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

  • Thread starter Thread starter baldgye
  • 13,300 comments
  • 799,194 views
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.

Which one? Either? The one in the study or the one for arthritis? And does bloodwork need to be continually monitored for it to be safe?

Sorry I'm not a doctor so I wouldn't know which of these studies could be safely applied to COVID. You seem to know.
 
Which one? Either? The one in the study or the one for arthritis? And does bloodwork need to be continually monitored for it to be safe?

Sorry I'm not a doctor so I wouldn't know which of these studies could be safely applied to COVID. You seem to know.

All those quotes were from the same study, I gave links in case you actually had a genuine interest. I picked that one out because it's the largest study into prophylactic use, AFAIK.

They do blood tests every 30 days (sample at the start, then pinpricks, then dried blood test at end) but they appear to be solely for other reasons than checking safety (e.g. checking adherence).
 
All those quotes were from the same study, I gave links in case you actually had a genuine interest. I picked that one out because it's the largest study into prophylactic use, AFAIK.

They do blood tests every 30 days (sample at the start, then pinpricks, then dried blood test at end) but they appear to be solely for other reasons than checking safety (e.g. checking adherence).

The link requires that I download a PDF, I don't do that when I can avoid it. The quotes that you provided discuss different doses, one for the study, and one for arthritis. So I'll reiterate my previous question, which you did not answer.

me
Which one? Either? The one in the study or the one for arthritis?

Can you also explain why additional bloodwork is not needed given that it is needed for Lupus treatment? Again, I might be able to figure this stuff out if I were a doctor, you seem to know.
 
The link requires that I download a PDF, I don't do that when I can avoid it. The quotes that you provided discuss different doses, one for the study, and one for arthritis. So I'll reiterate my previous question, which you did not answer.

Do you mean the 155mg per day vs the 155mg per day? My answer would be the 155mg per day!

Don't ask me why they stated one as 2.4mg/kg(155mg)/day and the other just as 155mg - I presume that either that is an omission in the latter, or that they have decided that the typical dose of 155mg is reasonable to use across all of their test subjects. If the latter, possibly this gives them extra information at the end of the study since it would give them a variety of mg/kg to analyze.

Can you also explain why additional bloodwork is not needed given that it is needed for Lupus treatment? Again, I might be able to figure this stuff out if I were a doctor, you seem to know.

I don't know the reason for that bloodwork. Quite likely it's required for checking the effectiveness of the dosage against that condition. Whether they also check specifically for adverse reactions to HCQ, I don't know. I'm sure a quick google would answer your question.

In the end I'm deferring to the doctors that put together the study protocol I quoted, since they would have considered all these factors before declaring such a large trial safe to go ahead.
 
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.
I will admit that I misspoke here, as differences in how the Arizona situation was reported led me to believe it was multiple instances. My apologies for that.


However:
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.
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.
You should pay more attention to what is going on in the thread before you respond to specific posts, because they can provide context to specific statements that other posts may be responding to; especially if your trying to dictate what is and isn't relevant to the discussion. It's in fact extremely germain to the discussion when part of the framework of the discussion for the past five days is how thousands of people have died needlessly because they refused to listen to Trump's medical advice. I wouldn't blame you if you have the person in question on your ignore list, but you shouldn't then assume that everyone else also does.




President of the United States makes a blanket comment of the efficacy of hydroxychloroquine in treating COVID; something that has immediate consequences when stupid people panicked because they didn't have the wonder drug in question (one death, one hospitalization) when the drug itself maybe works but is dangerous enough on it own that it was frequently warned that it should only be used by patients that are under frequent monitoring. Maybe that's not enough to be notable, because they were in fact very stupid people, but that wasn't really the main point.
President of the United States makes a blanket comment of the efficacy of hydroxychloroquine in treating COVID months later; when the drug itself maybe works but is dangerous enough on it own that it was frequently warned that it should only be used by patients that are under frequent monitoring. Person in this thread sees the video that got the President's son banned from Twitter, blames the media for thousands of people dying needlessly because there wasn't an immediate rolling out of hydroxychloroquine treatments; then says that he's going to get himself tested for COVID and demand that he is prescribed hydroxychloroquine that he can give himself while he's at home and just insists that he'll be fine. That part was the crux of the response.



You're correct: Trump won't be the determining factor for whether hydroxychloroquine actually works for the role Trump says it fills. But someone in this thread essentially insisted basically exactly that, and since this thread isn't just about you and Joey talking about clinical trials, that was the part I responded to.
 
Do you mean the 155mg per day vs the 155mg per day? My answer would be the 155mg per day!

you
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.

Are you sure you're not a doctor?

Don't ask me why they stated one as 2.4mg/kg(155mg)/day and the other just as 155mg - I presume that either that is an omission in the latter, or that they have decided that the typical dose of 155mg is reasonable to use across all of their test subjects. If the latter, possibly this gives them extra information at the end of the study since it would give them a variety of mg/kg to analyze.

Yea, you don't seem like a doctor.

I don't know the reason for that bloodwork. Quite likely it's

I'm pretty sure you're not doctor.

In the end I'm deferring to the doctors that put together the study protocol I quoted, since they would have considered all these factors before declaring such a large trial safe to go ahead.

...for use outside of the study. Bad idea. You're not a doctor.
 
TB
Yes, yes. It starts off with cracking a beer to aid in simulating a sneeze or cough. But sometimes you just feel the need to start some crap on fire.



Please. Just wear the mask.


Bold of you to assume Miller Lite is beer.

Other than that, the science checks out.
 
Looking at medication that is safe for some people to use with a prescription and regular monitoring..... is this over the counter?

DmbzJspWwAEprcQ.jpg
 
So by turning to Sweden you admit that your previous arguments have been countered?

Sweden isn't a haven for non-mask wearing types such as you, you know. The main reason they avoided a full lockdown is because people followed the recommendations for social distancing etc. And of course they did place quite strong restrictions on travel, large groups of people, and banned visits to care homes. Hardly the COVID-denier utopia you dream it to be.

First, Sweden avoiided lock-down because the government didn't order it, something that most of you in here think is idiocy. Second calling me a covid-denier is like me calling you a snowflake or a maskdebater,. Third, they had as many deaths in care homes as anybody, and have stated that they made mistakes, probably not as many as the UK government. Fourth, Sweden have not been compelled to wear masks. Fifth(for McLAren), everyone in here cherry-picks which statements they want to disagree with and ignore the ones that make sense. Sixth, https://news.sky.com/story/coronavi...into-lockdown-over-covid-19-pandemic-11966132. Seventh , please provide evidence for your views on Sweden.
 
First, Sweden avoiided lock-down because the government didn't order it, something that most of you in here think is idiocy.

Citation needed. Don't confuse maskdebating with thinking Sweden is stupid.
 
Citation needed. Really ? Do you have any evidence that Sweden ordered a shut-down. If not then I'm pretty sure they didn't. If you mean a citation for the idiocy of Sweden's policy, then have any of you, in this thread, said that Sweden were right not to have a lockdown?
 
Are you sure you're not a doctor?
Yea, you don't seem like a doctor.
I'm pretty sure you're not doctor.
...for use outside of the study. Bad idea. You're not a doctor.

Shame you're fixated on whether I'm a doctor or not, seeing as some random doctor on the internet surely wouldn't be adequate authority either!

Was what I said false? Did I fail to back up what I was saying with reputable sources? No.

I've assumed that most of these people taking it outside a study are getting it from a doctor, since I think it's not available OTC in US. It's on them and their doctor, but in any case doesn't have any bearing on whether HCQ is relatively safe at moderate doses.

Re. 155mg base vs 250mg salt vs 200mg sulphate ... those are all equivalent doses, just different forms.



I will admit that I misspoke here, as differences in how the Arizona situation was reported led me to believe it was multiple instances. My apologies for that.

Thanks.

However:


You should pay more attention to what is going on in the thread before you respond to specific posts, because they can provide context to specific statements that other posts may be responding to; especially if your trying to dictate what is and isn't relevant to the discussion. It's in fact extremely germain to the discussion when part of the framework of the discussion for the past five days is how thousands of people have died needlessly because they refused to listen to Trump's medical advice. I wouldn't blame you if you have the person in question on your ignore list, but you shouldn't then assume that everyone else also does.




President of the United States makes a blanket comment of the efficacy of hydroxychloroquine in treating COVID; something that has immediate consequences when stupid people panicked because they didn't have the wonder drug in question (one death, one hospitalization) when the drug itself maybe works but is dangerous enough on it own that it was frequently warned that it should only be used by patients that are under frequent monitoring. Maybe that's not enough to be notable, because they were in fact very stupid people, but that wasn't really the main point.
President of the United States makes a blanket comment of the efficacy of hydroxychloroquine in treating COVID months later; when the drug itself maybe works but is dangerous enough on it own that it was frequently warned that it should only be used by patients that are under frequent monitoring. Person in this thread sees the video that got the President's son banned from Twitter, blames the media for thousands of people dying needlessly because there wasn't an immediate rolling out of hydroxychloroquine treatments; then says that he's going to get himself tested for COVID and demand that he is prescribed hydroxychloroquine that he can give himself while he's at home and just insists that he'll be fine. That part was the crux of the response.



You're correct: Trump won't be the determining factor for whether hydroxychloroquine actually works for the role Trump says it fills. But someone in this thread essentially insisted basically exactly that, and since this thread isn't just about you and Joey talking about clinical trials, that was the part I responded to.

I understand the context and it is of course concerning, as you say. In particular, it's very difficult to find the right way to combat people over-stating possible benefits. In the extreme, claims that it is a miracle cure are now essentially proven to be false (re the studies Joey pointed out to me), so are easier to fight.

The clinical trials are our best source of actual information, albeit that working out what they say and with what confidence is a pain. Essentially though my current impression from them is that it's detrimental for hospitalised patients, neutral for post-exposure use (short course starting within 1 to 5 days after exposure), and possibly beneficial if taken before exposure.

The FDA's stance is one of caution as far as use for COVID goes, however, I don't think they've actually called it 'dangerous' in the context of otherwise well people taking it as a prophylactic, just cautioned against it. I suspect this has as much to do with preventing shortages for arthritis and lupus patients as it has to do with the general safety of HCQ.

Ultimately if HCQ has any benefit then it would be in reducing mortality. We don't know whether it would. Likely we won't know until one or more of the vaccines are being mass-produced (some arms of the COPCOV trial aren't expected to report before the end of the year), which is kind of too late! I'm very unhappy that this will have taken so long - it wasn't helped by the fraudulent, almost immediately retracted, paper that caused the UK part of the trial to be put on hold for a month.

I wouldn't recommend taking it or take it myself based on current knowledge. Not that my recommendation would count for anything, since I'm not a doctor. Even if it might help, something else might help just as much (e.g. Vitamin D + Zinc) and be even safer. I'm able to follow the social distancing guidelines without much trouble so hardly at risk of catching it anyway. If I were frontline staff I'd be far more open to taking it.

So people like Dr Stella leave me in a quandry - her claims are unfounded, yes, yet rebuttal of her claims ought to be calm and scientific - flatly declaring HCQ 'dangerous' is a false claim in itself - however such rebuttal would go unheeded. Indeed, as seen in this thread, any rebuttal to nonsense generally goes unheeded, so why even bother giving them any attention? Because it may be heeded by someone on the sidelines who isn't sure if these people are right or not, and providing them as factual info as possible may make it more likely they will heed it IMO. I'm not convinced that taking down that video was the right thing to do - I didn't get very far into it before it was clear her advice wasn't sound - it just brought more attention to it and provided fodder for the conspiracy theorists. In short I just don't know how to deal with them, only that it's important not to be dragged down to their level.

Of course it's uncomfortable to share any common ground with the crackpots, even if it's only on the good safety record of HCQ over decades. C'est la vie :)
 
Citation needed. Really ? Do you have any evidence that Sweden ordered a shut-down. If not then I'm pretty sure they didn't. If you mean a citation for the idiocy of Sweden's policy, then have any of you, in this thread, said that Sweden were right not to have a lockdown?
What's your goal here overall? Are you trying to get us to agree with you in your justification for your viewpoint or are you trying to simply justify it in the first place?
 
Was what I said false? Did I fail to back up what I was saying with reputable sources? No.

Yes, but you haven't said anything false that I particularly want to point out or discuss. But you'll note that I'm not claiming that it's false. I'm claiming that you shouldn't be trying to determine what is a safe amount of this drug for COVID.

I've assumed that most of these people taking it outside a study are getting it from a doctor, since I think it's not available OTC in US. It's on them and their doctor, but in any case doesn't have any bearing on whether HCQ is relatively safe at moderate doses.

It does, because each person's body is a little different (and different diseases affect bodies differently). Again, you sound like not-a-doctor here. I'm all for your rights to take experimental treatments, from a doctor or not. I'm saying that it's maybe not a great idea. As @Joey D mentioned, it might be best reserved for cases where a long shot is needed, at least until more evidence is presented.

Re. 155mg base vs 250mg salt vs 200mg sulphate ... those are all equivalent doses, just different forms.


four 155mg tablets for a 60kg subject
 
What's your goal here overall? Are you trying to get us to agree with you in your justification for your viewpoint or are you trying to simply justify it in the first place?

Stating my opinion about current events. I happen to disagree with many of you. That's okay, isn't it?

Answer me this, just so you realise how dumb a question it was. What's your goal here overall?
 
It's not a dumb question at all. Thank you for replying honestly. Now I know you're just here to state your opinion without trying to force it onto others. That's a good. 👍

My goal is to stay informed on all of the up to date information that comes out of this thread but when people like you post the things you post it makes it a little harder. That's fine, it means I actually have to put some work in. So again, thanks.
 
Yes, but you haven't said anything false that I particularly want to point out or discuss. But you'll note that I'm not claiming that it's false. I'm claiming that you shouldn't be trying to determine what is a safe amount of this drug for COVID.

Well thanks for your concern, but I wasn't doing any 'determining' myself, instead deferring to reputable sources.

It does, because each person's body is a little different (and different diseases affect bodies differently). Again, you sound like not-a-doctor here. I'm all for your rights to take experimental treatments, from a doctor or not. I'm saying that it's maybe not a great idea. As @Joey D mentioned, it might be best reserved for cases where a long shot is needed, at least until more evidence is presented.

This started with me challenging someone calling it dangerous. Somehow it turned around to my defending it's safety :banghead:

OK, you say "it's maybe not a great idea". I didn't say it was. Effectively what I said originally was that it's not proven to be as dangerous as some are making out. Most likely there's a sizable number of people already taking it as a precaution (off-study, but not necessarily without monitoring) and my impression is that there's little scientific basis to say that it will do them harm in significant numbers. It's an existing body of people I'm talking about; I'm not promoting it or recommending people take it.

You buzzed around my saying 'taken correctly' which I admit was ambiguous. In hindsight I should've just explained that as "roughly similar doses to those in studies of prophylactic use" rather than getting into numbers, it might have saved some time. Maybe. We would still have had the detour to find out that at least one large study isn't specifically monitoring for adverse effects.


four 155mg tablets for a 60kg subject

It's an initial loading dose. Is there a point to go with pasting that here? I answered the question you asked before.
 
Well thanks for your concern, but I wasn't doing any 'determining' myself, instead deferring to reputable sources.

Its how you're trying to use those sources that I'm picking at.

This started with me challenging someone calling it dangerous. Somehow it turned around to my defending it's safety :banghead:

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.

OK, you say "it's maybe not a great idea". I didn't say it was. Effectively what I said originally was that it's not proven to be as dangerous as some are making out.

That's fine. I think you're probably right on that point. You just oversold it.

You buzzed around my saying 'taken correctly' which I admit was ambiguous. In hindsight I should've just explained that as "roughly similar doses to those in studies of prophylactic use" rather than getting into numbers, it might have saved some time. Maybe. We would still have had the detour to find out that at least one large study isn't specifically monitoring for adverse effects.

You're still overselling it here too. There isn't an accepted dose for this drug that people should self-administer, or that doctors who are not familiar with the outcome of these experimental studies should prescribe.

Just stick with "it isn't as dangerous as you say" and go with that. For reference, the FDA considers it too dangerous to take (for COVID) outside of a hospital setting or approved clinical trial:

https://www.fda.gov/drugs/drug-safe...oroquine-covid-19-outside-hospital-setting-or


Edit:

Note that they specifically call out heart problems, and heart problems are linked with COVID complications.
 
Good news, my test results are negative for COVID

bad news...Anchorage is locking down again due to increase in cases

JDQ6LJBNKVGE3LUXJF5UI6DXQE.png

https://www.ktuu.com/2020/07/31/anchorage-to-enter-four-week-reset/

Mayor Ethan Berkowitz has ordered Anchorage to enter what he described as a “battening down” phase, an effort meant to try to slow the spread of COVID-19, cases of which have risen sharply in Anchorage during the month of July.

Starting Aug. 3rd, bars and restaurants will be limited to take-out service only. Dine-in service will not be allowed. Mayor Berkowitz also announced schools will not take place in classrooms and will be online for the first quarter.

Also, beginning Friday, July 31st, Anchorage Mayor Ethan Berkowitz has ordered masks or face coverings to be worn in more settings than previously required, including outdoor gatherings.
 
Its how you're trying to use those sources that I'm picking at.

Well, I'm not talking about anything beyond prophylactic use, which is what that COPCOV trial is studying. As a layman I think it's reasonable to assume that concerns about side-effects and monitoring would be similar or perhaps even reduced compared to its other uses for treatment, if at similar doses. Prophylactic use wouldn't really be 'treating for COVID', so that complication doesn't intrude.

You're still overselling it here too. There isn't an accepted dose for this drug that people should self-administer, or that doctors who are not familiar with the outcome of these experimental studies should prescribe.

I don't think I am, although it isn't a cause I wish to take on to the nth degree. But to respond to your points with my thoughts, I guess many of those doctors would have at least some experience of administering it for other reasons, and it was self-administered as an anti-malarial for a long time (basically until it stopped being effective rather than for safety reasons, as I understand it). To flip it, there doesn't seem to be any reason to assume greater risk by self-administering or use outside studies compared to previous usages.

Just stick with "it isn't as dangerous as you say" and go with that. For reference, the FDA considers it too dangerous to take (for COVID) outside of a hospital setting or approved clinical trial:

https://www.fda.gov/drugs/drug-safe...oroquine-covid-19-outside-hospital-setting-or

Note that they specifically call out heart problems, and heart problems are linked with COVID complications.

Actually they caution rather than declaring it dangerous, and the caution around heart problems are, as you point out, linked with recorded COVID complications - in hospitalized patients. (What may also be relevant to some of those outcomes is that both HCQ and AZ can affect the heart, so giving them together may compound the effect, but that's a tangent). The caution appears to be mainly aimed at treating people already sick, which seems reasonable based on what I've read.
 
Why would you go in and destroy everything? You kind of have to rent it to someone else after right?
 
They apparently thought he'd moved out so I guess they wanted to remodel. Good thing he was living next door to a lawyer.
 
Fifth(for McLAren), everyone in here cherry-picks which statements they want to disagree with and ignore the ones that make sense.
The only person in here that's done that is you, kiddo.

You've made the (now hilarious) mistake 2-3 times of providing a source of information to support your views without realizing your own source actually opposes your argument b/c you didn't bother to actually read it. You're a textbook Covid-denier b/c your entire approach to arguing in this thread has been a classic case of making ironic claims.
 
Citation needed. Really ? Do you have any evidence that Sweden ordered a shut-down. If not then I'm pretty sure they didn't. If you mean a citation for the idiocy of Sweden's policy, then have any of you, in this thread, said that Sweden were right not to have a lockdown?
I am in Sweden. The government didn't order a lockdown, because they highly recommended all that could work from home to do that, and every one else to keep a distance of 1,5-2 meters. And what do you know, in Sweden most people follow what the government highly recommended. I see people with masks every day,there are people outside stores making sure there isn't coming too many people in. People generally do what the government tells them to do without it being a law.
 
Back