Effect of hydroxychloroquine and azithromycin in 80 Covid-19 patients [pdf]

https://forbetterscience.com/2020/03/26/chloroquine-genius-d...

Yep, it's him. I'll wait for a reproduction from an independent group before believing this.

If I may say: be especially wary of people who tell you that what you want to believe is true. It's not necessarily that they're more likely to lie. It's that your guard is more likely to be down against mistakes in their reasoning. Doubt is the province of the wise.

Note patients were excluded based on an extensive list of contra-indications, and there was care taken to avoid one of the known side-effects, heart arrhythmia; EEGs were taken before and during treatment and reviewed by cardiologists.

Also note that this treatment is not preventive, but rather would be used to treat people with serious illness, to shorten the illness. Given that, and the lengthy list of contra-indications and potential for serious side-effects, it could be useful in reducing deaths among infected people, but not in reducing infections, nor -- given you need to be pretty sick to justify the risks -- in reducing hospitalizations.

(This aside, heed @asdfasgasdgasdg's very prudent note of caution; other independent and more reputable replications are essential.

As of this writing there are at least 19 such hydroxychloroquine trials in US (https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/results?term=Hydroxychloroqui...) and more beyond (though WHO clinical trial site listing them is also apparently under critically-heavy load).)

"For all other patients in this cohort of 80 people, the combination of hydroxychloroquine and azithromycin resulted in a clinical improvement that appeared significant when compared to the natural evolution in patients with a definite outcome, as described in the literature. In a cohort of 191 Chinese inpatients, of whom 95% received antibiotics and 21% received an association of lopinavir and ritonavir, the median duration of fever was 12 days and that of cough 19 days in survivors, with a 28% case-fatality rate (18). The favourable evolution of our patients under hydroxychloroquine and azithromycin was associated with a relatively rapid decrease in viral RNA load as assessed by PCR, which was even more rapid when assessed by culture."

1. Chloroquine has been used since 1949 for treating a range of diseases including malaria, and is therefore a well known drug which causes complication only in rare cases because its side effects and use are well known, it's even given in prevention to healthy people travelling in certain parts of the world

2. Pr Raoult has demonstrated 13 years ago its effectiveness against coronaviruses

3. The current CV19 pandemic is killing people at an alarming rate

4. In Europe hospitals are stretched beyond capacity meaning more are dying for lack of space/equipment/attention/treatment, and not because of CV19 itself

5. As a world renown specialist Pr Raoult has been in contact with doctors in China who were the first to use it to treat CV19 and observe its effectiveness in greatly reducing the viral load

6. As director of a research hospital Pr Raoul is on the front line for handling CV19 patients and is responsible for making life and death decisions not just for his own life but for all patients arriving in mass to his door

7. There is no other alternative treatment to date for CV19, some other drugs are promising but are either much newer and less known, or heavier on side effects and cost

Now take into account the above facts, imagine yourself in Pr Raoult shoes, and realise that withholding the use of chloroquine in such dire situation, where the luxury of a full study cannot be afforded and the drug is very well known, can be considered not only immoral but also criminal. In other words when the choice is either to let people die with a "wait and see" attitude, or to save lives by significantly reducing the viral load and infection with a well known drug, the choice is clear. Another way to view the situation: you are a policeman stopping an ambulance not respecting the driving code and driving too fast, and then learn there is a dying patient in the back, what do you do?

Also Pr Raoult does not claim he has done a full study. Those that get finicky and still want to have a full study before allowing its use are irresponsible people who have no idea of what's it's like on the ground. Those that criticise him as a lone advocate are really out of touch with reality: he is definitely not alone, he's got 200 staff under his responsibility, 80 of which are researchers, he has been on the forefront of his field worldwide (see his wikipedia page), knows very well how to perform perfect academic studies, and is and has been constantly talking with specialists and doctors around the world since the earliest time of the pandemic.