2020 Aug 4, 8:58pm
282 views 2 comments
okay so the first thing is that dr faucihas been maintainingthat only randomized controlleddouble-blind trialsprovide evidence worth relying upon todecide whether a medicationworks, and that is a standard that hasnever been imposed, neither by the fdanor by the scientific community ingeneral.the great the large number if not themajorityof medications used for the last 50 or70 years across the worldwere not established by using randomizedcontrolled trials.a lot of combined chemotherapy forcancer was never established by usingrandomized trials.antibiotics as i said amoxicillin which hasman billions of prescriptions ofamoxicillin for every timeyou know a child comes down with strepthroat and and you get a prescriptionfor it.that was never established with arandomized control trial.dr frieden in the new england journalsaidin a long essay here's how you evaluateevidencefor something: it's not just randomizedtrials, they have flawsand failures in the real world you takethat into account when you evaluatetheir evidence,and you also look at what are calledphase two information which is all thenon-randomized trials and other evidence.and that is all part of the thinking ofevaluating evidence which is whatepidemiologists do day in day out oflooking at science.so the first point is that all of theevidence needs to go into thisdiscussion,not just a shibboleth of "randomizedcontrolled trials or nothing"that leads to "what is the evidence?"the evidence isthat there are now 12 studies looking atthe use of hydroxychloroquineplus additional medications. it could bezinc, it could be azithromycin,doxycycline, steroids and so on. all of these arein use in various places that have beenstudied. there are two studiesin brazil that were actual trials of use.the first onewas in the prevent senior hmo that waspublishedby investigators, that showedthat hospitalization was reducedfour-fold or soby use of hydroxychloroquine plusazithromycin.the second is a study that has beensubmitted for publication that is notgenerally available just yet that alsoshows a similar thing, that700 patients came to a large hmo thathas 6 million members across braziland those doctors all across the theclinics of that hmowere given the choice how they wanted totreat the patients with six or sevendrugs, among them was hydroxychloroquineand so on.and what they found is*hydroxychloroquine cuts risk ofhospitalizationin half more than half* so it isprednisone and thatin that study.so here you have moreevidence, first-rate evidencefor large numbers of subjects in acontrolled study, just not randomized butstill a controlled studyadjusted for all possible relevantconfounders that could be reallyresponsible for the benefitshowing the same thing.then you have thestudies of patients actually treated. nowwhen you say a study is anecdotalbecause it's a case report of one personor two people,that's what anecdotal means. but when youdo a case control study where youinterview 50 or 100 or 500cases of a study, that's epidemiologicwork that's a case control studyhere what we have is the case part ofcase control studies.so these were studies of sequentialpatients that were treated withhydroxychloroquineand azithromycin zinc and so on byvarious cliniciansacross the united states that showedtremendous benefit.much more benefit than the the trialsbecause these were patients who arebeing treated individuallyand individual treatment is notformulaic individual treatment, itis giving a prescription and seeing how thepatient does,adjusting it on a day-to-day basis asyou need to to get the patient betterand these studies show immense benefit.the study by dr zelenko his first 405patients with two deaths.his second study with 400 patients nodeaths.seven or six or seven otherclinicians across the country,again with a total of 500 patients nodeaths.these are all high-risk patients who hadprobably a 10 or 15 percentmortality risk if they had not beentreated and no deaths.now people say "okay well those arepeople you found out about, those areclinicians that you found about becausethey had such good results they came toyou to tell you how good their resultswere,but they're not representative of howtreatment goes across the country"okay so that's a theoretical argument.but let's say we do this:dr zelenko and dr proctor in texasboth reported to me their initial series,the first 405 of dr zilenko and the first50 of dr proctor.and then they said "you know what we'llgo and we'll get more patientsand we'll treat them and we'll show youhow good it works."and dr delanco zlanko did exactly thathe treated another 400 patients nodeaths.dr proctor another 50 patients no deaths.now the question is, what is theprobability that they could have donethat?now that you're saying here are thepeople you're actually going to look athere are the doctors you're actuallygoing to look atthe probability of them doing that isless than one percent, and probablya hundred fold less than one percentwith the risk that an untreated patientat high risk would actually not gethospitalized or die.so there is very substantial evidencethat these drugs work dramatically.dr risch we've only got about threeminutes here in this segment i want tothrow it over to jack maxey with aquestion as well herebut i want to understand this as wellbecause you probably recognize some ofthe talking points that john berman wascoming back at you aton cnn this morning where is he gettingthat information from because it soundsto me like this was as they say theybuilt this as an interview but it turnedinto a debate he's got somebody in hisearhe sounded like he was reading from ateleprompter at certain points where arethose counter narrativescoming from and why didn't you get thechance to say exactly what you just saidon air in fullon cnn this morning well the lack of myability to say that wastheir programming needs um where he getshis points is those points are prevalentacross the field from from the top downfrom dr fauci downsaying i'm not entertaining anythingwhat i call something anecdotal what imean is junk that's his code word forjunkand you know that that's totallyinappropriate as i'vediscussed the widespread use ofnon-randomized controlled trial evidencefor everything we do. lots of things thatwe do sothe other approach is to smear all thedistinctions thatyou do a study in people who can'tpossibly get hospitalized, and thenand you say that applies to people whoare at great risk of being hospitalized.that's an irrelevant study. thoseare the the minnesota studiesand the catalonia studies, those arelow-risk peoplewho do perfectly well without anytreatment at all.and then you say "see the treatmentdidn't do anything" but of course theuntreated the lack of treatment didgreatto start with so there's no room to dobetter those are not people dr risch.it's jack maxey quick question because ithink it really illustrates this wholedebateon a global basis. you gave us theexample in brazil where they startedusing hydroxychloroquineand saw a dramatic drop. we've seen someother areas in latin america the city ofguanacula inin ecuador went from 460 dead oni believe it was april 6 to 0 on may10th using hydroxychloroquine and massdosing across the city.can you give ussome examples of countries around theworld where they've usedhydroxychloroquine and seem to havelower death rates than we do. doctor rischwe've got about 45 seconds there.okay so in the northern part of braziland perhaps brazil,they did that in india, in uh vatadora inthe in the westernprovince i think of gujarat, they've donethat they gave 340 000 people acrossthe city hydroxychloroquine and thenthey sampled a hundred thousand andlooked at who gotthe the infections in fact the moredoses of hydroxychloroquinegot the lower the risk of infection andthe the themore doses you got the lower risk ofmortality.so it worked but worked bothto preventgetting it and dying from it.doctor reassured me we're reallygrateful to have you on and reallygratefuluh to steve as well uh for making surethat we actually have the timeunlike john berman on this show to getto get more down into nitty grittydepartment of chronic diseaseepidemiology at yaleschool of public health dr risch thankyou so much for joining us here on warand pandemic this morningmy 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.