Hydroxychloroquine doesn't prevent people from catching COVID-19, study finds

Jun 4, 2020
1
0
10
To fight malaria you take this drug for at least 7 days before you go to a malaria zone. Taking the drug after you have caught malaria is useless as it would be to take the drug after you have caught Covid 19.
 
Jan 31, 2020
3
0
10
Hydroxychloroquine works to open ionic passageways for zinc to enter into cells. Since the virus cannot add energy to it's replication process, when the enzymes produced under the command of the viral RNA is assembled into duplicate virus, the process must follow an energy cascade. Zinc appears to interfere with that cascade mechanism and thus reduces replication efficiency. This is not a preventative. It is a way to reduce infection efficiency. Although the article in question would be correct in that taking hydroxychloroquine would not confer immunity, taking hydroxychloroquine with zinc should decrease viral efficiency.

It worked as a treatment in South Korea. Why wouldn't it work in the US unless political bias against Trumps' endorsement was blinding researchers?
 

ads

Jun 5, 2020
3
0
10
Taking the antimalarial drug hydroxychloroquine did not prevent people from coming down with COVID-19 after being exposed to the disease.

Hydroxychloroquine doesn't prevent people from catching COVID-19, study finds : Read more
This paper has been poorly done. The patients were given HCQ after 4 days of exposure. If you put a condom on four days after, guess what? You're having a kid. HCQ is meant to be given before exposure. Also they never tested the subjects for cov before or after patients are presumed cases from self reporting. Let me say again the patients we're not physically examined and reported to a website themselves. The paper has come under major scrutiny and the authors have removed it from the lancet. It should have never got into the Lancet, big black eye for them publishing junk science. In India they are having success with it = “Biologically, it appears plausible that HCQ prophylaxis, before onset of infection, may inhibit the virus from gaining a foothold,” stated ‘Healthcare workers & SARS-CoV-2 infection in India: A case-control investigation in the time of COVID-19’, a study published recently in the Indian Journal of Medical Research. https://indianexpress.com/article/india/preventive-use-of-hcq-in-frontline-healthcare-workers-icmr-study-6442948/
 

GWK

May 16, 2020
2
1
15
I'm confused at some of the thoughts on HCQ. As best I recall no one claimed it prevented the disease, or cured it. At best the claims were that it, and I quote "showed promise" in treating Covid by decreasing the time to recovery, and increasing the rates of survival. The best thing is that it is readily available, cheap, off patent and most studies show that it does in fact reduce recovery time and increase recovery rates. Even if it is, as reports indicate, only 17% effective in decreasing duration and increased recoveries, I'll take it.
Yet politics have gotten deeply involved in science. HCQ for decades has been shown to be safe. At this point, it's as safe as acetaminophen. If there is a possible benefit, why not.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ads
Apr 7, 2020
11
0
30
Taking the antimalarial drug hydroxychloroquine did not prevent people from coming down with COVID-19 after being exposed to the disease.

Hydroxychloroquine doesn't prevent people from catching COVID-19, study finds : Read more
I've never seen, heard or read anything that suggested it did prevent people from getting infected! So far, there is NOTHING that has shown that it can prevent people from becoming infected . . . other than 100% total isolation. N95 masks don't 100% prevent infection, social distancing doesn't 100% protect against infection. No vaccines have been shown to 100% prevent infection (of course, they're still being developed).

In the USA (at least), this is largely a political thing in the media. If President Trump says anything, our media will run headlines that it is wrong, dumb, a lie, etc. . . I remember when he said based on what he'd seen and learned so far, his gut is that the death rate will likely be much more like 0.5% to 1.5%. The media lambasted him and quoted all sorts of scientists (including from the WHO) who suggested the death rate from Covid-10 would be in the 3.5% to 6+% range. And the media carried on with these claims for over a month. Of course, now that it is well established and recognized that even the 1.5% death rate (which was the highest end of Trump's estimate) is way too high versus reality! In all likelihood, the actual death rate will likely end up being very close to the 0.5% level, or even more likely, lower than that.

The scientists have gotten so much wrong with regards to Covid-19, actually, looking back at the February and March scientific statements and projections - scientists have gotten far more wrong than they have gotten right. But this is the general nature and history of science. I think we all seem to forget that science is wrong about 90% of the time . . . it is historical practice that the scientific community only finally gets it right (sometimes) after a lot of getting it wrong, learning from their many mistakes, bad theories and hypothesis and errors. This is not suggesting science should be ignored, but the reality is that science should often be taken as a grain of salt - in particular when it comes to NEW issues - which we know they have a tendency to get grossly wrong at the early stages of study and hypothesis. We also know and see, that much like society as a whole, the scientific community is very easily influenced by political beliefs and/or pressure - for better and for worse!
 
Jun 2, 2020
1
2
15
I think it's important to keep in mind that you don't test a drug; you test a protocol. That is, you test an entire procedure, a set of drugs given in specific doses at a ceretain stage in the disease on a selected group of patients and you monitor for specific outcomes.
 
Mar 2, 2020
2
3
15
Please refer to the article from Oak Ridge lab where IBM's SUMMIT supercomputer analyzed the molecular structure of thousands of molecules for their suitability for blocking the SARS-CoV-2 viral spike protein from engaging an ACE2 receptor on a human host cell. Hydroxychloroquine shows moderate potential, with a score of -5.6 and a ranking of 1123, but there are a number of natural flavonoids that are much higher ranked, including myricetin, quercetin, and luteolin, So I think hydroxychloroquine is a bit overrated due to Trump's promotion due to the fact that there happened to be a stockpile. But flavonoids are prevalent in colorful vegetables and available as supplements. There is even a propolis nasal spray that might be used as an inhaler or nebulizer fluid to get the flavonoid to the epithelial cells rapidly. It is also key, in any of these effectiveness studies, to accompany the medication with a zinc supplement. See for yourself: https://chemrxiv.org/articles/Repurposing_Therapeutics_for_the_Wuhan_Coronavirus_nCov-2019_Supercomputer-Based_Docking_to_the_Viral_S_Protein_and_Human_ACE2_Interface/11871402/4
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts