Open Letter From Front Line Docs Wrecks Fauci Re: Early High Risk Outpatient Treatment With HCQ

WeR0206

Well-Known Member
Apr 9, 2014
19,350
24,803
1
2020evidence.org
Fauci needs to be fired and go to jail.

https://www.thedesertreview.com/opi...cle_31d37842-dd8f-11ea-80b5-bf80983bc072.html

Open letter to Dr. Anthony Fauci regarding the use of Hydroxychloroquine for treating COVID-19

“August 12, 2020

Anthony Fauci, MD

National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases

Washington, D.C.

Dear Dr. Fauci:

You were placed into the most high-profile role regarding America’s response to the coronavirus pandemic. Americans have relied on your medical expertise concerning the wearing of masks, resuming employment, returning to school, and of course medical treatment.

You are largely unchallenged in terms of your medical opinions. You are the de facto “COVID-19 Czar." This is unusual in the medical profession in which doctors’ opinions are challenged by other physicians in the form of exchanges between doctors at hospitals, medical conferences, as well as debate in medical journals. You render your opinions unchallenged, without formal public opposition from physicians who passionately disagree with you. It is incontestable that the public is best served when opinions and policy are based on the prevailing evidence and science, and able to withstand the scrutiny of medical professionals.

As experience accrued in treating COVID-19 infections, physicians worldwide discovered that high-risk patients can be treated successfully as an outpatient, within the first five to seven days of the onset of symptoms, with a “cocktail” consisting of hydroxychloroquine, zinc, and azithromycin (or doxycycline). Multiple scholarly contributions to the literature detail the efficacy of the hydroxychloroquine-based combination treatment.

Dr. Harvey Risch, the renowned Yale epidemiologist, published an article in May 2020 in the American Journal of Epidemiology titled “Early Outpatient Treatment of Symptomatic, High-Risk COVID-19 Patients that Should be Ramped-Up Immediately as Key to Pandemic Crisis." He further published an article in Newsweek in July 2020 for the general public expressing the same conclusions and opinions. Dr. Risch is an expert at evaluating research data and study designs, publishing over 300 articles. Dr Risch’s assessment is that there is unequivocal evidence for the early and safe use of the “HCQ cocktail.” If there are Q-T interval concerns, doxycycline can be substituted for azithromycin as it has activity against RNA viruses without any cardiac effects.

Yet, you continue to reject the use of hydroxychloroquine, except in a hospital setting in the form of clinical trials, repeatedly emphasizing the lack of evidence supporting its use. Hydroxychloroquine, despite 65 years of use for malaria, and over 40 years for lupus and rheumatoid arthritis, with a well-established safety profile, has been deemed by you and the FDA as unsafe for use in the treatment of symptomatic COVID-19 infections. Your opinions have influenced the thinking of physicians and their patients, medical boards, state and federal agencies, pharmacists, hospitals, and just about everyone involved in medical decision making.

Indeed, your opinions impacted the health of Americans, and many aspects of our day-to-day lives including employment and school. Those of us who prescribe hydroxychloroquine, zinc, and azithromycin/doxycycline believe fervently that early outpatient use would save tens of thousands of lives and enable our country to dramatically alter the response to COVID-19. We advocate for an approach that will reduce fear and allow Americans to get their lives back.

We hope that our questions compel you to reconsider your current approach to COVID-19 infection.

QUESTIONS REGARDING EARLY OUTPATIENT TREATMENT:

  1. There are generally two stages of COVID-19 symptomatic infection; initial flu like symptoms with progression to cytokine storm and respiratory failure, correct?
  2. When people are admitted to a hospital, they generally are in worse condition, correct?
  3. There are no specific medications currently recommended for early outpatient treatment of symptomatic COVID-19 infection, correct?
  4. Remdesivir and Dexamethasone are used for hospitalized patients, correct?
  5. There is currently no recommended pharmacologic early outpatient treatment for individuals in the flu stage of the illness, correct?
  6. It is true that COVID-19 is much more lethal than the flu for high-risk individuals such as older patients and those with significant comorbidities, correct?
  7. Individuals with signs of early COVID-19 infection typically have a runny nose, fever, cough, shortness of breath, loss of smell, etc., and physicians send them home to rest, eat chicken soup etc., but offer no specific, targeted medications, correct?
  8. These high-risk individuals are at high risk of death, on the order of 15 percent or higher, correct?
  9. So just so we are clear — the current standard of care now is to send clinically stable symptomatic patients home, “with a wait and see” approach?
  10. Are you aware that physicians are successfully using Hydroxychloroquine combined with Zinc and Azithromycin as a “cocktail” for early outpatient treatment of symptomatic, high-risk, individuals?
  11. Have you heard of the “Zelenko Protocol,” for treating high-risk patients with COVID-19 as an outpatient?
  12. Have you read Dr. Risch’s article in the American Journal of Epidemiology of the early outpatient treatment of COVID-19?
  13. Are you aware that physicians using the medication combination or “cocktail” recommend use within the first five to seven days of the onset of symptoms, before the illness impacts the lungs, or cytokine storm evolves?
  14. Again, to be clear, your recommendation is no pharmacologic treatment as an outpatient for the flu-like symptoms in patients that are stable, regardless of their risk factors, correct?
  15. Would you advocate for early pharmacologic outpatient treatment of symptomatic COVID-19 patients if you were confident that it was beneficial?
  16. Are you aware that there are hundreds of physicians in the United States and thousands across the globe who have had dramatic success treating high-risk individuals as outpatients with this “cocktail?”
  17. Are you aware that there are at least 10 studies demonstrating the efficacy of early outpatient treatment with the Hydroxychloroquine cocktail for high-risk patients — so this is beyond anecdotal, correct?
  18. If one of your loved ones had diabetes or asthma, or any potentially complicating comorbidity, and tested positive for COVID-19, would you recommend “wait and see how they do” and go to the hospital if symptoms progress?
  19. Even with multiple studies documenting remarkable outpatient efficacy and safety of the Hydroxychloroquine “cocktail,” you believe the risks of the medication combination outweigh the benefits?
  20. Is it true that with regard to Hydroxychloroquine and treatment of COVID-19 infection, you have said repeatedly that “The Overwhelming Evidence of Properly Conducted Randomized Clinical Trials Indicate No Therapeutic Efficacy of Hydroxychloroquine (HCQ)?”
  21. But NONE of the randomized controlled trials to which you refer were done in the first five to seven days after the onset of symptoms, correct?
  22. All of the randomized controlled trials to which you refer were done on hospitalized patients, correct?
  23. Hospitalized patients are typically sicker that outpatients, correct?
  24. None of the randomized controlled trials to which you refer used the full cocktail consisting of Hydroxychloroquine, Zinc, and Azithromycin, correct?
  25. While the University of Minnesota study is referred to as disproving the cocktail, the meds were not given within the first five to seven days of illness, the test group was not high risk (death rates were 3 percent), and no zinc was given, correct?
  26. Again, for clarity, the trials upon which you base your opinion regarding the efficacy of Hydroxychloroquine, assessed neither the full cocktail (to include Zinc and Azithromycin or doxycycline) nor administered treatment within the first five to seven days of symptoms, nor focused on the high-risk group, correct?
  27. Therefore, you have no basis to conclude that the Hydroxychloroquine cocktail when used early in the outpatient setting, within the first five to seven days of symptoms, in high risk patients, is not effective, correct?
  28. It is thus false and misleading to say that the effective and safe use of hydroxychloroquine, Zinc, and Azithromycin has been “debunked,” correct? How could it be “debunked” if there is not a single study that contradicts its use?
  29. Should it not be an absolute priority for the NIH and CDC to look at ways to treat Americans with symptomatic COVID-19 infections early to prevent disease progression?
  30. The SARS-CoV-2/COVID-19 virus is an RNA virus. It is well-established that Zinc interferes with RNA viral replication, correct?
  31. Moreover, is it not true that hydroxychloroquine facilitates the entry of zinc into the cell, is a “ionophore,” correct?
  32. Isn’t also it true that Azithromycin has established anti-viral properties?
  33. Are you aware of the paper from Baylor by Dr. McCullough et. al. describing established mechanisms by which the components of the “HCQ cocktail” exert anti-viral effects?
  34. So, the use of hydroxychloroquine, azithromycin (or doxycycline), and zinc — the “HCQ cocktail” — is based on science, correct?
QUESTIONS REGARDING SAFETY:

  1. The FDA writes the following: “In light of on-going serious cardiac adverse events and their serious side effects, the known and potential benefits of CQ and HCQ no longer outweigh the known and potential risks for authorized use.” So not only is the FDA saying that hydroxychloroquine doesn’t work, they are also saying that it is a very dangerous drug. Yet, is it not true the drug has been used as an anti-malarial drug for over 65 years?
  2. Isn’t it true that the drug has been used for lupus and rheumatoid arthritis for many years at similar doses?
  3. Do you know of even a single study prior to COVID-19 that has provided definitive evidence against the use of the drug based on safety concerns?
  4. Are you aware that chloroquine or hydroxychloroquine has many approved uses for hydroxychloroquine including steroid-dependent asthma (1988 study), advanced pulmonary sarcoidosis (1988 study), sensitizing breast cancer cells for chemotherapy (2012 study), the attenuation of renal ischemia (2018 study), lupus nephritis (2006 study), epithelial ovarian cancer (2020 study), just to name a few? Where are the cardiotoxicity concerns ever mentioned?
  5. Risch estimates the risk of cardiac death from hydroxychloroquine to be 9/100,000 using the data provided by the FDA. That does not seem to be a high risk, considering the risk of death in an older patient with co-morbidities can be 15 percent or more. Do you consider 9/100,000 to be a high risk when weighed against the risk of death in older patient with co-morbidities?
  6. To put this in perspective, the drug is used for 65 years, without warnings (aside for the need for periodic retinal checks), but the FDA somehow feels the need to send out an alert on June 15, that the drug is dangerous. Does that make any logical sense to you Dr. Fauci based on “science”?
  7. Moreover, consider that the protocols for usage in early treatment are for five to seven days at relatively low doses of hydroxychloroquine similar to what is being given in other diseases (RA, SLE) over many years — does it make any sense to you logically that a five to seven day dose of hydroxychloroquine when not given in high doses could be considered dangerous?
  8. You are also aware that articles published in the New England Journal of Medicine and Lancet, one out of Harvard University, regarding the dangers of hydroxychloroquine had to be retracted based on the fact that the data was fabricated. Are you aware of that?
  9. If there was such good data on the risks of hydroxychloroquine, one would not have to use fake data, correct?
  10. After all, 65 years is a long-time to determine whether or not a drug is safe, do you agree?
  11. In the clinical trials that you have referenced (e.g., the Minnesota and the Brazil studies), there was not a single death attributed directly to hydroxychloroquine, correct?
  12. According to Dr. Risch, there is no evidence based on the data to conclude that hydroxychloroquine is a dangerous drug. Are you aware of any published report that rebuts Dr. Risch’s findings?
  13. Are you aware that the FDA ruling along with your statements have led to Governors in a number of states to restrict the use of hydroxychloroquine?
  14. Are you aware that pharmacies are not filling prescriptions for this medication based on your and the FDA’s restrictions?
  15. Are you aware that doctors are being punished by state medical boards for prescribing the medication based on your comments as well as the FDA’s?
  16. Are you aware that people who want the medication sometimes need to call physicians in other states pleading for it?
  17. And yet you opined in March that while people were dying at the rate of 10,000 patients a week, hydroxychloroquine could only be used in an inpatient setting as part of a clinical trial- correct?
  18. So, people who want to be treated in that critical five- to seven-day period and avoid being hospitalized are basically out of luck in your view, correct?
  19. So, again, for clarity, without a shred of evidence that the hydroxychloroquine/HCQ cocktail is dangerous in the doses currently recommend for early outpatient treatment, you and the FDA have made it very difficult, if not impossible in some cases, to get this treatment, correct?
QUESTIONS REGARDING METHODOLOGY:

  1. In regards to the use of hydroxychloroquine, you have repeatedly made the same statement: “The Overwhelming Evidence from Properly Conducted Randomized Clinical Trials Indicate no Therapeutic Efficacy of Hydroxychloroquine.” Is that correct?
  2. In Dr. Risch’s article regarding the early use of hydroxychloroquine, he disputes your opinion. He scientifically evaluated the data from the studies to support his opinions. Have you published any articles to support your opinions?
  3. You repeatedly state that randomized clinical trials are needed to make conclusions regarding treatments, correct?
  4. The FDA has approved many medications (especially in the area of cancer treatment) without randomized clinical trials, correct?
  5. Are you aware that Dr. Thomas Frieden, the previous head of the CDC wrote an article in the New England Journal of Medicine in 2017 called “Evidence for Health Decision Making — Beyond Randomized Clinical Trials (RCT)?” Have you read that article?
  6. In it Dr. Frieden states that “many data sources can provide valid evidence for clinical and public health action, including analysis of aggregate clinical or epidemiological data.” Do you disagree with that?
  7. Frieden discusses “practiced-based evidence” as being essential in many discoveries, such SIDS (Sudden Infant Death Syndrome). Do you disagree with that?
  8. Frieden writes the following: “Current evidence-grading systems are biased toward randomized clinical trials, which may lead to inadequate consideration of non-RCT data.” Dr. Fauci, have you considered all the non-RCT data in coming to your opinions?
  9. Risch, who is a leading world authority in the analysis of aggregate clinical data, has done a rigorous analysis that he published regarding the early treatment of COVID-19 with hydroxychloroquine, zinc, and azithromycin. He cites five or six studies, and in an updated article there are five or six more, a total of 10 to 12 clinical studies with formally collected data specifically regarding the early treatment of COVID. Have you analyzed the aggregate data regarding early treatment of high-risk patients with hydroxychloroquine, zinc, and azithromycin?
  10. Is there any document that you can produce for the American people of your analysis of the aggregate data that would rebut Dr. Risch’s analysis?
  11. Yet, despite what Dr. Risch believes is overwhelming evidence in support of the early use of hydroxychloroquine, you dismiss the treatment insisting on randomized controlled trials even in the midst of a pandemic?
  12. Would you want a loved one with high-risk comorbidities placed in the control group of a randomized clinical trial when a number of studies demonstrate safety and dramatic efficacy of the early use of the hydroxychloroquine “cocktail?”
  13. Are you aware that the FDA approved a number of cancer chemotherapy drugs without randomized control trials based solely on epidemiological evidence? The trials came later as confirmation. Are you aware of that?
  14. You are well aware that there were no randomized clinical trials in the case of penicillin that saved thousands of lives in World War II? Was not this in the best interest of our soldiers?
  15. You would agree that many lives were saved with the use of cancer drugs and penicillin that were used before any randomized clinical trials, correct?
  16. You have referred to evidence for hydroxychloroquine as “anecdotal,” which is defined as “evidence collected in a casual or informal manner and relying heavily or entirely on personal testimony,” correct?
  17. But there are many studies supporting the use of hydroxychloroquine in which evidence was collected formally and not on personal testimony, has there not been?
  18. So, it would be false to conclude that the evidence supporting the early use of hydroxychloroquine is anecdotal, correct?
COMPARISON BETWEEN U.S. AND OTHER COUNTRIES REGARDING CASE FATALITY RATE:

(IT WOULD BE VERY HELPFUL TO HAVE THE GRAPHS COMPARING OUR CASE FATALITY RATES TO OTHER COUNTRIES.)

  1. Are you aware that countries like Senegal and Nigeria that use hydroxychloroquine have much lower case-fatality rates than the United States?
  2. Have you pondered the relationship between the use of hydroxychloroquine by a given country and their case mortality rate and why there is a strong correlation between the use of HCQ and the reduction of the case mortality rate.?
  3. Have you considered consulting with a country such as India that has had great success treating COVID-19 prophylactically?
  4. Why shouldn’t our first responders and front-line workers who are at high risk at least have an option of HCQ/zinc prophylaxis?
  5. We should all agree that countries with far inferior healthcare delivery systems should not have lower case fatality rates. Reducing our case fatality rate from near 5 percent, to 2.5 percent, in line with many countries who use HCQ early would have cut our total number of deaths in half, correct?
  6. Why not consult with countries who have lower case-fatality rates, even without expensive medicines such as remdesivir and far less advanced intensive care capabilities?

GIVING AMERICANS THE OPTION TO USE HCQ FOR COVID-19:

  1. Harvey Risch, the pre-eminent epidemiologist from Yale, wrote a Newsweek Article titled: “The key to defeating COVID-19 already exists. We need to start using it.” Did you read the article?
  2. Are you aware that the cost of the hydroxychloroquine “cocktail” including the Z-pack and zinc is about $50?
  3. You are aware the cost of remdesivir is about $3,200?
  4. So that’s about 60 doses of HCQ “cocktail,” correct?
  5. In fact, President Trump had the foresight to amass 60 million doses of hydroxychloroquine, and yet you continue to stand in the way of doctors who want to use that medication for their infected patients, correct?
  6. Those are a lot of doses of medication that potentially could be used to treat our poor, especially our minority populations and people of color that have a difficult time accessing healthcare. They die more frequently of COVID-19, do they not?
  7. But because of your obstinance blocking the use of HCQ, this stockpile has remained largely unused, correct?
  8. Would you acknowledge that your strategy of telling Americans to restrict their behavior, wear masks, and distance, and put their lives on hold indefinitely until there is a vaccine is not working?
  9. So, 160,000 deaths later, an economy in shambles, kids out of school, suicides and drug overdoses at a record high, people neglected and dying from other medical conditions, and America reacting to every outbreak with another lockdown — is it not time to re-think your strategy that is fully dependent on an effective vaccine?
  10. Why not consider a strategy that protects the most vulnerable and allows Americans back to living their lives and not wait for a vaccine panacea that may never come?
  11. Why not consider the approach that thousands of doctors around the world are using, supported by a number of studies in the literature, with early outpatient treatment of high-risk patients for typically one week with HCQ + zinc + azithromycin?
  12. You don’t see a problem with the fact that the government, due to your position, in some cases interferes with the choice of using HCQ. Should not that be a choice between the doctor and the patient?
  13. While some doctors may not want to use the drug, should not doctors who believe that it is indicated be able to offer it to their patients?
  14. Are you aware that doctors who are publicly advocating for such a strategy with the early use of the HCQ cocktail are being silenced with removal of content on the internet and even censorship in the medical community?
  15. You are aware of the 20 or so physicians who came to the Supreme Court steps advocating for the early use of the hydroxychloroquine cocktail. In fact, you said these were “a bunch of people spouting out something that isn’t true.”Dr. Fauci, these are not just “people,” these are doctors who actually treat patients, unlike you, correct?
  16. Do you know that the video they made went viral with 17 million views in just a few hours, and was then removed from the internet?
  17. Are you aware that their website, American Frontline Doctors, was taken down the next day?
  18. Did you see the way that Nigerian immigrant physician, Dr. Stella Immanuel, was mocked in the media for her religious views and called a “witch doctor?”
  19. Are you aware that Dr. Simone Gold, the leader of the group, was fired from her job as an Emergency Room physician the following day?
  20. Are you aware that physicians advocating for this treatment that has by now probably saved millions of lives around the globe are harassed by local health departments, state agencies and medical boards, and even at their own hospitals? Are you aware of that?
  21. Don’t you think doctors should have the right to speak out on behalf of their patients without the threat of retribution?
  22. Are you aware that videos and other educational information are removed off the internet and labeled, in the words of Mark Zuckerberg, as “misinformation?”
  23. Is it not misinformation to characterize hydroxychloroquine, in the doses used for early outpatient treatment of COVID-19 infections, as a dangerous drug?
  24. Is it not misleading for you to repeatedly state to the American public that randomized clinical trials are the sole source of information to confirm the efficacy of a treatment?
  25. Was it not misinformation when on CNN you cited the Lancet study based on false data from Surgisphere as evidence of the lack of efficacy of hydroxychloroquine?
  26. Is it not misinformation as is repeated in the MSM as a result of your comments that a randomized clinical trial is required by the FDA for a drug approval?
  27. Don’t you realize how much damage this falsehood perpetuates?
  28. How is it not misinformation for you and the FDA to keep telling the American public that hydroxychloroquine is dangerous when you know that there is nothing more than anecdotal evidence of that?
  29. Fauci, if you or a loved one were infected with COVID-19, and had flu-like symptoms, and you knew as you do now, that there is a safe and effective cocktail that you could take to prevent worsening and the possibility of hospitalization, can you honestly tell us that you would refuse the medication?
  30. Why not give our healthcare workers and first responders, who even with the necessary PPE are contracting the virus at a three to four times greater rate than the general public, the right to choose along with their doctor if they want to use the medicine prophylactically?
  31. Why is the government inserting itself in a way that is unprecedented in regard to a historically safe medication and not allowing patients the right to choose along with their doctor?
  32. Why not give the American people the right to decide along with their physician whether or not they want outpatient treatment in the first five to seven days of the disease with a cocktail that is safe and costs around $50?
FINAL QUESTIONS:

  1. Fauci, please explain how a randomized clinical trial, to which you repeatedly make reference, for testing the HCQ cocktail (hydroxychloroquine, azithromycin, and zinc) administered within five to seven days of the onset of symptoms is even possible now given the declining case numbers in so many states?
  2. For example, if the NIH were now to direct a study to begin September 15, where would such a study be done?
  3. Please explain how a randomized study on the early treatment (within the first five to seven days of symptoms) of high-risk, symptomatic COVID-19 infections could be done during the influenza season and be valid?
  4. Please explain how multiple observational studies arrive at the same outcomes using the same formulation of hydroxychloroquine + azithromycin + zinc given in the same time frame for the same study population (high risk patients) is not evidence that the cocktail works?
  5. In fact, how is it not significant evidence, during a pandemic, for hundreds of non-academic private practice physicians to achieve the same outcomes with the early use of the HCQ cocktail?
  6. What is your recommendation for the medical management of a 75-year-old diabetic with fever, cough, and loss of smell, but not yet hypoxic, who Emergency Room providers do not feel warrants admission? We know that hundreds of US physicians (and thousands more around the world) would manage this case with the HCQ cocktail with predictable success.
  7. If you were in charge in 1940, would you have advised the mass production of penicillin based primarily on lab evidence and one case series on five patients in England, or would you have stated that a randomized clinical trial was needed?
  8. Why would any physician put their medical license, professional reputation, and job on the line to recommend the HCQ cocktail — that does not make them any money — unless they knew the treatment could significantly help their patient?
  9. Why would a physician take the medication themselves and prescribe it to family members (for treatment or prophylaxis) unless they felt strongly that the medication was beneficial?
  10. How is it informed and ethical medical practice to allow a COVID-19 patient to deteriorate in the early stages of the infection when there is inexpensive, safe, and dramatically effective treatment with the HCQ cocktail, which the science indicates interferes with coronavirus replication?
  11. How is your approach to “wait and see” in the early stages of COVID-19 infection, especially in high-risk patients, following the science?
While previous questions are related to hydroxychloroquine-based treatment, we have two questions addressing masks.

  1. As you recall, you stated on March 8, just a few weeks before the devastation in the Northeast, that masks weren’t needed. You later said that you made this statement to prevent a hoarding of masks that would disrupt availability to healthcare workers. Why did you not make a recommendation for people to wear any face covering to protect themselves, as we are doing now?
  2. Rather, you issued no such warning and people were riding in subways and visiting their relatives in nursing homes without any face covering. Currently, your position is that face coverings are essential. Please explain whether or not you made a mistake in early March, and how would you go about it differently now.
CONCLUSION:

Since the start of the pandemic, physicians have used hydroxychloroquine to treat symptomatic COVID-19 infections, as well as for prophylaxis. Initial results were mixed as indications and doses were explored to maximize outcomes and minimize risks. What emerged was that hydroxychloroquine appeared to work best when coupled with azithromycin. In fact, it was the president of the United States who recommended to you publicly at the beginning of the pandemic, in early March, that you should consider early treatment with hydroxychloroquine and a “Z-Pack.” Additional studies showed that patients did not seem to benefit when COVID-19 infections were treated with hydroxychloroquine late in the course of the illness, typically in a hospital setting, but treatment was consistently effective, even in high-risk patients, when hydroxychloroquine was given in a “cocktail” with azithromycin and, critically, zinc in the first five to seven days after the onset of symptoms. The outcomes are, in fact, dramatic.


As clearly presented in the McCullough article from Baylor, and described by Dr. Vladimir Zelenko, the efficacy of the HCQ cocktail is based on the pharmacology of the hydroxychloroquine ionophore acting as the “gun” and zinc as the “bullet,” while azithromycin potentiates the anti-viral effect. Undeniably, the hydroxychloroquine combination treatment is supported by science. Yet, you continue to ignore the “science” behind the disease. Viral replication occurs rapidly in the first five to seven days of symptoms and can be treated at that point with the HCQ cocktail. Rather, your actions have denied patients treatment in that early stage. Without such treatment, some patients, especially those at high risk with co-morbidities, deteriorate and require hospitalization for evolving cytokine storm resulting in pneumonia, respiratory failure, and intubation with 50% mortality. Dismissal of the science results in bad medicine, and the outcome is over 160,000 dead Americans. Countries that have followed the science and treated the disease in the early stages have far better results, a fact that has been concealed from the American Public.


Despite mounting evidence and impassioned pleas from hundreds of frontline physicians, your position was and continues to be that randomized controlled trials (RCTs) have not shown there to be benefit. However, not a single randomized control trial has tested what is being recommended: use of the full cocktail (especially zinc), in high-risk patients, initiated within the first 5 to 7 days of the onset of symptoms. Using hydroxychloroquine and azithromycin late in the disease process, with or without zinc, does not produce the same, unequivocally positive results.

Dr. Thomas Frieden, in a 2017 New England Journal of Medicine article regarding randomized clinical trials, emphasized there are situations in which it is entirely appropriate to use other forms of evidence to scientifically validate a treatment. Such is the case during a pandemic that moves like a brushfire jumping to different parts of the country. Insisting on randomized clinical trials in the midst of a pandemic is simply foolish. Dr. Harvey Risch, a world-renowned Yale epidemiologist, analyzed all the data regarding the use of the hydroxychloroquine/HCQ cocktail and concluded that the evidence of its efficacy when used early in COVID-19 infection is unequivocal.


Curiously, despite a 65+ years safety record, the FDA suddenly deemed hydroxychloroquine a dangerous drug, especially with regard to cardiotoxicity. Dr. Risch analyzed data provided by the FDA and concluded that the risk of a significant cardiac event from hydroxychloroquine is extremely low, especially when compared to the mortality rate of COVID-19 patients with high-risk co-morbidities. How do you reconcile that for forty years rheumatoid arthritis and lupus patients have been treated over long periods, often for years, with hydroxychloroquine and now there are suddenly concerns about a 5 to 7-day course of hydroxychloroquine at similar or slightly increased doses? The FDA statement regarding hydroxychloroquine and cardiac risk is patently false and alarmingly misleading to physicians, pharmacists, patients, and other health professionals. The benefits of the early use of hydroxychloroquine to prevent hospitalization in high-risk patients with COVID-19 infection far outweigh the risks. Physicians are not able to obtain the medication for their patients, and in some cases are restricted by their state from prescribing hydroxychloroquine. The government’s obstruction of the early treatment of symptomatic high-risk COVID-19 patients with hydroxychloroquine, a medication used extensively and safely for so long, is unprecedented.


It is essential that you tell the truth to the American public regarding the safety and efficacy of the hydroxychloroquine/HCQ cocktail. The government must protect and facilitate the sacred and revered physician-patient relationship by permitting physicians to treat their patients. Governmental obfuscation and obstruction are as lethal as cytokine storm.

Americans must not continue to die unnecessarily. Adults must resume employment and our youth return to school. Locking down America while awaiting an imperfect vaccine has done far more damage to Americans than the coronavirus. We are confident that thousands of lives would be saved with early treatment of high-risk individuals with a cocktail of hydroxychloroquine, zinc, and azithromycin. Americans must not live in fear. As Dr. Harvey Risch’s Newsweek article declares, “The key to defeating COVID-19 already exists. We need to start using it.”


Very Respectfully,

George C. Fareed, MD

Brawley, California

Michael M. Jacobs, MD, MPH

Pensacola, Florida

Donald C. Pompan, MD

Salinas, California”
 

WeR0206

Well-Known Member
Apr 9, 2014
19,350
24,803
1
2020evidence.org
A lengthy posting of lies and other nonsense falsely attacking someone is still nothing more than a lie.
What lies? Nice broad statement without refuting any of the facts being presented!

Its a fact there are numerous studies showing high risk outpatients treated with HCQ cocktail has major efficacy and is safe. There has yet to be a single study done on high risk outpatients that included the cocktail in proper dosage and showed it to be ineffective/unsafe. Go ahead and find one to back up your claim.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Ephrata Lion

Jason1743

Well-Known Member
Jan 23, 2006
20,061
13,757
1
Fauci needs to be fired and go to jail.

https://www.thedesertreview.com/opi...cle_31d37842-dd8f-11ea-80b5-bf80983bc072.html

Open letter to Dr. Anthony Fauci regarding the use of Hydroxychloroquine for treating COVID-19

“August 12, 2020

Anthony Fauci, MD

National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases

Washington, D.C.

Dear Dr. Fauci:

You were placed into the most high-profile role regarding America’s response to the coronavirus pandemic. Americans have relied on your medical expertise concerning the wearing of masks, resuming employment, returning to school, and of course medical treatment.

You are largely unchallenged in terms of your medical opinions. You are the de facto “COVID-19 Czar." This is unusual in the medical profession in which doctors’ opinions are challenged by other physicians in the form of exchanges between doctors at hospitals, medical conferences, as well as debate in medical journals. You render your opinions unchallenged, without formal public opposition from physicians who passionately disagree with you. It is incontestable that the public is best served when opinions and policy are based on the prevailing evidence and science, and able to withstand the scrutiny of medical professionals.

As experience accrued in treating COVID-19 infections, physicians worldwide discovered that high-risk patients can be treated successfully as an outpatient, within the first five to seven days of the onset of symptoms, with a “cocktail” consisting of hydroxychloroquine, zinc, and azithromycin (or doxycycline). Multiple scholarly contributions to the literature detail the efficacy of the hydroxychloroquine-based combination treatment.

Dr. Harvey Risch, the renowned Yale epidemiologist, published an article in May 2020 in the American Journal of Epidemiology titled “Early Outpatient Treatment of Symptomatic, High-Risk COVID-19 Patients that Should be Ramped-Up Immediately as Key to Pandemic Crisis." He further published an article in Newsweek in July 2020 for the general public expressing the same conclusions and opinions. Dr. Risch is an expert at evaluating research data and study designs, publishing over 300 articles. Dr Risch’s assessment is that there is unequivocal evidence for the early and safe use of the “HCQ cocktail.” If there are Q-T interval concerns, doxycycline can be substituted for azithromycin as it has activity against RNA viruses without any cardiac effects.

Yet, you continue to reject the use of hydroxychloroquine, except in a hospital setting in the form of clinical trials, repeatedly emphasizing the lack of evidence supporting its use. Hydroxychloroquine, despite 65 years of use for malaria, and over 40 years for lupus and rheumatoid arthritis, with a well-established safety profile, has been deemed by you and the FDA as unsafe for use in the treatment of symptomatic COVID-19 infections. Your opinions have influenced the thinking of physicians and their patients, medical boards, state and federal agencies, pharmacists, hospitals, and just about everyone involved in medical decision making.

Indeed, your opinions impacted the health of Americans, and many aspects of our day-to-day lives including employment and school. Those of us who prescribe hydroxychloroquine, zinc, and azithromycin/doxycycline believe fervently that early outpatient use would save tens of thousands of lives and enable our country to dramatically alter the response to COVID-19. We advocate for an approach that will reduce fear and allow Americans to get their lives back.

We hope that our questions compel you to reconsider your current approach to COVID-19 infection.

QUESTIONS REGARDING EARLY OUTPATIENT TREATMENT:

  1. There are generally two stages of COVID-19 symptomatic infection; initial flu like symptoms with progression to cytokine storm and respiratory failure, correct?
  2. When people are admitted to a hospital, they generally are in worse condition, correct?
  3. There are no specific medications currently recommended for early outpatient treatment of symptomatic COVID-19 infection, correct?
  4. Remdesivir and Dexamethasone are used for hospitalized patients, correct?
  5. There is currently no recommended pharmacologic early outpatient treatment for individuals in the flu stage of the illness, correct?
  6. It is true that COVID-19 is much more lethal than the flu for high-risk individuals such as older patients and those with significant comorbidities, correct?
  7. Individuals with signs of early COVID-19 infection typically have a runny nose, fever, cough, shortness of breath, loss of smell, etc., and physicians send them home to rest, eat chicken soup etc., but offer no specific, targeted medications, correct?
  8. These high-risk individuals are at high risk of death, on the order of 15 percent or higher, correct?
  9. So just so we are clear — the current standard of care now is to send clinically stable symptomatic patients home, “with a wait and see” approach?
  10. Are you aware that physicians are successfully using Hydroxychloroquine combined with Zinc and Azithromycin as a “cocktail” for early outpatient treatment of symptomatic, high-risk, individuals?
  11. Have you heard of the “Zelenko Protocol,” for treating high-risk patients with COVID-19 as an outpatient?
  12. Have you read Dr. Risch’s article in the American Journal of Epidemiology of the early outpatient treatment of COVID-19?
  13. Are you aware that physicians using the medication combination or “cocktail” recommend use within the first five to seven days of the onset of symptoms, before the illness impacts the lungs, or cytokine storm evolves?
  14. Again, to be clear, your recommendation is no pharmacologic treatment as an outpatient for the flu-like symptoms in patients that are stable, regardless of their risk factors, correct?
  15. Would you advocate for early pharmacologic outpatient treatment of symptomatic COVID-19 patients if you were confident that it was beneficial?
  16. Are you aware that there are hundreds of physicians in the United States and thousands across the globe who have had dramatic success treating high-risk individuals as outpatients with this “cocktail?”
  17. Are you aware that there are at least 10 studies demonstrating the efficacy of early outpatient treatment with the Hydroxychloroquine cocktail for high-risk patients — so this is beyond anecdotal, correct?
  18. If one of your loved ones had diabetes or asthma, or any potentially complicating comorbidity, and tested positive for COVID-19, would you recommend “wait and see how they do” and go to the hospital if symptoms progress?
  19. Even with multiple studies documenting remarkable outpatient efficacy and safety of the Hydroxychloroquine “cocktail,” you believe the risks of the medication combination outweigh the benefits?
  20. Is it true that with regard to Hydroxychloroquine and treatment of COVID-19 infection, you have said repeatedly that “The Overwhelming Evidence of Properly Conducted Randomized Clinical Trials Indicate No Therapeutic Efficacy of Hydroxychloroquine (HCQ)?”
  21. But NONE of the randomized controlled trials to which you refer were done in the first five to seven days after the onset of symptoms, correct?
  22. All of the randomized controlled trials to which you refer were done on hospitalized patients, correct?
  23. Hospitalized patients are typically sicker that outpatients, correct?
  24. None of the randomized controlled trials to which you refer used the full cocktail consisting of Hydroxychloroquine, Zinc, and Azithromycin, correct?
  25. While the University of Minnesota study is referred to as disproving the cocktail, the meds were not given within the first five to seven days of illness, the test group was not high risk (death rates were 3 percent), and no zinc was given, correct?
  26. Again, for clarity, the trials upon which you base your opinion regarding the efficacy of Hydroxychloroquine, assessed neither the full cocktail (to include Zinc and Azithromycin or doxycycline) nor administered treatment within the first five to seven days of symptoms, nor focused on the high-risk group, correct?
  27. Therefore, you have no basis to conclude that the Hydroxychloroquine cocktail when used early in the outpatient setting, within the first five to seven days of symptoms, in high risk patients, is not effective, correct?
  28. It is thus false and misleading to say that the effective and safe use of hydroxychloroquine, Zinc, and Azithromycin has been “debunked,” correct? How could it be “debunked” if there is not a single study that contradicts its use?
  29. Should it not be an absolute priority for the NIH and CDC to look at ways to treat Americans with symptomatic COVID-19 infections early to prevent disease progression?
  30. The SARS-CoV-2/COVID-19 virus is an RNA virus. It is well-established that Zinc interferes with RNA viral replication, correct?
  31. Moreover, is it not true that hydroxychloroquine facilitates the entry of zinc into the cell, is a “ionophore,” correct?
  32. Isn’t also it true that Azithromycin has established anti-viral properties?
  33. Are you aware of the paper from Baylor by Dr. McCullough et. al. describing established mechanisms by which the components of the “HCQ cocktail” exert anti-viral effects?
  34. So, the use of hydroxychloroquine, azithromycin (or doxycycline), and zinc — the “HCQ cocktail” — is based on science, correct?
QUESTIONS REGARDING SAFETY:

  1. The FDA writes the following: “In light of on-going serious cardiac adverse events and their serious side effects, the known and potential benefits of CQ and HCQ no longer outweigh the known and potential risks for authorized use.” So not only is the FDA saying that hydroxychloroquine doesn’t work, they are also saying that it is a very dangerous drug. Yet, is it not true the drug has been used as an anti-malarial drug for over 65 years?
  2. Isn’t it true that the drug has been used for lupus and rheumatoid arthritis for many years at similar doses?
  3. Do you know of even a single study prior to COVID-19 that has provided definitive evidence against the use of the drug based on safety concerns?
  4. Are you aware that chloroquine or hydroxychloroquine has many approved uses for hydroxychloroquine including steroid-dependent asthma (1988 study), advanced pulmonary sarcoidosis (1988 study), sensitizing breast cancer cells for chemotherapy (2012 study), the attenuation of renal ischemia (2018 study), lupus nephritis (2006 study), epithelial ovarian cancer (2020 study), just to name a few? Where are the cardiotoxicity concerns ever mentioned?
  5. Risch estimates the risk of cardiac death from hydroxychloroquine to be 9/100,000 using the data provided by the FDA. That does not seem to be a high risk, considering the risk of death in an older patient with co-morbidities can be 15 percent or more. Do you consider 9/100,000 to be a high risk when weighed against the risk of death in older patient with co-morbidities?
  6. To put this in perspective, the drug is used for 65 years, without warnings (aside for the need for periodic retinal checks), but the FDA somehow feels the need to send out an alert on June 15, that the drug is dangerous. Does that make any logical sense to you Dr. Fauci based on “science”?
  7. Moreover, consider that the protocols for usage in early treatment are for five to seven days at relatively low doses of hydroxychloroquine similar to what is being given in other diseases (RA, SLE) over many years — does it make any sense to you logically that a five to seven day dose of hydroxychloroquine when not given in high doses could be considered dangerous?
  8. You are also aware that articles published in the New England Journal of Medicine and Lancet, one out of Harvard University, regarding the dangers of hydroxychloroquine had to be retracted based on the fact that the data was fabricated. Are you aware of that?
  9. If there was such good data on the risks of hydroxychloroquine, one would not have to use fake data, correct?
  10. After all, 65 years is a long-time to determine whether or not a drug is safe, do you agree?
  11. In the clinical trials that you have referenced (e.g., the Minnesota and the Brazil studies), there was not a single death attributed directly to hydroxychloroquine, correct?
  12. According to Dr. Risch, there is no evidence based on the data to conclude that hydroxychloroquine is a dangerous drug. Are you aware of any published report that rebuts Dr. Risch’s findings?
  13. Are you aware that the FDA ruling along with your statements have led to Governors in a number of states to restrict the use of hydroxychloroquine?
  14. Are you aware that pharmacies are not filling prescriptions for this medication based on your and the FDA’s restrictions?
  15. Are you aware that doctors are being punished by state medical boards for prescribing the medication based on your comments as well as the FDA’s?
  16. Are you aware that people who want the medication sometimes need to call physicians in other states pleading for it?
  17. And yet you opined in March that while people were dying at the rate of 10,000 patients a week, hydroxychloroquine could only be used in an inpatient setting as part of a clinical trial- correct?
  18. So, people who want to be treated in that critical five- to seven-day period and avoid being hospitalized are basically out of luck in your view, correct?
  19. So, again, for clarity, without a shred of evidence that the hydroxychloroquine/HCQ cocktail is dangerous in the doses currently recommend for early outpatient treatment, you and the FDA have made it very difficult, if not impossible in some cases, to get this treatment, correct?
QUESTIONS REGARDING METHODOLOGY:

  1. In regards to the use of hydroxychloroquine, you have repeatedly made the same statement: “The Overwhelming Evidence from Properly Conducted Randomized Clinical Trials Indicate no Therapeutic Efficacy of Hydroxychloroquine.” Is that correct?
  2. In Dr. Risch’s article regarding the early use of hydroxychloroquine, he disputes your opinion. He scientifically evaluated the data from the studies to support his opinions. Have you published any articles to support your opinions?
  3. You repeatedly state that randomized clinical trials are needed to make conclusions regarding treatments, correct?
  4. The FDA has approved many medications (especially in the area of cancer treatment) without randomized clinical trials, correct?
  5. Are you aware that Dr. Thomas Frieden, the previous head of the CDC wrote an article in the New England Journal of Medicine in 2017 called “Evidence for Health Decision Making — Beyond Randomized Clinical Trials (RCT)?” Have you read that article?
  6. In it Dr. Frieden states that “many data sources can provide valid evidence for clinical and public health action, including analysis of aggregate clinical or epidemiological data.” Do you disagree with that?
  7. Frieden discusses “practiced-based evidence” as being essential in many discoveries, such SIDS (Sudden Infant Death Syndrome). Do you disagree with that?
  8. Frieden writes the following: “Current evidence-grading systems are biased toward randomized clinical trials, which may lead to inadequate consideration of non-RCT data.” Dr. Fauci, have you considered all the non-RCT data in coming to your opinions?
  9. Risch, who is a leading world authority in the analysis of aggregate clinical data, has done a rigorous analysis that he published regarding the early treatment of COVID-19 with hydroxychloroquine, zinc, and azithromycin. He cites five or six studies, and in an updated article there are five or six more, a total of 10 to 12 clinical studies with formally collected data specifically regarding the early treatment of COVID. Have you analyzed the aggregate data regarding early treatment of high-risk patients with hydroxychloroquine, zinc, and azithromycin?
  10. Is there any document that you can produce for the American people of your analysis of the aggregate data that would rebut Dr. Risch’s analysis?
  11. Yet, despite what Dr. Risch believes is overwhelming evidence in support of the early use of hydroxychloroquine, you dismiss the treatment insisting on randomized controlled trials even in the midst of a pandemic?
  12. Would you want a loved one with high-risk comorbidities placed in the control group of a randomized clinical trial when a number of studies demonstrate safety and dramatic efficacy of the early use of the hydroxychloroquine “cocktail?”
  13. Are you aware that the FDA approved a number of cancer chemotherapy drugs without randomized control trials based solely on epidemiological evidence? The trials came later as confirmation. Are you aware of that?
  14. You are well aware that there were no randomized clinical trials in the case of penicillin that saved thousands of lives in World War II? Was not this in the best interest of our soldiers?
  15. You would agree that many lives were saved with the use of cancer drugs and penicillin that were used before any randomized clinical trials, correct?
  16. You have referred to evidence for hydroxychloroquine as “anecdotal,” which is defined as “evidence collected in a casual or informal manner and relying heavily or entirely on personal testimony,” correct?
  17. But there are many studies supporting the use of hydroxychloroquine in which evidence was collected formally and not on personal testimony, has there not been?
  18. So, it would be false to conclude that the evidence supporting the early use of hydroxychloroquine is anecdotal, correct?
COMPARISON BETWEEN U.S. AND OTHER COUNTRIES REGARDING CASE FATALITY RATE:

(IT WOULD BE VERY HELPFUL TO HAVE THE GRAPHS COMPARING OUR CASE FATALITY RATES TO OTHER COUNTRIES.)

  1. Are you aware that countries like Senegal and Nigeria that use hydroxychloroquine have much lower case-fatality rates than the United States?
  2. Have you pondered the relationship between the use of hydroxychloroquine by a given country and their case mortality rate and why there is a strong correlation between the use of HCQ and the reduction of the case mortality rate.?
  3. Have you considered consulting with a country such as India that has had great success treating COVID-19 prophylactically?
  4. Why shouldn’t our first responders and front-line workers who are at high risk at least have an option of HCQ/zinc prophylaxis?
  5. We should all agree that countries with far inferior healthcare delivery systems should not have lower case fatality rates. Reducing our case fatality rate from near 5 percent, to 2.5 percent, in line with many countries who use HCQ early would have cut our total number of deaths in half, correct?
  6. Why not consult with countries who have lower case-fatality rates, even without expensive medicines such as remdesivir and far less advanced intensive care capabilities?

GIVING AMERICANS THE OPTION TO USE HCQ FOR COVID-19:

  1. Harvey Risch, the pre-eminent epidemiologist from Yale, wrote a Newsweek Article titled: “The key to defeating COVID-19 already exists. We need to start using it.” Did you read the article?
  2. Are you aware that the cost of the hydroxychloroquine “cocktail” including the Z-pack and zinc is about $50?
  3. You are aware the cost of remdesivir is about $3,200?
  4. So that’s about 60 doses of HCQ “cocktail,” correct?
  5. In fact, President Trump had the foresight to amass 60 million doses of hydroxychloroquine, and yet you continue to stand in the way of doctors who want to use that medication for their infected patients, correct?
  6. Those are a lot of doses of medication that potentially could be used to treat our poor, especially our minority populations and people of color that have a difficult time accessing healthcare. They die more frequently of COVID-19, do they not?
  7. But because of your obstinance blocking the use of HCQ, this stockpile has remained largely unused, correct?
  8. Would you acknowledge that your strategy of telling Americans to restrict their behavior, wear masks, and distance, and put their lives on hold indefinitely until there is a vaccine is not working?
  9. So, 160,000 deaths later, an economy in shambles, kids out of school, suicides and drug overdoses at a record high, people neglected and dying from other medical conditions, and America reacting to every outbreak with another lockdown — is it not time to re-think your strategy that is fully dependent on an effective vaccine?
  10. Why not consider a strategy that protects the most vulnerable and allows Americans back to living their lives and not wait for a vaccine panacea that may never come?
  11. Why not consider the approach that thousands of doctors around the world are using, supported by a number of studies in the literature, with early outpatient treatment of high-risk patients for typically one week with HCQ + zinc + azithromycin?
  12. You don’t see a problem with the fact that the government, due to your position, in some cases interferes with the choice of using HCQ. Should not that be a choice between the doctor and the patient?
  13. While some doctors may not want to use the drug, should not doctors who believe that it is indicated be able to offer it to their patients?
  14. Are you aware that doctors who are publicly advocating for such a strategy with the early use of the HCQ cocktail are being silenced with removal of content on the internet and even censorship in the medical community?
  15. You are aware of the 20 or so physicians who came to the Supreme Court steps advocating for the early use of the hydroxychloroquine cocktail. In fact, you said these were “a bunch of people spouting out something that isn’t true.”Dr. Fauci, these are not just “people,” these are doctors who actually treat patients, unlike you, correct?
  16. Do you know that the video they made went viral with 17 million views in just a few hours, and was then removed from the internet?
  17. Are you aware that their website, American Frontline Doctors, was taken down the next day?
  18. Did you see the way that Nigerian immigrant physician, Dr. Stella Immanuel, was mocked in the media for her religious views and called a “witch doctor?”
  19. Are you aware that Dr. Simone Gold, the leader of the group, was fired from her job as an Emergency Room physician the following day?
  20. Are you aware that physicians advocating for this treatment that has by now probably saved millions of lives around the globe are harassed by local health departments, state agencies and medical boards, and even at their own hospitals? Are you aware of that?
  21. Don’t you think doctors should have the right to speak out on behalf of their patients without the threat of retribution?
  22. Are you aware that videos and other educational information are removed off the internet and labeled, in the words of Mark Zuckerberg, as “misinformation?”
  23. Is it not misinformation to characterize hydroxychloroquine, in the doses used for early outpatient treatment of COVID-19 infections, as a dangerous drug?
  24. Is it not misleading for you to repeatedly state to the American public that randomized clinical trials are the sole source of information to confirm the efficacy of a treatment?
  25. Was it not misinformation when on CNN you cited the Lancet study based on false data from Surgisphere as evidence of the lack of efficacy of hydroxychloroquine?
  26. Is it not misinformation as is repeated in the MSM as a result of your comments that a randomized clinical trial is required by the FDA for a drug approval?
  27. Don’t you realize how much damage this falsehood perpetuates?
  28. How is it not misinformation for you and the FDA to keep telling the American public that hydroxychloroquine is dangerous when you know that there is nothing more than anecdotal evidence of that?
  29. Fauci, if you or a loved one were infected with COVID-19, and had flu-like symptoms, and you knew as you do now, that there is a safe and effective cocktail that you could take to prevent worsening and the possibility of hospitalization, can you honestly tell us that you would refuse the medication?
  30. Why not give our healthcare workers and first responders, who even with the necessary PPE are contracting the virus at a three to four times greater rate than the general public, the right to choose along with their doctor if they want to use the medicine prophylactically?
  31. Why is the government inserting itself in a way that is unprecedented in regard to a historically safe medication and not allowing patients the right to choose along with their doctor?
  32. Why not give the American people the right to decide along with their physician whether or not they want outpatient treatment in the first five to seven days of the disease with a cocktail that is safe and costs around $50?
FINAL QUESTIONS:

  1. Fauci, please explain how a randomized clinical trial, to which you repeatedly make reference, for testing the HCQ cocktail (hydroxychloroquine, azithromycin, and zinc) administered within five to seven days of the onset of symptoms is even possible now given the declining case numbers in so many states?
  2. For example, if the NIH were now to direct a study to begin September 15, where would such a study be done?
  3. Please explain how a randomized study on the early treatment (within the first five to seven days of symptoms) of high-risk, symptomatic COVID-19 infections could be done during the influenza season and be valid?
  4. Please explain how multiple observational studies arrive at the same outcomes using the same formulation of hydroxychloroquine + azithromycin + zinc given in the same time frame for the same study population (high risk patients) is not evidence that the cocktail works?
  5. In fact, how is it not significant evidence, during a pandemic, for hundreds of non-academic private practice physicians to achieve the same outcomes with the early use of the HCQ cocktail?
  6. What is your recommendation for the medical management of a 75-year-old diabetic with fever, cough, and loss of smell, but not yet hypoxic, who Emergency Room providers do not feel warrants admission? We know that hundreds of US physicians (and thousands more around the world) would manage this case with the HCQ cocktail with predictable success.
  7. If you were in charge in 1940, would you have advised the mass production of penicillin based primarily on lab evidence and one case series on five patients in England, or would you have stated that a randomized clinical trial was needed?
  8. Why would any physician put their medical license, professional reputation, and job on the line to recommend the HCQ cocktail — that does not make them any money — unless they knew the treatment could significantly help their patient?
  9. Why would a physician take the medication themselves and prescribe it to family members (for treatment or prophylaxis) unless they felt strongly that the medication was beneficial?
  10. How is it informed and ethical medical practice to allow a COVID-19 patient to deteriorate in the early stages of the infection when there is inexpensive, safe, and dramatically effective treatment with the HCQ cocktail, which the science indicates interferes with coronavirus replication?
  11. How is your approach to “wait and see” in the early stages of COVID-19 infection, especially in high-risk patients, following the science?
While previous questions are related to hydroxychloroquine-based treatment, we have two questions addressing masks.

  1. As you recall, you stated on March 8, just a few weeks before the devastation in the Northeast, that masks weren’t needed. You later said that you made this statement to prevent a hoarding of masks that would disrupt availability to healthcare workers. Why did you not make a recommendation for people to wear any face covering to protect themselves, as we are doing now?
  2. Rather, you issued no such warning and people were riding in subways and visiting their relatives in nursing homes without any face covering. Currently, your position is that face coverings are essential. Please explain whether or not you made a mistake in early March, and how would you go about it differently now.
CONCLUSION:

Since the start of the pandemic, physicians have used hydroxychloroquine to treat symptomatic COVID-19 infections, as well as for prophylaxis. Initial results were mixed as indications and doses were explored to maximize outcomes and minimize risks. What emerged was that hydroxychloroquine appeared to work best when coupled with azithromycin. In fact, it was the president of the United States who recommended to you publicly at the beginning of the pandemic, in early March, that you should consider early treatment with hydroxychloroquine and a “Z-Pack.” Additional studies showed that patients did not seem to benefit when COVID-19 infections were treated with hydroxychloroquine late in the course of the illness, typically in a hospital setting, but treatment was consistently effective, even in high-risk patients, when hydroxychloroquine was given in a “cocktail” with azithromycin and, critically, zinc in the first five to seven days after the onset of symptoms. The outcomes are, in fact, dramatic.


As clearly presented in the McCullough article from Baylor, and described by Dr. Vladimir Zelenko, the efficacy of the HCQ cocktail is based on the pharmacology of the hydroxychloroquine ionophore acting as the “gun” and zinc as the “bullet,” while azithromycin potentiates the anti-viral effect. Undeniably, the hydroxychloroquine combination treatment is supported by science. Yet, you continue to ignore the “science” behind the disease. Viral replication occurs rapidly in the first five to seven days of symptoms and can be treated at that point with the HCQ cocktail. Rather, your actions have denied patients treatment in that early stage. Without such treatment, some patients, especially those at high risk with co-morbidities, deteriorate and require hospitalization for evolving cytokine storm resulting in pneumonia, respiratory failure, and intubation with 50% mortality. Dismissal of the science results in bad medicine, and the outcome is over 160,000 dead Americans. Countries that have followed the science and treated the disease in the early stages have far better results, a fact that has been concealed from the American Public.


Despite mounting evidence and impassioned pleas from hundreds of frontline physicians, your position was and continues to be that randomized controlled trials (RCTs) have not shown there to be benefit. However, not a single randomized control trial has tested what is being recommended: use of the full cocktail (especially zinc), in high-risk patients, initiated within the first 5 to 7 days of the onset of symptoms. Using hydroxychloroquine and azithromycin late in the disease process, with or without zinc, does not produce the same, unequivocally positive results.

Dr. Thomas Frieden, in a 2017 New England Journal of Medicine article regarding randomized clinical trials, emphasized there are situations in which it is entirely appropriate to use other forms of evidence to scientifically validate a treatment. Such is the case during a pandemic that moves like a brushfire jumping to different parts of the country. Insisting on randomized clinical trials in the midst of a pandemic is simply foolish. Dr. Harvey Risch, a world-renowned Yale epidemiologist, analyzed all the data regarding the use of the hydroxychloroquine/HCQ cocktail and concluded that the evidence of its efficacy when used early in COVID-19 infection is unequivocal.


Curiously, despite a 65+ years safety record, the FDA suddenly deemed hydroxychloroquine a dangerous drug, especially with regard to cardiotoxicity. Dr. Risch analyzed data provided by the FDA and concluded that the risk of a significant cardiac event from hydroxychloroquine is extremely low, especially when compared to the mortality rate of COVID-19 patients with high-risk co-morbidities. How do you reconcile that for forty years rheumatoid arthritis and lupus patients have been treated over long periods, often for years, with hydroxychloroquine and now there are suddenly concerns about a 5 to 7-day course of hydroxychloroquine at similar or slightly increased doses? The FDA statement regarding hydroxychloroquine and cardiac risk is patently false and alarmingly misleading to physicians, pharmacists, patients, and other health professionals. The benefits of the early use of hydroxychloroquine to prevent hospitalization in high-risk patients with COVID-19 infection far outweigh the risks. Physicians are not able to obtain the medication for their patients, and in some cases are restricted by their state from prescribing hydroxychloroquine. The government’s obstruction of the early treatment of symptomatic high-risk COVID-19 patients with hydroxychloroquine, a medication used extensively and safely for so long, is unprecedented.


It is essential that you tell the truth to the American public regarding the safety and efficacy of the hydroxychloroquine/HCQ cocktail. The government must protect and facilitate the sacred and revered physician-patient relationship by permitting physicians to treat their patients. Governmental obfuscation and obstruction are as lethal as cytokine storm.

Americans must not continue to die unnecessarily. Adults must resume employment and our youth return to school. Locking down America while awaiting an imperfect vaccine has done far more damage to Americans than the coronavirus. We are confident that thousands of lives would be saved with early treatment of high-risk individuals with a cocktail of hydroxychloroquine, zinc, and azithromycin. Americans must not live in fear. As Dr. Harvey Risch’s Newsweek article declares, “The key to defeating COVID-19 already exists. We need to start using it.”


Very Respectfully,

George C. Fareed, MD

Brawley, California

Michael M. Jacobs, MD, MPH

Pensacola, Florida

Donald C. Pompan, MD

Salinas, California”
No one on this board is reading anything this long. Quick google search of the Docs in question reveal one is a family medicine Doc, one is an orthopedic surgeon and one is a geriatric specialist. They are not virologists, infectious disease docs or pulmonologists. Maybe one of them is Quanon.
 

WeR0206

Well-Known Member
Apr 9, 2014
19,350
24,803
1
2020evidence.org
No one on this board is reading anything this long. Quick google search of the Docs in question reveal one is a family medicine Doc, one is an orthopedic surgeon and one is a geriatric specialist. They are not virologists, infectious disease docs or pulmonologists. Maybe one of them is Quanon.
What about Risch? He analyzes studies/data for a living, he’s kinda world renowned for it. Is he just another quack who doesn’t know what they’re talking about?

Re: the docs who wrote the letter They’re still medical doctors yes? They understand biology and chemistry (needed to understand how/why the HCQ cocktail works) right? One doesn’t even need to be a medical expert to understand the science behind how this cocktail fights covid19 and why fauci is evil for not promoting it as our first line of defense for front line workers and high risk folks. If you need “experts” like fauci to tell you exactly what to think instead of researching the science for yourself then you’re lost.

How many actual covid19 patients have fauci, birx, et al actually treated? Do any of them have vaccine patents in their names and thus have a financial COI re: their position on HCQ?

Guess who would know a lot about HCQ? People treating joint pain, arthritis, etc..

Your posts are easy to refute bc they are so hollow and devoid of logic.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Ephrata Lion

Gorki26

Well-Known Member
May 7, 2020
5,227
5,294
1
No one on this board is reading anything this long. Quick google search of the Docs in question reveal one is a family medicine Doc, one is an orthopedic surgeon and one is a geriatric specialist. They are not virologists, infectious disease docs or pulmonologists. Maybe one of them is Quanon.

That was one of the longest posts I have ever seen.

From the start of this virus haven't doctors opinions been all over the place. They varied greatly.

So now for political reasons people are going to cherry pick what certain doctors said to fit their argument.

People on both sides have been using statistics to support their side in the Covid - political argument. It's really stupid already. The virus is here. The death rate is not high but there is still deaths with this virus. Until a vaccine is here nothing is going to change much. How could anyone a politician that is taking precautions over the virus criticized?
 

WeR0206

Well-Known Member
Apr 9, 2014
19,350
24,803
1
2020evidence.org
That was one of the longest posts I have ever seen.

From the start of this virus haven't doctors opinions been all over the place. They varied greatly.

So now for political reasons people are going to cherry pick what certain doctors said to fit their argument.

People on both sides have been using statistics to support their side in the Covid - political argument. It's really stupid already. The virus is here. The death rate is not high but there is still deaths with this virus. Until a vaccine is here nothing is going to change much. How could anyone a politician that is taking precautions over the virus criticized?
Fauci has a lot of important questions to answer. It takes about 10 mins to skim through them. I suggest you take a look.

Of course there will always be varying opinions. That’s one of the main points being made. Doctors who have a different opinion re: HCQ aren’t being allowed to give it to their patients bc the system has been politicized and is restricting their access and even threatening their licenses, etc....for a drug that’s been fda approved for decades with a very good safety record. Think about that for a moment.

Also think about why fauci isn’t shouting from the rooftops about a cheap safe and effective treatment for high risk outpatients. After reviewing the dozen or so studies showing its very effective for high risk outpatients Experts like Risch agree it should be our new standard of care.

https://academic.oup.com/aje/advance-article/doi/10.1093/aje/kwaa152/5873640

This will allow us to reopen the country and not be waiting for some vaccine that may never come or might be unsafe. It will end the horrific residual impact of the lockdowns (suicides up, drug abuse up, child abuse up, etc.).

Here is an excerpt from Dr Risch’s July update (see above for link):

“Finally, in pandemic times when months and years of delay cannot be tolerated before large randomized controlled trials are completed, it is possible to quibble with apparent imperfections in almost any study. That misses the forest for the trees. Since my paper (2) discussing five studies was published, data from seven other studies of high-risk outpatients have become available, all showing the same substantial and significant benefit of use of HCQ along with AZ or other companion medications (Table 1). Two additional large studies of hospital patients given HCQ within 48 hours of admission show significant benefit adjusted for age and comorbidities (12, 13), and a meta-analysis of studies to-date completely demonstrates this benefit (14). Perhaps even more important, the exponential COVID-19 mortality explosion in the northern state of Pará, Brazil (15), reversed direction, downward dramatically about 5 weeks after a shipment of 75,000 doses of AZ and 90,000 doses of HCQ began to be distributed to infected individuals (Figure 1). No such decline has been observed in the rest of Brazil. This is a compelling, large-scale experiment demonstrating efficacy of HCQ+AZ in saving lives of high-risk people infected with SARS-CoV-2.”
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Ephrata Lion

2lion70

Well-Known Member
Gold Member
Jul 1, 2004
16,813
5,798
1
I prefer to get my virus opinions from those that are recognized experts in that field. Same as I look to folks with knowledge of finance and econ for market opinions.
Of course I have been known to listen carefully to both bartenders and barbers.
 
  • Like
Reactions: IIVI and Jason1743

Jason1743

Well-Known Member
Jan 23, 2006
20,061
13,757
1
What about Risch? He analyzes studies/data for a living, he’s kinda world renowned for it. Is he just another quack who doesn’t know what they’re talking about?

Re: the docs who wrote the letter They’re still medical doctors yes? They understand biology and chemistry (needed to understand how/why the HCQ cocktail works) right? One doesn’t even need to be a medical expert to understand the science behind how this cocktail fights covid19 and why fauci is evil for not promoting it as our first line of defense for front line workers and high risk folks. If you need “experts” like fauci to tell you exactly what to think instead of researching the science for yourself then you’re lost.

How many actual covid19 patients have fauci, birx, et al actually treated? Do any of them have vaccine patents in their names and thus have a financial COI re: their position on HCQ?

Guess who would know a lot about HCQ? People treating joint pain, arthritis, etc..

Your posts are easy to refute bc they are so hollow and devoid of logic.[/
https://www.medpagetoday.com/infectiousdisease/covid19/87844
The above referenced article refutes Dr, Risch. The studies he cites have been discredited.
Dr. Fauci, the heads of the CDC, NIH and Admiral Giroux all agree that HQH doesn’t work, or at least there is no scientific evidence that it does work.
I don’t think there is a conspiracy theory that you haven’t latched on to. You always believe minority opinions. You always think there is something deceitful happening. You tend to be over indulgent with the length of shit you post.
https://www.medpagetoday.com/infectiousdisease/covid19/87844
The studies Dr, Risch cites have been discredited.
Dr. Fauci, the heads of the CDC, NIH and Admiral Giroux all agree that there is no scientific evidence that HQH works.
I don’t think there is a conspiracy theory that you haven’t latched on to. You always believe minority opinions. You always believe there is something deceitful happening. You are over indulgent with the length of shit you post.
 
Last edited:

LafayetteBear

Well-Known Member
Dec 1, 2009
47,516
21,187
1
Fauci has a lot of important questions to answer. It takes about 10 mins to skim through them. I suggest you take a look.

Of course there will always be varying opinions. That’s one of the main points being made. Doctors who have a different opinion re: HCQ aren’t being allowed to give it to their patients bc the system has been politicized and is restricting their access and even threatening their licenses, etc....for a drug that’s been fda approved for decades with a very good safety record. Think about that for a moment.

Also think about why fauci isn’t showing from the rooftops about a cheap safe and effective treatment for high risk outpatients. After reviewing the dozen or so studies showing its very effective for high risk outpatients Experts like Risch agree it should be our new standard of care.

This will allow us to reopen the country and not be waiting for some vaccine that may never come or might be unsafe. It will end the horrific residual impact of the lockdowns (suicides up, drug abuse up, child abuse up, etc.).
Those questions are from YOU, Dr. WeR. I actually read the first set of them, and they ALL make essentially the same argument: that hydroxychloroquine is an effective treatment for Covid-19 if administered in its very early stages.

Although you cite two doctors (Risch and McCullough) who advocate that view, there are a host of other doctors (not just Fauci) who do not. Even assuming your argument to be correct, relatively few Coronavirus victims seek treatment within the first few days of manifesting symptoms, if they manifest any symptoms at all. And your arguments steadfastly fail to acknowledge that hydroxychloroquine can have serious, negative side effects.

All of these posts of yours arguing that hydroxychloroquine is a wonder drug, just so you can attempt to carry Donald Trump’s water for him when he should not have been venturing medical opinions in the first place? Surely, you have better uses for your time. :rolleyes:
 

WeR0206

Well-Known Member
Apr 9, 2014
19,350
24,803
1
2020evidence.org
I prefer to get my virus opinions from those that are recognized experts in that field. Same as I look to folks with knowledge of finance and econ for market opinions.
Of course I have been known to listen carefully to both bartenders and barbers.
Risch isn’t an expert??
https://www.medpagetoday.com/infectiousdisease/covid19/87844
The studies Dr, Risch cites have been discredited.
Dr. Fauci, the heads of the CDC, NIH and Admiral Giroux all agree that there is no scientific evidence that HQH works.
I don’t think there is a conspiracy theory that you haven’t latched on to. You always believe minority opinions. You always believe there is something deceitful happening. You are over indulgent with the length of shit you post.
People have nitpicked at certain ones but all 12 studies on high risk outpatients showing positive results haven’t been discredited.

In fact none of the studies fauci and others have relied on for their positions have been on high risk outpatients with the “hcq cocktail.” That’s one of the main issues pointed out in the OP. Fauci is also claiming we need to wait for a randomized controlled clinical trial when that’s bs. We’ve approved cancer and other drugs in the past without RCT’s. We didn’t wait for one to start using penicillin.

Risch discusses the “critiques” of the studies he cited. See the link to his July update in my above post.

Here is the excerpt again:
“Finally, in pandemic times when months and years of delay cannot be tolerated before large randomized controlled trials are completed, it is possible to quibble with apparent imperfections in almost any study. That misses the forest for the trees. Since my paper (2) discussing five studies was published, data from seven other studies of high-risk outpatients have become available, all showing the same substantial and significant benefit of use of HCQ along with AZ or other companion medications (Table 1). Two additional large studies of hospital patients given HCQ within 48 hours of admission show significant benefit adjusted for age and comorbidities (12, 13), and a meta-analysis of studies to-date completely demonstrates this benefit (14). Perhaps even more important, the exponential COVID-19 mortality explosion in the northern state of Pará, Brazil (15), reversed direction, downward dramatically about 5 weeks after a shipment of 75,000 doses of AZ and 90,000 doses of HCQ began to be distributed to infected individuals (Figure 1). No such decline has been observed in the rest of Brazil. This is a compelling, large-scale experiment demonstrating efficacy of HCQ+AZ in saving lives of high-risk people infected with SARS-CoV-2.”
 
  • Like
Reactions: Ephrata Lion

gjbankos

Well-Known Member
Jan 16, 2006
58,935
37,117
1
No one on this board is reading anything this long. Quick google search of the Docs in question reveal one is a family medicine Doc, one is an orthopedic surgeon and one is a geriatric specialist. They are not virologists, infectious disease docs or pulmonologists. Maybe one of them is Quanon.
I know - there's no primary colors in his posting for you.
 

SLUPSU

Well-Known Member
Aug 5, 2018
4,553
2,623
1
@WeR0206

What percentage of all participants in any of the HCQ studies you've referenced here in the past have been over 70? After all, the IFR for those under 70 is ONLY 0.04%, or so you've repeated a few dozen times.
 

WeR0206

Well-Known Member
Apr 9, 2014
19,350
24,803
1
2020evidence.org
@WeR0206

What percentage of all participants in any of the HCQ studies you've referenced here in the past have been over 70? After all, the IFR for those under 70 is ONLY 0.04%, or so you've repeated a few dozen times.
You seem to be conflating studies estimating the avg IFR with studies looking at the efficacy of HCQ. They aren’t related.

If you’re that curious look at the details behind the studies cited by Risch here, they are pretty much the same ones I’ve been linking to re: HCQ:

https://academic.oup.com/aje/advance-article/doi/10.1093/aje/kwaa152/5873640
 

SLUPSU

Well-Known Member
Aug 5, 2018
4,553
2,623
1
You seem to be conflating studies estimating the avg IFR with studies looking at the efficacy of HCQ. They aren’t related.

If you’re that curious look at the details behind the studies cited by Risch here, they are pretty much the same ones I’ve been linking to re: HCQ:

https://academic.oup.com/aje/advance-article/doi/10.1093/aje/kwaa152/5873640

No, not conflating anything, you just missed the point. The basic and big weakness in all of these retrospective studies is sample selection, they chose people that are not likely to die from CV19 in the first place.
 

WeR0206

Well-Known Member
Apr 9, 2014
19,350
24,803
1
2020evidence.org
No, not conflating anything, you just missed the point. The basic and big weakness in all of these retrospective studies is sample selection, they chose people that are not likely to die from CV19 in the first place.
The studies cited by Risch to form his position on HCQ were all done on high risk outpatients. There are around a dozen of them.

That’s one of the main things mentioned in the OP. All the studies fauci cites for his position weren’t done on high risk outpatients and/or didn’t use the correct drug combo/dosage.

Its also absurd for fauci to claim he needs to see the results of a randomized controlled trial before endorsing HCQ during a crisis. This is a drug that’s been around for 60 years with a very safe record. He’s either a moron or corrupted by big pharma and his vaccine patents.

But wait...of course the only RCT for outpatients was shutdown due to lack of volunteers. Yeah right!!


There have also been some inpatient studies that showed good results:


More links to studies:


Negative studies:



Good closing tweet:
 
Last edited:

SLUPSU

Well-Known Member
Aug 5, 2018
4,553
2,623
1
The studies cited by Risch to form his position on HCQ were all done on high risk outpatients. There are around a dozen of them.

That’s one of the main things mentioned in the OP. All the studies fauci cites for his position weren’t done on high risk outpatients and/or didn’t use the correct drug combo/dosage.

Its also absurd for fauci to claim he needs to see the results of a randomized controlled trial before endorsing HCQ during a crisis. This is a drug that’s been around for 60 years with a very safe record. He’s either a moron or corrupted by big pharma and his vaccine patents.

But wait...of course the only RCT for outpatients was shutdown due to lack of volunteers. Yeah right!!



There have also been some inpatient studies that showed good results:



More links to studies:




Negative studies:






Good closing tweet:

The Mumbai slums where the average age is really low and where most don't live past 60.

The Michigan study where the results are skewed because they gave patients a steroid that has proven to be effective as a treatment, that study?

From your own tweet...."The problem with Dr Raoult's early findings is that his patient base was fairly young so while his results were excellent, it was hard to evaluate them without a control"

Portugal Study...puny sample size.... where's the zinc? where's the Z-Pac? Young sample size.... no indication of seriousness of infection... apparently using HCQ for malaria.

.... and you say these are supposed to good studies, get real.
 

indynittany

Well-Known Member
Feb 21, 2005
5,670
6,814
1
No one on this board is reading anything this long. Quick google search of the Docs in question reveal one is a family medicine Doc, one is an orthopedic surgeon and one is a geriatric specialist. They are not virologists, infectious disease docs or pulmonologists. Maybe one of them is Quanon.

 
  • Like
Reactions: WeR0206

WeR0206

Well-Known Member
Apr 9, 2014
19,350
24,803
1
2020evidence.org
The Mumbai slums where the average age is really low and where most don't live past 60.

The Michigan study where the results are skewed because they gave patients a steroid that has proven to be effective as a treatment, that study?

From your own tweet...."The problem with Dr Raoult's early findings is that his patient base was fairly young so while his results were excellent, it was hard to evaluate them without a control"

Portugal Study...puny sample size.... where's the zinc? where's the Z-Pac? Young sample size.... no indication of seriousness of infection... apparently using HCQ for malaria.

.... and you say these are supposed to good studies, get real.
I included the Michigan and other inpatient studies to show that even when given to inpatients there are some good results. Good lord you are so incredibly dense. There are 12 studies showing its effective on high risk outpatients. The key is early outpatient treatment for high risk people. Everyone else doesn’t need any treatment.

Guess what the studies show when HCQ is given early and hard to high risk outpatients along with zinc? Fives times smaller death rate compared to no treatment.

Look at the study comparing countries that adopted early HCQ use and those that didn’t. That’s a natural randomized controlled study that showed a significant benefit. You miss that one?
 

SheldonJoe2215

Well-Known Member
Oct 3, 2015
4,193
4,390
1
Portland, OR
Fauci needs to be fired and go to jail.

https://www.thedesertreview.com/opi...cle_31d37842-dd8f-11ea-80b5-bf80983bc072.html

Open letter to Dr. Anthony Fauci regarding the use of Hydroxychloroquine for treating COVID-19

“August 12, 2020

Anthony Fauci, MD

National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases

Washington, D.C.

Dear Dr. Fauci:

You were placed into the most high-profile role regarding America’s response to the coronavirus pandemic. Americans have relied on your medical expertise concerning the wearing of masks, resuming employment, returning to school, and of course medical treatment.

You are largely unchallenged in terms of your medical opinions. You are the de facto “COVID-19 Czar." This is unusual in the medical profession in which doctors’ opinions are challenged by other physicians in the form of exchanges between doctors at hospitals, medical conferences, as well as debate in medical journals. You render your opinions unchallenged, without formal public opposition from physicians who passionately disagree with you. It is incontestable that the public is best served when opinions and policy are based on the prevailing evidence and science, and able to withstand the scrutiny of medical professionals.

As experience accrued in treating COVID-19 infections, physicians worldwide discovered that high-risk patients can be treated successfully as an outpatient, within the first five to seven days of the onset of symptoms, with a “cocktail” consisting of hydroxychloroquine, zinc, and azithromycin (or doxycycline). Multiple scholarly contributions to the literature detail the efficacy of the hydroxychloroquine-based combination treatment.

Dr. Harvey Risch, the renowned Yale epidemiologist, published an article in May 2020 in the American Journal of Epidemiology titled “Early Outpatient Treatment of Symptomatic, High-Risk COVID-19 Patients that Should be Ramped-Up Immediately as Key to Pandemic Crisis." He further published an article in Newsweek in July 2020 for the general public expressing the same conclusions and opinions. Dr. Risch is an expert at evaluating research data and study designs, publishing over 300 articles. Dr Risch’s assessment is that there is unequivocal evidence for the early and safe use of the “HCQ cocktail.” If there are Q-T interval concerns, doxycycline can be substituted for azithromycin as it has activity against RNA viruses without any cardiac effects.

Yet, you continue to reject the use of hydroxychloroquine, except in a hospital setting in the form of clinical trials, repeatedly emphasizing the lack of evidence supporting its use. Hydroxychloroquine, despite 65 years of use for malaria, and over 40 years for lupus and rheumatoid arthritis, with a well-established safety profile, has been deemed by you and the FDA as unsafe for use in the treatment of symptomatic COVID-19 infections. Your opinions have influenced the thinking of physicians and their patients, medical boards, state and federal agencies, pharmacists, hospitals, and just about everyone involved in medical decision making.

Indeed, your opinions impacted the health of Americans, and many aspects of our day-to-day lives including employment and school. Those of us who prescribe hydroxychloroquine, zinc, and azithromycin/doxycycline believe fervently that early outpatient use would save tens of thousands of lives and enable our country to dramatically alter the response to COVID-19. We advocate for an approach that will reduce fear and allow Americans to get their lives back.

We hope that our questions compel you to reconsider your current approach to COVID-19 infection.

QUESTIONS REGARDING EARLY OUTPATIENT TREATMENT:

  1. There are generally two stages of COVID-19 symptomatic infection; initial flu like symptoms with progression to cytokine storm and respiratory failure, correct?
  2. When people are admitted to a hospital, they generally are in worse condition, correct?
  3. There are no specific medications currently recommended for early outpatient treatment of symptomatic COVID-19 infection, correct?
  4. Remdesivir and Dexamethasone are used for hospitalized patients, correct?
  5. There is currently no recommended pharmacologic early outpatient treatment for individuals in the flu stage of the illness, correct?
  6. It is true that COVID-19 is much more lethal than the flu for high-risk individuals such as older patients and those with significant comorbidities, correct?
  7. Individuals with signs of early COVID-19 infection typically have a runny nose, fever, cough, shortness of breath, loss of smell, etc., and physicians send them home to rest, eat chicken soup etc., but offer no specific, targeted medications, correct?
  8. These high-risk individuals are at high risk of death, on the order of 15 percent or higher, correct?
  9. So just so we are clear — the current standard of care now is to send clinically stable symptomatic patients home, “with a wait and see” approach?
  10. Are you aware that physicians are successfully using Hydroxychloroquine combined with Zinc and Azithromycin as a “cocktail” for early outpatient treatment of symptomatic, high-risk, individuals?
  11. Have you heard of the “Zelenko Protocol,” for treating high-risk patients with COVID-19 as an outpatient?
  12. Have you read Dr. Risch’s article in the American Journal of Epidemiology of the early outpatient treatment of COVID-19?
  13. Are you aware that physicians using the medication combination or “cocktail” recommend use within the first five to seven days of the onset of symptoms, before the illness impacts the lungs, or cytokine storm evolves?
  14. Again, to be clear, your recommendation is no pharmacologic treatment as an outpatient for the flu-like symptoms in patients that are stable, regardless of their risk factors, correct?
  15. Would you advocate for early pharmacologic outpatient treatment of symptomatic COVID-19 patients if you were confident that it was beneficial?
  16. Are you aware that there are hundreds of physicians in the United States and thousands across the globe who have had dramatic success treating high-risk individuals as outpatients with this “cocktail?”
  17. Are you aware that there are at least 10 studies demonstrating the efficacy of early outpatient treatment with the Hydroxychloroquine cocktail for high-risk patients — so this is beyond anecdotal, correct?
  18. If one of your loved ones had diabetes or asthma, or any potentially complicating comorbidity, and tested positive for COVID-19, would you recommend “wait and see how they do” and go to the hospital if symptoms progress?
  19. Even with multiple studies documenting remarkable outpatient efficacy and safety of the Hydroxychloroquine “cocktail,” you believe the risks of the medication combination outweigh the benefits?
  20. Is it true that with regard to Hydroxychloroquine and treatment of COVID-19 infection, you have said repeatedly that “The Overwhelming Evidence of Properly Conducted Randomized Clinical Trials Indicate No Therapeutic Efficacy of Hydroxychloroquine (HCQ)?”
  21. But NONE of the randomized controlled trials to which you refer were done in the first five to seven days after the onset of symptoms, correct?
  22. All of the randomized controlled trials to which you refer were done on hospitalized patients, correct?
  23. Hospitalized patients are typically sicker that outpatients, correct?
  24. None of the randomized controlled trials to which you refer used the full cocktail consisting of Hydroxychloroquine, Zinc, and Azithromycin, correct?
  25. While the University of Minnesota study is referred to as disproving the cocktail, the meds were not given within the first five to seven days of illness, the test group was not high risk (death rates were 3 percent), and no zinc was given, correct?
  26. Again, for clarity, the trials upon which you base your opinion regarding the efficacy of Hydroxychloroquine, assessed neither the full cocktail (to include Zinc and Azithromycin or doxycycline) nor administered treatment within the first five to seven days of symptoms, nor focused on the high-risk group, correct?
  27. Therefore, you have no basis to conclude that the Hydroxychloroquine cocktail when used early in the outpatient setting, within the first five to seven days of symptoms, in high risk patients, is not effective, correct?
  28. It is thus false and misleading to say that the effective and safe use of hydroxychloroquine, Zinc, and Azithromycin has been “debunked,” correct? How could it be “debunked” if there is not a single study that contradicts its use?
  29. Should it not be an absolute priority for the NIH and CDC to look at ways to treat Americans with symptomatic COVID-19 infections early to prevent disease progression?
  30. The SARS-CoV-2/COVID-19 virus is an RNA virus. It is well-established that Zinc interferes with RNA viral replication, correct?
  31. Moreover, is it not true that hydroxychloroquine facilitates the entry of zinc into the cell, is a “ionophore,” correct?
  32. Isn’t also it true that Azithromycin has established anti-viral properties?
  33. Are you aware of the paper from Baylor by Dr. McCullough et. al. describing established mechanisms by which the components of the “HCQ cocktail” exert anti-viral effects?
  34. So, the use of hydroxychloroquine, azithromycin (or doxycycline), and zinc — the “HCQ cocktail” — is based on science, correct?
QUESTIONS REGARDING SAFETY:

  1. The FDA writes the following: “In light of on-going serious cardiac adverse events and their serious side effects, the known and potential benefits of CQ and HCQ no longer outweigh the known and potential risks for authorized use.” So not only is the FDA saying that hydroxychloroquine doesn’t work, they are also saying that it is a very dangerous drug. Yet, is it not true the drug has been used as an anti-malarial drug for over 65 years?
  2. Isn’t it true that the drug has been used for lupus and rheumatoid arthritis for many years at similar doses?
  3. Do you know of even a single study prior to COVID-19 that has provided definitive evidence against the use of the drug based on safety concerns?
  4. Are you aware that chloroquine or hydroxychloroquine has many approved uses for hydroxychloroquine including steroid-dependent asthma (1988 study), advanced pulmonary sarcoidosis (1988 study), sensitizing breast cancer cells for chemotherapy (2012 study), the attenuation of renal ischemia (2018 study), lupus nephritis (2006 study), epithelial ovarian cancer (2020 study), just to name a few? Where are the cardiotoxicity concerns ever mentioned?
  5. Risch estimates the risk of cardiac death from hydroxychloroquine to be 9/100,000 using the data provided by the FDA. That does not seem to be a high risk, considering the risk of death in an older patient with co-morbidities can be 15 percent or more. Do you consider 9/100,000 to be a high risk when weighed against the risk of death in older patient with co-morbidities?
  6. To put this in perspective, the drug is used for 65 years, without warnings (aside for the need for periodic retinal checks), but the FDA somehow feels the need to send out an alert on June 15, that the drug is dangerous. Does that make any logical sense to you Dr. Fauci based on “science”?
  7. Moreover, consider that the protocols for usage in early treatment are for five to seven days at relatively low doses of hydroxychloroquine similar to what is being given in other diseases (RA, SLE) over many years — does it make any sense to you logically that a five to seven day dose of hydroxychloroquine when not given in high doses could be considered dangerous?
  8. You are also aware that articles published in the New England Journal of Medicine and Lancet, one out of Harvard University, regarding the dangers of hydroxychloroquine had to be retracted based on the fact that the data was fabricated. Are you aware of that?
  9. If there was such good data on the risks of hydroxychloroquine, one would not have to use fake data, correct?
  10. After all, 65 years is a long-time to determine whether or not a drug is safe, do you agree?
  11. In the clinical trials that you have referenced (e.g., the Minnesota and the Brazil studies), there was not a single death attributed directly to hydroxychloroquine, correct?
  12. According to Dr. Risch, there is no evidence based on the data to conclude that hydroxychloroquine is a dangerous drug. Are you aware of any published report that rebuts Dr. Risch’s findings?
  13. Are you aware that the FDA ruling along with your statements have led to Governors in a number of states to restrict the use of hydroxychloroquine?
  14. Are you aware that pharmacies are not filling prescriptions for this medication based on your and the FDA’s restrictions?
  15. Are you aware that doctors are being punished by state medical boards for prescribing the medication based on your comments as well as the FDA’s?
  16. Are you aware that people who want the medication sometimes need to call physicians in other states pleading for it?
  17. And yet you opined in March that while people were dying at the rate of 10,000 patients a week, hydroxychloroquine could only be used in an inpatient setting as part of a clinical trial- correct?
  18. So, people who want to be treated in that critical five- to seven-day period and avoid being hospitalized are basically out of luck in your view, correct?
  19. So, again, for clarity, without a shred of evidence that the hydroxychloroquine/HCQ cocktail is dangerous in the doses currently recommend for early outpatient treatment, you and the FDA have made it very difficult, if not impossible in some cases, to get this treatment, correct?
QUESTIONS REGARDING METHODOLOGY:

  1. In regards to the use of hydroxychloroquine, you have repeatedly made the same statement: “The Overwhelming Evidence from Properly Conducted Randomized Clinical Trials Indicate no Therapeutic Efficacy of Hydroxychloroquine.” Is that correct?
  2. In Dr. Risch’s article regarding the early use of hydroxychloroquine, he disputes your opinion. He scientifically evaluated the data from the studies to support his opinions. Have you published any articles to support your opinions?
  3. You repeatedly state that randomized clinical trials are needed to make conclusions regarding treatments, correct?
  4. The FDA has approved many medications (especially in the area of cancer treatment) without randomized clinical trials, correct?
  5. Are you aware that Dr. Thomas Frieden, the previous head of the CDC wrote an article in the New England Journal of Medicine in 2017 called “Evidence for Health Decision Making — Beyond Randomized Clinical Trials (RCT)?” Have you read that article?
  6. In it Dr. Frieden states that “many data sources can provide valid evidence for clinical and public health action, including analysis of aggregate clinical or epidemiological data.” Do you disagree with that?
  7. Frieden discusses “practiced-based evidence” as being essential in many discoveries, such SIDS (Sudden Infant Death Syndrome). Do you disagree with that?
  8. Frieden writes the following: “Current evidence-grading systems are biased toward randomized clinical trials, which may lead to inadequate consideration of non-RCT data.” Dr. Fauci, have you considered all the non-RCT data in coming to your opinions?
  9. Risch, who is a leading world authority in the analysis of aggregate clinical data, has done a rigorous analysis that he published regarding the early treatment of COVID-19 with hydroxychloroquine, zinc, and azithromycin. He cites five or six studies, and in an updated article there are five or six more, a total of 10 to 12 clinical studies with formally collected data specifically regarding the early treatment of COVID. Have you analyzed the aggregate data regarding early treatment of high-risk patients with hydroxychloroquine, zinc, and azithromycin?
  10. Is there any document that you can produce for the American people of your analysis of the aggregate data that would rebut Dr. Risch’s analysis?
  11. Yet, despite what Dr. Risch believes is overwhelming evidence in support of the early use of hydroxychloroquine, you dismiss the treatment insisting on randomized controlled trials even in the midst of a pandemic?
  12. Would you want a loved one with high-risk comorbidities placed in the control group of a randomized clinical trial when a number of studies demonstrate safety and dramatic efficacy of the early use of the hydroxychloroquine “cocktail?”
  13. Are you aware that the FDA approved a number of cancer chemotherapy drugs without randomized control trials based solely on epidemiological evidence? The trials came later as confirmation. Are you aware of that?
  14. You are well aware that there were no randomized clinical trials in the case of penicillin that saved thousands of lives in World War II? Was not this in the best interest of our soldiers?
  15. You would agree that many lives were saved with the use of cancer drugs and penicillin that were used before any randomized clinical trials, correct?
  16. You have referred to evidence for hydroxychloroquine as “anecdotal,” which is defined as “evidence collected in a casual or informal manner and relying heavily or entirely on personal testimony,” correct?
  17. But there are many studies supporting the use of hydroxychloroquine in which evidence was collected formally and not on personal testimony, has there not been?
  18. So, it would be false to conclude that the evidence supporting the early use of hydroxychloroquine is anecdotal, correct?
COMPARISON BETWEEN U.S. AND OTHER COUNTRIES REGARDING CASE FATALITY RATE:

(IT WOULD BE VERY HELPFUL TO HAVE THE GRAPHS COMPARING OUR CASE FATALITY RATES TO OTHER COUNTRIES.)

  1. Are you aware that countries like Senegal and Nigeria that use hydroxychloroquine have much lower case-fatality rates than the United States?
  2. Have you pondered the relationship between the use of hydroxychloroquine by a given country and their case mortality rate and why there is a strong correlation between the use of HCQ and the reduction of the case mortality rate.?
  3. Have you considered consulting with a country such as India that has had great success treating COVID-19 prophylactically?
  4. Why shouldn’t our first responders and front-line workers who are at high risk at least have an option of HCQ/zinc prophylaxis?
  5. We should all agree that countries with far inferior healthcare delivery systems should not have lower case fatality rates. Reducing our case fatality rate from near 5 percent, to 2.5 percent, in line with many countries who use HCQ early would have cut our total number of deaths in half, correct?
  6. Why not consult with countries who have lower case-fatality rates, even without expensive medicines such as remdesivir and far less advanced intensive care capabilities?

GIVING AMERICANS THE OPTION TO USE HCQ FOR COVID-19:

  1. Harvey Risch, the pre-eminent epidemiologist from Yale, wrote a Newsweek Article titled: “The key to defeating COVID-19 already exists. We need to start using it.” Did you read the article?
  2. Are you aware that the cost of the hydroxychloroquine “cocktail” including the Z-pack and zinc is about $50?
  3. You are aware the cost of remdesivir is about $3,200?
  4. So that’s about 60 doses of HCQ “cocktail,” correct?
  5. In fact, President Trump had the foresight to amass 60 million doses of hydroxychloroquine, and yet you continue to stand in the way of doctors who want to use that medication for their infected patients, correct?
  6. Those are a lot of doses of medication that potentially could be used to treat our poor, especially our minority populations and people of color that have a difficult time accessing healthcare. They die more frequently of COVID-19, do they not?
  7. But because of your obstinance blocking the use of HCQ, this stockpile has remained largely unused, correct?
  8. Would you acknowledge that your strategy of telling Americans to restrict their behavior, wear masks, and distance, and put their lives on hold indefinitely until there is a vaccine is not working?
  9. So, 160,000 deaths later, an economy in shambles, kids out of school, suicides and drug overdoses at a record high, people neglected and dying from other medical conditions, and America reacting to every outbreak with another lockdown — is it not time to re-think your strategy that is fully dependent on an effective vaccine?
  10. Why not consider a strategy that protects the most vulnerable and allows Americans back to living their lives and not wait for a vaccine panacea that may never come?
  11. Why not consider the approach that thousands of doctors around the world are using, supported by a number of studies in the literature, with early outpatient treatment of high-risk patients for typically one week with HCQ + zinc + azithromycin?
  12. You don’t see a problem with the fact that the government, due to your position, in some cases interferes with the choice of using HCQ. Should not that be a choice between the doctor and the patient?
  13. While some doctors may not want to use the drug, should not doctors who believe that it is indicated be able to offer it to their patients?
  14. Are you aware that doctors who are publicly advocating for such a strategy with the early use of the HCQ cocktail are being silenced with removal of content on the internet and even censorship in the medical community?
  15. You are aware of the 20 or so physicians who came to the Supreme Court steps advocating for the early use of the hydroxychloroquine cocktail. In fact, you said these were “a bunch of people spouting out something that isn’t true.”Dr. Fauci, these are not just “people,” these are doctors who actually treat patients, unlike you, correct?
  16. Do you know that the video they made went viral with 17 million views in just a few hours, and was then removed from the internet?
  17. Are you aware that their website, American Frontline Doctors, was taken down the next day?
  18. Did you see the way that Nigerian immigrant physician, Dr. Stella Immanuel, was mocked in the media for her religious views and called a “witch doctor?”
  19. Are you aware that Dr. Simone Gold, the leader of the group, was fired from her job as an Emergency Room physician the following day?
  20. Are you aware that physicians advocating for this treatment that has by now probably saved millions of lives around the globe are harassed by local health departments, state agencies and medical boards, and even at their own hospitals? Are you aware of that?
  21. Don’t you think doctors should have the right to speak out on behalf of their patients without the threat of retribution?
  22. Are you aware that videos and other educational information are removed off the internet and labeled, in the words of Mark Zuckerberg, as “misinformation?”
  23. Is it not misinformation to characterize hydroxychloroquine, in the doses used for early outpatient treatment of COVID-19 infections, as a dangerous drug?
  24. Is it not misleading for you to repeatedly state to the American public that randomized clinical trials are the sole source of information to confirm the efficacy of a treatment?
  25. Was it not misinformation when on CNN you cited the Lancet study based on false data from Surgisphere as evidence of the lack of efficacy of hydroxychloroquine?
  26. Is it not misinformation as is repeated in the MSM as a result of your comments that a randomized clinical trial is required by the FDA for a drug approval?
  27. Don’t you realize how much damage this falsehood perpetuates?
  28. How is it not misinformation for you and the FDA to keep telling the American public that hydroxychloroquine is dangerous when you know that there is nothing more than anecdotal evidence of that?
  29. Fauci, if you or a loved one were infected with COVID-19, and had flu-like symptoms, and you knew as you do now, that there is a safe and effective cocktail that you could take to prevent worsening and the possibility of hospitalization, can you honestly tell us that you would refuse the medication?
  30. Why not give our healthcare workers and first responders, who even with the necessary PPE are contracting the virus at a three to four times greater rate than the general public, the right to choose along with their doctor if they want to use the medicine prophylactically?
  31. Why is the government inserting itself in a way that is unprecedented in regard to a historically safe medication and not allowing patients the right to choose along with their doctor?
  32. Why not give the American people the right to decide along with their physician whether or not they want outpatient treatment in the first five to seven days of the disease with a cocktail that is safe and costs around $50?
FINAL QUESTIONS:

  1. Fauci, please explain how a randomized clinical trial, to which you repeatedly make reference, for testing the HCQ cocktail (hydroxychloroquine, azithromycin, and zinc) administered within five to seven days of the onset of symptoms is even possible now given the declining case numbers in so many states?
  2. For example, if the NIH were now to direct a study to begin September 15, where would such a study be done?
  3. Please explain how a randomized study on the early treatment (within the first five to seven days of symptoms) of high-risk, symptomatic COVID-19 infections could be done during the influenza season and be valid?
  4. Please explain how multiple observational studies arrive at the same outcomes using the same formulation of hydroxychloroquine + azithromycin + zinc given in the same time frame for the same study population (high risk patients) is not evidence that the cocktail works?
  5. In fact, how is it not significant evidence, during a pandemic, for hundreds of non-academic private practice physicians to achieve the same outcomes with the early use of the HCQ cocktail?
  6. What is your recommendation for the medical management of a 75-year-old diabetic with fever, cough, and loss of smell, but not yet hypoxic, who Emergency Room providers do not feel warrants admission? We know that hundreds of US physicians (and thousands more around the world) would manage this case with the HCQ cocktail with predictable success.
  7. If you were in charge in 1940, would you have advised the mass production of penicillin based primarily on lab evidence and one case series on five patients in England, or would you have stated that a randomized clinical trial was needed?
  8. Why would any physician put their medical license, professional reputation, and job on the line to recommend the HCQ cocktail — that does not make them any money — unless they knew the treatment could significantly help their patient?
  9. Why would a physician take the medication themselves and prescribe it to family members (for treatment or prophylaxis) unless they felt strongly that the medication was beneficial?
  10. How is it informed and ethical medical practice to allow a COVID-19 patient to deteriorate in the early stages of the infection when there is inexpensive, safe, and dramatically effective treatment with the HCQ cocktail, which the science indicates interferes with coronavirus replication?
  11. How is your approach to “wait and see” in the early stages of COVID-19 infection, especially in high-risk patients, following the science?
While previous questions are related to hydroxychloroquine-based treatment, we have two questions addressing masks.

  1. As you recall, you stated on March 8, just a few weeks before the devastation in the Northeast, that masks weren’t needed. You later said that you made this statement to prevent a hoarding of masks that would disrupt availability to healthcare workers. Why did you not make a recommendation for people to wear any face covering to protect themselves, as we are doing now?
  2. Rather, you issued no such warning and people were riding in subways and visiting their relatives in nursing homes without any face covering. Currently, your position is that face coverings are essential. Please explain whether or not you made a mistake in early March, and how would you go about it differently now.
CONCLUSION:

Since the start of the pandemic, physicians have used hydroxychloroquine to treat symptomatic COVID-19 infections, as well as for prophylaxis. Initial results were mixed as indications and doses were explored to maximize outcomes and minimize risks. What emerged was that hydroxychloroquine appeared to work best when coupled with azithromycin. In fact, it was the president of the United States who recommended to you publicly at the beginning of the pandemic, in early March, that you should consider early treatment with hydroxychloroquine and a “Z-Pack.” Additional studies showed that patients did not seem to benefit when COVID-19 infections were treated with hydroxychloroquine late in the course of the illness, typically in a hospital setting, but treatment was consistently effective, even in high-risk patients, when hydroxychloroquine was given in a “cocktail” with azithromycin and, critically, zinc in the first five to seven days after the onset of symptoms. The outcomes are, in fact, dramatic.


As clearly presented in the McCullough article from Baylor, and described by Dr. Vladimir Zelenko, the efficacy of the HCQ cocktail is based on the pharmacology of the hydroxychloroquine ionophore acting as the “gun” and zinc as the “bullet,” while azithromycin potentiates the anti-viral effect. Undeniably, the hydroxychloroquine combination treatment is supported by science. Yet, you continue to ignore the “science” behind the disease. Viral replication occurs rapidly in the first five to seven days of symptoms and can be treated at that point with the HCQ cocktail. Rather, your actions have denied patients treatment in that early stage. Without such treatment, some patients, especially those at high risk with co-morbidities, deteriorate and require hospitalization for evolving cytokine storm resulting in pneumonia, respiratory failure, and intubation with 50% mortality. Dismissal of the science results in bad medicine, and the outcome is over 160,000 dead Americans. Countries that have followed the science and treated the disease in the early stages have far better results, a fact that has been concealed from the American Public.


Despite mounting evidence and impassioned pleas from hundreds of frontline physicians, your position was and continues to be that randomized controlled trials (RCTs) have not shown there to be benefit. However, not a single randomized control trial has tested what is being recommended: use of the full cocktail (especially zinc), in high-risk patients, initiated within the first 5 to 7 days of the onset of symptoms. Using hydroxychloroquine and azithromycin late in the disease process, with or without zinc, does not produce the same, unequivocally positive results.

Dr. Thomas Frieden, in a 2017 New England Journal of Medicine article regarding randomized clinical trials, emphasized there are situations in which it is entirely appropriate to use other forms of evidence to scientifically validate a treatment. Such is the case during a pandemic that moves like a brushfire jumping to different parts of the country. Insisting on randomized clinical trials in the midst of a pandemic is simply foolish. Dr. Harvey Risch, a world-renowned Yale epidemiologist, analyzed all the data regarding the use of the hydroxychloroquine/HCQ cocktail and concluded that the evidence of its efficacy when used early in COVID-19 infection is unequivocal.


Curiously, despite a 65+ years safety record, the FDA suddenly deemed hydroxychloroquine a dangerous drug, especially with regard to cardiotoxicity. Dr. Risch analyzed data provided by the FDA and concluded that the risk of a significant cardiac event from hydroxychloroquine is extremely low, especially when compared to the mortality rate of COVID-19 patients with high-risk co-morbidities. How do you reconcile that for forty years rheumatoid arthritis and lupus patients have been treated over long periods, often for years, with hydroxychloroquine and now there are suddenly concerns about a 5 to 7-day course of hydroxychloroquine at similar or slightly increased doses? The FDA statement regarding hydroxychloroquine and cardiac risk is patently false and alarmingly misleading to physicians, pharmacists, patients, and other health professionals. The benefits of the early use of hydroxychloroquine to prevent hospitalization in high-risk patients with COVID-19 infection far outweigh the risks. Physicians are not able to obtain the medication for their patients, and in some cases are restricted by their state from prescribing hydroxychloroquine. The government’s obstruction of the early treatment of symptomatic high-risk COVID-19 patients with hydroxychloroquine, a medication used extensively and safely for so long, is unprecedented.


It is essential that you tell the truth to the American public regarding the safety and efficacy of the hydroxychloroquine/HCQ cocktail. The government must protect and facilitate the sacred and revered physician-patient relationship by permitting physicians to treat their patients. Governmental obfuscation and obstruction are as lethal as cytokine storm.

Americans must not continue to die unnecessarily. Adults must resume employment and our youth return to school. Locking down America while awaiting an imperfect vaccine has done far more damage to Americans than the coronavirus. We are confident that thousands of lives would be saved with early treatment of high-risk individuals with a cocktail of hydroxychloroquine, zinc, and azithromycin. Americans must not live in fear. As Dr. Harvey Risch’s Newsweek article declares, “The key to defeating COVID-19 already exists. We need to start using it.”


Very Respectfully,

George C. Fareed, MD

Brawley, California

Michael M. Jacobs, MD, MPH

Pensacola, Florida

Donald C. Pompan, MD

Salinas, California”

I have a family and a job...can I get an executive summary on this? :)
 

SLUPSU

Well-Known Member
Aug 5, 2018
4,553
2,623
1
I included the Michigan and other inpatient studies to show that even when given to inpatients there are some good results. Good lord you are so incredibly dense. There are 12 studies showing its effective on high risk outpatients. The key is early outpatient treatment for high risk people. Everyone else doesn’t need any treatment.

Guess what the studies show when HCQ is given early and hard to high risk outpatients along with zinc? Fives times smaller death rate compared to no treatment.

Look at the study comparing countries that adopted early HCQ use and those that didn’t. That’s a natural randomized controlled study that showed a significant benefit. You miss that one?

Of course you miss the point, that being with minimal effort, your twitter spun sources and studies can be discredited as weak. Good lord you are so incredibly dense.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2lion70 and IIVI

WeR0206

Well-Known Member
Apr 9, 2014
19,350
24,803
1
2020evidence.org
Of course you miss the point, that being with minimal effort, your twitter spun sources and studies can be discredited as weak. Good lord you are so incredibly dense.
You nitpicked a handful of things that the tweets themselves pointed out while at the same time completely ignored all the info/studies in the tweets which backed up what I was saying. Yeah you really nailed me! For example the last tweet which summarized the study that looked at countries that adopted early HCQ use vs ones that didn’t. Why no comment on this one? It was a natural randomized study.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Ephrata Lion

WeR0206

Well-Known Member
Apr 9, 2014
19,350
24,803
1
2020evidence.org
I have a family and a job...can I get an executive summary on this? :)
Sure, fauci is a lying evil piece of shit who knowingly held back on an outpatient treatment that would have prevented countless hospitalizations and deaths.

Anecdotal and clinical studies have shown that HCQ+zinc+zpak when given early to high risk outpatients have a dramatic impact on reducing death and hospitalization. World class experts like Risch have looked at the studies and came to the same conclusion.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Ephrata Lion

Jason1743

Well-Known Member
Jan 23, 2006
20,061
13,757
1
Fauci needs to be fired and go to jail.
First time around I missed the first line of your post. Fauci needs to go to jail? Really? That line invalidates your entire post immediately. If you want to critique his job performance, that is fair game. You may be incorrect, but it is well within your right and the right, maybe even the duty, of the scientific community. What possibly has Fauci done that requires incarceration?
Changing the subject slightly, Donny has real jeopardy of spending time in jail. There is a very strong probability that he will be prosecuted for tax fraud and other crimes by the State of NY once he leaves office. Maybe even by the new US AG, although that is uncertain. As a country I don't think we want an ex President in an orange jump suit, but it is a possibility.
 
  • Like
Reactions: IIVI and 2lion70

WeR0206

Well-Known Member
Apr 9, 2014
19,350
24,803
1
2020evidence.org
First time around I missed the first line of your post. Fauci needs to go to jail? Really? That line invalidates your entire post immediately. If you want to critique his job performance, that is fair game. You may be incorrect, but it is well within your right and the right, maybe even the duty, of the scientific community. What possibly has Fauci done that requires incarceration?
Changing the subject slightly, Donny has real jeopardy of spending time in jail. There is a very strong probability that he will be prosecuted for tax fraud and other crimes by the State of NY once he leaves office. Maybe even by the new US AG, although that is uncertain. As a country I don't think we want an ex President in an orange jump suit, but it is a possibility.
Lulz! Muellertime...take 2,259! Trump isn't going to jail. Fauci is more likely to go to jail than Trump is.

Fauci's own damn agency has known since 2005 that CQ is a potent inhibitor of SARS corona viruses b/c it published a study on it in Virology. It should have been the first place he looked when trying to find a therapeutic for SARS-COV2. Instead all he's done is shout it down and claim it doesn't work (based on studies done on the sickest of inpatients NOT outpatients and/or studies that didn't include the full "hcq cocktail") . He knew that front line docs were having great success keeping high risk people out of the hospital by giving them the "hcq cocktail" early and hard. In addition since at least May (when Risch first published his study) there have been numerous controlled clinical studies that showed great efficacy for high risk outpatient treatment and he still ignores it and claims it doesn't work. That is why he should be in jail. See Risch's newsweek article. He estimated we could have prevented 100,000 deaths if fauci would have just followed the science and empirical evidence from front line docs and recommended the hcq cocktail as our first line of defense for high risk people and front line workers. Instead all he wants to talk about is expensive remdesivir (which is only given to inpatients) and some vaccine that may never come (which he just happens to have financial interest in due to his vaccine patents).

In short Fauci is pushing disinfo re: HCQ based on faulty studies so that he can make a financial profit from vaccines and doesn't give one fuuck if people die as a result.

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/16115318

https://academic.oup.com/aje/advance-article/doi/10.1093/aje/kwaa093/5847586
 
  • Like
Reactions: Ephrata Lion

SLUPSU

Well-Known Member
Aug 5, 2018
4,553
2,623
1
You nitpicked a handful of things that the tweets themselves pointed out while at the same time completely ignored all the info/studies in the tweets which backed up what I was saying. Yeah you really nailed me! For example the last tweet which summarized the study that looked at countries that adopted early HCQ use vs ones that didn’t. Why no comment on this one? It was a natural randomized study.

I just started at the top of your tweet list and checked a few, no nitpicking.

You want comments on the last one...OK , here you go

So the first thing I checked was the death rate per million for the US, their graph suggests it's near 900. The real number for the US is 523, wow some serious "adjustments" going on there.

They try legitimize their numbers by using a population total of 2 billion, well did you stop to consider that maybe India is massively skewing these numbers since their population is 1.4 billion out of the 2B. Cases and deaths continue to trend upwards, and has been for months, in India as we speak, why isn't HCQ not stopping this trend if its so effective? Not to mention the median age in India is 26.8, the median age of the US is 38 in comparison.

How do they confirm and validate widespread use of HCQ, where are the numbers?

Why did they exclude Brazil?

I could go on, but this certainly enough to raise some huge red flags.
 

Jason1743

Well-Known Member
Jan 23, 2006
20,061
13,757
1
Lulz! Muellertime...take 2,259! Trump isn't going to jail. Fauci is more likely to go to jail than Trump is.

Fauci's own damn agency has known since 2005 that CQ is a potent inhibitor of SARS corona viruses b/c it published a study on it in Virology. It should have been the first place he looked when trying to find a therapeutic for SARS-COV2. Instead all he's done is shout it down and claim it doesn't work (based on studies done on the sickest of inpatients NOT outpatients and/or studies that didn't include the full "hcq cocktail") . He knew that front line docs were having great success keeping high risk people out of the hospital by giving them the "hcq cocktail" early and hard. In addition since at least May (when Risch first published his study) there have been numerous controlled clinical studies that showed great efficacy for high risk outpatient treatment and he still ignores it and claims it doesn't work. That is why he should be in jail. See Risch's newsweek article. He estimated we could have prevented 100,000 deaths if fauci would have just followed the science and empirical evidence from front line docs and recommended the hcq cocktail as our first line of defense for high risk people and front line workers. Instead all he wants to talk about is expensive remdesivir (which is only given to inpatients) and some vaccine that may never come (which he just happens to have financial interest in due to his vaccine patents).

In short Fauci is pushing disinfo re: HCQ based on faulty studies so that he can make a financial profit from vaccines and doesn't give one fuuck if people die as a result.

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/16115318

https://academic.oup.com/aje/advance-article/doi/10.1093/aje/kwaa093/5847586
You are so full of shit.
HCQ was looked at early on in the pandemic. It was written about in the lay press back in April. I find it incomprehensible that THOUSANDS of front line Docs have avoided a treatment for five months that had the potential to save 100,000 lives. So much HCQ was purchased for COVID early on that patients who had legitimate uses for it had trouble filling their prescriptions.

fauci is a lying evil piece of shit who knowingly held back on an outpatient treatment
Point of fact, Fauci DOES NOT TREAT PATIENTS. Fauci makes recommendations. The treating physicians are free to treat their patients any way they see fit.
 
Last edited:

WeR0206

Well-Known Member
Apr 9, 2014
19,350
24,803
1
2020evidence.org
I just started at the top of your tweet list and checked a few, no nitpicking.

You want comments on the last one...OK , here you go

So the first thing I checked was the death rate per million for the US, their graph suggests it's near 900. The real number for the US is 523, wow some serious "adjustments" going on there.

They try legitimize their numbers by using a population total of 2 billion, well did you stop to consider that maybe India is massively skewing these numbers since their population is 1.4 billion out of the 2B. Cases and deaths continue to trend upwards, and has been for months, in India as we speak, why isn't HCQ not stopping this trend if its so effective? Not to mention the median age in India is 26.8, the median age of the US is 38 in comparison.

How do they confirm and validate widespread use of HCQ, where are the numbers?

Why did they exclude Brazil?

I could go on, but this certainly enough to raise some huge red flags.
If you actually read the study comparing the countries they explain their methodology and why they excluded certain countries, etc.. There are some parts of India that are using HCQ more than others.
 

WeR0206

Well-Known Member
Apr 9, 2014
19,350
24,803
1
2020evidence.org
You are so full of shit.
HCQ was looked at early on in the pandemic. It was written about in the lay press back in April. I find it incomprehensible that THOUSANDS of front line Docs have avoided a treatment for five months that had the potential to save 100,000 lives. So much HCQ was purchased for COVID early on that patients who had legitimate uses for it had trouble filling their prescriptions.

fauci is a lying evil piece of shit who knowingly held back on an outpatient treatment
Point of fact, Fauci DOES NOT TREAT PATIENTS. Fauci makes recommendations. The treating physicians are free to treat their patients any way they see fit.
Yes, it was looked at early on. There were studies done on inpatients with mixed results and there were also studies done on high risk outpatients that were overwhelmingly positive. Fauci for some bizarre reason only considered the negative studies (that were very poorly designed btw) fancy that!

His positions have instilled fear into both docs and patients re: using HCQ. His positions have also given governors ammo to implement policies that have made it harder for docs to write Rx's for it and allow Pharmacies to not fill the Rx's even when they are written. Doctors are having their medical licenses threatened and some are even being fired from their jobs for prescribing/talking about HCQ to treat this illness. IOW his positions have made it harder for Americans to access a drug that has been FDA approved for decades and is available OVER THE COUNTER in many countries. In fact if you look at the death rates in countries where HCQ is available OTC they are way lower than the western countries that have followed st. fauci. What a coincidence!

Read my other OP/thread on this that I tagged you in. Risch goes into detail on how Fauci has been relying on and spreading misinformation re: early HCQ use. If you don't think this has had an impact on how both patients and doc's have approached this treatment around the world then I don't know what to tell you. He has a huge impact on western countries especially. They practically take his word as gospel and think anyone who disagrees with his OPINION are crazy loons.
 

SLUPSU

Well-Known Member
Aug 5, 2018
4,553
2,623
1
If you actually read the study comparing the countries they explain their methodology and why they excluded certain countries, etc.. There are some parts of India that are using HCQ more than others.

LOL, WeR punts, doesn't address the questions, cries out read the study, and doesn't respond with a dozen tweets. I'm shocked.
 
  • Like
Reactions: IIVI

WeR0206

Well-Known Member
Apr 9, 2014
19,350
24,803
1
2020evidence.org
LOL, WeR punts, doesn't address the questions, cries out read the study, and doesn't respond with a dozen tweets. I'm shocked.
Huh? The answers to your questions about why some countries were included and others weren't are in the study. If you even skimmed through the study you'd have your answers. I'm not going to copy & paste the whole study here for you.

The fact remains that there are only a handful of negative studies re: HCQ and they are all severely flawed (most only looked at inpatients and/or didn't include zinc, the one outpatient study in Mn was a joke which relied on mailing people the medication and assumed they honestly filled out an online form about impacts of the medication vs. having them get tested). There are dozens of positive studies for HCQ and around 12 positive studies specifically around outpatient treatment which is where it has the most impact.

https://academic.oup.com/aje/advance-article/doi/10.1093/aje/kwaa152/5873640

Here's a comprehensive list of all HCQ studies. Note the ones looking at outpatients.

https://c19study.com/
 

WeR0206

Well-Known Member
Apr 9, 2014
19,350
24,803
1
2020evidence.org
Crazy loons? Funny you should say that. I think you're a crazy loon.
I noticed you ignored this question before, is Risch also a crazy loon? When you can't attack the message you attack the messenger.

From Dr. Risch's July 2020 update to his May 2020 metadata analysis:

https://academic.oup.com/aje/advance-article/doi/10.1093/aje/kwaa152/5873640

"Finally, in pandemic times when months and years of delay cannot be tolerated before large randomized controlled trials are completed, it is possible to quibble with apparent imperfections in almost any study. That misses the forest for the trees. Since my paper (2) discussing five studies was published, data from seven other studies of high-risk outpatients have become available, all showing the same substantial and significant benefit of use of HCQ along with AZ or other companion medications (Table 1). Two additional large studies of hospital patients given HCQ within 48 hours of admission show significant benefit adjusted for age and comorbidities (12, 13), and a meta-analysis of studies to-date completely demonstrates this benefit (14). Perhaps even more important, the exponential COVID-19 mortality explosion in the northern state of Pará, Brazil (15), reversed direction, downward dramatically about 5 weeks after a shipment of 75,000 doses of AZ and 90,000 doses of HCQ began to be distributed to infected individuals (Figure 1). No such decline has been observed in the rest of Brazil. This is a compelling, large-scale experiment demonstrating efficacy of HCQ+AZ in saving lives of high-risk people infected with SARS-CoV-2."
Great stuff, thanks for sharing. Bless these Docs that have the courage to speak out.
 
Last edited:

Jason1743

Well-Known Member
Jan 23, 2006
20,061
13,757
1
I noticed you ignored this question before, is Risch also a crazy loon? When you can't attack the message you attack the messenger.

From Dr. Risch's July 2020 update to his May 2020 metadata analysis:

https://academic.oup.com/aje/advance-article/doi/10.1093/aje/kwaa152/5873640

"Finally, in pandemic times when months and years of delay cannot be tolerated before large randomized controlled trials are completed, it is possible to quibble with apparent imperfections in almost any study. That misses the forest for the trees. Since my paper (2) discussing five studies was published, data from seven other studies of high-risk outpatients have become available, all showing the same substantial and significant benefit of use of HCQ along with AZ or other companion medications (Table 1). Two additional large studies of hospital patients given HCQ within 48 hours of admission show significant benefit adjusted for age and comorbidities (12, 13), and a meta-analysis of studies to-date completely demonstrates this benefit (14). Perhaps even more important, the exponential COVID-19 mortality explosion in the northern state of Pará, Brazil (15), reversed direction, downward dramatically about 5 weeks after a shipment of 75,000 doses of AZ and 90,000 doses of HCQ began to be distributed to infected individuals (Figure 1). No such decline has been observed in the rest of Brazil. This is a compelling, large-scale experiment demonstrating efficacy of HCQ+AZ in saving lives of high-risk people infected with SARS-CoV-2."

Great stuff, thanks for sharing. Bless these Docs that have the courage to speak out.
I have no idea whether Risch is a loon. I do know the medical establishment does not believe in HCQ. In five or ten years we’ll know who is correct.
In some ways this argument reminds me of the argument that vaccines cause autism in children. The establishment said they were not a cause. Many alternative med types claimed vaccines were bad. Conspiracy people like yourself. In the end the evidence is conclusive, vaccines do not contribute to autism.
 

WeR0206

Well-Known Member
Apr 9, 2014
19,350
24,803
1
2020evidence.org
I have no idea whether Risch is a loon. I do know the medical establishment does not believe in HCQ. In five or ten years we’ll know who is correct.
In some ways this argument reminds me of the argument that vaccines cause autism in children. The establishment said they were not a cause. Many alternative med types claimed vaccines were bad. Conspiracy people like yourself. In the end the evidence is conclusive, vaccines do not contribute to autism.
Haah! Nice cop out. You’re out to lunch on pretty much everything. Figures you’re ignorant re: vaccines and autism.

World renowned pediatric neurologist Dr Zimmerman thinks there’s a link:

https://sharylattkisson.com/2019/01/dr-andrew-zimmermans-full-affidavit-on-alleged-link-between-vaccines-and-autism-that-u-s-govt-covered-up/


Dr Thompson from the CDC found a link then was told to destroy the data. He blew the whistle several years later.

https://www.immunizationcoalitions.org/content/uploads/2017/01/Timeline-for-CDC-Whistleblower.pdf

 

Latest posts