Covid and Didier Raoult (supporter of hydroxychloroquine): analyzes on the pandemic

[pedrodelavega]

The WHO, which is struggling to block any serious study on HCQ and to drummer the media on the immense danger of this molecule among the best known in medicine, is 80% funded by "voluntary" funds behind which hides a scientist oligarchy of "foundations", "commissions" and other pharmaceutical companies.

an article from 2017: https://www.rts.ch/info/economie/866001 ... ique-.html

Which studies blocked the WHO?

[VetusLignum]

https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(20)31180-6/fulltext

We can read : "The mean length of stay in hospital was 9 · 1 days (SD 6 · 4), with an overall in-hospital mortality of 10 698 (11 · 1%) of 96 032. The use of other antivirals was recorded in 38 927 ( 40%) patients as treatment for COVID-5. The most common antivirals were lopinavir with ritonavir (19 [12 · 304%]), ribavirin (31 [6 · 7904%]), and oseltamivir (20 [3 · 5101%]). Combination therapy with more than one of these antiviral regimens was used for 13 (1%) patients."

What I don't understand is that they didn't take the opportunity to also analyze the effects of the treatments mentioned above. There were enough affected patients to do so. I imagine that if any of these treatments had produced positive results, then they would have said it. So that would imply that those who do best are those who have not received any treatment, or any anti-viral. I wish I could see the raw data.

One question I ask myself is this. Is it possible that American patients included in this study could have been tested, but that, without insurance, they could not have been treated, and that their possible death was not counted (because than not occurring in hospital); what would have inflated the results of the control group?
https://www.kff.org/coronavirus-covid-1 ... treatment/

In addition, it seems to me that there is consensus today that giving an anti-viral, whatever it is, is of interest only at the very beginning of the disease, and that at the time of hospitalization, it is too late for the antivirals to take effect. Why does no one insist on it?
Why is tocilizumab (which is an immunomodulator) not mentioned? What about anti-coagulants? What about anti-inflammatories?

Finally, I totally agree that the data is too homogeneous to be true. Of the 671 hospitals, 559 are American, and 5 are Australian, and 9 are Asian. How can there be such homogeneity between patients from these different continents?

https://www.thelancet.com/cms/10.1016/S0140-6736(20)31180-6/attachment/84423d57-4cf8-41d0-99ca-0e921f2c80ce/mmc1.pdf

Other criticisms of the Lancet study
https://melwy.com/blog/lancet-paper-on- ... -black-box
https://defyccc.com/anti-hcq-paper-in-t ... ated-data/

Let's demand the raw data!

https://statmodeling.stat.columbia.edu/ ... e-perhaps/

In this article, statisticians show that they cannot match the figures from this study with the official figures, for Australia and Asia.

In addition, one may wonder how Surgisphere could have obtained data so quickly from so many hospitals and so many countries, especially as the protection of personal data (even anonymized) has become a very sensitive subject (very "procedurized) ") these last years.

This is all shady, so we must demand the publication of raw data. Or at a pinch, that they show us all their contracts with their data providers (when we ask them for the raw data, they answer: "Our data sharing agreements with the various governments, countries and hospitals do not allow us to share data unfortunately")

[GuyGadebois]

This bogus study was done by bots, algorithms and software. It is void of valid information and therefore void of meaning.

[VetusLignum]

This bogus study was done by bots, algorithms and software. It is void of valid information and therefore void of meaning.

Their data collection process is more or less explained in this other study they published. It is nevertheless very obscure.
https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa2007621

[Adrien (ex-nico239)]

So we summarize

- the number of deaths is almost reliable
- the number of tests is unreliable
- the number of cases is not reliable

That's right?

Yes that's right !

Where do you get the data from the number of tests carried out in France?

[Adrien (ex-nico239)]

Radiologist and Senator Alain Houpert on Lancet paper and hydroxychloroquine

I thought doctors were forbidden to speak about hydroxychloroquine ...

[Christophe]

Well this focus of RT!

It's official, the HCQ is prohibited ... ... except at Raoult's

Hydroxychloroquine is no longer authorized against Covid-19

Following an unfavorable opinion from the High Council for Public Health, the government has repealed the derogations authorizing the prescription of hydroxychloroquine against Covid-19 in hospitals in France, excluding clinical trials. "Whether in the city or in the hospital, this molecule should not be prescribed for patients with Covid-19," responded the ministry of health in a statement.

In the process, the Angers University Hospital Center (CHU) announced the suspension of the study launched in early April on the efficacy of a chloroquine derivative. “The study is suspended, it is not canceled. We must respect the precautionary principle and we are in discussion with the health authorities, ”said the communications directorate of the Angers University Hospital.

For its part, the hospital-university institute (IHU) Méditerranée Infection de Marseille, headed by Professor Raoult, has indicated that it "will continue to treat [its] patients with the most suitable treatments in current state of science and knowledge ”. The Marseille IHU has already treated nearly 4 people infected with SARS-CoV-000.

Since the end of March, apart from clinical trials, hydroxychloroquine - a drug derived from the antimalarial chloroquine - could be prescribed against Covid-19 by way of derogation, only in the hospital and only for severely ill patients, at the collegial decision of the doctors . The drug, marketed in France under the name of Plaquénil, was already banned in town to treat the disease

https://www.lemonde.fr/planete/article/ ... _3244.html

[ABC2019]

So we summarize

- the number of deaths is almost reliable
- the number of tests is unreliable
- the number of cases is not reliable

That's right?

Yes that's right !

Where do you get the data from the number of tests carried out in France?

uh i think i gave the source 2 or 3 times, even obamot used it!

https://ourworldindata.org/coronavirus-testing

[VetusLignum]

Some articles on the Surgisphere study published in the Lancet:
https://www.theguardian.com/science/202 ... r-covid-19
https://pgibertie.com/2020/05/27/ces-se ... re-raoult/
http://www.profession-gendarme.com/fin- ... lectuelle/
http://informacaoincorrecta.com/2020/05 ... loroquina/

Another study published by Surgisphere is:
https://www.trialsitenews.com/observati ... questions/
http://www.proyectodime.info/documents/ ... ectina.pdf

One can nevertheless wonder:

- why is the number of patients receiving Ivermectin so proportional to what appears to be the number of patients in their database? With only 1 patient in Australia, and relatively few patients in South America, continent where this drug is used the most?
- how do they "match" patients who have received the drug with patients who have not received it, especially if there are several good possible candidates? Do they choose the one with the worst outcome (most favorable in the end)?
- why was this very decisive study not published? (we only have a pre-print)

In short, as long as I have not seen their raw data, I will consider Surgisphere at best as data hackers, at worst as falsifiers.

[Adrien (ex-nico239)]

Yes that's right !

Where do you get the data from the number of tests carried out in France?

uh i think i gave the source 2 or 3 times, even obamot used it!

https://ourworldindata.org/coronavirus-testing

Ok
Have you done any research to check if their feedback was reliable and reflected the reality of the number of tests actually carried out in France?