Hydoxychlorquinine does not appear to be an answer:

[Subduction Zone]

A small trial finds that hydroxychloroquine is not effective for treating coronavirus

Jumping at hopeful solutions is rarely a good idea.

 

[JohnAshton]

That is too bad.

 

[RestoreTheJoy]

If someone is deathly ill, let him try it if he wants to. There has been some success.

 

[Kessa]

It looks like the study involved only 11 participants, mostly men, 8 of whom had serious pre-existing conditions that "are associated with poor outcomes"; 5 had cancer, 1 had HIV, several were obese. I'm not sure a tiny study like that provides a lot of useful information. We know men are much more likely to die of the disease than women, and we know people with preexisting problems like the ones listed as more likely to die as well. I would like to see a study on a much larger group of more diverse patients, and see how the drug works on people who were otherwise healthy.

 

[Subduction Zone]

If someone is deathly ill, let him try it if he wants to. There has been some success.

The point is that there really does not appear to be any success. Most people will get over this anyway. So taking a potentially harmful drug is not warranted without real evidence.

 

[Subduction Zone]

It looks like the study involved only 11 participants, mostly men, 8 of whom had serious pre-existing conditions that "are associated with poor outcomes"; 5 had cancer, 1 had HIV, several were obese. I'm not sure a tiny study like that provides a lot of useful information. We know men are much more likely to die of the disease than women, and we know people with preexisting problems like the ones listed as more likely to die as well. I would like to see a study on a much larger group of more diverse patients, and see how the drug works on people who were otherwise healthy.

I am sure that there will be more studies.

It is amazing how some will grasp at straws at times. That this drug supposedly helped never made any sense.

One should ask oneself, and others, why does this drug help?

 

[Jok]

I admit to feeling like being in a state of panic to rush solutions along, I got attacked a bit in a previous threat. It’s just such a crazy feeling, a feeling that I have never experienced in my life. It makes you more vulnerable to over trust the positive articles prematurely, because you feel so desperate.

Yeah it seems to be tough on the body. Which is a real shame because those who need help the most are also the ones who are too weak to handle a harsh treatment.

 

[Tanj]

It looks like the study involved only 11 participants, mostly men, 8 of whom had serious pre-existing conditions that "are associated with poor outcomes"; 5 had cancer, 1 had HIV, several were obese.

This is exactly the demographic that actually needs help.

 

[Phronema]

Really the bottom line is "we don't know" if it's helping with COVID-19, or not. Check the link below for more information. The CDC is a part of the WHO, and that link is from the WHO.

I'd just add that Hydroxycholorquine is not "potentially harmful". It's been in use since the 1940s and approved by the FDA since the 1950s for use in treatment for autoimmune diseases such as lupus, and rheumatoid arthritis along with its widespread use as an antimalarial medication. The potential side effects of short term usage are a very minimal risk.

Chloroquine is different, and is about 40% more toxic, but is a different medication than Hydroxycholorquine.

COVID-19: Chloroquine and hydroxychloroquine research - PAHO/WHO | Pan American Health Organization

 

[Strathos]

Aren't there other promising antiviral drugs?

 

[timewerx]

A small trial finds that hydroxychloroquine is not effective for treating coronavirus

Jumping at hopeful solutions is rarely a good idea.

 

[Occams Barber]

Really the bottom line is "we don't know" if it's helping with COVID-19, or not. Check the link below for more information. The CDC is a part of the WHO, and that link is from the WHO.

I'd just add that Hydroxycholorquine is not "potentially harmful". It's been in use since the 1940s and approved by the FDA since the 1950s for use in treatment for autoimmune diseases such as lupus, and rheumatoid arthritis along with its widespread use as an antimalarial medication. The potential side effects of short term usage are a very minimal risk.

Chloroquine is different, and is about 40% more toxic, but is a different medication than Hydroxycholorquine.

COVID-19: Chloroquine and hydroxychloroquine research - PAHO/WHO | Pan American Health Organization

Your attachment is a current (dated 1 April) authoritative summary of the present state of research on Hydroxycholorquine and Cholorquine. For those who prefer the tl;dr version this is the summary from the doc.:

In recent weeks, information on the potential use of chloroquine or hydroxychloroquine for the treatment of people with COVID-19 has been disseminated in academic journals and public media. Although there are now ongoing clinical trials testing the efficacy and safety of several medicines for COVID-19, as of the date of this document, there is a lack of quality evidence to demonstrate chloroquine and/or hydroxychloroquine are effective in the treatment of COVID-19. Evidence is recently emerging via small studies with sub-optimal methodologies that are conflicting.

In some countries in the Americas, chloroquine or hydroxychloroquine is readily available, in some cases as an over-the-counter medicine. National authorities should take measures to control the use of these medicines and prevent self-medication. The use of chloroquine and/or hydroxychloroquine outside of current guidelines and recommendations may result in adverse effects, including serious illness and death, and have a negative impact on other diseases where there is proven benefit. Public health authorities are urged to prioritize resources on those interventions that are currently recommended for standard of care.
​

While these drugs have had past clearance it does not mean that they are automatically without risk when used in the context of Corvid19. There is also a danger that stocks of these drugs will be hoarded placing legitimate users at risk.

OB

 

[Phronema]

.

 

[sesquiterpene]

A small trial finds that hydroxychloroquine is not effective for treating coronavirus

Jumping at hopeful solutions is rarely a good idea.

Another "study" with a tiny number of patients and no controls. This is just as worthless as the studies claiming benefit for the drug combo.

 

[JackRT]

Aren't there other promising antiviral drugs?

Yes!
UBC-led study finds trial drug can significantly block early stages of COVID-19 in engineered human tissues

 

[Zanting]

There are 2 narratives out there regarding the currently “unofficial cure” for covid-19. While positive consistent results are cropping up all over the world (through completed studies, survey’s, ongoing studies and individual case studies…compounding daily) and 1000’s of doctors from all different countries agree that hydroxychloroquine combined with z-pack are proving to be amazingly effective in treating the virus…

On the other hand, there is another narrative out there claiming that it isn’t effective and we need more “official data” to deem it safe…

Here are just a couple of examples of what’s happening in the world of covid-19 from those working with the medications and testimonies from those who have used them...and these are already yesterdays news as there is already more supporting evidence coming out daily as this treatment is administered around the world.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Another "study" with a tiny number of patients and no controls. This is just as worthless as the studies claiming benefit for the drug combo.

Not really. There was never any reason why given why hydroxychloroquinine should work in the first place. It confirms what the skeptics said from the start. That the early studies may have been just a blip. Especially since some of them were biased by using people likely to survive anyway.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Yes!
UBC-led study finds trial drug can significantly block early stages of COVID-19 in engineered human tissues

Continuing from my previous post. This is a possible aid with an explanation of how and why it works. When one knows how something is supposed to work one can devise more rational tests for it. Please note that the preliminary testing for this can be done without humans. Hydroxychloroquinine is right now in the same area as "Doctors found that patients that hop ten times on one foot are more likely to survive" . How would one test that? Why does it work?

To test a medicine properly we need to know how it works and why.

 

[Kessa]

I am sure that there will be more studies.

It is amazing how some will grasp at straws at times. That this drug supposedly helped never made any sense.

One should ask oneself, and others, why does this drug help?

Yes, I think there will be more studies, and that is really what's needed to know for sure. It's interesting the drug isn't an anti-viral but maybe does something to the ACE2 receptors, which seems to be what the virus latches onto. I think we need to move on though and be trying more remedies until something sticks.

This is exactly the demographic that actually needs help.

If you want to study the efficacy of a medication, though, you have to try it out on a diverse population. Not every drug works for every person. Certain health problems could stymie the medicine's effects, but it could still work for other people without those particular issues. Elderly and chronically ill patients are not the only people dying from this disease. To try it out only on the elderly and chronically ill makes no sense. If we found it resolved the virus in even very narrow circumstances, it could be used to reduce caseloads and free more personnel and equipment for the desperately ill who don't benefit.

 

[Bobber]

A small trial finds that hydroxychloroquine is not effective for treating coronavirus

Jumping at hopeful solutions is rarely a good idea.

How come small trials that showed it is promising you don't consider as well?