3 ms·
You personal experience, despite being very important to you, isn't significative as scientific proof. The site you mentioned is anonymous, a collection of lin
by lucd 6y ago
You personal experience, despite being very important to you, isn't significative as scientific proof.
The site you mentioned is anonymous, a collection of links with arbitrary ratings. This isn't a scientific paper, this is marketing.
Here is a real meta-analysis for the different covid-19 treatments:
https://www.bmj.com/content/370/bmj.m2980 https://www.bmj.com/content/370/bmj.m2980
In 100% of randomized controlled trials, the most significant kind of scientific evidence, hydroxychloroquine is ineffective.
https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1291068395497062400.html https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1291068395497062400.html
- f154hfds 6y agoThanks for the meta-analysis link! Looking at the other measures, it does mention HCQ in duration of symptoms. > Hydroxychloroquine might be the most effective in reducing the duration of symptoms. Remdesivir has intermediate effectiveness and lopinavir-ritonavir could have intermediate effectiveness. The main limitations of the evidence are risk of bias and imprecision.
- lucd 6y agoYes mean difference −4.5 days,with a low certainty.. They also say: Hydroxychloroquine might increase the risk of adverse events compared with the other interventions And no evidence for reduction in death, except for glucocorticoids.. I would expect an effective treatment to reduce mortality..