Robert Malone on covid: what the evidence says · JRE #1757
SUBJECT: COVID
The short answer
Malone asserts that hydroxychloroquine was already known to be effective against the original SARS-CoV (SARS-1) virus. A 2005 laboratory study (Vincent et al., Virology Journal) found that chloroquine strongly inhibited SARS-CoV-1 infection and spread in primate (Vero E6) cell cultures, with antiviral effects observed when cells were treated either before or after exposure to the virus.
Not a true/false call. Every claim is logged with its sources; read the exhibits below.
Now, that's false. Hydroxychloroquine was known to be effective against SARS-1.
What the evidence says 01 / RECORD
A 2005 laboratory study (Vincent et al., Virology Journal) found that chloroquine strongly inhibited SARS-CoV-1 infection and spread in primate (Vero E6) cell cultures, with antiviral effects observed when cells were treated either before or after exposure to the virus. This was an in-vitro cell-culture finding, not a clinical trial in humans; the 2003 SARS outbreak subsided before any randomized controlled trial could test chloroquine or hydroxychloroquine against SARS-CoV-1 disease in patients, so no such clinical evidence exists. The study's own conclusion describes chloroquine as effective 'in cell culture,' not as proven clinical therapy. This lab finding was later invoked during the COVID-19 pandemic to argue hydroxychloroquine should work against SARS-CoV-2, but large randomized trials, including the WHO Solidarity trial, found that hydroxychloroquine produced little or no reduction in mortality among hospitalized COVID-19 patients, leading WHO to discontinue that treatment arm in July 2020. Describing hydroxychloroquine as 'known to be effective' against SARS-1 therefore overstates a preliminary cell-culture result as established clinical fact.