E.g. June 23, 2020 "NIH: Trial Investigating Hydroxychloroquine for COVID-19 Stopped"
17 June 2020 "“Solidarity” clinical trial"
"hydroxychloroquine does not result in the reduction of mortality of hospitalised COVID-19 patients, when compared with standard of care."
And before, Jun. 9, 2020: "Three big studies dim hopes that hydroxychloroquine can treat or prevent COVID-19":
Thus, HCQ without Zinc is like using a bucket but forgetting the water to stop the fire. Just throwing buckets at the fire isn’t gonna work much when there’s no water in the bucket.
Have a look at this  studies that shows around a 9% less mortality when treated with Zinc and a even more when treated EARLY with HCQ PLUS Zinc. (Please take a look at the numbers in the last table, it’s very clear that HCQ + Zinc reduces mortality)
"This was an observational retrospective analysis
that could be impacted by confounding variables"; "We also do not have data on the time at which the patients included
in the study initiated therapy with hydroxychloroquine, azithromycin, and zinc." "The cohorts were identified based on medications
ordered rather than confirmed administration, which may bias findings towards favoring
equipoise between the two groups." "In light of these limitations, this study should not be
used to guide clinical practice."
230 studies looking at Hydroxychloroquine 
Only 10 studies looking into HCQ and Zinc 
This was then picked up by a crowd of "right wing deplorables" up to and including the orange man in the white house.
The scientific establishment can not allow this bunch of clowns to turn out right, thus further inquiry is being suppressed.
Call it a conspiracy theory, but that's exactly how human egos have played a role in the history of science.
"AAPS files with the court a chart showing how countries that encourage HCQ use, such as South Korea, India, Turkey, Russia, and Israel, have been far more successful in combatting COVID-19 than countries that have banned or discouraged early HCQ use, as the FDA has."
However: that chart is totally misleading, it's a typical "non sequitur". "Case fatality rate" is just a ratio "death" through "cases". Where those with weaker symptoms are recognized as "cases" the rate is lower. How they are recognized is not the same across different countries.
Note, you seem to be posting studies that did not pair HCQ with zinc, _and_ are not using it prophylactically. Is my understanding correct?
For example: https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2020/06/three-big-studies-di... links to https://www.recoverytrial.net/files/hcq-recovery-statement-0... which does not mention zinc, and it's patients admitted to the hospital (not prophylactic). Digging further, to the source given in that pdf, not a mention of zinc: https://www.recoverytrial.net/@@search?SearchableText=zinc which is the whole point of using HCQ in the first place.
I'm just posting studies that were the basis for what FDA decided June 15, 2020 (1):
"FDA has revoked the emergency use authorization (EUA) to use hydroxychloroquine and chloroquine to treat COVID-19 in certain hospitalized patients when a clinical trial is unavailable or participation is not feasible. We made this determination based on recent results from a large, randomized clinical trial in hospitalized patients that found these medicines showed no benefit for decreasing the likelihood of death or speeding recovery."
And I don't have more information than that.
"The Association of American Physicians and Surgeons (AAPS) is a conservative non-profit association founded in 1943. The group was reported to have about 5,000 members in 2014. The association has promoted a range of scientifically discredited hypotheses, including the belief that HIV does not cause AIDS, that being gay reduces life expectancy, that there is a link between abortion and breast cancer, and that there is a causal relationship between vaccines and autism. It is opposed to the Affordable Care Act and other forms of universal health insurance."
I get incredibly annoyed when people act like (a) these strokes / organ damage are happening in significant quantities and (b) that it’s unique to SARS-2
...at least that's what the clinical updated from the NYC doctors group is reporting on TWIV podcast each week.
Is it? From all lab confirmed cases in USA until end of May, almost every 200th in age group 20-29 was admitted to ICU. Almost every 100th in age group 30-39. (1)
Admitted to ICU means "probably considered intubation (or received it immediately)" Which is very, very unpleasant thing:
Is that "extremely rare" to you?
(In the USA there are 7.2% inhabitants aged 20-29, 6.7% aged 30-39. Even if the number of "unconfirmed but infected" is 10 times higher, that still gives around 24000 people in the USA aged 20-39 needing ICU, or 8 times more than died on 9/11. And those are just provably "non-elderly". All those 40 and older would need even much more ICU beds. I hope it's obvious that if there are not enough ICU beds much more people would die.)
1) It can be calculated from https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/69/wr/mm6924e2.htm For 20-29 182469 confirmed, 864 ICU, for 30-39 214849 confirmed, 1879 ICU. (Additionally, males were admitted to ICU almost twice as much as females)
"The [steroid] drugs suppress the immune system, which could provide some relief for patients whose lungs are ravaged by an overactive immune response that sometimes manifests in severe cases of COVID-19. But such patients may still need a fully functioning immune system to fend off the virus itself."
"no effect on mild infections"
Basically if taken too early it does the wrong action, but it helps some of those already on oxygen. And it's cheap.
They are planning on testing an inhalant version but who knows where that will land in terms of effectiveness. It might make things worse so that is much further out unless things are really lucky, which we haven’t had a lot of with coronavirus.
Interestingly, their insurance company has been trying to push them into performing his infusions at home for a couple years, as it is more cost effective. My sister has to fight them on it every couple of months to continue having them performed at the hospital.
Here's the FAQ page for one of the biggest USA home IV companies. It's a good starting point if you're curious.
Basically you tell the FDA how to store and handle and the FDA says “ok, give me the data that proves the drug is stable under those conditions”.
Beyond that the FDA doesn’t really care who administers it.
An infusion is something that takes a longer time as the drug is taken slowly into the bloodstream (might be something that takes a couple of hours).
I myself have fear of needles, so I'm biased in this sense. I would not use this drug, except with a Oxazepam. Which I prefer not to, as these too are addictive.
This doesn't seem wise; the side effects of remdesivir seem worse than the typical course of a cold/flu.
ICER, which is a drug price watchdog, suggested using a value added analysis that the max price remdesivir could justify was 4500. ICER is not pharma's friend, and they dont usually end up suggesting a max price twice what the pharma company charges.
> On average, the drug should help reduce hospital costs by $12,000 a patient, said [Chief Executive Daniel O’Day]. Gilead estimated the savings based on data showing that each day of hospitalization costs $3,000 and that patients taking remdesivir are discharged four days sooner than those receiving standard treatment, Mr. O’Day said.
> The company said it has entered into agreements with generic manufacturers to provide the drug at a “substantially lower cost” in developing countries.
That indeed is the sad state of affairs. Plus, a significant amount of these more obscure drugs may simply be the result of (intentional or unintentional) P-hacking.
Gilead is charging less than that for Remdesivir.
The price increase is concerning.
Yes! For many reasons.
And no wonder it's not being researched that much in capitalist countries. It will never be as profitable as these other drugs.
A quick search turns up over two dozen clinical trials with ivermectin, not all of them taking place in threshold countries. Israel, Spain, Mexico, Singapore are all highly developed countries.
Is it actually the chemical though? 'Blackmarket pet drug' is the perfect storm of poor accountability. Who the fuck knows what it actually is?
As soon as they announced it as a COVID treatment, I assumed it was another cash grab while people are confused, desperate, and scared.
I do think that there is a compelling argument for the the government trying to do more drug development and then licensing or open-sourcing the product.
Why do VCs get any return from startups? Isn't the reward that the startup exists at all?
Better yet, why does Gilead get to write a press release explaining the reason they're asking $3k per person for the drug is so they can "invest in scientific innovation that might help generations to come"? Isn't the reward the money they initially got from the government?
I am getting pretty sick and tired of public money getting used – and rightly so – to fund innovate medical research, and then any and all benefits or profits from the results of that resesarch being privatized.
If you are tired of giving away public money, negotiate terms.
So whether the DoD or whatever government branch catalyzed progress doesn't matter much to me.