ALL USAID posts combined

False. What you are seeing is MAYO acknowledging that HCQ was, for a limited time, approved for COVID treatment for a limited time by the FDA. But upon further study, this emergency approval was rescinded because HCQ proved ineffective against COVID. And if you go to MAYO now, they will tell you as such.

Claims that ivermectin, hydroxychloroquine or chloroquine can treat COVID-19 are false. These medicines are still useful for treating other illness. But only medicines approved or authorized by the FDA to treat COVID-19 are useful for that illness.

Ivermectin treats or prevents parasites in animals and in humans, not viruses. Taking large doses of this drug can cause serious harm.

Hydroxychloroquine and chloroquine are malaria medicines. Early in the pandemic, the FDA authorized these medicines for emergency use. But the FDA later withdrew that authorization. Clinical information showed that the medicines weren't effective for treating COVID-19. They also can cause serious heart problems.​

 

Your citation doesn't say that to kill the COVID virus hydroxychloroquine has to be used in combination with zinc. Sad.

When was your citation written? Don't see a date.

 

PubMed
The efficacy and safety of hydroxychloroquine for COVID-19 prophylaxis and clinical assessment: an updated meta-analysis of randomized trials
Xudong Han et al. J Thorac Dis. 2024

Conclusions: Results of this meta-analysis indicated significant impact of HCQ on SARS-CoV-2 infection with higher risk of adverse events. These findings must be considered with caution, and further research is necessary to delineate the specific circumstances where HCQ may be effective for COVID-19 prevention

The efficacy and safety of hydroxychloroquine for COVID-19 prophylaxis and clinical assessment: an updated meta-analysis of randomized trials - PubMed

 

A Meta Study is a study that combines all previous studies on the subject and uses that data to try and make conclusions. The issue with Meta studies is earlier studies with lower level of test subjects, and or early studies with a later discovered variable often skew results. The best kind of study is double blind with a large number of subjects.

This article should put to rest HCQ and COVID. Early studies in third world areas with unclean drinking water showed promise with treating COVID with HCQ. For example, areas in India. But further, double blind studies have shown the early success with drugs like Ivermectin or HCQ wasn't the drug fighting COVID. But the drug doing what it was designed to do, which in the case of Ivermectin, fight off nematode infections, and for HCQ, fight malaria. And this helped those in third-world areas fight off COVID, because their bodies weren't also fighting the other infection at the same time.

But studies in areas where diseases like malaria and nematode infection is really small, which are areas with clean drinking water, both HCQ and ivermectin proved ineffective in fighting COVID.

In conclusion, PEP with HCQ is not advantageous for the prevention of COVID-19 in asymptomatic household direct contact of the laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 cases.​

 

Did your paper test hydroxychloroquine with zinc or just hudrocychloroquine? You have to use HCQ with zinc.

 

Honestly, I don't know. There is no definitive study of HCQ plus zinc. Some studies show no increase in efficacy. Others show HCQ plus zinc to be effective against COVID. Usually when multiple studies have widely different outcomes, there is a variable that the studies don't account for but when scientists do account for it, the puzzle pieces come together.

For example, first world with clean drinking water versus third world with poor water quality is a variable. So is COVID variant. Further research on HCQ plus zinc is required, and maybe there will be something there. My guess is there won't be, but I wouldn't rule it out.

 

Another study.
Hydroxychloroquine for treatment of COVID-19 patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials - PMC
Results

Nine studies met the inclusion criteria and were included in the meta-analysis. There was no significant difference in mortality rate between patients treated with hydroxychloroquine compared to standard of care or placebo (16.7% versus 18.5%; pooled risk ratio 1.09; 95% confidence interval: 0.99-1.19). Also, the rate of serious adverse effects was similar between both Groups, Hydroxychloroquine and Control (3.7% versus 2.9%; pooled risk ratio 1.22; 95% confidence interval: 0.76-1.96).

Conclusion
Hydroxychloroquine is not efficacious in reducing mortality of COVID-19 patients.

 

“ Bulama cradles her surviving infant. The other twin is gone, a casualty of malnutrition and the international funding cuts that are snapping the lifeline for displaced communities in Nigeria’s insurgency-ravaged Borno state.

Workers from Mercy Corps enrolled them in a program to receive a calorie-dense paste. But in February, Mercy Corps abruptly ended the program that was entirely financed by USAID. Two weeks later, one of the twins died,

“……Now my biggest worry is high mortality. We don’t have enough resources to keep up.”


https://apnews.com/article/usaid-fu...ildren-trump-4447e210c4b5543b8ebb9a6b9e01aa53

 

“That’s a lie,” Rubio said. “False.” “No one has died because of U.S.A.I.D.” So let me help Rubio with the truth. Meet Evan Anzoo, a 5-year-old boy who was born with H.I.V. in South Sudan:

Evan’s life was in our hands, and for five years America kept him alive with antiretroviral medicines costing less than 12 cents a day, through the President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief, or PEPFAR. This was a program started by President George W. Bush that has saved more than 26 million lives so far, and it turned the tide of AIDS around the world and built enormous good will toward the United States.

Then along came President Trump and his freeze on most humanitarian aid in January. How could a 5-year-old orphan possibly obtain medicine on his own? Evan weakened and soon died of an opportunistic infection.

I share these photos of Evan and Achol because it strikes me as doubly offensive not only to cause unnecessary deaths of such children but also to deny these deaths and call them lies. The denials erase these children and dodge all responsibility.“


https://www.nytimes.com/2025/05/31/...ytcore-ios-share&referringSource=articleShare

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2025/06/11/usaid-vance-rubio-fact-checker/

 

The Post has a long-standing tradition of fair reporting and fact-checking... said no one. Pravda on the Potomac.

 

Really? This can't be true ... not someone @ USAID??!! BTW, is the NYPost am approved source?

USAID official pleads guilty to taking part in $550M bribery scheme: ‘Violated the public trust’

A federal contracting officer and three businessmen pleaded guilty Thursday to participating in a $550 million bribery scheme involving the embattled US Agency for International Development (USAID).

Roderick Watson, of Maryland, is alleged to have received bribes valued in excess of $1 million while working at USAID in exchange for using his position as a trusted overseer of taxpayer money to direct 14 prime federal contracts to two consulting companies, Apprio and Vistant.

+

The USAID official received “cash, laptops, thousands of dollars in tickets to a suite at an NBA game, a country club wedding, downpayments on two residential mortgages, cellular phones, and jobs for relatives,” from the three businessmen as part of the scheme.

Shell companies, fake invoices and fraudulent payroll sheets were all used to hide the corruption, according to the DOJ.