Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I read somewhere that they think they will know about this drug in a month or so. They’ll have a better handle on it’s efficacy, and hopefully understand how it needs to be administered.

This isn’t a new drug. It’s been on the market in one form or another for nearly as long as most people posting in this thread have been alive. “They” already understand everything about it with regards to dosage, administration, etc.

To make a hypothetical example here, this situation is akin to someone discovering a new use for aspirin, where results in many cases suggested it was effective. Well, we already understand aspirin pretty thoroughly, so if people want to take it, and it seems to be working, then there really isn’t a need for a traditional study to seek approval first for off label use. It’s aspirin. It’s already out there. We can study it later, but if most people are having positive treatment outcomes by using it, there’s really no need to wait on a formalized study.

This entire controversy around the quinine family of medications is simple politics , nothing more.


I often wonder what would’ve happened if Trump had suggested medical marijuana was worth trying. Because lots of the same people who hate him and are trashing him over hydroxychloroquine now are also big advocates of marijuana curing almost everything that afflicts you. So it would be entertaining to see these folks put into a ethical conundrum over that. Would they agree with Trump and hate themselves for that? Or would they disagree out of reflex-response, and trash their own favorite “medication”? It would be funny to watch.

It’s funny you use aspirin as an example, because guess what happened when doctors started recommending aspirin to prevent heart attacks? It turned out to do more harm than good to people without certain risks. No matter how much you think you can common-sense your way through scientific research, you just can’t.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I read somewhere that they think they will know about this drug in a month or so. They’ll have a better handle on it’s efficacy, and hopefully understand how it needs to be administered.

This isn’t a new drug. It’s been on the market in one form or another for nearly as long as most people posting in this thread have been alive. “They” already understand everything about it with regards to dosage, administration, etc.

To make a hypothetical example here, this situation is akin to someone discovering a new use for aspirin, where results in many cases suggested it was effective. Well, we already understand aspirin pretty thoroughly, so if people want to take it, and it seems to be working, then there really isn’t a need for a traditional study to seek approval first for off label use. It’s aspirin. It’s already out there. We can study it later, but if most people are having positive treatment outcomes by using it, there’s really no need to wait on a formalized study.

This entire controversy around the quinine family of medications is simple politics , nothing more.


I often wonder what would’ve happened if Trump had suggested medical marijuana was worth trying. Because lots of the same people who hate him and are trashing him over hydroxychloroquine now are also big advocates of marijuana curing almost everything that afflicts you. So it would be entertaining to see these folks put into a ethical conundrum over that. Would they agree with Trump and hate themselves for that? Or would they disagree out of reflex-response, and trash their own favorite “medication”? It would be funny to watch.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I read somewhere that they think they will know about this drug in a month or so. They’ll have a better handle on it’s efficacy, and hopefully understand how it needs to be administered.

This isn’t a new drug. It’s been on the market in one form or another for nearly as long as most people posting in this thread have been alive. “They” already understand everything about it with regards to dosage, administration, etc.

To make a hypothetical example here, this situation is akin to someone discovering a new use for aspirin, where results in many cases suggested it was effective. Well, we already understand aspirin pretty thoroughly, so if people want to take it, and it seems to be working, then there really isn’t a need for a traditional study to seek approval first for off label use. It’s aspirin. It’s already out there. We can study it later, but if most people are having positive treatment outcomes by using it, there’s really no need to wait on a formalized study.

This entire controversy around the quinine family of medications is simple politics , nothing more.

I often wonder what would’ve happened if Trump had suggested medical marijuana was worth trying. Because lots of the same people who hate him and are trashing him over hydroxychloroquine now are also big advocates of marijuana curing almost everything that afflicts you. So it would be entertaining to see these folks put into a ethical conundrum over that. Would they agree with Trump and hate themselves for that? Or would they disagree out of reflex-response, and trash their own favorite “medication”? It would be funny to watch.

Anonymous wrote:I read somewhere that they think they will know about this drug in a month or so. They’ll have a better handle on it’s efficacy, and hopefully understand how it needs to be administered.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’ll ask why some are so hell-bent on saying that it doesn’t work and why governors are stepping in and not allowing doctors to prescribe it to their patients. Why would a politician interfere between a sick individual and their doctor?

Restricting it to in-patient care isn’t banning it...

It is to a degree. Reason being is the drug works by stopping viral replication. By waiting until the viral load is high enough to hospitalize someone, the virus might be bad enough at that point to kill regardless.

Do you wait until you go septic before you take antibiotics to stop bacteria from reaching your bloodstream, or do you take it early enough in the infection to stop that from happening?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’ll ask why some are so hell-bent on saying that it doesn’t work and why governors are stepping in and not allowing doctors to prescribe it to their patients. Why would a politician interfere between a sick individual and their doctor?

Restricting it to in-patient care isn’t banning it...

It is to a degree. Reason being is the drug works by stopping viral replication. By waiting until the viral load is high enough to hospitalize someone, the virus might be bad enough at that point to kill regardless.

Do you wait until you go septic before you take antibiotics to stop bacteria from reaching your bloodstream, or do you take it early enough in the infection to stop that from happening?

ummm in fact you don’t take antibiotics for every infection.

Sliiiiidddeeeeeeeeee. Is that the point of the post?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:A small study in Brazil of chloroquine/zpak was stopped early because patients taking a higher dose developed cardiac issues. Preprint - https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.04.07.20056424v1

Several clinical trials for chloroquine and hydroxychloroquine are testing low doses for shorter periods of time in coronavirus patients. But the Health Commission of Guangdong Province in China had initially recommended those sick with the virus be treated with 500 milligrams of chloroquine twice daily for 10 days.

One of the authors of the Brazilian study, Dr. Marcus Lacerda, said in an email on Sunday that his study found that “the high dosage that the Chinese were using is very toxic and kills more patients.”

“That is the reason this arm of the study was halted early,” he said, adding that the manuscript was being reviewed by the journal Lancet Global Health.

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/04/12/health/chloroquine-coronavirus-trump.html?smid=tw-nytimes&smtyp=cur

The study you linked to did not look at HCQ plus azithromycin. It looked at use of two different daily dosages of HCQ--1200 mg v. 450 mg a day.

The dosage that doctors in the US are using is 400 mg. a day. It is not at all surprising that the study found 3 times the usual recommended dose is resulting in more instances of Long QT.

In other words, all this study shows is that doctors shouldn't supercharge dosages.

Anonymous wrote:A small study in Brazil of chloroquine/zpak was stopped early because patients taking a higher dose developed cardiac issues. Preprint - https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.04.07.20056424v1

Several clinical trials for chloroquine and hydroxychloroquine are testing low doses for shorter periods of time in coronavirus patients. But the Health Commission of Guangdong Province in China had initially recommended those sick with the virus be treated with 500 milligrams of chloroquine twice daily for 10 days.

One of the authors of the Brazilian study, Dr. Marcus Lacerda, said in an email on Sunday that his study found that “the high dosage that the Chinese were using is very toxic and kills more patients.”

“That is the reason this arm of the study was halted early,” he said, adding that the manuscript was being reviewed by the journal Lancet Global Health.

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/04/12/health/chloroquine-coronavirus-trump.html?smid=tw-nytimes&smtyp=cur

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’ll ask why some are so hell-bent on saying that it doesn’t work and why governors are stepping in and not allowing doctors to prescribe it to their patients. Why would a politician interfere between a sick individual and their doctor?

Restricting it to in-patient care isn’t banning it...

It is to a degree. Reason being is the drug works by stopping viral replication. By waiting until the viral load is high enough to hospitalize someone, the virus might be bad enough at that point to kill regardless.

Do you wait until you go septic before you take antibiotics to stop bacteria from reaching your bloodstream, or do you take it early enough in the infection to stop that from happening?

Several clinical trials for chloroquine and hydroxychloroquine are testing low doses for shorter periods of time in coronavirus patients. But the Health Commission of Guangdong Province in China had initially recommended those sick with the virus be treated with 500 milligrams of chloroquine twice daily for 10 days.

One of the authors of the Brazilian study, Dr. Marcus Lacerda, said in an email on Sunday that his study found that “the high dosage that the Chinese were using is very toxic and kills more patients.”

“That is the reason this arm of the study was halted early,” he said, adding that the manuscript was being reviewed by the journal Lancet Global Health.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’ll ask why some are so hell-bent on saying that it doesn’t work and why governors are stepping in and not allowing doctors to prescribe it to their patients. Why would a politician interfere between a sick individual and their doctor?

Restricting it to in-patient care isn’t banning it...

It is to a degree. Reason being is the drug works by stopping viral replication. By waiting until the viral load is high enough to hospitalize someone, the virus might be bad enough at that point to kill regardless.

Do you wait until you go septic before you take antibiotics to stop bacteria from reaching your bloodstream, or do you take it early enough in the infection to stop that from happening?

ummm in fact you don’t take antibiotics for every infection.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’ll ask why some are so hell-bent on saying that it doesn’t work and why governors are stepping in and not allowing doctors to prescribe it to their patients. Why would a politician interfere between a sick individual and their doctor?

Restricting it to in-patient care isn’t banning it...

It is to a degree. Reason being is the drug works by stopping viral replication. By waiting until the viral load is high enough to hospitalize someone, the virus might be bad enough at that point to kill regardless.

Do you wait until you go septic before you take antibiotics to stop bacteria from reaching your bloodstream, or do you take it early enough in the infection to stop that from happening?

Anonymous wrote:Seriously where are the GDamn tests??