5 ms·

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

by x86_64Ubuntu 4y ago

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.
caddemon 4y ago
It's a little weird that this pilot research* made the front page of HN, in that respect there probably is a political factor. But for the research itself I agree, there's no indication this article was in any way motivated by COVID or contains any misunderstandings of HCQ. (* the sample is large but since it's purely observational in a very specific population it obviously requires follow-up work)
- tptacek 4y ago
  It's not at all weird that new research about Alzheimers hit the HN front page; Alzheimers is a recurring fascination for the site. Unfortunately, so are political debates, which, unlike neurodegenerative illnesses, are generally off-topic for the site.
  - mgarfias 4y ago
    Coming from a family with a strong history of dementia, this fascination is VERY welcome
  - caddemon 4y ago
    Do you know how many papers about Alzheimer's are published on a daily basis? It would be a perpetual topic on the front page of HN if every pilot study were shared and upvoted like this one.

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.

caddemon 4y ago

It's a little weird that this pilot research* made the front page of HN, in that respect there probably is a political factor. But for the research itself I agree, there's no indication this article was in any way motivated by COVID or contains any misunderstandings of HCQ. (* the sample is large but since it's purely observational in a very specific population it obviously requires follow-up work)

tptacek 4y ago
It's not at all weird that new research about Alzheimers hit the HN front page; Alzheimers is a recurring fascination for the site. Unfortunately, so are political debates, which, unlike neurodegenerative illnesses, are generally off-topic for the site.
- mgarfias 4y ago
  Coming from a family with a strong history of dementia, this fascination is VERY welcome
- caddemon 4y ago
  Do you know how many papers about Alzheimer's are published on a daily basis? It would be a perpetual topic on the front page of HN if every pilot study were shared and upvoted like this one.