Er... no. While we're still awaiting large well-conducted studies, the well-conducted small studies have not been promising, to say the least.

The small studies were flawed too. We are witnessing incompetence across the board.

The treatment in the "good" studies that, let's be real, most people are gunning for because they go against the president's tweet, they administered the drugs to critically ill patients. The original proposed mechanism of action is solid, came from a Dutch paper in reference to SARS, and ideally the treatment is administered sometime before the patient is already dying.

Just look at what's going on on this website! Anything remotely supportive of Trump is automatically voted down. This is a board of learned professionals who have clout and their lack of objectivity is representative of academia and industry at large right now. Let's not pretend you could openly support Trump at almost any major institution right now.

And this isn't about Trump. This is about getting over petty rage and not leaving treatments on the table to stick it to the man.

> not leaving treatments on the table

There are large studies on this ongoing. If they show something, well, fine, that's good. Until then, no-one should be promoting a dangerous drug to members of the public.

Telling your populous, at a time when you are holding daily updates, there there is a promising drug or vaccine that scientists are researching, is an appropriate step towards maintaining some degree of hope. We cannot be liable for the 1/10e-6 percent of the population that takes this as a suggestion to self medicate with acquarium cleaner.

People have gotten absolutely desperate to interpret everything he says or does in the absolutely worst way.

"What do you have to lose?"

Those are appropriate words of hope and inspiration?

I didn't say he spoke appropriately. I said the topic was appropriate. Most of the flak is from people claiming he is putting others in danger (asinine claim that denies adults agency by the way) by bringing up a potential treatment. But don't let that stop you from finding alternative ways to focus on only the negative aspects of the tweet.

I mean Jesus Christ people, this is literally evidence that he is listening to his experts because he clearly rambles like he doesn't know what he's talking about.

Let me repeat that for those of you who will silently downvote: the fact that he's bringing up these treatments upon questioning from reporters, and deferring to experts in real time, is evidence that he's listening to experts, which is exactly what his critics want him to do!

This bias is infuriating. Apparently Trump critics are incapable of seeing shades of grey.

This is not an accurate characterization of the studies.

The well conducted studies that show chloroquine as having an affect on novel coronavirus have all be in vitro. The in vivo studies that have been done that showed anecdotal evidence of effect were poorly conducted, including doing things such as excluding people from the results that died from cv19 while taking chloroquine.

Better in vivo studies have showed that hydroxychloroquine on it's own had no impact on whether or not someone needed to go on a ventilator, and resulted in a nearly 3x increase in all cause mortality. Hydroxychloroquine + azithromycin did not show a significant increase in all cause mortality, but also had no statistically significant impact on whether or not the patient would need to go on a ventilator, and overall mortality was similar to the control group.

Other studies have had to halt due to the number of patients dying due to cardiac issues.

If anything, all large studies with proper controls are showing that chloroquine and hydroxychloroquine are ineffective at treating cv19 at best, and deadly in their own right at worst.