For those new to these near fraudulent elements of the HCQ picture (the one propagating from western sources, that is) I’ll give one example, the allegedly ‘negative’ Boulware study (most will know of the retracted, fake Lancet study carried out by Surgisphere, which promptly shut up shop once rumbled). The study is here https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa2016638
This was an RCT that was widely touted as another nail in the coffin of HCQ. It was claimed to be an early treatment study.
Before appearing in the New England Journal of Medicine (responsible for one retracted study, also by Surgisphere) it was given to the press presumably for the above touting of the false claims and conclusions to take place.
The headlines were duly grabbed around the world.
Even though the study clearly had a host of problems (not least of which being the claimed conclusion didn’t match the data) the worlds press faithfully reproduced the claim (35 outlets the same day showed on NewsNow.co.uk, probably the tip of the iceberg) that the study showed that HCQ treatment was not effective. In fact the study had found a nearly 20% reduction in Covid-19, though the difference did not reach statistical significance.
I posted about this aspect on a media-related site 
, https://members5.boardhost.com/xxxxx/msg/1591228273.html.
Not reaching statistical significance may be because the sample size was too small - and the study was deliberately stopped early. I also posted about all this too
Described as the most rigorous study so far, it was a dogs breakfast with a suspiciously high fiddle factor. With limitations that would have diluted any effect found (I also posted about this - “Always read the limitations”, https://members5.boardhost.com/xxxxx/msg/1591232825.html)
Boulware should very likely have been a positive study.
But there was much more to come, later revealed in a re-analysis . The researchers had not analysed the delays to the treatments following exposure - once this step was taken, there was a slam-dunk correlation between the length of the delay in treatment and whether the patient got Covid-19. The re-analysis by Watanabe is here https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa2016638 though I recommend locating it on C19study.com in order to obtain the commentary.
Shown here in a graph, https://c19study.com/boulware.svg
Commentary is here (search for Boulware) shows main points https://c19study.com/.
The full re-analysis paper is here, Efficacy of Hydroxychloroquine as Prophylaxis for Covid-19 https://arxiv.org/abs/2007.09477.
So this was a RCT that was derailed near the end of the line.
Another physician claiming a near 100% success rate for early HCQ treatment is New York’s Dr Zelenko(see bottom), whose HCQ-Azithromycin-Zinc protocol has been followed in many countries. At the heart of this is the idea that treatment has to start before six days of symptoms, otherwise you are essentially treating a different disease. The above re-analysis of the Boulware data matches this time period exactly.
In fact Zelenko was the source of Trump’s endorsement of HCQ; he tried to use Trump to get the message out, which had the unfortunate effect of politicizing the issue along party lines in the US election year.
It’s also noteworthy that Zelenko was having difficulty before the Trump endorsement, due to pharma pressure on doctors.
Zelenko published a study based on his practice results, which can be found in the C19study,com link.
An impressive (and important) interview with Zelenko is here: https://t.co/8KzbKbXZih?amp=1.
(Seems to take a while to load, but it does say will be live in a moment…)
I highlight the following snippet from this interview:
“…Extremely important - based on clinical suspicion, Treated within 1st 5 days of symptoms…I noticed most patients come day 4 or 5. They wait a day or 2 to see, then wait to see a Dr…On about 6 the viral load explodes”. [Hence early treatment]
) was admirable.