'No Clear Evidence' Hydroxychloroquine Works Against COVID-19 (washingtonpost.com) 548
This week the Washington Post asked their "business of health care" reporter to explain the true status in the scientific community of hydroxychloroquine, an already-approved malaria drug also used to control inflammation in lupus and rheumatoid arthritis patients.
"There is no clear evidence that the drugs work against the coronavirus," he writes, "despite their use by hospitals and doctors in the United States and other countries since the outbreak began." Their antiviral properties have been proved in test tubes, but rigorous clinical trials to test their effectiveness in humans have not been completed. Limited studies on coronavirus patients have been published by researchers in France and China, but their extremely small size and other problems prevented them from being statistically significant. The French study included a combination of hydroxychloroquine with the antibiotic azithromycin that showed benefit in six patients... Another study in 11 patients in France showed no evidence the regimen works. A Chinese study also showed no benefit over the standard course of treatment.
Mainstream scientists caution against using the drugs without more evidence they are effective... The dangerous side effects of the drugs are much better known. Most seriously, the drugs can trigger arrhythmia, which can lead to a fatal heart attack in patients with cardiovascular disease or who are taking certain drugs, including anti-depression medications. Doctors recommend screening with an electrocardiogram to prevent the drug from being given to the 1 percent of patients at the greatest risk of a cardiac event. The drugs also can cause vision loss called retinopathy with long-term use, and chloroquine has been associated with psychosis...
As the coronavirus has spread from China across the world and to the United States, the dire reality is that there is no vaccine and no approved drug available to treat the serious respiratory symptoms that are claiming thousand of lives.
Long-time Slashdot reader UnknowingFool shares doubts raised about that small French study, as even its publisher now acknowledges it "does not meet" their own expected standards.
The Post does note that multiple trials are "ongoing" (though six different research centers testing the drug told CNN it would be "months" before results were known). But the Post adds that already "public and political interest has caused runs, hoarding and severe shortages in recent weeks."
"There is no clear evidence that the drugs work against the coronavirus," he writes, "despite their use by hospitals and doctors in the United States and other countries since the outbreak began." Their antiviral properties have been proved in test tubes, but rigorous clinical trials to test their effectiveness in humans have not been completed. Limited studies on coronavirus patients have been published by researchers in France and China, but their extremely small size and other problems prevented them from being statistically significant. The French study included a combination of hydroxychloroquine with the antibiotic azithromycin that showed benefit in six patients... Another study in 11 patients in France showed no evidence the regimen works. A Chinese study also showed no benefit over the standard course of treatment.
Mainstream scientists caution against using the drugs without more evidence they are effective... The dangerous side effects of the drugs are much better known. Most seriously, the drugs can trigger arrhythmia, which can lead to a fatal heart attack in patients with cardiovascular disease or who are taking certain drugs, including anti-depression medications. Doctors recommend screening with an electrocardiogram to prevent the drug from being given to the 1 percent of patients at the greatest risk of a cardiac event. The drugs also can cause vision loss called retinopathy with long-term use, and chloroquine has been associated with psychosis...
As the coronavirus has spread from China across the world and to the United States, the dire reality is that there is no vaccine and no approved drug available to treat the serious respiratory symptoms that are claiming thousand of lives.
Long-time Slashdot reader UnknowingFool shares doubts raised about that small French study, as even its publisher now acknowledges it "does not meet" their own expected standards.
The Post does note that multiple trials are "ongoing" (though six different research centers testing the drug told CNN it would be "months" before results were known). But the Post adds that already "public and political interest has caused runs, hoarding and severe shortages in recent weeks."
A possible new solution (Score:2)
Copy pasted from:
https://www.tillett.info/2020/... [tillett.info]
A possible new solution. ...This data suggests a simple and testable hypothesis â" there are natural strains of SARS-CoV-2 in the world that have mutated to be non-pathogenic (asymptomatic or mild), but which are still infective and will provide immunity to the more pathogenic (deadly) strains.
If we can find one of these non-pathogenic viral strains out in the wild we could give it to everyone in the world and solve our diabolic problem. This non-pathog
Re: (Score:2)
Ya, we should read some oik's personal blog site as somehow providing any reliable opinion. Lemme guess, you are Daniel Tillett and you approve of that site.
Re: (Score:2)
There's also this:
https://triblive.com/news/rese... [triblive.com]
(Probably just as effective as hydroxychloroquine but at least you won't have fleas)
panic panic panic do something doctor panic panic (Score:2)
unfortunately, doctors are pressurised to dosomethingforgodsakedosomething [subtext: if you don't, i'll sue you and bring criminal charges against you]. unfortunately, time has shown, from the example of the common cold (where this virus as we know is in the same family), *not* giving people "drugs" is usually the right course of action. sadly, saying to people, "relax, trust, stop worrying, let nature take its course" can sound so patronising it would almost guarantee, in the U.S., a lawsuit. we call vi
Re: (Score:2)
It is a bit worse than that. The alleged president bulldozed the CDC into investigating a hunch from his dyspeptic gut. This is the same diseased organ that theorized there was massive voter fraud in the last presidential election. His own gofer, Kris Kobach from Kansas couldn't even find any and retreated back to Kansas to afflict its suffering people:
https://apnews.com/f5f6a73b2af... [apnews.com]
Washington Post (Score:2, Interesting)
The Washington Post is just trying to play word games to cover their ass. They've been going after Trump hard for saying that hydroxychloroquine shows promise and might work out to be a treatment. That hydroxychloroquine was just Trump promoting nonsense with no evidence. Blaming Trump for the guy that died drinking fish tank cleaner. But now others like France [france24.com] have officially sanctioned it's use in certain cases:
The French government has officially sanctioned prescriptions of chloroquine to treat certain coronavirus patients. Speaking about chloroquine, Jérôme Salomon, France's director general of health, said: "This ensures continued treatment of patients who have been treated for several years for a chronic condition with this drug, but also allows a temporary authorization to allow certain patients with coronavirus to benefit from this therapeutic route."
I wonder, if someone in France kills themselves drinking fish tank-cleaner will WaPo blame Fran
Re:Washington Post (Score:4, Interesting)
But now others like France [france24.com] have officially sanctioned it's use in certain cases:
The French government has officially sanctioned prescriptions of chloroquine
Proving nothing except that the French are also desperate to find something.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
France, and South Korea, and India, and the UK, and all of the other countries who have been using HCQ for a couple of months now (without talking about it too much), and have been getting good-to-great results. They've been holding back, though, since there wasn't enough of a stockpile of the stuff for wide use, and the production lines had to be retooled to make more of it.
One hint was the way so many countries blocked the export of HCQ back in early March, to keep the supplies in-country for their own pe
Re:Washington Post (Score:5, Insightful)
and have been getting good-to-great results.
Citation needed.
Re: (Score:3)
One hint was the way so many countries blocked the export of HCQ back in early March, to keep the supplies in-country for their own people.
That could also just be because it's a drug used for other things. Even worse than a run on toilet paper and hand sanitizer. Would be a run on a medicine used and produced in small quantities, suddenly becoming flavor of the month during a pandemic.
Sometimes it helps, sometimes it doesn't (Score:5, Insightful)
And there are just as many if not more cases where it has done absolutely nothing.
So it is neither the miracle drug that Trump has proclaimed it is nor is it just quackery. It's a YMMV drug.
It may be that it only works when the Covid-19 disease is at a certain stage. Or it may be that people that have (or do not have) certain genetic markers that make them respond to it. It might be affected by certain pre-existing comorbidities.
There have simply been too many documented cases where it has had a mitigating effect to say that there's no benefit to it. We don't know how, or under what conditions it helps, but sometimes it has.
We simply don't understand it yet. It's like the Corona virus itself in that way. Why are some people (the majority) who get it minimally affected, while others become gravely ill, and die from it?
We shouldn't dismiss it or embrace it wholeheartedly, either. We should study it, as we are, but I can understand why people in the middle of a pandemic want to rush to embrace something that's worked at least some of the time.
Re:Sometimes it helps, sometimes it doesn't (Score:5, Insightful)
From what I've read about this, and I've read a lot, there are numerous documented cases where it (paired with zinc or other treatments) has absolutely been a successful treatment.
You mean, there are numerous documented cases where someone has taken it and then gotten better.
It could, however, be that they would have gotten better without the treatment. Most people get better from coronavirus, after all. It could be that this treatment does not change the survival rate, or even makes survival rates worse. That is why scientists run actual controlled scientific experiments, to figure out what actually helps, rather than relying on a few meaningless anecdotes.
Re: (Score:3)
That is why scientists run actual controlled scientific experiments, to figure out what actually helps, rather than relying on a few meaningless anecdotes.
But science is slow, and in some cases the patient may only have days to live. The patient ought to have the right to decide to accept the risk that it may do more harm than good (of course, without being denied access to all known information).
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
That may be. But that isn't science, and certainly isn't the kind of decision making any health agency should dedicate scarce resources to.
I'm trying to figure out why you guys are pumping this bullshit. Are you Russians just trying to fuck over the US? Are you Trump supporters desperate to make him look good? Are you just idiots?
Re: Sometimes it helps, sometimes it doesn't (Score:5, Insightful)
But someone is feeding them the word salads about zinc ions and COVID-19 damaging red blood cells. It's obvious pseudo-scientific nonsense, and yet they repeat it, and they are people smart enough to get mod points on /. (since I got modded to -1 yesterday).
I guess it goes to show you, when you are infected by ideology, it doesn't matter how smart you are, you automatically turn yourself into an idiot. Partisanship is well and truly a mental illness.
Re: (Score:2)
True for ALL meds. So?
Anecdote: my relative was put on hydroxychloroquine for her lupus. She decided she'd rather put up with the lupus symptoms. She's still surviving. And she won't go back onto it again. Even though she lives in NYC.
Re:Sometimes it helps, sometimes it doesn't (Score:5, Insightful)
Doesn't have to be antiviral to work (Score:5, Interesting)
I'm not saying it does work. However, it doesn't have to be an antiviral to actually work. Part of what kills people from COVID-19 is not the virus at all, but your own immune response to the virus. This is a fact. DuckDuckGo it. Lupus is an autoimmune disease. Not a stretch at all that a drug used to treat an autoimmune disease could very well save the lives of COVID-19 patients. There are other similar drugs that may help with COVID-19 as well.
If hydroxychloroquine doesn't work, it won't hurt my feelings. That's how science works. To just throw something out the window that might work because it doesn't make sense to some researchers, that shouldn't be how science works. Also, let's throw it out the windows because it is old and cheap. Nothing like an expensive drug to treat 330 million people with.
Re: (Score:2)
Also, not everyone seems to have this really bad immune response to COVID-19. Thus, a reason why hydroxychloroquine could work really well on some people and not that much on other people.
And yet again, if it doesn't work, my feelings are hurt none. Science shouldn't be about feelings.
Re: (Score:3)
If you aren't having some kind of severe immune response syndrome, taking an immunosuppressant for an acute infection seems ... inadvisable.
Reports are that patients who run higher fevers tend to have better outcomes.
Re:Doesn't have to be antiviral to work (Score:5, Informative)
The go-to drug for suppressing acute inflammation is methylprednisolone. In fact it is so commonly used for such a wide variety of inflammatory conditions that there is unlikely to be a supply problem for treating patients with Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome from COVID-19. It is also used to treat lupus and rheumatoid arthritis.
The reason people use hydroxychloroquine for RA and lupus is that there are severe health downsides to long-term use of methylprednisolone. Hydroxychloroquine is risky in the doses used for RA and lupus too, but methylprednisolone is riskier if used for months or even years on end. Obviously that's not an issue here.
So far the evidence for methylprednisolone treating COVID-19 ARDS looks promising, although as always there are conflicting reports. The only reason we're so focused on hydroxychloroquine rather than steroids and other drugs is politics. Larry Ellison (yes THAT Larry Ellison) put the hydroxychloroquine bug in Trump's ear, and it's been touted as a miracle cure ever since.
Hydroxychloroquine may well turn out to be useful, but if it were a miracle cure we'd know it by now.
Ye olde false dichotomy fallacy.91@ a (Score:4)
This does not say it doesn't work.
NOR does it say it works.
It says what't on the tin: We lack trials.
For either, that is.
So it's ternary, not binary.
Now watch the retards of both camps (camp "blindly believe everything anti-conformist" and camb "blindly believe everything pro-conformist") fight over it anyway. --.--
trash article: no evidence (Score:4, Insightful)
When you read the source article, it just says "there is no evidence." It does not link to the NY trials study. It doesn't even link to some half assed study. It does not even link to some suspect bottom tier doctor who would say anything, just for some fame or money. If I say, "I am a BILLIONAIRE," it does not make it so. Neither does me proclaiming "IT WORKED!" Or, you saying "UH, UH It doesn't work!"
Both science and journalism require facts and respect from this. This article, and sadly, increasingly these forums, use neither.
This is a trash article that is likely written as a political hit piece. People have become so twisted, so sick in the head, that they dump their morals, ignore simple logic, and disown their standards just so long it will make the hobgoblin of Trump lose. If you are at a place in life where you hope that people actually die, just so you can feel smug, you got issues. You are barely human at that point. The world deserves better than you. It needs better than you.
My perspective having taken this drug (Score:4, Informative)
I've been prescribed hydroxychloroquine in the past for an inflammatory problem.
People who take realistic doses of hydroxychloroquine for short periods are unlikely to have serious side effects and complications. The major concerns are all with long-term use. Prominent among these is damage to your retinas [wikipedia.org]; when it was prescribed for me they took detailed scans of my retinas to compare against later in case.
I find it entirely likely that it could have a benefit for some COVID-19 sufferers. It alleviates some inflammatory symptoms and may have mild antiviral effects. Many are killed not by the virus but by an immune response cytokine storm overwhelming the lungs. It's hard to mitigate that without seriously hampering the immune system, and researchers were speculating seven years ago that hydroxychloroquine might potentially be beneficial in dealing with cytokine storms [nih.gov]. At this stage, when we're desperate for any way to help these people, it should be taken seriously rather than dismissed.
Because of the way it tinkers with the immune response, if studies aren't showing benefits, it may well still merit further investigation. We should take seriously the possibility that it is a real help in some cases and harms others, depending on what your body's immune response is already doing, and look for indications that help discriminate between the two.
I also am not at all surprised to see studies tell us that it's not the miracle cure many people have come to expect. Given what I knew about the drug, that never seemed realistic to me.
An MD would take it or refuse it for themselves? (Score:3, Interesting)
It is the most common treatment for Malaria. Some take it as a protection against a severe Malaria infection.
Very common in Africa and South America, and until March/2020 could be had WITHOUT prescription here in Brasil.
It was added to kitchen salt for a while in the Amazon region - like iodine.
Its anti-viral properties are known since H1N1/SARs previous surge, it is not a new thing but no Pharma Lab would sponsor a research with no money to be made
When prescribed by a doctor, according to patient history and status, side-effects are minimized.
Im not a health or medical professional.
Re:One thing is certain (Score:5, Insightful)
My god. Dude, i have breaking news for you: Clinton lost. Four fucking years ago.
At some point you'll need to grow up, move on and stop using her as an excuse for everything.
Re:One thing is certain (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:One thing is certain (Score:5, Insightful)
One thing is certain, there will never be, "proof" that these drugs work until long after they aren't really needed any more. In the mean time, doctors have voted with the Rx pads.
No doctor has said they are not willing to try and clinical trials are beginning. The problem the doctors have is that it has shown no benefit while Trump says the opposite. He is actively undermining them, and he's not the one who has to treat them. He doesn't have to watch them possibly die. He doesn't have to answer questions from their relatives about why they didn't prescribe a miracle drug that possibly could have killed them (HCQ has side effects).
People would die if we waited for the results of a year long double blind study, analysis, and publication.
You do understand trials are ongoing now, right? You also understand that HCQ could be the cause of their death if not done properly, right?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:One thing is certain (Score:4, Interesting)
Doctors can and do prescribe medications for off label uses all the time. The FDA has already approved it for trials and use when doctors and patients agree. [newsweek.com]
You are talking out of your ass
Re:One thing is certain (Score:4, Insightful)
It has also been approved for use by physicians to treat patients.
You missed that part because you didn't bother to open the link. You didn't bother because you are talking out of your ass
Re: (Score:3)
If there are no studies showing that is does work, then there can be no studies "showing" that it doesn't. What's good for the Goose is good for the Gander
Um no. There are studies. They show no or little benefit. That's exactly opposite of what you are saying.
The fact that you feel you can make this statement means you make it without regard to the actual science or facts in the hospitals where Doctors ARE using it, and many many claim successfully. Instead, you make it through the lens of your political viewpoint
Citation needed. Or do you have anecdotal evidence.
Re:One thing is certain (Score:5, Interesting)
That said there is a lot of evidence that it works, unless the patients treated with chloroquine are on average extremely lucky: Taleb analysed the probability that it does not work, and it is unrealistically low [twitter.com]. In Italy mortality dropped a lot, after it started being adopted. Correlation is not causation, but it cannot be dismissed easily in this case.
Re:One thing is certain (Score:5, Interesting)
No Taleb did not "analyse the probability that it does not work". He analysed "the probability that the results were derived by chance". It says so right in the text of the figure in the tweet you linked to.
What the fuck do you think a double-blind RCT is all about? It's about eliminating systemic biases. Systemic biases are not chance -- they are people, consciously or unconsciously, putting their thumb on the scale to get the result they wanted. And his analysis does not -- cannot -- eliminate that possibility, while a whole bunch of people have pointed out that the doctor in question has form for putting his thumb on the scale, and appears to have done so in really obvious ways in this instance.
Do you know what a systemic bias looks like? Here's an example: you wanted to show that Taleb had demonstrated this treatment works. So that's what you wrote, despite Taleb only using the word "significance" [by which he clearly meant *statistical significance*] and the illustration simply asking the question "What is the probability of IHT's results being generated by chance". Indeed he acknowledges some other ways that these results could have happened besides the treatment working in his follow up tweets. Taleb gives a number of possibilities, of which one is "he [Raoult] treats people who don't need treatment". So you are claiming more than he is, likely because you prefer a certain conclusion. That's why systemic bias is real and dangerous.
Re:One thing is certain (Score:4, Informative)
What the fuck do you think a double-blind RCT is all about?
Not to eliminate the bias you listed, actually whenever a double-blind is done, a lot of people end up complaining that it was actually unfair in some sense: whichever test is as fair as its actuators, who are _always_ people with bias. It is _far_ better to know their potential bias, than to hide them behind an opaque procedure. Whatever, as you should know, if you were actually able to use Google (or simply followed Taleb's thread), not only Raoult is challenged with potential bias, but his main critics are in blatant conflict of interests [liberation.fr]. Not only that, experimentations in Italy gave positive results: the region Tuscany approved its use on the 31st of March (after a month long trial) and now chloroquine capsules are produced at the Army Pharmaceutical Centre of Florence [lanazione.it] (link in Italian), and it is on track of being adopted by the Emilia-Romagna region , after that it successfully worked in a "red zone" [corriere.it] (in Italian, the title says "the infectious disease expert: the drug against malaria works"). As I said, there is a lot of correlation, is it the result of bias, chance, astrology? Nobody knows right now, but it cannot be ignored.
Re: One thing is certain (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: One thing is certain (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
unless you have records of SOMEBODY who was pleading for the action you claimed Trump should have taken from back when he needed to take it, it's all just political games.
https://twitter.com/briantyler... [twitter.com] There was a plan.
Re:One thing is certain (Score:5, Insightful)
Let's REALLY be honest here and admit that Trump was acting on the advice of the very team of doctors .....
No, let's stop trying to paint Trump as some sort of misunderstood hero here and look at the facts.
He Could Have Seen What Was Coming: Behind Trump’s Failure on the Virus [nytimes.com]
He willfully ignored information. US intelligence sources knew something big was happening in NOVEMBER 2019, and the White House did nothing.
Don't you remember the whole "stock market is doing great" when asked about the threat? And someone who utters "germ so brilliant that the antibiotics cannot keep up with it" is obviously utterly incapable of understanding anything regarding the virus.
Trump is doing what Trump is best at doing: acting in his own self-interest. Only thing time his incompetence is costing thousands of lives.
Trump also ignores the advice of the best doctors. Have you seen the garbage he has been spewing lately? The whole "germ so brilliant that the antibiotics cannot keep up with it" thing is cringeworthy.
Re: (Score:3)
Start stockpiling medical supplies, planning on banning all travelers along with isolating returning residents are 2 examples.
Re: (Score:3)
Start stockpiling medical supplies, planning on banning all travelers along with isolating returning residents are 2 examples.
But he DID do this.. We already had the national stockpile of medical equipment and drugs and stopped flights from China on January 22.
The problem here, is folks want to claim trump didn't do ANYTHING when what they can only really say is they think he didn't do ENOUGH. Trump acted. But the pandemic response started LONG before Trump took office. The national stockpile was adjusted by Obama last, and he pulled out a pile of PPE funding in the midst of the budget battles and sequestering that went on und
Re:*shocked gasp* (Score:5, Insightful)
What I wanna know is how anybody with half a brain rushes to buy medication the POTUS "feels" works - let alone a POTUS who's a certifiable buffoon and ignoramus.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
For real. Trump gave a presser this Friday where he loudly wondered why antibiotics did not work for COVID-19.
I'm certain health professionals lost minutes of life right that moment.
Re: (Score:2)
Pneumonia from bacteria can arise after the immune system is weakened from a viral infection. I've heard reports that some who die from Covid-19 have pneumonia, so it's entirely plausible that antibiotics would help, even if they have no effect on the virus itself.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
I'll skip addressing the credibility of the guy, as that particular horse has been beaten to death ages ago, but it's slightly shocking to see how Trump saying something resets the time zero in the history of that particular subject. The use of chloroquine was shown to help against coronaviruses (in particular the original SARS) before Obama was president.
For a more informative compilation than that sad WP blurb (quoting an 11 patient 'study'? really???) you might want to check out this link:
https://docs.go [google.com]
Re: (Score:2)
More accurately, the U.S. lost.
Re: (Score:3)
No. Clinton lost. and she lost very badly.
Re: (Score:2)
It's almost as if he has a financial interest in the drug... No, can't be that, it's other members of his family that profit from it.
The only thing that suggests cloroquine could be useful is it's weak immunosuppression properties for when the immune system overreacts in bad cases. Seems like a poor choice. In vitro virus killing usually leads nowhere and this is a highly toxic drug with a very low overhead between fatal and therapeutic dose.
Re: (Score:2)
Some of his trust funds have stakes in Sanofi which makes the drug. They are not large stakes.
More importantly, he's euthanized the oversight commission for the $2 Trillion recently passed. He needed to do that so his companies can belly up to the bar without all that nasty publicity.
Re: (Score:2)
It was Fox "News" and his Svengali Servant, Giuliani. Always fonts of knowledge, none of it scientific but replete with obscure references to unverifiable innuendo.
Re: (Score:2)
You mean to tell me a medical fact Trump made up turned out to be bullshit? Clutch my pearls!
What i want to know is who planted the idea in his brain to begin with. He works like a 5-year old who repeats everything he listens and thinks makes him sound smart.
On the plus side, it's been really funny trying to watch trump and his team trying to pronounce "hydroxychloroquine" on TV for the last few weeks.
Re: (Score:3)
The French government sanctioned [france24.com] chloroquine for certain patients:
The French government has officially sanctioned prescriptions of chloroquine to treat certain coronavirus patients. Speaking about chloroquine, Jérôme Salomon, France's director general of health, said: "This ensures continued treatment of patients who have been treated for several years for a chronic condition with this drug, but also allows a temporary authorization to allow certain patients with coronavirus to benefit from this therapeutic route."
You should write them a letter and let them know that they are falling for "a medical fact Trump made up that turned out to be bullshit". I'm sure France's director general of health would would be very grateful to you for catching this mistake.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
There is no such thing as "scientific proof". There is scientific evidence, and that may or may not support a certain hypothesis with a certain degree of uncertainty.
Here we have a degree of uncertainty that makes the presented hypothesis (that the substance helps the organism fight sars-cov-2) unlikely, but we know with a much smaller uncertainty what its detrimental effects are.
The scientific evidence is therefore consistent with a conclusion that this substance should not be administered as a treatment f
Re: scientific (Score:5, Interesting)
You couldn't be more wrong. There is no long term effectiveness study that says that it works, that is true. But having it is obvious impossible for something that hasn't been around for the required duration of a study. There is ample anecdotal evidence that it has helped a lot of people, just not under a scientific study. I personally know somebody who took at and was substantially improved in under 12 hours. It literally saved his life. Doctors are seeing enough evidence that it works that they continue to prescribe it for people in poor condition. If they didn't see that happening, they would stop using it. What the WP is doing is known as FUD, and in the context of medicine in the middle of a pandemic, is beyond negligent and is reckless endangerment. I hope to see some criminal prosecutions out of this. I doubt we will, but the family of somebody who dies after refusing the drug because of an article like this has ample reason to hold them accountable in a civil suit.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
I personally know somebody who took at and was substantially improved in under 12 hours. It literally saved his life.
This is called "jumping to conclusions", assuming of course you did not pull it out of your ass, which is more likely.
Doctors are seeing enough evidence that it works that they continue to prescribe it for people in poor condition.
Doctors are also known for administering many things they erroneously believed to work, when in fact they did not, causing a great deal of damage, suffering and sometimes death as a result.
This is why today we've got requirements for all these long tests before a substance becomes a medicine - each of these was bought with pain, suffering and life loss.
What the WP is doing is known as FUD
Either that, or what Trump and Fox News
Re: scientific (Score:4, Funny)
So you're the reason why my Canadian elephant-hunting safari was a failure?
I'll sue you in the US!11!! You're toast.
Re: scientific (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: scientific (Score:5, Informative)
How about when someone who _does_ take this cocktail dies in a few years time from cardiac complications due to the arrhythmia it caused? Who are they going to sue then?
From versusarthritis: [versusarthritis.org]
----------
Before starting on hydroxychloroquine your doctor may take a blood test to check that your liver and kidneys are working normally, but you won't need any regular blood tests during the treatment.
Your doctor will ask you about any problems with your eyesight and may suggest you have a vision test. Hydroxychloroquine won't usually be prescribed if you have maculopathy, problems with the central part of the retina in the eye.
How is it taken?
Hydroxychloroquine is taken in tablet form, with or after food.
Your doctor will advise you about the correct dose. Usually you will start on a full dose of 200–400 mg daily, and later your doctor may reduce this. When your condition is very well controlled you may be advised to take hydroxychloroquine only 2–3 times per week.
How long does it take to work?
Hydroxychloroquine doesn’t work immediately. It may be 12 weeks or longer before you notice any benefit. Because it's a long-term treatment it's important to keep taking hydroxychloroquine unless you have severe side effects:
(o) even if it doesn't seem to be working at first
(o) even when your symptoms improve (to help keep the disease under control).
Side effects and risks
(o) skin rashes, especially those made worse by sunlight
(o) feeling sick (nausea) or indigestion
(o) diarrhea
(o) headaches
(o) bleaching of the hair or mild hair loss
(o) tinnitus (ringing in the ears)
(o) visual problems.
There's a small risk that hydroxychloroquine can damage a part of the inside of the eye called the retina. And this increases with long-term use and higher dosage.
----------
You know what this doesnt fucking mention? Heart problems. Wanna know why? Because you are spitting fucking FAKE NEWS.
Millions of people take this drug, daily, for years and years: the rest of their life once they start taking it for their arthritis.
But go on, tell us more about how dangerous this drug is, and how the long term effects arent known. Go on. Keep fucking spreading fake news. Go on. No reason to turn into a better person now.
Re: (Score:3)
It is a bit strange that you don't find any mention of heart problems.
From this link: https://www.drugs.com/cdi/chlo... [drugs.com]
Heart problems like heart failure and abnormal heartbeats have happened in people taking high doses of chloroquine for a long time. Sometimes, these have been deadly. Call your doctor right away if you have a fast or abnormal heartbeat; very bad dizziness or passing out; or shortness of breath, a big weight gain, or swelling in the arms or legs.
But like I said already upthread, this is beside the point.
As long as there is no serious evidence it works against the sars-cov-2 virus, prescribing it is just a waste.
Re: (Score:3)
Okay, let's quote your link then:
For Healthcare Professionals
Applies to hydroxychloroquine: compounding powder, oral tablet
Cardiovascular
Cardiomyopathy (can result in fatal cardiac failure), biventricular hypertrophy[Ref]
Should I call you a dishonest fucking scumbag too now?
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
I think you missed the bit that when it's your life in the balance, you ought to have the right to decide how to proceed (assuming no physical harm to others). The data and analyses thereof are merely advisory. Unfortunately, there is this belief that's taken hold in our society that most people are too naive and uninformed to make these choices for ourselves, that those with the most claims to knowledge are therefore those with the most claim to make decisions about your life, and consequently us stupid f
Re: (Score:2)
when it's your life in the balance, you ought to have the right to decide how to proceed
I'm not concerned with that bit at all. If you have terminal cancer and some shaman in Indonesia tells you they can cure it by sprinkling brown sugar and some prayer on it, and you can afford it - by all means try it.
Just don't tell me that I have to administer sugar sprinkling and prayer instead of things that actually work as a standard treatment.
Re: (Score:3)
Just don't tell me that I have to administer sugar sprinkling and prayer instead of things that actually work as a standard treatment.
But for all his from-the-hip press conference advice, I didn't get the impression that Trump was ordering physicians to prescribe anything specific at all, just that, if it were him, he would take the chance. In other words, you wouldn't be forced to administer this.
Re: (Score:3)
I have not followed developments around this particular miracle cure closely, but from a cursory news search it appears that Trump is telling people that his is an "approved treatment" (source: https://www.marketwatch.com/st... [marketwatch.com] )
At a news conference on Thursday, Trump said the drug had been approved as a treatment for COVID-19 and that it had “gone through the approval process.”
So while this isn't formally ordering physicians to prescribe it, it adds pressure on them to dish out something that is ineffective but with potentially serious side effects. What for?
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
You're right, Trump can't make me prescribe this. He can, though, convince people that there's an effective treatment (which there isn't) which leads people to ignore quarantine (which works). That's why it's a problem. It is hard to convince people to continue the proven effective intervention when Trump is up there telling folks there's a simple and easy pill that will fix the problem. His unproven "scientific opinion" is actively working against genuine public health efforts and making our jobs harder. N
Re: scientific (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: scientific (Score:4, Interesting)
This drug is handed out like candy for millions of people who travel to or live in areas where Maleria is endemic. Those people take it for weeks or months at a time. Serious side effects are extremely rare. Your conclusion that it should not be used because of possible side effects is silly.
Re: (Score:2)
Would like like to buy my rock that keeps tigers away while your at it?
Trump has investment in Sanofi Pharma (Score:4, Interesting)
Yes I definitely want a rock that keeps tigers away. I watched Tiger King and as Don Junior pointed out every one with an extra $2000 could have their own tiger pet.
But Trump is an expert on HydroxyCovfefe. He and many of his campaign contributors own a stake in Sanofi, maker of this drug. SO he's really studied this issue and he knows that if people use this it will definitely increase sales.
Re: (Score:2)
We have been extremely unfortunate in this case that the "Dear Doctor" which made so much noise out of his limited French trial, once upon a time made some very loud pronouncements against global warming. As a result Trump (and all of his retinue) would love to overblow the effectiveness of the drug. The desperately need a saviour of the humankind which also happens to be a climate change denialist. They are not alone here, let's face it - some of the opponents
Re: (Score:2)
Here's the acid test. We give the drug to its main pusher, Trump, and then send him out in a meet and greet at some of the Washington area hospitals where he only gets to meet and greet Sars-CoV-2 patients. Should be no problem for that stable genius. And if he gets infected, we can just wait until it gets warmer and it will magically disappear from his system...maybe taking his dyspeptic gut along with it.
Re: (Score:2)
Anecdotal accounts are worthless. If you treat a hundred patients with magic healing crystals, you will get one or two dead patients - and ninety-odd who will testify that magic healing crystals saved them. Every woomonger in the world has testimonials from satisfied customers, because those are the ones who recovered - and the testimony of the rest is just ignored.
Re:scientific - Prof Tim Noakes (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:3)
In this context people are using the word "scientific" as an adjective for rhetorical purposes.
Reality is about what decisions one would make for real.
If you are a doctor, would you give this to one of your close relatives?
A real situation tends to clarify one's motives for reasoning and acting.
I remember a conversation between two doctors I overheard in the public toilet ( not COVID related, it was a different area of medicine):
"are you giving this to your patients?"
"no -- I know it works but i'm afraid i'
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
If you'd like to go back to the days where anecdotes from people (i.e. I found someone who said it works) form the basis for medical decision making, by all means be my guest. But don't ask me to prescribe the medications to you and please sign a waiver testifying that I don't have to treat, pay for, or hospitalize you for the complications and/or consequences of what you choose to do. I'd also like to be able to send you the bill if your anecdotal treatment also results in harm to others...since you feel s
Re: (Score:2)
The drug does nothing against covid-19. Zero. Nada. Zilch. The only thing it does is lessen the effects of the inflammation in the lungs, and not in every patient. As one doctor at Johns Hopkins said [time.com]:
“In general if hydroxychloroquine really, really worked, and it was a magic drug for COVID-19, we would know it by now,” says Dr. David Sullivan, professor of microbiology at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health and an infectious disease physician at the university’s malaria research institute. “Right now we have no clinical evidence that it works.”
As for your last sentence, I seem to remember Republicans saying they would be the party of no against anything Obama tried to do to bring this country out of the Bush recession. They were literally sabotaging his efforts and wanted the country to stay mired in a recession as long as possible to score politic
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Yup, there are other drugs that also lessen the load on the lungs, they lessen the cytokine storm that your body unleashes to fight a major infection. The caveat is that they do not work in everyone and there's not scientific theory as to why this should be the case. When they do work, they work with varying degrees among patients. So it is a hit or miss therapy. I suspect the same, if there is any effect at all, of Hydroxychloroquine.
I suspect the effect of Hydroxychloroquine is marginal and inconsistent,
Re:Why do I get the feeling... (Score:5, Insightful)
We're not ignoring that other countries are testing the drug. We're testing it too. But none of those counties, or our own hospitals, are seeing the kind of dramatic response you'd expect if the drug was incredibly effective. It may have some effect in some selection of patients, but that's not "very effective" and if we don't have a very effective drug it would be stupid to relax quarantine measures, which work, thereby flooding our hospitals with cases of a disease for which we have no universally effective treatment. I might add that our own President is proof that governments can be idiots and push their medical community to do things for which there's not good scientific evidence, so "just because France is doing it" isn't the same thing as "scientific proof".
If chloroquine was 90% effective, great, bring it on and let's relax quarantine and treat people as they come. But it does not appear to be. Forgive me if I'm not excited for our country to manage millions of cases for which we have a drug which is effective in, perhaps, 10-20% of cases.
So while we don't have good data saying chloroquine is highly effective, if you'd prefer anecdotes instead, several of the patients on my team who we have treated with chloroquine have DIED of their COVID. So there you go...data says it's not highly effective AND my personal anecdotes say it's not highly effective.
Re: (Score:3)
why the hell Trump got the idea it would help with coronavirus is anyone's guess.
He's spouted some anecdotal evidence in a couple of his press conferences.
Paraphrasing: "There was a woman who took it and she got better!"
Re: (Score:2)
Sven is not a Russian name, you clown. Go back to eating Cheetos in your parents' basement.
Re: (Score:2)
But it appears to work.
Really?
So how come the death toll isn't going down?
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
My wife's 66-year-old cousin (living in Kansas) with a history of lung problems was about to go on a ventilator last week after being sent to the ICU with COVID-19. No ventilator was immediately available, so they gave him HCQ instead.
He was significantly better by the next day. He's not out of the woods yet, but he hasn't had to go on a ventilato
Re: (Score:3)
So much this.
It's clear, no, the double-blind, extended trials haven't been completed. There's no evidence to that standard that it does or doesn't help.
But the anecdotal, and broadly experiential reports are reasonably positive.
Doctors aren't generally idiots, and aside from basic morality, they won't waste their or their patients' time occupying urgently-needed beds if they don't have to. They aren't randomly dosing their patients with crap hoping something works, but seeing results happen, they're work
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The main reason people are skeptical is that all the studies (and there were only three to my knowledge) have been junk and of the three, one said it does not work. I repeat, all three studies were poorly set up and in one case (French study) it seems publication process itself was shady.
People also tout South Korea and their positive results but notably there are no studies from there as yet. In other words, the pattern so far is precisely what you see with snake oil salesmen: lots of anecdotes but no data
Re:Yes, there is "clear" evidence (Score:4, Interesting)
We know, from informal testing, that it is a very effective combination in many cases, literally to the point of dying patients getting better almost overnight. About two-thirds of doctors now admit that it's the single best treatment option for COVID-19.
Uh. This is 100% not true. Literally to the point of being false. Several of our patients have died overnight. About two-thirds of our doctors can't see any clear evidence that chloroquine works in the majority of patients. It may work in some percentage of patients, but that's not a good reason to abandon what works, quarantine, in favor of something which might work for some people.
Re:Yes, there is "clear" evidence (Score:4, Insightful)
How come the press never mentions that Hydroxychloroquine is prescribed by doctors to millions of people for arthritis, who take it daily for years and years and years?
No one has said that HCQ has never been prescribed in the history of humanity. It is being used for malaria and other ailments. The issue is that it has known side effects and that there is no evidence it helps with COVID-19. Prescribing it to COVID patients may cause more harm than good. The problem with that is Trump touting as some sort of miracle drug against COVID-19 with no evidence.
Re:Yes, there is "clear" evidence (Score:5, Informative)
Do you have evidence of this? No? How about *YOU* provide evidence to support your claims.
Side effecs [drugs.com] of HCQ are known: "Frequency not reported: Cardiomyopathy (can result in fatal cardiac failure), biventricular hypertrophy"
I'm certain that death by heart failure is pretty serious harm.
Re: (Score:3)
But by "frequency not reported," they're talking about anecdotal evidence, based on very, VERY few cases out of the millions and millions of patients.
No. Frequency not reported does not mean "low frequency". It means that it is not reported. It could be high but that it was not yet linked to HCQ.
Serious cardiac issues from HCQ are rare enough that people actually write papers based on _single cases_, because it pops up so seldom - and always in people with long-term heart issues taking HCQ for extended periods.
What do you think will happen when millions more people start taking HCQ for COVID-19? Some of them probably have heart issues or other conditions. Some of them may be taking drugs which were not previously known to conflict with HCQ. This is why people shouldn't just start taking a drug because someone heard from a guy who heard it cures the disease.
Re:Yes, there is "clear" evidence (Score:5, Interesting)
The press I read has mentioned it extensively. For example The Guardian did an in depth article on it quite recently: https://www.theguardian.com/wo... [theguardian.com]
As it notes there is a small but significant chance of overdose if you take too much, but the real issue is that it's normally taken under supervision and only by fairly healthy patients. It is known to cause breathing difficulties sometimes, for example, which combined with already having COVID-19 could be fatal.
The study that claimed it was effective was junk science so it's probably a really bad idea to start ramping up production and handing it out to everyone. It's not a vaccine, it's not safe for everyone. It is however usable in a clinical setting, which is what is happening as the FDA has approved it for emergency C19 treatment off-label.
It will be used to prematurely reopen the economy (Score:5, Insightful)
Trump is desperate to reopen everything because if the economy is in the toilet even Joe Biden could beat him. While Trump hasn't said several of his biggest supporters have openly stated that we should reopen and let people die because the economy is more important than their lives. He has not gone out of his way to contradict them, and until a week or so ago wanted to reopen for Easter.
The reality of the situation is that, given the evidence we have now, in Trump's calculus American lives are less important than his re-election. Heck, I've read comments from the extreme right wing (the sort that cry "Trump Derangement Syndrome") saying that the deaths would be better than Trump losing the re-election. A journalist from "OANN" weighted abortions against the Coronavirus. (and yeah, 5 bucks says pointed that out gets me down modded into oblivion, but I've got karma to burn and it did happen).
Trump backed off when he feared millions of deaths would impact his re-election chances. Until then he was full steam ahead. At this point he pretty clearly is trying to figure out how many deaths he can get away with and still get re-elected.
Again, the concern we have is that Trump isn't making decisions based on what's good for America, he's making them based on what's good for _Trump_. At this point the only way you can support Trump is if you earnestly believe that what's good for Trump is good for America. Based on your post I'm fairly certain you do, but I want the rest of the people reading this to ask themselves, is that the really the case?
Re:It will be used to prematurely reopen the econo (Score:5, Insightful)
2. At this point given the weakness of our healthcare system and the lethality of the disease "letting 'er rip" would be many times more leathal. Citation [youtu.be]. Also, your argument is a false dichotomy. We can easily keep the economy going by allowing about 30% of the population to take a 6 month paid vacation. There's plenty of money since these are by and large retail and restaurant jobs of the sort that are not essential; meaning by their very definition we can divert the resources (i.e. what the money actually represents) to supporting their employees until the crisis is over.
3. Sweden is still too early to comment on with anything definitive, but preliminarily it doesn't look good.
4. I'm fixated on Trump because, and this is key, he's the bloody president of the United States of America and the Chief Executive of the richest and most powerful country on Earth. That's kind of important. He is literally playing favorites [esquire.com] and profiteering [msn.com].
Look, I get it. It's fun to troll. It's fun to think about burning it all down. But trust me, when you're the one on fire it's not fun anymore. I don't know if you're a punk kid, an angry white dude who lost his job to outsourcing or H1-Bs, a Russian/Iranian troll farmer or what. But this will not leave you untouched. You need to stop this right now. You're going to get yourself, your family and a lot of good people killed.
I mean, if you've got to troll go make fun of weaboos on 4chan. They get way more worked up than even I do. Tell them Asaka's the best girl. That'll get 'em going.
Re:Yes, there is "clear" evidence (Score:4, Insightful)
The answer is obvious. They dont give a fuck how many people die because of their campaign against it, fueled by their petty Trump Derangement Syndrome.
If Trump didn't want criticism of him bleeding over into the discussion of Hydroxychloroquine then he shouldn't have spent the past three months politicizing every aspect of the outbreak and trying to make everything about him.
First it's a conspiracy against him, a replay of the impeachment, and lockdowns are an effort to tank his economy.
Then governors who don't say nice things don't get medical supplies, swing states get extra, etc, etc.
Now he even brags about the ratings on his press conferences!
That's why he's hyping Hydroxychloroquine as a treatment way ahead of the science, so that if the treatment succeeds then he gets to claim he saved the day, and so no one can criticize his over hyping without seeming to criticize the treatment.
The problem is that instead of looking at this treatment in a rational manner we're now obsessed with how if affects perceptions of the dumbass in the corner yelling "look at me!".
That's why politicians who actually care about their constituents actively try to avoid politicizing disasters, because they know you can't score a political win for a united response.
That's also why the US uniquely disorganized in its response to the virus, because Trump is trying to personalize every aspect of the pandemic.
Re: (Score:3)
What statistics course did you take that proves that you have to wait for full, formal testing of a known drug with minimal side effects while allowing literally thousands of people to die over several months? How many have to die because they were the "control subjects?"
Was it the same course that insisted that people shouldn't bother with non-fitted, non-N95 masks, because they weren't proven to be effective (until they suddenly decided that they were effective after looking at how well unapproved masks w
Re: (Score:3)
Just b/c a treatment cannot be rigorously proven does not mean it doesn't work.
Even if a treatment works, there is also no guarantee that the initial studies will be able to show that it does work.
You don't seem to understand statistics. If a treatment WORKS it's relatively easy to prove it works. If a treatment works, generally initial studies will show evidence that it works. Because, you know, statistics and math are pretty good at this sort of thing.
Re: (Score:3)
That is an old drug & drug family that is made by more than one company, in large amounts, and companies are literally donating large numbers of doses in the current crisis.
Sanofi donating 100 million doses of hydroxychloroquine to 50 countries [nypost.com]
Teva Donating More Than 10 Million Doses of Hydroxychloroquine as Potential COVID-19 Treatment [fool.com]
Novartis to donate malaria drug in fight against coronavirus [cnbc.com]
There are other companies doing it as well.
You seem to be trending toward the logic of lose money on every sal