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

Study: No evidence of efficacy of hydroxychloroquine in hospitalized patients

medrxiv.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

371–379 of 379 posts

Re: Study: No evidence of efficacy of hydroxychloroquine in hospitalized patients

#371

Post by ajross »

massaman_yams wrote: post #348
ajross wrote: post #116

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> anti-cargo-cult opposing party convinced it's somewhere between useless and actively harmful. Can you name some prominent members of this cult and their statements that match this framing? Serious question. I don't think anyone really matches that description. Pretty much everyone horrified at the cloroquine boosterism was horrified because it was irresponsible and dangerous, not because they had strong feelings ab…

A handful of friends/acquaintances on fb - so, no, sorry. It's clear they're less informed than most, and I've certainly seen plenty of more appropriate responses along the lines of what you describe. To clarify a bit: it's certainly not the position of the opposing party as a whole, but those I saw who were vehemently opposed to it were ideologically motivated.

So... you consider a handful of people in your social media circle rhetorically equivalent to an "opposing party" made up of most of the major media figures on the biggest news channel on TV and the president of the United States?

Re: Study: No evidence of efficacy of hydroxychloroquine in hospitalized patients

#372

Post by [deleted] »

apendleton wrote: post #15

Personally I'm witholding judgment until the results of the PATCH trial ( https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04329923 ) arrive, as it'll finally give us some decent statistical power, and be a full, double-blind RCT. It also has multiple study arms (health-care worker prophylaxis, home-quarantined early stage, hospitalized later-stage), so if it turns out that HCQ is effective but that by the time patients are ho…

[deleted]

Re: Study: No evidence of efficacy of hydroxychloroquine in hospitalized patients

#373

Post by mcguire »

perardi wrote: post #213
mcguire wrote: post #139

While we're here, "Traditional Chinese Medicine in the Treatment of Patients Infected with 2019-New Coronavirus (SARS-CoV-2): A Review and Perspective" ( https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7098036/ ) Hey, it can't hurt and it might help. China has had one of the best recoveries from the pandemic.

I cannot tell if you are purposefully trolling, or this is sincere. Regardless, let's wade in… 1. That's not's a study. That's not a metareview. That's a puff piece by people who have a strong, strong self-interest in promoting TCM, because they want to keep their department chairs. 2. Oh heck, I'll just quote the entire last paragraph: "The safety of TCM in the treatment of emerging coronavirus diseases was not incl…

"Might as well recommend acupuncture and getting your chakras aligned, couldn't hurt!"

Indeed, it might help and it couldn't hurt.

"(Probably less of a chance it hurting than taking a wild dose of unregulated herbal supplements.)"

Or possibly a known drug with no real evidence of efficacy and a long list of known side effects?

Oh, and by the way, "That's a puff piece by people who have a strong, strong self-interest in promoting TCM, because they want to keep their department chairs," is both an hominem and describes all academic publications.

Re: Study: No evidence of efficacy of hydroxychloroquine in hospitalized patients

#374

Post by mcguire »

thepangolino wrote: post #179
mcguire wrote: post #129

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Hydroxychloroquine is an immune suppressant and may help reduce the cytokine storm effect. How that interacts with the "you have to start it early" issue is unclear to me. And it might keep you from getting malaria while you have COVID19.

The way HCQ is by accumulating in cells. It inhibits the replication of viruses by interfering with endosome/lysosome trafficking or viral protein maturation during virion maturation. (basically stops the virus from replicating)

"The way HCQ is by accumulating in cells."

The original study that set off this flap ran for a period of 6 days. I don't know that 6 days is long enough for significant accumulation. Beyond that, unless someone has published something significant that I haven't seen, any hypothesis on the drug's effect on coronavirus is pure speculation.

Re: Study: No evidence of efficacy of hydroxychloroquine in hospitalized patients

#375

Post by nkozyra »

twomoretime wrote: post #369
nkozyra wrote: post #360

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's neither vitriol nor irrational to expect a leader to yield to experts and to relay only reliable information. What he did instead lacked context or information necessary to mass communicate. There's a way to communicate it and it wasn't this.

>it's neither vitriol nor irrational to expect a leader to yield to experts and to relay only reliable information. And you want to tell me that from his tweet you already know he didn't get this information from so called experts? How exactly does this tweet indicate otherwise? >What he did instead lacked context or information necessary to mass communicate. There's a way to communicate it and it wasn't this Welcome…

> And you want to tell me that from his tweet you already know he didn't get this information from so called experts?

Given his experts wouldn't validate it after ... yeah, probably.

> I agree that it is inappropriate but

Then what's the argument here? We both agree it's inappropriate. Just as I do when any other politician misuses it.

> Besides, what did you expect him to do, cite the relevant studies on Twitter?

No. I'd expect him to wait until there's something worth disseminating.

> This is a shitty hill to die on.

Who's dying on what hill here?

Re: Study: No evidence of efficacy of hydroxychloroquine in hospitalized patients

#376

Post by massaman_yams »

ajross wrote: post #371
massaman_yams wrote: post #348

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A handful of friends/acquaintances on fb - so, no, sorry. It's clear they're less informed than most, and I've certainly seen plenty of more appropriate responses along the lines of what you describe. To clarify a bit: it's certainly not the position of the opposing party as a whole, but those I saw who were vehemently opposed to it were ideologically motivated.

So... you consider a handful of people in your social media circle rhetorically equivalent to an "opposing party" made up of most of the major media figures on the biggest news channel on TV and the president of the United States?

No. My original comment wasn't worded well, sorry. See my clarification above.

Re: Study: No evidence of efficacy of hydroxychloroquine in hospitalized patients

#377

Post by phkahler »

kaitai wrote: post #284
phkahler wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

President Trump encouraged trying hydroxycloroquine early on when there were early indications it might work. The problem is that he is considered such a villain by the left that they want it not to work just to prove him wrong. Such is the state of politics in the US. IMHO he was right to lean on the FDA to find out if its effective. Since it's already available, it would make sense for doctors to try it, but most a…

You do realize that, yes, "most [doctors] are not trained in doing controlled trials" because they have another job, the job of being a doctor? Running large RCTs takes time and a different sort of education. Source: married to a physician who usually has a 1,200 patient panel, with a diversity of conditions; said physician spouse was at one point recruited to run an RCT for a drug company and did a lot of work to pr…

>> You do realize that, yes, "most [doctors] are not trained in doing controlled trials" because they have another job...

Absolutely. It wasn't a criticism, just the way things are. For example, one doctor is claiming HCQ + zinc + antibiotic has treated over 700 covid-19 patients without a single death. I think it would be appropriate for someone to audit his records to see if that's true (was it even covid? or just some cold going around in his area?). If another doctor wanted to replicate his alleged success, I could easily see them using a slightly different protocol (skipping the zinc, using a different antibiotic, changing when or how much to administer, etc) and then claiming he's wrong when it doesn't work for them. That's just how a lot of people behave unless they've been trained otherwise.

Re: Study: No evidence of efficacy of hydroxychloroquine in hospitalized patients

#378

Post by trekrich »

kerkeslager wrote: post #291
gameswithgo wrote: post #144

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is important to remember we also do not have evidence of no efficacy for chocolate milk. Yet we do not waste our time testing it.

Okay but there are actually good reasons to test hydroxychloroquine, as it is effective against viruses with relevant similarities to Covid-19. The same is not true for chocolate milk. To address the elephant in the room: yes, Trump did come out in favor of hydroxychloroquine, but his opinion on medical issues is literally meaningless noise in both the informational and auditory senses of the phrase. We certainly sho…

Its worth looking into it.

Re: Study: No evidence of efficacy of hydroxychloroquine in hospitalized patients

#379

Post by sadfklsjlkjwt »

_n_b_ wrote: post #166
sadfklsjlkjwt wrote: post #117

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I used to agree with you. Then I realized that drug companies spend more on lawyers than scientists.

This isn’t even remotely close to true. 0.67% on legal[1] versus 17% on R&D[2]. [1] https://ccbjournal.com/articles/benchmark-metrics-pharma-com... [2] https://www.investopedia.com/ask/answers/060115/how-much-dru...

You are right of course. My mistake. Marketing is where they spend their money!
Post reply on HN