Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #101  
Old 04-07-2020, 11:28 AM
Bijou Drains is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 12,068
Once the FDA approves a drug a Dr. can give it to anyone for any condition. Drug companies can only promote it for approved uses.
  #102  
Old 04-07-2020, 11:35 AM
CarnalK's Avatar
CarnalK is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Posts: 20,115
Quote:
Originally Posted by storyteller0910 View Post
). Itís obviously true that this doesnít necessarily translate to clinical benefit Ė the drug has shown in vitro antiviral activity in a number of instances over the last 20 years and it hasnít ever panned out clinically Ė but itís irresponsible to characterize this as some kind of out-of-thin-air thing. The nonclinical research absolutely justifies (cautious, measured) evaluation of the drug in infected patients, especially given the seriousness of the outbreak.
That's ridiculous. 20 years of it not panning out is a great reason to be extremely skeptical right now and a good reason to think even cautious measured evaluation is cautiously flushing money down the toilet.
  #103  
Old 04-07-2020, 11:37 AM
madsircool is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 8,667
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bijou Drains View Post
Once the FDA approves a drug a Dr. can give it to anyone for any condition. Drug companies can only promote it for approved uses.
An MD can be sued for incorrectly prescribing drugs that cause damage to the patient or others.
  #104  
Old 04-07-2020, 11:43 AM
storyteller0910 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: New Jersey (it's not as bad as they tell you)
Posts: 4,443
Quote:
Originally Posted by CarnalK View Post
That's ridiculous. 20 years of it not panning out is a great reason to be extremely skeptical right now and a good reason to think even cautious measured evaluation is cautiously flushing money down the toilet.
Nonsense. A drug's efficacy in treating condition X tells you nothing, jack, zero, about its efficacy treating condition Y. I have worked on drugs that produce remarkable responses in one form of cancer while having absolutely no clinical impact on other forms of cancer much more similar to the original cancer than COVID-19 is to influenza.

We don't know. We includes you.
  #105  
Old 04-07-2020, 11:47 AM
Kent Clark's Avatar
Kent Clark is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Posts: 28,023
Well whaddya know. It turns out President Trump might have a financial interest in the drug's use.

Trump holds "financial interest" in pharmaceutical company that produces hydroxychloroquine: NYT
  #106  
Old 04-07-2020, 11:49 AM
Do Not Taunt is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Seattle
Posts: 2,419
Quote:
Originally Posted by storyteller0910 View Post
The evidence meets the standard for further study, and that is the most conclusive thing anyone can say; donít trust anyone who goes further than that in either direction, because, and I canít say this often enough, they donít know.
This makes sense in normal times, but when there is a worldwide pandemic going on, we may need to make the best decision we can with limited data. So while that further study is occurring, what should we do? Assume an effectively infinite supply of hydroxychloroquine.
  #107  
Old 04-07-2020, 11:54 AM
storyteller0910 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: New Jersey (it's not as bad as they tell you)
Posts: 4,443
Quote:
Originally Posted by Do Not Taunt View Post
This makes sense in normal times, but when there is a worldwide pandemic going on, we may need to make the best decision we can with limited data. So while that further study is occurring, what should we do? Assume an effectively infinite supply of hydroxychloroquine.
That's a great question, and its thankfully above my pay grade, but I'll give you my opinion. I would stop telling people that HCQ is going to save the country, as the President has been doing; I would also stop telling people that it's useless garbage, as some others have been doing. I would direct interested patients to ongoing clinical trials, especially if they are: (1) in a group with high risk of death; and (2) not suffering from existing problems with heart rhythm. If clinical trials are not available to a given patient who fits criterion 1 and 2, I would leave it to the discretion of the individual physician whether or not to prescribe off-label.
  #108  
Old 04-07-2020, 11:56 AM
CarnalK's Avatar
CarnalK is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Posts: 20,115
Quote:
Originally Posted by storyteller0910 View Post
Nonsense. A drug's efficacy in treating condition X tells you nothing, jack, zero, about its efficacy treating condition Y. I have worked on drugs that produce remarkable responses in one form of cancer while having absolutely no clinical impact on other forms of cancer much more similar to the original cancer than COVID-19 is to influenza.

We don't know. We includes you.
I don't know but I know you're wrong. If this drug has been tried many times to treat various other viruses, including other corona viruses, over the course of decades then it's a great indication that it won't work this time.

Last edited by CarnalK; 04-07-2020 at 11:57 AM.
  #109  
Old 04-07-2020, 11:57 AM
Ann Hedonia's Avatar
Ann Hedonia is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 4,137
Quote:
Originally Posted by CarnalK View Post
That's ridiculous. 20 years of it not panning out is a great reason to be extremely skeptical right now and a good reason to think even cautious measured evaluation is cautiously flushing money down the toilet.
I think the primary reason for skepticism is that even proven anti-virals donít have the kind of dramatic curative effect that is being attributed to this drug. At best, they make the symptoms a little less severe and shorten the duration somewhat.

Not the ďI was at deathís doorstep and I took this pill and 2 or 6 or 8 hours later I recovered almost completelyĒ anecdotes. That is an extraordinary claim for an anti-viral and it requires a high level of proof.
  #110  
Old 04-07-2020, 12:12 PM
storyteller0910 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: New Jersey (it's not as bad as they tell you)
Posts: 4,443
Quote:
Originally Posted by CarnalK View Post
I don't know but I know you're wrong. If this drug has been tried many times to treat various other viruses, including other corona viruses, over the course of decades then it's a great indication that it won't work this time.
Well, OK, so let me introduce you to necitumumab, a monoclonal antibody marketed by Eli Lilly and Company as "Portrazza." Useful against a very wide variety of tumor types in vitro.

Add necitumumab to standard of care chemotherapy in patients with squamous non-small cell lung cancer, and it helps. Patients live longer. Their disease progresses more slowly. Necitumumab is approved by FDA for squamous NSCLC, and is considered a useful first-line option in this context.

Over the last decade+, necitumumab has also been administered to patients with other types of cancer. No significant efficacy has been detected in most of them. Most notably for the purposes of this conversation, it was not beneficial for patients with other forms of lung cancer, including non-squamous non-small cell tumors.

If you maintain that a drug's ineffectiveness against one form of illness necessarily means it will be ineffective against other forms of that illness, you must account for necitumumab's effectiveness against squamous but not non-squamous NSCLC. You must account for thousands of other drugs that work against one specific condition, and not against related others. Can you account for that?

You can't. Know why? Because when it comes to HCQ vs. the current novel coronavirus (novel, meaning heretofore unstudied), you don't know.
  #111  
Old 04-07-2020, 12:15 PM
CarnalK's Avatar
CarnalK is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Posts: 20,115
Yeah, great. Maybe Hydroxychloroquine cures cancer too! Can't know til we try!
  #112  
Old 04-07-2020, 12:20 PM
storyteller0910 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: New Jersey (it's not as bad as they tell you)
Posts: 4,443
Quote:
Originally Posted by CarnalK View Post
Yeah, great. Maybe Hydroxychloroquine cures cancer too! Can't know til we try!
Well, if they test the drug against cancer cells in a lab - following development of a reasonable hypothesis for a mechanism of action - and it results in tumor growth inhibition, they surely will try it in patients. That's... that's how drug development works. You don't understand, but you're sure you do, which makes your posts a great illustration of my point.

So thanks!
  #113  
Old 04-07-2020, 12:23 PM
Chefguy's Avatar
Chefguy is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Portlandia
Posts: 44,086
Instead of baseless hope, there is apparently actual hope with a very old TB vaccine called Bacillus Calmette-Guerin vaccine, which is still used extensively in developing countries. Australia has launched trials with medical personnel using it and a placebo. It's a very interesting read.
  #114  
Old 04-07-2020, 12:26 PM
HMS Irruncible is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 9,358
There's also the question of whether we even need a "cure" for COVID.

No doubt it's a huge-scale tragedy, but the fact is, most people who get COVID get better without any treatment.

The problem is people got infected on such a huge scale that our healthcare system is breaking because we can't help the people who get severe or complicated cases. Also we don't have adequate test coverage to know who even has COVID vs. the flu.

These are systemic problems that even a "miracle treatment" can't touch. We need tests. We need contact tracing. We need to limit the spread. Most of all we need a MASS PRODUCED VACCINE.

Even if chloroquine works as advertised, it's a tiny weak band-aid at best.
  #115  
Old 04-07-2020, 12:39 PM
Do Not Taunt is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Seattle
Posts: 2,419
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chefguy View Post
Instead of baseless hope, there is apparently actual hope with a very old TB vaccine called Bacillus Calmette-Guerin vaccine, which is still used extensively in developing countries. Australia has launched trials with medical personnel using it and a placebo. It's a very interesting read.
That's fascinating. I'm curious why this isn't given more widely. While I live in the US, and TB infections here are rare, they aren't zero, and I do travel from time to time. While I've been vaccinated for typhoid and yellow fever as an adult, no one has ever offered me a TB vaccine. And if it has positive 'off-target' effects, so much the better.
  #116  
Old 04-07-2020, 12:42 PM
CarnalK's Avatar
CarnalK is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Posts: 20,115
There is a good chance that a vaccine simply won't happen so prepare yourself. Band aids might be all we got.
  #117  
Old 04-07-2020, 12:47 PM
Ann Hedonia's Avatar
Ann Hedonia is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 4,137
Quote:
Originally Posted by storyteller0910 View Post
Well, OK, so let me introduce you to necitumumab, a monoclonal antibody marketed by Eli Lilly and Company as "Portrazza." Useful against a very wide variety of tumor types in vitro.

Add necitumumab to standard of care chemotherapy in patients with squamous non-small cell lung cancer, and it helps. Patients live longer. Their disease progresses more slowly. Necitumumab is approved by FDA for squamous NSCLC, and is considered a useful first-line option in this context.

Over the last decade+, necitumumab has also been administered to patients with other types of cancer. No significant efficacy has been detected in most of them. Most notably for the purposes of this conversation, it was not beneficial for patients with other forms of lung cancer, including non-squamous non-small cell tumors.

If you maintain that a drug's ineffectiveness against one form of illness necessarily means it will be ineffective against other forms of that illness, you must account for necitumumab's effectiveness against squamous but not non-squamous NSCLC. You must account for thousands of other drugs that work against one specific condition, and not against related others. Can you account for that?

You can't. Know why? Because when it comes to HCQ vs. the current novel coronavirus (novel, meaning heretofore unstudied), you don't know.
Yes, we don’t know. But the odds are slim.

Take the anti-cancer drug Gleevec. It truly is a miracle drug. When it went to clinical trials 98% of the patients on the active drug got better really fast.

When I was doing cancer support, I spent a lot of time trying to convince patients not to throw away their money or remaining time with their families on onerous unproven treatments, many which were in early trials.

And everyone always said “What about Gleevac?” Look at how well that worked out for those early patients. And the only response I had for that was “ that kind of success hardly ever happens”. And in the two and a half years I did cancer support - I never saw an early clinical trial of a new compound that had any success whatsoever, much less the kind of success that Gleevec saw.

I’m not saying this new drug combination shouldn’t be carefully looked at. I’m just saying the fact that it failed against other similar viruses makes it a long shot.

And everyone should be skeptical of any doctors that are using Fox News as the conduit to publicize their results. They should be skeptical of pretty much anything that Dr. Oz hawks, ever. They should be skeptical of doctors that publish YouTube videos instead of journal articles. They should be aware that their is a huge nexus between the people promoting this and the people that promote colloidal silver and herbal cancer cures.

They should remember that promise of a miracle drug amid an epidemic is every con artist’s fevered wet dream.

Last edited by Ann Hedonia; 04-07-2020 at 12:52 PM.
  #118  
Old 04-07-2020, 12:48 PM
CarnalK's Avatar
CarnalK is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Posts: 20,115
Quote:
Originally Posted by storyteller0910 View Post
Well, if they test the drug against cancer cells in a lab - following development of a reasonable hypothesis for a mechanism of action - and it results in tumor growth inhibition, they surely will try it in patients. That's... that's how drug development works. You don't understand, but you're sure you do, which makes your posts a great illustration of my point.

So thanks!
See, what you're failing to understand is that I'm not saying it's impossible. I'm already aware Hydroxychloroquine doesn't even treat all forms of malaria but is used in certain lupus cases. It's a crazy world. You telling me "it's possible!" isn't really earth shattering. I'm saying it looks like a well trod but unsuccessful path.

But yes, I don't know. That's why I didn't say I did.

Last edited by CarnalK; 04-07-2020 at 12:53 PM.
  #119  
Old 04-07-2020, 12:50 PM
Great Antibob is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 5,723
Quote:
Originally Posted by storyteller0910 View Post
Well, if they test the drug against cancer cells in a lab - following development of a reasonable hypothesis for a mechanism of action - and it results in tumor growth inhibition, they surely will try it in patients.
Well, that's the thing, isn't it? There are a million things that could be tried for most diseases. Most aren't. That's because we truly don't have the resources to test them all quickly, safely, or effectively.

We are selective precisely for this purpose. And that selection is based on a variety of factors, including past experience. In the case of hydroxycholoroquine, tests are being conducted but there's also solid reason to believe it is not a '100% cure' or a preventative, as some people have touted. Come to it, there's reason to believe it may have limited impact as a treatment, much less a cure.

Realistic assessment and skepticism of a potential treatment is not mutually exclusive with also testing it but with realistic expectations and with due diligence in all testing protocols.

But that's where the science and the public response are getting mixed up. The layperson doesn't get science. They believe this will be like a Star Trek effort where by the end of the hour, a miracle cure is produced instead of the likely result, which is, at best, this will provide some relief maybe in some cases but also have a bevy of known side effects.

Beyond that, as, at best, a modestly effective treatment, we're putting a lot of hope (and time and money) into something it when those resources may be better spent elsewhere. Maybe this particular drug is the best place to put a moonshot R&D effort, but I wouldn't want to put money on that.

Last edited by Great Antibob; 04-07-2020 at 12:53 PM.
  #120  
Old 04-07-2020, 12:52 PM
Do Not Taunt is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Seattle
Posts: 2,419
Quote:
Originally Posted by Great Antibob View Post
They believe this will be like a Star Trek effort where by the end of the hour, a miracle cure is produced instead of the likely result, which is, at best, this will provide some relief maybe in some cases but also have a bevy of known side effects.
I've heard it can cause patients on dialysis to grow new kidneys.
  #121  
Old 04-07-2020, 12:52 PM
Sage Rat's Avatar
Sage Rat is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Howdy
Posts: 22,920
Quote:
Originally Posted by storyteller0910 View Post
You can't. Know why? Because when it comes to HCQ vs. the current novel coronavirus (novel, meaning heretofore unstudied), you don't know.
That is fair, but what if there are 20 other drugs that are more promising, you need a minimum study size of 1000 patients per drug, and you can only give the drug to someone who is in or approaching the need for critical care (e.g. about 5% of all people who contract the illness)?

Should we boost this one because the President decided that it's amazing - for unknown reasons - and drop one of the lower of the better 20? Or should we just test the 20 - on the basis that the President is a daytime TV show host not a doctor - because that's all we can get enough test patients for?
  #122  
Old 04-07-2020, 12:57 PM
Colibri's Avatar
Colibri is online now
SD Curator of Critters
Moderator
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Panama
Posts: 45,514
Moved to Politics and Elections.

Colibri
Quarantine Zone Moderator
  #123  
Old 04-07-2020, 01:08 PM
drad dog is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2015
Posts: 7,016
https://www.salon.com/2020/04/07/tru...e-nyt_partner/

turnop is seeking to personally benefit from the drug. So there's that.

Last edited by drad dog; 04-07-2020 at 01:09 PM.
  #124  
Old 04-07-2020, 01:11 PM
Czarcasm's Avatar
Czarcasm is offline
Charter Member
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 64,044
Quote:
Originally Posted by drad dog View Post
https://www.salon.com/2020/04/07/tru...e-nyt_partner/

turnop is seeking to personally benefit from the drug. So there's that.
See posts #88 and #106.

Last edited by Czarcasm; 04-07-2020 at 01:11 PM.
  #125  
Old 04-07-2020, 01:16 PM
Great Antibob is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 5,723
Quote:
Originally Posted by Do Not Taunt View Post
I've heard it can cause patients on dialysis to grow new kidneys.
Well, the Humpback whale population has rebounded, so maybe they actually do have a point?
  #126  
Old 04-07-2020, 01:30 PM
CarnalK's Avatar
CarnalK is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Posts: 20,115
Does anyone know the numbers on how many people get the various side effects of hydroxychloroquine?
  #127  
Old 04-07-2020, 01:48 PM
nearwildheaven is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Posts: 14,224
Quote:
Originally Posted by monstro View Post
It's no wonder to me why Trump has gone all in on hydroxychloroquine. If he's wrong, that would mean we the tax-payer has bought 29 million pills of uselessness. So he can't be wrong.

Lord, please don't let him be wrong!
And meanwhile, people who need it for autoimmune diseases can't get it.
  #128  
Old 04-07-2020, 02:25 PM
KidCharlemagne is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Posts: 5,514
Quote:
Originally Posted by scr4 View Post
It just saddens me that people are more worried about scoring political points than about saving lives.
Are you implying that about me or the media?
  #129  
Old 04-07-2020, 02:37 PM
KidCharlemagne is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Posts: 5,514
Quote:
Originally Posted by slash2k View Post
How is he establishing unequivocal success? If he's giving it to many patients early in the disease process, well, most people with mild to moderate cases are going to recover anyway, so how is he establishing who is recovering BECAUSE of it, versus who is recovering COINCIDENTAL with it?

If this stuff works, then that's great news, but let's make sure we are measuring what we think we are measuring.
This was just casual talk between friends regarding his clinical experience. Heís comparing recovery rates before and after he began using Plaquenil. Heís not exactly putting it up for peer review. But when many scientifically-minded people develop an intuition that a drug is working when they know full well the tendency of the human mind to see patterns where there are none, Iím listening. I canít expect the others in this thread to trust my judgement on the judgment of these doctors which is why I didnít want this to be about the efficacy of Plaquenil (though I certainly understand why it went there).
  #130  
Old 04-07-2020, 02:38 PM
Euphonious Polemic is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 12,960
Quote:
Originally Posted by Great Antibob View Post
Well, that's the thing, isn't it? There are a million things that could be tried for most diseases. Most aren't. That's because we truly don't have the resources to test them all quickly, safely, or effectively.
Corn husks, I tell ya! CORN HUSKS ALL OVER YOUR FACE!

What do you have to lose?
  #131  
Old 04-07-2020, 02:43 PM
Akaj's Avatar
Akaj is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2018
Location: In the vanishing middle
Posts: 1,049
It's human nature for people to want magic bullet solutions to frightening, complex problems. It's the job of a leader to discourage magic bullet thinking.

Instead we have a president who not only does the opposite, but may trying to profit from it.

But it won't matter, because -- as we've seen countless times -- if something goes well, 35% of the country will give Trump the credit for it, and if it goes badly they'll blame Democrats. So they'll proclaim Trump a hero for promoting a drug that helps three people beat COVID-19, and blame Democrats for denying it to the teemiing millions.
__________________
I'm not expecting any surprises.
  #132  
Old 04-07-2020, 02:45 PM
KidCharlemagne is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Posts: 5,514
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ann Hedonia View Post
I think the primary reason for skepticism is that even proven anti-virals donít have the kind of dramatic curative effect that is being attributed to this drug. At best, they make the symptoms a little less severe and shorten the duration somewhat.

Not the ďI was at deathís doorstep and I took this pill and 2 or 6 or 8 hours later I recovered almost completelyĒ anecdotes. That is an extraordinary claim for an anti-viral and it requires a high level of proof.
I find the miraculous recovery anecdotes suspect as well, but as far as overall success rates, I wouldnít be surprised if a drug that blocked penetration of host cells was significantly more successful than one that inhibited enzymes involved in replication (like most antivirals).
  #133  
Old 04-07-2020, 02:56 PM
KidCharlemagne is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Posts: 5,514
Quote:
Originally Posted by storyteller0910 View Post
I think the hydrochloroquine data are being mis-represented in every conceivable direction right now, and itís bad. I guess the real truth Ė nobody knows anything yet, pro or con Ė just doesnít satisfy?

I mean, chloroquine is active against the novel coronavirus responsible for COVID-19 in vitro (Wang et al. Cell Research 2020;30:269-271 and elsewhere). Itís obviously true that this doesnít necessarily translate to clinical benefit Ė the drug has shown in vitro antiviral activity in a number of instances over the last 20 years and it hasnít ever panned out clinically Ė but itís irresponsible to characterize this as some kind of out-of-thin-air thing. The nonclinical research absolutely justifies (cautious, measured) evaluation of the drug in infected patients, especially given the seriousness of the outbreak.

OK, so the clinical study that started all this is a French study, which was published in March (Gautret et al. Int J Antimicrob Agents 2020;20 March (E-pub ahead of print). A total of 42 patients met entry criteria (basically, age >12 and documented infection with SARS-CoV-2); 26 were treated with HCQ and 16 were not (thereís a bit of added complexity here because some patients received HCQ+azithromycin and some received HCQ only, but Iím going to ignore this for now). Of these 42, 6 Ė all HCQ patients- were lost to follow-up because treatment was stopped early Ė three due to transfer to ICU, one due to death, one due to toxicity, and one patient whose disease resolved quickly who was released from the hospital. The authors chose to consider results only from the 20 HCQ patients who received a full course of treatment. This is obviously a poor and self-serving choice Ė if a patient died on the drug or had to stop taking it due to toxicity, you canít just throw those results away! Ė but weíll come back to that later.

OK, so weíre left with 20 patients who received a full course of HCQ and 16 patients who received best available care. Ay Day 3, 10 of 20 (50%) of the former and 1/16 (6.3%) of the latter were negative for infection. The corresponding figures at Day 6 were 14 of 20 (70.0%) and 2 of 16 (12.5%), respectively. Of note, 6/6 patients treated with HCQ+azithromycin were negative for infection by Day 5.

That looks great! But! Thereís still those 6 patients HCQ who were excluded from the analysis. To be as conservative as possible, letís consider all six would have been treatment failures. This results in a response rate at Day 6 of 53.8% (14 of 26 HCQ-treated patients) - still much better than the 12.5% seen with the control.

Thatís still good! But! Of those 12 control patients, who did not received HCQ, FIVE did not have their viral loads tested at all on Day 6 (many patients on both arms did not have actual viral loads reported, just simple ďpositiveĒ or ďnegativeĒ results, which is its own kind of problem but letís let that go for today). So Ė again, being as conservative as possible Ė letís assume that all five of those control patients would have been negative for the virus on Day 6. This would have meant that 7/12 control patients were negative on Day 6; thatís 58.3% - a better percentage than associated with HCQ when those missing 6 patients are considered!

Now, of course itís exceedingly unlikely that all five control patients without Day 6 results were actually negative. Three of those five had been positive on Day 5, and none had ever had a non-positive result. And at least 1 of the 6 ďmissingĒ HCQ patients probably can be considered a positive outcome. So in the end the actual figures probably favor HCQ (and especially, favor HCQ+azithromycin). But not by as enormous a margin as has been reported.

So why did I go into so much detail here, probably boring most of you out of the thread? Because interpretation of this study is complicated. Itís not as simple as ďgood studyĒ versus ďbad study,Ē and saying that there is no evidence whatsoever that HCQ may be active against this idea is almost as irresponsible as calling it a miracle cure. We donít know. This drug might help and it might not, but we donít know. The evidence meets the standard for further study, and that is the most conclusive thing anyone can say; donít trust anyone who goes further than that in either direction, because, and I canít say this often enough, they donít know.

----

P.S. Just to show that thereís weird science going on everywhere right now, Chinese researchers just reported that HCQ did not produce any benefit versus control in a 30-patient trial. Except that the majority of the patients in the control arm received other experimental treatments (mostly antivirals!), so the value of the results is questionable here, too.
Just FYI, there was research on Chloroquine Phosphate that showed results before Plaquenil got involved. You canít see hard numbers but there was a study in China that used 100 patients that seemed to convince everyone there to make it standard treatment.

https://www.jstage.jst.go.jp/article...020.01047/_pdf

Quote:
Thus far, results from more than 100 patients have demonstrated that chloroquine phosphate is superior to the control treatment in inhibiting the exacerbation of pneumonia, improving lung imaging findings, promoting a virus- negative conversion, and shortening the disease course according to the news briefing. Severe adverse reactions to chloroquine phosphate were not noted in the aforementioned patients. Given these findings, a conference was held on February 15, 2020; participants including experts from government and regulatory authorities and organizers of clinical trials reached an agreement that chloroquine phosphate has potent activity against COVID-19. The drug is recommended for inclusion in the next version of the Guidelines for the Prevention, Diagnosis, and Treatment of Pneumonia Caused by COVID-19 issued by the National Health Commission of the People's Republic of China.

Last edited by KidCharlemagne; 04-07-2020 at 02:57 PM.
  #134  
Old 04-07-2020, 03:09 PM
Ann Hedonia's Avatar
Ann Hedonia is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 4,137
Quote:
Originally Posted by KidCharlemagne View Post
I find the miraculous recovery anecdotes suspect as well, but as far as overall success rates, I wouldn’t be surprised if a drug that blocked penetration of host cells was significantly more successful than one that inhibited enzymes involved in replication (like most antivirals).
I’d be easier to convince if this drug that blocks penetration of host cells had worked against other viruses with similar host cells. Of if there was a theory as to why it could stop the replication of COVID cells when it failed to stop the replication of flu cells.

And I’d be even easier to convince if the evidence came through reputable sources instead of doctors calling into Fox News. I’d give more weight to a properly peer reviewed article published in a medical journal than a YouTube video.

Dr Oz’s history of promoting unproven therapies will cause me to be suspicious of anything he promotes, ever. Including his promotion of Donald Trump.

Donald Trump is truly in his element when he’s literally selling snake oil. He knows how to do this and he’s even pulling over people that should know better than to believe anything that comes out of that man’s mouth.

This whole thing is completely ridiculous, the ultimate conclusion of Trumpism. This is one half step away from colloidal silver / shark cartilage /emu oil level quackery - just wrapped in white coats and garnished with some flawed reports.

And the right wing eats up this crap. I’ve tried to figure out why, then I realized I was overthinking it. It’s simply that most conservatives are really really stupid.

Last edited by Ann Hedonia; 04-07-2020 at 03:11 PM.
  #135  
Old 04-07-2020, 03:48 PM
HMS Irruncible is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 9,358
Quote:
Originally Posted by Snowboarder Bo View Post
Forsythia is my go-to argument for this kind of situation as well.
You mean those yellow-flower shrubs growing everywhere? Did I miss an inside joke?
  #136  
Old 04-07-2020, 03:56 PM
HMS Irruncible is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 9,358
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ann Hedonia View Post
And the right wing eats up this crap. Iíve tried to figure out why, then I realized I was overthinking it. Itís simply that most conservatives are really really stupid.
I think this is a little unfair. I don't see conservatives as being abjectly stupid.

I do see that they seem to have zero mental defenses against being baited by supposed "insider information, so secret that the experts don't even know about it!!!!!!". I guess they're so allergic to feeling powerless and clueless that they instinctively reach for these comfort objects from familiar personalities.
  #137  
Old 04-07-2020, 04:41 PM
KidCharlemagne is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Posts: 5,514
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ann Hedonia View Post
I’d be easier to convince if this drug that blocks penetration of host cells had worked against other viruses with similar host cells. Of if there was a theory as to why it could stop the replication of COVID cells when it failed to stop the replication of flu cells.

And I’d be even easier to convince if the evidence came through reputable sources instead of doctors calling into Fox News. I’d give more weight to a properly peer reviewed article published in a medical journal than a YouTube video.

Dr Oz’s history of promoting unproven therapies will cause me to be suspicious of anything he promotes, ever. Including his promotion of Donald Trump.

Donald Trump is truly in his element when he’s literally selling snake oil. He knows how to do this and he’s even pulling over people that should know better than to believe anything that comes out of that man’s mouth.

This whole thing is completely ridiculous, the ultimate conclusion of Trumpism. This is one half step away from colloidal silver / shark cartilage /emu oil level quackery - just wrapped in white coats and garnished with some flawed reports.

And the right wing eats up this crap. I’ve tried to figure out why, then I realized I was overthinking it. It’s simply that most conservatives are really really stupid.
You seem to really be ignoring that there is some data. Real data. Not perfect. Did you see the studies on Chloroquine Phosphate that I linked too? 10 Hospitals, 100 patients, enough data to convince doctors in China to make it standard treatment. This isn’t remotely quackery unless 72% of drs in Spain and front line doctors taking it prophylacticly in NYC are all quacks. And the reason CP and Plaquenil haven’t worked in other viruses is because the “novel” aspect of this virus is that it attaches to ACE-2 which is why is gets deep into the alveoli.

I have just as much contempt for Trump and the right as you do but I don’t let it affect my judgement.

Last edited by KidCharlemagne; 04-07-2020 at 04:43 PM.
  #138  
Old 04-07-2020, 04:48 PM
CarnalK's Avatar
CarnalK is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Posts: 20,115
Quote:
Originally Posted by KidCharlemagne View Post
You seem to really be ignoring that there is some data. Real data. Not perfect. Did you see the studies on Chloroquine Phosphate that I linked too? 10 Hospitals, 100 patients, enough data to convince doctors in China to make it standard treatment. This isnít remotely quackery unless 72% of drs in Spain and front line doctors taking it prophylacticly in NYC are all quacks. And the reason CP and Plaquenil havenít worked in other viruses is because the ďnovelĒ aspect of this virus is that it attaches to ACE-2 which is why is gets deep into the alveoli.
My dad was a doctor and smoked cigarettes from ages 15-65. Maybe cigarettes aren't so bad.

Nobody should care if doctors are taking it proactively. We should be caring whether it seems effective. So tell me, are Spanish doctors getting infected less with a 72% adoption of this treatment? (not that I buy that without a cite)
  #139  
Old 04-07-2020, 04:48 PM
iamthewalrus(:3= is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Santa Barbara, CA
Posts: 12,525
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kent Clark View Post
Well whaddya know. It turns out President Trump might have a financial interest in the drug's use.

Trump holds "financial interest" in pharmaceutical company that produces hydroxychloroquine: NYT
Wow what are the odds.
  #140  
Old 04-07-2020, 05:25 PM
Sage Rat's Avatar
Sage Rat is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Howdy
Posts: 22,920
Quote:
Originally Posted by KidCharlemagne View Post
You seem to really be ignoring that there is some data. Real data. Not perfect. Did you see the studies on Chloroquine Phosphate that I linked too? 10 Hospitals, 100 patients, enough data to convince doctors in China to make it standard treatment.
Chinese research is often best to be skeptical of and, particularly, when the government is writing a book about how great they did while seeming to suppress the real death counts in the country.

One might also note that they also tested other drugs in a number of trials. How did those ones do? Better or worse? My gaping wound is doing better since I licked it but how is the guy who got stitches and a bandage?
  #141  
Old 04-07-2020, 05:50 PM
Atamasama's Avatar
Atamasama is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 5,474
Quote:
Originally Posted by HMS Irruncible View Post
You mean those yellow-flower shrubs growing everywhere? Did I miss an inside joke?
I might be spoiling the joke, but...

Contagion

ďConspiracy theorist Alan Krumwiede posts videos about the virus on his blog. In one video, he claims he has cured himself of the virus using a homeopathic cure derived from forsythia. People seeking forsythia overwhelm pharmacies. During a television interview, Krumwiede discloses that Cheever secretly informed friends and family to leave Chicago before it was quarantined. Cheever is informed he will be investigated. Krumwiede, having faked his illness to boost sales of forsythia, is arrested for conspiracy and securities fraudĒ
  #142  
Old 04-07-2020, 05:51 PM
Ann Hedonia's Avatar
Ann Hedonia is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 4,137
Quote:
Originally Posted by KidCharlemagne View Post
You seem to really be ignoring that there is some data. Real data. Not perfect. Did you see the studies on Chloroquine Phosphate that I linked too? 10 Hospitals, 100 patients, enough data to convince doctors in China to make it standard treatment. This isn’t remotely quackery unless 72% of drs in Spain and front line doctors taking it prophylacticly in NYC are all quacks. And the reason CP and Plaquenil haven’t worked in other viruses is because the “novel” aspect of this virus is that it attaches to ACE-2 which is why is gets deep into the alveoli.

I have just as much contempt for Trump and the right as you do but I don’t let it affect my judgement.
I saw the link in post #138 and I did not find it as persuasive as you did. Most of the hard data in that link involved in vitro activity. I have never denied that this drug has strong in vitro effects against most viruses.

There was no data given behind the 100 person study, simply the results given at a press briefing held by the Chinese government. That is still not a large study and without the actual data I can’t review it.

My concern with most of these studies is the methodology of selection between the control group and active group. If they are not using a blind method, it is quite possible that they are selecting patients that they subjectively think have a better chance of survival to receive the drug. It’s a problem when you are running these tests in battlefield situations and you want to as many patients as possible to live. I actually don’t disagree with that practice in this situation but if it’s happening it will affect the results.

I will admit that the idea that works by suppressing an autoimmune reaction that is worsening the pneumonia may have some merit. The questions that immediately come to mind are:

Has this drug been tested against pneumonia not caused by COVID? Like pneumonia caused by flu? Is there any reason to believe that the pneumonia caused by COVID is any different than other pneumonia? Is there something about COVID that makes it more likely than other viral conditions to set off an autoimmune reaction?

I’m also seeing loads of contradictions in these early studies. The Chinese claimed effectiveness from the drug alone in the study you posted. But the doctor in the YouTube video Peebles posted said the drug was ineffective unless zinc was added. And the doctor in the French study claimed it wasn’t effective unless he added the Z-Pack.

And I have no idea why all these doctors are taking it proactively without evidence. I must’ve missed your cite claiming all these doctors are taking it proactively.

But that is the real danger here. While the studies proving that these drugs work on sick patients is still thin and anecdotal, they do exist. And once someone is infected, “What have you got to lose?” is a powerful argument.

But I have seen nothing real backing the claim that these drugs have a preventative action and many of the theoretical mechanisms of action- such as that it lessens symptoms by acting as an anti-inflammatory - don’t translate to its use as a prophylactic.

If people think they can pop a pill and go back to work - that is a dangerous idea. And it’s also the ulterior motive behind the right wing promotion of these drugs.

Last edited by Ann Hedonia; 04-07-2020 at 05:53 PM.
  #143  
Old 04-07-2020, 06:04 PM
Projammer's Avatar
Projammer is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: SW Arkansas
Posts: 6,884
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kent Clark View Post
Well whaddya know. It turns out President Trump might have a financial interest in the drug's use.

Trump holds "financial interest" in pharmaceutical company that produces hydroxychloroquine: NYT
Digging a little deeper.

Quote:
However, Trumpís Sanofi stake is indirect and rather small ó he owns shares through a fund that includes a diverse array of stocks. As Voxís Emily Stewart noted, a government official repeatedly promoting a product made by a company they have a minute stake in would be a very inefficient way to be corrupt:
Carry on.
  #144  
Old 04-07-2020, 06:26 PM
HMS Irruncible is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 9,358
Quote:
Originally Posted by Projammer View Post
You are correct to point out that Trump's minuscule stake in chloroquinine is probably not the main show here.

Trump is a narcissist. He operates only on 2 goals in life, which are seeking admiration and avoiding shame. His main 2 strategies in service of this goal are claiming credit for anything good, whether he was involved or not, and denigrating his opponents, whether they deserve it or not. Naturally, all aspects of this involve weaving an elaborate smokescreen of bullshit.

Trump is pushing chloroquinine because he thinks it will get him credit for figuring out a cure before the scientists, who are his rivals. This process involves a lot of lying and bullshit. People who shouldn't take this drug have and will continue to harm themselves by taking it. People have actually died from following Trump's medical advice.

The general public will be confused as to whether the eventual eradication of COVID was due to the diligence of epidemiologists, physicians, and first responders, or via Trump finding a miracle cure in spite of all the eggheads who said he couldn't.

There is money at stake here, but none of this is about the money. It's all about buffing Trump's image. When you understand this simple truth, a lot of seemingly complicated pieces fall into their obvious places.

Last edited by HMS Irruncible; 04-07-2020 at 06:28 PM.
  #145  
Old 04-07-2020, 09:41 PM
lobotomyboy63 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Secret World
Posts: 4,267
Quote:
Originally Posted by CarnalK View Post
Does anyone know the numbers on how many people get the various side effects of hydroxychloroquine?
I remember Chloroquine (and Primaquine) being important to the plot of this M*A*S*H episode. IANAD but they're related to hydroxychloroquine, right?

The military should be in a position to offer some data and/or make some judgments---I seem to remember reading someone saying that the meds aren't well tolerated by those who serve in theaters where they may be needed.

https://mash.fandom.com/wiki/The_Red...series_episode)
  #146  
Old 04-08-2020, 07:43 AM
CarnalK's Avatar
CarnalK is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Posts: 20,115
It's my understanding that the less severe side effects are very common but I can't seem to find numbers. Oh well.
  #147  
Old 04-08-2020, 09:44 AM
JRDelirious is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Distanced
Posts: 16,464
You do realize he did not think of it himself, right?
Quote:
Originally Posted by HMS Irruncible View Post
The general public will be confused as to whether the eventual eradication of COVID was due to the diligence of epidemiologists, physicians, and first responders, or via Trump finding a miracle cure in spite of all the eggheads who said he couldn't.
Yep. To him, THAT is the "win". That he can claim he stood there and harangued the nerds to "don't give me your whiny loser excuses, find a solution that works, nerds, I COMMAND IT WITH MY VERY LARGE LEADERSHIP!" and when someone finally rose to the ocassion and did it, it was because he commanded it with his very large leadership. And that if someone says "that was not it, it was the nerds" he can just say "you're so nasty -- next question".

Oh, and whoever dies? Either nothing could be done about that, or they would have lived if everyone had responded to his very large leadership immediately.

Last edited by JRDelirious; 04-08-2020 at 09:48 AM.
  #148  
Old 04-08-2020, 10:30 AM
needscoffee is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 7,768
Here's a very well-laid out article in April 7 The Guardian about the studies so far and what's wrong with them: https://www.theguardian.com/world/20...ronavirus-drug
  #149  
Old 04-08-2020, 04:11 PM
Dr_Paprika is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: South of Toronto, Canada
Posts: 4,521
Itís probably been said. But of course it is unethical to prominently tout a treatment one has a financial interest in, especially without making this manifest.
__________________
"A noble spirit embiggens the smallest man"
  #150  
Old 04-08-2020, 04:29 PM
bobot's Avatar
bobot is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Chicago-ish
Posts: 10,042
Is Faux News really all that bad when it comes to carrying Trump's water?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2Yph4FqskDc
(7 minute video of a guy who doesn't like Fake, excuse me, Faux News as he spotlights a Faux News segment where a credible medical professional rebukes Trumps claims, and calls those pushing them "irresponsible".)
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 12:10 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@straightdope.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Copyright © 2019 STM Reader, LLC.

 
Copyright © 2017