UHND.com - Notre Dame Football, Basketball, & Recruiting

Dr. Risch's peers were answered, and trounced, in his research paper which came out after they initially criticized him.

I guarantee.. GUARANTEE...your ID doctor has never read Dr. Risch's research paper, nor is he familiar with the studies Risch refers to in making his case.

The fact that HCQ+ is not considered a first line of defense is an indictment of the entire medical community. It was immediately politicized because Trump suggested it might be effective.

Ask yourself this. Proponents who were SUCCESSFUL in treating patients with HCQ+ (and yes, there were many) were VERY CLEAR it had to be used within 5-7 days of symptoms onset. Yet, trials were conducted using hydroxychloroquine only (without zinc and azithromycin) or HCQ+ on already-hospitalized patients. Why were these trials DELIBERATELY conducted incorrectly? Why? Have you or your vaunted ID doctor ever asked yourselves these questions? And why was EVERY credible observational trial dismissed by the Great Fauchino? Because he has a PERSONAL medical philosophy of never accepting observational data, that's why, despite the fact this PERSONAL philosophy is not in the mainstream...since you're so big in believing the mainstream.

And ask yourself, why was a completely false "research" paper printed in The Lancet, which incorrectly said hydroxychloroquine was associated with cardiac events, a paper which later had to be retracted in shame? Yet, that paper successfully shut down all further research on HCQ+, which was why Dr. Risch was unable to conduct these studies himself (to answer one of your main criticisms).

Face it. Dr. Risch has more than made the case HCQ+ was extremely effective in preventing hospitalizations and deaths in the 84% range (which, not ironically happens to coincide precisely with the percentage Paxlovid is effective). Since for weird and bizarre reasons you refuse to read his paper, you (and your vaunted ID doctor) are completely ignorant on this subject.