I know I didn't post the statements from the cardiology assessment team here but had indicated that they mentioned the potential risks.  One such comment among 38 that said the same thing:

C18H26ClN3O both with the inclusion and exclusion of macrolide will induce in portions of the population abnormal arrhythmia. The absence of CT (Clinical Trials) will likely provide dangerous anecdotal outcomes if a placebo and control group is not used.

 Turns out cardiologists know more about human hearts than people who have never even seen a human heart but instead read excerpts from the internet.

 The initial study referenced by the White House was the result of 108 vaccinated adults.  Again that's 108.

 The latest study consists of 671 hospitals in six continents.
 Date span: Dec 20, 2019, and April 14, 2020.
 96,032 patients.
 Mean age 53.8 years, 46.3% female
 All confirmed laboratory SARS-COV-2 with chloroquine treatment within 48 hours.
 Patients who received remdesivir were excluded.
 1868 received chloroquine: 3783 received chloroquine with a macrolide
 3016 received hydroxychloroquine: 6221 received hydroxychloroquine with a macrolide.
 81 144 patients were in the control group.

 10 698 patients died in hospital = 11.1%
 Control group mortality = 9.3%

 De-novo ventricular arrhythmia during hospitalization increased slightly with the use of both Chloroquine/Hydroxychloroquine with or without macrolides.  

 Specific issues were found, and a Cox model was utilized:

 “A Cox proportional hazards model was fit for time to death, controlling for treatment group and potential confounders (age ≥65 years, sex, hospital, diabetes, chronic lung disease, cardiovascular disease [CVD, including hypertension, coronary artery disease, congestive heart failure], respiratory rate >22/min, O2 saturation <90%, abnormal chest imaging findings, aspartate aminotransferase [AST]>40 U/L, and elevated creatinine levels) based on a priori plausibility, documented associations with death or hydroxychloroquine administration from previous studies, bivariate associations within our data, ruling out collinearity using condition indices, and missingness of less than 10%"

 
https://www.clinicalkey.com/#!/content/playContent/1-s2.0-S1473309920302966?r...

https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2766117



 Now this information, open for peer review, is for 96 thousand patients and includes a control group.  Hydroxychloroquine has, at this time, an increased rate of causing heart-problems leading to death.  

 This doesn’t mean Hydroxychloroquine isn’t somewhat effective in certain capacities, in specific demographics, but it does outline why a “study” of 108 patients is not enough to go around saying any drug is going to help.

 Nobody I know cares if Trump is taking it.  The study here was concluded before that announcement was even made.

 If his heart can take it, he should be fine I would think.

 The ontogeny of the active immune response would say different but I don't want to get into the vaccine conversation.

  This is like the other post saying toxic "mercury" is in vaccines which is false.  Looking up Methylmercury versus Ethylmercury would prove that in about 5 minutes.  I assume it's best nobody do that so they can keep saying toxic mercury is in vaccines.

 This is good to see.  This would be a perfect example of why I am always saying we need peer-reviewed, or at least available for review references.

 One issue is most of the data is actually available even though the primary article says it is not.  For instance this is independently verified:

https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2766117

"Retrospective multicenter cohort study of patients from a random sample of all admitted patients with laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 in 25 hospitals, representing 88.2% of patients with COVID-19 in the New York metropolitan region. Eligible patients were admitted for at least 24 hours between March 15 and 28, 2020. Medications, preexisting conditions, clinical measures on admission, outcomes, and adverse events were abstracted from medical records. The date of final follow-up was April 24, 2020."

 This grouping, among others still has a higher mortality rate, specific to heart-related issues, if they had hydroxychloroquine in their system.  This is why the cardiology team I am working with anyway feels the way they do.


However the larger overall numbers do not meet COPE standards and should be retracted.

"Sometimes I think people are just goin outta their way to set up bullshit to sell the people.."

 You think?  When has this not happened?  Take a look at the "National Gazette" and George Washington.

 This is the importance of having referenced material available for peer review.  Incidentally we never even took Surgisphere into account because they wouldn't respond to source material inquiry.  They literally never said a word.  

 From what verifiable data I've seen it is pretty safe for the majority, even those using it for arthritis which is it's other most consistent use besides and anti-malarial.  

 That being said it has been known to cause some heart problems, however in this case I do not have enough information to say anything else increases that risk.

"HCQ with prolonged use also causes amnesia like symptoms - how come I am not hearing that at all."

 You mean why aren't you hearing about long-term symptoms in patients who have been taking HCQ for a short period?  They haven't been taking it long-term.

 I'm not sure where you are getting your data but amnesia is on pretty much everything I see.  I don't see it under SARS-COV-2 related information because it hasn't been around enough to give SARS-COV-2 patient's amnesia symptoms.