How could hydrooxchloroquine be harmful?

amother

Pearl

Sat, Aug 01 2020, 11:27 pm

#BestBubby wrote:

Source that Israel forbids using HCQ?

It's not approved for Covid-19. Not administered at all for Covid-19.

So the low death rate has nothing to do with it. As is the case with most or all countries shown in that graph. (Even if it is being used in a couple of them, no proof that that's the reason for their lower deaths.)

gold21

Sat, Aug 01 2020, 11:29 pm

amother [ Pearl ] wrote:

I may be wrong though I thought there aren't many elderly people living in KJ. If that's the case then this really wouldn't be evidence of anything, since it may have been given to mostly low-risk patients anyway.

(And although at very high risk, there are also plently of elderly people who survived without medication bh. That's why randomized clinical trials are needed rather than anecdotal evidence, in order to get a real picture of it's effectiveness.)

I'm sure there are elderly people living in KJ.

Yes, we need more trials.

Last edited by gold21 on Sun, Aug 02 2020, 1:45 am; edited 1 time in total

#BestBubby

Sat, Aug 01 2020, 11:31 pm

amother [ cornflower ] wrote:

In Canada too, Remdesivir has also been approved by Health Canada for treatment of Covid-19.
Hydroxychloroquine failed the trials and is not being used.

Fake News.

In one international poll3 of 6,227 doctors in 30 countries, 37% rated the antimalaria drug hydroxychloroquine as “the most effective therapy” for COVID-19. The poll was done by Sermo, the world’s largest health care data collection company and social platform for physicians.

#BestBubby

Sat, Aug 01 2020, 11:33 pm

amother [ Pearl ] wrote:

Again - what is your source?

amother

cornflower

Sat, Aug 01 2020, 11:37 pm

#BestBubby wrote:

How can factual information be fake news?
I stated that Health Canada has approved remdesivir for Covid-19 and has not approved hydroxychloroquine because it failed their trials.
This is a fact, your responding with "Fake News!" does not change that.

amother

Lavender

Sat, Aug 01 2020, 11:40 pm

trixx wrote:

Its not harmful.
The studies they quote are fake ie given more than the suggested dose and too late.

I know someone who ended up in the hospital in critical condition from taking it. You cant make a blanket statement like that. The truth is that it can be dangerous and should only be given under a doctors supervision. And we dont have enough evidence to prove that it actually helps.

#BestBubby

Sat, Aug 01 2020, 11:46 pm

amother [ cornflower ] wrote:

Sorry. Thought you wrote that nobody is using hydroxyclorquine.

HCQ is used successfully in many countries.

#BestBubby

Sat, Aug 01 2020, 11:50 pm

Dr. Zelenko calls prohibiting HCQ "mass murder"

gold21

Sun, Aug 02 2020, 12:03 am

Here is an article on anti-malarial use in Africa:

"The problem of drug resistant malaria is growing in Africa. The first case of resistance to the latest drug regimen was recorded in Equatorial Guinea two months ago. What does this mean?......

Africa has used the same treatment regimens that have been used across the world. This includes:

chloroquine which was safe, cheap and effective until the malaria parasite –plasmodium falciparum– developed resistance towards it.

sulphadoxine pyrimethamine a drug combination which also became resistant.

artemisinin combination therapies which is the first line recommended malaria treatment which kills the parasites in the blood of the infected person within three days.

If resistance is developing to the artemisinin combination therapies on the continent, it means that the burden of the disease increases."

Last edited by gold21 on Sun, Aug 02 2020, 3:41 pm; edited 4 times in total

gold21

Sun, Aug 02 2020, 12:05 am

As per article listed above, take a look at covid mortalities in countries using anti-malarials such as cloroquine. I'm not suggesting there's a link. It's just an observation.

Last edited by gold21 on Sun, Aug 02 2020, 1:09 am; edited 1 time in total

gold21

Sun, Aug 02 2020, 12:08 am

deleted

Last edited by gold21 on Sun, Aug 02 2020, 1:10 am; edited 3 times in total

#BestBubby

Sun, Aug 02 2020, 12:24 am

The FDA has always allowed doctors to prescribe FDA approved drugs "off-label"
WHY is this the ONLY exception to the rule???

If YOU don't want to risk HCQ that should be YOUR decision, but if my doctor and I feel
that we want to use HCQ why should the government FORBID a drug that has been FDA approved for over 50 years???

HCQ is so safe that in some countries it is sold over the counter like aspirin and vitamins!

gold21

Sun, Aug 02 2020, 1:08 am

The following is straight off the WHO's website:

Chemoprophylaxis

The most appropriate chemoprophylactic antimalarial drug for the destination should be prescribed in the correct dosage. Travellers and their doctors should be aware that no antimalarial prophylactic regimen gives complete protection, but good chemoprophylaxis (adherence to the recommended drug regimen) significantly reduces the risk of fatal disease.

The following should also be taken into account:

Dosing schedules for children should be based on body weight.
Weekly mefloquine should preferably be started 2–3 weeks before departure in order to achieve protective drug blood levels and to allow possible side-effects to be detected before travel so that possible alternatives can be considered. Before mefloquine is prescribed, all users should be made aware of the adverse events associated with its use.
Daily prophylaxis with doxycycline or atovaquone–proguanil should be started 1–2 days before arrival in the malaria risk area (or earlier if drug tolerability needs to be checked before departure).
Weekly chloroquine should be started 1 week before arrival.

All prophylactic drugs should be taken with unfailing regularity for the duration of the stay in the malaria risk area, and should be continued for 4 weeks after the last possible exposure to infection since parasites may still emerge from the liver during this period. The single exception is atovaquone–proguanil, which can be stopped 1 week after return because it is effective against early liver-stage parasites (liver schizonts). However, if daily doses have been skipped while the traveller was exposed to malaria risk, atovaquone–proguanil prophylaxis should also be taken for 4 weeks after return.

Depending on the type of malaria at the destination, travellers should be advised about possible late-onset malaria caused by the persistent hepatic forms of P.vivax and P. ovale. Depending on the type of malaria risk in the specific area of the country/territory visited (see Country list), the recommended prevention method may be mosquito bite prevention only, or mosquito bite prevention in combination with chemoprophylaxis and/or standby emergency treatment, as shown in Table 7.1 (see also Table 7.2 for details of individual drugs).

All antimalarial drugs have specific contraindications and possible side-effects. Adverse reactions attributed to malaria chemoprophylaxis are common, but most are minor and do not affect the activities of the traveller. Serious adverse events –defined as events constituting an apparent threat to life, requiring or prolonging hospitalization, or resulting in persistent or significant disability or incapacity – are rare and normally identified in post-marketing surveillance after a drug has been in use for some time. Severe neuropsychiatric disturbances (seizures, psychosis, encephalopathy) occur in approximately 1 in 10,000 travellers receiving mefloquine prophylaxis, and have also been reported for chloroquine at a similar rate.

The risk of drug-associated adverse events should be weighed against the risk of malaria, especially P. falciparum malaria, and local drug-resistance patterns. Each of the antimalarial drugs is contraindicated in certain groups and individuals, and the contraindications should be carefully observed (see Table 7.2) to reduce the risk of serious adverse reactions.

Pregnant women, people travelling with young children,and people with chronic illnesses should seek individual medical advice.

Travellers who develop severe adverse effects while using an antimalarial should stop taking the drug and should seek immediate medical attention so that they can switch to a different antimalarial drug. This applies particularly to neurological or psychological disturbances experienced with mefloquine prophylaxis. Mild nausea, occasional vomiting or loose stools should not prompt discontinuation of prophylaxis, but medical advice should be sought if symptoms persist.

Long-term chemoprophylaxis

Adherence and tolerability are important aspects of chemoprophylaxis for people with long-term exposure to risk of malaria infection. Few studies have been done on chemoprophylaxis use for more than 6 months. The risk of serious side-effects associated with long-term prophylactic use of chloroquine is low, but retinal toxicity is of concern when a cumulative dose of 100g of chloroquine is reached. Anyone who has taken 300 mg of chloroquine weekly for more than 5 years and requires further prophylaxis should be screened twice yearly for early retinal changes. If daily doses of 100 mg chloroquine have been taken, screening should start after 3 years. Data indicate no increased risk of serious side-effects with long-term use of mefloquine if the drug is tolerated in the short term. Pharmacokinetic data indicate that mefloquine does not accumulate during long-term intake. Available data on long-term chemoprophylaxis with doxycycline (I.e. more than 12 months) are limited but reassuring. There are few data on long-term use of doxycycline in women, but use of this drug is associated with an increased frequency of vaginitis dueto Candida. Atovaquone–proguanil is registered in European countries with a restriction on duration of use (varying from 5 weeks to 1 year);such restrictions do not apply in the United Kingdom or the United States. [b][b]

amother

Puce

Sun, Aug 02 2020, 6:25 am

Published in 2005 by the NIH under Fauci...🤔
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/p.....2869/

ora_43

Sun, Aug 02 2020, 7:37 am

gold21 wrote:

From the article you linked:

...

"While the two drugs serve necessary medical purposes, there is no conclusive evidence at this time among COVID-19 experts or Nevada’s own medical health advisory team that the drugs provide treatment for COVID-19 patients," Sisolak said during a press conference. "The emergency regulation is aimed at preventing the hoarding of the drugs so those that actually need them can have access to them."

...

On March 23, Cuomo signed an executive order restricting the prescription of chloroquine "except when written as prescribed for an FDA-approved indication; or as part of a state approved clinical trial related to COVID-19 for a patient who has tested positive for COVID-19."

The state has acquired more than 800,000 doses of chloroquine and hydroxychloroquine for clinical trials.

(cut to show important parts)

I'm not sure what you think I missed. These parts - part of what you quoted - show exactly what I said they did. There were bans to protect supply, not to protect patients because the governors thought the drug was too dangerous.

ora_43

Sun, Aug 02 2020, 7:46 am

trixx wrote:

Its not harmful.
The studies they quote are fake ie given more than the suggested dose and too late.

Suggested by whom? It's not like there's one, single person who is The Hypothesizor, and all scientific studies test his/her theories. Multiple people come up with multiple different ideas and test them. Right now, during a pandemic, scientists are deliberately testing many different theories, because statistically speaking you find effective treatments much faster when you test 30 things at once than if you test 30 things one after the other.

There are no "fake" studies. There are studies that look at different doses in different settings, because, again, testing multiple theories is the goal.

And really, imagine scientists had said, "Some doctors say that hydroxychloroquine is helpful in early stages. We definitely shouldn't try it on later-stage patients to see if it helps them, too. Even though there's no other treatment available. We should just let them die."

That would be beyond irresponsible. Of course they tested to see if it would help later-stage patients, doctors are looking for anything that might help later-stage patients! Why would they test a dozen other medicines but not test this one?

gold21

Sun, Aug 02 2020, 7:47 am

ora_43 wrote:

If that's the case, why isn't hydroxychloroquine being used, and why does the media paint it as a high-risk medication?

gold21

Sun, Aug 02 2020, 7:48 am

ora_43 wrote:

They haven't put much effort into testing in outpatient use at all.

ora_43

Sun, Aug 02 2020, 7:54 am

Let's keep in mind, please, that there are real people behind this research. Real people who dedicated decades of their lives to becoming medical researchers. And - shocking as it may sound - they did that because they care about medicine, not because they care about politics.

This study which looked at a hydroxycholoroquine/ Azithromycin combo used to treat mild to moderate covid cases found that it wasn't helpful. Which of the following 30+ researchers are you accusing of deliberately running a fake study? Or do you think they all collaborated together?

Quote:

Alexandre B. Cavalcanti, M.D., Ph.D., Fernando G. Zampieri, M.D., Ph.D., Regis G. Rosa, M.D., Ph.D., Luciano C.P. Azevedo, M.D., Ph.D., Viviane C. Veiga, M.D., Ph.D., Alvaro Avezum, M.D., Ph.D., Lucas P. Damiani, M.Sc., Aline Marcadenti, Ph.D., Letícia Kawano-Dourado, M.D., Ph.D., Thiago Lisboa, M.D., Ph.D., Debora L. M. Junqueira, M.D., Pedro G.M. de Barros e Silva, M.D., Ph.D., Lucas Tramujas, M.D., Erlon O. Abreu-Silva, M.D., Ligia N. Laranjeira, Ph.D., Aline T. Soares, M.D., Ph.D., Leandro S. Echenique, M.D., Adriano J. Pereira, M.D., Ph.D., Flávio G.R. Freitas, M.D., Ph.D., Otávio C.E. Gebara, M.D., Ph.D., Vicente C.S. Dantas, M.D., Ph.D., Remo H.M. Furtado, M.D., Ph.D., Eveline P. Milan, M.D., Ph.D., Nicole A. Golin, M.D., Fábio F. Cardoso, M.D., Israel S. Maia, M.D., Conrado R. Hoffmann Filho, M.D., Adrian P.M. Kormann, M.D., Roberto B. Amazonas, M.D., Ph.D., Monalisa F. Bocchi de Oliveira, M.D., Ary Serpa-Neto, M.D., Ph.D., Maicon Falavigna, M.D., Ph.D., Renato D. Lopes, M.D., Ph.D., Flávia R. Machado, M.D., Ph.D., and Otavio Berwanger, M.D., Ph.D.

And why on earth would any one researcher, let alone over two dozen, deliberately do research that they don't expect will yield positive results? I promise you, when research scientists plan covid trials, they aren't thinking "wow, I really hope we prove the president of America wrong! After all, there's not nearly enough evidence that he's a moron. No, I'm sure all the people who've stood by him through the past four years will turn on him the minute they see our single peer-reviewed study in a medical journal!" (everyone knows that all Trump supporters subscribe to NEJM, right?)

They're thinking. "wow, I really hope we find a potential treatment."

gold21

Sun, Aug 02 2020, 8:03 am

ora_43 wrote:

Quote:

I did my research before developing my opinion of what is going on. Thanks. I've already seen the study you linked. It is a study on hospitalized patients. Those with the sort of "mild to moderate" cases of covid I am thinking of, don't go to the hospital. I specifically said I'm looking for an outpatient study.

Last edited by gold21 on Sun, Aug 02 2020, 8:05 am; edited 1 time in total