Why would the FDA ban a drug that safely saves the lives of patients?
Why would the FDA ban a drug that safely saves the lives of patients? By Rick Hayes for American Thinker
The American people have been subjected to a pack of lies and half-truths for three years. Politicians responsible for most of the deceptions enjoy an approval rating hovering somewhere near that of a used car salesman.
But surely when it comes to medicine, health care, and the Hippocratic Oath, there is no place for dirty politics?
Aimed at getting to the bottom of the disparity between doctors’ pro and con beliefs regarding the use of hydroxychloroquine to fight the Wuhan virus, on Sunday, August 23, radio talk show host Mark Levin had Dr. Harvey Risch on as one of his cable show guests.
Risch, a distinguished cancer epidemiologist at the Yale School of Public Health, has published over 300 papers and is viewed in the medical profession as an expert at evaluating research data.
Risch, who recently wrote a review article in the American Journal of Epidemiology that cites evidence that he believes supports hydroxychloroquine’s use on an outpatient basis against the Wuhan virus, told Levin that the evidence that the drug has saved many lives is “overwhelming.” He also stated that there are studies that indicate no harmful effects using the medicine under strict protocol — something the FDA did not consider when it evaluated the drug.
In an interview with The Daily Hayes, Risch cited the evidence found by Dr. Vladimir Zelenko, a family doctor from Monroe, New York, who has reported having a 99.7% survival rate for his patients using hydroxychloroquine.
Zelenko emphasized that the high success rate using hydroxychloroquine is effected when administered on an outpatient basis and in the early stages, usually within the first five days of experiencing symptoms. He spoke of how it was imperative to follow a strict protocol, which included using a cocktail containing hydroxychloroquine, zinc, and the antibiotic azithromycin.