More on HCQ - is the media hiding a good treatment?

[kindy64]

There are plenty of studies, both good and bad, on all sides of the issue. 

Really seems to come down to when and how is the drug use most effective.

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articl...43875.html

countries such as China, Turkey, South Korea, India, Morocco, Algeria, and others began to use hydroxychloroquine widely and early in their national pandemic response. Doctors overseas were safely prescribing the drug based on clinical signs and symptoms because widespread testing was not available.

However, the NIH promoted a much different strategy for the United States. The “Fauci Strategy” was to keep early infected patients quarantined at home without treatment until they developed a shortness of breath and had to be admitted to a hospital. Then they would they be given hydroxychloroquine. The Food and Drug Administration cluelessly agreed to this doctrine and it stated in its hydroxychloroquine Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) that “hospitalized patients were likely to have a greater prospect of benefit (compared to ambulatory patients with mild illness).”

In reality just the opposite was true. This was a tragic mistake by Fauci and FDA Commissioner Dr. Stephen Hahn and it was a mistake that would cost the lives of thousands of Americans in the days to come.

At the same time, accumulating data showed remarkable results if hydroxychloroquine were given to patients early, during a seven-day window from the time of first symptom onset. If given during this window, most infections did not progress into the severe, lethal second stage of the disease. Patients still got sick, but they avoided hospitalization or the later transfer to an intensive care unit. In mid-April a high-level memo was sent to the FDA alerting them to the fact that the best use for hydroxychloroquine was for its early use in still ambulatory COVID patients. These patients were quarantined at home but were not short of breath and did not yet require supplemental oxygen and hospitalization.  

Failing to understand that COVID-19 could be a two-stage disease process, the FDA ignored the memo and, as previously mentioned, it withdrew its EUA for hydroxychloroquine based on flawed studies and clinical trials that were applicable only to late-stage COVID patients.

[InbetweenDreams]

I sure wish that article linked or provided more information about the other studies. Remember the Henry Ford Health Systems study was flawed and showed very positive results. So it is important to the reader of this article to know more about these studies. One thing I do find "clear" is that RealClear Politics is clearly political, this crap floating around about HCQ is getting pretty long in the tooth if you ask me.

There are now 53 studies that show positive results of hydroxychloroquine in COVID infections. There are 14 global studies that show neutral or negative results -- and 10 of them were of patients in very late stages of COVID-19, where no antiviral drug can be expected to have much effect.

Where are they? If the number of studies show "positive" results making HCQ clearly effective...where's the proof to the studies that show that, rather than just say there's all these studies that show positive results. Either the author is just writing another article politicizing this crap on HCQ or they're lazy. If it was a well written article that had the proof they'd show all the data, not a deceiving graph. Look at this graph again...



Now, tell me, what do you think the problem is with the graph? Actually there's probably more than one thing, but I'll focus on the obvious thing that caught my attention.

[InbetweenDreams]

As this related to HCQ I wanted to share this, which was in the local newspaper. I think there's a couple things, 1. People assume that anything negative coming out about anything to do with Trump is a political attack and thus a conspiracy about withholding information about the efficacy of HCQ and 2. People just want something to work and cure COVID-19 and sure who doesn't.

Tell me how many things you find wrong with this piece and how much information that is presented isn't backed up with any sources I can look up. I get that it is a newspaper article and space is limited for citing your sources for information.