I've read a debunking of that as well, which was basically that the study uses poisonously high levels of HCQ (much higher than normal or required), and that it uses no zinc. Zinc is the actual virus killer, HCQ just lets in into the cell (it's a zinc ionophore).
This is a distressingly common technique for making studies say what you want them to say. I've dug into several dietary studies over the years claiming how this or that diet is good or bad for you, and a lot of them basically involve feeding the worst-possible $DIET_X to one set of mice and the best possible $DIET_Y to the other, and lo, $DIET_Y wins. So, for instance, you can feed a "low carb" diet that fills in the fats with a ton of transfats or with good fats, and you can feed a "high carb" diet that has a lot of whole grains or has a whole lot of bleached, refined flour, and produce whichever results you want. This is a non-trivial part of the reason why "peer reviewed" studies keep continuously putting out what seems like contradictory results.
Unfortunately, it means just "trusting a peer reviewed study" is even harder than it should be. You have to dig into the study to see if it even makes any sense which can be very difficult. And you have to follow the money, not "even" if the study says what you think it ought to say, but especially when it says what you want it to say.
I actually think it might be a good example because it highlights the distinction between "medicine" and "alternative medicine": approval for use. Many drugs have been approved for a use in the past, only to be superseded by better drugs or found to be dangerous or ineffective.
Take for example acetaminophen (aka paracetamol/tylenol): it is borderline ineffective, has been superseded by ibuprofen for almost all use cases, and the required dosage for its tiny effect is also very close to dangerous levels. Yet it is still the go-to drug of parents, GPs and hospitals for a range of ailments from the common cold to post-operative pain. "Good old paracetamol" is in every medicine cabinet in the Western world. I've told my folks a hundred times that it simply doesn't work, but they use it for pretty much any condition. Mum even gave it to her old dog. It's trusted like oxo cubes, Campbell's soup or a nice cup of tea. And that's why it's the foremost cause of acute liver failure in the Western world. While it hasn't had it's approval removed yet, I wouldn't be surprised if it did some day, and I doubt it would be approved today if it were being introduced.
Even so: is it still very much "medicine", not "alternative medicine".
>> Take for example acetaminophen (aka paracetamol/tylenol): it is borderline ineffective, has been superseded by ibuprofen for almost all use cases, and the required dosage for its tiny effect is also very close to dangerous levels.
This is only really accurate in a small window of analysis. It's been shown that paracetamol + ibuprofen has synergistic effects for most pain-related issues and paracetamol is superior to ibuprofen for migraine headaches; furthermore, the obvious correct headache drug of choice is aspirin/paracetamol/caffeine, aka Excedrin, which is vastly superior to ibuprofen.
I won't argue that paracetamol has acute liver toxicity issues (the largest drug of overdose problems, though a lot of this is intentional rather than accidental), but ibuprofen is abused in a chronic fashion with buildup over time leading to renal failure and worse (pro/amateur athletes are particularly at risk of chronic abuse issues).
I won't argue that paracetamol is way more dangerous than people think, and there should be far more warning labels (which J&J fights against), but I would be genuinely shocked if it got its approval revoked; similarly, I'd expect it to be approved if it was around today as well - especially if we knew about the synergistic effects it has with aspirin and caffeine.
