Hydroxychloroquine vs The Globalist Deep State
Thanks for these frequent postings about HCQ. I note that the U of Washington as of yesterday only had an abstract that explained: 1. a great medical center did a blind test with placebo; 2. results clearly showed no effect of HCQ administered to people at risk early on.
It will be interesting to see what age range of patients that they had,.
This was a “close contacts” PEP (Post Exposure Prophylaxis) study. Just 800 people. By mail. PEP started within 96 hours. For 14 days.
We conducted a national, household-randomized, double-blind, controlled trial of HCQ post-exposure prophylaxis, using remote study procedures. We enrolled close contacts exposed to persons with SARS-CoV-2 infection in the past 96 hours. Participants were randomized to either HCQ (400 mg daily for three days followed by 200 mg daily for eleven days) or ascorbic acid (500 mg followed by 250 mg daily), as a placebo-equivalent control
As we now know, PEP must be started rapidly post-exposure. Hours count. The sooner the better. We have known this for years. Here’s what CDC has to say about HIV PEP:
PEP stands for post-exposure prophylaxis. It means taking antiretroviral medicines (ART) after being potentially exposed to HIV to prevent becoming infected.
PEP must be started within 72 hours after a recent possible exposure to HIV, but the sooner you start PEP, the better. Every hour counts. If you’re prescribed PEP, you’ll need to take it once or twice daily for 28 days. PEP is effective in preventing HIV when administered correctly, but not 100%.
You get the sense if you have an HIV exposure, its a “run, don’t walk” situation for HIV PEP. Go to the ER now, not later. Hours count.
Along those lines, Boulware’s PEP study showed potential efficacy in the groups that received HCQ PEP on days 0 and 1, but not on day 2-3. Problem is, his study was underpowered. There just weren’t enough people in it.
Because of this 96 hour window, and perhaps due to the overly short 14-day treatment with just 200 mg HCQ, I believe this study was designed to fail. That – and 800 people seems underpowered to me also.
From Boulware, HCQ might provide efficacy as PEP if taken within 24 hours of a close contact. We already know from Boulware that it almost certainly doesn’t prevent infection if taken 96 hours after contact.
I’ll be curious to see if there was any change in severity of outcome. If they didn’t measure that, I won’t be too surprised. After all, this was funded by Gates, which is all-in on the vaccines. He doesn’t want HCQ to work in any way shape or form, and if a trial can possibly be designed to fail, it will be one funded by Gates.
The study is supported through the COVID-19 Therapeutics Accelerator, an initiative launched by the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, Wellcome and Mastercard, with support from an array of public and philanthropic donors …
It would be like Microsoft funding a survey on “Mac vs Windows” users, and expecting such a study to come back with a “Mac is awesome” outcome. It would simply never happen.
I mean, its a fun game to try and sort out exactly HOW they designed it to fail, I suppose. But you kinda already know this will be the outcome based on the funding source.
I notice that they
enrolled subjects within 96 hours. Enroll means:
To enter or register in a roll, list, or record so someone wrote each subjects
name down in a book or computer file within 96 hours of exposure. Considering the extreme importance of this study and the hours of lawyer time expended to write this news report, I think that they chose the verbenroll` with great deliberation.
The Indian study that showed great effect was done by giving HCQ prophylactically which is totally different from writing someone`s name down within 96 hours of a known exposure……..
I notice that they enrolled subjects within 96 hours…
Oh good heavens. Mots. Yes. I focused on the wrong thing: 96. You focused on the right thing: enroll. “Enrolling” within 96 hours of a close contact is a world apart from “starting medication” within 96 hours. Given this was a “by mail” trial, that’s at least another 1-2 day delay. When hours count, as we know.
We conducted a national, household-randomized, double-blind, controlled trial of HCQ post-exposure prophylaxis, using remote study procedures. We enrolled close contacts exposed to persons with SARS-CoV-2 infection in the past 96 hours.
Heh you win the “and this is how they designed it to fail” contest hands down.
Must be all those years in Washington paying dividends once again. This is why teams are so powerful.
Everyone who has ever taken chloroquin for malarial protection knows that one need to START it one to two WEEKS before exposure.
This is why the Panama Guinea Pigs have been taking HCQ once a week since March. The youngest one who went off decided to go back on so we have ten again in our test group.
ZERO side effects 400 mg per week. One need it IN the bloodstream to protect properly. We are not all taking zinc regularly with it but we all eat alot of zinc foods.
About sixty days ago, my wife and I began a regimen :
For 5 days, 200 mg HCQ per day + 20 mg Zn supplement per day.
After that loading dose,
5000 IU Vitamin D3 supplement per day,
20 mg Zn supplement per day,
200 mg HCQ per WEEK every Sunday.
I consider this a “light” regimen, and I had already
had a recent EKG and discussed risks with my doctor as
well as our pharmacist. Both said it was not going to
be a risk in our cases.
My wife has reported no side effects whatsoever, and the
only thing I noticed was a slight stomach cramping for a few
hours on the third day of the loading dose. Absolutely nothing
We’re still taking precautions to limit our exposure, of course.
However, “cases” are on the increase around us so that’s our
way of taking positive steps for our own safety.
What has changed for me is that the element of fear is dramatically diminished.
I am not fooling myself into believing that I am invincible, but my
stress level due to fear and my paralyzed inaction is now gone.
This has had a HUGE positive impact on both of our emotional states.
That, in itself, is worth the price of admission.
Any input regarding a refinement of the prophylactic protocol would
be much appreciated.
- The close contacts were confirmed by a positive test. Was the treatment (or more likely mailing of the HCQ or “placebo”) initiated within 96 hours of their exposure or of the positive test?
- Many of these contacts were from family members. At what point was the exposure considered to occur? When the contact first showed symptoms? When their positive test was administered? A couple of days before symptoms to account for asymptomatic exposure? The answer to this question could show the study to be even more worthless as a PEP study.
- What are the age distributions and comorbidity frequencies of the treatment and control groups?
- This study is somewhere between a PEP and an early treatment study – as the dose, frequency and duration of treatment are similar to most treatment regimens. It likely does not qualify as a PEP study due to treatment delays. However, as a treatment study, it is very early – before any symptoms or positive tests. However, it has one significant shortcoming in that no zinc or azithromycin were administered. Another shortcoming is that only about 40 in each group tested positive and somewhat fewer had symptoms, so it is underpowered as a treatment study. Even so, it should show at least some reduction in symptom duration and severity and death rate (if anybody actually died). If most people were younger than 50-60, there were likely few if any deaths, so the results on death would almost certainly be inconclusive, but severity and duration would likely show some trend, but with the results possibly not significant. Is there any published data on disease severity, duration and death rate?
Even so, it should show at least some reduction in symptom duration and severity and death rate (if anybody actually died) …. severity and duration would likely show some trend, but with the results possibly not significant. Is there any published data on disease severity, duration and death rate?
We only got the abstract, but I remember wondering that same thing myself. What were the outcomes of the placebo arm vs the treatment arm? Fewer deaths? Better outcomes? Less hospitalization? Faster viral clearance?
Any guesses as to whether they tracked these as secondary outcomes? What do you think. Anyone?
Duh. Of course they didn’t. Here’s the trial:
Primary Outcome Measures :Polymerase chain reaction (PCR) confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection [ Time Frame: Day 1 through Day 14 after enrolment ]Polymerase chain reaction (PCR) confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection from self-collected samples collected daily for 14 days
Polymerase chain reaction (PCR) confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection [ Time Frame: Day 28 after enrolment ]Polymerase chain reaction (PCR) confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection from self-collected samples collected at study exit
Secondary Outcome Measures :Rate of participant-reported adverse events [ Time Frame: 28 days from start of Hydroxychloroquine therapy ]Safety and tolerability of Hydroxychloroquine as SARS-CoV-2 PEP in adults
Incidence rates of COVID-19 through study completion [ Time Frame: 28 days from enrolment ]PCR-confirmed COVID-19 diagnosis
I would just like to write a few of my “impressions”. Last night we received friends for dinner. At 8:45 they had to rush off home because we (even us here in the countryside) have imposed on us, a 9pm curfew. Most of you do not speak French, but the origin of curfew is poorly spoken French from way back – couvre-feu. Everyone has to wear masks now – and a golf friend just told me today, that his daugher-in-law has heard that we will be back under lockdown on Friday night – a rumor at present. It may seem odd to you – unscientific – but I have always suspected that Covid-19 and the American election are on a collision course, and always have been. It is not really the American election which is the issue – but rather that is the date or “event” which has been chosen for an abrupt end of things as we know it. So better lock them down now as the people are quite afraid of getting sick and are thus complacent to give up their freedoms. The good Dr Raoult has been very silent recently. He tried to get a government agency ANSM to allow temporary usage of HCQ (recommandation temporaire d’utilisation) -which they refused. My wife told me at lunch that one of her friends – also an authorized visitor at the hospital has two friends who went to get tested for Covid-19. After an hour’s wait and a long waiting line, they gave up and left. They received through the mail results showing that they tested positive. That’s right, without being tested. Beware of the second wave. Bill was right.