This is from the FDA website.

"Under section 564 of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FD&C Act), when the Secretary of HHS declares that an emergency use authorization is appropriate, FDA may authorize unapproved medical products or unapproved uses of approved medical products to be used in an emergency to diagnose, treat, or prevent serious or life-threatening diseases or conditions caused by CBRN threat agents when certain criteria are met, including there are no adequate, approved, and available alternatives."

You should probably drill into this if you are interested, but the phrasing most often referenced by people talking about effective therapeutics and the lack of approval by the FDA is, "there are adequate, approved, and available alternatives."

The idea that ivermectin (even if it works, and gets approved for this usage, which'd likely take as long as the vaccines are taking to get to that point) is an adequate alternative to a vaccine, which provides ongoing, lasting protection, is silly.

It'd be like claiming the existence of the iron lung is sufficient to yank the polio vaccine out of production.

For example, Remdesivir is approved, without any sign of that fact jeopardizing the EUA on the vaccines. https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/hcp/therapeutic-op...

> FDA has approved one drug, remdesivir (Veklury), for the treatment of COVID-19 in hospitalized patients aged 12 years and older who weigh at least 40 kg.

Can you point to anything that says the FDA would consider HCQ or any of these other drugs as alternatives to vaccines? They are not the same, and though they could both treat COVID, my reading is not that this would limit vaccine emergency authorization if there was a non vaccine treatment. This is especially true considering there are multiple vaccines approved under emergency use which would be direct competitors. So, nope, I don't buy it from just this wording. I need something saying specifically that alternative treatments would stop a vaccine being approved.

I get vaccinated for flu every year. And yet there is Tamiflu, an effective palliative.

I believe it means vaccines should go typical testing and vetting process, not the emergency shortened, is what the op wanted to tell.

I understand that's what op is trying to say, but op isn't providing sufficient evidence for that. Non vaccines are not alternatives for vaccines. And we have EUAs for things that would be alternatives to each other, multiple vaccines. So there's not reason to think a viable treatment for COVID would prevent a vaccine from getting a EUA.

>Source for the EUA stuff?

https://www.fdanews.com/ext/resources/files/archives/e/Emerg...

(PDF warning)(section III, the first list, point #4)

>Source that HCQ and zinc are viable treatments?

Dozens? Hundreds? of doctors speaking out, including videos posted to youtube, that they saw great effectiveness in the trial. The people promoting it weren't a bunch of nobodys, despite what the nightly news told you. There were plenty of frontline workers with actual experience. But that likely won't satisfy your request for a source - which is fine. We all appeal to authority as we see fit. I saw many actual doctors saying "this is effective", and I saw many large corporations working together to shut that conversation down.

Do you have any evidence it's not effective?

>Do you have any evidence it's not effective?

Do you have any evidence snake oil isn't effective?

Burden of proof is on the people claiming a magic cure.

Anyway here are a couple of studies that show it's not effective.

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/jmv.27122

https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2777389

Here's a good take by someone that does research on new medicines.

https://blogs.sciencemag.org/pipeline/archives/2021/06/07/iv...

And there are papers which show that it does. Rather than descend into a 'my list of papers denoting effectiveness is bigger than your's suggesting the opposite' contest, I suggest you go to http://www.freefullpdf.com/#gsc.tab=0 and do some objective searching yourself preferably without a prior agenda.

A number with a question mark behind it is not evidence, and even if hundreds of doctors did speak up about it, hundreds of doctors thought Cholera was caused by miasma instead of bad drinking water. Hundreds of doctors thought bleeding was the universal cure all. Hundreds of doctors thought washing their hands was useless. Some random number of random doctors saying it may be effective is not evidence of it's effectiveness.

Your document also doesn't say what you think it does. If it did, we wouldn't be able to have multiple vaccines approved. Is there any evidence that the FDA would interpret a non vaccine as an alternative to a vaccine, when there's no issue with granting EUA to multiple vaccines? I doubt it, but would love to see what you have.

We have to do this again? Hydroxychloroquine was debunked months ago.

"Among patients hospitalized with mild-to-moderate Covid-19, the use of hydroxychloroquine, alone or with azithromycin, did not improve clinical status at 15 days as compared with standard care. (Funded by the Coalition Covid-19 Brazil and EMS Pharma; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT04322123. opens in new tab.)"

https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa2019014

"After high-risk or moderate-risk exposure to Covid-19, hydroxychloroquine did not prevent illness compatible with Covid-19 or confirmed infection when used as postexposure prophylaxis within 4 days after exposure. (Funded by David Baszucki and Jan Ellison Baszucki and others; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT04308668. opens in new tab.)"

https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa2016638

"Neither HCQ nor HCQ/AZ shortened the clinical course of outpatients with COVID-19, and HCQ, but not HCQ/AZ, had only a modest effect on SARS-CoV-2 viral shedding. HCQ and HCQ/AZ are not effective therapies for outpatient treatment of SARV-CoV-2 infection."

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S258953702...

"Among patients hospitalized with Covid-19, those who received hydroxychloroquine did not have a lower incidence of death at 28 days than those who received usual care. (Funded by UK Research and Innovation and National Institute for Health Research and others; RECOVERY ISRCTN number, ISRCTN50189673. opens in new tab; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT04381936. opens in new tab.)"

https://www.nejm.org/doi/10.1056/NEJMoa2022926

Shall we discuss creationism?

Hey mate for what it's worth and you might say not much and may be right, the argument I ear goes as follow: the trials showing the ineffectiveness of HCQ use protocols that are inconsistent with the protocols the advocate of HCQ propose.

To my understanding, the proponents tend to say that HCQ is effective when administered as soon as first symptoms (day 0 to 3 I believe). There are also dosage issues and combinations with other drugs, and they say that HCQ is ineffective administered late.

In the first paper you propose, patients treated are already hospitalized (day 14 or fewer still probably not day 0 to 3). The fourth paper states (when following the link the to protocol) that hospitalisation is a condition for eligibility. That's not first symptoms.

The third papers talks about "initiated medication a median of 5.9 days after symptom onset". So not 0 to 3 days?

The second paper you propose talks about administering HCQ as post-exposure prophylaxis. It seems outside of the scope to me.

There are other issues on this debate, dosage, drug combinations, I can't talk about that, this website does:

https://hcqmeta.com/

This person resumes the argument this way:

https://roundingtheearth.substack.com/p/how-to-rig-research-...

(Note that the fourth paper on your list is the RECOVERY trial he's no a fan of)

What do you think about this? Also what about intelligent design?

You are seriously proposing that if an effective treatment had been found in 2020, that the US government would have denied EUA for vaccines while the rest of the world got to work vaccinating their citizens?