It needs an investigation alright. These charismatic types can do amazing work but can also be loopy, scammers and their narcissist tenancies can mean they use bullying to force an invalid view. The guy styles his hair as a musketeer, that is a red flag for me anyway
https://www.politico.com/news/2020/...uine-not-effective-against-coronavirus-283980 Fauci: Hydroxychloroquine not effective against coronavirus However, Fauci stopped short of calling for an outright ban of the drug. National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases Director Anthony Fauci on Wednesday became the first Trump administration official to say definitively that hydroxychloroquine is not an effective treatment for the coronavirus, based on the available data. "The scientific data is really quite evident now about the lack of efficacy," Fauci — the U.S. government's top infectious disease expert — said on CNN. But he stopped short of calling for an outright ban of the drug, which President Trump said he was taking last week as a preventative measure after a top White House aide was diagnosed with the coronavirus. Fauci's comments come days after the Lancet published a 96,000-patient observational study that concluded that hydroxychloroquine had no effect on Covid-19 and may have even caused some harm. France decided this week to ban the use of hydroxychloroquine, even in clinical trials, and the WHO has paused its clinical trials of the drug. There is no data yet from randomized, controlled clinical trials of hydroxychloroquine — the gold standardfor evaluating potential treatments. But Fauci was unequivocal on Wednesday, saying that "the data are clear right now."
The Hydroxychloroquine Controversy Is A Reminder That Prescription Laws Are A Government Racket After President Trump declared that he uses hydroxychloroquine, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) walked back its advice against the drug and seemingly all others as well. “The decision to take any drug,” the head of the agency said, is “between a patient and their doctor.” The first moment was March 13, when the FDA dropped its onerous approval process for coronavirus test kits. It was still late to the game, but the move helped save face. On Tuesday, there wasn’t much left to preserve after the FDA commissioner issued a statement essentially nullifying much of his own bureaucracy’s purpose for existing. “The decision to take any drug is ultimately a decision between a patient and their doctor,”FDA commissioner Dr. Stephen Hahn said in an emailed statement to various news outlets, including the Hill and CNBC. This came in response to President Trump’s remarks that same day that he had been taking hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) as a preventative measure against COVID-19 for “a couple weeks.” “I think people should be allowed to,” Trump said. The FDA would say that, technically, people are allowed to use HCQ. It’s just not government approved for anything other than malaria, lupus, and rheumatoid arthritis. And although doctors may, and do, prescribe it for “off-label” treatments, a prescription—a government-mandated document that controls public access—is still required. What does it matter, beyond the legal consequences, whether a prescription is written for HCQ or not? In Trump’s case, the president merely requested HCQ from his doctor. It wasn’t even recommended to him. Suppose no prescription were required and HCQ were over the counter. Might Trump or anyone else consult their physician or a pharmacist anyway? All the prescription law can do is potentially weaken the doctor-patient relationship. As the late Dr. Thomas Szasz observed in his book Our Right to Drugs, a “colossal charade” between patients, doctors, insurance companies, and the government arises from this regulatory framework of prescription drug laws. He wrote: The fact that our drug laws require people to secure a prescription for many of the drugs they want (but cannot get on the free market) fosters a mutually degrading dishonesty between physicians and patients. The FDA's latest statement that taking “any drug” is a decision between doctors and patients contrasts sharply with the one it made a little over three weeks prior regarding HCQ. On April 24, the agency cautioned against using HCQ “for COVID-19 outside of the hospital setting or a clinical trial due to risk of heart rhythm problems.” wrote in this space last month, the FDA has a history of using intimidation tactics to secure compliance with unfinalized prohibitions, including against “off-label” drug treatments. In 1991, then FDA commissioner Dr. David Kessler told the Drug Information Association that the FDA would use seizures, injunctions, and prosecutions to enforce its ban on drug companies sharing “off-label” use information with doctors. The ban was never formalized, but Kessler said: “I would urge all members of the pharmaceutical industry to take a long and hard look at their promotional practices. I do not expect companies to wait until this guidance becomes final to put their advertising and promotional houses in order.” Kessler would not be proud of the current FDA head, who concedes that “ultimately” doctors and patients have the decision-making power over drug use. In 1992, Kessler said quite the opposite: If members of our society were empowered to make their own decisions…then the whole rationale for the [FDA] would cease to exist. At least Kessler was more consistent than Hahn is. There’s no sign that Hahn will follow through his words that doctors and patients may decide how “any drug” should or shouldn’t be taken. That’s too bad, because when the doctor-patient relationship isn’t interrupted by bureaucratic third parties or red tape, it is the strongest bulwark against drug and prescription abuses. What benefit is a layer of FDA regulations that simply restrict everyone’s freedom for the sake of those who will circumnavigate the rules, anyway? The principle is more commonly accepted in the gun control debate, but it is the same in the prescription drug control debate. Trump got it right when he said people should be allowed to decide for themselves. His words clearly influenced the FDA’s messaging. We can allow ourselves a little hope, but realistically, substantial reform towards more freedom in medicine may have to wait until a worse crisis demands it. * * * As an aside, the controversy over HCQ's use - and apparent worldwide damnation of the drug (since President Trump suggested it) has raised a few eyebrows recently. Consider these two recent examples: Indian studies fully support the use of HCQ in COVID-19 cases: The Indian government is courting controversy by continuing to give the antimalarial drug hydroxychloroquine to health care workers on the front lines of the fight against the coronavirus, despite safety concerns that have prompted the World Health Organisation to pause a large-scale trial of the drug. Scientists at the Indian Council of Medical Research (ICMR), the body leading the coronavirus battle in India, say their studies have shown definitively that the drug – also known as HCQ – helps to prevent infections among health care workers exposed to Covid-19. The ICMR has conducted three studies, involving control groups of between 330 and 1,300 people, in which frontline health care staff have taken the drug as a preventive measure. And the Australian study that has been 'touted' around the world as "proving" HCQ is unsafe against COVID-19 is now being questioned openly... Questions have been raised by Australian infectious disease researchers about a study published in the Lancet which prompted the World Health Organization to halt global trials of the drug hydroxychloroquine to treat Covid-19. Specifically, the study, led by the Brigham and Women’s Hospital Center for Advanced Heart Disease in Boston, examined patients in hospitals around the world, including in Australia. It said researchers gained access to data from five hospitals recording 600 Australian Covid-19 patients and 73 Australian deaths as of 21 April. But data from Johns Hopkins University shows only 67 deaths from Covid-19 had been recorded in Australia by 21 April. The number did not rise to 73 until 23 April. The data relied upon by researchers to draw their conclusions in the Lancet is not readily available in Australian clinical databases, leading many to ask where it came from. ... “If they got this wrong, what else could be wrong?” Dr Allen Cheng, an epidemiologist and infectious disease doctor with Alfred Health in Melbourne, said. It was also a “red flag” to him that the paper listed only four authors. The now questionable findings prompted researchers from around the world to reassess their own clinical trials of the drug for preventing and treating Covid-19. The World Health Organization halted all its trials involving hydroxychloroquine due to the concerns raised in the study about its efficacy and safety. Bear in mind that - before Trump's recommendation - it was once viewed as among the most promising medicines to treat the virus, and the Australian Department of Health had been stockpiling millions of doses of the drug in case clinical trials found it proved useful. Last month Australia’s chief scientist, Dr Alan Finkel,urged the public to be cautious about findings and interpretations from studies in the race to find cures and treatments for Covid-19. Serious concerns have being raised by bioethicists, clinicians and scientists that scientific rigour and peer review is falling by the wayside in the race to understand how the virus spreads and why it has such a devastating impact on some people. * * * It is difficult to avoid the conclusion that HCQ/zinc is being sidelined in order to clear the way for a profitable vaccine and a vaccination mandate. https://www.zerohedge.com/health/hy...inder-prescription-laws-are-government-racket
What you read: Prescriptions are a government racket What actually happened: Hand picked political appointment heading FDA walks back scientific opinion to not contradict the tweedler in chief
Well, it looks like there is a high probability that the study was faked. There is probably a zero chance that the data set will be made public so that the data and the results can be verified. We already have fake news now we have to deal with fake studies? Some excerpts below. https://www.theguardian.com/science...-which-caused-who-to-halt-trials-for-covid-19 Questions raised over hydroxychloroquine study which caused WHO to halt trials for Covid-19 Questions have been raised by Australian infectious disease researchers about a study published in the Lancet which prompted the World Health Organization to halt global trials of the drug hydroxychloroquine to treat Covid-19. The data relied upon by researchers to draw their conclusions in the Lancet is not readily available in Australian clinical databases, leading many to ask where it came from. The federal health department confirmed to Guardian Australia that the data collected on notifications of Covid-19 in the National Notifiable Diseases Surveillance System was not the source for informing the trial. Guardian Australia also contacted the health departments of Australia’s two most populous states, New South Wales and Victoria, which have had by far the largest number of Covid-19 infections between them. Of the Australian deaths reported by 21 April, 14 were in Victoria and 26 in NSW. Victoria’s department confirmed the study’s results relating to the Australian data did not reconcile with the state’s coronavirus data, including hospital admissions and deaths. The NSW Department of Health also confirmed it did not provide the researchers with the data for its databases. The Lancet told Guardian Australia: “We have asked the authors for clarifications, we know that they are investigating urgently, and we await their reply.” The lead author of the study, Dr Mandeep Mehra, said he had contacted Surgisphere, the company that provided the data, to reconcile the discrepancies with “the utmost urgency”. Surgisphere is described as a healthcare data analytics and medical education company. “Usually to submit to a database like Surgisphere you need ethics approval, and someone from the hospital will be involved in that process to get it to a database,” he said. He said the dataset should be made public, or at least open to an independent statistical reviewer. “If they got this wrong, what else could be wrong?” Cheng said. It was also a “red flag” to him that the paper listed only four authors. “Usually with studies that report on findings from thousands of patients, you would see a large list of authors on the paper,” he said. “Multiple sources are needed to collect and analyse the data for large studies and you usually see that acknowledged in the list of authors.”
Extracts as he did not want this paragraph ruining his propoganda. “We have reviewed our Surgisphere database and discovered that a new hospital that joined the registry on April 1, and self-designated as belonging to the Australasia continental designation,” the spokesman said. “In reviewing the data from each of the hospitals in the registry, we noted that this hospital had a nearly 100% composition of Asian race and a relatively high use of chloroquine compared to non-use in Australia. This hospital should have more appropriately been assigned to the Asian continental designation. He said the error did not change the overall study findings. It did mean that the Australian data in the paper would be revised to four hospitals and 63 deaths."
My perspective is that studies of hydroxychloroquine and other treatments for COVID-19 still need to move forward under proper medical supervision. So far the results from hydroxychloroquine have not been promising but this is no reason to abandon trails that are already underway. BTW - they are saying the study is flawed not "faked". Let's read the information in full context. Understanding that many of the 120 scientists making the claims have those who have been pushing hydroxychloroquine. You stated "There is probably a zero chance that the data set will be made public so that the data and the results can be verified." Note that the full data set for the study has been released. Now they are just quibbling if the data aligns with that of reporting governments (see the Australia example where the data from one hospital from Asia was missed in). And arguing over statistical models. Covid-19 study on hydroxychloroquine use questioned by 120 researchers and medical professionals Surgisphere issues public statement defending integrity of coronavirus study published in the Lancet https://www.theguardian.com/world/2...estioned-by-researchers-medical-professionals More than 120 researchers and medical professionals from around the world have written an open letter to the editor of the Lancet raising serious concerns about a large and widely publicised global study that prompted the World Health Organisation to halt several Covid-19 clinical trials. On Thursday Guardian Australia revealed that the Australian data in the study, published last week, did not reconcile with health department records or databases. The study found Covid-19 patients who received the malaria drug hydroxychloroquine were dying at higher rates and experiencing more heart-related complications than other virus patients. The large observational study analysed data from nearly 15,000 patients with Covid-19 who received the drug alone or in combination with antibiotics, comparing this data with 81,000 controls who did not receive the drug. Questions about the paper’s statistical modelling were also raised by Columbia University in the US, prompting Surgisphere, the company that manages the database of patients used to inform the study, to issue a public statement defending the integrity of the study. But now further questions have been raised about the Surgisphere database and the study methodology. The signatories to the open letter, directed to the Lancet and the study authors, include prominent sceptics of the value of using hydroxychloroquine to treat Covid-19. The letter lists 10 major concerns about the statistical analysis and data integrity of the study. “The authors have not adhered to standard practices in the machine learning and statistics community,” the letter states. “They have not released their code or data.” The Lancet is among the many signatories to a statement on data sharing for Covid-19 studies. “There was no ethics review,” the letter continues. “There was no mention of the countries or hospitals that contributed to the data source and no acknowledgments to their contributions. A request to the authors for information on the contributing centres was denied. Data from Australia are not compatible with government reports. Surgisphere have since stated this was an error of classification of one hospital from Asia. This indicates the need for further error checking throughout the database.” The letter also states that the data from Africa in the study indicates that nearly 25% of all Covid-19 cases and 40% of all deaths in the continent occurred in Surgisphere-associated hospitals which had sophisticated electronic patient data recording, and patient monitoring. “Both the numbers of cases and deaths, and the detailed data collection, seem unlikely,” the letter says. The letter also expressed concern about unusually small reported variances in baseline variables, interventions and outcomes between continents, despite significant differences in demographics. There is currently no strong, replicated evidence that any drug is effective for the treatment or prevention of Covid-19. This includes hydroxychloroquine, which has long been used for malaria and autoimmune diseases, but its safety and harm profile for treating those illnesses is understood. It is not well understood for Covid-19. Governments around the world have warned against using hydroxychloroquine for treating or preventing the virus, highlighting the drug’s potentially toxic side effects and potential to cause heart abnormalities. There have been serious reports of harm due to people self-medicating with hydroxychloroquine and related drugs during the pandemic. Researchers are not calling for clinical trials to be halted in the light of the Lancet study. There is a consensus that more strong studies are needed exploring treatments including antibiotics, antivirals and antimalarials. “There is uniform agreement that well conducted RCTs [randomised control trials] are needed to inform policies and practices,” the signatories to the Lancet letter said. Guardian Australia has contacted the Lancet, Surgisphere and the authors of the study for a response to the concerns outlined in the letter. Surgisphere founder Dr Sapan Desai, also an author on the Lancet paper, said before the release of the letter he appreciated the “enthusiasm and lively discussion with respect to our important multi-national observational registry study published in the Lancet medical journal”. “We appreciate the highly complimentary responses that we have received and the requests for data-driven partnerships as well as clarifications,” he said. “The analyses were carefully performed, and the interpretations provided were intentionally measured. We studied a very specific group of hospitalised patients with Covid-19 and have clearly stated that the results of our analyses should not be over-interpreted to those that have yet to develop such disease or those that have not been hospitalised. We also clearly outlined the limitations of an observational study that cannot fully control for unobservable confounding measures and concluded that off label use of the drug regimens outside of the context of a clinical trial should not be recommended.”