UK investigators used an unusually large dose - why?
E￼xcellent article as always Phil. However in looking at this issue we need to look at the wider context of what was going on in the UK at the same time.
There were two types of trials ongoing in the UK at this time the Recovery Trial and Principle Trial. The Principle Trial looked at early treatment before hospitalisation.
The Principle Trial had an initial criteria of 7 days from onset of symptoms/test result to be admitted to the trial. This was strangely changed to 14 days for the Hydroxychloroquine trial. This alone raises a question about whether the trial was designed to fail.
Then we have the following timeline:
22 May 2020 The Lancet publishes study on Hydroxychloroquine, reports that hydroxychloroquine and chloroquine increased the risk of in-hospital death by 30% to 40% and increased arrhythmia by a factor of 2 to 5.
22 May 2020, The Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Authority (MHRA) instructed the PRINCIPLE trial of community-based treatments for COVID-19 illness to suspend recruitment into its hydroxychloroquine arm, based on the findings of an observational study of hospitalised patients in the Lancet.
24 May 2020 statement from the Recovery Trial ‘On Friday 22nd May we received a letter from the MHRA in which they notified us of their concerns relating to the use of hydroxychloroquine as a treatment for patients with COVID-19 in the light of the recent publication by Mehra et al in The Lancet on 22 May 2020.
We have held two videoconferences with the MHRA and provided a detailed response which is summarised below.
This morning we have received written confirmation from the MHRA that, “it is acceptable to allow continued randomisation into the hydroxychloroquine arm of the trial.”’
4 June 2020 The medical journal The Lancet on Thursday retracted the large study on the use of hydroxychloroquine to treat COVID-19 because of potential flaws in the research data.
So we have the Principle trial which was using the much smaller dosage 200mg per day, stopped straight away but the Recovery trial using the very dangerous dosage allowed to continue. Then we have Chris Butlers, lead investigator, comments that he was surprised that the Principle trial was stopped.
I hope you’re going to cover this in future articles because the context tells you a lot about what was going on. The whole thing stinks to me.
Just like ivermectin, but in reverse . IVM was generally way underdosed , not used long enough , and patients started too late in disease process . They would have had problems trying to “justify “ overdosing with it because it’s so safe . Negative results was the predetermined end point for $UCE$$ . And Gates achieved it across the board.
Thanks for this article !
The worst in this story is perhaps that most of the patients in the Recovery trial had no viruses left to kill ! Indeed a majority had symptoms for more than 8 days when they enrolled. Hence for them speaking about antiviral effect, as the investigators do, was just pointless. Because after one week of symptoms, covid patients are either getting better or struggling with an inflammatory phase of the disease where immunomodulatory drugs are much more needed than antiviral ones.
In fact several studies did not find viable virus in patients after day 8 (https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2666524720301725) and, even in seriously ill patients, it has been observed that the probability to find viable virus after day 8 was less than 20% (https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-020-20568-4).
Landray is much more likely lying than catastrophically mistaken. In fact, the default assumption in a clearly botched study like this one should be fraud--in this case murder--until proven otherwise, especially for trials funded by pharma/Gates/Wellcome. We have standards of proof backwards in our industry-captured world. And as Peter McCullough says, any sudden death of a young, healthy person without antecedent disease should be attributed to the shot until proven otherwise. The nefarious should, for all the world to see, be required to display proof they are honest.
Hydroxychloroquine: Lethal doses given in trials to sabotage results | The BL
HydroxycH Maximum Dose:
-First dose: 800 mg salt (620 mg base)/dose
-Second, third, and fourth dose: 400 mg salt (310 mg base)/dose
1550 mg base.. 2000 mg salt form.
YOU ARE CORRECT... I retained links from way back re these TRIALS TO FAIL policies. They committed murder. Just like they used too lower dose over too short a timeframe in their IVERMECTIN TRIALS. GENOCIDE.!
Thanks Phil; excellent analysis, as usual.
John Campbell drew attention more than two years ago to the (lethally) high doses of HCQ used in the trials used to debunk the treatment. He was right, of course ... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2uzXHnUViro
I hope this info is helping Meryl Nass.
First recognized by Dr. Meryl Nass, I believe:
A fantastic article! It’s worth checking out what the insert in a packet of hydroxychloroquine recommends regarding dosage and potential side effects. Obviously there will be no established dosage for Covid but there will be recommended dosages for other acute and chronic conditions, this ‘common sense’ approach is usually the first port of call and makes it harder to argue that the overdose is accidental. As for using hydroxychloroquine in combination with other drugs it was widely known at the time that hydroxychloroquine acted as a zinc ionophore as per the Zelenko protocol.
Original Fauci and Trump press conference. The Nuremberg weasel Fauci helped poison people in the trials. He and Gates were behind the overdosing.
Go to www.WePatriot.org for lots of links. Jab injuries. Fauci fraud.
From what you have written so far, many of the women in the trials would have died from the poison.
Another well written and fascinating piece. Thank you!
I'm no medic but 25 years ago when I worked in subsaharan africa chloroquine 100mg weekly with proguanil daily was standard prophylaxis BUT Quinine is a different drug and used for treatment of malaria falciparum in our region. Are you confusing the two in your article?
OMG! Do we know what happened to those patients?