I have mixed feelings about this but Trump may be right

[anamnua]

Last edited Sun Apr 5, 2020, 08:24 AM - Edit history (2)

— up to a point:
https://www.contagionlive.com/news/results-from-a-controlled-trial-of-hydroxychloroquine-for-covid19

If all this is eventually validated I am bracing myself for an avalanche of I-told-you-soism from the Don.

[doc03]

1. He will claim he knew it all along. He may even claim he invented the

drug.

[Phoenix61]

2. Not a clean study at all.

“and unspecified regimens that could include antiviral and antibacterial agents, and immunoglobulin with or without corticosteroids.”

[uponit7771]

3. +1, that's why these things go years into clinical trials

[Arkansas Granny]

4. That sounds promising, but the trial was only 62 people.

It would be wonderful if an existing drug was useful. Would save a lot of time in R&D.

[Buckeye_Democrat]

5. Maybe, but probably not.

The idiot shouldn’t be touting it so prematurely, regardless. He’s the same guy who kept questioning Obama’s birth certificate like a lunatic, obviously.

It’s been previously studied in regard to related viruses (SARS) and didn’t show effectiveness within the body (in vivo).

https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanrhe/article/PIIS2665-9913(20)30089-8/fulltext

“Whether hydroxychloroquine works in vivo is not proven for any virus, and in fact in randomised controlled trials against a number of viruses, including influenza, it doesn't work at all,” says Douglas Richman, a virologist and infectious disease physician at the University of California, San Diego. “It's my personal prejudice that this is also going to be the case with coronavirus.”
Hydroxychloroquine has been studied as a possible antiviral for approximately the past 40 years, says Richman. The mechanism of action is not entirely clear, but it is known to decrease the acidity in endosomes, which might prevent the endosome from releasing the virus into the cytoplasm.
Hydroxychloroquine has shown activity in vitro against many viruses, including influenza and coronaviruses, but that has largely failed to translate into success in either animals or humans. In 2005, the drug showed in vitro activity against SARS-CoV, which is closely related to the current pandemic virus, but it failed to decrease viral load in mice, and clinical interest drifted away, says Christopher Tignanelli, a surgeon at the University of Minnesota in Minneapolis, who is involved in clinical trials of COVID-19 treatments.
“There is not a huge amount of pre-clinical data for this drug,” says Tignanelli. “It's mostly test-tube and anecdote.”

[crickets]

14. Thanks for this!

If they can't replicate the results to carry over beyond the test tube stage, then it's not useful.

What really jumps out of the quote:

Hydroxychloroquine has been studied as a possible antiviral for approximately the past 40 years

Uh, that's a long time...

[struggle4progress]

6. IIRC "in vitro" means "proven to protect test-tubes against viral infection"

[ProfessorGAC]

7. Don't Forget Petri Dishes

They need protection too!

[struggle4progress]

8. :)

[samnsara]

9. im sure he was informed of this possible breakthru in confidence..

... and because he HAS to be FIRST at everything he grabbed on it and blabbed before they wanted it out. The fact that he blabbed before it was ready to be presented to the public by a REAL scientist STILL attests to his dangerous ignorance...as how many folks actually tried it to an extent and were harmed or died. We have plenty of ammo to fire back.

[anamnua]

10. This was actually out and about in medical literature

-- albeit phrased in more cautious terms -- about a week before the Don seized on it. I'm a professional medic and therefore keep a close eye on relevant media.
Seriously though we have to get our priorities right; if this turns out to be valid then a bit of tr(i)ump(h)alism will be a small price to pay.

[Dorian Gray]

11. In this instance

I hope he is right.

But that doesn't take away from his complete irresponsibility with the way he says things at news conferences.

[Make7]

12. A small trial finds that hydroxychloroquine is not effective for treating coronavirus

A small trial finds that hydroxychloroquine is not effective for treating coronavirus

April 3, 2020

On Saturday the Food and Drug Administration approved the use of two antimalarial drugs, hydroxychloroquine and a related medication, chloroquine, for emergency use to treat COVID-19. The drugs were touted by President Trump as a “game changer” for COVID-19.

However, a study just published in a French medical journal provides new evidence that hydroxychloroquine does not appear to help the immune system clear the coronavirus from the body. The study comes on the heels of two others - one in France and one in China - that reported some benefits in the combination of hydroxychloroquine and azithromycin for COVID-19 patients who didn’t have severe symptoms of the virus.

I am a medicinal chemist who has specialized in discovery and development of antiviral drugs for the past 30 years, and I have been actively working on coronaviruses for the past seven. I am among a number of researchers who are concerned that this drug has been given too much of a high priority before there is enough evidence to show it is indeed effective.

There are already other clinical studies that showed it is not effective against COVID-19 as well as several other viruses. And, more importantly, it can have dangerous side effects, as well as giving people false hope. The latter has led to widespread shortages of hydroxychloroquine for patients who need it to treat malaria, lupus and rheumatoid arthritis, the indications for which it was originally approved.

<- snip ->

https://theconversation.com/a-small-trial-finds-that-hydroxychloroquine-is-not-effective-for-treating-coronavirus-135484

None of these small studies offer enough evidence to advocate dispensing chloroquine on a massive scale - which is why there are clinical trials current underway. It would be fantastic if it is shown to be safe and have a significant benefit - it's cheap and could help vast numbers of patients.

But I doubt if Trump will be touting a Chinese study - a week ago he was calling the coronavirus the "Chinese Virus" because China was lying about its origins.

[tanyev]

13. It's worth studying properly.

But him out there blathering on about it is causing it to be hoarded and cutting off the supply for people who need it for other reasons.

[jmg257]

15. Cuomo is talking about it too. Hopefully it will work.

[onenote]

16. I personally know someone who was treated with hydroxychloroquine and antibiotics

and recovered after a week in the hospital. Health fifty-something. Did the hyroxychloroquine make the difference? Hard to know for sure, but it didn't hurt.

If it was me, I'd be asking my doctor to prescribe it.

[harumph]

17. A stopped clock is right twice a day

It does not matter if it's effective at all or not. He opined on something of which he knows nothing about - as per usual. Whether something is
potentially effective should come from people with medical degrees.

[Bluesaph]

18. It worked on two people I know

My MAGA brother won’t stop talking about it.

[scrabblequeen40]

19. When was the last time he was right, about anything?

Yeah, that's what I thought. Never.