Live data from Hacker News

Chloroquine, past and present

blogs.sciencemag.org

41–50 of 320 posts

Re: Chloroquine, past and present

#41
post #5

I was under the impression that chloroquine was used to facilitate cellular absorption of zinc and that the zinc was responsible for any antiviral behavior: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dT6mHi_8V5E

"One that I find particularly amusing, for personal reasons, is the idea of complexing zinc ions...So yeah, I can at least believe that these things complex zinc, for what that’s worth."

Not sure if this statement supports or refutes your theory; I'm inclined to believe the latter.

Re: Chloroquine, past and present

#42
post #15

I was intrigued by the results from the recent quick french study: https://www.mediterranee-infection.com/wp-content/uploads/20... I read through the paper, and it's not immediately obvious, but if you look at the two graphs at the bottom, the hydroxychloroquine is 75% effective in the first chart, but only 50% in the second one. That's because the actual test was: Control: 16 hydroxychloroquine: 14 hydroxychloroquin…

It's an antibiotic. Severe patients will be dealing with secondary (bacterial) infections, so it makes sense to use both. But on its own, I expect it would have little effect.

As I understand it - it interferes with mRNA transcription. Given that COVID-19 is RNA that may be useful.

Re: Chloroquine, past and present

#43

This chloroquinine rush is already out of control. My pharmacy is already out of it and is unable to procure from other pharmacies (which are also out already!) My pharmacist placed orders for all her patients to prefill prescriptions (where possible) for the next few months. I can understand a shortage when there's a clear evidence-based need, but the rumour-mill hasn't even ramped to full bore yet and it's already…

How to people get it? I assume it’s a prescription drug everywhere? Is everyone friends with a doctor or is my expectations on doctors too high (that they shouldn’t prescribe something just because a patient asks for it, perhaps especially not if the patient asks for it)?

Re: Chloroquine, past and present

#44
post #6

The Quinism Foundation Warns of Dangers from Use of Antimalarial Quinolines Against COVID‑19. "Use of Chloroquine, Hydroxychloroquine, Mefloquine, Quinine, and Related Quinoline Drugs Risks Sudden and Lasting Neuropsychiatric Effects from Idiosyncratic Neurotoxicity." https://quinism.org/press-releases/dangers-of-antimalarial-q... The Anit-Malaria drugs They are pushing have a common ancestor to Fluoroquinolone antib…

Respectfully, though I understand your effort to warn others, I think it is dangerous at this time to conflate chloroquine derivatives with Chloroquine. Single substitutions in biologically active compounds can cause drastically different effects including substantially different therapeutic ratios. Compare for example the various drugs in the amphetamine family (methamphetamine, amphetamine, MDMA, etc). They are not equally dangerous.

Similarly, the terrible results you report are AFAIK rare with Chloroquine. It is a well tolerated drug and if you're an older or immunocompromised patient playing Russian roulette with a late stage COVID19 infection, the minimal risk is highly preferable to no treatment.

Re: Chloroquine, past and present

#45
post #6

The Quinism Foundation Warns of Dangers from Use of Antimalarial Quinolines Against COVID‑19. "Use of Chloroquine, Hydroxychloroquine, Mefloquine, Quinine, and Related Quinoline Drugs Risks Sudden and Lasting Neuropsychiatric Effects from Idiosyncratic Neurotoxicity." https://quinism.org/press-releases/dangers-of-antimalarial-q... The Anit-Malaria drugs They are pushing have a common ancestor to Fluoroquinolone antib…

I've been suffering badly from fluoroquinolone toxicity for 5 years. Doctors literally are clueless about it.

Re: Chloroquine, past and present

#46
Until there's a double blind placebo trial I will take this type of report with a truck load of salt. We want randomized control trials in medicine. We want highly vetted research in medicine. Lacking either is a bad idea.

I am also not holding my breath about a vaccine. We tried making a vaccine with SARS-CoV with a significant amount of the animal models dying from cytokine storm after viral exposure. Drug trials are hard, but necessary.

Re: Chloroquine, past and present

#47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is where having a fully funded CDC and pandemic team in the US pays off. They would have been paying very close attention for weeks on end in China, Italy and South Korea and many approaches could have been already dead-ended before it even significantly reached out shores. To say nothing of actually being in the process of ramping up medications that HAVE shown to be effective. It feels like we are starting fro…

I think everyone would like to see the CDC be better funded. Hindsight makes that an obvious mistake, but monitoring C19 should have been their number one priority in any case. From January onwards it was clear that it was the number one threat. There's still no explanation (afaik) for why they rolled their own test instead of using the WHO's test, nor have they effectively communicated their plans for ramping up tes…

They should have been developing more than one test anyway. This reduces the risk of failure, and if you get multiple working tests, it allows some cross-checking to reduce false results. Failure to diversify is also mismanagement (though clearly more money can help you try more things).

Re: Chloroquine, past and present

#48
Is there not an argument that given chloroquine's apparent efficacy, albeit statistically weakly or improperly demonstrated (so far), along with its long history of relative safety in anti-malarial prophylaxis (with known caveats), set against an exponential growth in dangerous pneumonia - it is therefore rational to want to at least offer it to all suspected cases and healthworkers in balance of the serious risks they face?

Re: Chloroquine, past and present

#49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is where having a fully funded CDC and pandemic team in the US pays off. They would have been paying very close attention for weeks on end in China, Italy and South Korea and many approaches could have been already dead-ended before it even significantly reached out shores. To say nothing of actually being in the process of ramping up medications that HAVE shown to be effective. It feels like we are starting fro…

I think everyone would like to see the CDC be better funded. Hindsight makes that an obvious mistake, but monitoring C19 should have been their number one priority in any case. From January onwards it was clear that it was the number one threat. There's still no explanation (afaik) for why they rolled their own test instead of using the WHO's test, nor have they effectively communicated their plans for ramping up tes…

There seems to be a really obvious explanation of why they rolled their own test instead of using the WHO's test: there was no WHO test when they did it, the two different tests were developed in parallel (and they're not the only country which developed their own test either, there are something like seven different ones used in various countries). The CDC had already been using its own test internally when the WHO announced the alternative German one they'd been using. Then when the CDC test didn't work when rolled out to labs, it's not like the WHO could have supplied them with testing kits instead. The CDC would have had to produced the WHO-designed test itself, verified it worked, arrange for it to be mass produced, and hope that the same problem didn't happen - all whilst their test rollout was massively delayed by essentially starting from scratch. Most of the media just doesn't seem to be interested in explaining this.

Re: Chloroquine, past and present

#50

Is there not an argument that given chloroquine's apparent efficacy, albeit statistically weakly or improperly demonstrated (so far), along with its long history of relative safety in anti-malarial prophylaxis (with known caveats), set against an exponential growth in dangerous pneumonia - it is therefore rational to want to at least offer it to all suspected cases and healthworkers in balance of the serious risks th…

The possible side effects include permanent blindness.

Giving this drug to people while you simply don't know if it does any good is only justifiable if you do it within a properly designed clinical trial. Which is the thing you should do. If you feel lots of people should get this drug - do a large trial. Will give us better data.

Post reply on HN