An article appearing in Science a few days ago has been circulated widely by the Left magazine, Portside. It reports on the retraction of a key study that presented hydroxychloroquine as an effective and safe treatment for Covid-19.
Some who should know better seized on the retraction without ever considering WHY it was retracted on narrow grounds, as supposed evidence that Hydroxychloroquine, Ivermectin, and Quercetin are worthless in fighting against Covid. Not only are they NOT worthless, but we actually have learned why they are important in anti-Covid protocoMost “alternative” researchers and medical practitioners, such as Dr. Vladimir Zelenko, focused on Vitamin D3, zinc, Vitamin C, N.A.C., and Azithromycin as crucial components of protocols that combat Covid. Along with Dr. Zelenko, they also utilized low-dose hydroxychloroquine as a “carrier” for the zinc to transport it directly to the affected cells, highly effective when it was administered in the very early stages of the illness. (The timing and sequence matters!) Other supplements, including Quercetin or Ivermectin, perform that same “carrier” function.
Contrary to the claim made in Science and in Portside, the withdrawn paper was NOT the only research done on hydroxychloroquine, which was shown too be effective when taken in the early stages of the disease and in conjunction with zinc, despite the implications otherwise in Cathleen O’Grady’s Science article. She reports that many later studies debunked the use of hydroxychloroquine in the protocols for treating Covid-19, but she fails to report that those studies omitted the necessary administering of Zinc and the fact that dangerously high dosages of HCL were used in the research, a much-too-high dosage that no practitioner was advocating and which indeed would be extremely dangerous.
It is at least a bit strange that the retraction reported in Science doesn’t seem to comprehend or report on the timing, sequence, and dosages which Dr. Zelenko et al. actually utilized effectively against Covid-19.
Additionally, the retraction seems to focus on methodological and ethical concerns focusing on whether Covid-19 patients had given prior approval to the administering of Azithromycin — required in France (it was a doctor in France, Didier Raoult, who promoted the use of Azithromycin) but not required in the U.S. These are no doubt important strictures, but they have nothing to do with addressing the biochemical mechanisms of the drugs/supplements themselves, which many practitioners like Vladimir Zelenko have noted. The retraction, however, says nothing to condemn hydroxychloroquine’s effectiveness when administered properly.
If correctly performed analysies would indicate that hydorxychloroquine turned out to be unsuccessful as part of protocols for treating Covid-19, then so be it. But they don’t show that, and hydroxy is indeed effective when administered properly. One should not have a stake in a study’s outcome, as a number of mRNA “inoculees” do; like O’Grady, they fail to research without bias and report fairly. The stupidity of taking sides due to preconceptions or simply wanting to trust in those promotng a drug and politicizing the results is, I suppose, a sign of the panicky, desperate idiocy we’re seeing all around us, but it should not be accepted as legitimate or honest reportage.
In that sense, neither should we accept the problematic last paragraph of O’Grady’s article, given what we now know of the dangers of the mRNA vaxxines, dangers that are now widely recognized. O’Grady, on behalf of Science magazine, gloats over the summation of the French Society of Pharmacology and Therapeutics with regard to the paper on hydroxychloroquine: “This series of events serves as a reminder of an essential point when it comes to medicines: Even in times of health crisis, prescribing medicines without solid proof of efficacy, outside the rigorous framework of well-conducted clinical trials, remains unacceptable,” the society says.
Absolutely right, as a general principle. So why do we not find O’Grady pointing out that the mRNA vaxxines at the very least offered no “solid proof of efficacy, outside the rigorous framework of well-conducted clinical trials?” Why the different standard, then, for studying hydroxychloroquine but not for the mRNA vaxxines? Her failure to raise that point with consistency indicates, again “at best”, a lack of objectivity and a vested interest in politicizing the outcome she’s reporting on.