Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Efficacy of hydroxychloroquine in patients with Covid-19: a randomized trial

medrxiv.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 123 posts

Re: Efficacy of hydroxychloroquine in patients with Covid-19: a randomized trial

#81

Post by bart_spoon »

dlp211 wrote: post #72
phkahler wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>> He heard something about these two drugs, and without any scientific evidence he announced it, causing a panic-grab for the drugs. Unfortunately even the CDC was saying we don't have evidence supporting it. He simply reported that it looked promising in early studies, like we had already seen reported here on HN. His other action was apparently to lean the FDA to find out ASAP rather than heming and hawing for yea…

I can't believe I have to say this, but the POTUS is not some hacker news comment. What they say has large and far reaching consequences and they shouldn't be spouting off about anecdotal evidence. Their comments had already caused a shortage of HCQ, and led to at least one death.

> Their comments had already caused a shortage of HCQ

HCQ can only be obtained via a doctor's prescription. If there is a shortage of HCQ, its because actual physicians are writing it more, either for their own benefit or for their patients. This isn't the average person panic buying toilet paper. Its trained medical professionals. If you are implying that they are incapably of thinking rationally and professionally in response to a short, offhanded comment by the President, then the issue is far graver than anything Trump is saying.

> led to at least one death

Which occured because an elderly couple saw the news, realized that HCQ is in a chemical used to treat their fish tank, drank it, and one of them died. If I read an article saying a drinking alcohol in moderation can reduce heart disease, and in response I go out and chug a bottle of isopropyl alcohol, the consequences wouldn't be blamed on anyone but myself. If anything, it supports the idea that any partisanship in this situation is coming from those who are trying to pin every instance of something bad occurring, literally at the level of a single idiotic individual, on the POTUS.

Re: Efficacy of hydroxychloroquine in patients with Covid-19: a randomized trial

#82

Post by randcraw »

caconym_ wrote: post #34
D13Fd wrote: post #11

I wish the current U.S. administration hadn't tried to turn this into a partisan issue.

I think Trump was just casting about for anything he might hitch his wagon to and claim credit for later. It's unfortunate that "the other side" heaped so much scorn on chloroquine just because Trump was touting it, because there was never any conclusive evidence that it doesn't work, and if it actually does work then they played right into Trump's usual "hoax" angle.

"The other side" criticized Trump for what he said. They did not impugn the potential of chloroquine. This issue is only, "What did the president say and should he have said it".

No responsible person should offer unproven medical advice IN ANY WAY. And no medical professional should do so unless they have multiple reliables sources to support their advice.

Trump failed on both of these points. If chloroquine turns out to fail, he'll surely promote more possible treatments again and again, thereby whittling away public trust and hope, over and over. That's terrible leadership, and rightly merits criticism from everyone who gives a damn, not just "the other side".

Re: Efficacy of hydroxychloroquine in patients with Covid-19: a randomized trial

#84

Post by bart_spoon »

philjohn wrote: post #46
Recurecur wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It absolutely did not. The press did. The mainstream US media has become a one-sided partisan cheerleading squad for the Democrats, and most Americans are sick of it. We'll see how that works out in November.

Let's not jump the gun yet - not even been peer-reviewed.

I would argue that its being peer-reviewed as we speak. The typical peer-review process involves having other experts review the paper, for free, before publication. One small silver lining of this pandemic is the urgency has caused the scientific model to shift towards preprints, which are rapidly disseminated among the scientific community via places like Twitter and Reddit, and notable papers end up getting vetted by many, many more experts much more quickly than they would via the traditional process. I've already seen many flawed papers quickly debunked and shot down, and others quickly floated to the top of the discussion, via experts commenting on Twitter and elsewhere.

I wonder if after all this is over, if our methods of modern science are changed forever, or if we just revert to where we were before.

Re: Efficacy of hydroxychloroquine in patients with Covid-19: a randomized trial

#85

Post by aabeshou »

tomcam wrote: post #80
_red wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Donate something that cost you 0.10 per pill and getting a tax write-off for $2.00 per pill. Sure, why not?

So... making those donations was bad? Would you prefer they not do it?

dont move the goalposts.

(1) OP said big pharma wants to downplay HCQ because it doesnt make them as much money.

(2) reply says that the fact that pharma donated millions of doses contradicts that

(3) OP counters that pharma is donating millions of doses because it gives them an epic tax write-off

it has nothing to do with donations being bad. it has to do with the fact that pharma is always doing whats best for them, and if its also best for patients that's a happy coincidence, but they frequently act in opposite of whats best for patients (e.g. price gouging on insulin, in this case possibly downplaying the efficacy of a cheap drug HCQ), and that's something we should notice and call out

Re: Efficacy of hydroxychloroquine in patients with Covid-19: a randomized trial

#86

Post by James_Henry »

Alex3917 wrote: post #78
James_Henry wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>To me this raises the question of whether clinical trials are really even possible right now in the first place, or whether making decisions based off in vitro data is the best we can do for right now. I don't think I understand this. We have a clinical trial with in vivo data right here though, right?

> We have a clinical trial with in vivo data right here though, right? AFAIK there's no clinical trial data, but there is in vivo data. My point though is that these are drugs that block viral replication, and we're mostly only administering them after the virus has already finished replicating. So in that scenario of course it's going to look ineffective regardless of whether it actually works or not. I don't believ…

When you say clinical trial, what are you meaning? I think the usual definition would include this paper as a clinical trial. Do you mean the FDA hasn't overseen any clinical trials?

Also, why don't you believe the data? or is it the conclusions that the researchers draw from the data that you don't believe? The statistics and trial design in this paper seem to be sound.

Re: Efficacy of hydroxychloroquine in patients with Covid-19: a randomized trial

#87

Post by BFatts »

Mountain_Skies wrote: post #37
D13Fd wrote: post #11

I wish the current U.S. administration hadn't tried to turn this into a partisan issue.

Look in the mirror to see how this became a partisan issue. The president made absolutely no partisan statements when mentioning his hope for the drug. It was those looking through dirt colored glasses that took things down that path.

Trump: "This is their new hoax" - Their refers to Democrats and Hoax refers to the Coronavirus.

I'd say that's a pretty damn partisan statement from our Commander in Grief.

Re: Efficacy of hydroxychloroquine in patients with Covid-19: a randomized trial

#88

Post by dogma1138 »

aabeshou wrote: post #85
tomcam wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So... making those donations was bad? Would you prefer they not do it?

dont move the goalposts. (1) OP said big pharma wants to downplay HCQ because it doesnt make them as much money. (2) reply says that the fact that pharma donated millions of doses contradicts that (3) OP counters that pharma is donating millions of doses because it gives them an epic tax write-off it has nothing to do with donations being bad. it has to do with the fact that pharma is always doing whats best for them…

That’s fine however it doesn’t bode with the original assertion that it’s downplayed HCQ if anything it somewhat sensationalized it.

I have no problems believing that BigPharma does what is good for BigPharma in this case getting good PR, a tax write off and having their most valuable customers as in those with chronic conditions which means pretty much most people once they hit 50-60 to stay alive so they can sell their patented drugs to their insurers and HMOs is a much more believable strategy than some conspiracy that BigPharma is downplaying HCQ because they can’t make money on it.

Re: Efficacy of hydroxychloroquine in patients with Covid-19: a randomized trial

#89

Post by BFatts »

Recurecur wrote: post #13
D13Fd wrote: post #11

I wish the current U.S. administration hadn't tried to turn this into a partisan issue.

It absolutely did not. The press did. The mainstream US media has become a one-sided partisan cheerleading squad for the Democrats, and most Americans are sick of it. We'll see how that works out in November.

Think about how silly that sounds - the MSM would need to coordinate their work, on a grand scale, to repeat the same messages about Trump and his people. They would have to coordinate their "fake news" (i.e. stuff that's critical of Trump) to all refer to the same facts. Seems like a lot of work to coordinate a destructive effort against the president AND keep it up over the last 3.5 years...

Re: Efficacy of hydroxychloroquine in patients with Covid-19: a randomized trial

#90

Post by BFatts »

caconym_ wrote: post #34
D13Fd wrote: post #11

I wish the current U.S. administration hadn't tried to turn this into a partisan issue.

I think Trump was just casting about for anything he might hitch his wagon to and claim credit for later. It's unfortunate that "the other side" heaped so much scorn on chloroquine just because Trump was touting it, because there was never any conclusive evidence that it doesn't work, and if it actually does work then they played right into Trump's usual "hoax" angle.

"the other side" didn't say anything negative about CQ or HCQ - and instead (if you had actually listened to their message) tried to get people to NOT take it themselves, to NOT hoard it, to NOT prescribe it a prophylactic when that is an unknown (this depleting existing supplies).

That is what "the other side" was saying.

Post reply on HN