[Erratum: This article was originally published with the title AMA Rescinds Statement Against The Use Of HCQ For COVID-19 Treatment. Upon closer checking, we have discovered that the attached document Resolution 509, was actually a proposal submitted by the AMA chapter in Georgia which was to be reviewed during the November 2020 Special Meeting of the AMA House of Delegates. Resolution 509 was eventually rejected. We have updated this article to reflect this change.]
The following is an addendum to the American Medical Association (AMA) and contains proposals from various working groups within AMA. It includes Resolution 509 (located at page 16 of the document), which is a proposal to rescind AMA’s earlier statement calling on physicians to stop prescribing hydroxychloroquine and chloroquine for COVID-19 treatment.
The resolution said, “…our American Medical Association rescind its statement calling for physicians to stop prescribing hydroxychloroquine and chloroquine until sufficient evidence becomes available to conclusively illustrate that the harm associated with use outweighs benefit early in the disease course…Implying such treatment is inappropriate and contradicts AMA Policy H-120.988, ‘Patient Access to Treatments Prescribed by Their Physicians,’ that addresses off-label prescriptions as appropriate in the judgement of the prescribing physician”. The proposal adds that AMA will release a new statement to notify patients of this change and to clarify the potential benefits of hydroxychloroquine and chloroquine for COVID-19 treatment.
Editor’s Note: While the House of Delegates of AMA refused to adopt Resolution 509 during its November 2020 meeting, it must not be construed as proof that HCQ is not at all effective for COVID-19.
A report released by AMA explained why the Delegates rejected Resolution 509. It said, “Your Reference Committee understands, and agrees with the need for physician autonomy, but also agrees with the BOT testimony that the AMA statement does not infringe on physician autonomy and thus should not be rescinded.”see https://www.ama-assn.org/system/files/2020-11/nov20-ref-com-e-annotated.pdf, pages 15-18
This has then raised our attention to a revised version of the AMA statement, which was released last April 17, 2020 which said nothing about prohibiting the use of HCQ. The updated joint statement did in fact highlighted the importance of physician autonomy, and reminded physicians not to hoard, and to prescribe COVID-19 medication only when necessary.https://www.ama-assn.org/delivering-care/public-health/joint-statement-ordering-prescribing-or-dispensing-covid-19.
Of course, compared to these words, “Several who testified also noted that it would be an embarrassment to the AMA and call the credibility of the AMA into question to rescind a statement that was evidence-based and accurate”https://www.ama-assn.org/system/files/2020-11/nov20-ref-com-e-annotated.pdf, page 16, a statement expressing support for the evidence of efficacy of HCQ for COVID-19 treatment would have been better suited. After all, the point of Resolution 509 was to educate other physicians on treatment alternatives, as well as their benefits and risks.
Even if AMA has not rescinded its earlier statement, the truth remains the same: hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) is effective in treating early stage COVID [see Hydroxychloroquine can dramatically ease the COVID-19 crisis, also read Italy’s Council of State OK’s hydroxychloroquine as treatment for COVID-19].
If only AMA truly followed the science (and if they had a bit of courage to go against the mainstream narrative), then they would have been able to help decrease the anxiety among at-risk population as patients no longer have to wait for symptoms to worsen before they go to the hospitals. It could have also helped decrease the burden on the health care system, as well as reduce the panic caused by the lack of treatment for COVID-19.
Click the button below if you wish to read the article on the website where it was originally published.
Click the button below if you wish to read the article offline.
|↩1||see https://www.ama-assn.org/system/files/2020-11/nov20-ref-com-e-annotated.pdf, pages 15-18|
|↩3||https://www.ama-assn.org/system/files/2020-11/nov20-ref-com-e-annotated.pdf, page 16|