4 ms·

I'd like to know if there was any evidence or indication of the value of HQNN before a certain president started spouting it. AFAIK the only reason we're talkin

I'd like to know if there was any evidence or indication of the value of HQNN before a certain president started spouting it. AFAIK the only reason we're talking about it is because he did. If that's so then there's no reason to pick HQNN as being special over any other drug. I suppose there's that very dodgy french study, perhaps that's what started it all off.

m0zg 7y ago
Basically exactly the same kind of "evidence" as what we have now for remdesivir. Some patients got better while on it, but because there was no control arm we don't know whether they'd do worse (or better) without the drug.
gridlockd 7y ago
Virologists generally agree that it is a plausible drug to treat COVID-19, but will quickly point out that efficacy is unproven and we need to wait for better studies. Also, a couple of doctors who are regarded as "cranks" started applying it early in the disease and presumably had success with. Trump picked up on that, so now a lot of people have reason to hate on it. Trump poisoned the well. No "proper" doctor is going to administer a dangerous drug to a non-critical patient to prevent what might turn out to be a harmless course of the diseases. However, that also means if these drugs work, but only in the early stages, then we won't find out any time soon.
- Fjolsvith 7y ago
  > No "proper" doctor is going to administer a dangerous drug to a non-critical patient to prevent what might turn out to be a harmless course of the diseases. This "dangerous" drug has been used in medicine for 60 years for probably more than a billion or two people. I'm sure that a "proper" doctor faced with a dying patient that is unresponsive to everything else is going to offer this drug. Its a good thing that congress approved the Right To Try law.
  - throwaway_pdp09 7y ago
    Parent explicitly said "...to a non-critical patient..." You're describing the opposite (but I'd probably agree with you there).
  - panpanna 7y ago
    > This "dangerous" drug has been used in medicine for 60 years Note that the doses required here are MUCH higher (one European hospital tried 1000mg doses) which is toxic. It can result in blindness, heart failure and other issues.
    - Fjolsvith 7y ago
      If I was dying and nothing else was working, I'd accept the risk.
      - panpanna 7y ago
        But what if people died _because_ of the drugs?? https://www.nicematin.com/sante/coronavirus-nous-avons-deja-du-interrompre-le-traitement-de-hydroxychloroquine-azithromycine-au-chu-de-nice-489118 https://www.nicematin.com/sante/coronavirus-nous-avons-deja-...
        Fjolsvith 7y ago
        Its all French to me.
    - m0zg 7y ago
      Retinal damage is not an issue unless you take it for years. Heart failure is not an issue in a hospital because it's not sudden, so all treatment protocols specify that patients are monitored for QT prolongation. Moreover if you don't get it right away, you're unlikely to get it at all. "Other issues" in this case are mostly nausea and diarrhea. I don't know about you, but I'd rather shit myself than die.
  - lern_too_spel 7y ago
Fjolsvith 7y ago
The evidence is perhaps shown by the countries that use HQNN to prevent malaria, that also have very low infection rates for the coronavirus.
- alimw 7y ago
  Are there countries in which a significant fraction of the population takes it on a regular basis? Presumably these are the same places in which an actually large fraction of the population has had malaria and in which there is some naturally evolved resistance to it, so you'd have to control for that...
  - lern_too_spel 7y ago
    There aren't any. Most regions with high risk of malaria (like India) have malarias that have chloroquine resistance, and the only places without chloroquine resistant malaria are in Central America and the Caribbean. Hydroxychloroquine is even less effective than chloroquine on those chloroquine resistant malarias. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/12837731/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/12837731/ Most Indians, for example, don't take any antimalarials until they actually have malaria.

m0zg 7y ago

Basically exactly the same kind of "evidence" as what we have now for remdesivir. Some patients got better while on it, but because there was no control arm we don't know whether they'd do worse (or better) without the drug.

gridlockd 7y ago

Virologists generally agree that it is a plausible drug to treat COVID-19, but will quickly point out that efficacy is unproven and we need to wait for better studies. Also, a couple of doctors who are regarded as "cranks" started applying it early in the disease and presumably had success with. Trump picked up on that, so now a lot of people have reason to hate on it. Trump poisoned the well. No "proper" doctor is going to administer a dangerous drug to a non-critical patient to prevent what might turn out to be a harmless course of the diseases. However, that also means if these drugs work, but only in the early stages, then we won't find out any time soon.

Fjolsvith 7y ago
> No "proper" doctor is going to administer a dangerous drug to a non-critical patient to prevent what might turn out to be a harmless course of the diseases. This "dangerous" drug has been used in medicine for 60 years for probably more than a billion or two people. I'm sure that a "proper" doctor faced with a dying patient that is unresponsive to everything else is going to offer this drug. Its a good thing that congress approved the Right To Try law.
- throwaway_pdp09 7y ago
  Parent explicitly said "...to a non-critical patient..." You're describing the opposite (but I'd probably agree with you there).
- panpanna 7y ago
  > This "dangerous" drug has been used in medicine for 60 years Note that the doses required here are MUCH higher (one European hospital tried 1000mg doses) which is toxic. It can result in blindness, heart failure and other issues.
  - Fjolsvith 7y ago
    If I was dying and nothing else was working, I'd accept the risk.
    - panpanna 7y ago
      But what if people died _because_ of the drugs?? https://www.nicematin.com/sante/coronavirus-nous-avons-deja-du-interrompre-le-traitement-de-hydroxychloroquine-azithromycine-au-chu-de-nice-489118 https://www.nicematin.com/sante/coronavirus-nous-avons-deja-...
      - Fjolsvith 7y ago
        Its all French to me.
  - m0zg 7y ago
    Retinal damage is not an issue unless you take it for years. Heart failure is not an issue in a hospital because it's not sudden, so all treatment protocols specify that patients are monitored for QT prolongation. Moreover if you don't get it right away, you're unlikely to get it at all. "Other issues" in this case are mostly nausea and diarrhea. I don't know about you, but I'd rather shit myself than die.
- lern_too_spel 7y ago

Fjolsvith 7y ago

The evidence is perhaps shown by the countries that use HQNN to prevent malaria, that also have very low infection rates for the coronavirus.

alimw 7y ago
Are there countries in which a significant fraction of the population takes it on a regular basis? Presumably these are the same places in which an actually large fraction of the population has had malaria and in which there is some naturally evolved resistance to it, so you'd have to control for that...
- lern_too_spel 7y ago
  There aren't any. Most regions with high risk of malaria (like India) have malarias that have chloroquine resistance, and the only places without chloroquine resistant malaria are in Central America and the Caribbean. Hydroxychloroquine is even less effective than chloroquine on those chloroquine resistant malarias. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/12837731/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/12837731/ Most Indians, for example, don't take any antimalarials until they actually have malaria.