PROSPECTIVE, RANDOMIZED trial with sufficient power (a specific statistical term) to know for sure whether hydroxychloroquine works in the effective in doses being recommended.
I know that you have expertise in other areas, but you clearly have a complete lack of understanding of journal review and statistics.
96,000 is a typical number that is achieved by these meta analysis review studies, and it impresses the lay public, but it doesn’t mean very much when the multiple things that are being reviewed have different - including even the dosage. In out field, these meta analysis have become a bane - they are easy for an algorithm to spit out, but they cannot specifically address the question that you are asking.
What I take from this article is the following:
1)The authors didn’t find significant benefit in a study format that is not well suited to detect it. I am saddened that they didn’t find a positive result because it would help everyone (except those whose TDS would be inflamed), but I still hold out a fair amount of hope. On the other hand, had it found a positive finding on the drug, I still would also want more proof because again, this was a retrospective meta analysis and does not meet the rigor of good scientific evidence.
2) The authors of your study agree with me about needing the study that is soon to come out that I linked.
3) The WaPo is trash for misleading you (or trash because they don’t understand the science they claim to present).