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

281–290 of 320 posts

Re: Chloroquine, past and present

#281

Post by paulmd »

blisterpeanuts wrote: post #280
paulmd wrote: post #254

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It would be a shame if they thought it worked but government regulation prevents them from prescribing it to ordinary patients. It doesn't. It's FDA-approved, it's just off-label for this use. > It isn't totally clear to me what you are implying, but there isn't anything wrong with them stocking up on hydroxychloroquine if it is likely to be effective against COVID-19 lmao are you implying that doctors are self-pre…

Do you have a link or any kind of citation for your final statement, or was it just a cheap shot at Trump for saying he is hopeful about a medication?

That Trump says everything that pops into his mind, regardless of the implications or consequences?

Maybe the part where he burned spies that took us decades to get into the Kremlin in a moment of unthinking blurting. Or the part where he livetweeted a classified photo from a briefing (on his unsecure phone that he's not "allowed" to have, if he cared) that revealed classified satellite orbits and capabilites and had to be (arduously) scrubbed from the internet. Or the part where some people talked to him about the problems of mass shootings and he proposed "taking all the guns and worrying about the due process later". Or maybe the other 4 years too.

It's really not a radical thesis at this point. Guy has no filters whatsoever. Name your position, guy has blurted out a dozen unthinking things over the years. He just says whatever wanders across his mind. Whatever seems good at the moment.

Some of them can be retracted later. A lot can't. The damage is done. You can't put those drugs back on the shelves.

By the way, he didn't just say it was hopeful, he suggested it was approved. Which is where Dr Fauci had to step in.

Re: Chloroquine, past and present

#282

Post by th0ma5 »

cameldrv wrote: post #279
teddyvangogh wrote: post #224

Earlier quoted context omitted.

right. we need to wait for FDA approval. and since it's prescription only, you need to check with your doctor.

Dude. Chloroquine is FDA approved. Any doctor can prescribe it for any reason today. The drug company is not allowed to advertise or promote it for COVID without approval for that indication, but any doctor can prescribe it for COVID if in his/her professional opinion, it is appropriate.

And now it is in short supply because anyone who can write a script is.

Re: Chloroquine, past and present

#283

Post by m0zg »

roenxi wrote: post #242
m0zg wrote: post #118

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>> Why spend 2 weeks To acquire immunity while there are still hospital beds available in some places, in the unlikely event that you need one. That won't be the case a month from now.

I'm a big fan of selfishness so I'll represent the 'that is just a bad idea' argument: 1) Such an individual would be contracting an unknown virus in an environment where hospital staff are the least prepared and practiced at dealing with it. 2) Such an individual is still exposing themselves to high risk of mistiming the outbreak and hitting it at the peak. 3) They might accidentally catch a different disease thinki…

> it is likely we'll have an available and effective drug for treating it

I don't believe this is likely at all. At best we will have something that kinda sorta works in some patients. If this was likely we'd have a drug for the common flu long time ago. To remind you, the flu takes about 50K lives in the US every year.

Re: Chloroquine, past and present

#284

Post by teddyvangogh »

cameldrv wrote: post #279
teddyvangogh wrote: post #224

Earlier quoted context omitted.

right. we need to wait for FDA approval. and since it's prescription only, you need to check with your doctor.

Dude. Chloroquine is FDA approved. Any doctor can prescribe it for any reason today. The drug company is not allowed to advertise or promote it for COVID without approval for that indication, but any doctor can prescribe it for COVID if in his/her professional opinion, it is appropriate.

FDA approval for coronavirus treatment.

Re: Chloroquine, past and present

#286

Post by freeflight »

paulmd wrote: post #239
drstewart wrote: post #235

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 i…

> "To avoid a rebound in transmission, these policies will need to be maintained until large stocks of vaccine are available to immunise the population – which could be 18 months or more"

That sounds very much like a "worst-case", afaik German CureVac are right now in the stage of selecting the last 2 candidates for a vaccine, they expect first clinical trials around June/July, I'd be surprised if they are the only ones that far along.

That's not meant to say this will be over the instant we have a vaccine, but finding one is right now the big X factor that makes all estimates veer on the rather pessimistic side.

Re: Chloroquine, past and present

#287

Post by roenxi »

m0zg wrote: post #283
roenxi wrote: post #242

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm a big fan of selfishness so I'll represent the 'that is just a bad idea' argument: 1) Such an individual would be contracting an unknown virus in an environment where hospital staff are the least prepared and practiced at dealing with it. 2) Such an individual is still exposing themselves to high risk of mistiming the outbreak and hitting it at the peak. 3) They might accidentally catch a different disease thinki…

> it is likely we'll have an available and effective drug for treating it I don't believe this is likely at all. At best we will have something that kinda sorta works in some patients. If this was likely we'd have a drug for the common flu long time ago. To remind you, the flu takes about 50K lives in the US every year.

There are effective drugs for common flu strains; including a set of vaccines. And if the US manages to get COVID-19 related deaths down to 50k lives for 2020 that will be pretty peachy.

Re: Chloroquine, past and present

#288

Post by aaavl2821 »

red-indian wrote: post #268
zamalek wrote: post #259

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It may be useful in combo with other drugs Weren't the first studies done in combination with azithromycin (which is bizzare, as that's an antibiotic)?

The azithromycin was given to some of the patients with viral pneumonia as there is a chance of reinfection with bacterial pneumonia. Astonishing and unexpectedly, the covid19 virus was completely wiped out in all the HCQ+azithromycin patients but only in a bit over half the HCQ alone patients. So just as an antiparasite drug surprisingly once was found to also work as an antiviral, azithromycin has unexpectedly been…

It may be early to conclude that azithromycin has a complementary mechanism with HCQ, the study was too small and there are too many confounding factors. It is possible there is some synergy but also possible that there is not

Re: Chloroquine, past and present

#289

Post by romski »

paulmd wrote: post #276
red-indian wrote: post #268

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The azithromycin was given to some of the patients with viral pneumonia as there is a chance of reinfection with bacterial pneumonia. Astonishing and unexpectedly, the covid19 virus was completely wiped out in all the HCQ+azithromycin patients but only in a bit over half the HCQ alone patients. So just as an antiparasite drug surprisingly once was found to also work as an antiviral, azithromycin has unexpectedly been…

the problem is quite simple: the virus infects your body, damages your lungs, and fucks up your immune system. Then you get an opportunistic pneumonia The mechanism is also quite simple: administer them both together and the antimalarials kill the virus, the antibiotics kill the pneumonia.

you're not really an md, are you?

Re: Chloroquine, past and present

#290

Post by mytailorisrich »

pnako wrote: post #240
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.

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.

In February millions of people were in lockdown in China and thousands were dying.

That's why it's difficult to understand how an expert could casually claim that this was nothing more than seasonal flu.

Post reply on HN