Quote:
Originally Posted by kgrund
Do not have a side on the HQ debate, but one thing that does not help end the debate is the "point-in-time" that the drug is given and tested. The largest supporters of using the drug indicates it must be given early at a fairly large dose. However when tested, it seems the overwhelming amount of tests are done once the virus has significantly progressed. It seems like the possibility could still exist that both sides are correct due primarily to the point in time in which the therapy starts. It seems like a bit of apples and oranges is going on IMO.
|
There is no data to support giving it early at this point. When dealing with evidence-based medicine, you need evidence. Given that no trials have come forth establishing a protective mechanism for hydroxychloroquine either to prevent infection or early in infection, saying that it needs to be given early is just conjecture, especially when you lack a control group to compare it against.
Antivirals in general will help more when started sooner than later (Tamiflu being a great example), but it doesn't mean that the help drops to zero once you have a moderate infection.
__________________
"When the Know-Nothings get control, it will read 'all men are created equal, except negroes, and foreigners, and Catholics.' When it comes to this I should prefer emigrating to some country where they make no pretense of loving liberty – to Russia, for instance, where despotism can be taken pure, and without the base alloy of hypocrisy.”--Abraham Lincoln
|