And, may be, we should more deeply look at Nikotin as an ACE2 inhibitor as there are far less smokers affected than their percentage of population. As far as I remember the Wuhan figure was only 8% of total patients did smoke.
In France Nikotin patches were sold out shortly after the data has been published...
I bought them all.
But it could be the tobacco not the purified nicotine, we don't know.
Gas stations did not sell food. There were no soft drink machines or candy machines in middle schools or high schools. That would have been unkinkable! Grocery stores today have all kinds of packaged and prepared foods, frozen foods, snack foods and so on that did not exist back then. Food is much cheaper as a percent of income. So, people eat a lot more than they used to. Eating huge amounts has become normalized. No one sees anything unusual about it, or wrong about it. Apparently, they do not realize it is unhealthy. I see examples of that when I go to an all-you-can-eat buffet when driving from Atlanta to Washington. If I ate as much as the people I see there, I would throw up.
Changes are everywhere. I see no reason why we cannot change things right back to where they were. The problem will gradually go away. Perhaps I am simple minded or literal minded, but when I see a critical problem with a simple solution, I cannot imagine why we don't all do it.
Those who believe unfettered human freedom as relatively more important than human health view the interventions necessary to make this change as contrary to human rights. Those who are wise and do not need regulatory help will see regulations as annoying: which they are, for them.
Once you start to have strong state controls on what food can or cannot be sold where, you are in a socialist world, the argument goes, and that would be seen by those arguing this as a very strong negative.
Personally, I'm on the left wing side of this argument. Give me freedom to say what I will, and the necessary rights and structures to discover what government is doing and why it is doing it, and talk about those loudly, and in a democracy I am ok with whatever regulations are needed to make things work well for all. That includes draconian taxes on unhealthy food, restrictions on advertising and "spur of moment" selling, restrictions on portion size, salt, sugar. It also includes high taxation which I prefer because the increase in wellbeing to me (as a high rate taxpayer) from a more equal society (lower GINI index) far outweighs any increase in wellbeing from me being materially 50% rather than 20% better off than someone else. The science on this is very clear: it is not just my personal opinion. There are those who see money spent by governments as so badly wasted that it is better for all if it is kept with individuals who can contribute to charities. Governments waste money, so do individuals. But governments can spend large amounts of GDP on social improvement, individuals just don't, even in the US with its massive 2% GDP charitable giving. More equal societies, with higher welfare standards, are happier places. I'd agree with those who see money spent on welfare directly as problematic. Money needs to be spent on services (education esp early years, health, youth clubs, social service interventions) that give the next generation with poor parents much better opportunity than they would have otherwise. Those who think this can happen without very large and expensive interventions are kidding themselves.
Why do I see restrictions on processed food and taxes on sugar as high priority? The capitalist system needs controls. It is in the strong financial interest of all fast food outlets to serve people larger portions, have them eating more, get them used to high unhealthy food intakes. And capitalism works well, they are good at it. If we have restrictions on drugs, we should similarly have restrictions on food. Some here will argue that all such restrictions are wrong: that is principled but leads to a society in which it is much more difficulty to lead a decent life.
Quercitin does have antiviral properties but the Gordon et al Covid Nature Article preprint showed little antiviral activity up to 100uM. But maybe you need very high doses, like with Vitamin C?
But it could be the tobacco not the purified nicotine, we don't know.
Just encourage everyone to smoke really strong cigarettes.
Old Holborn rolling tobacco or French Gauloises strong enough? Or Condor pipe tobacco! If it's due to a localized nicotine application to the lungs then vaping might be the best bet The risks associated with smoking most likely outweigh the benefit, vaping is turning out to be just as dangerous anyway. Patches and gum you'd probably have to use a lot to have an effective dose. Then again nicotine is killer at high doses especially in people with high blood pressure or cardiac problems. I don't think it's worth the risk of being addicted to cigarettes again having smoked in my youth.
Just encourage everyone to smoke really strong cigarettes.
We forced all these poor guys to stop smoking. Now they are obese do have diabetes II & high blood pressure and are at risk....
I would rename the covid-19 virus to Monthy Python virus... Do you remember the trick how to kill an old lady? (Wanda)
Just encourage everyone to smoke really strong cigarettes.
Like the devil in the recent SNL skit?
“You’re never to young to start vaping”
Broad-spectrum antiviral activity of naproxen: from Influenza A to SARS-CoV-2 Coronavirus
This could be a big development. And it is something I have on my shelf and can get OTC.
This could be a big development. And it is something I have on my shelf and can get OTC.
It's just one more fit in this model and a tiny bit better than remsdesivir but way less powerful than HCQ.
Naproxen is used in 1g doses so looks promising as the effective EC90 dose of 90uM can be achieved without serious side effects. Use if HCQ is unavailable?
So - I just checked the worldometer stats again and it still looks like we are seeing the same steady number of daily deaths in the UK and US with no reduction in active cases. So this is the 'control' case with no effective antiviral treatment and all social distancing and quarantine measures is doing is slightly reducing the number of cases, so the same high rate of new deaths will probably carry on for another week. The rest of Europe stats if they are combined show a clear reduction in active cases and new daily deaths and should reduce even further over the next week in comparison. Which is the 'test' case of actually effectively using antivirals to fight this pandemic. When is the UK going to start using them and the US start using them effectively?
So - I just checked the worldometer stats again and it still looks like we are seeing the same steady number of daily deaths in the UK and US with no reduction in active cases. So this is the 'control' case with no effective antiviral treatment and all social distancing and quarantine measures is doing is slightly reducing the number of cases, so the same high rate of new deaths will probably carry on for another week. The rest of Europe stats if they are combined show a clear reduction in active cases and new daily deaths and should reduce even further over the next week in comparison. Which is the 'test' case of actually effectively using antivirals to fight this pandemic. When is the UK going to start using them and the US start using them effectively?
Well I think the effective use of antivirals plays out more in the number of hospitalizations and deaths than active cases. Maybe that’s not the way to look at it - not sure. I imagine the Governments of both the U.S. and UK would say that the reason daily new cases aren’t decreasing is because more people are being tested. In fact members of both the Trump and Johnson Administrations have said just that.
There is anecdotal reporting in both countries say that the number of new patients being admitted into the hospital is down, but is that true? Not sure.
But only 'active cases" would surely be qualifying for treatment with antivirals pre or post icu ventilation? At least that is my interpretation so a significant decrease indicates successful treatment, as does a drop in daily deaths. It's just going horrendously badly in the US and UK compared to the rest of Europe except perhaps Sweden who at least one report has suggested have stopped antiviral treatments (so join UK and US in control group too, unfortunately) No way should we stop lock down yet unless we use telemedicine and track and tracing in combination with antiviral effective treatments.
This new preprint appears to show that proton pump inhibitors may reduce Covid-19
infection risk even at normal dosage --
"Interest of proton pump inhibitors in reducing the occurrence of COVID-19: a case-control study"
https://www.preprints.org/manuscript/202005.0016/v1
This new preprint identifies existing drugs that may interfere with Covid-19 spike protein binding.
The repurposed drugs in order of binding strength are:
fidaxomicin>ivermectin>heparin>azithromycin>clarithromycin>eryhthromycin>niclosamide>ritonavir
An excerpt from the conclusion --
"we imagine that a successful treatment regime should contain multi drugs of protease inhibitors,
spike shielding drugs, and immunomodulatory drugs in early steps of the disease. Ivermectin>heparin
(as intravenous or nebulized)>macrolides seem to be good adjuvant candidates in all anti 2019-nCov
regimes to shield S protein even for prophylactic purposes."
"Coronavirus (2019-nCoV) Deactivation via Spike Glycoprotein Shielding by Old Drugs, Bioinformatic Study"
Lou Pagnucco much the same as our Anti Bat except for the most effective ingredient hydroxychloroquine is missing. Looks like Canada is in the control group too showing no reduction in active cases or daily deaths consistent with their banning and excessive ridiculous public outcry against HCQ use. What is wrong with these people?
Lou Pagnucco much the same as our Anti Bat except for the most effective ingredient hydroxychloroquine is missing. Looks like Canada is in the control group too showing no reduction in active cases or daily deaths consistent with their banning and excessive ridiculous public outcry against HCQ use. What is wrong with these people?
From some of the sorry things I've seen up here, I'm all for renaming our national anthem.
"D'oh! Canada"
Niclosamide is a well tolerated broad spectrum antiviral but I can't find any evidence for antiviral activity of bacterial RNA polymerase inhibitor fidaxomycin.
Better to use hydroxychloroquine rather than proton pump inhibitors. Both raise lysosomal pH preventing viral entry by blocking fusion.
