12 ms·

HCQ is a much misunderstood substance as a result of the political furor around it. It is not a miracle drug and it is not useless for all medical purposes. It

HCQ is a much misunderstood substance as a result of the political furor around it. It is not a miracle drug and it is not useless for all medical purposes. It is a relatively mild anti-malarial drug with some anti-inflammatory properties. It is prescribed for autoimmune disorders in addition to malaria. Its anti-inflammatory/immune regulation effects are probably not that strong but its safety profile is well understood.

keepquestioning 4y ago
Now explain how it could affect Alzheimers
- WaxProlix 4y ago
  > some anti-inflammatory properties https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6214864/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6214864/ Lots of literature 1 google/ddg search away for you, but there's an example.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- maerF0x0 4y ago
  >We additionally show that HCQ exerts dose-dependent effects on late long-term potentiation (LTP) and rescues impaired hippocampal synaptic plasticity prior to significant accumulation of amyloid plaques and neurodegeneration in APP/PS1 mice. iirc (I am not qualified!!) Alzheimers relates to plaques in our brain, and this sounds to me like it fixes a precursor to the plaque accumulation (the loss of plasticity?)
  - pelorat 4y ago
    The plaques are a side effect of something we don't understand yet. Treating the plaque or slowing it is not a solution, we need to find and fix the cause.
    - emodendroket 4y ago
      Quite apart from the validity of this study, isn’t a purely palliative measure still valuable?
      - mattkrause 4y ago
        Literally billions of dollars has been spent, futilely, on the idea that removing plaques would stop/reverse the symptoms of Alzheimer's Disease. This "amyloid hypothesis" has not been a smashing success, to put in mildly.
      - ummonk 4y ago
        It's not clear that treating amyloid plaque is actually palliative for Alzheimer's patients.
- api 4y ago
  Being anti-inflammatory?
asdajksah2123 4y ago
[flagged]
- ben_w 4y ago
  At least one of the snake oil salesman was a politician, which caused there to be as much of a political furor about HCQ as Ivermectin, the vaccines, the masks, the lockdowns, etc.
- thepasswordis 4y ago
  This is such a depressing comment to read. Yes, there was political furor over it. The original people who were supporting the possibility that this drug MIGHT be useful against covid were legitimate doctors and researchers. Some politicians got overly excited about that, some politicians got overly upset about that. All of the legitimate discussion happening around it got lost in the crossfire of annoying politicians.
  - polishTar 4y ago
    This seems a bit revisionist. Nobody got upset at people getting excited, everyone was excited about its potential initially. The annoyance came specifically about certain politicians endorsing its use, without any disclaimers, without evidential support, and even after the evidence showed it didn't work.
    - AustinDev 4y ago
      [flagged]
      - ummonk 4y ago
        There is nothing in that article to indicate those studies may have been biased.
        AustinDev 4y ago
        SBF is a good actor. I got it. `Fraus Omnia Vitiat`
x86_64Ubuntu 4y ago
How is HCQ misunderstood due to the recent political furor? It's been used since the 1950s.
- treeman79 4y ago
  [flagged]
  - tptacek 4y ago
    No, they declared it ineffective for COVID and unsafe when taken without physician supervision, both of which are true statements.
  - baggachipz 4y ago
    It's not that he "supported" it, he touted it as a COVID-19 cure (an utterly baseless claim) when mask-wearing and distancing were the only available true preventers of transmission at the time. He politicized it, not the "other side".
    - h43z 4y ago
      It's not an utterly baseless claim https://c19hcq.org/meta.html https://c19hcq.org/meta.html
- dtgriscom 4y ago
  It was promoted by a politically-homogenous group of people as a COVID-19 cure https://theintercept.com/2021/09/28/covid-telehealth-hydroxychloroquine-ivermectin-hacked/ https://theintercept.com/2021/09/28/covid-telehealth-hydroxy...
  - JakeAl 4y ago
    I don't think that's accurate. It's mechanism is well known and to my knowledge the only ones saying that it was a cure were those trying to prevent it's use by misrepresenting it and those promoting it by saying THEY said it was a cure. It doesn't work by itself, and all of the research since before covid says as much. I know of no doctors who said by itself it was a cure for anything, only the press made that claim. It's an ion transport channel facilitator. It's never been alleged to work by itself to my knowledge. It allows the immune system to work better especially when used in conjunction with other agents (z-pack and ivermectin for example). It's effectiveness and molecular mechanism was well documented from the beginning. I learned about it in March 2020 and was able to read up on it and it's use in treating covid before social media started banning anything that referenced it. But it, like ivermectin (an equally well documented DNA replication inhibitor) were demonized and mocked despite the vast body of research on it and it's use. Australia had great research (though small sample size, it was thorough) on it's use and effectiveness at the beginning of the pandemic and it was shut down despite it being clearly explained the strict conditions under which it was effective (treatment within the first 8 days of showing symptoms, used with z-pack, etc). They even had research quantifying how it's effectiveness dropped without the z-pack components or as those treated didn't start treatment until 8 or more days. Not a controlled study but even Idris Elba was treated with it and raved about it's effectiveness in conjunction with the z-pack. It was all over the news before Trump mentioned it and then BAM! Censorship and propaganda campaign against it.

keepquestioning 4y ago

Now explain how it could affect Alzheimers

WaxProlix 4y ago
> some anti-inflammatory properties https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6214864/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6214864/ Lots of literature 1 google/ddg search away for you, but there's an example.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
maerF0x0 4y ago
>We additionally show that HCQ exerts dose-dependent effects on late long-term potentiation (LTP) and rescues impaired hippocampal synaptic plasticity prior to significant accumulation of amyloid plaques and neurodegeneration in APP/PS1 mice. iirc (I am not qualified!!) Alzheimers relates to plaques in our brain, and this sounds to me like it fixes a precursor to the plaque accumulation (the loss of plasticity?)
- pelorat 4y ago
  The plaques are a side effect of something we don't understand yet. Treating the plaque or slowing it is not a solution, we need to find and fix the cause.
  - emodendroket 4y ago
    Quite apart from the validity of this study, isn’t a purely palliative measure still valuable?
    - mattkrause 4y ago
      Literally billions of dollars has been spent, futilely, on the idea that removing plaques would stop/reverse the symptoms of Alzheimer's Disease. This "amyloid hypothesis" has not been a smashing success, to put in mildly.
    - ummonk 4y ago
      It's not clear that treating amyloid plaque is actually palliative for Alzheimer's patients.
api 4y ago
Being anti-inflammatory?

asdajksah2123 4y ago

[flagged]

ben_w 4y ago
At least one of the snake oil salesman was a politician, which caused there to be as much of a political furor about HCQ as Ivermectin, the vaccines, the masks, the lockdowns, etc.
thepasswordis 4y ago
This is such a depressing comment to read. Yes, there was political furor over it. The original people who were supporting the possibility that this drug MIGHT be useful against covid were legitimate doctors and researchers. Some politicians got overly excited about that, some politicians got overly upset about that. All of the legitimate discussion happening around it got lost in the crossfire of annoying politicians.
- polishTar 4y ago
  This seems a bit revisionist. Nobody got upset at people getting excited, everyone was excited about its potential initially. The annoyance came specifically about certain politicians endorsing its use, without any disclaimers, without evidential support, and even after the evidence showed it didn't work.
  - AustinDev 4y ago
    [flagged]
    - ummonk 4y ago
      There is nothing in that article to indicate those studies may have been biased.
      - AustinDev 4y ago
        SBF is a good actor. I got it. `Fraus Omnia Vitiat`

x86_64Ubuntu 4y ago

How is HCQ misunderstood due to the recent political furor? It's been used since the 1950s.

treeman79 4y ago
[flagged]
- tptacek 4y ago
  No, they declared it ineffective for COVID and unsafe when taken without physician supervision, both of which are true statements.
- baggachipz 4y ago
  It's not that he "supported" it, he touted it as a COVID-19 cure (an utterly baseless claim) when mask-wearing and distancing were the only available true preventers of transmission at the time. He politicized it, not the "other side".
  - h43z 4y ago
    It's not an utterly baseless claim https://c19hcq.org/meta.html https://c19hcq.org/meta.html
dtgriscom 4y ago
It was promoted by a politically-homogenous group of people as a COVID-19 cure https://theintercept.com/2021/09/28/covid-telehealth-hydroxychloroquine-ivermectin-hacked/ https://theintercept.com/2021/09/28/covid-telehealth-hydroxy...
- JakeAl 4y ago
  I don't think that's accurate. It's mechanism is well known and to my knowledge the only ones saying that it was a cure were those trying to prevent it's use by misrepresenting it and those promoting it by saying THEY said it was a cure. It doesn't work by itself, and all of the research since before covid says as much. I know of no doctors who said by itself it was a cure for anything, only the press made that claim. It's an ion transport channel facilitator. It's never been alleged to work by itself to my knowledge. It allows the immune system to work better especially when used in conjunction with other agents (z-pack and ivermectin for example). It's effectiveness and molecular mechanism was well documented from the beginning. I learned about it in March 2020 and was able to read up on it and it's use in treating covid before social media started banning anything that referenced it. But it, like ivermectin (an equally well documented DNA replication inhibitor) were demonized and mocked despite the vast body of research on it and it's use. Australia had great research (though small sample size, it was thorough) on it's use and effectiveness at the beginning of the pandemic and it was shut down despite it being clearly explained the strict conditions under which it was effective (treatment within the first 8 days of showing symptoms, used with z-pack, etc). They even had research quantifying how it's effectiveness dropped without the z-pack components or as those treated didn't start treatment until 8 or more days. Not a controlled study but even Idris Elba was treated with it and raved about it's effectiveness in conjunction with the z-pack. It was all over the news before Trump mentioned it and then BAM! Censorship and propaganda campaign against it.