Covid-19 News

    Quote from Shane D.

    There were 900 people a week landing in NY every week alone.

    As said before: The virus entered Italy early December. Some 10'000 Chinese working slaves were allowed to visit their families over new year and did in January directly return from Wuhan region. The surge in Italy was after the Chinese new year return of the "slaves". ("slaves" because these people are hired under Chinese law ...)

    Italy did finally spread it to USA and south Switzerland. Thus first stop here was the travel to south Switzerland!


    In Germany the situation was the same. A automobile contractor working with BMW sent people from Wuhan to Munich that did spread the first mass infection that almost could be contained. But as we know there are asymptomatic super super spreaders you never will catch early...

    As reported form the German meet industry: Super spreading happened over distances > 8 meter of the individual! Due to low air temperature and ventilation!


    I take the point (fair) that giving antivirals 5 days or more after onset of symptoms might well lead to negative results from a useful antiviral.


    I was positive about HCQ as early treatment until I saw the RCT about prophylactic use - where people with known high-risk exposure where randomised and given fast HCQ or placebo.


    I'd just point out that observational trials showing positive or negative evidence are essentially worthless. In addition ecological trials (country correlations with HCQ use and mortality or infection rate) are essentially useless because there are too many uncontrolled confounders - some of which we know will lead to false positives for HCQ. Luckily, for HCQ, we also have some RCT evidence. Those thinking it is unjustly overlooked should (a) review that -and if possible find positives, or (b) review that and find form of treatment which is practical and does not have negative PCT evidence.

    • Official Post

    https://www.newsweek.com/key-d…jQJj70JtASkIRrR9uRS7LqIsF

    "As professor of epidemiology at Yale School of Public Health, I have authored over 300 peer-reviewed publications and currently hold senior positions on the editorial boards of several leading journals. I am usually accustomed to advocating for positions within the mainstream of medicine, so have been flummoxed to find that, in the midst of a crisis, I am fighting for a treatment that the data fully support but which, for reasons having nothing to do with a correct understanding of the science, has been pushed to the sidelines. As a result, tens of thousands of patients with COVID-19 are dying unnecessarily. Fortunately, the situation can be reversed easily and quickly."


    "I am referring, of course, to the medication hydroxychloroquine"


    "I myself know of two doctors who have saved the lives of hundreds of patients with these medications, but are now fighting state medical boards to save their licenses and reputations"


    "In the future, I believe this misbegotten episode regarding hydroxychloroquine will be studied by sociologists of medicine as a classic example of how extra-scientific factors overrode clear-cut medical evidence."

    Isn't the problem that a proper HCQ study has not been done with controls yet. Such studies is underway so why not allow treatment with HCQ now? I tried to track down what professional doktors in sweden has to say about HCQ. Extreamly little is writtenand most is negative saying there is no positive effect.

    • Official Post
    Quote from stefan

    Isn't the problem that a proper HCQ study has not been done with controls yet. Such studies is underway so why not allow treatment with HCQ now? I tried to track down what professional doktors in sweden has to say about HCQ. Extreamly little is writtenand most is negative saying there is no positive effect.


    Lots of good info in the article.

    Quote from Shane D.

    As professor of epidemiology at Yale School of Public Health, I have authored over 300 peer-reviewed publications


    epidemiologists are not experts in evaluating new medical treatments, nor evaluating observational studies of those, etc.


    There are reasons for the medical establishment being cautious about treatments that do not seem to work in RCTs.


    The fact HCQ has been politicised in the US is unfortunate - but it is not so elsewhere and there is similar caution in most countries.


    You will get always clamour to use treatments that are unproven or, have that have been tested and have poor evidence (remember that prophylactic HCQ RCT?). None of the negative evidence for HCQ is definite, I agree. HCQ is not, in terms of side effects, harmful to may people, I agree. But if the only way to get efficacy is treatment prophylactically - e.g. everyone doses on HCQ - the standards for what are acceptable fraction of side effects get much higher because still typically < 5% of population are infected with COVID. That mena s the benefit (for those with COVID) must be > 20 X larger than the disbenefit (for those who never catch it).


    People are only human, and wanting quick instant solutions is natural. I wish HCQ was one. So far I have seen no RCT evidence that justifies this, and the other evidence is of such low quality as to not weight highly against the various bits of negative RCT evidence. The idea that it should be taken because it might work, without evidence, falls against the 20X more benefit than harm issues, except maybe for people at very high risk of exposure. In their case one could justify trialling experimental prophylaxis.


    THH

    No-one is suppressing HCQ as a treatment - the truth will out!


    There are 41 decent observational studies with a wide variety of dosing and consditions:


    https://reader.elsevier.com/re…CC8E9E981E883E3663C94905B


    More than 40 randomized clinical trials have been registered in lessthan 2 months from 13 different countries to answer the same question:should we used HCQ to protect health-care workers from the COVID-19consequences? This very active recording inClinicalTrials.govdemon-strates the huge interest of the scientific community regarding thisquestion. Indeed, the debate continues to rage regarding the use of HCQfor COVID-19 and we need to shed more light based on clinical evi-dence. At the present time, the debate is still a non-documented spec-ulation that will be ended in the next few months.Fig.1.PRISMA 2009 Flow Diagram.Editorial CommentaryOne Health 10 (2020) 1001412


    The positive point regarding the high diversity of HCQ regimenamong recorded clinical studies is that nearly all the possible regimensare under evaluation. The negative point of the high diversity in HCQdosage and duration of prophylaxis could be that the conclusion ofthese different studies may be conflicting. Indeed, it would be sur-prising that a 200 mg daily dose during one month would have thesame efficacy and the same ratio benefit/risk than a 600 mg daily doseduring three months. As a consequence, the final analysis of these trialsshould be done through an extensive reading of the results in regards tothe clinical design, rather than quickly glancing a 140 characters-basedsocial media message announcing the failure or success of a drugagainst a disease.


    I have some sympathy with those who feel that other drugs are not being given as much coverage in trials as would be best to find the best available treatments.

    Quote from Wyttenbach

    Chinese new year return of the "slaves". ("slaves" because these people are hired under Chinese law ...)


    Slaves are not paid, and they are not allowed to leave the job or the place they are employed. So these are not slaves. I suggest you tone down the inflammatory rhetoric. You might say these people are exploited. Illegal immigrants in the U.S. are exploited by employees because they are in a weak bargaining position. That is unfair, but it does not make them slaves.


    The evidence for HCQ use is strong. The clinical observations of physicians, some who run entire hospitals and national programs is not "poor", it is of a different nature from an RCT. THH you are flat out wrong, period, full stop and your spin on this matter will not be forgotten. We don't know why you do it, but an educated person can see it from a mile away.


    A large RCT in the correct conditions (given early with zinc+az) has not been done and should be done. I suspect they are in progress. However, the risk/rewards are overwhelming for the vast majority of people. Nobody strongly advocating for HCQ is saying for prophylaxis - so that is a distraction side issue.


    Luckily, the medical profession is starting to fight back - let's hope this forum doesn't get tainted with the negativity or constant derision using (conspiracy theory) talk -- just as the heroic voices of those willing to speak out rise.


    This 'misbegotten episode of medical history' is actually the second round of misbegotten episodes within this pandemic. Dr. Paul Marik, an intensivist from the Eastern Virginia Medical School and seven other like-minded ICU docs published a bulletin to the critical care medicine community the first week in April describing their protocol. In this bulletin, they urged their fellow physicians to ignore the advice of the FDA, NIH and the WHO to NOT use steroids to treat COVID patients and NOT VENT these patients. In other words, within the first few weeks of this pandemic, these organizations had broadcasted to the entire medical community that the use of steroids in the context of very sick COVID19 patients was not to be done. Thank God that these physicians had the good sense to rely on their years of experience, knowledge of the pathophysiology of the respiratory system/immune system and the pharmacology of steroids and saved their patients' lives. Meanwhile, their voices were ignored and American cities scurried around to build more ventilator capacity. Hundreds, maybe thousands of people died because dexamethasone was not widely adopted until after the Recovery Trial, reported June 19, 7 weeks later. Marik, et al., Risch and other independent thinking physicians will be the heroes when the medical history is written. Thank you for your courage Dr. Risch. Carol Crevier, RN MPH

    Quote from Navid

    he evidence for HCQ use is strong. The clinical observations of physicians, some who run entire hospitals and national programs is not "poor", it is of a different nature from an RCT. THH you are flat out wrong, period, full stop and your spin on this matter will not be forgotten. We don't know why you do it, but an educated person can see it from a mile away.


    Veiled threats and personal attacks are inappropriate, but in this case partucluarly so. You obviously don't know why I do it so if what you write is true you are not yourself educated.


    I'd agree with you if every clinical doctor outside the US (where things are weird and politicised) was agreed about HCQ. Perhaps somone has done some trustworthy polling - it would be interesting to see.


    Otherwise the scientific reasons why we should not trust doctors in this situation jumping on any specific treatment are obvious - it is impossible from such observtaion to know what works and what does not unless you are doing (informally) something like an RCT. And the problem with any informal work is that we are bad at judging probabilities and easily see effect where there is none.


    What I'm saying here is just obvious. I'd apply it to Remdesivir as well where the evidence it is good (financially) for hospitals seems pretty slim and there is NO evidence it is better long-term for patients.


    I will welcome some material argument for the merits of HCQ. The more I here all this political stuff from the US the more it makes me just want to move on to more interesting topics.


    Luckily you or I will be able to say "I told you so" within about 3 months when a much larger number of HCQ RCTs will be reporting, with stronger results under many different conditions. So what motive could anyone possibly have for being dishonest or malicious about their views? Especially here, where no-one cares what we post and it has no effect.


    I know you are not dishonest - just subject to your own prejudices, as we all are.

    • Official Post
    Quote from THHuxleynew

    epidemiologists are not experts in evaluating new medical treatments, nor evaluating observational studies of those, etc.


    There are reasons for the medical establishment being cautious about treatments that do not seem to work in RCTs.

    Quote from THHuxleynew

    No-one is suppressing HCQ as a treatment - the truth will out!


    Quote from THHuxleynew

    The more I here all this political stuff from the US the more it makes me just want to move on to more interesting topics.


    You are sending out conflicting signals. There are HCQ politics involved as you admit, but "not suppression of it being used as a treatment". What is up with that? Politics has clearly resulted in it's suppression IMO, so the two sound contradictory. In your opinion, Is HCQ being suppressed in the US, and if so, in what way? What "political stuff from the US" makes you want to move on?


    And also, why is an epidemiologist not qualified to evaluate observational studies? Most doctors I know, rely on them to interpret studies. Most are not trained in that.

    You are sending out conflicting signals. There are HCQ politics involved as you admit, but "not suppression of it being used as a treatment". What is up with that? Politics has clearly resulted in it's suppression IMO, so the two sound contradictory. In your opinion, Is HCQ being suppressed in the US, and if so, in what way? What "political stuff from the US" makes you want to move on?


    And also, why is an epidemiologist not qualified to evaluate observational studies? Most doctors I know, rely on them to interpret studies. Most are not trained in that.


    I have realised, after a bit of initial research, that I am no qualified to judge observational studies, and I'm pretty sure most outpatient clinicians, and most people here, are no more trained in this than me. The issue is that you have to control or reliably discount both known and unknown confounding variables. A lot has been written about how easily this can go wrong when effects are nonlinear even when the variables are included explicitly in the study, and COVID has a very strong nonlinear dependence on age. There just are not enough subjects in most trials, even if they tried, to deal with this properly. In this case, working out which studies are reliable and which are not is something I'm pretty sure most people can't do, so falling back on the general idea that observational studies do not prove or disprove drug effectiveness as treatment seems sensible. using the "automatic" multivariate regressions so widely favoured since you throw a stats package at the problem and hope it will work.


    epidemiologists are not AFAIK experts on medical treatment, or trials of its efficacy, and hence on assessing observtaional trials. It is just not their thing. True, some might be good statisticians, but you need more than that to know how good observational trials are in a particular case.


    It seems to me that the only way I could NOT send out conflicting signals is if I were blinkered with some fixed view about HCQ - when the evidence is still coming in and any evaluation now is necessarily incomplete?


    Many doctors in the US have complained of being unable to use HCQ as a treatment - one way or another. I've no idea how much that is a thing. But it should not be. Doctors should ideally do what they think is best:

    (1) be under no pressure not to prescribe something they are willing to take responsibility for and have done due diligence on

    (2) be under no pressure to prescribe something they feel is inappropriate.


    In 3 months we will have much more information: at that time I don't expect HCQ will look like a sensible treatment even prophylatically - but it might. Till then why can't politicians keep out?


    Until then, we have politicians and sections of the media claiming it is a good treatment in a way that preempts proper due diligence and puts enormous pressure on doctors from patients convinced of this (we have posted links to that effect). We have the medical estblishment fighting back against this and over-compensating in a wish to save doctors from being pushed to do harm. We have the RCTs slowly coming in and moving opinion, so far, in a negative direction. We have inordinate political fuss which prevents many people from evaluating this drug like any other.

    Sounds like you need someone that will tell the truth and remove those who would deceive. This is as good a time to keep track and identify each. good thing we have your input Thh:

    Quote from JedRothwell

    Slaves are not paid, and they are not allowed to leave the job or the place they are employed. So these are not slaves. I suggest you tone down the inflammatory rhetoric.


    May be you only know the US slaves that were handled like cattle.


    May be you should invest a bit in your education and read about classic slaves e.g. in Rome or elsewhere that did get some payment. These ancient slaves just had no official freedom and did belong to a master!


    Quote from THHuxleynew

    Otherwise the scientific reasons why we should not trust doctors in this situation jumping on any specific treatment are obvious - it is impossible from such observtaion to know what works and what does not unless you are doing (informally) something like an RCT.


    Who forces you to constantly spread all this FUD/nonsense ?? Early - before day 5 - HCQ is proven to works since January as the Chinese said already! May be you (or your master(s)) like to see more dead people...

    • Official Post


    Thanks for clearing that up. I believe we are basically on the same page. IMO, roughly half the studies coming in say HCQ works, and half not. It is no more dangerous to use than any of a number of OTC medications. Many doctors, and their patients think it works. Looked at scientifically, it's use therefore should be unrestricted. But it is not, which shows this is all political.


    I sometimes wonder if Obama and May were still in office, instead of Trump/Boris, and the one said "HCQ may be a game changer", and the other opted for Herd Immunity, would the media, and left have reacted in the same way? Personally, I don't think so. For that matter, my guess is that the whole tone, and tenor of this pandemic would have been different.

    Quote from Wyttenbach

    May be you only know the US slaves that were handled like cattle.


    May be you should invest a bit in your education and read about classic slaves e.g. in Rome or elsewhere that did get some payment. These ancient slaves just had no official freedom and did belong to a master!


    How clever of you! How erudite. When you say "slave" you do not mean the English definition of the word, you mean what a Latin word meant thousands of years ago. I should know that by . . . ESP. You are being silly. WHICH, as I am sure you know, means you are "blessed with worthiness." In Old High German.



    “When I use a word,’ Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, ‘it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less.’


    ’The question is,’ said Alice, ‘whether you can make words mean so many different things.’


    ’The question is,’ said Humpty Dumpty, ‘which is to be master — that’s all.”

    Quote from Shane D.

    Thanks for clearing that up. I believe we are basically on the same page. IMO, roughly half the studies coming in say HCQ works, and half not. It is no more dangerous to use than any of a number of OTC medications. Many doctors, and their patients think it works. Looked at scientifically, it's use therefore should be unrestricted. But it is not, which shows this is all political.


    I sometimes wonder if Obama and May were still in office, instead of Trump/Boris, and the one said "HCQ may be a game changer", and the other opted for Herd Immunity, would the media, and left have reacted in the same way? Personally, I don't think so. For that matter, my guess is that the whole tone, and tenor of this pandemic would have been different.


    I think that any politician giving unwarranted (and strong) medical advice contrary to medical opinion would lead to the type of counter-reation we have seen. The asymmetry (unusual) in the US is that the GOP is alas no longer the GOP and has strongly aligned itself anti-expert, anti-science. So, of course, Obama would never have taken upon himself the mantle of physician-in-chief as Trump has done, repeatedly contradicting medical advice. In fact I think even now that few Republican presidents would have been so brave (or foolhardy) as to contradict doctors over medical matters.

    Quote from Shane D.

    I sometimes wonder if Obama and May were still in office, instead of Trump/Boris, and the one said "HCQ may be a game changer", and the other opted for Herd Immunity, would the media, and left have reacted in the same way? Personally, I don't think so.


    If the results were the same catastrophic loss of life, with infection rates a thousand times higher than other first world countries, I am sure the media and the left would react the same way. The only difference would be that Fox News would be upset about it rather than pretending it is not happening.


    FDR was a favorite of the left. Suppose that the day after Pearl Harbor he had declared unconditional surrender. I am sure the left and the Democratic Party would have deserted him. Trump has declared unconditional surrender to COVID-19. As someone in the White House said recently, "people should just get used to it." The administration does not care that thousands of Americans are dying every day for no reason, and the economy is being destroyed. This could easily be prevented, but the administration has no plans to do anything about it. On the contrary, they are trying to cut back on testing and tracking. This would be unacceptable if Obama were the one doing it.


    That is not what I say. The administration itself says it wants to stop funding tests and tracking. It does not claim it did anything to stop the disease. I am on the Trump re-election mailing list. Yesterday, they sent me a list of things the administration has done. They do not include public health measures such as improving testing, securing masks or PPE, or organizing tracking, because the administration has not done those things, and it says the Federal government should not do them. It is up to the states. Here is the list --


    Just take a look at everything OUR President has accomplished:

    • The CARES Act was signed into law to provide immediate relief for Americans.
    • The President is prioritizing our Nation’s children by encouraging schools to safely reopen in the Fall.
    • He is encouraging every Patriot to wear a face mask.
    • President Trump is committed to holding China accountable.
    • The United States has terminated its relationship with the corrupt World Health Organization.
    • And, in June alone, 4.8 MILLION jobs were added and the unemployment rate DROPPED by 2.2%.


    (It will be interesting to see how they intend to "hold China accountable." Will China and the rest of the world hold the U.S. accountable for our share of global warming?)

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.