Because the most egregious example given in the article was far away from "stockpiling "
That was the entire conversation before you jumped in
Yeah so even worse reason for you to derail by not understanding someone could comment on stockpiling without shitting on the use of the drug entirely.
Lol. He did not agree with you. And neither do the thousands of doctors that rated it the #1 treatment.
You notice how you do not hear any doctors actually treating this virus coming out against it. Yet there are thousands now saying it works in some way.
Also - you didn't respond to where you were getting the thousands of doctors numbers from but looking at your interaction with
@Anung Un Rama it looks like it was the Sermo poll. A few things:
First, it isn't thousands of doctors saying it is the best treatment. 1160 that have used it or seen it used in setting were asked how they rate the efficacy. 38% rate it very or extremely effective. That's 441 doctors. Also, it wasn't number 1 by doctor rating. Convalescent serum was at 52% very or extremely.
You have to take into account as well that of doctors using HCQ, 49% are using it for mild symptoms and 16% are using it for patients that aren't diagnosed and have mild symptoms (Like that Zelenko guy). These patients are very likely to get better regardless.
That just isn't true of some of the other drugs being used, either because you need a specific compassionate exemption and a very sick patient to get it, like Remdesivir, or because they are specialty drugs with a high price tag and special distribution and outpatient clinics aren't using them - like Interferon-beta.
So the other drugs are being used on sick patients more likely to get worse. Yet they are still ranked by doctors pretty much as high in terms of efficacy - Remdesivir 37%. Interferon beta 36% compared to HCQ's 38%. If the poll had parsed out efficacy vs patient stage, I bet we'd see worse performance in sick patients compared to the other drugs.
It would be great if it turns out that cheap old HCQ is effective for all disease stages and low risk. But the magnitude of the current interest in it is bizarre given the available evidence and clearly driven by factors that have little bearing on its actual efficacy.
