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

91–100 of 123 posts

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

#91

Post by aabeshou »

dogma1138 wrote: post #88
aabeshou wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 t…

- I think Trump is the one who sensationalized it, not pharma surrogates, but I may be wrong

- I'm not committed to this particular conspiracy theory but I jumped in here because I don't like when people try to dismiss conspiracies out of hand as if it's crazy to think that pharma does things like this constantly. There's this free market ideology that exonerates companies and argues that self-interested behavior leads to positive outcomes, so I was reacting to what I sensed of that

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

#92

Post by BFatts »

bart_spoon wrote: post #35
D13Fd wrote: post #11

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

How did they turn it into a partisan issue? Trump announced in a press conference that hydroxychoroquine held promise as a potential therapy based on anecdotal evidence being shared by physicians in Asia and Europe. Everyone, Democrats, the media, and individuals jumped on him as promoting snake oil and having no basis for his claims. It was barely news when he announced it. Some of the same evidence he was referenci…

The difference is that Trump likes to promote himself in any way he can. So he hitched his wagon to CQ and HCQ before their true efficacy was known AND promoted it as a miracle cure before that was actually known. He later tempered his speech with "shows a lot of promise" but his initial statements basically said "if you can get your hands on it - you should get on it ASAP" which is irresponsible of the POTUS. He's not a medical expert, but he loves knowing things and regurgitating them to sound smart.

He wanted people (in case it panned out to be good) to attach his name to CQ and HCQ. That is selfish.

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

#93

Post by jeffdavis »

MiroF wrote: post #45
airstrike wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's valid criticism, but it has nothing to do with partisanship.

The President shouldn't be recommending unproven drugs, he should be communicating what we know and what to do now.

But the president is not just a mouthpiece, he needs to make decisions based on incomplete information. His administration seems to have opened up channels for trials and off-label usage.

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

#94

Post by phkahler »

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.

>> I can't believe I have to say this, but the POTUS is not some hacker news comment.

No, hes a guy charged with making high level decisions in a crisis. He also has some very competent advisors at places like the NIH, FDA, CDC etc... I dont think he was just some redneck responding to a tabloid article.

If the doctor now publicly claiming 699 treatments with 0 deaths using HCQ turns out to be a blatant fraud I think he may well lose his license given the situation.

But yeah, let's fuck around and try nothing and see how that goes.

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

#95

Post by BFatts »

bart_spoon wrote: post #63
Justsignedup wrote: post #38

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 heard something about these two drugs, and without any scientific evidence he announced it, causing a panic-grab for the drugs. And? As I said, there has been some anecdotal evidence coming from countries like China, SK, and France indicating it could help. It shouldn't be a strike against a government official for sharing potentially important information. At a certain point we need to stop blaming people in po…

"And?..." Seriously? If there's panic buying (or prescribing, as did occur) then supplies are diminished if not depleted. WHAT GOOD IS THAT?

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

#96

Post by caconym_ »

randcraw wrote: post #82
caconym_ wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 o…

I have to disagree that "the other side" "did not impugn the potential of chloroquine". The opinion that it had been disproven was (and still probably is) widespread. If you were paying attention, I don't see how you could have missed all the fear-mongering about overdoses and side effects, the fish tank cleaner thing, and so on.

There are also a lot of people who think the same as we both do: that whatever happens in the future re: chloroquine, Trump should not be touting unproven treatments on TV. But the issue has clearly grown vastly more complicated than that, spreading through a game of telephone across hyper-opinionated social media bubbles. This is precisely the same effect Trump exploits with his thinly-veiled racist and sexist dogwhistles, etc., allowing him to say horrible things without actually saying them, but on the left/liberal side there's no leader coordinating the application of that interpretive force for political "good" (except, perhaps, Putin's troll farms).

We also agree that Trump is a terrible leader. I'd go further, and say that the blood of at least tens of thousands of Americans will be on his hands by the time this is all over. Unfortunately, his disapproval rate has fallen to just 50% and is still trending downward, and the persistence forecast says it'll keep going that way regardless of his gross negligence in managing this crisis. After all, the degree to which he's escaped accountability to date is astonishing. If we want to get rid of him, we need to do better than wandering through the trees of his playbook while losing sight of the forest.

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

#97

Post by caconym_ »

BFatts wrote: post #90
caconym_ wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I say you are wrong, though maybe this is the line we should be using if we still think we can tiptoe backwards out of Trump's chloroquine trap.

I repied to somebody saying essentially the same thing as you here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22760840

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

#98

Post by MiroF »

jeffdavis wrote: post #93
MiroF wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The President shouldn't be recommending unproven drugs, he should be communicating what we know and what to do now.

But the president is not just a mouthpiece, he needs to make decisions based on incomplete information. His administration seems to have opened up channels for trials and off-label usage.

> off-label usage

Off-label usage is bad when this is a drug that other people (like those with lupus - see here [0]) need to survive - we need trials first and I'm not sure that is occurring due to the President. This is a problem created by too early messaging when you should be focusing on "stay home" and other clear communication that was absent for weeks before his focus on this drug.

[0]: https://www.cnn.com/2020/03/31/opinions/hydroxychloroquine-c...

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

#99

Post by davidw »

trothamel wrote: post #30
davidw wrote: post #12

Seems relevant: https://twitter.com/SquawkCNBC/status/1245669685267439616 Not sure they've been doing proper studies and such because they're so slammed, but it seems they've been trying it in Italy and... maybe it helps some, but doesn't seem like it works miracles.

In this situation, helping some might be working a miracle. If a treatment - and I have no idea if this is the one - can prevent 20% of patients from requiring a ventilator, that's the equivalent of having 20% more ventilators.

Sure, even marginal gains are worth it.

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

#100

Post by WalterSear »

BFatts wrote: post #90
caconym_ wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

We all saw the same news. The hammer has come down quite hysterically against chloroquine. Trump is usually a reliable liar: I presumed that journalists were banking on that fact and on disputing him as a safe way to get attention. And not doing their research.

Difficult to watch, as someone familiar with chloroquine, knowing they were spreading mistaken information about the side effects and blowing the risks well out of proportion.

Post reply on HN