6 ms·

> 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.

> 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
> for probably more than a billion or two people That's a few orders of magnitude off.
gridlockd 7y ago
We already have some preliminary data that shows it isn't very effective for critical patients: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22797185 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22797185 That's why I wrote non-critical patients. There are doctors administering it in a prophylactic fashion, supposedly with success. That's highly controversial.

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

> for probably more than a billion or two people That's a few orders of magnitude off.

gridlockd 7y ago

We already have some preliminary data that shows it isn't very effective for critical patients: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22797185 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22797185 That's why I wrote non-critical patients. There are doctors administering it in a prophylactic fashion, supposedly with success. That's highly controversial.