Besides sourcing, there are several problems with relying on hydroxychloroquine (Plaquenil) + azithromycin for COVID-19:
1. Neither is an antiviral, though h-chloroquine is one of the immunity-boosting drugs, prescribed to treat malaria and autoimmune diseases like lupus, Sjogren syndrome and arthritis; it's also FDA-approved, has been used for a long time and is generic so it's relatively cheap.
2. French study that supposedly showed promise of chloroquine was both small (26 people) and non-randomized, which scientifically renders it nearly useless, except as an impetus for more robust clinical trials which are ongoing now in many places all over the world now - this latest Chinese study was also small (30 people) but randomized which gives it much stronger credence.
3. Until clinical trials are completed and FDA gives its (speeded up) approval, major pharma companies may be reluctant to produce more drug for off-label use. If trials prove the efficacy in COVID-19, pharma will be given the immunity from lawsuits and definitely start pumping the production.
4. Off-label use is causing the run on h-chloroquine for people to self-medicate or even for hospitals to stockpile is making it nearly impossible for chronically immuno-deficient patients who take it regularly with legitimate prescriptions to get the drug they actually need.
5. It's also been known for decades that the drug has adverse psychiatric side effects that can occur after taking a single dose, though more likely in larger doses, ranging from anxiety and insomnia to paranoia and suicidal ideation. By disrupting and increasing QT interval the drug can also cause deadly heart complications, which can range from arrhythmia to stroke or heart failure. Older people and those with preexisting conditions are particularly more sensitive to cardiac complications. Azithromycin has also been tied to potentially fatal arrhythmia since 2013, so combination of both may be too much for already fragile CV patients.
"Randomization" is ONLY necessary if you are "measuring" clinical symptoms in order to avoid the "placebo error". The French study directly measured viral loads by PCR (pollymerase-chain-reaction), not clinical symptoms. All that is necessary in such a case is that a control group be included, as was done. PCR is both exquisitely sensitive and exquisitely specific.
I'll take the French data over the Chinese anytime.
And the critical data you leave out is "what percentage" of those who take the drugs are so affected?? The real answer, attested to by decades of use in millions of people is....not very many.
You apparently do not understand how hydroxychloroquine and zinc stop virus reproduction. Your talking points have a ‘big pharma’ stench to them. Aside from the fatc that HCQ and zinc do work to stop viruses like SARS, MERS, and now covid-19, there is no reason to use an inexpensive cure when nig phrama has an expensive ‘perhaps’ cure coming in a few months whie the American economy dies.
People like you are disgusting
After the initial outbreak of MERS in 2012, scientists conducted random screens of thousands of approved drugs to identify one that might block MERS infection. Several drugs, including chloroquine, showed the ability to block coronaviruses from infecting cells in vitro. But these drugs were not extensively pursued because ultimately they did not show enough activity to be considered further.
Malaria is caused by parasite, not a virus. No other antimalarial drugs have shown any meaningful activity against treating coronaviruses. More likely effect may be activation or increase of immune system response. But so can certain amino acids and vitamins, and minerals including selenium and zinc, at a fraction of a cost and few, if any, side effects depending on dosage and intervals.
The toxicity and potential adverse side effects of chloroquine and hydroxychloroquine are well documented. As a treatment or prevention of malaria, these risks are usually accepted by doctors.
There are currently at least thirteen h-chloroquine clinical trials around the world. Most are still in phase I in clinical trials, and the majority of drugs for infectious diseases that seem promising in the first phase don't ultimately make it to market.
Remdesivir, developed by Gilead, seems to be highly effective at preventing viruses from replicating, including coronaviruses such as SARS and MERS, and filoviruses such as Ebola. Gilead conducted two phase III trials of the drug.
Usual care included bed rest, oxygen inhalation, and antiviral or antibiotic drugs as needed or recommended according to the hospital's treatment plan. A placebo was not used.
At admission, the chest CT scans did not differ significantly between the two groups. No patients were pregnant or had serious underlying conditions, including neurological or psychiatric conditions.
The researchers defined their primary endpoint — as a reduction in viral load as defined by a COVID-19 test (PCR).
Here were the main findings:
The study is just the first to directly compare hydroxychloroquine with a control group for treatment of COVID-19. The study is very small. The researchers estimate that a trial would require 784 patients with no drop-outs to determine whether hydroxychloroquine definitively results in better or worse outcomes.
The authors of this new study caution against carrying out a study where all patients receive the experimental drug and compare them to historical cases because doing so can result in false positive results.
Original optimism in hydroxychloroquine came in part from a French study, which was also small and had other flaws, including being non-randomised. French study also had no simultaneous control group and used historical controls, which makes it a cohort study.