3 ms·

Last I checked, the hydroxychloroquine studies were looking up. "No evidence"? Maybe you should find some better sources. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=

• nialv7 6y ago
  Serious adversarial effect: https://www.thedailybeast.com/chloroquine-study-ended-in-brazil-after-patients-developed-irregular-heart-rates https://www.thedailybeast.com/chloroquine-study-ended-in-bra... https://www.nytimes.com/2020/04/12/health/chloroquine-coronavirus-trump.html https://www.nytimes.com/2020/04/12/health/chloroquine-corona... Revoked FDA use authorization: https://www.fda.gov/news-events/press-announcements/coronavirus-covid-19-update-fda-revokes-emergency-use-authorization-chloroquine-and https://www.fda.gov/news-events/press-announcements/coronavi... Example of researches that doesn't see an effect of hydroxychloroquine: https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa2019014?query=RP https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa2019014?query=RP Edit: However, there were researches showing hydroxychloroquine increase arrhythmia risks, which were actually based on fraudulent data and has been retracted: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surgisphere#Lancet_and_NEJM_articles https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surgisphere#Lancet_and_NEJM_ar... So the trails might be stopped prematurely. But I still believe there are not conclusive evidences currently. e.g. as shown by this meta-analysis: https://www.clinicalmicrobiologyandinfection.com/article/S1198-743X(20)30505-X/fulltext https://www.clinicalmicrobiologyandinfection.com/article/S11...
  • ColanR 6y ago
    > Serious adversarial effect It's a well-understood drug, and any doctor worth their license would know how to use it safely. > Revoked FDA use authorization All that means is that more evidence is required before there's an official stamp of approval. "this drug may not be effective to treat COVID-19..." is what the actual request to revoke authroization said. > Example of researches [sic] that doesn't see an effect of hydroxychloroquine And there's other evidence contradicting that. You said there's "no evidence" it's beneficial. That's pretty clearly false, merely based on what I already linked (maybe you should broaden your reading habits). We can debate the degree of confidence the accumulation of studies can give us, but that's outside both our leagues.
    • tehjoker 6y ago
      The "therapeutic" dose of HCQ in COVID-19 patients is usually 600mg and up. The therapeutic dose for e.g. rheumatoid arthritis is 400mg or less. These higher doses were linked to arrhythmia and very little evidence of a beneficial effect has been found. HCQ has been used in petri dishes against many viruses and been successful there. Whenever they use it in vivo, it fails. This is not a new phenomenon. The link below is somewhat dated at this point (May 2020), but I believe it still stands. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0166354220301145?via%3Dihub https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S01663... In any case, if the FDA is saying "may not" the drug is not a slam dunk even if it has some beneficial effect. Winning the rhetorical war on HCQ isn't going to make COVID go away or be less serious in a substantial fashion.
      • ColanR 6y ago
        > Winning the rhetorical war on HCQ You said there's "no evidence". I said you were wrong, and apparently could muster better information than you could. That's not rhetoric, that's logic and evidence.