
A Covid Patient Goes Home After a Rare Double-Lung Transplant - jelliclesfarm
https://www.sfgate.com/news/article/COVID-patient-didn-t-recognize-body-after-double-15447359.php
======
Fjolsvith
And to think that HCQ treatment could have prevented this for the patient.
Shameful.

~~~
gus_massa
Do you have a link to a study that shows that HCQ can prevent this, using a
randomized control group and published in a peer review journal?

~~~
Fjolsvith
Social media took them all down.

~~~
shadowgovt
Irrelevant. HN is not "social media." You're making an extraordinary claim but
cannot provide extraordinary evidence.

~~~
Fjolsvith
[https://pjmedia.com/vodkapundit/2020/07/13/hcq-helps-
contain...](https://pjmedia.com/vodkapundit/2020/07/13/hcq-helps-contain-
covid-19-cases-new-evidence-and-a-major-retraction-n636361)

[https://www.henryford.com/news/2020/07/hydro-treatment-
study](https://www.henryford.com/news/2020/07/hydro-treatment-study)

[https://drive.google.com/file/d/1w6p_HqRXCrW0_wYNK7m_zpQLbBV...](https://drive.google.com/file/d/1w6p_HqRXCrW0_wYNK7m_zpQLbBVYcvVU/view)

~~~
shadowgovt
The biggest concern with these is they're observational, not controlled and
randomized. It's therefore risky to say they prove HCQ had positive effect,
because there's no control for, for example, the possibility that doctors are
prescribing HCQ to patients who would get better anyway. Detroit Free Press
has details (including why Henry Ford has backed off on the study).
[https://www.freep.com/story/news/health/2020/08/03/henry-
for...](https://www.freep.com/story/news/health/2020/08/03/henry-ford-fauci-
trump-hydroxychloroquine-covid-19/5573656002)

The average person doesn't understand the difference between these studies
(which, at most, indicate to the medical community that "hey, there's
correlation here, a full double-blind study is probably justified") and
double-blind, controlled studies (which can tease out confounding effects to
demonstrate a correlation is likely causal), which is why HCQ has become such
a controversial topic. At best, the answer to the question of whether HCQ
helps fight COVID-19 is "it might."

~~~
Fjolsvith
> The average person doesn't understand the difference between these studies

The average person relies on their personal medical doctor. If that doctor is
restricted from using all possible treatments by government bodies [1][2] or
drug suppliers [3], the COVID-19 fight is going to be drawn out and will
result in further deaths and hospitalizations.

You might argue that citation [2] proves the drug totally unsafe, but I
counter that the person's physician would be the only one able to judge this,
and not some panel of experts in DC.

Edit: If it can be safely used for malaria, lupus, and rheumatoid arthritis,
then it probably can be safely used for COVID-19.

1\. [https://aapsonline.org/why-are-some-governors-blocking-
physi...](https://aapsonline.org/why-are-some-governors-blocking-physicians-
attempts-to-save-lives-in-coronavirus-pandemic/)

2\. [https://www.fda.gov/drugs/drug-safety-and-
availability/fda-c...](https://www.fda.gov/drugs/drug-safety-and-
availability/fda-cautions-against-use-hydroxychloroquine-or-chloroquine-
covid-19-outside-hospital-setting-or)

3\. [https://www.ama-assn.org/system/files/2020-04/board-of-
pharm...](https://www.ama-assn.org/system/files/2020-04/board-of-pharmacy-
covid-19-prescribing.pdf)

~~~
shadowgovt
Government bodies restrict "all possible treatments" all the time, especially
when they are unproven and have side-effects. There's a whole FDA for that
purpose. It came into being, among other reasons, because history taught us
that those with a deadly disease are some of the most desperate of our fellow
citizens, and are vulnerable to becoming victims of charlatans and snake oil
salesmen. It is, perhaps, conservative in its risk estimates, but that
conservatism grows from experience paid for in blood and lives.

And it's not just the FDA. As you've observed, multiple standards bodies and
professional organizations have cautioned against off-label use of HCQ for
this purpose. These bodies don't all have the same incentives, when they agree
on a topic, It can be taken as a signal that their consensus is probably
correct.

And the larger concern isn't even doctors prescribing it. As citstion 2
indicates, the larger concern is the public deciding (partially based on the
words of our president... for all the concern that your first citation
expresses about politicians interfering with medical care, she sure seems to
give a pass on the most powerful man in the federal executive speaking well
beyond his experience and understanding) that this thing is a miracle cure and
trying to self-dose with black market acquired medication, which will increase
the death toll. Although, I suppose, it may have an unfortunate net positive
side effect for the community at large... Not all of those overdoses will make
their way to the hospital before they die, So there will be more resources
freed up to treat covid cases and other medical conditions.

That is not a solution we should pursue or encourage, of course. Not if our
goal is saving lives.

~~~
Fjolsvith
Perhaps you are right. A drug with 60 years of safe use in humans could be
dangerous.

~~~
shadowgovt
It's known precisely how it is dangerous (well-understood side-effects) and
it's understood, given those side-effects, to be safer than having the
diseases it treats. Since it's not proven to treat COVID-19, and it has side-
effects that can include an irregular heart rhythm, administering it to treat
COVID-19 does harm without proven good and may violate a practitioner's
Hippocratic oath (and, for an individual self-dosing, may just make the
situation worse).

