HCQ controversy: who’s lying? – 2

By Modesto P. Sa-onoy

The leftists in the Philippines are militant only when issues serve their objectives but are mute about the restrictions on HCQ that indeed violate the rights of doctors and patients. The right to life is fundamental. Sadly even the Commission on Human Rights have clipped its mouth although it has been toothless for years.

The leftists know that the longer the present situation of collapsing economy and rising number of jobless workers and hungry families continue, the better for their purpose – a weakened government and millions of hungry people vulnerable to propaganda.

Be that as it may, let’s continue with the article of Dr. Joel Hirschhorn after his devastating initial presentation. Now he cites “evidence” as if in a grand jury to prove his case against the accused Anthony Fauci. Hirschhorn reminded us that Fauci had declared that there is no evidence that HCQ works. Here in the Philippines, Fauci’s claim was echoed by Dr. Edsel Salvana. Hirschhorn debunked their claim.

The evidence that Hirschhorn will cite are important to Filipino doctors here who insist that they would believe only after the completion of scientific studies, i.e. data and not anecdotal reports of success by practitioners.

Indeed, doctors are being what they are by training and for which reason people trust them. People rely on their expertise. I wonder though whether all of them cling to the belief that what is not scientifically studied by their rules or explained does not exist or believable. As one historian said, if it was not written it never existed.

Similarly, despite the flaws of scientific methods, many believe only what is measurable and systematically proven. Sadly if we relied on this methodology, life would indeed be boring. There is nothing left for faith.

And so, what has Hirschhorn to show or prove his claim that HCQ works, based, of course on scientifically collected data?

Hirschhorn cited many publications and detailed information demonstrating the proper and effective use of HCQ that has already saved millions of lives worldwide and could save millions more.

He claims, “evidence shows that HCQ should be taken very early, either at home in the first few days after a positive test or after symptoms deemed significant by a physician, or in the first days of hospitalization. Also, evidence shows that HCQ should be taken along with zinc and an antibiotic, such as doxycycline. Such a “cocktail” can stop the virus at its earliest stage before the very severe second stage.”

Hirschhorn cited The Economic Standard’s new white paper which argues that “HCQ has met the appropriate burden of proof and urges members of the U.S. news media, public health community, and regulatory agencies to stop politicizing the use of this medicine. …opponents have deprived many tens of thousands of Americans of a potentially life-saving treatment.”

But like other reports, Hirschhorn laments, “the critical role of Fauci in blocking broad use of HCQ is missing.” Why are they afraid of Fauci? Why, indeed that even governments obey him?

Hirschhorn cites hereafter several studies but due to limited space, I cannot include all his citations. I refer the research and scientifically inclined to the original article in The Catholic World Report (September 29) mentioned yesterday.

He mentioned a just-released Italian study of 3,451 hospitalized patients that found 30% less mortality, better than that reported for the very costly remdesivir in hospitals, touted by Fauci. An earlier, smaller Italian study found a 66% reduction in death in hospital patients. A Belgium study of 8,075 hospitalized patients found a 65% reduction. Likewise, a recent study from Saudi Arabia found 43% fewer hospitalizations and 45% fewer ICU admissions. For high-risk nursing home patients in Spain, HCQ cut the risk of a bad outcome in half.

According to Hirschhorn, there is a new analysis by R. Clinton Ohlers titled, “Effectiveness of hydroxychloroquine was hiding in plain sight.” An early widely publicized study concluded that HCQ was not effective in New York patients. In truth: “Survival rates for hospitalized patients who received the drug approached 85%” and “with azithromycin the survival rate rose as high as 90%.” Without either drug, “survival fell to levels as low as 53%.” Conclusion: “a highly effective, inexpensive, and widely available treatment for COVID-19 is already in hand.”

Continued tomorrow.