Covid-19 (WuFlu) News

  • A paper showing positive results with ivermectin in a group of patients who already had sustained lung injury and were on ventilation. Presumably, they were on ivermectin because their physicians surmised it could be effective, since (I believe) these treatments preceded the recent in vitro findings --


    "Ivermectin in COVID-19 Related Critical Illness"

    https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3570270


    Hopefully the media will not politicize ivermectin too.

  • On Facebook, a search for an AAPS article on vaccines, which previously would lead directly to the AAPS article, now produces search results...


    The AAPS are an odd bunch, who campaign against "evidence-based medicine" (yes, seriously), and also claim AIDs is not caused by HIV, abortions cause breast cancer, and Bill Gates spreads coronavirus through 5G (probably).


    And it makes sense to remove them from facebook, as it appears even seemingly intelligent people can become enthralled by the 'secret knowledge' offered by these fruitloops.

  • If it were me, I wouldn't divert to the WHO but to a page that gives the reason for not listing the movie. I can not see any way "big business" can profit from this. Which big business do you mean? Far as I know, vaccines are mostly a bother to big pharmaceutical companies and at best, a low margin item with a lot of risk attached to it. People often sue the manufacturers of vaccines for reactions which are unrelated and coincidental. Most American juries do not understand that correlation is not causation so the insurance premiums are high. And how do Google or Facebook profit. I have never noticed a vaccine advertised on either one.


    This is offtopic. I don't want to continue and request the admins to move the original and response to clearance if they agree.


    It's no secret that when Gates sold his shares in Microsoft he purchased shares in pharmaceutical companies (among other things like Coke and McDonalds if memory serves). He is enormously invested in big pharma and exerts a large influence in their policy. Pretty sure that the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation is the second largest contributor to the WHO, behind the USA I believe. If China's contributions to the WHO can earn WHO's friendliness, just think how influential the BMGF is with the WHO. The WHO provides needed medicines to Africa, and that is often packaged with getting vaccinated, no matter how dangerous the vaccine. (Africa often gets the rejected vaccines which were deemed not safe enough for first world countries.)


    Big pharma cannot be sued for vaccines, not since they coerced Congress to be liability free in 1986 via the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act. (Big Pharma is the fourth largest lobby in Washington). Since then it's been a gold rush for big pharma. Imagine, a liability free product, and one that is mandated! So of course there is no need to advertise childhood vaccines! It's no wonder that vaccines are big pharma's third biggest money maker, and it's growing. While drug development is yielding less and less return for investment, vaccines are becoming more and more lucrative.


    And now with the Covid19 dampanic and the urgent push for vaccines, I can well imagine that people like Bill Gates are drooling at this window of opportunity to push for mandatory adult vaccination now that much of the public is scared shatless, thanks to big media, who is primarily funded by big pharma.

  • Hard to find any reporting about how widely available HCQ is, and harder still to find a good word about it. The national media holds their nose every time they mention the drug, and when they do it is about Trump/HCQ, and the dangers of taking it. I honestly think they will celebrate if it turns out another false lead. I did though, find positive stories about HCQ from various local news sources. Generally accounts from doctors in their area seeing very good results.


    Let us hope it is useful, but low key anecdotal accounts in local media is what you would get from anything, if 1000 doctors try it 500 will get better than average results, and it is only human nature to amplify rather than reduce possible effects if these are judged anecdotally.


    How about a little challenge.


    As one of your resident skeptics (God knows this site needs us) I've been wavering over HCQ. Initially I was, like many, pretty hopeful but cautious. And it would be so great if it did help. However my hopometer is now pretty low. Why? The one thing I liked was the 31+31 RCT, but I now have found a definitive analysis of changes in this not apparent just reading the preprint. They are pretty damning: specifically changing the inclusion criteria, and changing the number of patients, down by a factor of 3 from that originally stated (the two perhaps go together). The problem is that any such change, especially in a small study, can be used to get good results by chance just by selecting different criteria.


    There have not yet been enough RCTs to say definitively that it is not useful. I'm glad we will get a few more soon. I don't make the mistake of thinking that non-informative or even blatantly manipulated trial results (which therefore give us no information) imply something does not work. They are weakly negative, but only weakly because maybe some other protocol would give positive results and in these frenetic times the temptation to cut corners and generate positive results is high.


    So: who is willing to guess what will be the initial results later this month of this 500 patient randomised quadruple-blind trial?


    Shane; from your "hold the nose" comment do you mean that the national media are more negative overall than this post? or that you'd consider this post "holding your nose"?



    Here is the treatment used in the trial I base my challenge on:


    Drug: Hydroxychloroquine

    Hydroxychloroquine is available in 200 mg oral tablets of hydroxychloroquine sulfate.

    For this COVID-19 trial, we will use an oral or enteral dose of hydroxychloroquine 400 mg twice daily on the day of enrollment, then 200 mg twice daily for the next 4 days for a 5 day total course.


    Drug: Placebo

    Participants randomized to the control group will receive a dose of placebo enterally twice daily for 5 days (a total of 10 doses). The placebo pills will be as similar as possible to the hydroxychloroquine pills to ensure blinding.


    You cannot say there has been no response from the medical establishment. This is exactly what anyone like me would want - very fast, well conducted, enough patients to see definite results if efficacy is anything significant: certainly if it is as claimed by Raoult.


    Now I'm also wondering who will argue this will not work because of no Zn? But, you see, that original study that was so trumpeted (sorry, could not help it) did not use Zinc. More seriously, while zinc might be useful in forced high quantities, if HCQ is effective it will be effective on its own, though maybe not as effective as with some addition - whether that is zinc or AZT or something else.


    Challenge: who will predict the efficacy of HCQ as found by this trial? I'm going to be boring and say no statistically significant effect. I hope very much that I'm wrong.


    THH

  • It's no secret that when Gates sold his shares in Microsoft he purchased shares in pharmaceutical companies (among other things like Coke and McDonalds if memory serves). He is enormously invested in big pharma and exerts a large influence in their policy. Pretty sure that the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation is the second largest contributor to the WHO, behind the USA I believe. If China's contributions to the WHO can earn WHO's friendliness, just think how influential the BMGF is with the WHO. The WHO provides needed medicines to Africa, and that is often packaged with getting vaccinated, no matter how dangerous the vaccine. (Africa often gets the rejected vaccines which were deemed not safe enough for first world countries.)


    Mark, this analysis is weird in the extreme. Here is where I agree with you, and where I find your implications just plain batty.


    Gates has been (as you know) leading in giving his money to a charitable foundation. He gave another 5 billion in 2018, and it is pretty clear he wants most of his money to go to the foundation.


    I agree, he and his foundation have a lot of financial power. However the foundation, at least, is NOT mainly invested in pharma companies. Its 4 largest holdings are non-pharma, and 50% of its money is in Berkshire Hathaway, a boring choice. Any boring investor would have significant pharma investment, of course, they are typical defensive stocks.


    It is just not possible to make sense of Gates's actions unless his aim is altruistic. The idea that somehow he is manipulating pharmas to enrich himself is just silly.


    Now it is absolutely true that one of the things his foundation believes is important, in terms of overall reducing world poverty, is vaccination. You seem, I guess, to be against that. However as a tool against disease vaccines are extraordinarily effective - for example they have removed forever the horrible scourge of smallpox.


    In any country what testing you allow for vaccines is a trade-off. It is hardly surprising that in Africa regulations are looser for what they deem it worth testing, just as they are looser in many other ways. Are you therefore arguing that you should not test vaccines in Africa (especially when they are against diseases that will affect Africa more than anyone else?). It is pretty obvious that where a disease is a clear and present threat the benefit vs cost trade-off of a vaccine which is likely to protect you but may have some small possibility of side effects that kill you will be higher than in a country where that disease is not present. In the latter case you could not test a vaccine anyway. So yes, he is heavily promoting new vaccines for diseases that pharma does not bother with because they are third world only and there is not enough money to make them, but which have a crippling effect on third world health.


    In any case you have given no evidence that Gates foundation sponsored vaccine tests in Africa that are not ethically sound.


    I also think that you should perhaps state clearly the point you want to make instead of casting stones in an indirect way. Do you have a different opinion from many people about the efficacy of vaccines as health prevention? Fine, then say so. Do you think the Gates Foundation is part of some sinister plot to do ... what? ... I can't really believe this but please state your hypothesis so it can be clearly refuted. Or are you saying that Gates put his money into his Foundation in order to enrich himself? If so give your evidence.


    I am no fan of billionaires. But I agree with Gates, they should be doing what he is doing and putting most of their wealth into charity. Do they do this better than governments? Well, sometimes yes, sometimes no. I guess it all depends. If you argue for higher taxes on billionaires then hey Gates would agree with you.


    Now on the WHO.


    I agree there is evidence it has been unduly influenced by China. There is NO evidence it has been unduly evidence by Gates. If you think the Gates foundation is in any way comparable to the Chinese Government, in terms of likelihood to exert pressure on international organisations in underhand ways, you must be smoking something stronger than I ever have. Over the coronavirus Gates has consistently been arguing for more preparedness, faster reponse. That is the opposite of the early WHO which in the early days was underestimating the danger (it is thought under influence of the Chinese government).


    I don't agree BTW that this evidence of undue influence means we should not have the WHO. Merely that ethical nations should fund it more and take more of an interest in reforming it, rather than rubbishing the notion of any international organisation being of use. The world above all needs international organisations with clout, even though the politics of getting agreement from everyone for these is difficult.


    THH

  • If you believe that HQC may aid in this fight against Covid-19, you are most definitely a

    “Flat earther, climate denier”


    You seem to know the flat farther very well...


    https://www.medrxiv.org/conten…101/2020.04.10.20060699v1

    From France. This is an abstract and an preliminary paper in PDF format is linked on the page.


    A few days ago I posted that most doctors seems to be mildly said ignorants or arrogant. The medical reason to give hydroxy-chloroquine as been widely discussed in several papers. A doctor doing a test with old chloroquine simply is an ignorant idiot. Not adding zinc is the same. But some tablets may already contain some dose of it but mostly likely to low. Also the use of Azitromycin has a clear reason as in the case of covid-19 its main effect is not antibiotic rather its anti viral as it (seems to!) block the second door the virus can enter a cell. Thats also the reason some doctors need to add a second antibiotic.

    ACE-2 is the primary door for "external" infections in this case and thats where hydroxy-chloroquine + zinc infers. But if you have it the second mechanism is going on too. Its like with AIDS even if you have no virus in your blood anymore - thanks to medication - AIDS proceeds by using the inter cellular replication path way. That way - at the of your live - up to 10% of a cells in your body might have it!!


    It's mind blowing how many studies shine up, done by ignorant idiots, that never informed themselves. But if you know how the medical world functions it's no surprise. After the master most doctors do acquire new knowledge only when attending pharma paid conferences or by reading pharma paid web sites. The higher charges usually get paid week longs stays with fun inclusive.


    Now they should work on their own and might have forgotten how this works...


    The positive effect of this new SARS story: We can really deeply learn how rotten minded the whole medical industry has become.

  • improvement in subjective symptom and lowering of C-reactive protein perhaps indicating less inflammation in the HCQ group.

    Yes, lowering of the inflammation response is expected. It is the route used to help with lupus and arthritis. I wonder if indomethacin could also help. (by those that can tolerate it - stomach issue / bleeding)

  • Here the official hydroxy-chloroquine (Plaquenil) leaflet of Sanofi


    It contains a warning for people older that 65- bad luck for the most affected ones...


    Full details :: http://products.sanofi.ca/en/plaquenil.pdf


    Overview:


    HYDROXYCHLOROQUINE INFORMATION SHEET

    What is Hydroxychloroquine?

    Hydroxychloroquine (also known as Plaquenil) is used as a disease modifying anti-rheumatic drug (DMARD). It is used in the treatment of Rheumatoid arthritis, SLE and other types of rheumatic disease.

    Its original use was to treat Malaria but in fact it has also been proven to help control some rheumatic diseases.

    How does Hydroxychloroquine work?

    It is thought that Hydroxychloroquine slows the disease activity by its effect on the body’s immune system. It may help to relieve inflammation and stiffness and prevent any further damage to your joints.

    It also improves symptoms – such as rashes - experienced in SLE (Lupus)

    How do I take Hydroxychloroquine?

    Most people will begin on a dose of 1 tablet twice daily. As the dose is calculated according to your lean body weight, the dose that is prescribed may decrease over time. The tablets should be taken morning and evening with food or a large glass of water. If you miss a dose, do not double up the next dose.

    When will I start feeling the effects of the Hydroxychloroquine?

    Hydroxychloroquine does not work straight away. It can often take at least 3 months before most people will feel the benefits of the drug so be patient and do not stop taking the medication before consulting your doctor.

    Drug safety whilst taking the Hydroxychloroquine:

    •  Take your medication as prescribed.
    •  A check up with an eye doctor is recommended yearly whilst you are taking Hydroxychloroquine
    •  It is safe to take non-steroidal anti-inflammatories (NSAIDs), tylenol and most over the counter remedies with

      Hydroxychloroquine

    •  Although Hydroxychloroquine is considered to be safe to take during pregnancy, but it is better to inform your doctor if you

      plan to become pregnant.

    •  Inform your doctor if you have had a previous reaction to Hydroxychloroquine or Chloroquine
    •  There is no need to have regular blood tests whilst you are taking Hydroxychloroquine

      What are the side effects of Hydroxychloroquine?

      It is important to remember that most patients tolerate this medication very well and do not experience any side effects whilst taking it.

    •  Diarrhea or mild nausea
    •  Headaches or dizziness that continues after the first 24 hours of starting the drug
    •  Skin rashes and an increased sensitivity to the sun
    •  Retinal toxicity – as mentioned above, it is important to get regular eye checks whilst you are taking Hydroxychloroquine as

      in rare cases, the drug can cause toxicity to the eye which may be permanent if not recognized at an early stage. Symptoms of retinal damage include difficulty with vision or blurred vision.

      If you experience any of the side effects listed above or you have any concerns, contact Caroline, the clinic nurse on 613-507-7878 ext 2

  • WYT,


    Not really, I “unelect” every sitting politician,

    in Roseland67 World, no one ever gets a 2nd term, ever, blue/red makes 0 difference to me.

    As it is obvious, I have voted for many more losers than winners.

  • Let us hope it is useful, but low key anecdotal accounts in local media is what you would get from anything, if 1000 doctors try it 500 will get better than average results, and it is only human nature to amplify rather than reduce possible effects if these are judged anecdotally.


    I fully agree. That is why I have floated the idea of this possibly being a placebo phenomenon, or since 98% of patients recover...assigning the recovery to HCQ when it may have happened without any intervention. The latest randomized studies are not looking as promising as the earlier one, or two did.


    My "hope-o-meter" needle is trending downwards. But there are still many trials underway, so we shall see. Would not surprise me if the results run the gamut from: it works, it might work, to it does not work. I am guessing as you did days ago...it will be shown to have a small, but significant effect in shortening the average length of illness, and eases the severity when administered early enough.

  • WYT,


    Not really, I “unelect” every sitting politician,

    in Roseland67 World, no one ever gets a 2nd term, ever, blue/red makes 0 difference to me.

    As it is obvious, I have voted for many more losers than winners.


    Slightly OT - but if everyone lived in this word there would be no democratic motivation for anyone to perform well. rather like hiring contract staff and giving them all their pay up front independent of what they then do.


    It works if you make politics such that only those with purely altruistic motives stand. Not sure how you do that.

  • I just had a talk with my retired acupuncture doctor (anesthesiologist in her first live..). Her husband brought it (corona) home and she go it too. She immediately took Sutherlandia and Archangelica and could see a very strong effect within a short time frame.


    Sutherlandia is harmless as you can eat/take large quantities. With Archangelica I do have no track record, but it is used as a medicine since middle ages or even longer.


    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Angelica_archangelica


    This is for side effect free corona treatment! Sutherlandia(-fructense) is an official anti aids (anti RNA virus) medicament (herb) in South Africa. She took a high Sutherlandia dose of 1g/day 3 capsules I would recommend to add Sceletium - 1 capsule (200mg) for preventing secondary bacterial effects !

  • .....and we were worried about HCQ? This Sutherlandia sounds positively lethal, especially when treating viruses. It induces Lupus like symptoms by suppressing the immune system. The active ingredient is L-cananavine which is incorporated into proteins instead of L-arginine and then screws up their normal enzymatic function. A slight therapeutic effect might be imagined if it selectively did this to the viral arg tRNA transferases but not that of the host. unfortunately its non-selective. Just because its herbal and organic doesn't mean it can't kill you. So we wont be adding it to our Z-pak Anti Bat (iV) just yet! Its all on wiki and this:



    new_logo_top.jpg



    home_small_new.gifresearch_small_new.gifca_small_new.gifproducts_small_new.gifmis_new.gifcontactus_small_new.giforderform_small_new.gif    

    sutherlanida_heading.gif
    part_1_red.gif

    g_intro.gif

    Sutherlandia, an indigenous Southern African shrub commonly known as "cancer bush” has a traditional African and settler folklore history, but has recently been hyped as a treatment for a ridiculously long list of mostly improbable conditions and as a treatment, even cure, for cancer and AIDS, which action is specifically forbidden by law, for the good reason that it may raise false hopes and even lead to substitution for effective treatment of life-threatening illnesses. Sutherlandia moreover, contains significant concentrations of canavanine, an analogue of a conditionally essential amino acid, which in ill and or protein deficient individuals, erroneously enfolds into their proteins, only to have these tissues, even entire organs and or systems, eventually rejected and attacked by their own immune system. Canavanine moreover, is distinctively immunosuppressive of critical cellular immune responses against cancer cells and infectious organisms, including viruses, bacteria, protozoa, helminths and fungi. Sutherlandia is therefore potentially an extremely dangerous substance and ought not to be fraudulently sold as a safe and efficacious panacea.