Dr. Fauci recently used another reported study to debunk the use of hydroxychloroquine as a viable treatment to save the lives of individuals sick with the China coronavirus.
But an expert’s review of the report shows that the study actually confirms that hydroxychloroquine saves lives not the opposite.
Dr. Fauci shared the following about the drug hydroxychloroquine last week in front of Congress:
Don’t play these hydroxychloroquine games with Dr. Fauci pic.twitter.com/D58aXyFAVZ
— NowThis (@nowthisnews) August 1, 2020
Fauci insists that the only research that he considers credible, that he sees as the gold standard for COVID-19 research, is research that uses randomized data and is placebo controlled. Dr. Fauci explains the absence of such proof causes him to dismiss numerous studies (observational, or with a non randomized control group). Fauci claims there is no such study using a placebo that proves the efficacy of hydroxychloroquine. But like many statements by the NIAID Director, this is also false.
In fact on Friday night esteemed Dr. Ramin Oskoui blasted Dr. Fauci for lying by omission. Fauci is neither consistent or honest in his reporting on the hydroxychloroquine studies.
The Gateway Pundit reported recently on one particular study that proves hydroxychloroquine does save lives if used in the early stage of someone getting sick with the coronavirus.
The website Covexit.com reported:
Despite over 1,000 clinical trials seeking a cure for COVID-19, there has been little effort to test early hydroxychloroquine-based treatments for COVID-19. Many trials are in hospital settings, i.e. beyond the approx. 5 day window for early treatment to be effective.
In addition, from an ethical viewpoint, best practices for clinical trials prevent from using placebos when a treatment is known to work. The use of placebos, which is a key for randomized clinical trials, is incompatible with both the Hippocratic Oath and the internationally approved ethical principles for clinical trials, embedded in the Helsinki Declaration.
The study by McGill and the University of Minnesota was the first randomized controlled trial testing hydroxychloroquine in a non-hospital setting, and was therefore much awaited by the research community and decision makers from all over the world.
The studies were published:
The McGill / Minnesota studies, which were focusing on non-hospitalized individuals, many of them healthcare workers, were published in academic journals, respectively the New England Journal of Medicine and the Annals of Internal Medicine. Both studies concluded on the ineffectiveness of hydroxychloroquine.
The first study concluded: “hydroxychloroquine did not prevent illness compatible with Covid-19 or confirmed infection,” while the second stated: “Hydroxychloroquine did not substantially reduce symptom severity in outpatients with early, mild COVID-19.”
https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa2016638
https://www.acpjournals.org/doi/10.7326/M20-4207
(The Universities of Alberta and Manitoba were also involved in the study.)
https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/record/NCT04308668?view=record
Of course for some odd reason the mainstream media celebrated the initial results of the study for some sick reason and Dr. Fauci used it to condemn the use of HCQ as a viable medicine to use on China coronavirus patients.
For the record, Dr. David Boulware, the first name mentioned in the study has links with the pharmaceutical giant Gilead, that he did not divulge in the study. This has since been unveiled on Twitter.
Then this happened.
A statistician in Brazil unwound the data in the study and found that the report actually proves the medicine hydroxychloroquine saves lives!
And then came Marcio Watanabe, PhD and his article “Efficacy of Hydroxychloroquine as Prophylaxis for Covid-19.” found on Cornell University arXiv.org e-print (non peer reviewed) site. The article was published on July 18 and last revised on July 21.
Marcio Watanabe is an adjunct professor of statistical sciences at the federal university of Fluminense in Brazil. He undertook a detailed statistical analysis of the June 3 article by Boulware et al, using what he considers a better methodology, and came up with very different conclusions.
A chart shows his results:
“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.”
“For 0 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.”
“We conclude that, when applied as a prophylaxis, it can significantly reduce the relative proportion of symptomatic patients if used from 0 to 2 days after exposure to the virus (71.98% for 0 days, 48.86% for 1 day and 29.33% for 2 days).”
“Moreover, our results show that the elapsed time between the exposure to the virus and the beginning of treatment is vital to the effectiveness of the antiviral use.”
“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.”
The paper also discusses “some inaccuracies in the statistical analysis of Boulware et al.”
These results were submitted on June 24th by Marcio Watanabe to the New England Journal of Medicine, yet, five weeks later, the journal has not yet published the correction, which invalidates the key conclusion of Boulware et al that hydroxychloroquine does not work for early treatment.
The Gateway Pundit reached out to The New England Journal of Medicine to inquire why this very important analysis by Marcio Watanabe has not been addressed or published.
We will include any update if/when we hear back from the NEJM.
Fauci does not practice real medicine these days, yet he was talking daily with Chris Cuomo when the CNN anchor was struggling against the disease. Incidentally, Cuomo took Cinchona bark extracts, an analog of hydroxychloroquine, to cure himself from COVID-19, as discussed in this other article: http://covexit.com/cnn-chris-cuomo-takes-hydroxychloroquine-analog-for-covid-19/.
Deep State doctors are doing all they can to distort the truth about hydroxychloroquine. Does it have anything to do with money or power?
Hat tip Jean-Pierre Kiekens
The post REPORT: Study Used by Dr. Fauci to Condemn Hydroxychloroquine Use Was Debunked! – But New England Journal of Medicine Will Not Publish This Lifesaving Update! appeared first on The Gateway Pundit.