Covid-19 (WuFlu) News

  • CNN posts plenty of information about people opposed to vaccine, without mentioning conspiracy theories. They have posted plenty of direct statements from such people. They also have unbiased reports and direct quotes about HCQ. You can learn as much about HCQ and the controversy from CNN as from any other mainstream medium that I know of.


    People often confuse left vs right bias, with factual content.


    All media will take a political line left/right/middle, and use this to alter the balance of their reporting. You have to make value judgments when describing things. One person's left (or right) will be another person's "middle of the road" unbiassed.


    Here is a great visual representation. The point is you want near the top, and it does not matter whether left/right/middle. It is true that politics away from the middle tends also to be mixed with less reliable reporting but in principle that need not be so.


    CNN is not too bad, but not great. CNN web a lot better than CNN TV. Fox TV News is quite a lot worse, Fox web news better than TV. Personally I don't like TV as way to get news - it tends to have less info and more emotive content (images and music). I listen to BBC R4 news in preference to BBC 24 hours TV news. That is also why I don't much like the YouTube stuff posted here. If you want the facts instead of the PR go for written reports.


    If you want to be well informed the key thing is the factual content. Is there lots of it? Are the claims made well supported, or completely unsupported. And if you want political information (e.g. what is a fair judgement of Trump's effectiveness as OPUS) you should be reading well informed stuff from the centre, or from both left and right. Personally I can't stand Trump's character and style. In terms of action, I can see how someone with a more right-wing philosophy might like much of what he does. I also note that the "old-style" Republicans see him as dangerous and unsuited in character in the same way I do.


    The conspiracy theory stuff, whether left or right wing, is not factually supported. Otherwise, given its sensationalist content, it would be headline news everywhere - not conspiracy theories!

  • The difference with HCQ is that we do not have lots of high quality negative data on it.


    When will you sue the British doctors that administered deadly HCQ doses that is the base for your FUD you continue to post???


    Of course this question is rhetorical as you behave like a concentration camp doctor that likes to kill patients with placebos to get your pay-back RCT...


    Or could it be that a teacher for circuit design simply has no clue of Medicine, Biology ??


    Then why do you continue to post criminal nonsense??


    The RCT evidence on use of HCQ in hospitalised (=> not early stage) patients is that it harms, slightly. Certainly no evidence it does good.


    Please show us a serious correct study that gave this result with HCQ,Zinc plus Doxycycline??


    Since my doctors have been banned from giving any propholactic HCQ or Ivermectin, what does THH suggest I take? I


    Why ask the worst FUD-ER ??...


    Early first day help : Bitter orange juice - Hesperidin! https://www.preprints.org/manuscript/202006.0321/v1


    Early treatment: Zink + HCQ (or Sutherlandia+Sceletium), after day 2 add Doxycycline. If short of breath add Heparin and Ivermectin.


    For prevention: Quercetin, Zinc,vitamin C,D. Orange juice...


    Just becomes someone does not fear a situation, that does not mean there is nothing to fear. Lots of foolish people in the U.S. go to bars and carouse. Unless a vaccine comes along soon, millions of them will end up in hospitals, fighting for their live...


    You don't understand this disease : Most people (>80%) are immune. But the CoV-19 virus is far more infectious than everything we know. Even a herd immunity with 95% will no be enough to stop it. So forget any vaccine to stop it! Most vaccines work only up to 95%.

    The death target for the USA is about 300'000 - not Millions - based on Sweden outcome.


    You should ask why the criminal US government is not providing the correct medication to all the sick people? Did you know that trump, takes Ivermectin (Soolantra) all day??

  • Please show us a serious correct study that gave this result with HCQ,Zinc plus Doxycycline??


    That exact combination I don't have RCT evidence for. But if you require that - you also lose all the anecdotal positive evidence!


    For example this one does not include Zinc.


    A total of 11% (n=6) patients were transferred to acute care hospitals due to clinical deterioration and 6% (n=3) patients died in the facilities. Naive Indirect Comparison suggests these data were significantly better outcomes than the data reported in MMWR (reported on March 26, 2020) from a long-term care facility in King County, Washington where 57% patients were hospitalized, and 22% patients died. Conclusion: The clinical experience of this case series indicates DOXY-HCQ treatment in high-risk COVID-19 patients is associated with a reduction in clinical recovery, decreased transfer to hospital and decreased mortality were observed after treatment with DOXY-HCQ.


    And my point, well justified by factual evidence and theory - is that Naive Indirect Comparison is a very poor way - effectively useless - to judge a treatment.

  • When will you sue the British doctors that administered deadly HCQ doses that is the base for your FUD you continue to post???


    All active drugs are deadly - to some people.


    Doctors put together clinical trials to work out what works, and what does not.


    The "deadliness" of HCQ in the RECOVERY trial was only apparent after a large number of patients had been treated - not at all evident a priori. And, when it was statistically significant, that arm of the trial was stopped, as the RECOVERY Protocol mandates.

  • @cvid analysis keeps a record of all HCQ studies.... 72 so far

    https://c19study.com/

    https://c19study.com/recovery.html

    the Oxford Recovery Trial


    Late treatment study

    Horby et al., medRxiv, 7/15/2020, doi:10.1101/2020.07.15.20151852 (press release 6/5) (Preprint)

    Effect of Hydroxychloroquine in Hospitalized Patients with COVID-19: Preliminary results from a multi-centre, randomized, controlled trial


    RECOVERY trial reports no significant benefit seen for very late stage very sick patients. Results may be due to the unusually high dosage used [1, 2].


    Patients were extremely sick (average of 9 days post symptoms, 60% requiring oxygen and an additional 17% requiring ventilation/ECMO),

    and unusually high death rate was seen in both arms. 1,561 HCQ patients, 3,155 SOC.


    A secondary analysis has found several inconsistencies in the data [3],

    and found evidence of excess mortaliy within the first few days that could be due to overdose.[1] twitter.com/JamesTodaroMD/status/1272661099985481733
    [2] twitter.com/JamesTodaroMD/status/1276245669372723200
    [3] francesoir.fr/politique-monde/oxford-etude-recovery-ou-sont-les-morts

  • Are you joking?? There are databases for LD50 factors never heard of this??


    Have you worked out the pharmokinetics of HCQ, or seen it modelled, like the guy from London Centre of Tropical Diseases (I think) who modelled the dose regime they chose?


    Give me evidence (not Wyttenfact) that the RECOVERY dose was anywhere near LD50 for a one-off dose. And, preferably, think before you type.


    THH

  • Most people (>80%) are immune


    This is a fascinating topic.


    We have:


    1. symptomatic (and antibody positive)

    2. asymptomatic (and antibody positive)

    3. symptomatic (and antibody negative)

    4. asymptomatic (and antibody negative)


    3,4 are where T-cell response (possibly from past infections) fights off the virus.


    My guess is that by "immune" you mean 4 and possibly 3. T-cell response to the infection fights it off when relatively mild, before antibody production starts.


    https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-020-2550-z


    Notably, we detected SARS-CoV-2-specific IFNγ responses in 19 out of 37 unexposed donors (Fig. 4a, b). The cumulative proportion of all studied individuals who responded to peptides covering the N protein and the ORF1-encoded...


    That looks like 50% have some T-cell immunity, not as you say 80%? it will vary with population, so maybe some places have 80%? Give details, or admit to Wyttenfacting.


    Also worth noting somone who has done the correct calculation for herd immunity - the immumologists who used the figure for vaccination always annoyed me. More socially active people have more contacts and are also more likely to catch the disease and become immune, so the realistic herd immunity figure is more like 43% from https://www.sciencedaily.com/r…/2020/06/200623111329.htm


    Putting these two things together, you might hope to achieve herd immunity when seropositivity is quite low. Difficult to know how low, since the social contact dependent effect does not apply to the T-cell immunity.


    THH

  • A secondary analysis has found several inconsistencies in the data [3],

    and found evidence of excess mortaliy within the first few days that could be due to overdose.[1] twitter.com/JamesTodaroMD/status/1272661099985481733


    I'd be interested in this if the secondary analysis were written up as a proper preprint, rather than a political (HCQ is political in US and France) interview?


    Twitter is not a reliable source of info.


  • Then there is cross-over immunity, where there are anti-bodies from another coronavirus infection that protect against COVID, but are not detected with the COVID-19 specific anti-body test. Maybe even such mundane factors as O-neg blood may play into this also.


    Put it all together, and it may be that 80% are immune like Wyttenbaxh says. At this stage though, it is all guessing.


  • I am not trying to be provocative here.... I sincerely want your personal opinion which you have not given. If you do not want to give it fine, simply please state it.


    So you are advocating "doing nothing" as far as prophylactic treatment because there have been no RCT's? A straight forward question.


    That "doing nothing" is better than taking PROVEN harmless drugs (taken under doctors administration), that have a working theory behind them, that have a huge observational evidence base, is also being approved my several nations and has a large support from front line practitioners. One cannot answer that "standard treatment" is better because there is NO standard treatment. (If so, please provide the protocols) There is no standard prophylactic treatment. If so, please provide as I am extremely interested in them.


    So you again, are you advocating "doing nothing" as far as prophylactic treatment because there have been no RCT's? A straight forward question. That absence of some useful but certainly not perfect test system (RCT) should require one to ignore all the above evidence I listed above and do nothing?


    Or do you have some other prophylactic medicine in mind?

    Thank you.

  • I am not trying to be provocative here.... I sincerely want your personal opinion which you have not given. If you do not want to give it fine, simply please state it.


    So you are advocating "doing nothing" as far as prophylactic treatment because there have been no RCT's? A straight forward question.


    There have been RCTs - with marginal results. Prophylaxis is the most difficult thing to judge because:


    Any adverse effects will hit the 95% of people who never get covid symptoms

    It maybe must be continued for a long period, so side effects over time can be an issue

    Proving that anything works as prophylaxis is difficult because you need a large number of patients on the trial to get statistically significant results.


    I would advocate using prophylaxis if any drugs seemed to benefit me on a risk/reward basis. Obviously that is a lower bar if I reckon I am at high risk of catching COVID.


    I'd also take anything that is so GRAS the risk of side effects is minimal, where there is a plausible possibility it might help.


    Zinc, Vit D - sure, take them in relatively low doses (high doses they both have nasty side effects). I am doing this.


    Quercetin - a bit marginal because it does have a few side effects but does not seem troublesome and any way it present in a lot of food. I'd be careful about possible ODing on it - given it has side effects and you might have a large amount in food.


    HCQ, Ivermectin - they are both active substances with real side effects. HCQ in particular has a long time it stays in the body, and it is active in the immune system. So if as seems likely from current RCT evidence it makes severe COVID a bit worse, it would need to be a good prophylactic. I'd very much like to see a test of this - there are some ongoing RCTs so let us hope we get this. The small RCT that has some evidence has to be reinterpreted so much to provide this that I don't trust it, but do see it as cause for hope. In that case if you watch out for sight loss and heart problems, you could take HCQ on the possibility it is an effective anti-viral. I would not, given the medical evidence against this. Ivermectin - I just don't have much evidence on this. I might take it if I had researched side effects carefully and they seemed to me irrelevant.



  • There is 200 dead more than a normal year due to HCQ this spring in USA and at the same time there was about 1 million extra prescriptoins of HCQ or so. This means that if all people take HCQ we are talking about around 200x350 > 60 000 dead. This is too much. On the other hand if we concentrate the prescriptions to those with a high mortality rate in COVID then it might be better. So a lot of care needs to be taken to implement this on large scale and you will understand the choices made and that it is not based on some idea to avoid cheap medicaments. I'm very skeptical to the power of HCQ as when I mention it here in Sweden to friends that are doctors they roll their eyes and tell me there is no benefit of taking that drug and this stance is not something that is controversial or political, just a scientific standpoint and the doctors here are top notch. So they do not prescribe any HCQ. you may say they are fooled into this belief and bad doctors but still I think that Sweden focus on the right thing as only 1 out of 20 dies in the ICU's now. And there is a lot of efforts towards making a good cure. I also think that randomized trials are the king and are a bit skeptical to other kinds of studies, not randomizing. I've seen first hand the danger of not doing proper randomization and using proper statistics. I see that you can't avoid people and needs something to prevent it and belongs to a risk group. Then I agree that you could try improve the odds and should have help from your doctor, but for god sake do not think that you are safe and work as if you still are at risk. There is usually a lot of things that you can do to improve the odds without taking medicine. Also make sure that you try all those possibilities as well. That's what I see here. People in Sweden have gone to work if they can't stay at home and the whole society have adapted with a myriad of actions in the companies to limit the spread. You may say we have a lot of deaths, but that's because we got a shitload of infected people in the beginning of the spread and the progression after the initial increase has been pretty much like UK or Denmark although they closed down more.

  • Then there is cross-over immunity, where there are anti-bodies from another coronavirus infection that protect against COVID,

    Put it all together, and it may be that 80% are immune like Wyttenbaxh says. At this stage though, it is all guessing.



    The problem is cross-over effects cut both ways. The near matches can prevent normal antibodies forming but provide no protection. So we don't know this effect.


    There has been enough evidence to show the T-cell effect - and we know COVID is unusual in stimulating T-cells - they seem much more important in successfully fighting it than for other diseases.


    The Diamond Princess gives us a limit (for that population) on immunity: 3000 people, 712 cases => At MOST 77% immune. that assumes that everyone on the ship was exposed enough to catch the virus - unlikely.


    In addition, when we talk about immunity, we probably mean partial immunity. A small dose infection might be fought off, when a larger dose would not be so.


    Another reason to think immunity is not so very high is just the high R0 numbers. If only 20% of contacts can catch it the high reproduction rate it has ben showing seems unlikely?


    A lot of uncertainty because previous exposure immunity could be very variable across populations. The best prophylatic probably is a few CV colds - difficult though to get them right.


    THH