https://www.nytimes.com/2020/05/12/magazine/didier-raoult-hydroxychloroquine.html

The results of his initial trial have yet to be replicated. “I think what he secretly hopes is that no one will ever be able to show anything,” Molina told me. “That all the trials conducted on hydroxychloroquine will not be able to even reach a conclusion of no efficacy.” In recent weeks, Raoult has in fact tempered his claims about the virtues of his treatment regimen. The published, peer-reviewed version of the final study noted that another two patients had died, bringing the total to 10. Where the earlier version called the drugs “safe and efficient,” they were now described merely as “safe.”

"I think what he secretly hopes..." from the NYT is lame even by your standards, Clarky.

How about blatent fraud, then?

https://forbetterscience.com/2020/03/26/chloroquine-genius-didier-raoult-to-save-the-world-from-covid-19/

Although the study started with 26 patients in the HQ or HQ+AZ group, data from only 20 treated patients are given, because not all patients completed the 6-day study. The data for these 20 patients looks incredibly nice; especially the patients who were given both medications all recovered very fast.

What happened to the other six treated patients? Why did they drop out of the study? Three of them were transferred to the intensive care unit (presumably because they got sicker) and 1 died. The other two patients were either too nauseous and stopped the medication, or left the hospital (which might be a sign they felt much better).

So 4 of the 26 treated patients were actually not recovering at all. It seems a bit strange to leave these 4 patients who got worse or who died out of the study, just on the basis that they stopped taking the medication (which is pretty difficult once the patient is dead). As several people wrote sarcastically on Twitter: My results always look amazing if I leave out the patients who died, or the experiments that did not work.

- Elizabeth Bik

Pure quackery. BTW Bik is the Dutch microbiologist who specialises in scientific fraud detection and who spotted the fraudulent manipulation of images of in a lionfish study at James Cook. She also found blatant evidence of image manipulation in one of Didier's earlier papers.

See also: https://www.the-scientist.com/news-opinion/journal-publisher-concerned-over-hydroxychloroquine-study-67405

Sars-cov2 mutations:

https://twitter.com/venivici27/status/1297334456638935042

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/343797723_Emerging_of_a_SARS-CoV-_viral_strain_with_a_deletion_in_nsp1

This seems to be a reasonable on good v. bad comment:

Great caution needs to be followed if the news is good, if it's bad news, it can proliferate unquestioned. That's been the general pattern.

Clarky will like this, it is the NYT:

https://twitter.com/MichaelPSenger/status/1270925788389486593?s=20

Latest on Hydroxychloroquine

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2020/08/24/hydroxychloroquine-in-covid-19-treatment-actual-usage-in-the-usa/

Best summed up by this comment:

"Hivemind August 25, 2020 at 5:02 am
It could also be related to the much lower use of HCQ (mainly for political reasons). It sucks to be one of the people that died because your doctor didn’t like Trump."

"Pure quackery. BTW Bik is the Dutch microbiologist who specialises in scientific fraud detection and who spotted the fraudulent manipulation of images of in a lionfish study at James Cook.

Aug 23, 2020 at 12:28 PM Phil Clarke"

That would be one of the frauds committed by Climate Science funding at JCU, that was also highlighted by Peter Ridd, that led to him being fired.

tomo, as mass testing increases, the number of test results that prove positive for evidence of active and past Coronavirus presence will increase, even if more people are not being infected.

These latest statistics do not need adjustment, but clarification of what they represent, before conclusions are made and actions decided.

"We're supposed to swallow THIS"
Aug 31, 2020 at 9:15 PM tomo

It is more likely to be an injection, but expect to hear more about Regulation 174

"The language of regulation 174 makes clear that the powers are available where there is a suspected or actual spread of pathogens, which would include, but would not be confined to, a pandemic. Regulation 174 is an implementing measure for Article 5(2) of the EU Medicines Directive 2001/83, representing the UK’s choice of form and methods for doing so in 2012."

The excellent news for the pharmaceutical industry is here:
" The current legal framework already recognises that if manufacturers or healthcare professionals are asked to supply an unlicensed medicine in response to a public health threat, it is unfair also to ask them to take responsibility for the consequences of the use of that medicine in the way that they normally would."

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2020/08/31/stunning-cdcgov-update-on-covid19-us-deaths-overestimated-by-177/

Time to close borders and restrict movements of the SNP?
https://order-order.com/2020/09/04/department-for-health-uk-r-number-remains-unchanged-despite-scotlands-potentially-rising-to-1-4/