Author: Katabella Roberts
The views of the Authors are not necessarily the views of Enigmose.
Medical journal The Lancet on May 29 issued a correction to a recent study which found that antimalarial drugs Hydroxychloroquine and chloroquine were linked with an increased risk of mortality in hospitals, and an increased frequency of irregular heart rhythms.
TThe study, titled, “Hydroxychloroquine or chloroquine with or without a macrolide for treatment of COVID-19: a multinational registry analysis,” and published on May 22, included records of 96,032 patients from 671 hospitals in six continents. The patients were hospitalized between Dec. 20, 2019, and April 14, 2020.
Patients receiving the anti-malarials were put in four different groups: chloroquine alone, chloroquine with a macrolide, hydroxychloroquine alone, or hydroxychloroquine with a macrolide. Patients who received none of the treatments formed a control group. Researchers found the 14,888 patients in the treatment group suffered higher mortality when compared to the control group of over 80,000.
“We were unable to confirm a benefit of hydroxychloroquine or chloroquine, when used alone or with a macrolide, on in-hospital outcomes for COVID-19,” the researchers wrote.
The study led the World Health Organization to temporarily suspend the trial of hydroxychloroquine on COVID-19 patients, and to the UK regulatory body, MHRA, requesting the temporary pause of recruitment into all hydroxychloroquine trials in the UK. France also changed its national recommendation of the drug in COVID-19 treatments and halted all trials.
However, more than a hundred scientists and medical professionals raised questions about integrity of data analyzed in the study and subsequently wrote an open letter to its authors and the editor of The Lancet, listing 10 major concerns.
These included the fact that there was “no ethics review,” and “unusually small reported variances in baseline variables, interventions and outcomes,” as well as “no mention of the countries or hospitals that contributed to the data source and no acknowledgments to their contributions.” A request to the authors for information on the contributing centers was denied, the letter said.
Among the scientists other concerns were that the average daily doses of hydroxychloroquine were higher than the FDA-recommended amounts and that data reportedly from Australian patients did not seem to match data from the Australian government.
“Too many cases for just five hospitals, more in hospital deaths than had occurred in the entire country during the study period,” they wrote, noting that Surgisphere, a healthcare data analytics company, has since stated this was an error of classification of one hospital from Asia. “This indicates the need for further error checking throughout the data base,” they wrote. Full Story @ Epoch Times
Google censors Document of medical hydroxychloroquine coronavirus treatment trial paper
Is Google censoring even documents now?
It seems like a lifetime away now, as the world struggles to get the spread of coronavirus under control – but on March 13, James Todaro, who holds medical degree from Columbia University, posted about some potentially promising research on Twitter.
Todaro linked to a Google Doc file and said there was “growing evidence of chloroquine as a highly effective treatment for COVID-19.” - Google Censored it - Read More
“It’s all Bullsh*t” – 3 Leaks that Sink the Covid Narrative
In recent days a series of leaks across the globe have further shown the “official line” on coronavirus does not hold water - Read More
Unmasking the Pandemic Masquerade
This test of wills between the Left’s pandemic policymakers and citizens is being waged to protect the administrative state’s credibility and authority to coerce you into serfdom.
Throughout this COVID-19 pandemic, by their own admissions and actions, the pandemic policymakers have been wrong. Egregious and injuriously errant models regarding mortality and hospitalizations; the unprecedented societal and economic damage these models caused by instigating the lockdown of entire states; the lethal nursing home policies placing COVID-19-positive seniors in with non-infected seniors; the now-discredited warnings the virus was easily transmissible on surfaces—their flip-flops, revisions, and disasters go on and compound daily. Read More
What the Failed 55-MPH Speed Limit Law Tells Us About COVID Lockdowns
Imagine a world where the media reports daily with above-the-fold headlines on total nationwide traffic deaths while framing those deaths as a problem to be solved through draconian government policies.
During the oil crises of the 1970s, Congress attempted to lower gasoline consumption by mandating a lowered speed limit for vehicles on all highways. But the efforts quickly evolved into a national campaign to increase traffic safety through lowered speed limits.
In the days of "55 Saves Lives" countless Americans were willing to flout the speed limit laws in order to take on greater risk of both traffic accidents and legal penalties. The sanctimonious hectoring from safety officials and activists didn't stop them. Stay-at-home orders are likely to experience a similar fate. Read More
2007 Origins of Forced School Closings and Mandatory Human Separation
Interim Pre-pandemic Planning Guidance: Community Strategy for Pandemic Influenza Mitigation in the United States
The idea of a full lockdown of society in the event of a pandemic first emerged as an extremist proposal in 2006, issued by a computer scientist [No - not Bill Gates] as part of George W. Bush’s preparations for biowarfare.
It provoked a fierce response by the world’s leading epidemiologist Donald Henderson and his colleagues. That proposal, issued by Robert Glass under the influence of his daughter’s high school science fair project (yes, it thanks Neil Ferguson for comments), would sit for 14 years before being deployed in some form during the political panic of March 2020. Read More
