Wow, just keep shaking my head at this one! I get blueash...he's a research, fact-based, by the book professional and we're fortunate to have his insight. But, I'm watching video after video of doctors ON THE FRONT LINE saying there's NO approved therapy or cure so they're left to try to figure out the best therapy while their patients die. Hmmm, I truly believe if Trump touted tap water as beneficial, many would line up to call him crazy, urging an unproven, even dangerous (if too much consumed) therapy with unproven side-effects!

How about we let the doctors IN THE TRENCHES decide the best therapy until the study results are known. I cannot help but think the P-word has unfortunately reared its head in the utilization of the drug. Until then... my gut will always favor the THOUSANDS of doctors in the hundreds of ER's using this drug until a therapy is proven and established.

I don’t think he is discouraging use of hydroxychloroquine but is discouraging promotion of it as an established therapy. While there is a suggestion it may be effective, we don’t yet know enough about the disease to determine how much effect it has vs. the normal course for that particular patient. Were they going to recover without the medication anyway? Were they going to succumb even with it? Much more information under much better controls is necessary to determine if this truly an effective therapy.

Just another opinion.
We have too many opinions already!!

Mikeod seems to understand my posts. This has no relationship to Trump as a politician. It does relate to his promotion of an unproven therapy as if it were proven. He is not a scientist and has admitted he makes decisions on the basis of gut feelings as do you. That is perhaps appropriate in picking your friends, your cabinet, and what to buy for dinner. It is not fine for picking what drugs are best for particular illnesses.

I'll say it again... I do not oppose doctors trying desperate measures when there are no proven measures. If I were still practicing I might very well provide HCQ to my COVID patients.. but I'd be closely following the literature to see whether its use is being supported or refuted by properly conducted studies. It used to be a tongue in cheek comment when dealing with dying patients where you'd run out of options that "No patient should die without the benefit of steroids", and you'd order steroids.

The doctors in the trenches are not supplying the best therapy, they are supplying the therapy promoted by the POTUS outside of his area of any genius. Nobody knows yet if it is the best therapy; perhaps it is actually harmful without benefit. Your jump to using "best therapy" shows how the POTUS has influenced what should be a scientific analysis.

From a study in China:
"HCQ was also recently recommended by the American president Donald Trump. Such a presidential endorsement stimulates an avalanche of demand for HCQ, which buried the dark-side of this drug"

They put that comment in a research study. He should not be influencing medical practice. He is, even in China.

I will, until I burn out on it, continue to post studies on HCQ as I find them. I hope a controlled study establishes HCQ clinically helps patients. So far the evidence for benefit has not been presented.

Thank you for "he's a research, fact-based, by the book professional " I encourage you to find doctors who continue after medical school, to read the research and adjust their therapies based on facts, not gut feelings.

The doctors in the trenches are not supplying the best therapy, they are supplying the therapy promoted by the POTUS outside of his area of any genius.

LOL So the 1000s of Doctors all over the world are not using HCQ because they might have studied reports, talked to fellow Doctors treating the virus and seen enough to convince them to use it. Nope, they are all blindly following Trump.

Personally, I am going to listen to Doctors actually treating the disease and follow what they are doing.

This is a misunderstanding of my meaning. I should have been clearer. Of course observation or serendipity provides a spark toward understanding and proof. Anecdotes provide clues to construct a hypothesis. Then you test that hypothesis to see if the evidence supports or refutes your premise. Only after you do the testing do you have science.
So what I meant by science is not advanced by anecdotes is that science is advanced by testing, retesting, and validation. While it is an anecdote it is just a guess.

Yes, I encourage that. I am posting lots of research being done by Doctors actually treating the disease. The studies the Doctors produce are from treating real patients with real protocols looking for the presence or absence of real results from real drugs. It is being done by Doctors. Medicine is full of sad stories of doctors providing care in a non-proven manner only to have proper studies prove the fallacy or even danger of that care. When I practiced I sought to provide evidence based care. Often what everyone else is doing is good care and seems reasonable. Sometimes it is not. In those cases I'd like to know if I should be doing something different.

Here's an example. In caring for premature newborns, premies, the major killer was immature lungs thus inadequate oxygen being provided. Once the ability to place premies into incubators and increase the oxygen being delivered to them became available it was rapidly adopted and saved lives. As there was no good way to figure out how much extra oxygen to give, better to give too much than too little. Oxygen is good.

That was how everyone did it, and it was wrong. Only scientific studies and long term follow-up proved what everybody was doing had risk greater than benefit. Now the amount of oxygen is carefully controlled to avoid excess oxygen [it's dangerous].

Sometimes experience is just the repetition of the same mistake.