Free Republic

Oh absolutely, most studies use it at late stage (hospitals)where it has no chance to work, but at the minimum, those studies do not show that it is harmful. The new Lancet study is being used to shutdown any research into the drug, even at early stages because they did such a flawed analysis of the data - and showed that it kills people. So there is multiple issues. 1. its being used at late stage, 2. the data is being incorrectly analyzed to show harm. Because if the drug is neutral,they will still allow you to take it, but if they can come up with some research that it is harmful they have reason to deny it use and also take legal action against doctors who prescribe it.

There is lack of critical disease indicators un-like in almost every other study, that’s why they have mortality double on HCQ. No CT scan, no body temp, no resp rate, no paO2/FiO2 ratio.

Just above or below 94% sats and qSOFA thats the whole indicator of how sick the person is!

Now let me point out that using 94% spO2 as binary cut off will give you very wrong results, thats just one example of misuse of an indicator. There is a very big difference between a patient with 93% O2 sat, and someone who is 80% but they are both under 94% cut off in this study! And all viewed the same! No other serious studies use so little and such coarse, low-fidelity indicators of disease. Also pay attention that not only is the mortality almost double, the intubation and ventilator use is also more than double for HCQ group, that has nothing to do with HCQ - HCQ doesn’t affect respiratory function, it has to do with indicator bias, for which the Lancet study failed to control.

While other studies for hospitalized patients, show that HCQ is neutral, not helpful but also not a killer. This clearly has bias by indication, that is giving HCQ to a much more critically ill patient. The study tries to control for it but fails! They had to produce results to demonstrate it kills people - to stop the use of HCQ in-outpatient setting, where it does help when used with Zinc at early stages of the disease.

Here are some links going in depth:
https://docs.google.com/document/d/e/2PACX-1vRJxr01VKOdUDSgXfGks6TMnhOF4csQ1sYhmlVGLpandXrhCi6nNV6Ig7wrBNcdril4izIGmpASAGuD/pub

https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1264251404232855552.html

The evidence of mistakes are right there in the study, if you pay close attention! But neither the media or officials, will actually read the study in question - they just take the Journal word for it. (I hope this is not a double post)

They will use use this very flawed study to shutdown any type of RCT,and any type of research into HCQ. Basically declared it deadly by lying with statistic

There is lack of critical disease indicators un-like in almost every other study, that’s why it looks so uniform: no CT scan, no body temp, no resp rate, no paO2/FiO2 ratio. Just above or below 94% sats and qSOFA . Now let me point out that using 94% spO2 as binary cut off will give you very wrong results, thats an example of just ONE misuse of an indicator. There is a very big difference between a patient with 93% O2 sat, and someone who is 80% but they are both under 94% cut off in this study! No other studies use so little and such coarse indicators, low-fidelity indicators of disease. Also pay attention that not only is the mortality almost double, the intubation and ventilator use is also more than double for HCQ group, that has nothing to do with HCQ - HCQ doesn’t affect respiratory function, it has to do with indicator bias, for which the Lancet study failed to control. Here are some links going in depth:
https://docs.google.com/document/d/e/2PACX-1vRJxr01VKOdUDSgXfGks6TMnhOF4csQ1sYhmlVGLpandXrhCi6nNV6Ig7wrBNcdril4izIGmpASAGuD/pub

https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1264251404232855552.html

The evidence of mistakes are right there in the study, if you pay close attention! But neither media or officials, will they just take the Journal word for it.