Covid-19 News

    Quote from THHuxleynew

    Give me evidence (not Wyttenfact) that the RECOVERY dose was anywhere near LD50 for a one-off dose. And, preferably, think before you type.

    Should this be try to rescue your nonsense THH FUD? They didn't give only one-off dose. they gave it for 5 days! Half live of HCQ is weeks


    Here the printout of the Drugs database! I hope you can convert mols to liter. One hint: Blood is almost water...


    The LD50 values for chloroquine were 24.77 μM (RAW 264.7) and 24.86 μM (BMDM), the LD50 for hydroxychloroquine were 13.28 μM (RAW 264.7) and 13.98 μM (BMDM). In conclusion, hydroxychloroquine was more cytotoxic than its parent molecule. Comparing the two cell types tested, our data suggest that there are no differences in cytotoxicity of chloroquine or hydroxychloroquine for primary cells (BMDM) or immortalized cell line (RAW 264.7).


    Following a 200mg oral dose, hydroxychloroquine reached a Cmax of 129.6ng/mL with a Tmax of 3.26h in the blood and a Cmax of 50.3ng/mL with a Tmax of 3.74h in the plasma.13 Following 155mg and 310mg intravenous doses, Cmax in the blood ranged from 1161-2436ng/mL with an average of 1918ng/mL


    If they gave it intravenous as reported 2 grams then they crossed the LD50 barrier way high!




    Quote from stefan

    There is 200 dead more than a normal year due to HCQ this spring in USA and at the same time there was about 1 million extra prescriptions of HCQ or so. This means that if all people take HCQ we are talking about around 200x350 > 60 000 dead.


    Taking HCQ without control is a disparate action. Even when my friend got it I did not recommend to use it! But I would not trust any death statistics form the USA as there certainly is some bias today.

    HCQ has been taken by more than 2 billion people on planet earth some 100 million take it regularly. Just compare it to deaths from Aspirin and you will see it's lower!


    Quote from THHuxleynew

    In addition, when we talk about immunity, we probably mean partial immunity. A small dose infection might be fought off, when a larger dose would not be so.


    This is true: Cross immunity is always partial and a high dose will make you sick too. But people with cross immunity will show no antibodies even after a mild infection. This makes it awfully complicated to track the spread of this disease. So all your cases 2,3,4 have a partial immunity.


    There is a fifth built in cellular immunity that we did not mention yet: RNA inference can detect all unfriendly rna junks if the target junk is stored in the cellular database (genom). The result of this process is that the virus is only partially rebuilt as the "rna police" always cuts some pieces out to inactivate the checked rna sequence. But in the worst case this could be a gain mutation...

    Quote from stefan

    this means that if all people take HCQ we are talking about around 200x350 > 60 000 dead.

    its in swedish news. no source is presented in the article.

    who would give 400mg/day of HCQ to 350 million? for prophylaxis? with Azithromycin

    the prophylactic malaria dose is 400mg per week


    some pharmacovigilance data is here...looking for methemoglobulinemia at the specific request of the FDA.

    https://www.accessdata.fda.gov…%2019May2020_Redacted.pdf

    the clinical condition of the patients was unknown.. how many were Hail Mary patients..?

    Were those with known Qt prolongation treated with Azi +HCQ.. were the doses for the fatalities for 800 mg/day?

    it is unlikely that the swedish newspaper is correct.


    also unlikely that prophylaxis for 350M ..would be for the many under 65 years old... except healthworkers..

    in addition those with QT prolongation would be excluded


    the data for reported ADR is n=377.. 97 from the US ..250 from elsewhere..total fatality=77

    using Stefanstyle calculation method.. with 2 million greater than 65 in Sweden... which is erroneous..

    because not sure how many patients were treated with HCQ..

    for those 77


    77 x 97/377 x 2 = 40

    40.. perhaps this is acceptable in Viking Sweden and also Viking Norway..

    "

    First, there is no certainty that the reported event was actually due to the product.

    FDA does not require that a causal relationship between a product and event be
    proven, and reports do not always contain enough detail to properly evaluate an event.

    Further, FDA does not receive reports for every adverse event or medication error that occurs with a
    product. Many factors can influence whether or not an event will be reported, such as the time a
    product has been marketed and publicity about an event. Therefore, FAERS data cannot be used
    to calculate the incidence of an adverse event or medication error in the U.S. population.

    HCQ :Le Nouveau-Brunswick

    Vive le Canada

    New Brunswick becomes the first province in Canada to “organize” and “authorize” the use of hydroxychloroquine to treat certain patients with COVID-19.

    “What we want to do is certainly make accessible hydroxychloroquine to patients in the community at the very beginning of their illness. If we make a parallel with the flu or the flu, the benefits come when the treatment is administered early, “explained Dr. Gabriel Girouard, microbiologist-infectiologist at the CHU Dr-Georges-L.-Dumont in Moncton , in New Brunswick, speaking to Sophie Durocher on QUB radio, Thursday

    https://www.journaldequebec.co…-avec-lhydroxychloroquine

    Some recent news on possible non-vaccine approaches to Covid-19 --


    Methylene Blue has a potent antiviral activity against SARS-CoV-2 in the absence of UV-activation in vitro

    https://www.biorxiv.org/conten…0.08.14.251090v1.full.pdf


    Maraviroc inhibits SARS-CoV-2 multiplication and s-protein mediated cell fusion in cell culture

    - 4 FDA-approved small molecules, Maraviroc, FTY720 (Fingolimod), Atorvastatin and

    Nitazoxanide that were able to inhibit SARS-CoV-2 infection

    https://www.biorxiv.org/conten…0.08.12.246389v1.full.pdf


    Observational Study on Clinical Features, Treatment and Outcome of COVID-19

    in a tertiary care Centre in India- a retrospective case series

    - Triple therapy with ivermectin + atorvastatin + N-acetylcysteine can be an useful adjunct to

    standard of care with no apparent adverse effects and on the contrary decrease mortality to

    1.35% well below the national average.

    https://www.medrxiv.org/conten…08.12.20170282v1.full.pdf


    Discovery of Clioquinol and Analogues as Novel Inhibitors of Severe Acute Respiratory

    Syndrome Coronavirus 2 Infection, ACE2 and ACE2 - Spike Protein Interaction In Vitro

    https://www.biorxiv.org/conten…0.08.14.250480v1.full.pdf


    Hydroxychloroquine: mechanism of action inhibiting SARS-CoV2 entry

    https://www.biorxiv.org/conten…0.08.13.250217v1.full.pdf


    Ebselen, A Preexisting Organoselenium Drug As A Potential Candidate for COVID-19 Treatment

    https://www.thailandmedical.ne…idate-for-covid-19-treatm


    Inhaler That Releases Highly Potent Antiviral Nanobodies Against SARS-COV-2

    https://www.thailandmedical.ne…es-against-the-sars-cov-2


    Wyttenfact Alert (by factor of 10X).


    Why is that that this site so likes unfounded and weird (supposing NHS doctors in charge of major trials deliver killing doses of drugs) speculation?


    First - note that the poor outcome from HCQ in the RECOVERY trial was not because of known HCQ side effects (more below):


    https://www.medrxiv.org/conten….20151852v1.full.pdf+html


    Information on the occurrence of new major cardiac arrhythmia was collected for 698 (44.7%)
    231 patients in the hydroxychloroquine arm and 1357 (43.0%) in the usual care arm since these
    232 fields were added to the follow-up form on 12 May 2020. Among these patients, there were no
    233 significant differences in the frequency of supraventricular tachycardia (6.9% vs. 5.9%),
    234 ventricular tachycardia or fibrillation (0.9% vs. 0.7%) or atrioventricular block requiring
    235 intervention (0.1% vs. 0.1%) (Table S3). Analyses of cause-specific mortality, receipt of renal
    236 dialysis or hemofiltration, and duration of ventilation will be presented once all relevant
    237 information (including certified cause of death) is available. There was one report of a serious
    238 adverse reaction believed related to hydroxychloroquine; a case of torsades de pointes from
    239 which the patient recovered without the need for intervention.


    The slightly higher mortality and increases average time to discharge was because of COVID symptoms made worse by HCQ.


    Secondly - the dose was carefully considered:


    Hydroxychloroquine has been proposed as a treatment for COVID-19 based largely on its in
    259 vitro SARS-CoV-2 antiviral activity and on data from observational studies reporting effective
    reduction in viral loads. However, the 4-aminoquinoline drugs are relatively weak antivirals.
    15 260
    261 Demonstration of therapeutic efficacy of hydroxychloroquine in severe COVID-19 would require
    rapid attainment of efficacious levels of free drug in the blood and respiratory epithelium.31 262 Thus,
    263 to provide the greatest chance of providing benefit in life threatening COVID-19, the dose
    264 regimen was designed to result in rapid attainment and maintenance of plasma concentrations
    that were as high as safely possible.15 265 These concentrations were predicted to be at the upper
    266 end of those observed during steady state treatment of rheumatoid arthritis with
    hydroxychloroquine.
    32 267 Our dosing schedule was based on hydroxychloroquine pharmacokinetic
    268 modelling referencing a SARS-CoV-2 half maximal effective concentration (EC50) of 0.72 μM
    269 scaled to whole blood concentrations and an assumption that cytosolic concentrations in the
    respiratory epithelium are in dynamic equilibrium with blood concentrations.8,15,33

    The primary concern with short-term high dose 4-aminoquinoline regimens is cardiovascular
    272 toxicity. Hydroxychloroquine causes predictable prolongation of the electrocardiograph QT
    273 interval that is exacerbated by co-administration with azithromycin, as widely prescribed in
    COVID-19 treatment.
    16-18 274 Although torsade de pointes has been described, serious
    275 cardiovascular toxicity has been reported very rarely despite the high prevalence of
    276 cardiovascular disease in hospitalized patients, the common occurrence of myocarditis in
    277 COVID-19, and the extensive use of hydroxychloroquine and azithromycin together. The
    278 exception is a Brazilian study which was stopped early because of cardiotoxicity. However in
    279 that study, chloroquine 600 mg base was given twice daily for ten days, a substantially higher
    total dose than used in other trials, including RECOVERY.
    34,35 280 Pharmacokinetic modelling in
    281 combination with blood concentration and mortality data from a case series of 302 chloroquine
    282 overdose patients predicts that the base equivalent chloroquine regimen to the RECOVERY
    hydroxychloroquine regimen is safe.35 283 Hydroxychloroquine is considered to be safer than
    chloroquine. 284 15 We did not observe excess mortality in the first 2 days of treatment with
    285 hydroxychloroquine, the time when early effects of dose-dependent toxicity might be expected.
    286 Furthermore, the preliminary data presented here did not show any excess in ventricular
    287 tachycardia (including torsade de pointes) or ventricular fibrillation in the hydroxychloroquine
    288 arm.


    So you can see they calculated the blood concentration from dosing to be at upper end of that used

    medically 9and continuously, not just for a week) for RA sufferers. And, they did not observe any toxicity from the HCQ.


    Thirdly - Using the Wyttenpremises correctly, we get not the Wyttengfact, but about 1/10th of the Wyttenfact.


    LD50: 14uM (uM as unit is Mol / litre)


    MW of HCQ is 336 g/mol => 14uM = 4704ug/l (also 4704 ng/ml see below)



    Following a 200mg oral dose, hydroxychloroquine reached a Cmax of 129.6ng/mL with a Tmax of 3.26h in the blood and a Cmax of 50.3ng/mL with a Tmax of 3.74h in the plasma.13 Following 155mg and 310mg intravenous doses, Cmax in the blood ranged from 1161-2436ng/mL with an average of 1918ng/mL


    The dosage given was 1860mg over the first day (24 hours) orally (some say). others say it was 800mg + 800mg (6 hours) + 400mg (12 hours) orally. I do not have a precise reference to this? Anyway, taking the larger figure.

    They monitored over first 48 hours to make sure this high initial concentration was OK - it was.


    From W's figures, scaling up the 200mg dose, we get Cmax of 520ng/ml or 520ug/l 3 hours after dose in the blood. That is 10 X lower than LD50.


    What beggars belief about these Wyttenfacts is that:


    (1) You have to be seriously deranged to belive that a major NHS trial would give patients toxic doses of a drug

    (2) You have to be seriously deranged to believe that (should the above happen by mistake) it would not be detected and immediately corrected.

    (3) You have to be very careless, or biassed, to mistake 2g orally for 2g IV.

    (4) You need to note the TMax values - so that for these peak concentrations you do not add together 24 hours worth of dose. (That is why the dose is given as 4 separate doses at 6 hour intervals not one big initial dose).

    (5) The high dose for the initial 12 hours only is exactly to give HCQ the best chance of being efficacious. Carefully calculated to be safe. And checked for safety.


    THH

    • Official Post
    Quote from Lou Pagnucco

    Methylene Blue has a potent antiviral activity against SARS-CoV-2 in the absence of UV-activation in vitro

    https://www.biorxiv.org/conten…0.08.14.251090v1.full.pdf


    Hi Lou. Methylene Blue and Gentian Violet have been known to have antiviral properties since before virus particles were known to exist. From 1900 up until the 1950's these were often used for treating viral warts on the skin.

    Quote from THHuxleynew

    First - note that the poor outcome from HCQ in the RECOVERY trial was not because of known HCQ side effects (more below):


    This is the interpretation of our FUD doctor ( a circuit design teacher..) only. Further you cite the whole recovery study as we were talking of the British arm only see link by Robert Bryant.


    Your white wash will not help anybody. I hope they will find somebody to sue them! How did they deliver HCQ to ICU patients??


    Further you should start do read into medicin /pharam kinetics if you continue to comment here. LD 50 means 50% wil die for sure. So the harm start much earlier! Only an engineer with no knowledge can make such silly (10x) conclusions as above.

    Quote from Lou Pagnucco

    Discovery of Clioquinol and Analogues

    Its interesting that clioquinol is a zinc grabber and ionophore.. like quercetin, hydroxychloroquine..


    Unfortunately it is too toxic for oral use..(at least in Australia)

    https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/18812216/


    In general ionophores if they become too effective can be toxic because they open doors between

    cellular compartents which normally should be closed... this is OK in coccids and other nasties

    and also seems to be useful for geting enough Zn+2 into the cell to inhibit the RNA polymerase which Covid needs.


    Thank you for your response. We are not so far apart as first seems, except perhaps with the HCQ issue and I still am a bit puzzled by your seemingly strong warnings against it. Yes it is an active drug. Yes it should be taken under a doctor's guidance as there can be a relatively rare serious side effect. As with vitamins etc., one must not over dose.


    However, it does have a working theory. It has a large observational positive support base by many across nations, which to me is quite significant. It is NOT just Trump supporters.


    The main difference in our approaches, I believe, is that I take the threat of Covid much more seriously than you. I take it serious enough that I consider prophylactic treatment as mandatory and the fact that there is nothing better, HCQ / Ivermectin are the top candidates. As you put it :


    "I would advocate using prophylaxis if any drugs seemed to benefit me on a risk/reward basis."


    The harm that Covid could very well cause to a person is significant, especially at my age. I am in a private business where I cannot miss work for an extended period of time. The risk / reward basis is huge for HCQ / Ivermectin. (Taken under physicians oversight) Yet that option has been politically removed. I believe partially because of over reaction perhaps such as your thoughts on the "dangers" of HCQ. It is prescribed by the millions each year and is very well understood,


    Why such opposition against it?

    Quote from Bob#2

    I take it serious enough that I consider prophylactic treatment as mandatory and the fact that there is nothing better, HCQ / Ivermectin are the top candidates.


    CoV-19 will stay in our world for all future as the classic corona virus will too. All retro (RNA) virus own the capability to be built in the cellular DNA and to reemerge once the immune system is getting weaker. Thus to get rid of such a virus is a centuries work not an issue of vaccines.


    Thus I'm not a friend of prevention as you would need it a live long. The important thing is to watch carefully your body (taste/throat,..) and to act on first signs. This will also strengthen your immunity if you just get a touch of the virus. You have at least 36 hours to do the first medication but the earlier the better.


    If you have Rosacea then you can get Soolantra creme that contains enough ivermectin for a first treatment. Also Orange juice (>=0.5l) is a great "first therapy". May be just drink 3 Campari orange for total relax...

    Quote from Wyttenbach

    CoV-19 will stay in our world for all future as the classic corona virus will too. All retro (RNA) virus own the capability to be built in the cellular DNA and to reemerge once the immune system is getting weaker. Thus to get rid of such a virus is a centuries work not an issue of vaccines.


    Thus I'm not a friend of prevention as you would need it a live long. The important thing is to watch carefully your body (taste/throat,..) and to act on first signs. This will also strengthen your immunity if you just get a touch of the virus. You have at least 36 hours to do the first medication but the earlier the better.


    If you have Rosacea then you can get Soolantra creme that contains enough ivermectin for a first treatment. Also Orange juice (>=0.5l) is a great "first therapy". May be just drink 3 Campari orange for total relax...


    Thank you for your thoughts.

    I agree, that Covid is here to stay. Hand washing and masks, while helpful, will certainly not prevent contracting Covid over the long term. One rub to the eye, one inhalation of "bad air", simply one inadvertent contact will bring it on. Life will HAVE to move on. The world cannot stay hermits forever. It is logical that in my case, I WILL contract Covid at some point. I actually may already have! I have not been tested.


    So my logic is that if I am going to contract it, then I should do what I can to lower the risk of severity. Masks and hand washing can assist in lowering the contact "viral load" which seems important, so yes, I wear masks. But that in itself does not seem sufficient. My reading indicates that certain medicines can be prophylactic, not necessarily in preventing getting Covid, but in greatly reducing the chances of a sever reaction. That is my goal.... if I am going to get Covid, try to insure I get a mild case of it.


    So I take Quercetin with zinc, vitamin D and try to eat healthy over all. While not absolutely proven (nod to THH), I believe these are well worth taking as they pose virtually ZERO risk and COULD help keep a case mild when contracted. As I have been asking, unless a BETTER concoction can be suggested, I see no better alternative available.


    HCQ and Ivermectin, I would LIKE to have available if I am diagnosed with Covid early on, but thanks to the political fall out, that option has been removed for strictly political reasons. That really aggravates me.


    Vaccines are historically very ineffective for flu type virus's. Often less than 50%. It is yet to be seen how much Covid mutates from season to season. So I am not holding my breath for vaccines. They hopefully will be helpful, but not fool proof. Track and trace is meaningless for long term, personal protection. It may (or may not) keep the virus in check over a society, but it certainly is not personally preventative or prophylactic. Lock downs cannot continue forever, track and trace will not prevent me from contracting Covid.


    So the logical step is to medicate in a reasonable manner that will reduce the severity of the inescapable event of contracting Covid.

    Quote from Bob#2

    Thank you for your response. We are not so far apart as first seems, except perhaps with the HCQ issue and I still am a bit puzzled by your seemingly strong warnings against it.


    I am a pragmatist. Early on I was hopeful it might be a wonder-drug. Although it has a working theory as an anti-viral, these are most useful early on in the disease, and as many have pointed out by the time people get to hospital it is usually later than that. In any case, theory or no, what matters is what works. In medicine everything is so complex that working theories are two a penny, and only a few prove correct.


    HCQ has been tested many times (in RCTs) and not delivered. Now I cannot be sure that HCQ + some other things will not work, although it has been found that if A + B is effective, then A and B are effective on their own, at least a bit. If HCQ is given very early on, where you would expect it to work best, the negative evidence is smaller and there is some weak positive evidence. This is a less generally useful case, but could be valuable, I hope the prophylatic use RCTs still in play deliver positive results.. But there is no strong evidence that it would, so till they do I'm neutral on that. That Boulaware RCT is interesting but taking data from it to support HCQ as prophylatic is pushing this - so I count that as "something worth following up" rather than strong evidence.


    Where I am clearer is as treatment for COVID with hospitalisable symptoms (as in the RECOVERY trial). It seems that any antiviral effect is outweighed by its effect on the immune system which, together with the COVID cytokine storm, makes things worse. Or maybe it is some other interaction. Practical evidence here is what matters, not theory.


    It has not been shown to be very dangerous, even then. But small margins matter when it is people's lives. There are many other drugs (not necessarily expensive ones) worth trying, and some will work.


    THH

    Quote from Bob#2

    HCQ and Ivermectin, I would LIKE to have available if I am diagnosed with Covid early on, but thanks to the political fall out, that option has been removed for strictly political reasons. That really aggravates me.


    Vaccines are historically very ineffective for flu type virus's. Often less than 50%. It is yet to be seen how much Covid mutates from season to season. So I am not holding my breath for vaccines. They hopefully will be helpful, but not fool proof. Track and trace is meaningless for long term, personal protection. It may (or may not) keep the virus in check over a society, but it certainly is not personally preventative or prophylactic. Lock downs cannot continue forever, track and trace will not prevent me from contracting Covid.


    So the logical step is to medicate in a reasonable manner that will reduce the severity of the inescapable event of contracting Covid.


    I, and most people, disagree with you about vaccines. They are effective against Flu, and this virus looks a better target than Flu. Since routine over-65 vaccination deaths from Flu are vastly down, and that is without vaccinating the entire population and getting herd immunity, so knocking out the epidemic. Don't expect 100% effectiveness, but do expect, eventually, enough to knock it out of the population in any country that has good vaccine take-up, and also to provide > 75% protection from mortality. one of my concerns for the US is that vaccine take-up will be very poor, but I'd hope not.


    The question is what reasonable medication as prophylaxis will reduce the severity of COVID. I don't think a few internet videos and outlying doctors with poor evidence makes HCQ a good bet. We still don't know for sure. But, you should ask yourself, how can Zelencko or any oteh chalk face doctor know, without an RCT, that their favourite cure actually works. You will notice that those who are convinced HCQ is good dose all their patients, and thus do not even anecdotally have a control group. most people recover from COVID. The true IFR is around 0.7%. if you are seeing outpatients with mild cases of the disease that does not go up much. If you are seeing patients who already have low O2 levels (the normal criterion for hospital admission) then the mortality rate is much higher.


    The doctors who are genuinely convinced their treatment works will never gather evidence about whether it works. you need comparable samples of 500 patients both on and off the therapy, at least, to get even anecdotal data. No-one who is convinced a therapy helps will collect this for obvious reasons.


    The ones who are not convinced, and try RCTs, find it does not work. Pay attention to what Stefan is saying about Sweden where there is absolutely no politics in the HCQ issue.


    As for Ivermectin the problem is that the theory is less good than HCQ (because EQ50 looks a bit high compared with typical safe doses, though i am not certain about this). I just have not seen any evidence. I wish very much we had more and broader testing of possible therapies. Too mnay people jumped on HCQ, leaving less capacity to test other things. But even so we are getting better therapies.


    What you want is a good prophylatic. You are right, there is not enough proper testing. It is very difficult to arrange, for obvious reasons. I don't myself see any of the candidates here as having strong evidence, so make sure anything you take on a 10% bet it might help a bit if you do get COVID is very safe. Zinc, Vit D, possibly Quercetin would be my list. And, as Stefan says, don't neglect other precautions: hand-washing, social distancing, masks. (Effectiveness of masks to you personally is still being debated - but there seems some view they might help. They certainly help others).


    Do you really want to increase your chances? Read the modern scientific literature on how to boost your immune system generally, but specifically T-cell immune system, since this seems to be key to beating COVID, and follow it. Probably the biggest easily changeable factor is exercise, and then sleep.


    Much more speculative, and difficult, catch the correct type of coronavirus cold (only about 10% of colds come from CVs).


    THH

    On that topic:


    https://www.sciencedirect.com/…cle/pii/S2095254618301005


    The compelling link between physical activity and the body's defense system

    This review summarized research discoveries within 4 areas of exercise immunology: acute and chronic effects of exercise on the immune system, clinical benefits of the exercise–immune relationship, nutritional influences on the immune response to exercise, and the exercise effect on immunosenescence. The immune system is very responsive to exercise, with the extent and duration reflecting the degree of physiological stress imposed by the workload. Key exercise immunology discoveries since 1980 include the following.

    • Acute exercise (moderate-to-vigorous intensity, less than 60 min) is now viewed as an important immune system adjuvant to stimulate the ongoing exchange of distinct and highly active immune cell subtypes between the circulation and tissues. In particular, each exercise bout improves the antipathogen activity of tissue macrophages in parallel with an enhanced recirculation of immunoglobulins, anti-inflammatory cytokines, neutrophils, NK cells, cytotoxic T cells, and immature B cells. With near daily exercise, these acute changes operate through a summation effect to enhance immune defense activity and metabolic health.
    • In contrast, high exercise training workloads, competition events, and the associated physiological, metabolic, and psychological stress are linked with transient immune perturbations, inflammation, oxidative stress, muscle damage, and increased illness risk. Metabolomics, proteomics, and lipidomics have revealed that metabolism and immunity are inextricably interwoven, providing new insights on how intense and prolonged exercise can cause transient immune dysfunction by decreasing immune cell metabolic capacity.

    We are quite alone in not using mask in busses trains and other crowded places in Sweden. I have previously thought that in those places masks would be good. Then I realized that I and others avoid people having masks here. Its a very clear signal tgat this person is vournable. But what happens when masks are commonly used? yea the signal dissapears. So I ended up agreeing with the authorities. wait and see if more proofs turn up.

    Quote from oldguy

    good time for many to start on a diet.


    And for many good reasons other than Covid as well!.......... I believe I have read that obesity / weight is the number one health problem in the US. Causing heart, diabetes, high blood pressure, joint, respiratory and even cancers. No doubt, it is a major problem and one that I need to and am trying to address.


    I am most envious of those who have a natural high metabolism. My family is genetically heavy. My oldest son however weighs 138 pounds and cannot gain an ounce. (38 years old) I have in the past and am now losing weight. However, it keeps being found! 8o


    While I am not as over weight as some, I do need to lose about 30 - 40 pounds. Being well over 6 feet, one can carry excess without it seemingly being too bad..... however that is certainly fooling ones self. 40 pounds overweight is not good. Oh to see the days of weighing 200 again! :(

    Quote from stefan

    We are quite alone in not using mask in busses trains and other crowded places in Sweden. I have previously thought that in those places masks would be good. Then I realized that I and others avoid people having masks here. Its a very clear signal tgat this person is vournable. But what happens when masks are commonly used? yea the signal dissapears. So I ended up agreeing with the authorities. wait and see if more proofs turn up.


    To me, much is about risk versus possible benefits. Masks have a reasonable theory behind them. There is zero risks in wearing them. (Keeping one clean of course) The benefits could be a lower viral load (good for me) and reduced exposure for others. (Good for them) So I do not see why wearing masks are such a big deal.


    Yes they are uncomfortable and a bit of a nuisance. However that said.... I do not have to wear one 10 hours a day. I have a lot of contact with people, but for short periods of time. So my mask is on during close contact and then off, while driving, working at home, etc. I might have different views if I had to wear one for 8 hours straight!


    As far as effectiveness, see my response to THH.

    Quote from Bob#2

    It is yet to be seen how much Covid mutates from season to season.

    That is incorrect. Experts say they know how much this type of virus mutates, and rate is low. Much lower than influenza. They are confident a vaccine can be found that will drive it into extinction if it is deployed correctly.


    That's what the experts at the CDC and elsewhere say. I do not know where you are getting your information, but it is wrong.

Subscribe to our newsletter

It's sent once a month, you can unsubscribe at anytime!

View archive of previous newsletters

* indicates required

Your email address will be used to send you email newsletters only. See our Privacy Policy for more information.

Our Partners

Supporting researchers for over 20 years
Want to Advertise or Sponsor LENR Forum?
CLICK HERE to contact us.