Fauci has lost his fastball. Trump needs to take that 80 year old out of the game for someone who can defeat Covid-19.
Regarding Dr, Fauci claiming that hydroxychlorquine (HCQ) did not have a double blind randomized study, and is therefore useless, it seems he has promoted anti-viral Remdesivir (a failed Ebola drug from Gilead) on much scantier evidence. Also, now anti-HCQers (many who stand to benefit from expensive anti-virals) will be saying conclusively that HCQ has no benefit due to this new observational study, Hydroxychloroquine in Nonhospitalized Adults With Early COVID-19, https://www.acpjournals.org/doi/10.7326/M20-4207.
Why am I linking to the study? In the interest of saving lives if possible, everyone should be fully informed, and able to make the best choice for their family. I suggest evaluating the truth for yourself, and as always, discussing your health needs with your trusted physician.
Limitations, questionable elements and problems with this study include:
1. The abstract itself states that 50% (4 on HCQ versus 8 on placebo) less people on HCQ were hospitalized versus people on placebo. It kept people out of the hospital—why is that not a benefit? Let’s say that is not statistically significant, so it is discounted. If so, then the whole study is also questionable. The authors of the study admit: “The primary limitation of our trial is the lack of confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection in all participants...” Also, it seems to be a very small study, with sketchy “self-reported” symptoms from participants, recruited over the internet—we do not know who really had or did not actually have Covid-19, as they enrolled patients who did not have a confirmed test but only “symptoms”. They justified this by claiming that testing is unavailable.
2. This was a study of younger patients, who are not most at risk of hospitalization or death. This is comparing apples and oranges, if you try and relate this to studies that show a positive benefit for HCQ, for patients who are much older and at risk.
3. Also, (like other negative HCQ studies) where is the zinc and antibiotic such as azithromycin, which HCQ protocols such as Zelenko’s recommendation (Download the free book here: https://files.internetprotocol.co/ebook-covid-19.pdf)?
4. Finally, (like other negative HCQ studies) the dosages seem high (possibly toxic), compared to what is recommended elsewhere in studies which showed positive results. The study dosages: “Hydroxychloroquine was prescribed at 800 mg (4 tablets) once, then 600 mg (3 tablets) 6 to 8 hours later, then 600 mg (3 tablets) once daily for 4 more days (5 days in total).” (Zelenko recommends Hydroxychloroquine 200mg twice a day for five days combined with Azithromycin 500mg once a day for five days and Zinc sulfate 220mg once a day for five days.
But, who am I to say—I am not a doctor, nor do I play one on TV. However, to me, the conclusion of this study, that says HCQ doesn’t reduce severity of symptoms of an unverified illness (vaguely resembling either a cold, influenza, or possibly even allergies), matters not one whit. Personally, I would prefer a genuinely unbiased study that shows what prevents Covid-19 (verified by testing) deaths. One wonders why this issue seems to be so politicized—could there be a profit motive? Certainly not for the decades old HCQ treatment, which I’m told costs about $20. If you’d like to read some of the “peer review” comments to the editor regarding this study, peruse the comments at the end of the link, above.
Also, if anyone is interested, I’ve been posting at my humble blog, http://eaglesnesthome.weebly.com/blog/a-reluctant-virus-post, with detailed information about Covid-19 treatments since the end of March. May God bless you, and your family. And may America bless God!