Bad Science by Folks Who Don’t Want Hydroxychloroquine Shown to be Effective

Bad science. The forces that don’t want hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) shown as effective for c…..19 are funding fake studies that show that HCQ is ineffective.

Thanks to Todd Caldecott for the initial post.

From the article below:
“In 25 May media briefing, WHO Director-General Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus cited the Lancet results in announcing a “temporary pause” in Solidarity’s hydroxychloroquine arm.
Regulators in France and the United Kingdom also instructed investigators, including White’s team, to halt enrollment in trials of the malaria drug. And Sanofi, which manufactures the branded hydroxychloroquine drug Plaquenil, said it would temporarily stop recruiting patients to its two clinical trials of the drug.”

Please do your research before you believe anything.

Here’s the original “study”
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0140673620311806https://www.thelancet.com/pdfs/journals/lancet/PIIS0140-6736(20)31180-6.pdf

Here’s the Lancet’s expression of concern of the study:
https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanpub/article/PIIS0140-6736(20)31290-3/fulltext

Commenter 1: Thought FB was removing posting on C19 unless it was from medical professionals. So done!

@Commenter 1: I think of this as sharing science and developments of.

Here’s Dr Didier Raoult’s response to the revealing of the bad science. Dr Raoult did a proper study showing the benefit of HCQ. The Youtube video is in French so try using the subtitles set to auto-generate for your language of choice.
If anyone can translate into English and leave the transcription here, then it would be greatly appreciated.

Here’s Dr Raoult’s study:

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32205204/

Commenter 2: Thank you H 👍

Commenter 3: Wow. It sounds like you’ve listened to a few of those friendly ‘doctor’ videos. Perhaps try the CBC report on the same. It seems a better example of balanced reporting….
 
https://www.cbc.ca/player/play/1746238019636

@Commenter 3: Thanks for that link. McDonald’s study says that hydroxychloroquine is not effective for the prevention of c…..19. However, as she states in 00:41 of the cbc video.

“From here, we still don’t know if we can give the medication as treatment, either in the community or in the hospital. And those are the questions that need to be answered.”

Given the imminent retraction of the fake science study, WHO has resumed a study looking into whether hydroxychloroquine is effective as a treatment.

But I do believe that Dr Raoult’s study above does show a positive benefit of hydroxychloroquine as a treatment.
https://www.nejm.org/doi/10.1056/NEJMoa2016638

@Commenter 3: WHO resumes hydroxychloroquine study:

https://time.com/5847664/who-hydroxychloroquine-covid-19/

@Commenter 3: I believe that this is the study that the CBC interviewed doctor, Dr Emily McDonald was referring to. 719 (out of 821) patients had high-risk exposures without eye shields and surgical masks or respirators. 113 persons had development of symptomatic illness.

No arrhythmias or deaths occurred.

In this study, with 0 deaths, the mortality rate was 0.000%

https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa2016638

I haven’t had time to fact check these quotes, but for now, here’s a potential quote from a former New England Journal of Medicine editor, Dr Marcia Angell, back late 2009 :

“It is simply no longer possible to believe much of the clinical research that is published, or to rely on the judgment of trusted physicians or authoritative medical guidelines. I take no pleasure in this conclusion, which I reached slowly and reluctantly over my two decades as an editor of The New England Journal of Medicine”

https://ethicalnag.org/2009/11/09/nejm-editor/

June 4, 2020: Thanks to SL for posting.

In the first big research scandal of the COVID-19 era, The Lancet and The New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM) today retracted two high-profile papers after a company declined to make the underlying data for both available for an independent audit, following questions being raised about the research. The Lancet paper, which claimed an antimalarial drug touted by President Donald Trump for treatment of COVID-19 could cause serious harm without helping patients, had had a global impact, halting trials of one of the drugs by the World Health Organization (WHO) and others.

Three authors on the Lancet paper requested the retraction, after initiating an independent review of the raw hospital patient data summarized and provided by Surgisphere, a small Chicago-based company operated by Sapan Desai, the fourth author of the study. Desai had previously said he and his co-authors—cardiac surgeon Mandeep Mehra of Harvard University and Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Frank Ruschitzka of University Hospital Zürich, and Amit Patel, an adjunct faculty member at the University of Utah—were getting such an audit of the data, but the agreement apparently fell apart.

“Our independent peer reviewers informed us that Surgisphere would not transfer the full dataset, client contracts, and the full ISO audit report to their servers for analysis as such transfer would violate client agreements and confidentiality requirements,” making the outside audit of the data impossible, the three co-authors wrote in the retraction statement. “Based on this development, we can no longer vouch for the veracity of the primary data sources.”

The NEJM study that was retracted had concluded, based on Surgisphere-provided data from hospitals around the world, that taking certain blood pressure drugs, including angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors, didn’t appear to increase the risk of death among COVID-19 patients, as some researchers had suggested.

https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2020/06/two-elite-medical-journals-retract-coronavirus-papers-over-data-integrity-questions

Commenter 4: In this day of media being very bad at science reporting, I wouldn’t be confident about anything until there is a real scientific consensus. There was a retraction. That’s all we know. There’s a reason the WHO is still investigating.

@Commenter 4: Here’s Dr Raoult’s study which shows the benefit of HCQ as treatment for c…..19. It had a rebuttal, but Dr Raoult issued a counter rebuttal.

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32205204/

Commenter 5: @Commenter 4 I would agree with you.

@Commenter 5: So it’s important to research the scientific literature and not rely on untrustworthy main stream media sources.

Can search via
www.scholar.google.com
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/

Commenter 4: There’s a reason big bodies like the WHO wait for consensus. Even with a valid, peer reviewed paper, there’s p-hacking for results which is common, and an astonishing number of papers can’t be replicated. One positive study for a drug shows that it’s worth researching more, not that it’s the answer.