Chloroquine and Hydroxychloroquine Coronavirus cures?

[Jezcoe]

@CanadianJudo

how is the miracle drug doing its been almost two months.

In a month we will be eating crow… or something.

[Samm]

@PeterGriffin

How do you get that from what is the latest version of right wing medical quackery and grift? Pointing and shaking your head and saying “maybe the 39th time you get burned you’ll figure it out” ain’t exactly wearing a sandwich board.

Thanks for making my point.

[Bosun]

Leave it to a French study of ? origin.

[Samm]

@Konssurvative1

Yeah…Samm already pointed that out and I responded about the article being more than a month old…i thought it was a new article.

I notice that you did not acknowledge the two links that I posted as follow-ups that were just hours old …

[NebraskaFootball]

@JayJay

Don’t know if this has been posted…a French HCQ study

84 patients received HCQ within 48 hours of admission, 97 percent received only standard of care.

The results:

*20.2% of the HCQ patients transferred to ICU or died within 7 days of the study, 22.1% of the non-HCQ patients had the same result (more detailed breakdown in the study)
*27.4% HCQ patients developed ARDS within 7 days…24.1% of non-HCQ patients developed ARDS within 7 days
*8 (9.5%) of the HCQ patients had to have the treatment discontinued when they developed EKG modifications

Conclusion…no benefits to using HCQ seen in this trial.

https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.04.10.20060699v1

That is terribly disappointing. But this is why there needs to be extensive studies on these drugs before claiming they can work miracles and give people false hope.

[CanadianJudo]

@JayJay

Don’t know if this has been posted…a French HCQ study

84 patients received HCQ within 48 hours of admission, 97 percent received only standard of care.

The results:

*20.2% of the HCQ patients transferred to ICU or died within 7 days of the study, 22.1% of the non-HCQ patients had the same result (more detailed breakdown in the study)
*27.4% HCQ patients developed ARDS within 7 days…24.1% of non-HCQ patients developed ARDS within 7 days
*8 (9.5%) of the HCQ patients had to have the treatment discontinued when they developed EKG modifications

Conclusion…no benefits to using HCQ seen in this trial.

https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.04.10.20060699v1

But I was told this drug would be the cure!

[Samm]

@JayJay

No the high dosing does not bear that out because no one knows what the “high dosing” really is when using this drug for a condition for which is was not designed.

That seems very unlikely for a drug that has been around for decades. The dangerous side effects and the safe dosage would have been established when the drug was initially approved. The fact that is being used to treat a different illness that it was approved for wouldn’t change that.

[Konssurvative1]

Haven’t had a chance to yet Samm…I will get to them. Busy day…I have had 5 meetings today from home. This is the first time I have really had a chance other than to answer some posts here. But I will look at the. I am very interested. Not blowing them off.

[CanadianJudo]

@Samm

@JayJay

No the high dosing does not bear that out because no one knows what the “high dosing” really is when using this drug for a condition for which is was not designed.

That seems very unlikely for a drug that has been around for decades. The dangerous side effects and the safe dosage would have been established when the drug was initially approved. The fact that is being used to treat a different illness that it was approved for wouldn’t change that.

Yes the drug wasn’t made to treat this virus meaning the dosage you would need for it to treat another illness wouldn’t be within the guidelines.

[Samm]

@CanadianJudo

@JayJay

Don’t know if this has been posted…a French HCQ study

84 patients received HCQ within 48 hours of admission, 97 percent received only standard of care.

The results:

*20.2% of the HCQ patients transferred to ICU or died within 7 days of the study, 22.1% of the non-HCQ patients had the same result (more detailed breakdown in the study)
*27.4% HCQ patients developed ARDS within 7 days…24.1% of non-HCQ patients developed ARDS within 7 days
*8 (9.5%) of the HCQ patients had to have the treatment discontinued when they developed EKG modifications

Conclusion…no benefits to using HCQ seen in this trial.

https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.04.10.20060699v1

But I was told this drug would be the cure!

No you weren’t. Nobody … not even Trump … has claimed it is a cure.

[CanadianJudo]

@Samm

@CanadianJudo

@JayJay

Don’t know if this has been posted…a French HCQ study

84 patients received HCQ within 48 hours of admission, 97 percent received only standard of care.

The results:

*20.2% of the HCQ patients transferred to ICU or died within 7 days of the study, 22.1% of the non-HCQ patients had the same result (more detailed breakdown in the study)
*27.4% HCQ patients developed ARDS within 7 days…24.1% of non-HCQ patients developed ARDS within 7 days
*8 (9.5%) of the HCQ patients had to have the treatment discontinued when they developed EKG modifications

Conclusion…no benefits to using HCQ seen in this trial.

https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.04.10.20060699v1

But I was told this drug would be the cure!

No you weren’t. Nobody … not even Trump … has claimed it is a cure.

“I think it’s going to be very promising. It could be a game-changer,” he said. “And maybe not. Based on what I see, it could be a game-changer. They’re very powerful.”

wasn’t really a game-changer was it.

[Samm]

@CanadianJudo

@Samm

@JayJay

No the high dosing does not bear that out because no one knows what the “high dosing” really is when using this drug for a condition for which is was not designed.

That seems very unlikely for a drug that has been around for decades. The dangerous side effects and the safe dosage would have been established when the drug was initially approved. The fact that is being used to treat a different illness that it was approved for wouldn’t change that.

Yes the drug wasn’t made to treat this virus meaning the dosage you would need for it to treat another illness wouldn’t be within the guidelines.

You are confusing efficacy with side effects. The efficacy with COVID-19 is unknown, but the side effects of the drug in patients are well known.

[Samm]

@CanadianJudo

@Samm

@CanadianJudo

@JayJay

Don’t know if this has been posted…a French HCQ study

84 patients received HCQ within 48 hours of admission, 97 percent received only standard of care.

The results:

*20.2% of the HCQ patients transferred to ICU or died within 7 days of the study, 22.1% of the non-HCQ patients had the same result (more detailed breakdown in the study)
*27.4% HCQ patients developed ARDS within 7 days…24.1% of non-HCQ patients developed ARDS within 7 days
*8 (9.5%) of the HCQ patients had to have the treatment discontinued when they developed EKG modifications

Conclusion…no benefits to using HCQ seen in this trial.

https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.04.10.20060699v1

But I was told this drug would be the cure!

No you weren’t. Nobody … not even Trump … has claimed it is a cure.

“I think it’s going to be very promising. It could be a game-changer,” he said. “And maybe not. Based on what I see, it could be a game-changer. They’re very powerful.”

wasn’t really a game-changer was it.

I don’t see the word “cure” there.

Any drug that speeds recovery and reduces the chances of a pneumonial condition setting in, is a valuable tool. It would be comparable to Tamaflu … it doesn’t cure the Flu, it reduces the severity and duration of the illness and gives the body’s immune system the opportunity to fight the virus.

[JayJay]

@Bosun

Leave it to a French study of ? origin.

So you’re a clinical trials expert now?

Good to know…lol.

[Auto129]

That’s disappointing.

I’m holding out hope that maybe it works if you take it at an earlier stage. I hope someone can get around to testing that.

[TheDoctorIsIn]

@Samm

No you weren’t. Nobody … not even Trump … has claimed it is a cure.

Did you happen to glance at the title of this thread?

[Samm]

@TheDoctorIsIn

@Samm

No you weren’t. Nobody … not even Trump … has claimed it is a cure.

Did you happen to glance at the title of this thread?

Did you happen to see the question mark at the end?

[Bosun]

Never said I was. But I took it for Malaria years ago.

[SottoVoce]

@CanadianJudo

@Samm

@JayJay

No the high dosing does not bear that out because no one knows what the “high dosing” really is when using this drug for a condition for which is was not designed.

That seems very unlikely for a drug that has been around for decades. The dangerous side effects and the safe dosage would have been established when the drug was initially approved. The fact that is being used to treat a different illness that it was approved for wouldn’t change that.

Yes the drug wasn’t made to treat this virus meaning the dosage you would need for it to treat another illness wouldn’t be within the guidelines.

Yes. Chloroquine dose for malaria is 300 mg a week. Studies using it for COVID-19 are giving up to 1000-1200 mg a day. Big difference.

Edit: That’s the prophylaxis malaria dose, to avoid confusion.

Edit 2: Chloroquine dosing for different indications.

Chloroquine Dosage Guide + Max Dose, Adjustments - Drugs.com

[PeterGriffin]

Hey come on now. Nobody promoted it as a cure, just as a game changing Magic Pill.