A small trial finds that hydroxychloroquine is not effective for treating coronavirus
Jumping at hopeful solutions is rarely a good idea.
Jumping at hopeful solutions is rarely a good idea.
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.If someone is deathly ill, let him try it if he wants to. There has been some success.
I am sure that there will be more studies.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.
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.
A small trial finds that hydroxychloroquine is not effective for treating coronavirus
Jumping at hopeful solutions is rarely a good idea.
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
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.A small trial finds that hydroxychloroquine is not effective for treating coronavirus
Jumping at hopeful solutions is rarely a good idea.
Aren't there other promising antiviral drugs?
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.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.
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?
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?
This is exactly the demographic that actually needs help.
How come small trials that showed it is promising you don't consider as well?A small trial finds that hydroxychloroquine is not effective for treating coronavirus
Jumping at hopeful solutions is rarely a good idea.