Key quote:

The trial was seeking 630 participants, but trial enrollment was stopped in August at 231 participants due to very few people having progressive COVID-19.

~~

August. This overhyped cold was over in August. The only people still panicking about it are complete tools.

https://newsroom.uw.edu/postscript/end-hydroxychloroquine-treatment-covid-19

But let's look at it anyway.

Hydroxychloroquine showed promise in studies done in test tubes rather than in animals or humans.  LIE

A year after the treatment trial launched in five cities, Johnston can say hydroxychloroquine had no effect in treating people with COVID-19.   LIE
~~~

The primary clinical outcome of the study was progression of COVID-19 to pneumonia or hospitalization, and time to symptom resolution was a secondary outcome.

“There was no faster resolution of symptoms among people receiving hydroxychloroquine or hydroxychloroquine/azithromycin compared to placebo.” Johnston said.  INACCURATE AND MISLEADING 

~~~

Smaller trials and observational studies were having mixed results. EVASION
~~~

THE REAL STUDY conducted simultaneously:

https://www.msn.com/en-us/Health/healthnews/study-finds-hydroxychloroquine-helped-coronavirus-patients-survive-better/ar-BB16hifu

A team at Henry Ford Health System in Southeast Michigan said Thursday its study of 2,541 hospitalized patients found that those given hydroxychloroquine were much less likely to die.

Dr. Marcus Zervos, division head of infectious disease for Henry Ford Health System, said 26% of those not given hydroxychloroquine died, compared to 13% of those who got the drug. The team looked back at everyone treated in the hospital system since the first patient in March.

"Overall crude mortality rates were 18.1% in the entire cohort, 13.5% in the hydroxychloroquine alone group, 20.1% among those receiving hydroxychloroquine plus azithromycin, 22.4% among the azithromycin alone group, and 26.4% for neither drug," the team wrote in a report published in the International Journal of Infectious Diseases.See the phrasing?  The "Study" claiming no effect talks about treating people who are already progressing and severe.

The honest study is based on prophylactic use as soon as symptoms appear.

~~

This is like claiming that a fire extinguisher can't stop your house from burning down, which is true.  But, if you put out the stove fire within the first minute, there's a significantly better chance your house won't burn down in the first place.

So the question remains:  Who's profiting from ongoing panic, hysteria, and refusal to treat?

 

 

 



Add comment


Security code
Refresh