COVID-19/Coronavirus Information and Support Thread (see OP for useful links)

[Chrunch Houston]

I'm reading what you quoted and what you quoted is bad science. Anyone with a basic understanding of the scientific method knows you need to study something before claiming it to be a miracle cure for something. Institutions across the world are researching hydroxychloroquine. There's no big cover-up or people pushing the study of the drug to the side because of Trump. The research just hasn't made a conclusion yet because it takes some time to do.

You didn't read the article I linked to? Maybe you should.

This is a black swan event, there is just not time for a bureaucracy to settle this.

I am in a high risk group. I wear, a very hard to breath though, N95 mask when I go to the grocery store. I am very careful.

But If I should start to get symptoms, I am not going to wait in an hours long line to hopefully get a free test and wait a week for the results. I am going to go to a clinic and pay for a test. And if I am positive, I am going to insist on a prescription of hydroxychloroquine, a z-pac and zinc.

hydroxychloroquine has been used for years on lupus and arthritis patients, It will not kill me if I use it for a week to cure Covid.

 

[DesertPenguin]

It may not kill me if I use it for a week to cure Covid.

Fixed that for you.

 

[McLaren]

The Henry Ford Health System did a study and says hydroxychloroquine cut the death rate in half.

Currently, the drug should be used only in hospitalized patients with appropriate monitoring, and as part of study protocols, in accordance with all relevant federal regulations.

I am going to go to a clinic and pay for a test. And if I am positive, I am going to insist on a prescription of hydroxychloroquine, a z-pac and zinc.

As @TexRex says, Trumpism man.

 

[Chrunch Houston]

As @TexRex says, Trumpism man.

pffft.

 

[McLaren]

pffft.

You can "pffft" all you want, you're bringing in a source of information to the topic, and picking & choosing part of its findings to validate a viewpoint, just like x3ra.

Yes, the Henry Ford study believes hydroxychloroquine can help fight Covid. No, the Henry Ford study doesn't believe that means you should take hydroxychloroquine outside of a hospital. Why would you ask for a prescription to use the drug at home, when your own study says not to?

 

[Chrunch Houston]

I'm sorry Dr. @McLaren Perhaps you should bring that up with Dr. Risch. I merely posted what he said.

 

[UKMikey]

I'm sorry Dr. @McLaren Perhaps you should bring that up with Dr. Risch. I merely posted what he said.

They don’t need to, because he already said it. You may have posted what he said, but you don't appear to have understood it. You don't need to be a doctor to know that.

https://publichealth.yale.edu/news-article/26290/

Dr. Harvey Risch is a distinguished cancer epidemiologist who has opined on the topic of hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) and COVID-19 out-patient therapy. He has written a review article in the American Journal of Epidemiology that cites evidence that he believes supports HCQ use for out-patient infection with SARS-CoV-2. Studies that indicate no effect or harmful effects, Dr. Risch believes, enrolled patients too sick to benefit from HCQ.

Yale-affiliated physicians used HCQ early in the response to COVID-19, but it is only used rarely at present due to evidence that it is ineffective and potentially risky. The Food and Drug Administration of the U.S. Public Health Service issued the following statement (in part):

June 15, 2020 Update: Based on ongoing analysis and emerging scientific data, FDA has revoked the emergency use authorization (EUA) to use hydroxychloroquine and chloroquine to treat COVID-19 in certain hospitalized patients when a clinical trial is unavailable or participation is not feasible. We made this determination based on recent results from a large, randomized clinical trial in hospitalized patients that found these medicines showed no benefit for decreasing the likelihood of death or speeding recovery. This outcome was consistent with other new data, including those showing the suggested dosing for these medicines are unlikely to kill or inhibit the virus that causes COVID-19. As a result, we determined that the legal criteria for the EUA are no longer met.

This is how science works. It changes its conclusions as new data is made available. You can't just point to an old study and say "but the doctor used to say this, therefore it must be still true because it supports Trump". That would take some Nadia Comăneci-level mental gymnastics to justify.

 

[Touring Mars]

I think a key point in all of this is that, irrespective of the scientific literature, on-going clinical studies etc., Donald Trump has zero authority on the subject and should not be opining publicly on it at all.

This is a stand-alone fact that has nothing to do with Mr. Trump's politics.

The fact is, however, that Trump truly thinks that if he believes something to be true, then it is true - and, by extension, that whatever he chooses to say on a subject must be correct... even though he has a proven (and massive) track record of contradictory and provably false statements.

The question for people who listen to Trump is, how do you know what he is saying is true when he clearly doesn't know or care whether something is true himself?

On COVID-19, the US is fighting a difficult battle, but it is not helped at all by the President himself and his very unfortunate habit of talking crap.

Fortunately, the US is awash with talented and knowledgable people who can help mitigate the ill-effects of having such a dolt for a President, but it is also sad to know that the combined efforts of the medical and scientific communities in the US can be counteracted by the words of a single man - what's worse is that they actually have to do it - frankly, they should not be in the position where the President is undermining them at almost every possible juncture.

-


On a related note, here's a nice timeline of Trump's general denial of the whole situation:

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2...irus-science-denial-timeline-what-has-he-said

The last comment is telling: "I'll be right eventually"...

Trump seems to be going by the adage that even a stopped clock is right twice a day. Unfortunately, being "right" seems to be about all he cares about, even when he is also mostly wrong.

 

[McLaren]

I'm sorry Dr. @McLaren Perhaps you should bring that up with Dr. Risch. I merely posted what he said.

Just as you merely posted a study saying hydroxychloroquine cuts the death rate in half & ignored the actual caution the study made note of when you said you'd have some prescribed yourself.

This, "I just post what they said" is a lame excuse after multiple posts clearly indicate you were using the sources to back your own views, not just share them for fun.

 

[Dotini]

Truth and reality - are they fixed, immovable and solid like a block of stone? Or do they shift like a kaleidoscope over even short periods of time? Do truth and reality vote at the polls? If you place all your bets on truth and reality and ignore the human heart, emotions and soul, are you more lost than a winner?

 

[sirjim73]

The Martian government have, today, announced a 2 week quarantine period will apply for all vehicles arriving from Earth. And all Martians are required to wear masks covering all 3 of their mouths and both noses.

 

[Joey D]

You didn't read the article I linked to? Maybe you should.

Ok fine, I read it and it's crap because it cites absolutely nothing. Thankfully, after some Googling, I was able to find the actual academic paper written by Dr. Risch which he references in the Newsweek op-ed.

Early Outpatient Treatment of Symptomatic, High-Risk Covid-19 Patients that Should be Ramped-Up Immediately as Key to the Pandemic Crisis

What's even odder is that he touts that the study was published in the American Journal of Epidemiology, but conveniently neglects to mention that Dr. Risch is on the editorial board for that publication.

In his paper, Dr. Risch leans heavily on a study from March by several French doctors (referred to commonly as Gautret et al). That study is inherently flawed and was conducted under unethical means. The study was first submitted on March 16th, accepted on March 17th, and published on March 20th. This means that at least one of the peer review processes was done in less than 24 hours, which while possible seems highly unlikely. Shortly after the paper was published, there was a whole slew of academics chiming in on how terrible the study was.

Ethically, the paper Dr. Risch leans on is also pretty bad. The French National Agency for Drug Safety approved hydroxychloroquine as a possible treatment on March 5th, 2020. The Gautret paper also says that it followed the approved protocol for 14 days. Now I'm not a math whiz by any means, but 14 days prior to March 16th (the time the paper was published) is March 2nd. So either patients were given hydroxychloroquine without it being an approved drug, which is unethical, or the numbers are fudged, which is also unethical.

If I'm able to find this out, then certainly a Yale academic can figure it out too.

The other researcher that Dr. Risch relies on is Vladimir Zelenko, who published some drivel in April. It's since been deleted from the Goolge Docs page that was sharing it though. The only thing that still exists is an open letter to Trump that cites nothing and there's nothing to prove the reliability of it.

Dr. Risch also cites this Brazilian study:

Empirical treatment with hydroxychloroquine and azithromycin for suspected cases of COVID-19 followed-up by telemedicine

That was suspended for being unethical (sorry I can't find an English source, but Google Translate works).

What Dr. Risch did was cite three flawed studies to come up with his argument. That's not good science and we should not accept that.

This is a black swan event, there is just not time for a bureaucracy to settle this.

Clinical trials are not bureaucracy, not even a little bit. They're there to figure out whether or not a drug is safe to give patients and to ensure that the benefits outweigh the risks. The medical and academic communities are working at a feverish pace to try to get these trials completed and figure out what the best course of action is. Typically these things can take years and we're managing to do it in a matter of months. That alone is incredible.

But If I should start to get symptoms, I am not going to wait in an hours long line to hopefully get a free test and wait a week for the results. I am going to go to a clinic and pay for a test. And if I am positive, I am going to insist on a prescription of hydroxychloroquine, a z-pac and zinc.

I have no idea what it's like in Texas, but is testing really that bad? I've been tested twice in the past 10 days, each time took me an hour from the time I left my house to the time I got back and the testing site is at least 15 mins away. Utah is far from being the pinnacle of healthcare so I have to imagine that other states are moving tests along much quicker.

And you could beg your doctor all you want, if they're at all ethical they wouldn't prescribe you the regiment. Not only are you not a research participant, assuming you don't end up in the hospital with a severe case, you wouldn't even fit the criteria to try it the treatment.

hydroxychloroquine has been used for years on lupus and arthritis patients, It will not kill me if I use it for a week to cure Covid.

Here's the thing. You don't know how hydroxychloroquine would affect you. There are plenty of safe drugs out there that will kill people or give them horrible side effects.

 

[Danoff]

Here's the thing. You don't know how hydroxychloroquine would affect you. There are plenty of safe drugs out there that will kill people or give them horrible side effects.

I'm not as up on this as you are, but some quick searching suggests that blood levels need to be monitored carefully to get the dosage right in order to prevent other conditions from developing. When lupus patients take it, they take it with a clear understanding of the potential benefits and careful monitoring to mitigate risk. None of that seems to be present with COVID.

 

[Tornado]

I would have thought that the high profile incidents of a bunch of Trump supporters panicking and taking hydroxychloroquine because Trump said it was the best thing and killing themselves in the process would have discouraged Trump supporters from panicking and demanding their doctor prescribe hydroxychloroquine that they can take unmonitored in their own home when Trump decided to once again insist it was the best thing a couple months later; but then again I didn't vote for Trump in 2016 so I guess I'm just not in that headspace.

 

[Blitz24]

I would have thought that the high profile incidents of a bunch of Trump supporters panicking and taking hydroxychloroquine because Trump said it was the best thing and killing themselves in the process would have discouraged Trump supporters from panicking and demanding their doctor prescribe hydroxychloroquine that they can take unmonitored in their own home when Trump decided to once again insist it was the best thing a couple months later; but then again I didn't vote for Trump in 2016 so I guess I'm just not in that headspace.

This is yet another reason why you shouldn't let your politician be your doctor.

 

[McLaren]

Being reported Herman Cain has succumbed to the virus after several weeks of hospitalization. It is believed Cain contracted the virus at the Tulsa rally.

At the same time, the co-founder of Turning Point has also succumbed to the virus. Both men had spoke out against masks. Maybe the conservative propaganda machines will slow down and stop mocking the virus.

 

[Joey D]

I'm not as up on this as you are, but some quick searching suggests that blood levels need to be monitored carefully to get the dosage right in order to prevent other conditions from developing. When lupus patients take it, they take it with a clear understanding of the potential benefits and careful monitoring to mitigate risk. None of that seems to be present with COVID.

You are correct, your blood needs to be monitored while on hydroxychloroquine. Also, it's not a medication where one dose fits all since it acts similarly to blood thinners. It can also have an adverse effect when combined with quinine in some patients (so that means no gin & tonics).

Looking at the medication information for it, it appears that a max dose for a prophylaxis regimen is 400mg salt at 6.5mg/kg salt once a week, which means the max dose is reached when someone is 61kg (135lbs). I'm not sure these doctors who are prescribing it outside an inpatient setting are accounting for this. As with any drug, there's a bunch of leeway with this, so someone could very well tolerate 400mg a day without issue. The problem is without constant monitoring, that person could be at risk.

The risk of OD'ing on hydroxychloroquine is pretty low, it's certainly not unheard of. People who overdose can experience hypokalemia (low blood potassium) and hypotension (low blood pressure), which certainly can kill them. According to a 2001 study done by UC Davis, it looks like these adverse effects can occur in as little as 30 minutes too.

 

[Danoff]

Fauci likes goggles and eye protection for stopping the spread:

https://abcnews.go.com/US/dr-fauci-wear-goggles-eye-shields-prevent-spread/story?id=72059055

 

[Pupik]

I would have thought that the high profile incidents of a bunch of Trump supporters panicking and taking hydroxychloroquine because Trump said it was the best thing and killing themselves in the process would have discouraged Trump supporters from panicking and demanding their doctor prescribe hydroxychloroquine that they can take unmonitored in their own home when Trump decided to once again insist it was the best thing a couple months later; but then again I didn't vote for Trump in 2016 so I guess I'm just not in that headspace.

This is yet another reason why you shouldn't let your politician be your doctor.

I'll never forget my first dose of BS-detection...way back around 1984 or so.



(That said, Formula 44 had a cool name.)

 

[Outspacer]

I would have thought that the high profile incidents of a bunch of Trump supporters panicking and taking hydroxychloroquine because Trump said it was the best thing and killing themselves in the process would have discouraged Trump supporters from panicking and demanding their doctor prescribe hydroxychloroquine that they can take unmonitored in their own home when Trump decided to once again insist it was the best thing a couple months later; but then again I didn't vote for Trump in 2016 so I guess I'm just not in that headspace.

<citation required>

I agree with the sentiment but not the substance of what you say... apart from one man in Arizona who self-treated with fish tank cleaning tablets, and some who overdosed, where are all these dead? Considering there was enough prescribed to cause a shortage of HCQ there must have been many people taking it.

 

[Tornado]

I agree with the sentiment but not the substance of what you say...

Okay.

 

[Outspacer]

Okay.

That... really doesn't support the claim you made! High profile incidents should be easy to point at......

 

[Danoff]

That... really doesn't support the claim you made! High profile incidents should be easy to point at......

You actually named some in your post. Are you considering poisoning from disinfectant in this request? Or does it have to be that specific drug?

 

[Outspacer]

You actually named some in your post. Are you considering poisoning from disinfectant in this request? Or does it have to be that specific drug?

The claim was "a bunch of Trump supporters" ... "taking hydroxychloroquine" ... "killing themselves".

When recent discussion is about the effectiveness and safety of HCQ, then yeah, that particular drug. Preferably taken correctly, otherwise it's not relevant to that discussion. Bonus points for proven Trump support

 

[Danoff]

The claim was "a bunch of Trump supporters" ... "taking hydroxychloroquine" ... "killing themselves". When recent discussion is about the effectiveness and safety of HCQ, then yeah, that particular drug.

Ok, I mean no you don't have to make it that, but it's nice to be clear about what you want.

Preferably taken correctly, otherwise it's not relevant to that discussion.

Can you elaborate on what you mean by "correctly" here. What is the "correct" way to take this drug for COVID?

Bonus points for proven Trump support

You're going to need to elaborate on this point too. I mean Trump has admitted to taking the drug prophylactically himself. So presumably you mean something else. I'm not sure what.

 

[Tornado]

That... really doesn't support the claim you made!

For someone who claims to "agree with the sentiment," you don't seem to actually understand what it was.

Preferably taken correctly, otherwise it's not relevant to that discussion.

This only reinforces that.

 

[Outspacer]

Ok, I mean no you don't have to make it that, but it's nice to be clear about what you want.

I didn't make it that, the claim did.

Can you elaborate on what you mean by "correctly" here. What is the "correct" way to take this drug for COVID?

At the levels at which it is taken for other purposes, between 400mg per week and 400mg per day. Quite simply, not 'overdose' levels.

Whether it is effective for COVID is irrelevant to my point. The claim implies that it is far too dangerous to even consider using, which is just as unproven as its effectiveness.

You're going to need to elaborate on this point too. I mean Trump has admitted to taking the drug prophylactically himself. So presumably you mean something else. I'm not sure what.

Claim said Trump supporters, killing themselves with it. You know my Trump bit was a flippancy because 'bonus points', yet here you are.

For someone who claims to "agree with the sentiment," you don't seem to actually understand what it was.

I agree with the sentiment that Trump is a dangerous idiot. Can't agree that it's relevant or helpful in the middle of a discussion about HCQ - whatever the verdict on it, it does not depend on Trump.

My original request for citation that "a bunch" died from following his lead still stands. I presume you mean to imply a notable number of such deaths, so it shouldn't be too hard to back up what you said. OTOH, you also said they demanded it from their doctors, so if they got it there we can assume they were told how much to take, and didn't die.

 

[Danoff]

I didn't make it that, the claim did.

Wasn't clear to me, which is why I asked. Thanks for clarifying.

At the levels at which it is taken for other purposes, between 400mg per week and 400mg per day. Quite simply, not 'overdose' levels.

Oh interesting. This is "correctly"? I find this to be a very odd definition of "correctly" given that drugs can be taken a vastly different doses for different purposes "correctly", and there is no safe and effective dose for COVID, at least not one that I know of.

Whether it is effective for COVID is irrelevant to my point. The claim implies that it is far too dangerous to even consider using, which is just as unproven as its effectiveness.

I don't remember seeing that claim, can you quote it?

Claim said Trump supporters, killing themselves with it. You know my Trump bit was a flippancy because 'bonus points', yet here you are.

Still not sure what you mean when you ask to demonstrate Trump's support. You're not really answering that question.

 

[DesertPenguin]

Live surprise news conference from the president. This is an actual quote:

"Once again urging the American people to protect their *pause, checks notes* dear family and friends, and anybody who's elderly."

That could not have come off as any less sincere.

 

[Outspacer]

Oh interesting. This is "correctly"? I find this to be a very odd definition of "correctly" given that drugs can be taken a vastly different doses for different purposes "correctly", and there is no safe and effective dose for COVID, at least not one that I know of.

Who said anything about effective? That what studies such as COPCOV are trying to find out:

The COPCOV trial will determine whether a daily prophylactic dose of chloroquine / hydroxychloroquine can protect healthcare workers from catching COVID-19 infection

Chloroquine and hydroxychloroquine have been used for over 50 years to prevent and treat malaria and to treat rheumatoid arthritis. They have an excellent safety profile making them potentially suitable for mass use as prophylaxis and in many laboratory studies they have antiviral activity.

Extracts from its study protocol (pdf):

Risks related to chloroquine phosphate/ sulphate/ hydrochloride and hydroxychloroquine sulphate are very low, unless the drug is taken in overdose. These are very safe and generally well-tolerated medications but adverse reactions relating to the cardiovascular system, the central nervous system, the skin, hypoglycaemia, hypersensitivity, gastrointestinal, and retinal toxicity have all been described though usually after high doses or protracted exposures.

A loading dose of 10 mg base/kg (four 155mg tablets for a 60kg subject), followed by 155 mg daily (250mg chloroquine phosphate salt or 200mg of or hydroxychloroquine sulphate) will be taken by all participants for 3 months.

Chloroquine at a dose of 2.4mg base/kg (155 mg)/day for years is used for rheumatoid arthritis. Chloroquine given at the correct dose has an excellent safety profile. It has even been added to salt to prevent malaria by mass exposure (10).

I hope that clarifies what I meant by correctly, why I gave that dosage range (since it's per kg bodyweight), and what is considered safe.