You can add location information to your Tweets, such as your city or precise location, from the web and via third-party applications. You always have the option to delete your Tweet location history. Learn more
I think it's frankly incredible that any journalist is this certain that they're right about hydroxychloroquine. It's much easier for me to condemn that than to condemn a doctor whose patients seem to be defying expected mortality rates, even if that turns out to be good luck.
For what it's worth, I think both sides of this are handling the question poorly, and frankly everyone should be highly skeptical of any claim that a certain drug definitely does or does not work against a virus that almost everyone was unaware even existed until 6-7 months ago.
Yes the high degree of certainty on both sides is a tell that this issue, like every other issue now, is being overly politicized.
That, and the fact that everyone knows which side they're "supposed" to be on!
Sorry but most doctors who have years of experience with medical literature are not on the fence about HCQ. With what we know now, it's malpractice to give it for COVID given the current state of knowledge as it has a definite risk of death by arrhythmia.
We're moderately sure about remidesivir, we're pretty sure about the value of steroids and we're hopeful about neutralizing antibody drugs (mABs) and some other unproven ideas that are highly plausible. The average doc wants these for himself and his family, but not HCQ.
Where are you getting your information on the "average doc," here?
The established way to answer questions about efficacy randomised control trials. Politics completely aside, there are 2 challenges with the hydroxychloroquine data: (1) early trials were small, not randomised, or both; (2) there are at least 3 different ways it has been used.
There have been several recent developments that answer at least some questions pretty definitively.
Seeing actual doctors talk about preventative HCQ like its "preventative" chemo or antibiotics was really disturbing. That's an established use of HCQ for other diseases, but once it turned political experts portrayed it as bleach-injectingly insane.
The idea "HCQ helps a lot, but only in early stages" wasn't settled, so suppose it had been true. How much damage and distrust would have come from misleading everyone about prophylactic HCQ instead of just saying "there's no evidence this works"?
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.
