The history of medicine is littered w/meds+interventions that “seemed to make sense,” “might help,” or had promising initial data that ultimately ended up causing real harm.

The mark of scientific leadership is being able to recognize when the weight of data shifts towards harm.

Weeks ago I believed the bevy of literature supported broad use of the combination of azithromycin and hydroxychloroquine for the treatment of #COVID19, and I was optimistic for the zinc ionophore postulate.

I no longer believe this to be true.

Since then, we’ve seen 3 trials (1 effectively censured) that have made it quite clear that any benefit—if it exists—is quite small.

Observational data is all over the map.

Anecdote is sensationalized while science is ignored.

Frustratingly, I believe the argument is beset by political trivialities and dramatization from every corner.

While good clinicians have presented tremendous analyses on both sides of this debate, I am disappointed by Hippocratic hypocrites who would make this a political debate instead of a scientific one.

Scientific debate should ennoble us, not devolve into personal or political attacks.

We seek to find the answers to the greatest questions we may ever face—a pursuit that <must> transcend political rancor and ideological fervor.

So, my assessment of the HCQ/Azithromycin data is that the weight of evidence now leans toward harm.

I remain optimistic for further studies to come, to perhaps find a role for these medicines, either alone or in combination.

I’m happy to consider+contemplate data-driven arguments to the contrary—but I hope we can remove this discourse from the pseudoscientific arena it has entered, re-embrace the evidence-based paradigms that have defined modern medical success, and let science light the way forward.