Dear Vinay, I'd like to challenge you on your claims regarding HCQ and ivermectin. There has been a great deal of fraud in the analysis of these two drugs for COVID. I imagine this is hard to believe, but perhaps after all the false claims and illogical public health measures taken during the pandemic, you can have an open mind regarding what I have to say. Three of the largest HCQ clinical trials were designed to fail. Together, the 3 trials gave HCQ to 2,549 hospitalized patients, who were nearly half of all those entered in late treatment trials of HCQ. These were the Solidarity, Recovery, and REMAP (Higgins et al.) trials. Using death as the endpoint, all 3 had considerably higher death rates in the HCQ group than in the standard care group. Why was this? Because the patients were given excessive, dangerous doses of HCQ, doses that have never been considered therapeutic for any condition. Interestingly, all 3 trials cited above used the identical HCQ doses and dosing schedule. The dose was 800 mg at T=0, then 400 mg each at 6, 12, and 18 hours, then 400 mg every 12 hours for a total 10 days of treatment. Please look up this dose and see if you think it was safe, particularly when all the REMAP patients were in the ICU, and there was no dosage adjustment for weight or comorbidities. In case you still are unconvinced, a study in Brazil of excessive doses of chloroquine (CQ) by Borba et al. quickly revealed it was killing patients, and the trial of high dose CQ had to be ended prematurely, as detailed in the JAMA: jamanetwork.com/journals/jam… Question: How safe and effective are 2 different regimens of chloroquine diphosphate in the treatment of severe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)? Findings: In this phase IIb randomized clinical trial of 81 patients with COVID-19, an unplanned interim analysis recommended by an independent data safety and monitoring board found that a higher dosage of chloroquine diphosphate for 10 days was associated with more toxic effects and lethality, particularly affecting QTc interval prolongation. The limited sample size did not allow the study to show any benefit overall regarding treatment efficacy. Meaning: The preliminary findings from the CloroCovid-19 trial suggest that higher dosage of chloroquine should not be recommended for the treatment of severe COVID-19, especially among patients also receiving azithromycin and oseltamivir, because of safety concerns regarding QTc interval prolongation and increased lethality. When you remove these 3 HCQ trials from a meta-analysis of HCQ (+/- CQ) you find the medication was very beneficial. Leaving them in, still some meta-analyses find efficacy. Here is another meta-analysis of HCQ RCTs: c19hcq.org/meta.html#fig_fpr While no ivermectin trials overdosed patients, there were a number of suspicious issues with the COVID ivermectin studies. A meta-analysis by Andrew Hill had its conclusions adjusted shortly before publication. This was detailed in part by Dr. Tess Lawrie and discussed in my book, “The Real Anthony Fauci.” Phil Harper did a deeper forensic dive later and identified other people who participated in changing the paper's conclusions. There were many serious questions raised about the conduct of the Together trial, the Lopez-Medina trial, and others. There is so much more to this story, and I would be happy to share more information, or put you in touch with other doctors who have written about the frauds in detail. Finally, here is another meta-analysis for ivermectin: c19ivm.org/meta.html#fig_fpr Best wishes, RFK, Jr.