Myths about hydroxychloroquine

The United States and Europe stand apart from the rest of the world in their opposition to the drug

Obviously one of the most controversial and idiotically emotional arguments over Covid has been whether or not to use hydroxychloroquine. As Americans, we had embraced it during our past Covid outbreaks, we had embraced it fairly early in the stages of our current Covid, and then it became political and all hell broke loose.

While there have been a million and one different studies, the most consistent thing we know about the drug is that it appears to work when provided very early in the process, and that most every country that has used it to this degree has had success.

Countries that used hydroxychloroquine as an early means of mitigation vs those who didn't

On the flip side, countries more worried about their politics than their national health (such as the United States and European countries) have gone back and forth in regards to hydroxychloroquine, and most have (at one point in time) created some sort of ban on a drug that has proven to be safe for use with everyone, including pregnant and nursing women. More to the point, at one point WHO actually came out against the drug, only to step back later and change their mind

Chart by John Hopkins of what happened when the Swiss temporarily suspended the use of hydroxychloroquine

What the drug doesn't do is apparently help much once a patient has been hospitalized. These are the studies that the American media has focused on, while ignoring those that suggest the the drug has been successfully used when given early on. But this runs counter to our own medical guidance by our own experts who demand that "isolation" is more important than any sort of treatment.

However, the NIH promoted a much different strategy for the United States. The “Fauci Strategy” was to keep early infected patients quarantined at home without treatment until they developed a shortness of breath and had to be admitted to a hospital. Then they would they be given hydroxychloroquine. The Food and Drug Administration cluelessly agreed to this doctrine and it stated in its hydroxychloroquine Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) that “hospitalized patients were likely to have a greater prospect of benefit (compared to ambulatory patients with mild illness).”

The reality is that there is little overall tangible empirical evidence to suggest that the countries using hydroxychloroquine are wrong to be doing so, but an incredible amount of empirical evidence that they are correct to do so. Just that that evidence isn't coming from the United States and we have been largely manipulated and gas-lighted by an anti-Trump American media who provide us with what they want us to know.

There are now 53 studies that show positive results of hydroxychloroquine in COVID infections. There are 14 global studies that show neutral or negative results -- and 10 of them were of patients in very late stages of COVID-19, where no antiviral drug can be expected to have much effect. Of the remaining four studies, two come from the same University of Minnesota author. The other two are from the faulty Brazil paper, which should be retracted, and the fake Lancet paper, which was.

So how many of those 53 studies have we heard about? Most all of them have been attacked, derided, misinterpreted, or just outright ignored by our American media... all the while we continue to have one of the highest rates of deaths in the entire world.

When this is all said and done, the determination will no doubt be that social distancing, lock down, mask wearing, and other politically woke popular responses will be shown objectively and statistically to have helped very little. Studies are already coming out showing this has been the case across the entire globe. What happens if the evidence is irrefutable that early use of hydroxychloroquine was actually the thing that separated successful from unsuccessful countries in their response to Covid?

Will anyone actually say they were sorry?