Interesting article on the global tribalism that in two months has infected (pantribalitis?)
the chloroquine / remdesivir reporting since the first Chinese in vitro efficacy publication..February 4
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41422-020-0282-0
How a drug became an object lesson in political tribalism..
I just listened to the vapid young lady saying nonsense.
I would not trust any news media these days. Much better to read the reports and try to get as close as you can to the primary courses. (I sometimes even phone them). Much better to develop a habit of looking at the science and not listening to just air headed journalists.
I believe that the John Hopkins numbers are valid for comparison in the study, much better than your wild guesses as to what the number of actual cases are in the world. To do otherwise would not be a fair comparison as to those that present enough symptoms to have been given the drugs. In other compare confirmed cases numbers in population to confirmed numbers of those in a trial and deaths to deaths. It seems very fair for a Bayesian study of the reality of the effect.
This compares with the recent preprint of the Wuhan HCQ trial on critical care patients.
I'm sorry: it's a retrospective trial. It's just another suggestive study that unfortunately proves nothing.
5-fluorouracil
What about it? It's a pretty dangerous anti-cancer drug.
I believe that the John Hopkins numbers are valid for comparison in the study, much better than your wild guesses as to what the number of actual cases are in the world.
I believe you don't know what you are talking about. The people at Johns Hopkins say their numbers are vastly underestimate the actual numbers. All of the experts say that. They all say you cannot estimate the mortality rate from these numbers alone. Do you know better than they do?
I'm sorry: it's a retrospective trial. It's just another suggestive study that unfortunately proves nothing.
Because SOT says so?
So does SOT still prefer the balm of Gilead to the malarial poison?
Preliminary evidence from a multicenter prospective observational study of the safety and efficacy of chloroquine for the treatment of COVID-19.
Again, not a randomized clinical trial (RCT). Frankly, I am surprised at how long we are having to wait for a properly done, large scale, fully well designed and executed study of HCQ with and without Azi and perhaps zinc. And preferably from the US or Europe. I speak to and read Facebooks of some health professionals at hospital ICU's that use HCQ but unfortunately, they are nurses and really can't follow accurately what if anything the drug does. I have heard New York State is doing what they hope will be definitive studies on their unfortunately very large population of patients. It can't come too soon!
ETA: I didn't mean these RN's are incapable of determining the clinical effect-- only that they have no opportunity to document and carefully compare individual patients. Things are way too chaotic for that. In fact, they still have problems being tested, either for antibody or virus. I understood from one of them that the University of California health system is in the process of fixing that very soon.
Here is description of case tracing, written by experts from the CDC. It describes both the advantages and the limitations of the method. My only objection to this article is that they do not say this method has proved successful already, mainly in Asia.
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/0…irus-contact-tracing.html
Contact tracing helps people to protect themselves and their families.
We’ve been dealt a bad hand with the coronavirus pandemic. Until we have a vaccine or effective treatment, we have limited tools to fight it. Closing large segments of our society and having people shelter at home is a blunt tool that works, but it inflicts severe hardship on individuals and the economy.
We have a sharper tool, the four-cornered Box It In strategy, to stop chains of transmission by widespread testing, isolation of cases, contact tracing and quarantine of contacts. It works, but it doesn’t work perfectly. Some say it’s hopeless to even try contact tracing on this scale. But contact tracing can work — if we do it right. Some states, like New York, Massachusetts and California, are moving quickly to expand these services. . . .
What about it? It's a pretty dangerous anti-cancer drug.
yes, a very old one at that. I remember figuring out the molecular orbitals of the thing back in the late 60's and it was one reason I got interested in biophysics. - seeing how perturbation theory could predict molecular biology.
I would assume that there are better anti metabolic material these days. It makes me wonder if the virus can be attacked by messing with its RNA sequence as it reassembles. Oh, well, my biophysics days are long past. It is mostly CF and LENR hobbies for the last 30+ years.
I would assume that there are better anti metabolic material these days
5fluorouracil is used for skin cancer still.. available from the pharmacist.
Efudix 5% Cream 20g |
I recall one pharmacy assistant yelling out loudly EFUDIX?.. from the dispensary at the back.
some customers were offended
Today Japanese NHK news: Japan researchers confirm the Australian study about Ivermectin being the most effective side effect free treatment. Ivermectin reduces the blood virus count by a factor of 5000 within 48 hours. They also confirm that HCQ given early is enough to block virus cell entry.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7172803/
This is the only recent paper I could find about ivermectin. I found no clinical trials in Google scholar. Absent those, who knows what it does in actual clinical cases? If anyone has a good paper wherein clinical use is reported, please do us all a favor and post it.
robert bryant Geez, man. You're a pharmacist, right? Has 5FU ever been used against any virus? It's very toxic and hardly likely to help.
I recommend this "Box It In" document. It explains the strategy understandably. It shows why this is a good alternative to the lockdown:
https://preventepidemics.org/w…04/BoxItInBriefingDoc.pdf
What I most hate about this public debate is that the problem is presented a false dilemma. As if we have no choice between the extremes of staying "locked down" and "opening up." As if those were the only two choices, and if we open up, we must resign ourselves to what the administration predicts: 200,000 new cases and 3,000 deaths a day by the end of this month. That is NOT the only way to open up! That's the worst possible way. Much can be done to open up while preventing that. But apparently, given the administration's numbers, the administration does not plan to do anything.
The part I emphasized below about "it does not alter the underlying conditions" is what I have been saying. Put things back the way they were, and the exponential increase must restart. That is what the administration graph shows, and for once, they are right.
QUOTES:
Hundreds of countries that have closed their borders and billions of individuals who are shut in their homes are wondering what comes next. This is a public health emergency, and public
health can guide the way forward.
Although sheltering in place reduces spread of the virus, it does not alter the underlying conditions that can allow Covid-19 to spread explosively if we resume normal activities. To
re-open our societies, we must box the virus in by taking the four necessary actions detailed in this report.
We can measure our progress against specific, measurable targets. When we meet these targets, we can begin to gradually lift restrictions, loosening the faucet of normal economic and
social activity. Significant deterioration of any of the measures should trigger reintroduction of some restrictions, tightening the faucet of activity until the situation is again under control. Having a clear plan does not diminish its difficulty. We need real-time, accurate data to track the virus. The people enlisted to find and respond to cases, clusters, and outbreaks swiftly and successfully must be highly trained and well supervised. Building this system will require leadership and a nationwide effort — the health of our people and the wealth of our economy depend on it. . . .
. . . This moment calls for a clear-eyed appraisal of our circumstances and an evidence-based response. The pathogen, not politics, will set the terms of this battle. To open our society before we’ve boxed in the virus would condemn us to another explosive epidemic, another retreat into our homes, another crushing blow to the economy. . . .
Geez, man.
SOT on fire..?Is there any religious significance..I prefer Efudix..to the balm of Gilead.
"Is there no balm in Gilead? Is there no physician there? Why then is there no healing for the wound of my people?"Jeremiah 8.22
? It is very very insulting towards those working with great commitment under horrifyingly difficult conditions to say they are not more motivated by patient good than anything else. I'd go so far as to say that those with any other motivation would get out.
It is also incredibly, stupifyingly stupid and paranoid. It makes no sense at all, regardless how you look at it. I wish he/she could visit a COVID-19 ICU for just ten minutes and then it would be interesting to see if the inane gibberish would be repeated.
According to doctors with the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons, over 90 percent of patients treated with hydroxychloroquine successfully recover from the coronavirus.
How in the world would they know? For openers, the proportion of those infected with the virus that recover and/or are asymptomatic isn't known. But most estimates are that more than 80% have mild or no illness and 99% recover with non-specific treatment. Stuff like this is completely useless for decision making and is anti-science.
Lou Pagnucco about Raoult's advocacy:
QuoteFigure 1 (page 20) shows strong evidence of viral clearance with HCQ alone.
Figure 2 (page 21) shows even more rapid viral clearance with HCQ + azithromycin
As has been noted here many times before, this is an interesting but very deficient study. All it means is that carefully done additional studies are needed. Much as I like the idea, it is clearly not possible to base treatment decisions on this!
So does SOT still prefer the balm of Gilead to the malarial poison?
Nonsense. I do not know of a single, proven effective substance with which to treat or prevent COVID-19 unless you include youth, health and genetics. Malarial poison? Ask an internist who used HCQ to treat lupus for twenty years in hundreds of patients with no cardiac deaths and only a very few patients who stopped the treatment due to QTc prolongation without arrhythmia. I posted it before. HCQ with or without AZI is safe but does require EKG monitoring for essentially absolute safety. HCQ has essentially no other short term toxicity except rare hypersentivity (allergy) and transient stomach (GI) irritation. Problem is, it's not proven to work.
Nonsense.
I posted it before.
Sometimes SOT does not recall what it posts.. I recall that SOT did express some preference for Remdesivir
but in the overly emotional context it is hard to interpret..
Senegal's HCQ response should be interesting.. their cases are rising..
perhaps there will be good clincal data arising.. but they will probably put in
social controls to restrict the cases before they get to Wuhan levels..
They seem to be the best prepared part of Africa..Ebola is an incentive..
https://www.who.int/mediacentr…ebola/17-october-2014/en/
it is clearly not possible to base treatment decisions on this!
I didn't take the study as something to base treatments on. I don't think that was its purpose. Instead it and the letter was to get the Governor of AZ to allow its use - at least in trials. Having a politician blocking research just doesn't seem right. I viewed it as a Bayesian study that showed there is a 90% chance that there is an effect that should be studied. Being useful or establishing a protocol is a different question. It seems there is a lot of hostility about even investigating its usefulness. I think there need to be a fair and extensive study of it under controlled conditions. And it should include Zn and be give at early onset of the symptoms not after damage is already is done to the organs. It seems that its use would be to slow down the replication and not for late stages where it is a matter of survival from damage. But I yield to the MD among us.
