So why has it worked for some patients? And why were the health problems not universally encountered in the previous 70+ years that it has been used for malaria, lupus, rheumatoid arthritis, and other diseases and ailments?
Interesting that you offer links from two of the most generally biased (towards the left) sources.....CNN and AP. Although AP often does have fair and objective reporting, I wouldn't trust anything at all that comes out of CNN.
How about the journal itself, then?
Anecdotally, it looks to have worked for a few people. But when scientific controls are in place, it doesn't appear it was the variable that made a difference. That is why we science this stuff instead of "I heard from a person who knows a nurse who's mom was sick and she got better".
What strikes me as odd and totally irrational is that from the very start, in spite of what are obviously only anectodal incidents, instead of pursuing or even having an openness to REAL studies, people, including doctors, IMMEDIATELY declared that it was unsafe, unsound, and ineffective. Why did that obvious bias come into play immediately? I would think that if a certain treatment could even be remotely related to someone's recovery, it would be seriously considered by every doctor, whether a practicing physician or a research doctor. But instead of performing actual studies to determine its efficacy, what studies that have been done at least seem to have been done to disprove or discount its efficacy. That is why "sciencing this stuff" doesn't appear to me to be exercising true science.
I said that AP DOES often do it right. I can't think of a single instance where CNN does.
And then on the flip side, head over to FoxNews who used to discuss the drug constantly - barely a peep of follow up to let people know that the mircale drug combo they were telling their viewers about every night was in fact, not what they were hoping it would be. That is a huge disservice and leaves people uninformed.
I don't recall docs dismissing it, but more dismissing those who said we should start giving this to everyone immediately. Most had a measured approach, saying we need more clinical trials. Those clinical trials are wrapping up and showing that many were right to go at this slowly.
Additionally, a good experiment disproves the null hypothesis - which in this case would be that hydroxychloroquine is not an effective treatment. That is not political, it is statistical.
So.. I guess we all agree the doctors (medical pros) had it right all along. ...and all this other "noise" (from media, social media, internet forums) is not really all that helpful? Funny how what really matters usually works out.
And yet it has been claimed to have been effective in some cases. I take a particular prescription drug that apparently has been shown to be very effective for some, if not most people. It has only been moderately effective for me, and has certainly not produced the expected (based on studies) and desired results for me. But I don't disparage the apparent fact that it does work for others, and I continue to take it because I guess it's better than nothing. I think my approach to that particular drug should be taken by others in regards to hydroxychloroquine. It apparently works in some cases and does not in others, but don't universally disparage its use in others, when it might prove effective. I actually think that most people, including doctors, are open to that, but the press has maligned it to the extent that some refer to it as a deadly drug. That is unacceptable.
First bolded statement: Those claims are what prompted scientific rigor to assess them, data has shown so far to not support the claims.
The left media, as you would call it, was in line with the scientists and doctors urging a cautious, measured approach. FoxNews was blathering nightly about the wonder drug with (at that point) zero scientific proof. Who did Fox have making their case? Ingraham, Oz, D.r Phil (?)!
How many states have actually hit the criteria for Phase 1 reopening? Maybe 8 - 10? Definitely not GA.