|
|
|
|
|
by LeftHandPath
2220 days ago
|
|
I'm still surprised it was so politicized on places like Twitter. Colbert, Trevor Noah, Seth Meyers, and others all roasted him for it and called the drug dangerous[0]. Meanwhile some center-left leaning places like the Hill were actually defending trump for it[1]. Drugs should not be politicized. The right should not have been so blindly faithful in HCQ, and the left should not have been so pessimistic about it. I'm sure both sides have done this in the past and I'm sure both sides will do it again in the future - but we need to work on this, because wanting a drug to be ineffective for political reasons is dangerous for society. [0]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zpSK_IKm4eM [1]: https://thehill.com/opinion/healthcare/491665-if-only-hydrox... |
|
HCQ is one of those "scissor" issues, in that the data makes it almost maximally divisive. It is just very unclear whether it works or not.
There have been numerous retrospective associational studies that have largely shown some benefit. There have been two RCTs, one of which was for serious patients, and one was as prophylaxis. Both returned negative results. The WHO is also running the Solidarity RCT, and the HCQ arm was dropped early due to non-efficacy.
HCQ's proponents are now saying that you have to take it early in the disease process, augmented with either Azithromicyn or Zinc. No one has run this RCT and released data.
My personal feeling at this point is that it probably doesn't work. Given that they've terminated the HCQ arm of the Solidarity trial, I wish they'd release the data and resolve the question.