It's very clear that the resistance to these drugs is an intense case of Trump Derangement Syndrome.

There's an almost perfect correlation between reaction to these drugs and Trump support.

It's resistance to people who are clearly out of their lane. He is not a medical doctor, yet he's recommending people take it. It's unremarkable that he's incompetent to give this advice, because most people are incompetent to give such advice. I am incompetent to give such advice. What is remarkable is he clearly thinks he's competent to give such advice, and that it's appropriate for him to give it without any qualification whatsoever. https://mobile.twitter.com/atrupar/status/124655621931107942...

A fair amount of doctors tend to believe it is promising [1]. If I was in the hospital, of course I would want to take it regardless of how anecdotal the evidence is.

[1] https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2020/apr/2/hydroxychlor...

> A fair amount of doctors tend to believe it is promising

There are a couple of red flags about that article. No peer-reviewed (or otherwise) papers are mentioned and no clinical trials are discussed. The article does not even attempt to evaluate the truth of whether it's an effective therapy.

Even judged on its own terms, the article is a weak. After looking at that survey they're flogging, it'd be pretty interesting to hear from Spanish doctors, since that's where most of the enthusiasm seems to be coming from, but they don't even attempt to talk to anyone. Well... it's the Washington Times.

> of course I would want to take it

"Of course?" I hope you would at least consider the opinion of the physician treating you.

> "Of course?" I hope you would at least consider the opinion of the physician treating you.

Sure. But if I was dying, "of course" I would want to try something with even anecdotal evidence of efficacy.

Her are 20 more: https://twitter.com/__ice9/status/1246549028382408706

Trump mentioning a drug in a press conference is now "giving [medical] advice"? Please.

> What's political about that?

Then why does the title say that Hydroxychloroquine "probably" isn't the answer? It either works or it doesn't. If the drugs are ineffective just say so. Why beat around the bush with a "probably"?

Probably as in 'not yet 100% sure'. As a measure of probability based on available evidence.

To me, the headline reads like it's saying "this probably won't work" rather than "we don't yet have enough evidence to say that this works." If I had to headline this article, I probably would have written something like "Hydroxychloroquine data still inconclusive, don't get your hopes up yet" to better convey the meaning.

From reading it, what the article actually supports is that we have seen two trials that are inconclusive. This is the meat of it in my view -

==

A French study of HCQ suggested that it had was effective in decreasing the viral load from nasal secretions. When azithromycin was added the magnitude of the effect was larger.

[...]

And a Chinese study of 30 patients doesn't prove that HCQ worked. Or that it doesn't. But the two groups, control and treated, showed no difference in the amount of virus in the throat on day seven, the length of time for the fever to go away. There was an apparent difference in the progression of the infection (determined by x-ray), in the two groups but this means little since 5/15 treated patients got worse vs. 7/15 in the control group. This effect could easily be by chance and nothing to do to the drug. Furthermore, this trial did not include azithromycin, so it cannot be compared to the French trial.