WHO Temporarily Suspends Trial of Hydroxychloroquine Over Safety Concerns (axios.com) 231
The World Health Organization is temporarily pausing tests of the anti-malarial drug hydroxychloroquine as a coronavirus treatment in order to review safety concerns, the agency's director-general Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesu said Monday. From a report: The decision comes after a retrospective review published in The Lancet found that coronavirus patients who took hydroxychloroquine or its related drug chloroquine were more likely to die or develop an irregular heart rhythm that can lead to sudden cardiac death, compared to those who did nothing. The medical journal's review consisted of 96,000 hospitalized patients diagnosed with the coronavirus in six continents, the largest analysis of medical records on the drug, between Dec. 20, 2019, and April 14, 2020. Tedros said that an independent executive panel "agreed to review a comprehensive analysis and critical appraisal of all evidence available globally" regarding hydroxychloroquine in order to determine whether it should continue to be used in WHO's Solidarity Trial, a global effort to test experimental coronavirus treatments.
Fake (Score:5, Funny)
The WHO is a fake organization.
Stop sending them money and pass me the hydroxychloroquine and UV lamps.
Re: (Score:2)
Hello Mr. Trump.
Re:Fake (Score:5, Funny)
"The WHO is a fake organization."
Not at all, they still exist.
Pete Townsend had his 75th birthday a few days ago and he didn't even break a guitar.
Re: (Score:2)
Stop sending them money and pass me the hydroxychloroquine and UV lamps.
Man who do you get your news from. Must be fake news if you still think HCQ is a thing. We've all moved on to doing Purell now. The UV lamp thing is like flared jeans though, that won't ever go out of fashion.
Re: (Score:2)
I was going to say,
America temporarily defunds the WHO over safety concerns.
Re: (Score:2)
First, you need to shove the UV lamp "somewhere" (according to our President).
WHO is a joke. (Score:2)
WHO is really just a joke at this point.
A very bad joke that costs many lives.
Re: (Score:3)
"What you need is BLEACH!
(Tararara!)
What you need is BLEACH, BLEACH!
BLEACH is all you need!"
Reminds me of 'The Tunnel Under The World" by Fred Pohl.
Feckle-Freezer, Feckle, Feckle, Feckle...
Re: (Score:3)
You clearly need a gallon or two.
Bathe, ingest, eat and whatever you need to eliminate that persist problem.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
...get it spoon fed to you...
Oh, is that the recommended method to use now? I thought that they were only looking at injection. I need to read more news.
Re: Fake (Score:3)
Re: Fake (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Works for some not for others, not a contradiction (Score:5, Insightful)
Except for the fact that hasn't really borne out in continuing tests. They're actually leaning more in the direction that hcq is linked to a higher mortality rate.
There is early evidence suggesting it works prior to infection and at early stages of infection. There is also early evidence it dos not work at later stages of infection. These two things are not in contradiction. What is going on in the body is different early stage vs late stage so need different medications would be a normal thing.
Just give it up, just because Trump pulled some random shit out of his ass ...
No he did not. He embraced a small French medical study that was funded by the French government. I am sorry but you should really take your own advice regarding pulling shit out of ***. You actually seem to be much like Trump, clinging to one side and ignoring the larger more complicated picture. Its not if the medication is good or bad, its under what circumstances may the medication be good and what circumstances may the medication be bad.
Its not a binary thing, any anyone who suggests it is -- Trump or you -- are acting more political than scientific. Reality is more complicated that a binary choice here.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Name the company. Show us the numbers.
HCQ is off-patent. It's a fucking GENERIC that anyone can make.
Re:Works for some not for others, not a contradict (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Fake (Score:5, Insightful)
Umm, no. HCQ combined with zinc and azythromycin [ny1.com] reduced mortality by 44%.
There are several other studies, and lots of anecdotal evidence, that show the combination works; it's the studies that use HCQ by itself that show it does nothing. Well - not surprising, because the theory is that it helps cells uptake of zinc, which is the natural anti-viral. So taking a drug to increase zinc uptake - and not supplementing with zinc - doesn't work. Wow. Shocker there!
injecting bleach
Gonna keep lying to keep your partisan side showing? You do realize that even Polifact says you're lying [politifact.com]. But go on, keep your 10 minutes of OrangeManBad hate flowing!
Re: (Score:2)
"There are several other studies, and lots of anecdotal evidence, that show the combination works; it's the studies that use HCQ by itself that show it does nothing. Well - not surprising, because the theory is that it helps cells uptake of zinc, which is the natural anti-viral. So taking a drug to increase zinc uptake - and not supplementing with zinc - doesn't work. Wow. Shocker there!"
This is a dishonest misrepresentation of what is known, yet one that you repeat over and over. Trump thanks you for your
Re: Fake (Score:3)
"And then I see the disinfectant, where it knocks it out in one minute. And is there a way we can do something like that, by injection inside or almost a cleaning, because you see it gets in the lungs and it does a tremendous number on the lungs, so itâ(TM)d be interesting to check that, so that youâ(TM)re going to have to use medical doctors with, but it sounds interesting to me."
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Also, unfortunately, the studies that showed promise still also showed dangerous side effects along the lines of known problems AND were generally too poorly constructed to draw conclusions from.
Re: (Score:3)
source?
I have seen support for Vit D: https://www.medrxiv.org/conten... [medrxiv.org]
and maybe zinc https://www.uchealth.org/today... [uchealth.org]
There is ongoing trials for hcq+Zn: https://www.webmd.com/lung/new... [webmd.com]
and this one adds Vit d: https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2... [clinicaltrials.gov]
It will be interesting to see what they show.
I have not yet seen evidence that supports your statement that the three together show promise, only that they are being studied.
Until the results are in we should avoid making claims.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
sunlight ( vitamin d )
Yeah, about that... [sciencedaily.com]
counter intuitively, countries at lower latitude and typically sunny countries, such as Spain and Northern Italy, had low concentrations of vitamin D and high rates of vitamin D deficiency
The northern latitude countries of Norway, Finland and Sweden, have higher vitamin D levels despite less UVB sunlight exposure
Re:Fake (Score:5, Insightful)
No, the WHO is hardly innocent; no organization which gets all of it's funding from partisan governments can be completely separated from those government's desires. That being said, it acted somewhat pro-Chinese because they are better at paying their bills than the US; however, the WHO is still far more independent than most of the chuckleheads whining about it..
The general problem is that reality is complex, but many people prefer simple falsehoods over complex truths that don't confirm their prejudices. The WHO is not perfect, but they're still pretty damn good. Most of the anti-WHO folks are taking some valid complaints about the WHO believing China, and spinning that into a crazy story while ignoring that the US president also swallowed China's early rosy predictions. (And he has many three-letter agencies to determine the truth, while the WHO doesn't.)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
That being said, it acted somewhat pro-Chinese because they are better at paying their bills than the US
BULLSHIT
The US has fronted the bulk of the cost for the WHO since its inception. China pays squat.
China has been bribing Tedros and others off the books. Or blackmailing them. (China can easily expose Tedros and his bullshit in Africa.)
Re:Fake (Score:5, Insightful)
We got lots in return. Many diseases have been well-handled by the WHO; even covid-19 has been well-handled despite WHO being too credulous of China at first. A less disease-ridden world is exactly why we fund the WHO, and it largely works.
And other countries also fund the WHO, and don't throw hissy-fits when the WHO says something they don't like.
China may be bribing folks. If so, I assume that various three-letter agencies know and have told Trump. But that doesn't explain why, when China was downplaying the severity of covid-19, so was Trump. So it sounds like Trump believed China, same as the WHO. The WHO I understand; they have no power and no spies. But Trump makes less sense. And defunding WHO because they were just as gullible as you? That's crazytime (and deflection).
Re: (Score:2)
So it sounds like Trump believed China, same as the WHO. The WHO I understand; they have no power and no spies. But Trump makes less sense.
Trump believed China because he thought the Chinese president was his friend and they had a "great relationship". Really. And his friend had told him that they had everything under control.
Re:Fake (Score:4, Insightful)
Trump believed China because he thought the Chinese president was his friend and they had a "great relationship". Really. And his friend had told him that they had everything under control.
And when Trump told you America has it totally under control. You believed him because he's your friend?
It's turtles^W gullibility all the way down.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Trump was correct (Score:2)
There was nothing to lose, except a few lives I suppose. Not connected to me, so no biggie. Definitely worth the sacrifice. Of others.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
First off, Germany has a lower death rate than the US. Second, those countries have much higher population densities that increase the probability of transmission. Third, isn't Canada enlightened and progressive? Fourth, Trump is responsible for stuff that happens in his watch. He blamed Bush for 9/11 didn't he? If you didn't know that I suggest you educate yourself. He has no problem saying others should be responsible, but refuses responsibilities on himself?
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
We're better than some EU countries, far worse than most. And our numbers are very suspect since we have a federal system with no standardized way of filling out death certificates or of collecting nationwide numbers, so we're missing many covid deaths and counting some non-covid deaths. Also, we're still way behind most countries on testing, so even if we suspect many covid deaths we cannot prove them.
The US's numbers are sadly going to rise when we do statistical counts in the next year or two to determ
Re: (Score:2)
from TFA - excluded info: aka sensationalism. (Score:2)
chloroquine alone, chloroquine with a macrolide, hydroxychloroquine alone, or hydroxychloroquine with a macrolide
Translation: Control group, CQ, CQ + some antibiotic with a lactone ring (e.g. Erythromycin), HCQ, HCQ + some antibiotic with a lactone ring (e.g. Erythromycin).
Where is the control here? Why are we doing studies where we have *some type of antibiotic* as the variance?
Azithromycin [nih.gov]: C38H72N2O12
Erythromycin [nih.gov]: C37H67NO13
(thank you Pubchem )
Different shape, different lasting power, but no zinc.
Patients for whom one of the treatments of interest was initiated more than 48 h after diagnosis or while they were on mechanical ventilation, as well as patients who received remdesivir, were excluded.
They specified diagnosis but not the stage of the disease. How is this a controlled study?
Re:What about malaria, RA or lupus users? (Score:5, Informative)
It's a very safe drug for most people with 70 year track record. Only targets a certain kind of malaria parasite well though so not widely used now. Still, the good results with the drug regarding covid19 were in combination, one of those being zinc. It's a known transporter of zinc into cells, and zinc effective against some viral respiratory diseases for at least lessening symptoms, though whether it does one smidge of good against this pandemic I've no idea.
Re: (Score:2)
Depends on the dose. Bid doses are dangerous.
How much do you need to fight C19?
Re: (Score:2)
They use the standard dosage for most patients.
One study tried upping the dose to see if it had any benefit. They said it increased the risk of death. Everyone reported it as HCQ killing people.
It wasn't even HCQ, it was CQ. They didn't say CQ was dangerous. They merely said a higher dose of CQ was not worth the potential risk.
The media reported that HCQ was killing people so much that the people in the trial were pulled out of the test groups.
Again, it wasn't HCQ. And the test group they were pulled o
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
No, it's not all that safe. It depends crucially on the level of dosage and duration. Some reports have said that the dose level used to treat COVID is significantly higher than was used as and anti-malaria drug. (Most public reports vs. COVID don't report dosage at all. The successful in vitro studies that I've seen used dose levels that would definitely be dangerous, if not fatal, so I really doubt the in vivo studies are using that high a dose.)
Re: (Score:2)
No, it's not all that safe. It depends crucially on the level of dosage and duration.
So, much like aspirin [drugs.com], which is often prescribed by doctors for after-heart-attack care, yet one of the listed side effects is irregular heartbeat! Your doctor wants to KILL you!
Guess what - too much of ANYTHING (including oxygen, water, or even sunlight) can kill you.
Re: (Score:2)
The original report that got everyone excited about it did not include or contain zinc, which is why most of the trials in progress did not include zinc. It's okay, though, it'll mutate; if the trials with zinc also produce no good results, we'll have a new explanation along shortly requiring something else, just because it's that or admit that people jumped on a bad study from someone with a history of faked data without checking it carefully first.
Re: (Score:2)
There are serious trials in progress combining HCQ with zinc, besides in asia at NYU Grossman School of Medicine.
Re: (Score:2)
It's a very safe drug for most people with 70 year track record.
It has known cardiac effects. Moreover, these cardiac effects are exacerbated by azithromycin.
Both are true. It is very safe, since the cardiac effects are rare and are still not as bad as malaria or lupis, but those cardiac effects can be deadly, especially when infected with a virus that turns even minor respiratory and cardiac ailments into life-threatening conditions.
There are many studies, and when more of them complete we will know more. Until then, anyone claiming that this drug, whether alone or mixed with zinc or orange tanning lotion, does anything useful to COVID-19 is a gullible fool.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Not yet peer reviewed, but this one looks promising. If these results hold up to peer review and can be repeated, then maybe we'll have something. Until then, though, claiming that you know means "gullible fool."
Re: (Score:2)
Ah yes, anything that reflects badly on Trump must be the result of those naughty politicians who don't like him. Don't you Trump supporters ever get tired of whining all the time?
Re: (Score:2)
What about corruption, fake news and fake science? (Score:2)
I've seen numerous, immediate news and legal attacks on Rauolt and Zelenko, with repetitiously bad or fake trial work but no data directly addressing EARLY HCQ use with substantial zinc, and perhaps magnesium, added.
When I did experimental work, this kind of politicized power play, repeatedly misrun trials to deny an important result, when called out, we called "covering it in glory". It works on
Re: (Score:2)
Re:What about malaria, RA or lupus users? (Score:5, Insightful)
There is a risk with every single medication.
The effects and side effects depends on the dose and the context.
Anti-malarial, lupus and rheumatoid arthritis are common use of that with a well established body of evidence to their various risks.
Usage with COVID patients came more because a few doctors thought they noticed something interesting. However, from my understanding of COVID, the inflammation issues is much more of a problem then the infection itself. Its quite possible that for most patients the chloroquine makes things worse overall then better.
Re: (Score:2)
It's not that simple. Perhaps if you suppress both inflamation and blood clots you'd have eliminated the bad effects, the jury is still out. For some people, certainly, the blood clots have proven fatal even after they'd survived the cytokine storm.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I believe it was known, but a tiny chance of cardiac issues is not bad against the effects of malaria or lupis! Also, when under close medical supervision you can usually discontinue the mediation before the cardiac issues are major. Well, unless you are infected with a virus that makes minor cardiac issues deadly.
It's a bit scary what are considered minor risks with drugs, though understandable when you think about what those drugs can prevent.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I 100% agree with you, but one pedantic issue: most drugs have terrible risk/reward ratios (many many drugs cure cancer, by killing you). But only drugs with good risk/reward ratios get through clinical trials and FDA approval. So "All drugs" then "Most of the time the risk is worth the reward" is a survival bias error.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Where is double blind study? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Big pharma has no say; most of these are government studies and government studies are generally quite reliable. (Yeah, yeah, I know, most folks hate and disbelieve government, unless it says what they want when they suddenly treat it as gospel. Whatever, my statement stands.)
The first few studies were small, desperate, and not well-done. Now we have larger and better studies, which (as usually happens) shows how flawed the original studies were. We still need better studies, but double-blind studies ar
Re: (Score:2)
While I may not share the vehemence of your post, I totally agree that too many opinions are being formed and actions taken, based on insufficient evidence/studies. (can you say 'ingest disinfectant'? - shudder)
OTOH, open communication among scientists is fundamental to progress. Information/ hypotheses/ studies need to be shared to arrive at solid consensus. So walking that line is difficult at the best of times. And now we have groups/politicians/media/foreign-governments who grab a tiny fragment of the t
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Where is double blind study? (Score:5, Insightful)
Still waiting. I have no idea what, if anything, helps against cv19 at whatever stage but seeing multiple conflicting "studies" telling me it's good, no it's bad, no it's good if, but wait, no it'll kill you,
Double blind studies are only good to determine true efficacy. If something isn't shown to be effective at all, you don't need a double blind study.
but it's been used for 30+ years safely for malaria and lupus patients, but they all got malaria and lupus and reeeee reeeee reeeee!!!
Chemotherapy treatments have been used safely for 60 years or so. That doesn't mean such a treatment is low risk or should be done on anyone.
Re: (Score:2)
To be fair, there are a lot of places where various quinine derivatives are available OTC. But that doesn't make them all safe.
The answer with quinine used to be that it tasted so foul that nobody would willingly overdose...or even take enough if you believe the origin story of "gin and tonic".
Re:Where is double blind study? (Score:5, Informative)
There is a double blind trial going on right now for non-hospitalized patients, to see if the drug can either shorten the length of the illness or reduce the rate of hospitalization.
For reasons of medical ethics, we won't see a double blind study of chloroquine for *hospitalized* patients until there is evidence that suggests that it is safe and possibly effective. That's not quite a catch-22; it means before you can start a RCT you have to start by looking at retrospective evidence
That's where the Lancet study comes in. It's not as authoritative as a double-blind RCT, but it controls for many factors that early chloroquine papers did not: how sick the patients were when the drug was prescribed, lag between diagnosis and prescription, age, BMI, preexisting conditions etc. This is exactly the same kind of other hurdles that other drugs like remdesivir have to clear.
When we've collected the best possible evidence for a range of drugs, then we'll focus on the most promising ones.
As for chloroquine's safety for malaria, that's possible applicable to studies of chloroquine for COVID-19 prophylaxis, were the dosages would be comparable. Doses for treating sick patients with COVID-19 are 10x - 15x higher.
Re: (Score:2)
Studies of COVID incidence among lupus patients may be valuable here. All I've heard is news about one woman who assumed she couldn't catch COVID because she was taking HCQ for lupus...and got an unpleasant surprise.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, lupus patients also take it at higher rates, although rates used in COVID-19 studies are often even higher. Hospitalized COVID-19 patients are much more acutely sick than most lupus, which could account for the increased mortality. This is why focusing on less sick patients is a good idea for now.
Maybe zinc will make the difference, but at this point it's hypothetical. Chloroquine *might* act as an adjuvant to zinc sulfate. There are some small retrospective studies out there which support zinc + hydr
Re: (Score:2)
That's where the Lancet study comes in.
It, again, disregarded zinc
It didn't disregard it. It was an re-analysis of existing data so if zinc wasn't used in the trials it was impossible to consider it. And it shows a useful data point: HCQ and arithromycin alone for already ill patients is ineffective. This is useful because it means we can avoid trying to use just those two as a treatment and look at a combination of drugs that is more useful.
Re: Where is double blind study? (Score:2)
Re:Oh My Gawd (Score:5, Informative)
You mean to tell me if you give HQ to 1 group thats near death, maybe they might die more than another group that is healthy and didn't need it in the first place????? What an indictment!
Citation please, I'd like to review that. TFA does not specify such a thing. From the Lancet: "The registry comprised data from 671 hospitals in six continents. We included patients hospitalised between Dec 20, 2019, and April 14, 2020, with a positive laboratory finding for SARS-CoV-2. Patients who received one of the treatments of interest within 48 h of diagnosis were included in one of four treatment groups (chloroquine alone, chloroquine with a macrolide, hydroxychloroquine alone, or hydroxychloroquine with a macrolide), and patients who received none of these treatments formed the control group."
Re: (Score:3)
Yes, the Lancet study did nothing but categorize people based on when they were given HCQ. This says absolutely nothing about when in the course of infection the treatment began - except that it was after symptoms appeared (aka, 10+ days after initial exposure).
You actually need to go into the references to find the data sources they are referring to, and then go look at those. And in at least two of those, treatments were applied first to the sickest or riskiest patients, rather than randomly. This isn'
Re: (Score:2)
Sorry, but HCQ has the known effect of causing heart problems in an otherwise asymptomatic population of patients. So this shouldn't be a surprise. Which makes the WHO reaction hard to gather unless they've been monitoring the patients and noticed that lots of them are starting to exhibit those heart problems. (Prolongation of some rhythm or other...I'm no medic.) This may well have happened, as there are reports recommending a higher dose of HCQ for treating COVID, and that's known to be dangerous over
Re: (Score:2)
Sorry, but HCQ has the known effect of causing heart problems in an otherwise asymptomatic population of patients.
So does aspirin [drugs.com].
Quit being so partisan, and look at the data yourself. Here's a good study to start with [ny1.com], NYU's study on HCQ, AZ, and Zn showing a 44% reduction in mortality.
Re: (Score:2)
I saw the news report, but when I tried to search for the study I was unsuccessful. And the news report left me feeling quite skeptical, but this might be because I didn't know any of the participants, and felt they might not be reliable. When you don't know someone's track record, it can be easy to misjudge them.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Oh My Gawd (Score:5, Insightful)
It's not "obvious" at all, and in fact, that's what they mean when they say they "controlled for" severity of illness. They're already comparing people who were comparably sick.
The thing where you think they're comparing sicker patients with one treatment to less-sick patients with another? You made that up. It's not actually there in the study. It didn't happen.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Why would they want him out of the white house? When they said "no pandemic here, no sir, just some minor flu" in Jan/Feb, our gullible president believed them hook, line, and sinker. And repeated the Chinese lies on national television. He's caved on the trade negotiations and he repeats their lies, so of course they love him. They're just worried that they may get someone less gullible and less weak in the white house soon, so they have their sock-puppets praising him and condemning his opponents. An
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, he did. Which slowed down the spread a bit, though since it was already in the US this was not super effective. But the Chinese still claimed that it was no big deal, and Trump said this throughout February. Ob Feb 27: "It’s going to disappear. One day, it’s like a miracle, it will disappear."
I mean, technically I guess he's right, since the virus will vanish sometime prior to the heat death of the universe. But with almost 100K fellow americans dead, I'm going with "Thinking it's mino
Re: (Score:2)
Not a cure, a treatment. A safe and promising treatment.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Patients died of CoVID-19 while on ventilators. Should we conclude the ventilators killed those patients?
Re: (Score:2)
"Patients have to be given HCQ early enough"
source pls
Re: (Score:2)
Wait, you want proof? Like, actual provable proof that can convince people who haven't already made up their minds without proof? Clearly you don't know how this works. Just listen to Alex Jones; if you can stand it for long enough, you'll have all the proof your insane mind needs. (And if you can't stand it, then it's proof that you're not insane yet.)
Re: (Score:2)
Patients have to be given HCQ early enough.
Where is your medical information that it has to be given "early"? And what is the definition of early? This is a virus; it's not like doctors have weeks, months advanced to prepare each patient for a study.
If you were already on your last legs and got Sars2/Covid19 and then took HCQ right away you may have had a chance but if you wait until the last minute to take it, you were already defeated by the taxing on your body.
And your citation of this is? This study of 96,000 individuals [thelancet.com] says you're absolutely wrong.
In this large multinational real-world analysis, we did not observe any benefit of hydroxychloroquine or chloroquine (when used alone or in combination with a macrolide) on in-hospital outcomes, when initiated early after diagnosis of COVID-19.
Re: (Score:2)
Pls. rephrase to "you balls are not going to golf themselves".
Re: (Score:2)
Not if the game is a staring competition.
Re: (Score:2)
Another G-d of the Gaps argument. Maybe they were holding it wrong.
Re: (Score:2)
Hey, didn't that argument work well for the Apple phone?
Re: (Score:2)
It's politics all the way...to the bank (Score:2)
I wonder who would do such criminal, misanthropic things?
Re: (Score:3)
The mentioned Lancet study was posted here before and it had the same usual flaws: retrospective, not in combination with zinc which has been a crucial combination since the beginning,
It's not a flaw, stop saying that. It was testing a different hypothesis than yours.
There are other studies looking at zinc combinations, for example this one [medrxiv.org]. If you do a Google search, you'll find more, so search before posting.
Re: (Score:3)
The WHO recommends the drug, which has rare but severe side effects, in cases where the results without the drug (malaria and lupis) are quite bad and the drug has a proven efficacy which overrides the danger. Nobody intelligent recommends a drug with rare but severe side effects when there is NO proven efficacy, and where most patients recover even without the drug.
Studies are being done to prove efficacy. We need to let them finish, but since none have announced incredible preliminary results, you shoul
Re: (Score:2)
an illness that that causes inflamation and cardiovascular issues,
That's literally a symptom of Lupus ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org] ) which has been treated with HCQ for decades. Daily doses for lupus treatments are even comparable to those for COVID. Except lupus patients have to take it for much longer.
Why the fuck do you feel inclined to defend a drug?
Because the "attacks" were never about the drug. The second Trump mentioned HCQ the media went into overdrive to discredit it. It was never about the drug for all these articles, just partisans flinging shit even if it meant burying a promising treatment that could
Re: (Score:2)
I don't give a darn!
Re: (Score:2)
Proof, please.
Re: (Score:2)
You better get in touch with the editors of The Lancet, and fast! I bet they didn't even consider that correlation might not imply causation. Slashdot saves the day, once again!
Re: (Score:3)
The side effects of the drug are well documented, and have been for years dumbass.