Covid-19 (WuFlu) News

  • https://www.thelancet.com/jour…-6736(20)31180-6/fulltext


    This pretty well ends the bullsh*t about hydroxychloroquine with or without a macrolide antibiotic like azithromycin being effective. 96,000 patients reviewed. Across several levels of severity. vs non-treated controls. Results suggest the drugs may make things worse and have no overall benefit.


    Having invested almost $1000 to obtain plenty of HCQ and Azi from the US, Canada and India, I am not happy to see this. Does anyone seriously think this study appearing in the highly prestigious Lancet (for more than a century one of the best medical journals in the world) does anyone think this is political? If so, get a life. Summary conclusions:


    "96 032 patients (mean age 53·8 years, 46·3% women) with COVID-19 were hospitalised during the study period and met the inclusion criteria. Of these, 14 888 patients were in the treatment groups (1868 received chloroquine, 3783 received chloroquine with a macrolide, 3016 received hydroxychloroquine, and 6221 received hydroxychloroquine with a macrolide) and 81 144 patients were in the control group. 10 698 (11·1%) patients died in hospital. After controlling for multiple confounding factors (age, sex, race or ethnicity, body-mass index, underlying cardiovascular disease and its risk factors, diabetes, underlying lung disease, smoking, immunosuppressed condition, and baseline disease severity), when compared with mortality in the control group (9·3%), hydroxychloroquine (18·0%; hazard ratio 1·335, 95% CI 1·223–1·457), hydroxychloroquine with a macrolide (23·8%; 1·447, 1·368–1·531), chloroquine (16·4%; 1·365, 1·218–1·531), and chloroquine with a macrolide (22·2%; 1·368, 1·273–1·469) were each independently associated with an increased risk of in-hospital mortality. Compared with the control group (0·3%), hydroxychloroquine (6·1%; 2·369, 1·935–2·900), hydroxychloroquine with a macrolide (8·1%; 5·106, 4·106–5·983), chloroquine (4·3%; 3·561, 2·760–4·596), and chloroquine with a macrolide (6·5%; 4·011, 3·344–4·812) were independently associated with an increased risk of de-novo ventricular arrhythmia during hospitalisation."


    My note: it is hard to argue against the finding that the drugs, if they helped at all, did not help much. You could claim that maybe the sickest patients got HCQ and AZI so the controls are invalid. That is improbable but you can't rule it out without *prospective* (not like this one retrospective) randomized double blind controlled studies with prematched experimental and control groups. You can bet a lot of such studies are now ongoing and will be reported soon. What is very clear from this is that any benefit of HCQ and AZI, if it exists, if certainly not, as many claimed, "ground breaking." This is very disappointing. I wonder what Dr. Strangelove (also known as Raoult) has to say about it.


    dr-strangelove.jpg


  • Yeah, I am not sure about this article. Dr. Fauci was interviewed this morning and he said he has seen a much more complete set of data on the Moderna trial than what is publicly out there and he likes what he sees so far. He said it shows that the vaccine is creating neutralizing antibodies at a normal dose.


    Moderna definitely jumpled the gun with their press release. They need to put out the full set of data from their trial for peer review. Fauci said that should happen in the next 2 weeks.


  • HCQ is a highly active drug - with plausible lab claims for antiviral activity and also immune system modulation. So you can see why the interest. It does not mean that it works.


    It remains possible that it works in some way. But not the magic bullet or anything like it. Too many negative studies now.


    And all those establishment doctors who were cautious were right to be cautious.

  • Oh yeah, let's open up the country (it's being done as we write)... especially churches and choirs that President Trump finds "essential."


    https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/69/wr/mm6919e6.htm


    "Following a 2.5-hour choir practice attended by 61 persons, including a symptomatic index patient, 32 confirmed and 20 probable secondary COVID-19 cases occurred (attack rate = 53.3% to 86.7%); three patients were hospitalized, and two died. Transmission was likely facilitated by close proximity (within 6 feet) during practice and augmented by the act of singing."


    I am sure some idiots will say this report is "political" also.


  • leave aside that this nukepro website is not reliable.


    Leave aside that unless Moderna officially gives up you cannot rule their offering out:


    There are some 70 candidate vaccines being developed. Each with 10% - 30% (depending) chance of actually being in the end usable. This is a silly and sensationalist headline with no balance.

  • https://www.thelancet.com/jour…-6736(20)31180-6/fulltext


    This pretty well ends the bullsh*t about hydroxychloroquine with or without a macrolide antibiotic like azithromycin being effective. 96,000 patients reviewed. Across several levels of severity. vs non-treated controls. Results suggest the drugs may make things worse and have no overall benefit.



    I can't say I ever saw a study that showed HQL to be effective. But if people want to take it that's fine I guess. I don't know what the motivation would be to stop that, unless it was causing shortages of the drug for people who really need it (perhaps it is).


    Based on what I've read the only things that look interesting to me right now are:


    1. Remdesivir - provides a small benefit and would likely need to be paired with other antivirals in a cocktail for greater effectiveness

    2. Ivermectin - interesting, but it seems to be needed at an extremely high dose to have any effect. So side effects and safety may nullify this one

    3. Antibody Shots from Regeneron and others - by far the most interesting antiviral therapy imo. Really cutting edge science and a potential game changer. But it's early. Will need a few more months of development to know the real story.


    Then there are the vaccine candidates, (which given the lack of drugs on the shelf that appear to work), are becoming the most interesting option of all imo. I won't be surprised at all to see a vaccine by this time next year being administered to large numbers of people - Moderna, Oxford, J&J and Pfizer have the best candidates at the moment I think.


    But it's a long time between now and then and we may just have that dreaded second wave to get through in Nov/Dec of this year. That could be a really tough time, then 2021 is better and hopefully most of us are taking a Covid vaccine.

  • It/s one thing for a well intentioned physician to prescribe medication such as HCQ and AZI off label, having given the patient informed consent and done the correct laboratory tests, EKG's and kept documentation. It is quite another thing to be a crook and charge $4000 by mail for a few generic drugs costing less than at most $100. This crook got caught:


    https://www.nbcsandiego.com/ne…-was-yam-extract/2330326/


    " in addition to the hydroxychloroquine, the COVID-19 kits came with a bottle of Viagra and Xanax to help with stress caused by the pandemic.


    In a recorded phone call, an undercover agent posing as a customer said Staley filled them in on the prescription. Staley allegedly told the agent that if someone in the family contracted the virus that he would “activate” the medication by telling them the proper amount to ingest.


    “I will be dosing it. I will activate it,” Staley told the agent, according to the new indictment. “You will own and possess these kits...When someone gets sick, we will start the loading on that person. We will load them and prophylax (sic) all of you.”


    In addition, federal investigators say Staley touted the medication as an “amazing cure” for those sick with the deadly viral disease.


    “You could be short of breath and coughing at noon today, and if I start your hydroxychloroquine loading dose, you’ll feel 99% better by noon tomorrow,” Staley allegedly told agents during an April 3 call. “It’s preventative and curative. It’s hard to believe, it’s almost too good to be true.”


    I like the part about the Viagra and Xanax-- truly an artistic touch to the con.

  • Moderna, working with the National Institutes of Health, recruited 45 healthy subjects ages 18 to 55 for the Phase 1 trials. They were divided into three groups receiving doses of 25, 100 and 250 micrograms in two shots 28 days apart.

    Thus far, the available results on key antibody production cover only the first eight subjects. There’s no question that those results and others from the preliminary trial were encouraging, as far as that goes. Moderna says that only one of the 45 test subjects experienced redness around the injection site, and only three of the subjects given the highest dose experienced flu-like symptoms. But those disappeared after a day or so.


    https://www.latimes.com/busine…rus-vaccine-moderna-hopes


    Hmmm...

    Who would you go for, L.A. Times, or nukepro?



  • I'm not sure if we will find a well-tolerated anti-viral quickly. But COVID has a lot of different places where the disease can be attacked, including the cytokine storm, and its various effects. So drugs that can reduce mortality of those suffering with this look a pretty good bet - just they may take time.


    I agree antibody shots are promising.


    And we can always hope for ivermectin etc to be a magic bullet...

  • No - only a conspiracy theorist would think stories and perspectives get decided on in some concerted way. And in finding answers would develop one or another conspiracy theory.


    Bringing out the old yarn of "conspiracy thinking" seems to be your fallback position when you are confused. If the truth is not something you are after, then feel free to ignore. But labeling people conspiracy theorists is the same as us labeling you an old fool - not very nice - challenge the thinking not the person.

  • Bringing out the old yarn of "conspiracy thinking" seems to be your fallback position when you are confused. If the truth is not something you are after, then feel free to ignore. But labeling people conspiracy theorists is the same as us labeling you an old fool - not very nice - challenge the thinking not the person.


    It was not personal.


    The question here is one indicating a certain bias in thinking, don't you think? Which is my point.


    By saying that it should be answered you imply that there is an interesting answer. Just as "When did you stop beating your wife" is not a neutral question, nether is this.


    Now, it may be an interesting question. But for that to be understood there is a whole subtext you are not stating about why it is an interesting or even valid question. I'm asking you to be explicit about it. I'll happily avoid the label conspiracy theory if you feel that no appropriate and address any assumptions in full without such an approximation.


    Specifically, I'd ask you why it is interesting? I mean, I don't ask such questions about the thousands of politically freighted stories I see or hear, whether or not I agree with them?


    I really want to know something, in honesty - do you think Anderson Cooper has meetings with Don Lemon, and they whiteboard out the stories they will run against hydroxycholoroquine because they've read the primary research and have read the Results sections comprehensively and don't like the evidence?

    If not, who is writing the stories? Is it Nancy Pelosi holding sessions with other democrats and doing an evidence-cased review, and after a solid look at the evidence they mount a campaign against it?

  • Moderna

    There Will Be No Vaccine -- Test Vaccine on 15 Humans Put 20% of Those In The Hospital Within Weeks
    And only half derived antibodies.....

    Three of the 15 human guinea pigs in the high dose cohort (250 mcg) suffered a “serious adverse event” within 43 days of receiving Moderna’s jab. ….


    That's not a huge problem. It turned out 250 mcg was much more than they needed. 25 mcg worked just as well, with no bad side effects.

  • By saying that it should be answered you imply that there is an interesting answer.


    I really want to know something, in honesty - do you think Anderson Cooper has meetings with Don Lemon, and they whiteboard out the stories they will run against hydroxycholoroquine because they've read the primary research and have read the Results sections comprehensively and don't like the evidence?

    If not, who is writing the stories? Is it Nancy Pelosi holding sessions with other democrats and doing an evidence-cased review, and after a solid look at the evidence they mount a campaign against it?


    You go around and around. The question is simple, "who is writing the stories and framing the narrative." Everyone is claiming "there is media bias" or "political bias". I am saying, who is writing the stories and why? If you think Anderson Cooper and Don Lemon are the ones with the agenda, then that is a fine answer.

  • That's not a huge problem. It turned out 250 mcg was much more than they needed. 25 mcg worked just as well, with no bad side effects.

    Half derived antibodies att tested does

    ? derive antibodies at safe dose


    So we will see what happens. Hope you are right, but we have more eggs in other baskets. Anyway Sweden has 10% of the population with antibodies and we see a decline due to immunitivity and I suspect that this is because children does not spread the virus much. So maybe for sweden vaccine where 30% succeeds may be good enough. Also we want the vaccine to be safe this means a really low fraction of side effects for people in their 30ths and so on else the anti vaccers will jump on this hard and having trouble now spells trouble later in this regard. But it's too early to say anything definitive.

  • Half derived antibodies att tested does

    ? derive antibodies at safe dose


    So we will see what happens. Hope you are right,


    Not me. That's what news reports and their press release said.


    Everyone developed binding antibodies. Everyone from 25 to 250 mcg. So there does not seem to be a need for the higher dose. It is not clear yet how many developed neutralizing antibodies, which is the kind you want.


    Experts were not impressed by the press release. See:


    https://www.statnews.com/2020/…sessing-covid-19-vaccine/


  • Fauci spoke about it a bit. This morning he said the quote below. His quote is still a bit vague in terms of the participants, but Moderna may really be on to something. It would be amazing if they pulled off a vaccine this fast.


    “The vaccine induced what we call ‘neutralizing antibodies’ as opposed to just ‘binding antibodies,’” Fauci explained. “‘Neutralizing antibodies’ are antibodies that actually can block the virus… they did it at a moderate dose of the vaccine. That’s the reason why we thought it would be good news.”


    https://www.masslive.com/coron…nk-it-is-conceivable.html