Sabotaging Hydroxychloroquine? Why Are Tests Only On Hospitalized Patients?

AP Photo/John Locher

I am not a fan of conspiracy theories but I’m starting to think there is some sort of organized effort to sabotage any actual study of the efficacy of the Hydroxychloroquine, Azithromycin and Zinc Sulphate drug cocktail that’s being advocated by Doctors Didier Raoult in Marseille and Vladimir Zelenko in New York.

The treatment period, from what I’ve seen, averages 5 days, the drugs are cheap and readily available, and, notwithstanding the media’s ominous description of these drugs as “unproven” and “controversial”, their side effects and safety profile have been established for decades.

Now, we’re apparently getting results from studies by supposedly independent researchers largely refuting Raoult and Zelenko’s observations. These has been greeted with celebratory stories in the Press, with many talking heads – with zero medical experience – insisting with knowing smirks that there was never any chance at the outset that the Hydroxychloroquine combo ever offered any hope as a therapeutic.

The thing is, so far, I don’t think any one of these studies actually tested the claims these doctors are actually making. And looking at the upcoming studies, hardly any are doing so as well.

These men are making specific claims based on observational studies of their patients; approximately 90% of their patients who are infected with COVID-19, who are given this drug combination early on when the symptoms range from mild to between moderate and severe, recover swiftly, and are all virtually virus free and non-infectious by the fifth day of the regimen. This treatment can therefore be effective for reducing transmission from asymptomatics to others.

In other words, Raoult, Zelenko and numerous other doctors who have treated their patients with the same drug cocktail have made it very clear that this is most useful when given as soon as possible – before the patient is in severe enough condition to require hospitalization.

This is consistent with standard medical practice. No physician waits for a disease to become more severe before giving treatment. Indeed, for most medical conditions, doctors swear by early intervention and actively work to prevent hospitalization.

I should pause here to point out that Senegal, in West Africa, has less than 15 fatalities and they credit their testing program and swift prescriptions of Hydroxychloroquine (widely available to combat malaria – which is endemic) and quarantine for their numbers.

Yet, in the majority of the independent studies that purport to be refuting their claims, the patients’ symptoms are advanced to the point of already being hospitalized, have pre-existing conditions (including advanced age) on a scale that is atypical of the population at large and that may affect their tolerance of the drugs.

Many of these studies also appear to only administer Hydroxychloroquine *or* Azithromycin, not the two drugs in combination or in the dosages recommended, and, in almost all cases, exclude Zinc.

So, even though Raoult and Zelenko have provided the exact conditions in which their drug cocktail would show the best results, in New York, they provided the treatment and apparently observed outcomes for only those who were severely ill enough to be hospitalized.

I see the same situation in South Dakota – Sanford Health is focusing its study, in partnership with the state, of the effect of Hydroxychloroquine (with and without Azithromycin and Zinc) on COVID-19 patients who are already hospitalized.

So I’m wondering, what gives?

One would assume two weeks would be enough to carry out a study on a 5 day treatment regimen to verify or falsify its effectiveness under the conditions specified by those advocating for it.

Instead, it seems as if every effort is bent toward researching a different hypothesis and proclaiming the original hypothesis to be wrong.

So, I’m either confused or there’s something wrong here.