Posted on 09/27/2024 9:36:39 PM PDT by SeekAndFind
Early January of 2024, Americans learned about the publication of an article from Elsevier’s Journal of Biomedicine and Pharmacotherapy overseen by Dr. Danyelle Townsend, a professor at the University of South Carolina College of Pharmacy’s Department of Drug Discovery and Biomedical Sciences.
As Editor-in-Chief, Dr. Townsend reviewed, approved, and published the article titled: “Deaths induced by compassionate use of hydroxychloroquine during the first COVID-19 wave: An estimate.”
The article was always a hypothesized estimate of people that might have died, but now even that estimate has been retracted. The reason for the retraction was that the Belgian dataset that was one of the bases for the piece was found to be “unreliable” (but in reality was fraudulent). The article also repeatedly referenced the New England Journal of Medicine’s 2020 RECOVERY trial. The RECOVERY trial is well known to be a deeply flawed study which, in addition to implementing late treatment in severely ill Covid patients, used extremely high doses of HCQ.
The now retracted publication authors were all French or Canadian, with the primary author a pharmacist by the name of Alexiane Pradelle. According to a rudimentary internet search, Dr. Pradelle had never published before. Subsequently, listed authors were degreed as physicians, pharmacists, and/or professors of their respective disciplines. The main, corresponding author, Jean-Christophe Lega, runs the Evaluation and Modeling of Therapeutic Effects team at the University of Lyon.
In addition to being a hypothesized estimate, the article also attacked the legendary safety of HCQ, contradicting centuries of the safety of quinolines as a class.
HCQ, chloroquine and quinine are structurally and pharmaceutically/mechanistically related, sharing the same quinoline structural group. The original iteration of quinine was a very fortunate discovery that dates back to the 1600s (at least) as a medicinal tipple used by Jesuit missionaries in South America. It is naturally found in the bark of the Cinchona tree (also called a “Quina-Quina” tree).
Quinine is still available today both as a prescription drug, for similar indications as HCQ including malaria…and as a Covid-19 treatment.
Quinine is so safe that it may be unique in that the FDA simultaneously permits its use without a prescription, as an ingredient in tonic waters.
HCQ is similarly safe when used appropriately and under medical supervision.
The CDC describes HCQ as “a relatively well tolerated medicine” and that “HCQ can be prescribed to adults and children of all ages. It can also be safely taken by pregnant women and nursing mothers” referring to its long-term use in chronic diseases.
Basic logic dictates that, if a drug is safe for long-term use, it would also be safe for short-term use, including (and especially) in Covid-19 early treatment/pre-exposure prophylaxis type indications.
These are pharmacology fundamentals that ought to be known by any pharmacist or physician – let alone to a professor serving as a Journal Editor-in-Chief at a taxpayer-funded state College of Pharmacy.
Did not even one person on her editorial board of over 50 “peer-reviewers” and staff ponder the celebrated and storied history of HCQ (and its predecessors) and how incongruent this study’s findings were before choosing to publish data denigrating HCQ safety?
The correct answer to that might actually be: “no”…
The publishing editorial board all seem to be laboratory bench (non-clinical) research scientists, per their biographies. Although the board does promote itself as meeting DEI requirements of being “gender diverse,” a more important question might be is if they have the appropriate credentials and experience to review and opine on clinically complex drug safety/epidemiology subject matters in the first place.
Is just anyone now allowed to opine on specialty clinical pharmacology drug safety matters?
In certain journals/news publications, the answer to that question seems to be: “yes”…
Another point of confusion surrounded the interpretation and promotion of this little-known publication by the lay press.
To be exact: there were never “17,000 deaths;” it was always a hypothetical extrapolation of people that could have died, based on “unreliable” (eg, actually, fraudulent) databases on top of the previously mentioned, problematic late-stage RECOVERY-trial-type dosing and timing.
Still, Josh Cohen, a Forbes.com PhD senior healthcare columnist, used this publication to headline an absurdly biased op-ed against HCQ, stating that Trump’s HCQ proposal was “Linked To 17,000 Deaths.” Forbes’ Tufts, Harvard, and the University of Pennsylvania- trained “healthcare analyst” misrepresented or appeared to not understand the now-retracted study methodology or projections.
It went downhill from there. Mere hours following the publication, very similar, now objectively inaccurate, highly politicized, and seemingly coordinated attacks on HCQ and Trump were published by: The Hill, Politico, Frontline News, Scripps News, the Guardian, KFF Health News, News Nation, Newsweek, AOL.com, Yahoo News, and Daily Kos, in addition to a multitude of prominent regional, international, and US federal news outlets, many falsely estimating that 17,000 deaths had already taken place and that the (imaginary) victims’ blood was already on Donald Trump’s hands.
As of September 15, 2024, the above and other articles still show up very prominently (on the first page) of a Google search for “hydroxychloroquine deaths”…which never happened.
Here are some screenshots of headlines referencing non-existent deaths based on a now-retracted study:
Almost immediately following the January 2, 2024 publication, its critical flaws including basic miscalculations among many other deficiencies were brought to the attention of Dr. Townsend by Xavier Azalbert and non-profit BonSens.org attorneys starting on Jan 7, 2024. In fact, a total of 9 communications were sent by the above individuals, but none of them were ever shared as “Letters to The Editor” by Dr. Townsend in good faith to inform readers of specific potential shortcomings, as is otherwise commonly done.
Dr. Townsend seemed to forget that bad medical data and publications can do actual patient harm, and kept legitimate and important study criticisms to herself. Instead of taking responsibility and making a leadership decision, she passed the buck to a Committee on Publication Ethics, delaying the needed retraction.
It appallingly took 234 days (~7 months, from the January 2nd publication to August 26th) for Dr. Townsend’s Journal of Biomedicine and Pharmacotherapy to finally retract the “unreliable” article. But at that point, untold millions around the world had already been (and continue to be) polluted with outrageously incorrect information about non-existent HCQ deaths.
This raises some questions about Dr. Townsend’s duties and responsibilities as the Editor in Chief:
Beyond that, what ramifications/punishments (if any) will occur for other prominent Covid-19 Lancet and New England Journal of Medicine authors/publishers whose articles were also retracted after they were found to be based on so-called “unreliable” (eg, non-existent) databases?
Ethical scientists who believe in truth, transparency, and academic accountability are standing by, waiting for medical and academic justice.
Unethical scientists are also watching this situation unfold, twisting their mustaches, learning about what they could potentially one day get away with.
DISCLAIMER: This article is not medical advice. Do NOT start or discontinue ANY drug without first discussing it with a pharmacist or physician you know and trust.
FWIW, I took the HCQ, and SO glad I did. It nipped the covid sx in the bud within hours of starting it. No side effects. Ridiculously cheap, too.
There are countless examples of people being helped with early stages of Covid that took Hydroxychloroquine. Just a shame people like Neil Cavuto in fox had such a blind hatred to Donald Trump that they thought he was liking people for simply recommending it as a possible treatment.
BTTT
Can someone explain to me how something written in 2024 can be referenced in something written in 2020?
It was easily known and early on that Hydroxychloroquine was a successful treatment for Lupus without side effects.
I found this out myself at the time. Lupus sufferers were concerned that the supply of Hydroxychloroquine might dry up if it were used for the pandemic.
The foremost experts on Lupus, who had been prescribing Hydroxychloroquine for YEARS, said that fears of side effects were ridiculous.
Exactly right. Wife has mild Lupus and has taken prescribed Hydroxycloroquine for around 12 years with no complications at all.
“Hydroxychloroquine was a successful treatment for Lupus without side effects.”
Not quite.
Spent years examining patients for Hydroxychloroquine retinopathy. It’s rare but significant, very.
The pharmaceutical society in Ohio absolutely forbidden doctors from pprescribing this drug so what I want to know is what’s going to happen to these people who pull this crap they need to go to jail for a very long time
HCQ for COVID-19: real-time meta analysis of 416 studies
https://c19hcq.org/meta.html
https://c19hcq.org/meta.html#tldr
Tl:dr - Evidence for efficacy.
bttt
“highly politicized, and seemingly coordinated attacks on HCQ and Trump were published by” nearly everyone.
A lie races around the world while the truth is still getting its shoes on.
So is this the kind of “misinformation” they want to ban? /s
Hydroxychloroquine has been used for very long time, it is pretty safe and very cheap. My friend with Lupus uses it for about 40 years, with no problems.
There were originally somewhat legitimate concerns, that if everybody suddenly starts using HCQ, the people who need it for survival (like malaria and lupus patients) may not be able to get it. Some people questioned the effectiveness of HCG in treating Covid. HCQ have some side effects and should be taken under medical supervision, widespread self-medication could hurt few people.
But knowing Trump ability to deliver, I am sure those would be quickly addressed (Like jumpstarting mass production and massive campaign to spread real medical information about the drug!) and hundreds of thousands of lives would be saved!
Instead, the media hijacked these original concerns and started witch hunt on Trump, using HCQ as an convenient tool.
Most people are not medical experts and the spread of rumors, claims and counterclaims let them confused.
Real medicine took a beating.
It was such a shameful abuse of media power, they should apologize for all the unnecessary deaths they caused.
The well vaxxed and boosted Neil Cavuto did his best to spread this misinformation.
The larger point of this article IS true, but I wonder whether the people who write these articles are just plain jaw-droppingly stupid or they deliberately discredit the truths contained in their article.
Any damned idiot knows dosage is the issue, and it doesn’t take a lifelong quest for the truth to discover that (1) the dosage of quinine in tonic water *was* actually vastly reduced precisely because of long-standing questions about its safety. The amount found in mainstream tonic-water brands is far too low to be effective for malaria, etc. (2) that unlike hydroquinone, quinone isn’t subject to the FDA because it’s a naturally occurring substance. FFS, this is as stupid as claiming that cigarettes MUST be safe because they’re permitted for sale without a prescription. (3) quinine isn’t even subject to the safety standards of an additive or a supplement because it’s so damned old; it’s more like peanut butter doesn’t even have to be safe (despite containing carcinogens and hydrogenated oils).
All that said, PROVIDING YOU DO NOT HAVE A CERTAIN TYPE OF HEARTBEAT DEFECT, quinine should be quite safe.
The larger point of this article IS true, but I wonder whether the people who write these articles are just plain jaw-droppingly stupid or they deliberately discredit the truths contained in their article.
Any damned idiot knows dosage is the issue, and it doesn’t take a lifelong quest for the truth to discover that (1) the dosage of quinine in tonic water *was* actually vastly reduced precisely because of long-standing questions about its safety. The amount found in mainstream tonic-water brands is far too low to be effective for malaria, etc. (2) that unlike hydroquinone, quinone isn’t subject to the FDA because it’s a naturally occurring substance. FFS, this is as stupid as claiming that cigarettes MUST be safe because they’re permitted for sale without a prescription. (3) quinine isn’t even subject to the safety standards of an additive or a supplement because it’s so damned old; it’s more like peanut butter doesn’t even have to be safe (despite containing carcinogens and hydrogenated oils).
All that said, PROVIDING YOU DO NOT HAVE A CERTAIN TYPE OF HEARTBEAT DEFECT, quinine should be quite safe.
Yep, I have not watched Neil Cavoto since. Although I will sometimes watch his slot his he has a guest host on.
What, leftscum lied about something Trump advocated? I’m shocked, just shocked I tell you all. /need I?
I remember early in the pandemic when Dr. Oz tried to research the relationship between people with lupus who took Hydroxychloroquine and their contracting, severity and death from Covid. He was completely rebuffed in his attempt to find this information. Someone should still do a study on this.
Big Pharma and big government colluders with big Pharma care far more about their money and hating Trump than they do about savings lives.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.