I believe it all started with this article on The Conversation by dr. Katherine Seley-Radtke (Department of Chemistry and Biochemistry, University of Maryland) a couple of days ago, which telling was not published in an academic journal but on the internet:
This article referred to a tiny French study with 11 patients that dismissed the effectiveness of the C&A combo (hydroxychloroquine and azithromycin) in severe and comorbid Covid-19 cases:
Quoting from the study:
This article from The Conversation was then picked up and highlighted by Snopes, who are once again revealing their own political bias by doing so:
A trial of an anti-malaria drug in France found different results from a similar study published the previous month.
www.snopes.com
The article by dr. Katherine Seley-Radtke on The Conversation prompted 67 responses, many of which poked holes in the author's argument and proceeded to reveal
the author's own industry affiliation with a company that's currently working on a Covid-19 vaccine which she tellingly did not disclose in her article. The problem is that these 67 responses are at the very bottom of the page and you will only see them if you specifically choose to unroll them:
My personal opinion is that even if the C&A(& Zinc, which has been brought up in this thread before) combo only saves 2 out of 10 critically ill patients, it should not be dismissed. Saving a few is still better than none. If it supposedly only works on relatively healthy patients without underlying conditions, why the hell dismiss it just because it doesn't work on the comorbid ones? This is clearly a case of different horses for different courses. As I pointed out earlier with
the link from Clinicaltrials.gov, there are multiple Covid-19 related trials announced testing all sorts of drugs and supplements,
only one of which is hydroxychloroquine. We are seeing all sorts of news items come out about other succesful in vitro experiments with other drugs, which are of couse exploited to create name recognition and thus build a future market for these drugs. Medical professionals need to have a wide array of options available to them to help their patients recover. Even if hydroxychloroquine,
or any other drug currently under trial for that matter, does turn out to be "the new Tamiflu"*, it's too early to make statements either way.
* For those of you that don't remember
the Tamiflu controversy, this was a drug that governments around the world spent billions stockpiling in anticipation of a birdflu pandemic. Tamiflu was supposed to reduce the rate of fatal complications, pneumonia and death. Turns out, all the hype was due to bad trials. When academics found out, the manufacturer dragged their feet for years. It eventually led to a formal inquiry in the UK.