As Promised

So, it’s not a light read, but we think it’s worth it.

https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.05.28.21258012v1

For background, this was never a HCQ study.

I haven’t been able to use HCQ since December, I mean except in those two pts with political connections.

But I am not a firebrand. I am a physician.

Accordingly, we looked at everything we could think of.

We looked at prior medications, prior ER visits…everything we could get reliable data on.

When we saw the HCQ data, we actually hesitated, because we knew of the backlash, the scrutiny. By the way, less than 20% of this cohort were “our patients”.

Unlike all other observational studies, we analyzed treatment and laboratory data over time and, when appropriate, when considered cumulative doses and weight-adjusted doses.

In the end, 3 independent groups of statisticians reviewed these data. Each datum was simply taken from a patient’s chart. Each statistician group came up with similar or the same result –

HCQ cumulative dose correlates with survival.

Let me know what questions you have. For us, it’s a pyrrhic victory or rather, an empty feeling, these data tell us what we already thought –

A fantastic opportunity was missed.

Why did doctors dismiss HCQ so quickly and gleefully? I have no clue.

Why didn’t other doctors consider differences in pts’ weights or the pharmacokinetics of HCQ? Again, no clue.

We doctors are trained to assess these things; you know except in Covid.

There was a rush to prove that HCQ didn’t work. I cannot explain to you the motivation for this urge. But it’s time to move on.

Hopefully, those that threw away the basic tenets of science and Medicine will realize their mistakes and biases…hopefully.

I welcome sincere criticism and critique. Please bring it on but be professional. Don’t tell me you don’t believe in data or the analyses, because belief has no place in this arena. We vouch for the data; they are very accurate. We back the analyses, though done by statisticians, we vouch for their accuracy and relevance.

Please criticize this paper but do so with math and science. I won’t address criticisms based on hatred or bias. And be prepared, because if you criticize this paper, I will ask you to similarly criticize the studies, so poorly done, which you rely on to say “HCQ doesn’t work”. For instance, the RCT done on HCQ and AZM in Brazil had over 24% of the “Covid pts” had a negative Covid test or no test ever performed.

I like to think of myself as a good doctor.

Good doctors don’t care how their pts get better.

But they care like hell that they do get better.

So, if you think I somehow manipulated the data to prove myself correct, you’re out of your mind…your fucking mind.

SMS