More late news on HCQ and other low cost Covid treatments ----

Henry Ford Health System Study: Hydroxychloroquine Lowers COVID-19 Death Rate

(Note the early treatment as contrasted to WHO cited failure studies.

The actual story follows under the unrelated video.)

EXCERPT: “Our analysis shows that using hydroxychloroquine helped saves lives,” said Steven

Kalkanis, CEO, Henry Ford Medical Group and Senior Vice President and Chief Academic Officer

of Henry Ford Health System. “As doctors and scientists, we look to the data for insight.

And the data here is clear that there was benefit to using the drug as a treatment for sick,

hospitalized patients.”

The study analyzed 2,541 patients hospitalized between the system’s six hospital between

March 10 and May 2. The study found 13% of the patients treated with hydroxychloroquine died

while 26.4% of the patients who did not receive the drug died.

Patients treated with hydroxychloroquine at Henry Ford met specific protocol criteria as outlined

by the hospital system’s Division of Infectious Diseases. The vast majority received the drug soon

after admission; 82% within 24 hours and 91% within 48 hours of admission. All patients in the

study were 18 or over with a median age of 64 years; 51% were men and 56% African American.

https://detroit.cbslocal.com/2…wers-covid-19-death-rate/

Study shows hydroxychloroquine cut death rates in some coronavirus patients

https://www.trialsitenews.com/…in-vs-hydroxychloroquine/

Clinical Trials and Research News Weekly Roundup | S2 E27 | Ivermectin VS Hydroxychloroquine

Video interview - Association of American Physicians and Surgeons sues FDA over HCQ restrictions

Quinine may be more effective than HCQ and CQ --

Evidence That Quinine Exhibits Antiviral Activity against SARS-CoV-2 Infection In Vitro

https://www.preprints.org/manuscript/202007.0102/v1

But for HCQ-deniers, CNN viewers, The Guardian readers,... --

Hydroxychloroquine is the most disappointing, disavowed drug that researchers keep studying for COVID-19

https://medicalxpress.com/news…isavowed-drug-covid-.html

Quote from Mark U

Please Google this as an experiment:

Yunnan Ratg13 Covid miners pneumonia

and let me know what you get. Maybe you get no results, based on your previous browsing history?

(I get results.) Again, let us know.

OK, so I will go with the preprint, which I believe:

https://www.preprints.org/manuscript/202005.0322/v2

Genomic analysis indicates that SARS-CoV-2 is most related to RaTG13, a beta corona virus derived from bats by 96% 1. At present, RaTG13 is only available on the public database in the form of a genome sequence. The genome of RaTG13 (MN996532.1) was sequenced from the RNA of a bat faecal swab collected in 2013 from Yunnan, China, however the exact location is not mentioned. Since RaTG13 is one of the main supports for SARS-CoV-2 to have a natural origin, it is of utmost importance to understand the sample location. RNA dependent RNA polymerase (RdRp) sequence of RaTG13 shows that it is 100% similar to that of bat corona virus BtCoV/4991 and 98.7-98.9% similar to SARS-CoV-2 RdRp 2. BtCoV/4991 was described to be a SARS-like (SL-) corona virus from bat faeces sampled in an abandoned mine from Mojiang 2. Both the publications 1,2 are authored by Dr. Zheng-li Shi (Z-L Shi), who is described as the bat woman of China 3. However, BtCoV/4991 has not been mentioned by Zhou et al 2020 1 where novel corona virus was first described. Based on the RdRp sequence similarities, similarities in sample collection dates, sample locations, and the fact that RaTG13 is mentioned synonymous to BtCoV/4991 on the Chinese bat database, it is predicted that RaTG13 and BtCoV/4991 originate from the same sample. The sample, bat faecal swab was collected in 2013 from an abandoned mineshaft in Mojiang by Dr. Shi and her work group. In 2012, in a Mojiang mineshaft, six mine workers suffered from atypical pneumonia and three of them died. These workers were engaged in the work of clearing debris from a mineshaft which had a lot of bats and bat faeces 3,4. A detailed health investigation indicated that the miners suffered from atypical pneumonia mostly of the viral origin 4. Therefore, in the light of the present Covid-19 caused by SARS-CoV-2, the fact that its phylogenetic neighbour RaTG13 originated from bat faeces collected from a mineshaft, which was also the origin of pneumonia-like disease in miners in 2012, should be noted.

I'm happy that RaTG13 and BtCoV/4991 probably come from same swab in abandoned mine. I'm happy that in 2012 six miners died of atypical pneumonia. And I'm happy that this should be noted (that the large number of mine bats from which RaTG13 originated contained viral material that induced atypical pneumonia). In addition, I'd note that bats are host to a very large number of human crossover and near-crossover respiratory viruses.

I don't understand how you jump from this to lab generated mutant pandemics?

More confirmation of the effectiveness of both HCQ and ivermectin --

A comparative observational study on Ivermectin- Doxycycline and

Hydroxychloroquine-Azithromycin therapy on COVID19 patients

https://www.researchgate.net/p…y-on-COVID19-patients.pdf

Ivermectin for Covid-19

https://www.researchgate.net/p…ermectin-for-Covid-19.pdf

Quote from Lou Pagnucco

More confirmation of the effectiveness of both HCQ and ivermectin --

A comparative observational study on Ivermectin- Doxycycline and

Hydroxychloroquine-Azithromycin therapy on COVID19 patients

https://www.researchgate.net/p…y-on-COVID19-patients.pdf

Ivermectin for Covid-19

https://www.researchgate.net/p…ermectin-for-Covid-19.pdf

Display More

Lou - for those readers who do not actually bother to look at links:

I don't think it is confirmation of effectiveness.

Basically it says these two treatments are almost identical, and has no information on whether they are better or worse than "standard care" except noting in both cases some mild side-effects.

THH

Ivermectin: COVID 19 Protection from the front line.

from Aracaju in NE Brazil population ~1000,000.

Prophylaxis

dosage one dose =. 6 mg/ 30 kg . Take one dose Day 1, Day3 followed by one dose every 15 days

Quote from RobertBryant

Ivermectin: COVID 19 Protection from the front line.

from Aracaju in NE Brazil population ~1000,000.

Prophylaxis

dosage one dose =. 6 mg/ 30 kg . Take one dose Day 1, Day3 followed by one dose every 15 days

External Content www.youtube.com

Content embedded from external sources will not be displayed without your consent.

Display all external content

Through the activation of external content, you agree that personal data may be transferred to third party platforms. We have provided more information on this in our privacy policy.

I would prefer a written link - videos are too slow to scan.

Basically, no studies of doctors using medicine as prophylaxis mean anything unless they have meaningful comparative controls. That means either stunningly different results, or double-blind RCT, because just being on a trial alters people's behaviour.

We know, in particular, that COVID is a very mild disease, or asymptomatic, for many people, and almost all young people. So it is easy to find populations that apparently do not catch it much.

It is difficult to get reliable evidence for treatments, and history is littered with treatments accepted as good which turn out to have been bad many years later when properly tested.

It is even more difficult to get reliable evidence of prophylaxis because the adverse outcomes you are trying to reduce are much less likely.

Does anyone have any (written) evidence?

THH

Quote from THHuxleynew

I'm happy that RaTG13 and BtCoV/4991 probably come from same swab in abandoned mine. I'm happy that in 2012 six miners died of atypical pneumonia. And I'm happy that this should be noted (that the large number of mine bats from which RaTG13 originated contained viral material that induced atypical pneumonia). In addition, I'd note that bats are host to a very large number of human crossover and near-crossover respiratory viruses.

I don't understand how you jump from this to lab generated mutant pandemics?

Let me guess: as a child running across the field you badly twisted your ankle on a rabbit hole, and you've been averse to rabbit holes ever since.

Understand that in 2013, Bat Lady and team published on what was to become RaTG13 :

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5389864/

They were playing around with it in the lab. In 2016, another team was playing around with it in their lab, mixing it with the original SARS spike protein among other things:

https://www.pnas.org/content/113/11/3048

If you were 'happy' that the virus in 2012 could kill some mine cleaners, just think of how overjoyed gain of function researchers were when a closely related virus was recently discovered that was wreaking deadly havoc on pangolins in 2019. They must have been wringing their hands in gleeful anticipation of combining the pangolin CoV with the RaTG13 CoV. After all, this is what they do. It was probably lab material / lab note material like this that was confiscated / destroyed upon the CoVid-2 outbreak. Too soon to publish, if they had planned to at all.

In stark contrast with the original CoV-1 causing SARS, all the components that make up CoV-2 were already being studied in laboratories : the RaTG13 RNA, the pangolin virus RNA, and the exciting prospects (to gain of function researchers) of polybasic furin cleavage sites. The chance of any two of these getting together by chance in nature is extremely slim. The chance of three is almost impossible. But in a gain of function laboratory, again: this is what they do.

Quote from Mark U

The chance of any two of these getting together by chance in nature is extremely slim.

Pangolins love scrabbling around in bat faeces. Fact!

Edit: suprisingly enough, there’s been some research on this... “Bat faeces and traces of guano were observed in eleven of the twelve sleeping sites.“ https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/aje.12759

Quote from Mark U

They were playing around with it in the lab. In 2016, another team was playing around with it in their lab, mixing it with the original SARS spike protein among other things:

https://www.pnas.org/content/113/11/3048

If you were 'happy' that the virus in 2012 could kill some mine cleaners, just think of how overjoyed gain of function researchers were when a closely related virus was recently discovered that was wreaking deadly havoc on pangolins in 2019. They must have been wringing their hands in gleeful anticipation of combining the pangolin CoV with the RaTG13 CoV. After all, this is what they do. It was probably lab material / lab note material like this that was confiscated / destroyed upon the CoVid-2 outbreak. Too soon to publish, if they had planned to at all.

Ok, this is where paranoid conspiracy theorists get it wrong.

Fact: RaTG13 was a wild bat virus found in a cave

Fact: virus found in the same cave gave 13 workers pneumonia in 2013

Fact: GOF research was looking at bat viruses in 2016 - and before - and after.

The rest of what you say is not just down a rabbit hole, it is on a castle in the air all of your own specialised "evil Chinese scientists out to destroy the human race" kind.

Have you talked to any GOF researchers about this stuff? You seem very acquainted with their thought processes, but I'm just thinking if I were a GOF researcher i'd be thinking differently (not being an evil scientist) so maybe you are wrong?

THH

Quote from Zeus46

Pangolins love scrabbling around in bat faeces. Fact!

Edit: suprisingly enough, there’s been some research on this... “Bat faeces and traces of guano were observed in eleven of the twelve sleeping sites.“ https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/aje.12759

I should have qualified: that it was exactly a portion of the spike protein where recombination occurred - and nowhere else - is very unlikely. Yes, of course, pangolins get viruses from bats!

Quote from THHuxleynew

Have you talked to any GOF researchers about this stuff? You seem very acquainted with their thought processes, but I'm just thinking if I were a GOF researcher i'd be thinking differently (not being an evil scientist) so maybe you are wrong?

GOF research labs compete against each other, trying to outdo each other. This is well known, and is not uncommon among labs in general.

If someone didn't know any better, the very term "gain of function" would seem to imply something ... positive. In fact, it is about creating nasty superbugs.

Of what benefit for treatments of SARS Cov-2 has GOF research wrought? There is enough gradations of naturally occurring infectious agents that we should be able to tease apart what makes certain viruses particularly bad, without going all Dr. Frankenstein and deliberately creating new and improved little killing machines.

Quote from Mark U

GOF research labs compete against each other, trying to outdo each other. This is well known, and is not uncommon among labs in general.

If someone didn't know any better, the very term "gain of function" would seem to imply something ... positive. In fact, it is about creating nasty superbugs.

I'm sorry Mark U. I'd agree except in your interpretation of "outdo". GOF labs are trying to discover, safely, what dangerous mutations might bring, specifically for influenza virus (most people viewed that is major pandemic threat, and indeed it still is).

Creating nasty superbugs is not required. For example, you can study spike protien chnages sepaartely from other virus characteristics.

I'm not arguing on one side of other of question whether GOF research should happen.

I'm arguing you have no good evidence that SARS-CoV2 was created in a lab from a US research program.

Quote from Mark U

I should have qualified: that it was exactly a portion of the spike protein where recombination occurred - and nowhere else - is very unlikely. Yes, of course, pangolins get viruses from bats!

Are seemingly unlikely outcomes really all that unlikely? It might be a one in a million chance, but given many millions of viral interactions, it becomes a certainty.

And if you study one particularly virulent virus out of these potential millions of others, it shouldn’t be surprising to find it appears to be remarkably well adapted.

Quote from Zeus46

Pangolins love scrabbling around in bat faeces. Fact!

Edit: suprisingly enough, there’s been some research on this... “Bat faeces and traces of guano were observed in eleven of the twelve sleeping sites.“ https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/aje.12759

And of course bats do fly 1000 miles all way down to Wuhan to bite the last free living Pangolin....

Quote from THHuxleynew

The rest of what you say is not just down a rabbit hole, it is on a castle in the air all of your own specialised "evil Chinese scientists out to destroy the human race" kind.

The master FUD'er is obviously hopelessly stranded... Nobody here with at least two active brain cells will ever believe that CoV-19 is from a Pangolin that has been bitten by a far far distant bat. and spontaneosuly has been eaten by a HIV-I sick person that then did express a new virus.¨

The only sick persons in this story are greedy Americans (See patent above or Fauci financing illegal work) or ruthless Chinese that do anything to please Xi them.

Quote from RobertBryant

Gilead is being honorable . with $3000.. they should really charge 12000??

Antibiotics that save your live are sold for a few bucks. Dirty untested Gilead Remdesivir shit is sold for 3000$ to make Gilead shareholder & owners &doctors rich. It is not only out of mind overpriced its use a livestyle drug to somewhat shorten your hospital stay is unethical.

As said Gilead did not make any long term safety test. You pay them 3000$ to be their test victim!

But most unethical(in my view criminal) is the behavior of doctors that do not use the known working drugs. Thus any hospital using Gilead Remdesivir shit is anyway a criminal institution.

All drugs that really work: Ivermerctin,Heparin,HCQ,Doxycycline (AZT) have been longtime (>20 years) tested and are among the safest known ones.

Quote from THHuxleynew

Basically it says these two treatments are almost identical, and has no information on whether they are better or worse than "standard care" except noting in both cases some mild side-effects.

THH

THH,

I am being a bit lazy here.....

Exactly what is "Standard care"? I have seen it referenced as such, but no details..... i.e. do you mean Remdesivr? Ventilators? Other drugs? I do not know what "standard care" is and how one can compare it to HCQ if it is not defined, thus not measured quantitatively. Can you list what side effects "standard care" has for example?

Also, you are very supportive of double blind RCT's and rightly so. Has the "Standard Care" had double blind RCT's performed on Covid19?

My point is (and I could certainly be wrong) is that there is no "standard care" for Covid19 and there certainly is no treatment that has had proper RCT's performed on it. (Again, if I am incorrect in this, please educate me as I could very well be wrong)

So if my premise is correct.... no true "standard care" and to RCT's on anything else, why are you so cautious about HCQ and Ivermectin among others? They are well known drugs, well understood side effects and have had significant "field reporting" of success. My understanding is that they also have valid and understood theoretical biological / chemical mechanisms that could hinder the Covid virus. Unlike Remedsivr, which has had very little field reports of success, (but big dollar backing pushing it's use.)

So I think to myself.... if I came down with Covid, would I early on, ask for HCQ and/or Ivermectin treatment? Would I ask for Remedsivr? Would I ask for the "Standard care" not even knowing what "standard care" is?

Which would you ask for? Would lack of RCT on HCQ /Ivermectin rule them out for some other treatment that has had no RCT either?

Please note I am not trying to be argumentative here. It is an honest question that I ask myself and now ask you. I believe your posts/views are not necessarily anti-HCQ, (no more than your posts on LENR are not anti-LENR either) but more along the lines of a warning one not to put too much faith in unproven treatment..... but then I do not think anything else has been proven either! HCQ and Ivermectin seem to have MUCH more positive evidence (agreeably observational only) of effectiveness than anything else I have read, especially Remedisvr.

Is the last not a correct statement? What treatment would you ask for?

Quote from THHuxleynew

Lou - for those readers who do not actually bother to look at links:

I don't think it is confirmation of effectiveness.

Basically it says these two treatments are almost identical, and has no information on whether they are better or worse than "standard care" except noting in both cases some mild side-effects.

THH

Display More

THH,

Based some graphs I have seen, the viral clearance rates for both protocols looked pretty good

- especially since HCQ+Az was administered without zinc.

Also, it is interesting that the authors believe extending ivermectin dosing to three days will

accelerate viral clearance.

It's a small, but positive study, and points in the same direction as earlier studies.

Quote from Bob#2

THH,

I am being a bit lazy here.....

Exactly what is "Standard care"? I have seen it referenced as such, but no details..... i.e. do you mean Remdesivr? Ventilators? Other drugs? I do not know what "standard care" is and how one can compare it to HCQ if it is not defined, thus not measured quantitatively. Can you list what side effects "standard care" has for example?

Also, you are very supportive of double blind RCT's and rightly so. Has the "Standard Care" had double blind RCT's performed on Covid19?

My point is (and I could certainly be wrong) is that there is no "standard care" for Covid19 and there certainly is no treatment that has had proper RCT's performed on it. (Again, if I am incorrect in this, please educate me as I could very well be wrong)

Display More

I would ask for whatever the physician's reckoned was likely good: certainly dexamethasone, possibly blood thinners if I got bad covid, possibly IL6-inhibitors etc if I got bad covid (not sure what current state is about them). Not sure there is anything else ATM. I'm pretty neutral about HCQ / Ivermectin, mildly negative.

Standard care would be non-specific to COVID care for symptoms - e.g. oxygen, ventilator if needed, treatment for fever etc.

Standard care is just what you do for the best when you have no COVID-specific treatment, and I guess it has not, so for example we have not tested whether people with low O2 levels do better NOT given oxygen etc.

THH