[GoodLife]

Perhaps you've heard about the recent VA study on hydroxychloroquine. The MSM jumped on it with blaring headlines proclaiming failure and more deaths. It's no secret why they did.

There's also another big player in the war against hydroxychloroquine, Big Pharma.
HCQ has no patent, is made all over the world, and is dirt cheap compared to the designer drugs they make billions from. Gilead's remdesivir is one of the covid 19 drugs being touted, and they might price it at $1000 per day like they did with Solvadi for Hep C

So politics and billions of dollars are at play.

You might think that after that VA study proclaiming death and failure that Doctors all over the world would stop using it. Actually no, in fact they are still using it at the VA

Responding to the results during an appearance on MSNBC, Secretary of Veterans Affairs Wilkie said, “That’s an observational study. It’s not a clinical study. It was done on a small number of veterans; sadly, those of whom were in the last stages of life, and the drug was given to them.”

The drug “has been working on middle-age and younger veterans,” Wilkie added. By that, he meant that it was “stopping the progression of” COVID-19"

Dr Didier Raoult of France, who has treated over 1000 coronavirus patients, responded to the VA study with this letter.

In the current period, it seems that passion dominates rigorous and balanced scientific analysis and may lead to scientific misconduct. The article by Magagnoli et al. (Magagnoli, 2020) is an absolutely spectacular example of this. Indeed, in this work, it is concluded, in the end, that hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) would double the mortality in patients with COVID with a fatality rate of 28% (versus 11% in the NoHCQ group), which is extraordinarily hard to believe. The analysis of the data shows two major biases, which show a welling to be convinced before starting the work :

The first is that lymphopenia is twice as common in the HCQ groups (25% in the HCQ, 31% in the HCQ+AZ group versus 14% in the no HCQ group, p =.02) and there is an absolute correlation between lymphopenia (<0.5G/L) and fatality rate, which is well known (Tan, 2020) and confirmed here : 28% deaths, 22% and 11% in the HCQ, HCQ+AZ and No HCQ group, respectively. Lymphopenia is the most obvious criterion of patient severity (in our cohort, lymphocytes in dead individuals (n=22, mean ± standard deviation, 0.94 ± 0.45), versus in the living (n=2405, 1.79 ± 0.84, p < .0001)). As the authors acknowledge, the severity of the patients in the different groups was very different, and their analysis can only make sense if there is a selection of patients with the same degree of severity, i.e. the same percentage of lymphopenia.

The second major bias is that in an attempt to provide meaningful data, by eliminating the initial severity at the time of treatment, two tables are shown: one table where drugs are prescribed before intubation, and which shows no significant difference in the 3 different groups (9/90 (10%) in the HCQ group, 11/101 (10. 9%) HCQ+AZ, and 15/177 (8.5%) in the group without HCQ, chi-square = 0.47, ddl = 2, p = 0.79), and one table, where it is not clear when the drugs were prescribed, where there are significant differences. These differences are most likely related to the fact that the patients had been intubated for some before receiving hydroxychloroquine in desperation. It is notable that this is unreasonable at the time of the cytokine storm, as it is unlikely that hydrochloroquine alone would be able to control patients at this stage of the disease.

Moreover, incomprehensibly, the “untreated” group actually received azithromycin in 30% of cases, without this group being analyzed in any distinct way. Azithromycin is also a proposed treatment for COVID (Gautret, 2020) with in vitro efficacy (Andreani, 2020), and to mix it with patients who are supposedly untreated is something that is closer to scientific fraud than reasonable analysis.

Altogether these 3 voluntary biases are all pushing to the idea of dangerosity of hydroxychloroquine safest drug as reported on nearly 1 million people (Lane, 2020).
All in all, this is a work that shows that, in this period, it is possible to propose things that do not stand up to any methodological analysis to try to demonstrate that one is right.

End of letter

The cohort for this "study" was elderly black males with a variety of health issues and most of them were already intubated on ventillators, or about to be. And the HCQ group was biased towards the most critical patients as Dr Raoult says above. The death rate in NYC for coronavirus patients on ventillators has been reported at 88%. Most Doctors reporting success are using HCQ plus Zithromycin plus zinc and report the best results when the cocktail is used within a few days of symptoms start.

A couple of personal anecdotes:

An American friend who lives in Chapala, Mexico called me after he and his younger Mexican wife had both tested positive. She had light symptoms, and recovered easily without medications. He got very sick, high fever, cough, headaches etc and then his Doctor prescribed the HCQ + Zith + Zinc cocktail and after a few days recovered and is fine today.

Yesterday I had a video appt with my cardiologist, we reviewed my heart health (I had heart ablation surgery recently) and then I asked him if I were to catch coronavirus would I be able to use the HCQ cocktail for treatment. He took a look at my most recent EKG and said yes you'd be a good candidate for that, we've had success with several patients, I would just have you stop taking one of the medications you're on.

"What about that VA study" I asked.

"It looks like it was designed to fail"

[graciegirl]

Originally Posted by GoodLife

Perhaps you've heard about the recent VA study on hydroxychloroquine. The MSM jumped on it with blaring headlines proclaiming failure and more deaths. It's no secret why they did.

There's also another big player in the war against hydroxychloroquine, Big Pharma.
HCQ has no patent, is made all over the world, and is dirt cheap compared to the designer drugs they make billions from. Gilead's remdesivir is one of the covid 19 drugs being touted, and they might price it at $1000 per day like they did with Solvadi for Hep C

So politics and billions of dollars are at play.

You might think that after that VA study proclaiming death and failure that Doctors all over the world would stop using it. Actually no, in fact they are still using it at the VA

Responding to the results during an appearance on MSNBC, Secretary of Veterans Affairs Wilkie said, “That’s an observational study. It’s not a clinical study. It was done on a small number of veterans; sadly, those of whom were in the last stages of life, and the drug was given to them.”

The drug “has been working on middle-age and younger veterans,” Wilkie added. By that, he meant that it was “stopping the progression of” COVID-19"

Dr Didier Raoult of France, who has treated over 1000 coronavirus patients, responded to the VA study with this letter.

In the current period, it seems that passion dominates rigorous and balanced scientific analysis and may lead to scientific misconduct. The article by Magagnoli et al. (Magagnoli, 2020) is an absolutely spectacular example of this. Indeed, in this work, it is concluded, in the end, that hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) would double the mortality in patients with COVID with a fatality rate of 28% (versus 11% in the NoHCQ group), which is extraordinarily hard to believe. The analysis of the data shows two major biases, which show a welling to be convinced before starting the work :

The first is that lymphopenia is twice as common in the HCQ groups (25% in the HCQ, 31% in the HCQ+AZ group versus 14% in the no HCQ group, p =.02) and there is an absolute correlation between lymphopenia (<0.5G/L) and fatality rate, which is well known (Tan, 2020) and confirmed here : 28% deaths, 22% and 11% in the HCQ, HCQ+AZ and No HCQ group, respectively. Lymphopenia is the most obvious criterion of patient severity (in our cohort, lymphocytes in dead individuals (n=22, mean ± standard deviation, 0.94 ± 0.45), versus in the living (n=2405, 1.79 ± 0.84, p < .0001)). As the authors acknowledge, the severity of the patients in the different groups was very different, and their analysis can only make sense if there is a selection of patients with the same degree of severity, i.e. the same percentage of lymphopenia.

The second major bias is that in an attempt to provide meaningful data, by eliminating the initial severity at the time of treatment, two tables are shown: one table where drugs are prescribed before intubation, and which shows no significant difference in the 3 different groups (9/90 (10%) in the HCQ group, 11/101 (10. 9%) HCQ+AZ, and 15/177 (8.5%) in the group without HCQ, chi-square = 0.47, ddl = 2, p = 0.79), and one table, where it is not clear when the drugs were prescribed, where there are significant differences. These differences are most likely related to the fact that the patients had been intubated for some before receiving hydroxychloroquine in desperation. It is notable that this is unreasonable at the time of the cytokine storm, as it is unlikely that hydrochloroquine alone would be able to control patients at this stage of the disease.

Moreover, incomprehensibly, the “untreated” group actually received azithromycin in 30% of cases, without this group being analyzed in any distinct way. Azithromycin is also a proposed treatment for COVID (Gautret, 2020) with in vitro efficacy (Andreani, 2020), and to mix it with patients who are supposedly untreated is something that is closer to scientific fraud than reasonable analysis.

Altogether these 3 voluntary biases are all pushing to the idea of dangerosity of hydroxychloroquine safest drug as reported on nearly 1 million people (Lane, 2020).
All in all, this is a work that shows that, in this period, it is possible to propose things that do not stand up to any methodological analysis to try to demonstrate that one is right.

End of letter

The cohort for this "study" was elderly black males with a variety of health issues and most of them were already intubated on ventillators, or about to be. And the HCQ group was biased towards the most critical patients as Dr Raoult says above. The death rate in NYC for coronavirus patients on ventillators has been reported at 88%. Most Doctors reporting success are using HCQ plus Zithromycin plus zinc and report the best results when the cocktail is used within a few days of symptoms start.

A couple of personal anecdotes:

An American friend who lives in Chapala, Mexico called me after he and his younger Mexican wife had both tested positive. She had light symptoms, and recovered easily without medications. He got very sick, high fever, cough, headaches etc and then his Doctor prescribed the HCQ + Zith + Zinc cocktail and after a few days recovered and is fine today.

Yesterday I had a video appt with my cardiologist, we reviewed my heart health (I had heart ablation surgery recently) and then I asked him if I were to catch coronavirus would I be able to use the HCQ cocktail for treatment. He took a look at my most recent EKG and said yes you'd be a good candidate for that, we've had success with several patients, I would just have you stop taking one of the medications you're on.

"What about that VA study" I asked.

"It looks like it was designed to fail"

I very much thank you for TRYING to make sense of this, but it is going to take a lot of hard figures run by valid fact checkers before any of us know what the truth is about this awful Pandemic. To know WHAT worked, and if in fact there were issues behind the curtain that influenced the "facts" we are presented by MSM.

I hope we are all alive to see the hard facts and the tallies of why and how exactly people died.

I personally am dreading what will happen when people are allowed to move about more, although I know that by not moving about more we are killing the entire mechanism of the economy that sustains all life functions...…….Eventually there is going to be a LOT of death due to Covid-19 and due to the economic shut down.

There are no easy answers and not even any completely understandable questions.

[blueash]

Goodlife : The MSM jumped on it with blaring headlines proclaiming failure and more deaths. It's no secret why they did.

You mean this MSM source COVID-19 treatment hydroxychloroquine showed no benefit, more deaths in VA virus study | Fox News

That you would trot out Dr. Raoult to comment on data manipulation and small data sets is the height of hubris. This is the same Dr. Raoult whose paper on the success of HCZ contained 20 treated patients, and whose data deliberately ignored the 6 patients who deteriorated on his treatment. The doctor who the journal that published his report came back and said it was flawed by his inclusion criteria. He, who had 20 patients, is saying that a study of 368 is too small a sample. It is the largest collection of HCZ patients reported in any study so far. He criticizes the timing of administration of HCZ because the paper does not say when it was given. Then he jumps the shark to assert without any justification that it must have been given as a last desperate measure to men nearest to death. There is nothing in the study to support that statement. It is his wild guess. Lastly he criticizes that some patients also got azithromycin. Guess who did that in the study that made him recently famous. Yup, same Dr Raoult. He gave it to a few of his patients with no explanation in his paper as to why a few got it and most didn't. The outrageous gall of this man to criticize this paper for flaws he committed in this own work, with smaller numbers, is mind stunning.

The drug “has been working on middle-age and younger veterans,” Wilkie added. By that, he meant that it was “stopping the progression of” COVID-19"

Wilkie is a political appointee of the POTUS. He gave no study to support his observation. There is absolutely not a study on what he claimed. He is not a medical doctor, he is a lawyer by training. I think I'll stick with what the doctors are reporting. Today the FDA as you likely know repeated its warning about HCZ, that it should not be given outside of a hospital or a clinical study. These are FDA real doctors who know how to read what the literature is saying to date.

FDA

What is FDA doing?
To decrease the risk of these heart problems that can be life-threatening, we are warning the public that hydroxychloroquine and chloroquine, either alone or combined with azithromycin, when used for COVID-19 should be limited to clinical trial settings or for treating certain hospitalized patients under the EUA. FDA will continue to investigate risks associated with the use of hydroxychloroquine and chloroquine for COVID-19, and we will communicate publicly when we have more information

.

So FDA opinion, or that of a lawyer who is a political appointee about the drugs efficacy. I wrote a post about the VA study and noted its patient selection limitations. But the conclusion that the drug does not work on the most at risk patients is pretty clear. Older males with underlying illnesses.

[ColdNoMore]

Originally Posted by blueash

You mean this MSM source COVID-19 treatment hydroxychloroquine showed no benefit, more deaths in VA virus study | Fox News

That you would trot out Dr. Raoult to comment on data manipulation and small data sets is the height of hubris. This is the same Dr. Raoult whose paper on the success of HCZ contained 20 treated patients, and whose data deliberately ignored the 6 patients who deteriorated on his treatment. The doctor who the journal that published his report came back and said it was flawed by his inclusion criteria. He, who had 20 patients, is saying that a study of 368 is too small a sample. It is the largest collection of HCZ patients reported in any study so far. He criticizes the timing of administration of HCZ because the paper does not say when it was given. Then he jumps the shark to assert without any justification that it must have been given as a last desperate measure to men nearest to death. There is nothing in the study to support that statement. It is his wild guess. Lastly he criticizes that some patients also got azithromycin. Guess who did that in the study that made him recently famous. Yup, same Dr Raoult. He gave it to a few of his patients with no explanation in his paper as to why a few got it and most didn't. The outrageous gall of this man to criticize this paper for flaws he committed in this own work, with smaller numbers, is mind stunning.

Wilkie is a political appointee of the POTUS. He gave no study to support his observation. There is absolutely not a study on what he claimed. He is not a medical doctor, he is a lawyer by training. I think I'll stick with what the doctors are reporting. Today the FDA as you likely know repeated its warning about HCZ, that it should not be given outside of a hospital or a clinical study. These are FDA real doctors who know how to read what the literature is saying to date.

FDA .

So FDA opinion, or that of a lawyer who is a political appointee about the drugs efficacy. I wrote a post about the VA study and noted its patient selection limitations. But the conclusion that the drug does not work on the most at risk patients is pretty clear. Older males with underlying illnesses.

Well done.


Those of us who appreciate a lot of effort, facts, legitimate links and not personal anecdotal ramblings...are much appreciative.


.

[Tsego58]

Then don't go to the va.

[jojo]

Blueash, I am most grateful for your responses. Please keep posting. You are needed in this wild world of disinformation.

[Madelaine Amee]

Originally Posted by blueash

You mean this MSM source COVID-19 treatment hydroxychloroquine showed no benefit, more deaths in VA virus study | Fox News

That you would trot out Dr. Raoult to comment on data manipulation and small data sets is the height of hubris. This is the same Dr. Raoult whose paper on the success of HCZ contained 20 treated patients, and whose data deliberately ignored the 6 patients who deteriorated on his treatment. The doctor who the journal that published his report came back and said it was flawed by his inclusion criteria. He, who had 20 patients, is saying that a study of 368 is too small a sample. It is the largest collection of HCZ patients reported in any study so far. He criticizes the timing of administration of HCZ because the paper does not say when it was given. Then he jumps the shark to assert without any justification that it must have been given as a last desperate measure to men nearest to death. There is nothing in the study to support that statement. It is his wild guess. Lastly he criticizes that some patients also got azithromycin. Guess who did that in the study that made him recently famous. Yup, same Dr Raoult. He gave it to a few of his patients with no explanation in his paper as to why a few got it and most didn't. The outrageous gall of this man to criticize this paper for flaws he committed in this own work, with smaller numbers, is mind stunning.



Wilkie is a political appointee of the POTUS. He gave no study to support his observation. There is absolutely not a study on what he claimed. He is not a medical doctor, he is a lawyer by training. I think I'll stick with what the doctors are reporting. Today the FDA as you likely know repeated its warning about HCZ, that it should not be given outside of a hospital or a clinical study. These are FDA real doctors who know how to read what the literature is saying to date.

FDA .

So FDA opinion, or that of a lawyer who is a political appointee about the drugs efficacy. I wrote a post about the VA study and noted its patient selection limitations. But the conclusion that the drug does not work on the most at risk patients is pretty clear. Older males with underlying illnesses.

Those damned FACTS keep getting in the way of conspiracy theories.

[GoodLife]

I think I'll stick with what the doctors are reporting

Lead author of the VA study, Joseph Magagnoli, has an MS in statistics. I wonder if he knows how to cook the books.

[NotGolfer]

Originally Posted by GoodLife

Perhaps you've heard about the recent VA study on hydroxychloroquine. The MSM jumped on it with blaring headlines proclaiming failure and more deaths. It's no secret why they did.

There's also another big player in the war against hydroxychloroquine, Big Pharma.
HCQ has no patent, is made all over the world, and is dirt cheap compared to the designer drugs they make billions from. Gilead's remdesivir is one of the covid 19 drugs being touted, and they might price it at $1000 per day like they did with Solvadi for Hep C

So politics and billions of dollars are at play.

You might think that after that VA study proclaiming death and failure that Doctors all over the world would stop using it. Actually no, in fact they are still using it at the VA

Responding to the results during an appearance on MSNBC, Secretary of Veterans Affairs Wilkie said, “That’s an observational study. It’s not a clinical study. It was done on a small number of veterans; sadly, those of whom were in the last stages of life, and the drug was given to them.”

The drug “has been working on middle-age and younger veterans,” Wilkie added. By that, he meant that it was “stopping the progression of” COVID-19"

Dr Didier Raoult of France, who has treated over 1000 coronavirus patients, responded to the VA study with this letter.

In the current period, it seems that passion dominates rigorous and balanced scientific analysis and may lead to scientific misconduct. The article by Magagnoli et al. (Magagnoli, 2020) is an absolutely spectacular example of this. Indeed, in this work, it is concluded, in the end, that hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) would double the mortality in patients with COVID with a fatality rate of 28% (versus 11% in the NoHCQ group), which is extraordinarily hard to believe. The analysis of the data shows two major biases, which show a welling to be convinced before starting the work :

The first is that lymphopenia is twice as common in the HCQ groups (25% in the HCQ, 31% in the HCQ+AZ group versus 14% in the no HCQ group, p =.02) and there is an absolute correlation between lymphopenia (<0.5G/L) and fatality rate, which is well known (Tan, 2020) and confirmed here : 28% deaths, 22% and 11% in the HCQ, HCQ+AZ and No HCQ group, respectively. Lymphopenia is the most obvious criterion of patient severity (in our cohort, lymphocytes in dead individuals (n=22, mean ± standard deviation, 0.94 ± 0.45), versus in the living (n=2405, 1.79 ± 0.84, p < .0001)). As the authors acknowledge, the severity of the patients in the different groups was very different, and their analysis can only make sense if there is a selection of patients with the same degree of severity, i.e. the same percentage of lymphopenia.

The second major bias is that in an attempt to provide meaningful data, by eliminating the initial severity at the time of treatment, two tables are shown: one table where drugs are prescribed before intubation, and which shows no significant difference in the 3 different groups (9/90 (10%) in the HCQ group, 11/101 (10. 9%) HCQ+AZ, and 15/177 (8.5%) in the group without HCQ, chi-square = 0.47, ddl = 2, p = 0.79), and one table, where it is not clear when the drugs were prescribed, where there are significant differences. These differences are most likely related to the fact that the patients had been intubated for some before receiving hydroxychloroquine in desperation. It is notable that this is unreasonable at the time of the cytokine storm, as it is unlikely that hydrochloroquine alone would be able to control patients at this stage of the disease.

Moreover, incomprehensibly, the “untreated” group actually received azithromycin in 30% of cases, without this group being analyzed in any distinct way. Azithromycin is also a proposed treatment for COVID (Gautret, 2020) with in vitro efficacy (Andreani, 2020), and to mix it with patients who are supposedly untreated is something that is closer to scientific fraud than reasonable analysis.

Altogether these 3 voluntary biases are all pushing to the idea of dangerosity of hydroxychloroquine safest drug as reported on nearly 1 million people (Lane, 2020).
All in all, this is a work that shows that, in this period, it is possible to propose things that do not stand up to any methodological analysis to try to demonstrate that one is right.

End of letter

The cohort for this "study" was elderly black males with a variety of health issues and most of them were already intubated on ventillators, or about to be. And the HCQ group was biased towards the most critical patients as Dr Raoult says above. The death rate in NYC for coronavirus patients on ventillators has been reported at 88%. Most Doctors reporting success are using HCQ plus Zithromycin plus zinc and report the best results when the cocktail is used within a few days of symptoms start.

A couple of personal anecdotes:

An American friend who lives in Chapala, Mexico called me after he and his younger Mexican wife had both tested positive. She had light symptoms, and recovered easily without medications. He got very sick, high fever, cough, headaches etc and then his Doctor prescribed the HCQ + Zith + Zinc cocktail and after a few days recovered and is fine today.

Yesterday I had a video appt with my cardiologist, we reviewed my heart health (I had heart ablation surgery recently) and then I asked him if I were to catch coronavirus would I be able to use the HCQ cocktail for treatment. He took a look at my most recent EKG and said yes you'd be a good candidate for that, we've had success with several patients, I would just have you stop taking one of the medications you're on.

"What about that VA study" I asked.

"It looks like it was designed to fail"

From the data I've heard on HCQ and what my pcp told me...the HCQ cocktail sounds good. I'm already taking HCQ and have for about a year and a half for RA. I've done the Z-pak in the past when I had respitory issues/illness and already take Zinc in my supplements. So all this sounded promising to me. Will it work for everyone---don't think "they" know for sure. I've read/heard that if started too late with a patient, for sure it probably won't. I'd sure be ready to do the cocktail given that it's helped so many---the respirators not so much.

[NorskiCroat]

So wait...was Secretary Wilkie ... outright lying and making things up? That's how it appears. If that's true about him, it will almost assuredly come out, and he'll have to face the consequences. It could probably be career ending.
You've mentioned more than once that Secretary Wilkie is "a lawyer who is a political appointee". You're obviously trying to diminish the man - whether you'd admit to as much or not. ... See, what bothers me most about this Hydroxychloroquine subject is that there's a vested interest among many to hope that it doesn't work. And why? Because Trump mentioned it. It's a political play. It's tantamount to saying "please, please...don't let Trump get anything positive out of mentioning this drug!" Intellectually honest people would have to admit to as much.

***
So who should we believe? The scientists at the FDA who say hydroxychloroquine should NOT be used outside of a medical study, OR a lawyer appointed by the President? Based on past experience (Dr. Bright), I wonder how long it will take before heads roll at the FDA.

As for the conspiracy theory about Big Pharma opposing use of hydroxychloroquine because they won't profit much from it, please provide factual support. There are SO many conspiracy theories out there already surrounding Covid-19. Just once, I'd like to see facts instead of conjecture.

The assertion that it could be career-ending for Mr. Wilkie to make a misstatement in support of the President, I almost lost my coffee laughing. In some circles, lying in support of Mr. Trump would be a badge of honor.

[amexsbow]

The data is in — stop the panic and end the total isolation | TheHill

The above article is enlightening. There is a lot of MSM misinformation. The majority of reporters only report the information they need to prove their spin or bias. I know because I used to deal with them and watched my interview edited to say the exact opposite of what I actually said. That is why all politicians speak in short soundbites. That is why non-political speakers who are elected get roasted by a biased media.

[GoodLife]

Originally Posted by NorskiCroat

So wait...was Secretary Wilkie ... outright lying and making things up? That's how it appears. If that's true about him, it will almost assuredly come out, and he'll have to face the consequences. It could probably be career ending.
You've mentioned more than once that Secretary Wilkie is "a lawyer who is a political appointee". You're obviously trying to diminish the man - whether you'd admit to as much or not. ... See, what bothers me most about this Hydroxychloroquine subject is that there's a vested interest among many to hope that it doesn't work. And why? Because Trump mentioned it. It's a political play. It's tantamount to saying "please, please...don't let Trump get anything positive out of mentioning this drug!" Intellectually honest people would have to admit to as much.

***
So who should we believe? The scientists at the FDA who say hydroxychloroquine should NOT be used outside of a medical study, OR a lawyer appointed by the President? Based on past experience (Dr. Bright), I wonder how long it will take before heads roll at the FDA.

As for the conspiracy theory about Big Pharma opposing use of hydroxychloroquine because they won't profit much from it, please provide factual support. There are SO many conspiracy theories out there already surrounding Covid-19. Just once, I'd like to see facts instead of conjecture.

The assertion that it could be career-ending for Mr. Wilkie to make a misstatement in support of the President, I almost lost my coffee laughing. In some circles, lying in support of Mr. Trump would be a badge of honor.

First of all, the FDA said it should not be used outside of a clinical trial, or hospitalized patients. See the difference? 1000s of Doctors are using it against coronavirus right now.

Big Pharma conspiracy to protect profits? Too funny

Big Pharma spends record millions on lobbying amid pressure to lower drug prices

Big Pharma spends record millions on lobbying amid pressure to lower drug prices - CNN

Proof that some scientific and medical studies are fraudulent or designed to produce a certain result?

a survey of members of the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) in which 27% of the scientists reported having encountered some type of misconduct [13]; a survey of research coordinators in which 19% of respondents reported first-hand knowledge of misconduct within the previous year – and that only 70% of these were reported [14]; a study of Norway medical investigators in which 27% of investigators knew of instances of fraud [15]; a survey of members of the International Society of Clinical Biostatistics, in which over 50% of respondents knew of fraudulent reports [16]; a survey of medical institutions in Britain in which more than 50% of respondents knew or suspected misconduct among institutional colleagues [17]; and a survey of New Scientist readers, in which a remarkable 92% knew of or suspected scientific misconduct by colleague.

a survey of NIH-funded scientists in which 33% of respondents said they had engaged in one or more of a list of ‘top 10’ questionable behaviors ranging from approximately 16% for ‘changing the design, methodology or results of a study in response to pressure from the funding source’

Data fraud in clinical trials

[anothersteve]

Some here take things way out of context, and keep saying the same things over and over and over until they believe what they type is fact.
Steve

[Investment Painting Contractors]

Originally Posted by anothersteve

some here take things way out of context, and keep saying the same things over and over and over until they believe what they type is fact.
Steve

amen

[GoodLife]

So FDA opinion, or that of a lawyer who is a political appointee about the drugs efficacy. I wrote a post about the VA study and noted its patient selection limitations. But the conclusion that the drug does not work on the most at risk patients is pretty clear. Older males with underlying illnesses.

Yes we now know that just about zero drugs (including HCQ) work once you go once you are intubated (88% died in NYC) Big whoop. FDA statement merely says be careful about prescribing these cocktails which I'm sure most Doctors are. Millions of doses of these drugs are currently being prescribed all over the world and we aren't hearing about 1000s or even 100s of deaths due to the drugs. Most Doctors who are using HCQ cocktail advise using it early. The VA study is garbage and was designed to fail.

My own cardiac electrophysiologist, with 23 years experience, and who recently was inside my heart with a radio frequency probe for an hour zapping circles around the scar tissue advised me that if I were to catch the disease, I would be a good candidate if he stopped one of my medications. I think he knows what he's doing.