So, skeptically. 🤨

bpath, I'm not sure what you mean by "requested". There are tens of thousands of people engaged in basic biomedical research in the US at medical schools, universities, and research institutes and most are pursuing their own interests, prior background, and general muses. Far and away the largest source of funding is the federal government's NIH, which from its own website says that its research funding exceeds $32 billion per year. Grants are getting harder to get and less available. Institutional funds (from the institution where the work is done) are also available on a much smaller scale.

The ethics of research now require disclosure in published work of funding sources and a statement of the presence or absence of a conflict of interest as a result. NIH funding grants are also in the public domain and online, and can be searched to see who got money and for what.

The gold standard for research studies is the RCT-random controlled trial. Be skeptical of anything less.

An update today on the Lancet article mentioned above:

Study results retracted

Interesting, Elmer. I have learned, largely through this swift moving covid pandemic, to be skeptical of anything I read in relation to treatment with this disease. Back in March, when many places went on lock down and hospitals stopped doing elective cases, the treatment was to intubate early and place on high pressures. After 90% of those patients died, the treatment changed to intubate only when absolutely necessary and high pressures to be avoided unless necessary. The drug regime changed, from "avoid that drug" to now having a protocol for it's use (MATH protocol). Hydroxychloroquine yes, then no, then back to yes. There has not been enough time to do random controlled studies, which as I said above is the gold standard.

I cannot tell you the number of manuscripts I've proofread about hydroxychloroquine written by MDs, and it's ALWAYS been NO!!!!!

It causes heart problems. Period. No equivocating. I trust cardiologists with regard to heart isues.

https://www.acc.org/latest-in-cardiology/articles/2020/04/10/15/06/acc-joins-aha-hrs-in-statement-on-exploratory-covid-19-treatment-drug-interactions-on-qtc

The one the article links is written by: Interim Division Chief, Division of Cardiovascular Medicine..President of the American Heart Association...President of the American College of Cardiology and... President of the Heart Rhythm Society

As a retired researcher in fields of immunology and pharmacology, Elmer, your post is spot on.

One additional thing: If a paper indicates something "MIGHT" be useful against such and so - it means there's a tenuous possibility, and research needs to explore further. It NEVER means IT WILL be useful.

Thanks artemis. I have a number of family members in and previously in the field.

For me, that's no more than having slept at the Holiday Inn Express last night (remember the commercials, how doing so jokingly was empowering in some ways?) but many discussions with them over the years have exposed me to basics, understandings, and features of an area I otherwise knew nothing about.