I hate journalism that wants to tell a sexy story, and in doing so, selectively ignores facts.
It is the case here with @jetjocko's reporting of chloroquine.
The chloroquine/hydroxychloroquine hypothesis did not start with the French study!
The scientific rationale came from post-SARS research in 2004 by Belgian researchers
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15351731
This was reported Feb 17:
xinhuanet.com/english/2020-0…
It was then unanimously suggested to be included in the Chinese COVID19 treatment protocol (6th edition)
academic.oup.com/cid/advance-ar…
koreabiomed.com/news/articleVi…
Seriously, inferring to readers that chloroquine/ hydroxychloroquine has no more scientific evidence than camostat mesylate???
Is this a joke? The evidence is based on a SINGLE in vitro study and NO clinical experience.
There are NO trials planned for camostat!
end of rant/
Addendum. Had the author spent the same amount of time researching COVID19 treatment protocols and trials rather than tracking down the biographies of 2 twitter guys, he would have quickly learned the same info I outlined
Another addendum. Chloroquine chatter did just start with the French study. I tweeted Chinese report of efficacy March 12
https://t.co/0R3TAQfyjb
Here is the UCSF guideline: