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

231–240 of 320 posts

Re: Chloroquine, past and present

#231

Post by duchenne »

Since this 13th of February, the Koreans recommend the use of hydrochloroquine for patients infected by the covid-19 [1]. The Covid-19 fatality ratio in Korea is one of the lowest in the world, around 1%.

The study in France showing a spectacular drop in covid-19 viral load after only 6 days of hydrochloroquine treatment has been directed by Pr Didier Raoult who is the most cited researcher on infectious disease in the world. [2]

Anecdotally, I personally know a patient who took hydrochloroquine, and indeed the viral load dropped quickly, even though the lung damage is still there.

According to Pr Didier Raoult, the hydrochloroquine has been routinely prescribed for decades to prevent Malaria, with well known and limited side-effects.

According to him, the in-vitro effectiveness of hydrochloroquine on covid-19 has been confirmed by several labs independently, including his own lab and the lab of Mr Zong the most cited researcher on infectious disease in China. (Sorry, I am not sure about the spelling)

[1] http://m.koreabiomed.com/news/articleView.html?idxno=7428 [2] https://scholar.google.fr/citations?user=n8EF_6kAAAAJ&hl=fr

Re: Chloroquine, past and present

#232

Post by aaavl2821 »

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…

Fwiw, Plaquenil is hydroxychloroquine, a less toxic derivative of chloroquine. It has a different safety profile than chloroquine

The French study of HCQ had several limitations. Including that it was very small and some patients who got HCQ and progressed to go to the ICU were excluded from the study. Thus making the drug look better than it is

HCQ is not likely to be a miracle cure. It may be useful in combo with other drugs

It's easy to make not great data look like great data to untrained eyes. And it's tempting to cut scientific corners to bring forward a drug for covid-19. But if the drug doesn't work, we should be honest about that and look for better drugs

Should at risk people take HCQ as a precaution until something better comes along? Definitely. but we need to be careful in talking about its potential

Re: Chloroquine, past and present

#233

Post by [deleted] »

duchenne wrote: post #231

Since this 13th of February, the Koreans recommend the use of hydrochloroquine for patients infected by the covid-19 [1]. The Covid-19 fatality ratio in Korea is one of the lowest in the world, around 1%. The study in France showing a spectacular drop in covid-19 viral load after only 6 days of hydrochloroquine treatment has been directed by Pr Didier Raoult who is the most cited researcher on infectious disease in t…

[deleted]

Re: Chloroquine, past and present

#234

Post by paulmd »

notatoad wrote: post #230
paulmd wrote: post #221

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, never, but we have 20 ventilators per 100k people, "flattening the curve" so strongly that we can treat everybody was always a bit of a pipe dream. You need to flatten the curve almost to zero to get to a "sustainable" level of disease. They are nearly the same goal. Any non-trivial level of disease that is not controlled will rapidly push you past the "flatten the curve" threshold. And we will certainly be her…

The Chinese have an app for this? Why aren't we using that? I'd happily be tracked 24/7, and I'm sure so would many many others, if it meant reducing the spread and getting back to some sense of normalcy a bit quicker.

https://twitter.com/CarolYujiaYin/status/1239583581325778944 (deffo not propaganda /s)

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/03/01/business/china-coronaviru...

The other thing is that other countries like Iran and Israel are just pulling the data directly from Google Location Services or from telcom location data. I assume the US will probably follow at some point, since that data can be accessed without a warrant since it's third-party-controlled data.

Re: Chloroquine, past and present

#235

Post by drstewart »

paulmd wrote: post #221
01100011 wrote: post #217

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When did we switch from 'flattening the curve' to 'trying to keep anyone from getting sick'? I thought we were mostly all going to get it this year, but we didn't want everyone getting it in a 1 month period?

Well, never, but we have 20 ventilators per 100k people, "flattening the curve" so strongly that we can treat everybody was always a bit of a pipe dream. You need to flatten the curve almost to zero to get to a "sustainable" level of disease. They are nearly the same goal. Any non-trivial level of disease that is not controlled will rapidly push you past the "flatten the curve" threshold. And we will certainly be her…

Thinking the entire world will quarantine for 12-18 months is a pipe dream. That will never happen.

Re: Chloroquine, past and present

#236

Post by stevespang »

All you naysayers:

The WHO Model List of Essential Medicines (EML), published by the World Health Organization (WHO), contains the medications considered to be most effective and safe to meet the most important needs in a health system.[1]

Cholorquine is on that list.

Case Closed.

Re: Chloroquine, past and present

#237

Post by stevespang »

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…

The WHO Model List of Essential Medicines (EML), published by the World Health Organization (WHO), contains the medications considered to be most effective and safe to meet the most important needs in a health system.[1]

Chloroquine is on that list

Case Closed.

Re: Chloroquine, past and present

#238

Post by jfkebwjsbx »

ggm wrote: post #203
tasogare wrote: post #152

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

What? There was more than enough evidence. They are the ones anti-science.

Re: Chloroquine, past and present

#239

Post by paulmd »

drstewart wrote: post #235
paulmd wrote: post #221

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, never, but we have 20 ventilators per 100k people, "flattening the curve" so strongly that we can treat everybody was always a bit of a pipe dream. You need to flatten the curve almost to zero to get to a "sustainable" level of disease. They are nearly the same goal. Any non-trivial level of disease that is not controlled will rapidly push you past the "flatten the curve" threshold. And we will certainly be her…

Thinking the entire world will quarantine for 12-18 months is a pipe dream. That will never happen.

US DHHS: "18 months or longer" https://int.nyt.com/data/documenthelper/6819-covid-19-respon...

UK government: "at least a year." https://news.sky.com/story/coronavirus-social-distancing-nee...

Modelling: "2 months on 1 month off until a vaccine is developed". https://www.imperial.ac.uk/media/imperial-college/medicine/s...

/shrug

It's unprecedented and I tend to agree with you that at some point the economic carnage is going to force alternatives, but right now that's the plan. Not the plan they're telling you publicly, but the real one they're planning for and reacting to.

At the end of the day if that's the plan you'll go along with it because the men with guns will make you.

As I've commented elsewhere, an approach using contact-tracing via app and GPS data, backed by widespread testing (millions per week) and small-scale isolation of affected, along the lines of China or South Korea, seems to be more effective.

https://twitter.com/CarolYujiaYin/status/1239583581325778944 (deffo not propaganda /s)

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/03/01/business/china-coronaviru...

The US population is going to hate hate hate that one. But it's that or stay inside except for going to the grocery store for the next 12-18 months.

If we don't choose option A, and we don't choose option B, we implicitly choose option C: 20% of our seniors die in a single year. Choosing not to choose is still making a choice. I believe there's a song about that.

Re: Chloroquine, past and present

#240

Post by pnako »

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.

I don't really get your point. He's indeed a specialist in infectious disease (he runs the most important infectious diseases lab in France)... but because his opinion on that virus disagrees with, what, hacker news, twitter and the mass media... then he's wrong? WTF.
Post reply on HN