Wait, Hydroxychloroquine may have saved some lives?

The death of journalism VI

A new study hasn’t been peer reviewed yet, but it opens the door to a serious discussion that a form of the oft-ridiculed Hydroxychloroquine may have increased the survival rate of intubated COVID-19 patients by more than 100 percent.

A synopsis of the study, “Observational Study on 255 Mechanically Ventilated Covid Patients at the Beginning of the USA Pandemic”, said:

Introduction This observational study looked at 255 COVID19 patients who required invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV) during the first two months of the US pandemic. Through comprehensive, longitudinal evaluation and new consideration of all the data, we were able to better describe and understand factors affecting outcome after intubation….

Put starkly, the scientists–Leon G. Smith, Nicolas Mendoza, David Dobesh and Stephen M. Smith–said, “we found that when increased doses of co-administered HCQ [Hydroxychloroquine] and AZM [Azithromycin] were associated with >100% increase in survival.”

The authors are appropriately cautious about their findings, saying, “Future clinical trials need to consider the weight variance of hospitalized Covid patients and need to study therapeutics more thoughtfully.”

More detailed explanation is provided in News Medical:

When given together with AZM, the benefit was still more significant. Chances of survival increased further. Among those who received both > 3g HCQ and >1g AZM, almost half survived, compared to one in seven (16%) among patients who received one of these drugs at the same dosages.

Perhaps further studies will cast doubt on this study, but it flies in the face of the certain condemnation and ridicule of anyone who said the usefulness of this inexpensive and widely available drug as a COVID-19 therapeutic deserves a look-see.

As soon as the word Hydroxychloroquine came out of the mouths of President Donald Trump and FoxNews host Laura Ingram, they were denounced for being anti-science. That, despite the encouraging reports from clinicians who were actually treating patients.

Of course, the mainstream, corporate or legacy media (whatever you want to call them) joined in the auto-da-fé  spreading without question the anti-science rhetoric unleashed by liberals/progressives/Democrats. Without checking it out for themselves.

Will the media ever learn?


Leave a comment
  • I am sure this study will be banned by Facebook, Twitter, and ridiculed by fact checkers in NYT and WaPo. Can’t give Trump any credit-don’t forget, Biden developed the vaccines.

  • Will the media ever learn? The media have learned. Their reason for existence is to be the PR arm of the Democrat Party. And to think, the Soviet Union had only Pravda.

  • In reply to Richard Davis:

    Comparing our the legitimate free press in America with Pravda is repugnant. I take it you make an exception for Fox News and its epigones.

  • In reply to Aquinas wired:

    Sometimes the naked truth is repulsive. The media and the Democrat Party are one-in-the-same. I make no exception for Fox News and its news division. which echoes the mainstream media/Democrat Party talking points.

    One more thing: I do not watch Fox News. Who are your news sources? CNN? MSNBC? NYT's? WAPO? Vox? Daily Beast? HuffPost? WJPC? CBS/ABC/NBC? If so, they all report the same Democrat talking points. I do consume them when I can stomach it, and they all repeat the same words/phrases verbatim. Their idea of a hard-hitting question is to ask the senile dolt in the White House about his favorite flavor of ice cream.

  • This column is ridiculous. You even admit that the test results have not even been peer=reviewed and further studies may prove them incorrect. Yet you use these questionable test results to attack the Democrats and the mainstream media ( the free press that actually deals with facts and scientific proof).

    You call this journalism.

  • In reply to Aquinas wired:

    The mainstream media's reporting on therapeutics for Covid has been entirely negative. Not because treatments like HCQ and Ivermectin didn't work, but because it was on point politically with the Democrat Party to discourage any treatments and to push the experimental vaccines, because IF there were therapeutics that worked the vaccines would not have received experimental use authorization from the FDA. This is a great example of the Big Pharma-Democrat Party-Big Media axis of profit and coercion.

  • In reply to Richard Davis:

    Mr. A is a pest, an annoying pest. It's fun to swat at an annoying pest but the results only encourage more blather from the pest. I find it best to ignore the pest. I won't give this pest validation.

  • "medRxiv (pronounced "med-archive") is a free online archive and distribution server for complete but unpublished manuscripts (preprints) in the medical, clinical, and related health sciences. Preprints are preliminary reports of work that have not been certified by peer review. They should not be relied on to guide clinical practice or health-related behavior and should not be reported in news media as established information.."

    Let me repeat: These cited studies "should not be relied on to guide clinical practice or health-related behavior and should not be reported in news media as established information."

    'Clinical practice' means used by doctors to treat patients.

  • I wasn't evading the preliminary nature of the study and the need for further tests, as did the authors. Yet even the mention of the study sets you off, asserting that simply reporting on it is "ridiculous." Can you even for a minute poke your head out of your partisan shell?

  • In reply to Dennis Byrne:

    Trump's suggestion that this drug might prove useful was enough to end any further discussion. Period. Further studies? Forget it. Waste of time and money.

  • In reply to davegorak:

    You know, of course, that your sarcastic observation can work both ways.

  • In reply to jnorto:

    And your point is?

  • While you are into promoting unproven science, you should look into hyping stem cell therapy as a "miracle cure." Dozens of clinics around the country are promoting it as a universal cure, although it does not have FDA approval for this and the scientific foundations are lacking. But somebody believes in it and you should report it.


  • In reply to jnorto:

    Just curious. What's your definition of proven science?

  • In reply to Dennis Byrne:

    It's science confirmed by critical review by other scientists but most especially by replication of outcome. What is your definition?

  • In reply to jnorto:

    It's basically the same. But take notice. That definition does not rule out questioning the "confirmed" science. In fact--and this is what you ignore--the science continues to challenge, even "confirmed" conclusions. It's a fundamental part of science.

  • In reply to Dennis Byrne:

    Agreed, but the "questioning" is through scientific testing, not political or religious denial.

Leave a comment

  • Advertisement:
  • Advertisement:
  • ChicagoNow is full of win

    Welcome to ChicagoNow.

    Meet our bloggers,
    post comments, or
    pitch your blog idea.

  • Visit my new website

    I'm a freelance writer, editor and author. I can help you with a wide variety of projects. Check out my new website at www.dennisbyrne.net

  • Subscribe to The Barbershop

    Enter your email address:

    Delivered by FeedBurner

  • Dennis Byrne’s Facebook Fan Page

  • Like me on Facebook

  • Our National Debt

  • Twitter

  • Tags

  • Recent Comments

  • /Users/dennisby/Desktop/trailer.mp4
  • Advertisement: