Sci/Tech Anti-malarial Drugs unsafe for use to treat COVID

Welcome to our Community
Wanting to join the rest of our members? Feel free to Sign Up today.
Sign up

ConorMcGregorsBeard

Stewart Era Liberal
Jul 22, 2015
31,589
30,525
In my view, we've found it can't be broadly used because it has some safety limitations. Now we have to learn more about the precise nature of those limits and see where it could potentially be helpful as well as where it will be harmful. As of now, the risks need to be centered and it would be a waste to invest in mass production of the drug until we know more. Trials can probably continue until we have more data, but it's likely we need to continue looking elsewhere.

New reports suggest a vaccine may even be insufficient due to how coronaviruses behave so we're really screwed overall for technological interventions and likely should continue to stick to social ones for awhile.
Great post.
 

MC Gusto

Freeloading Rusty
Jan 11, 2016
12,485
12,609
Know what? I came round to him with the impeachment, he's just become more and more weird as the days go on.
I 'm not being smug because I didn't hav the right to vote but thank fuck so many people have gone from supporters to whothfucksthisguy.gif. I don't really like Biden either. Earth paging Micelle Obama for president please.
Michelle states she has zero interest in politics, which is lucky for Trump because she would draw in a lot of support as Bidens VP pick. For anyone to claim otherwise is either just wrong or disingenuous.

Michelle was Time’s most admired women in 2018 and 2019. Also has one of the best selling memoirs of all time.
 

silentsinger

Momofuku
Jun 23, 2015
21,051
14,448
Michelle states she has zero interest in politics, which is lucky for Trump because she would draw in a lot of support as Bidens VP pick. For anyone to claim otherwise is either just wrong or disingenuous.

Michelle was Time’s most admired women in 2018 and 2019. Also has one of the best selling memoirs of all time.
She would be a cake walk, I really do like her. I get why she isn't interested, it must have been an honour and a curse being first lady.
She sure as fuck has more knowledge than Reagan and Trump when everyone threw them just to see what happened...and look what happened...disisnfectant in our veins...that'll sort us out.
 

ConorMcGregorsBeard

Stewart Era Liberal
Jul 22, 2015
31,589
30,525
She would be a cake walk, I really do like her. I get why she isn't interested, it must have been an honour and a curse being first lady.
She sure as fuck has more knowledge than Reagan and Trump when everyone threw them just to see what happened...and look what happened...disisnfectant in our veins...that'll sort us out.
No, just no. It's not just about someone winning. This idea of "Well, that guy's a moron so let's find our own unqualified person!" needs to stop.
 

silentsinger

Momofuku
Jun 23, 2015
21,051
14,448
No, just no. It's not just about someone winning. This idea of "Well, that guy's a moron so let's find our own unqualified person!" needs to stop.
I know we really are in a Trump or Biden situation. You would go for Trump, yes? I did like his response to Iran the other day but I know it was penned by someone with some poise, but he didn't go mental about it so I'm not going nuts bout that.

He is the legit most off his head president the US has ever seen isn't he? And I don't mean "hahaha isn't it funny lost his fucking mind", I mean this is the worst we have ever seen in our lifetimes what we are going through right now and the president of the biggest country of the free world is losing the plot and suggesting we put disinfectant in our veins. And that may not be the most twat thing he's said.

Edit: not really fond of Biden either.
 

MC Gusto

Freeloading Rusty
Jan 11, 2016
12,485
12,609
I wonder If a mix of Hydro, light and Disinfectant would be the Grand slam Treatment. It could be a Super Cure for all Viruses. They should Look into it with medical Doctors. Just a Suggestion.
 

ConorMcGregorsBeard

Stewart Era Liberal
Jul 22, 2015
31,589
30,525
I know we really are in a Trump or Biden situation. You would go for Trump, yes? I did like his response to Iran the other day but I know it was penned by someone with some poise, but he didn't go mental about it so I'm not going nuts bout that.

He is the legit most off his head president the US has ever seen isn't he? And I don't mean "hahaha isn't it funny lost his fucking mind", I mean this is the worst we have ever seen in our lifetimes what we are going through right now and the president of the biggest country of the free world is losing the plot and suggesting we put disinfectant in our veins. And that may not be the most twat thing he's said.

Edit: not really fond of Biden either.
I'd have to evaluate both of their platforms on the things that matter most to me and decide from there. The current administration has done some great stuff with things that have previously been political footballs no one wanted to touch, and gotten those things done with bipartisan support.
 

sparkuri

Pulse On The Finger Of The Community
First 100
Jan 16, 2015
24,115
36,081
In my view, we've found it can't be broadly used because it has some safety limitations. Now we have to learn more about the precise nature of those limits and see where it could potentially be helpful as well as where it will be harmful. As of now, the risks need to be centered and it would be a waste to invest in mass production of the drug until we know more. Trials can probably continue until we have more data, but it's likely we need to continue looking elsewhere.

New reports suggest a vaccine may even be insufficient due to how coronaviruses behave so we're really screwed overall for technological interventions and likely should continue to stick to social ones for awhile.
This is absolutely false.

Chloroquine and hydroxychloroquine are one of if not the most prescribed drugs in human history.
Hundreds of millions doses prescribed, and never, ever, in its history, has it ever been blamed for heart failure, ever.

The side effects of Aspirin are 10x worse.

The war on this drug is 100% hogwash, driven by evil men with a nefarious agenda.
The science is everywhere on this drug, it works, it's safe, and it's cheap.
The ONLY reason it's buried is because it's $20 and readily available.
The dose range between 100% safe, toxic, and lethal, is a range so vast it's not even registered on a scale.

Every, single, report let out to the media has no data, NONE, ZIP, ZILCH, regarding lethality.
And there's a damn good reason for that.

Everything you've read on this?
Go back to it, click links on sources, follow the data, interpret it factually.
Specific to COVID-19, right now, if implemented early *in hospitalization*, the CFR drops below .05%.
 

ThatOneDude

Commander in @Chief, Dick Army
First 100
Jan 14, 2015
17,055
20,517
This is absolutely false.

Chloroquine and hydroxychloroquine are one of if not the most prescribed drugs in human history.
Hundreds of millions doses prescribed, and never, ever, in its history, has it ever been blamed for heart failure, ever.

The side effects of Aspirin are 10x worse.

The war on this drug is 100% hogwash, driven by evil men with a nefarious agenda.
The science is everywhere on this drug, it works, it's safe, and it's cheap.
The ONLY reason it's buried is because it's $20 and readily available.
The dose range between 100% safe, toxic, and lethal, is a range so vast it's not even registered on a scale.

Every, single, report let out to the media has no data, NONE, ZIP, ZILCH, regarding lethality.
And there's a damn good reason for that.

Everything you've read on this?
Go back to it, click links on sources, follow the data, interpret it factually.
Specific to COVID-19, right now, if implemented early *in hospitalization*, the CFR drops below .05%.
Splinty @Splinty is this true?
 

kneeblock

Read Achille Mbembe
Apr 18, 2015
9,938
18,492
This is absolutely false.

Chloroquine and hydroxychloroquine are one of if not the most prescribed drugs in human history.
Hundreds of millions doses prescribed, and never, ever, in its history, has it ever been blamed for heart failure, ever.

The side effects of Aspirin are 10x worse.

The war on this drug is 100% hogwash, driven by evil men with a nefarious agenda.
The science is everywhere on this drug, it works, it's safe, and it's cheap.
The ONLY reason it's buried is because it's $20 and readily available.
The dose range between 100% safe, toxic, and lethal, is a range so vast it's not even registered on a scale.

Every, single, report let out to the media has no data, NONE, ZIP, ZILCH, regarding lethality.
And there's a damn good reason for that.

Everything you've read on this?
Go back to it, click links on sources, follow the data, interpret it factually.
Specific to COVID-19, right now, if implemented early *in hospitalization*, the CFR drops below .05%.
If I give you Tylenol for a headache and then give it to you for a stomach ache, are we talking about the same thing?
 

Splinty

Shake 'em off
Admin
Dec 31, 2014
33,551
67,914
This is absolutely false.

Chloroquine and hydroxychloroquine are one of if not the most prescribed drugs in human history.
Hundreds of millions doses prescribed, and never, ever, in its history, has it ever been blamed for heart failure, ever.

The side effects of Aspirin are 10x worse.

The war on this drug is 100% hogwash, driven by evil men with a nefarious agenda.
The science is everywhere on this drug, it works, it's safe, and it's cheap.
The ONLY reason it's buried is because it's $20 and readily available.
The dose range between 100% safe, toxic, and lethal, is a range so vast it's not even registered on a scale.

Every, single, report let out to the media has no data, NONE, ZIP, ZILCH, regarding lethality.
And there's a damn good reason for that.

Everything you've read on this?
Go back to it, click links on sources, follow the data, interpret it factually.
Specific to COVID-19, right now, if implemented early *in hospitalization*, the CFR drops below .05%.
Do you think might overstating a few of these things just a tad?

 
Jun 28, 2016
12,521
17,277
I'd have to evaluate both of their platforms on the things that matter most to me and decide from there. The current administration has done some great stuff with things that have previously been political footballs no one wanted to touch, and gotten those things done with bipartisan support.
both of their platforms center on using you as a farm animal to enrich the Elite.
 

Yossarian

TMMAC Addict
Oct 25, 2015
13,080
18,539
This is absolutely false.

Chloroquine and hydroxychloroquine are one of if not the most prescribed drugs in human history.
Hundreds of millions doses prescribed, and never, ever, in its history, has it ever been blamed for heart failure, ever.

The side effects of Aspirin are 10x worse.

The war on this drug is 100% hogwash, driven by evil men with a nefarious agenda.
The science is everywhere on this drug, it works, it's safe, and it's cheap.
The ONLY reason it's buried is because it's $20 and readily available.
The dose range between 100% safe, toxic, and lethal, is a range so vast it's not even registered on a scale.

Every, single, report let out to the media has no data, NONE, ZIP, ZILCH, regarding lethality.
And there's a damn good reason for that.

Everything you've read on this?
Go back to it, click links on sources, follow the data, interpret it factually.
Specific to COVID-19, right now, if implemented early *in hospitalization*, the CFR drops below .05%.
Opinions surrounding any solution regarding covid-19 are politicized at this point. If Trump says, breathing is good, they'll tell everyone to stop breathing.

This particular drug has always been used despite of its side effects, no different than any drug really. From my understanding this drug's effectiveness are all about the timing of administration.
 
Jun 28, 2016
12,521
17,277
In my view, we've found it can't be broadly used because it has some safety limitations. Now we have to learn more about the precise nature of those limits and see where it could potentially be helpful as well as where it will be harmful. As of now, the risks need to be centered and it would be a waste to invest in mass production of the drug until we know more. Trials can probably continue until we have more data, but it's likely we need to continue looking elsewhere.

New reports suggest a vaccine may even be insufficient due to how coronaviruses behave so we're really screwed overall for technological interventions and likely should continue to stick to social ones for awhile.
I think what's being reported about the 'dangers' of HCL has an ulterior motive. I don't see the risk of low doses early on in suspected cases, and there is a HUGE potential upside. I think that overall, fewer people would die than if we waited to administer or waited for full clinical trials. HCL has been given to 10s of millions of people, the side effect risks are as well-understood as almost all OTC pharmaceuticals.

I'm becoming more and more convinced that the media/gov push to overstate the dangers of HCL are coming from the same place as when they overstated the dangers of masks: they don't have enough, and they're looking for another reason to not give it out when people need it.

The difficulty is that people will see this as a 'cure' and it will retard their adaptation to a new reality of social norms.
 
Jun 28, 2016
12,521
17,277
Opinions surrounding any solution regarding covid-19 are politicized at this point. If Trump says, breathing is good, they'll tell everyone to stop breathing.

This particular drug has always been used despite of its side effects, no different than any drug really. From my understanding this drug's effectiveness are all about the timing of administration.
early and low doses to otherwise healthy patients appear to have high efficacy with very low risk of side effects.
And the dangerous side effects, like QT elongation, can be detected with plenty of time to stop the medication - as long as you're monitoring it periodically.

It's more likely that India and China are keeping the HCL for themselves and their real friends, and the government is stuck trying to avoid accountability for relying on slave labor in foreign countries to enrich themselves.
 

sparkuri

Pulse On The Finger Of The Community
First 100
Jan 16, 2015
24,115
36,081
If I give you Tylenol for a headache and then give it to you for a stomach ache, are we talking about the same thing?
Ironic, considering all the links you provided are sourced from the same articles and point to drugs administered so late in treatment they fall with the lethal range time period.
It's like administering tylenol for a stomach ache, then blaming tylenol for it in the discharge summary.
 

kneeblock

Read Achille Mbembe
Apr 18, 2015
9,938
18,492
Ironic, considering all the links you provided are sourced from the same articles and point to drugs administered so late in treatment they fall with the lethal range time period.
It's like administering tylenol for a stomach ache, then blaming tylenol for it in the discharge summary.
Right. This is exactly why testing needs to continue, as I posted above, to determine when and to whom it can be given. As I've said from the beginning of this thread, the debate is not about efficacy and if you go down that road you're making a rhetorical choice based on the table that's been set for you. The debate is about how and when to promote novel treatments to the public, based on the way scientific trials are actually conducted.

The absence of knowledge means we are literally just rolling the dice and that is not how scientific reasoning or analysis operates. It's often frustratingly slow because it's based on being wrong until you know the exact circumstances under which you might be right because the stakes, especially in medical treatment, can be high. This is about the public communication of science which is separate from the mechanisms by which drugs work or don't.

Let me give you another example, because it's something I'm working on now. How is the concept of "immunity" being communicated? How has that shifted over time since this crisis began? First we had herd immunity discussions, lately we've moved to how we might test immunity, but there are counternarratives expressing some doubt about the possibility or longevity of immunity. In all of this, the question is how are public officials and media interpreting what immunity means and explaining it to the public?

Easily this can get bogged down into an efficacy conversation where basically people choose one side or another in either a scientific or political debate, but that's pretty functionally useless in the absence of more data. What I'm interested in, and what I'd grant there's more room for even a layman to have questions about, is how these things are being narrated to us, whether they're being oversold or undersold, and what might motivate that narration. Getting into how they function is already conceding ground on having to invest blind faith, mostly in someone else's interpretation.
 
Last edited:

sparkuri

Pulse On The Finger Of The Community
First 100
Jan 16, 2015
24,115
36,081
Right. This is exactly why testing needs to continue, as I posted above, to determine when and to whom it can be given. As I've said from the beginning of this thread, the debate is not about efficacy and if you go down that road you're making a rhetorical choice based on the table that's been set for you. The debate is about how and when to promote novel treatments to the public, based on the way scientific trials are actually conducted.

The absence of knowledge means we are literally just rolling the dice and that is not how scientific reasoning or analysis operates. It's often frustratingly slow because it's based on being wrong until you know the exact circumstances under which you might be right because the stakes, especially in medical treatment, can be high. This is about the public communication of science which is separate from the mechanisms by which drugs work or don't.

Let me give you another example, because it's something I'm working on now. How is the concept of "immunity" being communicated? How has that shifted over time since this crisis began? First we had herd immunity discussions, lately we've moved to how we might test immunity, but there are counternarratives expressing some doubt about the possibility or longevity of immunity. In all of this, the question is how are public officials and media interpreting what immunity means and explaining it to the public?

Easily this can get bogged down into an efficacy conversation where basically people choose one side or another in either a scientific or political debate, but that's pretty functionally useless in the absence of more data. What I'm interested in, and what I'd grant there's more room for even a layman to have questions about, is how these things are being narrated to us, whether they're being oversold or undersold, and what might motivate that narration. Getting into how they function is already conceding ground that at some based mostly on having to invest blind faith, mostly in someone else's interpretation.
Look, I understand your concern, it's the same as everyone else's.
But this is a crap issue.
This is a drug that works, period.
Withholding it destroys two things.
1. Lives.
2. More data.

It is that simple.
Big pharma needs to stay the fuck outta the way with their remdesivir and any other garbage they're trying to push for power and big bucks.
This is about population control, and using a pandemic to take down a sitting President.
It's tyrannical, and unapologetically disgraceful.
This will cost lives and these talking heads should be hung from the gallows for crimes against humanity.
Every SINGLE person who could opt for the treatment would do so 90-1.
Sign the consent, monitor, record data, end of story.
The "media" should be lambasted.
 

kneeblock

Read Achille Mbembe
Apr 18, 2015
9,938
18,492
Look, I understand your concern, it's the same as everyone else's.
But this is a crap issue.
This is a drug that works, period.
Withholding it destroys two things.
1. Lives.
2. More data.

It is that simple.
Big pharma needs to stay the fuck outta the way with their remdesivir and any other garbage they're trying to push for power and big bucks.
This is about population control, and using a pandemic to take down a sitting President.
It's tyrannical, and unapologetically disgraceful.
This will cost lives and these talking heads should be hung from the gallows for crimes against humanity.
Every SINGLE person who could opt for the treatment would do so 90-1.
Sign the consent, monitor, record data, end of story.
The "media" should be lambasted.
I understand and can agree with your sentiment. Remember, I'm speaking as someone who's actually lost people I know to COVID and who's watched people I know suffer. No one would like some pharmaceutical solution to come save the day easily and cheaply more than me. But we have the same debates over all manner of drugs every year, whether it be to treat different cancers, rare diseases or what have you. There is a price for caution, but there's also a price for haste. The drug is still being used and tested all over the world and we'll know more soon enough, but we wouldn't even be having this conversation if powerful and wealthy individuals hadn't been pushing for a pharmaceutical solution in the first place and their public evangelists hadn't gotten on television loudly trumpeting them. It's not possible to say whether the losses will be fewer or greater if we go this route because we simply don't know enough. Anyone peddling the idea that we do is being deeply disingenuous.
 

regular john

Interim Champion
May 21, 2015
4,828
6,330
Jun 28, 2016
12,521
17,277
Chloroquine or hydroxychloroquine for COVID-19: why might they be hazardous?

New study confirms chloroquine is not safe as far as we know so far.

But Bozo - who doesn't even have a minister of health in office - knows better than everyone else in the world and Brazilian Health Ministry has laid out protocol for use of chloroquine on patients at early stages of Covid - Ministério da Saúde divulga diretrizes para tratamento medicamentoso de pacientes
Chloroquine, hydroxychloroquine, and azithromycin have sodium channel blocking properties that might contribute to proarrhythmia and heart failure in the context of myocardial injury and hypoxia present in COVID-19. This hypothesis remains to be tested.
 

regular john

Interim Champion
May 21, 2015
4,828
6,330
Chloroquine, hydroxychloroquine, and azithromycin have sodium channel blocking properties that might contribute to proarrhythmia and heart failure in the context of myocardial injury and hypoxia present in COVID-19. This hypothesis remains to be tested.
yes that's what I said: "New study confirms chloroquine is not safe as far as we know so far."
 

conor mcgregor nut hugger

King of Florida
Oct 24, 2015
47,959
36,921
Chloroquine or hydroxychloroquine for COVID-19: why might they be hazardous?

New study confirms chloroquine is not safe as far as we know so far.

But Bozo - who doesn't even have a minister of health in office - knows better than everyone else in the world and Brazilian Health Ministry has laid out protocol for use of chloroquine on patients at early stages of Covid - Ministério da Saúde divulga diretrizes para tratamento medicamentoso de pacientes
Is your stupid ass president taking it?

Because my stupid ass president is