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

Ephrata Lion

Well-Known Member
Jun 19, 2001
3,127
1,498
1
...... I do know the medical establishment does not believe in HCQ. .....

MN Governor Quietly Reverses Course on Hydroxychloroquine

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/a...ses_course_on_hydroxychloroquine__143978.html

This past week Minnesota became the second state to reject regulations that effectively ban the controversial drug hydroxychloroquine for use by COVID-19 patients.

The decision, which comes two weeks after the Ohio Board of Pharmacy reversed an effective ban of its own, was rightfully praised by local health care advocates. “We are pleased that Governor [Tim] Walz lifted his March 27 Executive Order 20-23 restrictions on chloroquine and hydroxychloroquine,” said Twila Brase, president of Citizens’ Council for Health Freedom.

The reversal by Walz, a first-term Democrat, clears the way for doctors to prescribe hydroxychloroquine, a drug commonly used to treat malaria and other conditions but one the FDA has declined to recommend for COVID-19 treatment.

The decision is the latest development in the weird saga of arguably the most divisive drug in modern history. The acrimony began in March after President Trump tweeted that hydroxychloroquine had the potential to be “one of the biggest game changers in the history of medicine” as a treatment for the coronavirus.

The tweet and similar statements provoked an avalanche of media criticism, with many claiming that the president was going to get people killed. Critics pointed out that medical evidence suggests the medication is linked to a fatal arrhythmia and some trials show no benefits in coronavirus treatments.

Though his critics are likely loath to admit it, there’s reason to believe the president may have been on to something. In recent weeks a chorus of voices in the medical community has emerged to challenge the view that hydroxychloroquine is ineffective as a COVID treatment. Dr. Harvey A. Risch, a professor of epidemiology at the Yale School of Public Health, said a full analysis of the literature suggests hydroxychloroquine may be the key to defeating the coronavirus.

“Physicians who have been using these medications in the face of widespread skepticism have been truly heroic,” Risch wrote in Newsweek, adding that a full review of the COVID literature on the drug shows “clear-cut and significant benefits.”

Prescribing hydroxychloroquine in the early stages of the virus is key, Risch said, and others agree. Steven Hatfill, a veteran virologist and adjunct assistant professor at the George Washington University Medical Center, says the literature supporting hydroxychloroquine is overwhelming.

“There are now 53 studies that show positive results of hydroxychloroquine in COVID infections,” Hatfill wrote in RealClearPolitics. “There are 14 global studies that show neutral or negative results -- and 10 of them were of patients in very late stages of COVID-19, where no antiviral drug can be expected to have much effect.”

One of the positive studies, published by Henry Ford Health System, was a large-scale retrospective of six hospitals. Analyzing 2,541 patients, it found that those treated with hydroxychloroquine alone died at about half the rate of patients not treated with it.

It’s unclear if it was this research that prompted Walz to reverse his March ruling, which ordered the Board of Pharmacists to instruct pharmacists to not issue hydroxychloroquine prescriptions unless the diagnosis was “appropriate” -- which halted any off-label prescription requests.

The reason it’s unclear is that Walz has been mum on why he rescinded his order. There’s been no announcement or new stories. Local lawmakers told me they had no idea Walz had reversed course.

“There’s been absolutely no transparency here,” said Dr. Scott Jensen, a Republican state senator who criticized Walz’s approach. Jensen, who has practiced medicine for more than 30 years in Minnesota, told me pharmacists he’s worked with for years told him they could not fill a hydroxychloroquine prescription for COVID because of the March executive order.

He agrees that hydroxychloroquine is terribly misunderstood by the public and said politicians need to take a step back. “Hydroxychloroquine is one of the most studied drugs in the history of mankind,” Jensen said. “My wife was on hydroxychloroquine for 15 years. It’s been on the World Health Organization’s list of essential medicines for decades. It’s been in play since 1955, the year after I was born.”

Hydroxychloroquine might be politically controversial, but that hasn’t stopped some of its critics from taking advantage of the drug. In a May interview, former presidential hopeful Sen. Amy Klobuchar admitted her husband was successfully treated with hydroxychloroquine, a medication she had mocked on Twitter.

The politics of hydroxychloroquine are unlikely to cool before November’s presidential election. Yet, if Walz’s decision is any indication, at least some leaders are starting to recognize the ethical dilemma of using the long arm of government to stand between suffering patients and a drug that may have the potential to save them.

 
  • Like
Reactions: WeR0206

Jason1743

Well-Known Member
Jan 23, 2006
20,061
13,755
1
MN Governor Quietly Reverses Course on Hydroxychloroquine

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/a...ses_course_on_hydroxychloroquine__143978.html

This past week Minnesota became the second state to reject regulations that effectively ban the controversial drug hydroxychloroquine for use by COVID-19 patients.

The decision, which comes two weeks after the Ohio Board of Pharmacy reversed an effective ban of its own, was rightfully praised by local health care advocates. “We are pleased that Governor [Tim] Walz lifted his March 27 Executive Order 20-23 restrictions on chloroquine and hydroxychloroquine,” said Twila Brase, president of Citizens’ Council for Health Freedom.

The reversal by Walz, a first-term Democrat, clears the way for doctors to prescribe hydroxychloroquine, a drug commonly used to treat malaria and other conditions but one the FDA has declined to recommend for COVID-19 treatment.

The decision is the latest development in the weird saga of arguably the most divisive drug in modern history. The acrimony began in March after President Trump tweeted that hydroxychloroquine had the potential to be “one of the biggest game changers in the history of medicine” as a treatment for the coronavirus.

The tweet and similar statements provoked an avalanche of media criticism, with many claiming that the president was going to get people killed. Critics pointed out that medical evidence suggests the medication is linked to a fatal arrhythmia and some trials show no benefits in coronavirus treatments.

Though his critics are likely loath to admit it, there’s reason to believe the president may have been on to something. In recent weeks a chorus of voices in the medical community has emerged to challenge the view that hydroxychloroquine is ineffective as a COVID treatment. Dr. Harvey A. Risch, a professor of epidemiology at the Yale School of Public Health, said a full analysis of the literature suggests hydroxychloroquine may be the key to defeating the coronavirus.

“Physicians who have been using these medications in the face of widespread skepticism have been truly heroic,” Risch wrote in Newsweek, adding that a full review of the COVID literature on the drug shows “clear-cut and significant benefits.”

Prescribing hydroxychloroquine in the early stages of the virus is key, Risch said, and others agree. Steven Hatfill, a veteran virologist and adjunct assistant professor at the George Washington University Medical Center, says the literature supporting hydroxychloroquine is overwhelming.

“There are now 53 studies that show positive results of hydroxychloroquine in COVID infections,” Hatfill wrote in RealClearPolitics. “There are 14 global studies that show neutral or negative results -- and 10 of them were of patients in very late stages of COVID-19, where no antiviral drug can be expected to have much effect.”

One of the positive studies, published by Henry Ford Health System, was a large-scale retrospective of six hospitals. Analyzing 2,541 patients, it found that those treated with hydroxychloroquine alone died at about half the rate of patients not treated with it.

It’s unclear if it was this research that prompted Walz to reverse his March ruling, which ordered the Board of Pharmacists to instruct pharmacists to not issue hydroxychloroquine prescriptions unless the diagnosis was “appropriate” -- which halted any off-label prescription requests.

The reason it’s unclear is that Walz has been mum on why he rescinded his order. There’s been no announcement or new stories. Local lawmakers told me they had no idea Walz had reversed course.

“There’s been absolutely no transparency here,” said Dr. Scott Jensen, a Republican state senator who criticized Walz’s approach. Jensen, who has practiced medicine for more than 30 years in Minnesota, told me pharmacists he’s worked with for years told him they could not fill a hydroxychloroquine prescription for COVID because of the March executive order.

He agrees that hydroxychloroquine is terribly misunderstood by the public and said politicians need to take a step back. “Hydroxychloroquine is one of the most studied drugs in the history of mankind,” Jensen said. “My wife was on hydroxychloroquine for 15 years. It’s been on the World Health Organization’s list of essential medicines for decades. It’s been in play since 1955, the year after I was born.”

Hydroxychloroquine might be politically controversial, but that hasn’t stopped some of its critics from taking advantage of the drug. In a May interview, former presidential hopeful Sen. Amy Klobuchar admitted her husband was successfully treated with hydroxychloroquine, a medication she had mocked on Twitter.

The politics of hydroxychloroquine are unlikely to cool before November’s presidential election. Yet, if Walz’s decision is any indication, at least some leaders are starting to recognize the ethical dilemma of using the long arm of government to stand between suffering patients and a drug that may have the potential to save them.
If HQH works I am all for it. I don't think it should be a political issue. Let the physicians work it out, not the politicians or message board posters. In general politicians and scientists are apolitical in their treatment of patients.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Ephrata Lion

WeR0206

Well-Known Member
Apr 9, 2014
19,338
24,801
1
2020evidence.org
If HQH works I am all for it. I don't think it should be a political issue. Let the physicians work it out, not the politicians or message board posters. In general politicians and scientists are apolitical in their treatment of patients.
Umm...that's exactly what the OP is all about and yet you were pushing back on it.

When else in history has an FDA approved drug been restricted by states for Doc's to prescribe off label? When else in history has an obviously fraudulent study (the one published in The Lancet) made it's way through the review process, published by a well known journal, get used by the WHO to nuke studies across the world, and then fully retracted after just a few weeks?

There is a concerted effort to demonized and restrict access to HCQ and it's insane/costing lives.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Ephrata Lion

Jason1743

Well-Known Member
Jan 23, 2006
20,061
13,755
1
Umm...that's exactly what the OP is all about and yet you were pushing back on it.

When else in history has an FDA approved drug been restricted by states for Doc's to prescribe off label? When else in history has an obviously fraudulent study (the one published in The Lancet) made it's way through the review process, published by a well known journal, get used by the WHO to nuke studies across the world, and then fully retracted after just a few weeks?

There is a concerted effort to demonized and restrict access to HCQ and it's insane/costing lives.
I hesitate to say we agree on something. I am not a COVID expert. I do know people I respect have said HQH does not work. I think there is a "fog of war" associated with this disease with lots of new and sometimes conflicting information.
Even with more "traditional" diseases treatment protocols change. Take breast cancer as an example. Lumpectomy, mastectomy, radiation, chemo, combinations of the above. Protocols change every few years. COVID is no different. Where I have a hard time with you is when everything is a freaking conspiracy.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: rumble_lion

WeR0206

Well-Known Member
Apr 9, 2014
19,338
24,801
1
2020evidence.org
I hesitate to say we agree on something. I am not a COVID expert. I do know people I respect have said HQH does not work. I think there is a "fog of war" associated with this disease with lots of new and sometimes conflicting information.
Even with more "traditional" diseases treatment protocols change. Take breast cancer as an example. Lumpectomy, mastectomy, radiation, chemo, combinations of the above. Protocols change every few years. COVID is no different. Where I have a hard time is when everything is a freaking conspiracy.
I'll take Risch's and other experts opinions over some random person you supposedly talked to (I'd bet they were looking at inpatient treatment not outpatient treatment).

There is no fog of war here, the science is clear (from 12 different studies mind you) that when given early to high risk outpatients along with zinc and zpak it has a dramatic and clear impact at reducing mortality and hospitalization. The "fog" only shows up when you start looking at inpatient use where the results are more mixed or when the right dose/combo of drugs isn't used.

If there's no conspiracy to demonize HCQ how do you explain a completely made up study from non credible people passing the peer review process and getting published in a major journal such as The Lancet? Which was instantly picked apart by the public and then forced to fully retract. This has NEVER happened before for any other drug. This is a drug that is available OTC in many countries yet in the US we can't even get it with a doc's Rx b/c of the political corruption and interference. Why no political interference for drugs that are WAY more dangerous with less of a safety track record? Remdesivir for example? Then when docs speak out about this insanity they get threatened, censored, and fired. Something else is going on here.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Ephrata Lion

Jason1743

Well-Known Member
Jan 23, 2006
20,061
13,755
1
I'll take Risch's and other experts opinions over some random person you supposedly talked to
Anthony Fauci, Robert Redfield, Admiral Grioux, head of the NIH, multiple friends and relatives of mine who are physicians and medical school professors.
 

SLUPSU

Well-Known Member
Aug 5, 2018
4,553
2,623
1
I'll take Risch's and other experts opinions over some random person you supposedly talked to (I'd bet they were looking at inpatient treatment not outpatient treatment).

There is no fog of war here, the science is clear (from 12 different studies mind you) that when given early to high risk outpatients along with zinc and zpak it has a dramatic and clear impact at reducing mortality and hospitalization. The "fog" only shows up when you start looking at inpatient use where the results are more mixed or when the right dose/combo of drugs isn't used.

If there's no conspiracy to demonize HCQ how do you explain a completely made up study from non credible people passing the peer review process and getting published in a major journal such as The Lancet? Which was instantly picked apart by the public and then forced to fully retract. This has NEVER happened before for any other drug. This is a drug that is available OTC in many countries yet in the US we can't even get it with a doc's Rx b/c of the political corruption and interference. Why no political interference for drugs that are WAY more dangerous with less of a safety track record? Remdesivir for example? Then when docs speak out about this insanity they get threatened, censored, and fired. Something else is going on here.

The study that was published in the Lancet did not go through a peer review process prior to publication.
 

WeR0206

Well-Known Member
Apr 9, 2014
19,338
24,801
1
2020evidence.org
Anthony Fauci, Robert Redfield, Admiral Grioux, head of the NIH, multiple friends and relatives of mine who are physicians and medical school professors.
How many of those people have vaccine patents? Fauci does, pretty sure Redfield does too. They have financial COI’s.

I’ll take Risch’s word over mr vaccine patent Fauci’s any day.

In case you haven’t noticed big pharma has corrupted most if not all of our health agencies.
The study that was published in the Lancet did not go through a peer review process prior to publication.
And yet the WHO relied on the fake study/data to cancel all HCQ studies around the world. That makes it even worse. Again, have you seen anything like this for any other drug? Obviously false studies getting published and docs being prevented from prescribing a well known fda approved drug off label by governors?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Ephrata Lion