Thank you for the additions. Up to date is one of the two main used sources for physicians, the other being WEBMD. My source, of course, was a government approved material safety data sheet (MSDS).
I find it interesting that both entries contained the same problem areas: ventricular arrhythmia, hypoglycemia (can be severe), and Neutropenia, all serious. You would think a red flag would go up when working with patients with age related problems and illnesses associated to the existing problem they are looking at for its use. I honestly think they were all grasping at straws that hadn’t grown yet. But at least Trump didn’t press for use of any quinine related drugs prior to being determined completely safe.
Kind of like treating with rat poison. In it they use brodifacoum which causes blood not to clot and promote internal bleeding. Guess I better not say that too loud.
rwood
I’m a bit concerned with the enthusiasm expressed here for hydroxychloroquine. The information thus far on it effectiveness in COVID-19 is largely anecdotal with no double blind placebo controlled date available. While I am a physician and spend about 50% of my time in the hospital I am not really on the front lines as a neurologist and cannot speak from personal experience about the drug’s efficacy. Still natural history is one possible confounding factor and placebo effect the other.
The potential side effects with hydroxychloroquine are definitely significant. This is not a safe drug like many here are touting. When used short-term under the care of a physician I think it is reasonable— many of the side effects are more long-term in nature, but if people start trying to use it as a preventative... not only is there no evidence to suggest that it would work but the risk of potentially severe side effects would escalate substantially.