[johnforbes]

So, apparently, this became a political football with people thinking Orange Man Bad rather than how sick people might be helped.

So HCQ remains on the table as one option, and real science STILL does not know whether HCQ really has efficacy versus some more desirable-for-investors drug like Remdesivir.

[Clownkicker]

What johnforbes is saying is there is not yet any science to support HCQ as a treatment for COVID-19, but he still supports Trump prescribing it for COVID-19 and spending millions on stockpiling it.

Is HCQ a drug that drunken sailors like to take, johnny?

[johnforbes]

The way to find out is to find out.

Fauci expressed doubt about HCQ, but inexplicably did not start a clinical trial.

The eminent specialist in France tried it, found it worked. So did Chinese scientists.

I'd rather see Remdesivir work for investment reasons, but unlike the Democrats I'd like to see some therapy for covid-19 appear and be helpful.

[divermouse]

DISTRACTION post... like a good operative. here john you take it all you want . then go to the ICU hang out lick some door knobs and kleenex . see how it works and get back to us. I'll listen to ninety nine professionals, while you, mr smarter than everybody else, listens to two.

[johnforbes]

Diver, you missed the point.

We would all like to listen to the medical pros.

Fauci expressed doubt about HCQ, but didn't start a clinical trial of his own to find out.

The Lancet study was retracted because it sought to discredit HCQ but was not valid.

I want to find out what works to help people sick with HCQ.

And, if you get covid, you'll likely be treated with HCQ, Zpack, and zinc, won't you?

[elklindo69]

After publication of our Lancet Article,1 several concerns were raised with respect to the veracity of the data and analyses conducted by Surgisphere Corporation and its founder and our co-author, Sapan Desai, in our publication. We launched an independent third-party peer review of Surgisphere with the consent of Sapan Desai to evaluate the origination of the database elements, to confirm the completeness of the database, and to replicate the analyses presented in the paper.

Our independent peer reviewers informed us that Surgisphere would not transfer the full dataset, client contracts, and the full ISO audit report to their servers for analysis as such transfer would violate client agreements and confidentiality requirements. As such, our reviewers were not able to conduct an independent and private peer review and therefore notified us of their withdrawal from the peer-review process.

We always aspire to perform our research in accordance with the highest ethical and professional guidelines. We can never forget the responsibility we have as researchers to scrupulously ensure that we rely on data sources that adhere to our high standards. Based on this development, we can no longer vouch for the veracity of the primary data sources. Due to this unfortunate development, the authors request that the paper be retracted.

We all entered this collaboration to contribute in good faith and at a time of great need during the COVID-19 pandemic. We deeply apologise to you, the editors, and the journal readership for any embarrassment or inconvenience that this may have caused.