Here we can see the molecular formulas of chloroquine and hydroxychloroquine. Is this medicine good to cure covid-19?
To answer this question we must first understand how to destroy the virus in the person.
For example, when a person dies, the virus ends up dying in the person, if no person comes into contact with the body. We can say that in this case the person is cured of the virus.
But this is good? Of course not, if to kill a virus you need to kill the patient, this cure is meaningless.
Chloroquine has a side effect of attacking the heart, clinical studies confirm that among them are cardiac arrhythmias, drug hepatitis, retinal lesions, hematological changes such as anemia and falling platelets and gastrointestinal symptoms such as nausea, vomiting and diarrhea.
The greatest number of deaths are found in elderly individuals, chloroquine affects the heart, the elderly usually already have heart problems. If we intend to apply Chloroquine, the elderly may have a cardiac arrest, and so they do not die from covid-19, but from cardiac arrest.
In this case the individual dies from chloroquine instead of covid-19 has not changed at all, what can happen is to be even worse. This we can see in some news:
"Concentrations of chloroquine to have an effect on covid-19 tend to cause problems in the elderly, and even kill from heart problems."
But if you take 100 people aged 25 to 40 years contaminated and do not apply chloroquine, one person can die of covid-19, and if we do it with 100 others and apply chloroquine in an effective amount to covid-19, no person dies from covid-19 but over 3 die from heart problems and several with other problems listed.
So, what would be the profit of 1 dying from covid-19, in the first group and then in the second no dying from covid-19 but dying from cardiac arrest?
That is why the previous question: Is it useful to use a medicine that harms more than the disease that it manages to overcome?
And for that reason Sweden stopped using chloroquine.
To answer this question we must first understand how to destroy the virus in the person.
For example, when a person dies, the virus ends up dying in the person, if no person comes into contact with the body. We can say that in this case the person is cured of the virus.
But this is good? Of course not, if to kill a virus you need to kill the patient, this cure is meaningless.
Chloroquine has a side effect of attacking the heart, clinical studies confirm that among them are cardiac arrhythmias, drug hepatitis, retinal lesions, hematological changes such as anemia and falling platelets and gastrointestinal symptoms such as nausea, vomiting and diarrhea.
The greatest number of deaths are found in elderly individuals, chloroquine affects the heart, the elderly usually already have heart problems. If we intend to apply Chloroquine, the elderly may have a cardiac arrest, and so they do not die from covid-19, but from cardiac arrest.
In this case the individual dies from chloroquine instead of covid-19 has not changed at all, what can happen is to be even worse. This we can see in some news:
"Concentrations of chloroquine to have an effect on covid-19 tend to cause problems in the elderly, and even kill from heart problems."
But if you take 100 people aged 25 to 40 years contaminated and do not apply chloroquine, one person can die of covid-19, and if we do it with 100 others and apply chloroquine in an effective amount to covid-19, no person dies from covid-19 but over 3 die from heart problems and several with other problems listed.
So, what would be the profit of 1 dying from covid-19, in the first group and then in the second no dying from covid-19 but dying from cardiac arrest?
That is why the previous question: Is it useful to use a medicine that harms more than the disease that it manages to overcome?
And for that reason Sweden stopped using chloroquine.