FDA Issues Limited Emergency Use For Two Drugs Used To Treat Malaria (cnn.com) 151
knorthern knight shares a report from CNN: The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has issued an emergency use authorization for chloroquine and hydroxychloroquine to treat patients hospitalized with COVID-19. [...] Do the drugs work? In its statement, HHS said: "Anecdotal reports suggest that these drugs may offer some benefit in the treatment of hospitalized COVID-19 patients. The safety profile of these drugs has only been studied for FDA approved indications, not COVID-19." The authorization is limited to patients who are currently hospitalized and weigh at least 50kg, or about 110 pounds. Under the emergency use authorization, health care providers must contact their local or state health department to access the drugs. "It would take several months of clinical trials to gauge its effectiveness, but we don't have the luxury of time," adds Slashdot reader knorthern knight. "We do know that it helps some COVID-19 patients, and has been in use for many years to treat malaria and other diseases. So it's not poisonous (and no, don't confuse it with fish tank cleaner)."
Does this override the asshole governors (Score:2, Insightful)
that passed local state orders saying NO, you can't use it to save lives?
Read the very next sentence. (And tbe actual order (Score:5, Informative)
Resd the very next sentence in the document you quoted from, which is the request from the state board of pharmacy. The sentence starting with "the provisions of this emergency regulation do not apply".
The second page of the PDF is the actual regulation.
Just to make sure that someone such as yourself couldn't possibly be confused about, the regulation repeats the point twice:
-- ....
May not be prescribed to an outpatient
This regulation does not apply to inpatient
--
The document says it at least three times, in two pages.
I'm not sure why you'd link the document to "prove" that it doesn't say what it actually says three times over. Did.you forget to at least glance at it yourself?
ICD-10-CM code U07.1 (Score:2)
Covid-19 is ICD-10-CM code U07.1.
This according to the people who make the ICD-10 codes.
I always wonder why people completely make shit up, just completely out of their ass, and then post it as if it were fact.
Re: (Score:2)
> I looked at those codes and it wasn't there.
Well then I take that back. I had Googled "ICD-10 covid" and it popped right up.
The code was created by WHO, the organization that maintains the codes, by March 18th. I don't know how much earlier, but by March 18th.
https://www.aha.org/news/headl... [aha.org]
Today, the US government announced that they aren't waiting until the annual update to make it official for federal use in the US. Previously, they had said that U07.1 would become official for US government use
Re: (Score:2)
Note that ***THE VERY NEXT SENTENCE*** in the original order you point to also says "The provisions of this emergency regulation do not apply to a chart order for an inpatient in an institutional setting...". I read that to mean "in a hospital". I have no problems with requiring a doctor's prescription, either. It's in short supply and is strong stuff. Just because someone commits suicide by swallowing a bottle of aspirin doesn't mean we ban aspirin. It looks like the same MSM that screwed up on the Covingt
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Nobody will OD on either drug if they are prescribed and provided to people in ICU beds. Not unless the physicians involved are completely incompetent. As for availability:
https://atlantajewishtimes.tim... [timesofisrael.com]
Re: (Score:2)
ODing on these drugs, and depriving those of legit use
It would be difficult to OD on quinine.
The most common "legit use" is making tonic water. Did you ever have a gin and tonic? You drank quinine.
Saving lives takes precedence over cocktails. Have a martini instead.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
That was the whole purpose of the New Coke fiasco, since the most expensive part of the whole drink was removing the cocaine from the coca leaf. When that attempt so deservedly crashed and burned they restored **a portion** of the coca leaf extract to regular Coke. They never put it back in Diet Coke though, and over the years they've gradually reduced the amount of coca in regular Coke to the point where today all the coca leaves used in all of the Coca Cola sold in the US is produced on one small island
Re: (Score:2)
Got any sources on that? New Coke was all about getting away from using real sugar, which was much more expensive because of tariffs. Back when they switched, about six months later I was at a car repair place, and they bought a lot of sodas at a time for customers. I popped one open, started drinking it, *THEN* I noticed the taste, looked at the can and realized it was an old Coke. In the end I gave up even on Coke Classic because it was still all about the sweetener, and I found that I liked aspartame muc
Re: (Score:2)
Sources would have been my mom's cousin who ran the Coca Cola distributors for the northern 2/3 of Michigan at the time, and later my brother-in-law who worked for Coca Cola in Peru in the '80s-'90s.
Looks like they've abandoned the Hawaii plantation and are back to importing coca leaves from Peru again.
Re: (Score:2)
So do I believe an anonymous coward or the FDA. Such a tough decision.
Re: (Score:2)
https://nypost.com/2020/03/24/... [nypost.com]
Re: (Score:2)
https://news.yahoo.com/michiga... [yahoo.com]
Could it work? (Score:5, Informative)
https://www.livescience.com/ch... [livescience.com]ne-coronavirus-treatment.html
In February, a research group led by virologist Manli Wang of the Chinese Academy of Sciences put the idea to the test and found that chloroquine successfully stopped the spread of SARS-CoV-2 in cultured human cells. Preliminary reports from China, South Korea and France suggest that the treatment is at least somewhat effective in treating human patients, and some hospitals in the U.S. have begun administering the drug, according to The New York Times. In addition, the FDA is organizing a large clinical trial to formally assess the drug's effects, the Times reported.
However, due to a short supply of chloroquine in China, and the fact that an overdose can lead to acute poisoning or death in humans, Wang's team also investigated the closely related drug hydroxychloroquine. Though it shares a similar structure, hydroxychloroquine shows lower toxicity in animals than its chemical cousin and remains widely available as a treatment for lupus and rheumatoid arthritis, the authors noted.
Wang's team tested hydroxychloroquine in primate cells and found that, like chloroquine, the drug prevented SARS-CoV-2 replication, according to a report published March 18 in the journal Cell Discovery. As of Feb. 23, seven clinical trials had been registered in the Chinese Clinical Trial Registry to test the drug's effectiveness against COVID-19 infection, the authors noted.
In the U.S., the University of Minnesota is studying whether taking hydroxychloroquine can protect people living with infected COVID-19 patients from catching the virus themselves, according to the Times.
Both chloroquine and hydroxychloroquine have been in short supply since earlier this month, according to the American Society of Health-System Pharmacists. But on March 19, the pharmaceutical company Bayer donated 3 million tablets to the federal government, and Novartis, Mylan and Teva are moving to follow suit, according to FiercePharma.
Although we won't know the results of these trials for some time, the advantage of trying out chloroquine and hydroxychloroquine as COVID-19 treatments is that the drugs' safety profiles are well understood, Horovitz said. Both drugs are generally well tolerated at prescribed doses but can cause stomach pain, nausea, vomiting, headache and more rarely, itchiness, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). When taken in high doses over many years, the drugs can cause a rare eye condition known as retinopathy.
Both medications can interact with other drugs and doses should be adjusted to account for drug interactions. Those with psoriasis should not take either drug, the CDC notes. In their current form, the drugs are also not safe for those with heart arrhythmia, or those with impaired kidneys or liver, the Times reported.
Assuming the drugs are well tolerated in clinical trials and seem effective at treating COVID-19, the FDA will take measures to increase the nation's supply, according to Hahn.
"If clinical data suggests this product may be promising in treating COVID-19, we know there will be increased demand for it," Hahn said in the FDA statement. "We will take all steps to ensure chloroquine remains available for patients who take it to treat severe and life-threatening illnesses such as lupus."
Re:Could it work? (Score:5, Informative)
The right link https://www.livescience.com/ch... [livescience.com]
Re: (Score:2)
The right link https://www.livescience.com/ch... [livescience.com]
And the French medical report [mediterran...ection.com] on the use of chloroquine.
Re: (Score:2)
Oh, great, these drugs shouldn't be taken by those with psoriasis or heart arythmias. I have both. If it's going to do any good, it's going to have to drive the existence of the damned virus down to zero in everyone around me so's there's no one I can catch it from.
If anything can go wrong, it will.
Re:Could it work? (Score:5, Informative)
> arythmias
mostly a concern if you have QT-interval prolongation.
Also, possibly still better odds in an ICU (vs. outpatient).
Re: (Score:3)
Making millions of doses (Score:3)
The US is indeed making millions of doses.
Some of the companies operate in more than one country, so I suppose the more accurate and long-winded statement is:
The drug companies which supply US medications are making millions of doses.
They also have the ability to make huge amounts as needed based on the results of the tests / studies. They don't have to produce 300 million now in case they are needed six weeks from now.
Re:Could it work? (Score:5, Interesting)
What - why the delay - why the deaths?.
The delay is political and has absolutely nothing to do with Coronavirus. I already wrote on this on my blog a few days ago: https://www.fagain.co.uk/node/... [fagain.co.uk]
Similarly, some of the pushing of the therapies is also political.
The dear French Doctor who has published the French research has at one point a few years ago made pronouncements about Global Warming being bullshit. From there on, we now have the Trumpinator and everyone like him pushing it to extent which is not merited by its merits and a similar push on the opposite side because a scientist should always join the mandatory prayers each Friday and orient himself in the direction of Stockholm and start by "Vai Greta, massssha Greta".
F*cking french pox on both of their houses.
Things have also moved on since I posted the detailed write-up on the tug of war on this my blog. The Russians have published the actual protocol they use and for now their mortality rate is under 0.4 (better than Korea). They treat the later stage of the disease as an autoimmune condition, the patient immediately gets an injection of anti-histamine which is usually used for anaphylaxis and the ventilator cases also get a combined treatment of the antimalarial drug with 2nd line cephalosporin antibiotics to compensate for the immunosuppression effects of the drug.
Re: (Score:2)
Did you actually call the Russian government illegitimate? Why? Just because the Democrats don't like him? Sorry, but **WE** don't get to chose who **THEY** pick to govern them. Putin may be a corrupt, violent asshole but he's the most popular ruler the country has ever had in 1500 years of history. There are a lot of people in the country who remember life under his US-approved predecessor, they have no intention of going back to that misery. The country may be run by kleptocrats now but at least the
Re: (Score:2)
Did you really end your post citing statistics from the illegitimate Russian government
Probably more legitimate than a government chosen using a medieval system where the winner lost by 3M votes. We may not like the fact, but it is a fact, Putin's public approval rating guarantees that he wins by a mile. Most of our politicians will kill for a rating at that level. In fact, I can think of only a couple Eu politicians and no US politician with this approval.
On a more serious note. Their stats are octuply verified. Every single European newswire and most US ones has someone sitting in front o
Re: (Score:2)
Most of our politicians will kill for a rating at that level.
We know Putin has.
Re: (Score:2)
And the alleged administration's culture accelerated the propagation of the coronavirus in the U.S.
Is there enough? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Is there enough? (Score:4, Informative)
Or shit like this. [buzzfeednews.com]
Re: (Score:3)
That is both insane and completely unethical!
The corona virus is going to wreck (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Doctors have been prescribing large doses for themselves and families and hoarding the drug. Several pharmacy chains have started to refuse to fill prescriptions for it written by doctors for their relatives
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The Google-fu is weak in this one.
https://science.slashdot.org/s... [slashdot.org]
Re:Is there enough? (Score:5, Funny)
http://i.imgur.com/PeIRKEg.png [imgur.com]
Re:Is there enough? (Score:4, Informative)
Lupus patients. At least in the USA, that's what it is used for.
Although described as "used to treat Malaria", I think that usage is limited no, due to resistance.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Don't want to disappoint the grandkids. [twitter.com]
Re: (Score:2)
I don't think bringing the ability to believe Trump (TDS) should be brought into this.
Re: (Score:2)
TDS obviously presents with two wildly different symptomologies. The first is raging "orange man bad!" at whatever comes out of his mouth, regardless of its merit. The second is the absolutely shocking ability to believe he is remotely honest, and tell the world so.
Both symptomologies are indicative of a massive problem with the critical thinking ability of the afflicted.
We don't know it's helpful for some (Score:5, Informative)
The only study that's actually been done properly found it didn't help and the side effects were pretty bad for 4 of the 32 participants (liver function worsened and diarhhea) and one's condition got worse.
I'm all for the trials but frankly this medicine is used by a lot of people who suffer from auto immune diseases like lupus and RA, and we're already suffering shortages because of asshole and doctors who've been hoarding it. The way NY is handling it is probably the best way to approach it. There are countries that have even banned export of HC because they need it to fight malaria and other viruses.
Re: (Score:3)
I think the medication is only dosed for 4-6 days. Side effects largely include vivid dreams/nightmares, sensitivity to sunlight etc in the short term.
Long term side effects don't kick in until at least 4 weeks, generally starting around month 6
Dosage for covid19 would be maximum 21 days, likely 7 days
Re: (Score:3)
Read the reports more carefully please. The UK did not ban export to treat malaria (it's not even endemic to the UK), they did it to preserve supplies to treat domestic cases of COVID-19. The french study was on confirmed cases of COVID-19.
Chloroquine is often prescribed as prophylaxis for people who will travel where malaria is endemic and has been for decades.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
And yes you're right, the French study did have COVID-19, but the CDC and several other organizations have seriously methodological issues with the study and say it didn't assess clinical benefit. And once again the chinese study didn't show anything either.
There's a good reason to be skeptical of its use outside of small, limited trials and there's damn good reasons not to prevent people with chronic illnesses from getti
Re: (Score:2)
The UK also restricted the export of chloroquine because they intend to use it to treat COVID-19.
As for the French study, they didn't have a formal control group but they did have the baseline of previous patients that had not been treated to compare to.
This is a great time to work from informal field studies, it's not like we're dealing with drugs never before used in humans. It's also a good time to ramp up production so people already on it can continue to get it.
Re: (Score:2)
The UK also restricted the export of chloroquine because they intend to use it to treat COVID-19.
That's supposition.
The same order banning the export of chloroquine also bans the export of the chemical NaCl.
I'm not sure that's been suggested yet as a cure for Coronavirus.
Re: (Score:2)
And once again the chinese study didn't show anything either.
The Chinese study found no benefit over "standard treatment", but "standard treatment" in their study included other antiviral drugs. And all of the patients in the Chinese study (both the control group and non-control group) recovered so I'm not sure how you are drawing the conclusion that it definitely doesn't work from that study. The most you can say is that it doesn't work better than other antiviral drugs.
Can't even say that (Score:2)
If all of the patients recovered, you can't even conclude that this medication isn't better than X. To make that conclusion, you'd need to have enough patients that a statistically significant number didn't recover. Then you could compare the statistically significant numbers.
What can be said from a study where every patient recovers is simply that:
Some patients got this medication and all of the patients recovered.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Malaria is actually responsible for the gin and tonic. The tonic had quinine in it and British officers added gin to make it palatable (or at least that was the excuse).
Second French study (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
That's just unpossible, he could never have said that. It's just Fake News, a conspiracy by the Deep State! /s
Re: (Score:3)
A trial in China is reported here (not yet peer reviewed): https://www.medrxiv.org/conten... [medrxiv.org]. 31 patients in each of the treatment group and the control group. It reports a significantly improved time to clinical recovery; 4 patients in the control group progressed to "severe" illness, none in the treatment group. It wasn't a silver bullet, but at least in that trial it seemed to help.
Re: (Score:2)
I believe there was also a report out of China, but then no one rational believes anything out of China.
Re: (Score:2)
No evidence HCQ or CQ works for COVID-19 (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Optic neuritis only happens with long term use for lupus or RA.
Of course, if you end up with severe COVID-19, it is your right to refuse chloroquine if you're that worried about it.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, we should completely ignore reports by actual doctors in the field of this working and wait a year for the clinical trial to finish. After all, these doctors didn't do a double blind randomized placebo controlled trial with a +100 N, how could they possible know whether it works or not? It's just too dangerous to let those gasping for their last breath take this drug for 10 days. We should give it to them after the trial is complete sometime in June 2021.
Probably slightly better than Liquid Silver Sol (Score:2)
or just prayer.
If there are adverse side effects, like umm death from Malaria drugs, maybe save them for the most impacted?
The main problem here (Score:5, Interesting)
Is that the combination of Hydroxychloroquine and Azithromycin is more of a prophylaxis than a cure. It gets rid of the disease before it has a chance to take hold. With the new fast tests available, these drugs (don't forget the Azithromycin to knock out the secondary infections before they overrun the immune system) should be prescribed at the first sign of developing COVID infection. They seem to knock things out right quick.
The thing is, once you're in the hospital having trouble breathing it's about 50/50 that you're as good as dead regardless of what you take. Hence the panic about ventilators. Wouldn't it be better to not need the ventilators at all? Why wait until someone is hospitalized when they can be cured early and greatly increase their chance of survival?
It seems like such a no-brainer that I am confused why everyone is so against it. The malaria drug is well tolerated, it's commonly used as a prophylactic before international travel to countries where it is uncontrolled (it only causes the bad side effects after long-term use such as for Lupus or RA at high dosages), and the other drug is a well known safe antibiotic. Even if it only has a 50% chance of knocking out the infection? Wouldn't it be worth it?
Re: The main problem here (Score:3)
They're against it because Trump said something positive about it. Think about that for a minute. Mainstream news was even crowing about someone dying from Trump's recommended treatment even though the guy drank fish tank cleaner. It is sickening that people have to be automatically against anything Trump says.
Re: (Score:2)
They're against it because Trump said something positive about it. Think about that for a minute. Mainstream news was even crowing about someone dying from Trump's recommended treatment even though the guy drank fish tank cleaner. It is sickening that people have to be automatically against anything Trump says.
Yep, it is sickening.
The impulse to hate and blame is strong. Even, perhaps especially, at a time like this.
Re: (Score:2)
Not enough supply
Current patients have been denied refills
Not enough tests available to get a diagnosis early enough to have any effect
Bad side effects
This is like going to the doctor for a cold of flu and getting antibiotics. For each patient it might be a case of "it can't hurt, might even help" but over time that causes more problems. If the facts change the guidance should change. But we do not need to be redirecting supply from existing patients when it may or may not help.
Re: (Score:2)
Wouldn't it be better to not need the ventilators at all? Why wait until someone is hospitalized when they can be cured early and greatly increase their chance of survival?
It seems like such a no-brainer that I am confused why everyone is so against it.
Two reasons:
1. Hard to monetize an old drug.
2. A certain someone said that this could be a game changer, so therefore it can't be allowed to be true.
Re: (Score:2)
It is a shame so far they mostly seem to be using this only for the worst cases, because they would probably find better success in treating the people with an early diagnosis.
Maybe true but these drugs have side effects, and their efficiency is not yet certain.
And the last thing we want is to harm people who would have fully recovered otherwise. A treatment that has a 1% chance of killing you is obviously unacceptable if you have a 0.5% chance of dying from the disease it treats, but that same treatment would be acceptable if that disease had a 50% chance of killing you. These are completely made up numbers, just to illustrate.
That's also the reason why we are extremely careful
No, we do _not_ know that it helps (Score:5, Insightful)
The history of medical research is full of cases where the researchers are kidding themselves, misinterpreting observations and overemphasizing seemingly positive effects while ignoring negative ones. That is the very reason why double-blind studies are the gold-standard and even these are not perfect. Anything less does not do it at all. The only thing we know at this time is that these substances seem to not have a high probability to make things worse. We do _not_ know anything else.
For all we know, the actual effects could still be somewhat negative and there could well be a placebo-effect at work that would be stronger with an actual placebo.
Re: (Score:3)
I think this is the most measured response I've read so far. There are a lot of people discounting this treatment completely, and I don't think that's the correct response. But I also don't think that unwavering optimism is appropriate, either. Suspending belief is the most difficult thing to do, especially when lives are at stake (and, on a forum like this, where opinions are voiced). But suspending belief is the only appropriate course of action while further testing is conducted.
I'm all for COVID-19 pati
Re: (Score:2)
I also don't think that unwavering optimism is appropriate, either.
This is simple. Let's say your doctor tells you have have a 1.5% chance of dying. Let's say that your doctor says that the numbers for the meds are 699 cases, no deaths, no intubations. What is your choice? It isn't unwavering optimism, you are wildly confused. It's the opportunity to not die. It literally is that simple. Sure, you might die, but the stats are right now, that unless you doctor is an idiot an prescribes aquarium cleaner, you won't die. Sure, we'd love a 1M person study, double blind,
Re: (Score:2)
This is simple. Let's say your doctor tells you have have a 1.5% chance of dying. Let's say that your doctor says that the numbers for the meds are 699 cases, no deaths, no intubations.
If your doctor tells you that at this time, then said doctor is unethical to a level that should have this quack immediately stripped of the license to practice medicine.
Bad medical "facts" are an extreme killer. Not only directly, but also indirectly because they prevent looking for real solutions. The standard of "double blind" is not a luxury. It is a dire necessity born out of an immeasurable amount of pain, suffering and death that lesser approaches have created and the current situation is very much n
Re: (Score:3)
Let's say that your doctor says that the numbers for the meds are 699 cases, no deaths, no intubations.
First, I don't know where you got that number, but I would certainly still have questions. Were these 699 cases people who were relatively healthy? Basically, were these people given the drug because they seemed to be the type that wouldn't be greatly affected by adverse side effects? These are the same people who are most likely to withstand the virus. That's the concern here. When you have numbers that are detached from a transparent methodology, I don't know if those numbers mean anything.
The "YOU" argum
Re: (Score:3)
Well said. Also, doctors have a tendency to become irrational when their patient's lives are at stake. Speaks well for them as people, but makes them abysmally bad researchers. This is one of the reasons why double-blind studies are never designed or evaluated by the doctors doing them.
Getting to the truth is generally hard. It becomes a lot harder when your own life or the life of somebody you care about is at stake. Double-blind studies are the only tool that still work reasonably well under these circums
Re: (Score:2)
I think this is the most measured response I've read so far.
Thank you.
Re: (Score:2)
All I know is that there is a shortage as doctors are writing scrips for it for themselves and their friends and families. Maybe it doesnt work but it cant do harm. its an old drug used for 60 years and is dirt cheap as a generic.
The only harm it may do is to the stock of all the companies working on an anti, viral, vaccines, ventilators and home delivery if taking a 3 day course of a 5 dollar pill is all you have to do to beat SARS2
I'll take the silver standard, that's what we have (Score:2)
> double-blind studies are the gold-standard
Yes, that's true. It'll be great when we have long-term studies on thousands of patients, carefully controlled.
It is error to think that the best proof possible is the only thing of any value, that anything other than "the gold standard" is worthless.
Every day you see people that you recognize, and you interact with them appropriately - without performing a DNA test to confirm their identity. You *might* be talking to their identical twin. Your alarm clock mi
Re: (Score:2)
Your car and clock are designed for those purposes. Antibiotics and anti parasite meds are not designed to be antiviral. And you say "probably" in terms of their effectiveness when nothing backs you up. Poorly done studies are not evidence.
If we go with these, I'd expect large scale documentation on each patient. How soon the treatment started, severity, and success. Report the numbers. A large scale formal study. Not the "prescribe if if you want" free for all that seems to be happening.
Re: (Score:2)
It is error to think that the best proof possible is the only thing of any value, that anything other than "the gold standard" is worthless.
That's not the problem, though. The problem is this: does the evidence justify prioritizing choroquine over other promising treatements?
How did chloroquine suddenly become the centerpiece of US government efforts? It was a hot tip from Larry Ellison (yes, *that* Larry Ellison) to Donald Trump on a phone call. It's getting a lot of buzz in tech billionaire circles. But I'm not so sure I want tech billionaires in the driver's seat on this.
They may be right on this one. But if they're wrong they'll have a
Re: (Score:2)
That's not the problem, though. The problem is this: does the evidence justify prioritizing choroquine over other promising treatements?
Indeed.
How did chloroquine suddenly become the centerpiece of US government efforts? It was a hot tip from Larry Ellison (yes, *that* Larry Ellison) to Donald Trump on a phone call. It's getting a lot of buzz in tech billionaire circles. But I'm not so sure I want tech billionaires in the driver's seat on this.
They may be right on this one. But if they're wrong they'll have a lot to answer for.
You mean that Trump that is unable to understand what is happening and at the same time desperate to appear to be in control? That Trump that wishes for nothing more to be able to present a miracle cure as his great plan, but that at the same time does not even have a basic understanding how medicine works? That trump that already has a very high body-count that will continue to grow because he first tried to ignore the problem and then tried to claim it was not serious? That one?
Re: (Score:2)
Several medications should be studied - and they are being studied.
If I were very sick, I'd rather get ANY of the medications being studied than get nothing, because for each there is a reasonable likelihood that they will work.
Re which should be studied MOST -
it seems to me that's a function of the likelihood they will work and the ability to produce them quickly and in large quantities. A medication that works great but costs a billion dollars per person is no good - we don't have a billion dollars per p
Re: (Score:2)
I hope it works too. But raising public hopes and expectations for just one drug is a bad idea. That can undermine supplies before it is even proven. And we should fast track what *experts* think are the most promising drugs, not what some political donor has heard is going to be a silver bullet.
Re: (Score:2)
You are wrong. The "gold standard" is the _minimal_ standard needed to get meaningful reliable results. All else is known to produce faulty, often extremely faulty results. Other approaches are not worthless, they can produce ideas as to where to look. They _cannot_ verify those ideas. These ideas are very valuable, but most do not pan out and any competent medical researcher understands that. Do you think anybody would do expensive double-blind studies if there was some other, simpler approach that actua
Re: (Score:2)
> Do you think anybody would do expensive double-blind studies if there was some other, simpler approach that actually worked? Certainly not.
They don't do the expensive studies on random substances. They actually do the expensive studies to.prove it AFTER they do less expensive and less reliable experiments to find out which will *probably* work.
Again, you're confusing "the best possible proof" with "reasonable evidence". Both concepts exist.
When a guy walks into a bank wearing a ski mask in the summer
Re: (Score:2)
Have you understood anything I wrote? Have you looked at medical history and its countless, often severe failures because people thought things looked reasonable when they did not? Apparently not. This is not an issue for debate. This is a settled issue. You are just ignorant of the known facts.
Re: (Score:2)
It's been widely used since the 1940s, including for long-term use. Many studies have been done proving the safety even for long-term use, much less short-term as applies here. So this is NOT a case where a new study this year is going to show that there were dangers that aren't immediately obvious. Those have been most of the big screw ups.
Either people recover at a higher rate with this medication or they don't. It's really not that hard to get fairly strong evidence for or against that either way.
Re: (Score:2)
Either people recover at a higher rate with this medication or they don't. It's really not that hard to get fairly strong evidence for or against that either way.
It is. You really do not know what you are talking about.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, I think we both expressed our thoughts and at this point we're just repeating ourselves. Thanks for the conversation and stay safe.
Re: (Score:2)
A thought just occurred to me.
The experiments done so far are of absolutely zero value, right?
There is no reason at all to think hydroxychloroquine is a good medication for covid 19, if I'm understanding you right. No evidence.
With over 25,000 different medications in use for different things, for a layman to pick the one that just randomly ends up being effective, he'd have to be psychic or something, right?
Given that there is NO REASON to think hydroxychloroquine + azithromycin will be proven effective,
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Well gee, if the placebo effect is helping save lives....more power to it. Right?
Chasing will-o-the-wisps (Score:2)
If you squint hard enough, you can see patterns in the noise. Especially if you want to believe. Hopefully this is legit. But I totally get how tricky identifying cause and effect in a system as complex as the human body can be. Imagine a massive complex legacy system for which there is no source code, only core dumps and input-output tests. Hopefully this isn't a will-o-the-wisp [wikipedia.org]. Time will tell. I expect there will be a few before this thing is brought under control.
Should never have been politicized (Score:2)
Unfortunately, some people's case of TDS has interfered with their rationality. If
Not poisonous? (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Wow, dis Zelenko guy seems like a real scientist, and hawking a miracle drug. Where do I send me money?
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Considering one of the "severe symptoms" is death, I'd be biased to accept what I can get.
Re: (Score:2)
Zinc has already been shown to interfere with the spread of coronaviruses if dosage is above ~80mg/day. Combining this with other drugs that might also interfere with Covid-19's infection mechanism may work as an anti-viral to reduce symptoms and shorten infections.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
El Falso! They simply said it's highly experimental and too early to call it a miracle drug.
Maybe if T hypes 20 experiments and one turns out right, he'll dance around brag about what a stable genius he is. There's a horse-racing scam that works kind of like that. You claim you can predict the winner to thousands of callees, and a few will hear two correct guesses in a row, so they think you ha
Re: (Score:2)
Trump was babbling on about studies he didn't understand. Pelosi is equally ignorant. The media talking heads that lambasted Trump are also generally ignorant. What do you expect when you have idiots yelling at one another?