Why is chloroquine so controversial?
Comments
-
Level headed, I can get on board. Damning chloroquine into oblivion because of a negative study would be like doing the same to all prescription drugs you see on TV because the side effects you hear of at the end include “suicidal thoughts.”GrundleStiltzkin said:
Pretty much what I’m saying. Stop attaching a political tag & figure it out. @ScottAdams had a good point yesterday, if it was a miracle drug we’d probably know by now. But as a dangerous alternative, I just don’t understand the kerfuffle.MelloDawg said:
There is science which casts doubt on it as well and the narrative rejection you see in the mainstream news at times contains that science. Some say you can take it and improve. Some say it doesn’t have the impact Trump suggests. Neither are made up studies. This is how scientific method works. The fringe websites will always be political in nature.GrundleStiltzkin said:
It simply means the narrative rejection of chloroquine is political hyperbole, not science.MelloDawg said:
Could you elaborate? You seem to understand the science of what was said in this abstract.MikeDamone said:Seems it’s worth a very serious look.
BUT TRUMP SAID IT!
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1232869/
Background
Severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) is caused by a newly discovered coronavirus (SARS-CoV). No effective prophylactic or post-exposure therapy is currently available.
Results
We report, however, that chloroquine has strong antiviral effects on SARS-CoV infection of primate cells. These inhibitory effects are observed when the cells are treated with the drug either before or after exposure to the virus, suggesting both prophylactic and therapeutic advantage. In addition to the well-known functions of chloroquine such as elevations of endosomal pH, the drug appears to interfere with terminal glycosylation of the cellular receptor, angiotensin-converting enzyme 2. This may negatively influence the virus-receptor binding and abrogate the infection, with further ramifications by the elevation of vesicular pH, resulting in the inhibition of infection and spread of SARS CoV at clinically admissible concentrations.
Conclusion
Chloroquine is effective in preventing the spread of SARS CoV in cell culture. Favorable inhibition of virus spread was observed when the cells were either treated with chloroquine prior to or after SARS CoV infection. In addition, the indirect immunofluorescence assay described herein represents a simple and rapid method for screening SARS-CoV antiviral compounds. -
I’d say that www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov isn’t a fringe website.MelloDawg said:
There is science which casts doubt on it as well and the narrative rejection you see in the mainstream news at times contains that science. Some say you can take it and improve. Some say it doesn’t have the impact Trump suggests. Neither are made up studies. This is how scientific method works. The fringe websites will always be political in nature.GrundleStiltzkin said:
It simply means the narrative rejection of chloroquine is political hyperbole, not science.MelloDawg said:
Could you elaborate? You seem to understand the science of what was said in this abstract.MikeDamone said:Seems it’s worth a very serious look.
BUT TRUMP SAID IT!
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1232869/
Background
Severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) is caused by a newly discovered coronavirus (SARS-CoV). No effective prophylactic or post-exposure therapy is currently available.
Results
We report, however, that chloroquine has strong antiviral effects on SARS-CoV infection of primate cells. These inhibitory effects are observed when the cells are treated with the drug either before or after exposure to the virus, suggesting both prophylactic and therapeutic advantage. In addition to the well-known functions of chloroquine such as elevations of endosomal pH, the drug appears to interfere with terminal glycosylation of the cellular receptor, angiotensin-converting enzyme 2. This may negatively influence the virus-receptor binding and abrogate the infection, with further ramifications by the elevation of vesicular pH, resulting in the inhibition of infection and spread of SARS CoV at clinically admissible concentrations.
Conclusion
Chloroquine is effective in preventing the spread of SARS CoV in cell culture. Favorable inhibition of virus spread was observed when the cells were either treated with chloroquine prior to or after SARS CoV infection. In addition, the indirect immunofluorescence assay described herein represents a simple and rapid method for screening SARS-CoV antiviral compounds. -
The amount of deceptive and inaccurate reporting on this drug has been off-the-charts. Media personalities were mocking it as "completely ineffective" i.e., only idiots would believe it worked at all, while some people were actually and demonstrably benefitting from it.GrundleStiltzkin said:
I honestly don't get what the big deal is. It's 'script only, so people can't run out & get it. It might work, and maybe more likely doesn't work. TDS is skrong.
I read very few articles that said it flat out didn't work, but instead read many, many articles and studies that said it was potentially dangerous to anyone with heart problems or taking meds for blood pressure, arrhythmia, irregular heartbeat, etc., so it wasn't "recommended." That's not the same thing as banning it or suggesting it was malpractice to prescribe it, but that didn't matter at all to the mainstream media. It was all about crushing any optimism coming from the White House or anyone who saw a potential path through the crisis.
The Media wants this crisis to last until the election so the Left can beat Trump. It couldn't be more obvious, and at this point, you pretty much know the media personalities are lying if their lips are moving. Yes, it really has gotten that bad. -
So not for my dog?Sledog said:CDC issued a memo saying those on chloroquine needed to be in the hospital to take it and monitored fore a rare heart rhythm it can cause. I believe they just pulled that. But hey it wasn't just because trump said it works.
Proven to work in early stages. Doesn't work on vet patients. -
Heads up. You can get it off label in a 5 lb bucket down at Pool Barn
-
You are correct, that was not political in nature. I imagine I could find a .gov website which has an opposite set of findings. Science is exciting!MikeDamone said:
I’d say that www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov isn’t a fringe website.MelloDawg said:
There is science which casts doubt on it as well and the narrative rejection you see in the mainstream news at times contains that science. Some say you can take it and improve. Some say it doesn’t have the impact Trump suggests. Neither are made up studies. This is how scientific method works. The fringe websites will always be political in nature.GrundleStiltzkin said:
It simply means the narrative rejection of chloroquine is political hyperbole, not science.MelloDawg said:
Could you elaborate? You seem to understand the science of what was said in this abstract.MikeDamone said:Seems it’s worth a very serious look.
BUT TRUMP SAID IT!
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1232869/
Background
Severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) is caused by a newly discovered coronavirus (SARS-CoV). No effective prophylactic or post-exposure therapy is currently available.
Results
We report, however, that chloroquine has strong antiviral effects on SARS-CoV infection of primate cells. These inhibitory effects are observed when the cells are treated with the drug either before or after exposure to the virus, suggesting both prophylactic and therapeutic advantage. In addition to the well-known functions of chloroquine such as elevations of endosomal pH, the drug appears to interfere with terminal glycosylation of the cellular receptor, angiotensin-converting enzyme 2. This may negatively influence the virus-receptor binding and abrogate the infection, with further ramifications by the elevation of vesicular pH, resulting in the inhibition of infection and spread of SARS CoV at clinically admissible concentrations.
Conclusion
Chloroquine is effective in preventing the spread of SARS CoV in cell culture. Favorable inhibition of virus spread was observed when the cells were either treated with chloroquine prior to or after SARS CoV infection. In addition, the indirect immunofluorescence assay described herein represents a simple and rapid method for screening SARS-CoV antiviral compounds. -
Leftists can't assess risk. That's why people are still stuck in lockdown mode.GrundleStiltzkin said:
Pretty much what I’m saying. Stop attaching a political tag & figure it out. @ScottAdams had a good point yesterday, if it was a miracle drug we’d probably know by now. But as a dangerous alternative, I just don’t understand the kerfuffle.MelloDawg said:
There is science which casts doubt on it as well and the narrative rejection you see in the mainstream news at times contains that science. Some say you can take it and improve. Some say it doesn’t have the impact Trump suggests. Neither are made up studies. This is how scientific method works. The fringe websites will always be political in nature.GrundleStiltzkin said:
It simply means the narrative rejection of chloroquine is political hyperbole, not science.MelloDawg said:
Could you elaborate? You seem to understand the science of what was said in this abstract.MikeDamone said:Seems it’s worth a very serious look.
BUT TRUMP SAID IT!
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1232869/
Background
Severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) is caused by a newly discovered coronavirus (SARS-CoV). No effective prophylactic or post-exposure therapy is currently available.
Results
We report, however, that chloroquine has strong antiviral effects on SARS-CoV infection of primate cells. These inhibitory effects are observed when the cells are treated with the drug either before or after exposure to the virus, suggesting both prophylactic and therapeutic advantage. In addition to the well-known functions of chloroquine such as elevations of endosomal pH, the drug appears to interfere with terminal glycosylation of the cellular receptor, angiotensin-converting enzyme 2. This may negatively influence the virus-receptor binding and abrogate the infection, with further ramifications by the elevation of vesicular pH, resulting in the inhibition of infection and spread of SARS CoV at clinically admissible concentrations.
Conclusion
Chloroquine is effective in preventing the spread of SARS CoV in cell culture. Favorable inhibition of virus spread was observed when the cells were either treated with chloroquine prior to or after SARS CoV infection. In addition, the indirect immunofluorescence assay described herein represents a simple and rapid method for screening SARS-CoV antiviral compounds.
For someone over the age of 60, the probability of dying from COVID is X%, the odds of dying from chloroquine is Y%.
If X > Y, take chloroquine.
If Y > X, don't take chloroquine.
It's fucking maff. So somebody else explain it to the Dazzler.
-
RaceBannon said:
https://forbes.com/sites/alexledsom/2020/05/10/hydroxychloroquinenumber-of-prescriptions-explode-in-france/#1c7f96e5180f
Prescriptions are higher than ever!
