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

201–210 of 320 posts

Re: Chloroquine, past and present

#201

Post by teddyvangogh »

cameldrv wrote: post #189
teddyvangogh wrote: post #171

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Great. I hope it becomes available to everyone.

"Novartis, Mylan and Teva to supply tens of millions of chloroquine tablets to fight COVID-19"

https://www.fiercepharma.com/pharma/new-commitments-mylan-an...

Re: Chloroquine, past and present

#202

Post by [deleted] »

jennyyang wrote: post #197
cameldrv wrote: post #141

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I appreciate an expert opinion here. What do you think is the actual rate of adverse events from Chloloroquine, and of what severity?

One of the comments in the article: I prescribe Plaquenil extensively in patients with autoimmune conditions.The safety profile of this drug is excellent. It is also still used for malaria prophylaxis in healthy individuals .it is not a new drug. I don’t see the reason of labeling it as dangerous. The question is : does it work for Covid19 prevention and treatment? The answer is “the current limited evidence suggests…

[deleted]

Re: Chloroquine, past and present

#203

Post by ggm »

tasogare wrote: post #152
mytailorisrich wrote: post #132

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...

I wanted to write this comment. The researcher is indeed a specialist from what I read on the internet but given his total turn about concerning Covid I would personally not put any trust in his work. He participated in the crisis the country is facing right now, by saying on social networks there was no real danger about the virus.

Scientists make mistakes. Scientists change their mind in the light of the evidence. Your distrust of this scientist is distrust of science. Please, don't do this.

Re: Chloroquine, past and present

#204

Post by robocat »

barbs wrote: post #185
gumby wrote: 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…

Heptatoxic: relating to or causing injury to the liver For those not understanding the jargon (like myself).

Hepatotoxic is the correct word. Same root with the meaning liver for the words hepatitis and hepatology.

Re: Chloroquine, past and present

#206

Post by easytiger »

hpkuarg wrote: post #192
kec wrote: post #158

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"mild" means "you probably have pneumonia, just not bad enough that it could suddenly kill you, so you don't need to be in the hospital (yet?)"

Not the GP, but "mild" probably actually means mild. Given that only (highly) symptomatic people are tested, we don't know how many people contracted the virus and only had mild cold symptoms. Developing pneumonia would already put you outside of that "mild" designation.

We have a pretty good idea in Italy how many cases are asymptomatic or very mild and it is enormous. Traveling right now but if you are interested I'll update tomorrow

Re: Chloroquine, past and present

#207

Post by wolco »

gpm wrote: post #123
wolco wrote: post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The recovering youth are getting breathing problems that aren't going away as well. It would be in their interest not to get it. It's also resetting our global warming clock. Something youth were keen about getting the world to do. If they can't handle staying at home for an extended time then global warming might not be that important after all.

This isn't resetting the global warming clock. Atmospheric CO2 is still going up not down. It's a temporary and small reduction in CO2 output coupled with a much more severe and much longer term reduction in scientific output that might actually solve global warming, and a much longer term and much more severe economic recession that limits our options to (further) hurt the economy to switch to greener means of energ…

Not sure you can have it both ways.

Either shutting down all Chinese factories for a period of time reduced CO2. Or they made no difference and we can run those factories without fear.

Wouldn't a global recession/depression reduce production?

Increased funding for scientific output or more climate models isn't going to make a difference. People have to buy and use less. You can't have it both ways here either.

Re: Chloroquine, past and present

#208

Post by abalashov »

egfx wrote: post #182
arrrg wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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...

Insightful read in plain-spoken, non-specialist language! Thanks!

Re: Chloroquine, past and present

#209

Post by submeta »

fny wrote: 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

Interesting! Could not find the part of the video where the claim is made. Can you help?

Re: Chloroquine, past and present

#210

Post by [deleted] »

taneq wrote: post #179
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…

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

[deleted]
Post reply on HN