Venetian Institute of Molecular Medicine, University of Padova, Italy.
Biochem Biophys Res Commun. 2021 Jan 29;538:156-162. doi: 10.1016/j.bbrc.2020.09.128. Epub 2020 Sep 30.
At the end of last century a prominent biochemist once opened the discussion of a controversial issue in the field of Bioenergetics with the following statement: "This is a long story, that shouldn't be long, but it will take a long time to make it short". As it happens, such a statement would apply perfectly well to the story of chloroquine (CQ) and hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) in the COVID-19 infection: it has become a veritable saga, with conflicting views that have often gone beyond the normal scientific dialectic, and with conclusions that have frequently been polluted by non scientific opinions: thus, for instance, when National Agencies have taken positions against CQ and HCQ, the move has been seen as a pro-vaccine attempt to block low cost therapy means. And it is difficult to avoid the feeling that the opposition to CQ and HCQ has in large measure been shaped not by scientific arguments, but by the fact that their use has been strongly endorsed by National leaders whose popularity among Western intellectuals is extremely low. The role of the two drugs in the COVID-19 infection thus deserves an objective analysis solely based on scientific facts. This contribution will attempt to produce it.
上个世纪末，一位杰出的生化学家曾用以下这句话开启了生物能量学领域一个有争议问题的讨论：“说来话长，本不该长，但要言简意赅却又耗时良久”。说来也巧，这样的表述完全适用于氯喹（CQ）和羟氯喹（HCQ）在 COVID-19 感染中的故事：这已经成为一个名副其实的传奇，其中的观点相互矛盾，往往超出了正常的科学辩论范围，而结论也常常受到非科学观点的污染：例如，当国家机构对 CQ 和 HCQ 采取立场时，这一举措被视为一种支持疫苗的尝试，试图阻止低成本的治疗手段。人们很难避免这样一种感觉，即对 CQ 和 HCQ 的反对在很大程度上不是基于科学论据，而是因为它们的使用得到了国家领导人的强烈支持，而这些领导人在西方知识分子中的受欢迎程度极低。因此，这两种药物在 COVID-19 感染中的作用值得仅基于科学事实进行客观分析。本文将尝试对此进行分析。
