https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2020/09/charts_compare_covid_deaths_in_countries_that_used_hydroxychloroquine_early_and_those_that_didnt.html

Looks like HCQ actually works.

Not really shocking.

Picadillo said:

---

Yale Medical Professor Risch Says Hydroxychloroquine Works

---

https://academic.oup.com/aje/advance-article/doi/10.1093/aje/kwaa093/5847586

I read this 20 page article from Professor Risch. Pretty compelling and presents logical arguments based on the studies available along with why some should be considered and some shouldn't. All I know is if I get covid, I'm finding a doctor that will give me the HCL/Zinc. There is negligible downside risk.

The link above shows the abstract. There is a link to download the PDF from there. Here is an excerpt from one of the 5 studies that applied to early treatment of high risk patients.

Quote:

---

The first study of HCQ+AZ (24) was controlled but not randomized or blinded, and involved 42 patients in Marseilles, France. This study showed a 50-fold benefit of HCQ+AZ vs standard-of-care, with P-value=.0007. In the study, six patients progressed, stopped medication use and left the trial before the day-6 planned outcome measure of swab- sampled nasopharyngeal viral clearance. Reanalysis of the raw study data elsewhere (25) and by myself shows that including these six patients does not much change the 50-fold benefit. What does change the magnitude of benefit is presentation with asymptomatic or upper respiratory- tract infection, vs lower respiratory-tract infection, the latter cutting the efficacy in half, 25-fold vs standard-of-care. This shows that the sooner these medications are used, the better their effectiveness, as would be expected for viral early respiratory disease. The average start date of medication use in this study was day-4 of symptoms. This study has been criticized on various grounds that are not germane to the science, but the most salient criticism is the lack of randomization into the control and treatment groups. This is a valid general scientific criticism, but does not represent epidemiologic experience in this instance. If the study had shown a 2-fold or perhaps 3-fold benefit, that magnitude of result could be postulated to have occurred because of subject-group differences from lack of randomization. However, the 25-fold or 50-fold benefit found in this study is not amenable to lack of randomization as the sole reason for such a huge magnitude of benefit. Further, the study showed a significant, 7-fold benefit of taking HCQ+AZ over HCQ alone, P-value=.035, which cannot be explained by differential characteristics of the controls, since it compares one treatment group to the other, and the treated subjects who received AZ had more progressed pneumonia than the treated subjects receiving HCQ alone, which should otherwise have led to worse outcomes. The study has also been described as "small," but that criticism only applies to studies not finding statistical significance.

---

Early treatment with hydroxychloroquine: a country-based analysis


https://hcqtrial.com/

Quote:

---

Many countries either adopted or declined early treatment with HCQ, effectively forming a large trial with 1.8 billion people in the treatment group and 663 million in the control group. As of September 4, 2020, an average of 56.0 per million in the treatment group have died, and 463.0 per million in the control group, relative risk 0.121. After adjustments, treatment and control deaths become 116.4 per million and 686.3 per million, relative risk 0.17. The probability of an equal or lower relative risk occurring from random group assignments is 0.008. Accounting for predicted changes in spread, we estimate a relative risk of 0.23. The treatment group has a 76.6% lower death rate. Confounding factors affect this estimate. We examined diabetes, obesity, hypertension, life expectancy, population density, urbanization, testing level, and intervention level, which do not account for the effect observed.

---

Research Shows Cardiac Safety of Hydroxychloroquine in COVID-19 Patients Not Associated With Dangerous Heart Rhythms


https://scitechdaily.com/research-shows-cardiac-safety-of-hydroxychloroquine-in-covid-19-patients-not-associated-with-dangerous-heart-rhythms/

Quote:

---

Short-term hydroxychloroquine treatment is not associated with lethal heart rhythms in patients with COVID-19 who are risk assessed prior to receiving the drug. That's the finding of research published today (September 25, 2020) in EP Europace, a journal of the European Society of Cardiology (ESC).[1]


"This was the largest study to assess the risk of dangerous heart rhythms (arrhythmias) in COVID-19 patients treated with hydroxychloroquine," said study author Dr. Alessio Gasperetti of Monzino Cardiology Centre, Milan, Italy and University Hospital Zurich, Switzerland. "In our cohort, there was a low rate of arrhythmias and none were associated with hydroxychloroquine."

---

Honduras treatment for covid-19 stands out worldwide


https://news.yahoo.com/honduras-treatment-covid-19-stands-002700994.html

Quote:

---

The research presented by Honduran doctors scar Daz, Fernando Valerio and Miguel Sierra, creators of Catracho treatment, will be published as one of the great contributions in reducing deaths by Covid-19.


Catracho as Hondurans are colloquially called is an acrostic made up of the names (in English) of its main components: colchicine, anti-inflammatories, tocilizumab, ivermectin, blood thinners, and hydroxychloroquine.


The Central American country had one of the highest fatality rates from coronavirus in Latin America. On March 10th, the first case of covid-19 was reported in Honduras and at the beginning of April the mortality rate was 14.5%. On April 23, a multi-mechanism treatment protocol based on the pathophysiology of covid-19 was implemented and by July 18TH, 31,966 patients were confirmed with the disease. The fatality rate at that time had decreased to 2.66%, representing a decrease of 81.6%.

---

Hydroxychloroquine is Effective and Safe for the Treatment of COVID-19, and May be Universally Effective When Used Early Before Hospitalization: A Systematic Review

https://www.palmerfoundation.com.au/hydroxychloroquine-is-effective-and-safe-for-the-treatment-of-covid-19-and-may-be-universally-effective-when-used-early-before-hospitalization-a-systematic-review/

Quote:

---

Conclusions:
Hydroxychloroquine has been shown to have consistent clinical efficacy for COVID-19 when it is used early in the outpatient setting, and in general would appear to work better the earlier it is used. Overall HCQ is effective against COVID-19.

There is no credible evidence that HCQ results in worsening of COVID-19. HCQ has been shown to be safe for the treatment of COVID-19 when responsibly used.

---

I wonder if POTUS and FLOTUS will be taking it.

Australian scientists insist hydroxychloroquine COULD prevent people catching COVID-19 after giving the controversial drug to hundreds of health care workers


https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8790261/Australian-scientists-insist-hydroxychloroquine-prevent-people-catching-COVID-19.html

Quote:

---

Australian scientists have vowed to continue investigating whether taking hydroxychloroquine can stop people becoming infected with coronavirus.

Researchers from the Walter & Eliza Hall Institute in Melbourne believe the drug could prevent people catching SARS-CoV-2 - the virus that causes COVID-19.

Hundreds of health workers in NSW and Victoria have been given the drug in the Institute's COVID SHIELD trial in an effort to try and determine its effectiveness as a prophylactic.

---

Interesting review, but unfortunate they do not mention use of zinc in conjunction. Regardless, HCQ still comes out looking favorable.




Therapeutic Management of Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19): A Systematic Review and Treatment Algorithm



https://journaljpri.com/index.php/JPRI/article/view/30780

Quote:

---

Abstract

Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is emerging contagious pneumonia due to the new Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). It initially appeared in Wuhan China in December 2019 then rapidly spread worldwide and became a pandemic. For the time being, there is no specific therapeutic treatment for this disease. Herein, the "state-of-the-art" of treatment modalities was systematically reviewed and ultimately a practical therapeutic algorithm for the COVID-19 management was proposed. The systematic review was performed by using published articles retrieved from Science Direct, MEDLINE, and Scopus databases concerning this topic. Among 1060 articles collected from the different databases, 19 publications were studied in-depth and incorporated in this review. The most three frequently used medications for the treatment of COVID-19 was: the available anti-viral drugs (n= 9), the antimalarial hydroxychloroquine or chloroquine (n = 8), and the passive antibody transfer therapy (n = 2). Among all treatment modalities, antimalarial Hydroxychloroquine ranked the highest cure rate. Therefore, this drug is considered as the firstline of COVID-19 treatment. The secondline treatment includes the lopinavir/ritonavir drugs combined with interferon -1b and ribavirin. Finally, the thirdline treatments include the remdesivir drug and passive antibody transfer therapy. However, our review emphasis the urgent need for adequately designed randomized controlled trials, enabling a more significant comparison between the most used treatment modalities.

---

Dr. Brian Tyson's First-Person Account of COVID-19


https://covexit.com/dr-brian-tysons-first-person-account-of-covid-19/

Quote:

---

September

We made the news in late September and October when we started publishing our data, and people realized that we had seen more COVID-19 patients face-to-face than probably anyone in the nation, and maybe even worldwide. We did that and have not recorded a single death for anyone that was placed on (our) treatment. We did have to call EMS on two patients that presented to our Urgent Care in respiratory failure and were sent to the hospital before we could start treatment. One of those died, and for the other, we were unable to get follow-up information. As of today, we have over 1900 COVID-19 positive recovered patients a 100% success rate!

---

Money quote... (emphasis added)

Quote:

---

People need to know that we will survive this pandemic, just like those of the past. There is treatment available. It works when used early, and it is very effective.

We will get our voices heard because we hear the cry of those in our care. Physicians are people too; we have families and kids. We would never advocate for something we didn't believe.

Scientists are different; they have financial gains and incentives. They have research that needs to be funded, and while they may have the best of intentions, they do not work on the frontlines. They do not care for patients; they do not have to explain the risks and benefits of treatments. They are not there when patients break down and cry when they are told they have a positive test. They don't have to explain to a 9-year-old girl that she will not kill her parents just because she is positive.

Scientists have no skin in the game and no emotional pain when things don't go their way. This virus has killed people!! It will kill more. The question is, how many more will die unnecessarily due to not getting the available treatment?

How many will die in fear, and how many will die alone?

My final point is this: When you get sick, you do not go to the CDC or the NIH or call the FDA to get diagnosed and treated. You go to your doctor! You go to the people who have seen the disease before and know how to treat it. This virus is no different.

Brian Tyson, MD

---

I know practically nothing about science or medicine but I do have a pretty good sense of when a person has clear credibility that I should put some trust into considering their thoughts, words and opinions. Here is a doctor, Peter McCullough, from Baylor Med in Dallas presenting for other clinicians the standard of care he and his cohorts have developed for early presentation of Covid. I think anyone who watches will have a difficult time impugning his credibility and advice.

The video was very easy for even me to understand and an important goal of Dr. McCullough is to reduce the numbers of infected patients that end up in hospitals by prescribing treatment at home beyond just isolation. Here is the intro to the article:

In this video, Dr Peter McCullough, from the Baylor University Medical Center in Texas, explains how important early outpatient treatment is and presents guidelines for such treatment.

Baylor Dallas Doc on outpatient care

It's worth the watch if this topic is of true interest to you.

Jack Nicklaus says he took hydroxychloroquine


https://sports.yahoo.com/jack-nicklaus-hydroxychloroquine-covid-19-deaths-donald-trump-endorsement-000926255.html

Quote:

---

The 80-year-old Nicklaus and his wife both tested positive for COVID-19 in March. He told the Post that he experienced a sore throat and cough, while Barbara was asymptomatic. He also revealed how his case was treated:

"Sure I was concerned," Jack said. "I took hydroxychloroquine. Gone in two days."

---

The JAMA study you cite has all the hallmarks of a fake study.

- patients in the study were already hospitalized - well into their infection.

- no zinc use indicated.


The HCQ cocktail is HCQ + zinc + azythromycin. It is given Early, to keep patients out of the hospital. If the protocol is followed it is highly successful, as the numerous studies and cases above will show.

Thank you for playing.

Bull crap. I posted many times that if it helps one person then why not use it?

I always said it's up to the user what I can't stand is people telling other people what they can take.

Get your facts straight

We know the side effects and they are almost zero.

If you don't want to use it then don't, it's simple really.

Just don't tell me or anyone else they can't. Why do you feel like you get to tell others what they can and can't do?

You argument just doesn't hold water. We can just disagree. You are off in the woods too much for me.

Many a dr says it works and is having success, you choose whether you believe them or not.

Up to you. What your saying is your opinion, I just don't agree with it. That's fine.

Any updates on HCQ / Zinc / Azithromycin?

I find it somewhat compelling that vaccines could only get widespread authorization for use as experimental treatments if *no other treatment existed*.

Could big pharma $$$ have been behind the attempted assassination of HCQ et al, so that "no other treatment existed?"