
Hydroxychloroquine and azithromycin as treatment of Covid-19; results of a trial [pdf] - anigbrowl
https://www.mediterranee-infection.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/03/Hydroxychloroquine_final_DOI_IJAA.pdf
======
shadowprofile77
I've seen azithromycin counter-indicated as a treatment to be used at the same
time as Hydroxychloroquine, on the medscape site, among a couple others, so
this is surprising to read..

------
yread
The removed cases look a bit dodgy and controls are not unbiased... I wonder
if it will pass peer review

~~~
gus_massa
They removed 6 patients of the test group (one because he died) and none from
the control group. This is very strange because both had a similar size.

------
Arnt
I'm sure this is good work, but what's actually being tested? Weren't these
the medicines the Chinese used in Hubei, what's the question left to ask after
that?

[https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32031570](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32031570)
was the top result when I googled. As a naïve bystander I don't understand the
difference.

~~~
SturgeonsLaw
One of the least talked about things in science is the number of studies with
results that aren't reproduced in subsequent attempts. More evidence is great.

~~~
Arnt
A physician friend of mine explained it: If you're desperate by overwhelming
numbers of patients, and there's a drug that may work, you do a "study", which
means you give it to some of the patients and afterwards publish a paper with
numbers based on the data you collect.

Ie. some studies are motivated by battlefield desperation, not by scientific
curiosity or someone's need for a publication.

------
Khelavaster
Why wasn't this started in America two months ago?

~~~
maneesh
As recently as Jan 14, 2020, the World Health Organization stated that there
was no evidence of human to human transmission for nCoV. [1]

The USA, and the world as a whole, has done an amazing job mobilizing itself
to change borders, adjust social mores, limit large groups of people, and
relax regulation around testing in order to get a treatment out.

And it's been working! We've already begun testing new vaccines, and cheap and
already-approved treatments of Hydroxylchloroquine and chloroquine are showing
extreme promise in both prevention and treatment of the disease. [2] [3]

It's easy to complain and blame America for problems, but look at how fast
things have changed. Humanity as a whole is amazing -- in times of peril, we
have the ability to adapt so rapidly that we can fundamentally change the
world.

[1]
[https://twitter.com/who/status/1217043229427761152?lang=en](https://twitter.com/who/status/1217043229427761152?lang=en)
[2] [https://cleantechnica.com/2020/03/18/progress-on-
covid-19-tr...](https://cleantechnica.com/2020/03/18/progress-on-
covid-19-treatment/) [3] [https://www.connexionfrance.com/French-news/French-
researche...](https://www.connexionfrance.com/French-news/French-researcher-
in-Marseille-posts-successful-Covid-19-coronavirus-drug-trial-results)

~~~
ornornor
I'll preface this with the statement that I am as far away as you can be from
an antivaxxer. I do believe vaccines work, and that everyone should get their
vaccines. Vaccines save lives and are safe.

However, I am a bit worried about a vaccine that is rushed to approval and
use.

If the regular process to approve a vaccine takes years, I'm pretty confident
that the vaccine is safe for 99.99% of the population. This is further
verified by the sheer number of people getting the vaccine for years without
adverse reactions (very rare cases excluded, like 1 in 100,000 or 1,000,000
rare.)

But what about a rushed nCoV vaccine? Wouldn't it be potentially more
dangerous if it underwent weeks/a couple of months of testing for approval
instead of the usual years? And if it wouldn't, then why do we require any
other vaccine to undertake years of clinical trials before approving it then?

An other hypothesis I have (but can't verify, I don't know enough about how
vaccines are made) is that the nCoV vaccine is basically another flu vaccine.
We know how to make safe flu vaccines since most of the potential harm comes
from the additives/preservatives in the vaccine (I might be wrong on that,
please correct if that's not right.)

So, making a nCoV vaccine is basically the same additives/preservatives as the
flu vaccine but with nCoV strains in it rather than the ordinary flu. And this
way, the absence of danger is pretty well established already because the flu
vaccine has been proved safe, the only question is whether the nCoV serum
works or not. And thus, the only risk from a rushed vaccine is not that it is
harmful but that it might not be reliably giving immunity.

Again, this is a guess from my rough understanding of how it all works. I'm
posting this here hoping that someone much more knowledgeable than I am can
chime in and clarify.

