Preprint. August 23, 2020.
Key Words: hydroxychloroquine, COVID-19, SARS-CoV-2, Wuhan
Abstract
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.
Introduction
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.
Methods
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:
- 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.
- The age bracket of the patient was selected from the options <40, 40-49, 50-59, 60-69, 70+.
- When the treatment took place.
- Which of the following drugs were prescribed or recommended:
Hydroxychloroquine (Plaquenil)
Ibuprofen (Advil)
Acetaminophen (Paracetamol, Tylenol)
Remdesivir
Other
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.
Processing
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
| Super-Region | Region | States |
| NE + MA | New England | Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Connecticut |
| NE + MA | Middle Atlantic | New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania |
| East North Central | East North Central | Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, Michigan, Wisconsin |
| South Atlantic | South Atlantic | Delaware, Maryland, District of Columbia, Virginia, West Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, Florida |
| WNC + ESC + Mountain | West North Central | Minnesota, Iowa, Missouri, North Dakota, South Dakota, Nebraska, Kansas |
| WNC + ESC + Mountain | East South Central | Kentucky, Tennessee, Alabama, Mississippi |
| WNC + ESC + Mountain | Mountain | Montana, Idaho, Wyoming, Colorado, New Mexico, Arizona, Utah, Nevada |
| Pacific | Pacific | Washington, Oregon, California, Alaska, Hawaii |
| West South Central | West South Central | Arkansas, Louisiana, Oklahoma, Texas |
Analysis
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.
Discussion
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.
Conclusions
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.
Attachments
Hydroxychloroquine-Actual-Use-USA-Attachment.zip
References
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).
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Survey says: “Whats Up With That Family Feud?
…
Got no Data? No problem, just do a survey!!!!!
..
This article is a disgrace. Anyone that has a rudimentary understanding of how science is done should ignore it.
Anyone who has a rudimentary understanding of how science is done should be appalled by the designed to fail experiments used to debunk HCQ used properly. That includes much of the criticism in this thread by obvious trolls.
+1
So Hoffer, why don’t you just do a a survey to prove your point?
Speaking of obvious trolls…
Sorry Mr. Hoffer, you are ignorant of medical science. Try saving a life once in a while.
William, this article may well be a disgrace. I can’t tell as the author did not provide any data.
Are the conclusions inconvenient?
Totally unsupported conclusions are no conclusions.
Would be nice to have resolution around the June 15 FDA action to revoke the HCQ EUA. Before/after HCQ usage would be telling.
and that all walks around the very obvious reality that Vitamin D3 works at some level yet our esteemed leaders are silent on this also.
If HCQ does no harm at the trivial does proposed and is taken in the bulk of the world where money still matters why would you ban it, set a maximum dose limit yes, make it go out with a warning, but banning it is all about politics.
Just how much is this an excuse to limit the peoples rights. More reminiscent of the harsh “Lysenkoism” of the Russian state in the 30’s.
I have a lot of respect for the comments of the people who write here that target the less than perfect “scientific method” but vilification of people that stand on the wrong side of the lefts position on things such as HCQ is totally and visibly part of the propaganda programs being pounded out. I’m sick of it.
Yes, there are some smart people fighting hard to not allow a free people the right to use an inexpensive treatment that (and let me be clear) HAS BEEN SHOWN TO WORK. The drivel and distraction I hear over and over again, “But if there is not double blind study, that means there is no proof” is a slight of hand strawman argument at best, and intellectually dishonest trick at worst.
Today, even smart people can be convinced that it’s best to prevent people from the benefit of choosing for themselves not to die while waiting for something that WILL NOT COME before they die. No, we should not wait for a double blind study which will cost lives, money, and the ability to get on with our lives vs trying what works for low cost, and virtually no downside.
Common sense is lost if this does not resonate.
Mario, it has not been shown to work. In fact, it does more harm than good.
WT – Did you get that info by watching HTN? (Half Truth News)
Mario didn’t say it worked, he said people should have the right to decide for themselves. Classic troll behaviour from a guy who whines about trolls. Followed by the accusation that HCQ does more harm than good. Odd that unless taken in higher than recommended doses it did little to no harm to millions upon millions of people pre-covid for decades it is now suddenly harmful . Classic trollspeak.
And yet one more bshit misdirection that convinces me that the writer has an agenda and doesn’t care about people’s rights to make their own choices, or if they live or die, as long as as their agenda is served.
@davidmhoffer: Thank you. By the way, I looked up articles on HCQ prior to 2019… and could not find one that spoke of it being dangerous. Quite to the contrary. So, the media, Dem’s and the LEFT in general all just did what they do… say the opposite of what is true. This is getting so damned consistent that I can now watch any news opinion pieces and derive the truth… at least since Trump took office.
davidmhoffer: “Mario didn’t say it worked.” Did you miss the caps?
I have seen rational educated comments from you, mario and others at this site. Here, on this subject, you find mario didn’t say something HE PUT IN CAPS! You guys are so caught up in your attacks on McGinley that you missed this? I have much respect for this site and the commenters here, but on this subject, you’ve lost perspective. His comments demonstrate that he is not a troll, calling him one is like dems calling Kenosha a peaceful protest. You are diminishing yourselves with this.
Paul Courtney: “HAS BEEN SHOWN” is all caps and what you are referring to. You just did a slight of hand, taking my careful use of words, and changing them to something else.
YOU ARE GUILTY of a strawman argument. I am not calling you a troll either.
mario: “HAS BEEN SHOWN TO WORK”. Why leave out the last two words? Lost, along with perspective?
I could have said treat “Works”, but I inserted more words to dilute that intentionally. treatment “HAS BEEN SHOWN TO WORK”. Do you understand words and sentence constructs or do you selectively choose to remove words and then slay them? You need to look inward Paul.
mario: Out of respect for all, I’ll leave the last word to you.
Why leave out the last two words?
Paul, why leave out the first three words? Clipping context to make a point just shows your point can’t stand without such manipulation. Not a good look on you my friend.
Hi Paul: I somehow got stuck into this waste of time argument, albeit, it’s a bit amusing .
Context is everything. My words were changed to make some point. John is correct in pointing that out.
John Endicott: I quoted five words, all in caps. First three and last two. Many here are better at math, but counting to five is not a challenge.
Not a good look for me? I can count to five. And I don’t diagnose Trump supporters with TDS. When you get it that wrong, doesn’t it give you pause?
William: You are either not listening, can’t read, won’t read or you are a troll with an ironic last name. None of these things are a compliment. I’ve read your posts, and quite frankly, you’re a waste of time.
RE: “Mario, it has not been shown to work. In fact, it does more harm than good.”
False. How many malaria patients has it killed?
William Teach is not spouting an opinion, he in fact is spouting a bald faced lie. I have not seen him respond by acknowledging his mistake, so I have to conclude that he is intentionally lying.
William, HCQ has been around and in use for *DECADES*. We know what the safe dosage levels are, what the expected side effects are, etc. It does *not* do more harm than good, if it did it would have been taken off the market *DECADES* ago and no one would be talking (and you wouldn’t be lying) about it today.
Thanks John: It’s ironic that the survival rate has been shown to be an order of magnitude greater than not using HCQ. It could be the most effective drug for an illness ever used, and people say and believe exactly the opposite.
It is so clear, yet otherwise intelligent people cling to their “beliefs’ with a religious fervor to the point they can and will not see.
March 19th Dr. Roy Spencer posted on his page that countries with malaria were relatively free of Covid-19 and HCQ was the common denominator. On the 19th President Trump talked about its promise. That night or maybe the next day, the media pooh poohed the drug. Politics in the USA is really ugly.
An up to date reexamination would be in order.
Those countries, except for Asian ones with cross reactive immunity and Africa ones where media ages in many countries are in the teens, are now moving up in terms of cases and deaths. Those in South America may be as bad as anywhere. The death rate in Brazil for example will almost certainly exceed that of the U.S.
The correlation was nonexistent to begin with, as was the rationale for thinking there was anything to look at there.
HCQ is not much used around the world, and almost nowhere do people take a malaria drug all the time as prophylaxis. It is considered and older and not very good choice, and some strains of the organism, in some places, have resistance to the drug anyway.
He also made assertions about overall death rates, as well as several other things, that did not hold up to even mild scrutiny at the time, and have now been flatly contradicted.
“HCQ is not much used around the world”
What’s not much?
HHS March 29 2020
The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) today accepted 30 million doses of hydroxychloroquine sulfate donated by Sandoz, the Novartis generics and biosimilars division, and one million doses of Resochin (medical grade chloroquine phosphate) donated by Bayer Pharmaceuticals, for possible use in treating patients hospitalized with COVID-19 or for use in clinical trials. These and other companies may donate additional doses, and companies have ramped up production to provide additional supplies of the medication to the commercial market.
Forbes May 10th
Prescriptions in France have increased by as much as 7,000% in certain parts of the country since the pandemic began.
As reported by La Provence, a study looking at the 466 million French prescriptions written since the pandemic began in France, show a huge spike in doctors prescribing the drug. In the last week of March, for instance, over 10,000 people were prescribed hydroxychloroquine in Marseille alone.
Moscow Times April 17th 2020
Russia had authorized hospitals to use the drug in the fight against the contagion. That same day it received a large shipment from China, while five days later the pharmaceutical company Biocom announced it would produce 170,000 packs of the medicine.
Thursday’s decree instructs Russia’s national medical cardiology research center to distribute 68,600 packs of hydroxychloroquine donated by a Shanghai pharmaceutical company to hospitals across Russia for free.
“It is considered and older and not very good choice, and some strains of the organism, in some places, have resistance to the drug anyway.”
Some context from London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, Faculty of Infectious and Tropical Diseases, Disease Control Department, London.
A recent systematic review of studies shows that chloroquine still has an APR of 92.3% (95% CI: 90.3 — 94.2) at day 28 against P. vivax.
(Around 7.5 million clinical infections are caused by P. vivax every year.)
Treatment failures, however, have been on the rise over the past 5 years with the primary foci of resistance in Indonesia, Papua New Guinea, Timor-Leste and other parts of Oceania. Reports of chloroquine resistance have also come from India and South America.
Although chloroquine remains available at the community level in many settings, it is no longer recommended for the treatment of uncomplicated P. falciparum infection.
( It is responsible for around 50% of all malaria cases. P. falciparum is regarded as the deadliest parasite in humans, causing 405,000 deaths in 2018.)
For those interested here is a link to the work of the medical team in Marseille, I say team, because detractors of the Professor Raoult like to demonise him as some kind of lone wolf, conspiracist which is absurd, take a look at the number of professionals involved.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1477893920302817
Their conclusion:
Although this is a retrospective analysis, results suggest that early diagnosis, early isolation and early treatment of COVID-19 patients, with at least 3 days of HCQ-AZ lead to a significantly better clinical outcome and a faster viral load reduction than other treatments.
““HCQ is not much used around the world””
My comment was not regarding usage since the pandemic began, but in response to the suggestion put forth by Roy Spencer that many large countries did not have any COVID because they have malaria, with the implication (or maybe it was stated directly…I do not recall) that prior usage of malaria drugs in those places blocked the virus from spreading in those countries.
Travelers going to places with malaria from places without, typically take a malaria drug prior to arriving. But it does not seem to be the case than all the people who live in those places, are on lifelong malaria drug prophylaxis. Which is what one would have to think to suppose that malaria drugs were what is keeping the virus from infecting large numbers of people in some places.
CQ and HCQ are recognized as inferior to many other choices that are now readily available.
HCQ & CQ are widely available in countries with malaria. People who do not read The Lancet and are not targeted by Google with misinformation started taking on whatever little evidence of its effectiveness against COVID-19 existed.
“People who do not read The Lancet and are not targeted by Google with misinformation started taking on whatever little evidence of its effectiveness against COVID-19 existed.”
Wait…what?
Turkey’s COVID-19 Early Hydroxychloroquine Treatment Strategy Featured by Sky News
Early treatment with hydroxychloroquine: a country-based analysis
Ted Cruz Letter to FDA Says Hydroxychloroquine Restrictions May Be ‘Directly Costing Lives’
“Politics in the USA is really ugly.”
More properly: The Democrats, including the Leftwing Media in the USA are really ugly.
A recent survey showed 84 percent of those polled thought the Leftwing Media was the main source of the division in the United States.
“About three centuries ago, in 1640, a countess returning to Europe from Peru brought with her some bark from a cinchona tree, an infusion of which had been used by the native Indians to cure an attack of malaria from which she suffered. The value of the drug was established at once, and for nearly three hundred years the essential principles of cinchona bark–quinine and allied alkaloids–were practically without competition as remedies for malaria.” He went into the history of how important it was for WWII, and how it was refined to avoid a few problems.
From Asa C. Chandler, 1949, Introduction to Parasitology.
From 1989 [11th edition] Centennial Merck Index–…. Hydroxychloroquine, bunch of numbers and letters for the formula……Use in combination with cyclophohsphamide and azathioprine, q.q.v. in the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis……..Series of articles on clinical use…….THERAP CAT: Antimalarial; antirheumatic, lupus erythematosus suppressant. No mention of toxicity, but reassessment of use in arthritis.
We have regressed!
Because Medicine has become Big Business and Politisized as well.
Here is something to watch. I am just listening to Tucker Carlson tonight. He is telling ta story of how The WHO director has now stated that what really needs to be done to fight the CCP flu is that the world has to address global warming. Dr Tedros then says “We will not, we cannot go back to the way things were”. It makes me wonder about the total picture. Was this outbreak an actual outright attack to gain extra controls over mush of the world, especially the Western world? This WHO director is now putting global warming front and center as a necessary element of fighting the CCP virus. … https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e2ijXEgVbp8
It’s about 15 minutes in where this part is discussed by Carlson.
“We will not, we cannot go back to the way things were” – OH YES WE WILL. Over your dead body you say? Hmmmm. Well you are a war criminal so it’d be best for you to be on the run.
Another one from him was that it would be with us for 2 more years. He has problems reading data and graphs as well it would seem.
Everyone knows WHO is a political entity first.
Who cares what they say?
Is it surprising they try to roll up their old con with current events?
Making more of it than that is just daydreaming, IMO.
Talk is cheap…any idiot to say anything.
China controls WHO that is why the world should care. China is terrible and bad for this planet.
Let me rephrase that:
Who takes what WHO says as the Gospel truth?
Maybe the same people who think each of the countries on UN Council on Human Rights is dedicated to insuring everyone around the world does not get any of their rights infringed upon, or that, and who think the IPCC is is dedicated to good science?
“This WHO director is now putting global warming front and center as a necessary element of fighting the CCP virus”
Let’s see: Who would benefit the most from promoting the continuation of the destruction of the economies of the Western Democracies in their attempts to control the Earth’s weather?
The obvious answer is the Chicoms. Here’s Dr. Tedros helping out his paymasters again. Anyone who listens to this man has to be a fool.
Lots of arguing over hydroxychloroquine but nobody worried about a process that normally takes 10-15 years is now streamlined to just 1 or 2 years and some, maybe most Western Governments will effectively require their citizens to get the jab, even though those same gov’s have signed immunity clauses with the vaccine suppliers?
“Lots of arguing over hydroxychloroquine but nobody worried about a process that normally takes 10-15 years is now streamlined to just 1 or 2 years and some”
Technology advances. In the past, it used to take a much longer time to cross the Atlantic ocean than it does now.
Just because the process has been sped up doesn’t necessarily mean the process is flawed.
In the meantime, take the HCQ treatment if you get the Wuhan virus.
“Technology advances. In the past, it used to take a much longer time to cross the Atlantic ocean than it does now.
Just because the process has been sped up doesn’t necessarily mean the process is flawed.
In the meantime, take the HCQ treatment if you get the Wuhan virus.”
Vaccine technology has advanced so far that it no longer needs animal testing and all those additional years before use in a human population? OK if you are so sure of the safety of these rushed vaccines then take it but it should not be forced on others.
In Australia, doctors cannot prescribe HCQ for Covid and our Gov has pre-ordered 25million vaccine shots which they intend to force on the population.
What makes you think there is no testing going on? just because they cut a lot of red tape and expediated the steps in the process doesn’t mean they’re actually skipping any of the steps. If they would, we’d already be doing like Russia and distributing the vaccines already.
You shouldn’t look at how long it use to take and just assume it couldn’t possibly ever be any quicker. A lot of the time that it use to take was spent jumping through beaurocratic hoops rather than actual useful activity in developing/testing the medicine. Getting rid of time and money wasting red tape is a good thing.
I’d be surprised if this work will appear in a ‘leading journal’ shortly. Too many pseudo-science gatekeepers around who will go to great length to find fault with it.
Mortality in Sweden (population about 1*10^7) during 2015 to August 2020:
compiled from scb.se data.
Surely, Sweden has seen more than twice the excess mortality during spring of 2020 (cyan) compared to the 2018 (green) season.
However, time will tell if the 2020 year-end result will be early the same as 2018, where Sweden didn’t freak out.
This does not say much about HCQ/Zn, which has been sort of on and off in Sweden, it just to say that this season’s infections have been blown out of proportion, a bit parallel to Catastrophic Climate Change Politics.
Mods,
I think I have some comments in the moderation bin for using the k word, and maybe for more than two included links on some.
Oops! The Supplementary Materials:
https://defyccc.com/wp-content/uploads/Summary.xlsx
https://defyccc.com/wp-content/uploads/Hydroxychloroquine-Actual-Use-USA-Attachment.zip
All I know is that if I was to find myself infected with covid 19, I would have my doctor put me on HCQ with zpack + zinc. I would be stupid not to.
Would your doctor welcome a COVID19 patient with open arms? My doctor would tell me to go to a hospital. Hospitals just love to be told by patients how to treat them.
I hired my doctor, she works for me, even if indirectly. If she won’t give me what I want I would find another doctor.
If your doc won’t prescribe it, an alternative recommended by Dr. Zelenko is questing, available from Amazon.
one more thing, around 7:30 in this video, this doctor claims HCQ is a Zn ionophore. So do all doctors who prescribe it and so do all studies where they prove it works to reduce replication and prevent hospitalization. And I used the word prove correctly. So don’t let the other folks lie through obfuscation.
If your doc won’t prescribe it, Dr. Zelenko suggests using quercetin instead. It’s a long-available zinc-promoting supplement that can be bought on Amazon.
Yes, and ANY health food store. Please see what this “MedCram” doctor does… his prescription explained is at 1:30 into this video. Anyone who says there’s no evidence should watch about 5 or 6 of these videos. If anyone wants, I will provide specific links.
Oh – and PS… yes, he prescribes quercetin in this video…
From the sound of things, the HCQ-haters would rather see a loved one die, or die themselves than be proven wrong about HCQ.
Cobb
Many people see the world as black and white. Therefore, if you see HCQS as being the greatest thing since the polio sugar cube or smallpox vaccine, it is understandable that you might automatically view those who disagree with your view as being “HCQ-haters.”
Because I have been one of the more vocal critics of the blind support for HCQS, let me state my position clearly. I do NOT hate HCQS. I acknowledge that it may even provide some benefit, but I think that the evidence is weak and there are many contradictory studies about its efficacy, which the true believers rationalize away as being done wrong, despite a dearth of of proper studies to define the right way. There is conjecture that HCQS works because it behaves as an “ionophore;” although, I have not seen any studies that confirm that. We know nothing about what the optimum dosage is; we only know what has been reported to reputedly work in ‘cocktails.’ The problem is that supporters claim that is shouldn’t be used on those most in need of a cure. The ones for whom it is recommended will almost certainly clear the infection without intervention! That doesn’t meet my expectation of something that “works.” When these threads started, there were irresponsible claims that HCQS was perfectly safe. One sees that less frequently now, but there are still some who haven’t done their homework and think that because people who are sensitive to HCQS, and stop using it, and don’t therefore ‘dye’ from it, that it has a spotless record. I have previously posted links to medical sites that address the well-known side-effects and contraindications, before the heart problems were reported.
I find it curious that of the approximately three-dozen drugs approved for other medical conditions, which have been claimed to have utility against COVID-19, there are NO champions promoting ANY of them here! ALL the support is for something that Trump promoted. Some have complained that it is because of a conspiracy by Big Pharma to promote an expensive drug, remdesivir. However, most of the other three-dozen drugs are, like HCQS, been in use for a long time and are not that expensive. So, why is it that the focus is on something that Trump promoted, but doesn’t really have efficacy for those most in need? I think that some of you need to do some serious soul searching, particularly if you consider yourselves scientists.
Clyde: you wrote: [“I do NOT hate HCQS. I acknowledge that it may even provide some benefit, but I think that the evidence is weak and there are many contradictory studies about its efficacy, which the true believers rationalize away as being done wrong, despite a dearth of of proper studies to define the right way.”]
Seriously? You dismiss cogent discussion about HCQ by calling people whom you disagree with “true believers”. You then say don’t hate HCQ. Finally, you go on to say that you “believe” stuff without providing any specificity whatsoever. Just handwaving. Read your quote and decide for yourself whether you are projecting on people much better informed than yourself!
Mario, it’s obvious, on this issue, the TDS is strong with Clyde.
“I find it curious that of the approximately three-dozen drugs approved for other medical conditions, which have been claimed to have utility against COVID-19, there are NO champions promoting ANY of them here! ”
There are three search-matches in this thread for “ivermectin.” I’ve posted comments about it in prior WUWT threads. Here’s what I posted on 8/18:
[Ivermectin was] mentioned in this July JoNova thread:
http://joannenova.com.au/2020/07/more-cheap-potential-covid-treatments-ivermectin-saves-50/
“Coronavirus may leave a trail of benefits in its wake. Who knew that there were so many cheap antivirals around? Will people get fed up with the limited choices on offer next time there is a quarantine?
“Ivermectin, like hydroxychloroquine is a kind of superdrug — in the sense of being in worldwide mass use. Some 3.7 billion doses are estimated to have been given since its approval. It has been called the Japanese Wonder Drug. It’s the farm drench, a head lice treatment, and works against worm, mites and ticks too.
“It was estimated to reduce viral loads in vitro massively but most people didn’t think it would work at lower safe doses. Then Bangladeshi doctors claim it was “astounding”. Last month US tests suggest that it reduced deaths by 40%. (Rajter)
“These are all every preliminary results. More studies are promised for Ivermectin. Especially in Peru, where a grassroots movement of Doctors has ensured it will be used.
“A US clinical trial of the drug ivermectin found that it reduced the mortality rate of COVID-19 patients by 40%.”
SEE ALSO:
“No guts, no glory” 15 August 2020 AU The Spectator Australia Magazine
Does an Australian gastro legend hold the key to curing Covid?
REBECCA WEISSER
“Dr Kylie Wagstaff announced on 3 April that ivermectin, a drug that’s been around for almost 50 years and kills everything from head lice and scabies to the parasites that cause river blindness, also kills Sars-Cov-2 virus in test tubes.
Since then, doctors using ivermectin have saved thousands of people around the world who were sick with Covid, even many close to death; the mortality rates for those on ventilators dropped from 81 per cent to 39 per cent. As for people who have just been infected with the virus, there is an almost 100 per cent cure rate. And it is also working as a prophylactic, protecting healthcare workers.
Yet, other than Borody, almost nobody in Australia is treating patients with ivermectin. Why? At first glance, it seems inexplicable. Borody’s triple therapy combines ivermectin with a bog-standard — pardon the pun — antibiotic and zinc. The safety profile is so well-known that there is virtually no risk. There are already 33 clinical trials running around the world. The results so far are uniformly positive. Borody is running a randomised, controlled, double-blind trial in the US, ….
….
it’s not just ‘hydroxy hatred’ that is a dogma on the Left; merely to seek a cure is, as a fellow at the Australian Defence Force Academy told the ABC, ‘an individualistic solution’ which appeals to those on the right, in opposition to ‘more left-leaning values around social responsibility.’ It’s a ‘quick fix, a magic cure’ for the ‘problem’ of the virus, he says, not ‘a social solution that implies we have to work together’ — with government —‘to address larger, more complex, and interrelated issues in society to battle the disease.”
https://app.spectator.com.au/2020/08/no-guts-no-glory/pugpig_index.html
““A US clinical trial of the drug ivermectin found that it reduced the mortality rate of COVID-19 patients by 40%.””
This is an interesting usage of the term “clinical trial”.
This was another one of those retrospective cohort “studies”.
It was not done by the doctors in a hospital system evaluating a consecutive series of their patients, like in the Henry Ford study. That one was problematic despite being well documented, and a consecutive list of patients over several months.
Gold standard studies are ongoing, but there is reason to be skeptical here: The concentration of the drug that killed half of the virus in vitro, was a concentration something like 35 times higher than what could be obtained with the maximum safe dose in a person, and there also appears to be good reason to doubt that the drug would ever make it to infected cells in the respiratory epithelium.
It works on parasites basically by pouring it on them, or in the case of intestinal ones, by swallowing it where they both comingle in the lumen of the gut.
Here are links to the “study” and to some other work which takes a nonjudgmental but skeptical look at the drug as a therapy for COVID.
The paper contains numerous typos of a sort which a tenth grader ought to catch before handing in a term paper. But the authors do appear to be doctors that work at those hospitals, although I only looked up the first one.
https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.06.06.20124461v2
But unfortunately:
https://www.news-medical.net/news/20200427/Ivermectin-alone-not-useful-in-treating-COVID-19.aspx
This is again a drug which is found to inhibit a range of viruses in vitro, and has been studied in years prior for clinical efficacy.
None has been found.
Just in case anyone misses the point here: There is an entire thick encyclopedia of drugs that appear to work for something in lab tests, but do not work in live animals. There are even a long list of them that work in some small animals but not in people. This is why only one in 5000 new drug prospects ever makes it from the lab bench to a pharmacy shelf, even though every one of those 5000 work well enough in lab tests to spend a bunch of money looking at it more carefully.
An in vitro effect is a reason to do more research, not proof something is a miracle drug.
It is kind of hard to look past the whole thing with the concentration and the tissue specificity.
“It was not done by the doctors in a hospital system evaluating a consecutive series of their patients, like in the Henry Ford study”
I should have said “It appears it WAS done…”
I found something very ironic in the ivermectin study text.
The people who did not get ivermectin, who were found to have a far higher fatality rate, were far more likely to have gotten HCQ and Azithromycin.
Yikes!
Here, page 8:
https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.06.06.20124461v2.full.pdf+html
4:1 death rate … non-HCQ countries to HCQ countries.
Poorly compiled data, but 4:1 may be tough to overcome by getting rid of the bad data.
A doctor once told me that “Every drug is a poison”.
Clyde obviously doesn’t need/take many drugs or doesn’t read the pamphlets that come with them.
Is HQC dangerous in rare instances for some people? Yes. But some of the drugs I take for various medical conditions are even more so without proper screening and monitoring. One puts me at high risk of internal bleeding or bleeding out after a kitchen accident. Another can make my lupus worse. Still another puts me at risk of becoming diabetic. And don’t get me started on the immunosuppressant.
HCQ is probably the safest drug I take.
Clyde you whole rant there boils done to orange man bad so HCQ bad. If Trump hadn’t of mentioned it, you’d never have has a word to say about HCQ. You really do need to check you TDS, it’s getting tedious.
Hi John: I think Trump was a magical and serendipitous scapegoat for the LEFT, which are being used as useful idiots, but that the real drive is that HCQ and Zn could very much collapse the industry that provides cold and FLU relief which includes all the OTC symptom relievers, and the drugs for bacterial and viral infections… and vaccines.
We’ve already heard that a vaccine could be needed to be taken regularly in order to survive Covid 19 and open up. The whole world would be convinced that they needed a patented product or else.
You guys are not only pathological, you seem to not actually read anything people write.
Clyde and I have both been Trump supporters since before he was elected.
I was and remain one of his biggest supporters.
There were threads in 2015 and 2016 were I was one of only a few people here who supported Trump.
I wonder what we will find if we look back at who you two were supporting during the primary season in those years?
Mr. Hoffer above makes a point, that the existence of “clinical trials” designed to fail (to make Trump look bad) is appalling, and a sign. I happen to agree, though I don’t find it overwhelming evidence to support HCQ, just some food for thought. Now for another example- commenters who warn HCQ is not entirely safe (Clyde Spencer) or not clinically proven to work (McGinley) are branded TDS. This, in spite of the fact that both profess support for Trump. The branders (I repeat, I’ve seen good comments over time from them) look like fools in this. At this site, you either refute McGinley and Spencer (good luck telling him he DIDN’T get ill) or don’t bother. Throwing TDS around puts you with LLoydo.
Paul, mealy mouthed Turmp support is a figleaf that does not negate their TDS behavior. Both posters have numerous times brought up Trumps “medical advice” (Trump gave no such medical advice, anyone that claims otherwise is exhibiting TDS behavior) as a canard against HCQ/people saying anything positive about HCQ. You just make yourself look foolish defending their TDS on this issue. Defending TDS just puts you in the same TDS category as them. It’s not a good look on you.
I wonder what we will find if we look back at who you two were supporting during the primary season in those years?
I’ll gladly tell you exactly who I was and wasn’t supporting back then. All you needed do was ask. (and ask you would have had to do as I don’t think I made any posts, at least certainly not here a WUWT, about it so you can look and look all you want for “dirt” to make you feel better about your HCQ TDS, but you’d be looking in vain):
I was not supporting Hillary. I was in support of anyone but Hillary. Of all the Republican nominees I probably liked Ted Cruz the best but would have been happy with any of the not-Hillary nominees, so really wasn’t actively “supporting” any particular one (not even Ted) – my state votes too late in the primary season for me to get invested in any particular primary candidate as it’s basically all over before I get a chance to vote.
And I admit I didn’t take Trump seriously at first, though I had nothing against him even then. And when Trump won the nomination, I was fully in support of him as he was not Hillary. Yes, my vote was mostly a vote against Hillary (as someone who has to go through annual security refreshers as part of my job, something she herself would have been required to go through, just her personal e-mail server scandal alone is appalling, inexcusable, and reason enough to never allow her near the white house – I’d lose my job at the minimum, and possibly go to jail if I’d done what she did – I’d certainly never receive a “promotion” to the highest position in the company after it). call it HDS if you want, but I’m damn glad Hillary isn’t in the white house – and Trump has turned out to be a whole lot better than I would have given him credit for back in 2015. He’s accomplished more than I believe any of the other 2016 Republican hopefuls would ever have done.
Mr. Endicott: You are correct that Trump didn’t give medical advice, and I challenge you to quote from a Spencer or McGinley, or retract above slander that they posted such a statement. You simply make that up.
You seem keen to diagnose TDS in me, too; what a surprise. That’s three. So diagnose two more, and you’ve learned to go all the way up to five. You may actually learn something.
doctalkgo.com (866-403-8714) and speakwithanmd.com (855-503-2657) might be able to prescribe Hydroxychloroquine-based treatment for COVID-19 symptoms in a tele-consulting, and even to have the medications delivered.
omariasinelabeconcepta.wordpress.com has a list of some local doctors who might prescribe HCQ-based treatment.
Docking study of chloroquine and hydroxychloroquine interaction with RNA binding domain of nucleocapsid phospho-protein – an in silico insight into the comparative efficacy of repurposing antiviral drugs
Seems, HCQ isn’t bad at all 😀
As long as nobody cristallises it or does Cryo-EM it’s just another computer generated model.
Seems like we may learn something from the empirical evidence from France and Switzerland:
http://www.francesoir.fr/societe-sante/covid-19-hydroxychloroquine-works-irrefutable-proof
France Soir does very good work !
Not the first time I realise the quality, also the French articles I read were top !
I suggest that everyone here research “WHO” Dr Tedros is, where he is from and how & why he became the head of WHO.
I quote, “As The New American reported shortly after his tenure began, Tedros, who has no medical degree but got the top UN job with fervent backing from Communist China, is an actual communist with a long pedigree in the movement. Before taking up his perch at the WHO, Tedros was most prominent for his government posts in a tyrannical regime, and for his key role in leading the murderous communist organization known as the Tigray People’s Liberation Front (TPLF). This ethno-Marxist terror group has declared war on freedom and other ethnic groups within Ethiopia. And Tedros played a major role, serving as a top member of the TPLF’s Politburo Central Committee, according to multiple news reports.
The U.S. government previously designated the Marxist group as a terrorist organization for its murders, kidnappings, terror attacks, and more. Citing at least a dozen terror attacks on private citizens, religious figures, private property, non-governmental organizations, journalists, and other targets spanning more than three decades, the Global Terror Database continues to list it as such. TPLF also joined forces with other mass-murdering Marxist-Leninist parties and formed the “Ethiopian People’s Revolutionary Democratic Front” (EPRDF), an alliance that today rules the nation despite having been formally disbanded last year.”
https://www.thenewamerican.com/world-news/africa/item/35325-marxist-un-who-boss-must-be-put-on-trial-critics-say
The German Society for Pathology published a pre-print press release of a total of 156 autopsies of people dying with SARS-CoV-2:
https://www.pathologie.de/?eID=downloadtool&uid=2019
Their conclusion was that 86% died from not just with it.
The average age was 70y which is 10y less than the normal life expectancy.
Highest co-morbidity was cardiovascular preconditions.
Whoever might be concerned about the low number, well, the researchers are as well and demand more funding to do more autopsies. Autopsies are in fact an underfunded and endangered art so it’s not the just the usual screaming for more money.
So far, as of the date/time stamp of this comment, Nicholas McGinley has penned approx. 10,269 words from underneath some dreary bridge in the middle of Mount Doom.
The more you know!
When people implode, some of them spew words… but they do not see themselves as lazy because they pump out so much stuff.
One thing though, he’s not dumb, just unable to be reasoned with. When he loses a debate, he attacks the person’s character by making up lies about them. That’s unacceptable and speaks volumes to their own character.
He sounded educated, but I could not figure out what his expertise was. He literally accused me of doxing him, when I asked what were his credentials… because he came out of nowhere but said he had posting for a long time. Then I found out he was Menicholas and was hiding from someone else who doxed him. I can understand that, but I was by no means trying to dox him and he knows it.
He also claimed I posted things (fabrications) instead of just quoting the truth of what he had a problem with from my posts. When people have to be dishonest by lying about what others say, that’s defamation. If they attack what I say by quoting me, I am fine with that.
That’s a bad apple me thinks.
Gratz Mario, a sagacious comment in lustrous prose. In the future, I’ll be borrowing that, i.e., with your permission?
🙂
Hi Sycomputing. Use away! I will provide a link to the phrase where clicks generate 0.5 cents.
The thoughts just came to my lobe… and well, I guess I spewed a bit too.
He came “out of the nowhere” to discredit HCQ and to promote Remdesevir. As Remdesivir showed to be a squib load, he stopped to promote it and started claiming x other existing drugs.
His expertise seems to be in chemistry, as far as I could realise.
Interesting. I wonder what his thing was when he put on the Menicholas costume… I recall the name but don’t remember paying much attention to him then.
I tell you, the best thing that came out of the HCQ debates, for me, is my lungs and sinus health changed. I no longer get that feeling that I am getting close to a sore throat, with that brittle pre-cold feeling. I spent all weekend at the race track coaching 4 students, with terrible air quality overlapping the usual race car exhaust. I never felt cleaner and healthier. There is definitely something to small Zn with Quercetin and NAC that tips the scales for me.
So now I am looking forward to cold and flu season.
At some point, no intelligent person would ignore the science surrounding HCQ and Zn for the Covid 19. I cannot wait for the intellectual shills to be outed for what/who they are. They belong in the same camp as the cabal behind Russia-Gate.
Nicholas McGinley seems to be part / member of the Gilead team the way he exposed himself at it’s best.
Twenty-one billion reasons to discredit hydroxychloroquine
Now primarily a marketing machine to sell drugs of dubious benefit, this industry uses its wealth and power to co-opt every institution that might stand in its way, including the U.S. Congress, the Food and Drug Administration, academic medical centers, and the medical profession itself.
sy: That’s some pretty good counting! Mr. Endicott should be in touch.
To paraphrase Einstein, You count 10,000+ words, you’d do better if you could find one that’s false. And tell it to McGinley. We might learn something in the exchange. You’re complaint has a number with no substance.
Well several months ago, McGinley lied about thing I did and said. When pointed out, he made up more lies. All it took were cuts and pastes. He’s not an honest man. No please quit defending the nonsense and get on with the science.
I intended below to post here.
*smile* I read posts from older to newer in my email notifications 🙂
Normally I do not advocate in favor of law suites. But now I would very much like to see a major firm put on a class action against Big Pharma forcing BP to prove HCQ does not work. I live in Hawaii where it seems the same day Trump Mentioned HCQ in a news briefing, Hawaii banned its use and is standing firm even though Covid19 new cases are soaring. The state is on the verge of Bankruptcy due to a total shut down of tourism, people are getting sick more quickly , thousands are out of work and David Ige the governor is more concerned about being anti Trump as he is about helping citizens defend against Covid.
Agreed… and my “suite” would be stocked with quercetin until HCQ was available. But, I think you meant “suit”
mario, with all due respect, something a few months ago would not be included in the 10,000+ words here. If you are speaking of him saying you were “doxing” him, I followed that. You folks were lacing into him pretty harshly AND looking into his backround. He used a pseudonym in the past. Wasn’t that to protect himself because he supported Trump, and needed the anonymity? That would be ironic.
Claiming he was being doxed would be overreaction, not a lie. I recall thinking at the time, mario seemed a reasonable guy, why is he jumping on this as a “lie”? Over HCQ, for crissake. I don’t think I stuck my nose in back then, but look at this latest- Krishna says he’s a big pharma plant, no evidence. Please step back and consider, how is that different from the CliSci fraudsters who say skeptics get Big Oil $, no evidence? How is that different mario, krishna, endicott, all of you. Yeah, I’m spun up now.
Hi Paul: You’re right… I am just miffed by the terrible things he said about me way back then.
Originally, I looked up to him because he sounded informed and knew stuff I did not. I asked some questions, not sarcastically, thinking he was open minded. It appeared that he thought I was a terrible hypocrite and he wrote a long scathing note about me — but not to me. I just happened to come across it. It actually hurt my feelings.
My response to Nicholas was, “What did I do?” I then asked if he “confused me with someone else?”
No answer for weeks maybe. To this day the only reason I could guess at is that others were attacking him, and I must have written an opinion on the evidence of HCQ’s mechanisms and he saw my opinions in the mix.
I rarely ever use ad hominems or attack people. When I do, I apologize.
Paul: You are the kind of person I can learn from, even though I may disagree. Nicholas gets emotional and said some horrible things about me but not to me, and completely unprovoked.
Thank you for taking the time!
mario: Kind words acknowledged, agreed.
That means a lot! Thank you Paul. A true gentleman are you.
@paul
You won’t or can’t read correctly:
I said:
Somewhat different, isn’t it?
In the nicest possible way, I think we should be precise in our language. Mis-quotes are OK, but contentious misquotes are like that telephone game.
Krishna: Gilead is not a pharma company?
Please explain to me what you meant when you said, without cite, that “he seems to be part of” the team of a pharmaceutical company.
Read the complete comments of the above mentioned 10,269 words by NMG and the link I provided.
PS
And read that again
@Mario
I can’t dox (if I undertand that right) him as I have nothing else as his comments here at WUWT, speaking for themselves.
I agree with you and neither can or neither would I dox. I do not think that you were doing that either.
Sorry if I implied that!
Did I say that ?
Krishna: The “21 billion reasons” link seems to confirm that Gilead is pharma. Big pharma. So you did say it. He’s on the team of big pharma. But you have nothing connecting McGinley to Gilead.
I’ve answered your question, but your “explanation” missed. Now to mine- how is this different from unsubstantiated accusations hurled at skeptics that they are on the “Big Oil” team?
Moderator, I’m sorry but I’m gonna keep calling out this bs until you do.
Hi Paul: I never want to get you on my bad side 🙂
I’ve saved up a dozen apologies for when you get on my case, if that day comes.
😉
@Paul
If you follow NMB comments over the last 4 to 5 month where he discredited HCQ and praised Gileads Remdesivir he his following the agenda of the Gilead lobby at 100% as described in the link “21 billion reasons”. Thats why I said, he seems to be part of the Gilead team, you got the picture?
I make not an review of all comments of the person in question because you are to lazy to look yourself.
Could it even be you are trolling?
Hi Krishna: I think we are aligned on evidence for HCQ and the bad science applied to discredit it.
I took your verbiage as rhetorical and thought you meant NMG is acting in such a way based on his defense of novel unproven costly drugs vs cheap, safe and available drugs that have shown much higher benefit.
We can argue based on the merits and falts, and do not need to make such statements.
@paul PS
I didn’t say Gilead is not big pharma, you must read and understand, and not troll, ok ?
@Mario
What else ? 😀
He exposed himself in this way, his comments since HCQ surged here at WUWT allow that conclusion.
I understand… but that does not matter. The facts surrounding HCQ are damning enough in my opinion. Plus, I do not want to get close to the appearance of doxing anyone 😉
krishna: You smeared McGinley as being on Gilead’s team, then tried to be obtuse for a few posts. I called you on it, and…..
I’ve been following all these posts on hcq because I’m hoping for clinical trials that show results not because Trump, not to tell McGinley “I told you so”* but because if I catch it I want to take something that will help. This site brings real scientists who comment on so many science subjects, best info on the whole damn net. He has posted good info on this, I’ve read his stuff and yours. I have learned here that a few things may work, but it’s early, and there’s more anecdote than lab-dote (I just made that up!). He’s a lab guy, doesn’t respect anecdote. Doesn’t make him corrupt, and you should respect other commenters here, if you did you wouldn’t smear him.
If I can follow all that, I can follow your few comments above. If following your posts and calling a smear a smear makes me a troll, well…. Problem for you is, you’ve now admitted to the smear, basing it on nothing more than his comments here. I’ve followed his comments closely, 10,000+, he said nothing to justify your smear or whatever vague thing you try to shift to in your next comment. Please prove me wrong.
Side note: And not related to the dispute.
The main problem with these arguments on the efficacy of HCQ can be defined as acknowledging the following which we should all criticize and then from that standpoint lay out our thoughts:
First, we should admit that there are several layers of medical “evidence” that indicate that something works. The so called Gold Standard is RCTs, albeit with levels even above that such as Systematic Review and Meta-Analyses! Though science attempts to have precision, the lines of distinction between these layers of evidence can be blurry in my opinion.
That does not mean that levels of evidence below RCTs are not “evidence”, and as such we have many retrospective and Cohort studies surrounding HCQ, HCQ and Zn, and numerous permutations of other substances used, and sometimes tracked with multiple regression. But I digress.
At some point, humans have been able to discern the “evidence” and use judgement to determine risk of danger of the treatment vs rick of danger not using the treatment. Waiting is a choice… and so is death from waiting.
In conclusion:
I have seen a torturing of the language (from smart people) so that what I write above becomes not only lost, but perhaps used to misinform, whether or not it is intentional.
When the word “evidence” is treated as a binary word, argument follows and we take our eyes off the ball.
I trust you will not find fault with my thoughts, but look forward to your corrective criticism!
“””
The author declares no competing interest.
No funding was provided for this work.
“””
So none of these articles were paid for? No speeches or other engagements? This looks like a profession to me.
https://muckrack.com/leo-goldstein/articles
I suspect the author is so committed to his conclusions that he would not recognize evidence against hydroxychloroquine if it kicked him in the head.
https://twin-cities.umn.edu/news-events/early-treatment-mild-covid-19-university-minnesota-trial-shows-hydroxychloroquine-has-no
Safety of Hydroxychloroquine among Outpatient Clinical Trial Participants for COVID-19
Caleb P Skipper was funded in other HCQ study by the Fogarty International Center, these are related to Gilead.
Fogarty Global Health Fellows Coordinating Center
No further comment necessary….