One thing I decided to look up is whether HCQ affects testosterone. Sure enough
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/9080720/
Chloroquine phosphate and its analogue hydroxychloroquine are used on long term basis as anti-inflammatory drugs in the treatment of a multitude of chronic diseases. In the present work the dose of the drug was calculated and given to albino rats in the usual low therapeutic regimen used in man. This work has shown that chloroquine depresses testosterone secretion in a progressive manner which increased the longer the duration of treatment, sperm count was also decreased,
They're always concerned about there being testosterone-depleting substances in tap water turning the frikkin' frogs gay so it might be a good idea to find a good source and craft this into a social media post. Also note:
At the same time this work emphasizes the need of further study of the reversibility of the pathological lesions in the male genital tract after more prolonged administration of the drug than the three months period adopted in the present work.
The stuff causes long term dickrot basically, if used continuously, as it would if you were using it as some sort of general shield against Covid.
Medical studies are usually exclusively or predominately males. Which is also related to unreliable dosage and side-effect information for women. I'm sure there's a reason, and I'm sure they didn't compare ti to the downsides.
I've read historic accounts about that, but I kind of doubt that statement, that this is the case right now. One argument is that the articles bemoaning about it always reference historical accounts rather than current statistics. They wouldn't write the articles like that if your statement was correct.
https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2019/nov/13/the-female-problem-male-bias-in-medical-trials1993 was the year that congress mandated into law female representation in medical studies. Sure, that's not ancient history but it is almost 30 years now, that this has been a legal mandate, and it was a thing people were aware about before that, so it's not like nobody was including women in studies before that. So it's a stretch to use the word "are" in that sentence of yours. It is correct that they tend to use male animals in the more theoretical lab studies, but those are not human studies. Saying you need female rabbits to represent human women is more questionable.
But there's a reason that advocates focus on those non-human theoretical studies, it's because for actual human clinical trial of drugs, they definitely include a proportionate amount of women. That's why for the recent stuff in that article they're all focusing on theoretical animal studies rather than saying they have any evidence that
human women are being under-represented in trials of drugs intended for actual human use. Note that they almost exclusively talk about the problem of "male animals" in that article, not the lack of female human test subjects. The human testing thing was mandated decades ago. So they're left with complaining that they predominantly use
male mice in experiments, and this is somehow an anti-female thing. I'd argue that it's actually a practicality thing. The female mice make more mice, so the male mice are the expendable ones for the experiments. There's no gender superiority or male-bias in using the male animals for experiments, just practical considerations.
Author
Topic: Untamed Virus Containment Thread:COVID-19: Lurking Omni-Flu Edition (Read 496641 times)