotics work against bacterial infections. I have not done so in many years, and may have actually never studied those stats, but I know you are wrong simply by being generally knowledgeable about subjects I speak about.
Looking it up now…antibiotics tend to show 70-90% positive effect…and I bet the number is closer to 95-100% except when bacteria have evolved resistance or the wrong antibiotic is used…but even strains like MERSA have some antibiotics that still work on them.
Antibiotics will not work against something that is not caused by a bacterial infection, and different drugs are effective only against certain organisms.
They will not work when someone is too far gone to help, because all most of them can do is stop bacterial reproduction…they mostly do not actually kill any bacteria. Our bodies have to do that, and some people are too far gone by the time they get medical treatment.

When properly prescribed, antibiotics work. When they do not work, there is a reason…the wrong one was given, or their was poor patient compliance, or the infection resulted from a resistant strain…or the infection was not bacterial.

I can think of one situation in which the success rate is in the 70-90% range: When treating antibiotic resistant staphylococcus aureus.
Yes, for the most intractable bacterial infections, doctors can only cure some of their patients…but it (antibiotic therapy) is even for this bug, MRSA, usually successful.
See here:

Comparative effectiveness of antibiotics for the treatment of MRSA complicated skin and soft tissue infections
Results: Out of 36 identified studies, 14 studies on six antibiotics with 28 treatment arms (n = 1840) were included in the analysis. No MRSA data in cSSTI were found for teicoplanin. The pooled success rate and CrI(95%) for each agent was: vancomycin (74.7%; CrI(95%): 64.1%-83.5%), dalbavancin (87.7%; CrI(95%): 74.6%-95.4%), linezolid (84.4%; CrI(95%): 76.6%-90.6%), telavancin (83.5%; CrI(95%): 73.6%-90.8%), daptomycin (78.1%; CrI(95%): 54.6%-93.2%) and tigecycline (70.4%; CrI(95%): 48.0%-87.6%). Comparisons between antibiotics suggested differences versus vancomycin for linezolid (+9.7%; CrI(95%): 4.4%-15.8%), dalbavancin (+13.1%; CrI(95%): 1.0%-23.8%), and telavancin (+8.8%; CrI(95%): 1.5-16.7%). The finding of lower vancomycin efficacy in MRSA cSSTI did not change in sensitivity analyses.”

Consider another statistic.
Every year in the US, something like 250,000 patients are hospitalized due to infection with Clostridium difficile, one of the hardest infections to treat.
But in spite of that, and despite antibiotic resistance becoming an ever more ominous threat, “only” about 14,000 of those 250,000 wind up dying instead of walking out the door of the hospital. Less than 10%.
For the routine infections that comprise the majority of cases of antibiotic usage, they are virtually always effective.

Foley Hund
Reply to  Nicholas McGinley
August 25, 2020 6:41 am

Well, you don’t have to take the HCQ/AZ/Z protocol…since you are not satisfied with any proofs. And, if you are surrounded by flood waters, and a helicopter comes to save you, wave them off since there is not enough proof you can be retrieved safely.

mario lento
Reply to  Foley Hund
August 25, 2020 10:26 am

This logic has been used by humans for years. And your example is perfect.

Then in the medical industry, which has been taken over by politics, a very costly method was invented as the zero tolerance gold standard. This allowed the perversion of the language to prevent common sense from ever being used again.

Do not drink water even if you’re thirsty because, until we have not completed a double blind study, followed by articles of people dying of water intoxication.

Matthew Schilling
Reply to  Nicholas McGinley
August 25, 2020 8:02 am

EVERYONE IGNORE THE FACT that a Third World country like India, with 3x the population of the USA has only 1/3 as many deaths. This has NOTHING to do with India being the #1 producer and consumer of HCQ. Nothing to see here, folks, move along…

“The Indian Council for Medical Research has approved Hydroxy-Chloroquine as an effective drug in combating coronavirus. The recommendation is for prophylaxis (preventive treatment) of asymptomatic healthcare workers and contacts.”

If you are irrationally, hysterically and/or religiously opposed to HCQ, then please, I beg you, do NOT read this article: https://www.lifesitenews.com/opinion/this-indian-slum-contained-a-possible-covid-19-disaster-with-hydroxychloroquine

Reply to  Matthew Schilling
August 25, 2020 10:47 am

Matthew, you are not comparing like with like.

i) The epidemic in India started much later. It only reached 2000 daily Covid infections in early May and it has yet to peak.

ii) The median age in India is less than 27. In the US it is over 38 (i.e. 50% higher). In India 65% are under 35, and so are at very low risk anyway, with or without HCQ.

Matthew Schilling
Reply to  Slarty
August 25, 2020 11:36 am

Those seem like good counterpoints, but India has nearly twice as many citizens 65+ of age than the US does (>82 million vs. <42 million).
So, that's 40 million more elderly people in India, with access to a less excellent healthcare system than found in the US, yet roughly 100,000 fewer deaths.
Thanks for playing, Slarty! Please stop by the desk on the way out to pick up your consolation prize.

Reply to  Slarty
August 25, 2020 3:07 pm

Matthew (Re: your comment below)

As I pointed out in point (i) above: “The epidemic in India started much later [than in the USA]… and it has yet to peak.”

So far India has only had half the cases that the US has had so you would expect less than half the deaths.

In addition, India has barely 16% of its population who are over 50, (190m), the USA has 32% (110m). So again, you would actually expect the number of deaths in India per 1000 cases to be less than half those in the US.

In combination these two factors mean that you would actually expect the number of deaths in India to date to be less than a quarter of those in the US. In fact they are nearly a third. So they are 33% higher than would be expected. That is not a good advert for HCQ.

Matthew Schilling
Reply to  Slarty
August 26, 2020 4:55 am

Slarty actually wrote, “So far India has only had half the cases that the US has had so you would expect less than half the deaths.”
Umm, that’s my point – India has had, not “only half”, but well over half as many cases as the US – 300,000 more than half. Yet they only have 1/3 the deaths, not half. Therefore, FORTY THOUSAND people are still alive in a 3rd world country that would’ve died in America.
Thank you for helping me make my point. It’s random acts of kindness like yours that give me hope!

Reply to  Slarty
August 27, 2020 12:09 pm

Re. Matthew
I also wrote: “In addition, India has barely 16% of its population who are over 50, (190m), the USA has 32% (110m). So again, you would actually expect the number of deaths in India per 1000 cases to be less than half those in the US.

There are 5.8m cases in the USA and 3.3m in India. The USA has 177,332 deaths, so proportionately, you would expect (177332 x 3.3 ÷ 5.8) ÷2 = 50448 deaths in India so far. The factor of 2 reduction is because India has PROPORTIONATELY less than half as many over-50s as the USA. And generally only the over-50s are at risk of dying from Covid.

But India actually has 60472 deaths. That is 20% more than it should have if it was doing as well as the USA. India is not doing well and so HCQ clearly isn’t working.

Bob boder
Reply to  Matthew Schilling
August 25, 2020 11:08 am

Yep, copper handrails, copper door knobs, copper filters, copper piping, copper utensils, copper pots and pans all kill viruses, often in just a few minutes

Bob boder
Reply to  Matthew Schilling
August 25, 2020 11:11 am

I have been screaming about India since the beginning of all the places in the world it seems like the most vulnerable and yet has been reasonable subdued. It has probably the weirdest combination of 1st world and 3rd world social conditions anywhere. A great place to study.
I cant stress enough the importance of vitamin D as well as HCQ+zinc.

Reply to  Nicholas McGinley
August 26, 2020 11:08 am

New Jersey HCQ study (zinc not part of study):

“In a 1067 patient propensity matched cohort, 21.6% with outpatient exposure to hydroxychloroquine were hospitalized, and 31.4% without exposure were hospitalized.”

“Conclusions: In this retrospective observational study of SARS-CoV-2 infected non-hospitalized patients hydroxychloroquine exposure was associated with a decreased rate of subsequent hospitalization. Additional exploration of hydroxychloroquine in this mildly symptomatic outpatient population is warranted.”

This study may go the way of the Lancet study that was pulled because of lack of peer review. We’ll see.

Reply to  rleewinters
August 24, 2020 5:04 pm

“Hydroxychloroquine will pull available Zinc into the cell.” How? Are there any chemical experiments showing that hydroxychloroquine binds to zinc? That would not be difficult to show, if it were true.

Reply to  mcswell
August 24, 2020 7:49 pm

I think this actually goes one step further. For example, if a more potent Zn-binder is added (EDTA) Zn does not get into the cells. Plus more circumstantial evidence:


“To be certain that chloroquine does not mobilize zinc ions from intracellular zinc binding molecules, we pretreated the cells with Ca-EDTA, a cell membrane impermeable metal chelator, prior to the addition of chloroquine. As shown in Figure 3A, in the presence of Ca-EDTA chloroquine did not enhance intracellular zinc signaling, further supporting the conclusion that chloroquine is a zinc ionophore.”

Having a chemistry/enzymology-based binding constant would be good, but translating that over to a biological assay would be difficult given all the moving parts of a biological system.

Reply to  philincalifornia
August 24, 2020 7:55 pm

Also, interestingly, and it may have been posted here already, but in the 3,737 patient retrospective study by the Raoult lab in Marseille, low zinc concentrations led to a worse outcome.

Nicholas McGinley
Reply to  philincalifornia
August 24, 2020 10:47 pm

Yes, and once again, a reference to HCQ was answered with a link to research on HCQ.
Also, note the reason for the research on the ionophore effect:
“Chloroquine is an established antimalarial agent that has been recently tested in clinical trials for its anticancer activity. The favorable effect of chloroquine appears to be due to its ability to sensitize cancerous cells to chemotherapy, radiation therapy, and induce apoptosis.”

BTW…the clinical trials using CQ vs cancer also all failed to show any benefit.
There were lots of them.
Plenty of time and money wasted long before this virus was a thing.
Keep in mind that research is an industry.
A far bigger one than drugs for human diseases.
The US federal government alone spends hundreds of billions on all sorts of research.

HCQ is not CQ, and even if it is also a zinc ionophore, no one has ever shown this effect to be useful in treating viral infections in animals or people…ever!
Here is a paper out of China, who seem to have started all of this with a report from a small number of patients, but who have long since concluded HCQ and CQ are worthless against covid 19. The preamble of this study point out this failure:
“Hydroxychloroquine-mediated inhibition of SARS-CoV-2 entry is attenuated by TMPRSS2”

See here:
“Hydroxychloroquine, used to treat malaria and some autoimmune disorders, potently inhibits viral infection of SARS coronavirus (SARS-CoV-1) and SARS-CoV-2 in cell-culture studies. However, human clinical trials of hydroxychloroquine failed to establish its usefulness as treatment for COVID-19. This compound is known to interfere with endosomal acidification necessary to the proteolytic activity of cathepsins. Following receptor binding and endocytosis, cathepsin L can cleave the SARS-CoV-1 and SARS-CoV-2 spike (S) proteins, thereby activating membrane fusion for cell entry. ”

Nothing about zinc or ionophores.
But what do they know…they are scientists who study viruses for real.
Anyhow, their conclusion is that,
“Chloroquine and hydroxychloroquine have been shown to prevent viral infection in cell-culture systems, but human clinical trials did not observe a significant improvement in COVID-19 patients treated with these compounds. Here we show that hydroxychloroquine interferes with only one of two somewhat redundant pathways by which the SARS-CoV-2 spike (S) protein is activated to mediate infection. ”
“Thus TMPRSS2 expression on physiologically relevant SARS-CoV-2 target cells may bypass the antiviral activities of hydroxychloroquine, and explain its lack of in vivo efficacy.”

-Human clinical trials did not observe a significant improvement in COVID-19 patients treated with these compounds.

-(P)hysiologically relevant SARS-CoV-2 target cells may bypass the antiviral activities of hydroxychloroquine, and explain its lack of in vivo efficacy.

What could be more clear.
Is every country in the world pretending something that works, does not work, because of US politics?

Nicholas McGinley
Reply to  Nicholas McGinley
August 25, 2020 12:38 am

“Yes, and once again, a reference to HCQ was answered with a link to research on HCQ.”

Should have read:
“Yes, and once again, a reference to HCQ was answered with a link to research on CQ.”

Reply to  Nicholas McGinley
August 25, 2020 4:58 am

Mr McGinley
Three comments
1) something about HCQ drives you over the edge, you post irrationally, even if the wordes sound rational, what is it?
2) Most countries outside the anglo sphere utilise HCQ plus zinc as an early remedy for covid-19 with apparently good results. Something works, even if its all in the mind.
3) Your argument about covid-19 deaths being almost entirely of elderly people with comorbidities is correct. Consequently are you as animated against using any new relatively untested drug and/or vaccine as you are against HCQ plus zinc? If so please indicate where you are expressing these views, and if not, why not?

Reply to  Nicholas McGinley
August 25, 2020 7:47 am

“Is every country in the world pretending something that works, does not work, because of US politics?”

Yep, orangemanbad is globally pervasive if you’re a globalist or a fake-globalist gobsh!te or even a dumb@ss who doesn’t know anything about anything, let alone the globalist dream/ nightmare, which can never happen now without shutting down the internet (good luck with that).

HCQ and CQ are zinc ionophores. Live with it. A chemistry course might help.

Reply to  Nicholas McGinley
August 26, 2020 1:05 pm

“is every country in the world pretending something that works”… yes, the effectiveness of lockdowns and masks in most first-world countries is certainly pretent…. and yes, it’s all about politics (power and $$$). nicholas is right on both fronts.

Reply to  rleewinters
August 26, 2020 3:02 am

Exactly. The molecular biology is explained in detail in this following video on the Medcram channel on Youtube (run by a doctor)


Zinc is the active ingredient and MUST be used.
Hydroxychloroquine allows the zinc to penetrate the cell wall.
Azithromycin is used to counter any secondary infections.

Using correct doses of all three produces very good results as an early therapeutic and can also be used as a prophylactic to prevent infection of any RNA virus. However common use of these cheap drugs would not only work against covid-19 but also influenza and coronavirus based ‘common colds’, absolutely destroying revenue streams for pharmaceutical companies that alleviate symptoms rather than prevent infection. The basis for (insecure) mail-in voting in the upcoming US Presidential Election would also disappear overnight. Which may be why the incumbent mentioned it and his opponents work to discredit it with studies with wrong (near lethal) dosages and studies that miss out zinc.

August 24, 2020 2:16 pm

One wonders about COVID-19 incidence among lupus and rheumatoid arthritis sufferers who take HCQ daily.

Reply to  Carlie Coats
August 24, 2020 2:39 pm

And zinc is listed prominently as a supplement recommended for lupus patients.

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  Carlie Coats
August 24, 2020 2:53 pm

I few seconds with your favorite search engine, and voila!

Nicholas McGinley
Reply to  Carlie Coats
August 24, 2020 3:30 pm

“One wonders about COVID-19 incidence among lupus and rheumatoid arthritis sufferers who take HCQ daily.”

Good question.
Much has been written of a speculative or dubious nature…but now there are some studies of a more concrete nature.
I have a few of them right here in my long list of studies.
Here are two:

Hydroxychloroquin ineffective for COVID-19
prophylaxis in lupus and rheumatoid arthritis

From the study:
“HCQ was not associated with COVID-19 prevention. A
strength of this study is all patients were on an immunosuppressant, with similar high-risk status for COVID-19 regardless of
HCQ use. ”

Characteristics associated with hospitalisation for
COVID-19 in people with rheumatic disease: data
from the COVID-19 Global Rheumatology Alliance
physician-reported registry


From this study:
” We found no significant association between antimalarial therapy and hospitalisation (OR=0.94, 95%CI 0.57 to 1.57; p=0.82) after adjusting…”

The phrase “no significant association” in this context means there was no benefit seen, IOW in those taking one of the antimalarials, there was no association with a positive outcome.
But there were some drugs that did show some benefit (and/or harm).

Reply to  Nicholas McGinley
August 25, 2020 11:53 am

You spoke too soon. Look at the HCQ munching nation of Uganda. I thought blacks were supposed to have trouble with this virus, but not when they are on HCQ.

Reply to  Carlie Coats
August 24, 2020 5:35 pm

Study from Portugal shows persons using HCQ for another condition were protected from coronavirus. Chronic treatment with hydroxychloroquine and SARS-CoV-2 infection.

By analyzing the Portuguese anonymized data on private and public based medical prescriptions we have identified all cases chronically receiving HCQ for the management of diseases such as systemic lupus erythematosus, rheumatoid arthritis, and other autoimmune diseases. Additionally, we have detected all laboratory confirmed cases of SARS-CoV-2 infection and all laboratory confirmed negative cases in the Portuguese population (mandatorily registered in a centrally managed database). Cross linking the two sets of data has allowed us to compare the proportion of HCQ chronic treatment (at least 2 grams per month) in laboratory confirmed cases of SARS-CoV-2 infection with laboratory confirmed negative cases.

Results: Out of 26,815 SARS-CoV-2 positive patients, 77 (0.29%) were chronically treated with HCQ, while 1,215 (0.36%) out of 333,489 negative patients were receiving it chronically (P=0.04). After adjustment for age, sex, and chronic treatment with corticosteroids and/or immunosuppressants, the odds ratio of SARS-CoV-2 infection for chronic treatment with HCQ has been 0.51 (0.37-0.70).

Conclusions: Our data suggest that chronic treatment with HCQ confers protection against SARS-CoV-2 infection.

Reply to  Ron Clutz
August 24, 2020 8:39 pm

Ron, the problem with this kind of study is that with 98% recovery rates, the efficacy if prophylactic treatments is very difficult to verify. You could prove to yourself by playing with numbers that people whose name begins with a “B” have 100% recovery rates, thereby convincing some people that a name change will save their life…..On the other hand, if only those whose name starts with a “B” dies, you are onto something that will interest the local police department.

Robert W. Turner
Reply to  DMacKenzie
August 25, 2020 7:37 am

But with a disease with an estimated CFR of about 0.4%, that’s always going to be the case.

It’s important to remember that most lupus and RA patients are also taking immunosuppressants. The best study to determine prophylaxis effect will be on front line healthcare workers, can anyone find a study that has looked at that?

Nicholas McGinley
Reply to  Ron Clutz
August 24, 2020 11:14 pm

The bigger problem is with the fact that people that take HCQ are using it to treat lupus or RA or one of the other rheumatic diseases.
These people are especially vulnerable to infections, and they know it darn well.
The drug itself is an immune system modulator…it dials down part of the immune system.
IOW…these are people who are immunocompromised, and have for many years, their entire life in some cases, known they need to be careful about infections, and they know how to be.
Many are on other immunomodulators.
Many are on steroids, powerful ones, and/or various monoclonal antibody immunoregulatory drugs.
The studies I linked to discuss this, and look at the particulars, and also compare apples to apples, not something else like the one out of Portugal:

This study from Portugal did not show an effect, it looked at data to draw a conclusion based on statistics, but did not properly account for variables, or even for known confounders.
It reminds me of studies that show that people who use artificial sweeteners and drink diet soda tend to be fetter, and concluded that it was the calorie-free sweetener making people fat…instead of the obvious conclusion that fat people have an obvious reason to reduce caloric input by choosing artificial sweetener over sugar.
The points about people with rheumatic disease may be less obvious, but are well known enough to be common knowledge among anyone who has ever had an autoimmune condition, or who has spent much time reading about this subject.

No need to take my word for it…lets see what the people who have these conditions and have for many years taken these drugs (HCQ and perhaps sometimes, but mostly HCQ) think, eh?
There are many organizations and support groups, and all contain a big prominent reference like this:
“If I am already on hydroxychloroquine, am I not as high risk for contracting the coronavirus?
Answer: According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention individuals with serious underlying health conditions are at risk of getting very sick from the coronavirus.

There is no evidence that taking hydroxychloroquine is effective in preventing a person from contracting the coronavirus. ”

Or this:
“Can the use of hydroxychloroquine prevent coronavirus (COVID-19)?
Answer: No. There is no evidence that taking hydroxychloroquine is effective in preventing a person from contracting the coronavirus or developing COVID-19, so people who are not already taking this medication do not need to start it now. ”


Nicholas McGinley
Reply to  Ron Clutz
August 24, 2020 11:19 pm

I can see how someone might discount info from a Lupus support group website.
Here is some more info from Mayo clinic, specifically about why people with diseases like lupus and RA, IOW those people who are on long term HCQ therapy before this started, are more careful about infections:
“Having lupus also increases your risk of:

Infection. People with lupus are more vulnerable to infection because both the disease and its treatments can weaken the immune system.”


In case anyone thinks I am just making stuff up.
I’ll leave that to people dreaming up reasons for ignoring a huge mountain of evidence.

Nicholas McGinley
August 24, 2020 2:22 pm

What the hell…it worked for Family Feud, right?
Richard Dawson called…he wants his scientific method back.

Reply to  Nicholas McGinley
August 24, 2020 2:46 pm

Surveys, models, proxies, inference, assertions, assumptions… especially models.

Phil Rae
August 24, 2020 2:23 pm

I’m pleased to see some light shining through the fog that’s been deliberately used to confuse the possible efficacy of Hydroxychloroquine and deny access to a cheap, relatively safe drug.

It may not be the magic bullet but it seems likely it would have saved many lives if the establishment hadn’t suffered from Trump Derangement Syndrome. If that does indeed turn out to be the case, the MSM and the hysteria generated by them around this drug will have been responsible for the deaths of many, many people.

mario lento
Reply to  Phil Rae
August 24, 2020 2:34 pm

I think if used correctly, as we have known for a decade or more (with Zn to reduce RNA replication in Alveolar cells) it is in fact a metaphorical magic bullet. Nothing comes closer, period.

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  mario lento
August 24, 2020 2:59 pm

I’ve yet to see anyone ask if zinc used alone might be as effective as the ‘cocktail.’ Any time one is performing an experiment, it is necessary to reduce the number of variables to as small a number as possible (preferably 1), to remove confounding influences. Otherwise, the situation becomes one of, “Here, try this. There might be something in it that will work!”

mario lento
Reply to  Clyde Spencer
August 24, 2020 3:38 pm

Clyde: I hoped to imply that “HCQ” with Zn… point taken.

Reply to  Clyde Spencer
August 24, 2020 9:38 pm


I’ve been asking this question for a while now though there is not really a clinical trial addressing it.

Only study I could find so far investigated the combination HCQ+Azi vs. HCQ+Azi+Zn where +Zn had an effect but without not as much. So we still not know.

Zn on its own has beneficial effects on the immune system and endothelial cells so it’s worth to further investigate it.




Most interestingly zinc seems to have a modulatory role in interferon activity and oxidative stress.

Reply to  mario lento
August 24, 2020 3:04 pm

Dr Thomas Borody, who developed the cure for peptic ulcers, likes HCQ, but thinks ivermectin is better.

Reply to  icisil
August 24, 2020 3:29 pm

Great interview with him here:

Ivermectin + Doxycycline + Zinc

Professor Thomas Borody developer of the triple therapy cure for peptic ulcers in 1987.
“It’s easier than treating the flu now”. “You can actually eradicate it”. “We know it’s curable”


Nicholas McGinley
Reply to  TRM
August 24, 2020 4:02 pm

The flu is mostly not “treated”, but allowed to run it’s course.
No one I know even bothers to see a doctor for the flu, let alone try to treat it.
Mainly because there is no actual treatment worth a darn, and because…who feels like getting up and going to see a doctor when one has the flu…which everyone knows just has to be suffered through.

Reply to  TRM
August 24, 2020 6:01 pm

Last year (USA)….

34,000 flu deaths.

500,000 hospitalizations.

I, also, didn’t know any of them. But I am not so arrogant that I think they don’t exist.

The 500,000 that went to the hospital … not treated? Just hung around eating jello for a few days?

(Did you know that zinc is the most abundant element in the human body … how the heck can anybody be zinc deficient when they have more zinc than anything else … I mean, um, what I intended to mean to say is that zinc is used more than anything else … I mean, like read all the words I string together to make my point … I forgot my point … but I’m pretty sure, no, I’m positive my point is accurate and correct … look at all the stuff I know about and then question my point if you want to, but I’m pretty sure I have a point.)

Nicholas McGinley
Reply to  TRM
August 25, 2020 1:09 am

DonM, do you really want me to go back and show everyone where you totally misquoted me and took one mis-stated sentence out of context?
What do you ever contribute of a factual nature, or regarding explication of something no one else is saying?
I think the answer is never…so you never have to worry about saying something incorrect ever…because you never say anything.
Just talk a lot.

Reply to  TRM
August 25, 2020 8:40 am

My points are that:

1) there is treatment for flu
2) half a million people were treated last year
3) you make shit up
4) you are wrong a lot
5) when someone points out your errors you deflect rather than engage; as mocking you is more fulfilling (than engaging). You should change your name to Frank Gallagher … more apt.

And yes, show how I have taken you BS out of context … don’t deflect … just do it.

mario lento
Reply to  icisil
August 24, 2020 3:40 pm

plus 1

Nicholas McGinley
Reply to  icisil
August 24, 2020 3:58 pm

“…who developed the cure for peptic ulcers…”

This is not exactly true, and is at best misleading.
He invented the first triple therapy, but it was already known that eliminating H. pylori would allow a peptic ulcer to heal, and symptoms of gastritis to resolve.
We generally do not refer to antibiotics as “the cure” for the diseases caused by the bacteria that the antibiotics can treat.
Several reasons for this, including that antibiotics do not actually kill bacteria, they do not always work and must be taken in a certain way for a certain amount of time at at a certain dose to be effective, and also because other antibiotics almost always exist which would also treat the infection.
It may seem like splitting hairs, but it is not, not really.
For one thing, Robin Warren and Barry Marshall had already shown that antibiotics were an effective treatment a few years prior.
I was treated and “cured”, but not by that particular triple therapy. I took metronidazole and amoxicillin. My symptoms went away within a couple of days…although I was sure to finish the courses of the antibiotics (or instead of curing it, I might have made my infection more resistant).

And a little known fact is that in the early 1950’s, hospitals in New York City were successfully treating people with ulcers with penicillin. This knowledge was somehow lost in subsequent years…possible due to rapidly evolving resistance to that particular monotherapy, or maybe it did not work for everyone. But a 1954 paper which looked at over 1000 biopsies did not find any bacteria in the stomachs of people with ulcers. H. pylori is known to be hard to culture. But the fact is, the bacteria had been found in the stomach all the way back in 1875…but that knowledge was also somehow lost/forgotten to science. Likely because the doctors who found it in 1875 could not culture it. Amazing what people will ignore when something is hard to learn about.

Reply to  Nicholas McGinley
August 24, 2020 7:14 pm

It may have been “known,” but not to most treating physicians.

In the early 90s, I watched a room full of doctors at a medical conference nearly lynch another doctor for bringing it up. It was still somewhat controversial among most parts of the field until Dr. Marshall started winning awards for his work in the mid 1990s.

Nicholas McGinley
Reply to  Nicholas McGinley
August 25, 2020 1:38 am

Which is why what people say, no matter who they are, is not evidence…it is anecdotes.

Matthew Schilling
Reply to  Nicholas McGinley
August 25, 2020 9:11 am

Right… They gave out that 2005 Nobel Prize because of anecdotes… NOT “for their discovery of the bacterium Helicobacter pylori and its role in gastritis and peptic ulcer disease”. Here I was, listening to the Nobel Prize Committee when I should’ve been paying attention to some random guy on the internet blathering about it!

Reply to  icisil
August 24, 2020 9:10 pm

For the composition of the human body, the first 4 elements in decreasing order:
In terms of mass:


In terms of number atoms:


Reply to  Phil Rae
August 24, 2020 2:36 pm

That’s it: inexpensive, well-establish low risk profile, in vitro affirmative action, and positive results to reduce excess deaths reported from hospitals, clinics, and practitioners around the globe. No models. It is a leading candidate in a risk management protocol.

Reply to  Phil Rae
August 24, 2020 3:12 pm

Yes agreed.

However, I will remind everyone of an idea by Hippocrates, “Let thy Food be thy medicine.”

Good health starts at the mouth. Six pack abdominal muscles are created in the kitchen not the gym. Eating clean and nutritionally will do more for you than so-called modern medicine. Nature/Evolution has seen fit to provide us naturally occurring ionophores and foods with zinc.

The only science more effe-ed up then climate science is nutritional science. I not longer talk to people about nutrition; it is a belief system to that person. You should just go ahead and assume everything you know about it is wrong.

Please do not wait for an “expert” to tell you to put your safety helmet on. A). By time they do it will be too late and B). the wrong helmet. aka Murphy’s Laws of Combat, 82nd Airborne reporting for duty.

It was “experts” that got us into this mess.

Reply to  JEHILL
August 24, 2020 8:47 pm

It’s a gaggle of geese, a pride of lions, and a plague of experts.

Reply to  Phil Rae
August 24, 2020 8:53 pm

there’s a lot more fog for you in these dozens of studies


David L Hagen
Reply to  DMacKenzie
August 25, 2020 7:01 am

The C19Study.com site lists 79 studies. It links to and summarizes data from HCQTrial.com
All early and prophylactic use show positive results.
59% of late use are still positive.

Bryan A
August 24, 2020 2:27 pm

Luckily, modern science is based on using real-world evidence, rather than on regurgitating prior literature.

Except in the case of Climate Science where a majority of papers do in fact “Regurgitate” prior papers, many multiple party (et al) papers written by the same handful of researchers

August 24, 2020 2:33 pm

What does the survey tell me, beside the idea that HCQ wasn’t prescribed very often, at least less often than maybe necessary ?

Nicholas McGinley
Reply to  Krishna Gans
August 24, 2020 3:11 pm

Good for you for realizing a survey can not tell anyone a darn thing, except how people answered a survey.
It cannot even tell us anything about the people who ripped it up and threw it in the trash (or hung up the phone) instead of responding.

Leonard Weinstein
Reply to  Nicholas McGinley
August 24, 2020 5:03 pm

The survey is for the doctors treating covid, not the general public. There is no better real source.

Reply to  Nicholas McGinley
August 25, 2020 9:30 am

Not without an personal affront…..
Won’t accept your words as answer.

August 24, 2020 2:38 pm

You de-legimize this website by repeating this nonsense

Reply to  Rick
August 24, 2020 3:10 pm

+1 Rick

Reply to  Rick
August 24, 2020 3:32 pm

Please be more specific. Please quote the part in his article do you take offence to and tell us why you feel it’s in error?

PS. Your “Mosher-esque” style is very weak.

Rich Davis
Reply to  Rick
August 24, 2020 3:37 pm

Are you kidding Rick? Around 80% of the articles posted here are nonsense and posted to be criticized. If in your opinion this is one such article, then give specific criticisms.

I’ll admit that the idea of using SurveyMonkey to figure out a correlation between % of patients who received HCQ therapy and mortality rate by region, seems a stretch.

My question is, why do you make this comment? Because you’re convinced that HCQ doesn’t work, or because you’re convinced that the survey methodology is irredeemably flawed? (I suppose you’re going to either ignore my question or give me a monosallablic response like “both”. Do ignore the question, if you’re too lazy to elaborate on your reasons. And in that case, I am sure most here will also ignore your comment.

Reply to  Rich Davis
August 24, 2020 4:06 pm

Eureka? The Guardian? With model, survey, assertion, consensus affirmations, and multi-decadal and even century lead times, if ever.

Reply to  Rick
August 24, 2020 4:33 pm

Your de-legimize is non cents.

Reply to  Scissor
August 24, 2020 8:05 pm

As in worthless? LOL. If that’s what you meant then good one.
Nonsense / Non Cents
Nice play on words.

Matthew Schilling
Reply to  Rick
August 25, 2020 12:01 pm

And you are passionately in favor of the legitimacy of this web site being promoted and protected! Or something.
Also, especially when you write such a terse comment, you ought to proofread it. Writing “de-legimize” [sic] might lead readers to think your comment is, what would be a good adjective… nonsense!

Clyde Spencer
August 24, 2020 2:40 pm

There is a conundrum presented that is begging to be addressed. You said, “From January to August 16, 13.5% of COVID-19 patients ages 40+ were prescribed Hydroxychloroquine in the US.” You also said, “In one survey, published on April 8, 60%-70% of physicians reported that they would take HCQ and give it to family members on symptoms of COVID-19.” Why do you suppose the percentage of doctors who said they would prescribe HCQS is 5X the percentage actually prescribed?

Polls are notoriously untrustworthy. Just ask Hillary. They are easily influenced by how the question(s) is/are asked, and whether those polled might be embarrassed by giving an honest answer.

Reply to  Clyde Spencer
August 24, 2020 2:53 pm

So, given the stigma associated with this treatment protocol, the positive outcomes and presumptive usage are higher than reported, and the reduction in excess deaths is underestimated.

Reply to  n.n
August 24, 2020 5:15 pm

Or maybe the reduction in excess deaths (if there is one in the study) disappears, because those who saw no reduction were ashamed to admit that they had tried hydroxychloroquine, or they didn’t feel like answering.

Reply to  Clyde Spencer
August 24, 2020 3:01 pm

Doctors can also be notoriously fickle. They’ll all jump on the newest treatment trend (or at least consider it), but then reverse course immediately when someone suggests that it might not work, and could expose them to liability.

Nicholas McGinley
Reply to  Clyde Spencer
August 24, 2020 3:08 pm

I would like to see a poll of those same doctors that is taken now.
Or even last month.
Back in April, all anyone knew was that a lot of people were dying and there was no proven effective treatment.
No one knew what might work, or had much reason or way to know what did not.
Neither of those is true anymore.

Besides for all of that…am I the only one who finds it richly ironic that WUWT, or all places, seems to be giving credence to the idea we can ascertain the truth Of a proposition by ASKING FOR A SHOW OF HANDS?
This is where knowledgeable people have been debunking the idea that such a method has any value whatsoever re whether something is true is not.
Even when the people being asked are “experts”, let alone the general public.

For anyone who is not aware of it…this is how politics is decided, not science.
Not facts.
Not what is objectively true.
We have a method for that, and voting is no part of it.

Reply to  Nicholas McGinley
August 24, 2020 3:56 pm

Consensus science a la catastrophic anthropogenic global cooling… warming… change? The so-called “greenhouse”, that’s not a greenhouse, effect of CO2, characterized in the laboratory then inferred and applied to the wild in global proportions, where efficacy was proven through surveys, models. and beliefs? We’re not talking about decades, and centuries to test a hypothesis, but hours and days to provided an early, low risk treatment to mitigate a high risk disease progression. The reports from medical facilities around the world have been positive.

Nicholas McGinley
Reply to  n.n
August 24, 2020 4:45 pm

“The reports from medical facilities around the world have been positive.”

If you had started with the word “Some” instead of “The”, your statement would have been correct, but meaninglessly incomplete in any case.
Some “reports” have been positive, and others have not.
But reports in and of themselves are not evidence, not as considered to be so by the scientific method.
“Reports” are what are called “anecdotal”.
Someone saying something carries little in the way of objective evidentiary weight.
There are many doctors in many hospitals all over the world who spent weeks and months treating nearly everyone with HCQ or CQ initially. I know of zero hospital systems, ICU doctors, or medical protocols that are still using it or recommending it’s usage, outside of clinical trials. And just this weekend, have been increasing calls to stop using it in clinical trials either.
There has been far more than enough time and way more than a sufficient number treated to know if it has value or not.
Many commenters here have conceded long since that by the time someone is in the hospital, it is “too late” for it to work.
In fact there is no objective evidence using the gold standard for drug therapy for infectious disease treatment, the prospective double blind placebo controlled clinical trial (which has been shown for many decades and thousands of ailments and millions of patients and uncountable numbers of drugs, to be the best way to say if something has value or not), that demonstrates efficacy…which is why we are even having this conversation.

Doctors in the ICUs and ERs of busy hospitals that have been clogged with COVID patients for half a year, have long since gone on record as stating it has been tried and shown not to work.
I posted links to article in which such doctors were interviewed, all the way back in May and April, saying as much.
Just google the phrase “Doctor says hydroxychloroquine is ineffective” and you can spend the rest of your life reading all the articles from doctors who have dismissed it.
But…if you never read anything except from people that believe it definitely works…I have no doubt you can forget that anyone ever said it.

Gerald Machnee
Reply to  Nicholas McGinley
August 24, 2020 6:13 pm

**Just google the phrase “Doctor says hydroxychloroquine is ineffective” and you can spend the rest of your life reading all the articles from doctors who have dismissed it.**
Likely used it inappropriately. No doctors quoted.

Nicholas McGinley
Reply to  Nicholas McGinley
August 25, 2020 1:33 am

There is a whole world to save…whatcha waiting for?

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  Nicholas McGinley
August 24, 2020 4:59 pm

Yes, it is definitely an Alice in Wonderland moment, where people who routinely give griff and his ilk a load of crap, sound just like him on the topic of HCQS! Even assuming for the sake of argument that HCQS has efficacy, how do we know that it is better than any of the other roughly three-dozen drugs that have shown clinical potential? If every physician were to take the advice of the proponents here, we might not pursue the other potential drugs, and in the long run more people would die if there is a better treatment than HCQS. We need to be certain of the best available treatment before endorsing one over all the potential ones.

mario lento
Reply to  Clyde Spencer
August 24, 2020 5:14 pm

In response to: “how do we know that it is better than any of the other roughly three-dozen drugs that have shown clinical potential?”

Who cares? Why does it have to be better than some other hypothetical and costly drug?

HCQ is cheap, it works, has an extensive track record of safety…

Your denigration of people who can comprehend things well enough and rhetorical question offer nothing of value.

Reply to  Clyde Spencer
August 24, 2020 5:26 pm

“how do we know that it is better than any of the other roughly three-dozen drugs that have shown clinical potential?”

We don’t, but if something works, it works.

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  icisil
August 24, 2020 7:07 pm

Mario and Icisil
It all depends on your definition of “works.” Unlike my car, which starts reliably 9,999 times sequentially, not everyone who receives HCQS recovers. It seems to work for most, with varying rates of recovery. Therefore, there is room for improvement. It seems that your standard is “good enough for government work.”

Reply to  icisil
August 25, 2020 3:08 pm

Based on the 4:1 death rate of non-HCQ nations vs. HCQ nations it appears it (HCQ) does work better than anything else (utilized to date).

There is, of course, no consistent control in the data that was used to get the (approximate) 4:1 results. So, ‘your results may vary’. But not likely so much that there is anything better at this point in time.

And there is no way to do what you suggest … “be certain of the best available treatment before endorsing one over all the potential ones”. Nobody is endorsing HCQ and “saying stop all else”. Nobody is saying cease the vaccine trials.

But there are those saying “Stop/restrict HCQ” … why? ORANGEMANBAD? Contrary investments? Political benefit? Attention seeking Gallagherism? Why?

Abolition Man
Reply to  Clyde Spencer
August 24, 2020 6:05 pm

Clyde and Nicholas,
Would you guys please do just a little research instead of blathering on!
Look at the fatality rates for most African countries, where HCQ is often given out like candy for malaria. Nigeria has one hundredth the fatality rate of the US; is that because of it’s advanced health care system?
The data presented in Steven Hatfill’s article might be interesting to you even though he is only a virologist. The data from Switzerland is particularly fascinating. When the WHO recommended against using HCQ the Swiss CFR was running about 3%; they stopped using it and about twelve days later, voila, the rate jumped up to the 10-15% range! Then 12 or 13 days after the use of HCQ was resumed the rate dropped back to about 3%. Maybe you can explain what the cause of those changes are better than Hatfill; after all he’s only a virologist!
One last note, most of the studies claiming HCQ is ineffective do NOT use it per the recommendations; early in the infection with zinc and an antibiotic. And if ivermectin is more efficacious, great! We should be treating the sick with anything shown to work; not killing them in job lots like the governors of NY, NJ and Michigan!

Reply to  Abolition Man
August 24, 2020 7:29 pm

don’t expect a reply from nicholas… he states that large hospital ICU and ER beds are loaded with covid patients and that the hospitals say HCQ is not working… why would it? from what I read, HCQ with zinc works best as a preventative or early onset conditions of covid… if you’re going to ER, but especially ICU, it’s likely past the point where HCQ and zinc can help in any meaningful way so why would u expect hospitals to say it works for treating covid at that point?

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  Abolition Man
August 24, 2020 7:39 pm

Do a little research? I don’t see anyone here that has done as much research and presented ‘facts’ of the quality that Nicholas routinely provides. Where is your research and citations?

The opening insult was unwarranted. You said, “Look at the fatality rates for most African countries, …” This is what I mean about a ‘griff moment.’ That is at best, a correlation, not proof. There are countries in the world that have not had a single case of COVID-19, and nobody really knows why. Not that I do any personal research, but I asked a friend from Rwanda who survived the genocide if she thought that the widespread use of HCQS was contributing to the low rates in Africa. Her response was that she felt that Africans have a stronger immune system than in the developed world because only the strongest survive childhood and their immune systems are constantly being challenged in an unhygienic environment with lots of diseases.

There is no officially recommended regimen of HCQS treatment. A handful of doctors tried a sub-toxic dose of an anti-malarial drug, tossed in some zinc for its heavy-metal toxicity to organisms, and added an antibiotic just in case a secondary opportunistic bacterial infection developed in all the fluids in the lung. A pragmatic trial, but not exactly the sort of gold standard where any of them could tell you what the optimum dose or length of time of treatment should be because there was no variation to optimize. They early-on settled on what seemed to work. That is not what I would call good medicine. It is one step above casting spells by a witch doctor.

Taylor Pohlman
Reply to  Clyde Spencer
August 24, 2020 3:18 pm

Why would doctors take it and give it to family members and not prescribe it for patients? Try fear of liability. With the FDA pulling it, and widespread reports claiming side effect issues, doctors would have pulled back quickly. It takes serious courage to buck the system, just ask ‘America’s Frontline Doctors’ what they faced.

Reply to  Clyde Spencer
August 24, 2020 3:22 pm

Why do you suppose the percentage of doctors who said they would prescribe HCQS is 5X the percentage actually prescribed?

Because their family members hadn’t been infected? Because their state or county disallowed the prescription?

I mean, that’s just a couple of reasons off the top of my head Clyde. Not sure your point is well made here. Especially the part about being embarrassed. If anything, it’s become anathema to speak about prescribing HCQ, much less doing it – you’ll get yourself harangued in the media if you do, perhaps your medical license questioned, thus your Argument to Embarrassment seems to contradict itself.

August 24, 2020 2:48 pm

“LOCKDOWN will come to be seen as a “monumental mistake on a global scale” and must never happen again, a scientist who advises the Government on infectious diseases says.

Mark Woolhouse said lockdown was a “panic measure” but admitted it was the only option at the time because “we couldn’t think of anything better to do”.

There was no need to do anything –

“1918 – Spanish Flu – 50 million dead
1918 – World Population – 950 million (est)
1918 – 5.26% world’ population died!
Experts say – TRAGIC EVENT!
2018 – Seasonal Flu – 650,000 dead
2018 – World Population – 7.5 billion (est)
2018 – 0.009% world’s population died!
Experts say – TYPICAL YEAR
2020 – COVID 19 – 488,729 dead and counting
2020 – World Population – 7.7 billion (est)
2020 – 0.006% world’s population has died.
FACT: 1% of the World’s Population right now would be 77 million dead.
Now, if 5.26% is TRAGIC and 0.009% is No Big Deal.. Then WTF are we doing with only 0.006%?”

Reply to  richard
August 24, 2020 3:49 pm

All Lives Matter. That said, there is no scientific evidence that mitigation strategies (e.g. masks, physical distancing) have reduced excess deaths. Those strategies are still promoted based on intuitive evidence and emotional appeal. Still, the initial reaction was warranted, and despite the mitigation strategies, and the poorly conceived Planned Parent choices, the virus has evolved and the disease has been observed to be in a progressive decline.

Ian W
Reply to  n.n
August 24, 2020 4:45 pm

The mitigation methods are no more than population training – like the UK requirement for people to go to the window and clap for the NHS. Now they are using masks to identify the compliant. Masks may be more use than a garlic necklace or a pocket full of posies – but not a lot. Netherlands after studying ‘the science’ – decided masks were a waste of time.

There are actually very few of the population that are susceptible to SARS-CoV-2 infection. Even in places such as New York City or Wuhan the actual numbers with symptoms of the disease is less than 10% of the total population. The Case Fatality Rate is also a lot lower than was forecast down at the influenza levels. Indeed in UK the numbers dying from influenza and pneumonia is 5 times that of COVID-19 but the levels of deaths from those diseases are not seen as a political problem.

For some reason stopping deaths from COVID-19 has become the single target variable. All the deaths caused by the reaction to COVID-19 don’t matter despite now exceeding COVID-19 deaths. The destruction of the economy doesn’t matter if we can save 5 more COVID-19 patients. As numbers become less scary they are dropped so positive tests now called cases are quoted rather than hospitalizations or deaths – as those are dropping.

This is a media driven political problem not a health problem any more. Sufficiency in zinc with consumption of zinc ionophores such as quercetin, resveratrol or green tea and a Brazil nut for selenium would appear to make people insusceptible had this been given as advice in February the world would have continued without all the economic damage done by the medical technocrats.

Why was that dietary advice not given? Indeed why is that dietary advice not given now?

Reply to  Ian W
August 24, 2020 8:45 pm

Excellent comment

Reply to  Ian W
August 25, 2020 1:47 am

Exactly – 6 months of wailing doom screamed by the MSM and nary a word about vit D, zinc or diet. Why have they ignored immunologists? (see article by Beda M Stadler entitled coronavirus:why everyone was wrong)

Rich Davis
Reply to  n.n
August 24, 2020 5:48 pm

I’m starting to see masks as secular sacramentals that help us affirm and demonstrate our faith in the experts. My guess is that n.n. knows what I mean, but I’ll give some background to make my point more comprehensible for those unfamiliar with Catholicism.

In a Catholic context a sacramental is an object (such as holy water, or a blessed medal) or an action (such as making the sign of the cross or genuflecting toward the tabernacle), which is regarded as encouraging devotion and thus spiritually aiding the person who uses it. This is not to be confused with a sacrament which is defined as an outward sign instituted by Christ to give grace, such as baptism or Eucharist. The sacrament is believed to actually confer the grace which it signifies, rather than being a mere symbol).

I don’t intend this to either ridicule or promote faith, but rather to point out the parallel between religious ritual and those who want us to wear masks in our homes and while out in open spaces. It starts to feel more like ritual symbolism that reinforces our submission to authority, than an actual action that is likely to produce a beneficial effect. The desired effect is to prove that we’re sheep.

Reply to  Rich Davis
August 24, 2020 8:48 pm

being a catholic, it’s been extremely frustrating. when they opened up again a couple months ago, they required masks but my family did not wear them. our priest did not believe masks worked either when I spoke to him (he was a former scientist so I respected his input). he left in early july for another parish. a new priest comes in and the church bulletin suddenly had in large writing “please wear mask…” (as a side note, I remember Jan and Feb during winter when people were coughing all over the place there was no call to wear masks or social distance to prevent the spread of the flu and pneumonia so you didn’t kill grandma.)

I went 2 more times after that but my wife felt uncomfortable and wanted to go to mass digitally via youtube. I havent been to church in @5-6 weeks. we just envelopes in the mail for church “donations”. they want $$$$. I’m nearing a crossroads with the catholic church – between the social justice warriors, a leftist Pope (he’s no john paul), and now putting a diaper on your face just to go to worship Jesus. I’m praying for guidance – but not from fauci

Reply to  n.n
August 24, 2020 9:01 pm

On the mask issue, my understanding is that, in Wuhan where all this began, masks were already a tradition. Even with a government mandate on top of this already established tradition, AT THE VERY BEGINNING OF THE OUTBREAK, we still got to where we are today.

comment image?dl=0

John Endicott
Reply to  n.n
August 25, 2020 2:49 am

That said, there is no scientific evidence that mitigation strategies (e.g. masks, physical distancing) have reduced excess deaths

Indeed, where’s the double-blind studies on those mitigation strategies. If there’s no double blind studies it’s not science and doesn’t work (according to the logic of our local anti-HCQ trolls).

Abolition Man
Reply to  n.n
August 25, 2020 6:14 am

The whole DemoKKKrat strategy seems to panicking as much of the population as possible, then threaten and intimidate the rest for control while their cronies in Big Pharma get rich off of an unneeded and probably harmful vaccine! I’m sure that no bribes or kickbacks will be involved!
Off topic, but are you saying that you’re against the Only A Few Black Lives Matter movement? They are also known as the Burn, Loot and Murder crime syndicate since extortion and protection rackets are a large part of their M.O.

Reply to  richard
August 24, 2020 6:15 pm

richard August 24, 2020 at 2:48 pm
Mark Woolhouse said lockdown was a “panic measure” but admitted it was the only option at the time because “we couldn’t think of anything better to do”.
There was no need to do anything –
… 2020 – COVID 19 – 488,729 dead and counting
2020 – World Population – 7.7 billion (est)
2020 – 0.006% world’s population has died.
I assume you believe that if nothing had been done to isolate infections there would still have been 0.006% deaths?

I therefore wonder why hospitals have isolation wards for infectious diseases. Why they worry about visitors with MRSA and C. difficile.
In my mind this shows that isolation works at reducing infections.

If isolation was not practised in the USA what do you think the number of Covid infections would have been? The initial run of some models showed infections/deaths in the millions if no action were taken and of course people cried fake. This is not the flu. It seems to be more communicable.
The case fatality rate seems to be about 2%
there are 75million above the age of 60 where deaths seem to occur.
this would give 1.5 million deaths.
I personally do not find this acceptable – your view may be different

Reply to  Ghalfrunt.
August 24, 2020 8:22 pm

covid fatality rate is not 2%… not even close…. I’m assuming you got 2% by dividing #deaths by #infected… what about the vast majority that get infected but never know it? this will certainly being the death rate down… likely to @ .2-.3%, if not lower if they actually only included deaths FROM covid in the death total, instead if also including deaths WITH covid and deaths HAVING covid-like symtoms but no test to confirm the infection.

For all those like nicholas that say that many posting here on WUWT are hypocrites and doing what we say climate alarmists do (not look at the science), I wish you’d hold the CDC accountable for their unscientific FROM/WITH/SYMPTOMS guidance for determining covid deaths, as well as social media and “news” networks for stifling any discussion regarding HCQ, whether it’s banning their videos, suspending their social network accounts, blacklisting them from being interviewed or providing counterpoints on “news” networks, threatening to revoke medical licenses, firing them from their place of employment (hospitals, clinics…). Most Americand have only heard one side of this issue, thanks in large part to the blackout of opposition voices by large media platforms.

Reply to  Ghalfrunt.
August 24, 2020 8:58 pm

of course isolation works. but we never had true isolation. people still worked. food still got stocked on the shelves. people still went shopping.

when do you unlock? from all the 2nd and 3rd lockdowns we’re seeing in some countries around the world, lockdowns seem to be prolonging the disease as infections rise again upon opening up. herd immunity may be the best bet for this disease – especially with a mortality rate that will likely be @ .1-.2%.

Reply to  Ghalfrunt.
August 25, 2020 12:49 am

And yet people contract the Covid and develop no symptoms…millions…turd sandwich
You are a known liar for telling people to drink bleach.

Reply to  Derg
August 26, 2020 4:22 pm

Words have consequences.
It’s as simple as that, and words coming from the President of the United States matter.
They matter because words and direction coming from the President are typically taken seriously by people who live in the U.S.
When Donald Trump said that he would consider exploring the use of injecting disinfectants into the body to treat coronavirus, the medical community shuddered due to the dangerous and irresponsible implications of this suggestion.

Meanwhile, calls to New York City’s Poison Control Center for exposure to specific household cleaners and disinfectants increased more than twofold after the President’s comments on Thursday, WNBC New York reported today. Data from the New York Poison Center center revealed that in the 18 hours after Trump’s comments, the Poison Center received 30 exposure calls about disinfectants. Ten involved bleach, 9 were about Lysol, and 11 others regarding other household cleaners. Compared to the same time window last year, there were a total of 13 exposure calls, with 2 involving bleach, but none involving Lysol-type products.

mario lento
Reply to  Ghalfrunt.
August 26, 2020 4:45 pm

Galfrunt, I suppose it’s best that we ban speech anywhere it’s subject to interpretation. Maybe also, while we’re at it, make it illegal to say things in gest or sarcastically.

Oh, wait, we’ve lived with the first Amendment for a few centuries now, and that allows me to say “pound sand”. And, I only mean that metaphorically. Please do not try that… it could wreak havoc with your internals.

Abolition Man
Reply to  Ghalfrunt.
August 25, 2020 6:28 am

Isolation seemed like the best option early on when little was known about ChiCom-19 thanks to the CCP and their pet dog, the WHO! If we had locked down for three weeks and then reassessed the data things might be a little different.
We are now looking at MORE people dying from the lockdowns than the virus, without even taking financial ruin, bankruptcies and business failures into account! “Aside from that, Mrs. Lincoln, how was the play?”
As the Swedes have shown the lockdowns and mask mandates are unhelpful at best, and possibly harmful to the goal of reaching herd immunity among the population! Protecting the vulnerable and treating the infected with simple, inexpensive regimens allows everyone else to get back to living life to the fullest. Open the schools and END the shutdowns; Herd Immunity Threshold is about to run us over!

Foley Hund
Reply to  Ghalfrunt.
August 25, 2020 6:53 am


Reply to  richard
August 24, 2020 9:24 pm

+2 Million

John Endicott
Reply to  richard
August 25, 2020 2:59 am

Mark Woolhouse said lockdown was a “panic measure” but admitted it was the only option at the time because “we couldn’t think of anything better to do”.

There was no need to do anything –

That is only something that could be known In hindsight. At the time, with the information (and misinformation – I’m looking at you Neil Ferguson and the Imperial college) at hand, it was believed that it would be much more virulent and deadly than it’s turned out to be and thus it was felt that something needed to be done.

Ian W
Reply to  John Endicott
August 25, 2020 10:48 am

It was known at the time of the 1918 pandemic that the worse thing to do was to keep people inside. NYC found much to their surprise that more than 60% of their cases were to people that had stayed ‘locked down’. The reason there is an influenza season is that during winter people tend to gather close together indoors in the warm. In the southern states of the USA people gather together in the summer in the air conditioning that also blows the airborne virus across and between rooms.
The best approach would have been to spend as much time as possible outdoors and avoid talking loudly, singing or shouting close to anyone especially indoors.
In addition as stated several posts above – the population should have been directed to ensure that they were sufficient in zinc, vitamin D and selenium (1 Brazil nut a day)

It would be interesting to see who first had the idea of locking down the population and persuaded the scared politicians that it was the thing to do. I have a feeling it was China and their first response in Wuhan.

Stephen Goldstein
Reply to  richard
August 25, 2020 7:41 am

Yes . . . except you’re comparing apples and oranges . . . .

The Spanish Flu pandemic ran 2+ years and the figures cited cover that whole period. For the seasonal flu there is a “season” with a designated start and end, as arbitrary as they may be.

For Covid, IMO, it’s just too soon . . . it’s not over! We know it’s not done — are we at ~1/2? 3/4? 1/4? We just don’t know.

Come back in 6 to 18 months and let us know how the “final” figures compare.

Anyway, that’s what I think.

to use 8 1/2 months of data as the b

Bob boder
Reply to  richard
August 25, 2020 11:25 am

There is nothing wrong with short term locking down hot spots, but general lock downs are ridiculous.

From the very beginning it was known that we can’t stop the virus we can only control it and limit its ability to overwhelm the medical system. “flatten the curve” remember? Remember everyone saying we were going to have 2 million dead in the US? Now 180,000 is the end of the world and a complete failure even though the vast majority of these deaths were the very old and most had other serious medical issue, any other serious virus would have done the same.

The rest is all politics and trying to scare and manipulate people. “The only thing we have to fear is fear itself” remember those words and who said them? Which party was he from? Do you need any more proof of how far gone that party is from what it use to be? Be proud, be strong and be for America and do whats right and stop being afraid!

Reply to  Bob boder
August 25, 2020 1:19 pm

180K did not die from covid. As a senator once said at an Obama SOTU speach… “You lie!!!”
The CDC has already stated that only 6% of covid death were from covid. The remaining 94% of covid deaths were with comorbidities (avg of 2.6 comorbidities per death). So, what did they die from? Odds are it was from whatever comorbidity had the highest payout from Medicare…

David Hoffer
August 24, 2020 2:51 pm

97 adverse reports of all kinds (misspelled as 347 in the FDA Memorandum

One can only wonder how one “misspells” 97 as 347….

Chris Riley
Reply to  David Hoffer
August 24, 2020 4:54 pm

Perhaps the FDA farmed out the writing of the report to an FBI lawyer

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  David Hoffer
August 24, 2020 6:01 pm

Yes! 3+4 only adds to 7, not 9. 🙂

A C Osborn
Reply to  n.n
August 25, 2020 3:47 am

You should have given an explanation for the link you posted.
It is the roundup of all the studies done worldwide for HCQ and is a great resource for understanding why some studies show failure, especially studies that are designed to fail.

August 24, 2020 3:06 pm

Science is not done by surveys.
Furthermore, the conclusion of this “article” is correlation, which is not causation.

Reply to  William Teach
August 24, 2020 4:40 pm

I wonder if science is done better with tree ring proxies 😉

Rich Davis
Reply to  William Teach
August 24, 2020 4:59 pm

I would think that is obvious, William. But causation requires correlation. Correlation is the first test to see if the hypothesis is worth pursuing, am I wrong?

In this case, there is a concerted, politicized effort to obfuscate the raw data. In light of the Lancet hoax, if you deny that, then you disqualify yourself as an objective observer. CDC claims to have no knowledge of how or whether the distributed HCQ was used. Is that a reasonable situation? How is it not prima facie evidence of a bias against HCQ that they studiously avoid asking such basic questions as whether the therapy was used and what the outcome was. I guess that’s just too hard?

It seems to me that the author’s attempt to answer the question of whether there may be a correlation between mortality rate and HCQ treatments by region is an attempt to cut through the BS and draw some data out of a cloud of uncertainty.

Of course it can’t prove anything. But it says that it’s worth trying to get the real data and do more meaningful analysis.

Farmer Ch E retired
Reply to  William Teach
August 24, 2020 9:33 pm

TW – You sound like you don’t know what you are talking about. Are you repeating Group Think?

A July 1st publication in the International Journal of Infectious Diseases concluded the following:

“The Cox regression result for the two propensity matched groups (Table 4) indicates that treatment with hydroxychloroquine resulted in a mortality hazard ratio decrease of 51% (p = 0.009).” (https://www.ijidonline.com/article/S1201-9712(20)30534-8/fulltext)

Matthew Schilling
Reply to  William Teach
August 26, 2020 9:10 am

I am pretty sure “William Teach” can be placed in quotes (especially the word “Teach” which is much more likely indoctrinate), but this is absolutely an article, therefore there is no reason whatsoever to place the word article in quotes.
If science is not done by surveys then please explain what is the relevance of people repeating, over and over again, that “97% of scientists agree…” Asking for a friend!

August 24, 2020 3:09 pm

It appears that 80% of the population already has immunity to some degree to this virus. So far no country has gotten over 20% of the population infected. This will be the nail in the coffin for any vaccine.
Countering the Second Wave with Facts, not Misconceptions

By: Udi Qimron, Uri Gavish, Eyal Shahar, Michael Levitt


Some highlights for you:

Pre-immunity. No country has got more than 20% infected before it died out.

In several closed communities that underwent testing, the infection rate was always capped at 20%, which statistically aligns with maximal infection rate in these communities rather than recurring coincidences.

In Sweden the infection rate did not exceed 20% and the percentage of people who survived the epidemic exceeds 99.9% of the population.

In Belgium, the country with the highest population mortality rate, where less than 20% were infected, and more than 99.9% of the population has survived.

Immediate removal of most restrictions on the economy, immediate return to normal life of low-risk population while helping high-risk groups reduce the rate of social contacts is in order.
PS. And now I go and anxiously await Mosher with his content free, drive by commenting to put me in my place 🙂

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  TRM
August 24, 2020 5:07 pm

With the triple-digit resurgence of COVID-19 in South Korea, Mosher may be too busy to drive by. Or, he may be welded in to his quarters.

Reply to  Clyde Spencer
August 24, 2020 6:55 pm

The resurgence of covid-19 in South Korea is evidence of the futility of contact tracing. Contact tracing slows the natural development of herd immunity.

Reply to  Dan Pangburn
August 24, 2020 8:13 pm

If South Korean and Italian citizens had switched places in January, South Korea would be as bad as Italy and Italy would be as well off as S. Korea.

Pre-existing immunity from exposure to other corona viruses, helps reduce disease severity and also helps get to herd immunity more quickly.

Reply to  Clyde Spencer
August 24, 2020 8:08 pm

Last heard from he was in Dubai waxing eloquently about their “science based” “non-denialist” ways. Like ordering 30+ million doses of HCQ in April 🙂

Steve Keppel-Jones
Reply to  TRM
August 24, 2020 6:16 pm

Let me give you a hand, TRM. “Wrong!” 🙂

Reply to  Steve Keppel-Jones
August 24, 2020 8:06 pm

I knew I could count on you guys. 😉

Reply to  Steve Keppel-Jones
August 24, 2020 8:16 pm

You forget, your royal whatever is an English major that doesn’t use proper punctuation or spelling.

mor like not even wrong

Bob boder
Reply to  Steve Keppel-Jones
August 25, 2020 11:28 am

Actually it would be not even wrong.

Clyde Spencer
August 24, 2020 3:10 pm

A more interesting question is why so many drugs have been claimed to show efficacy in treating COVID-19.
Just recently, there is:

There was also a claim of efficacy for birth control estrogen. At last count, there are about three dozen drugs approved for some medical use that appear to have utility in treating COVID-19. Is there any precedent for other diseases where such a broad spectrum of drugs, with little apparently in common, showing utility for a novel disease?

Reply to  Clyde Spencer
August 24, 2020 4:01 pm

“A more interesting question is why so many drugs have been claimed to show efficacy in treating COVID-19.”

Because it’s a wimpy virus. It only seems to be able to ki!ll people near death in nursing homes, people already very sick with other conditions and those of any age (the prior two groups included) who become unfortunate victims of a dysfunctional medical system that intubates covid patients much too often.

Nicholas McGinley
Reply to  Clyde Spencer
August 24, 2020 4:04 pm

I was wondering if there is any one thing, which nobody thinks has any effect?

Reply to  Nicholas McGinley
August 24, 2020 4:48 pm


Clyde Spencer
Reply to  Scissor
August 24, 2020 5:03 pm


Probably water is in the same category as CO2.

Climate believer
Reply to  Scissor
August 24, 2020 11:55 pm

From the Guardian:
“Scientists say CO² has a major effect on CoVid 19, disproving previous claims that it had no effect”

/sarc (just in case)

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  Clyde Spencer
August 24, 2020 7:50 pm

It looks like there is yet another drug that appears to have use in treating COVID-19:

Three dozen drugs that have been shown to have potential for treating COVID-19 and most of you prefer something that has been recommended by a real estate developer. Let’s be clear. I support what Trump is doing for the economy and immigration. However, he is the last person I would ask for medical advice! Some of you here give him a good run for his money, but then I suspect you suffer from Hero Worship Syndrome.

Reply to  Clyde Spencer
August 24, 2020 9:49 pm


Nobody gets everything right. Nobody. Well, God by definition though the flood tells a different story.

Abolition Man
Reply to  Ron
August 25, 2020 6:33 am

Maybe creating beings with free will that can look after themselves is more difficult than imagined! Are we just the latest in a long line of experiments, and not necessarily the last!?

Reply to  Clyde Spencer
August 25, 2020 12:55 am

Of course Trump just makes it up 😉

Oh what a tangled web we weave…..

There are just too many reports of the HCQ with the zpack working to discount it and claim he is giving medical advice.

John Endicott
Reply to  Clyde Spencer
August 25, 2020 3:08 am

Clyde your TDS is showing, Trump never gave “medical advice”, he commented that he’d heard good things about HCQ (“It’s shown very, very encouraging early results”) in relation to treating COVID-19 and was optimistic about it (“a real chance to be one of the biggest game changers in the history of medicine”). And that’s all it’s taken for those with TDS to be against it and claim Trump is giving out “medical advice”.

mario lento
Reply to  John Endicott
August 25, 2020 9:20 am

Thank goodness for people I see here, defending baseless hate because people “believe” without being critical. It’s been difficult to put into words how frustrating it’s been to have to deal with people who fail to act o or seek truth.

I am beginning to think they have a physical disability, when a significant percentage of folk have space in their minds that are owned by outside forces. That owned space is unavailable to these folk, so logical discourse will not, can not happen.

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  John Endicott
August 25, 2020 9:58 am

TDS? You apparently missed the part above where I said I support Trump on his economic and immigration policies. I will be voting for him! Surely you can do better than accuse someone of something that is obviously wrong. That is the behavior of climate alarmists.

“a real chance to be one of the biggest game changers in the history of medicine” You don’t think that amounts to medical advice? Or that those swooning at his feet will write it off as objective editorializing?

Reply to  Clyde Spencer
August 25, 2020 10:44 am

What would be the opposite of TDS?

Cause some people seem to suffer from it and it is equally unhealthy.

Ian W
Reply to  Clyde Spencer
August 25, 2020 11:52 am

As many front line doctors have said – zinc, HCQ, azithromycin, CURES more than 90% of patients who receive the regimen before the disease progresses to require hospitalization. It is an outpatient treatment.
The president a businessman gets continual briefs on all aspects of the pandemic from all sorts of sources. He is told at one briefing with multiple people present that front line doctors have a regiment that works. Do you for a second thing that the president did that research himself? Obviously you do as you seem to think he generated the idea that the HCQ regiment was a game changer. Someone told him that. It is probably the first time the president has heard of HCQ. So he passes on what he has been told.
Immediately, a drug that had been given without problem to people as an over the counter drug for decades – was said to have side effects by left wing TV talking head ‘doctors’. The medical technocrats from NIH/CDC who have not been near a real patient since their training, called all reports of successful treatments anecdotal. And from then on did their best to ensure that no clinical trial was correctly carried out.
The regimen is based on raising the level of intra cellular zinc in cells which blocks viral replication. HCQ one of many zinc ionophores assists zinc across the cell walls into the cells. So the medical technocrats did a bait and switch. A treatment that is an outpatient treatment to raise the level of zinc in cells was given without zinc to inpatient seriously ill patients some even on ventilators. This complete lack of governance in medical trials merits striking off all the people involved. They don’t appear to have even ensured that their trials were testing the correct regimen. This is so obtuse that it must have been done on purpose. Research papers show that increasing the zinc in cells blocks replication of a host of viruses for which vaccines are sold. Then there is a continual parade of the medical talking heads trumpeting each failed clinical mistrial, this reached a crescendo with The Lancet publishing a completely false invented paper that had obviously not been checked saying that HCQ was dangerous.
Now we have been told repeatedly that nothing can be back to ‘normal’ until there is a vaccine and everyone is vaccinated. Much to their surprise the administration has provided funding for the pharmaceutical companies to telescope the trials and even start manufacture of vaccines that are most likely to work passing their phase 1 and 2 testing and several are in phase 3 already. This means that the much vaunted vaccines could be available in the fall. SURPRISE!! The same screeching shroud wavers that were telling us we have to wait for a vaccine – now say that even vaccines won’t work for more than 3 months. Greta Thunberg is more believable than these ‘medical professionals’
We are now in the position that in many countries the death rates from COVID-19 is below that of influenza. But only deaths from COVID-19 are important.
This is a manufactured crisis
Zinc, plus a zinc ionophore, plus vitamin D and selenium – will ensure that you are insusceptible to SARS-CoV-2 and a whole host of other viruses. The vaccine industry cannot afford you to know that and the politicians that want to make use of the pandemic don’t want it to stop.

mario lento
Reply to  Ian W
August 25, 2020 12:21 pm

Any Zn ionophore plus small amounts of Zn and lots of vit D3 is a major threat to the “cold virus” industry. There’s your motive. HCQ has some other mechanisms to mitigate RNA virus replication beyond being a Zn ionophore…

People most strongly in favor of spreading this information have only one motive. They care.

Reply to  Clyde Spencer
August 25, 2020 8:01 pm

I wouldn’t advise taking HCQ for extended periods of time and definitely against cold viruses cause it inhibits autophagy which is a very important process for healthy aging and longevity.

John Endicott
Reply to  Clyde Spencer
August 26, 2020 2:27 am

Yes Clyde, TDS or maybe you’re just too blinded by the fake news media. It doesn’t matter that you offer mealy mouthed praise to cover the fact that you are blindly taking Trump out of context to fit your idea that he’s saying/doing something he isn’t.

“a real chance to be one of the biggest game changers in the history of medicine” You don’t think that amounts to medical advice?

No it isn’t. No non-deranged person would think it is (hence why I call out your TDS). He’s clearly saying it’s possible that if it works out to be as good as early indications indicate *then* it would be a game changer. He didn’t say it was a game changer. He didn’t even suggest anyone should immediately go out and try it. He was expressing optimism, not medical advice as most sane people would easily recognize. Stop listening to the fake news media, it’s clearly rotting your brain.

mario lento
Reply to  John Endicott
August 26, 2020 8:48 am

John: People like Clyde don’t understand that the media are torturing the language to change the meaning of words and sentences so that conversation is stifled. It’s an essential attack on free speech. Clyde is an unwittingly useful idiot.

Reply to  Clyde Spencer
August 25, 2020 11:12 am

“Hero Worship Syndrome” is the 98 pound weakling asymmetrical twin of TRUMP DERANGEMENT SYNDROME’. Sometimes there is nothing so obscure as the obvious.

Reply to  Clyde Spencer
August 26, 2020 7:13 pm

I think it is fairly common for drug trials in intensive care units to show mortality stats that are half of the ‘norm’ especially in busy ICUs.
The reason is simply the additional status checks and care calls by interested staff that the patients receive to see if the meds are working. Double blind reduces this effect significantly.

Burk Gossom
August 24, 2020 3:19 pm

The sad thing is that many questions about hydroxychloroquin could be answered if the Government would open the medicare data base. From billing records we can know when medicare patients were diagnosed, if they filled a prescription and when in relationship to the diagnosis, whether they were hospitalized, put on ventilators, etc. While somewhat crude the number of cases would provide tremendous statistical power.

Another question that we should be able to get an answer to quickly relates to immunity associated with prior coronovirus infections. Compare outcomes of primary care physicians 40 and older who have been exposed to everything under the sun to a matched general population.

August 24, 2020 3:29 pm

It looks like Leo Goldstein has a preconceived notion that HCQ is an effective prophylactic/therapy. He then searches for data to confirm his notion. He ignores double blind scientific studies that show no prophylactic or therapeutic efficacy.

Curious George
Reply to  William Teach
August 24, 2020 3:44 pm

Link, please.

Sweet Old Bob
Reply to  William Teach
August 24, 2020 4:17 pm

“In the Brazilian study, some patients taking a high dose of the drug developed dangerous heart rhythm problems. ”

A “study” designed to fail ?

Reply to  Sweet Old Bob
August 24, 2020 5:37 pm

Steven Hatfill, a veteran virologist, noted at RealClearPolitics that “There are now 53 studies that show positive results of hydroxychloroquine in COVID infections. There are 14 global studies that show neutral or negative results — and 10 of them were of patients in very late stages of COVID-19, where no antiviral drug can be expected to have much effect.”

Hatfill continued, “Of the remaining four studies, two come from the same University of Minnesota author. The other two are from the faulty Brazil paper, which should be retracted, and the fake Lancet paper, which was.”


Curious George
Reply to  William Teach
August 24, 2020 4:31 pm

“We conducted a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial across the United States and parts of Canada testing hydroxychloroquine as postexposure prophylaxis. We enrolled adults who had household or occupational exposure to someone with confirmed Covid-19 at a distance of less than 6 ft for more than 10 minutes while wearing neither a face mask nor an eye shield (high-risk exposure) or while wearing a face mask but no eye shield (moderate-risk exposure). Within 4 days after exposure, we randomly assigned participants to receive either placebo or hydroxychloroquine (800 mg once, followed by 600 mg in 6 to 8 hours, then 600 mg daily for 4 additional days). The primary outcome was the incidence of either laboratory-confirmed Covid-19 or illness compatible with Covid-19 within 14 days.”
While the administered dose of HCQ in the New England Journal of Medicine study was not lethal, it was high enough to weaken the recipients.

The Brazilian study used potentially lethal doses. Surprisingly, it did not have a positive effect – the study had to be stopped.

William, please get serious.

Reply to  Curious George
August 24, 2020 6:49 pm

World-o–meters say that over 180,000 people in the USA hae died. If this HCQ was effective, then we would have not have had this many deaths. If you think this thing is “political” there would not be > 800K deaths in the world.

Reply to  Curious George
August 24, 2020 9:31 pm

William says worldometer says 180K have died in USA from covid. You know this number is inflated because it comingles deaths
with/deaths from/deaths with covid-like symptoms but no test all as covid deaths when quite a few are not dew to covid (I’ve read total covid deaths are at least 25% inflated). Blame the CDC for their crap politicized guidance for this inflation. This whole scamdemic took advantage of a virus that kills mainly those aged 70+ and has become a powergrab and $$$ making enterprise in many parts of the world.

Curious George
Reply to  Curious George
August 25, 2020 7:32 am

Over 180,000 people in the USA have died. HCQ is not recommended there. How could this be an argument against HCQ?