This is incorrect. The idea of using HCQ didn't come from China but from a French doctor, nor did China ever promote using HCQ as a treatment. See the timeline for HCQ in connection with Covid [1].
[1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydroxychloroquine#Timeline
Does hydroxychloroquine combat COVID-19? A timeline of evidence [1]:
On February 17, 2020, the State Council of China held a news conference indicating that chloroquine (CQ) had demonstrated efficacy in treating COVID-19 associated pneumonia in multicenter, non-randomized, clinical trials.2,3 This prompted multiple clinical trials in China.
I don't really care nothing that anyone will say is going to change your mind anyhow.
An actual study and not a political statements from CPP breadcrumbs (that are used control its population amidst highest rates in their pandemic):
https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa2016638
Dude you are trying to discredit cited wiki and you brought a non-statement single page that aggregates Chinese sources from beginning of a year.
here is a quote from that pdf:
>To date, despite enough rationale to justify investigation into the efficacy and safety of HCQ inCOVID-19 (Table II),14,15the evidence regarding itseffect remains limited. HCQ has not yet received United States Food and Drug Administration approval for use against COVID-19, and further trials are needed to establish guidelines. If emerging data from ongoing trials establishes the efficacy of HCQ for prophylaxis and treatment of COVID-19, triage will be important to ensure that existing supplies are used appropriately
The conclusion of your 'evidence' is a call to do trials.
I already changed my mind, you just have reading comprehension issues apparently.
> Dude you are trying to discredit cited wiki and you brought a non-statement single page that aggregates Chinese sources from beginning of a year.
I'm arguing that China was the first country to propose that treatment using HCQ might be effective. I'm NOT arguing that it is effective. I'm merely supporting my statement about the timeline which someone challenged with a wikipedia link. Someone called that false, and it's not - it's history.
> The conclusion of your 'evidence' is a call to do trials.
Work on that reading comprehension, I never called it evidence of efficacy.
HCQ is not effective and that's the conclusve statement. Who cares that back in jan some kooks tried to be famous based on non blinded study on 10 patients?