Live data from Hacker News

Chloroquine, past and present

blogs.sciencemag.org

181–190 of 320 posts

Re: Chloroquine, past and present

#181
post #24
post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Those tiny square alcohol prep pads (e.g. for diabetics and others who need daily injections) are sold out everywhere. I suspect people who couldn't find hand sanitizer or Clorox just grabbed whatever sanitizing products they could.

I clean stuff with them. I don’t want water and some antibacterial agent, I just want some nice alcohol.

When there is not a pandemic happening you can get 99% isopropyl at a reasonable cost. Its great for cleaning electronics and lots of other things.

Re: Chloroquine, past and present

#182
post #98

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…

This article shares insight into how the virus progresses. https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2020/03/biograph...

Re: Chloroquine, past and present

#183
post #179

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…

Pardon the dumb question, but has anyone just tried quinine? I've been wondering if a hefty gin and tonic would help matters.

I'm not a doctor (yet) but I believe quinine has immunosuppressant effects so you don't want to take it preemptively, only when you have your own immune system in overdrive.

Re: Chloroquine, past and present

#184
post #174

Earlier quoted context omitted.

On the 26th February, in an interview, one of the researchers behind the French study said that he wasn't worried about Covid-19 and that it was just a flu...

Do you have a link?

It's all in French:

1st February: https://www.lejdd.fr/Societe/le-professeur-didier-raoult-ce-...

"This coronavirus isn't so bad"

26th February: http://m.lamarseillaise.fr/analyses-de-la-redaction/decrypta...

"The coronavirus isn't more dangerous than seasonal flu."

Re: Chloroquine, past and present

#185
post #91

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…

Heptatoxic: relating to or causing injury to the liver

For those not understanding the jargon (like myself).

Re: Chloroquine, past and present

#186
post #172

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…

Agree with all except wondering what you mean by the safety profile being not great? It's been around for 70 years, taken by millions over very long periods of time with relatively minimal negative side effects.

Do you have sources for that? Would like to know the numbers.

Re: Chloroquine, past and present

#187
post #179

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…

Pardon the dumb question, but has anyone just tried quinine? I've been wondering if a hefty gin and tonic would help matters.

I'm taking it, I've also got my family and neighbors on it. I was unable to convince doctors since February to take me seriously that hydroxychloroquine is likely to have prophylactic effects so I took matters into my own hands. I know what I'm doing. Those who don't know what they are doing should not just jump in since they need to manage and understand the dose, the drug interactions, and the side effects. None of which are a problem for most people. Most. The ones that aren't though the interactions are well enough known and documented. I am not recommending it to anyone, that would probably be a crime. I'm saying if you're smart and understand science and thoughtful and not reckless you might be able to use it with the same safety that indians did for thousands of years. I still don't think you should though. Push for HCQ instead.

Commercial tonic is limited by federal law to 20mg per 8 oz, so I make my own tonic.

It would be much much better and would likely stop this whole problem if we'd just mail prophylactic doses of HCQ to the whole population instead of mailing a $1500 check to everyone like they've decided instead.

It's very humorous how people look at tropical countries that still have widespread HCQ use for anti-malaria and announce that they must be undercounting cases since their reported numbers are far too low. No, their numbers are not too low. It's just a lot of people in these regions are essentially vaccinated.

Re: Chloroquine, past and present

#188
post #78

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.

Any avenue that could save lives is worth investigating. It's not an either/or situation.

Stop spreading FUD

Re: Chloroquine, past and present

#189
post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

1. it's prescription only. 2. it's already available for compassionate use. The FDA is allowing chloroquine and remdesivir to be used for 'compassionate use' to treat the coronavirus. https://www.businessinsider.com/chloroquine-remdesivir-compa...

You don't need compassionate use for Chloroquine. It's FDA approved, so it's just off-label, which doesn't require any hoops, just a prescription from a doctor.

Re: Chloroquine, past and present

#190
post #161
post #151

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, and I'm looking at the aggregate data in the last two graphs, and also the big table. HCQ + AZ was the only group with clearance for all after six days. It was also the smaller of the two groups, which makes it hard to give any weight to the finding. But there are many other features of this study that make the result hard to interpret.

Great that we’re looking at the same study! I’m not sure what you mean by: “No patient was cleared of virus after six days using hydroxychloroquine alone.“ Because the percentages there are 57% Of patients on HCQ alone we’re cleared, vs 12% control.

Is there sufficient evidence in favor of rejecting the null hypothesis, that 57% of patients in the HCQ study group would have gone on to spontaneously recover without HCQ? Because that's the really interesting question. It's not a question of the study group versus control group, it's a question of whether the study group and control group had enough characteristics in common to make them statistically equivalent samples of a population that vary only in whether they were given HCQ. And I think the consensus among people who are clear on that is that the populations have too little in common.
Post reply on HN