Personal experience 200mg and my rashes stop. My joint pain goes away. Lymph nodes stop swelling. My energy increases. Organ damage slows down.
400mg my hair gets really dry, and my blood pressure gets too high. Unless I skip caffeine.
Yearly eye tests are a thing. Some people go decades on it. Have to stop. And immediately all the old symptoms come back. “a flare”
This is a risk vs reward decision.
One issue is that its not a take a pill, cured tomorrow. It builds up in the system over time. It’s changing immune system behavior... slowly...
I was 30 days in before I noticed anything. 3 months until I was sure it was working. Doctor was shocked by my turn around after six months.
Lots of people say a year for full effectiveness.
Equating that to using it “off label” for covid, either as a preventative (Like the president did)or treatment post infection, where there is little, if any, evidence of its effectiveness/benefits (but still with the same risks, and possibly more depending on the patient and their history) are two entirely different things.
They are in no way equal
The virus is a trigger. It also attacks exact same receptor that hydroxychloroquine targets. I think it’s complete nonsense that has no effect.
Maybe the effect is trivial. Maybe it’s too little too late. But it is way too early to shutdown talk on it down.
I desperately wanna see studies on Covid death rates for people that have been taking it long term.
SARS-COV-2 is a virus. It is not an autoimmune disease. Your immune system is not reacting to your own tissues. It is reacting to the virus, just like an immune system is supposed to. Immunology is very clear about this, though I admit that the details can be confusing at first. The lines get 'blurry' at the molecular level, Ship of Theseus, all that jazz.
Look, we all want hydroxychloroquine to work with covid-19. It would save a lot of lives, potentially. That's a great thing. If it works.
But we cannot administer it without good proof. Currently, the evidence seems to say that it does not work. It may change over time and with more research, but we can only go off of what we know today.
For example, in the 1918 flu pandemic, research has indicated the the immune response that it provoked was one of the reasons it was so deadly[0].
With SARS-COV-2 one of the treatments that has studies that show reduction in mortality is dexamethasone which is a steroid that reduces the inflammatory response (which is an immune response)[1].
So it is not unreasonable to think that an immune system modulating drug may help with SARS-COV-2. Whether or not hydroxychloroquinine specifically does is a different story, but it would not be surprising for something in this class to have a beneficial effect.
0. https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/09/060927201707.h...
A) knows how to deal with the pathogen specifically
B) doesn’t go wild and kill the host in its own right whilst trying to figure out how to properly deal with the pathogen
My understanding is that without exposure you body kinda throws a lot of different types of t-cells at the issue. Once it kinda knows how to handle it, it just throws the specific variant of t-cells needed.
The virus triggers an acute immune response. This is not the same as an autoimmune disease, it may be the opposite. Also, people with certain blood types that have better clotting ability seem to be at a disadvantage.
While I would not trust someone posting here on HN about medical advice, I would trust doctors from around the world who have stated that, for example, hydroxychloroquine is not recommended for use against SARS-CoV-2, and I would absolutely trust them over any poster here and any politician.
More to your point: there may be potential solutions that are not a vaccine but I'll trust researchers and doctors to find those solutions, rather than doing the investigation myself, as they are much more highly trained than I ever will be on the subject.
That's not what anyone is suggesting, and it seems disingenuous for you to suggest that it is. The drug is well-known, and it's reasonable to attempt its use when there's the potential for a large success rate. The people "hoarding" it are doctors who can get prescriptions for it - and who I imagine know more about the drug than you or I do.
Based on the Ford study [1], the 10-50% success rate might be a confusion with the hazard ratio reduction, which was 66%. The actual in-hospital mortality rates in that study were 20% with hydroxychloroquine + azithromycin vs. 26% with neither. I'd say a 6 percentage point difference in lives saved is enough to warrant further investigation.
[1] https://www.ijidonline.com/article/S1201-9712(20)30534-8/ful...
...and yet that's what people are doing.
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2020/07/07/teen-w...
> The drug is well-known
So are its risks.
> there's the potential for a large success rate
Every treatment has some potential. Funny how there's been a chorus of "eVerY drUg hAS rIsks" to make HCQ seem unexceptional in that regard (even though most drugs don't carry disk of heart problems and blindness) while clinging to the idea that its potential is exceptional. In the case of HCQ for COVID-19 we don't need to guess about potential, because there have been many studies by now and we have empirical evidence of weak effect. It shouldn't be ignored, but it should be far from the top of anyone's list either. It's only getting attention at all because of who keeps touting it.
You talk about being disingenuous, but I think the disingenuous behavior in this thread is the extreme cherry-picking of favorable results while ignoring less favorable results and risks.
> ...and yet that's what people are doing.
> Her mother, a nurse, and a man identified in the report as her father, a physician assistant, gave the girl azithromycin...The report does not state if the girl had a prescription for either drug.
You need a better source. There was supervision in that case. Sadly, the girl was apparently part of the ~75-80% that don't survive COVID-19, even with azithromycin & hydroxychloroquine.
> So are its risks.
And that means its risks can be addressed and quantified.
> extreme cherry-picking
Two points. 1. A great example of cherry picking is the single instance of mortality associated with using azithromycin that you gave in your source. 2. The issue of degree of efficacy is secondary to the fact that it's potential for efficacy is being hidden and labeled disinformation, when the drug should be investigated for its potential to save lives.
You're being disingenuous again. Read the article. She was given the drugs by her parents, who were not authorized to prescribe them or supervise their use on their own. The outcome is not the point. The point is the lack of proper supervision. The outcome could have been different, and it would still be wrong for people to be using HCQ other than in a controlled trial ... but that's exactly what hype like yours leads to.
Also. The girl had an autoimmune disorder, for which the same drugs are commonly used. Did the article happen to say whether or not she was already on the drugs?
The article also says nothing about whether the drugs had anything to do with her demise. It sure does imply that, though.
This is a cherry picked article.
WHO SOLIDARITY trial (aborted due to lack of efficiency for hospital patients, still running for prophylaxis) https://www.who.int/emergencies/diseases/novel-coronavirus-2...
HCQ as prophylaxis trial: https://www.bmj.com/content/369/bmj.m2242?ijkey=2811796ab15e...
> Evidence about use of hydroxychloroquine alone, or of hydroxychloroquine+azithromycin in inpatients, is irrelevant concerning efficacy of the pair in early high-risk outpatient disease. Five studies, including two controlled clinical trials, have demonstrated significant major outpatient treatment efficacy.
None of your sources deal with outpatients or the combination of hydroxychloroquine and azithromycin.
I was explaining to a new doctor how my weird symptoms would go away on azithromycin or doxycycline for several weeks. He looked at me and said, oh you have an autoimmune disorder then. He even guessed the correct one. One I had never heard of.
He hadn’t read any studies on it. Was just something he noticed in decades of treating people.
We prescribe drugs everyday with a proper dosage on the bottle, and people handle it just fine. This is no different.
Either way, HCQ is widely available and inexpensive, zinc is widely available and inexpensive, and I believe that is the crux of the real issue. Even if it worked for a small percentage of people, it’s still a significant tool in the fight.
The problem is, there is a coordinated push towards expensive patented drugs and vaccines on the population, we are watching marketing, propaganda, and censorship at this point.
Can’t have a $10 solution to a $10,000,000,000,000 problem.
Easy. It's a highly politicized thread, and in those sort of thread, driveby downvoting isnt uncommon, even on HN.
The conspiracy theory about the drug industry has been common forever, but it fits a more general pattern, like the Miracle Carburetor.
Obviously nobody can answer why something is downvoted, and discussing voting is discouraged, but personally, I'd like to see a controversial opinion that is original and interesting, not cliched.
Me, I wouldn't downvote something for only being wrong (IMO) or weird.
I have no idea about the amount that gets flagged, but I notice it quite a bit just by going to the front page and seeing something and if I happened to go back to it a minute later, poof, it's gone.
For calling HCQ a "$10 solution to a $10,000,000,000,000 problem". It's not.
www.henryford.com/news/2020/07/hydro-treatment-study
>The study that sparked the latest controversy was anything but randomized. Not only was it not randomized, outside experts noted, but patients who received hydroxychloroquine were also more likely to get steroids, which appear to help very sick patients with Covid-19. That is likely to have influenced the central finding of the Henry Ford study: that death rates were 50% lower among patients in hospitals treated with hydroxychloroquine.
>One study, the RECOVERY study conducted in the U.K., compared 1,542 patients on a particularly high dose of the drug to 3,132 control patients and found no difference in how long patients lived. A second, conducted by the National Institutes of Health, also found no benefit from hydroxychloroquine at higher doses.
https://www.deadlinedetroit.com/articles/25726/controversial...
It is dangerous. Proper dosage and monitoring are necessary to guard against risk of QT prolongation and retinopathy. It's possible for it to be true both that it saves millions of lives and that it's dangerous to take unsupervised.
> A drug with a 10-50% success rate will still save a lot of lives.
There is zero evidence that it has anywhere near that level of effectiveness, even when combined with zinc and azithromycin for the most favorable population and conditions. It might have some effect, but touting it as a miracle cure when other treatments are already known with greater effect and lower risk is irresponsible.