So the Lancet is having another go at HCQ.
"Hydroxychloroquine has been shown to inhibit entry of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) into epithelial cells in vitro, but clinical studies found no evidence of reduced mortality when treating patients with COVID-19. We aimed to evaluate the effectiveness of hydroxychloroquine for prevention of COVID-19 mortality, as opposed to treatment for the disease."
Well, no, we want to treat the disease before people get to the stages that lead to death, but OK.
But that's not the point. What have we been posting here for months? HCQ is a Zinc ionophore. It helps Zinc get into the cells. Zinc inhibits viral replication. So HCQ without the Zinc is not the treatment that is or has been suggested. So let's do a search for "zinc"
Oh what's this? Not found? You don't say.
Also, for the fear mongering media:
In this population-based cohort study, which uses a database that includes around 40% of the population of England, UK, we investigated whether routine use of hydroxychloroquine before the COVID-19 outbreak (ie, pre-exposure prophylaxis) prevented COVID-19 mortality. With use of robust pharmaco-epidemiological methods, we found no evidence to support a substantial benefit of hydroxychloroquine in preventing COVID-19 mortality. At the same time, we have shown no evidence of harm. The absence of clear harms or benefits supports clinical equipoise to justify continuing randomised trials. [my underline]
"No evidence of harm"? You don't say.
All I ask is that some reputable place study the actual proposal (HCQ+Zinc in populations who have been given the treatment at the early (pre-inflammatory) stage of the disease. Is that too much to ask for?
