Another HCQ rejection

Login or register to post comments Last Post 0 reads   5 posts
  • Sat, Aug 22, 2020 - 11:20am



    Status Bronze Member (Offline)

    Joined: May 09 2020

    Posts: 112

    count placeholder0

    Another HCQ rejection

Just heard on CNN:


Another study which ‘proves’ (?) that HCQ is dangerous.  I don’t have the time now to look deeper into it.

  • Sat, Aug 22, 2020 - 11:50am

    Island girl

    Island girl

    Status Silver Member (Offline)

    Joined: Nov 27 2017

    Posts: 229

    count placeholder4

    Another HCQ rejection – definition of mild

These are hospitalized patients in Brazil. The definition of mild to moderate is not requiring ventilators. Clinical outcome is status 15 days from hospitalization. I haven’t had a chance to look further in detail.

Late in the game, no zinc.


  • Sat, Aug 22, 2020 - 12:04pm



    Status Bronze Member (Offline)

    Joined: Sep 18 2010

    Posts: 69

    count placeholder1

    Hydroxychloroquine Shouldn’t Be Used at All for Covid, IDSA (NIH) Says


Hydroxychloroquine Shouldn’t Be Used at All for Covid, IDSA Says   ( )

I followed through the guidelines link ( and found out that NIH quotes a compromised cherry picked study as a rationale  (present conflict of interested due to Gilead partially sponsoring it).  The rationale does not even quote a recent observational study ( ) that clearly shows positive effect of HCQ and (HCQ + AZTH) .

Two graphs from this study:

1.        Survival curves by HCQ / ZAZTH Status

Survival Curves by HCQ / ZAZTH Status

2.       Survival rates by giving the patient HCQ (YES) vs NOT.

How else can one call it – if not a travesty?  This is happening in a daylight, in front of our eyes.

And the definite Negative tone by IDSA as quoted in the Bloomberg article?  Based on shady supporting data?

Meanwhile this with respect to. Remdesivir:


What leaves us with Nothing officially approved for Mild CV-19 (early) cases.

  • Sat, Aug 22, 2020 - 02:55pm



    Status Platinum Member (Offline)

    Joined: Feb 03 2020

    Posts: 1303

    count placeholder0

    Another HCQ rejection

Yes biased.  I wouldn’t buy this information anymore than if the FDA did a study here in the US.  Brazil has poorly managed the disease, they are in no position to fund anytype of legit research that is believable.     Further all the patients were hospitalized.  Though, I am advocate of HCQ and believe it does help minimize severe disease,  I would not take it after I had been hospitalized as it would be far too late to get any benefit from it.   So, I am not advocating for this type of treatment and KNOW its not beneficial is most cases.. Other than a couple studies where it was administered within 12-24 hours of admission.   So fail and fail.

As for Brazil and the US , I believe they are tied in healthcare some fashion and even have conspired on the same agenda.. whether brazil like the US has an agenda to kill off some population , or kill older people that burden the economy/

One thing is for sure, the death rate is Brazil is equal to that of the US per infection cases.. and both of these countries have 2.x times the deathrate per cases..  as countries using it (russia and india ) /.          so,  these two countries( brazil and US ) are dirty , just need to follow the money

  • Mon, Aug 24, 2020 - 06:24am



    Status Member (Offline)

    Joined: May 10 2020

    Posts: 4

    count placeholder0

    Another HCQ rejection

I apologize for trying to hijack this, but I do not know how to get something to Chris. I saw this video last night where this British doctor claims that there are thousands of studies proving HCQ’s inefficiency, as well as calling anyone who supports it a clown. He also criticizes the T-cell theory. I know one of Chris’s presentation dealt with the Recovery study (from England) in which they were touting a 30% survival rate as if it was miraculous. What is going on across the Pond?



Viewing 5 posts - 1 through 5 (of 5 total)

Login or Register to post comments