깊은국가 대항전 8/18 - 미국 의사들은 왜 파우치에게 그리 많은 의문을 제기하는가?

[피터 김]

의사들은 파우치에게 코로나 치료법에 관해 공개서한을 보낸다, 하이드록시클로로퀸 용도를 포함해서

Doctors Pen Open Letter To Fauci Regarding The Use Of Hydroxychloroquine for Treating COVID-19
By Tyler Durden
Aug 20, 2020 - 1:29:05 AM

https://www.zerohedge.com/medical/doctors-pen-open-letter-fauci-regarding-use-hydroxychloroquine-treating-covid-19
                   

작성 : 조지 파리드 의학박사, 외 George C. Fareed, MD Brawley, California Michael M. Jacobs, MD, MPH Pensacola, Florida Donald C. Pompan, MD Salinas, California,

Authored by George C. Fareed, MD Brawley, California Michael M. Jacobs, MD, MPH Pensacola, Florida Donald C. Pompan, MD Salinas, California,

August 12, 2020

Anthony Fauci, MD
National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases
Washington, D.C.

친애하는 파우치 박사 Dear Dr. Fauci:

당신은 코로나 바이러스 전염병에 대한 미국의 대응과 관련하여 가장 중요한 역할을 맡았습니다. 미국인들은 마스크 착용, 취업 재개, 학교 복귀 및 물론 치료에 관한 귀하의 의료 전문 지식에 의존해 왔습니다.

You were placed into the most high-profile role regarding America's response to the Coronavirus pandemic. Americans have relied on your medical expertise concerning the wearing of masks, resuming employment, returning to school, and of course medical treatment.

당신은 의학적 의견에 대해 거의 도전받지 않습니다. 당신은 사실상 "코로나 황제 COVID-19 Czar"입니다. 당신의 이런 독점 권한은 다른 의사들이 병원, 의학 회의, 의학 저널에서 토론하는 형태로 의사의 의견에 도전받는 의학계에서는 드문 일입니다. 당신은 당신과 열정적으로 동의하지 않는 의사들이 많이 있음에도 불구하고, 그에 대한 공식적인 대중의 반대가 없다면 당신의 의견에 도전을 받지 않습니다. 그러나 의견과 정책이 널리 퍼진 증거와 과학에 기초하고 의료 전문가의 감시를 견딜 수있을 때 대중에게 가장 잘 봉사한다는 것은 논쟁의 여지가 없습니다.

You are largely unchallenged in terms of your medical opinions. You are the de facto "COVID-19 Czar". This is unusual in the medical profession in which doctors' opinions are challenged by other physicians in the form of exchanges between doctors at hospitals, medical conferences, as well as debate in medical journals. You render your opinions unchallenged, without formal public opposition from physicians who passionately disagree with you. It is incontestable that the public is best served when opinions and policy are based on the prevailing evidence and science, and able to withstand the scrutiny of medical professionals.

코로나 COVID-19 감염 치료에 대한 경험을 바탕으로 전 세계의 의사들은 고위험 환자가 증상이 나타난 후 처음 5 ~ 7 일 이내에 하이드록시클로로퀸, 아연, 및 아지스로마이신 (또는 독시사이클린)의 적절한 배합으로 처치하여서 성공적으로 치료하는것을 알게 되었습니다.. 문헌에 대한 여러 학술적 공헌 덕분에 하이드록시클로로퀸 hydroxychloroquine 기반 병용 치료의 효능은 자세히 설명됩니다.

As experience accrued in treating COVID-19 infections,physicians worldwide discovered that high-risk patients can be treated successfully as an outpatient, within the first 5 to 7 days of the onset of symptoms, with a "cocktail" consisting of hydroxychloroquine, zinc, and azithromycin (or doxycycline). Multiple scholarly contributions to the literature detail the efficacy of the hydroxychloroquine-based combination treatment.

유명한 예일대 Yale 역학자인 하비 라이쉬 Harvey Risch 박사는 2020 년 5 월 아메리칸 역학 논문집 American Journal of Epidemiology에 "대유행 위기의 핵심으로 즉시 대응해야 하는 증상이 있는 고위험 코로나 COVID-19 환자의 조기 외래 환자 치료"라는 제목의 기사를 발표했습니다. 그는 2020 년 7 월 뉴스위크지 Newsweek에 일반 대중을 위해 동일한 결론과 의견을 표명하는 기사 article를 발표했습니다.

Risch 박사는 연구 데이터를 평가하고 설계를 연구하는 전문가이며 300 개 이상의 기사를 게시합니다. 라이쉬 Risch 박사의 평가는 "하이드록시클로로퀸 HCQ 칵테일"의 조기 및 안전한 사용에 대한 분명한 증거가 있다는 것입니다. Q-T 간격 문제가 있는 경우 독시사이클린이 심장 효과없이 RNA 바이러스에 대해 활성을 갖기 때문에 아지스로마이신을 대체 할 수 있습니다.

Dr. Harvey Risch, the renowned Yale epidemiologist, published an article in May 2020 in the American Journal of Epidemiology titled "Early Outpatient Treatment of Symptomatic, High-Risk COVID-19 Patients that Should be Ramped-Up Immediately as Key to Pandemic Crisis". He further published an article in Newsweek in July 2020 for the general public expressing the same conclusions and opinions. Dr. Risch is an expert at eval‎uating research data and study designs, publishing over 300 articles. Dr Risch's assessment is that there is unequivocal evidence for the early and safe use of the "HCQ cocktail." If there are Q-T interval concerns, doxycycline can be substituted for azithromycin as it has activity against RNA viruses without any cardiac effects.

그러나 당신은 하이드록시클로로퀸의 사용을 뒷받침하는 증거가 부족함을 반복적으로 강조하면서, 임상 시험 형태의 병원 환경을 제외하고는 하이드록시클로로퀸의 사용을 계속 거부합니다. 하이드록시 클로로퀸은 말라리아에 65 년간 처지되었고, 루푸스 및 류마티스 관절염에 40 년 이상 사용되었을 만큼 잘 확립된 안전성 프로필을 가지고 있는데, 그럼에도 불구하고 귀하와 FDA는 증상이 있는 코로나 COVID-19 감염 치료에 그것을 사용하기에 안전하지 않은 것으로 간주했습니다. 귀하의 의견은 의사와 환자, 의료위원회, 주 및 연방 기관, 약사, 병원 및 의료 의사 결정에 관련된 거의 모든 사람들의 생각에 영향을 미쳤습니다.

Yet, you continue to reject the use of hydroxychloroquine, except in a hospital setting in the form of clinical trials, repeatedly emphasizing the lack of evidence supporting its use. Hydroxychloroquine, despite 65 years of use for malaria, and over 40 years for lupus and rheumatoid arthritis, with a well-established safety profile, has been deemed by you and the FDA as unsafe for use in the treatment of symptomatic COVID-19 infections. Your opinions have influenced the thinking of physicians and their patients, medical boards, state and federal agencies, pharmacists, hospitals, and just about everyone involved in medical decision making.

사실, 귀하의 의견은 미국인의 건강과 취업 및 학교를 포함한 일상 생활의 여러 측면에 영향을 미쳤습니다. 하이드록시 클로로퀸, 아연 및 아지트로 마이신 / 독시사이클린을 처방하는 사람들은 조기 외래환자 사용이 수만 명의 생명을 구하고 우리나라가 코로나 COVID-19에 대한 대응을 극적으로 바꿀 수있을 것이라고 열렬히 믿고 있습니다. 우리는 두려움을 줄이고 미국인들이 삶을 되찾을 수있는 접근 방식을 옹호합니다. 
우리의 다음의 질문들이 코로나 COVID-19 감염에 대한 현재 당신의 접근 방식을 재고하도록 강력히 요청하는 바입니다.

Indeed, your opinions impacted the health of Americans, and many aspects of our day-to-day lives including employment and school. Those of us who prescribe hydroxychloroquine, zinc, and azithromycin/doxycycline believe fervently that early outpatient use would save tens of thousands of lives and enable our country to dramatically alter the response to COVID-19. We advocate for an approach that will reduce fear and allow Americans to get their lives back.

We hope that our questions compel you to reconsider your current approach to COVID-19 infection.

조기 외래 치료에 관한 질문 
Questions regarding early outpatient treatment

1. 일반적으로 코로나 COVID-19 증상 감염에는 두 단계가 있습니다. 사이토카인 폭풍 및 호흡 부전으로 진행되는 초기 독감 증상, 맞습니까? 
2. 사람들이 병원에 입원하면, 일반적으로 그들은 더 나쁜 상태에 있습니다. 맞습니까?

3. 증상이 있는 코로나 COVID-19 감염의 조기 외래 치료를 위해 현재 권장되는 특정 약물이 없습니다. 맞습니까?

4. 렘데시비르 Remdesivir와 덱사메타손 Dexamethasone은 입원 환자에게 사용됩니다. 맞습니까? 
5. 현재 독감 단계에있는 개인에게 권장되는 약리학적 조기 외래 치료는 없습니다. 맞습니까?

6. 코로나 COVID-19가 고령 환자와 심각한 동반 질환이 있는 환자와 같은 고위험 개인에게 독감보다 훨씬 더 치명적이라는 것은 사실입니다. 맞습니까?

7. 초기 COVID-19 감염 징후가 있는 개인은 일반적으로 콧물, 발열, 기침, 숨가쁨, 후각 상실 등이 있으며, 의사는 집으로 보내 휴식을 취하고 치킨 수프를 먹지만 특정 표적 약물을 제공하지 않습니다. 맞습니까?

8. 이 고위험군은 15 % 이상의 사망 위험이 높습니다. 맞습니까? 
9. 그래서 우리는 분명합니다. 현재 치료의 기준은 임상적으로 안정된 증상이 있는 환자를 집으로 보내는 것입니다. 
10. 의사들이 증상이 있는 고위험 환자의 조기 외래 치료를 위한 "칵테일"로 아연 및 아지스로 마이신과 결합된 하이드록시클로로퀸 Hydroxychloroquine을 성공적으로 사용하고 있다는 사실을 알고 있습니까?

11. 코로나 19 고위험 환자를 외래 환자로 치료하기위한 "젤렌코 프로토콜"에 대해 들어보셨나요? 
12. COVID-19의 조기 외래 환자 치료에 대한 미국 역학 저널의 라이쉬 박사의 기사를 읽었습니까? 
13. 약물 조합 또는 "칵테일"을 사용하는 의사는 질병이 폐에 영향을 미치거나 사이토카인 폭풍이 발생하기 전에 증상이 시작된 후 처음 5 ~ 7 일 이내에 사용을 권장한다는 사실을 알고 있습니까?

14. 다시 말씀드리면, 귀하의 권장 사항은 위험 요인에 관계없이 안정된 환자의 독감 유사 증상에 대한 외래 환자로서 약리학적 치료가 아닙니다. 맞습니까? 
15. COVID-19 증상이 있는 환자의 초기 약리학적 외래 치료가 유익하다고 확신하는 경우 옹호하시겠습니까?

(이하 19개 질문은 아래 원문을 참조하세요)

1. There are generally two stages of COVID-19 symptomatic infection; initial flu like symptoms with progression to cytokine storm and respiratory failure, correct?

2. When people are admitted to a hospital, they generally are in worse condition, correct?

3. There are no specific medications currently recommended for early outpatient treatment of symptomatic COVID-19 infection, correct?

4. Remdesivir and Dexamethasone are used for hospitalized patients, correct?

5. There is currently no recommended pharmacologic early outpatient treatment for individuals in the flu stage of the illness, correct?

6. It is true that COVID-19 is much more lethal than the flu for high-risk individuals such as older patients and those with significant comorbidities, correct?

7. Individuals with signs of early COVID-19 infection typically have a runny nose, fever, cough, shortness of breath, loss of smell, etc., and physicians send them home to rest, eat chicken soup etc., but offer no specific, targeted medications, correct?

8. These high-risk individuals are at high risk of death, on the order of 15% or higher, correct?

9. So just so we are clear-the current standard of care now is to send clinically stable symptomatic patients home, "with a wait and see" approach?

10. Are you aware that physicians are successfully using Hydroxychloroquine combined with Zinc and Azithromycin as a "cocktail" for early outpatient treatment of symptomatic, high-risk, individuals?

11. Have you heard of the "Zelenko Protocol," for treating high-risk patients with COVID 19 as an outpatient?

12. Have you read Dr. Risch's article in the American Journal of Epidemiology of the early outpatient treatment of COVID-19?

13. Are you aware that physicians using the medication combination or "cocktail" recommend use within the first 5 to 7 days of the onset of symptoms, before the illness impacts the lungs, or cytokine storm evolves?

14. Again, to be clear, your recommendation is no pharmacologic treatment as an outpatient for the flu-like symptoms in patients that are stable, regardless of their risk factors, correct?

15. Would you advocate for early pharmacologic outpatient treatment of symptomatic COVID-19 patients if you were confident that it was beneficial?

16. Are you aware that there are hundreds of physicians in the United States and thousands across the globe who have had dramatic success treating high-risk individuals as outpatients with this "cocktail?"

17. Are you aware that there are at least 10 studies demonstrating the efficacy of early outpatient treatment with the Hydroxychloroquine cocktail for high-risk patients - so this is beyond anecdotal, correct?

18. If one of your loved ones had diabetes or asthma, or any potentially complicating comorbidity, and tested positive for COVID-19, would you recommend "wait and see how they do" and go to the hospital if symptoms progress?

19. Even with multiple studies documenting remarkable outpatient efficacy and safety of the Hydroxychloroquine "cocktail," you believe the risks of the medication combination outweigh the benefits?

20. Is it true that with regard to Hydroxychloroquine and treatment of COVID-19 infection, you have said repeatedly that "The Overwhelming Evidence of Properly Conducted Randomized Clinical Trials Indicate No Therapeutic Efficacy of Hydroxychloroquine (HCQ)?"

21. But NONE of the randomized controlled trials to which you refer were done in the first 5 to 7 days after the onset of symptoms- correct?

22. All of the randomized controlled trials to which you refer were done on hospitalized patients, correct?

23. Hospitalized patients are typically sicker that outpatients, correct?

24. None of the randomized controlled trials to which you refer used the full cocktail consisting of Hydroxychloroquine, Zinc, and Azithromycin, correct?

25. While the University of Minnesota study is referred to as disproving the cocktail, the meds were not given within the first 5 to 7 days of illness, the test group was not high risk (death rates were 3%), and no zinc was given, correct?

26. Again, for clarity, the trials upon which you base your opinion regarding the efficacy of Hydroxychloroquine, assessed neither the full cocktail (to include Zinc + Azithromycin or doxycycline) nor administered treatment within the first 5 to 7 days of symptoms, nor focused on the high-risk group, correct?

27. Therefore, you have no basis to conclude that the Hydroxychloroquine cocktail when used early in the outpatient setting, within the first 5 to 7 days of symptoms, in high risk patients, is not effective, correct?

28. It is thus false and misleading to say that the effective and safe use of Hydroxychloroquine, Zinc, and Azithromycin has been "debunked," correct? How could it be "debunked" if there is not a single study that contradicts its use?

29. Should it not be an absolute priority for the NIH and CDC to look at ways to treat Americans with symptomatic COVID-19 infections early to prevent disease progression?

30. The SARS-CoV-2/COVID-19 virus is an RNA virus. It is well-established that Zinc interferes with RNA viral replication, correct?

31. Moreover, is it not true that hydroxychloroquine facilitates the entry of zinc into the cell, is a "ionophore," correct?

32. Isn't also it true that Azithromycin has established anti-viral properties?

33. Are you aware of the paper from Baylor by Dr. McCullough et. al. describing established mechanisms by which the components of the "HCQ cocktail" exert anti-viral effects?

34. So- the use of hydroxychloroquine, azithromycin (or doxycycline) and zinc, the "HCQ cocktail," is based on science, correct?

안전에 관한 질문 

Questions regarding safety

1. FDA는 다음과 같이 썼습니다. "진행중인 심각한 심장 부작용과 심각한 부작용에 비추어 클로로퀸 CQ 및 하이드록시클로로퀸 HCQ의 알려진 잠재적인 이점은 더 이상 승인된 사용에 대한 알려진 잠재적인 위험을 능가하지 않습니다." FDA는 Hydroxychloroquine이 효과가 없다고 말하면서 매우 위험한 약물이라고도 말합니다. 하지만 이 약이 말라리아 예방약으로 65 년 이상 사용되었다는 것은 사실이 아닙니까?

2. 이 약이 루푸스와 류마티스 관절염에 수년 동안 비슷한 용량으로 사용되었다는 것이 사실이 아닙니까? 
3. 코로나 COVID -19 이전에 안전성 문제에 근거하여 약물 사용 위험에 대한 확실한 증거를 제공한 단 한 건의 연구조차 알고 있습니까?

4. 클로로퀸 또는 하이드록시클로로퀸은 스테로이드 의존성 천식 (1988 년 연구), 진행성 폐 유육종증 (1988 년 연구), 화학 요법을 위한 유방암 세포 감작 (2012 년 연구), 신장 허혈의 약화 (2018 년 연구 ), 루푸스 신염 (2006 년 연구), 상피성 난소암 (2020 년 연구, 몇 가지 예)? 심장 독성 문제가 언급된 곳은 어디입니까? 

5. Risch는 FDA가 제공한 데이터를 사용하여 hydroxychloroquine으로 인한 심장사망 위험을 9 / 100,000으로 추정합니다. 동반 이환이 있는 고령 환자의 사망 위험이 15 % 이상일 수 있다는 점을 감안하면 높은 위험은 아닌 것 같습니다. 동반 이환이 있는 고령 환자의 사망 위험과 비교했을 때 9 / 100,000이 높은 위험이라고 생각하십니까?

6. 이 약은 경고없이 65 년 동안 사용되었지만 (주기적인 망막 검사의 필요성을 제외하고) FDA는 2020 년 6 월 15 일에 약이 위험하다는 경고를 보낼 필요가 있다고 느낍니다. 그런 조치에 대한 "과학"에 근거하여 파우치 Fauci 박사 당신에게 논리에 맞는 일이라 생각하나요? 

7. 또한, 조기 치료에 사용하기위한 프로토콜이 수년에 걸쳐 다른 질병 (RA, SLE)에서 투여되는 것과 유사한 상대적으로 낮은 용량의 하이드록시클로로퀸에서 5 ~ 7 일 동안 사용된다는 점을 고려하십시오. 논리적으로 이해가 됩니까? 고용량으로 투여하지 않을 때 5 ~ 7 일 용량의 하이드록시클로로퀸이 위험하다고 간주될 수 있습니까?

(이하 12개 질문은 원문을 참조하세요)

1. The FDA writes the following: "in light of on-going serious cardiac adverse events and their serious side effects, the known and potential benefits of CQ and HCQ no longer outweigh the known and potential risks for authorized use."So not only is the FDA saying that Hydroxychloroquine doesn't work, they are also saying that it is a very dangerous drug. Yet, is it not true the drug has been used as an anti-malarial drug for over 65 years?

2. Isn't true that the drug has been used for lupus and rheumatoid arthritis for many years at similar doses?

3. Do you know of even a single study prior to COVID -19 that has provided definitive evidence against the use of the drug based on safety concerns?

4. Are you aware that chloroquine or hydroxychloroquine has many approved uses for hydroxychloroquine including steroid-dependent asthma (1988 study), Advanced pulmonary sarcoidosis (1988 study), sensitizing breast cancer cells for chemotherapy (2012 study), the attenuation of renal ischemia (2018 study), lupus nephritis (2006 study), epithelial ovarian cancer (2020 study, just to name a few)? Where are the cardiotoxicity concerns ever mentioned?

5. Risch estimates the risk of cardiac death from hydroxychloroquine to be 9/100,000 using the data provided by the FDA. That does not seem to be a high risk, considering the risk of death in an older patient with co-morbidities can be 15% or more. Do you consider 9/100,000 to be a high risk when weighed against the risk of death in older patient with co-morbidities?

6. To put this in perspective, the drug is used for 65 years, without warnings (aside for the need for periodic retinal checks), but the FDA somehow feels the need to send out an alert on June 15, 2020 that the drug is dangerous. Does that make any logical sense to you Dr. Fauci based on "science"?

7. Moreover, consider that the protocols for usage in early treatment are for 5 to 7 days at relatively low doses of hydroxychloroquine similar to what is being given in other diseases (RA, SLE) over many years- does it make any sense to you logically that a 5 to 7 day dose of hydroxychloroquine when not given in high doses could be considered dangerous?

8. You are also aware that articles published in the New England Journal of Medicine and Lancet, one out of Harvard University, regarding the dangers of hydroxychloroquine had to be retracted based on the fact that the data was fabricated. Are you aware of that?

9. If there was such good data on the risks of hydroxychloroquine, one would not have to use fake data, correct?

10. After all, 65 years is a long-time to determine whether or not a drug is safe, do you agree?

11. In the clinical trials that you have referenced (e.g., the Minnesota and the Brazil studies), there was not a single death attributed directly to hydroxychloroquine, correct?

12. According to Dr. Risch, there is no evidence based on the data to conclude that hydroxychloroquine is a dangerous drug. Are you aware of any published report that rebuts Dr. Risch's findings?

13. Are you aware that the FDA ruling along with your statements have led to Governors in a number of states to restrict the use of hydroxychloroquine?

14. Are you aware that pharmacies are not filling prescriptions for this medication based on your and the FDA's restrictions?

15. Are you aware that doctors are being punished by state medical boards for prescribing the medication based on your comments as well as the FDA's?

16. Are you aware that people who want the medication sometimes need to call physicians in other states pleading for it?

17. And yet you opined in March that while people were dying at the rate of 10,000 patient a week, hydroxychloroquine could only be used in an inpatient setting as part of a clinical trial- correct?

18. So, people who want to be treated in that critical 5-to-7-day period and avoid being hospitalized are basically out of luck in your view, correct?

19. So, again, for clarity, without a shred of evidence that the Hydroxychloroquine/HCQ cocktail is dangerous in the doses currently recommend for early outpatient treatment, you and the FDA have made it very difficult if not impossible in some cases to get this treatment, correct?

방법론에 관한 질문 

Questions regarding methodology

코로나 COVID-19 퇴치의 열쇠는 이미 존재합니다. 우리는 그것을 사용하기 시작해야합니다 
The Key to Defeating COVID-19 Already Exists. We Need to Start Using It     

1. 하이드록시클로로퀸 hydroxychloroquine의 사용과 관련하여, 당신은 반복해서 이런 성명을 내놨습니다 : "올바르게 수행된 무작위 임상 시험에서 얻은 압도적인 증거는 Hydroxychloroquine의 치료 효과가 없음을 나타냅니다." 그 소리가 맞습니까?

2. hydroxychloroquine의 초기 사용에 관한 라이쉬 박사 Dr. Risch의 기사에서 그는 귀하의 의견에 이의를 제기합니다. 그는 자신의 의견을 뒷받침하기 위해 연구 데이터를 과학적으로 평가했습니다. 귀하는 본인의 의견을 뒷받침하는 기사를 게시했습니까? 

3. 치료에 관한 결론을 내리기 위해서는 무작위 임상 시험이 필요하다고 반복해서 말씀하셨습니다. 맞습니까? 
4. FDA는 무작위 임상시험없이 많은 약물 (특히 암치료 분야)을 승인했습니다. 맞습니까? 
5. CDC의 전 책임자인 토마스 프리덴 Thomas Frieden 박사가 2017 년 New England Journal of Medicine에 "보건 의사 결정을 위한 증거-무작위 임상 시험 (RCT)을 넘어서" 라는 기사를 썼다는 것을 알고 계십니까? 그 기사를 읽었습니까?

(이하 13개 질문은 원문을 참조하세요)

1. In regards to the use of hydroxychloroquine, you have repeatedly made the same statement: "The Overwhelming Evidence from Properly Conducted Randomized Clinical Trials Indicate no Therapeutic Efficacy of Hydroxychloroquine." Is that correct?

2. In Dr. Risch's article regarding the early use of hydroxychloroquine, he disputes your opinion. He scientifically eval‎uated the data from the studies to support his opinions. Have you published any articles to support your opinions?

3. You repeatedly state that randomized clinical trials are needed to make conclusions regarding treatments, correct?

4. The FDA has approved many medications (especially in the area of cancer treatment) without randomized clinical trials, correct?

5. Are you aware that Dr. Thomas Frieden, the previous head of the CDC wrote an article in the New England Journal of Medicine in 2017 called "Evidence for Health Decision Making - Beyond Randomized Clinical Trials (RCT)"? Have you read that article?

6. In it Dr. Frieden states that "many data sources can provide valid evidence for clinical and public health action, including "analysis of aggregate clinical or epidemiological data"-do you disagree with that?

7. Frieden discusses "practiced-based evidence" as being essential in many discoveries, such SIDS (Sudden Infant Death Syndrome)-do you disagree with that?

8. Frieden writes the following: "Current evidence-grading systems are biased toward randomized clinical trials, which may lead to inadequate consideration of non-RCT data." Dr. Fauci, have you considered all the non-RCT data in coming to your opinions?

9. Risch, who is a leading world authority in the analysis of aggregate clinical data, has done a rigorous analysis that he published regarding the early treatment of COVID 19 with hydroxychloroquine, zinc, and azithromycin. He cites 5 or 6 studies, and in an updated article there are 5 or 6 more-a total of 10 to 12 clinical studies with formally collected data specifically regarding the early treatment of COVID. Have you analyzed the aggregate data regarding early treatment of high-risk patients with hydroxychloroquine, zinc, and azithromycin?

10. Is there any document that you can produce for the American people of your analysis of the aggregate data that would rebut Dr. Risch's analysis?

11. Yet, despite what Dr. Risch believes is overwhelming evidence in support of the early use of hydroxychloroquine, you dismiss the treatment insisting on randomized controlled trials even in the midst of a pandemic?

12. Would you want a loved one with high-risk comorbidities placed in the control group of a randomized clinical trial when a number of studies demonstrate safety and dramatic efficacy of the early use of the Hydroxychloroquine "cocktail?"

13. Are you aware that the FDA approved a number of cancer chemotherapy drugs without randomized control trials based solely on epidemiological evidence. The trials came later as confirmation. Are you aware of that?

14. You are well aware that there were no randomized clinical trials in the case of penicillin that saved thousands of lives in World War II? Was not this in the best interest of our soldiers?

15. You would agree that many lives were saved with the use of cancer drugs and penicillin that were used before any randomized clinical trials-correct?

16. You have referred to evidence for hydroxychloroquine as "anecdotal"- which is defined as "evidence collected in a casual or informal manner and relying heavily or entirely on personal testimony"- correct?

17. But there are many studies supporting the use of hydroxychloroquine in which evidence was collected formally and not on personal testimony, has there not been?

18. So it would be false to conclude that the evidence supporting the early use of hydroxychloroquine is anecdotal, correct?

사망률에 관한 미국과 다른 국가의 비교 
(우리의 사례 사망률을 다른 국가와 비교하는 그래프가 있으면 매우 도움이 될 것입니다) 
Comparison between the US and other countries regarding case fatality rate

(It would be very helpful to have the graphs comparing our case fatality rates to other countries)

1. 하이드록시클로로퀸 Hydroxychloroquine을 사용하는 세네갈과 나이지리아와 같은 국가는 미국보다 사망률이 훨씬 낮다는 것을 알고 있습니까?

2. 특정 국가의 Hydroxychloroquine 사용과 사례 사망률 사이의 관계와 HCQ 사용과 사례 사망률 감소간에 강한 상관 관계가 있는 이유를 숙고해 보셨습니까? 

3. 코로나 COVID-19를 예방적으로 치료하는 데 큰 성공을 거둔 인도와 같은 국가와의 상담을 고려해 보셨습니까? 
4. 위험도가 높은 최초 대응자와 일선 직원이 적어도 HCQ / 아연 예방 옵션을 가져서는 안되는 이유는 무엇입니까?

1. Are you aware that countries like Senegal and Nigeria that use Hydroxychloroquine have much lower case-fatality rates than the United States?

2. Have you pondered the relationship between the use of Hydroxychloroquine by a given country and their case mortality rate and why there is a strong correlation between the use of HCQ and the reduction of the case mortality rate.?

3. Have you considered consulting with a country such as India that has had great success treating COVID-19 prophylactically?

4. Why shouldn't our first responders and front-line workers who are at high risk at least have an option of HCQ/zinc prophylaxis?

5. We should all agree that countries with far inferior healthcare delivery systems should not have lower case fatality rates. Reducing our case fatality rate from near 5% to 2.5%, in line with many countries who use HCQ early would have cut our total number of deaths in half, correct?

6. Why not consult with countries who have lower case-fatality rates, even without expensive medicines such as remdesivir and far less advanced intensive care capabilities?

미국인에게 코로나 COVID-19에 HCQ를 사용할 수있는 옵션 제공 
Giving Americans the option to use HCQ for COVID-19

1. 예일대 Yale의 저명한 역학자인 하비 라이쉬 Harvey Risch는 "COVID-19를 물리치는 열쇠는 이미 존재합니다. 우리는 그것을 사용하기 시작해야 합니다"라는 제목의 뉴스위크 Newsweek 기사를 썼습니다. 당신은 그 기사를 읽었습니까? 
2. 아연 Z- 팩과 아연을 포함한 하이드록시클로로퀸 Hydroxychloroquine "칵테일"의 가격이 약 50 달러라는 것을 알고 계십니까?

3. 당신은 렘데시비르 Remdesivir의 비용이 약 3,200 달러(한화 4백만원)라는 것을 알고 있습니까? 
4. 그것은 HCQ "칵테일"약 60 회분입니다. 이 계산이 맞습니까? 
5. 사실 트럼프 대통령은 6 천만 회분의 하이드록시클로로퀸을 축적할 수있는 예지력이 있었지만 당신은 감염된 환자에게 이 약을 사용하려는 의사를 계속 방해하고 있습니다. 맞습니까?

6. 이는 우리의 빈곤층, 특히 의료 서비스에 접근하기 어려운 소수 민족과 유색 인종을 치료하는 데 잠재적으로 사용될 수있는 많은 양의 약물입니다. 그 계층 사람들은 코로나 COVID-19로 더 자주 죽지 않습니까? 
7. 그러나 HCQ 사용을 막는 고집 때문에 이 비축 물은 거의 사용되지 않은 채로 남아있습니다. 맞습니까? 
8. 미국인들에게 그들의 행동을 제한하고, 마스크를 쓰고, 거리를 두고, 백신이 효과가 없을 때까지 그들의 삶을 무기한 보류하라고 말하는 것이 당신의 전략임을 인정하시겠습니까?

9. 따라서 160,000 명의 사망자, 혼란스러운 경제, 학교에 다니지 않는 아이들, 자살 및 마약 과다 복용, 다른 의학적 조건으로 인해 소홀히 죽어가는 사람들, 그리고 미국은 모든 발병에 또 다른 봉쇄로 반응합니다. -효과적인 백신에 전적으로 의존하는 전략을 생각하십니까? 
10. 가장 취약한 사람들을 보호하고 미국인들이 다시 삶을 살 수있게 하는 전략이 있는데, 결코 오지 않을 백신 만병 통치약을 기다리는 전략은 뒤로 미루는 것을 고려해 보는 것은 어떨까요? 

11. 전세계 수천 명의 의사가 HCQ + 아연 + 아지스로마이신으로 일반적으로 1 주일 동안 고위험 환자의 조기 외래 치료와 함께 문헌의 여러 연구에 의해 뒷받침되는 접근 방식을 쓰고 있는데, 우리도 그 전략을 사용하는 것이 어떻습니까?

12. 정부가 귀하의 입장으로 인해 어떤 경우에는 HCQ 사용 선택을 방해한다는 사실은 문제가 있습니다. 그것은 의사와 환자 사이의 선택이어야 하지 않습니까? 

13. 일부 의사는 약물 사용을 원하지 않을 수 있지만 약물이 처방되었다고 생각하는 의사는 환자에게 약물을 제공할 수 있어야하지 않습니까? 
14. HCQ 칵테일의 초기 사용과 함께 그러한 전략을 공개적으로 옹호하는 의사가 인터넷에서 콘텐츠를 삭제하고 의료계에서 검열까지 당하는데, 그들이 침묵을 강요당하고 있다는 사실을 당신은 알고 있습니까?

1. Harvey Risch, the pre-eminent Epidemiologist from Yale, wrote a Newsweek Article titled: "The key to defeating COVID-19 already exists. We need to start using it." Did you read the article?

2. Are you aware that the cost of the Hydroxychloroquine "cocktail" including the Z-pack and zinc is about $50?

3. You are aware the cost of Remdesivir is about $3,200?

4. So that's about 60 doses of HCQ "cocktail," correct?

5. In fact, President Trump had the foresight to amass 60 million doses of hydroxychloroquine, and yet you continue to stand in the way of doctors who want to use that medication for their infected patients, correct?

6. Those are a lot of doses of medication that potentially could be used to treat our poor, especially our minority populations and people of color that have a difficult time accessing healthcare. They die more frequently of COVID-19, do they not?

7. But because of your obstinance blocking the use of HCQ, this stockpile has remained largely unused, correct?

8. Would you acknowledge that your strategy of telling Americans to restrict their behavior, wear masks, and distance, and put their lives on hold indefinitely until there is a vaccine is not working?

9. So, 160,000 deaths later, an economy in shambles, kids out of school, suicides and drug overdoses at a record high, people neglecting and dying from other medical conditions, and America reacting to every outbreak with another lockdown- is it not time to re-think your strategy that is fully dependent on an effective vaccine?

10. Why not consider a strategy that protects the most vulnerable and allows Americans back to living their lives and not wait for a vaccine panacea that may never come?

11. Why not consider the approach that thousands of doctors around the world are using, supported by a number of studies in the literature, with early outpatient treatment of high-risk patients for typically one week with HCQ + Zinc + Azithromycin?

12. You don't see a problem with the fact that the government, due to your position, in some cases interferes with the choice of using HCQ. Should not that be a choice between the doctor and the patient?

13. While some doctors may not want to use the drug, should not doctors who believe that it is indicated be able to offer it to their patients?

14. Are you aware that doctors who are publicly advocating for such a strategy with the early use of the HCQ cocktail are being silenced with removal of content on the internet and even censorship in the medical community?

15. You are aware of the 20 or so physicians who came to the Supreme Court steps advocating for the early use of the Hydroxychloroquine cocktail.In fact, you said these were "a bunch of people spouting out something that isn't true."Dr. Fauci, these are not just "people"- these are doctors who actually treat patients, unlike you, correct?

16. Do you know that the video they made went viral with 17 million views in just a few hours, and was then removed from the internet?

17. Are you aware that their website, American Frontline Doctors, was taken down the next day?

18. Did you see the way that Nigerian immigrant physician, Dr. Stella Immanuel, was mocked in the media for her religious views and called a "witch doctor"?

19. Are you aware that Dr. Simone Gold, the leader of the group, was fired from her job as an Emergency Room physician the following day?

20. Are you aware that physicians advocating for this treatment that has by now probably saved millions of lives around the globe are harassed by local health departments, state agencies and medical boards, and even at their own hospitals? Are you aware of that?

21. Don't you think doctors should have the right to speak out on behalf of their patients without the threat of retribution?

22. Are you aware that videos and other educational information are removed off the internet and labeled, in the words of Mark Zuckerberg, as "misinformation."?

23. Is it not misinformation to characterize Hydroxychloroquine, in the doses used for early outpatient treatment of COVID-19 infections, as a dangerous drug?

24. Is it not misleading for you to repeatedly state to the American public that randomized clinical trials are the sole source of information to confirm‎ the efficacy of a treatment?

25. Was it not misinformation when on CNN you cited the Lancet study based on false data from Surgisphere as evidence of the lack of efficacy of hydroxychloroquine?

26. Is it not misinformation as is repeated in the MSM as a result of your comments that a randomized clinical trial is required by the FDA for a drug approval?

27. Don't you realize how much damage this falsehood perpetuates?

28. How is it not misinformation for you and the FDA to keep telling the American public that hydroxychloroquine is dangerous when you know that there is nothing more than anecdotal evidence of that?

29. Fauci, if you or a loved one were infected with COVID-19, and had flu-like symptoms, and you knew as you do now that there is a safe and effective cocktail that you could take to prevent worsening and the possibility of hospitalization, can you honestly tell us that you would refuse the medication?

30. Why not give our healthcare workers and first responders, who even with the necessary PPE are contracting the virus at a 3 to 4 times greater rate than the general public, the right to choose along with their doctor if they want use the medicine prophylactically?

31. Why is the government inserting itself in a way that is unprecedented in regard to a historically safe medication and not allowing patients the right to choose along with their doctor?

32. Why not give the American people the right to decide along with their physician whether or not they want outpatient treatment in the first 5 to 7 days of the disease with a cocktail that is safe and costs around $50?

최종 질문들   Final questions

1. 파우치 Fauci 박사, 증세 발생 후 5 ~ 7 일 이내에 투여된 HCQ 칵테일 (하이드록시클로로퀸, 아지스로마이신 및 아연)을 테스트하기 위해 반복적으로 참조하는 무작위 임상시험이 지금도 감소하는 사례 수를 감안할 때 어떻게 가능한지 설명해주십시오. 그게 너무나 많은 상태가 있지않습니까? 
2. 예를 들어, 국립보건원 NIH가 이제 9 월 15 일에 시작하는 연구를 지시한다면 그러한 연구는 어디에서 수행될까요? 

3. 고위험 군에, 증상이 있는 코로나 COVID-19 감염의 조기 치료 (증상 첫 5 ~ 7 일 이내)에 대한 무작위 연구가 인플루엔자 시즌 동안 어떻게 이루어지고 유효할 수 있는지 설명해주세요.

4. 동일한 연구 집단 (고위험 환자)에 대해 동일한 시간 프레임에 제공된 동일 hydroxychloroquine + Azithromycin + Zinc 제제를 사용하여 여러 관찰 연구가 어떻게 동일한 결과에 도달하는지 설명해주십시오. 그것이 칵테일이 효과가 있다는 증거가 아닙니까? 
5. 사실, 전염병이 닥쳤을 때 수백 명의 비 학문 사립 의사가 HCQ 칵테일을 조기에 사용하여 동일한 결과를 달성한다는 것이 어떻게 중요한 증거가 되지 않습니까?

(이하는 원문을 참조해주십시오)

1. Fauci, please explain how a randomized clinical trial, to which you repeatedly make reference, for testing the HCQ cocktail (hydroxychloroquine, azithromycin and zinc) administered within 5-7 days of the onset of symptoms is even possible now given the declining case numbers in so many states?

2. For example, if the NIH were now to direct a study to begin September 15, where would such a study be done?

3. Please explain how a randomized study on the early treatment (within the first 5 to 7 days of symptoms) of high-risk, symptomatic COVID-19 infections could be done during the influenza season and be valid?

4. Please explain how multiple observational studies arrive at the same outcomes using the same formulation of hydroxychloroquine + Azithromycin + Zinc given in the same time frame for the same study population (high risk patients) is not evidence that the cocktail works?

5. In fact, how is it not significant evidence, during a pandemic, for hundreds of non-academic private practice physicians to achieve the same outcomes with the early use of the HCQ cocktail?

6. What is your recommendation for the medical management of a 75-year-old diabetic with fever, cough, and loss of smell, but not yet hypoxic, who Emergency Room providers do not feel warrants admission? We know that hundreds of U.S. physicians (and thousands more around the world) would manage this case with the HCQ cocktail with predictable success.

7. If you were in charge in 1940, would you have advised the mass production of penicillin based primarily on lab evidence and one case series on 5 patients in England or would you have stated that a randomized clinical trial was needed?

8. Why would any physician put their medical license, professional reputation, and job on the line to recommend the HCQ cocktail (that does not make them any money) unless they knew the treatment could significantly help their patient?

9. Why would a physician take the medication themselves and prescribe it to family members (for treatment or prophylaxis) unless they felt strongly that the medication was beneficial?

10. How is it informed and ethical medical practice to allow a COVID-19 patient to deteriorate in the early stages of the infection when there is inexpensive, safe, and dramatically effective treatment with the HCQ cocktail, which the science indicates interferes with coronavirus replication?

11. How is your approach to "wait and see" in the early stages of COVID-19 infection, especially in high-risk patients, following the science ?

이전 질문은 하이드록시클로로퀸 hydroxychloroquine 기반 치료와 관련이 있지만 마스크에 대한 두 가지 질문이 있습니다. 

While previous questions are related to hydroxychloroquine-based treatment, we have two questions addressing masks.

1. 기억하시겠지만, 북동부 지역의 황폐화가 일어나기 몇 주 전인 3 월 8 일에 마스크가 필요없다고 말했습니다. 당신은 나중에 의료 종사자들의 가용성을 방해하는 마스크의 축적을 방지하기 위해 이 성명서를 작성했다고 말했습니다. 왜 지금 우리가 하고있는 것처럼 사람들에게 자신을 보호하기 위해 얼굴 가리개를 착용하도록 권장하지 않았습니까?

2. 오히려 당신은 그런 경고를 하지 않았고 사람들은 얼굴을 가리지 않고 지하철을 타고 양로원에 있는 친척들을 방문하고 있었습니다. 현재 당신의 입장은 안면 마스크가 필수적이라는 것입니다. 3 월 초에 실수를 했는지 아닌지, 지금은 어떻게 다르게 생각하나요?

1. As you recall, you stated on March 8th, just a few weeks before the devastation in the Northeast, that masks weren't needed. You later said that you made this statement to prevent a hoarding of masks that would disrupt availability to healthcare workers. Why did you not make a recommendation for people to wear any face covering to protect themselves, as we are doing now?

2. Rather, you issued no such warning and people were riding in subways and visiting their relatives in nursing homes without any face covering. Currently, your position is that face coverings are essential. Please explain whether or not you made a mistake in early March, and how would you go about it differently now.

결론  Conclusion

대유행이 시작된 이래 의사들은 증상이 있는 코로나 COVID-19 감염을 치료하고 예방을 위해 하이드록시클로로퀸을 사용해 왔습니다. 초기 결과는 결과를 극대화하고 위험을 최소화하기 위해 적응증과 용량을 조사하면서 혼합되었습니다. 그 이후 나타난 것은 하이드록시클로로퀸 hydroxychloroquine이 아지스로마이신 azithromycin과 결합했을 때 가장 잘 작동하는 것으로 나타났습니다.

Since the start of the pandemic, physicians have used hydroxychloroquine to treat symptomatic COVID-19 infections, as well as for prophylaxis. Initial results were mixed as indications and doses were explored to maximize outcomes and minimize risks. What emerged was that hydroxychloroquine appeared to work best when coupled with azithromycin.

실제로 3 월 초 대유행이 시작될 때 하이드록시클로로퀸과 "Z- 팩"을 사용한 조기 치료를 고려해야 한다고 공개적으로 추천한 것은 미국 대통령 트럼프이었습니다. 추가 연구에 따르면 코로나 COVID-19 감염이 일반적으로 병원 환경에서 질병의 과정 후반에 하이드록시클로로퀸으로 치료했을 때 환자에게 도움이 되지 않는 것 같았지만, 하이드록시클로로퀸을 투여했을 때 아지스로마이신과 아연을 함유한 "칵테일"에서 증상이 나타난 후 처음 5 ~ 7 일 동안 고위험 환자에서도 치료가 지속적으로 효과적이었습니다. 결과는 실제로 극적입니다.

In fact, it was the President of the United States who recommended to you publicly at the beginning of the pandemic, in early March, that you should consider early treatment with hydroxychloroquine and a "Z-Pack." Additional studies showed that patients did not seem to benefit when COVID-19 infections were treated with hydroxychloroquine late in the course of the illness, typically in a hospital setting, but treatment was consistently effective, even in high-risk patients, when hydroxychloroquine was given in a "cocktail" with azithromycin and, critically, zinc in the first 5 to 7 days after the onset of symptoms. The outcomes are, in fact, dramatic.

베일러 Baylor의 맥컬로우 McCullough 기사에 명확하게 제시되고 젤렌코 Vladimir Zelenko 박사가 설명했듯이 HCQ 칵테일의 효능은 "권총" 역할을 하는 하이드록시클로로퀸 이온 운반체hydroxychloroquine ionophore와 "총알"역할을 하는 아연의 약리학을 기반으로 합니다. 그게 항 바이러스 효과를 내는 것이지요. 부인할 수없이 하이드록시 클로로퀸 조합 치료는 과학에 의해 뒷받침됩니다. 그러나 당신은 질병 뒤에 있는 "과학"을 계속 무시합니다.

As clearly presented in the McCullough article from Baylor, and described by Dr. Vladimir Zelenko, the efficacy of the HCQ cocktail is based on the pharmacology of the hydroxychloroquine ionophore acting as the "gun" and zinc as the "bullet," while azithromycin potentiates the anti-viral effect. Undeniably, the hydroxychloroquine combination treatment is supported by science. Yet, you continue to ignore the "science" behind the disease. 

바이러스 복제는 증상의 첫 5 ~ 7 일에 빠르게 발생하며 그 시점에서 HCQ 칵테일로 치료할 수 있습니다. 그럼에도 외려 당신은 초기 단계에서 환자 치료를 거부했습니다. 이러한 치료가 없으면 일부 환자, 특히 동반 이환 위험이 높은 환자는 악화되고 진화하는 사이토카인 폭풍으로 인해 입원을 한다해도 폐렴, 호흡 부전 및 50 % 사망률을 가진 삽관 처치가 발생합니다. 그런 식의 과학을 무시한 결과 처지 약이 나빠졌고 그 결과 160,000 명이 넘는 미국인이 사망했습니다. 과학을 따르고 초기 단계에서 질병을 치료한 국가는 훨씬 더 나은 결과를 얻었으며 이는 미국 대중에게 은폐된 사실입니다.

Viral replication occurs rapidly in the first 5 to 7 days of symptoms and can be treated at that point with the HCQ cocktail. Rather, your actions have denied patients treatment in that early stage. Without such treatment, some patients, especially those at high risk with co-morbidities, deteriorate and require hospitalization for evolving cytokine storm resulting in pneumonia, respiratory failure, and intubation with 50% mortality. Dismissal of the science results in bad medicine, and the outcome is over 160,000 dead Americans. Countries that have followed the science and treated the disease in the early stages have far better results, a fact that has been concealed from the American Public.

Despite mounting evidence and impassioned pleas from hundreds of frontline physicians, your position was and continues to be that randomized controlled trials (RCTs) have not shown there to be benefit. However, not a single randomized control trial has tested what is being recommended: use of the full cocktail (especially zinc), in high-risk patients, initiated within the first 5 to 7 days of the onset of symptoms. Using hydroxychloroquine and azithromycin late in the disease process, with or without zinc, does not produce the same, unequivocally positive results.

2017 년 New England Journal of Medicine에서 무작위 임상 시험에 관한 기사에서 토마스 프리덴 Thomas Frieden 박사는 치료를 과학적으로 검증하기 위해 다른 형태의 증거를 사용하는 것이 전적으로 적절한 상황이 있음을 강조했습니다. 이것은 전국의 다른 지역으로 점프하는 덤불처럼 움직이는 전염병의 경우입니다. 대유행 중에 무작위 임상 시험을 주장하는 것은 단순히 어리석은 짓입니다. 세계적으로 유명한 예일대 Yale 역학자인 라이쉬 Harvey Risch 박사는 hydroxychloroquine / HCQ 칵테일의 사용에 관한 모든 데이터를 분석하고 COVID-19 감염 초기에 사용했을 때의 효능에 대한 증거가 분명하다고 결론지었습니다.

Dr. Thomas Frieden, in a 2017 New England Journal of Medicine article regarding randomized clinical trials, emphasized there are situations in which it is entirely appropriate to use other forms of evidence to scientifically validate a treatment. Such is the case during a pandemic that moves like a brushfire jumping to different parts of the country. Insisting on randomized clinical trials in the midst of a pandemic is simply foolish. Dr. Harvey Risch, a world-renowned Yale epidemiologist, analyzed all the data regarding the use of the hydroxychloroquine/HCQ cocktail and concluded that the evidence of its efficacy when used early in COVID-19 infection is unequivocal.

Curiously, despite a 65+ years safety record, the FDA suddenly deemed hydroxychloroquine a dangerous drug, especially with regard to cardiotoxicity. Dr. Risch analyzed data provided by the FDA and concluded that the risk of a significant cardiac event from hydroxychloroquine is extremely low, especially when compared to the mortality rate of COVID-19 patients with high-risk co-morbidities. How do you reconcile that for forty years rheumatoid arthritis and lupus patients have been treated over long periods, often for years, with hydroxychloroquine and now there are suddenly concerns about a 5 to 7-day course of hydroxychloroquine at similar or slightly increased doses? The FDA statement regarding hydroxychloroquine and cardiac risk is patently false and alarmingly misleading to physicians, pharmacists, patients, and other health professionals.

코로나 COVID-19 감염 고위험 환자의 입원을 예방하기 위해 하이드록시클로로퀸 hydroxychloroquine을 조기에 사용하는 이점은 위험보다 훨씬 큽니다. 의사는 환자를 위해 약을 구할 수 없으며, 어떤 경우에는 상태에 따라 하이드록시클로로퀸 처방이 제한됩니다. 정부가 오랫동안 광범위하고 안전하게 사용되는 약물인 하이드 록시 클로로퀸으로 증상이 있는 고위험 COVID-19 환자의 조기 치료를 방해한 것은 전례가 없습니다.

The benefits of the early use of hydroxychloroquine to prevent hospitalization in high-risk patients with COVID-19 infection far outweigh the risks. Physicians are not able to obtain the medication for their patients, and in some cases are restricted by their state from prescribing hydroxychloroquine. The government's obstruction of the early treatment of symptomatic high-risk COVID-19 patients with hydroxychloroquine, a medication used extensively and safely for so long, is unprecedented.

하이드록시클로로퀸 hydroxychloroquine / HCQ 칵테일의 안전성과 효능에 대해 미국 대중에게 진실을 말하는 것이 중요합니다. 정부는 의사가 환자를 치료할 수 있도록 허용함으로써 신성하고 존경받는 의사-환자 관계를 보호하고 촉진해야합니다. 정부의 난독화와 방해는 사이토카인 폭풍만큼 치명적입니다.

It is essential that you tell the truth to the American public regarding the safety and efficacy of the hydroxychloroquine/HCQ cocktail. The government must protect and facilitate the sacred and revered physician-patient relationship by permitting physicians to treat their patients. Governmental obfuscation and obstruction are as lethal as cytokine storm.

미국인들은 계속해서 불필요하게 죽어서는 안됩니다. 성인은 취업을 재개하고 청소년은 학교로 돌아와야 합니다. 불완전한 백신을 기다리는 동안 미국을 가두는 것은 코로나 바이러스보다 미국인에게 훨씬 더 많은 피해를 입혔습니다. 우리는 하이드록시 클로로퀸, 아연 및 아지스로 마이신의 칵테일로 고위험군의 조기 치료를 통해 수천 명의 생명을 구할 수 있다고 확신합니다. 미국인은 두려움 속에서 살지 않아야 합니다. 하비 라이쉬 Harvey Risch 박사의 Newsweek 기사에서 "COVID-19를 물리치는 열쇠는 이미 존재합니다. 사용을 시작해야합니다." 라고 선언했습니다.

매우 정중하게,

Americans must not continue to die unnecessarily. Adults must resume employment and our youth return to school. Locking down America while awaiting an imperfect vaccine has done far more damage to Americans than the coronavirus. We are confident that thousands of lives would be saved with early treatment of high-risk individuals with a cocktail of hydroxychloroquine, zinc, and azithromycin. Americans must not live in fear. As Dr. Harvey Risch's Newsweek article declares, "The key to defeating COVID-19 already exists. We need to start using it."

Very Respectfully,

George C. Fareed, MD, Brawley, California

Michael M. Jacobs, MD, MPH, Pensacola, Florida

Donald C. Pompan, MD, Salinas, California