That's a simplification of what the French doctor claimed, and my assertion was not that it wasn't studied, but that it wasn't treated the same way, i.e. that the trials and studies were not given the same credence trials with similar results would be given for emergency treatments for a global pandemic. The following is lengthy, but gives a pretty good accounting for the timeline:
https://www.tabletmag.com/sections/science/articles/hydroxychloroquine-morality-tale
Lengthy, and after reading it, wouldn't recommend it to others.
The "timeline"covered in the article gives a selective view of the HCQ-related research between March and August 2020, with little mention of the considerable increase in knowledge over that time regarding the virus mechanisms of action, disease progression, other treatments, transmission, etc. The problem with HCQ was not only that evidence was accumulating that it had only a minor effect, but that there was increasing evidence that other treatments were better. Despite that, studies of HCQ were continued with the hope that even if it proved to be only slightly helpful, it could still be a useful drug for countries that lacked access to more expensive treatments.
A historical analysis of covid treatment in the early days of the pandemic would be fascinating to read, but this essay isn't a fair-minded review. The author has a clear bias in his writing, as in this paragraph, for example:
"Trump’s political base cheered for HCQ and his opponents booed and accused him of practicing medicine without a license..."
When a person without a medical degree prescribes medication, that's called practicing medicine without a license, and it's illegal in every state. It wasn't "his opponents" saying this, it was everyone who had even a smattering of knowledge about either law or medicine. This is the president, a politician. What kind of credibility does he have for providing medical advice? The president appoints a Surgeon General for just this purpose, and the CDC traditionally provides such advice in times of emergency.
"...—and began dredging up any evidence, or “experts,” they could find, who might emphasize that HCQ was dangerous, or useless, or both..."
Of course journalists and citizens wanted to hear about medical treatments from medical experts, not from a real estate mogul. Yet the author here puts experts in quotes, as if to downplay the knowledge of Fauci et al. The experts generally agreed that HCQ was dangerous and useless, one didn't have to "dredge" in the bottom of the barrel to get that opinion.
I don't remember all the research from the past year, but I do remember reading the Henry Ford study he mentions, where 26% of untreated patients died, and only 13% of HCQ-treated patients. He neglects to mention that doctors throughout the hospital system were free to prescribe HCQ or not, and one limitation of the study was that it's possible that doctors who saw severe cases who were already getting a host of drugs didn't want to throw another experimental drug at them, so the group of "untreated" might have been sicklier than the HCQ group. My recollection is that this limitation was mentioned by the authors in the discussion of the study, but I'm not going to dig it up to check.
When you say that HCQ wasn't studied the same way as other global pandemic treatments, which pandemics were those? 1918 influenza? 19th century cholera? I don't think we've had enough modern pandemics to compare.
This piece demonstrates much of what I've been saying about how politics and the media change the way "science" is conducted and published, not just how it is spoken about by the left-wing media. There is no way to look at the broader medical community's actions in relation to HCQ, from the FDA, to the premier medical journals; from state and Federal public health officials to private doctors and conclude that "The state of the information ecosystem is strong."
IMO this piece mostly demonstrates the need for concise writing.
The result of this debacle was to change how the public viewed medical experts, but scientists and doctors continued with their research and treatments based on their experiences and discussions with other professionals, not based on TV or twitter.
(And I was the one who mentioned Dr. Z.)
Poll