A new study out in NEJM on prevention of Covid in people with high risk exposures shows: (drum roll please) no significant improvement. Study appears well done, and while some minimal benefit could still be present, supports no statistically significant effect. https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa2016638
When I shared this as reported by The NY Times in social media, one response was to attack the NYT and defend the rhetoric promoting the drug. Interesting how we cling to our narratives when challenged, despite the evidence. That of course is true for us all, and brings to focus the need to submit and listen to one another in a spirit of humility, be it about science, race, or faith.
It looks like an improvement on some of the others. Prevention is a big point, because those who argue for HCQ say it should be used earlier in the game. I brought it to the attention of my partner, however, and he questioned the use of a Covid-like illness in the next 2 weeks, without lab confirmation. Maybe the studies will get better with better testing, and confirm this. Thanks.
It is - like having large prayer meetings with lots of singing - a way to bring some folks closer to God - physically that is, but then, so does drinking bleach. incompatible with
Azithromycin. Can cause cardiomyopathy and seizures.
I would suggest regular use of Japanese mint-oil as a a post exposure prophylaxis as at least it will achieve a good disinfection of your oral cavity, but so might do gurgling with a good whisky to some extend.
Klax
(The only thing that matters is faith expressed in love.)
5
I know. However, note first that it is an issue that was part of the review process by Lancet involving some of the data sources, and actually is not a problem with the conclusions although clouded by the whether the data is reliable. It shows that the process works. Second, it is somewhat excused by the fact that it was rushed to print by the urgency of the situation. Third, other studies also show the failure of hydroxychloroquine to have significant effect, so it does not stand alone. https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa2016638?query=featured_home&fbclid=IwAR0aa-f3fEc8lKFnSNlHVBB9XZC7Vk3DwosWqxF4AvlGqL6wW-guar0V6hY
As for critics, simply ask what studies have shown benefit, and ask what they are basing their advocacy on. Other than the first study done poorly and with small numbers by a somewhat rogue researcher, I am not familiar with any real studies showing benefit, only some anecdotal reports by unqualified observers for the most part.