Denmark: Government Tells Citizens the Truth About HCQ
We reported yesterday on the astonishing success of the no lockdown, no mask policy in Denmark, a nation which has not suffered the rampant number of deaths from COVID19 seen in politically-biased US cities such as New York. Below is the official statement from the Danish Government revealing the truth about hydroxychloroquine, regarded by many thousands of doctors worldwide as a “game changer” in defeating the pandemic.
The Danish Medicines Agency writes as follows:
COVID-19: Facts about chloroquine
and hydroxychloroquine
There are many rumours that hydroxychloroquine or chloroquine has a documented effect on COVID-19 and that other countries have approved it for COVID-19. Read the facts here.
Hydroxychloroquine is a medicine in tablet form authorised in the EU for the treatment of arthritis and skin diseases and for the prevention of malaria. The fact that the medicine is authorised means, in this context, that the authorities have granted a marketing authorisation to the company which manufactures the medicine. The marketing authorisation allows the company to sell the medicine for the treatment of precisely these diseases. The marketing authorisation has been granted based on documentation from the company that hydroxychloroquine is effective on these diseases and is safe to use. There is a medicine called chloroquine, and there is a medicine called hydroxychloroquine. Only hydroxychloroquine is sold in Denmark.
Since 23 March 2020, hydroxychloroquine in Denmark can only be prescribed by hospital doctors and specialist doctors for rheumatic disorders, skin diseases and childhood diseases as well as only be used in clinical trials. This means that Danish hospital doctors, for example in connection with research projects, have the possibility of testing if hydroxychloroquine has an effect in COVID-19 patients.
In principle, Danish hospital doctors are also allowed to use hydroxychloroquine to treat COVID-19 patients even if they are not enrolled in research projects. This is because doctors have the right to prescribe the medicine of their choice according to their assessment and under their own responsibility. [emphasis added to this key paragraph]
The Danish Medicines Agency cannot authorise hydroxychloroquine for COVID-19 if the company manufacturing the medicine does not apply for an authorisation. Marketing authorisations are granted based on the initiative of the company. In addition, marketing authorisations are based on documentation of efficacy and side effects, and more. Right now, only very few studies have been conducted to investigate the effect of chloroquine and hydroxychloroquine on COVID-19, and their total evidence base is not solid enough to assess if chloroquine or hydroxychloroquine has a real effect on COVID-19. Likewise, it has not been established what side effects the medicines could cause when used to treat COVID-19.
Other countries’ reports on chloroquine and hydroxychloroquine
Right now, there are many reports in the press and social media claiming that drug regulatory authorities in other countries have authorised chloroquine or hydroxychloroquine for the treatment of COVID-19. It is important to note that the authorities in other countries have not issued marketing authorisations that allow chloroquine or hydroxychloroquine to be marketed as a treatment for COVID-19. The case here is that doctors in other countries have been given possibilities to use the medicines to treat COVID-19 patients. Possibilities that are similar to those given to Danish hospital doctors.
USA’s reports on chloroquine and hydroxychloroquine
The FDA has granted a special permission to use chloroquine and hydroxychloroquine in clinical trials and in emergency situations. This is not a genuine authorisation, but a possibility given to American doctors to use chloroquine in COVID-19 clinical trials and in the treatment of COVID-19 if the doctor has no other options.
See the FDA’s announcement here.
European Medicines Agency (EMA)
The EMA has announced that chloroquine and hydroxychloroquine should only be used for the treatment of COVID-19 in connection with clinical trials or in national emergency use programmes for the treatment of critically ill COVID-19 patients. Denmark is thus in line with the recommendations from the European Medicines Agency, offering the same possibilities to use hydroxychloroquine in clinical trials and allowing hospital doctors to prescribe it. See the EMA’s announcement here.
The authorisation in Poland
Poland is the only country to have actually authorised a chloroquine-containing product for supportive treatment of COVID-19. The product concerned is produced locally and called Arachin. It is manufactured by the Polish company Adamed Pharma. The Danish Medicines Agency has not seen the Polish company’s authorisation basis, and the drug regulatory authorities in Poland have informed us that use of the product is only permitted in hospitals in Poland. Denmark can neither assess nor issue a marketing authorisation for a Polish product if the Polish company has not submitted an application to the Danish Medicines Agency with the intent of putting it on the Danish market. See Poland’s announcement here.
The Danish Medicines Agency has also investigated how several other European countries like the UK, Spain and Belgium have approached the question of hydroxychloroquine and COVID-19. Several other European countries have also emphasised that hydroxychloroquine is not authorised for COVID-19, and that there is presently no evidence of the treatment. Several countries have announced that they indeed prefer the treatment to be conducted as part of clinical trials.
The Danish Medicines Agency is following international research closely. At present, there are not enough scientific studies to draw any conclusions on the effect of chloroquine and hydroxychloroquine on COVID-19.
Danish Medicines Agency
Axel Heides Gade 1
2300 København S
Email: [email protected]
Read more at laegemiddelstyrelsen.dk
***
About the author: John O’Sullivan John is CEO and co-founder (with Dr Tim Ball) of Principia Scientific International (PSI). John is a seasoned science writer and legal analyst who assisted Dr Ball in defeating world leading climate expert, Michael ‘hockey stick’ Mann in the ‘science trial of the century‘. O’Sullivan is credited as the visionary who formed the original ‘Slayers’ group of scientists in 2010 who then collaborated in creating the world’s first full-volume debunk of the greenhouse gas theory plus their new follow-up book.
PRINCIPIA SCIENTIFIC INTERNATIONAL, legally registered in the UK as a company 
incorporated for charitable purposes. Head Office: 27 Old Gloucester Street, London WC1N 3AX.
Please DONATE TODAY To Help Our Non-Profit Mission To Defend The Scientific Method.
Trackback from your site.
Ken Hughes
| #
“Not enough studies”? well then just how many studies do they need?
‘and just how many studies are ongoing ? (In view of the urgency)
Delaying tactics.
Reply
MattH
| #
True Ken. I call it the teflon response.
” Danish hospital doctors are also allowed to use hydroxychloroquine to treat COVID-19 patients even if they are not enrolled in research projects. This is because doctors have the right to prescribe the medicine of their choice according to their assessment and under their own responsibility.”
OK. So then let general practice doctors practice medicine.
” Likewise, it has not been established what side effects the medicines could cause when used to treat COVID-19.”
60 years of HCQ use. Get out of the way, fools.
Reply
JaKo
| #
Hi Ken,
Please check the date of the Danish statement (2020-April-07) — at that time there were not many studies as correctly stated…
JaKo
Reply
John O'Sullivan
| #
Yes, agreed that the Danes have opted for the ‘Teflon response’ to ensure equivocation. Though the emboldened paragraph is a light of sanity whereby individual doctors are permitted the right to use their own professional judgment to prescribe HCQ for their patients with symptoms of CV19.
Reply
Matt
| #
Thank you for that clarification John. Your article ” Tests & ‘Positives’ Up, But Fewer Dead? End the Lockdown.” is a great summary on the current status.
Reply
Moffin
| #
Hi PSI readers.
Below is a few lines in a news article about clearing the names of people executed for being witches. Climate and covid and witches. The evolution of man?
Small steps are being made in some small villages, where witch-hunting was rife. A plaque was unveiled last month in the town of Culross, opposite the courthouse where hundreds of women were sentenced.
They were strangled in the village square, tied to a post on the beach and set alight. Their remains were taken care of by the tide.
Now Scotland’s being urged to take care of their memory by banishing their convictions.
Reply
J Duane Robinson, LMPS, EMT Instructor
| #
From your title, John (if you don’t mind me addressing you that way, Mr. O’Sullivan), I was expecting a ‘Stop The Presses’ announcement from the Danish government here, not an outdated message from it
(Sorry, but…)
You should have mentiioned PSI’s article where several countries had already chosen hydroxychloroquine as its drug of choice for treating Covid-19 (the one where your staff used the, if I remember right, Spanish newspaper article shapshot twice on the mentioned HCQ article refered to – once on the snippet on Spain’s use of HCQ as the drug of choice and also the country’s snippet below it, where they accidentally re-used the snapshot of the Spanich article again…you graciously corrected it when brought to your attention through LinkedIn.
(I am sure that the others commenting here, as their names are becoming familiar with them, understand that PSI corrects its mistakes as soon as possible nd has no problem with corrections!)
I am working today and cannot look that artile up just now!
Thank you, sir, and have a nice rest of this weekend.
Reply
Tom O
| #
I’m intrigued. What needs to be “corrected” in your mind? The title says the Danish Government tells its people the truth. To change anything about the article would falsify the statements made by the Danish government, since they are dated. It is your expectations that need to e changed, not the article. You “jumped to a conclusion,” which is your problem. The rest of us saw the headline, saw the date, and saw the article and what was important. NO changes necessary. Have a nice weekend yourself.
Reply
J Duane Robinson, LMPS, EMT Instructor
| #
In another article, “Snapshot of the Nations Praising HCQ for COVID-19” the staff at PSi had used the picture/snapshot of the Cuban article supporting HCQ use TWICE by mistake; once on the snippet on how HCQ is now being used successfully as a standard of care in Cuba, and once again (in error) on the snippet below Cuba’s, concerning HCQ’s use successfully in Costa Rico…
Mr. O’Sullivan is a primary contact of mine at LinkedIn, and being PSI’s President, I thought he would have the small error corrected and the right snippet of the article from Costa RIca where is backed the claim of HCQ being successfully used there restored to where it belonged.
Sure enough, the next day after contacting him, he told me that the right snapshot showing HCQ’s successful use in COsta Rico was placed with the snippet belwo Cuba’s.
A minor problem, but I was thankful he was interested in seeing it corrected quickly.
https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/snapshot-nations-praising-hcq-covid-19-johnny-robinson-lmps-kd0ked/
and original:
https://principia-scientific.com/snapshot-of-the-nations-praising-hcq-for-covid-19/
Sorry, only Mr. O’Sullivan understood what I was talking about; I should have explained it to others like you as well!
Here is the original…as I said the staff member used the Cuban snapshot accidentally on the one below Cuba as well, under Costa Rica, which Mr. O’Sullivan had corrected:
Reply
John O'Sullivan
| #
Duane, I’m afraid you may have missed the point because the article reveals the equivocation and cowardice of politicians on a scientific issue of huge importance. The Danish government chose to bury in the middle of their statement a key exemption which allows individual doctors who see benefit to prescribing HCQ for COVID19 to go ahead and use it, while in the same document revealing how otherwise they are restrictive and unsupportive of this very safe, proven medicine.
Reply
Windy
| #
This is a waste of pixels. Why are we rehashing a five month old article that hardly bears any relevance to the current situation?? Seriously. How about some hot takes on Australia’s Victoria governor Dan Andrews and his Keystone Gestapo? How about recent research by revolver.news that shows lockdowns are ten times more deadly than the virus on a life-years basis?
https://youtu.be/xsjnoiOAst0
https://www.reddit.com/r/ClimateAndCovid19/comments/ik509a/revolver_exclusive_study_covid19_lockdowns_over/
Reply
J Duane Robinson, LMPS, EMT Instructor
| #
My apology; I am so used to the “equivocation and cowardice of politicians on a scientific issue of huge importance” of every government worlwide that this point completely missed me.
I do aologize, sir!
Reply
Robert Beatty
| #
John,
This whole discussion raises the query in my mind. Who is looking after who, and why?
This should be a personal decision for each individual. If you feel you are in a particularly exposed segment, you should be able to discuss that with you medical advisor, and take whatever prophylactic which is available. One day that might be a vaccination, but today it is the Trump formula.
Reply
John O'Sullivan
| #
Bob, I agree, which is why we urge readers to check out this latest article: https://principia-scientific.com/common-sense-or-a-risky-compulsory-covid-vaccine/
Reply
John O'Sullivan
| #
Bob, That’s a common sense approach when most politicians are proving they don’t have any.
Reply
Magnus Hagelstam
| #
The most telling passage of the statement is. “The Danish Medicines Agency cannot authorize hydroxychloroquine for COVID-19 if the company manufacturing the medicine does not apply for an authorization.”
Which of the hundreds of companies producing this generic drug would bother to apply for an authorization? If one does, every manufacturing company would profit.
The same applies to all repositioning of generic drugs for treating new diseases, azithromycin for Zika is but one of example.
This is one more example of how the medical authorities in Western countries are geared to guard the interests of BigPharma, not life and health of the population.
Reply
Christian Loosli
| #
Now they have more and longer experiences with HCQ and there side effects as experiences with masks and they chose masks over HCQ. The same with the PCR- test, which isn’t really a test. It’s a methode! Not for medical diagnosis made! Have they ever defined what Covid 19 is? Even if you had all the symptoms and test negative, you would not count as covid 19 and stay home with Dolipran, or you have no symptoms at all and your positive you have it. Why not prohibit tests and masks until they have made there way throu pir rewiew and legal authority procedures? Every new chidrens toy are more difficult to put on the marked as this tests and masks and that for a use there not made for in the first place.
Reply
J
| #
This white paper on HCQ should be refrenced to.
Could not upload file, but you can find it here:
https://docs4opendebate.be/wp-content/uploads/2020/09/white-paper-on-hcq-from-AFD.pdf
Reply
MattH
| #
Very important reference thank you anonymous J.
Reply
Alder
| #
This is the paper from Front Line Doctors.
Author Simone Gold. 29pp.
-It is safe and effective-
The history of the sabotage campaign round the world,
corruption in journals and the media, censorship, the dead hand of government,
what to take if you have the CCP19 (if you can get).
All of this is very nicely documented.
Reply