(Edited - info added)
It seems an article appeared on the BBC front page today, coming to the same conclusions I did, after reading the actual NIH 2005 study (which social media failed to provide) for myself on Thursday, and comparing it to the misleading (dishonest) political social-media dysinformation memes being passed around.
After reading it, I then found a helpful article from Politifact as well, giving direct links to both the study and what Fauci has actually said, versus what others say he said/agreed with.
The BBC article was just published today, and I didn't find the Politifact one until after reading it - so we can't blame the "brainwashed/led" by leftist press or leftist politics for coming my coming to the exact same conclusions on Thursday's (untouched) posts.
In fact, it's pretty obvious - all one need do is read the actual study for yourself and compare it to the claims being made on social media, and you will come to the exact same conclusions that I did - which I guess they're counting on you NOT doing, which is why they're not being forthright with offering the direct link to the actual study ;)
Once again, those exact same conclusions we all separately came to, after reading the actual study and comparing it to social-media dysinformation/propaganda claims are:
1. It's from 2005 and not the same virus - it's a distantly related, but completely separate and distinct virus from SARS-CoV2.
2. Hydroxychloroquine was given to primate cells in a lab dish, not live humans.
3. Fauci and the NIH were not involved the study, never gave public comments on the study, and the NIH only published the study after appearing in Virology Journal, as they do all studies published in medical journals, but gave no peer review of it.
I've gotta say, having health journalists and physicians themselves, separately publicly validating something you just read and researched yourself, and coming to the exact same conclusions you did, feels ... pretty good lol :)
Hint for spotting COVID dysinformation online: If either the meme itself, or the person passing it around, does not include a direct link to the actual study or data - that should be your first red flag that the claim is false. Reading the actual study for yourself, by the original publishers, will confirm it as false. ;)
***And by "study data," I mean clinical trials published by legitimate, accredited academia in reputable medical journals and the NIH - specifically and ONLY for the novel and unique virus that is SARS-CoV2 (note the "2" is required) and the resulting condition of COVID-19 - not any other virus or medical condition ***
Because hydroxychloroquine IS currently FDA-approved for certain autoimmune conditions like rheumatoid arthritis and lupus, as well as in combination with immunotherapy for cancer - but that does NOT mean it has been found significantly effective against COVID-19 in real-world usage (at least in most people, which is not yet well understood).
Unless, of course, you refuse to view anything doesn't already support your existing beliefs and your fragile ego can't handle the cognitive dissonance/possibility that you're wrong? ;)
Once again, here it is - the actual August 22, 2005 study - versus the claims being made by these memes.
But don't take my word for what these articles today said - here's a direct link to the article the BBC published on the front page today:
The Politifact article, which also gives a direct link to the 2005 study itself, as I did, and says:
Otherwise, as I said, hydroxychloroquine isn't banned - the FDA just revoked it's approval for usage with COVID-19 in mid-June after weighing the real-world usage efficacy of the drug in March/April/May against side-effect risk - but you CAN still prescribe it/get it prescribed if you really want it.
Hydroxychloroquine isn't illegal - it's approved for other conditions like RA, lupus, and in combination with other drugs for certain types of cancer.
It's just the FDA hasn't approved it for COVID-19, so you'd be using it off-label, which you certain still can, this is not forbidden - if you ask for it, your doctor will likely still prescribe it for you (with counseling about it's efficacy and side effects first).
However, it'll just be harder for you to get your insurance to pay for it, and you may have to step through other drugs first or to pay out of pocket, according to your insurance plan.
Prescriptions had already slowed down by May, a month before the FDA announcement, because of what those of us in healthcare had already learned - not because of press or politics or even preliminary studies - but because in real-world utilization, it was found to be effective in a few, but not all (or even most) COVID-19 patients.
Lastly, do realize that if you are passing this dysinformation information around - especially after you are aware that it's misleading/ false - not only are you being knowingly dishonest, but socially irresponsible and dangerous - for nothing but the sake of politics - but you're putting your life at risk, as well as the lives of countless others.