Fake Studies and News on Hydroxychloroquine

There seems to be an endless stream of misleading or outright lying “studies” and articles about the hydroxychloroquine therapeutic cocktail for COVID-19.  And they prey on the ignorance, naiveté and casual reading/uncritical thinking of the public.  Or their pre-disposed biases.  There is little explanation for the perpetrators other than confirmation bias (the scientific and medical communities are not immune, and certainly not journalism), incompetence or outright dishonesty, apparently for political motivation.  But as with the investigation into the many FBI errors, random errors would err in different directions, but when all err in one direction, there's something more afoot. In any case, professional (medical, scientific & journalistic) malpractice.  Together with my own misdiagnosis described the other day, my faith in the medical community is being shaken.

This week saw the withdrawal of an anti-hydroxy “study” paper published in the ostensibly highly reputable British journal Lancet (echoes of “climategate”).  Here’s the latest untruth I saw in the newspaper a few days ago.  Note that it claims that Trump took it to try to prevent COVID-19, and says it was ineffective in the test at preventing it.  Total misrepresentation – no one has claimed that it prevents the disease – like a vaccine – it has only claimed (and been shown in many cases) to be an effective therapeutic to dramatically lessen the symptoms after contracting it, hasten recovery and lower the death rate. (Emphases are mine).  Unclear if the authors of the journal article, and/or the peer reviewers/editors of the New England Journal of Medicine, were dishonest (even if not before the fact, they should have corrected the article after the fact), and/or the journalists dishonest or incompetent.  Journalists (and movie makers) are known to misrepresent science (which I note with my degrees in science), but this misrepresentation requires no special medical knowledge – I claim none, just common sense and minimal knowledge of the news on the subject, which should be expected of a competent reporter. 

The article is a half-truth (many a lie is sold with one), though, in that at least, unlike many other spurious claims, it admits that it didn’t seem to cause serious harm.  Even use of “serious” is overstatement (could have dropped the term entirely or used a less dramatic term – it’s been safely used under doctor prescription for several decades), based on the “mild stomach problems” – hardly “harm.”  Many drugs (prescription and over-the-counter) touted in commercials have much more prevalence of truly serious or fatal side effects, even when correctly prescribed.   They clearly want to tie the drug’s supposed “failure” to Trump’s touting of it, mentioning him 3 times in the article.  And the study leader appears to very disingenuously give an air of objectivity to the study, saying “We were disappointed.  We would have liked for this to work.”  If they truly set out to test its effectiveness at preventing COVID-19 (which as doctors/researchers they clearly knew was not even claimed – even anecdotally, and were aware of widespread prophylactic use in the medical community), they were hardly disappointed, and very likely even secretly glad to try to put another nail in the hydroxy (and Trump) coffin, foisting yet another faux study on the public for political motives – not seeking truth or to save lives and suffering.  The valid test is for its effectiveness as a therapeutic.  And “evidence on the drug” will of course be “inconclusive” until valid tests & trials are not only performed, but published and correctly reported.  I'd also note that the study only mentioned hydroxy -- all therapeutic claims for it are only as part of a "cocktail" of 3 drugs that work in combination -- hydroxy to facilitate zinc absorption into the virus to kill it, the zinc itself, and the other an antibiotic to treat pulmonary infections caused by the virus. Some other "studies" have also only used the hydroxy.

From the Daily Breeze, June 4:

 “PANDEMIC STUDY

Malaria drug touted by Trump fails to prevent COVID- 19

“NEW YORK » A malaria drug President Donald Trump took to try to prevent COVID- 19 proved ineffective for that in the first large, high-quality study to test it in people in close contact with someone with the disease.

“Results published Wednesday by the New England Journal of Medicine show that hydroxychloroquine was no better than placebo pills at preventing illness from the coronavirus. The drug did not seem to cause serious harm, though about 40% on it had side effects, mostly mild stomach problems.

"We were disappointed. We would have liked for this to work," said the study leader, Dr. David Boulware, an infectious disease specialist at the University of Minnesota. The evidence on the drug so far has been inconclusive, he said.

“Hydroxychloroquine and a similar drug, chloroquine, have been the subject of much debate since Trump started promoting them in March.

FYI, “Confirmation bias is the tendency to search for, interpret, favor, and recall information that confirms or support one's prior personal beliefs or values. It is an important type of cognitive bias that has a significant effect on the proper functioning of society by distorting evidence-based decision-making.” [Wikipedia]

More and more “anecdotal” results of hydroxychloroquine – e.g., in Mumbai the police force of 10,000 were experiencing high mortality (at least 9), and they were given hydroxy. 4,500 of them took it faithfully, and of them, there were no further fatalities. Only one of several large (hundreds of patients) studies in multiple countries (France, etc.) with similar results. Enough such studies become more than merely “anecdotal.” Or the large number of U.S. health care workers taking it prophylactically. However politically incorrect it may be, “follow the data.”

As I’ve said before, it’s the obverse that is truly anecdotal – the guy touted by the media who took aquarium cleaner (has an ingredient that sounds like hydroxy but is clearly marked poison, and his wife is now being investigated for murder), or the small VA group given hydroxy who were in advanced stages if the illness (it can’t resurrect the dead – it has to be given earlier), or the wrong form/dose in Brazil. Or the very miniscule number with heart conditions for whom the medication is problematic – it’s been shown safe for several decades among those without those conditions, which is why it needs to be prescribed by doctors knowing the patient’s conditions. Many over-the-counter drugs can kill just as easily. 

But the politically motivated are vested in proving Trump wrong, however many may die because they are steered away from something that could save their lives, as many have testified. So for all their accusations that those pushing to open up after the long shutdown will have blood on their hands, how about the blood of those due to their limited stage-one thinking, or political blindness?  How many COVID-19 deaths could have been averted if they’d taken the hydroxychloroquine combination (shown effective when administered properly in several countries, and taken prophylactically by many U.S. healthcare workers)?  But the politically biased (Trump-contrarian) media frightened people away from it with a story of a guy killed by aquarium cleaner (not the right stuff), or emphasis on dangers to the small number with specific conditions (easily avoided by proper prescription), or a biased study with less success because it was administered too late to be effective?

And the Democratic assemblywoman in Michigan who acknowledges being saved by hydroxy is being censored by the Dems for thanking the president and going to the White House.  Sick Dems would rather people die than let Trump be right about anything.  Just as they’d rather see peoples’ livelihoods destroyed, and in likely many cases their lives, also, by an extended shutdown, to harm the economy and improve their chances in November.

It is also curious how widely and favorably Remdesevir is being touted, despite the apparently smaller samples and less significant results (maybe 30% shortening of the illness from 14 to 11 days), compared with the hydroxychloroquine cocktail.  Can anyone seriously wonder why that is?  They desperately hope for anything to work better than hydroxychloroquine.