The Results Are Crystal Clear
The early treatment program in Turkey relies on hydroxychloroquine as the first step in the therapeutic process.
Sky News’ story about “Turkey’s COVID Detectives” by special correspondent Alex Crawford is remarkable. It not only covers the track and trace teams in action in Turkey, but also the therapeutic approach, which relies on hydroxychloroquine as a first step to treat symptomatic patients.
The Turkish approach is at odds with most countries, such as the UK, where symptomatic patients are asked to stay home, wait, until the symptoms essentially become unbearable, and then serious complications and hospitalization become very likely.
Such reporting about early treatment is typically absent from mainstream media coverage, so this coverage needs to be celebrated. The pictures are also remarkable.
“As soon as a patient has symptoms, they are treated with hydroxychloroquine tablets and/or favipiravir at home. Follow-up calls quickly spot if the symptoms worsen, and then they will be admitted to hospital.”
“Once at the hospital, Dr Yiyit says the treatment is increased and combined with high-flow oxygen treatment, anti-coagulants, steroids, vitamins and more high-dose favipiravir or hydroxychloroquine…”
“Most of patients recover in five days,” Dr Yiyit insists.”
The graph below contrasts the US results with Turkey.
Clearly the country is being misled by Dr. Fauci and the liberal media.
- The USA has 488 covid deaths per one million in population.
- Turkey has 69 covid deaths per one million in population.
And here is a larger analysis including the US and Turkey and HCQ use.
Experts were taken aback by the developments.
“The medical community has come to the inescapable conclusion that hydroxychloroquine is not effective at treating Covid-19 infections,” said Steven Nissen, a cardiologist at the Cleveland Clinic and a longtime clinical trialist. “Peter Navarro is not a scientist, he is the president’s trade representative. He should not be advising the public on matters of health.”
Nissen and Borio say observational studies simply cannot be used to determine whether a medicine is effective. Again and again they have been wrong.
In one famous example, estrogen replacement therapy after menopause was thought to have benefits in preventing heart and other problems; large studies showed this was not the case. In another, a knee surgery for arthritis was shown to have no benefits over medical care.
A paper that showed that hydroxychloroquine was potentially harmful, which was published in The Lancet in May, was met with similar criticism. It was eventually withdrawn over questions about the validity of its data.
Observational studies are often used to decide what ideas to test in randomized studies, to make sure that results from randomized studies translate to the real world, and to detect side effects.
But, puzzlingly, Henry Ford has applied for authorization to use hydroxychloroquine “for a clearly defined list of clinical uses, including use in clinical trials,” the system said in a statement.
“We owe it to our patients and our communities to do everything we can to provide safe, effective, affordable treatments, and we will continue to collaborate toward meaningful solutions that address this deadly disease.”
Evidence that hydroxychloroquine does not help hospitalized patients — the use in its original emergency use authorization, which was designed to allow doctors to access a national stockpile of the drug — is mounting.
One study, the RECOVERY study conducted in the U.K., compared 1,542 patients on a particularly high dose of the drug to 3,132 control patients and found no difference in how long patients lived. A second, conducted by the National Institutes of Health, also found no benefit from hydroxychloroquine at higher doses.
Yet, in his interview with the White House press pool, Navarro argued that the studies so far were based on “bad science” and that the Henry Ford data were evidence enough. He argued that the drug appears to work when given earlier in the disease course than it was in the large randomized studies. He said that rescinding the FDA authorization had “a tremendously negative effect” on two things.
“One is the ability for American people to use this medicine to protect themselves,” Navarro said, “and, two, the ability for hospitals, like the Detroit hospital system, to recruit patients for the kind of randomized blind clinical trials that everybody wants to settle once and for all the questions of efficacy and safety.”
It is not clear how the FDA’s decision to rescind the emergency authorization for hydroxychloroquine affected either. Doctors can prescribe any drug for any use, and conducting a clinical trial requires a different type of approval from the FDA. It is clear that granting a new emergency use authorization based on an observational study would go against decades of experience by medical researchers and regulators around the globe.
A huge amount of scientific attention has been focused on hydroxychloroquine. An analysis Monday by STAT and AppliedXL, a computational journalism company, found that 1 in 6 clinical trials started for Covid-19 involved hydroxychloroquine or a similar drug, chloroquine.
Said Nissen: “The sooner we stop talking about hydroxychloroquine, the sooner we can focus attention on more promising therapies.”