The hydroxychloroquine controversy: a glance at the scientific community debate

First, a look at a Newsweek opinion, published today, authored by a Dr. Reisch, an epidemeologist from Yale's School of Public Health. "https://www.newsweek.com/key-defeating-covid-19-already-exists-we-need-start-using-it-opinion-1519535?fbclid=IwAR0_wOEHeE2N_n7cdZqj0GEeqeEx2PszCb3I3KCZBlLUC1GWsIIjJRA0Tk8"

 

His are the most impressive bona fides I have seen in connection with the drug, and he cites several studies, both in his paper and a follow-up letter.

 

There is also the dexamethasone steroid, contributing to the lower mortality rate experienced now, compared to Italy and the U.K., for example.  Its efficacy was discovered in June.

 

I realize this is discussed now in the context of the Dr. Stella Immanuel controversy this morning and the Frontline Doctors summit. But I'm willing to think separately of Dr. Risch's AJE paper, from that. It's just alarming there's such a number of outlets who have carried medical journal stories- such as the New England Journal of Medicine- against the drug.

 

I'm aware my local environment is very political.  I think that's true all over America at present.  There's a vocal presence in favor of conservatism of a sort which embraces Donald Trump, endorsed by both leading Republican candidates for representative.  (The 14th is likely to go to Marjory Greene.)

 

Me, I'm just sad sometimes the swimming pool's not open! I was so looking forward to that this summer. Not to mention what new friends or better friendships I might make. At least i have a job I love and preoccupations that busy me towards my dreams- I sympathize with the enormous stress for people worried for the fundamental situation. Especially teachers and people with children.

 

The secondary long term effects of Covid19 are much more nebulous and troublesome. Those, I would like to see additionally reviewed as well. I wouldn't make time to read papers beyond my expertise everyday, but it is invaluable to try the best sources. The issue of rampant ignorance and stubbornly risky behavior is the deeper issue, because that could pass along the virus in a manner which would allow it a longer foothold before detection and treatment.

 

The early administration of the drug - either one I mentioned- is a critical part of the study results. I do know a hospitalization would be very undesirable for numerous reasons. Precautions meanwhile are not bullshit. I like my clear conscience and feel free to pursue my life. Better days are coming, too. But I am glad news like this is coming out in a verifiable outlet, from peer-reviewed sources outside of political agendas. And thanks Jodye Treadaway for sharing !

 

Before we go any further:

Real scientists don’t hold flashy press conferences- they publish their work (which is carefully studied by other scientists first) in medical journals. Two good resources for good science are www.pubmed.com and scholar.google.com while the information there is “sciencey” the abstract, introduction and conclusion sections of papers are often easy enough to understand the general idea.

 

Thanks, Holly Kennedy Amerman!  (She posted from the New England Journal of Medicine.)

 

   It is a little confusing territory, but science is a process. The Zelenko study Risch cites was discredited by several sources, in May, but it's included in Dr. Risch's follow-up letter (not to be confused with a peer-reviewed study, but also published by AJE . I remembered, and checked, to find three studies promoted in sciencemag.org, a non-profit, and by reputation, highly factual source, which discounted hydroxychloriquine.

 

So I think I'll be looking for an opinion from my engineer friends, too.

 

This particular Risch opinion is backed by publication in the AJE, so it's a pretty heavy weight contender, albeit with two moving parts (his paper, and his follow-up letter). Interestingly, this same issue of Newsweek features an article on a conspiracy theory touted by the President, who says the drug's been discredited to hobble him politically, so editorial has found a way to kind of balance their presentation on the pro and con views.

 

I think, especially in light of the real world consequential decisions upon us, but also very generally, many if not most people are more satisified with encapsulated presentations that strongly affirm a position, particularly if they've developed a bias. I've been trying to ascertain what is the least biased, most nuanced viewpoint on the pandemic, but it's not my full-time job.

 

It was frankly a pretty exhausting hobby! So I had to take Occam's Razor and tailor activities accordingly, just like anybody.