[natenthe]

Studies have shown that COVID-19 has similar mechanisms of action as parasitic infections that target red blood cells. That's why Ivermectin and Hydroxychloroquine (drugs for parasitic diseases, such as malaria, a red-blood cell parasite) have shown success in clinical trials and in vitro studies. That's also why sweet wormwood (Artemisia annua, plant species used for malaria, and the plant that Artemisinin, winner of the nobel peace prize in 2015 is derived from) has been found in laboratory settings to be effective against COVID-19. And why alkoloids from cryptolepis (another anti-malarial herb) are also being researched by various countries and researchers. Vaccines and potential treatments are not mutually exclusive. If you have the biological background like I do then looking up the studies should be a piece of cake. Downvote if you like. Since this is such a polarized topic, I really don't want to spend the energy to share all the studies if people don't have an open mind. But do your own research, the studies are there.

[open-source-ux]

"But do your own research, the studies are there."

A large clinical trial from June 2020 has shown no clinical benefit to hydroxychloroquine in hospitalised patients with COVID-19

No clinical benefit from use of hydroxychloroquine in hospitalised patients with COVID-19: https://www.recoverytrial.net/news/statement-from-the-chief-...

From the above:

> A total of 1542 patients were randomised to hydroxychloroquine and compared with 3132 patients randomised to usual care alone. There was no significant difference in the primary endpoint of 28-day mortality (25.7% hydroxychloroquine vs. 23.5% usual care; hazard ratio 1.11 [95% confidence interval 0.98-1.26]; p=0.10). There was also no evidence of beneficial effects on hospital stay duration or other outcomes.

> These data convincingly rule out any meaningful mortality benefit of hydroxychloroquine in patients hospitalised with COVID-19.

[natenthe]

I don't think you understand how science works. One study does not prove or disprove a hypothesis, especially on a highly politicized topic. Also, I made a general statement about parasitics being effective against covid because of similar mechanisms of action. I did not make a distinction on early disease very late-stage disease, including hospitalization, so I don't understand why you think that study disproves anything I said about general effectiveness.

To give you an example, here is one systematic review of hydroxychloroquine effectiveness with covid: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33042552/

Again, one study does not prove or disprove a hypothesis, but cherry-picking one study as evidence that my argument is wrong is certainly not how science works. However, it is interesting that hydroxychloroquine has been shown to work better in non-hospitalized or pre-hospitalized patients, which makes sense given covid's mechanism of action. The anti-parasitics essentially protect the red blood cells from infection, so I wouldn't be surprised if that is the reason why they may work better in non-hospitalized patients.

But...I don't have time to do a meta-analysis for people that aren't open to finding the truth, regardless of what political agenda the truth may support or not support.

Good luck to everyone so invested in proving or disproving each other's arguments. I've wasted enough time - now back to my work.

[pajamanaut]

This comment does not seem at all relevant to the article