Chloroquine and Hydroxychloroquine as treatments for Covid-19

TrixieStix said:
he argues that the drug is not being given until patients are already in too severe of condition
Click to expand...
I'm not qualified to know know if Hydroxychloroquine is beneficial for Covid 19, nor if it might be harmful.

To really know if Hydroxychloroquine is beneficial for Covid 19, harmful, or of no effect at all, then you would presumably have to test it against a control group having near-identical Covid-19 life expectancy.

It occurred to me when listening to the news a day or two back, that the people most likely to risk an unproven treatment are probably those whose Covid 19 outlook is already bleak anyway - it's human nature. So those taking the treatment would likely be more likely to die anyway. I imagine that prevailing conditions mean no such controlled studies are feasible in the short term at the moment, so we may be on the same old bandwagon of correlation rather than causation.

I'd hate anyone to think I'm trying to make a case for Hydroxychloroquine as a Covid 19 treatment, because like I say, I'm not in the least qualified. But we are a science based forum and need to be unbiased, and spot any bias if it is there.
 
I found this interesting and jaw-dropping (if true) :

Code: 
https://threader.app/thread/1271829781563219969

Code: 
https://twitter.com/Twittlebit_adis/status/1271829836454035458

Same thread in the above two links - one directly from Twitter and one from Thread Reader App - read whichever one you are most comfortable with.

Allegedly, doctors in Oxford testing HCQ were confusing hydrochloroquine with hydroxyquinolones and dramatically overdosed their sick patients.

The source of this info is the newspaper France Soir which is apparently a French equivalent of some of the UK tabloids. And so whether this is true? I have absolutely no idea.
 
Arnie Pye said:
The source of this info is the newspaper France Soir which is apparently a French equivalent of some of the UK tabloids. And so whether this is true? I have absolutely no idea.
Click to expand...

France Soir has become a very, very bad newspaper, full of the worst conspiracy theories.
One of the researchers involved in the trial answered a very reliable science journalist and denied what was said in the France Soir interview

"Peter Horby dément formellement cette interprétation et affirme que France Soir a mal rapporté les propos de son confrère (ce que le média français conteste) : «Il n’y a absolument aucune confusion chez nous entre l’hydroxychloroquine et l’hydroxyquinoléine, contrairement à ce que rapporte France Soir. La confusion vient de l’interview de France Soir qui rapporte le terme "dysenterie amibienne" à la place d’"abcès hépatique amibien" (AHA), pathologie pour laquelle la chloroquine a été utilisée comme traitement dans le passé, à des doses comparables à celles que nous avons utilisées dans Recovery avec l’HCQ.»
Click to expand...

Google translate:
Peter Horby formally denies this interpretation and affirms that France Soir badly reported the words of his colleague (which the French media disputes): "There is absolutely no confusion here between hydroxychloroquine and hydroxyquinoline, unlike what France Soir reports. The confusion comes from an interview with France Soir which reports the term "amoebic dysentery" instead of "amoebic hepatic abscess" (AHA), a pathology for which chloroquine has been used as treatment in the past, at comparable doses to the ones we used in Recovery with the HCQ. ”

https://www.liberation.fr/checknews...fois-la-dose-d-hydroxychloroquine-aut_1790733
 
I thought this (very long) article was very good and was worth the effort.

Title : Hydroxychloroquine: A Morality Tale

Link : https://www.tabletmag.com/sections/science/articles/hydroxychloroquine-morality-tale

Early in the coronavirus pandemic, a survey of the world’s frontline physicians showed hydroxychloroquine to be the drug they considered the most effective at treating COVID-19 patients. That was in early April, shortly after a French study showed it was safe and effective in lowering the virus count, at times in combination with azithromycin. Next we were told hydroxychloroquine was likely ineffective, and also dangerous, and that that French study was flawed and the scientist behind it worthy of mockery. More studies followed, with contradictory results, and then out came what was hailed by some as a definitive study of 96,000 patients showing the drug was most certainly dangerous and ineffective, and indeed that it killed 30% more people than those who didn’t take it. Within days, that study was retracted, with the editor of one of the two most respected medical journals in the Western world conceding it was “a monumental fraud.” And on it went.
Click to expand...
 
A parody paper was published by two Swiss researchers in a predatory journal which published an appalling article defending the use of hydroxychloroquine in COVID, to prove that there is no peer review in this type of journal and that (really) anything can be published if you pay.
The level of absurdity reached by this article is unbelievable and it should have been be obvious to anybody reading it that it was a joke, but it got published (and retracted the following day).
Here are two articles in English about the whole story.

Journal accepts fake story about scooters and hydroxychloroquine
Elisabeth Bik

Yesterday, it published an obviously fake study that claimed that hydroxychloroquine could prevent push-scooter accidents – but only in Marseille. The paper has a lot of references to French scientists and politicians, and one of the authors is a famous French dog.

The paper got retracted today, but not before many had a good laugh at it on Twitter.
Click to expand...
https://scienceintegritydigest.com/...-story-about-scooters-and-hydroxychloroquine/

Hydroxychloroquine, push-scooters, and COVID-19: A journal gets stung, and swiftly retracts
Retractionwatch

The sting article, “SARS-CoV-2 was Unexpectedly Deadlier than Push-scooters: Could Hydroxychloroquine be the Unique Solution?” — was the brainchild of graduate student Mathieu Rebeaud, aka “Willard Oodendijk” and Florian Cova, of “The Institute for Quick and Dirty Science” (no, not really) in Switzerland. Their goal: to highlight a concerning paper in the Asian Journal of Medicine and Health, which they and others suspect of being a predatory publication — one that is happy to take money to publish anything, while pretending to perform peer review.
Click to expand...
https://retractionwatch.com/2020/08...19-a-journal-gets-stung-and-swiftly-retracts/
 
Arnie Pye said:
I thought this (very long) article was very good and was worth the effort.

Title : Hydroxychloroquine: A Morality Tale

Link : https://www.tabletmag.com/sections/science/articles/hydroxychloroquine-morality-tale
Click to expand...
Thanks, I've been wanting to get to the bottom of this hydroxychloroquine story. I can't for the life of me imagine why the Recovery trial went in with such an insanely high dose of HCQ, rather than what was previously reported as a useful dose -- no subtlety and no consideration of any possible synergistic effects between HCQ and the other agents it has been used with, just the worst aspects of reductionist thinking; almost set to fail.

I'll cut and paste the text of this 'long read' into a text to speech app, and try to listen on my phone later. The author, Norman Doidge, also wrote a book called 'The Brain that Changes Itself', that was an interesting listen, so I'd trust him to be a balanced reporter on this.
 
hinterland said:
I can't for the life of me imagine why the Recovery trial went in with such an insanely high dose of HCQ
Click to expand...

With regard to HCQ the thing that baffled me was that a drug which has been available since 1955, has been taken millions or billions of times, which was very helpful for various autoimmune diseases and sufferers took it for years, it's on the list of the WHO Essential Medicines, and suddenly we're being told that it is deadly and nobody should prescribe it.

I could smell the big rotting fish that got chucked into the narrative from miles away.

At least the article makes it clear that the contradictory results from HCQ were caused by people getting given it when they were already past the point of no return, and that it works best when given early in the disease progression.
 
Arnie Pye said:
With regard to HCQ the thing that baffled me was that a drug which has been available since 1955, has been taken millions or billions of times, which was very helpful for various autoimmune diseases and sufferers took it for years, it's on the list of the WHO Essential Medicines, and suddenly we're being told that it is deadly and nobody should prescribe it.
Click to expand...
Because the dose is different than in autoimmune diseases and it can have heart problem side effects, which, in addition to COVID itself causing heart problem, is a concern.
 
Cheshire said:
Because the dose is different than in autoimmune diseases and it can have heart problem side effects, which, in addition to COVID itself causing heart problem, is a concern.
Click to expand...

But since Covid-19 is new, nobody would have known what dose was appropriate. Why did someone decide that in a testing phase of using any drug for a new disease it was appropriate to give people four times the dose that was known to be safe?
 
Arnie Pye said:
But since Covid-19 is new, nobody would have known what dose was appropriate. Why did someone decide that in a testing phase of using any drug for a new disease it was appropriate to give people four times the dose that was known to be safe?
Click to expand...
Raoult first used higher doses.
 
Title : Doctors Pen Open Letter To Fauci Regarding The Use Of Hydroxychloroquine for Treating COVID-19

Link : https://www.zerohedge.com/medical/d...ding-use-hydroxychloroquine-treating-covid-19

Authors : George C. Fareed, MD Brawley, California ; Michael M. Jacobs, MD, MPH Pensacola, Florida ; Donald C. Pompan, MD Salinas, California

Date : August 12, 2020

Dear Dr. Fauci:

You were placed into the most high-profile role regarding America’s response to the Coronavirus pandemic. Americans have relied on your medical expertise concerning the wearing of masks, resuming employment, returning to school, and of course medical treatment.

You are largely unchallenged in terms of your medical opinions. You are the de facto “COVID-19 Czar”. This is unusual in the medical profession in which doctors’ opinions are challenged by other physicians in the form of exchanges between doctors at hospitals, medical conferences, as well as debate in medical journals. You render your opinions unchallenged, without formal public opposition from physicians who passionately disagree with you. It is incontestable that the public is best served when opinions and policy are based on the prevailing evidence and science, and able to withstand the scrutiny of medical professionals.

As experience accrued in treating COVID-19 infections, physicians worldwide discovered that high-risk patients can be treated successfully as an outpatient, within the first 5 to 7 days of the onset of symptoms, with a “cocktail” consisting of hydroxychloroquine, zinc, and azithromycin (or doxycycline). Multiple scholarly contributions to the literature detail the efficacy of the hydroxychloroquine-based combination treatment.
Click to expand...

Letter continues...
 
Things get even more weird ...



I haven't actually heard or read anywhere that taking HCQ is a preventative, but still... Banning it seems very strange.

Edit : Typo
 
Last edited:
Arnie Pye said:
I still don't understand why using a well understood drug at four times the normal dose is acceptable.
Click to expand...

From what I know, 200-400mg is a daily dose for lupus, depending on body weight.

400mg (I think) once a week is or used to be used as a preventative for malaria. But if someone actually had caught malaria, 800mg was often used (for a day? Or for a few days) to treat the parasite. So that’s maybe where the higher dose comes from. Not sure if it’s still used as I had heard that malaria was becoming resistant to hydroxychloroquine.
 
Dr. John Campbell released a video today in which he states that he is now convinced that Hydroxychloroquine is indeed an effective treatment for Covid-19. He has based his opinion on a large new study out of Belgium. In this large study hospitalized patients were given lower doses than those used in previous studies.




link to the study.... https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0924857920303423
 
Last edited:
The two treatment arms do not match, so nothing can be deduced from this study.

The HCQ group includes 36.5% of 45-64 years old, but only 23.5% of +80 years. The group without HCQ: 44.6% over 80 years.
The high number of people over 80, with a higher risk of death, could in itself explain why the non treatment group had worst outcomes.

upload_2020-8-28_11-19-19.png
 
Last edited:
Arnie Pye said:
I still don't understand why using a well understood drug at four times the normal dose is acceptable.
Click to expand...

As I think I pointed out earlier, because chloroquine has a long half life, if you want it to do anything much in the first day or two you have to give a lot more (maybe 50 times more). The estimated half life is about 7 weeks so for the first month you are just building up levels with standard dosages. The reason for not giving a loading dose is that in the first couple of weeks quite a significant proportion of patients get reactions like light sensitivity so you do not want to give them too much of a load straight away. In an acute situation things are completely different.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom