Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Chloroquine, past and present

blogs.sciencemag.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 320 posts

Re: Chloroquine, past and present

#71

Post by [deleted] »

gnulinux wrote: post #61
andreygrehov wrote: post #19

Does anyone have any information about the Favipiravir testing going on in China? From what I read, it has a 90% success rate treating coronavirus AND is a super safe drug in general.

I read this X% success rate for many drugs, Remdesivir, chloroquine etc... What does it mean? Giving no drug, just ventilator alone has 97% success rate right? So how do we know that that 90% is due to the drug and not, you know, immune system itself? Moreover, a lot of people keep saying both Remdesivir and chloroquine are in official treatment suggestions in Italy, and seeing Italy is suffering a pretty bad mortali…

[deleted]

Re: Chloroquine, past and present

#72

Post by axguscbklp »

It seems to me that we should immediately move to massively increase production of hydroxychloroquine. If it turns out to be part of a solution, great. If not, I doubt that more than a tiny fraction of the total resources dedicated to the pandemic would have been used up by the effort. There is no time to take things slowly in our situation. In any case, from what I've read on places like r/medicine, many people who have access to hydroxychloroquine have already begun to hoard it. So one way or another, if we do not ramp up production there will be trouble.

Hydroxychloroquine has been around for decades, so it's not like we would be jumping into a total mystery about its side effects.

It seems to me that, whether hydroxychloroquine ultimately turns out to be effective or not, it is the closest thing we have right now to something that might prove to be a very helpful medicine.

Re: Chloroquine, past and present

#73

Post by caycep »

stcredzero wrote: post #70
cameldrv wrote: post #62

We definitely want more studies, but IMO we're reaching a tipping point. We have anecdotal evidence from China and South Korea, and this quite flawed, but at least data-containing study from France. Chloroquine's safety profile isn't great, but the safety profile of COVID is way worse. If you look at Chemotherapy for example, one would never take any of those drugs unless you had cancer. COVID isn't quite as bad as c…

> COVID isn't quite as bad as cancer, but Chloroquine, especially for a short course, isn't anywhere near as bad as most chemo drugs. For certain individuals who just happen to have a bad reaction, COVID could well be just as fatal as cancer. In terms of how fast it can kill people, in certain cases, it can be worse than a lot of cancers.

use hydroxochloroquine then?

Re: Chloroquine, past and present

#74

Post by HarryHirsch »

guiriduro wrote: post #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 th…

It's a misdirection of resources - of money, clinicians' time and study subjects. There's enough drug and patients to run a well-designed clinical study, once that is done we know if chloroquin is any good or if we need to keep looking. My guess is that we are better off looking at antivirals.

Re: Chloroquine, past and present

#75

Post by stcredzero »

nshepperd wrote: post #69
hannob wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

If you take it for years. Why is everyone ignoring that part?

Because blindness is a harsh outcome, so it jumps out and causes an emotional reaction.

Re: Chloroquine, past and present

#76

Post by ggm »

I think the drug combinations are going to turn out to be as important as the single instances. One to bind to receptors. One to limit related infection risk. One to be an anti-pyretic.

This is how HIV was fought, with cocktails. Single drug treatment comes later.

Chloroquine is a powerful drug. It needs to be treated with respect. Yes it is cheap. it also has effects on the mind and we don't need a wave a psychosis to follow the corona-virus illnesses.

Re: Chloroquine, past and present

#77

Post by cameldrv »

stcredzero wrote: post #70
cameldrv wrote: post #62

We definitely want more studies, but IMO we're reaching a tipping point. We have anecdotal evidence from China and South Korea, and this quite flawed, but at least data-containing study from France. Chloroquine's safety profile isn't great, but the safety profile of COVID is way worse. If you look at Chemotherapy for example, one would never take any of those drugs unless you had cancer. COVID isn't quite as bad as c…

> COVID isn't quite as bad as cancer, but Chloroquine, especially for a short course, isn't anywhere near as bad as most chemo drugs. For certain individuals who just happen to have a bad reaction, COVID could well be just as fatal as cancer. In terms of how fast it can kill people, in certain cases, it can be worse than a lot of cancers.

Do you mean COVID is as fatal as cancer or Chloroquine is?

Re: Chloroquine, past and present

#78

Post by wolco »

cameldrv wrote: post #62

We definitely want more studies, but IMO we're reaching a tipping point. We have anecdotal evidence from China and South Korea, and this quite flawed, but at least data-containing study from France. Chloroquine's safety profile isn't great, but the safety profile of COVID is way worse. If you look at Chemotherapy for example, one would never take any of those drugs unless you had cancer. COVID isn't quite as bad as c…

The half life is 2 months. Any bad reaction will linger.

Compared to antibiotics with a 8 hour half life.

Lets stay home instead.

Re: Chloroquine, past and present

#79

Post by 1996 »

nshepperd wrote: post #69
hannob wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

If you take it for years. Why is everyone ignoring that part?

because it doesn't generate enough offense. most online arguments seems to be attempts at creating the maximum possible offense to create "engagement"

the fact you need to have 1 kilogram of chloroquine during years of treatment is an inconvenient complicated fact, while the emotional appeal of blindness scores more indignation.

Re: Chloroquine, past and present

#80

Post by mypalmike »

gnulinux wrote: post #61
andreygrehov wrote: post #19

Does anyone have any information about the Favipiravir testing going on in China? From what I read, it has a 90% success rate treating coronavirus AND is a super safe drug in general.

I read this X% success rate for many drugs, Remdesivir, chloroquine etc... What does it mean? Giving no drug, just ventilator alone has 97% success rate right? So how do we know that that 90% is due to the drug and not, you know, immune system itself? Moreover, a lot of people keep saying both Remdesivir and chloroquine are in official treatment suggestions in Italy, and seeing Italy is suffering a pretty bad mortali…

Was 97% a hypothetical? I have heard much lower figures for ventilator success rates.
Post reply on HN