Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
One of the oddest and most fascinating debates about this whole COVID thing is the battle of studies over the 60-year-old anti-malaria drug, Hydroxychloriquine (treatment often also includes Zythromax, a commonly-used, broad-spectrum anti-biotic, and Zinc supplements) being used “off label.” Its use for such off-label purposes has been approved by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA).
Ever since President Trump lauded early reports of its successful use to treat some COVID patients, it seems a lot of “experts” have been on a quest to disprove its reported effectiveness. You would think people would be interested in any potential treatment until a vaccine is successfully developed.
You would be wrong. Social media went ablaze recently when a highly respected British Medical Journal, The Lancet, published a study that claimed the drug was not only ineffective for treating COVID but harmed some people. It looked legit on the surface. And it countered lots of other studies and reports from doctors on the effectiveness of Hydroxy for treating many COVID patients, at least early in the process. And of course, when Trump announced he was on a two-week regime, people went nuts.
But now we’re finding out that the study has potentially serious gaps and flaws. It is now being referred to as “Lancetgate.” If this interests you, this Spectator USA piece is nicely written, detailed, and well documented.
If I come down with COVID, my first call will be to my doctor to ask for the Hydroxy-cocktail.Published in