From the April 3, 2020, edition of Fox News' Hannity

SEAN HANNITY (HOST): All right. The president earlier today talking about hydroxychloroquine and those studies. The mob and the media, well, the ones who have beaten the crap out of me for daring to discuss any possible treatment, oh yeah now they are backtracking very quickly because after initially mocking the president and anyone who talked about it for suggesting, hey, there's some evidence here, anti-malarial drug, journalists are now acknowledging, oh, it might be able to treat coronavirus.

Here now, the host of -- well, what is a must watch TV, Dr. Oz is with us.

You know, there was a 2005 study, SARS was very similar. SARS was a coronavirus. 2005, that showed promising results.

Two questions and I'm just going to hand this off to you.

DR. MEHMET OZ: Yes.

HANNITY: One is --

OZ: Right.

HANNITY: -- people are scared tonight, talk about what the real chances of death are for example and talk about what we know about hydroxychloroquine, sir.

OZ: Let's talk about the medications first because they were two really good ideas that are out there, one just approved by the FDA for widespread use which is convalescent plasma which you touched on earlier, and the other is this hydroxychloroquine. And the interesting thing about hydroxychloroquine as it's been around for a while, it's an old malaria drug, so it's been studied a lot.

And they used it right after the SARS epidemic hit in 2002, and in cell cultures, primate cultures, fairly sophisticated studies, it seemed to inhibit the ability of the virus to enter cells. It seems to change the hospitality of the cell to the virus and it also probably changes the immune response to the virus once it's in a cell. All that excitement never resulted in much because the SARS went away.

But now, it's been used in several different settings. I spoke to Didier Raoult, the well-respected French physician who did some of that early work that alerted a lot of us to this reality. And he's up to a thousand patients now in Marseilles. He's an outspoken gentleman and he's going to talk to me next week when he pulls the data together, but he thinks it is sort of heading in the right direction.

But that's not a controlled study. This week when the controlled study came out, I thought there'd be a sort of an embrace of it because in only 62 patients they had statistically significant improvement with less fever, less coughing and improvement, significant improvement in pneumonia, all again statistically significant.

It sort of slipped away and I think we need a little humbleness here. Medicine advances mistake by mistake.