Article mentions Dr Jha testimony thus:

 

Dr. Ashish Jha, the Dean of the School of Public Health at Brown University, rebutted as “the minority expert.” Dr. Jha testified that he has not treated COVID-19 patients. Dr. Jha, moreover, has no peer-reviewed articles on the treatment of COVID-19 illness. To be clear, Dr. Jha was testifying as a purported “expert” in the early treatment of COVID-19 illness, yet he has no experience in treating COVID-19 patients and, unlike Drs. McCullough and Risch, has not produced a single peer-reviewed article on the subject.

Dr. Jha’s testified that his opinions are derived from his review of the scientific literature, stating that none of the ostensibly “high-quality, randomized control trial studies” concluded that HCQ is effective in treating COVID-19 illness. He stated that observational studies were not of sufficient quality to conclude that HCQ is effective. He pointed out that his opinions are in line with the consensus of experts in academia, and are also in accordance with the opinions of the CDC, NIH, and FDA.

Unlike Dr. McCullough, Dr. Jha never discussed the science of COVID-19 illness. In fact, he did not dispute Dr. McCullough’s description of the different stages of the illness, and the rationale for early treatment. Oseltamivir/Tamiflu, by example, interferes with viral replication, disrupting progression of influenza illness. Accordingly, as Dr. McCullough explains, if treatment can interfere with viral replication early in the course of COVID-19 illness, we can confidently prevent progression to higher-morbidity stages of the disease. Again, Dr. Jha did not challenge Dr. McCullough on the science, pathophysiologic, and pharmacologic basis of early treatment for all three facets of the disease: viral replication, cytokine storm, and thrombosis.

Dr. Jha and other recognized national “experts” such as Dr. Fauci, do not offer any recommendations regarding early outpatient treatment of COVID-19 illness, which was the subject of the meeting. Dr Jha’s intention was to deny the overwhelming evidence supporting early treatment with HCQ and ivermectin (IVM)-based protocols. Indeed, outpatient treatment extends far beyond the use of only HCQ. Dr. Jha did not address other aspects of Dr. McCullough’s outpatient treatment protocol targeting the progression of COVID-19 illness to cytokine storm and microthrombosis.

There is an obvious flaw with Dr. Jha’s argument against HCQ and IVM: none of the randomized, control trials that he cited involved early treatment, within 5 to 7 days, of high-risk patients with the full HCQ or IVM cocktail. A cocktail, not just HCQ and/or IVM, is used by doctors around the world to interfere with viral replication in order to prevent progression to cytokine storm and microthrombosis. Dr. Jha, however, never addressed the science of the virus and well-described aspects of COVID-19 pathophysiology.

Dr. Jha, moreover, did not cite a single study disproving the approach of early treatment of high-risk patients. Dr. Jha’s statement that “all the experts are in agreement” is not remotely sufficient medical science polemics. Clinical conclusions and recommendations are based on rigorous data analysis and not merely consensus opinion. Dr. McCullough has over 600 peer- reviewed publications, including two dozen on COVID-19 disease. He has chaired many high- risk data safety monitoring boards and knows all the inner workings of large-scale clinical trials. Dr. Risch’s expertise is in analyzing data from the literature, and his renowned scholarship has resulted in over 300 peer-reviewed articles.

As Dr. Risch emphasizes, all the studies involving early treatment of high-risk patients with HCQ have shown positive outcomes in reducing hospitalization and death.  In the Recovery study cited by Dr. Jha, patients received HCQ when they were hospitalized with evolving or florid cytokine storm; the majority were on supplemental oxygen (Effect of Hydroxychloroquine in Hospitalized Patients with Covid-19, NEJM). The authors of another widely cited randomized control trial from Brazil on hospitalized patients (Cavalcanti et. al) concluded that if HCQ were given earlier, the results could have been different. (Hydroxychloroquine with or without Azithromycin in Mild-to-Moderate Covid-19, NEJM).

Timing of pharmacological intervention is paramount when the goal is disruption of viral replication; it is all about the science, which Dr. Jha did not address in his testimony. Dr. Jha cited the Boulware et. al. post-prophylaxis study from the University of Minnesota that was never brought to completion but published in the New England Journal of Medicine, a paper that showcases academic fraud regarding HCQ (A Randomized Trial of Hydroxychloroquine as Postexposure Prophylaxis for Covid-19, NEJM). The study looked at individuals who were exposed to COVID-19 and compared those receiving HCQ post-exposure with those who did not receive the medication. The study concluded that HCQ was not better than placebo in preventing an infection. The authors, however, did not stratify the results as to when the HCQ was actually given; in fact, the raw data showed that those receiving HCQ earlier after exposure had a statistically significant decrease in infection (see analysis Watanabe, Brazil). These results were conveniently left out of the published study. Again, it is about the science and the critical timing of HCQ administration. The earlier one receives HCQ after an exposure, the better ones chances are to not develop a symptomatic infection. This is precisely what the study revealed and yet the results supporting the conclusion were suspiciously omitted.

Dr. Jha’s testimony that there is “overwhelming evidence” against the early, outpatient use of HCQ is false. He provided no evidence to support his opinion- in fact, no such evidence exists. The studies he cited, on hospitalized patients, do not disprove the early, outpatient use of HCQ, and what he presented is best described (using terminology from Senator Peters) as “misinformation” and “disinformation.”

In sharp contrast to Dr. McCullough’s algorithm that focuses on a multidrug regimen to address the different manifestations of COVID-19 infection, Dr. Jha ignores the science of the virus, and focuses on only one drug, HCQ. Dr. Jha did not offer a single recommendation for outpatient treatment; none! His testimony was solely to discredit HCQ.

The most disconcerting aspect of Dr. Jha’s testimony is the brazenly false assertion that HCQ is dangerous, even with moderate doses recommended for early outpatient treatment of high- risk patients with symptomatic COVID-19 illness. The VA study to which Dr. Jha referred involved hospitalized, sick patients who received high doses of HCQ. Dr. Jha did not acknowledge that HCQ has been used for 65 years for malaria and nearly as long for rheumatoid diseases, and yet he deems it dangerous when used in moderate doses for short courses (typically 1-2 weeks) for early treatment of high-risk outpatients. This false characterization by so-called “experts” such as Dr. Jha, who have not treated a COVID-19 patient, has likely discouraged countless high-risk patients from seeking outcome-altering early treatment. Dr. McCullough, a cardiologist, and unlike Jha, is very experienced in drug safety evaluations from clinical trials, stated that Dr. Jha’s testimony is “reckless and dangerous.”

...

Dr. Jha’s therapeutic nihilism does not give him liberty to promulgate false information about HCQ- based treatment for COVID-19 illness. The insistence on randomized clinical trials (RCTs) by Drs. Jha and Fauci, when the NIH abandoned RCTs with COVID-19 outpatients, is absurd during a pandemic in which Americans are dying at the rate of 1,500 per day. We are fighting a war and the best interventions in such circumstances come from those who are engaged in the battle; for example, Dr. Fareed and thousands of providers who are on the frontlines. There was no RCT for penicillin in World War II; waiting for such a study would have cost hundreds of thousands of lives. Some of the greatest advancements in trauma surgery were discovered literally on the battlefield, not by RCTs at prestigious academic institutions.

Senator Peters’ proposed legislation to monitor and regulate COVID-19 misinformation would not apply to Dr. Jha, but rather to physicians with therapeutic recommendations that are counter to the desired narrative of self-proclaimed “experts.” Drs. McCullough and Fareed have each produced magnificent videos discussing the science of and rationale for early treatment of COVID-19 illness. The videos were censored and labeled as “misinformation” by YouTube, Facebook, and Twitter without declaring what content of the presentations was not true. Senator Peters wants to make such censorship national policy; this is Orwellian!

The medical profession is best served when physicians challenge and question one another. Dr. Jha, meanwhile, resorts to CNN and MSNBC commentary with political pundits. Dr Jha should discuss the science of proposed treatment protocols with categorical experts like Dr. McCullough, and with frontline physicians with vast experience treating COVID-19 patients, such as Dr Fareed. Dr. Jha neither considers the rationale for early treatment of COVID-19 illness nor discloses that many countries, including his native India, successfully manage the pandemic with HCQ, IVM, and favipiravir combined with other drugs.

permalink