UPDATE 23. June 2020: Reportedly a major scandal is brewing concerning the HCQ trials in England: Allegedly 1000 dead due to overdose during study at Oxford University.
UPDATE 20. June 2020: Covid-19 Has Turned Public Health Into a Lethal, Patient-Killing Experimental Endeavor
UPDATE 04.June 2020: The study stating "Hydroxychloroquine ineffective" published by the LANCET is fraudulent and was now retracted
UPDATE 27. May 2020: Hydroxychloroquine allegedly ineffective as COVID-19 treatment, but still deadly for some.
PROLOGUE: WARNING! In the case of glucose-6-phosphate dehydrogenase (G6PD) deficiency, called favism, which is genetically prevalent in about 30% of all black Africans, as well as in many African-Americans, but also especially among the Khazarian Jews among the Kurds (50% of men), Jews and to a much lower percentage in southern Europeans or Europeans and is genetically determined, it is certain that with administering higher doses of anti-malarial medicines such as Quinine - analogous chloroquine (Resochin BAYER), primaquine as well as hydroxychloroquine - death can occur within a short time due to hemolysis, i.e. the destruction of red blood cells, partially along with acute renal failure.
Chloroquine may kill many people in Africa, Chicago and elsewhere!
By Wolfgang Wodarg - 18. April 2020
WHO and many others advocate the use of hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) if the SARS-CoV-2 test is positive.
HCQ is an old malaria drug, used also with autoimmun diseases but is not officially approved for Covid-19. Most of the recent studies with HCQ (more than 100 on 18.4.2020, 35 new ones last week), which have now been registered in rapid succession, also want to use HCQ alone or in combination with other drugs.
HCQ is already being used like that even in completely healthy people „for the prevention of severe courses“. It is also used prophylactically for medical staff. The recommended dose is about 20 times as high as for malaria prophylaxis! (400-800mg per day).
But so far there is no sufficient evidence for a positive clinical effect of HCQ in SARS-CoV-2 positives, let alone in test negatives.
However, HCQ is one of the drugs that causes severe damage to red blood cells in cases of hereditary glucose-6-phosphate dehydrogenase (G6PD) deficiency.
The erythrocytes then burst en masse. Their debris clogs the smallest blood vessels and damages sensible organs like kidneys and brain. In addition erythrocytes are then missing to transport oxygen throughout the body. This is one of the reasons why there is severe shortness of breath without typical signs of peumonia.
The acute symptoms improve spontaneously after the dangerous medication is stopped, thanks to a rapid normalisation of the blood count.
Other serious side effects of HCQ like arrhythmia or eye damage do not have this hereditary background.
Almost nobody seems to be aware, that in sub-Saharan Africa, for example, the hereditary G6PD deficiency is widespread among 20-30% of the population? But also in other Countries, where malaria was or still is endemic, there is a high prevalence of G6PD deficiency . It must also be remembered in families with a migration background e.g. in Chicago (10 to 12%), New York and elsewhere.
Johns Hopkins University is warning not to use „Aspirin, certain antibiotics (which?),Fava beans and Moth balls“ but does not mention chloroquin derivates!
If people with G6PD deficiency get this HCQ-prophylaxe or therapy the symptoms will appear soon.
1-2 days after the start of treatment a very severe clinical picture with sudden weakness, dizziness, respiratory distress and signs of organ damage may end deadly, if the toxic medication is not stopped immediately.
So using the questionable SARS-CoV-2 test as a trigger for treatment or prevention with dangerous drugs like HCQ may kill many, without any pandemic being in sight. (See my comment in BMJ here)
This genetic peculiarity is also common in Mediterranean countries and in all regions where malaria has occurred or is still occurring.
Rapid Response to:
Chloroquine and Hydroxychloroquine in Covid-19
BMJ 2020; 369 doi: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.m1432 (Published 08 April 2020) Cite this as: BMJ 2020;369:m1432
Re: Chloroquine and hydroxychloroquine in covid-19.
Reading the article" Chloroquine and hydroxychloroquine in covid-19" and scanning the responses I got a little bit nervous because I missed something. I worked in a clinic for tropical medicine (Bernhard-Nocht-Institute, Hamburg) and later visited several countries in Africa to see a lot of health care facilities working hard with little resources. Malaria and anti-malaria drugs were always a main topic.
When I noticed that WHO and many others advocate the use of hydroxychloroquine (HCQ), if the SARS-CoV-2 test is positive, I was astonished to meet the drug in this context again.
HCQ is an old malaria drug, used also with autoimmune diseases but is not yet officially approved for Covid-19. The recently registered studies with HCQ (I found more than 100 on 18/4/2020, 35 new ones last week (1)) also want to use HCQ alone or in combination with other drugs. HCQ has already been "compassionately" used in some countries even without the framework of a clinical study.
It was used even in completely healthy people "for the prevention of severe courses". It is also used prophylactically for medical staff. The recommended dose is about 20 times as high as for malaria prophylaxis! (400-800mg per day). Such use and even new production facilities (e.g. in Cameroon (2)) for HCQ are currently being ramped up, especially in Africa.
All this happens without sufficient evidence for a positive clinical effect of HCQ in SARS-CoV-2 positives, not to speak about test negatives.
However, HCQ was a long time ago identified to be one of the drugs (3) that cause severe damage to erythrocytes in cases of hereditary glucose-6-phosphate dehydrogenase (G6PD) deficiency.
As an effect of HCQ in those patients we see haemolysis. Erythrocytes burst en masse. Their debris clogs the smallest blood vessels and damages sensitive organs like the kidneys and brain.
In addition, erythrocytes are then missing to transport oxygen and haemoglobin becomes low. If people with G6PD deficiency get this HCQ-prophylaxis or therapy the symptoms will appear soon.
1-2 days after the start of such treatment a very severe clinical picture with weakness, dizziness, respiratory distress and signs of organ damage develops.
This may end in death if the toxic medication is not stopped immediately.
Could it be one reason for those cases where severe shortness of breath was observed without typical signs of pneumonia. It is a clinical picture "as if the patient suddenly was dropped out on top of the Himalayas", said one of the New York ICU- doctors.
Did any of the patients get Chloroquine shortly before? Did anyone care whether the patient could have G6PD-deficiency?
It fits well with some case reports that the acute symptoms improve spontaneously (If the dangerous medication is stopped) thanks to a rapid normalisation of the blood count.
Almost nobody seems to be aware, that in Sub-Saharan Africa, for example, hereditary G6PD deficiency is widespread (20-30% of the population).
But also in other countries, where malaria was or still is endemic, there is a high prevalence of G6PD deficiency.
G6PD deficiency must also be thought of in families with a migration background e.g. in Chicago, New York and elsewhere. African Americans represent 6 percent of the population, but nearly 40 percent of Covid-19 fatalities (5). But Johns Hopkins University only is warning not to use "Aspirin, certain antibiotics (which?), Fava beans and Moth balls" but does not mention chloroquine derivates! (6)
So using the questionable SARS-CoV-2 test as a trigger for treatment or prevention with dangerous drugs like HCQ may kill many, without any pandemic being in sight.
This genetic peculiarity is also common in Mediterranean countries and in all regions where malaria has occurred or is still occurring.
I write this, just to remind everyone who is in charge and I am very disappointed, that in many of the new studies with HCQ, people with the enzyme deficiency are not explicitly excluded (1).
Competing interests: No competing interests
20 April 2020
Wolfgang Wodarg - internal medicine-pneumology, public health
- Ampicillin- levels may be reduced by chloroquine;
- Antacids- may reduce absorption of chloroquine;
- Cimetidine- may inhibit metabolism of chloroquine; increasing levels of chloroquine in the body;
- Cyclosporine- levels may be increased by chloroquine; and
- Mefloquine- may increase risk of convulsions.
This is also one the reasons why the Kenya government had withdrawn the drug HydroxyChloroquine from the shelves of pharmacies - after a hype was stirred by U.S. President Trump promoting it against COVID-19 - in order to avoid ill-advised self-medication. However, it is available against prescription and might have positive effects for COVID-19 patients that do NOT suffer from (G6PD) deficiency. (see new findings below).
IMPORTANT: DO NOT take Chloroquine before you are tested for (G6PD) deficiency
OXFORD UNIVERSITY STUDY ON HCQ - A KILLER-TRIAL
23. June 2020
In their medical trial Oxford University reportedly gave 4 times a higher dose of Hydroxychloroquine and allegedly 1000 people died.
When there's such a grave pattern to these "mistakes", some suspect fraud.
"We need answers as to why the #recoverytrial gave a loading dose of 2400mg day one. Patients had lethal doses of Hydroxychloroquine by day 5-6. Still no data to study from the trial. Is this a cover-up like faked lancet paper on Hydroxychloroquine?"
The University of Oxford had received 243 million USD from Bill Gates through the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation (BMFG)
Dr. Meryl Nass has uncovered a hornet’s nest of government sponsored Hydroxychloroquine experiments that were designed to kill severely ill, Covid-19 hospitalized patients. On June 14th Dr. Nass first identified two Covid-19 experiments in which massive, high toxic doses – four times higher than usual of hydroxychloroquine were being given to severely ill hospitalized patients in intensive care units.
- Solidarity was being conducted by the World Health Organization, on 3500 Covid-19 patients at 400 hospitals, across 35 countries. The hydroxychloroquine arm of the trial was suspended May 25th following the fraudulent Surgisphere report in The Lancet that claimed 35% higher death rates in patients receiving Hydroxychloroquine. But when The Lancet retracted the report, the WHO resumed the Solidarity trial’s hydroxychloroquine arm, on June 3rd. More than 100 countries expressed interest in participating in the trial.
- Recovery is a similar experimental trial conducted in the UK, using very similar doses. It was sponsored by the Wellcome Trust (GlaxoSmithKline) and the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation and the UK government. The experiment was conducted at Oxford University, on 1,542 patients of these 396 patients (25.7%) died.
Update: After Dr. Nass’ discovery was publicly disseminated, the WHO suspended the hydroxychloroquine arm of the trial on Wednesday June 17th.
On Friday, June 19th, Dr. Nass uncovered a third, “Even Worse” hydroxychloroquine experiment. REMAP targets patients who are on a ventilator, or in shock – i.e., near death. Such patients are hardly capable of giving consent. Rather than attempting to save their lives, they are being used given multiple high doses of hydroxychloroquine and other drugs whose combination is contraindicated.
Of note: All the online protocols have been stamped “Not for IRB (Institutional Review Board) submission,”
This is an ongoing medical atrocity being perpetrated by medical doctors at 200 sites in 14 countries: include: Australia, Belgium, Canada, Croatia, Germany, Hungary, Ireland, Netherlands, New Zealand, Portugal, Romania, Spain, United Kingdom, and the United States of America.
Since all medicines are potential poison at high doses, why one wonders, are influential academic physicians and international public health institutions designing and conducting experiments that expose extremely vulnerable patients to poisonous levels of the drug Hydroxychloroquin?
As recognized by the Swiss physician Paracelsus, “the Hippocrates of the Renaissance”:
“What is there that is not poison? All things are poison and nothing is without poison. Solely the dose determines that a thing is not a poison.” His insight is as relevant today as it was in the 16th century.
June 19, 2020
What could be worse than giving potentially lethal doses of hydroxychloroquine to Hospitalized Covid-19 patients?
The REMAP-Covid study is using the same HCQ dose as the Recovery trial for 6 days. But it is even worse for the following reasons:
- You have to be close to death, either on a ventilator or in shock, on pressor medications, to be included in the trial, according to the trial documents. However, in a talk by Professor Anthony Gordon, HFNO, CPAP and NIV are additionally said to be inclusion criteria.
- You may receive HCQ alone, or HCQ in combination with 2 more drugs, lopinavir/ritonavir. Yet lopinavir/ritonavir predisposes to QT prolongation, as does HCQ, and the drug label states, “Avoid use in combination with QTc- or PR-interval prolonging drugs.”
- Patients who are in shock or on a ventilator may be unable to give their consent to enroll in a clinical trial. But the trial investigators have deemed that consent may not be required: “For patients who are not competent to consent, either prospective agreement or entry via waiver of consent or some form of deferred consent can be applied, as required by an appropriate ethical review body.”
- For patients too sick to swallow a pill, the drug will be administered via a feeding tube. This could entail an extra procedure for patients.
From the Covid protocol page 23:
“Dosing will be hydroxychloroquine administered by the enteral route. A loading dose is important because of the large volume of distribution. The loading dose will be 800 mg, administered 6-hourly, until 2 doses have been administered. Subsequently, starting 12 hours after the first loading dose, the dose will be 400 mg administered 12-hourly for 12 doses. The preferred method of administration is tablets swallowed whole but, if a patient is unable to swallow, crushed tablets dispersed in water can be administered via an enteral tube (a large bore gastric tube is preferred). No dose adjustment is required when hydroxychloroquine is administered via a gastric tube. No dose adjustment is necessary for renal dysfunction or concomitant use of renal replacement therapy. Clinicians should consider a dose adjustment in the presence of liver failure, however no dose adjustment is necessary for abnormal liver function tests in the absence of liver failure.
This is 2400 mg hydroxychloroquine in the first 24 hrs, over 1.86 g of the “base,” then 800 mg/day for 5 more days or until discharge from the ICU, or 6.4 g total. Dosing fails to take into account weight, renal and hepatic function.
The ignorant doctors who justified toxic doses by invoking ‘volume of distribution’ (which is 40,000 liters) failed to notice that the high ‘volume of distribution’ is an artifact related to the drug accumulating in tissue as opposed to plasma. Drug levels in lung are 200-700 times higher than in plasma. Furthermore, “renal and hepatic insufficiency lead to higher plasma concentrations for a given daily dose and raise the risk of toxicity.”
WHO’s consultant Weniger reported in 1979 that a single dose of 1.5-2 g of chloroquine “base” “may be fatal.” A detailed discussion of therapeutic and toxic doses of chloroquine and hydroxychloroquine can be found in my article of June 14. I acknowledge that hydroxychloroquine is a bit less toxic than chloroquine. But this trial studies the most fragile human beings, and if the trial investigators were unsure of the right dose, they should have “started low and gone slow” as clinicians are advised to do.
The REMAP study protocol acknowledges that the combination of lopinavir/ritonavir and hydroxychloroquine increases the risk of ventricular arrhythmia, but states that the risk is mitigated because patients this sick will be on cardiac monitors, with QTc monitoring. However, it fails to say that the most likely arrhythmia in this setting is torsade de points, which is very difficult to treat. Patients who are already critically ill are unlikely to survive if it occurs. So why use such an excessive hydroxychloroquine dose on these, or any, patients, and risk it? That is not explained.
The REMAP clinical trial is ongoing in 200 sites in 14 countries. They include: Australia, Belgium, Canada, Croatia, Germany, Hungary, Ireland, Netherlands, New Zealand, Portugal, Romania, Spain, United Kingdom, USA.
All their online protocols have been stamped “Not for IRB (Institutional Review Board) submission,” which makes one wonder what was changed when the trial arms were put before IRBs for approval.
Five UK chief medical officers wrote a “Dear Colleague” letter, begging physicians to enroll their Covid patients in clinical trials, including ‘Recovery’ and REMAP, and discouraging “off-label” treatments for Covid outside of trials. Did they know they were asking treating physicians to significantly up the risk of death for their patients? Are they aware that as of today, June 19, the UK has had more deaths from Covid-19 than any country in the world outside the US and Brazil, with 5 and 3 times the UK population, respectively.
Why is public health being turned on its head? This is the third major, multicenter clinical trial of hydroxychloroquine testing toxic doses on Covid patients. The Recovery and Solidarity trials (with almost identical toxic HCQ doses as REMAP) abruptly ended their hydroxychloroquine studies in the past two weeks, coincidentally as people began noticing the excessive doses, especially on Twitter. Who or what is willing to maim and kill patients in order to to kill hydroxychloroquine’s use in Covid-19?
WHO and UK trials using potentially lethal hydroxychloroquine dose–according to WHO consultant,
- June 14, 2020
As of 3 June 2020, more than 3500 patients have been recruited in 35 countries, with over 400 hospitals actively recruiting patients. Overall, over 100 countries have joined or expressed an interest in joining the trial, and WHO is actively supporting 60 of them…
The hydroxychloroquine arm of the Solidarity trials restarted enrolling patients June 3, after being halted May 25 by WHO Director-General Dr. Tedros Ghebreyesus and the Executive Group of the Solidarity Trial. (The hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) arm of the trials was stopped after publication of the Lancet Surgisphere study, which claimed 35% higher death rates in patients who received hydroxychloroquine, but the study was retracted when no one could verify that the Surgisphere database existed).
Below are the drugs being tested in Solidarity:
- Lopinavir with Ritonavir
- Lopinavir with Ritonavir plus Interferon beta-1a.
However, the doses were not specified on WHO’s list of the drugs to be trialed, nor were the actual doses specified, surprisingly, in WHO’s consultation on chloroquine (CQ) dosing, dated April 8. Instead, the introduction of the report of that meeting notes,
“The chloroquine or hydroxychloroquine schedule selected for the trial includes two oral loading doses (250 mg per tablet CQ or 200 mg per tablet HCQ), then oral twice-daily maintenance doses for ten days. This meeting convened to discuss the appropriateness of the selected doses for the trial.”
Last week, I was alerted to the fact that India’s ICMR, its official medical research agency, had written to the WHO, telling WHO that the hydroxychloroquine doses being used in the Solidarity trial were 4 times higher than the doses being used in India. Then I learned that Singapore has been hesitant to participate in the WHO trial, due to the hydroxychloroquine dose.
The UK “Recovery” trial was one part of the international Solidarity conglomeration of clinical trials. The trial ended its HCQ arm on June 4, reporting no benefit. In-hospital mortality of the 1542 patients receiving hydroxychloroquine was 25.7%, or 396 people.
The Recovery trial Study Protocol notes it is funded in part by the Wellcome Trust and the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, and by UK government agencies. The Protocol provides the doses of hydroxychloroquine used, on page 22. Twitter users began to notice a dosing issue, with hashtag #Recoverygate.
The quote from the WHO report on dosing, 4 paragraphs ago, seems to be deliberately vague or even misleading, as the actual dose used in the Solidarity and Recovery trials is 12 tablets during the first 24 hours (800mg initial dose, 800 mg six hours later, 400 mg 6 hrs later, 400 mg 6 hours later), then 400 mg every 12 hours for 9 more days. This is 2,400 mg during the first 24 hours, and a cumulative dose of 9.2 grams over 10 days.
While I could not find the WHO HCQ dosing on the WHO website, co-Principal Investigators of the Recovery trial, Drs. Peter Horby and Martin Landray, claimed they followed the WHO dosing. Landray also told the periodical Paris Soir he was using the same hydroxychloroquine dose used for amebiasis. However, the accepted use for HCQ in amebiasis is only for a liver abscess and only then in pregnancy, when other drugs cannot be used. That dose is 600 mg per day for 2 days, then 300 mg per day, less than half the Recovery dose. Professor Horby said that Paris Soir misinterpreted Landray’s comments, but Paris Soir said Landray had confirmed what he told them in an email.
We also know, from an official Belgian guideline document issued June 8, that high doses were used not only by Recovery in the UK, but also by the Discovery trial in the EU and by the WHO.
We also know that in Brazil, both a high dose and a low dose were trialed, and by April 17 the high dose arm was stopped prematurely due to an excess of deaths. The low dose trial continues in Brazil.
How is the drug hydroxychloroquine normally used? For chronic daily use in systemic lupus erythematosus or rheumatoid arthritis, patients usually receive between 200 and 400 mg daily. In acute Q fever, 600 mg daily may be given at the start of treatment.
We also know from WHO’s March 13 Informal consultation on the potential role of chloroquine that the Gates Foundation had been studying the drug’s pharmacokinetics, and of the 25 participants at this meeting, 5 were from the Gates Foundation.
The only treatment dose mentioned in their report was in a paragraph about preventive doses. It said, “Higher doses would be considered for treatment, i.e., 10mg/kg base, followed by 5mg/kg twice daily for seven days.”
What is the “base”? A 200 mg dose of chloroquine or hydroxychloroquine contains 155 mg “base” drug.
The typical 70 kg person would, if this suggestion had been followed, receive 700 mg base, or 900 mg of hydroxychloroquine, as a loading dose. Generally, a loading dose refers only to a first dose, not to several additional doses within 24 hours, but it can potentially refer to more.
What is a toxic dose? All experts agree. “… chloroquine has a small toxic to therapeutic margin,” according to Goldfrank’s Toxicologic Emergencies. It is very safe when used correctly in the right patients, but a bit more can potentially kill. Prof. Nicholas White, who attended both WHO consultations on the chloroquines, has mentioned this.
The WHO hired a consultant to explore the toxicity of hydroxychloroquine in 1979. The consultant, H. Weniger, looked at 335 episodes of adult poisoning by chloroquine drugs. Weniger on page 5 notes that a single dose of 1.5-2 grams of hydroxychloroquine base “may be fatal.”
The Recovery trial used 1.860 grams hydroxychloroquine base (equal to 2400 mg of hydroxychloroquine) in the first 24 hours for treatment of already very ill, hospitalized Covid-19 patients, a potentially lethal dose.
The dose used in the Recovery trial is not recommended for therapy of any medical condition, which I confirmed with Goodman and Gilman’s Pharmacology textbook, the drug’s label, and the online medical encyclopedia UptoDate.
This excessive dose apparently continues to be used in WHO Solidarity trials in countries around the world. It appears that the Solidarity trials are not testing the benefits of HCQ on Covid-19, but rather testing whether patients tolerate toxic, nontherapeutic doses.
The WHO Solidarity trials, in order to rapidly enroll patients and spare clinicians a lot of paperwork, collect only limited information on side effects. No information has yet been provided regarding causes of death in the completed hydroxychloroquine arm of the Recovery trial, in which 396 patients died.
The Solidarity trial design being employed by WHO may help obscure whether mortality is due to drug toxicity (in which case, one would expect cause of death to be arrhythmias such as torsade de points, neuropsychiatric effects, or hypoglycemia) versus Covid-19.
The WHO report of its meeting on chloroquine dosing states,
“Although the preponderance of opinion tilted towards a reasonable benefit risk profile for the intervention, there was some scepticism about what was considered a ‘minimalistic safety data collection’ currently included in the protocol.”
The high dose regimen being used in the Solidarity trials has no medical justification. The trial design, with its limited collection of safety data, may make it more difficult to identify toxic drug effects, compared to standard drug trials. This is entirely unethical.
Excessive dosing makes it impossible to assess therapeutic benefit, if any, of HCQ.
Giving the drug only to hospitalized patients means that the window of time during which HCQ would be expected to provide the most benefit, when viral titers are rising, has passed.
To sum up:
- HCQ is being given in non-therapeutic, toxic dose
- HCQ is being given too late in the disease course to determine its value against SAR-CoV-2.
- Limited safety data in the Solidarity trials serves to protect trial investigators and sponsors from disclosure of adverse drug effects, including death
- I suspect WHO has been deliberately misleading regarding the doses chosen.
- The conclusions to be drawn are frightening:
- a) WHO and other national health agencies, and charities, have designed huge clinical trials to assure that hydroxychloroquine will fail to show benefit, presumably to advantage its much more expensive competitor(s) and vaccines in development.
- b) In so doing, these agencies and charities have conspired to increase the number of deaths in these trials.
- c) In so doing, they have conspired to deprive billions of people from potentially benefiting from a safe and inexpensive drug during a major pandemic. This could lead to prolongation of the pandemic and many increased cases and deaths.
My recommendation is for WHO to immediately stop using this dosing schedule, give trial subjects clinically appropriate doses, and collect more complete safety data. I would remind WHO that if the consent forms fail to inform patients that the dose of HCQ they may receive is much higher than for any other indication, that WHO may be subject to legal action for injuries incurred in its sham of a clinical trial.
JUSTICE FOR COVID19 ELDERCIDE – AN EXPOSÉ
By justiceforcovid19eldercide.com - June 2020
According to independent as well as mainstream sources, at least one-third of Covid-19 deaths have been elderly patients who have been confined to long-term care facilities with Covid-19 positive patients (meaning those displaying symptoms and ill from the virus).
This deadly outcome was set in motion by at least three state governors: Gavin Newsom of California; Tom Wolf of Pennsylvania and Andrew Cuomo of New York.
This movement is dedicated to exposing these crimes and seeking justice for the estimated 28,000 unnecessary and preventable deaths.
The organizers of Justice For COVID19 Eldercide find it ironic that the healthy and unthreatened portion of the population – children and adults under the age of 60 – are subjected to a strict quarantine and economic lockdown, and if we did not adhere, we were personally responsible for harming the elderly. Yet, these governors put measures into place orders that do the opposite of what should have been done to actually protect our elders, which was to place the COVID19 infected directly into their facilities.
To add to the cruelty and horror of the situation, these crimes were committed in a climate of fear and tyranny, where the loved ones of our most vulnerable populations weren’t even allowed to visit or be at their bedsides as they died.
Retraction: "Hydroxychloroquine or chloroquine with or without a macrolide for treatment of COVID-19: a multinational registry analysis"
The Lancet Published: June 4, 2020
Researchers have retracted a massive study that said that hydroxychloroquine, a malaria drug hyped as a potential COVID-19 cure by President Donald Trump, could pose serious risks to coronavirus patients.
The study, published in May in the medical journal Lancet, concluded that the malaria drug was ineffective against the virus, a finding in line with several other studies. For the first time, it also linked hydroxychloroquine to a higher risk of death. Days after the publication of the study, which claimed to be based on 96,000 hospitalized COVID-19 patients across six continents, the World Health Organization paused human tests on the drug.
But the study quickly drew concerns from outside scientists, more than 180 of whom signed a letter outlining perceived inconsistencies and demanding that the authors share their full dataset, which had come from a little-known health data analytics company called Surgisphere Corporation. Last week, the authors corrected some of their data but claimed that their conclusions remained unchanged.
On Thursday, however, three of the four researchers reversed course and acknowledged they “can no longer vouch for the veracity of the primary data sources.”
In a notice in the Lancet, they wrote that they had sought to have outside experts independently audit the data, but that Surgisphere, which claimed to have an electronic database with patient outcomes from about 670 hospitals, would not hand over its full dataset due to “client agreements and confidentiality agreements.”
Sapan Desai, the fourth co-author of the study and the founder of Surgisphere, was not listed alongside the other authors who retracted the paper.
A second paper based on Surgisphere data was also retracted from the New England Journal of Medicine on Thursday. The study, published by several of the same researchers, was about cardiovascular disease in COVID-19 patients, not about hydroxychloroquine.
For instance, the company’s handful of employees appeared to include a science fiction writer and an adult model, according to the Guardian. The study also claimed to be based in part on data from Australia, but the Guardian reported that it could not confirm with several of that country’s health agencies that they had provided data to the study.
The Lancet study had an immediate impact. Two major hydroxychloroquine clinical trials — one by the WHO, another in the United Kingdom — were put on pause. And the governments of France, Belgium, and Italy banned the drug from being used as a coronavirus treatment.
But scientists questioned whether the study was robust enough to justify those decisions. “Many of us in the scientific community were just very angry at seeing a poorly written and executed study published in the Lancet, given loads of publicity, and then having a hugely negative impact on carefully planned clinical trials around the world,” James Watson, a Thailand-based statistician with the University of Oxford’s Centre for Tropical Medicine and Global Health, told BuzzFeed News last week.
The Lancet study was not alone in finding that hydroxychloroquine is an ineffective treatment for COVID-19, and in linking the drug to serious heart problems. Several other studies have previously reached similar conclusions, and the FDA has acknowledged the cardiac risks of this and a related drug, chloroquine, warning that the drugs not be used outside of a hospital setting.
The latest such study, published Wednesday, found no evidence that hydroxychloroquine was helpful in preventing COVID-19.
As Eric Topol, a cardiologist at the Scripps Research Translational Institute, told BuzzFeed News last week, “Everything points to a drug that has no efficacy. There’s no sign that it helps anyone. We know it has significant side effects that are worrisome.”
But the now-retracted Lancet study was also the first to link the drug to a higher rate of deaths, a link that is now unsubstantiated or at least highly in question.
Stephanie M. Lee is a science reporter for BuzzFeed News and is based in San Francisco. Contact Stephanie M. Lee at .
Philippe Douste-Blazy, MD, a cardiologist and former French Health Minister who served as Under-Secretary General of the United Nations; he was a candidate in 2017 for Director of the World Health Organization.
In a videotaped interview on May 24, 2020, Dr. Douste-Blazy provided insight into how a series of negative hydroxychloroquine studies got published in prestigious medical journals. He revealed that at a recent Chatham House top secret, closed door meeting attended by experts only, the editors of both, The Lancet and the New England Journal of Medicine expressed their exasperation citing the pressures put on them by pharmaceutical companies. He states that each of the editors used the word “criminal” to describe the erosion of science.
He quotes Dr. Richard Horton who bemoaned the current state of science:
“If this continues, we are not going to be able to publish any more clinical research data because pharmaceutical companies are so financially powerful; they are able to pressure us to accept papers that are apparently methodologically perfect, but their conclusion is what pharmaceutical companies want.”
Dr. Douste-Blazy supports the combination treatment –hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) and azithromycin (AZ) for Covid-19 recommended by Dr. Didier Raoult. In April, 2020
Dr. Douste-Blazy started a petition that has been signed by almost 500,000 French doctors and citizens urging French government officials to permit physicians to prescribe hydroxychloroquine to treat coronavirus patients early, before they require intensive care. The issue has become highly politicized; the left-leaning politicians and public health officials are adamantly against the use of HCQ, whereas those leaning toward the right politically are for the right of doctors to prescribe the drug as they see fit.
The journal SCIENCE described the response to French President Emmanuel Macron trip to Marseille to meet Dr. Raoult who prescribes the combination drug regimen and he has documented their effectiveness. However, public health officials, academic physicians and the media – all of who are financially indebted to pharmaceutical companies and their high profit marketing objectives – vehemently oppose the use of HCQ, and use every opportunity to disparage the drug by derisively referring to President Trump as its booster.
John Stone, UK Editor of Age of Autism, posted the following today.
This is the moment of national humiliation that we somehow did not see on our television sets last night: British Prime Minister Boris Johnson surrendering to Bill Gates and the vaccine cartel, GAVI, hailed by him as the new NATO – while he speaks from a nation on its knees like Vichy France. While British news after months of wall to wall Coronavirus suddenly, mysteriously became obsessed with the 13 year old saga of Madeleine McCann almost no one saw Johnson’s insipid, but rhetorically overblown speech at the end of the global summit he hosted in London yesterday and chaired with Gates. No one knew when they were electing Johnson that they were electing Gates
No one knew when they were electing Johnson that they were electing Gates
and putting the vaccine industry at the heart of the British nation’s future. It was particularly galling to see him extol the already failed Oxford COVID vaccine as an example of British innovation. This is presumably where we were headed from the moment lockdown was announced. The meeting elicited a short mention at the end of the BBC 10 o’clock news and was not mentioned on the front pages of any of the national newspapers this morning.
If GAVI is the new NATO, and the focus of British national destiny perhaps the moment should not have been news managed out of existence. Now everything that our lives were worth has to be surrendered in an endless war against disease long ago devised by Mr Gates. In Gates’s brave new world everyone will have to have vaccines like computer patches every five minutes, and when they don’t work – if we are still standing – we will have to have another.
John Stone is UK Editor of Age of Autism Posted June 05, 2020
Posted in Fraud, Publication Integrity, homepage-slider, Corrupted Public Health Institutions, Corrupted Science, Current Controversies and tagged Richard Horton, Bill Gates, Philippe Douste-Blazy, Boris Johnson, vaccine cartel
Update: On June 4, the study was retracted from The Lancet due to serious concerns over its data. Read our new story about the study’s retraction here.
A massive study that raised serious health concerns about hydroxychloroquine, the malaria drug President Donald Trump has reportedly taken as a coronavirus preventive, is now under scrutiny from more than 180 scientists worldwide who are asking the research team to release its data for outside analysis.
When the study was published last week in the Lancet, a high-profile medical journal, it drew widespread media attention, including from BuzzFeed News. Its massive dataset — consisting of 96,000 hospitalized COVID-19 patients across six continents — seemed to offer the most definitive examination to date of hydroxychloroquine’s inability to fight the coronavirus, and also linked it to a higher risk of death.
But the letter, which went online on Thursday, raises questions about some seemingly inconsistent data in the paper. Among the scientists' 10 concerns are that the average daily doses of hydroxychloroquine were higher than the FDA-recommended amounts and that data reportedly from Australian patients did not seem to match data from the Australian government. This week, the Guardian reported that it could not confirm with several of that country’s health agencies that they provided data to the study.
The study's authors, led by Mandeep Mehra of Harvard Medical School, have repeatedly declined to release their underlying data.
On Friday, the study’s research team corrected some of its data but said its conclusions remained the same.
Not only did the study find no evidence that the malaria drug effectively combats the coronavirus, but it also linked the drug to serious heart problems. Several other studies have previously reached similar conclusions, and the FDA has acknowledged the cardiac risks of this and a related drug, chloroquine, warning that the drugs not be used outside of a hospital setting.
For the first time, the Lancet study also found a link with a higher rate of deaths, finding that hospitalized patients who were given hydroxychloroquine were at least 33% more likely to die than those who did not receive the treatment.
In the wake of the Lancet study, two major hydroxychloroquine clinical trials — one by the World Health Organization, another in the United Kingdom — were put on pause. And the governments of France, Belgium, and Italy banned the drug from being used as a coronavirus treatment.
“Everything points to a drug that has no efficacy,” said Eric Topol, a cardiologist at the Scripps Research Translational Institute, who hasn’t signed the letter but has expressed skepticism publicly about the use of hydroxychloroquine as a treatment. “There’s no sign that it helps anyone. We know it has significant side effects that are worrisome,” including cardiac arrest and a dangerously rapid heart rate called ventricular tachycardia.
Even so, scientists found aspects of the Lancet study that didn’t seem to add up.
One of the biggest concerns of the letter's signatories was that the authors had not released their code or data, even though the Lancet has signed a pledge to share COVID-19–related data.
“Many of us in the scientific community were just very angry at seeing a poorly written and executed study published in The Lancet, given loads of publicity, and then having a hugely negative impact on carefully planned clinical trials around the world,” said James Watson, a Thailand-based statistician with the University of Oxford’s Centre for Tropical Medicine and Global Health, who led the drafting of the letter, in an email to BuzzFeed News.
In response to the correction issued on Friday, Watson said, "The authors have not addressed the other nine points referred to in the letter."
According to the Lancet study, the patient data came from electronic health records, supply chain databases, and financial records. It was collected by Surgisphere, a Chicago-based health data analytics company led by Sapan Desai, one of the study’s coauthors.
Surgisphere says its data use agreements prevent it from sharing individual patient data and the names of its hospital customers, though it can conduct analyses and share aggregate findings. “Our strong privacy standards are a major reason that hospitals trust Surgisphere and we have been able to collect data from over 1,200 institutions across 46 countries,” Desai told BuzzFeed News by email.
But the signatories on the letter say the researchers should at least share aggregated patient data at the hospital level. They are also asking for an independent analysis and for the Lancet to release the peer review comments made about the study prior to publication.
Topol, the cardiologist at Scripps, said he had never heard of Surgisphere before the study. “The main thing they haven’t done is release the data for others to analyze,” he said. “That is important, and I think they should do that.”
In the correction issued Friday, the study’s authors fixed the numbers of participants from Australia and Asia. One hospital tagged as belonging to the Australia region should have instead been assigned to the Asia region, according to the notice. Other corrections were also issued, but the notice stated that none of the changes altered the paper's conclusions.
Lancet spokesperson Jessica Kleyn said the journal will soon publish responses to the study and a response from the authors.
Mehra, the study’s lead author, said he stands by the research. He and his team used Surgisphere’s data “in the absence of a large, robust and publicly available dataset on hydroxychloroquine or chloroquine, and the lack of scientific evidence regarding the safety and benefits of these treatments for hospitalized Covid-19 patients,” said Mehra, medical director of the Brigham and Women’s Hospital Heart and Vascular Center and a professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School, through a spokesperson.
Mehra, Desai, and other researchers also used Surgisphere data in a study published this month in the New England Journal of Medicine about cardiovascular disease in COVID-19 patients. Watson, the researcher organizing the letter, has criticized some of that paper’s supplementary data about age and mortality rates.
Mehra and Desai did not answer questions about this additional study. Jennifer Zeis, a New England Journal of Medicine spokesperson, said that the publication was looking into the questions raised.
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 study published on Friday found Covid-19 patients who received the malaria drug 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.
The 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. It was once viewed as among the most promising medicines to treat the virus, though no study to date has found this to be the case, and the drug can have toxic side-effects. The Australian Department of Health had been stockpiling millions of doses of the drug in case clinical trials found it proved useful.
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.
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.
In a statement, Surgisphere founder Dr Sapan Desai, also an author on the Lancet paper, said a hospital from Asia had accidentally been included in the Australian data.
“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,.
Dr Allen Cheng, an epidemiologist and infectious disease doctor with Alfred Health in Melbourne, said the Australian hospitals involved in the study should be named. He said he had never heard of Surgisphere, and no one from his hospital, The Alfred, had provided Surgisphere with data.
“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.”
He stressed that even if the paper proved to be problematic, it did not mean hydroxychloroquine was safe or effective in treating Covid-19. No strong studies to date have shown the drug is effective. Hydroxychloroquine and chloroquine have potentially severe and even deadly side effects if used inappropriately, including heart failure and toxicity. Other studies have found the drug is associated with higher mortality when given to severely unwell Covid-19 patients.
In a statement Surgisphere said it stood by the integrity of its data, saying all information from hospitals “is transferred in a deidentified manner” but could not be made public.
“This requirement allows us to only maintain collaborations with top-tier institutions that are supported by the level of data-integrity and sophistication required for such work,” the statement said. “Naturally, this leads to the inclusion of institutions that have a tertiary care level of practice and provide quality healthcare that is relatively homogenous around the world. As with most corporations, the access to individual hospital data is strictly governed. Our data use agreements do not allow us to make this data public.”
Scientists have reiterated the need to wait for the results from rigorous randomised control trials, considered the gold standard of science, and the Australian Department of Health has warned the drug should not be given to patients other than in clinical trials.
Cheng said it would be a mistake to stop strong, well-designed clinical trials examining the drug because of questionable data. The Lancet study findings have prompted the leaders of an Australian hydroxychloroquine trial, known as the Ascot trial, to review the future of their study. The outcome of that review has not yet been announced.
The Ascot study has been recruiting patients in more than 70 hospitals in every Australian state and territory, and 11 hospitals in New Zealand. The randomised control trial is exploring whether hydroxychloroquine in combination or on its own can treat Covid-19 patients and prevent deterioration in their condition. The leader of the trial, Prof Josh Davis, has written to the Lancet study authors asking for an explanation of the data.
In the meantime, patient recruitment for the study had been put on hold, an Ascot spokeswoman said. “Following an observational study published in the Lancet Ascot has paused patient recruitment pending deliberations by the governance and ethics committees overseeing the trial,” she said. “We expect these deliberations to occur rapidly and will provide further information as they arise.”
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.
How Dr. Wolfgang Wodarg sees the current Corona pandemic
•Mar 13, 2020
Dr. Wolfgang Wodarg is the first specialist we met to understand the current crisis about the coronavirus.
Could Retroviruses Play a Role in COVID-19?
- Cellular and molecular biologist Judy Mikovits, Ph.D. believes COVID-19 — the disease — is not caused by SARS-CoV-2 alone, but rather that it’s the result of a combination of SARS-CoV-2 and XMRVs (human gammaretroviruses)
- SARS-CoV-2 also appears to have been manipulated to include components of HIV that destroys immune function along with XMRVs
- Those already infected with XMRVs may end up getting serious COVID-19 infection and/or die from the disease. Mikovits’s research suggests more than 30 million Americans carry XMRVs and other gammaretroviruses in their bodies from contaminated vaccines and blood supply
- Mikovits believes 40 years of data suggest Type 1 interferon at very low dose would be an ideal treatment for COVID-19
- RT-PCR (reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction) testing, currently used to diagnose active infection by detecting the presence of SARS-CoV-2 genetic material, overestimates infection rates. For an accurate account of COVID-19 prevalence, we need to test for antibodies
Judy Mikovits, Ph.D. is a cellular and molecular biologist, researcher and was the founding research director of the Whittemore Peterson Institute that researches and treats chronic fatigue syndrome (CFS) in Reno, Nevada.
She is likely one of the most qualified scientists in the world to comment on this disease because of her groundbreaking research in molecular biology and virology.
Italian scientist says she discovered main mechanism behind COVID-19
By MAAYAN JAFFE-HOFFMAN - MAY 3, 2020
Medical workers in protective suits treat patients suffering with coronavirus disease (COVID-19) in Rome, Italy (photo credit: GUGLIELMO MANGIAPANE / REUTERS)
Annalisa Chiusolo shows how controversial drug hydroxychloroquine could make people immune to virus * Top Israeli researcher: ‘theory lacks backing’
COVID-19 damages the hemoglobin, impairing the ability of red blood cells to transport oxygen throughout the body, compromising the lungs and resulting in Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome (ARDS), Italian pharmacology scholar Annalisa Chiusolo explained to The Jerusalem Post.
If her thesis is correct, it would resolve many outstanding questions about the novel coronavirus, such as the greater vulnerability of men – specifically male diabetics – to become seriously ill from the virus, as well as the lower rate at which pregnant women and children contract COVID-19.
Moreover, understanding this mechanism could lead the way to a quicker discovery of the most effective drugs to treat the virus.Chiusolo is a graduate of the Faculty of Pharmacy of the University of Perugia, Italy, and works as a pharmacist in the European country. Her theory has been published by some of the country’s leading newspapers, including the Italian dailies Il Tempo and Il Giornale.
She told the Post that SARS-CoV-2, the formal name for the novel coronavirus, needs porphyrins for its survival – and probably for its replication – so it attacks hemoglobin, the protein that carries oxygen in the blood, which translates to less oxygen available for the body. The consequence of less oxygen is the accumulation of carbon dioxide.“The lung cells become the site of the cytokine cascade, an enormous immune response, which is responsible for the acute lung inflammation that characterizes COVID-19 pneumonia,” she said. “The value of hemoglobin in the blood can be an important parameter to assess the SARS-CoV-2 infection: In men the normal value of hemoglobin (Hb) is higher than in women. This would explain the higher incidence of COVID-19 pneumonia in men compared to women, and the lower incidence and better prognosis in children and pregnant women, where Hb values are lower due to an increased need of iron, which makes less available this ‘nutrition’ for the virus.
”PNEUMONIA CAUSED by the coronavirus is also more prominent in elderly patients or middle-aged patients with diabetes, which Chiusolo said is linked to increased glycated hemoglobin.
As a pharmacist, Chiusolo next evaluated the use of hydroxychloroquine to treat SARS-CoV-2, which in some cases has been found to reduce hospitalizations from the virus. Hydroxychloroquine is currently in use for the treatment of autoimmune diseases worldwide, such as lupus and rheumatoid arthritis, and has been used for years to treat malaria.
She said that in addition to the drug’s antiviral and immunomodulatory effect, it binds to the ferriprotoporphyrin of the ecgonine methyl ester (EME), blocking the key enzyme of malaria. “So, I thought this same mechanism could be used against SARS-CoV-2... Indeed, a study by a Chinese university shows that SARS-CoV-2 binds to the beta chain of hemoglobin, inhibiting EME metabolism.”Ferriprotoporphyrin is the group responsible for the oxygen binding of hemoglobin.In Italy, top scientists are beginning to comment on Chiusolo’s theory. Dr. Giuseppe Ippolito, scientific director of the Lazzaro Spallanzani National Institute for Infectious Diseases in Rome, called her hypothesis, “suggestive, but it is necessary to deepen and research.”Dr. Giovanni Martinelli, scientific director at the Istituto Scientifico Romagnolo per lo Studio e la Cura dei Tumori (IRCCS), validated that “much of the effects of oxygen starvation in COVID patients may be due to the displacement of Hbs protoporphyrin.
”BUT DOCTOR Amiram Goldblum, head of the Molecular Modeling and Drug Design Institute for Drug Research and the Fraunhofer Project Center for Drug Discovery and Delivery at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, said that among the nearly 8,500 papers filed on the novel coronavirus in the last three months not one mentions porphyrin or protoporphyrin.
“As far as I am aware of the reduction of oxygen pressure in severe cases of the SARS-CoV-2 attack, it is due to blocking lung cells in a somewhat similar manner as emphysema – transforming the cells to be more rigid, fibrous entities,” he told the Post after reviewing Chiusolo’s study.
He said that the first FDA approved drug, Remdesivir by Gilead Pharmaceutical, is indicated only for those cases in which oxygen pressure was reduced to a more dangerous level.“If the virus ‘eats up’ the porphyrin of hemoglobin, the first effect should be anemia, which affects oxygen intake but also affects substantial weakness and is easily measured,” Goldblum said. “I have not heard of any problems with lower hemoglobin in COVID-19 patients.”
And how about the use of hydroxychloroquine?
Chiusolo said that hydroxychloroquine could act as a prophylactic, preventing or limiting the symptoms of the disease while waiting for the formulation of the vaccine that specifically stimulates the antibody response of the body. She said it could make the patient immune to COVID-19 and/or limit its side effects.
The drug has been under investigation worldwide, including in the United States, after President Donald Trump last month called it a “game-changer” in the fight against coronavirus.The Italian Medicines Agency (AIFA), the national authority responsible for drug regulation in Italy, has an approved trial of hydroxychloroquine on 2,500 patients, which will start in early July and focus on the use of hydroxychloroquine in prophylaxis, Chiusolo said. The study, for which preliminary data would be ready within 16 weeks, will look at whether the preventive intake of the drug decreases the probability of contracting COVID-19 when one comes directly into contact with a positive patient.
THE ROLE of hydroxychloroquine in the prevention and fight against coronavirus was also the subject of a study published in The International Journal of Antimicrobial Agents, which describes how a healthcare worker infected with the novel coronavirus traveled freely within a hospital before being diagnosed with the virus.
“It was not possible to quarantine everyone who had come into contact with the healthcare worker,” Chiusolo said. So, they treated 211 healthcare professionals and patients with hydroxychloroquine. After 10 days, nobody tested positive for the coronavirus.
Furthermore, Chiusolo told the Post, the Italian Society of Rheumatology interviewed 1,200 rheumatologists throughout Italy to collect statistics on contagions. Out of an audience of 65,000 chronic lupus and rheumatoid arthritis patients who systematically take hydroxychloroquine, only 20 patients tested positive for the virus.
“Nobody died, nobody is in intensive care, according to the data collected so far,” Chiusolo said.However, she admitted that the drug is known to have some severe side-effects, especially for patients with heart disease.
The drug was recently linked with increased risk of cardiac arrhythmia in COVID-19 patients by a research team at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center (BIDMC) in Boston.
“The accumulating evidence is that there is limited data to suggest efficacy and there’s growing evidence that suggests toxicity,” Dr. Howard Gold, infectious disease doctor at BIDMC, said of the drug hydroxychloroquine in an interview published by the Boston Herald.
The BIDMC study evaluated 90 adults infected with the novel virus, each of whom received at least one day’s treatment of hydroxychloroquine, which can stay in the body for up to three weeks, according to Gold.
“Scientists are very open to revolutionary ideas,” Goldblum said, but he noted that “science is built in steps… They must have some backing. In my opinion, currently there are none.”
Fauci - the Faux:
Fauci: Hydroxychloroquine ineffective as COVID-19 treatment
By Don Jacobson & Danielle Haynes - 27. May 2020
National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases Director Dr. Anthony Fauci speaks to reporters at the White House on April 16. File Photo by Chris Kleponis/UPI | License Photo
(UPI) -- Dr. Anthony Fauci said Wednesday that hydroxychloroquine, a drug President Donald Trump said he has taken to ward off the coronavirus, is not an effective treatment based on the latest scientific data.
Fauci, the director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, made his most definitive statement yet against the drug once touted by Trump as a possible treatment.
"The scientific data is really quite evident now about the lack of efficacy," Fauci, the White House's top infectious disease expert, said.
His statement comes on the heels of France banning the drug altogether Wednesday and the internationally respected science journal The Lancet publishing a 96,000-patient study that concluded hydroxychloroquine had no effect on COVID-19.
France's decision was published in the country's official legal journal, ending the drug's use as a weapon in the pandemic just weeks after French epidemiologist Dr. Didier Raoult recommended it as a key tool against the coronavirus disease.
Tuesday, the French High Council of Public Health and National Agency for the Safety of Medicines and Health Products said hydroxychloroquine has shown higher rates of death and cardiac arrhythmia in COVID-19 patients.
French Health Minister Olivier Veran ordered the assessments last weekend after the study in The Lancet. The study also reported increased death rates and irregular heartbeat among COVID-19 patients treated with hydroxychloroquine.
The World Health Organization said Monday it paused medical trials involving the drug.
On Wednesday, Mike Ryan, the executive director of WHO's emergencies program, said there's no evidence hydroxychloroquine and related drug chloroquine work to treat COVID-19.
"There is no empirical evidence at this point that these drugs work in this case either for treatment or for prophylaxis," he said. "We do not advise the use of hydroxychloroquine or chloroquine for the treatment of COVID-19 outside randomized control trials or under appropriate close clinical supervision subject to whatever national regulatory authorities have decided."
Hydroxychloroquine and chloroquine have been used as anti-malarial drugs for decades and are sometimes used to treat lupus and rheumatoid arthritis.
Trump and others have said hydroxychloroquine could be a potential treatment for COVID-19 or to prevent infection. The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and American Heart Association, however, have warned that using it without medical supervision can lead to a greater risk of cardiac arrest.
Madagascar pupils drink president's COVID-19 'remedy'
•Apr 24, 2020
In a school in Antananarivo, Malagasy authorities distribute their new COVID-19 "remedy" to pupils, a herbal tea called Covid Organics. This drink, developed by the Malagasy Institute of Applied Research, is derived from artemisia, a plant with proven efficacy against malaria. However, the effectiveness of the infusion against COVID-19 has not been the subject of any published scientific study.
Meanwhile also the President of Tanzania announced that the drink will be imported to Tanzania.