There's anecdotal evidence (from physicians) regarding its use. Then there's one French study that's controversial. But the "reliable evidence" regarding it wouldn't, and couldn't, exist currently. At least the way we speak when we say that. It's impossible for that evidence to exist at this moment. You have to interpret availability of evidence, or lack thereof, within an appropriate context. Also an appeal to biological mechanism is often misleading, because the mechanisms by which many medications work isn't how a lot of medications actually work, but since we're human we like explanations and we choose the best available to ease our anxieties about the unknown. For instance, there's really no reason why hydrochlorothiazide (a diuretic) should work for diabetes insipidus (a condition characterized by frequent urination), but it does.
Anyhow, there's a huge conflation between the idea of "no evidence" and "negative evidence" and it misleads not just the general public, but a lot of otherwise intelligent people in healthcare and science related fields.
To suggest that there isn't evidence that it works would be true (but is not the same as negative evidence). But to suggest that because there isn't evidence that it works means it shouldn't be utilized is just as silly as saying it works and that everyone should take it. These decisions are best left to physicians with the relevant training who are managing sick patients, and not to bureaucrats.
I recognize your professional bearings on this topic, and your measured, educated reasoning. I might not subscribe to some of the intitial axioms of your viewpoint just exactly as you do, but I am very glad to have your inpot in this discussion.
I studied specifically some of the antiparasitic and antimalarial medicine from a mainly medicinal chemistry point of view many years ago, when I was involved with a group trying to develop new medicines for a few years. I fully realize the value of current information and professional standards. And I'm an old fogey just trying to catch up with the science here, really.
I have been, however, a morbidly politicized objector to the ban on DDT, calling it the equivalent of genocide directed at tropical populations, mainly non-white. I could hardly overstate my appreciation for effective antimalarial treatments. I don't have the figures, but I sorta presume hydroxychloroquine has been massively used for decades.
It has a specific effect in blocking replication in RNA particularly in viral forms. It's known effects require some restraint on dosages and the interest and observation of a doctor, but even if I might alarm you for advocating that a ten-day package should be passed out to every person who tests positive for CoViD-19, or even that we should send police door to door in areas where the virus has been demonstrated, passing out the ten-day treatment to every human who can be found, we would be able to shut down this pandemic pretty quick. Two weeks, done and over.
I was going to make a fine point about who should get the dose under conditions of inadequate supplies, that ARDS patients are unlikely to be saved, while less severely affected persons can more likely be saved.
On the news today, we have some pharmaceutical companies ramping up to produce hundreds of millions of these pills. It is going to come on soon enough to help us close this down quickly.
Meanwhile, the social distancing and stay at home program is already showing effects, with the notable exception of New York, where Cuomo first understated the need, and the danger, and failed to put the program into effect. From what I hear, the subs are still packing passengers like sardines.
