Doctor’s Forum on HCQ Fights Back Against Facebook

Obliterates Garbage ‘Fact-Check’ Site on Deeply Flawed Analysis that Has Killed Thousands

Gateway Pundit By Jim Hoft

As The Gateway Pundit reported earlier.
The latest international analysis of hydroxychloroquine treatment on the coronavirus shows countries that endorsed early use of the drug had a 77.4% lower mortality rate than countries that banned the use of the safe malaria drug.

This means that Dr. Fauci, Dr. Birx, the CDC, the liberal fake news media and the tech giants have been pushing a complete lie with deadly consequences!

Here is the website that has compiled all of this international data.

Even developing nations Ukraine, Greece, Cuba, Morocco, Indonesia and Algeria fared better than the US under Dr. Fauci!
To this day Dr. Fauci, Dr. Birx, the CDC and the FDA refuse to promote the use of HCQ in the early treatment of hydroxychloroquine.

After TGP posted this information Facebook started banning and deleting the information.

Facebook based their response on the garbage “fact check” website “Health Feedback” and their highly flawed reporting.

On Monday we reached out to HCQ Trial and they obliterated the bogus report by “Health Feedback.”

This was a methodical take-down of a very corrupt group used by Facebook to shut down life-saving reporting on the coronavirus.

Via HCQ Trial:Health Feedback Response

Clearly biased review.  Double quotes around “analysis” and “study” show the authors’ bias.Did not (and have not) contacted us. Authors have never contacted us, questioning their interest in accurate reporting.

Incorrectly claims that we assume all individuals in treatment countries are treated.  We don’t. Anyone reading as far as the second sentence of the paper will know this. For the analysis to be useful, we only need to know that usage is significantly higher in treatment countries, which is supported by hundreds of references.

Claims 100% adherence in RCTs.   Claims that 100% adherence is required in an RCT, however imperfect adherence is common. For example, adherence in the NEJM PEP study was 75%.

Claims cherry-picking on countries clearly not in either group.   Authors did not read the paper. They claim cherry picking for Brazil, Spain, and Italy. However, the study compares countries that made clear decisions for the majority of their outbreak. Brazil, for example, started usage relatively late and has increasing but very mixed use. Extensive supporting references are provided in the Appendix. Authors are correct that Indonesia should have been excluded (this has been corrected).

Incorrectly claims we stated HCQ was 100% effective.   We never stated this, and it makes no sense. While at this time, 100% of papers in certain categories present positive results, we very clearly state that the nature and degree of these results varies widely.

Baseless claims of misprepresention of other clinical trials.   Authors provide no details of any incorrect claim in our paper, while misrepresenting our study and other studies themselves. It is true that a few studies have claims unsupported by the data, which we note. Interestingly, authors here appear to believe that certain studies could not have any errors, a standard which is apparently selectively applied to benefit their conclusion.

Read More at Gateway Pundit

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s