Did you read this one or do you just google and copy/paste the first thing that comes up? This is an emergency dosage for "CERTAIN HOSPITALIZED PATIENTS" and "The optimal dosing and duration of treatment for COVID-19 is unknown."
"The suggested dose under this EUA for hydroxychloroquine sulfate to treat adults and adolescents who weigh 50 kg or more and are hospitalized with COVID-19 for whom a clinical trial is not available, or participation is not feasible, is 800 milligrams of hydroxychloroquine sulfate on the first day of treatment and then 400 milligrams daily for four to seven days of total treatment based on clinical evaluation."
Even the CDC took down the dosage recommendation because it's anecdotal.
As far as the math, the links you posted earlier put 5 mg/kg as the threshold for risk. 50 kg adult or adolescent at 5 mg/kg puts their limit at what? Or do I have to do the math for you too? It's not until you get up to 80 kg that these blanket doses even make sense. Even if you use the 6.5 mg/kg dose to account for the tablet vs base weight it still puts the limit below 400 for some and well below 800.
So is this an option for patients in the hospital who are being monitored and have no other choice? Sure, it's an option. Not a good one at that dosage, but it's a risk they can choose to take. And it's not a safe option that we know the safety profile of in these patients regardless of how many times you say that we do. Is it something everybody should be taking or take for prevention? Hell no. Up to now I've been talking about dosing in a vacuum, but the US population has a hell of a lot of comorbidities and polypharmacy that increases the risk. You're also going to run into trouble with the dose you think you're getting and pharmacokinetics if you take the drug and anything that messes with P450 metabolism.
LOL, that is funny. You are a lot of fun man. This post is going to be more than you're used to reading, so you may want to break it into manageable pieces and read it a little at the time.
I feel like I am arguing with a Tandy 2000 - you know, where no matter what input you give, you get a random selection from 4-5 canned responses.
Me: Tandy, What color is the Sky
Tandy: Did you read more than the abstract?
Me: What? I'm looking for the color of the sky
Tandy: Did you read what you posted?
Me: Tandy, what's your point?
Tandy: Let me do the math for you.
I've begun seriously questioning your involvement in the medical field, but if you are in the field, I am not surprised you are in touch with attorneys on a daily basis.
Do you even think through what you are saying? I mean, you've called people a liar in this thread and simultaneously thrown out that HCQ has a low LD50 - but how do you know that? Where are your links? Where is your data? Or are you just making it up? Is it a lie (#1)?
And when someone posts links you have the same canned responses: Did you read more than the abstract. The irony here is, out of 3 links, only one was just the abstract but you were too lazy to even click the links that were being SPOON FED to you to know that. If you were so lazy that you didn't even realize only the first link was an abstract - where did you find all the effort to go pull up the full study on the abstract, read it, and comprehend it (lie #2)?
Then you state that you want to see more studies on Covid patients and the doses being used in Covid patients is much higher than in other uses. Ok, fine. We're all for more studies - but it still doesn't eliminate the safety profile we have. We have loads of data on the safety profile - even breaking down what issues become more likely at specific doses.
I post links showing all kinds of information on safety, and dosing after you say twice a day dosing is being used in Covid patients at high doses. You go after the math? Because you don't realize that there are MULTIPLE protocols and cut offs for applying this drug (because we have the safety data)?
So then you say the math is off and stick to doses in covid patients being higher. Yet, you have provided not a single shred of evidence of that. You expect others, like Manifesto, to prove every thing they say with evidence - do you have ANY evidence?Any at all?
So, shooting in the dark at this mythical covid-19 superdosing schedule you are claiming; I pull the FDA guidance - which is BELOW the dosing used in Malaria treatment. Wait, I'm not good at math. Let me lay it out so you can check for me:
Malaria Patients: 1,000 mg for 2 days.
Covid 19 Patients: 800 mg for 1 day.
800 < 1000 - I think that's the answer I gave my 2nd grade teacher. Can you check for me?
1 day < 2 days - again, feel free to check.
Then 500 mg for up to 14 days in malaria patients, and 400 mg for up to 7 days in Covid-19 Patients.
I am getting:
400 < 500
7 < 14.
Is my math wrong buddy? Help me out here. I obviously don't have this on lock down.
And I fully read what I posted, and then some. Up to 60 kg is the cut off. Some places use 50 kg. After that, they have mg/kg guidance. Yes, this is further evidence of a safety profile. So if you're 60 kg and we know the TOXIC dose is around 20 mg/kg - hold on, let me grab my calculator - yup 1,200 mg for a 60 kg person. And that's real weight. And we know most people who have serious issues with covid have things like, I don't know, obesity. So I'm not sure how many 132 pound Americans are in the hospital right now receiving these high doses you're keep suggesting. And that isn't LD50. At some point, if you're worried about saving someone's life, things like retinal issues fall a little on the priority list.
Also, you either KNOW you are wrong or are outright lying a 3rd time now - you pull up the retinopathy study, which you claim you read the entire study on...right? Didn't you? Huh, huh? Or was that just a canned response you use for everyone when you disagree because you don't have clue what you're talking about? Because, I would assume if you were going to use it as part of your argument, you wouldn't fall for the same thing right? Oh yeah, you didn't even bother to follow the other links, so why would I expect you found the full study.
Anyway, the 5 mg/kg you quote is from the discussion on dermatology - i.e. - chronic dosing. You know, like every day for long periods of time. But you would have known that if you even followed any of the other links I posted. Or read the full study like you pointed out.
So we have data on standard dosing, the FDA guidance on Covid dosing - and no data from you on your mythical super dosing so far? Ok, just because it isn't there doesn't mean it isn't true - but it certainly doesn't help me to believe you in the face of data suggesting otherwise.
So, you have the FDA data and have a chance to provide evidence of something and your response is to highlight this: "
adults and adolescents who weigh 50 kg or more and are hospitalized with COVID-19 for whom a clinical trial is not available, or participation is not feasible,"
Of course you do this, after you accuse me of not reading it - slick. But, you show your inability to comprehend what you're even highlighting.
Since you are so gracious to do math for me, let me help you out by summarizing something for you:
1. You say: We don't have safety data, we need studies in Covid-19 patients.
2. I say: Here is the FDA's guidance.
3. You say: Yeah, but that's only for people who are not in clinical trials. They are using higher doses in clinical trials.
Ummmm.....wow....you're sooooo close. Can you put it together? Come on. I'm rooting for you here.
Ok, I was hopeful, let me help you out. You want more studies, because higher doses are dangerous, and then use the studies that are actually happening at a higher dose as your defense? What? Isn't that what you were asking for in the first place? Now that we are trying it, it's stupid? How do you come up with this stuff?
What you just said, proves we have safety data on it. Without any further research, we have recommendations FROM THE FDA, directly in COVID. The fact we may have trials trying to further define that safety margin (to push it higher) doesn't mean we don't have a lot of data. However, per your statements, we are running trials at EVEN HIGHER doses in covid patients to see how far we can push this and gather more data. That is assuming what you are saying about people running higher doses is true; but you've yet to provide any evidence of that so I'm not sure. We've already established you lie and play games.