Forum Replies Created
Back in early June, SandPuppy and I wrote a post for Medium on the value of HCQ in treating Covid-19.
Yesterday, I followed up that first post with a new one in which the latest evidence for the safety and efficacy of HCQ are discussed, along with the futility of lockdowns, the disease mortality statistics and how I am using HCQ to prevent Covid-19 infection and/or treat the virus should I become infected.
Here are the links to the new post and to the older one.
I would appreciate it very much if you would share one or both of these posts with your friends. Also, please read the new post (and the older one) and “Like” them at the end. If these posts get enough “Likes”, Medium might put them in a more prominent place, where they may perhaps benefit more people.
I am not asking for your help out of any need for personal glory. Writing these posts took far more time and effort than any praise I might get could possibly be worth. 🙂 I am just doing my tiny bit to help those who are willing to be helped to deal with this virus.
But I do think both posts are well-written and useful. 🙂
I voted for Tulsi in the Michigan Democratic Primary. I loved her integrity and courage. I do hope she will be back in a cleansed, chastened Democrat party that is ready to rediscover it has a soul and principles.
Of course, that means that Biden/Harris will need to get their asses kicked in November. 🙂
I think we will see thousands and thousands of wrongful death suits filed against social media, political figures, etc. regarding the blatant censorship against HCQ. It will be a target-rich environment for lawyers.
Here is a useful, authoritative perspective on heart issues and HCQ from a leading cardiologist.
And this article by a respected epidemiologist
states that the use of HCQ in more than 300,000 older adults with multiple other illnesses showed a rate of (mostly non-fatal) cardiac rhythm disturbances attributable to HCQ in only 47 out of 100,000 users (0.047%). The probability of death due to COVID-19 for individuals over 80 is about 13.4%, and further increases with comorbidities.
In your post, I am not sure how much is your response to the criticism of HCQ and how much is the writing of someone else that you are responding to. So I am writing as if it were you who wrote it. I apologize if I have the authorship wrong, but I honestly don’t know who wrote the criticisms of HCQ that are on your post that started this thread. So, with apologies if I have this wrong, here is my response to the critique of HCQ you cited.
“I am going to assume that you are an honest person, but perhaps a somewhat ignorant and careless one. Unfortunately, those are the two most generous adjectives I can apply to your post that started this thread.
Let me give some of the evidence for “ignorant and careless”.
Your post cites three articles supposedly relevant to the effectiveness of HCQ. Here they are:
The first article deals with hospitalized patients. We have known for months that HCQ is not effective on hospitalized patients. You were apparently ignorant of that fact. The effectiveness of HCQ on already seriously ill patients is irrelevant to its potential effectiveness of HCQ when given early on in the disease progression.
Dr. Harvey Risch of the Yale School of Public Health makes this same point as follows in a very strong statement of support for the effectiveness of HCQ:
“More than 1.6 million Americans have been infected with SARS-CoV-2 and >10 times that number carry antibodies to it. High-risk patients presenting with progressing symptomatic disease have only hospitalization treatment with its high mortality. An outpatient treatment that prevents hospitalization is desperately needed. Two candidate medications have been widely discussed: remdesivir, and hydroxychloroquine+azithromycin. Remdesivir has shown mild effectiveness in hospitalized inpatients, but no trials have been registered in outpatients. Hydroxychloroquine+azithromycin has been widely misrepresented in both clinical reports and public media, and outpatient trials results are not expected until September. Early outpatient illness is very different than later hospitalized florid disease and the treatments differ. Evidence about use of hydroxychloroquine alone, or of hydroxychloroquine+azithromycin in inpatients, is irrelevant concerning efficacy of the pair in early high-risk outpatient disease. Five studies, including two controlled clinical trials, have demonstrated significant major outpatient treatment efficacy. Hydroxychloroquine+azithromycin has been used as standard-of-care in more than 300,000 older adults with multicomorbidities, with estimated proportion diagnosed with cardiac arrhythmias attributable to the medications 47/100,000 users, of which estimated mortality is <20%, 9/100,000 users, compared to the 10,000 Americans now dying each week. These medications need to be widely available and promoted immediately for physicians to prescribe.” (Bold added by me.)
Apparently you were ignorant of Dr. Risch’s statement, and also ignorant of the studies he refers to that support the effectiveness of HCQ.
The second article describes a study using quite high doses of HCQ but without added zinc. We likewise have known for months that zinc is needed for greatest effectiveness. In essence, HCQ is the gun that fires the zinc bullet into the cell. Also, because of inadequate testing, it appears that the sample size for people who received HCQ and were positive for Covid-19 was actually quite small, perhaps 77 people. Were you ignorant of the need for zinc?
The link to the third paper says that the “item requested could not be found”. Did you check that link before you posted your article? If not, that was pretty careless, wasn’t it?
After mentioning these three articles, you say “Scientists have since studied more promising treatments, like Remdesivir, which have been shown to decrease mortality” and you cite another article to support your statement, again with hospitalized patients.
The problem is that the article does not really support your claim. The major effect of remdesivir claimed by the article was to reduce the time in hospital from 15 days to 11 days. Effect on mortality was not very significant, at least the authors did not claim it was significant. Also you make no mention of the fact that over 20% of patients receiving remdesivir experienced “serious adverse effects”. (So did the patients receiving the placebo—apparently everyone with late state Covid-19 is pretty fragile…another big reason to keep people out of the hospital by an effective, outpatient treatment.)
Then perhaps your most “ignorant and careless” remark of all. You mention “liver decomposition” and “organ failure” as serious adverse effects of using HCQ. But these are the effects of the virus—not the HCQ used to treat the virus. Did you confound the two in a careless reading of the papers?
Over 70 years of world-wide experience with HCQ as have not identified either liver decomposition or “organ failure” as an effect of using HCQ. The Veterans Administration alone administers 42,000 doses of HCQ per day: would that be happening if this drug really had such serious side effects?
Read this Wikipedia article about HCQ. There is not a single mention of liver or organ failure as a result of HCQ treatment over many decades. HCQ is approved for use through pregnancy to treat rheumatic disease, for heaven’s sake. So where did you get your idea that HCQ caused organ failure? A citation, please.
At worst HCQ causes some retinopathy in long-term use. A week of treatment with with HCQ will not generate retinopathy, nor are there real issues with effects on the heart. You should read Dr. Louis Grenzer’s statement on the safety of HCQ.
Almost as bad is your statement “Currently, there is a pretty strong consensus in the international medical community that HCQ does not work as a treatment for COVID”.
You provide no reference for this statement because there is none.
In fact, many countries have used HCQ widely and effectively to treat Covid-19. Chris showed two summary slides showing the case fatality rate for countries that use HCQ aggressively and those that do not. Did you not consider those data? I assume you are simply ignorant and careless on that point—not dishonest.
Costa Rica is perhaps a premier example of a country that has largely avoided unnecessary Covid-19 deaths by early aggressive treatment with HCQ. Their case fatality rate is about 3% of our US value. (Which is the advanced country, I wonder?)
One more thing. You used ad hominem slurs to dismiss the work/video of Front Line Doctors. You provide not a single reference to support your attacks on them. Not a single one. This is a reputable group of trained doctors and health care personnel, not a fringe group as you would like us to believe.
Nor is it fair/reasonable/scientific of you to dismiss the presence of opthamologists and optometrists among that group of Front Line Doctors. Three MDs/eye care providers explain why HCQ is a valuable treatment for Covid-19 in this article, and why this fact is critical for eye care providers.
Were you also ignorant of the statement of these doctors?
For me, the key member of the Front Line Doctors group is Dr. James Todaro, who has been mentioned by other respondents to your post. Dr. Todaro has compiled perhaps the most complete summary of the value of HCQ in early treatment for Covid-19.
Do you have some well-founded reason for questioning Dr. Todaro’s competence? Evidence, please, not slurs. But you are apparently ignorant of his work, which is summarized here.
OK, I could go on and on, but I need to get back to my day job.
And, in fact, Dr. Howard and I went on in considerable length about evidence for the safety, value and use of HCQ in a Medium post a couple of months ago. It also appears that you are ignorant of our humble contribution to this debate on the value of HCQ.
I hope you will do your homework so that you will be less ignorant and careless the next time you discuss HCQ.
Or….CDC was inflating/miscounting the numbers either by design or by incompetence.
I have so little confidence in the CDC after their multiple screw-ups on Covid-19 that I would not trust them to count the toes on their own feet. If you think the administration is cooking the books, why do you not think that the CDC was doing so? What aspect of the CDC’s management of this crisis inspires you with confidence in them?
Yes, I think your view of Trump’s handling of HCQ is probably correct. I am gaining more and more respect for his courage and I hope the blinders are coming off for more people. As you say, there is a deep state, and it cares only for the preservation of its own power.
At least one Democrat state representative attributes her recovery from Covid-19 using HCQ to Trump’s championing of the drug–and she publicly thanked Trump, thereby incurring severe discipline from her party.
I wonder how much longer people will tolerate this kind of crap from our “public servants”.
At a minimum, Lancet ought to fire those peer reviewers and never, ever use them again.
Off with their heads. 🙂
Since Trump is the Devil Incarnate to a large fraction of the U.S. population, this news will convince many of them to never, ever take HCQ. I really do think we will lose lives because a particular medicine has been politicized. Just crazy. Absolutely around the bend bonkers.
The New York doctor who Trump likely talked to is Dr. Vladimir Zelenko, who got labeled a “star of the right wing” by the New York Times for simply stating what he had observed in treating patients of his close-knit Jewish community with HCQ, zinc and azithromycin. Again, just completely crazy…Trump Derangement Syndrome on full display.
I am not denying your experience, nor am I denying that you can take too much D3, but vitamin D3 is fat soluble. It has almost no water solubility. So I don’t understand why it would crystallize and form kidney stones in urine (which is mostly water), or how having too much of it would do anything to cause more kidney stones to form. The kidney stones are calcium or potassium salts of oxalic acid…no relation I can see there to a fat soluble vitamin.