Covid-19 (WuFlu) News

  • -have to give within the first 5 days when the virus is still at low levels...which we already knew. The 6th day the virus makes it's move.

    -For prophylaxis he gives the same dose as for malaria prevention (200mg/day 5days).

    -he is so confident now of it's effectiveness (he is taking it), he does not wear a mask.


    Shane, it is possible that HCQ is a helpful prophylactic at this level.


    But think - what data do you need to know this is true? You need to give it - as prophylactic - to a large number of people who do not have COVID. You then need to use the fact that over time few get COVID, or few get severe COVID, as evidence.


    To do this you need to compare your intervention with a similar cohort who have no intervention. Dr. Z's patients are very atypical, much less likley to have (any) COVID symptoms because much younger than typical.


    Shane you know all these things, yet you go on thinking that because Dr. Z is unswerving in his belief it must therefore have more merit. Why? If Dr. Z acknowledges all the above and provided evidnce it would be different.


    Since masks do not (hardly) protect the wearer but protect others he is simply betting the lives of others on his being right by not wearing a mask.


    What is it about politics that makes it impossiblke for so many people 9including family GPs like Zelencko) to look clearly and what would be evidence and then try to get it.

  • HCQ for (post-exposure) prophylaxis does not work.


    https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa2016638


    Here is RCT evidence that HCQ - given fast and at high initial dose so that it is active sooner - does not significantly alter the rates at which patients contract COVID after a high-risk exposure incident. No question here of mortality results that could be contaminated due to side effects, these were not a problem in this case (though they were observed in some patients).


    Specifically, Zelencko might still claim that HCQ reduces COVID severity when used prophylatically at < 5 days from exposure - though in that case you'd also expect it to reduce the number of people who actually contract it as well, which from this study does not appear to happen to any great extent.


    There is the possibility that it works prophylatically when given much earlier, before exposure.


    There still also remains the possibility of a small protective effect that this study was too under-powered to measure, it would reliably detect a 50% or more reduction in COVID. Even at 50% reduction, you would want as a physician to wear a mask to protect your patients.


    It looks as though therefore Dr. Z is putting patients at risk by not wearing a mask, and he is either not reviewing other people's experience, or not understanding its significance, or (quite likley) just obstinately convinced he is right and not interested in any contrary evidence. That happens.


    A very balanced discussion of this trial: it is not a death blow for HCQ prophylaxis but certainly it is strong negative evidence for any use post-exposure.

    https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/…rc_curatedRelated_article



    EDIT: they checked severity as well:


    Among participants who were symptomatic at day 14, the median symptom-severity score (on a scale from 0 to 10, with higher scores indicating greater severity) was 2.8 (interquartile range, 1.6 to 5.0) in those receiving hydroxychloroquine and 2.7 (interquartile range, 1.4 to 4.8) in those receiving placebo (P=0.34).


    THH

  • This Dr. Zelenko is just not going to back down

    And neither is Dr Fareed from California going to back down.

    "Local doctor pushing proven treatment of COVID into national debate" https://www.thedesertreview.co…ea-8943-4f707d6ebc1a.html

    "My name is Dr. George Fareed. I am a physician in Imperial County, California,

    that has been hit hard by the COVID-19 pandemic.

    I take care of patients on both an outpatient and inpatient basis, as well as nursing home patients

    , the most vulnerable among us.

    In this letter, I am proposing a medical strategy that can help us not only through this current crisis

    , but also that will enable us to approach outbreaks of COVID-19 that may occur in the future.


    In my attempts to keep people alive, I have had an opportunity to use many different types of treatments

    — remdesivir, dexamethasone, convalescent plasma replacement, etc.

    Yet, by far the best tool beyond supportive care with oxygen

    has been the combination of hydroxychloroquine (HCQ), with either azithromycin or doxycycline, and zinc.

    This "HCQ cocktail" (that costs less than $100) has enabled me to prevent patients from being admitted to the hospital

    , as well as help those patients that are hospitalized.

    The key is giving the HCQ cocktail early, within the first five days of the disease.


    Not only have I seen outstanding results with this approach, I have not seen any patient exhibit serious side-effects.

    To be clear — this drug has been used as an anti-malarial and to treat systemic lupus erythematosus as well as rheumatoid arthritis,

    and has over a 50-year track record for safety.

    It is shocking that it only now is being characterized as a dangerous drug


  • Zelenko and others would argue that historically, real world observations have lead to many great advances in health care, with the proof via RCT to follow. He also takes issue with real world experience being written off as "anecdotal". In his situation, he explains in detail why HCQ/COVID is more than that...one being the "viral load" decrease. That is real, mentioned in many studies (even the negative ones) as you admit, and not something a bias toward HCQ would influence. If it has a direct correlation with that, then it has to be doing something....good.


    And like I said, he already has that new study out he conducted with 2 other prominent German doctors, in which he handicapped the HCQ group by putting only the sick in it, while combining sick/healthy in the control...and HCQ still won out! I think also you are still hung up on his early reports that were mostly skewed by his youngish population/patient demographics. He is past that though, and doing some legitimate studies now that make apples to apples comparison.


    And still, to this day, most if not all the negative observational studies, and a few RCT's tested on the wrong group, or not using with Zn. Just today the new one from The Univ of Basel treated the very sick. As they shift more towards testing the efficacy of early treatment, I think that the studies will start consistently showing a benefit.


    Anyway, what is the harm of using HCQ if you fit the profile? Michigan's Henry Ford Health System's RCT shows it works great, and Zelenko said it would have been even better had they strived harder to administer sooner. It is basically no more harmless than taking Motrin as he says, and there is simply no other preventive drug candidate to turn to right now. Seems silly under the dire circumstances to wait months, if not years for *another* trial to show it's merits.


    I say, there is more than enough evidence to trust the doctors, and their patients to make the decision.

  • The mind can only affect living and dying by compelling a person to take physical action. For example by searching for food, or saying something, or some other physical act. Your thoughts and attitudes by themselves can have no effect on the any substance other than brain tissue. Along the same lines, there is no evidence that a positive attitude improves the prognosis for illness. There is no evidence that a pessimistic attitude reduces the chance of survival. People think attitude is important, but clinical studies have shown it has no effect. A pessimistic attitude is associated with a poor prognosis or death, but the causality goes the other way. Being very sick makes you depressed. Being depressed does not make you sick, and being upbeat does not help you recover or survive. There is one obvious exception. If you are so depressed you do not take steps to cure the disease, such as going to a doctor or taking your medicine, that may make things worse. But that is not a direct mental effect. It is a mental effect causing you to act (or not act) with your muscles. That is, it causes you to refrain from driving to the doctor's office, or reaching into the medicine cabinet and taking a pill. Mental states can only affect the real world by causing the person to take some physical action. It may be a small action such as talking or taking a pill.

    I think when people use the words spirit and soul scientists get in a fuss. As a somewhat religious/spiritual person that firmly doesn't believe the spirit, soul and body are independant entities or in inherent human immortality, I have to disagree with you. Hormones and the body's smooth muscle systems are affected by the state of the mind through electrochemical physical channels. As someone currently exposed to a lot of behavioral science info, the mind does effect health physically. Don't let "religious guru's" language sway you from scientific facts that line up with their words! The reason many religions, with varying ratios of truth, acknowledge a mind body connection is because there is and there are thousands of years of practical experience.


    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5579396/


    https://www.psychologytoday.co…ters-body-mind-connection

  • https://www.nature.com/articles/s41594-020-0469-6Published: 13 July 2020published in Nature Structural and Molecular Biology Neutralizing nanobodies bind SARS-CoV-2 spike RBD and block interaction with ACE2Llamas, camels and alpacas naturally produce quantities of small antibodies with a simpler structure, that can be turned into nanobodies. The team engineered their new nanobodies using a collection of antibodies taken from llama blood cells. They have shown that the nanobodies bind tightly to the spike protein of the SARS-CoV-2 virus, blocking it from entering human cells and stopping infection.

  • Ivermectin is discussed at about time = 41:30 into the video.


    Looks like it starts at 22:52.


    Nothing good in this report except for the Ivermectin. Wonder if doctors are free to prescribe it outside the hospital? When viewing, could not help but feel frustrated that HCQ is largely unavailable. According to the video, the virus even wrecks the lungs of those without symptoms, yet we are not allowed access to the possible remedy.

  • NOTABLE QUOTABLE


    “Just before the patient died, they looked at their nurse and said ‘I think I made a mistake, I thought this was a hoax, but it’s not.’”

    Physician Jane Appleby shares the last words of a person in their 30s who died after attending a ‘COVID-19 party’ to catch the virus on purpose. Appleby, a health official in San Antonio, Texas, hopes to raise awareness of the disease in the city, which has 18,000 reported cases.


    There is great doubt now about this story. They think she made it up. Similar to the NBC reporter/doctor who claimed he was infected, but was not. Or the fish tank cleaner hoax (me and my husband decided to drink it because of Trump. he died, but I barely survived, and now I am in jail for murdering him :) ). Be careful of these claims.


  • I am (slightly) shocked by the level of bias shown here. I'm all for finding cheap easy therapies for COVID. I think it is rather shocking that (for example) Ivermectin, and many other possibles, seem not to have been properly tested.


    I have sympathy with the people who question Remdesivir as having minimal evidence. I agree.


    And I like many here hoped HCQ would be good. But it has been shown, given a much better shot than anything else in terms of number of tests, not to be good. This continual championing of a drug that has been heavily tested and fails every RCT thrown at it is unfortunate.


    Again, it is proper to hope that mild anti-virals will work if given very early on - something difficult to make happen unless everyone (or those at risk) take them prophylactically. The study I linked above shows that this seems not to be the case. The patients there got HCQ as quickly as any doctor seeing (infected) outpatients could, and certainly within 5 days of infection. And the results were definitely negative.


    No negative RCTs can prove a drug does not work under different conditions, or with different combination drugs (in this case AZT or Zn). But the justification for these additions being necessary, rather than helpful, is minimal. It has been almost universally found that if A + B helps, then A and B help individually. Which is why so many of the trials test individual drugs. For example in this case Zn might help with deficiency, or slightly boost Zn levels increasing the utility of an ionophore, but there will be lots of variation between people and you'd expect HCQ without Zn to have some effect.


    It is not surprising that many (non-research) doctors think HCQ works. It was a good possible. And the medical profession has an understandable capacity to latch onto treatments for many things believing they work, even when objective evidence shows they do not. It is exactly this tendency that makes the professionals who now evaluate treatments so very cautious about any of the rumoured drugs.


    And I want to point out that RECOVERY (sneered at by some here) allows fast high accuracy testing of several drugs, and its work has now reduced COVID mortality by 20% throughout the world. We can expect to see further falls.


    I'd hope more, with me, were rejoicing at the progress that has been made, and looking for more, rather than holding on to one politically freighted and scientifically uninteresting (given the number of negatives) drug.


    THH

  • https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-53414363




    Lockdown works




    The study, which is yet to be reviewed by the scientific community, provides a snapshot survey of who was infected between 1 May and 1 June and confirms what the government said it understood about reduced infections at the time.

    Researchers also found people of Asian ethnicity were more likely to test positive than those of white ethnicity, while people working in care homes were at greater risk of being infected during lockdown than the general population.

    And the study showed 69% of those who did test positive reported no symptoms on the day of their test or the previous week, though they may have developed symptoms later.


  • I am (slightly) shocked by the level of bias shown here.

    What bias..?

    Just reporting the news from the desert..

    "

    And neither is Dr Fareed from California going to back down.

    "Local doctor pushing proven treatment of COVID into national debate" https://www.thedesertreview.co…ea-8943-4f707d6ebc1a.html

    "My name is Dr. George Fareed. I am a physician in Imperial County, California,

    that has been hit hard by the COVID-19 pandemic.13143-5f0cc857cf6ec-image-1-jpg

    I take care of patients on both an outpatient and inpatient basis, as well as nursing home patients

    , the most vulnerable among us.

    In this letter, I am proposing a medical strategy that can help us not only through this current crisis

    , but also that will enable us to approach outbreaks of COVID-19 that may occur in the future.

    In my attempts to keep people alive, I have had an opportunity to use many different types of treatments

    — remdesivir, dexamethasone, convalescent plasma replacement, etc.

    Yet, by far the best tool beyond supportive care with oxygen

    has been the combination of hydroxychloroquine (HCQ), with either azithromycin or doxycycline, and zinc.

    This "HCQ cocktail" (that costs less than $100) has enabled me to prevent patients from being admitted to the hospital

    , as well as help those patients that are hospitalized.

    The key is giving the HCQ cocktail early, within the first five days of the disease.


    Not only have I seen outstanding results with this approach, I have not seen any patient exhibit serious side-effects.

    To be clear — this drug has been used as an anti-malarial and to treat systemic lupus erythematosus as well as rheumatoid arthritis,

    and has over a 50-year track record for safety.

    It is shocking that it only now is being characterized as a dangerous drug


  • Of course there is Surgisphere... which is indeed 'statistical fraud'

    but that is Surgisphere

    happening in a realm far from Surgery , inpatients and outpatients

    which managed to fool both NEJM and Lancet


    The fraudulent Surgisphere studies make interesting reading but they are a galaxy away from

    d the informed experience of physicians at the Covid-face of the efficacy of Ivermectin or any medicine.


    Why couldnt NEJM or Lancet pick up Surgisphere fraud like inventing 600 or more patients as Dr Chaccour did in Spain?.

    http://factor.prodavinci.com/l…doctorchaccour/index.html



  • The news from Mumbai and Vellore... unbiased..


    " The Detroit study has swung the pendulum all the way back, favourable to HCQ use in Covid-19.

    If the scientific evidence from France was for reduction of viral load in the upper respiratory tract,

    was it not likely that it reflected a reduction of viral load in all other infected body tissues also?

    When should the viral load be reduced – late in the course of disease or early

    Does it not make sense to use the drug early and not late?

    "

    The Detroit study on Covid-19 patients aged 18 to 76,

    the majority with co-morbidities, was protocol-driven.

    In one group a short course of HCQ was started early, preferably on the first or latest second day of hospitalisation.

    In order to avoid serious side effects, the drug regimen was short – 400 mg twice on day one,

    followed by 200 mg twice daily for four more days.

    Corticosteroids were used as adjunct therapy in a proportion of patients in both groups.

    The in-hospital mortality for Covid-19 was 26.4 per cent in those not given HCQ, reduced to 13.5 per cent in the HCQ-treated group.


    https://indianexpress.com/arti…vid-19-treatment-6504276/


  • A very balanced discussion of this trial: it is not a death blow for HCQ prophylaxis but certainly it is strong negative evidence for any use post-exposure.

    https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/…rc_curatedRelated_article

    I am (slightly) shocked by the level of bias shown here. I'm all for finding cheap easy therapies for COVID. I think it is rather shocking that (for example) Ivermectin, and many other possibles, seem not to have been properly tested.


    THHuxleynew : You show a ruthless & disgusting behavior by referencing studies that have nothing in common with the Raoult/Zelenko protocol. and then drawing your spin based pseudo conclusions.


    You certainly are not looking for a cheap and working medication as you always try to spin against them. You still believe that the Gilead crap helps to save costs, despite people that use it and die, will face a much much higher bill as these do die 7-9 days longer in avg.!! So you basically act as a supporter of the medicine mafia.


    University of Basel

    Paper entitled "Why lopinavir and HCQ do not work on Covid-19"

    Even worse - if not criminal - is the behavior of "University of Basel" doctors. It's no surprise as this (Swiss) medical site is well known for it's inhuman practice in other treatments (making fake expertise for disabled to help the insurance to save money) Lopinavir and HCQ was known not to work as University of Zürich used Kaletra since day one and stopped it latest April. So adding HCQ only makes things worse.


    If you don't give any antiviral (e.g. AZT) that blocks the second binding site of Cov-19 then HCQ has a very low success rate also zinc was missing.


    What works:


    HCQ (Quercetin,Hesperidin) ,AZT,Zinc combination works fine if given before day 5 of infection.


    Ivermectin is a must after day 4 as it's the only drug that blocks intra cellular replication of the virus-. Also Heparin is very potent as it is at least dual use. Antiviral and anti clothing. Other anti clothing drugs may help too but are not antiviral.

    Prednison/Dexamethasone is also a good idea for "late" patients that already face a strong inflammation.


    This is the current state of best known treatments that is no way complete. Better drugs will be developed and we will see them soon.


    Some drugs definitely failed: Avigan Japan - communicated -in Japan- last week; Kaletra communicated April. Remdesivir due to increase in hospital costs for dying patients. (communication suppressed by mafia.)

  • Just a side note: I am sure that all posters here in this forum are aware that they may eventually get approached by lawyers of certain companies, institutions or let's say wellknown university hospitals in Switzlerland (esp. when its reputation may be at risk if such strong claims are made here). The internet does not forget and there is no anonymous space anymore where everybody can claim what he wants or finds suitable for his agenda or opinion...

  • “Characterized as a dangerous drug”

    By who?

    The insanely politically biased media and politicians with ties to big Pharma

  • Just a side note: I am sure that all posters here in this forum are aware that they may eventually get approached by lawyers of certain companies, institutions or let's say wellknown university hospitals in Switzlerland (esp. when its reputation may be at risk if such strong claims are made here).


    Don't be ridiculous. There are millions of people saying this sort of thing.