First, it wouldn’t surprise me at all if this is as effective as it says. But second, how meaningful is it that all of 60 infected patients got better, when only one in something like 300 infected patients fails to get better? I would need to see much larger studies to be impressed to the extent he is.
RE: how meaningful is it that all of 60 infected patients got better, when only one in something like 300 infected patients fails to get better?
Well, the same question could be asked of ALL therapies given to infected patients today. Why not just DO NOTHING and let the patient’s body cure itself? After all, he has a 299 out of 300 chance of getting better.
If I read this article correctly, high risk patients ( includes all 60+) are put on the HCQ cocktail when symptoms begin. Many people, especially younger people, have no symptoms when they test positive, having taken the test due to a work requirement, exposure to someone else who had tested positive,etc. There is no need to medicate them at all.