The value of hydroxychloroquine in treating COVID-19 patients continues to rise from the ashes of refutation in the medical literature. The latest iteration is a meta-analysis of utilizing the drug early in ambulatory patients' care to lessen the undesirable outcomes of infection, hospitalization, and death. Several of our readers and members of our Board of Scientific Advisors believe that this study is important and that we disregard it at our risk. We are letting a proponent of each side make their case.
hydroxychloroquine controversy
A July 22 paper in the journal Nature further underscored earlier studies showing that neither the anti-malaria drug, hydroxychloroquine, nor chloroquine, prevents SARS-CoV-2 – the virus that causes COVID-19 – from replicating in lung cells. ACSH advisor Dr. Katherine Seley-Radtke has more.
The study by Didier Raoult et. al., the one partly responsible for the massive, unwarranted use of hydroxychloroquine for COVID, has been picked to bits by a review panel hired by the journal that published it. It's now clear that the Raoult study was a methodological mess. How did it get published at all? Should it be retracted? Let's take a look.
Last week, The Lancet presented a peer-reviewed paper [1] on hydroxychloroquine, indicating in an observational study that the risk of cardiac arrhythmias outweighed its beneficial use. In addition to the scientific interest, the article was seized upon by those political talking heads that have been concerned with President Trump’s advocacy of what was felt to be an untested and ineffective treatment.