Coronavirus (COVID-19)

[mission27]

6 minutes ago, mistakey said:

ah the ol "i definitely want people to take my "opinions" seriously but in order to have an out ill throw my comedic shtick in there so i can claim victory when challenged" argument

No, we are saying people should have the common sense to take something with a grain of salt that is prefaced by a daily Taylor Swift quote and a giant picture of a goat

Its possible to be thoughtful without being an MIT PhD epidemiologist

[mistakey]

1 minute ago, mission27 said:

No, we are saying people should have the common sense to take something with a grain of salt that is prefaced by a daily Taylor Swift quote and a giant picture of a goat

Its possible to be thoughtful without being an MIT PhD epidemiologist

and im telling you that people are taking your **** as legit, which you have even acknowledged, so what is it?

[TVScout]

2 hours ago, Shanedorf said:

Then the next step is to see how much you'd have to dose a human in order to have enough of the drug deep in the lung tissues to show an effect. And unfortunately, the doses required are much higher than acceptable given the known side effects.

That is the reply I was looking for. 

The risks involved tells me that drug class should be second line or even third line reserved for patients who are forced onto mechanical breathing and after all other methods have failed. The mortality rate there  is up to 80% and heroic efforts are appropriate.

[mission27]

2 minutes ago, mistakey said:

and im telling you that people are taking your **** as legit, which you have even acknowledged, so what is it?

It is not a forward looking epidemiological projection of the coronavirus outbreak that has been subjected to peer review.  I think thats pretty obvious from the goat and the smugness, but if anyone is confused by that, by all means I'm happy to clear that up 

That doesn't mean its not a "legit" thoughtful and educated opinion

[ramssuperbowl99]

4 minutes ago, TVScout said:

That is the reply I was looking for. 

The risks involved tells me that drug class should be second line or even third line reserved for patients who are forced onto mechanical breathing and after all other methods have failed. The mortality rate there  is up to 80% and heroic efforts are appropriate.

There are no bronze medals in drug development. Based on what we know, this is dangerous and shouldn't be given to any COVID-19 patient.

[pwny]

I think the issue with it is a lot of people are coming in here and are trusting what they see. People come in the thread and ask things that many of us have discussed and come to conclusions on almost a month ago, because they’re just finding the thread or whatever.

People come in and they see what appears to be something scientific posted in an easy to digest format and they probably don’t know that it’s not really supposed to be taken seriously. That’s why we get one person posting it to another forum, another person saying they thought it was completely serious, another person asking for methodology, and then a fourth person who knows it’s bunk arguing that people need to know it’s bunk.

If you want to post them to pass the time, that’s fine by me. We all need to do stuff to help keep us sane through all of this. But we probably do need to do a better job of informing those who haven’t been following the shtick for 10 years or reading the discussion in here for the 300 total pages across all threads that they’re for fun. Because clearly some people aren’t getting it, and it’s far too serious of a topic for something done in fun to be taken seriously by someone who just doesn’t understand what’s going on.

[WizeGuy]

22 minutes ago, Shanedorf said:

They left out the most important part of that sentence !

"Chloroquine is a potent inhibitor of SARS coronavirus infection and spread in cell culture"

We've talked about this one on a couple of occasions and let me re-iterate some additional context to what they are actually saying
Let's start with the fact that the paper was published in 2005, 15 years before SARS-COV2 was identified. So the paper is talking about non-COVID19 viruses from the same family - but not the current virus.

"We report, however, that chloroquine has strong antiviral effects on SARS-CoV infection of primate cells" 

Chloroquine and Hydroxychloroquine show anti-viral effects vs SARS-COV2 in cell culture ( aka test tubes or in vitro). And since they are already-approved drugs, its a potentially faster path to a treatment. So these were some of the first drugs tested out.

But having activity in a test tube is a Grand Canyon away from saying this is a viable therapeutic for humans vs corona. What has been seen in the human clinical studies is that the dose needed to achieve the anti-corona effects is much higher than what many humans can safely take. Anywhere between 25-33% of the patients who were given this med at anti-corona dose levels showed potentially fatal heart arrhythmia.

When you do an experiment in a cell culture/test tube, what you are learning is
qualitative: Does it kill the virus ?
quantitative: What dose is required to achieve that killing ? 

Then the next step is to see how much you'd have to dose a human in order to have enough of the drug deep in the lung tissues to show an effect. And unfortunately, the doses required are much higher than acceptable given the known side effects.

So for a large portion of the population, this is just not an acceptable risk/reward equation. Chloroquine / hydroxychloroquine may be used in some cases, they are not worthless. But unfortunately, they are not the answer we're looking for given the known safety issues

If I remember correctly the most common underlying medical issue in those dying from COVID-19 is high blood pressure and other cardiac issues. This doesn't seem like a good drug to give to those patients. 

[TVScout]

2 hours ago, ramssuperbowl99 said:

There are no bronze medals in drug development. Based on what we know, this is dangerous and shouldn't be given to any COVID-19 patient.

Look up "Lines of treatment".

[SlevinKelevra]

1 minute ago, WizeGuy said:

If I remember correctly the most common underlying medical issue in those dying from COVID-19 is high blood pressure and other cardiac issues. This doesn't seem like a good drug to give to those patients. 

actually a preprint that came out 1 or 2 days ago for the NYC area patients showed it was extreme obesity; but with that said, those 2 conditions are certainly highly coincident with extreme obesity.

 

[ramssuperbowl99]

1 minute ago, TVScout said:

Look up "Lines of treatment".

I'm aware that more than one treatment per condition exists. They aren't bronze medals; they're specific circumstances that are relevant changes to what treatment will produce the best results.

Giving a drug that causes heart problems to someone who is effectively suffocating is profoundly, profoundly stupid.

[TLO]

2 minutes ago, SlevinKelevra said:

actually a preprint that came out 1 or 2 days ago for the NYC area patients showed it was extreme obesity; but with that said, those 2 conditions are certainly highly coincident with extreme obesity.

 

Not surprising. The MoL has been pounding the table against obesity and the fat acceptance movement for years. Proven right once again. 

[mistakey]

7 minutes ago, pwny said:

I think the issue with it is a lot of people are coming in here and are trusting what they see. People come in the thread and ask things that many of us have discussed and come to conclusions on almost a month ago, because they’re just finding the thread or whatever.

People come in and they see what appears to be something scientific posted in an easy to digest format and they probably don’t know that it’s not really supposed to be taken seriously. That’s why we get one person posting it to another forum, another person saying they thought it was completely serious, another person asking for methodology, and then a fourth person who knows it’s bunk arguing that people need to know it’s bunk.

If you want to post them to pass the time, that’s fine by me. We all need to do stuff to help keep us sane through all of this. But we probably do need to do a better job of informing those who haven’t been following the shtick for 10 years or reading the discussion in here for the 300 total pages across all threads that they’re for fun. Because clearly some people aren’t getting it, and it’s far too serious of a topic for something done in fun to be taken seriously by someone who just doesn’t understand what’s going on.

pwny glem 2020

[TVScout]

2 hours ago, ramssuperbowl99 said:

might causes heart problems is potentially risky.

FIFY.

[ramssuperbowl99]

1 minute ago, TVScout said:

FIFY.

It took me 8 seconds to google this:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18061791

Quote

Retinal toxicity, neuromyopathy, and cardiac toxicity are recognized toxicities following prolonged use (1).

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18061791

Quote

 Hydroxychloroquine- and chloroquine-induced cardiomyopathy have well-described microscopic features, with the classic electron microscopic findings of myelin figures (myeloid bodies). We report on 2 new cases with novel findings.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3760572/

Quote

Cardiotoxicity is a rare but serious complication of hydroxychloroquine, a 4-aminoquinoline increasingly used in the treatment of rheumatological disorders. We describe typical clinical, echocardiographic, and histological features of this rare condition according to the currently available literature, illustrated with a recent new biopsy-proven case of hydroxychloroquine cardiotoxicity in a 52-year-old female with rheumatoid arthritis. Presentation in this case was of a rapidly progressive decompensated biventricular cardiomyopathy associated with recurrent biomarker elevations, conduction system disease, and possibly neuromyotoxicity. Death occurred suddenly 2 months after diagnosis despite drug discontinuation and clinical improvement.

 

 

[TVScout]

2 hours ago, ramssuperbowl99 said:

Cardiotoxicity is a rare............

Thank for proving my point.

Mechanical breathing fails 80% of the time. Mortality rates from PQT are not perfectly well known but are certainly far lower than 80%.

https://www.dicardiology.com/article/covid-19-hydroxychloroquine-treatment-brings-prolonged-qt-arrhythmia-issues

https://www.who.int/malaria/mpac/mpac-mar2017-erg-cardiotoxicity-report-session2.pdf