It's not quantity, it's quality. The middle link there is a bad study (or at least not what I'm looking for). The 4 main studies aren't very good. 1st one had a rather high dosage for HCQ plus it was testing to see if HCQ group would have less infections. 2nd study was extremely underpowered with literally just 8 people testing positive for covid. 3rd study was for prophylaxis purposes. 4th study was for, again, trying to prevent infection. I never claimed prophylaxis would by a thing HCQ did nor would it reduce infections, IT'S NOT AN ANTIVIRAL. My claim is that HCQ will help prevent hospitalizations, not stop infections from occurring. 3rd link is about mortality with regards to HCQ, which features the Recovery and Solidarity trials, and I said you don't give HCQ to hospitalized patients just like you don't give steroids to people who just tested positive for covid either. Your statement the HCQ yields higher mortality is because all your sources include giving it to patients that shouldn't get it in the 1st place. What's the mortality for those getting HCQ EARLY and a PROPER dose vs those not getting anything early? Give me a study on that. The 1st link (BMJ) has a section for hospital admission but all the studies they reference for hospital admission literally provide no data for how many of each group (HCQ or control) needed to be hospitalized and the Egypt study is not available or removed.Again, you are completely misrepresenting and misunderstanding that study, because...
No, you don't evidently understand it was on viral clearance times, because you persist in calling it "shit and underpowered" despite it being both pretty well designed and sufficiently powered to have a good chance of finding a result.
The thing is, you keep claiming all these studies show a benefit of early HCQ. I have asked you before: if you did not get that view from that website, where did you get it from? Because you are completely wrong. I asked you over a half a dozen times where you got this idea from, and you refused to answer. You still refuse to answer. You are hiding something.
How many do you need?
Objective To determine and compare the effects of drug prophylaxis on SARS-CoV-2 infection and covid-19. Design Living systematic review and network meta-analysis. Data sources World Health Organization covid-19 database, a comprehensive multilingual source of global covid-19 literature to 25...www.bmj.com
The efficacy and safety of hydroxychloroquine for COVID-19 prophylaxis: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized trialsBackground Populations such as healthcare workers (HCW) that are unable to practice physical distancing are at high risk of acquiring Coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19). In these cases pharmacological prophylaxis would be a solution to reduce severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2...journals.plos.org
Mortality outcomes with hydroxychloroquine and chloroquine in COVID-19 from an international collaborative meta-analysis of randomized trials - Nature CommunicationsHydroxychloroquine and chloroquine have been investigated as a potential treatment for Covid-19 in several clinical trials. Here the authors report a meta-analysis of published and unpublished trials, and show that treatment with hydroxychloroquine for patients with Covid-19 was associated with...www.nature.com
Giving someone a toxic dose of something is not a good study. Remember when you actually provided some legit data on remdesivir and I agreed with part of your argument then? Give me good data, isn't that what you do for a living?Dude, you have literally no idea whether a study is good or bad, except some made-up garbage arbitrariness in your own head which approximates to "does it say what I want to believe?"
Don't blame me for your poor logic. You've still given me nothing on why you would vaccinated someone that already had covid (assuming they have a normal working immune system). You've just said covid is not chicken pox, therefore I'm smarter than you and I win. That's not an argument.This frankly bizarre trash isn't even worth dignifying with an explanation.