The Battle Continues.

https://www.sciencenews.org/ar…ine-no-evidence-treatment

https://forward.com/fast-forwa…chloroquine-surgery/?gamp

A look at the Americans who believe there is some truth to the conspiracy theory that COVID-19 was planned Most Americans (71%) have heard of a conspiracy theory circulating widely online that alleges that powerful people intentionally planned the coronavirus outbreak. And a quarter of U.S. adults see at least some truth in it – including 5% who say it is definitely true and 20% who say it is probably true, according to a June Pew Research Center survey.

The articles like this one is fine psychological propaganda written be real experts in their field, who really understand their work. This article is intentionally fallacious by utilizing appeal ad ridicule

combined with slippery slope fallacy, as most people who are convinced that coronavirus escaped from Wuhan lab don't really have to believe, this leak did actually happen in planned organized way - yet it serves as as sufficient argument for why to stop with this research ASAP. Actually even more relevant argument, because it shows that genetic research is the less safe, the more widespread it really is. But to prove, that this leak was intentional would be very difficult to prove in situation, when China had multiple virus leaks from genetic research in quite resent past: all accidental ones resulting from poor safety measures.

In brief, the accusation from intentional virus leak is way safer for Big Pharma than accusation from accidental virus leak: not only it's way less probable and more difficult to prove, but it would also render Big Pharma way more competent than it really is, as it pretends, that Big Pharma research is so well secured that it does need an organized sabotage for to allow virus leak (of course it doesn't, especially not in China). But it's rather easy to manoeuvre people who already understand that coronavirus leak was possible into position, when they believe that this leak was intentional by carefully vaguely formulated inquiry and after then to dismiss such an opinion publicly as a more ridiculous and less probable conspirational theory. See also:

• The Case Is Building That COVID-19 Had a Lab Origin
• On the Origins of the 2019-nCoV Virus, Wuhan, China

Quote from sam12

https://www.sciencenews.org/ar…ine-no-evidence-treatment

https://forward.com/fast-forwa…chloroquine-surgery/?gamp

To many idiots live among doctors: Administering just HCQ is more or less a criminal act. If the rest of the world relies on medicine - doctors - that have lowest grade IQ's and ethics then good night!

It is known since more than 4 months now that only a combination of HCQ AZT/DOXY + zinc works.

Banning HCQ from prescription is close to genocide! People signing such orders - under US law - should get the death penalty.

Quote from Wyttenbach

Banning HCQ from prescription is close to genocide!

"The Oregon Secretary of State posted an amendment that officially lifts the Pharmacy Board’s rule that restricted use of HCQ to only those in a clinical trial."

Oregon State stopped their ban on July 14.. what about the other states?

https://secure.sos.state.or.us…action?ruleVrsnRsn=271619

The problem with the ban is not only litigation..about possible deaths due to it

In the USA there is a vigilante tradition with guns.. E pluribus Magnum

How Jared Kushner’s Secret Testing Plan “Went Poof Into Thin Air”

This spring, a team working under the president's son-in-law produced a plan for an aggressive, coordinated national COVID-19 response that could have brought the pandemic under control. So why did the White House spike it in favor of a shambolic 50-state response?

https://www.vanityfair.com/new…n-went-poof-into-thin-air

Quote from JedRothwell

So why did the White House spike

wasn't that when the swabs needed for the test were in very short supply?

Quote from RobertBryant

Another sophisticated analysis of the NEJM published Boulware " no HCQ benefit' internet trial

finds that Boulware's statistical analysis ignored the time dependency.

Maybe Boulware should have taken the time to get a second opinion from another statisitician?

"

We conclude their randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial presents statistical
evidence, at 99% confidence level, that the treatment of Covid-19 patients with hydroxychloroquine is
effective in reducing the appearance of symptoms if used before or right after exposure to the virus.

For0 to 2 days after exposure to virus, the estimated relative reduction in symptomatic outcomes is

72% after 0 days, 48.9% after 1 day and 29.3% after 2 days. ..

4 or more days after

exposure there is no statistical evidence that hydroxychloroquine is effective in reducing the
appearance of symptoms.
Our results show that the time elapsed between infection and the beginning of treatment is
crucial for the efficacy of hydroxychloroquine as a treatment to Covid-19

Marcai Watanabe de Souza also states

"Should be done with Zinc?"

and

"

We expect the treatment will be more effective when applied to patients in the viral replication period, before viral load reaches its peak
which occurs around 5 days after symptom onset.6 Meanwhile,

if disease reaches the inflammatory period, typically after 8 days of symptoms onset and after viral load reaches its peak,

we can expected no or little benefit with the antiviral treatment.

Display More

Can you please give me the source for this plot?

Quote from Alan Fletcher

source for this plot?

https://arxiv.org/abs/2007.09477

https://bv.fapesp.br/en/pesqui…-watanabe-alves-de-souza/

Efficacy of Hydroxychloroquine as Prophylaxis for Covid-19

Marcio's meta-analysis paper discussing Boulware's internet based HCQ trial

which supposedly showed no HCQ benefit..

based on the analyis of Boulware's timecourse, 'undiscussed' but in in the Appendix

one might think that Boulware et al had more sophisticated statisticians

Tortoise is a Uk "slow news" organisation, which is apolitical (not obviously left or right) and tries to look for the deeper things behind the here today gone tomorrow headlines.

I don't normally listen to 30 min audio segments but this one had me rivetted (and of course audio is so much more honest than video - where pictures give our brains unconscious bias cues we cannot ignore, and real information content is low).

Topic: Bobby Kennedy's journey from heroic ecowarrier of the left to purveyor of COVID misinformation (of the most lurid sort) that might just cause untold harm to the health and economy of the US.

https://members.tortoisemedia.com/2020/08/03/what-the-rfk-infodemic-podcast/content.html?sig=_rAAHPy5gaTLhQvCXvwb5VBnF6xve-1yuYWKiYdOxOE&utm_source=Tortoise+Members&utm_campaign=8cb16b91ad-EDITORS_EMAIL_3_AUGUST&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_efeb5ec230-8cb16b91ad-138373963&mc_cid=8cb16b91ad&mc_eid=%5bUNIQID%5d

You can get free membership to listen if needed it says (i did not need to do that, it just worked for me).

THH

Boulware paper. Additional info used by Marcio.

https://www.nejm.org/doi/suppl…ejmoa2016638_appendix.pdf

p 12 for the per day analysis

First, I agree 100% with Marcio's 1st point. This study is underpowered for any conclusions, it can only make a negative conclusion on the effectiveness of HCQ 2 - 5 days after exposure and only say that it gives no better than 50% reduction. It does not deliver a strong negative indicator for this, but does

mean that strong positives are ruled out. The authors agree this, and in fact say it. They also argue that a strong effect is needed for a prophylactic treatment to be worthwhile.

The study is very fragile for the positive conclusion Marcio makes - just 9 cases between exactly neutral results and the data.

Marcio is correct that if you perform a regression analysis based on the hypothesis that there is a linear relationship between time to treatment and efficacy the statistical evidence is very strong that a negative slope fits, indicating some time-varying efficacy. This is also plausible for antiviral action.

There is howevcer a more subtle point here. Clinical studies register outcomes before the data, at outset, because otherwise it is always possible to cherry-pick some outcome that is statistically significant by chance - the cherry picking making it work.

Going to a linear regression here is not an egregious example of this - it is well motivated - but it is still cherry picking. Therefore these positive results, contingent on the post-hoc hypothesis that probability of COVID is linearly dependent on time to treatment, are open to challenge.

Personally I think they are likley real. I think HCQ administered in this way most likely gives prophylatic protection.

Let us assume this, and see what else we get from these results?

(1) None of the in-hospital treatments - with or without Zinc - will work. This gives negative evidence for all of those consistent with other RCTs. You need to be treating before onset of symptoms.

(2) AZT is not needed, nor Zinc - good results here without either when used very close to exposure means that HCQ on its on is enough.

(3) Raoult's results would not be predicted by this - he does not get to patients soon enough. Zelencko's claims also not predicted for anyone coming to him with symptoms. HCQ, with or without Zinc, does not help these cases.

(4) HCQ well worth it as very fast treatment immediately afetr an esposure incident

(5) HCQ as prophylatic is not proven because this protocol uses a high initial dose of HCQ. Although HCQ build up in the body, it is possible that the high dose affects plasma levels in some parts quickly, and tehrefore a continuous low dose would not be so effective. On teh other hand maybe it would be effective. Certainly worth investigating as medium-term prophylatic for those at high risk, though not as whole-population treatment.

This evidence nicely bisects the political row. Though why people here are so consumed by politics I wish I knew. For example, I view Trump as highly unreliable on science. If I were to always assume he was wrong about science that would be giving him a (negative) reliability implying some accuracy that I do not believe he has!

THH

Quote from THHuxleynew

Topic: Bobby Kennedy's journey from heroic ecowarrier of the left to purveyor of COVID misinformation (of the most lurid sort) that might just cause untold harm to the health and economy of the US.

Kennedy believes that Covid measures - whether vaccines or microchips - benefit certain companies and people, like Bill Gates. No misinformation there.

If you're implying - as that audio segment sneakily implies by association - that Kennedy is saying Bill Gates planned for Covid to happen, then would that make you a purveyor of misinformation?

Quote from Alan Fletcher

Can you please give me the source for this plot?

Marcio Watanabe's paper is dealt with by

https://c19study.com/

The author of this website is a fairly clever chap..who??? Ahlfors may know??

and well read.... 66 papers... increasing weekly

Also they have a statistical study similar to Marcio's but including a time delay

..

and concludes that the beneficial effect of HCQ in early treatment from Boulware's results

is 99.8% probable... in contrast to Boulware's rather crude analysis which purports no effect..

.to which Boulware has not replied....he remembers his free lunch from Gilead?

I like their running total on the country graphs..

the graphs leave out New Zealand..(-HCQ)

.. but NZ has splendid isolation..

like most of Australia (-HCQ)except Victoria State....

which has now gone into complete lockdown.for 6 weeks with curfews ..

to restore splendidicity..and serenity in the ICUs

and do not include Costa Rica( +HCQ)(+ poor Nicaraguan guestworkers)

RB - I'm glad you are repeating some of the content of my post. Not glad that you continue to post scientifically illiterate infographics of ecological studies (remember "the closer to the EU HQ the higher the risk of COVID?". Not glad that instead of engaging with the interesting science here you are just repeating political polemic. Why do this? So much more interesting to engage with real arguments, acknowledging that they exist.

THH

Dr Todaro on dr Fauci'e evidence..

1/ Dr. Fauci is misleading the American people when he says that randomized controlled trials have shown hydroxychloroquine to be ineffective. Here’s why.

2/ There's only one double-blind RCT on HCQ in early treatment of COVID-19. All of the other RCTs (SOLIDARITY, RECOVERY, etc) w

ere in very sick patients and are borderline worthless because they just support what we've been saying since March—HCQ is for early disease, not late.

3/ The "randomized controlled trial" for EARLY treatment of COVID-19 that Dr. Fauci is too embarrassed to even mention by name is the one done by the University of Minnesota,

“Hydroxychloroquine in Nonhospitalized Adults With Early COVID-19” (Jul 2020) https://acpjournals.org/doi/10.7326/M20-4207…

4/ The Minnesota study is honestly an embarrassment to the term “randomized controlled trial”

and should actually be called an “anonymous online survey” instead.{this is the Boulware study)

5/ Only 34% of participants had a positive PCR test. The remaining 66% either did not have a PCR test or actually tested negative. This means that a positive diagnosis was made based on only SYMPTOMS for the vast majority of participants. This isn’t great, but it gets worse.

6/ The participants were evaluated via a static online survey and not actually seen by physicians

or medical personnel.

So the quality of the diagnosis was essentially equivalent to someone typing symptoms into WebMD.

7/ What happens if a large percent of the participants didn’t actually have COVID-19?

It would diminish the observed therapeutic effect of hydroxychloroquine (HCQ probably isn’t going to help allergies or the common cold).

8/ Next point. If the researchers had kept their original end point (hospitalization/death), the study would've actually shown a strong trend toward benefit for HCQ.

Instead, the researchers changed the end point mid-study from hospitalizations/death to symptoms at 14 days.

9/ The conclusion of the study is actually a ~40% reduction in hospitalizations/deaths in patients treated with HCQ vs placebo (2.5% vs 4.1%).

This did not reach significance, but would have been strong encouragement to proceed with additional higher powered RCTs.

10/ The good news is that Dr. Fauci & the NIH started a trial in May doing just this.

The bad news is they cancelled the trial after enrolling only 20 subjects in order

to focus on a new trial evaluating remdesivir plus baricitinib (another “novel” patented drug).

11/ In conclusion, it's been >4 mos since HCQ was proposed for early stage COVID-19

. Yet, with their vast resources, neither the WHO nor NIH conducted a trial on this. Instead

Dr. Fauci's evidence for the inefficacy of HCQ comes from an online survey under the guise of an RCT.

Slums India - Mumbai:

About 60% are carrying anti bodies!!! https://www.tifr.res.in/TSN/ar…2wtqeVMg0RkO3ORHoKIci-T64

This sounds slike a game changer!

Government Centre Allocates 4.24 Crore(42 Million) Hydroxychloroquine Tablets To States

Currently, the hydroxychloroquine is being used for the treatment of COVID-19 patients and is recommended as a prophylaxis of the virus as per the national taskforce for COVID-19.

https://www.ndtv.com/india-new…union-territories-2270871

Quote from Curbina

These results are so different from those of other countries

Mumbai Slums probably have high levels of transmission..

due to the high levels of personal contact.

Perhaps the slums in Arica and other parts of the world also,,have high immunities

but who is testing the slums,,?

apart from India..

https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/latamc…based-migration-policies/

Quote from THHuxleynew

Tortoise is a Uk "slow news" organisation, which is apolitical (not obviously left or right) and tries to look for the deeper things behind the here today gone tomorrow headlines.

I don't normally listen to 30 min audio segments but this one had me rivetted (and of course audio is so much more honest than video - where pictures give our brains unconscious bias cues we cannot ignore, and real information content is low).

Topic: Bobby Kennedy's journey from heroic ecowarrier of the left to purveyor of COVID misinformation (of the most lurid sort) that might just cause untold harm to the health and economy of the US.

https://members.tortoisemedia.com/2020/08/03/what-the-rfk-infodemic-podcast/content.html?sig=_rAAHPy5gaTLhQvCXvwb5VBnF6xve-1yuYWKiYdOxOE&utm_source=Tortoise+Members&utm_campaign=8cb16b91ad-EDITORS_EMAIL_3_AUGUST&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_efeb5ec230-8cb16b91ad-138373963&mc_cid=8cb16b91ad&mc_eid=%5bUNIQID%5d

You can get free membership to listen if needed it says (i did not need to do that, it just worked for me).

THH

Display More

This is product marketing for the vaccine industry. The key section of this video is around 14-16min - and it is empty. This is a hit piece, and the fact that you put this piece of media garbage out there suggests you have an agenda. There isn't a single piece of discovery or interesting fact here. It is just "conspiracy theory" after "conspiracy theory" talk. Does anyone really buy this garbage concept anymore? You have pharma companies issuing multimillion dollar settlements for fraud, an opiod crisis, all sorts of other vicious cycle drugs....and the golden egg -- vaccines...where billions of dollars of quiet settlements go out....and you expect us to side with the "humans are prone to blame rich people for their problems" theory. The end of the audio ends with a "anti-trump" call and a call out to the Lincoln project.

Are you paying the site administrators for product placement? Because you should.

Getting people to take this mythological vaccine and (not take HCQ or Ivermectin) requires marketing. Do you agree or disagree?

Update: why is THH pushing content just published in the last 24hrs that is obviously product marketing?