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

Untitled topic

news.ycombinator.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

301–310 of 382 posts

Re: undefined

#301

Post by orblivion »

cmurf wrote: post #280
orblivion wrote: post #167

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Clearly not, judging by how my votes are doing. But I think their emotions are getting in the way, leading them to see things that aren't there.

Do you suppose people who take prescription drugs without a doctor's supervision are letting emotions get in the way, or do you think they're acting rationally? And do you suppose it's possible their emotions are influenced by the glittering generalities they heard, even though your emotions are not so influenced?

Sure, and perhaps there's a reasonable argument to be made there vis a vis the president's comments here (though I still think it's overblown). But from my read, some people are implying* that the president _literally_ recommended that people obtain this thing without a doctor's advice. And that's what I'm replying to. I don't think it's irrelevant, it's rather divorced from reality.

* Or maybe I misunderstood them. I could always be the one reading into things.

Re: undefined

#302

Post by et2o »

blhack wrote: post #288
et2o wrote: post #259

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They are doing clinical trials for it in COVID, so those will reveal its efficacy. The FDA, CDC, and WHO’s position is the same as mine.

Who are you arguing with that you thinks we shouldn't be doing clinical trials? Why do you think these things are "insane"?

In case you have been reading a different post, there are innumerable people who are totally confident chloroquine works for COVID-19 and that sufficient evidence already exists. Such as you, a few posts higher in this chain.

That view is “insane”, or at least strongly misinformed and medically/scientifically illiterate.

In fact, there is no strong evidence that supports this and substantial prior evidence that contradicts it.

Unfortunately, this belief leads to bad outcomes, such as people literally dying, as is the case here.

Re: undefined

#303

Post by mattkrause »

abnry wrote: post #291
mattkrause wrote: post #223

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And yet, my bottle doesn't say "Go crazy! This stuff is really safe!" Instead, it says: "Do not take more than your recommended dose. An Advil overdose can damage your stomach or intestines. Use only the smallest amount of medication needed to get relief from your pain, swelling, or fever."

Yeah, which only establishes that the baseline understanding the common person has when taking drugs is to take the recommended dose. And nowhere was Trump saying "go crazy".

Alternately, that (legally-mandated?) warning is there because a non-negligable portion of the population needs regular reminders that more isn't always better.

Re: undefined

#304

Post by hnburnsy »

marzell wrote: post #253
hnburnsy wrote: post #186

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They didn't take the drug, they took an aquarium cleaner... http://bannerhealth.mediaroom.com/chloroquinephosphate >A man has died and his wife is under critical care after the couple, both in their 60s, ingested chloroquine phosphate, an additive commonly used at aquariums to clean fish tanks. Within thirty minutes of ingestion, the couple experienced immediate effects requiring admittance to a nearby Banner Health…

Saying that someone took X when referring to a chemical, and X is just a scary way of describing a use for that chemical, is really just FUD tactics. You know what else you could say that is just as meaningful? So-and-so died because they took an 'aquarium cleaner'... where the reference is to Water, which is also used when cleaning aquariums. Everything is chemicals.

See below, likely other ingredients were involved and like others mention the difficulty of selecting the right dosing from an aquarium product makes it very pertinent to point out the source of what they took. Not FUD, just trying to add more context.

Re: undefined

#305

Post by enraged_camel »

gwright wrote: post #247
HarryHirsch wrote: post #229

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The experts in China, South Korea and Taiwan have proven that you can get the disease under control with testing, contract tracing and serious quarantine methods. The alternative is collapsing the healthcare system because available hospital beds are full of coronavirus patients - coronavirus isn't the flu, 20 % of patients are hospitalized for three weeks. We are observing that in Italy and New York State. The Presi…

They also haven't shut down their economies, which was the point I was making. The actions you describe are not mutually exclusive to a more nuanced approach to reduced economic activity. That is, something other than economic suicide.

They were able to take a more nuanced and targeted approach because they got their testing infrastructure in place very quickly and made tests widely available. That way, they were able to quickly figure out who had the virus and needed to be quarantined.

The USA, in stark contrast, had a gutted CDC (thanks to the hard work of the GOP to shrink the government), an abolished White House Pandemic Response office (used to be part of the national security group), and a President who first ignored and then downplayed repeated warnings from his own country's Intelligence Community because he thought it was a "hoax".

That is why the time for "nuanced" approaches is past, and drastic actions are needed. You can check this website for some sobering charts: https://covidactnow.org/

Regarding the economy, tell me this: do you seriously think our economy can handle millions of deaths within the span of several months?

Re: undefined

#306

Post by marzell »

ummonk wrote: post #88
mattkrause wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Verbatim quote from the President: "if things don’t go as planned, it’s not going to kill anybody." Edit: Yes, I realize what he probably meant . I know how meds work. I still think he should have chosen his wording more carefully.

I.e. even if the drug is ineffective, at least we know it doesn't have fatal side effects, because it has already been used widely and approved for malaria treatment after going through safety trials a long while ago. This is in contrast to experimental drugs, which don't just have questionable efficacy, but also unknown safety. It goes without saying that like all prescription drugs which have been proven safe, chlo…

|it has already been used widely and approved for malaria treatment after going through safety trials a long while ago

This doesn't mean it's safe to take, it just means that taking it as prescribed is believed to lead to better outcomes than trying to survive Malaria without taking it.

There's any number of things that chemotherapy or radiation might help with, but unless it is terminal cancer, chances are you are better off without those treatments.

In medical terms, 'safe' is almost always relative. Tylenol is 'safe', and yet it kills many people every year.

Re: undefined

#307

Post by Alex3917 »

HarryHirsch wrote: post #293
Alex3917 wrote: post #257

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> For treatment of HIV? For any virus. I didn't say it was safe or effective, I said there is a plausible mechanism of action.

You got that wrong. Nitric oxide is a vasodilator, it relaxes smooth muscles in the blood vessels and lungs to increase blood and air flow. It has nothing to do with fighting coronavirus or any other kind of virus, it's supportive treatment so that the patient doesn't suffocate.

> It has nothing to do with fighting coronavirus or any other kind of virus, it's supportive treatment so that the patient doesn't suffocate.

"Nitric Oxide Inhibits the Replication Cycle of Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus"

https://jvi.asm.org/content/79/3/1966

...

Re: undefined

#308

Post by et2o »

Johnny555 wrote: post #289
et2o wrote: post #249

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Almost no one should be taking 4g of acetaminophen a day. That’s definitely going to be toxic given enough time. It doesn’t belong in convo with other drugs because it requires far less monitoring. It’s also not taken chronically like the other drugs. Or shouldn’t be, at least.

Maybe they shouldn't, but isn't that kind of the whole problem with overdose? People take a higher dose than they should? Acetaminophen overdose is the leading cause for calls to Poison Control Centers (>100,000/year) and accounts for more than 56,000 emergency room visits, 2,600 hospitalizations, and an estimated 458 deaths due to acute liver failure each year.Data from the U.S. Acute Liver Failure Study Group regis…

I have lost track of the point of this conversation.

If you think acetaminophen is qualitatively the same as warfarin or lithium, you need to go to med school.

Re: undefined

#309

Post by freepor »

tathougies wrote: post #268
triceratops wrote: post #139

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It absolutely is relevant. A layperson will hear "chloroquine works on Covid-19. The FDA's approved it. The President himself said so."

Luckily a lay person cannot get medical grade chloroquine. They can purchase a chemical to use in aquariums, but that is not medication. Those chemicals are not regulated, and may contain all sorts of other compounds that could kill humans, or have an incorrect amount of chloroquine. Sorry, no matter what the president says, self-medicating is nuts.

It’s obviously nuts to take medical advice from Donald Trump. However, some people will do it, which makes it irresponsible to give such advice, even obliquely.

Re: undefined

#310

Post by mirimir »

tathougies wrote: post #261
mirimir wrote: post #243

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are you arguing that the chloroquine they took, as chloroquine phosphate, is different from the chloroquine that's used to treat malaria? That's more than "a similar name". It's the same name. From what I've read, both chloroquine and hydroxychloroquine are used to treat inflammation. So is it chloroquine vs hydroxychloroquine that you're referring to?

I would also suppose that aquarium grade chloroquine doesn't go through the same dosage assurance process. This is why it's dangerous to dose yourself using chemicals that are pharmacologic. Unless you're taking medication designed and verified to be used by humans at the given dose, you don't actually know if the concentration written on the box is actually what you're taking. These aquarium chemicals are likely unr…

Truth.
Post reply on HN