Good question, and the history goes back to SARS. :)

The use of chloroquine to fight it likely came from reviewing the data and research on SARS - as soon as we determined that the virus is basically an iteration of SARS-Cov, hence the name SARS-CoV-2. Thus the research on it goes back to 2005: https://virologyj.biomedcentral.com/a...

While that particular paper was about, basically, killing the virus it does reference the globin binding effect. This is where it is more effective in a sense than it is for malaria because it the mechanism in which it is proposed to cause hypoxia is also the mechanism by which it replicates - and malaria is a bacteria so no double-whammy against it.

Much of the research on this aspect of it is still in "pre-print" status. It will be interesting to see how it shakes out by the time it reaches print status. So far ti does look like this is one of the key differences between sars-cov and sars-cov-2 - the secondary infection mechanism that also interferes with O2 saturation. This is why it is a bit of a surprise, because we initially started trying it from the virus-killing and reproduction inhibiting perspective.


The multiple system infection is not standard, but also not unheard of - SARS and MERS (which had as one of its pathways the renal system) also exhibited these which is why they are/were so different in effect from "regular" CoV (we have a few dozen of them known in humans). The data and research is still early and mostly of the "oh hey, wait a moment" variety, but pretty strong for that phase. Much of the surprise is that most research on chloroquine has been in labs where the effect on preventing reproduction and killing of existing agents is the point - and other effects can't happen. Actually using it in humans is where we're starting to see the "side effect" that is being referenced above.

While the papers are still being worked on, the pathway makes sense and the effects, while surprising, are somewhat obvious in hindsight when you dig into it. I wish I could post more, including links, but I don't want to cause too much reliance on pre-print just yet because key bits can change. That aside, the anti-viral nature of chloroquine is more than enough to justify its use in that capacity and to make "human trials" on the other aspect quite acceptable IMO - we've been using chloroquine since the thirties IIRC and, while the media focuses on its use in malaria treatment, it is also used in many other areas such as lupus.

I will also add that over 80% of critically ill covid-19 cases show lymphopenia, and chloroquine has been found in addressing that in other causes: https://www.pubfacts.com/detail/29772...

However, and one reason I link that one is that there are potential issues that need to be looked at in the context of a widespread usage of it in viral load conditions over longer periods of time. But most fascinating to me in that study is that they used placebos when trialling it on macaques. They used placebos on monkeys. ;)

If you only get your info from the talking bobble heads I can see that impression taking hold. But when you look at the actual science instead a very different picture emerges. For example the use of chloroquine isn’t outside of the norm, we’ve known about its anti-viral abilities for about eighty years.

What has changed in that time is the increasing regulatory state. Fifty years ago we’d have not been bickering over “approved” for treating a disease, we’d have simply used it. This compound has been used for antiviral purposes for nearly a century. That isn’t throwing things at the wall to see what sticks.

The press isn’t telling you that because Trump talks about it favorably. Instead they ignore the decades of it being used as an antiviral and focus on it being used to treat malaria. It lets them go “hurrdurr malaria is a bacteria you scrub”.

Really, it is the press and politicians throwing stuff at the wall to see what sticks. The scientists are methodical and focused.

Yes and no, and IIRC CO poisoning is mentioned n there. It is still a virus that triggers the immune system response and produces physical material in the respiratory tract to you'd still see those effects.

Looks interesting, thanks. However I wish she would make statements like this one:

“ Coronavirus it turns out — is a vascular disease as much as lung disease.”

“Coronavirus” is not a disease. It’s one thing for press to screw it up, and another for a microbiologist to do it. It is misleading and confusing. We have about three dozen identified corona viruses and so far o it two of them have shown the ability to infect multiple systems in the human body. While it is correct to point out that the virus SARS-CoV-2 appears able to infect blood cells, it is just as important to point out that it is this particular virus.

Between 15 and 20 percent of “common colds” in the U.S. each year are due to a corona virus (229e to be specific). If you get the press and people believing that “Coronavirus is a blood disease too” you’re going to make things worse. Dumbing down the broad strokes is a terrible idea and something most scientists in the public eye do out of hubris and from being told they have to. It is better to gloss over fine details than to screw up the fundamentals.

Rant over.

The two hypotheses could explain the rumor/appearance of two different strains running through the infected populations. It could come down to bodies that can resist one result but not the other. That is what makes the thankfully rare cases of multi-system infections so dangerous.

It may yet be the case that a small difference does exist in sub strains and that one produces the hypoxia by glomming onto the blood cells and the other by messing with the lungs themselves.

To me though, there is a metric that begs for explanation: the much higher rate of male deaths. I seem to recall that in some locations we are looking at a 70/30 split. If this is true and social factors can be ruled out it could be a huge clue to what is going on in an infection. Sadly with Genderism running rampage these days I doubt we would see many, if any, studies.