Trump Says He Takes Hydroxychloroquine To Prevent Coronavirus Infection Even Though It's An Unproven Treatment (cnbc.com) 470
hcs_$reboot writes: President Donald Trump said Monday that he has been taking anti-malaria drug hydroxychloroquine for over a week to prevent coronavirus infection even though it is not yet a proven treatment. Hydroxychloroquine, which is available as a generic drug and is also produced under the brand name Plaquenil by French drugmaker Sanofi, can have serious side effects, including muscle weakness and heart arrhythmia. A small study in Brazil was halted for safety reasons after coronavirus patients taking chloroquine, which hydroxychloroquine is derived from, developed arrhythmia, including some who died. Even Fox News agrees that this drug is harmful, adds hcs_$reboot. "I cannot stress this enough, this will kill you," Fox News host Neil Cavuto said.
Trump said Monday he asked his White House physician about the drug. "I asked him, 'What do you think?' He said, 'Well, if you'd like it.' I said, 'Yeah, I'd like it. I'd like to take it.'" Trump said Monday that if the drug wasn't good he'd "tell you." He said he's gotten "a lot of tremendously positive news on the hydroxy, and I say hey -- you know the expression I've used, John? What do you have to lose?"
"I'm not gonna get hurt by it. It's been around for 40 years," he said. "For malaria, for lupus, for other things. I take it. Front-line workers take it. A lot of doctors take it -- excuse me, a lot of doctors take it. I take it."
Trump said Monday he asked his White House physician about the drug. "I asked him, 'What do you think?' He said, 'Well, if you'd like it.' I said, 'Yeah, I'd like it. I'd like to take it.'" Trump said Monday that if the drug wasn't good he'd "tell you." He said he's gotten "a lot of tremendously positive news on the hydroxy, and I say hey -- you know the expression I've used, John? What do you have to lose?"
"I'm not gonna get hurt by it. It's been around for 40 years," he said. "For malaria, for lupus, for other things. I take it. Front-line workers take it. A lot of doctors take it -- excuse me, a lot of doctors take it. I take it."
how are there no double blind studies? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: how are there no double blind studies? (Score:4, Insightful)
That's not how that works at all. You give it to 2 groups who are sick, at different doses. You also give it to healthy groups. You look at variance both between and within all those group, not just between healthy and sick. What you proposed is stupid and shows nothing. Learn some research methods before speaking about things of which you know nothing.
Re:how are there no double blind studies? (Score:5, Insightful)
Sorry, no this is not what is done. The cardiac toxicity is a real concern. Here is a study where the high-dose treatment arm was stopped [1]. VC also found higher mortality in a retrospective analysis [2]. At the same time, evidence for its effectiveness is weak. Maybe it helps when given early and maybe risk can be eliminated with proper screening for contraindications and using the right dose. But the situation is not clear at all.
1. https://www.medrxiv.org/conten... [medrxiv.org]
2. https://www.medrxiv.org/conten... [medrxiv.org]
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Surely you can show us one of those death certificates. No, you can't.
HCQ has been used safely for 70 years. It's considered a critical drug to stockpile. You are a liar.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Surely you can show us one of those death certificates. No, you can't.
HCQ has been used safely for 70 years. It's considered a critical drug to stockpile. You are a liar.
You're completely right HCQ is the only drug in the world that has no side-effects and never interacts badly with conditions that it's not being take for, like kidney or liver issues. It also cures cancer and can help you pick the lottery numbers.
Re: (Score:3)
Unless you think that there's been a rash of people falling down stairs and cracking their skulls in the past few months, it's reasonable to assign the likely cause of these "excess deaths" to the thing that's killing people all over the world right now.
https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/69/wr/mm6919e5.htm [cdc.gov]
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Dose makes the poison. (Score:5, Insightful)
This is why chloroquine requires close medical supervision when for lupus, but not for malaria prophylaxis: the doses for lupus are 200x as large.
There is no such thing as an inherently "safe" drug. There are only safe *dosages*. Even pure water can be a fatal toxin [wikipedia.org] when administered in sufficiently high quantities.
Chloroquine show *in vitro* action against many viruses by altering the pH of many cell organelles, interfering with the construction and transport of proteins within the cell. Plasmodium, the cause of Malaria, is a eukaryotic organism, just like we are, and is sensitive to this effect. If you turn up the dosage to the point where this same effect happens in our cells, there's no guarantee this won't interfere with things our cells *need* to do for us.
So much BS about one drug (Score:5, Informative)
It's unproven in the context of whether it helps with coronavirus. It's thought to help people taking it early or even before infection, though it's hardly fool-proof. It won't fix your lungs if you're already badly infected. Studies are still working on how much effect it has and when and whether that's a good reason to take it.
HCQ is one of the WHO's "essential medicines," it is generic, and it has been used by many populations on a long-term basis for decades now. It does have one notable side-effect where it can cause heart problems, but doctors know this and screen you for it if they give it to you.
There's so much BS flying around about it that I don't even know where to start. No, you shouldn't randomly self-administer it. No, it's not "going to kill you" when given by a doctor, assuming they're not dumb and check for contra-indications properly. It's probably one of the best things we have, but we have almost nothing right now. Remdesvir is an expensive patented drug, but it's not well-studied yet and might be a bit better, it's less proven due to being relatively new.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
From a WHO report on The cardiotoxicity of antimalarials, no reports of sudden unexplained deaths:
"Despite hundreds of millions of doses administered in the treatment of malaria, there have been
no reports of sudden unexplained death associated with quinine, chloroquine or amodiaquine,
although each drug causes QT/QTc interval prolongation. Unfortunately, there are relatively few
prospective studies of the electrocardiographic effects of these drugs."
https://www.who.int/malaria/mp... [who.int]
Re: (Score:3)
Except until now those patients didn't have a SARS-Cov-2 infection which has major cardiovascular toxicity in itself, and the patient population is very different.
Re: (Score:3)
From your link:
Exposure to chloroquine and hydroxychloroquine was reported in six and five cases of sudden
death, respectively
Also, the very next paragraph after the one you quote says:
Large doses (>3.5mg base/kg) of intramuscular or subcutaneous chloroquine may also
cause hypotension.
The doses they're giving for Coronavirus are more like 650 mg.. The average person in the US (averaging males and females) is 82.6 kg. So, that would be doses or around 7.8mg per kg. So definitely a high dose. A lot higher than the doses normally used for malaria or lupus, etc. So really, the conclusions of that report aren;t really applicable to Coronavirus treatment. It would be intellectually dishonest to claim that it does.
Re:So much BS about one drug (Score:4, Insightful)
"One of the best things we have" right now would imply that it's efficacy is not just a guess which has no science backing it up. Claiming "It's thought to [...]" opens the door to whatever superstitious thing someone wants to imagine or just plain make up being used as justification for recommending anything, including Acai berries. Every actual study thus far has shown that it has no positive impact on COVID infections, so it's time to stop repeating this unscientific nonsense.
HCQ is an "essential medicine" to the WHO because there are other things it actually does work on, like malaria, and it was very carefully tested for that application. ...and just because it's an "anti-viral" and COVID-19 is a virus (which appeared to be the line of desperation reasoning used by Italian doctors who were throwing things at the wall to see what would stick) doesn't mean anything.
Heck, if our standard for trying to promote random drugs for use against COVID-19 is that it hasn't been disproven yet let's go ahead and put our faith into oscillococcinum. it's cheap, it's available at almost every CVS and Walgreens for some reason, even has a lower-cost generic substitute, and hey it's marketed as being for treating the flu and COVID-19 has many flu-like symptoms. Best of all, oscillococcinum has been proven to have absolutely no side-effects!
Garbage like this is why the FDA made it illegal to promote a drug for a purpose for which it was not specifically tested. ...because otherwise, less-than-honest people will hype a drug for some panic or trend for which it is not effective solely to increase its marketing value. Probably the only reason the FDA hasn't jumped on Trump with both feet over this is that the bull**** coming out of his mouth isn't technically "advertising".
Whether or not Remdesvir is "an expensive patented drug" doesn't really matter, because you know those magic Presidential powers to seize things that's been the mechanism behind intercepting shipments of masks to move them from blue states to the red states where they're needed? It covers that, too.
Of course, doing that would anger the GOP's corporate masters who are expecting a big windfall (which they'd actually deserve) for being lucky enough to have something that actually is testing as effective in treating COVID-19, and he probably feels it would be tantamount to admitting he was wrong about HCQ after he's repeatedly disputed the statements of prominent medical professionals. I genuinely don't see that happening.
Re:So much BS about one drug (Score:5, Informative)
Actually it has nothing to do with WHO. The American medical system does not currently recommend it for treatment. Like all unproven but potentially useful drugs it has been authorised for use on compassionate grounds and for clincal trials. YouTube is full of random members of the public making claims for all sorts of treatments and because of the volume the only way YouTube can manage them is to use AI to take them down. Actual doctors when talking about unproven treatments always say that you should consult your own doctor before seeking to take them. The actual doctors on YouTube are suffering from this blanket take down but are often able to get their videos ressurected when they appeal. The problem that YouTube has is the volume so this is still very hit and miss.
Some actual sources of medical information are
https://www.youtube.com/user/p... [youtube.com] - The virology
https://www.youtube.com/channe... [youtube.com] - Dr John Campbell.
https://www.youtube.com/user/M... [youtube.com] - Medcram
https://www.youtube.com/channe... [youtube.com] - Dr Mike Hansen.
https://www.youtube.com/user/U... [youtube.com] - DrBeen for medical professionals.
Re:So much BS about one drug (Score:5, Informative)
For what it is worth the information is freely available if you look for it. Here are some studies that have been published. If I have missed any then please let me know. I hope it does work, the picture is still mixed. Draw your own conclusions.
https://www.bmj.com/content/36... [bmj.com]
https://jamanetwork.com/journa... [jamanetwork.com]
https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/... [nejm.org]
https://www.medrxiv.org/conten... [medrxiv.org]
https://www.mediterranee-infec... [mediterran...ection.com]
https://retractionwatch.com/20... [retractionwatch.com]
https://www.nature.com/article... [nature.com]
https://www.nature.com/article... [nature.com]
Re:how are there no double blind studies? (Score:5, Informative)
There are a lot of trials currently underway [clinicaltrials.gov].
Re:how are there no double blind studies? (Score:5, Informative)
Given medical trial standards, it's simply not possible this early to have a 'proven' treatment for this. The medicine may be well understood in general, but specifically with this virus it hasn't been long enough to claim you have a proven treatment.
It is possible that is is effective, but unproven is a valid word to use in this context, even as it is being tested.
Studies are starting to report some results and don't necessarily agree, but at least they are suggestive that if there is a benefit, it is far from a sure thing.
Re: (Score:3)
It's ethically difficult [qz.com] to conduct double-blind studies in the middle of a severe outbreak. You can't ask doctors to give sick people placebos instead of treatment when they might die as a result, or to randomise their treatment of people regardless of how sick they are.
Re: how are there no double blind studies? (Score:2)
HCQ is a generic drug, who's going to pay for and invest valuable employee time in proving a generic drug is effective?
Sure, there's a charitable side to it, but the legal, medical, and logistical challenges to run a meaningful double-blind study are yuuuuge.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
This drug has been around for a long time and a cheap anti viral.
It has been around a long time, but it is not a proven anti-viral drug, cheap or otherwise.
Re:how are there no double blind studies? (Score:4, Informative)
Umhhh.... malaria isn't a virus. Also it does promote heart irregularities, to such an extent that the FDA removed it from easy access years, possibly decades, ago. It's better than malaria, but that's not really a huge claim to goodness.
Now in studies in a petri dish hydroxychloroquine did work against COVID19, but they used a concentration so high that it would kill people, too.
For a long time nobody bothered with double blind studies, since is seemed like a silly idea. Since Trump started promoting it, though, a few such studies have been started. It will be awhile before the results are out. Nobody would have bothered except that they needed to be able to tell people, "Look, it was a silly idea, but we checked anyway. It didn't work.". Since they really are double blind studies it's possible that the answer will surprise everyone, but I sure wouldn't put any money on that happening. If someone I knew to be honorable offered to allow me to bet the other way, I'd probably accept...unless I didn't want to hurt or alienate them.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
It's not an anti-viral, it works in different ways. Malaria and lupus are not viral diseases either, and it works in those cases by reducing symptoms. The most that is happening here is that the same mechanism that reduces symptoms in those diseases may be taking effect with cofid-19. But it is not killing any viruses! I also suspect that normal NSAIDs or corticosteroids could reduce the symptoms as well, they're just not as fashionable.
When it comes to medicine, the first rule is that you don't take it if
Placebo? (Score:2, Flamebait)
Re:Placebo? (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3)
Doctor Theodor Morell (Score:2)
had a wonderfully profitable career by pleasing his patient.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Oh please. (Score:5, Insightful)
Even Fox News agrees that this drug is harmful, adds hcs_$reboot. "I cannot stress this enough, this will kill you," Fox News host Neil Cavuto said.
Oh please, people take this as long-term treatment for lupus and as prophylaxis for malaria for months on end with no ill effects. Chloroquine is a 70-year old drug that's one of the most prescribed drugs in human history. It's safety profile is very well understood, and it's not dangerous taken at correct dosages.
This is fear mongering of the dumbest kind.
Re:Oh please. (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:3)
There is zero evidence that chloroquine is a coronavirus prophylaxis. Zip. Zero. Nada. If you disagree then link please.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
...Wuhan Flu ... Chinese virus...
Pretty obvious which camp you're in here. I agree with the rest of what you've said, but these terms are used by Trump to deflect blame for his personal-money-grubbing/US-citizen-health-ignoring utterly incompetent reaction to COVID19.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
1. Recognize this looks to be an international problem.
2. Work with the WHO (not reject their test kits multiple times).
3. Maintain good international relationships to share what is working and can be copied (not look to place blame first).
4. Consider restarting the task forces that looked after this stuff.
5. Get some experts in and actually start listenting to them.
Or,
1. Just do what countries ahead of us were being successful in doing.
Re:Why did you stop then? (Score:5, Informative)
"...just like tens of thousands of health care workers [sermo.com] across the globe..."
You are a piece of work. The article you linked to said 20,000 WERE POLLED, not that "tens of thousands" were taking it as a preventative.
Also, none of this is evidence of effectiveness nor is any information on dosage provided. Also, this article is a month old which is disqualifying on this topic. But wait, there's more!
The article also says the following:
"At this stage with so little evidence, doctors have very limited options."
"...researchers work quickly to determine its ability to fight coronavirus"
So, what the article says is that professionals WERE recommending the drug because little was known and there existed "very limited options", but researchers were working "quickly to determine its ability to fight CV". What were the results of this work? A recommendation NOT to use this drug!
"It's no different than trying to get extra vitamin D in your system, or excessing a bit more to stay healthy - at worst it has no effect..."
All this is preposterous and outright dishonest.
"...so then why not take it if there's a decent chance it does something?"
Because it is a prescription med that doctors now know NOT to prescribe so you should NOT be able to get it, and if you get it you should know that it does NOT help and could damage your health. We know this, sad that you don't.
"Honestly the degree of Scientism around Covid on this website is disturbing, people here should at least be able to follow basically medical overviews and have a better idea of how things work,."
Agreed, SuperKendall, except that this is pure projection on your part. You're the one with this problem, as is so frequently true for you.
Re: Oh please. (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Who knows? (Score:5, Insightful)
He may or he may not. It is weird but his ego is invested in hydroxychloroquine and he will effortlessly and reflexively lie to bolster his ego. This has shades of the sharpie drawn over Alabama map to "prove" his earlier mistakes
Re: (Score:2)
>> . It is weird but his ego is invested in hydroxychloroquine and he will effortlessly and reflexively lie to bolster his ego.
Invested enough to probably actually take despite the documented dangers.
Re: (Score:2)
Common hydroxychloroquine side effects include:
headache, dizziness;
nausea, vomiting, stomach pain;
loss of appetite, weight loss;
feeling nervous or irritable;
skin rash or itching; or
hair loss.
he is not going to risk losing those last few strands of hair. He is lying. Surprised?
Re:Who knows? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Who knows? (Score:5, Interesting)
Trump thinks he's taking it. His doctor is actually giving him a placebo or vitamin tablets.
Both sides can make a deal (Score:2)
Al Gore is not a scientist and neither is Donald. Ignore them both, or at least verify from a real source.
He's lying (Score:4, Informative)
He's probably lying.
The WH doctor's statement has no specifics about when he started or if he's actually taking it, just some vague language about benefits outweighing risks.
https://thehill.com/homenews/a... [thehill.com]
Re:He's lying (Score:4, Interesting)
Why wouldn't he take it?
Wrong question.
Better question: If he was taking it, why wouldn't his doctor say so?
Apparently it took three hours to put together a statement that didn't say anything:
https://twitter.com/PaulaReidC... [twitter.com]
Re: (Score:2)
A person can obtain and take this drug (and similar) without doctor. I have relatives that work in african country and get this and other quinine. Yes that includes the children, seems pretty harmless.
Re: (Score:2)
No, you imagine the world works how words in writing say it works. Let's say I want some malaria medicine or ED medicine or steroid. I go to web site of certain state in this union and fill out questionnaire, and their doctor makes it all legal and I get shipped stuff my normal physician knows nothing about.
That's how it works.
Re: (Score:2)
because he doesn't know, and maybe doesn't want to know if Trump is doing the Utah (or whatever other state has such lax laws) online pharmacy, or heck with his money the alley licensed MD gone bad quack doctor/drug dealer thing.
Re: (Score:3)
Because even at 1% chance, that is more risk for something that doesn't work. Even if you assume Trump is right about it (which most actual data says he is not), every claim has been that it can be used to treat COVID19, not prevent it. There is very limited. anecdotal evidence that it might help treat COVID19. There is absolutely zero evidence that it prevents it.
And does it totally scare anyone else that his doctor just says "well if you want to take it I'll prescribe it"? That is the exact opposite of wh
Re: He's lying (Score:4, Informative)
The most consistent anecdotal evidence is that it reduces plasma viral load when combined with zinc, and possibly with azithromycin.
It doesn't prevent infection, but when taken early in the course of the illness, it throws speed bumps in the way to slow down its spread within the body so that once the immune system notices it and mounts a response, the infection isn't as bad a it would have been if the virus had been allowed to spread within the body unchecked.
So... if your sole metrics are, "totally prevents infection" or "cures the dying", it fails. If you lower your expectations & settle for, "makes it shorter in duration & less awful, and reduces your likelihood of getting sick enough to be at major risk of death", it looks pretty useful... especially when combined with ivermectin (one impairs its ability to infect a cell, one impairs its ability to replicate).
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
You keep posting this list of studies as though they prove something. They don't. In order:
Re: (Score:3)
Why wouldn't he take it? Chloroquine causes heart arrhythmia, among a host of nasty side effects.
Re: (Score:3)
But if you believe it works against COVID-19, you can also believe that there aren't side effects.
Belief is the most powerful drug.
Re: (Score:3)
Why wouldn't he take it? Chloroquine causes heart arrhythmia, among a host of nasty side effects.
That's fine, he can just snort some adderall and he'll barely notice the arrhythmia.
Dishonest much? (Score:4, Interesting)
The drug has been around for a long time, and at recommended doses there are minimal side effects for most people, even with long term usage.
Every time someone brings up a negative study about this drug, particularly in reference to C19, you dig in and find out they STARTED by giving this drug to folks with advanced conditions + other health conditions ( or they give the patients elevated doses, as the study in Brazil did ). Other studies ( which don't get the airtime of course ), show that taken early ( or, indeed, preventatively ) leads to significant reduction in severity and length of illness.
It's about as safe as a drug of this nature can be. Otherwise, why aren't folks dropping dead of it left and right?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I used to group "big pharma" stuff into the conspiracy bucket, but after seeing the nonsense with hydroxychloroquine I'm starting to have second thoughts.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes. A business that's saved uncounted billions of lives over the decades is evil.
What a terrible world you live in.
Re: (Score:2)
Especially when Gilead's Remdesvir is north of $1000 per dose. And apparently doesn't work any better for COVID 19 than it did for Ebola.
A Twitter wag noted that Trump's trust fund includes fractional shares in a couple of generic drug makers. He noted that if Trump could talk up the value of HCQ, that Trump could reap a windfall in the TENS OF DOLLARS.
Re:Dishonest much? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Do you think Trump just pulled it out of his ass?
Hydrochloroquine is used on lupus because it prevents the immune system from overreacting, which is basically what lupus is.
Re: (Score:2)
The dems want it to tank as far as possible so that they could argue Trump's done fucked up.
I want to laugh at this because it's so transparently idiotic, except...except they are running ads with the number of dead, followed by a few seconds later with "30 million unemployed." This in a context where they wanted a nationwide shutdown, which would be even worse.
This is profoundly sinister.
Re:Dishonest much? (Score:4, Informative)
The FDA issued a caution [fda.gov] against using HCQ outside hospital settings for a reason. There have been a number of fatalities [healthlinks.net.au] in the past, and dosage is critical.
Hydroxychloroquine and chloroquine can cause abnormal heart rhythms such as QT interval prolongation and a dangerously rapid heart rate called ventricular tachycardia. These risks may increase when these medicines are combined with other medicines known to prolong the QT interval, including the antibiotic azithromycin, which is also being used in some COVID-19 patients without FDA approval for this condition. Patients who also have other health issues such as heart and kidney disease are likely to be at increased risk of these heart problems when receiving these medicines.
Re: (Score:2)
Side effects include blurred vision, nausea, vomiting, abdominal cramps, headache, diarrhea, swelling legs/ankles, shortness of breath, pale lips/nails/skin, muscle weakness, easy bruising/bleeding, hearing and mental problems. [wikipedia.org]
Side-effects (Score:2)
One of the possible side-effects of this drug is hallucinations, but how will we know if Trump is affected?
Maybe he's been seeing a time-travelling Obama sabotaging him over the last few weeks? :-D
Re: Side-effects (Score:2)
When other people take Hydroxychloroquine, they get hallucinations.
When Trump takes Hydroxychloroquine, the Hydroxychloroquine gets Trump.
Dr. Cavuto (Score:2)
Well I am so glad that Cavuto is such an excellent MD that he can tell us all what not to take.
'
As for Trump, he is taking it under a doctors prescription. Some people make a biog deal that he asked for it.
When I first saw my cardiologist I was going to ask if I should start taking aspirin. The moment I walked in he prescribed aspirin even before I could ask. If for some reason he didn't and I asked and he would prescribe it for me, no one would make anything of it.
Not "unproven" (Score:2)
Does it have any deadly side effects? (Score:2, Interesting)
*crosses fingers*
There's a deeper story here (Score:3, Interesting)
What I'd really like to know is why the president is still promoting hydroxychloroquine, after news was released a week-and-a-half ago debunking the claim [go.com]. The NYT found a connection last month [nytimes.com] between Jared Kushner and pharmaceutical companies. Trump's continued beating of this dead horse of a treatment really creates a strong stench of cronyism still lingering in the air.
Because it works quite well as a privative? (Score:2)
A) The study you liked to was doing the proverbial "holding it wrong".
B) Lots and lots of other studies have shown it works when used correctly.
C) Doctors and scientists all knew well before Covid it worked best as a preventative, which is exactly why you take it normally BEFORE you might be exposed to malaria.... and that's how Trump is using it, only in respect to Covid. literally BILLIONS of people have taken it for this purpose. Trump isn't the crazy one here for thinking there's a good chance it work
Re: (Score:3)
You have any citations for anything you claim here? Of course not.
What is the dosage for this drug when used as a preventative for this particular virus? You have any evidence that this is known? Of course not.
You have any evidence that Trump is actually using it? Of course not. Trump is a liar and self-promoter with a financial interest in the drug.
If Trump thinks this drug is best used as a preventative, then why did he only start "taking" it recently?
Are you on the side of honesty? Of course not.
Re: (Score:2)
Because every actual study of HCQ + Azithromycin has shown the combo is very effective against COVID-19.
It is the current standard treatment protocol across the globe for people who develop pneumonia-like symptoms from COVID-19.
The Importance of Being POTUS (Score:2)
See, if I went to my doctor and said "I want to start taking drug X" - my doctor would feel free to say "yeah, that's not going to happen".
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Just as Michael Jackson's doctor did, keeping him hopped up and happy right to the end.
I am not a doctor, but... (Score:4, Insightful)
I think you're an idiot if you're taking a drug with potential severe side effects to avoid a virus while refusing to wear a mask to avoid the virus (or at least avoid spreading it).
Trump brags that he gets tested every day - and no matter who is President, they should have the best medical care, but what the actual FUCK?
I doubt Trump's doctor prescribed hydroxychloroquine because he thought it was the best treatment for his reelection....I mean heath...but when you're President of the United States the Hippocratic Oath apparently includes making him or her happy.
Re: I am not a doctor, but... (Score:2)
He asked his doctor about it, and his doctor prescribed it.
That's exactly how anyone that wants it can get it - ask your doctor.
Trump said Monday he asked his White House physician about the drug. "I asked him, 'What do you think?' He said, 'Well, if you'd like it.' I said, 'Yeah, I'd like it. I'd like to take it.'" Trump said Monday that if the drug wasn't good he'd "tell you." He said he's gotten "a lot of tremendously positive news on the hydroxy, and I say hey -- you know the expression I've used, John? What do you have to lose?"
Unproven treatment? (Score:2)
HCQ is "unproven"? Then why have MILLIONS of people taken it for the last 70 years? It's pretty well proven to work against malaria, which means it's safe enough. And there have been many studies, starting with a couple in Italy at the very beginning of the Wuhan coronavirus pandemic, demonstrating that HCQ, when taken with azythromycin and zinc, were quite effective.
If you don't like HCQ because Trump recommended it, you can relax; Trump didn't start recommending it until AFTER Elon Musk retweeted the r
Follow the money? (Score:2)
Makes perfect sense to him. (Score:2)
His body, his choice. (Score:3, Insightful)
Why are all these Democrats trying to wedge themselves in between a patient and their doctor? His doctor agreed to prescribe it, why is it anyone else's business?
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Has Trump tested positive for the virus? (Score:2)
Has Trump tested positive for the virus?
If he did, would he hide it?
Or tell the press?
His reputation for honesty and personal integrity is already well established.
It's unfortunate (Score:4, Insightful)
There is a vast amount of misinformation about HCQ even in this very slashdot thread as well as Covid19 itself. I have been following the Hydroxchloriquine issue since it was first mentioned by a couple of doctors in early March before the president got a hold of it. A French doctor said he tried it with his patients and had some success with the drug.
Now here's the kicker, it's Hydroxychloriqune along with a couple of other drugs that works - specifically along with zinc and Azithromycin that seems to hinder RNA replication of the virus. It was never just Hydroxychloriqune alone by itself. It became just HCQ because of a weird game of "telephone" that then reached the inner circle of the President that heard it, then it was propagated by the press that fails to know how to do their job correctly and gets the stuff they print from the internet like the rest of us does now. Not to also mention it is seen as a political hammer to be used. Otherwise they would have found a way to stop mistating what the original facts were.
A just released retrospective study [ny1.com] shows that the combination of Hydroxychloriquine, zinc, and azithromycin can lessen morbidity from Covid19 by as much 44% and shorten hospital stays. While it is not a double blind study, it is safe to say that there is some benefit to the drug combination.
However, it is likely only effective when given early in the course of the disease (and remdesivir for that matter is the same way). And why they/we can not test enough for this disease. There needs to be a $1 pee-test that everyone can use on a weekly basis. But I digress. By time somebody is put on a ventilator for Covid19, the survival rate for all ages is horrible. And doctors should be doing all they can to avoid that. Which will eventually render ventillators as less important than originally thought for the disease. But I digress again.
Thanks to some wonderfully brilliant minds focusing their attention on this disease, our understanding of it is rapidly changing. It's not a disease of just the lungs, but it's a whole body problem with the cytokine storm that results in breathing difficulties as one of the last stages of the disease. As such, there likely will be different multiple treatments come forth that addresses the primary mechanism of the disease (outside of vaccines which cannot escape their time bottleneck).
I think that the Hydrochloriquine combination while effective will be replaced with more effective treatments as the disease is better understood and testing is increased. It may find application in those places that are unable to immediately obtain better treatments. But I do think that like ventillators, it will eventually become replaced with better treatments or vaccines.
There has been some interest in taking this medication prophylatically. All indications are that this is likely a poor idea because while Hydoxychloriquine is well understood, it does have noticeable side effects that will become significant with prolonged use. If it's a situation where everyone around you is coughing and sneezing because they have Covid19, then it might be a temporary option.
But the very best thing we can do for ourselves is to switch from a "reactive" mindset to
a "proactive" one. These include;
Well that's dumb (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Could he have tested positive? (Score:2)
I doubt it. If he were confirmed to have caught it, he'd be on remdesivir, too.
HCQ is better than nothing, but remdesivir is better than HCQ. The big question is whether a combination of remdesivir, HCQ, and/or ivermectin (plus zinc and/or azithromycin) is better than remdesivir alone.
Trust me. If the President of the United States (or a member I their family, or a high ranking official) catches c19, they will get remdesivir, even if it takes a special forces team storming Gilead's HQ to acquire it. It's a
Re: isn't hydroxychloroquine a prescription drug? (Score:2)
FFS - did you even get past the headline?
He said he discussed it with his White House Doctor, and after considering it, the doctor prescribed it for him.
Donald Trump is a healthy patient with no aggravating conditions that would contra-indicate prescribing the drug HCQ as a preventive measure.
Re: isn't hydroxychloroquine a prescription drug? (Score:2)
From the third paragraph of the /. summary:
Trump said Monday he asked his White House physician about the drug. "I asked him, 'What do you think?' He said, 'Well, if you'd like it.' I said, 'Yeah, I'd like it. I'd like to take it.'" Trump said Monday that if the drug wasn't good he'd "tell you." He said he's gotten "a lot of tremendously positive news on the hydroxy, and I say hey -- you know the expression I've used, John? What do you have to lose?"
Re: isn't hydroxychloroquine a prescription drug? (Score:2)
No, it's 100% legal. In the US, doctors have nearly unlimited discretion to prescribe anything that's FDA-approved for *something* for anything they think is justified.
It won't necessarily shield them from a malpractice lawsuit if it ends badly, it's certainly legal.
By this time next year, you're also going to see veterinarians giving remdesivir off-label to cats with FIP (and quite possibly FIV). It's widely known to effectively cure FIP, both as remdesivir and the earlier form that it ultimately metaboli
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Trump NEEDS to SHUT UP already (Score:2)
You understand you can only get if a doctor prescribes it, you can't just walk into a pharmacy and say "I want my HCQ!"
Re: (Score:2)
You linked a letter to the editor. Can't do better than that?
Re:Yeah... unproven (Score:5, Insightful)
Did you read the linked thing in Lancet?
"The document states “its use in prophylaxis is derived from available evidence of benefit as treatment and supported by preclinical data”. Although some in-vitro evidence supports the antiviral activity of hydroxychloroquine and its precursor chloroquine, there is no peer-reviewed publication that evaluates either drug for exposure prophylaxis of SARS-CoV-2 infection. Even for treatment of diagnosed cases, only one small study reported faster nasopharyngeal viral clearance, with no data for clinical improvement. This evidence, or the lack thereof, hardly justifies state-endorsed, widespread use of hydroxychloroquine for prophylaxis."
Which is to say: What Lancet reported was that there was no medical basis at all on offer for the prophylactic usage, which appears to be the case. None of the studies done have actually been tests of that, and no one's yet linked a study showing any benefit used that way.
I've now seen three or four different explanations of why HCQ is a great idea. They are mutually exclusive; if it works well for severe cases, but only with zinc, then it's not at its best as an early treatment to prevent severity. If it's actually specifically good as a prophylactic, that's another different usage. So whenever anyone presents evidence that the drug doesn't seem to help with COVID19 in one context, someone runs in to post that actually that's true, but that's because they're stupid anti-Trumpers who are lying about what it's for, it actually works in some other context. But there's never actual concrete evidence for any of them.
So all I see is a bunch of anons posting randomly selected misinformation and misquoting or misrepresenting quotes in the rare cases where they have a source at all, and doing so without an actual concrete position that they could defend or support. But that's sort of normal for modern politics.