Based on* lack* of evidence. All we have so far is wishful thinking. If that worked, homeopathy would be mainstream science and astrology would be used instead of DNA tests.
Perhaps you didn’t read these posts, #28 & 34, so I will repeat them here.
Drug companies HAVE been looking at this drug as a potential anti-viral. For years and years. It has been consistently found to be ineffective.
Even the “positive” results are contradictory. That YouTube video* posted by a Jim Peebles, contradicts a bunch of the other allegedly positive results. That doctor claims the treatment ( that other doctors claimed success with) is totally ineffective unless you add another magic ingredient- in this case, zinc.
Which contradicts most of the other anecdotes.
Here’s an example of an earlier study, properly conducted, that showed that it is completely ineffective in preventing flu. Not a YouTube video.
Am I the only person on the SDMB who’s been on hydroxychloroquine? I keep hoping someone else will chime in. I was on it for six years for lupus. I can state unequivocally that it does NOT prevent or cure viral infections. I had the flu while I was on it as well as a couple of colds.
As it happens with the climate change issue, the issue really is about Trump willfully ignoring expert advice.
Even the best anecdotes about how effective this is (Not really a cure, but at best a tool to lower the symptoms so as to allow other solutions to work), like one I noticed, had a doctor that reported that this medicine needed Zinc to make a significant difference. Now, I noticed that Zinc is not usually mentioned in the previous incomplete studies made before, meaning that there is a lot of wishful thinking is going into this.
Sure, and I’d love to see some good cites from people who actually do know what they’re talking about (specific to COVID-19 and addressing some of the anecdotal evidence that it does work.) And for a mass audience, not journal articles. I know I’m asking for a unicorn given how busy everyone who knows anything must be, but the fact that I didn’t find anything like that is why I’m posting here.
I’m also unwilling to accept that I don’t need to have an opinion. I’m not saying I’m going to second-guess experts, but that a) I have natural curiosity and want to understand, b) it’s part of being an informed citizen, and c) health experts’ expertise doesn’t extend to other realms. They can tell us the facts, the risks, and the likely outcomes, but they are not the people who get to decide if those risks are worth taking, or how to trade off economic pain against public health.
But presumably you didn’t get COVID-19. QED. [I’m kidding, for the sarcasm-impaired.]
I’m not so sure about that. Short of actually being one of those dead, I think Trump’s base will tune out even the deaths of their neighbors and family.
Forsythia 
is my go-to argument for this kind of situation as well.
That might look like this: Homeopathic Accident & Emergency, courtesy of That Mitchell and Webb Look (2:33 video).
I would like to add that a good family friend is an emergency care doctor. She points out that hydroxychloroquine carries risks and should not be used without active case management, including a heart monitor. Even if you discard all of the medical evidence and decide to give it a try, it’s not a drug that should be used outside of the hospital, especially with patients that are already in critical condition.
It’s magical thinking and attention should be spent elsewhere.
Raises hand. I did, for Malaria when I was younger or at least per my mother.
I take 1,000 milligrams of metformin every day, so you’ll have to find something else. Next!
nm
Gov. Cuomo stated today that use of hydroxychloroquine in New York hospitals is having “anecdotally” positive results.
There are decades of evidence of the sort of the bad side effects that can happen.
Here, for example, is the current FDA label for Plaquenil, a brand name for hydroxychloroquine. Relevant sections include:
This is a drug that can work well in a lot of people, but it’s not really a “safe” medication, in that when it goes wrong, it can go really wrong really quickly, and it can kill. Giving it to a lot of mostly elderly and already-ill patients, at a time when the health care system is already overwhelmed, may not be all that smart.
Forsythia? I know that foxglove can be used to stop all symptoms of any kind for any condition in fairly short order. Someone should tell Trump!
Your are not, nelliebly. I’ve been taking it for around 15 years to keep my lupus in remission, and it’s currently the only drug I take for lupus. Similar to you, I typically get about one cold a year, and every so often, a flu that must not be covered by a given year’s vaccine.
I just happened to refill my prescription a couple of days before it really hit the news, and am not looking forward to what my pharmacist might tell me when I have to refill again.
With all the shit Trump is throwing against the wall, something is bound to stick. Maybe this is it.
It doesn’t mean he isn’t full of shit.
That’s good. But you are asking for a unicorn. If someone writes up a user-friendly version of the information, that doesn’t mean that you’ll understand it in a way that is reasonable, because you don’t have the correct training or understanding of the topic. And any user-friendly version will, almost certainly, become just as misconstrued as the official version.
Think of it like a court trial. Whoever goes last has the advantage. When the jury decides, their version will be fresher in their memory, and the other side will never have a chance to rebut any points that they make Our courts want to favor the defendant, and so they get to go after the prosecution.
In a news article, they will generally want to provide a pros and cons list. That’s the user-friendly version of presenting something. Should pros go first or cons? What if there are more cons but they are all fairly meaningless and very few pros, but all very important? How do you balance that so that even a person who can’t tell between them can make an informed and reasonable judgement from the two?
Maybe you write a lot. And now, having written a lot, going into the whole history of organic chemistry, biology, and p-values, you have an article that is 99% university college instruction and 1% relevant to the topic at hand. Who actually reads that article all the way through? If someone has actually read that article, and understood it, do they still need the user-friendly version?
A user friendly presentation simply can’t suffice if you’re too far out in the weeds. If you want to understand something which is hard to understand, unless you’re an expert, then all there is for it is to read up enough on the subject that you can parse a science journal and get something from it.
No, as a citizen, your job is to elect people who you trust are able and willing to talk to experts and anyone who would be affected by an issue, and who would change their mind and their approach on the basis of what they heard in an evenhanded and balanced way.
Your job is not to become a backseat driver of the people you elect to government. If you want good government, spend your time making sure that the people you elect are dispassionate, care about people, hardworking, and are willing to sit there and power through spreadsheets or science journals, if necessary, to try and do their job.
No, that’s politicians, not you. And your politicians should say what I say, which is that they will want to see the math results that the CDC and FDA give them. But then to also compare that to what the drug manufacturers are saying about availability of the product, what hospitals are saying about their ability to store different medications, what stage of testing other countries might already be in and whether it makes more sense to give way on a few therapies, etc.
As the people who have been elected to govern - as opposed to you, the backseat driver - they have access to information like this that you do not. You will likely never have it and certainly you won’t have the free time to properly go through it like the politicians do since you have some other job to do in life and you won’t have access to the scientists, doctors, manufacturers, and diplomats to help you wade through it all.
You do not live in a democracy. You are not expected nor desired to be a part of your government except in the realm of finding honest, incorruptible, intelligent, and upstanding individuals to lay trust into. If you bring any opinion on actions and policy into the mix, you are simply trying to drive the car, by proxy, without being able to see the road, the mirrors, the dashboard, nor feel the vehicle under your feet. It is silly and counterproductive.
The country is and was expected to be a republic. The framers of the constitution viewed “democracy” as a bad word and reviled it greatly, based on how it had destroyed many nations in the past. You should do the same.
If you do not trust our leaders, that’s because you know who you chose to vote for.
Thanks, good information. Still, side effects in some populations don’t mean that we shouldn’t be able to follow up with monitored tests in safer populations for COVID-19 uses. This has the potential to do a lot of good. Or be completely useless.
I have a question for any medical professionals that might be following this thread.
If this unproven therapy is broadly distributed, will there be any public health consequences due to the widespread use of Zithromax? Will it cause bacterial resistance? Will we lose it as an antibiotic?
One reason I’m asking is that there are people that are advocating its use as a preventative, which would mean a lot of people would be taking it at the same time. Is this wise?