> But no mention of whether any of the trials included both Zinc and Azithromyzin
Meanwhile, there is still no evidence that hydroxychloroquine has any usefulness as treatment for COVID19.
Meanwhile, there is still no evidence that hydroxychloroquine has any usefulness as treatment for COVID19.
Not a doctor or well read on the subject but I have seen some studies claiming it does.
Have also seen many studies saying there is no benefit too.
Seeing such wild contradiction from respectable medical sources makes me wonder if anyone really knows what does what.
Your source is quite old and only provides baseless speculation about an hypothesis where hydroxychloroquine might play a role in treating covid-19 effectively.
If you invest some time searching for the topic you'll find a multitude of studies which failed to find any evidence that hydroxychloroquine has any effect at all.
Taken for example, this article.
https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanrhe/article/PIIS2665-9...
This paper might not have been accepted by the Wall Street Journal but in it the author's point out tjat multiple high-quality studies subsequently showed no benefit of hydroxychloroquine use as post-exposure prophylaxis3 or as a COVID-19 treatment.
The author's proceed to address the hypothesis that prior long term treatment with hydroxychloroquine by autoimmune disease patients was a factor, and cite a study that "found no significant difference in standardised cumulative COVID-19 mortality associated with hydroxychloroquine use".
The author's then state quite unambiguously the following:
>These findings are not surprising given the mounting body of literature suggesting no clinical benefit for hydroxychloroquine use against COVID-19. However, this study is important in addressing the potential role, or lack thereof, for hydroxychloroquine as a preventive medication for this novel infectious disease.
But largely, yes, somehow, in some people's heads I think people have made an emotion association that endorsement of a drug is somehow a validation of an ex-political-figure. Hopefully that can all be put behind us now.
I looked on wikipedia and found "Hydroxychloroquine is being studied to prevent and treat coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID‑19), but all clinical trials conducted during 2020 found it is ineffective and may cause dangerous side effects.[3][4][5][6]"
But interestingly, the systematic review it referenced concluded "There is sufficient pre-clinical rationale and evidence regarding the effectiveness of chloroquine for treatment of COVID-19 as well as evidence of safety from long-time use in clinical practice for other indications [3] to justify clinical research on the topic." The rest of the citations were prior to June.
I'm not specifically saying it does or doesn't work, I couldn't care less. I do care about citations matching.
Hydroxychloroquine was never anything other than pure political propaganda.
It was the promise of a magical politically endorsed silver bullet designed to mitigate the political fallout of having to manage a pandemic with little to no success. Pure believers were not only kept in line because of the empty promises of a solution to their personal problem but also mobilized to persecute any contrasting opinion.
You surely didn't think that Trump picked a drug at random?
https://thediplomat.com/2020/04/how-wuhan-virologists-pegged...
Meanwhile ivermectin is being shown to be effective as both prophylaxis and treatment in numerous studies but it's become anathema to consider the possibility of generics, it's "vaccines or bust."
Although, if you're instead trying to compare their effectiveness, yeah, vaccines kinda do appear to be that much starkly better. I'm blown away by how much the actual data curve looks like the dramatic XKCD cartoon version: https://m.xkcd.com/2400/
https://www.idsociety.org/covid-19-real-time-learning-networ...
Some doctors are refusing to use ivermectin to treat seriously ill patients because the FDA will not issue any recommendations regarding its use: https://buffalonews.com/news/local/after-judge-orders-hospit...
If you include suspected COVID cases (which dwarfed confirmed PCR results) in the Pfizer trials, vaccine effectiveness falls to between 19% and 29%: https://blogs.bmj.com/bmj/2021/01/04/peter-doshi-pfizer-and-...
Indeed, it seems like many drugs have received research attention (I did one quick search that turned up over 3000 trials registered this year for various treatments, though many might have been duplicates or meta analysis or not approved). I have limited time and interest in researching Ivermectin specifically, but, as I see oft quoted here, the plural of anecdote is not data. My understanding is that Remdesivir is currently the best treatment option, is approved by the FDA for use, and was a repurposed drug developed against other viruses.
Thanks for the link to BMJ. If that turns out to be true, it would be disappointing to me (relative to 90%). But also still seems to show a reduction in severity, which is good for all of us. Thus also an increased importance that everyone who can gets vaccinated, for their own health (if we learn that you can't depend on herd immunity to protect you) and continued exploration of improved treatments.