Dr Colignon’s reply to the study attributing 17,000 deaths to hydroxychloroquine
To ring in the new year, the RTBF and La DH dug up an old study, already debunked by BAM in July 2023[1] and attributing nearly 17,000 deaths to hydroxychloroquine.
We publish Dr Colignon’s reply here
|
Dear Colleague LEGA, I have had the opportunity to read the meta-analysis on the dangers of hydroxychloroquine given to treat SARS-CoV-2 infections that you have just published, and which is causing a great stir in the world’s media. By collecting data from the literature that you cross-reference in this analysis, you speculatively determine the number of iatrogenic deaths attributable to hydroxychloroquine in 8 industrialised countries… If I have understood your approach correctly, the sequence of accounting operations is as follows: 1. determine the total number of patients hospitalised for Covid during this period in each of the 8 countries (N). 2. determine for each country the proportion of patients who received hydroxychloroquine (R) 3. Deduce the absolute number of patients hospitalised for Covid and treated with hydroxychloroquine (R*N) 4. Determine the odds ratio of iatrogenic mortality linked to hydroxychloroquine from specific studies (OR) 5. Deduce for each country the number of iatrogenic deaths following the administration of hydroxychloroquine by combining the odds (OR/conv. 1-1/1.11, i.e. 0.09909) and R*N Being Belgian, I was struck by the figures you collected for my country. 1. N is indeed 19,644 according to the figures put forward by Sciensano. That is correct. 2. R is estimated at 0.51, in line with the figures given in the study by Nicolas Dauby and Lucy Catteau entitled Low-dose Hydroxychloroquine therapy and mortality in hospitalised patients with Covid-19 This is a prospective study in which the percentage of 0.51 makes methodological sense, even if it is not an RCT. This ratio is correct, but extrapolating it to all the hospitals in Belgium, which were in no way involved in the protocol of the Sciensano/CHU Saint-Pierre study, is a gross error that would not be forgiven even in a poor medical student. 3. The figure (R*N) of 10,018 treated patients is therefore necessarily overstated. 4. Determining the odds ratio on the basis of studies in which lethal doses of hydroxychloroquine (2,400 mg/day) were administered – which you admit in your study – and applying this incongruous odds ratio to a study in which the doses used were 4 to 6 times lower is a confusion of categories unworthy of a scientist. Following your reasoning, you de facto consider that in the Catteau/Dauby series, which counts 4,542 patients hospitalised on hydroxychloroquine, among whom there were 804 deaths, 80 of them (0.09909 * 804) were due to hydroxychloroquine. Through a simplistic linear extrapolation taken to unspeakable lengths, Belgium should, according to you, mourn 240 iatrogenic deaths due to hydroxychloroquine. Yet in this Catteau and Dauby study on which you rely, one can read: Our study provides further support to the claim that this regimen is not associated with increased short term risk of cardiotoxicity and mortality in the hospital setting and in well-selected COVID-19 patients. Accordingly, as of 17 June 2020, the Federal Agency for Medicines and Health Products had registered in total eight reports of adverse reactions suspected to be associated with HCQ use for the treatment of COVID-19 in Belgium, among which were three cases of cardiac toxicity (all having received concomitant medication), and no reported deaths. My question follows immediately: who is wrong, who is lying, who is making fools of their colleagues? Catteau and Dauby, who state that they had no deaths from cardiotoxicity following the administration of hydroxychloroquine, or you, who claim that they killed 80 people through their negligence? No, Mr Lega, Nicolas Dauby and Lucy Catteau did not kill 80 people... they saved many, and if anyone should go to prison for manslaughter, it is you and not them! Dear colleague, Your analysis is a heap of nonsense that dishonours our profession and can only stem from incompetence or dishonesty. You cannot imagine how much I would like to be wrong and to find in your reply arguments proving me wrong... for I would throw myself at your feet and beg your forgiveness. Alain Colignon Vascular surgery |
The opinions expressed in this letter are solely those of its author and do not necessarily reflect those of BAM!
Introduction and illustration by BAM!
