4 ms·

This whole debate is insane to me -- some people that so-called "experts" don't like mentioned HCQ as a possible treatment for coronavirus, and we've ended up i

This whole debate is insane to me -- some people that so-called "experts" don't like mentioned HCQ as a possible treatment for coronavirus, and we've ended up in some bizarro world where everyone is shouting and fingers are being pointed over something that really shouldn't be controversial or perceived as some sinister plot to destroy clever society. 1. HCQ has been used for many decades 2. The side effects are generally known 3. It may have a positive impact on COVID-19, and it may not. 4. Nobody is suggesting long term high doses for anyone, COVID patients or otherwise. 5. If people are severe patients of COVID-19, this should certainly be tried as a treatment as long as the patient (or immediate family) is briefed on the potential side effects. The alternative, potential death, makes this a worthy discussion for a doctor/patient to have, with families being allowed to err on the side of right-to-try. HCQ is cheap, available, and has been used for decades. The fact that "no evidence HCQ works!!" has 200 points of upvotes and counting when the sample size for this study is 181 patients only just shows how high the temperature has become. Everyone just calm down. As capnrefsmmat has eloquently pointed out, "absence of evidence" does not mean "evidence of absence". If you enjoy the thrill of debates for debates sake, here are other potential topics for you: Whether masks are effective, condoms, seatbelts, helmets, or even parachutes[0]: [0]https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC300808/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC300808/ Favourite part: Results We were unable to identify any randomised controlled trials of parachute intervention. Conclusions As with many interventions intended to prevent ill health, the effectiveness of parachutes has not been subjected to rigorous evaluation by using randomised controlled trials. Advocates of evidence based medicine have criticised the adoption of interventions evaluated by using only observational data. We think that everyone might benefit if the most radical protagonists of evidence based medicine organised and participated in a double blind, randomised, placebo controlled, crossover trial of the parachute.

DangerousPie 7y ago
1. Not for coronaviruses. 2. They are known but they are by no means mild. A trial in Brazil just got aborted due to severe heart problems. 3. So does almost everything. If that's your threshold for taking a drug then I have a lot of homeopathic remedies to sell you! 4. Actually the doses given for COVID are often higher. Not sure what long-term has to do with anything. 5. That assumes that the risk of side effects is zero. It's not. Also, there is an opportunity cost to taking HCQ instead of something else. I totally agree with you that we should do proper trials on this and see what happens. But right now there is zero evidence that it actually works, and some (admittedly low-quality) evidence that it might not.
- ddebernardy 7y ago
  > Actually the doses given for COVID are often higher. Not just higher. The original article (the one out of China) that mentioned that there might be some positive effects reportedly suggested using doses that were a whopping 5 times higher than the usually prescribed amounts: 500mg/day vs the usual 100mg/day. What more, the same article put forward that the drug was considered generally safe and without any potentially troublesome side effects. That raised more than a few eyebrows amongst the medical staff who knew the drug.
tjenkinsqs 7y ago
Excellent points. I would add: HCQ is most effective at the onset of symptoms. It stops the virus from replicating, it does not repair cell damage. Also, it must be used with zinc together, since HCQ opens the cells to absorb zinc and zinc must be present.
- DangerousPie 7y ago
  [citation needed]
voxl 7y ago
Why in the world would you quote "experts" and clearly you know nothing about statistics if you look at 181 patients and immediately think "oh well that's just too small!" You can have significant results with as little as 10 random samples. People are mad because this is getting pushed as a treatment for COVID-19. The only correct response is: "We do not have evidence that this a treatment for COVID-19." As more research is done we can update our knowledge on this, but instead you talk about the "experts" like they you know more than they do. Typical anti-academic rhetoric.
FireBeyond 7y ago
> some people that so-called "experts" don't like mentioned HCQ as a possible treatment for coronavirus Let's call a spade a spade. Trump, not 'some people'. Trump's medical training amounts to what, exactly? He heard that a drug has some beneficial effects on a similar disease and is all aboard, and HE is the one "some people say it's an amazing drug", "it can't hurt you" (except when it can), "I'm seeing people who will die without it" (based on what, exactly?). Oh, "and I directly profit from it". People aren't screaming that HCQ "shouldn't be used", but that a President shouldn't be using his position (and complete lack of medical training) to be promising things that are at best unproven, and at worst, factually incorrect.
mike00632 7y ago
> ...this should certainly be tried as a treatment... What? Why not try literally anything and everything else that has not been proven?
- forgingahead 7y ago
  When faced with death as an alternative? Of course! The hypocrisy is that all the shouters and screamers would likely make the decision to try HCQ if it was them in that situation.

DangerousPie 7y ago

1. Not for coronaviruses. 2. They are known but they are by no means mild. A trial in Brazil just got aborted due to severe heart problems. 3. So does almost everything. If that's your threshold for taking a drug then I have a lot of homeopathic remedies to sell you! 4. Actually the doses given for COVID are often higher. Not sure what long-term has to do with anything. 5. That assumes that the risk of side effects is zero. It's not. Also, there is an opportunity cost to taking HCQ instead of something else. I totally agree with you that we should do proper trials on this and see what happens. But right now there is zero evidence that it actually works, and some (admittedly low-quality) evidence that it might not.

ddebernardy 7y ago
> Actually the doses given for COVID are often higher. Not just higher. The original article (the one out of China) that mentioned that there might be some positive effects reportedly suggested using doses that were a whopping 5 times higher than the usually prescribed amounts: 500mg/day vs the usual 100mg/day. What more, the same article put forward that the drug was considered generally safe and without any potentially troublesome side effects. That raised more than a few eyebrows amongst the medical staff who knew the drug.

tjenkinsqs 7y ago

Excellent points. I would add: HCQ is most effective at the onset of symptoms. It stops the virus from replicating, it does not repair cell damage. Also, it must be used with zinc together, since HCQ opens the cells to absorb zinc and zinc must be present.

DangerousPie 7y ago
[citation needed]

voxl 7y ago

Why in the world would you quote "experts" and clearly you know nothing about statistics if you look at 181 patients and immediately think "oh well that's just too small!" You can have significant results with as little as 10 random samples. People are mad because this is getting pushed as a treatment for COVID-19. The only correct response is: "We do not have evidence that this a treatment for COVID-19." As more research is done we can update our knowledge on this, but instead you talk about the "experts" like they you know more than they do. Typical anti-academic rhetoric.

FireBeyond 7y ago

> some people that so-called "experts" don't like mentioned HCQ as a possible treatment for coronavirus Let's call a spade a spade. Trump, not 'some people'. Trump's medical training amounts to what, exactly? He heard that a drug has some beneficial effects on a similar disease and is all aboard, and HE is the one "some people say it's an amazing drug", "it can't hurt you" (except when it can), "I'm seeing people who will die without it" (based on what, exactly?). Oh, "and I directly profit from it". People aren't screaming that HCQ "shouldn't be used", but that a President shouldn't be using his position (and complete lack of medical training) to be promising things that are at best unproven, and at worst, factually incorrect.

mike00632 7y ago

> ...this should certainly be tried as a treatment... What? Why not try literally anything and everything else that has not been proven?

forgingahead 7y ago
When faced with death as an alternative? Of course! The hypocrisy is that all the shouters and screamers would likely make the decision to try HCQ if it was them in that situation.