A sickening cover up

Last week, I forwarded a video link about three Chinese physicians (led by Dr. Gang Li) who were talking about the emerging evidence of the effectiveness of using hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) in treating COVID 19 in fighting back the Democratic Party's encirclement and suppression of hydroxychloroquine sulfate,  which could potentially save lives.  You can view it here. This posting triggered a discussion in my group about the validity of the information and whether one should believe Dr. Li vs the other negative evidence widely published. I'm not here to tell you who is right or wrong as there is basically no firm conclusion anyone can draw at the moment and you have to rely on your own judgement to make a call. But I do want to post some of my personal thoughts about this broad debate in the country whether HCQ should be considered for treating the lethal virus. 

As you may know, healthcare issues are hardly a rocket science but rather more of an art. As such, it is difficult to draw a simple line and treat them as a black or white issue. Drug development in general is an enormously difficult and complex process and one can hardly make a final conclusion just based on one or two or more even well designed clinical trials.We all know that any so-called evidence has its limitations. It can only be based on whether the information from its source is correct or not! Specific to drug research and development, randomized trials, if failed, can only indicate that the drug is not applicable and effective for the tested patient population, for the tested formulation, dosage and/or ways of administration of the medication, the tested treatment regimen, age group, etc. However,  it does not necessarily mean that the drug is definitely useless. In other words, even if a drug fails the golden standard testing for drug approval (i.e. passing Phase 1, II, III clinical trials with favorable risk/benefit ratio), it dose not prove the total failure of the drug for a specific disease. It may simply mean those testing the drug may have not found the right conditions for its efficacy.  One famous example in the oncology world is the drug called Gleevec. It had failed many trials before it succeeded and was almost killed by the company, but in the end, the then CEO of the company insisted on continuing to test and fortunately for cancer patients, it finally succeeded and has become a revolutionary anti-leukemia miracle drug. 

Give you another example with some personal connection. Sandimmune is a revolutionary immunosuppressive drug. It is precisely due to the availability of this drug that organ transplantation becomes possible. But the drug was originally developed as an antibiotic and it had not been successful. Even when some evidence showed up for its immunosuppressive effect, the company was still hesitant to develop it. The driving force for developing this drug as an immunosuppresant is Professor Borel. But believe or not, the plan for developing this drug was turned down five times by the senior management. However,  with the persistent efforts and tenacity of Professor Borel, it was eventually pushed through the R&D process and finally became a revolutionary first ever immunosuppressant widely used in organ transplantation! Therefore, Professor Borel has been nominated for the Nobel Prize many times, but unfortunately he has never won. My wife should be regarded as his last student (关门弟子）, who had worked in his laboratory for several years. So I was also fortunate to know Professor Borel in person. He is really a very kind and humble old man and I can only say he didn't have enough luck to secure a very deserved Nobel prize for his revolutionary contribution to the mankind!  

Here is my opinion of this drug HCQ. While I'm certainly not saying that this drug has been definitely proved for its effectiveness for treating COVID 19, I do feel, after reading a lot of different sources of information, that this medicine is likely efficacious to some extent. I'm personally convinced for its usefulness that it just depends on how to use it, such as whether it should be used in the early stage, low-doses. and combined with  azithromycin  and zinc, etc.  More importantly, I think doctors have the morals to let patients know about various possibilities and options available for patients. Depriving patients' right to know the evidence of the efficacy of a potentially life-saving medicine is not only unethical but even an act of murder! I think this is exactly what the Democrats with the help of the left dominated media are doing right now. They are trying all their effort to only promote negative news for HCQ and suppress any positive evidence that has been provided by various medical professionals. This is the sickening cover-up and I'm sure many patients may have lost their life simply due to lack of the knowledge and were fooled and deprived of the valuable information that could be considered in their early treatment. Here are some facts about the results of clinical trials for HCQ, which you won't hear from the major media. I also include a Chinese blog below regarding the disgraceful cover-up that in my opinion is nothing different from murdering people!! 

  

Of course, I'm not here to try to convince anyone for using HCQ.  Everyone should have their own judgment and should make their own decision what to believe and what to choose. After all, your life, your decision! What I can say is that I'm personally convinced that there is sufficient evidence already to suggest the effectiveness of HCQ in treating COVID 19. Don't be stupid to tell me it is not 100% efficacious as no drug is 100%. But I think at least it is worth considering, especially in the early stage of infection. Therefore here is my choice:  if I happen to be infected with early signs and symptoms of COVID 19, I will definitely use HCQ as soon as possible!  

羟氯喹的离奇故事

　　3月中旬，川普称羟氯喹对COVID19有疗效。

　　3月底，纽约医生Vladimir Zelenko用羟氯喹组合疗法，成功治愈了699名患者，无一死亡。

　　5月22日，顶级医学杂志《柳叶刀》突然发布一篇羟氯喹对COVID19无效的假论文（这篇文章在全球医学界的广泛质疑下，于6月初被撤销，成为学术腐败的经典案例）。

　　但此文影响深远，至今还有媒体炒作忽悠。《柳叶刀》文章出台后，福奇立刻冲到了一线，他在接受CNN采访时说，羟氯喹无效且有危险的副作用，呼吁停止临床使用。三天后WHO中止了对羟氯喹所有的临床研究，后面FDA禁止临床使用羟氯喹。

　　这与美国许多一线医生、其他国家一线临床的观点正好相反。

　　关于羟氯喹的安全性，作为一个使用了65年的常见药品，完全不用担忧。羟氯喹是用来治疗和预防疟疾，如果你去一个疟疾流行的国家，通常都会服用以防止疟疾。

　　关于羟氯喹的有效性，获得很多临床的独立数据支持，并可以相互验证。

　　意大利、中国、美国的研究者分别根据一手的临床资料得出了大致相同的结论：羟氯喹针对新冠病毒尤其是早期的新冠病毒防治有着良好的效果。

　　2月中旬，钟南山表示："氯喹是一个有效药"，被纳入《新型冠状病毒肺炎诊疗方案》的第六版和第七版。

　　3月中旬，上海市卫健委认为羟氯喹治疗COVID19有效且安全，被列为"上海方案"中治疗性药物首位。

　　印度卫生部门不但将羟氯喹广泛用于早期治疗，还将其推荐用于医生等高危人群的预防。

　　羟氯喹的作用机理，目前医学界正在研究。有媒体引用2003年福奇担任国家卫生院院长时，在《病毒学》上发布了羟氯喹对SARS病毒的安全和有效性的文章，现在的COVID19和SARS病毒有78%的相似度。

　　发现药物新的疗效，并不稀奇。最有名的例子是阿司匹林，经过多年使用，医生突然发现它还有预防心血管疾病的作用。

　　关于羟氯喹更诡异的事情，还在后面。

　　7月29日，有个"前线医生"组织成员的十几位一线医生，在华盛顿自行召开新闻发布会。他们声称，数月的临床经验一再证实，羟氯喹是目前治疗新冠病毒的最有效药物。数小时后，该发布会视频被Facebook、Google、Twitter和美国所有新闻网站下架。

　　一方说有效，一方说无效，大家各自表述，人们自行判断，这是社会的正常态。但美国网络巨头和媒体的做法，又重现了2016年大选前的一幕。真正试图操纵选举的，恰恰是这些只允许提供单一信息的网络巨头和媒体，和隐藏在它们背后的暗黑势力。

　　即使在这样的压力下，还是有一些医学专家站了出来。

　　耶鲁大学著名传染病学教授Harvey Risch认为：如果羟氯喹被广泛用于治疗冠状病毒，它可以挽救7.5万至10万人的生命。尽管临床所有的证据都指向有效，但唯一真正说出这一点的人是一大批在全国范围内治疗这些患者的一线医生。Harvey Risch直言福奇应该早点滚蛋。

　　还有一位黑人女医生，直接叫板那些声称羟氯喹无效的驴党政客：你提供一下父母家人的尿液测试一下，看看有没有偷偷地吃羟氯喹预防COVID19？

　　而福奇作为关键专家，和很多医疗界大佬一样，选择坚信《柳叶刀》的造假文章，也不愿意正视一线临床的实践数据。在7月31日CNN的再次采访中，福奇坚称所有"有效的"科学数据表明羟氯喹对治疗Covid-19无效。。