Evidence against Hydroxychloroquine

Maybe not the peer reviewed clinical tests you demand. Maybe not the deaths you wanted to see from its use. But it’s been tested in several Covid-19 environments. It has an extensive prior history of clinical uses for other purposes beginning with malaria and including lupus and rheumatoid arthritis which has generated huge amounts of data regarding contraindications and side effects. No one says do this without a doctor.

1 Like

So in the meantime, it should be banned from all Covid-19 treatment and those governors who actually did that should be praised to high heaven for removing the HCQ scourge from our midst.

If that’s not what you’re saying, then you consider your point about the lack of clinical results clearly made. We more than get it about clinical results, we’re not as stupid as you apparently think we are.

1 Like

Very poor straw man argument. You can do better than that, can’t you?

The article cited gave the false impression that frontline workers think it works. They are smarter than that.

You’re pretty good with straw men yourself.

1 Like

That isn’t how medicine works.

There are numerous drugs that are approved for one thing but used “off label” for another. I’ve been on many of them. Did you know that there is a reflux drug that increases mother’s milk? Or a an asthma drug that helps to control pre term labor? Or a cancer drug that treats lupus? Off label use is common, and perfectly acceptable if discussed with the patient.

The governor shouldn’t have any say in how a doctor treats a patient. Any more than you would want the president to have a say in how your doctor treats you.

So, there you have it.

1 Like

100% of patients that received a combination of HCQ and Azithromycin tested negative and were virologically cured within 6 days of treatment .

In addition, recent guidelines from South Korea and China report that hydroxychloroquine and chloroquine are effective antiviral therapeutic treatments for novel coronavirus.

Those are from two different stories. The first story is about other corona viruses from 2003, not one that causes covid-19.

The French study referred to is flawed because it was a non-randomized trial. Why is that important? The French study shows exactly how a non-randomized trial can be corrupted by the non-random way in which patients were assigned to the treated group vs the control group. The paper says the treated group was made up of patients from one facility, while patients from another facility were put into the non-treated control group. Therefore if there was any initial imbalance in the seriousness of patients from one facility vs another, that imbalance can pollute the findings. There are many reasons why there could be an imbalance. One facility might treat patients in a different socio-economic class, or be more understaffed, and thus have patients that start off doing worse. Making this the control group is guaranteed to make the treated group look good, even if they were being treated with placebo. As I said, more disinformation from Breitbart.

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.