"A study published this week in the Journal of Zhejiang University in China contradicted the Raoult study and found that hydroxychloroquine was not any more effective than conventional coronavirus treatment."
They repeat the conclusions of a Chinese study which may well be a Chinese dis-information effort due to its extremely poor experimental design. Assuming the paper is truthful at all, it represents a laughably bad experimental design.
The cited Chinese study compared the effect of the drug treatment compared to a control group, but the patients they were testing were already essentially recovered from the virus. As the Chinese researchers reported:
"The median duration from hospitalization to virus nucleic acid negative conservation was 4 (1-9) days in HCQ group, which is comparable to that in the control group 2 (1-4) days..."
But no one is reporting that hospitalized COVID-19 patients are recovered and virus free within a median time of 2 days, with some recovering in 1 day, and the longest recovering in 4 days. The patients in the control group had already recovered from the virus. Similarly, the treated patients, except for the 9 day patient, recovered in a median time of 4 days, with one of the patients recovering in one day.
Those patients were already recovering too. So an experiment based on giving a medication to patients who are already almost recovered is pointless, or intentionally designed to be misleading.
Here is the Chinese study they cited
RE: “The median duration from hospitalization to virus nucleic acid negative conservation was 4 (1-9) days in HCQ group, which is comparable to that in the control group 2 (1-4) days...”
According to TechCrunch ( who also used a similar headline but cited the same study you posted):
“The study, which included 30 patients with a control of 15 who received no treatment, with the other half being treated with hydroxychloroquine, showed that there was a statistically insignificant difference in the number of patients who tested negative for the drug after a week.
During the study, those who received conventional treatment were provided anti-virals that are currently recommended for use in China, including Iopinavir and ritonavir. After a week, 13 of the 15 control patients showed no sign of the virus, while 14 of the 15 who were treated with hydroxychloroquine showed the same.”
So, what do we see?
One group DID use antivirals: including Iopinavir and ritonavir and 13 of the 15 patients showed no signs of the virus.
While the other group used Hydroxycholoroqune ( no mention of combo with Azithromycin ) and 14 of the 15 showed no signs of the virus.
So, the conclusion should really be — THE CHEAPER, WELL KNOWN ANTI-MALARIAL DRUG IS SLIGHTLY MORE EFFECTIVE THAN STANDARD AND MORE EXPENSIVE ANTI-VIRALS.