That is incorrect. The AMA has not changed its stance on hydro chloroquine. The resolution was never adopted. This is a fiction of right wing media.
Brad is right. The document I was looking at was the resolution that was not approved at meeting a couple of weeks later.
However some interesting points I have cut and pasted from a much longer summary from the Medspage today web page :
Desttheevidencethat has shown that hydroxychloroquine and chloroquine aren't effective for patients with COVID-19, a frustrated group of physicians are urging the American Medical Association (AMA) to rescind itsMarch statementthat discouraged physicians from prescribing the unproven drug for that purpose, even as an early-stage treatment.
This
resolution, led by Atlanta rheumatologist John Goldman, MD, an alternate delegate representing the Medical Association of Georgia, was considered at the
AMA Special Meeting of its House of Delegates. He said the March statement, issued jointly by the AMA and two pharmacists' organizations, was hurting physicians' ability to help patients infected.
The AMA shouldn't make statements that interfere with what a physician thinks is best for his or her patients, Goldman and several of his supporters said.
"The combination, if used early, is effective, safe and not expensive, and I've had it work in my patients," Goldman told members of an AMA reference committee on science and public health. "But I've had problems getting hydroxychloroquine because pharmacies refuse to dispense it."
He also has been faced with having to fill out pharmacy prior authorization approval requests "for any use of it" because "the AMA said it was inappropriate to prescribe it and joined the pharmacists against us."
"Believe me, if you get COVID-19, no matter what is said, you will want the combination of a therapy early," he said.
Goldman acknowledged that the data do not show HCQ's benefit for COVID patients in the hospital, nor is there evidence that it prevents infection, but he believes the drug or drug combinations may work very early during the course of the disease.
But Goldman's proposal was met with fierce opposition during much of the hour devoted to discussing it.
Not all doctors wanted to toss Goldman's resolution. A few said that the AMA had no business telling doctors what they should or shouldn't prescribe.
Robert Frankel, MD, a cardiologist representing the Medical Society of the State of New York, spoke as an individual. He said the AMA's March statement discouraging doctors from prescribing HCQ was "an extremely slippery slope" -- one that undermines the doctor-patient relationship and the ability to prescribe what he or she believes is best for the patient.
"All of us have used FDA-approved drugs and devices in off-label conditions for the benefit of our patients," he said. He added that physicians have had just 6 or 7 months of experience using the drug for COVID patients, and noted that researchers have rushed to publish those articles, only to retract them later. The FDA also has given emergency use authorization for certain therapies believed to be effective, which were then revoked a few months later.
"We have not exhausted the possibilities of this drug in various different populations and subpopulations for the AMA to determine what is -- quote-unquote -- appropriate," Frankel said. "For the AMA to single out this drug was clearly political and inappropriate and I speak strongly in support of this resolution."
Several speakers suggested that the support for the proposed legislation and/or the opposition to it was influenced by politics, not science".
The last sentence is a common complaint. There seem to be plenty of Dr's who have used HCQ with good results. In the absence of any other options so far and considering it has been used for 60 years. If Dr Frankel was your Dr and you were in an ICU I guess it would be up to you if listen to him.
