Hydroxychloroquine Research Papers attached in PDF format

[Tom Kirkman + 8,860]

Media still insists there is only anecdotal evidence for HCQ effectiveness. These research papers should put that objection to rest.

For the prepper crowd lurking here, it may be a good idea to print out these papers so you can show them to a doctor (even if electrical power has been cut) and get him/her to prescribe you some HCQ.

If you have additional documents, by all means, please add a link or a PDF in this thread.

Chinese_HCQ_study.pdf

chloroquine_chang.pdf

Hydroxychloroquine_and_azithromycin_as_a_treatment_of_COVID_19.pdf

La_Scola_et_al_V1.pdf

 

[Tom Kirkman + 8,860]

The first HCQ clinical trial was done in Marseille and since then other cities/countries have begun them.

The virology institute in Marseille that began it all (where Dr. Didier Raoult works) has a running counter of how many patients they have treated with HCQ+Azithromycin and how many of those patients have died. 

So far, nearly 2500 patients have been treated and ten have died, nearly all 75 years of age or older. 

The institute also has treated Covid-19 patients with other drugs but the death rate is a few times higher.

 

https://www.mediterranee-infection.com/covid-19/

 

 

[Tom Kirkman + 8,860]

1 minute ago, OM PRAKASH MEENA said:

vghhtfgjjh

Gesundheit.

[Prometheus1354 + 178]

On 4/12/2020 at 11:53 AM, Tom Kirkman said:

Media still insists there is only anecdotal evidence for HCQ effectiveness. These research papers should put that objection to rest.

For the prepper crowd lurking here, it may be a good idea to print out these papers so you can show them to a doctor (even if electrical power has been cut) and get him/her to prescribe you some HCQ.

If you have additional documents, by all means, please add a link or a PDF in this thread.

Chinese_HCQ_study.pdf 1.28 MB · 3 downloads

chloroquine_chang.pdf 194.57 kB · 0 downloads

Hydroxychloroquine_and_azithromycin_as_a_treatment_of_COVID_19.pdf 451.95 kB · 0 downloads

La_Scola_et_al_V1.pdf 471.7 kB · 0 downloads

 

Tom;  you're a better man than me. I say this fully acknowledging your role as a moderator. You have to refrain from or at the least check your 'internal' response mode.  I would be 'challenged' more times than not.  Thus you are to be thanked for posting this info!  We know the press are in the back pocket of the DNC. If any doubt this, just listen too or look at their 'responses' to POTUS. Every time it is in lockstep or outright 'word for word' mouthpiecing. Period full stop.  

If the President says it's a great day too be an American. They scream racism, (insert phobic) etc...  The other thing to consider is how Faucci still tries to push back against HCQ while saying we 'won't be passed this till we have a vaccine'... Hmmmm, While true, you have to ask yourself WHY he's dug in?  Just look who he's associated with. Bill Gates.  Faucci is on the board of the Gates Foundation.  Who else is all 'in' on the GF??  The UN; that's who.  And the UN is WHO central...  The CCP. UN. the Pope & WHO  are ALL part & parcel neck Deep in the One World Globalist sect. Ditto for 41. GHWB was, too his death bed a NWO supporter. Going clear back too his address to the country just prior to the Air War bein launched against Saddam; he said  in those remarks "this is all part of a New World Order"...  Now of course that comment was lost in the context of the moment.  He committed us to go after Saddam. But clear back then, the screws were starting to be tightened on the US.  GWHB  was in China in several capacities during his time in gov't prior too the WH.  Not least of all, while at the CIA. POTUS knows this.  He knows the depths the deep state will go to run him off and protect their own. The Country be Damned!!!

[Tom Kirkman + 8,860]

4 minutes ago, Prometheus1354 said:

Tom;  you're a better man than me. I say this fully acknowledging your role as a moderator. You have to refrain from or at the least check your 'internal' response mode.  I would be 'challenged' more times than not.  Thus you are to be thanked for posting this info!  We know the press are in the back pocket of the DNC. If any doubt this, just listen too or look at their 'responses' to POTUS. Every time it is in lockstep or outright 'word for word' mouthpiecing. Period full stop.  

Thanks for your kind words.

Clearly, you haven't seen this thread from this morning:

 

[Ernst Reim + 33]

Tom, I am sorry, but I disagree. There are a lot of studies out there, they are just not conclusive evidence. Why does the medical community not consider the Marseille study by Raoult as conclusive?

1. Raoult refuses to use a control group or to blind his tests. This means that the patient knows that he is given a medication, thus submitting them to the placebo effect. Placebo is real and has shown to yield up to 30% of positive response even if patients are given no medication at all. Thus any non-blinded test will show a portion of positive reactions which have nothing to do with the medication.

2. Raoult does not blind his tests (meaning the evaluators know that the patients were treated), exposing the evaluators to bias. Numerous studies have shown that people **want** to see an effect and that non-blinded evaluations of medications always yield more positive results than blinded ones.

3. Raoult does not use a randomized inclusion. Meaning that **he** chooses which patient is included in this study and which one is not. Even if we give him the benefit of the doubt that he intends to be objective (which I honestly do not believe), again it is well known and proven that unconscious bias affect the results.

Now, the kind of trial Raoult does would still be valuable if you are dealing with a 50-90% fatality rate. If two people jump out of an airplane and the one with the parachute survives, you know that the parachute helps (since 99.999% fatality otherwise). If two people cross a street and the one not wearing the parachute is killed, you would need a blinded study with thousands of patients to see whether the parachute was actually responsible, since the risk of dying while crossing the street is so low.

Look at the Marseille study again: 10 out of 2500 patients died. That's 0.4%. We do not know exactly the fatality rate of COVID-19. It is likely to be somewhere around 1%, but could still be 0.1%... or 5%. And it depends on age, health status etc. Given all the factors which Raoult did not avoid and which we **know** influence the outcome, 0.4% just does not prove the effectiveness of HCQ. (It does not disprove it either.)

Several clinical trials with all controls are currently run and we will have these results hopefully soon. But they take more time and more effort.

If you want some really good info about what is currently going on, Derek Lowe's is tyring to sum up regularly the newest data from the current trials: https://blogs.sciencemag.org/pipeline/ 

PS: If the vast majority of engineers tell you that "this and that" does not work... do you believe them or the "rebel" who tells you that data analysis and quality control just comes in the way of progress. HCQ is not blasted because it is generic. Currently not a single-medication antivirals works well in clinical trials.

PSS: There is a publication called Cochrane reviews which summarizes medical trial **which are published**. You would be aghast how many of these published trials are considered to have low reliability due to errors/negligence in methodology.

PSSS: And if you follow news from France: Dr. Montagnier, who got the Nobel prize for the discovery of HIV, claimed in a podcast that he has discovered clear evidence that the Coronavirus was man-made and includes part of the HIV virus. Again, you can believe a retired Nobel prize winner, who also proposed to cure the pope's Parkinson's disease with fermented papaya and that DNA emits radio waves... or practically any other scientist in this area who say that this is pure BS.

Edited April 20, 2020 by Ernst Reim

[Tom Kirkman + 8,860]

9 hours ago, Ernst Reim said:

Tom, I am sorry, but I disagree.

To each his own.  You are very much free to disagree.  Similarly, I remain free to disagree with you.  

 

[Douglas Buckland + 6,308]

“Media still insists there is only anecdotal evidence for HCQ effectiveness. These research papers should put that objection to rest.”

And obviously the media should be taken as an authority on this, or any other subject.....(sarcasm squared)

[Douglas Buckland + 6,308]

6 minutes ago, Tom Kirkman said:

To each his own.  You are very much free to disagree.  Similarly, I remain free to disagree with you.  

 

I, on the other hand, disagree to disagree with you. This does not imply that I will always agree with you, but infers that, in this case, disagreeing to disagree is the correct course of action. Don’t you agree?😂

[Douglas Buckland + 6,308]

“PSSS: And if you follow news from France: Dr. Montagnier, who got the Nobel prize for the discovery of HIV, “

The Nobel Prize’s have lost all credibility; Obama won the Peace Prize after a few months in office, for doing absolutely nothing, and Greta Thunberg is nominated for the same thing for spouting unproven science, which she doesn’t understand in the first place!

That is like giving @James Regan a doctorate in logic!!!😂

[Tom Kirkman + 8,860]

11 minutes ago, Douglas Buckland said:

I, on the other hand, disagree to disagree with you. This does not imply that I will always agree with you, but infers that, in this case, disagreeing to disagree is the correct course of action. Don’t you agree?😂

Is this the right room for an argument?

[Dan Warnick + 6,100]

7 hours ago, Tom Kirkman said:

Is this the right room for an argument?

No, it isn't!

[Tom Kirkman + 8,860]

8 minutes ago, Dan Warnick said:

No, it isn't!

Oh! I'm sorry! This is abuse!   No, you want room 12A, next door.

[Gerry Maddoux + 3,627]

18 hours ago, Ernst Reim said:

1. Raoult refuses to use a control group or to blind his tests

 

18 hours ago, Ernst Reim said:

2. Raoult does not blind his tests

 

18 hours ago, Ernst Reim said:

3. Raoult does not use a randomized inclusion.

In a friendly, non-confrontational manner, allow me to riddle you a hypothetical: If you were a 75-year-old retired cardiologist who was board-certified in the American College of Cardiology, the American College of Chest Physicians and the American College of Internal Medicine, and you went into a large ER with this virus, knowing all about the long QT interval that sometimes accompanies hydroxychloroquine and Z-pack in combination but seeing three or four like-aged men pronounced dead there in the ER, would you take the drugs?

[John Foote + 1,135]

4 hours ago, Gerry Maddoux said:

In a friendly, non-confrontational manner, allow me to riddle you a hypothetical: If you were a 75-year-old retired cardiologist who was board-certified in the American College of Cardiology, the American College of Chest Physicians and the American College of Internal Medicine, and you went into a large ER with this virus, knowing all about the long QT interval that sometimes accompanies hydroxychloroquine and Z-pack in combination but seeing three or four like-aged men pronounced dead there in the ER, would you take the drugs?

First, this scenario I'd be wearing an silly amount of PPE.

But yes, hell yeah I'd selfishly want it, knowing darn well it was probably useless, but what is good for the individual can be bad for the overall numbers wise.

I caught some NSUI infection from hell in my overseas travels. Docs just gave me various meds hoping, to little avail and I kept getting worse and ended up hospitalized in the highly contangon ward. Years of over prescribing antibiotics have left some things to where antibiotics are practically food for the bacteria. Eventually they gave up, out me on some silver bullet, last chance saloon antibiotic which did the trick, followed by a couple of weeks on ertapenem. Those two did the trick.

[Gerry Maddoux + 3,627]

45 minutes ago, John Foote said:

First, this scenario I'd be wearing an silly amount of PPE.

But that wasn't part of the riddle. Here you are, a retired cardiologist, living your silly retired life, sometimes reading stuff on oilprice.com and one day you realize that you have a fever of 102, your muscles hurt, your throat is scratchy and you most definitely have CV. You're 75, with one functioning lung. You're not short of breath. You have a bit of coronary artery disease and also hypertension from losing all those nights of sleep on call and the stress. You go into the ER. They tell you they have this cocktail of hydroxychloroquine and Zithromax but, given your age, underlying conditions, and drugs, you might die of the cocktail or it might save you. That's the riddle, and that man is quite obviously me. To spoil the riddle, I'd take the drugs, because death is fast with torsades de pointes (polymorphic ventricular tachycardia) and I understand death by CV is pretty ugly. My point? Obviously not to stir up sympathy for a virus infection I don't have, but rather to say that in a time when people my age, with my underlying proclivities, are dying like flies. It's one thing to pontificate about the flaws in the "studies" and the risks that are awful, and applying them to a real-life scenario. I have former partners who are being faced with these questions every day.

[surrept33 + 609]

2 hours ago, Gerry Maddoux said:

But that wasn't part of the riddle. Here you are, a retired cardiologist, living your silly retired life, sometimes reading stuff on oilprice.com and one day you realize that you have a fever of 102, your muscles hurt, your throat is scratchy and you most definitely have CV. You're 75, with one functioning lung. You're not short of breath. You have a bit of coronary artery disease and also hypertension from losing all those nights of sleep on call and the stress. You go into the ER. They tell you they have this cocktail of hydroxychloroquine and Zithromax but, given your age, underlying conditions, and drugs, you might die of the cocktail or it might save you. That's the riddle, and that man is quite obviously me. To spoil the riddle, I'd take the drugs, because death is fast with torsades de pointes (polymorphic ventricular tachycardia) and I understand death by CV is pretty ugly. My point? Obviously not to stir up sympathy for a virus infection I don't have, but rather to say that in a time when people my age, with my underlying proclivities, are dying like flies. It's one thing to pontificate about the flaws in the "studies" and the risks that are awful, and applying them to a real-life scenario. I have former partners who are being faced with these questions every day.

I would absolutely take the drug combo. I don't think that situation is problematic at all.

I think taking Raoult's study and overgeneralizing the results considering the study's limitations is problematic. Some have characterized it as a miracle cure based on that study, but we simply don't to what level of effectiveness it has (or doesn't have) yet w/o more studies. More data should hopefully come out soon, but gotta agree, most of the evidence is anecdotal at this point despite it's apparently wide usage: https://nationalinterest.org/blog/coronavirus/half-coronavirus-doctors-have-used-hydroxychloroquine-survey -146162

Now, ethically, doctors who prescribe it for prophylaxis especially in areas where there is shortages is a much larger dilemma. At one extreme are cases like this:

https://qz.com/1839673/fbi-charges-california-doctor-in-hydroxychloroquine-covid-19-scam/

[Ernst Reim + 33]

9 hours ago, Gerry Maddoux said:

 If you were a 75-year-old retired cardiologist who was board-certified in the American College of Cardiology, the American College of Chest Physicians and the American College of Internal Medicine, and you went into a large ER with this virus, knowing all about the long QT interval that sometimes accompanies hydroxychloroquine and Z-pack in combination but seeing three or four like-aged men pronounced dead there in the ER, would you take the drugs?

 

Probably, if I would see them as the best choice. Or the only one. Or if I panic. (Which is why decisions on drug approval are not done by patients being pushed into the ER, by the way.) But... your example simply has nothing to do with the criticism of Raoult's study. Again, you invoke a "you will most likely die (or at least you fear you may)"-scenario. Parachutes and jumping out of planes. However, 2475 out of Raoult's 2500 patients would have been expected to survive anyway with normal standard of care. Are thus 2485 instead of 2475 survivors significant enough to ascribe it to HQC? No, not with the non-blinded, non-randomized protocol he used.

Heck, we know that the mortality rate negatively correlates with income for COVID19. Assume that Raoult's patients need to take days off work or drive to the clinic from outside to get treated. Or pay for the treatment. Any of these effects could explain the slight difference in number he is seeing.

Ironically (regarding your post), there **are** some recent studies which show that HCQ (at least on its own like in the Raoult study) is ineffective for patients at the late state of the disease, i. e. when it is really a life-or-death situation. Raoult's fans point out that his treatment is supposed to be given in the early stages.

Also: do not forget that the FDA did authorize the use of HCQ. The only thing the medical community is saying is that there is **at the moment** no conclusive proof that it works. It might. It might not. The way the study look right now, it seems to be pretty useless on its own. Combis might stand a better chance, but again.. no conclusive proof yet.

[Ernst Reim + 33]

17 hours ago, Douglas Buckland said:

The Nobel Prize’s have lost all credibility; Obama won the Peace Prize after a few months in office, for doing absolutely nothing, and Greta Thunberg is nominated for the same thing for spouting unproven science, which she doesn’t understand in the first place!

That is like giving @James Regan a doctorate in logic!!!😂

I give you your criticism on the Nobel prize for peace, which was always a bit "wiffy". But Montagnier got it for medicine. Do not doubt the guy's achievements! They are real. That unfortunately does not translate to omniscience or critical thinking. Linus Pauling, one of the best chemist who ever lived and the only scientist to receive two receive two unshared Nobel prizes, insisted until the end that one could cure cancer by overdosing with vitamin C, despite numerous evidence against it.

Edited April 21, 2020 by Ernst Reim

[Douglas Buckland + 6,308]

45 minutes ago, Ernst Reim said:

I give you your criticism on the Nobel prize for peace, which was always a bit "wiffy". But Montagnier got it for medicine. Do not doubt the guy's achievements! They are real. That unfortunately does not translate to omniscience or critical thinking. Linus Pauling, one of the best chemist who ever lived and the only scientist to receive two receive two unshared Nobel prizes, insisted until the end that one could cure cancer by overdosing with vitamin C, despite numerous evidence against it.

The fact is, people see ‘Nobel prize’ and they do not think about Dr. Montagnier, they think of Obama or Greta, who are treated like rock stars for doing nothing. It is a perception issue which the Nobel commity needs to address or the prizes will become synonymous with Time’s ‘Person of the Year’ nonsense.

[Ernst Reim + 33]

Honestly, the sooner they would get rid of that one, the happier I would be !

[surrept33 + 609]

More data points slowly coming out:

A VA study:

https://apnews.com/a5077c7227b8eb8b0dc23423c0bbe2b2

Early data from patients with rheumatoid arthritis, which may be a tell about the efficacy of HCQ for prophylaxis:

https://www.wsj.com/articles/hydroxychloroquine-and-other-autoimmune-drugs-dont-fully-protect-against-coronavirus-early-data-suggest-11587222001

 

Based on this, a NIH said that early data is too insufficient to recommend usage at this time:

https://www.npr.org/sections/coronavirus-live-updates/2020/04/21/840341224/nih-panel-recommends-against-drug-combination-trump-has-promoted-for-covid-19

Still, that puts it in a better situation than lopinavir/ritonavir, which have conclusively been proven in studies to not work.

 

[Hotone + 412]

Fox news falls out of love for Fox News falls out of love with hydroxychloroquine, members of this forum still believe it is a miracle cure?

https://www.cnn.com/2020/04/22/media/fox-news-hydroxychloroquine-reliable-sources/index.html

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-health-coronavirus-hydroxychloroquine/drug-championed-by-trump-for-coronavirus-shows-no-benefit-possible-harm-in-study-awaiting-validation-idUSKCN2233AN
 

 

 

[Jay McKinsey + 1,489]

hydroxychloroquine is so yesterday, the new miracle cure is injecting disinfectants like bleach or isopropyl alcohol: https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/donald-trump/trump-suggests-injection-disinfectant-beat-coronavirus-clean-lungs-n1191216

Edited April 24, 2020 by Jay McKinsey

[Tom Kirkman + 8,860]

1 hour ago, Jay McKinsey said:

hydroxychloroquine is so yesterday, the new miracle cure is injecting disinfectants like bleach or isopropyl alcohol: 

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/donald-trump/trump-suggests-injection-disinfectant-beat-coronavirus-clean-lungs-n1191216

Guessing that Trump already knows something.  Obviously it isn't injecting a household disinfectant. But he's alluding to something very specific, and of course he knows the idiot media will try to twist his intentions.  

Waiting to see how this plays out. Because the world is now talking about how Trump wants people to inject cleaning fluids. Within days I expect to see something unexpected come out of this.

Perhaps this is what Trump was talking about.  Info for you, from elsewhere:

  

Quote

 

Methylene Blue is an injectable compound that was once widely used as a disinfectant. Now is used for Cancer Treatments, Malaria and maybe now SARS-CoV-2.

It's what Chloroquine comes from.

A cohort of cancer patients with no reported cases of SARS-CoV-2 infection: the possible preventive role of Methylene Blue

https://riviste.fupress.net/index.php/subs/article/view/888

They already use Methylene Blue and Light to clean up Blood Products.

Methylene blue photochemical treatment as a reliable SARS-CoV-2 plasma virus inactivation method for blood safety and convalescent plasma therapy for the COVID-19 outbreak

https://www.researchsquare.com/article/rs-17718/v1