IMPORTANT: Doctor's Forum on HCQ Fights Back Against Facebook -- Obliterates Garbage 'Fact-Check' Site on Deeply Flawed Analysis that Has Killed Thousands

You can’t hide the truth forever.

At some point the people in America and the world will wake up and see they were lied to about the coronavirus and its treatment.
And at some point the so-called experts and their supporters will be held to account.

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!

America has lost (reportedly) over 150,000 lives.

That could have been lowered, by possibly tens of thousands of lives, if HCQ use would have been promoted in the United States.

As a result of Dr. Fauci’s lies the US has a worse coronavirus record than numerous third world countries.

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.

Authors cherry-pick 5 of over 70 studies. Authors cherry-pick 5 studies to support their claim of inefficacy, neglecting to mention the other 65+ studies, and neglecting to mention that every one of the 5 they cite is discussed in detail in our paper (and we reference all of the 65+ other studies as well).

This site has cherry-picked and misrepresented research in the past. We note this site has a history of cherry-picking and misrepresenting research in this area, see [this report] for example, where authors conveniently cherry pick less than one third of studies supporting their conclusion, and claim flaws in studies not supporting their conclusion, while ignoring flaws in studies supporting their conclusion. For example, authors say one study “concluded that HCQ did not prevent COVID-19 infection within four days after exposure”, however the treatment in that study (an Internet survey RCT) was not even administered within four days – medication was actually shipped to patients, and shipping was not done over the weekend. It appears unlikely that authors read the studies they are using. In another example they note a trial of “mild to moderate” patients showing no improvement, while neglecting to mention that “mild to moderate” in this study refers to hospitalized patients with 14% randomized in the ICU, and neglecting to mention the very late treatment.

Claims intense debate on safety. While debate continues on efficacy, the majority of those closely following the research (on both sides) agree that early safety concerns (largely from the retracted Lancet study), were unfounded and not supported by subsequent trials, especially for early treatment.

Relies on Twitter personalities. Authors refer to extremely inaccurate analysis from an extremely biased Twitter personality. See our response.

Random claims about connections. They make random claims about connections with other Twitter accounts because they were referenced as providing feedback, an implied ad hominem attack.

False analysis claims. “The authors made all of their calculations using the sample size of 2.7 billion people, based on the population sizes of countries in both groups, which invalidates all their statistical analyses and the conclusions they drew from them.” Nothing about this is correct. The entire population is used in only one instance, where we present the relative risk for the entire population in each group (which is approximately the same as when averaging across countries).

Claims a sample size of 19. The number of deaths alone in the countries analyzed is over 300,000.

Claims missing details with no examples. However, this is a very simple analysis and we believe that all data and details to reproduce the results are provided.

Incorrectly claims IFR should be used. Authors apparently did not read the paper which explains why case statistics are not reliable.

Incorrectly claims not a randomized clinical trial. Indeed, it’s not a clinical trial, but we have never said it is. Authors are confusing “clinical” with “controlled”. It’s a trial – a medication is certainly being trialed. It’s controlled – there is a control group. It’s randomized – the group a person gets is random and chosen in advance, independent of their medical status or the membership of the other group (in contrast to a retrospective observational study).

Irrelevent ecological fallacy discussion. Claims ecological fallacy (you cannot directly infer the properties of individuals from the average of a group), however the study does not do this.

Claims “observational ecological analysis”. However this is a prospective study – assignments were done in advance, a person’s assigment was random, independent of their medical status, and there is a control group.

Ignores adjustments. Authors note the demographic differences between countries, failing to note that we actually adjust for these.

Claims “numerous large and robust clinical trials which suggest no beneficial effect of hydroxychloroquine treatment in COVID-19 patients”. While there are negative trials for late stage treatment, all trials concerning early treatment are either positive or inconclusive.

Summary. This review appears to have been done by people who are unfamiliar with the existing body of research, are not interested enough in accuracy to even contact us, and rely on claims from biased Twitter personalities rather than reading the paper.