Author Topic: WHO "Solidarity" and UK "Recovery" Clinical Trials of HCQ used Lethal Dosing?  (Read 1139 times)

admin

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3081
Please read this article at the link as there are a lot of embedded links.

https://www.ageofautism.com/2020/06/who-solidarity-and-uk-recovery-clinical-trials-of-hydroxychloroquine-using-potentially-fatal-doses.html

"WHO "Solidarity" and UK "Recovery" Clinical Trials of Hydroxychloroquine using Potentially Fatal Doses
By Meryl Nass, MD

[Editor’s note: It should be noted that Dr Nass’s first objective has been achieved as following the publication of this article the WHO have halted these lethal trials.]

Updates can be found here.

The Solidarity Trial is a WHO-led conglomeration of many national trials of treatments for Covid-19. Per the WHO:

As of 3 June 2020, more than 3500 patients have been recruited in 35 countries, with over 400 hospitals actively recruiting patients. Overall, over 100 countries have joined or expressed an interest in joining the trial, and WHO is actively supporting 60 of them...

The hydroxychloroquine arm of the Solidarity trials restarted enrolling patients June 3, after being halted May 25 by WHO Director-General Dr. Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus and the Executive Group of the Solidarity Trial. The hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) arm of the trials had been stopped after publication of the Lancet Surgisphere study, which claimed that patients who received hydroxychloroquine had 35% higher death rates, but the Lancet study was retracted 13 days after publication, as its data turned out to be fabricated.

Below are the drugs being tested in Solidarity:

    Remdesivir
    Hydroxychloroquine
    Lopinavir with Ritonavir
    Lopinavir with Ritonavir plus Interferon beta-1a.

However, the doses were not specified on WHO's list of the drugs to be trialed, nor were they specified, surprisingly, in WHO's 4 person consultation on chloroquine (CQ) dosing, dated April 8. Instead, the Introduction of the Report of that meeting notes,

"The chloroquine or hydroxychloroquine schedule selected for the trial includes two oral loading doses (250 mg per tablet CQ or 200 mg per tablet HCQ), then oral twice-daily maintenance doses for ten days. This meeting convened to discuss the appropriateness of the selected doses for the trial."

Last week, I was alerted to the fact that India's ICMR, its official medical research agency, had written to the WHO, telling WHO that the hydroxychloroquine doses being used in the Solidarity trial were 4 times higher than the doses being used in India.  Then I learned that Singapore had been hesitant to participate in the WHO trial due to the hydroxychloroquine dose. 

The UK "Recovery" trial was very similar to, but not part of, the international Solidarity conglomeration of clinical trials.  The Recovery trial ended its HCQ arm on June 4, reporting no benefit. In-hospital mortality of the 1542 patients receiving hydroxychloroquine was 25.7%, or 396 deaths, about 10% higher than those receiving standard care, a non-significant difference.

The Recovery trial Study Protocol notes it is funded in part by the Wellcome Trust and the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, and by UK government agencies.  The Protocol provides the doses of hydroxychloroquine used, on page 22.  Twitter users began to notice a dosing problem, with hashtag #Recoverygate.

The HCQ dosing regimen used in the Recovery trial was 12 tablets during the first 24 hours (800mg initial dose, 800 mg six hours later, 400 mg 6 hrs later, 400 mg 6 hours later), then 400 mg every 12 hours for 9 more days.  This is 2.4 grams during the first 24 hours, and a cumulative dose of 9.2 grams over 10 days.

Even more disturbing than this, babies weighing 5 kg could be given a dose of 300 mg HCQ in the first 24 hours in the Recovery trial, which is 233 mg of the base, nearly 4 times the recommended maximum.


The quote from the WHO report on dosing, provided 4 paragraphs ago, seems to be deliberately vague regarding the dose used in the Solidarity trial, stating the number of milligrams per tablet, but not the number of tablets to be used.  The trial is registered but the registration fails to specify dosages.

The registration of the Canadian portion of the Solidarity trial informs us of its HCQ dose: ten 200 mg tablets during the first 24 hours (800 mg initial dose, 800 mg 12 hours later then 400 mg every 12 hours for 9 more days).  This is 2.0 grams during the first 24 hours, and a cumulative dose of 8.8 grams over 10 days, or only 0.4 grams less than what Recovery used. The Norwegian Solidarity trial uses dosing identical to Canada.

Co-Principal Investigators of the Recovery trial, Drs. Peter Horby and Martin Landray, said they followed the WHO dosing. This is what their trial document says as well, on page 23. Landray also claimed in an interview with Paris Soir that the maximum allowed HCQ dose was "6 or 10 times" the dose used in Recovery, and that he was using the hydroxychloroquine dose that is used for amebic dysentery.  However, the accepted use for HCQ in amebiasis is only for a liver abscess and only then in pregnancy, when other drugs cannot be used.  That dose is 600 mg per day for 2 days, then 300 mg per day, considerably less than half the Recovery dose.  Co-Principal Investigator Peter Horby said that Paris Soir misinterpreted Landray's comments, but Paris Soir said Landray had confirmed what he told them in an email prior to publication.  Landray is a very busy man, too busy, apparently, to look up the proper dose of a drug he gave to over 1500 subjects, who were randomized to the treatment and had no say in the matter.

We know that in Brazil, both a high HCQ dose and a low HCQ dose were trialed, and by April 17 the high dose arm was stopped prematurely due to an excess of deaths.  The high dose arm used 600 mg HCQ twice daily for ten days, with cumulative dose of 12 grams. EKG changes typical of toxicity were seen in 25% of high dose subjects. The low dose trial continues in Brazil.

How is the drug hydroxychloroquine normally used?  For chronic daily use in systemic lupus erythematosus or rheumatoid arthritis, patients receive between 200 and 400 mg daily, or a maximum of 5 mg/kg.  In acute Q fever, 600 mg daily may be given at the start of treatment. For acute attacks of malaria, 2,000 mg may be given over 3 days.  Professor Didier Raoult's group in Marseille used 600 mg daily for up to ten days in 1061 Covid-19 patients, and reported 8 deaths, a mortality rate of 0.75%, all over 74 years of age.  The mortality rate reported by Landray and Horby in the Recovery trial is 34 times higher.

We know from WHO's March 13 Informal consultation on the potential role of chloroquine that the Gates Foundation had been studying the drug's complex pharmacokinetics, and of the 25 participants at this meeting, 5 were from the Gates Foundation. 

The only treatment dose mentioned in the March 13 Informal consultation report was in a paragraph about preventive doses.  It said, "Higher doses would be considered for treatment, i.e., 10mg/kg base, followed by 5mg/kg twice daily for seven days."

What is the "base"?  A 200 mg dose of hydroxychloroquine contains 155 mg "base" drug.

The typical 70 kg person would, if this suggestion were followed, receive 700 mg base, or 900 mg total of hydroxychloroquine as a loading dose, then 450 mg twice daily. Generally, a loading dose refers only to a high first dose, not to several high additional doses.

What is a toxic dose?  All experts agree. "... chloroquine has a small toxic to therapeutic margin," according to Goldfrank's Toxicologic Emergencies.  The drug is very safe when used correctly, but not a lot more can potentially kill.  Prof. Nicholas White, a Wellcome Trust Principal Research Fellow and expert in malaria treatment, who attended both WHO consultations on the chloroquines, has confirmed this.  Careful monitoring of electrolyte levels and an EKG can prevent most problems.

The WHO hired a consultant to explore the toxicity of hydroxychloroquine in 1979. The consultant, H. Weniger, looked at 335 episodes of adult poisoning by chloroquine drugs.  Weniger on page 5 notes that a single dose of 1.5-2 grams of hydroxychloroquine base "may be fatal."

The Recovery trial used 1.86 grams hydroxychloroquine base (equal to 2400 mg of hydroxychloroquine) in the first 24 hours for treatment of already very ill, hospitalized Covid-19 patients, a potentially lethal dose.  The Canadian and Norwegian trials used 2,000 mg of HCQ, or 1.55 grams of HCQ base in the first 24 hours. Each trial gave patients a cumulative dose during the first 24 hours that, when given as a single dose, has been documented to be lethal. (The drug's half-life is about a month, so the cumulative amount is important.) 

The doses used in these trials are not recommended for therapy of any medical condition, which I confirmed with Goodman and Gilman's Pharmacology textbook, the drug's US label, and the online subscription medical encyclopedia UptoDate.

Excessive, dangerous HCQ dosing continues to be used in WHO's Solidarity trials. These trials are not, in fact, testing the benefits of HCQ on Covid-19, but rather are testing whether patients survive toxic, non-therapeutic doses.

The WHO Solidarity trials, in order to rapidly enroll patients and spare clinicians a lot of paperwork, collect only limited information on side effects.  No information has yet been provided regarding causes of death in the completed hydroxychloroquine arm of the Recovery trial, in which 396 patients died, and may never be. 

The Solidarity trial design being employed by WHO obscures whether mortality is due to drug toxicity (in which case, one would expect cause of death to be due to an arrhythmia, neuropsychiatric effects, or hypoglycemia) as opposed to death due to Covid-19.

In fact, the lack of safety data being collected is downright scary.  Here is a description of the data obtained on patients enrolled in Solidarity, as reported in Science magazine:

The participant has to sign an informed consent form that is scanned and sent to WHO electronically. After the physician states which drugs are available at his or her hospital, the website will randomize the patient to one of the drugs available or to the local standard care for COVID-19.

“After that, no more measurements or documentation are required,” says Ana Maria Henao Restrepo, a medical officer at WHO’s Emergencies Programme. Physicians will record the day the patient left the hospital or died, the duration of the hospital stay, and whether the patient required oxygen or ventilation, she says. “That’s all.”

The WHO report of its meeting on chloroquine dosing states,

"Although the preponderance of opinion tilted towards a reasonable benefit risk profile for the intervention, there was some scepticism about what was considered a ‘minimalistic safety data collection’ currently included in the protocol."

The high dose regimen being used in these trials has no medical justification.  The trial design, with its limited collection of safety data, makes it difficult or impossible to identify toxic drug effects, compared to a standard drug trial.  This is completely unethical.

Excessive dosing makes it impossible to assess therapeutic benefit, if any, of HCQ.


Giving the drug only to hospitalized patients means that the window of time during which HCQ would be expected to provide the most benefit, early in the illness when viral titers are rising, has passed.

Didier Raoult's group has recently published on the major differences in treatment and outcomes patients receive when placed in "big data" studies vs. receiving individualized care for Covid-19.

As I was completing this article, the FDA announced it was withdrawing its Emergency Use Authorization for hydroxychloroquine in Covid-19, because the "known and potential benefits" no longer outweigh the risks of the drug. The FDA cited data from the Recovery trial in its announcement.

To sum up:

1    In the UK Recovery trial, and in WHO Solidarity trials, HCQ is used in a non-therapeutic, toxic and potentially lethal dose.
2    HCQ is furthermore being given, in clinical trials, too late in the disease course to determine its value against SARS-CoV-2.
3    Collection of limited safety data in the Solidarity trials serves to protect trial investigators and sponsors from disclosures of expected adverse drug effects, including death.
4    It appears that WHO has tried to hide information on the hydroxychloroquine doses used in its Solidarity trial.  Fortunately, the information is discoverable from registries of its national trials.
5    The conclusions to be drawn are frightening:

     a)  WHO and other national health agencies, universities and charities have conducted large clinical trials that were designed so hydroxychloroquine would fail to show benefit in the treatment of Covid-19, perhaps to advantage much more expensive competitors and vaccines in development.

     b)  In so doing, these agencies and charities have de facto conspired to increase the number of deaths in these trials.

     c)   In so doing, they have conspired to deprive billions of people from potentially benefiting from a safe and inexpensive drug, when used properly, during a major pandemic.  This might contribute to prolongation of the pandemic, massive economic losses and many increased cases and deaths.
« Last Edit: July 18, 2021, 10:22:03 AM by admin »
Over a million Americans have died completely unnecessary, horrific, deaths from COVID-19. Do you have a plan in place to help your family dodge the average $73,300 COVID hospital bill, through prevention and a $20 EARLY treatment protocol? https://www.covidtreatmentoptions.com/

admin

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3081
Below are the drugs being tested in Solidarity:

    Remdesivir
    Hydroxychloroquine
    Lopinavir with Ritonavir
    Lopinavir with Ritonavir plus Interferon beta-1a.

The "trial" didn't even include zinc with the HCQ, let alone azithromycin.
« Last Edit: September 05, 2020, 04:29:14 PM by Administrator »
Over a million Americans have died completely unnecessary, horrific, deaths from COVID-19. Do you have a plan in place to help your family dodge the average $73,300 COVID hospital bill, through prevention and a $20 EARLY treatment protocol? https://www.covidtreatmentoptions.com/

admin

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3081
More on the UK Recovery trial, aptly described as "Marx Brothers do science", from one of the world's leading epidemiologists:
https://conservativewoman.co.uk/the-marx-brothers-do-science/
« Last Edit: September 05, 2020, 04:28:14 PM by Administrator »
Over a million Americans have died completely unnecessary, horrific, deaths from COVID-19. Do you have a plan in place to help your family dodge the average $73,300 COVID hospital bill, through prevention and a $20 EARLY treatment protocol? https://www.covidtreatmentoptions.com/

admin

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3081
"Less than 3 percent of the study participants had a confirmed diagnosis."

"Why even run such a study, asks Raoult, let alone withhold treatment from patients in the control group? Scandalously, in another arm of the study, these investigators overdosed patients with toxic levels of hydroxychloroquine, then dismissed the drug as useless."

https://thefederalist.com/2020/08/27/why-are-medical-authorities-playing-games-with-covid-treatments/
« Last Edit: September 10, 2020, 05:13:43 AM by Concerned »
Over a million Americans have died completely unnecessary, horrific, deaths from COVID-19. Do you have a plan in place to help your family dodge the average $73,300 COVID hospital bill, through prevention and a $20 EARLY treatment protocol? https://www.covidtreatmentoptions.com/

admin

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3081
Best read at the link.
https://www.conservativewoman.co.uk/recovery-the-plot-sickens/
RECOVERY: The plot sickens
By
Edmund Fordham
June 19, 2020

MY last article on the termination of one ‘arm’ of theUK’s ‘RECOVERY’ clinical trials of Covid-19 treatments reported the car-crash interview given to France Soir by Professor Martin Landray, deputy chief investigator of the Oxford University project, which raised questions on the dosage of hydroxychloroquine used. These dosages were widely suspected to be toxic. The story did not end there.

Stung by charges that Landray thought that hydroxychloroquine was used in amoebic dysentery, and might have confused hydroxychloroquine with the hydroxyquinolines – totally different drugs – chief investigator Professor Peter Horby swung into action. He chose to brief the French Communist paper Liberation, vehemently denying any confusion. France Soir was mis-reporting: Landray had meant amoebic hepatic abscess (AHA) for which the older chloroquine has been used, at heavy doses, citing WHO guidance from 1995. France Soir stuck to its guns: Landray had said amoebic dysentery, twice. An audio clip of the interview was released on Monday; judge for yourself.

Horby’s protestations about AHA begin to look like weaving a tangled web. Nor did Horby explain Landray’s guess at the lethal dose. A 2017 article estimates lethality from overdose at around 4 grams; against this, even the actual trial dose of 2.4 grams in the first 24 hours appears to sail close to the wind.

Worse followed: on Monday France Soir led on its front page with a bombshell article headed ‘RECOVERY: Incompetence, Lying, Manipulation and Big Bucks’. This rehearsed the confusion between drugs, the misremembered lethal dose, inconsistencies between protocol and analysis plan, the lack of information on death (Covid or overdose?) in the hydroxychloroquine ‘arm’ of the trial, the inclusion of the experimental anti-viral remdesivir into the treatments, the backgrounds and networks of the chief investigators and their funding sources.

The inclusion of remdesivir, the experimental anti-viral from Gilead Sciences, into RECOVERY is odd. It was not originally on the list. Yet on May 27 it was suddenly included, but not in a separate ‘arm’ of the study. ‘Patients who are already receiving remdesivir can still be recruited into RECOVERY . . . Similarly, participants can receive remdesivir and continue their assigned treatment(s)’. This makes a nonsense of the trial’s claim to be a randomised controlled trial, with clear separation between treatments given to patients. The study mixes patients receiving one trial drug and remdesivir with those receiving the trial drug alone. The design is now hopelessly compromised.

Probing alleged conflicts of interest, France Soir notes the co-authorship of Professor Horby on papers reporting trials of Gilead’s remdesivir (there was no benefit in mortality), an agreement between his department and Astra-Zeneca for development of Oxford’s vaccine candidate, and generous funding from the Gates Foundation. Professor Landray has multiple interests in Big Data, funded by a major Gilead stockholder. Two members of the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency board (MHRA) have declared stockholder interests in Astra-Zeneca, the company with a deal to supply France and Germany with 400million doses of a vaccine that doesn’t yet exist and which is in merger talks with Gilead in a plan to create the world’s largest pharmaceutical company.

But as previously noted, the possibility of a cheap and easy treatment for Covid from re-purposed generic drugs, especially hydroxychloroquine, is a mortal threat to these financial interests. As France Soir put it: the trial management must ‘never put low-cost hydroxychloroquine therapy in direct competition with remdesivir’. Or with mass vaccination.

All this wasn’t getting a good press, but things looked up on Tuesday with another Oxford press release, this time on the dexamethasone arm of the trial. This well-known corticosteroid drug reduced fatalities by a third in patients on ventilators, and by one-fifth in patients on oxygen. Patients not requiring respiratory support got no benefit. France Soir wasn’t impressed, but the ever-credulous BBC was ready to headline this great British triumph and Professor Horby was on the podium with the Prime Minister. Johnson seized on the good news and both Landray and Horby were featured on Newsnight. Dexamethasone will be used in NHS hospitals at once. Hooray!

So what has been achieved? The reduction in mortality isn’t wonderful. ‘Reducing deaths of ventilated patients by a third’ actually means (from Oxford’s own press release) that ‘one in around eight’ ventilated patients can be saved with dexamethasone. About five of the eight would have got better anyway, and two will still die. Similarly one death will be prevented in 25 patients on oxygen support. For patients not needing support, no benefit: 13 per cent of those still died, comparable to the case fatality ratio for the country as a whole, now standing at a wretched 14.2 per cent. Compare Turkey, with almost 60 per cent of our cases, but only 2.7 per cent fatal; or the UAE, with comparable cases per million, and a mere 0.7 per cent fatal.

The use of an anti-inflammatory corticosteroid drug in the inflammatory stage of the disease at least makes sense, but is that new? Well, no. Doctors elsewhere realized early that both inflammation and micro-thromboses were grave dangers, and started using both anti-inflammatories and blood thinners in the later disease stages. The so-called ‘MATH+’ protocol is one, used by Dr Joseph Varón in a small hospital in Houston, Texas, with close to 100 per cent success. The ‘M’ stands for methylprednisolone, an industrial-strength corticosteroid, the same drug class as dexamethasone. ‘H’ is for Heparin, an anti-coagulant. Look at his personal protective equipment (PPE)  and be jealous. Look at his recovery rates (100 per cent at 24 May) and weep.

The elephant in the room, unreported by the BBC, is the hideous mortality for those receiving NHS ‘standard of care’. Professor Raoult in Marseille called it ‘monstrous’. Forty-one per cent of ventilated NHS patients died within 28 days; it’s 16 per cent in the Marseille ICU. Twenty-five per cent of NHS patients on oxygen support died; in Marseille only 5 per cent of hospitalised patients were lost. And 13 per cent of NHS patients not requiring breathing support still died, but only 0.6 per cent of patients treated in Marseille with Raoult’s hydroxychloroquine combination therapy.

Interviewed by Emily Maitlis on Newsnight, Professor Horby admitted that survival rates had to get better, but we could build on this ‘with other drugs’. Just call Dr Varón, Professor: he will tell you what you need to do. Emily swooped in with hydroxychloroquine, now pulled from RECOVERY: The Lancet had published planted fake news, so where were we now? The Zoom screen froze, and when it came back Horby was fingering his face throughout. They had shown no benefit with hydroxychloroquine in hospitalised patients. And this was with ‘proper trials’, rather than ‘just data from observational studies’ (which RECOVERY has now become, via the back-door introduction of remdesivir). He acknowledged that there might be some help from hydroxychloroquine in mild cases, or in prevention, so some ‘ongoing trials could be continued’, but ‘I must say the future does not look very rosy for this drug.’

So that’s what he ‘must say’. But the objective with hydroxychloroquine isn’t to make a ‘rosy future’ for a drug costing 3p per pill that nobody will ever make a bean from. It’s to keep patients out of hospital altogether, and avoid that hideous 13 per cent mortality even if you don’t need respiratory support (when dexamethasone won’t help). A ‘rosy future’ is what Gilead wants for remdesivir and Astra-Zeneca wants from mass vaccinations.

Hype notwithstanding, this is a bad week indeed for the fight against Covid. The truth will out in the end through unavoidable comparisons with other countries’ strategies. To avoid digging ever-deeper holes, Professors Horby and Landray must fess up with their full clinical data, not just for dexamethasone (paper promised) but also for hydroxychloroquine (publication not mentioned). To sink France Soir’s charge that they must ‘never put low-cost hydroxychloroquine therapy in direct competition with remdesivir’, Horby needs to talk to his colleague Professor Chris Butler, heading the GP-based ‘PRINCIPLE’ trials of Covid-19 treatments, about a trial of the Marseille combination and the related ‘Zelenko protocol’ with zinc supplements.

The radical way forward isn’t just testing and tracing. It is early treatment within days, aiming to knock out the virus with cheap and simple pills, as explained in France Soir (again).

And Boris Johnson needs to recognise that, like Churchill in Darkest Hour, he is surrounded by enemies who will topple him if they can, and is prisoner of advisers incapable of thinking outside their boxes. If they can’t do some of that, he needs some new advisers. This your Darkest Hour, Boris: let’s have some real leadership. Without that, God help us all.   
- Advertisement -

MY last article on the termination of one ‘arm’ of theUK’s ‘RECOVERY’ clinical trials of Covid-19 treatments reported the car-crash interview given to France Soir by Professor Martin Landray, deputy chief investigator of the Oxford University project, which raised questions on the dosage of hydroxychloroquine used. These dosages were widely suspected to be toxic. The story did not end there.

Stung by charges that Landray thought that hydroxychloroquine was used in amoebic dysentery, and might have confused hydroxychloroquine with the hydroxyquinolines – totally different drugs – chief investigator Professor Peter Horby swung into action. He chose to brief the French Communist paper Liberation, vehemently denying any confusion. France Soir was mis-reporting: Landray had meant amoebic hepatic abscess (AHA) for which the older chloroquine has been used, at heavy doses, citing WHO guidance from 1995. France Soir stuck to its guns: Landray had said amoebic dysentery, twice. An audio clip of the interview was released on Monday; judge for yourself.

Horby’s protestations about AHA begin to look like weaving a tangled web. Nor did Horby explain Landray’s guess at the lethal dose. A 2017 article estimates lethality from overdose at around 4 grams; against this, even the actual trial dose of 2.4 grams in the first 24 hours appears to sail close to the wind.

Worse followed: on Monday France Soir led on its front page with a bombshell article headed ‘RECOVERY: Incompetence, Lying, Manipulation and Big Bucks’. This rehearsed the confusion between drugs, the misremembered lethal dose, inconsistencies between protocol and analysis plan, the lack of information on death (Covid or overdose?) in the hydroxychloroquine ‘arm’ of the trial, the inclusion of the experimental anti-viral remdesivir into the treatments, the backgrounds and networks of the chief investigators and their funding sources.

The inclusion of remdesivir, the experimental anti-viral from Gilead Sciences, into RECOVERY is odd. It was not originally on the list. Yet on May 27 it was suddenly included, but not in a separate ‘arm’ of the study. ‘Patients who are already receiving remdesivir can still be recruited into RECOVERY . . . Similarly, participants can receive remdesivir and continue their assigned treatment(s)’. This makes a nonsense of the trial’s claim to be a randomised controlled trial, with clear separation between treatments given to patients. The study mixes patients receiving one trial drug and remdesivir with those receiving the trial drug alone. The design is now hopelessly compromised.

Probing alleged conflicts of interest, France Soir notes the co-authorship of Professor Horby on papers reporting trials of Gilead’s remdesivir (there was no benefit in mortality), an agreement between his department and Astra-Zeneca for development of Oxford’s vaccine candidate, and generous funding from the Gates Foundation. Professor Landray has multiple interests in Big Data, funded by a major Gilead stockholder. Two members of the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency board (MHRA) have declared stockholder interests in Astra-Zeneca, the company with a deal to supply France and Germany with 400million doses of a vaccine that doesn’t yet exist and which is in merger talks with Gilead in a plan to create the world’s largest pharmaceutical company.

But as previously noted, the possibility of a cheap and easy treatment for Covid from re-purposed generic drugs, especially hydroxychloroquine, is a mortal threat to these financial interests. As France Soir put it: the trial management must ‘never put low-cost hydroxychloroquine therapy in direct competition with remdesivir’. Or with mass vaccination.

All this wasn’t getting a good press, but things looked up on Tuesday with another Oxford press release, this time on the dexamethasone arm of the trial. This well-known corticosteroid drug reduced fatalities by a third in patients on ventilators, and by one-fifth in patients on oxygen. Patients not requiring respiratory support got no benefit. France Soir wasn’t impressed, but the ever-credulous BBC was ready to headline this great British triumph and Professor Horby was on the podium with the Prime Minister. Johnson seized on the good news and both Landray and Horby were featured on Newsnight. Dexamethasone will be used in NHS hospitals at once. Hooray!

So what has been achieved? The reduction in mortality isn’t wonderful. ‘Reducing deaths of ventilated patients by a third’ actually means (from Oxford’s own press release) that ‘one in around eight’ ventilated patients can be saved with dexamethasone. About five of the eight would have got better anyway, and two will still die. Similarly one death will be prevented in 25 patients on oxygen support. For patients not needing support, no benefit: 13 per cent of those still died, comparable to the case fatality ratio for the country as a whole, now standing at a wretched 14.2 per cent. Compare Turkey, with almost 60 per cent of our cases, but only 2.7 per cent fatal; or the UAE, with comparable cases per million, and a mere 0.7 per cent fatal.

The use of an anti-inflammatory corticosteroid drug in the inflammatory stage of the disease at least makes sense, but is that new? Well, no. Doctors elsewhere realised early that both inflammation and micro-thromboses were grave dangers, and started using both anti-inflammatories and blood thinners in the later disease stages. The so-called ‘MATH+’ protocol is one, used by Dr Joseph Varón in a small hospital in Houston, Texas, with close to 100 per cent success. The ‘M’ stands for methylprednisolone, an industrial-strength corticosteroid, the same drug class as dexamethasone. ‘H’ is for Heparin, an anti-coagulant. Look at his personal protective equipment (PPE)  and be jealous. Look at his recovery rates (100 per cent at 24 May) and weep.

The elephant in the room, unreported by the BBC, is the hideous mortality for those receiving NHS ‘standard of care’. Professor Raoult in Marseille called it ‘monstrous’. Forty-one per cent of ventilated NHS patients died within 28 days; it’s 16 per cent in the Marseille ICU. Twenty-five per cent of NHS patients on oxygen support died; in Marseille only 5 per cent of hospitalised patients were lost. And 13 per cent of NHS patients not requiring breathing support still died, but only 0.6 per cent of patients treated in Marseille with Raoult’s hydroxychloroquine combination therapy.

Interviewed by Emily Maitlis on Newsnight, Professor Horby admitted that survival rates had to get better, but we could build on this ‘with other drugs’. Just call Dr Varón, Professor: he will tell you what you need to do. Emily swooped in with hydroxychloroquine, now pulled from RECOVERY: The Lancet had published planted fake news, so where were we now? The Zoom screen froze, and when it came back Horby was fingering his face throughout. They had shown no benefit with hydroxychloroquine in hospitalised patients. And this was with ‘proper trials’, rather than ‘just data from observational studies’ (which RECOVERY has now become, via the back-door introduction of remdesivir). He acknowledged that there might be some help from hydroxychloroquine in mild cases, or in prevention, so some ‘ongoing trials could be continued’, but ‘I must say the future does not look very rosy for this drug.’

So that’s what he ‘must say’. But the objective with hydroxychloroquine isn’t to make a ‘rosy future’ for a drug costing 3p per pill that nobody will ever make a bean from. It’s to keep patients out of hospital altogether, and avoid that hideous 13 per cent mortality even if you don’t need respiratory support (when dexamethasone won’t help). A ‘rosy future’ is what Gilead wants for remdesivir and Astra-Zeneca wants from mass vaccinations.

Hype notwithstanding, this is a bad week indeed for the fight against Covid. The truth will out in the end through unavoidable comparisons with other countries’ strategies. To avoid digging ever-deeper holes, Professors Horby and Landray must fess up with their full clinical data, not just for dexamethasone (paper promised) but also for hydroxychloroquine (publication not mentioned). To sink France Soir’s charge that they must ‘never put low-cost hydroxychloroquine therapy in direct competition with remdesivir’, Horby needs to talk to his colleague Professor Chris Butler, heading the GP-based ‘PRINCIPLE’ trials of Covid-19 treatments, about a trial of the Marseille combination and the related ‘Zelenko protocol’ with zinc supplements.

The radical way forward isn’t just testing and tracing. It is early treatment within days, aiming to knock out the virus with cheap and simple pills, as explained in France Soir (again).

And Boris Johnson needs to recognise that, like Churchill in Darkest Hour, he is surrounded by enemies who will topple him if they can, and is prisoner of advisers incapable of thinking outside their boxes. If they can’t do some of that, he needs some new advisers. This your Darkest Hour, Boris: let’s have some real leadership. Without that, God help us all.   
https://www.conservativewoman.co.uk/recovery-the-plot-sickens/
« Last Edit: October 06, 2020, 12:34:10 PM by Robert »
Over a million Americans have died completely unnecessary, horrific, deaths from COVID-19. Do you have a plan in place to help your family dodge the average $73,300 COVID hospital bill, through prevention and a $20 EARLY treatment protocol? https://www.covidtreatmentoptions.com/