Manli Wang, Ruiyuan Cao, Leike Zhang
Xinglou Yang, Jia Liu, Mingyue Xu, Zhengli Shi, Zhihong Hu, Wu Zhong, Gengfu Xiao
2020 · Cell Research
Original HN comments, with labels from simple text rules. A label describes the whole comment and may miss context or irony. Read the discussion to make up your own mind. About the labels
11 selected excerpts · 11 total mentions
Didier Raoult was the original person who received western popular media coverage for it (in early March 2020) It had been part of the scientific conversation for over a month before his involvement, eg https://www.nature.com/articles/s41422-020-0282-0
Furthermore, the studies on chloroquine started at least a month before the US president ever mentioned hydroxycholoroquine in mid March. E.g. this one from early Feb: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41422-020-0282-0 So the research is not only being conducted because of the US president's promotion.
Notably on Feb 4th China announced their researchers were recommending testing chloroquine, about a month and a half(?) before Trump mentioned it: http://www.whiov.ac.cn/kyjz_105338/202002/t20200204_5497136.... https://www.nytimes.com/2020/02/06/health/coronavirus-treatm... https://www.nature.com/articles/s41422-020-0282-0 This was the original study which I believe influenced the French study and Dr. Zelenko (who seemed to be the nexus to Trump). The UK banned export of CQ around Feb 26th (I believe the first country to do so): https://ihsmarkit.com/research-analysis/uk-bans-parallel-exp... From Google's custom date searches is looks like Trump first mentioned it in a press conference on March 19th: https://twitter.com/cspan/status/1240672025989001221
Didier is very real. "According to the analysis of the publications from 2007 to 2013 ... Didier Raoult appears at the top of the European classification (including Israel) with 18,128 citations.... He totalizes more than 2,300 indexed publications..." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Didier_Raoult Chloroquine is very real: This Feb 20, 2020 Nature>Cell Research paper mentions the efficacy of chlorquine: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41422-020-0282-0
This is old news by this time. As I commented on previous threads. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22534339 Yes chloroquine has been shown effective in vitro (https://www.nature.com/articles/s41422-020-0282-0). Yes hydroxichloroquine has been shown effective in vitro very recently as well (https://academic.oup.com/cid/advance-article/doi/10.1093/cid...). Yes both compounds are already actively being used and approved for use by Asian and EU countries against Covid19: Here are the Netherlands treatment guidelines (in Dutch): https://lci.rivm.nl/covid-19/bijlage/medicamenteuze-behandel... Here are the Italy treatment guidelines (in Italian):…
http://www.simit.org/medias/1555-covid19-linee-guida-trattam... How they found out about it: https://www.jqknews.com/news/388543-The_novel_coronavirus_pn... Approval and recommendation of the chinese: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32075365-expert-consensus-on... https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32074550-breakthrough-chloro... I don't think there is much doubt left about it's efficiency at this stage. Hydroxichloroquine is much safer than chloroquine and it's just a 5 day course at pretty low dosage (2x400mg on day1 as a charge dose, then 2x200mg for 4 days). More importantly, the drug is readily available, mass producded and doesn't cost 300$+/box like lopinavir/ritonavir. This drug isn't also 100% experimental and probably in the 3 digits rangs like remdesivir. The only real issue is that with a lot of doctors using it, the temporary shortage of the drug could be troublesome for many Lupus patients around the world who depend on Plaquenil for their management.
We really should be focusing on chloroquine, but it looks like we're not because there's no money in it since it is cheap and has been readily available for decades... https://www.nature.com/articles/s41422-020-0282-0 https://www.researchgate.net/post/Chloroquine_as_an_effectiv...
In particular, chloroquine has been shown to be helpful in treatment and is readily available in developing countries since it's used as a malaria medicine (and there are replacements available in developed countries). in vitro: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41422-020-0282-0 practice: https://www.jstage.jst.go.jp/article/bst/advpub/0/advpub_202...
It's interesting that chloroquine, an old anti malarial drug is "highly effective in the control of 2019-nCoV infection in vitro". I wonder if anyone's doing a study to see if that stops it spreading in the real world? I almost thought I could do a double blind study myself with a website and a bunch of chloroquine pills and aspirins and randomly post volunteers one or the other. Dunno if the post works in Wuhan though. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41422-020-0282-0.pdf
"Chloroquine is a cheap and a safe drug that has been used for more than 70 years and, therefore, it is potentially clinically applicable against the 2019-nCoV." https://www.nature.com/articles/s41422-020-0282-0 [04 February 2020, https://doi.org/10.1038/s41422-020-0282-0] A generic anti-malarial on WHO's Essential Medicines list, about 100 times more expensive in the US (WP)
I don't understand why they aren't trialing chloroquine. Isn't it more readily available and cheaper? https://www.nature.com/articles/s41422-020-0282-0
That sounds promising. I see in in vitro trials chloroquine also seems to work which would be handy as it's cheap and widely available https://www.asbmb.org/asbmb-today/science/020620/could-an-ol... which would be. In fact I may even take some prophylactically for my Singapore jaunt. You don't even need a prescription to buy it in the UK >Our findings reveal that remdesivir and chloroquine are highly effective in the control of 2019-nCoV infection in vitro. Since these compounds have been used in human patients with a safety track record and shown to be effective against various ailments, we suggest that they should be assessed in human patients suffering from the novel coronavirus disease. (Conclusion from the letter to Nature https://www.nature.com/articles/s41422-020-0282-0.pdf)
More from the same topics.
Dan Tong, David J. Farnham, Lei Duan +4
Abstract If future net-zero emissions energy systems rely heavily on solar and wind resources, spatial and temporal mismatches between resource availability and electricity demand may challenge system reliability.
Steven M. Paul, Daniel S. Mytelka, Christopher T. Dunwiddie +4