I think this drug has become too politicized to be able to have a factual scientific debate.
It's really a shame the whole world stops at the border of the USA so there is no other place this debate could happen.
Hydroxychloroquine Probably Isn’t the Answer
11–20 of 115 posts
Re: Hydroxychloroquine Probably Isn’t the Answer
#12I think this drug has become too politicized to be able to have a factual scientific debate.
"If there was any effect of this drug on COVID-19, it was minimal. Hydroxychloroquine, whose toxicity is far lower, may be safer than chloroquine. But that doesn't matter if the drugs are ineffective."
What's political about that?
The whole idea that if there were a simple and cheap cure that it would be politicized to the point where it won't see widespread application is ridiculous.
Re: Hydroxychloroquine Probably Isn’t the Answer
#13Collectively, we need to get over the idea of all-or-nothing solutions to Coronavirus.
We're not going to wake up one day with a "cure" for COVID-19. No one in the medical field actually expects Hydroxychloroquine to produce miraculous recoveries at this point. The idea is that any treatment that slows the progress of the infection will also buy the patient's immune system more time to fight the infection. If we can push the peak symptoms back even 1-2 days relative to untreated individuals, that gives the immune system that much extra time to mount an effective defense against the virus.
When we finally confirm which treatments, if any, are useful for slowing the progress of the infections, we can combine them with earlier testing and identification to help reduce the number of patients who require hospitalization. It won't look like a cure, but it will be making improvements in treatment outcomes and reducing the burden on hospitals.
At this scale, a small modification of disease severity can still be useful for minimizing the burden on hospitals, even if it doesn't fit the narrative of a miracle cure.
Re: Hydroxychloroquine Probably Isn’t the Answer
#14Prevent Senior in Brazil, an health operator with mosts of its patients on risk groups (60+ yo) are using hydroxychloroquine on all its COVID-19 patients with tremendous success. Right now I choose to believe on MD in front line rather then in Health Societies, FDA, WHO and those bureaucrats who let the virus spread all around due to its incompetence
Do you have a reference for this?
Re: Hydroxychloroquine Probably Isn’t the Answer
#15I think this drug has become too politicized to be able to have a factual scientific debate.
It's really a shame the whole world stops at the border of the USA so there is no other place this debate could happen.
I'm grimly curious, are the Rupert Murdoch media outlets overseas pushing these drugs as enthusiastically as they're doing here in the US?
Re: Hydroxychloroquine Probably Isn’t the Answer
#16Not to diminish the possible successes, but without a randomized control trial, there is no way the success can reliably be attributed to the medications.
That's not to say they should stop prescribing it, simply due to lack of formal trials. But the perceived benefits should not be taken at face value, yet.
Re: Hydroxychloroquine Probably Isn’t the Answer
#17I think this drug has become too politicized to be able to have a factual scientific debate.
"If there was any effect of this drug on COVID-19, it was minimal. Hydroxychloroquine, whose toxicity is far lower, may be safer than chloroquine. But that doesn't matter if the drugs are ineffective." What's political about that? The whole idea that if there were a simple and cheap cure that it would be politicized to the point where it won't see widespread application is ridiculous.
> What's political about that?
Then why does the title say that Hydroxychloroquine "probably" isn't the answer? It either works or it doesn't. If the drugs are ineffective just say so. Why beat around the bush with a "probably"?
Re: Hydroxychloroquine Probably Isn’t the Answer
#18Earlier quoted context omitted.
"If there was any effect of this drug on COVID-19, it was minimal. Hydroxychloroquine, whose toxicity is far lower, may be safer than chloroquine. But that doesn't matter if the drugs are ineffective." What's political about that? The whole idea that if there were a simple and cheap cure that it would be politicized to the point where it won't see widespread application is ridiculous.
> What's political about that? Then why does the title say that Hydroxychloroquine "probably" isn't the answer? It either works or it doesn't. If the drugs are ineffective just say so. Why beat around the bush with a "probably"?
Probably as in 'not yet 100% sure'. As a measure of probability based on available evidence.
Re: Hydroxychloroquine Probably Isn’t the Answer
#19Has anyone noticed that the CDC’s reported deaths by week from ordinary flu and pneumonia have been plummeting while COVID-19 death rise?
They are down from the normal 4.5k+ per week during this period to around 2.3k per week and they are falling parabolically as COVID-19 expands.
What could cause this?
Re: Hydroxychloroquine Probably Isn’t the Answer
#20If it would have situation altering effects we would already know. Huge effects would have been seen very early in the wide spread application of it.
I'm not so sure. Let's say it halves the number of deaths or halves the time it takes for someone to get better. But also it requires a certain dose to be most effective. How would you know in this fog of war? You'd still have many patients who are sick or dying. The whole point of this article is that it's really hard to know without controlled, randomized trials. And I agree.
Sure, but more so than all the other drugs?
People just have a problem with a no-information-yet state, they'd rather talk about the unfounded rumor than acknowledge that people are hard at work and there is no definitive news yet.