Read on Twitter
So today at the Task Force Conference a propagandist said that a VA study showed that hydroxychloroquine "caused more people to die." So, I went and tracked down the & #39;study& #39; this evening and went through it. The short summary is both the propagandist and the & #39;study& #39; are BS. /1
To begin with, it was NOT a clinical study. It was a group of folks from Virginia and South Carolina that selected several hundred older patients who had "been treated" at the VA and went thru the medical records to try to created data for their narrative. /2
Even their terminology is a tell. Note they describe classifying patients based on "exposure to" instead of "treatment with." Note also the "two primary outcomes, ventilator and death"...even tho the primary outcome is recovery by a large margin. /3
Some things to note in their "results" synopsis in the beginning.
The % of the hC+AZ group that required ventilators was HALF the other 2 groups.
Their own rating of risk of death from ANY cause is on average 2.5x as high in the hC only group and up to 6x higher. /4
The % of the hC+AZ group that required ventilators was HALF the other 2 groups.
Their own rating of risk of death from ANY cause is on average 2.5x as high in the hC only group and up to 6x higher. /4
Their summary & #39;conclusion& #39; (the narrative) in the beginning is that hC+AZ does NOT help prevent being ventilated. Note this & #39;conclusion& #39; is in spite of their own data showing a 50% lower rate of ventilation when using hC + AZ. And their summary - "just die peons." /5
They drone on for pages about how they picked some cases from a VA database and what kind of data they acquired for use. No lab work from DURING treatment, no data on how long they had been sick, mainly just initial tests. Their "analysis" consisted of "estimates" and "models" /6
In their full "Results" section they admit there were SIGNIFICANT differences in the patients of the 3 groups in almost every category that affects outcome. Note again that the hC+Az treated group, in spite of worse factors, STILL had half the rate of patients on ventilators. /7
On page 11 they admit that their is a higher risk of death for patients in the hC treatment group.
Couple pages later they play word games tho and say "they were comparable." Sure - anything CAN be compared, but it is still fresh vs rotten apples. /8
Couple pages later they play word games tho and say "they were comparable." Sure - anything CAN be compared, but it is still fresh vs rotten apples. /8
Below is where they use the "comparable" phraseology. They then turn around and admit that those treated were more likely to be "severely ill" from jump. So the mildly ill are in the "comparable" group and also had fewer other adverse conditions. Quite the thumb on the scales. /9
Note above how they also say "as expected" there were more deaths in the more severely ill patients with more adverse underlying health conditions. Remember the reporter - "hC caused it!!"
https://abs.twimg.com/emoji/v2/... draggable="false" alt="🙄" title="Face with rolling eyes" aria-label="Emoji: Face with rolling eyes"> Not sure which is worse - study or reporter...all to "get" @POTUS /10
Several pages later, buried towards the end, they reluctantly throw in & #39;well maybe our study is pure BS and has a lot of issues.& #39; Gee, ya think? No "maybe" about it - it is badly skewed and faulty IMO. /11
Now we& #39;ll look at some of their *shared* data.
This 1st table is interesting. ALL non-hC patients were treated with something BEFORE they went on the ventilator. Not so with the other groups, which each appear to contain patients who went straight ventilator. (compare rows) /12
This 1st table is interesting. ALL non-hC patients were treated with something BEFORE they went on the ventilator. Not so with the other groups, which each appear to contain patients who went straight ventilator. (compare rows) /12
The 2nd table indicates how much sicker many in the hC and hC+AZ groups were.
73% of the non-hC group had great blood oxygen levels, 92% had unlabored breathing rates, and fewer excessive heart beat rates. /13
73% of the non-hC group had great blood oxygen levels, 92% had unlabored breathing rates, and fewer excessive heart beat rates. /13
As the table continues, the hC & hC+AZ groups had more initial higher temp patients and the hC only group had a 10% greater number of patients with excessively high blood pressure. The table goes on, more disparity, but you get the picture. /14
Those pre-existing conditions that caused more deaths, "as expected" per the study? They included things like asthma, cancer, HIV/AIDS, metastatic carcinomas, congestive heart failure, etc. - you know, minor things... /15
And the real bottom line besides the propagandist is an idiot and the report is part of a false narrative - that in spite of sicker patients with worse underlying health, the hC+AZ treated group needed fewer ventilators and had a higher recovery rate without them. /16
This is a perfect example of the BS that MSM propagandists spew, why you should always try to go to sources of information (the study this time), and why just because "experts" publish something, it doesn& #39;t mean their conclusions or methods are any good. https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.04.16.20065920v1.full.pdf">https://www.medrxiv.org/content/1...
