Christians Should Reject the Latest Pro-Hydroxychloroquine Video

I don’t know about the drug (can’t even spell it or pronounce it). I think it is probably safe is used according to prior protocols, but I don’t know if it actually does anything for Covid or not.

What I wonder is, what do you think of Twitter and Facebook burying the video? Does this not give it that much more credence among the true believers? “They’re out to get us” and all that. Perhaps there could be a better strategy?

Before I wrote the article, I didn’t know how to spell it either. After having written it over and over, the spelling is drilled into my brain. Still can’t pronounce it, though.

I can see the arguments for both hiding it and not hiding it. Honestly, in my opinion, nothing that anyone does, doesn’t do, or says will sway the true believers of HCQ - those who believe it’s a miracle cure. I guess, if we want to argue that there is no reason to stoke the fire of “they’re out to get us,” then, sure. My concern with the video and the touting of it by Christians is more epistemological than anything. So, in that sense, I lean in the direction of hide it.

[Don Johnson]

What I wonder is, what do you think of Twitter and Facebook burying the video? Does this not give it that much more credence among the true believers? “They’re out to get us” and all that. Perhaps there could be a better strategy?

My opinion is that they should not censor it. There is nothing really in it to be worthy of censorship. Put it out there and let the experts comment. In the end it won’t change anything. Why? The hydroxy obsession taking place is very interesting. I have spent time in college and beyond studying how conspiracy theories are structured and gain traction. This follows along the same vane. Regardless of whether hydroxy is interesting or not, there are a number of drugs in the same exact boat that shows interest (i.e. ritonavir). The discussion around those who are pushing hydroxy has very little to do with its perceived efficacy. They are pushing a narrative. That narrative is that 1) we should reopen, 2) the virus is not that bad, 3) vaccine makers and or drug companies are the ones hiding the benefits of hydroxy, and 4) there is a concerted effort/deep state to discredit Trump, and the media is one of the key drivers for this. The reason why this has gotten traction is because of the promotion of the president. If the president had actively promoted any number of other drugs, those would have been the ones that took off. There is absolutely nothing unique here in the drug itself. Yes some studies have shown success, but there are similiar type of studies for other types of drugs. The larger population, double blind, randomized studies do not show the benefit with hydroxy or any other drug. None of the data is hidden or being supressed around this and it would be impossible for the media to supress 100,000 doctors and billion dollar pharma companies to abandon what is good for patients and the financial coffers to hid behind the media. It is a very interesting phenomenon, and it is being played out across a number of other areas.

What many don’t realize is that massive amount of money and coordination from far right groups that are pushing this narrative. Most people are sitting here taking up sides around a certain medicine looking for an expert on one side or the other, totally oblivious that this entire thing has nothing to do with medicine. Many of the doctors on the front step of the Supreme Court had no idea who was funding their exercise. The Tea Party Patriots funded it, along with a number of other GOP Super Pacs and promoted on Breitbart. There is a broader social media push as well. Things such as the Second Opinion Project which was setup to push the narrative across numerous channels. Watching this entire thing playout is very interesting.

A couple of quick comments regarding HCQ.

1. The fact that it has demonized because Trump promoted it is a shame. I had become aware of the French study before Trump mentioned it and was hopeful that it might be an effective treatment. Once Trump mentioned it, it became (like seemingly everything else in this current age) a political hot button with the usual Anti-Trump side ripping it apart and the Pro-Trump side thinking it was a cure-all. My opinion has been that we should continue to test and find out and not worry about the politics of the issue - but, alas, that is being a pollyanna in this day and age. I sort-of wish President Trump had not mentioned it, since that might have helped it not to become a political issue rather than a medical issue.

2. Much of the criticisms of the Pro-HCQ studies deal with many of the studies not being “double-blind studies.” In the early French study, the authors of the study answered that objection, explaining that the effectiveness of the treatment compelled them to give it to the patients who were not originally scheduled to receive it because failing to do so would have been to withhold from them a treatment that was having such a positive impact in the others - and that the doctors felt this would be a violation of their medical ethics to withhold effective treatments from those who needed it.

3. A lot of people have taken this medication for years with a knowable range of side-effects. Some of the anti-HCQ hype has had some folks fear taking medication that they have already taken for Lupus and other conditions.

4. I will admit a bias in hoping that this is an effective treatment - or really that there is any kind of effective treatment to be had.

5. I find this article at Real Clear Politics a reasonable counter-point: https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2020/08/04/an_effective_covi…

6. It seems that many of the anecdotal stories from Doctors who seem to be actually using HCQ with good effect include use of Zinc with the HCQ. I am not sure why the studies seem to leave this part out.

A couple of other comments and observations.

I have not watched the video, so my comments are not in defense of the video.

I read the studies that John posted and I wasn’t really impressed, for the following reasons.

In the New England study a few things stand out.

1. The goal was seeing about its use as a prophylaxis, my concern has been about using it as a treatment. (I know the President was at one time said to be using it that way, but most doctors I have seen that are supporting HCQ seem more concerned with its use as treatment, not as a prophylaxis.)

2. It is interesting that they could not go as far as originally planned since the actual mortality and hospitalizations of both groups (HCQ and placebo) was so low that there was not a significant enough group who were hospitalized or died to be able to reach any conclusions on that front.

In regards to the article on the Annals of Internal Medicine site

1. It similarly had to adjust due to the relative low number of participants being as severely effected as needed for the full goal of the study. (I think this is actually a good thing for people, although not for the study.)

[the study] Among the enrolled participants, the incidence of hospitalization was only 3% and incidence of death only 0.4%, making the planned analysis of the ordinal end point futile

2. The hospitalizations were half as many for the HCQ group as the Placebo group, which would be significant if there had been enough in both groups to really count (there were only 4 in the 203 who were in the HCQ group and 8 of the 194 who were in the placebo group). If this were to hold overall, that would be significant, but with only 3% of the sample group actually needing hospitalization, a much larger sample would be needed to see if this difference would hold up.

I find it encouraging that these two studies used people who were exposed and expected to have COVID and yet only 12 of 397 in one study and 2 of 821 in the other study actually had to be hospitalized with the disease.

I don’t think we know enough about its effectiveness. but I do think it continues to warrant attention (as do other treatments.) Since many of the anti-HCQ studies seem to have involved uses that the anecdotal stories are not advocating (e.g. using after symptoms are fairly advanced - which is what the third study John linked to seemed to do - it also seemed to deal with a much higher dosage than the other studies I have seen), I would definitely not use those studies to make conclusive statements against its efficacy in the suggested usage (early in the process, combined with zinc and possible Zpack, etc.).

Just my thoughts.

It’s too soon to be confident about HCQ either way.

As for Trump’s role its demonization… How to put it. Nearly everything Trump does is intensely personal, combative, and political. So if he wanted HCQ to get a fair shake, he should kept silent… or maybe should have denounced it vehemently on Twitter. Backlash is what he has trained everyone to do at this point (they would have done it without his training, but he has fed and grown that problem nearly every day he’s been in office.)

Apparently, not every RCT is negative with respect to the effects of HCQ on Covid-19.

https://arxiv.org/abs/2007.09477

“We conclude their randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial presents statistical evidence, at 99% confidence level, that the treatment of Covid-19 patients with hydroxychloroquine is effective in reducing the appearance of symptoms if used before or right after exposure to the virus.”

[pvawter]

Apparently, not every RCT is negative with respect to the effects of HCQ on Covid-19.

https://arxiv.org/abs/2007.09477

“We conclude their randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial presents statistical evidence, at 99% confidence level, that the treatment of Covid-19 patients with hydroxychloroquine is effective in reducing the appearance of symptoms if used before or right after exposure to the virus.”

Yes, it was a review of an earlier RCT.