Isn't medrxiv a pre-print server? Does that imply that this study has not been peer-reviewed yet and should therefore been treated with a certain measure of skepticism?
Also, the Washington Examiner explicitly bill themselves as an ideologically biased media outlet "The Conservative Source Americans Deserve" or whatever. That doesn't directly mean anything in this article is wrong but it does lead one to consider that there may be deep rooted biases and spin at play here.
Particularly, the word "zinc" doesn't appear in this paper. Maybe I should publish a news article saying HCQ and Coca-Cola help against Covid-19 and link to this paper? (I'd buy Coca-Cola stock beforehand...).
The study done by the French doctor who became the champion of HCQ was deeply flawed, IIRC (don't quote me, I'm too lazy to look it up) he excluded data from patients who got this drug and died, and he was giving them selectively to healthier/younger patients, and in the end there was apparently no advantage to HCQ.
Ah the paragraph above is shameful writing, I might've as well written "My aunt heard that Covid-19 is a virus programmed by Bill Gates and spread to 5G towers!". If you google his name (Didier Raoult) you'll get both sides arguing, and you can choose who to believe is telling the truth (sadly we usually choose the people on "our side"), here's one who is critical of this guy: https://forbetterscience.com/2021/03/23/didier-raoult-fraud-...
Database of all HCQ COVID-19 studies. 305 studies, 224 peer reviewed, 255 comparing treatment and control groups ... HCQ is not effective when used very late with high dosages over a long period, effectiveness improves with earlier usage and improved dosing. Early treatment consistently shows positive effects:
https://c19hcq.com/
It would be nice to just look at the science without denoising the HCQ boosterism by the right (Trump was right!) and the demonization of HCQ by the left (Fauci was right!). This has really muddled the issue, but thankfully, only in the US. The rest of the world seems to be carrying on (edit: study was done in NJ).
Also, just like Vit. D, the science of disentangling the causal power of HCQ in various combos seems very hard. I think this issue will be debated for a very long time.
Is countering unproven and potentially dangerous medical advice by saying "wait for the evidence" really demonization? And it wasn't just the left saying that. Just because the right pushes something doesn't make everyone who disagrees with that "the left".
Actually small molecules rarely work against viruses inside an intact organism; counter that with immunobiology (convalescent plasma, monoclonal antibodies, nanobodies, ...) almost always working.
It is like the drumbeat of articles on "Substance X extended the life of mice by 15%" that don't contextualize it like so: a human is an extremely long-lived animal, your heart is good for 4 billion beats, the mouse died at 1 billion beats, you would need at least 10 interventions that work independently to get the mouse longevity up to the human standard.
People don't want to die, however, so they eat that kind of article up.
Covid-19 is caused by a virus. The resulting etiology has a complex interaction with underlying conditions resulting in bacterial and other viral infections.
The fact that so many doctors, who I agree are not scientists and often ill equipped to tease apart causality, seem to be experimenting with it, should at least give us pause to look at it with a neutral posture. HCQ's incredible efficacy and safety, probably billions of doses are ingested every year, makes it a good candidate for this investigation.
Also, the Washington Examiner explicitly bill themselves as an ideologically biased media outlet "The Conservative Source Americans Deserve" or whatever. That doesn't directly mean anything in this article is wrong but it does lead one to consider that there may be deep rooted biases and spin at play here.