From the article: “That risk doesn’t seem to be paying off so far with a study released last week in the United States casting doubt on the effectiveness of hydroxychloroquine after finding that patients who were given the drug were at a higher risk of death than those who didn’t get it.”
Very poorly written. Does that mean that only those patients given the drug were at a higher risk of death? Or, does it mean that those patients given the drug died at a higher rate because of the drug?
That US study was not a real study at all. And, yes, the HCQ patients were much sicker and given the HCQ as a last resort.
(Sorry, I don’t have time to find the relevant links.)
Glad I saw your post. Exactly what I was going to ask. Damned “statistics”...
The patients in that study were all men, age over 65, they got very high doses of the drug ( far more than seen on other published treatment plans) and did not get zinc.
Almost as if the study was set up to fail.
The vets who died were sacrificed for an agenda that demands vaccine, not treatment
Just released Italian study on 65,000 people using hydroxy long term for lupus and arthritis.
20 cases of virus, no icu, no deaths.
https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2020/04/media-lied-people-died-italian-study-finds-incredible-prophylaxis-results-patients-hydroxychloroquine/
The ambiguity of the efficacity of the drug was intentional. “Damning with faint praise” is a recognized means of dismissing certain points of contention, and the objective is to get the relatively cheap treatment off the table, to make way for the more expensive and even more uncertain outcome, so as to prolong the crisis even longer, not “flattening” the curve, but extending it out to the horizon.
Command-and-control mindsets NEVER want the problem to be solved. They would much rather have the issue than the resolution, and this is why Donald Trump represents such a threat to them. He cuts right to the chase and eliminates the problem, sometimes in an ingenious and highly satisfactory manner.