It’s actually worst than that. In fact the study shows it is actually as effective by itself as their top of the line treatment.
From the study:
“ In the Chinese study, which was conducted by researchers from the department of infection and immunity at the Shanghai Public Health Clinical Center, the 15 patients who didn’t get hydroxychloroquine were treated with...
“ This includes bed rest, oxgen inhalation, and the use of anti-viral drugs recommended in China’s treatment guidelines like lopinavir and ritonavir, and antibiotics when necessary.”
Wait it wasn’t just nothing. It’s not treatment of one drug and a placebo. It was treatment of one drug versus a host of other drugs.
Furthermore it isn’t the complete treatment given in every other successful guideline.
Are there drugs that probably work better out there, most likely. Are there treatments which consist of a cocktail of drugs that can work as well, again most likely.
“ Results: One patient in HCQ group developed to severe during the treatment. On day 7, COVID-19 nucleic acid of throat swabs was negative in 13 (86.7%) cases in the HCQ group and 14 (93.3%) cases in the control group (P>0.05). The median duration from hospitalization to virus nucleic acid negative conservation was 4 (1-9) days in HCQ group, which is comparable to that in the control group [2 (1-4) days, (U = 83.5, P>0.05)]. The median time for body temperature normalization in HCQ group was 1 (0-2) after hospitalization, which was also comparable to that in the control group 1 (0-3). Radiological progression was shown on CT images in 5 cases (33.3%) of the HCQ group and 7 cases (46.7%) of the control group, and all patients showed improvement in follow-up examination. Four cases (26.7%) of the HCQ group and 3 cases (20%) of the control group had transient diarrhea and abnormal liver function (P> 0.05). Conclusions: The prognosis of common COVID-19 patients is good. Larger sample size study are needed to investigate the effects of HCQ in the treatment of COVID-19. Subsequent research should determine better endpoint and fully consider the feasibility of experiments such as sample size.
[Key words] Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2; Corona virus disease-19; Novel“
In the study there were also some differences found as a positive of the drug. Furthermore the negative side effects seemed about equal. It might not be the drug causing it.
The conclusion of the study was positive and it suggested more data was needed.
It’s actually worst than that. In fact the study shows it is actually as effective by itself as their top of the line treatment.
From the study:
“ In the Chinese study, which was conducted by researchers from the department of infection and immunity at the Shanghai Public Health Clinical Center, the 15 patients who didn’t get hydroxychloroquine were treated with...
“ This includes bed rest, oxgen inhalation, and the use of anti-viral drugs recommended in China’s treatment guidelines like lopinavir and ritonavir, and antibiotics when necessary.”
Wait it wasn’t just nothing. It’s not treatment of one drug and a placebo. It was treatment of one drug versus a host of other drugs.
Furthermore it isn’t the complete treatment given in every other successful guideline.
Are there drugs that probably work better out there, most likely. Are there treatments which consist of a cocktail of drugs that can work as well, again most likely.
Here is part of the study:
http://subject.med.wanfangdata.com.cn/UpLoad/Files/202003/43f8625d4dc74e42bbcf24795de1c77c.pdf
“ Results: One patient in HCQ group developed to severe during the treatment. On day 7, COVID-19 nucleic acid of throat swabs was negative in 13 (86.7%) cases in the HCQ group and 14 (93.3%) cases in the control group (P>0.05). The median duration from hospitalization to virus nucleic acid negative conservation was 4 (1-9) days in HCQ group, which is comparable to that in the control group [2 (1-4) days, (U = 83.5, P>0.05)]. The median time for body temperature normalization in HCQ group was 1 (0-2) after hospitalization, which was also comparable to that in the control group 1 (0-3). Radiological progression was shown on CT images in 5 cases (33.3%) of the HCQ group and 7 cases (46.7%) of the control group, and all patients showed improvement in follow-up examination. Four cases (26.7%) of the HCQ group and 3 cases (20%) of the control group had transient diarrhea and abnormal liver function (P> 0.05). Conclusions: The prognosis of common COVID-19 patients is good. Larger sample size study are needed to investigate the effects of HCQ in the treatment of COVID-19. Subsequent research should determine better endpoint and fully consider the feasibility of experiments such as sample size. [Key words] Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2; Corona virus disease-19; Novel“
In the study there were also some differences found as a positive of the drug. Furthermore the negative side effects seemed about equal. It might not be the drug causing it.
The conclusion of the study was positive and it suggested more data was needed.
So HCQ by itself is already on par with the best other method we've discovered.
I wonder why those other untested drugs aren't being vilified by the media 24/7... Hmmmm