patrick.net

okay so the first thing is that dr fauci
has been maintaining
that only randomized controlled
double-blind trials
provide evidence worth relying upon to
decide whether a medication
works, and that is a standard that has
never been imposed, neither by the fda
nor by the scientific community in
general.
the great the large number if not the
majority
of medications used for the last 50 or
70 years across the world
were not established by using randomized
controlled trials.
a lot of combined chemotherapy for
cancer was never established by using
randomized trials.
antibiotics as i said amoxicillin which has
man billions of prescriptions of
amoxicillin for every time
you know a child comes down with strep
throat and and you get a prescription
for it.
that was never established with a
randomized control trial.
dr frieden in the new england journal
said
in a long essay here's how you evaluate
evidence
for something: it's not just randomized
trials, they have flaws
and failures in the real world you take
that into account when you evaluate
their evidence,
and you also look at what are called
phase two information which is all the
non-randomized trials and other evidence.
and that is all part of the thinking of
evaluating evidence which is what
epidemiologists do day in day out of
looking at science.
so the first point is that all of the
evidence needs to go into this
discussion,
not just a shibboleth of "randomized
controlled trials or nothing"
that leads to "what is the evidence?"
the evidence is
that there are now 12 studies looking at
the use of hydroxychloroquine
plus additional medications. it could be
zinc, it could be azithromycin,
doxycycline, steroids and so on.
all of these are
in use in various places that have been
studied. there are two studies
in brazil that were actual trials of use.
the first one
was in the prevent senior hmo that was
published
by investigators, that showed
that hospitalization was reduced
four-fold or so
by use of hydroxychloroquine plus
azithromycin.
the second is a study that has been
submitted for publication that is not
generally available just yet that also
shows a similar thing, that
700 patients came to a large hmo that
has 6 million members across brazil
and those doctors all across the the
clinics of that hmo
were given the choice how they wanted to
treat the patients with six or seven
drugs, among them was hydroxychloroquine
and so on.
and what they found is
*hydroxychloroquine cuts risk of
hospitalization
in half more than half* so it is
prednisone and that
in that study.
so here you have more
evidence, first-rate evidence
for large numbers of subjects in a
controlled study, just not randomized but
still a controlled study
adjusted for all possible relevant
confounders that could be really
responsible for the benefit
showing the same thing.
then you have the
studies of patients actually treated. now
when you say a study is anecdotal
because it's a case report of one person
or two people,
that's what anecdotal means. but when you
do a case control study where you
interview 50 or 100 or 500
cases of a study, that's epidemiologic
work that's a case control study
here what we have is the case part of
case control studies.
so these were studies of sequential
patients that were treated with
hydroxychloroquine
and azithromycin zinc and so on by
various clinicians
across the united states that showed
tremendous benefit.
much more benefit than the the trials
because these were patients who are
being treated individually
and individual treatment is not
formulaic individual treatment, it
is giving a prescription and seeing how the
patient does,
adjusting it on a day-to-day basis as
you need to to get the patient better
and these studies show immense benefit.
the study by dr zelenko his first 405
patients with two deaths.
his second study with 400 patients no
deaths.
seven or six or seven other
clinicians across the country,
again with a total of 500 patients no
deaths.
these are all high-risk patients who had
probably a 10 or 15 percent
mortality risk if they had not been
treated and no deaths.

now people say "okay well those are
people you found out about, those are
clinicians that you found about because
they had such good results they came to
you to tell you how good their results
were,
but they're not representative of how
treatment goes across the country"
okay so that's a theoretical argument.
but let's say we do this:
dr zelenko and dr proctor in texas
both reported to me their initial series,
the first 405 of dr zilenko and the first
50 of dr proctor.
and then they said "you know what we'll
go and we'll get more patients
and we'll treat them and we'll show you
how good it works."
and dr delanco zlanko did exactly that
he treated another 400 patients no
deaths.
dr proctor another 50 patients no deaths.
now the question is, what is the
probability that they could have done
that?
now that you're saying here are the
people you're actually going to look at
here are the doctors you're actually
going to look at
the probability of them doing that is
less than one percent, and probably
a hundred fold less than one percent
with the risk that an untreated patient
at high risk would actually not get
hospitalized or die.
so there is very substantial evidence
that these drugs work dramatically.
dr risch we've only got about three
minutes here in this segment i want to
throw it over to jack maxey with a
question as well here
but i want to understand this as well
because you probably recognize some of
the talking points that john berman was
coming back at you at
on cnn this morning where is he getting
that information from because it sounds
to me like this was as they say they
built this as an interview but it turned
into a debate he's got somebody in his
ear
he sounded like he was reading from a
teleprompter at certain points where are
those counter narratives
coming from and why didn't you get the
chance to say exactly what you just said
on air in full
on cnn this morning well the lack of my
ability to say that was
their programming needs um where he gets
his points is those points are prevalent
across the field from from the top down
from dr fauci down
saying i'm not entertaining anything
what i call something anecdotal what i
mean is junk that's his code word for
junk
and you know that that's totally
inappropriate as i've
discussed the widespread use of
non-randomized controlled trial evidence
for everything we do. lots of things that
we do so
the other approach is to smear all the
distinctions that
you do a study in people who can't
possibly get hospitalized, and then
and you say that applies to people who
are at great risk of being hospitalized.
that's an irrelevant study. those
are the the minnesota studies
and the catalonia studies, those are
low-risk people
who do perfectly well without any
treatment at all.
and then you say "see the treatment
didn't do anything" but of course the
untreated the lack of treatment did
great
to start with so there's no room to do
better those are not people dr risch.
it's jack maxey quick question because i
think it really illustrates this whole
debate
on a global basis. you gave us the
example in brazil where they started
using hydroxychloroquine
and saw a dramatic drop. we've seen some
other areas in latin america the city of
guanacula in
in ecuador went from 460 dead on
i believe it was april 6 to 0 on may
10th using hydroxychloroquine and mass
dosing across the city.
can you give us
some examples of countries around the
world where they've used
hydroxychloroquine and seem to have
lower death rates than we do. doctor risch
we've got about 45 seconds there.

okay so in the northern part of brazil
and perhaps brazil,
they did that in india, in uh vatadora in
the in the western
province i think of gujarat, they've done
that they gave 340 000 people across
the city hydroxychloroquine and then
they sampled a hundred thousand and
looked at who got
the the infections in fact the more
doses of hydroxychloroquine
got the lower the risk of infection and
the the the
more doses you got the lower risk of
mortality.
so it worked but worked both
to prevent
getting it and dying from it.
doctor reassured me we're really
grateful to have you on and really
grateful
uh to steve as well uh for making sure
that we actually have the time
unlike john berman on this show to get
to get more down into nitty gritty
department of chronic disease
epidemiology at yale
school of public health dr risch thank
you so much for joining us here on war
and pandemic this morning
my pleasure thank you

There is no question that Anthony Fauci has a major conflict of interest with Bill Gates. Fauci’s deliberate attack on hydroxychloroquine is relegating people to die. Banning the drug and directing pharmacies to intervene and deny doctors from prescribing it is unbelievable. Politics has NEVER interfered with the doctor-patient relationships — EVER!

Fauci’s attack on a drug that has been approved for decades and is over the counter even in Iran and available to their people fighting COVID is unimaginable. Many people are coming out against Fauci and his deliberate campaign against this drug to support Bill Gates’ vaccines. The drug was first used in France with 3,100 people with great success. Something is seriously wrong! There should be a class-action lawsuit filed against Fauci to expose all of his conflicts of interest and taking over $100 million from Bill Gates for his agencies. He has rejected prior NIH studies of previous decades with no explanation. Something is just not right about how political this drug has become, and the benefactor of refusing this drug is to maintain the lockdowns, destroy the economy further, and line the pockets of Bill Gates and his vaccines.