Talk:Hydroxychloroquine/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Studies favoring HQC for Covid-19 keep getting deleted

Did anyone else notcied that? Berkshires (talk) 02:36, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

How much convincing of its ineffectiveness for treating COVID-19-infected people is needed? It has been withdrawn for providing no benefit in the WHO Solidarity trial, UK Recovery trial, and the FDA EUA. My edit summary explained why, and your use of this one observational study (not an interventional trial) is primary research. If warranted, it could be included under the Timeline section. WP:BRD means a contested edit is brought here to the talk page for dispute resolution and consensus building, rather than the edit warring that you prefer. Discuss the merits and seek consensus, WP:CON. Zefr (talk) 03:07, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

You are putting a different standard for studies that are not favoring HCQ versus those favoring. Did you used the same standard to delete "the Lancet study" from Wiki pages??? The Lancet study was from the outset NOT peer reviewed and the source of data was confidential??? you are clearly biased on this and should be ashamed of your behavior. Seeing you cant win with normal conversation you got the page to barred from editing... what a wonderfull way of having accurate info on wiki. Shame.Berkshires (talk) 03:15, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Note the general sanctions and need for high-quality sources on COVID-19 topics at the top of this talk page. Zefr (talk) 03:25, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Zefr As mentioned before, instead of deleting peoples edits when you see an issue with them, rather correct them. In this case there is an obvious high quality source as mentioned in the news references from Berkshires

Yes, i realized and i suddenly got 3 massages from different administrators (I am sure it has nothing to with you alerting them). Great way how to avoid legit debate is by deleting and barring. Sounds more like USSR. Good luck — Preceding unsigned comment added by Berkshires (talk • contribs) 03:31, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Zefr So what you're saying is because the WHO Solidarity trial and UK Recovery trial were cancelled and FDA removed authorization for emergency use in hospitals, you now feel that any new studies that show benefit of its use cannot be shown on this page, no matter how much they meet Wikipedia's criteria for addition? I'm sorry but unless you can provide a better argument I will need to report your continued removal of people's edits, as I am not the only person that has found your edits extremely biased. Robbymcd (talk) 13:32, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

The WHO Solidarity trial and UK Recovery trial are not 'cancelled', but rather have specifically discontinued the study of HCQ because it proved to be ineffective at reducing COVID-19 deaths. Those are multi-investigator organizations relying on expert safety review boards making that conclusion, so qualify as high-quality sources for the encyclopedia per WP:MEDASSESS - see the left pyramid classifying the evidence to which can be added the withdrawn EUA by the FDA. Concerning the disputed July report in IJID (which is not a review, but rather a preliminary report), the authors of that article stated: "our results should be interpreted with some caution and should not be applied to patients treated outside of hospital settings. Our results also require further confirmation in prospective, randomized controlled trials that rigorously evaluate the safety, and efficacy of hydroxychloroquine therapy for COVID-19 in hospitalized patients." Their conclusion indicates the preliminary nature of that limited observational study which falls within "primary" research, shown in the left pyramid of MEDASSESS. There's really no place in the article at present for such preliminary findings, which should be excluded until expert assessment with other results about HCQ and COVID-19 are published in a review that meets the standards of MEDASSESS. Zefr (talk) 14:17, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Zefr yes those two trials were discontinued but what about all the other Hydroxychloroquine trials that are ongoing? The discontinued trials were testing specific doses, combinations and timing, different to the ongoing trials. Regarding your claim that this source is preliminary and falls in the primary study section of MEDASSESS pyramid, the same could be said for most of the sources used on this page and used to say HCQ has no benefit. For example [3][4][48][49] in main article are based on much weaker sources than the one proposed here, one of the sources reference a study that has not even been peer reviewed yet, another only a single author. Also they are all older than current study so are essentially outdated by this newest study. Please explain your bias here to prevent this being reported. Robbymcd (talk) 14:34, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Even the founder of wikipedia doesn't trust wikipedia.

"As the originator of and the first person to elaborate Wikipedia’s neutrality policy, and as an agnostic who believes intelligent design to be completely wrong, I just have to say that this article is appallingly biased. It simply cannot be defended as neutral. If you want to understand why, read this. I’m not here to argue the point, as I completely despair of persuading Wikipedians of the error of their ways. I’m just officially registering my protest." —Larry Sanger (talk) 05:30, 8 December 2017 (UTC) So, do you actually think that any article in wikipedia escapes the fascist left? See https://c19study.com Poquelin1 (talk) 06:34, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

Sadly, that’s a great quote from Mr Sanger, Poquelin1. In answer to your question, I think the fascist left sees to all the current topics that have any degree of controversy to them. But there are many others that they don’t patrol. So this one, well <sarcasm> we can’t possibly have anything positive about covid19 anywhere in Wikipedia, now can we? After all, the over-riding priority is to prevent Trump’s re-election. <sarcasm /> And so it is that the general public must not be allowed to see any mention of a study which makes it clear that lives can and are saved by the use of Hydroxychloroquine. I call that assisting death. And there are such studies. Anyone deleting their mention from the article should be ashamed of themselves. Boscaswell talk 09:45, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

Why hasn't this study been posted yet? An 84% reduction in hospitalization seems like a great result. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0924857920304258 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:C6:8302:94A0:59F2:DAC7:F425:4313 (talk) 03:58, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

Adding Zinc to treatment with hydroxychloroquine

Hi I would like to add the following to the COVID-19 Timeline:

"On 12 May 2020 news outlets reported that NYU hospitals had treated 411 patients hospitalized with COVID-19 using an investigational therapy of hydroxychloroquine, azithromycin and zinc. Only low-level, in-vitro and preprint retrospective cohort study evidence suggests that the addition of zinc with hydroxychloroquine may be beneficial in the treatment of COVID-19 patients.. To obtain high-level evidence if the addition of zinc is beneficial in this combination a Randomized Controlled Trial is currently recruiting and estimated to complete 31 December 2020. "

The news articles refer to the preprint medrxiv observational study: https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.05.02.20080036

As per WP:MEDRS preprints should not be sourced as evidence. However it seems factual that NY hospitals used this treatment and at the very least the secondary news sources above as well as the the primary source preprint confirm this event happened.

This topic appears to have been discussed at length in the section https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Hydroxychloroquine#Testing_hydroxychloroquine_in_combination section. Hob Gadling said "I think the zinc part should be removed until we have a secondary source" . Below I think counts as a secondary source given it was published on the East Virginia Medical School website and the says:

"This is our recommended approach to COVID-19 based on the best (and most recent) literature"

https://www.evms.edu/media/evms_public/departments/internal_medicine/EVMS_Critical_Care_COVID-19_Protocol.pdf

It advocates the use of Zinc in addition to other treatments including Hydroxychloroquine saying:

"while there is no high-level evidence that this cocktail is effective; it is cheap, safe and widely available"

The link to the ongoing RCT for this combination is also relevant given all of the above. The fact is nothing is currently proven and very little has been disproven relating to COVID-19 treatments, so really everything to do with treatment is speculative in one way or another.

Robbymcd (talk) 16:46, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: , this clearly fails WP:MEDRS, WP:OR, and WP:SYNTH. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 09:35, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

Ok so why the bias then to only this post when there are clearly other posts here that make the same violations. If cant provide a suitable reason will remove them too. Robbymcd (talk) 09:45, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

It's not a bias. It's simply following well-established Wikipedia procedure that is there for many good reasons. You'll have to be more specific about what other content you're suggesting is objectionable. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 10:12, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

Just looking in the last few days 961032578 (RECOVERY Trial) 960626395 ( add new study) clearly fail WP:MEDRS and WP:OR as well. So why the bias for my post? However I've managed to find an existing source in this article for my latest attempt to make mention of the possible benefit zinc might have for COVID-19 patients on this page. So if still not happy then seems we need to delete most of the covid-19 section because it follows the same methods as my most recent post. Robbymcd (talk) 12:54, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

Service: You probably mean these: [1][2]. (This way, only I had to do the work of deriving which edits you mean, everybody else can just click on the links. Next time, do that yourself please.) --Hob Gadling (talk) 17:07, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

Because I happened to be online right now and noticed you posted this and it overtly failed the aforementioned policies. Again, it's not a "bias". TylerDurden8823 (talk) 18:22, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

References

A peer-reviewed paper, COVID-19 outpatients: early risk-stratified treatment with zinc plus low-dose hydroxychloroquine and azithromycin, was published today in the International Journal of Antimicrobial Agents, reporting the results of a retrospective study on the early use of Hydroxychloroquine + Zinc + Azithromycin. Hospitalization was reduced by 84% and all-cause mortality reduced by 80%.Tvaughan1 (talk) 17:32, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

And is obviously not WP:MEDRS. Why raise it? This is WP:NOTAFORUM. Alexbrn (talk) 05:39, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

HCQ Approved for use in USA by AMA

On Oct 30, 2020, the American Medical Association recinded its prohibition of the use of HCQ. The American Medical Association (AMA), in a surprising move, has officially rescinded a previous statement against the use of Hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) in the treatment of COVID-19 patients, giving physicians the okay to return to utilizing the medication at their discretion.

https://www.ama-assn.org/system/files/2020-10/nov20-handbook-addendum.pdf

Well just a few days before the election. It was always politics. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.138.33.183 (talk) 04:07, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

Blatant incorrect information

In the second paragraph, blatant incorrect information is used. Hydroxychloroquine sulphate is not hydroxychloroquine. Hydroxychloroquine sulphate uses hydroxychloroquine as its base. I've read many articles about hydroxychloroquine and all of them state that hydroxychloroquine is safe and of course I mean safe when prescribe by a doctor. I won't be editing anything here as this is so politically charged, and what I mean is, many Wikipedia editors are so anti-Trump that they allow incorrect information into Wikipedia articles. Leveni (talk) 20:45, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

Nonsense. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 04:32, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

The fact that these side-effects exist and are mentioned does not represent an attempt to discredit the drug, which is an accepted treatment for malaria. Virtually all medicines have unwanted side-effects, especially if the dose is too big. The OP would have been better discussing the issue from an empirical and scientific perspective instead of digressing into baseless accusations of political bias. Anywikiuser (talk) 13:55, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

At least all reference to Hydroxychloroquine sulphate and anything else that is not Hydroxychloroquine needs to be deleted.Leveni (talk) 16:45, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

Hydroxychloroquine sulphate really is hydroxychloroquine, for almost all practical purposes and the side-effect profile should be nearly identical when adjusted for dosage, excepting any sensitivities related to sulphate. Suggest that OP is perhaps confusing with VETERINARY chloroquine phosphate, which has been reported to have significant toxicity (presumably through ease of overdose). Drsruli (talk) 21:45, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

Thanks Drsruli, I want to do an edit for this article but only have 405 edits, but I require 500 to edit this article. So, I'd like somebody else to edit it for me as follows, or similar, in the first sentence:

Hydroxychloroquine, also known as hydroxychloroquine sulfate,... ref: https://www.cdc.gov/malaria/resources/pdf/fsp/drugs/hydroxychloroquine.pdf,

The compounds are theoretically different but for their use in studies the terminology is interchangable. Leveni (talk) 06:45, August 2020 (UTC)

The article already says "It is frequently sold as a sulfate salt known as hydroxychloroquine sulfate" and, not quite correctly, "Other names" - "Hydroxychloroquine sulfate, HCQ". Actually, it is not a different name, but a different, but closely related compound with the same medical effects.

BTW, you got your first contribution wrong:

many Wikipedia editors are so anti-Trump that they allow incorrect information into Wikipedia articles

should be

"many Wikipedia editors are so anti-incorrect-information that they do not allow using Trump as a source for Wikipedia articles"

The problem is that trumpkins will interpret every bit of information that contradicts their lying idol as politically motivated fake news. --Hob Gadling (talk) 13:06, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

I agree. Another example is Obama never being called out for his administrations making of cages for people crossing the Mexican boarder and he never will be called out for it. Hydroxychloroquine has been safe for many years, but all of a sudden it is no longer safe and the reason for this is the anti-Trump attitude that exists. Anyway, I think my edit is reasonable. Leveni (talk) 21:22, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

It's clear from the very nature of your comments that the editor with the POV editing issue is you. Your claim of "anti-Trump" bias here betrays your own pro-Trump bias. And your "but what about Obama" non sequitur makes that bias even more transparent. Since it's quite clear that you are likely incapable of editing without allowing your personal politics to taint your contributions, it's probably best that you recuse yourself, not only from this article - but others of current political hot button interest. Because otherwise, while I wouldn't do it, you certainly invite, and leave yourself vulnerable to, others reviewing all your prior edits for, dare I say, any additional, possible POV pushing vios and subsequent actions. X4n6 (talk) 08:07, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

I used to think that Wikipedia science articles were free from personal opinion, but I can no longer think this. If you read this article you will realise that anybody who has never read a scientific paper on hydroxychloroquine will think the drug is very dangerous, but this is no the case. Hydroxychloroquine is very very safe. It has been safe for over 50 years! But due to the anti-Trumpers, false information is being propagated about hydroxychloroquine. Me not liking anti-Trumpers making false statements about hydroxychloroquine doesn't mean I am pro-Trump. Also, I am not leaving myself open to anything. What I write will never affect what goes on in your brain, your thoughts, like most peoples' thoughts are fixed, and you only read into my sentences what you already believe. Leveni (talk) 00:25, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

Feel free to add the cages thing to the Obama page, with reliable sources. But - if he has not been "called out for it", as you say, then those sources do not exist and there you have your reason for it not being in the article.

HCQ has been safe enough for treating malaria, lupus, and some other maladies because it actually works against those, so the benefits outweigh the risks. It does not seem to work against COVID-19, so the risks outweigh the benefits. --Hob Gadling (talk) 04:39, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

Agreed. But the article does not infer, in any way what so ever, what you have written. The article makes out that hydroxychloroquine is very dangerous. My point is that anti-Trumpers are portraying hydroxychloroquine as very dangerous. Leveni (talk) 00:28, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

I tried to find the place where the article says that, but failed. Can you please point out sentences in the article that are not true and should be changed? See, articles are improved by pinpointing the actual problems in the text, not by pinning labels (like "anti-Trumpers") on editors you disagree with. --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:36, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

Adverse effects. If you compare the adverse effects of HCQ with those of adverse effects for aspirin for example, the HCQ adverse effects only state adverse effects, but for aspirin there are reasons given for the adverse effects, not so for HCQ. One blatant example is that HCQ is dangerous to children, but if you follow the links, you will find that the danger to children is for an over dosage! and the example in the link was in reference to a 3 year old. This is blatantly misleading the reader by suggesting that HCQ is dangerous if taken by children, but, the FDA states that it is fine for children to take HCQ, as long as the dosage is correct. I call out the anti-Trumpers because that is what they are. Leveni (talk) 05:17, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

Your contribution still contains the "anti-Trumper" WP:PA attempt (I call it an attempt because it is almost a synonym of "non-gullible, non-tinfoil-hatter non-assholes"), but this is much better. We can work with that. I deleted the line about children. But I don't know the reasons for the adverse effects you demand. Does anyone? Are there RS for them? If not, there you have your reason why the aspirin article has them and this one does not. --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:37, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

I'm not sure what the dispute here actually is, but HCQ is a dose-critical drug with a bunch of nasty side-effects.[3] In children, overdose is extremely hazardous and difficult to treat.[4] What's the issue? Alexbrn (talk) 07:59, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

Leveni had found that the source was talking about overdoses, but our sentence quoting the source did not mention that part. I had deleted the line about children at first, but now I reinserted it, adding "overdose". He also has some other problem: the article is supposed to explain where the side-effects come from exactly. I don't think that is necessary, but if the mechanism is known, it would be a nice addition. Apart from that, the discussion is about nothing relevant. Just the usual fringe POV pushing. --Hob Gadling (talk) 17:25, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

Of course one child dying from an overdoes is terrible, but no children have ever been reported as having died from taking the prescribed amount. But Wikipedia is what it is, and the anti-Trumpers get there way here at Wikipedia. Leveni (talk) 06:32, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

I added "overdose", making the sentence correct. What's your problem now? That people you disagree with are still allowed to edit Wikipedia? Try Conservapedia, it does not have that problem. --Hob Gadling (talk) 14:38, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

One overdoes that was taken by a 3 year old. The 3 year old took more than the prescribed dosage for a 3 year old. Out of the millions of people world wide who have taken the HCQ, one dies of an overdoes, and it was a 3 year old. That is not an example of the drug being dangerous, it means the parents of the 3 year were idiots. If you applied the reasoning you are using for HCQ, every drug in the world should be considered dangerous. I can only laugh at this whole situation. Also, you are lying to yourself. One overdoes does not make a drug dangerous. You are now trapped into admitting to yourself that you are wrong and therefore must swallow your pride or just continue on with lying to yourself. This is the problem with hating people like Trump etc. it skews your thoughts. All the other examples that were given do not make the drug dangerous. If HCQ is dangerous for all the reasons given, then the Pfizer vaccine is more dangerous, because there have already been 2 auto-immune responses to the vaccine. But of course the vaccine is not dangerous, there are always going to be some people in a population that will have a reaction to a vaccine. What are you going to do when the FDA announces that HCQ is safe to use again? Anyway, no hard feelings from me. I think that this is the effect that Trump has on people. Maybe it's the "Trump effect." Leveni (talk) 10:29, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

the parents of the 3 year were idiots Either that, or they were uninformed. Do you want future readers to kill their three-year-olds with HCQ overdoses because the Wikipedia article did not warn them about that? If not, then this is not about that one sentence anymore, but about something else. What is it?

I ask again: Which part of the article is false now? Cut out the Jeremiads about those horrible, horrible people who refuse to wear MAGA hats. Keep to the subject instead. This page is for improving the article, not for preaching the Gospel of Donald, the Patient Zero of Trump derangement syndrome, so your next off-topic diatribe will be deleted as off-topic. --Hob Gadling (talk) 17:27, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

The 65year old drug, dosed 5million times annually was regarded safer than Tylenol magically until Trump mentioned it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:46:C800:2260:DFD:C69B:4927:494B (talk) 18:30, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

...and in the US tylenol overdose "is the leading cause for calls to Poison Control Centers (>100,000/year) and accounts for more than 56,000 emergency room visits, 2,600 hospitalizations, and an estimated 458 deaths due to acute liver failure each year." (PMID 15239078). So even if true, that's not a great endorsement. Alexbrn (talk) 07:52, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

HCQ still in use in very many countries for covid-19: hospital treatment, early treatment = home treatment, or prophylaxis?

If you browse the images on this page:

https://c19study.com/

It looks like HCQ is still used in very many countries worldwide for covid-19.

So should this timeline: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydroxychloroquine#Timeline

be updated with events after June 2020? Now this is the latest update at Wikipedia:

"On 15 June 2020, the FDA revoked the emergency use authorization for hydroxychloroquine and chloroquine".

--ee1518 (talk) 23:00, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

Would need reliable sources for what happened after June. Alexbrn (talk) 03:30, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

November 2020: The American Medical Association, in Resolution 509, has RESCINDED its previous statement calling or physicians to stop prescribing hydroxychloroquine and chloroquine for Covid-19: Pages 16-21 of the link here are relevant, Resolution 509 is a portion of the November 2020 Special Meeting Handbook Addendum: https://www.ama-assn.org/system/files/2020-10/nov20-handbook-addendum.pdf?fbclid=IwAR1mhKPSdrS8CmUNWhLcbxsBJmSopr8tLh_xTTsBifdZ3FX7M_heiqBPRC8

AMA Resolution points out that the previous studies published in Lancet and New England Journal of Medicine were retracted due to the studies being poorly designed.

The AMA recognizes Three distinct stages of Covid-19 infection, and find that HCQ may be an effective treatment for early stage, Stage 1, Covid infection. The same report indicates that HCQ is likely not effective for Stages 2 & 3 Covid infection, but is not likely to cause harm administered in proper doseages with monitoring by properly trained medical personnel:

"Whereas, The COVID-19 pandemic is a serious medical issue, people are dying, and 1 physicians must be able to perform as sagacious prescribers; therefore be it2 3 RESOLVED, That our American Medical Association rescind its statement calling for physicians 4 to stop prescribing hydroxychloroquine and chloroquine until sufficient evidence becomes 5 available to conclusively illustrate that the harm associated with use outweighs benefit early in 6 the disease course. Implying that such treatment is inappropriate contradicts AMA Policy 7 H-120.988, “Patient Access to Treatments Prescribed by Their Physicians,” that addresses off 8 label prescriptions as appropriate in the judgement of the prescribing physician (Directive to 9 Take Action); and be it further10 11 RESOLVED, That our AMA rescind its joint statement with the American Pharmacists 12 Association and American Society of Health System Pharmacists, and update it with a joint 13 statement notifying patients that further studies are ongoing to clarify any potential benefit of 14 hydroxychloroquine and combination therapies for the treatment of COVID-19 (Directive to Take 15 Action); and be it further16 17 RESOLVED, That our AMA reassure the patients whose physicians are prescribing 18 hydroxychloroquine and combination therapies for their early-stage COVID-19 diagnosis by 19 issuing an updated statement clarifying our support for a physician’s ability to prescribe an FDA-20 approved medication for off label use, if it is in her/his best clinical judgement, with specific 21 reference to the use of hydroxychloroquine and combination therapies for the treatment of the 22 earliest stage of COVID-19 (Directive to Take Action); and be it further23 24 RESOLVED, That our AMA take the actions necessary to require local pharmacies to fill valid 25 prescriptions that are issued by physicians and consistent with AMA principles articulated in 26 AMA Policy H-120.988, “Patient Access to Treatments Prescribed by Their Physicians,” 27 including working with the American Pharmacists Association and American Society of Health 28 System Pharmacists. (Directive to Take Action)" https://www.ama-assn.org/system/files/2020-10/nov20-handbook-addendum.pdf?fbclid=IwAR1mhKPSdrS8CmUNWhLcbxsBJmSopr8tLh_xTTsBifdZ3FX7M_heiqBPRC8 TheeSkeptic (talk) 17:09, 8 January 2021 (UTC)TheeSkeptic

[5] --Hob Gadling (talk) 12:43, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

The research section is entirely too long

This article should be a descriptive, mundane article about a prescription drug. The research section has sprawled and the topic of repurposing research for COVID-19 treatment has been effectively covered here. I propose the entire research section be removed and replaced with the following content. Additionally, links back to this article from COVID-19 drug development, COVID-19 drug repurposing research, et al. as "See also" or "Main articles" should be removed.

=== Research ===

==== COVID-19 ====

Main article: COVID-19 drug repurposing research § Hydroxychloroquine

Hydroxychloroquine has been studied regarding its efficacy against COVID-19. It was not found to be associated with a better clinical outcome compared to standard of care.

• In normal times you'd be right, but in the current circumstances such a shed-load of material around the politics/misinformation of HCQ has emerged, NPOV requires it be included. And NPOV is not negotiable. Alexbrn (talk) 20:39, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

This article doesn't need to duplicate information that's present elsewhere. Jdphenix (talk) 21:11, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

Incorrect information in lead must be removed

This clause—"but all clinical trials conducted during 2020 found it is ineffective and may cause dangerous side effects"—is demonstrably false. None of the cited sources clim this. Indeed, all three of the cited papers acknowledge the benefit of more careful research and even off-label use regarding HCQ and COVID-19:

• 10.1016/j.jcrc.2020.03.005 recommends use in clinical trial and caution if used off-label for patients.
• 10.1096/fj.20200091910.1016/j.jcrc.2020.03.005 states there is "sufficient evidence" to "justify use in trials" and cites studies showing a "favorable safety profile".
• 10.1503/cmaj.200528 states its use "is currently supported" and that care in patient selection and treatment can mitigate potential harms.

It's a little hard to believe that such an obviously bogus claims such as "all clinical trials in 2020 found it is ineffective" got past extended-confirmed edit protection—especially when there is not a single citation in support. Also, all clinical trials did not "find it may cause dangerous side effects"—as far as I'm aware, no trials of side effects were conducted, as the safety profile of HCQ is well-known and highly favorable. Thanks! Elle Kpyros (talk) 16:22, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

Did we read the same studies? Here's the second study very clearly supporting the crux of the article:

The use of either chloroquine or hydroxychloroquine and azithromycin for treatment or prevention of SARS-CoV-2 infection is currently supported primarily by in vitro data and weak studies involving humans. Physicians and patients should be aware of several uncommon but potentially life-threatening adverse effects should these drugs be used before better-designed studies determine their benefit, if any, in treating or preventing COVID-19. Harms of treatment can be mitigated by careful patient selection and monitoring.

I would also encourage you to check out the last citation, the one mentioning Fauci. ChipotleHater (talk) 16:07, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

ACC Jan 2021 study

Does this study have any merit to add here? RobP (talk) 07:32, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

No. Alexbrn (talk) 07:37, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

"promoted"

I'm kinda stunned that the word "promoted" does not appear once, anywhere in this article in the context of COVID. Is it not relevant that the drug was heavily promoted as a treatment/cure by certain people? Was there a consensus to exclude it? soibangla (talk) 02:55, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

"Persons"

Hello! In section 7.2 of this article,

• Several countries initially used chloroquine or hydroxychloroquine for treatment of persons hospitalized with COVID‑19 (as of March 2020)

The word "persons" is used. I believe it would fit better to use the term "people". Thanks! TomBwn (talk) 09:53, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

Help! This article has been taken over by covid!

This article (and to a lesser extent Chloroquine) has been taken over by covid. Given the jury has come back and recommends against its use, it only merits a few sentences in this article, but obviously a lot of work went into this and I hate to just delete it.

As a result I'd like to fork the timeline bit into a new article for historical interest -> Draft:Chloroquine/Hydroxychloroquine and COVID-19. If you see stuff being deleted, don't worry, that's where it's going. Mvolz (talk) 17:32, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

Would be good to boil this down, to maybe three sentences. Something describing the essentials: there was an idea it could work, the idea got politicized, but in the end it didn't work. Alexbrn (talk) 17:38, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

Done - I'd appreciate a look. Mvolz (talk) 10:35, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

Looks fine. I don't think the replaced material needs to split into a different article, but is best sent down the memory hole. Alexbrn (talk) 13:49, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

However this Wiki now only says it didn't work for advanced cases: "Their use was withdrawn as a possible treatment for COVID‑19 infection when it proved to have no benefit for hospitalized patients with severe COVID-19 illness in the international Solidarity trial and UK RECOVERY Trial." Therefore it loses it's encyclopedic prowess. We know many advanced cases don't survive, and it is concerning that across country borders extremely heavy hydroxycholoroquine doses are associated with increased death rate. Sorry I can only offer this from Dr Samantha Bailey: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bw5ldWr9QD0 I also note current reference allows mention of ionopphores on primary research. Soundhill (talk) 00:38, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

Inclusion of content warning

Whereas Wikipedia content references are to be to secondary or review articles, in a pandemic many primary research articles are being shared without the delay even for peer review. World wide vaccination is occurring on a trial emergency basis. The hydroxychloroquine page editors have removed references to primary research on such as the possible use of hyroxychloroquine, azithromycin, and zinc which hydroxychloroquine is an ionophore for, against covid-19. pages should include a warning about this limitation. Soundhill (talk) 23:54, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

 Not done What, you mean "this article doesn't contain rubbish"? In general, see WP:NODISCLAIMER. All applicable disclaimers are provided by a link at the very foot of the article page. Alexbrn (talk) 07:28, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

Anything to do with chloroquine ?

Nowhere in this article do i read that hydroxychloroquine is a derivative of chloroquine, or that states any link between the two. That looks pretty lousy to me. Methinks that that should be in the intro. —Jerome Potts (talk) 11:50, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

Russia just removed HCQ in 11th version of Minsdrav recommendation

That happened on 7th May. https://tass.ru/obschestvo/11321057 and https://minzdrav.gov.ru/news/2021/05/07/16568-minzdrav-rossii-vypustil-novuyu-versiyu-metodrekomendatsiy-po-koronavirusu Please add. Valery Zapolodov (talk) 19:22, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

Hydroxychlor

Hydroxychlor has the same prefix as Hydroxychloroquine. Maybe a page should be done on Hydroxychlor & then a disambiguation needs to be awarded.--92.30.20.145 (talk) 06:34, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

What is "hydroxychlor" and how is it any different? It's hard to find information on it given it's spelled almost the same way as Hydroxychloroquine. —FORMALDUDE ^(talk) 03:02, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

"Pseudoscience"

Please update this article to remove all of the debunked pseudoscience stating that Hydroxchloroquine is ineffective for covid-19 and/or unsafe in light of evidence. Where I live, this medication was and is used in treatmet of covid-19. It is entirely due to T-derangement syndrome that you refuse to state the obvious.131.228.32.167 (talk) 07:45, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

To "update this article" to do that, we need reliable sources. Anecdotes and insinuations are not good enough sources for Wikipedia. And the logic "people use it, therefore it works" is not really the way science is done. --Hob Gadling (talk) 08:39, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

I agree with Hob. While I don't doubt that people are using HCQ to treat cases of coronavirus, sources mentioning and analyzing this must be present in order to be permitted onto the article. EytanMelech (talk) 15:46, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

Meta Analysis Paper

An interesting summary report / analysis that links to all available studies on HCQ, showing that the overwhelming majority of studies show benefits... https://hcqmeta.com/hcq-meta.pdf. While it doesn't fit the criteria for inclusion in the article, it is a useful reference for discussion on the talk page. Tvaughan1 (talk) 18:21, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

Published by whom? This just looks like a crank website. This is WP:NOTAFORUM. Alexbrn (talk) 05:36, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

Did you look at the references in there? Most of them are newspapers and other secondary sources, though there are some preprints and even a few papers. IAmNitpicking (talk) 15:21, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

Good sources are available via the normal neutral channels; there's no lead to look at some dodgy selection (likely picked to amplify the misinformation) - in fact it would be a bad idea as it give a distorted window onto the topic space. If somebody has a new reliable source to offer, specify it! Alexbrn (talk) 15:40, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

My point, which was probably unclear, was that it isn't a good source for a medical article. IAmNitpicking (talk) 13:55, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

I don't know why anyone would dismiss that website. I've never seen a more comprehensive collection of primary research +. I had reservations about hydroxychloroquine, chloroquine, and azithromycin, but after seeing that website, you can see the amount of international trials that show a modest benefit. Surely, there are some flaws, but it is a truly impressive collection of studies that go against the statement on this Wikipedia's page that "ALL CLINICAL TRIALS" saw no benefit of the drugs. Which is clearly false. UltraSunshine (talk) 00:24, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

The characteristic of true high quality review articles is that they are selective, not inclusive: much primary research is low-quality, wrong, biased, or even fraudulent. Wikipedia has robust policies to ensure medical content is based on legitimate science, and not bogus websites designed to deceive by looking "science-y". During this pandemic there has been a spate of such "fake journal paper" sites pushing all kinds of quackery. I have updated/simplified the lede here with a NIH source. Alexbrn (talk) 06:42, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

hcqmeta is not a reliable source, see the consensuses we've established at the top of the talk page.— Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 15:52, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

Shortages over.

It might be nice to mention that there were more serious shortages from some suppliers for 2 months in 2020 but at present it is freely available from multiple suppliers after some restarted and others ramped up production and demand spike is over. It seems pointless to say potential shortages are a reason for anything as they are no longer expected. Also prices went up and have returned to normal.

https://www.ashp.org/drug-shortages/current-shortages/drug-shortage-detail.aspx?id=646&loginreturnUrl=SSOCheckOnly
https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/hydroxychloroquine-sees-a-drop-in-demand-and-price-says-beroe-inc-301274622.html

Idyllic press (talk) 18:50, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 6 January 2022

Change “clinical trials alleged found it ineffective” to “clinical trials found it ineffective” Devinpmorris (talk) 07:03, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

 Done ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:34, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 18 January 2022

Remove this portion "The notion has been further refuted in a published study on the National Library of Medicine, which indicates that the early intake of hydroxychloroquine as "consistently effective" in combating COVID-19.[10]". It is based on an outdated study with flaws in the methodology. 2607:FA49:4D41:7500:E1CF:32D:7203:958C (talk) 13:39, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

 Done Cannolis (talk) 16:05, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Hydroxychloroquine

How to say this long word 74.206.140.2 (talk) 14:28, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

sound it out. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 14:49, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

You can use a text-to-speech service such as the one included in Google Translate. Félix An (talk) 13:08, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

Is Hydroxychloroquine now officially deprecated on Wikipedia?

@Calebb and Stevenmitchell: User:Calebb recently posted a reply to a post by User:Stevenmitchell in Talk:Malaria#Hydroxychloroquine asking if Hydroxychloroquine shouldn't be mentioned in the article on malaria.

User: Calebb replied, "We previously had references to Hydroxychloroquine in this article ... . Due to [Donald Trump's] substantially problematic suggestion [recommending Hydroxychloroquine for COVID], we're working diligently to remove all references of this medication from all wikipedia articles, regardless of Wikipedia:Notability . e.g., CDC articles like this CDC informatic are now deprecated, and borderline malinformation."

If I understand this policy correctly, it seems to me to threaten international public health as well as the integrity and impartiality of Wikipedia.  ??? Thanks, DavidMCEddy (talk) 12:31, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

@DavidMCEddy: Yes, I agree with you. That's terrible! Eric Kvaalen (talk) 09:26, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

• So Donald Trump gets to indirectly decide what is in our articles? Got it. That makes sense. </sarcasm> Dennis Brown - 2¢ 12:03, 24 August 2022 (UTC)
• I would say that is overall total bupkis, and does not represent any consensus I have seen. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 12:06, 24 August 2022 (UTC)
• Absurd. IAmNitpicking (talk) 19:24, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

Given it was their first edit in 8 years I'm inclined to think the editor your complaint is about was trolling. XeCyranium (talk) 21:18, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 2 February 2023

This sentence is misplaced:

The speculative use of hydroxychloroquine for COVID-19 threatens its availability for people with established indications.[10]

Please move it from the introduction to the very end of the COVID section, after the content that's borrowed from the Chloroquine and hydroxychloroquine during the COVID-19 pandemic article. Per WP:LEDE, Apart from basic facts, significant information should not appear in the lead if it is not covered in the remainder of the article. Nothing is said in the rest of the article about COVID-related abuse threatening its availability for proper use. 192.180.91.15 (talk) 12:35, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

 Done ––FormalDude (talk) 18:06, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

ClinCalc Top 300 of 2020

@Whywhenwhohow: I perceive two issues with saying "it was the 126th most commonly prescribed medication in the United States, with more than 4 million prescriptions."

1. 4,992,835 prescriptions is so close to 5 million that saying it's "more than 4 million" is technically correct but only barely so. If you insist it's NOT 5 million, we can certainly say it's, "almost 5  million".
2. What's the coverage of ClinCalc? I see where it says US. However, their number 1 item is Atorvastatin, for which they report 114,509,814 prescriptions for 26,640,141 patients in 2020. The United States 2020 census gave it's population as 331,449,281. If ClinCalc is US only, this says that 8.037471 percent of the US population were prescribed Atorvastatin in 2020. They seem to say that repeatedly so maybe it's correct. However, it seems strange to me. I've sent them an email asking.

Thanks, DavidMCEddy (talk) 14:19, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

@DavidMCEddy with regards to your #2, this is a misunderstanding. Each user likely needs multiple Atorvastatin prescription per year, so it would not be "8%" of the US population, but rather a fraction thereof. It is also an extremely common (and safe) drug, so it would not surprise me that it were a very high % of the population. Many public health atherosclerosis researchers have joked about putting Atorvastatin in the water supply. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 17:17, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

Instead of discussing, @whywhenwhohow reverted to his “more than 4M” text on March 3 after we dealt with this in Jan. His edit note was “update prescription count,” which was incorrect. Same data, same year, same cite. I also checked the website and they have not posted any updates, still same 2020 numbers. Here’s my edit note:

“Reverted to correct numbers. I was very precise this time: 4.99M instead of my previous “5M” and @DavidMCEddy’s “almost 5M,” both of which @Whywhenwhohow reverted to his substantially misleading “more than 4M” figure with incorrect notes: “doesn’t match citation” and “update prescription count.” Pls stop changing this to this! Pls instead discuss on the Talk page topic under “ClinCalc Top 300 of 2020.” You were tagged there but did not discuss.” JustinReilly (talk) 12:45, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

Thank you, David. Of course I agree with #1 as it was my edit. JustinReilly (talk) 00:16, 23 January 2023 (UTC)