large study finds that (hydroxy)chloroquine killing more than it "cures"

Extracts as he did not want this paragraph ruining his propoganda.

“We have reviewed our Surgisphere database and discovered that a new hospital that joined the registry on April 1, and self-designated as belonging to the Australasia continental designation,” the spokesman said. “In reviewing the data from each of the hospitals in the registry, we noted that this hospital had a nearly 100% composition of Asian race and a relatively high use of chloroquine compared to non-use in Australia. This hospital should have more appropriately been assigned to the Asian continental designation.

He said the error did not change the overall study findings. It did mean that the Australian data in the paper would be revised to four hospitals and 63 deaths."

You do realize that nearly every country has a public health organization (like out CDC) which is collecting this COVID-19 information from every hospital and makes it available to qualified scientific organizations for studies.

From a personal privacy point of view -- all they are required to do is scrub the names. Ages, gender, and treatment utilized can all be provided in the files.

Why do you think that Australia was disputing the data that Australia provided to them.
Then why did the Lancet issue this statement?

Looks like we will have a definitive answer shortly.

https://marlin-prod.literatumonline.com/pb-assets/Lancet/pdfs/S0140673620312903.pdf

Expression of concern: Hydroxychloroquine or chloroquine with or without a macrolide for treatment of COVID-19: a multinational registry analysis

Important scientific questions have been raised about data reported in the paper by Mandeep Mehra et al— Hydroxychloroquine or chloroquine with or without a macrolide for treatment of COVID-19: a multinational registry analysis1 —published in The Lancet on May 22, 2020. Although an independent audit of the provenance and validity of the data has been commissioned by the authors not affiliated with Surgisphere and is ongoing, with results expected very shortly, we are issuing an Expression of Concern to alert readers to the fact that serious scientific questions have been brought to our attention. We will update this notice as soon as we have further information.
 
Internal FDA Documents Show How Little Evidence The Agency Had Before Allowing Malaria Drugs To Be Used To Treat COVID-19
A May whistleblower complaint alleged that the FDA’s emergency authorization of chloroquine and hydroxychloroquine came about as a result of political pressure from the White House.
https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/zahrahirji/fda-eua-hydroxychloroquine-chloroquine

The Food and Drug Administration authorized two malaria drugs boosted by President Donald Trump to treat COVID-19 in March based on threadbare evidence, according to an agency review obtained by BuzzFeed News through a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit.

The review also raised serious questions about shoddy practices at overseas factories that manufactured and donated the drugs for use in American hospitals, according to the documents.

The use of the drugs to treat COVID-19 has been politically charged from the start.

On March 19, as the number of coronavirus cases in the US started to surge, President Donald Trump called for widespread use of the two drugs, chloroquine phosphate and hydroxychloroquine sulfate, to treat the new disease, for which there is no known cure. Nine days later, the FDA issued an emergency use authorization (EUA), a special provision that allows the agency to quickly greenlight the widespread use of unapproved drugs during a public health emergency, allowing the malaria drugs to be used to treat hospitalized COVID-19 patients.

Medical experts, meanwhile, raised concerns about the drugs saying they could cause serious health issues and were not proven to work. Even the FDA issued a warning, four weeks after its authorization, cautioning that use of the drugs outside hospitals could cause “life-threatening” heart problems.

Then, a top science official in the Trump administration alleged that the emergency authorization was dangerous and came about as a result of political pressure. Rick Bright, director of the Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority, claimed he was pressured to sign off on the EUA, and was retaliated against after raising safety concerns about the malaria drugs and their importation from low-quality factories in India and Pakistan. “There wasn't sufficient data at the time to support the use of this drug without close physician supervision," Bright told Congress, after filing a whistleblower complaint in May.

Days after that, President Trump stunned the nation by announcing on live television that he was taking the drugs himself. “What do you have to lose?” he asked.

The FDA documents, released publicly now for the first time, outlined what data the agency used to make the hot-button decision to allow widespread use of the drugs.

The EUA review, conducted by six FDA officials, referred to only two studies of the malaria drugs, which either showed negligible results or have since been called into question altogether.

At its center was a controversial French study that claimed that the malaria drug, combined with an antibiotic, was very effective at treating coronavirus infections. That study has since been criticized because of numerous problems, including failing to include the outcomes of patients on the drugs who died or were hospitalized. Two weeks after the study was published, the publisher issued a notice saying the study did not meet its "expected standard."

The FDA review also cited a small Chinese trial of 30 patients that showed the drugs had little to no effect on patient outcomes, and a letter from Chinese scientists that said it was effective — but was not backed up with any data. The review also included a reference to 16 clinical trials that were still underway and noted that many doctors had a “substantial interest” in trying the drugs.

According to the review document, officials briefly warned about the risks of giving the drugs to patients with heart problems as part of a longer section detailing warnings and precautions. “Chloroquine- or hydroxychloroquine-related cardiac conduction disorders (i.e. QT prolongation, ventricular arrhythmias) are rare but life-threatening adverse reactions and are usually associated with long-term use and high cumulative doses,” officials wrote.

The document also reviewed the risks posed by the millions of doses of the drugs that were donated for use in the US. Analyzing the 1 million chloroquine tablets donated to the US by Bayer Pharmaceuticals, the review noted they were made at never-inspected factories in India with “a low reputation for quality.” The pills were made by a manufacturer in India whose other factories had failed previous FDA inspections. That meant, “facilities used to manufacture this chloroquine are presumed to have even lower standards of quality.”

A chemical analysis of the chloroquine pills conducted on March 27, also among the public records, indicated the tablets contained small impurities but met standards.

“Based on the scientific evidence available to FDA, it is reasonable to believe that these products may be effective in treating the serious or life-threatening disease, COVID-19,” the FDA officials concluded.

“At least we have some hints now of what they were depending on" for the EUA, said Peter Lurie, a former FDA executive who now leads the advocacy group Center for Science in the Public Interest. "It still seems to me to be a thin read and one is left with the question of whether the approval had something to do with pressure from the White House."

Since the review was submitted, growing evidence has suggested that these drugs may do more harm than good. After a second clinical trial involving the drugs was recently halted, French, Italian, and Belgian officials last week all banned the use of the drug as a therapy for the novel coronavirus.

“I think it's fair to ask whether the FDA — expert in assessing drug data — should or could have spotted those issues,” Ohio State University law professor Patricia Zettler, former FDA associate chief counsel during the Obama administration, told BuzzFeed News by email. Zettler added, however, that the standard for an emergency use authorization is always low.

Here is a copy of the federal review of the EUA application for the malaria drugs as a possible COVID-19 treatment outside of clinical trials:

(More info at above url)
That is probably true, however, hydroxychloroquine was proven to be highly effective against COVID.
 
Lancet Issues Major Disclaimer On Anti-HCQ Study, As Manufactured Disinformation Foments Hysterics



The Lancet has issued a major disclaimer regarding a study which prompted the World Health Organization to halt global trials of hydroxychloroquine (HCQ), an anti-Malaria drug currently being used around the world to treat COVID-19.

As we noted last week, major data discrepancies have called the entire study into question - though the lead author says it does not change the study's findings that patients who received HCQ died at higher rates and experienced more cardiac complications than without.

Until the data has been audited, The Lancet issued the following "expression of concern" regarding the study.

"Important scientific questions have been raised about data reported in the paper by Mandeep Mehra et al," reads the "expression of concern" from The Lancet.

"Although an independent audit of the provenance and validity of the data has been commissioned by the authors not affiliated with Surgisphere and is ongoing, with results expected very shortly, we are issuing an Expression of Concern to alert readers to the fact that serious scientific questions have been brought to our attention. We will update this notice as soon as we have further information."

-The Lancet





https://www.zerohedge.com/markets/e...rmation-enabling-hydroxychloroquine-hysterics
 
That is probably true, however, hydroxychloroquine was proven to be highly effective against COVID.

Let's be very clear here - hydroxychloroquine -based therapy has NOT been proven to be an effective treatment of COVID-19.

Anyone who claims this needs their head examined.

Next you will be claiming that people with COVID-19 in a hospital who are given hydroxychloroquine are magically cured and the symptoms are gone within a day.
 
Last edited:
Let's be very clear here - hydroxychloroquine -based therapy has NOT been proven to be an effective treatment of COVID-19.

Anyone who claims this needs their heads examined.

Next you will be claiming that people with COVID-19 in hospital who are given hydroxychloroquine are magically cured and the symptoms are gone within a day.
Try prevention. Once the virus has attacked and done damage to the lungs and endothelium, antivirals are secondary for recovery. You battling life threatening over reactive immune responses.

The key is cutting the virus’ ability to stage the above mentioned immune attack. HCQ along with Zinc and some others help in that respect.

Your damming a helpful drug combo over syntax.

The key is stopping the virus before it does damage and puts people in the ICU.
 
Try prevention. Once the virus has attacked and done damage to the lungs and endothelium, antivirals are secondary for recovery. You battling life threatening over reactive immune responses.

The key is cutting the virus’ ability to stage the above mentioned immune attack. HCQ along with Zinc and some others help in that respect.

Your damming a helpful drug combo over syntax.

Proven in studies to be completely ineffective as a preventative as well for COVID-19.
 
Then why did the Lancet issue this statement?

Looks like we will have a definitive answer shortly.

https://marlin-prod.literatumonline.com/pb-assets/Lancet/pdfs/S0140673620312903.pdf

Expression of concern: Hydroxychloroquine or chloroquine with or without a macrolide for treatment of COVID-19: a multinational registry analysis

Important scientific questions have been raised about data reported in the paper by Mandeep Mehra et al— Hydroxychloroquine or chloroquine with or without a macrolide for treatment of COVID-19: a multinational registry analysis1 —published in The Lancet on May 22, 2020. Although an independent audit of the provenance and validity of the data has been commissioned by the authors not affiliated with Surgisphere and is ongoing, with results expected very shortly, we are issuing an Expression of Concern to alert readers to the fact that serious scientific questions have been brought to our attention. We will update this notice as soon as we have further information.

You are a dev right? You must have the basic education to understand the peer review process. You at least know about the need to sanatise data inputs etc.

If the dataset turns out to be bad it will be redone. This could leave the study conclusions changed or unchanged. Nothing is invalid yet, its a preview paper.

Its not ideal when the world is breathing down the neck of every paper but this is the process.

And the fool Wallet with his Zerohedge again...
 
Back
Top