Among those who received the drugs, 191, or 0.8 percent, died. Among those who did not, 344, or 4.8 percent, passed away.
Unless there is some other explanation for the correlation then the it seems pretty darn effective.
IBT$$
Can somebody please roll up a few thousand copies of this and shove them into Neil Cavuto’s behind?
Watson finds Sherlock amazed?
As many of us know, early after the outbreak the corrupt FDA/NIH/CDC machine went to war with all cheap alternative treatments such as HCQ and ivermectin, because if an effective alternative treatment were available, the Covid “vaccines” could not have been legally licensed by the government under an emergency use authorization.
And there is no profit to be made by the use of generic, patent-expired drugs, especially contrasted with dangerous drugs like remdesivir, at $3000 per treatment.
These studies cannot be depended on if they did not also test the patients for p450 issues. If I get covid this drug likely won’t be as effective on me but that doesn’t mean it won’t work for others.
They need to do the test that show how the drug gets broken down which apparently is only available to researchers
no zinc?
HCQ for COVID-19
413 studies from 8,604 scientists
529,687 patients in 58 countries
https://c19hcq.org/
Statistically significant lower risk for mortality, hospitalization, recovery, cases, and viral clearance.
65%, 20% lower risk for early and late treatment CI 54-74%, 16-24%; 38, 267 studies
25% lower risk in 9 early treatment RCTs CI -18-52%
76% lower mortality in 16 early treatment studies
Bump to PC
The 7,000+ who were denied this treatment….died as sacrifices.
the hydroxy-ivermectin-azithromycin combo is even more effective against covid ... i personally know multiple people who rapidly recovered from covid when it first appeared and was quite deadly ... most had their fever break and felt better within 24 hours of starting treatment ...
1. Ivermectin as a prophylactic.
2. Add Hydroxychloroquine as treatment when symptomatic.
(Zelenko protocol)
New Microbes and New Infections: A real journal, but not a prominent one. It claims an impact factor of 4, meaning that its articles are not cited much in other articles.
The inclusion of Peter McCullough as an author is questionable. I don't know why the French researchers would have included him, as he has already demonstrated that he is a quack with respect to Covid treatment. Baylor University, his former employer, will not allow him to claim any affiliation with the university because of his antivax and Covid misinformation efforts.
The article itself acknowledges (in the Discussion) that most random control trials (RCTs) of hydroxychloroquine show no benefit. It then goes on to say that their methodology was flawed, their sample sizes too small, etc. And then it says that observational studies do show a benefit. The problem is that observational studies are highly prone to bias, making them a good reflection of what the study authors want to find but not such a good representation of the facts. The suggestion that all of the other studies showing no benefit to HC should reanalyze their data is unprofessional. If one study shows a result different from all of the other studies, it is what is called an "outlier." There are various reasons studies might be outliers. An outlier should not be interpreted as the definitive source of any scientific information.
Finally, this study was not a study of HC. It was a retroactive review of outcomes of patients who received HC and azithromycin. It is doubtful that the patients would have benefited from HC, as they did not have malaria. However, viral infections often cause people to get bacterial infections, so the antibiotic azithromycin could have had a therapeutic effect. But maybe not, it's hard to tell in a retrospective observational study.