Univ of Wash finds HCQ Useless fro Covid 19

Login or register to post comments Last Post 0 reads   9 posts
  • Sat, Oct 24, 2020 - 09:02pm



    Status Member (Offline)

    Joined: Jul 03 2009

    Posts: 5

    count placeholder2

    Univ of Wash finds HCQ Useless fro Covid 19

This evening the University of Washington Medical released the results of what they termed an “extensive long term study” of Hydroxychloroquine and whether it is of ANY BENEFIT in 1) Preventing catching of the Corona Virus, or 2) in treating or shortening the duration of the Covid 19 infection.

Unfortunately they found that HCQ was of absolutely no use in either  helping to PREVENT, TREAT, or SHORTEN the duration of the illness.

The study director sounded sincere in hoping it would affect the disease in SOME way, but it did not. She DID say the drug was found to be safe, while unfortunately being useless.

They did not say whether any other substance (Zinc, an Antibiotic) was combined with the HCQ, though I know that it has said that combing Zinc or anything would NOT be a fir test of HCQ, but rather would be a test of an entire protocol rather than of HCQ.

The Ford Hospital System in Detroit tested the combination and it was successful, but I understand that they have now agreed after much push-back NOT to discuss the successful trial of HCQ but they did not say WHY they would not discuss it.

  • Sun, Oct 25, 2020 - 12:06am



    Status Gold Member (Offline)

    Joined: Feb 03 2020

    Posts: 851

    count placeholder0

    Reply To: Univ of Wash finds HCQ Useless fro Covid 19

I have heard several studies which show this and other which show the exact opposite.  Not saying things cant go wrong, Which is why it has to be repeated and by others.  However, we have several studies showing both. it does and it doesnt work.   This is very odd.  It does make sense that studies like VA study and other studies that tested late hospitalized cases wont work.. As the claim on how it may work, is not consistent with late case treatment.   Also, there have been a couple studies try to see if this prevents the disease ” which is ridiculous ”  it may affect the course of the disease but I do not see how keeps a virus out of your air way..  and keeps you from being infected.. ” I cant even hypothesize the science behind such a claim”     So this study was looking at that and the treatment.. Which  leads me to believe this study is useless BS.. because it was looking at the later.  You have design a study to remove as many variables and focus a single effect.. not be all over the place..  They are clearly all over the place and looking for effect that makes no plausible scientific sense.    So, bozo claim.. bozo design.. bozo results.. I would throw it out.. period.. Its Bozo science as far as I am concerned.

another thing to consider why such difference in results , is could be the exact drug.  This is off patent.  So its all generic , it could be that one or two manufacturers variant is completely ineffective , or not even the substance /compound its supposed to be. Has the quality be tested? are we using different brands?  I can tell you personally taking generic drugs, they are not all created the same or work the same.   The way a drug is taken also affects its absorption ..  taken with food or other meds??  it all has to be the same.. Dosing?    Though, my personal opinion with all medications, is take without food, except those that need to be taken with food.

  • Sun, Oct 25, 2020 - 05:25am

    David Turin

    David Turin

    Status Bronze Member (Offline)

    Joined: May 12 2020

    Posts: 65

    count placeholder5

    Isn’t it all about Zinc?

It has never been about HCQ.  It has always been about ZINC.  This is my understanding.  We need zinc inside of our cells, meaning zinc needs to pass through our cell membranes.  This process requires a “transporter.”

My understanding is that HCQ, an ionosphere, is one transporter among many.


It is also my understanding that we’ve known this for a long time, that it is all about the ZINC.  Is there something wrong in my understanding?

  • Mon, Oct 26, 2020 - 05:53am



    Status Member (Offline)

    Joined: Sep 03 2008

    Posts: 2252

    count placeholder1

    cross-posted: Gates-funded HCQ PEP trial predictably fails


This was a “close contacts” PEP (Post Exposure Prophylaxis) study.  800 people.  By mail.  Trial participants enrolled within 96 hours.  Unsure when they started medication.  Medication 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%.

Note it does NOT say that PEP should be enrolled within 72 hours, people should actually start taking the medicine within 72 hours for it to work.   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.

What did this trial do?  It enrolled people within 96 hours of close contact, then mailed the drugs to the participant.

So we know from Boulware’s PEP study, that there was potential efficacy in the groups that started 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 study’s surprisingly long 96+ hour window, and the mail delivery delay, and possibly due to the short 14-day treatment regime with a low 200 mg HCQ, I believe this study was designed to fail.  That – and 800 people seems underpowered to me also.  They stacked the deck against the trial.

This shouldn’t be surprising.  This trial was funded by Gates, who 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.

  • Mon, Oct 26, 2020 - 08:16am

    Island girl

    Island girl

    Status Bronze Member (Offline)

    Joined: Nov 27 2017

    Posts: 180

    count placeholder2

    @DavefairtexUniv of Wash finds HCQ Useless fro Covid 19

Great points. Furthermore, Ascorbic acid (Vitamin C) is not a placebo-equivalent negative control.  It is used for COVID treatment! What was the dose?

The data show HCQ plus Zinc is ost effective when administered within first 5 days. As you point out, Ninety six hour is four days to enroll in the study, not to begin treatment.




  • Mon, Oct 26, 2020 - 08:51am



    Status Member (Offline)

    Joined: Sep 03 2008

    Posts: 2252

    count placeholder0

    yeah vit-C as placebo


Great points. Furthermore, Ascorbic acid (Vitamin C) is not a placebo-equivalent negative control. It is used for COVID treatment! What was the dose?

Yeah that’s a good point.  They had to pick a COVID treatment/antioxident as placebo.  I didn’t notice that one, but its true.  The “placebo” vit-C was 500 mg/250 mg/day.

How many ways can they make this thing show “no benefit?”  They must have worked at this overtime.

Do any of them have a conscience?  With the Gates Foundation picking up the tab, “sociopathic creativity” seems to be working overtime.

Mots was the one to notice the 96 hours to “enroll.”  I just adopted his observation.  It takes a village.

I want to thank the original poster who brought this absurd study to our attention.  It may not have been his intended effect.  Sometimes that’s how these things go.  🙂

  • Mon, Oct 26, 2020 - 09:13am

    Island girl

    Island girl

    Status Bronze Member (Offline)

    Joined: Nov 27 2017

    Posts: 180

    count placeholder2

    @dave turin – the history of Zn and ionophores vs Remdesivir

Yes, we have known for a long time that zinc and zinc ionophores are effective against coronaviruses.  Co-author on this research – Ralph S. Baric, UNC Chapel Hill (Nov 2010)


In 2017, Dr. Baric’s lab also worked on a compound called GS-5734 that was shown to be effective against several types of virus, including coronaviruses


Originally, it was intended for Ebola


GS-5734 is also known as Remdesivir


In 2017, Gilead Sciences, the manufacturer, patented the drug for Ebola


But it was not that effective. So it was repurposed for coronavirus.


In 2019, Gilead patented the drug for coronaviruses in the US


In 2020, NIAID, headed by DR. Anthony Fauci, sponsors the clinical trials on Remdesivir for COVID.  The trials are funded by Gilead Sciences.


In 2020, FDA grants approval to Remdesivir for COVID treatment despite limited benefit


  • Mon, Oct 26, 2020 - 09:14am


    Jim H

    Status Bronze Member (Offline)

    Joined: Jun 08 2009

    Posts: 1221

    count placeholder1

    We’ve seen this non-placebo placebo play before; Boulware

For many of the participants, the Boulware studies in MN used Folate as “placebo”.

The deep state medical complex knows how to engineer outcomes;


Therefore 9.6/0.95 = 10.10, which brings us to the conclusion that pregnant women are 10.10-folds less likely to be hospitalized for a SARS-CoV-2 infection than for the 2009 H1N1 pandemic. Folic acid supplementation during pregnancy could be the factor that is protecting these patients against SARS-CoV-2 infection. Two independent papers that used informatic simulation proved that folic acid reduced the replication of this virus. One of them showed that folic acid inhibits the furin protease which the virus needs in order to enter its host cell, while the other one explained that folic acid inactivates protease 3CLpro, a protein that the virus needs to replicate.

  • Mon, Oct 26, 2020 - 10:49am


    Quercus bicolor

    Status Silver Member (Offline)

    Joined: Mar 19 2008

    Posts: 446

    count placeholder0

    Questions on Univ of Wash study – crossposted

also cross-posted:

  1. 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?
Viewing 9 posts - 1 through 9 (of 9 total)

Login or Register to post comments