May 29, 2020 by

See the source image

5.28.20 – Breitbart

“Study Prompting W.H.O. to Halt Hydroxychloroquine Trials Questioned”

Dr. Susan Berry

Excerpts from this article:

[COMMENTS FROM DONNA GARNER:  Please see my additional comments posted at the bottom of Dr. Susan Berry’s Breitbart article.]

The study that led the U.N.’s World Health Organization (W.H.O.) to halt clinical trials of the drug hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) as a treatment for the infection caused by the Chinese coronavirus has been called into question.

Physicians and researchers are raising concerns about the study, published in the Lancet, that stem from the fact that the source of some of the data for the study could not be determined.

The study upon which the W.H.O. based its decision reported it found no benefit of HCQ to COVID-19 patients who received the malaria drug since the researchers said they were dying at higher rates and experiencing an increased frequency of heart arrhythmias compared to patients with other viruses.

The researchers concluded:

Although observational studies cannot fully account for unmeasured confounding factors, our findings suggest not only an absence of therapeutic benefit but also potential harm with the use of hydroxychloroquine or chloroquine drug regimens (with or without a macrolide [antibiotic]) in hospitalised patients with COVID-19.

The authors of the study said among the data they received were those from five Australian hospitals that documented, as of April 21, 600 COVID-19 patients and 73 deaths.

However, as the Guardian Australia reported, Johns Hopkins University data showed “only 67 deaths from COVID-19 had been recorded in Australia by 21 April. The number did not rise to 73 until 23 April.”

“The data relied upon by researchers to draw their conclusions in the Lancet is not readily available in Australian clinical databases, leading many to ask where it came from,” the report noted.

In response to Guardian Australia’s questions about the data, the Lancet replied the study’s lead author said he received his data from a healthcare data analytics company called Surgisphere, the founder of which admitted they had mixed up data from an Asian hospital with those from Australia.

While the Surgisphere founder said the data error did not alter the findings of the study, Dr. Allen Cheng, an infectious disease physician from Alfred Health in Melbourne, said the names of the Australian hospitals should be made public and that he had never heard of Surgisphere.

“Usually to submit to a database like Surgisphere you need ethics approval, and someone from the hospital will be involved in that process to get it to a database,” Cheng told Guardian Australia. “If they got this wrong, what else could be wrong?”

He also questioned the fact that the Lancet study had only four authors.

“Usually with studies that report on findings from thousands of patients, you would see a large list of authors on the paper,” he said. “Multiple sources are needed to collect and analyse the data for large studies and you usually see that acknowledged in the list of authors.”

Other physicians tweeted their concerns about the Lancet study. 

[Please go to the full Breitbart article to see the tweets from more doctors who have serious doubts about the Lancet study —]

Another study conducted at Yale School of Public Health by Dr. Harvey Risch and published Wednesday at the American Journal of Epidemiology focused on the use of HCQ and azithromycin in early outpatient treatment.

Risch found that in five studies, including two controlled clinical trials, the drugs showed “significant major outpatient treatment efficacy” and concluded HCQ and azithromycin “need to be widely available and promoted immediately for physicians to prescribe.”

“Hydroxychloroquine+azithromycin has been widely misrepresented in both clinical reports and public media,” he noted, observing as well that “Remdesivir has shown mild effectiveness in hospitalized inpatients, but no trials have been registered in outpatients.”

Risch added:

Hydroxychloroquine+azithromycin has been used as standard-of-care in more than 300,000 older azithromycinazithromycin adults with multicomorbidities, with estimated proportion diagnosed with cardiac arrhythmias attributable to the medications 47/100,000 users, of which estimated mortality is <20%, 9/100,000 users, compared to the 10,000 Americans now dying each week.

Additionally, a cohort study conducted with 3,737 patients in Marseille, France, and published at Méditerranée Infection on Wednesday as well, found treatment with HCQ and azithromycin (AZ) was associated with a decreased risk of transfer to the ICU or death, lowered risk of hospitalization for more than ten days, and a shorter period of viral shedding.

“Early diagnosis, early isolation and early treatment with at least 3 days of HCQ-AZ result in a significantly better clinical outcome and contagiosity in patients with COVID-19 than other treatments,” the study concluded:

Dr. David Janda:

The Globalist Fear Police will not like this….. another study released today with over 3,000 patients reveals the EFFECTIVENESS of Hydroxy- Azith with only 3 patients having to stop the medications due to cardiac issues! @kksheld @Lrihendry @SidneyPowell1 @janehughesmd

…In a column at the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons, Dr. Elizabeth Lee Vlietwrote of the significance of HCQ, coupled with zinc, to be used at early onset of COVID-19 symptoms.

“More studies have replicated these findings,” she explained. “HCQ given within the first week of symptoms, especially with zinc, can prevent the virus from entering your body’s cells and taking over, much like people use locks and alarms to stop burglaries”:

“Waiting until you are in the ICU is like installing home locks and alarm system after burglars have invaded, vandalized your home, and stolen all your valuables,” Vliet added.


[ADDITIONAL RESOURCE:  5.14.20 –  “Fauci’s Remdesivir: Inadequate to Treat COVID-19 and Potentially Lethal: An Analysis of the Science and Politics” — By Peter R. Breggin, MD and Ginger Ross Breggin — ]


[COMMENTS FROM DONNA GARNER:  At the bottom of the 5.22.20 WND article (, Dr. Stephen Smith includes his concerns about the validity of the 5.22.20 Lancet study ( This was the study that concluded there was no benefit in treating COVID patients with hydroxychloroquine and its more toxic cousin, chloroquine, and that these meds could even increase the likelihood of people dying in the hospital.

I have gone through Dr. Smith’s statements and have tried to clarify them for the layman. I have also added a few statements of my own in brackets [   ].  To read Dr. Smith’s exact statements, please go to the last section of the above-mentioned 5.22.20 WND article.

Dr. Smith questions the fact that the authors of the Lancet study did not list the names of the North American hospitals involved in this study which makes it impossible for other researchers to verify the data.  

Then, too, none of the 100,000 patients in this Lancet study received hydroxychloroquine (HQ) in an out-patient setting – in other words, early-on during the first few days of being diagnosed with COVID.  Nearly all doctors who have utilized the HQ protocol successfully say it works best in the first several days of diagnosis – before patients get so seriously ill that they have to be sent to the hospital. That is part of the reason the HQ protocol has proved itself to be such a blessing – COVID patients who take it in the out-patient setting get such dramatic results that they do not have to be hospitalized!

To make the data even more questionable in the Lancet study, Dr. Smith noted that the hydroxychloroquine dosage was miniscule, “Yet, that nothing dose was associated with increased mortality rate, and that rate didn’t increase with co-administration of a macrolide, like azithromycin.”

The hospitalized COVID patients were divided into four different drug regimen groups with four different combinations of drugs.  Suspiciously, all four of the groups resulted in a mortality increase.  The four regimens were hydroxychloroquine alone, chloroquine alone, hydroxychloroquine with a macrolide (an antibiotic such as azithromycin), and chloroquine and a macrolide.

[Of special note is that none of the four groups was given zinc.  Also, out of the four regimens, two were given chloroquine which is well-known to have some troublesome side effects.]

[No one should talk about hydroxychloroquine/azithromycin without including the importance of giving patients zinc. HCQ is the facilitator while zinc is the actor. The HCQ promotes higher levels of zinc in the cells.  The higher level of zinc blocks COVID-19 from hijacking the cells’ own machinery to make more viral COVID-19.  Many people are marginally or seriously deficient in zinc; acute illness makes zinc deficiency worse. The COVID-19 treatment protocol should always call for both HCQ and zinc with or without azithromycin.]  

[Here is a study from NYU’s Grossman School of Medicine dated 5.2.20 that shows the importance of the three-drug protocol which must include zinc:  ]

As stated by Dr. Smith:“…since the real concern was the synergistic effect of azithromycin with hydroxychloroquine or chloroquine on the QT interval (heart arrhythmia)…azithromycin or a related antibiotic didn’t affect the mortality rates, which were similarly increased in all four treatment groups…That’s just really hard to understand.”

Dr. Smith asks why these 100,000 patients were admitted to the hospital in the first place when the vast majority of them did not even have serious breathing problems (hypoxic) and had a normal organ function score as reported in the ER.

Dr. Smith further pointed out that diabetes mellitus (or hyperglycemia) is a huge risk factor in North American COVID patients with a death rate of 36% (as reported by the American Medical Association and New England Journal of Medicine), yet this Lancet study had a rate of 13.7%.   In essence, did the authors way under-state the co-morbidity of diabetes so that they could conclude that taking HQ is just as dangerous as having diabetes? 

All of these shortcomings of the Lancet study should make all of us wonder if the authors of the study were so intent on politicizing HQ (for whatever reason) that they over-reached in their conclusions!

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.