Sciencemadness Discussion Board

Hydroxychloroquine, could an amateur make this stuff ?

Pyro_cat - 30-7-2020 at 07:23


I just saw on the news about censorship of some doctors for promoting this stuff. The politics lately are so insane.

I watched the video, I don't know what to think. The fact that it was censored actually gave it more credibility somewhat.

Screw politics, this is a science forum. My question is could an amateur make this stuff ?










[Edited on 30-7-2020 by Pyro_cat]

unionised - 30-7-2020 at 07:30

Quote: Originally posted by Pyro_cat  

I just saw on the news about censorship of some doctors for promoting this stuff. The politics lately are so insane.

I watched the video, I don't know what to think. The fact that it was censored actually gave it more credibility somewhat.


[Edited on 30-7-2020 by Pyro_cat]

Why would you bother?
As you say, this is a science forum, and the science is quite clear; the stuff does not work as a treatment for covid.

A bunch or extremists was saying that people should take it- but they aren't saying that because it works; they are just trying to make it look as if there's a "conspiracy of silence". If people think the science isn't clear then they won't blame the politicians for not following it.

It was censored because it was false and dangerous.

Pyro_cat - 30-7-2020 at 07:43

"It was censored because it was false and dangerous."

Censorship is dangerous too.

I think instead of censorship they should have been overwhelmingly called out on their bull.

Kind of how science is done. Like those flat earthers, like no look at the evidence we live on a globe dummies.





JnPS - 30-7-2020 at 08:25

Making the 7-chloroquinoline would be a project in its own right but probably feasible via a skraup reaction and then chlorinating. I'm not sure how you would direct the aromatic chlorination though. There might be a different reagent combination to form the quinoline ring with the chlorine all at once.

I'd have to give more thought on attaching that side functionality but I have class to get to.

It would "probably" be do-able with enough thought & effort but like unionised said, why bother? Especially since anything made in an amateur setting would be moronic to try to use as a home-brewed medication even if there was science to back up its effectiveness.

Fyndium - 30-7-2020 at 08:40

As a project? Possibly.

As a medicine for the C? Nope.

Home-brewed medication, if synthesized correctly and analyzed, would not be an issue, if it were effective for the purpose and alternative scenario would be a deterioration of health. For example, in USA and many other undeveloped countries where access to healthcare is limited and highly capitalized, this would be a scenario and there are actual start-ups that attempt to find a way to produce cheap insulin to combat the monopoly. In Europe, where taxpayers will pay the bill for(everything), not so.

ShotBored - 30-7-2020 at 10:53

Quote: Originally posted by Pyro_cat  
"It was censored because it was false and dangerous."

Censorship is dangerous too.

I think instead of censorship they should have been overwhelmingly called out on their bull.

Kind of how science is done. Like those flat earthers, like no look at the evidence we live on a globe dummies.






@unionised agree with everything you say

@Pyro_cat But it has been called out overwhelmingly. Because a handful of rogue doctors are claiming it works somehow outweighs the thousands of doctors that are saying it doesn't, not to mention the studies that show non-efficacy in treatment with it against Covid-19?

The heart of the issue in my opinion lies with the fact that many elements are actively working at discrediting scientific institutions around the world and fueling populist, anti-intellectual sentiment. It doesn't matter how much evidence is presented to these peoples, they simply refuse to alter their preconceptions. Doesn't it seem fishy to you that many well-established and well supported topics, such as climate change, vaccination, legitimacy of covid and/or its treatments, are seemingly always under attack by the same groups of people?

As far as the science goes, there is a few patents out there that detail the synthesis. Typically starts with 4,7-dichlorquinoline and N'-ethyl-N'-β-hydroxyethyl-1,4-pentadiamine. React with KI in phenol for 18 hours and attach a phosphate. Yield is only 35% though and reagents would seem difficult to get.

https://patents.google.com/patent/WO2010027150A2/en

Chemi Pharma - 30-7-2020 at 13:10

I'm not a flat earther, but I think that there is a lot of misunderstanding around hydroxychloroquine usage. To date, I have not seen a serious study that was even conclusive about this drug not working for covid-19.

Some scientists have conducted experiments with dosages below the ideal and others above it, causing the famous side effects such as cardiac arrhythmia that the media loves to report. It appears that this has become more of a political clash between Donald Trump supporters and his opponents. Serious mistake mixing politics with science.

I do not like the President of my country too and he supports the use of hydroxychloroquine, but I must admit that there is a certain truth in admitting that its use in conjunction with azithromycin seems to be able to prevent the sequestration of hemoglobin iron ions by proteins of the virus, and prevent the development of opportunistic pneumonia, attenuating the respiratory insufficiency and alleviating the respiratory failure.

Not that it prevents infection or fights the virus. I do not believe that either, but look, since 2005 there have been respected studies published in the world journal of virology attesting to the promising results of its use against the family of the sars-cov virus. I am attaching such a study below.

As for its synthesis from raw chemical material, I am also attaching a very interesting and practical project for those brave who wish to venture into this synthesis.:D

Attachment: Chloroquine as an inibitor of SARS-COV infections.PDF (898kB)
This file has been downloaded 338 times

Attachment: Chloroquine synthesis.PDF (4.2MB)
This file has been downloaded 396 times

Eddie Current - 30-7-2020 at 13:17

Quote: Originally posted by Chemi Pharma  
I'm not a flat earther, but I think that there is a lot of misunderstanding around hydroxychloroquine usage. To date, I have not seen a serious study that was even conclusive about this drug not working for covid-19.

Some scientists have conducted experiments with dosages below the ideal and others above it, causing the famous side effects such as cardiac arrhythmia that the media loves to report. It appears that this has become more of a political clash between Donald Trump supporters and his opponents. Serious mistake mixing politics with science.

I do not like the President of my country too and he supports the use of hydroxychloroquine, but I must admit that there is a certain truth in admitting that its use in conjunction with azithromycin seems to be able to prevent the sequestration of hemoglobin iron ions by proteins of the virus, and prevent the development of opportunistic pneumonia, attenuating the respiratory insufficiency and alleviating the respiratory failure.

Not that it prevents infection or fights the virus. I do not believe that either, but look, since 2005 there have been respected studies published in the world journal of virology attesting to the promising results of its use against the family of the sars-cov virus. I am attaching such a study below.

As for its synthesis from raw chemical material, I am also attaching a very interesting and practical project for those brave who wish to venture into this synthesis.:D


I agree, politics and corporate interests have commandeered the discussion as there's billions of dollars at stake.

Chemi Pharma - 30-7-2020 at 13:41

@Eddie, thank you for your support.

By the way, the last document that I've attached is about the synthesis of the intermediate 4,7 dichloroquinoline. I am attaching now the second part that deals with the synthesis of the other intermediate molecule, 5-(ethyl(2-hydroxyethyl)amino)pentan-2-one, it's oxime and amine, that reacts with the first resulting in the final hydroxychloroquine compound.



Attachment: Chloroquine from 4,7-dichloro quinoline- step2.PDF (371kB)
This file has been downloaded 338 times


ShotBored - 30-7-2020 at 13:42

Quote: Originally posted by Chemi Pharma  
I'm not a flat earther, but I think that there is a lot of misunderstanding around hydroxychloroquine usage. To date, I have not seen a serious study that was even conclusive about this drug not working for covid-19.

Some scientists have conducted experiments with dosages below the ideal and others above it, causing the famous side effects such as cardiac arrhythmia that the media loves to report. It appears that this has become more of a political clash between Donald Trump supporters and his opponents. Serious mistake mixing politics with science.

I do not like the President of my country too and he supports the use of hydroxychloroquine, but I must admit that there is a certain truth in admitting that its use in conjunction with azithromycin seems to be able to prevent the sequestration of hemoglobin iron ions by proteins of the virus, and prevent the development of opportunistic pneumonia, attenuating the respiratory insufficiency and alleviating the respiratory failure.

Not that it prevents infection or fights the virus. I do not believe that either, but look, since 2005 there have been respected studies published in the world journal of virology attesting to the promising results of its use against the family of the sars-cov virus. I am attaching such a study below.

As for its synthesis from raw chemical material, I am also attaching a very interesting and practical project for those brave who wish to venture into this synthesis.:D





I guess the nitpicky scientist in me would argue that this study was conducted in 2005 and suggested the possibility of using chloroquines for prevention. Here are three sources that have come out very recently that kind of negate the popular beliefs surrounding its use (I'm not gonna include that Lancet paper since it's been retracted)

Press Release from research group in UK regarding Hydroxychloroquinine use in infected patients. Findings: "No clinical benefit from use of hydroxychloroquinine in hospitalised patients with COVID-19" (https://www.recoverytrial.net/files/hcq-recovery-statement-0...)

University of Minnesota paper about whether hydroxychloroquinine is an effective Covid-19 chemoprophylactic. Findings: no statistical difference in infection rates between placebo and test groups (https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa2016638)

Meta-Study using 24 different studies about hydroxychloroquinine to treat or prevent Covid-19. Findings: "insufficient and often conflicting evidence on the benefits and harms of using hydroxychloroquine or chloroquine to treat COVID-19"

ShotBored - 30-7-2020 at 13:44

oops forgot to link final paper: https://www.acpjournals.org/doi/10.7326/M20-2496

unionised - 30-7-2020 at 13:52

Quote: Originally posted by Pyro_cat  

I think instead of censorship they should have been overwhelmingly called out on their bull.

Kind of how science is done. Like those flat earthers, like no look at the evidence we live on a globe dummies.




Have you not noticed?
That didn't work. The flat Earthers are still here.

Now, it hardly matters if someone thinks (or claims to think) that the world is flat.
But ingesting poisonous chemicals in the forlorn hope of treating a disease will kill people.

unionised - 30-7-2020 at 13:58

Quote: Originally posted by Chemi Pharma  
To date, I have not seen a serious study that was even conclusive about this drug not working for covid-19.



How hard did you look?
This was headline news.
https://www.who.int/news-room/detail/04-07-2020-who-disconti...

And it says "These interim trial results show that hydroxychloroquine and lopinavir/ritonavir produce little or no reduction in the mortality of hospitalized COVID-19 patients when compared to standard of care."

Eddie Current - 30-7-2020 at 16:32

Quote: Originally posted by ShotBored  


Meta-Study using 24 different studies about hydroxychloroquinine to treat or prevent Covid-19. Findings: "insufficient and often conflicting evidence on the benefits and harms of using hydroxychloroquine or chloroquine to treat COVID-19"


This basically supports my premise.

I wouldn't take anything in the mainstream media or politicized organizations like the WHO that seriously. Go to the science literature for your information.

Folks who post on a forum like this should already know better.

Whilst on this topic, Remdesivir is a very clever molecule worthy of closer examination, and I am particularly impressed with the insertion design strategy (click on the numbers in the interactive image):

https://www.asbmb.org/asbmb-today/science/031720/what-makes-...

Morgan - 30-7-2020 at 17:49

You wonder how Stella Immanuel could be a doctor or how anyone would use her for a reference.
https://www.inquirer.com/opinion/stella-immanuel-trump-covid...

[Edited on 31-7-2020 by Morgan]

clearly_not_atara - 30-7-2020 at 21:08

I would like to highlight something regarding the "scientists" who are pushing this hydroxychloroquine "prophylactic antiviral" hypothesis.

Here's Harvey Risch, the Yale professor who wrote an article in Newsweek about hydroxychloroquine. As evidenced by the fact that A: he is still a professor at Yale and B: he is allowed to publish in Newsweek we conclude that C: he is not being censored. The date of the Newsweek article is July 23.
https://www.newsweek.com/key-defeating-covid-19-already-exis...

You will notice in the article that he references a paper which makes a number of drastic claims about hydroxychloroquine. He references those claims in the article; for example: "These seven studies include: an additional 400 high-risk patients treated by Dr. Vladimir Zelenko, with zero deaths..."

That study is indeed referenced in the paper, published May 27:
http://www.breggin.com/coronavirus/HCQ/Risch2020.pdf

"Symptomatic patients presenting to Dr. Zelenko were treated with five days of HCQ+AZ+zinc sulfate if they were considered high-risk, as evidenced by one or moreof: age 60 years or older; high-risk comorbidities; body-mass index>30; mild shortness of breath at presentation. Patients were considered to have Covid-19 based on clinical grounds and started treatment as soon as possible following symptom onset, rather than delaying for test results before starting treatment. Of the 1450 patients, 1045 were classified as low-risk and sent home to recuperate without active medications. No deaths or hospitalizations occurred among them. Of the remaining 405 treated with the combined regimen, 6were ultimately hospitalized and 2 died. No cardiac arrhythmias were noted in these 405 patients."

You will immediately notice the first problem: actually, there were two deaths. When Prof. Risch is writing in a medical journal, he gets the number of deaths right. In Newsweek, he fudges.

The other problem was highlighted by Vincent Fleury of the University of Paris, in his comment on the paper, published in the same journal on July 20:
https://academic.oup.com/aje/article/doi/10.1093/aje/kwaa155... (PDF is free!)

"In Dr. Zelenko’s cohort, the situation is less clear becauseas far as we know, the patients were not actually tested..."

We also know that Risch read Fleury's comment, because he also published a Response to the comment, included in the same issue on July 20:
https://academic.oup.com/aje/article/doi/10.1093/aje/kwaa156... (PDF is free!)

You will notice particularly that Zelenko's cohort is not mentioned in Risch's response to Fleury that was published in the medical journals. This is because he knows he doesn't have a leg to stand on. When Risch is talking to his colleagues who can call him on his bullshit, he knows exactly when to stop talking.

But when he's writing in Newsweek, Risch is happy to peddle the same old bullshit that he got called on last month. He doesn't care -- he wants to be famous. There are many other such incongruities between the Newsweek article and the scientific record.

That is who is pushing hydroxychloroquine.

unionised - 31-7-2020 at 01:57

Quote: Originally posted by Eddie Current  


I wouldn't take anything in the mainstream media or politicized organizations like the WHO that seriously.

If you think the WHO is "politicised" try "America's Frontline Doctors " who are sponsored by the Tea Party movement.
That's what started this thread.

Meanwhile, Trump is defunding WHO because they refuse to do his bidding.
If they did what a politician told them to, that would actually be political.
They aren't.

Chemi Pharma - 31-7-2020 at 03:27

Despite the contrary opinion of some members, I have already imported the USP grade inputs and made medicinal pills of hydroxychloroquine sulfate and azithromycin, which are properly packaged and kept in a bottle inside the refrigerator.

I haven't caught covid-19 yet and I hope not to because I am quarantined at home and my 23 years old son is the one who goes out shopping. However, if I or someone in my family gets it, before a vaccine has been developed, I already have the correct dosages based on several studies demonized by some members: 450mg of hydroxychloroquine sulfate and 500mg of azithromycin daily from the onset of the first symptoms of fever.

Against cardiac arrhythmia, which I do not believe occurs with this dosage, the use of a beta blocker such as propanolol is enough.

[Edited on 31-7-2020 by Chemi Pharma]

Eddie Current - 31-7-2020 at 04:25

Quote: Originally posted by unionised  
Quote: Originally posted by Eddie Current  


I wouldn't take anything in the mainstream media or politicized organizations like the WHO that seriously.

If you think the WHO is "politicised" try "America's Frontline Doctors " who are sponsored by the Tea Party movement.
That's what started this thread.

Meanwhile, Trump is defunding WHO because they refuse to do his bidding.
If they did what a politician told them to, that would actually be political.
They aren't.


Bureaucratic (WHO) and corporate swine.

I have no time for any of them.

clearly_not_atara - 31-7-2020 at 08:26

Quote: Originally posted by unionised  

And it says "These interim trial results show that hydroxychloroquine and lopinavir/ritonavir produce little or no reduction in the mortality of hospitalized COVID-19 patients when compared to standard of care."


I think these are more convincing:
"Baseline use of hydroxychloroquine in systemic lupus erythematosus does not preclude SARS-CoV-2 infection and severe COVID-19"
A retrospective analysis of patients taking HCQ for SLE who later developed COVID-19. Shows, at the very least, that any suggestion that HCQ is a "cure" is absurd. Despite being on HCQ for the entire duration of infection, these patients still developed COVID-19, in some cases severe infections.

These studies attempt to assess the actual concentration of hydroxychloroquine in plasma of COVID-19 patients treated with the drug. We find similar conclusions:

"Effect of Systemic Inflammatory Response to SARS-CoV-2 on Lopinavir and Hydroxychloroquine Plasma Concentrations"
"HCQ was shown to have a low RLTEC(i.e.,0.11–0.34), indicating that HCQ levels achieved in vivodo not result in adequate clinical activity against SARS-CoV-2(33)."

and here's (33):
"Connecting hydroxychloroquine in vitro antiviral activity to in vivo concentration for prediction of antiviral effect: a critical step in treating COVID-19 patients"
"As a result, the ratio between in vivo intracellular concentration and EC50_intracellular would still be low, suggesting low potential for in vivo antiviral activityat doses that would not be rate-limiting from the standpoint of toxicity."

In other words, hydroxychloroquine does not reach sufficient in vivo concentration to replicate the antiviral effects seen in vitro at levels which are safe for human dosing.

Favipiravir has some evidence of efficacy. Remdesivir has some evidence of efficacy. Dexamethasone has excellent evidence of efficacy. But conspiracy theories are more fun, which is our new standard for "true".

[Edited on 31-7-2020 by clearly_not_atara]

macckone - 31-7-2020 at 09:07

Dexamethasone and supportive therapy is currently the best treatment.
It isn't ideal because you are giving an immuno-suppresant to someone with a raging infection.
Remdesivir is less effective than Dexamethasone and causes liver damage (degree of damage varies significantly by patient).

Hydroxychloroquine has had a number of double blind studies that didn't show it to be an effective treatment.
There are retrospective studies and unblinded studies where a variety of other medications are used as well that are far from scientific.
The actual blinded studies don't indicate effectiveness of HCQ or azithromycin
The reason it gained traction at the beginning is because of politics not science.
And the reason for the political push was the financial interests of the politicians.

And as clearly_not_atara stated, humans can't take the levels of HCQ that were shown effective in a petri dish.
All of that said azithromycin is useful and necessary in covid patients to prevent secondary infections while on a ventilator.
It is the gold standard for that purpose, so it is incorrect to say azithromycin doesn't save lives but studies have shown
azithromycin is less effective in covid patients than it should be. It doesn't improve outcomes as well as it does in the flu and other respiratory viruses requiring ventilators. This indicates the possibility that Covid is either doing something funky to the T-Cells or otherwise neutralizing azithromycin. Indications are that covid is messing with the immune system directly.

Eddie Current - 2-8-2020 at 15:02

Quote: Originally posted by macckone  
Dexamethasone and supportive therapy is currently the best treatment.
It isn't ideal because you are giving an immuno-suppresant to someone with a raging infection.
Remdesivir is less effective than Dexamethasone and causes liver damage (degree of damage varies significantly by patient).

Hydroxychloroquine has had a number of double blind studies that didn't show it to be an effective treatment.
There are retrospective studies and unblinded studies where a variety of other medications are used as well that are far from scientific.
The actual blinded studies don't indicate effectiveness of HCQ or azithromycin
The reason it gained traction at the beginning is because of politics not science.
And the reason for the political push was the financial interests of the politicians.

And as clearly_not_atara stated, humans can't take the levels of HCQ that were shown effective in a petri dish.
All of that said azithromycin is useful and necessary in covid patients to prevent secondary infections while on a ventilator.
It is the gold standard for that purpose, so it is incorrect to say azithromycin doesn't save lives but studies have shown
azithromycin is less effective in covid patients than it should be. It doesn't improve outcomes as well as it does in the flu and other respiratory viruses requiring ventilators. This indicates the possibility that Covid is either doing something funky to the T-Cells or otherwise neutralizing azithromycin. Indications are that covid is messing with the immune system directly.


ACE-2 is expressed throughout most of the body and therefore the differing complexities of the immune system make identification of the underlying pathology very difficult.



ace-2.gif - 51kB

Tsjerk - 3-8-2020 at 00:12

Quote: Originally posted by Eddie Current  

ACE-2 is expressed throughout most of the body and therefore the differing complexities of the immune system make identification of the underlying pathology very difficult.



There probably isn't a single disease of which the complete pathology is easy to identify. What are you trying to say?

[Edited on 3-8-2020 by Tsjerk]

Eddie Current - 3-8-2020 at 15:51

I'm stating that the viruses binding affinity for ACE-2 and the expression of the enzyme throughout the body most likely contributes to the widely varying pathological outcomes.

ShotBored - 4-8-2020 at 05:27

Quote: Originally posted by Eddie Current  
I'm stating that the viruses binding affinity for ACE-2 and the expression of the enzyme throughout the body most likely contributes to the widely varying pathological outcomes.


@Eddie Current you ignored my other articles when claiming that that supports your premise. The articles together are to be taken as a array of high-profile studies that have shown that hydroxychloroquinine (HCQ) is ineffective, that studies that support it's use are often conflicting and full of shitty science. @clearly_not_atara's other links further drive this point home.

The takeaway: good science trumps bad science. That's why we know that modern vaccines containing mercurous compounds do not cause mercury poisoning. And it's why we know that HCQ does not treat or prevent Covid-19. Almost every "doctor" that is claiming that HCQ is effective has some level of quackery or controversy involved in their credentials or questions about their morality.

To me, i think they are mostly charlatans that are trying to increase their public presence with neo-populists for economic gain. Lotta Andrew Wakefield types hanging around the Trump office nowadays.

ShotBored - 4-8-2020 at 05:31

Quote: Originally posted by Eddie Current  
Quote: Originally posted by unionised  
Quote: Originally posted by Eddie Current  


I wouldn't take anything in the mainstream media or politicized organizations like the WHO that seriously.

If you think the WHO is "politicised" try "America's Frontline Doctors " who are sponsored by the Tea Party movement.
That's what started this thread.

Meanwhile, Trump is defunding WHO because they refuse to do his bidding.
If they did what a politician told them to, that would actually be political.
They aren't.


Bureaucratic (WHO) and corporate swine.

I have no time for any of them.


This is a political argument statement, not a scientific one. WHO puts out good science that is widely regarded by intellectuals across the world. The only one's who seem to be railing against them currently are the "anti-intellectuals".

EDIT: I fucked up the quotations

[Edited on 4-8-2020 by ShotBored]

Pyro_cat - 5-8-2020 at 12:40

So its not easy to make.


The left vs right thing has become such large mass of BS that its created its own gravitational field in sucks in and divides every issue. Nothing can escape it.

Now its the mask vs no mask people.

Its all bull https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Package-deal_fallacy




macckone - 6-8-2020 at 10:44

Pyro_cat:

You came in with a political agenda, not a scientific one.
The science is clear that HCQ does not work.
Dexamethasone is the drug of choice.

HCQ is not hard to make but it probably isn't a good starter synthesis.
It can literally be bought at fish stores for treating parasites.
But you have to get the dose right as it has killed people already.
And yes the stuff at fish stores is the same as the medicine just very concentrated as it has to be diluted to be used in a fish tank.

Chemi Pharma - 6-8-2020 at 12:46

Quote: Originally posted by macckone  
Pyro_cat:

You came in with a political agenda, not a scientific one.
The science is clear that HCQ does not work.
Dexamethasone is the drug of choice.

HCQ is not hard to make but it probably isn't a good starter synthesis.
It can literally be bought at fish stores for treating parasites.
But you have to get the dose right as it has killed people already.
And yes the stuff at fish stores is the same as the medicine just very concentrated as it has to be diluted to be used in a fish tank.


No @macckone, it's not the same sold at fish stores. This is desinformation. At fish stores you can get Chloroquine phosphate, very toxic for the human been. The usual daily doses against malaria is only 150 mg. Cause this some doctors are prescribing hydroxychloroquine sulfate, much less toxic and with daily dosage of 400mg.

Deaths from the misuse of chloroquine phosphate is knowed and US have a case where a couple of old persons ingested the compound directly from a box of a fish store with a spoon and both were poisoned and passed away.

Hydroxychloroquine sulfate, by the way, don't cause deaths with a dosage equal or below 600mg daily. And the only risk with a higher dosage is cardiac arritmia that can be prevented with a betablocker such as Propanolol.

It's funny. A medicine that has been taked by thousand people in the last past 70 years against malaria with no significant complications now is demonized by the midia just to screw up with Donald Trump.

macckone - 6-8-2020 at 20:49

Quote: Originally posted by Chemi Pharma  
Quote: Originally posted by macckone  
Pyro_cat:

You came in with a political agenda, not a scientific one.
The science is clear that HCQ does not work.
Dexamethasone is the drug of choice.

HCQ is not hard to make but it probably isn't a good starter synthesis.
It can literally be bought at fish stores for treating parasites.
But you have to get the dose right as it has killed people already.
And yes the stuff at fish stores is the same as the medicine just very concentrated as it has to be diluted to be used in a fish tank.


No @macckone, it's not the same sold at fish stores. This is desinformation. At fish stores you can get Chloroquine phosphate, very toxic for the human been. The usual daily doses against malaria is only 150 mg. Cause this some doctors are prescribing hydroxychloroquine sulfate, much less toxic and with daily dosage of 400mg.

Deaths from the misuse of chloroquine phosphate is knowed and US have a case where a couple of old persons ingested the compound directly from a box of a fish store with a spoon and both were poisoned and passed away.

Hydroxychloroquine sulfate, by the way, don't cause deaths with a dosage equal or below 600mg daily. And the only risk with a higher dosage is cardiac arritmia that can be prevented with a betablocker such as Propanolol.

It's funny. A medicine that has been taked by thousand people in the last past 70 years against malaria with no significant complications now is demonized by the midia just to screw up with Donald Trump.

Yes you can get HCQ sulfate at aquarium supply stores. It is preferable to the phosphate form because it is less toxic to fish as well as humans. The procedure is diluting the substance with water to prepare a solution, then adding an amount of the solution to the tank based on number of gallons. A teaspoon of HCQ sulfate would also be fatal. That is about 5g (give or take depending on density).

HCQ sulfate
The dosing for acute malaria is 2000mg over 48 hours.
The prophylactic for malaria is 400mg once a week.

CQ phosphate dosing
Prophylatic dose is 300mg once a week.

The proposed dosing for covid was 200mg twice a day for 2 weeks.
The proposed dosing was still short of the required serum levels to achieve the level that was inhibitory to covid in vitro.
And it is significantly more than is used for malaria.
And for the record both forms are still being tested in trials.
And no blinded trials have found HCQ effective.
The most touted study also used dexamethasone to treat some patients and was not blinded so it
a) has a known interferent
b) was not a blinded trial

Finally the HCQ isn't recommended for people with heart problems. 70+% of covid patients develop some degree of heart damage (even asymptomatic ones). So the disease literally causes a problem that contraindicates the drug. This is science. Dexamethasone works, HCQ and CQ do not. It is cheaper and doesn't cause heart issues. However all three interfere with the immune response to some degree. Which is why HCQ and Dexamethasone are used to treat various autoimmune problems.

https://www.rxlist.com/plaquenil-drug.htm#dosage

https://www.fda.gov/regulatory-information/search-fda-guidan...


zed - 10-8-2020 at 04:06

Medical Doctors have been known to promote all sorts of silly shit. They once were trumpeting that AIDS was caused by the effects of excessive semen intake, and poppers. Seriously, I was in SF, at the time of the AIDS emergence, and whacko theories were adopted as fact, by the local doc's, and plastered in the headlines of the local newspapers.

Local scientists knew these theories were doubtful, but reporters weren't asking them.

To a large degree, Medical doctors are not scientists; judge their pronouncements accordingly.

I studied research methodology. It can be quite difficult to figure out what is really going on. Especially so, when many studies are managed by paid advocates.

Plasma figures to be a helpful treatment. Dexamethazone dampens destructive auto-immune reactions, that are a serious hazard. Remdesavir, is manufactured by the devil. Well, in a corporate sense. I have little trust in the developer. If ever there was big Pharma without scruples, Gilead might be a foremost representative. They have taken pills that cost a dollar apiece to manufacture, and priced them at 1,000.00
dollars each. Somebody says Remdesavir works. I'd need to see more data. The country of India, measured them for size, and then refused to grant a patent for Gilead product Harvoni,
Cost was 1000 dollars per tablet in U.S., yet in a short period of time, it was available for about 10.00/ tablet to Indians.

[Edited on 10-8-2020 by zed]

macckone - 10-8-2020 at 07:22

Zed,
Remdesivir is not a miracle drug.
It is known to cause liver damage.
It decreased recovery times and had a significant reduction in deaths (more than 5%).
It will take time to determine if it is cost effective. My gut says no.
Dexamethasone seems much more cost effective, greater reduction in deaths and less than $1 per pill.
But remdesivir works on a different mechanism (stopping viral replication) so the two can be stacked.
Remdesivir has a significant shortage with Gilead allowing foreign countries to figure out how to make it themselves and only charging nominal royalty fees because they don't want it declared 'critical' and the patents voided overseas.

zed - 11-8-2020 at 05:21

" The first results from the NIAID study in hospitalized patients with COVID-19 showed that remdesivir shortened time to recovery by an average of four days. Taking the example of the United States, earlier hospital discharge would result in hospital savings of approximately $12,000 per patient. Even just considering these immediate savings to the healthcare system alone, we can see the potential value that remdesivir provides. This is before we factor in the direct benefit to those patients who may have a shorter stay in the hospital." Gilead.

"In normal circumstances, we would price a medicine according to the value it provides."

That means, if we have it, and you need it to live... The sky is the limit, in terms of price!

Now Gilead, was generous with initial doses of the drug. True! Seems they had supplies on hand.
They were hoping it might be an effective treatment for Ebola, and it wasn't. What to do with it all?
Well, try it out on something else.

But perhaps I am prejudiced. I'm still mad at them about Harvoni.


macckone - 12-8-2020 at 09:12

zed,
I don't think you are prejudice.
Most drug manufacturers are money grubbers that would sell their mother for a buck.
Welcome to end stage capitalism.
One of the reasons hydroxychloroquine was hyped was because certain people invested in it.
Not because it was effective or safe at the required dosages.

Remdesivir does have benefits and it costs way more than a buck to make but nowhere near the $3000 being charged for a course of treatment (assuming you could get it which you probably can't due to shortages).