IT’S SCIENCE: The Explanation Behind Wild Disagreement In Those Anti-Malarial COVID Treatments

Written by Wes Walker on May 15, 2020

The strong opinions for and against the usefulness of HCQ treatments will hinge upon what it’s paired with. Here’s why…

Once the media moved past the controversy about ventilators, they moved on to undermining optimism about promising treatments.

Fauci was one of the voices dampening expectations on early findings that decades-old antimalaria medication could offer life-saving help in recovery from COVID-19.

We watched a predatory reaction by the press who attacked anyone offering even the most tepid support of hydroxychloroquine as a treatment option, and shouting from the rooftops to anyone who would listen about just how bad it was.

Trending: LMAO: The Hodge Twins Take AOC To School For Whining About RBG’s ‘Dying Wish’

There was a reason they would be cheering against this therapeutic option. Trump spoke well of it. They WANT Trump to fail — and fail spectacularly.

But what if his instincts were right? How many American lives might have been saved by a medication Trump was criticized for stockpiling?

Now, after deaths have climbed to the tens of thousands, Fauci has finally authorized a study to look into the combination of HCQ and the medication it is normally paired with. (Take note of that part. We’ll come back to it later.)

Here’s an excerpt from the NIH press release:

A clinical trial has begun to evaluate whether the malaria drug hydroxychloroquine, given together with the antibiotic azithromycin, can prevent hospitalization and death from coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). The National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID), part of the National Institutes of Health, is sponsoring the trial, which is being conducted by the NIAID-funded AIDS Clinical Trials Group (ACTG). Teva Pharmaceuticals is donating medications for the study.

Regardless of what the press might tell us about the horrors of HCQ treatment options, it has shown some real promise in real-life situations and limited-run studies.

Results In the main analysis, 84 patients who received hydroxychloroquine within 48 hours of admission to hospital (treatment group) were compared with 89 patients who did not receive hydroxychloroquine (control group). Eight additional patients received hydroxychloroquine more than 48 hours after admission. In the weighted analyses, the survival rate without transfer to the intensive care unit at day 21 was 76% in the treatment group and 75% in the control group (weighted hazard ratio 0.9, 95% confidence interval 0.4 to 2.1). Overall survival at day 21 was 89% in the treatment group and 91% in the control group (1.2, 0.4 to 3.3). Survival without acute respiratory distress syndrome at day 21 was 69% in the treatment group compared with 74% in the control group (1.3, 0.7 to 2.6). At day 21, 82% of patients in the treatment group had been weaned from oxygen compared with 76% in the control group (weighted risk ratio 1.1, 95% confidence interval 0.9 to 1.3). Eight patients in the treatment group (10%) experienced electrocardiographic modifications that required discontinuation of treatment.

Conclusions Hydroxychloroquine has received worldwide attention as a potential treatment for COVID-19 because of positive results from small studies. However, the results of this study do not support its use in patients admitted to hospital with covid-19 who require oxygen. — Source: The BMJ (Intended For Health Professionals)

The key factor seems not to be the HCQ alone, but its synergistic effect with Zinc.

A related clue:

So, here’s an awkward question.

What if it turns out the treatment Trump was touting months ago when results from France were published in the respected medical journal, ‘The Lancet’ could have saved the lives of countless American citizens who may have died needlessly?

Who is going to apologize to the bereaved families?

Who is going to wear the blame for dogpiling on Trump over ‘not following the science’?