Hacker News Reader

Comment by cheaprentalyeti | Hacker News Reader

Are you referring to the retracted Lancet study or the just-breaking-news about the Oxford Recovery Trial where they were using lethal dosages of the drug? [1]

[1] http://covexit.com/recovery-covid-19-research-blasted-for-to...

View on HN

This seems to be the response to every trial that shows chloroquine and friends to be ineffective, though. "Well, of course there was no positive effect, the dose was too low." "Well, of course there was no positive effect, the dose was too high". "Well, of course there was no positive effect, you didn't tape a halibut to the patient's head". "No, not a cooked one, you fools, a live one!"

At a certain point, it's possibly worth considering that there may be no there there.

I've noticed on Derek Lowe's blog that there seems to be a definite hydroxychloroquine brigade that doesn't exist for any other purported therapy. And as you noticed, this brigade will pick apart HCQ studies for not doing X for a bajillion different varieties of X. (Not simultaneously dosing with zinc and/or azithromycin is the one that tends to be mocked the hardest on the blogs).

Here is a preprint that shows HCQ plus Zinc is effective. My knowledge on this matter comes only from watching a few YouTube videos. From that it has seemed all along that the treatment required is HCQ + Zinc. Zinc is what stops viral replication and HCQ helps get Zinc into the cells. So why are so many trials not using Zinc.

https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.05.02.20080036v...

Before any of the studies came out, I was reading anecdotes specifically stating, "this only works with zinc". Which is not that hard to believe, from a biochemical perspective.

Apparently most or all of the studies do not include zinc. Hooray.

There may actually be a study which says what you claim, but what you've linked is a HCQ shill site, and tracing links I was not able to find a link to an actual study.

Again, there may actually be a study which says what you've claimed. I'm not anti-HCQ, I'm anti-propaganda-posing-as-science.

Just for the context, the author of the blog you're linking to is @jpkiekens and here's the kind of things he retweets : https://twitter.com/Covid19Critical/status/12724936329359196...

That seems like a very unreliable source. The author's credentials are "Oxford graduate" and "university lecturer".

I was referring to the Lancet study that was based on suspicious data.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com