Talk:Hydroxychloroquine
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Hydroxychloroquine article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the subject of the article. |
Article policies
|
| Find medical sources: Source guidelines · PubMed · Cochrane · DOAJ · Gale · OpenMD · ScienceDirect · Springer · Trip · Wiley · TWL |
Archives: 1, 2Auto-archiving period: 6 months  |
 | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
.svg){kind=small}
 | Ideal sources for Wikipedia's health content are defined in the guideline Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (medicine) and are typically review articles. Here are links to possibly useful sources of information about Hydroxychloroquine.
|
 | The contentious topics procedure applies to this article. This article relates to COVID-19. Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. |
 | This article has been viewed enough times in a single week to appear in the Top 25 Report. The week in which this happened: |
Treatments for COVID-19: Current consensus
A note on WP:MEDRS: Per this Wikipedia policy, we must rely on the highest quality secondary sources and the recommendations of professional organizations and government bodies when determining the scientific consensus about medical treatments.
- Ivermectin: The highest quality sources (1 2 3 4) suggest Ivermectin is not an effective treatment for COVID-19. In all likelihood, ivermectin does not reduce all-cause mortality (moderate certainty) or improve quality of life (high certainty) when used to treat COVID-19 in the outpatient setting (4). Recommendations from relevant organizations can be summarized as:
Evidence of efficacy for ivermectin is inconclusive. It should not be used outside of clinical trials.
(May 2021, June 2021, June 2021, July 2021, July 2021) (WHO, FDA, IDSA, ASHP, CDC, NIH) - Chloroquine & hydroxychloroquine: The highest quality sources (1 2 3 4) demonstrate that neither is effective for treating COVID-19. These analyses accounted for use both alone and in combination with azithromycin. Some data suggest their usage may worsen outcomes. Recommendations from relevant organizations can be summarized:
Neither hydroxychloroquine nor chloroquine should be used, either alone or in combination with azithromycin, in inpatient or outpatient settings.
(July 2020, Aug 2020, Sep 2020, May 2021) (WHO, FDA, IDSA, ASHP, NIH) - Ivmmeta.com, c19ivermectin.com, c19hcq.com, hcqmeta.com, trialsitenews.com, etc: These sites are not reliable. The authors are pseudonymous. The findings have not been subject to peer review. We must rely on expert opinion, which describes these sites as unreliable. From published criticisms (1 2 3 4 5), it is clear that these analyses violate basic methodological norms which are known to cause spurious or false conclusions. These analyses include studies which have very small sample sizes, widely different dosages of treatment, open-label designs, different incompatible outcome measures, poor-quality control groups, and ad-hoc un-published trials which themselves did not undergo peer-review. (Dec 2020, Jan 2021, Feb 2021)
Study finds Hydroxychloroquine useful against Covid-19
A large double-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled trial found that hydroxychloroquine provides "some protection against symptomatic COVID-19". However I lack the expertise to see how to incorporate this into the text, but I will leave it here. https://journals.plos.org/plosmedicine/article?id=10.1371/journal.pmed.1004428 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.112.8.49 (talk) 16:36, 18 September 2024 (UTC)
Not done. Would need WP:MEDRS. Bon courage (talk) 16:46, 18 September 2024 (UTC)
- Isn't this the largest and most thorough study on this claim though? Why is it not regarded as a reliable source? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.112.8.49 (talk) 22:30, 22 September 2024 (UTC)
- It's WP:PRIMARY, thus failing MEDRS. --Hob Gadling (talk) 10:23, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
- Isn't this the largest and most thorough study on this claim though? Why is it not regarded as a reliable source? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.112.8.49 (talk) 22:30, 22 September 2024 (UTC)
Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 7 May 2025
 | This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
This sentence, at the end of the first section (synopsis) should be removed: "The speculative use of hydroxychloroquine for COVID-19 threatens its availability for people with established indications."
The primary purpose of this sentence seems to be to further stigmatize the proponents or users of the drug for covid; whether or not the intent is for further stigmatization (it almost certainly is... because this has become incredibly political for whatever awful reasons) is irrelevant because this is the effect it has, given the context. The citation they link to is also clearly politically motivated, and the small section that mentions that use for covid may cause inability for other patients to acquire it is 1) speculative, it is not based on something that had actually happened at the time of the authors write (or they didn't cite anything), and 2) is based on the idea that production would not be able to keep up with the demand, which is absolutely ridiculous; this is a medicine that has been applied to massive populations in third world countries because it is so cheap and easy to make.
I understand that this website (along with most prestigious institutions at this point) is heavily biased to the left, but if you allow that to dictate how these entries are moderated, written, edited, presented, whatever, then you are doing a disservice to the world. Clearly an encyclopedia is understood to be unbiased, and that is how people view them when they go to them for information. If it becomes biased then people will be more skeptical (not always a bad thing) or distrustful (bad... ). Anyways, I don't feel like writing a whole essay here for no one to read, but I hope you folks do the right thing. Tjiseclipsed (talk) 03:30, 7 May 2025 (UTC)
- Not done unactionable rant against well-sourced content. Bon courage (talk) 03:39, 7 May 2025 (UTC)