Chloroquine, past and present

Post by teddyvangogh » Fri, Mar 20, 2020, 9:04 PM UTC

gumby wrote: post #91

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…

> 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. The FDA's Office of new drugs is split into divisions (dermatology, oncology etc) and the different divisions have different approval criteria as you mention. From my Onco friends' PoV, cancer patients are pretty much assumed…

Post by pbreit » Fri, Mar 20, 2020, 9:17 PM UTC

arrrg wrote: post #98

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 study from France seems to suck, though. Not very valuable data. They measured virus, not outcomes, they measured virus in the throat, not the lungs, the starting point was not the start of the disease but some later (more arbitrary) point in time, the two groups were not randomly assigned and the study wasn’t really blind. It could be that they just happened to compare two groups where the treatment group was fu…

Post by pbreit » Fri, Mar 20, 2020, 9:21 PM UTC

axguscbklp wrote: post #72

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…

Post by alkibiades » Fri, Mar 20, 2020, 9:28 PM UTC

gnulinux wrote: post #108

_red wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Lets stay home instead. For a couple of weeks, fine. However on the other end of this spectrum is "Millions starve". At some point we need to ask is that fair to the youth? (note: I'm an old fart)

Youth also doesn't want to deal with this disease. I'm 23 y.o., healthy as far as I know, but I still don't want to catch this disease. Why spend 2 weeks on the bed dealing with the worst flu, risk getting hospitalized? After all, even young patients can be hospitalized, even though fatality rate is lower. I vote everyone stay home for the time being.

Post by taneq » Fri, Mar 20, 2020, 9:29 PM UTC

pazimzadeh wrote: post #159

Also take a look at thymoquinone, which supposedly inhibits mouse coronavirus, which is very similar to SARS-coronavirus. The effects of Nigella sativa (Ns), Anthemis hyalina (Ah) and Citrus sinensis (Cs) extracts on the replication of coronavirus and the expression of TRP genes family https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3933739/ Thymoquinone is also generally protective of lung health in several models: htt…