General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsBreakthrough: Chloroquine phosphate has shown apparent efficacy in treatment of COVID-19
Chloroquine is the synthetic form of quinine that is derived from tree bark. In S. Korea they are combining chloroquine diphospate and zinc for ten-day treatments. Quinine and its variants do have side effects, of course, but this treatment is proving effective so far for the lethal pneumonia associated with the illness.
Note the source. This not a panacea from woo land. It is some good news, however.
Breakthrough: Chloroquine phosphate has shown apparent efficacy in treatment of COVID-19 associated pneumonia in clinical studies
The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) virus is spreading rapidly, and scientists are endeavoring to discover drugs for its efficacious treatment in China. Chloroquine phosphate, an old drug for treatment of malaria, is shown to have apparent efficacy and acceptable safety against COVID-19 associated pneumonia in multicenter clinical trials conducted in China. The drug is recommended to be included in the next version of the Guidelines for the Prevention, Diagnosis, and Treatment of Pneumonia Caused by COVID-19 issued by the National Health Commission of the People's Republic of China for treatment of COVID-19 infection in larger populations in the future.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32074550
cyclonefence
(4,483 posts)for medicinal purposes only, of course.
Siwsan
(26,268 posts)I've got all of the ingredients required for this treatment trial.
jberryhill
(62,444 posts)Siwsan
(26,268 posts)cyclonefence
(4,483 posts)Ghost Dog
(16,881 posts)Schweppes tonic water does, unless they've changed the recipe since I last looked, many moons ago.
jberryhill
(62,444 posts)It is not in any commercial tonic water available for retail sale in the US.
This is being pushed by anti-vaxxers:
Link to tweet
https://www.consumerreports.org/cro/2012/04/quinine-for-night-time-leg-cramps-no-longer-recommended/index.htm
Stop taking Quinine for night-time leg cramps
cyclonefence
(4,483 posts)G&Ts originated as an effort to get folks who needed to take quinine take their quinine.
You know, like Julie Andrews MD said, "A spoonful of gin makes the quinine go down."
Ghost Dog
(16,881 posts)...!
jberryhill
(62,444 posts)The OP says "Note the source."
This is intended to make you believe that the NIH has anything to do with this completely unvetted information that has been circulating.
The "source" is simply an NIH publication database. Non-refereed publications can say "Mickey Mouse Cures Covid" and it will go into the PubMed database and get a URL.
OP, you asked "Note the source" - Do you even know what the source is of this publication with no methodology?
Here's a correction thread posted earlier on DU
https://www.democraticunderground.com/100213042640
Unfortunately, this particular piece of bullshit is going to be recycled endlessly on DU. Please keep an eye out for it.
cyclonefence
(4,483 posts)That is all.
On the other hand, could it hurt to try?
jberryhill
(62,444 posts)In fact, there is a Tweet going around which recommends a lethal dose.
https://www.thefix.com/quinine-potentially-lethal-ingredient-your-gin-and-tonic
Currently, there appears to be no way to determine if an individual is susceptible to quinine allergysave from experiencing the reactionand there is no clear-cut treatment. In the case of the patient cited in Dr. George's study, blood plasma exchange returned her to only partial health; she still suffers from migraines and reduced kidney function, as well as some mild cognitive impairment.
cyclonefence
(4,483 posts)Sorry to make light of such a serious subject.
jberryhill
(62,444 posts)cyclonefence
(4,483 posts)Newest Reality
(12,712 posts)I don't know why you would use terms like deceptive and bullshit. I don't really appreciate that response to my post. This is under assessment and requires more clinical trials, which is the real point for posting it. It is not a cure or preventative, but more of a treatment of the secondary effect of pneumonia.
Your points are well taken, but the use of this treatment dates back to studies, like one in 2005 concerning SARS.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1232869/
You will find a host of studies that cover the range of previous testing. This is not a new or decided issue, yet and I suggest you read all of the studies before calling bullshit, there are pros and cons so far with reported results. There are going to be many promising treatments being tested from a database of potentials. I don't see the review using such a term here and it does fit well with the subject:
In conclusion, the option of using chloroquine in the treatment of SARS-CoV-2 should be examined with attention in light of the recent promising announcements, but also of the potential detrimental effect of the drug observed in previous attempts to treat acute viral diseases. We urge Chinese scientists to report the interim trial results currently running in China as soon as they are available. This should be preferentially done in a peer-reviewed publication with detailed information to allow the international scientific community to analyse the results, to confirm in prospective trials the efficacy of the proposed treatment and to guide future clinical practice.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0166354220301145
Let me know what you gather from the studies in total.
jberryhill
(62,444 posts)Your OP says:
"Note the source."
What did you mean to imply by that? That this somehow comes from the NIH? Just answer that question. What is the "source" you want readers to note.
Newest Reality
(12,712 posts)That was a short abstract and pretty much sums up what is being done in China and now, South Korea.
I have supplied some more technical sources that include studies, and I have read several of them prior to posting. Have you read them yet? I would like to hear your response to the findings overall and how they relate to the information being provided. If you have a problem with those sources, that's not my problem.
There are many viable sources. Of course, you are aware as to why S. Korea is using zinc in combination with chloroquine, right? I mean, the basis for that has to do with the delivery of zinc ions, (see zinc ions and cell metabolism). They are basing their treatments on studies, not magic. We still have to get more conclusive results from them. I am stressing that they are not basing their tests and what they are choosing for treatment on what you are calling bullshit. Is that clear? There are sound reasons for them as per the studies provided.
What is your point though? Are you claiming that the health professionals and the research in China and South Korea is only woo and bullshit, (Chinese government conspiracy)? Or, are these professionals basing their tests and treatments on "bullshit"? I think that is more important. They have a database of over 5000 potential drugs to use right now, as well. Thankfully there is a good effort to collect and correlate studies based on their implications and significance since there isn't much time to respond to a new strain.
So, what is it?
jberryhill
(62,444 posts)You said "Note the source"
What was that intended to suggest?
Identify the "source" you wanted people to note.
Claritie Pixie
(2,199 posts)Clinical trials are next. You can suspect the source of the information all you want but that doesn't mean the Chinese aren't on to something here.
Who made you an expert anyway?
jberryhill
(62,444 posts)Last edited Thu Mar 12, 2020, 03:51 PM - Edit history (1)
...and tries to fob it off as something that came from the NIH.
The OP is obviously deceptive.
Soap kills covid-19 in vitro too.
So, is anyone eating soap?
Bradshaw3
(7,522 posts)On both the source and the supposed "cure".
intrepidity
(7,307 posts)It's a peer-reviewed paper in a scientific journal called Bioscience Trends.
Did you know this, and if so, why do you call them an invalid source? Who is spreading the misinfo here?
https://www.jstage.jst.go.jp/article/bst/advpub/0/advpub_2020.01047/_article
I don't have a dog in this fight, other than having posted about this myself earlier. I have no opinion on the research itself, it's quality or otherwise.
What I don't understand is why you objected so loudly to it.
WhiskeyGrinder
(22,357 posts)jberryhill
(62,444 posts)Claritie Pixie
(2,199 posts)intrepidity
(7,307 posts)It's a valid research article from a valid research journal, no? If you have evidence to the contrary, please present it.
Have you read the paper?
https://www.jstage.jst.go.jp/article/bst/advpub/0/advpub_2020.01047/_article
Hit the link called "Download PDF" and read it, if not.
PunksMom
(440 posts)drink Gin👍🏼
defacto7
(13,485 posts)Here's hoping.
jberryhill
(62,444 posts)It is a completely unverified publication that was made back in February with no discernible methodology.
The link is merely to the PubMed database, which is simply an index of articles. The "source" is NOT the NIH.
This is bullshit which has been circulating for weeks.
intrepidity
(7,307 posts)Because according to this:
https://www.nature.com/articles/d41587-020-00003-1
Of course, Nature is just publishing the fact that there are ongoing clinical trials, not that they are working. But the point of a trial is... well, need I go on?
I think you owe the OP an apology.
jberryhill
(62,444 posts)You will note the complete absence in that article of any reference to any successful treatment of a single covid-19 patient.
Please feel free to explain how that article supports a "BREAKTHROUGH" as noted in the OP subject line.
The article you reference does not support the claim made in the OP, so asking if it is a reputable "source" is simply changing the subject.
intrepidity
(7,307 posts)Look, I respect your knowledge of law and many other topics, and dearly appreciate your sense of humor, so this isn't personal.
jberryhill
(62,444 posts)Here's the thing...
The OP touts a treatment "breakthrough" that is being widely lauded by anti-vax types and says "note the source". The "source" of that article is simply a self-published flimsy document with no supporting methodology, claiming successful treatment.
To then say, "but this article over here claims 'in vitro' success and says there is testing going on" doesn't do anything to support the touted "breakthrough" article.
There are many things that will kill covid-19 in vitro. There are obviously many things which are going to be tested.
There are people selling it online and pop-up Twitter accounts doing this:
-------------------
Replying to
@jasonvanschoor
@doctimcook
and 4 others
Coronavirus is a mild illness if you simply do this.
1. Request Remdesivir from Gilead.
2. Take 500mg Chloroquine salt 2X day for 4 days then 500mg day for 6 days.
3. Take 100mg Zinc 2X day. Chloroquine takes it into virus cell & kills it. #Covid19
Do that for all patients!
--------------------
People are going to get hurt.
intrepidity
(7,307 posts)If it had been the National Inquirer...
Claritie Pixie
(2,199 posts)MyNameGoesHere
(7,638 posts)Go to Binny's and buy a shit load of Gin
Order a truck load of Schweppes Tonic water and proceed to replace my blood with Gin and Tonics to scare the shit out of the Coronavirus? OK I handle that. What proof does my blood need to be at to work? 30%?
Victor_c3
(3,557 posts)Two of the side affects I had when taking it in the past was lucid dreaming and hallucinations.
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)yesterday say that most patients that need professional treatment basically get oxygen to help them breathe until they get better, rest and hydration. Some patients, unfortunately still get worse.
DeminPennswoods
(15,286 posts)SARS outbreak of the early 2000's, but never brought to market? Everything I have read from reputable sources says that SARS-CoV-2 infects humans using the same "doorway" as original SARS. Yet I haven't heard anything about this older vaccine being manufactured and tried or being used as the basis for a newer drug.