Covid-19 News

Quote from Lou Pagnucco

The jury is in on Hydroxychloroquine – ‘it saves lives’

Lou - you keep on posting these videos, which I have no time to read and anyway from past experience have found usually contain PR, not new facts. If you can find equivalent written links it would be more helpful.

Anyone can speculate that there are biases in regulatory systems. I sort of agree - HCQ was originally (pretty clearly) pushed in the US and France for political reasons only. Since then it has become such a political hot potato in the US that it is difficult to know.

Also, if you think about it, all regulatory systems are calls made on basis of judgement - often there are good arguments on both sides and it is a narrow judgement. That applies to Remdesivir, where the evidence for using it was very weak when it was allowed, and HCQ, the same. It also means that biases are inevitable, no such judgement is perfect. But, good systems rely on professionalism and people who are not corrupt making the judgement. I think that is usually the case in most countries for these medical judgments. maybe not Russia. maybe not the US under Trump.

THH

A correct (pointing out the difficulties) review of the Boulware results on HCQ prophylaxis:

https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMe2020388

Interesting new in vitro evidence showing the previous positive in vitro results for Chloroquine don't seem to work in human lung cells. All such data to be taken with two pinches of salt. But that applies to the original positive just as much as this negative:

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-020-2575-3

HCQ is expected to follow chloroquine in action, though it is better tolerated.

Science as opposed to politics:

• HCQ as treatment for symptomatic disease: anti-viral action - no. Effect on cytokine - best evidence says this is slightly negative (20%) on mortality. Don't take it!
• HCQ as prophylaxis; the jury is still out as to whether this has any positive effect (this bit of evidence is a slight minus, Boulware was a slight plus). Given safety needed for prophylaxis the occasional safety issues are of concern for those who dose at home, though not in hospital where it can be properly monitored and patients checkd for suitability. Unfortunately people wanting prophylaxis don't normally go to hospital.

Those who are convinced there has been bias in decisions on HCQ. Well, maybe there has! But it does not change the above (science) evidence. No bias from countries like UK, which is still running trials for HCQ as prophylatic.

New study may prove vitamin D cheap, effective treatment for COVID-19

BY TAHA MELI ARVAS
SEP 10, 2020 12:05 AM

In a recent University of Chicago retrospective study, a major breakthrough has been made in the fight against COVID-19.

The pandemic has ravaged global economies, with some writing off the entire decade in terms of any chance of returning to pre-pandemic employment and consumption habits.

So what is this new ground-breaking drug that may save the lives of billions and the economies of many? Well, it’s vitamin D.

Not what you were expecting right? While treatment for those infected with the virus currently runs in the tens of thousands of dollars and may not be very effective, the early results from two studies are simply stunning. The University of Chicago study was published in the Journal of the American Medical Association, while another study conducted in Cordoba, Spain, was published by the National Institutes of Health.

The study in JAMA looked at patients who were already being monitored for vitamin D deficiencies. Those that were deficient in vitamin D were twice as likely to get the coronavirus.

This may explain why minorities such as African Americans and Latinos, whose deficiency rates are found to be 70% and 80%, respectively, contract the virus at a disproportionately higher rate. This means that simply taking vitamin D supplements may be enough to prevent many from contracting the virus.

The Spanish study is even more significant, as it tracks two groups in a randomized, double-blind test.

Both groups have tested positive for COVID-19 and have already been admitted to the hospital to receive the “best” care available.

The control group was not given any extra vitamin D supplements, whereas the test group was given an analog of the vitamin, calcifediol, which is the hormone produced by taking vitamin D and is much faster acting.

Those that took the calcifediol, or vitamin D analog, were admitted to intensive care at a rate of 2% of all patients in the group – whereas those who didn't take the vitamin D analog were admitted to intensive care at a whopping rate of 50%. Meanwhile, 7% of patients not taking the added vitamin D died, whereas 0% of those who took it did.

While the number of patients in both studies was few (489 and 76, respectively), the results are nothing short of breathtaking.

Addressing vitamin D deficiencies not only may prevent many from contracting the virus but for those that already have it, may treat the symptoms faster and with fewer complications.

Obviously, vitamin D is not a vaccine, but if these numbers can be trusted, it is the strongest (and cheapest) weapon so far in the fight against COVID-19 so far.

Obviously, Big Pharma stands to lose billions if these studies are confirmed to be far more effective than much more expensive treatments.

This may be the treatment policymakers and economists have been looking for to prevent the spread of and treat the symptoms of the virus.

LAST UPDATE: SEPTEMBER 09, 2020 17:30

Quote from Fm1

In a recent University of Chicago retrospective study, a major breakthrough has been made in the fight against COVID-19.

The

Here th true link to teh study... : https://www.eltiempo.com/uploa…0688_1598473478.89934.pdf

Quote from Wyttenbach

Here th true link to teh study... : https://www.eltiempo.com/uploa…0688_1598473478.89934.pdf

I view this is interesting but very unclear evidence.

This study has limitations. First, vitamin D deficiency may be a consequence associated with a range
of chronic health conditions or behavioral factors that plausibly increase COVID-19 risk. Nevertheless,
the results are robust to including a broad set of demographic and comorbidity indicators that have
either physiological reasons for consideration or have been suggested to influence COVID-19
outcomes. Moreover, neither patients who were deficient in vitamin D and had increased treatment
nor patients who were not deficient in vitamin D who had decreased treatment were more likely
than patients who were not vitamin D deficient and at least maintained their current treatment (ie,
had nondeficient status) to test positive for COVID-19. If the observed association were due to
confounding by behavioral or other health factors, such associations might have been expected,
although our limited sample size might be inadequate to identify such effects

The trouble is that Vitamin D deficiency correlates strongly with a whole load of factors that influence COVID, age, nutrition (which correlates with deprivation), deprivation, education, etc.

They have data that lets them identify such correlations, as they note on the last sentence, but maybe it is statistically weak.

But it is certainly positive not negative, and I don't actually know of any good negative evidence for Vitamin D vs COVID. There was some negative evidence for people's Vitamin D status 10 years previously and COVID, but that is very weak.

Maybe Vitamin D is not political and therefore less interesting, but it is worth following it, we will either as time goes on get stronger evidence, of perhaps the opposite. Let us hope for stronger evidence.

THH

Thh the evidence for vitamin D deficenccy has been around for years. The WHO has sent out worldwide alerts on the matter yet the medical community has ignored it. The research goes back to the 80s it's all right in front of your eyes just Google it

Quote from Fm1

Thh the evidence for vitamin D deficenccy has been around for years. The WHO has sent out worldwide alerts on the matter yet the medical community has ignored it. The research goes back to the 80s it's all right in front of your eyes just Google it

I have looked at it. And most of it is very flakey because observational, with known factors that contaminate the results. The evidence for this is the Mendelian randomization studies that do NOT show most of the effects claimed.

Vit D deficieny is known bad, with a few definite effects (like ricketts!). I agree, in the UK we do not do enough to ensure it never happens. In Australia (I know from family there) they are more careful.

Not all of the obs evidence is flaky, and anyway it is irrelevant. The question is whether Vitamin D interacts with the bradykinin system in a way that makes things better. That no-one can know in advance of testing on COVID patients.

THH

all hidden in plain site

https://www.the-scientist.com/…ld-help-in-covid-19-67817

THH this might answer some questions on vitamin D and Bradykinin storm

The following graph from the Centers for Disease Control and the National Center for Health Statistics shows the time profile of the COVID-19 weekly death counts from February onward. https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nvss/vsrr/covid_weekly/index.htm

The cases may still increasing but the deaths are decreasing. (US CDC info)

Quote from oldguy

The cases may still increasing but the deaths are decreasing. (US CDC info)

Yup. Mainly because the average age of the patients has fallen, but also because effective therapies have been discovered.

For those who enjoy cognitive dissonance -

Vitamin D and Covid-19 Susceptibility and Severity: a Mendelian Randomization Study

https://www.medrxiv.org/conten…09.08.20190975v2.full.pdf

Quote from THHuxleynew

Lou - you keep on posting these videos, which I have no time to read and anyway from past experience have found usually contain PR, not new facts. If you can find equivalent written links it would be more helpful.

Here is the link you requested -

Hydroxychloroquine is Effective and Safe for the Treatment of COVID-19, and May be Universally Effective When Used Early Before Hospitalization: A Systematic Review

https://www.researchgate.net/p…ation_A_Systematic_Review

Quote from Fm1

New study may prove vitamin D cheap, effective treatment for COVID-19

BY TAHA MELI ARVAS
SEP 10, 2020 12:05 AM

In a recent University of Chicago retrospective study, a major breakthrough has been made in the fight against COVID-19.

The pandemic has ravaged global economies, with some writing off the entire decade in terms of any chance of returning to pre-pandemic employment and consumption habits.

So what is this new ground-breaking drug that may save the lives of billions and the economies of many? Well, it’s vitamin D.

Not what you were expecting right? While treatment for those infected with the virus currently runs in the tens of thousands of dollars and may not be very effective, the early results from two studies are simply stunning. The University of Chicago study was published in the Journal of the American Medical Association, while another study conducted in Cordoba, Spain, was published by the National Institutes of Health.

The study in JAMA looked at patients who were already being monitored for vitamin D deficiencies. Those that were deficient in vitamin D were twice as likely to get the coronavirus.

This may explain why minorities such as African Americans and Latinos, whose deficiency rates are found to be 70% and 80%, respectively, contract the virus at a disproportionately higher rate. This means that simply taking vitamin D supplements may be enough to prevent many from contracting the virus.

The Spanish study is even more significant, as it tracks two groups in a randomized, double-blind test.

Both groups have tested positive for COVID-19 and have already been admitted to the hospital to receive the “best” care available.

The control group was not given any extra vitamin D supplements, whereas the test group was given an analog of the vitamin, calcifediol, which is the hormone produced by taking vitamin D and is much faster acting.

Those that took the calcifediol, or vitamin D analog, were admitted to intensive care at a rate of 2% of all patients in the group – whereas those who didn't take the vitamin D analog were admitted to intensive care at a whopping rate of 50%. Meanwhile, 7% of patients not taking the added vitamin D died, whereas 0% of those who took it did.

While the number of patients in both studies was few (489 and 76, respectively), the results are nothing short of breathtaking.

Addressing vitamin D deficiencies not only may prevent many from contracting the virus but for those that already have it, may treat the symptoms faster and with fewer complications.

Obviously, vitamin D is not a vaccine, but if these numbers can be trusted, it is the strongest (and cheapest) weapon so far in the fight against COVID-19 so far.

Obviously, Big Pharma stands to lose billions if these studies are confirmed to be far more effective than much more expensive treatments.

This may be the treatment policymakers and economists have been looking for to prevent the spread of and treat the symptoms of the virus.

LAST UPDATE: SEPTEMBER 09, 2020 17:30

Display More

Interesting thought became clear from this observation. Corona virus can be weekend by proper absorbtion of the solar carona rays! This is interesting considering how hospital rooms, and how our private housing is designed. Proper spectrums of sunlight exposure on sufficient skin area and suppliments for patients seem simple enough.

People groups with higher levels of melanin and thicker skin layers, usual populations of equatorial origin, should be aware of this particularly. We can't afford to hide from sun as long as we have (I have). Especially the African, West Asian and Latino (Aboriginal and Mediterranean swirl) diaspera in cloudy northern climates. Would indoor lighting that includes the wavelengths needed for plants and skin vitamin D production, skipping harmfully frequencies be practical? Large windows, skylights, and life tuned temp/spectrum lights seem like medically obvious conclusions for situations where we spend long indoors. Plants and warm sky are so peaceful and comforting to the eyes and skin. I sometimes daydream looking out my open window and feel more alive, grounded just connected 🤷🏽‍♂️.

Quote from Fm1

all hidden in plain site

https://www.the-scientist.com/…ld-help-in-covid-19-67817

THH this might answer some questions on vitamin D and Bradykinin storm

Well: https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04482673

Is quite interesting, and not investigating the cytokine storm aspects of this because they are providing Vit D (at high levels - 6X the 1000 IU/day standard supplementary dose) for 1 year as prophylatic.

Primary outcomes are levels of calcifediol (direct effect of vit D level) + COVID antibodies. Thus they are not directly measuring how severe COVID if caught would be. they can determine is it caught, but with 140 participants and 4 parallel streams it is way underpowered to say anything about that.

Secondary outcomes include weird things like self-measured personality, perceived stress and pandemic stress (via forms).

From this data, at low statistical power, they will be able to conclude almost anything, and interpret results in a positive way somehow just as statistical fluke.

Still it will be a thought-provoking and interesting set of data - just highly inconclusive.

Quote from Lou Pagnucco

From Sky News Australia - The jury is in on Hydroxychloroquine – ‘it saves lives’

Skynews is trying to emulate Fox News

with shock journos and shockjocks.

The problem with these guys is that they can turn on a dime..

if one death was connected with HCQ.. they would demand everybody resign..

Everyone neeeds to resign..because of one preprint,

the PM... the state premier.. the chief medical officer

I wrote to Nick Coatsworth.. he used to work in

the hospital ,on Ward 8B around 2000, where I was before he became

Deputy CMO in Canberra..

somehow I don't think he will listen to some shockjock..

https://www.news.com.au/lifest…1923ca2064070b7d04a3df0a1

I suggested he contact Professor Moussa Seydi in Senegal for some

track record of HCQ in clinical situation

and wished him luck with the current trials of Ivermectin

shockjocks... a dime a dozen.. but Rupert Murdoch pays them a little bit more.

Quote from Lou Pagnucco

For those who enjoy cognitive dissonance -

Vitamin D and Covid-19 Susceptibility and Severity: a Mendelian Randomization Study

https://www.medrxiv.org/conten…09.08.20190975v2.full.pdf

Here is the link you requested -

Hydroxychloroquine is Effective and Safe for the Treatment of COVID-19, and May be Universally Effective When Used Early Before Hospitalization: A Systematic Review

https://www.researchgate.net/p…ation_A_Systematic_Review

Display More

Different research papers showing different things is only cognitive dissonance if you ignore the details, and potential caveats, with each one, and project results onto a binary yes/no scale. As is done by some of HCQ.

The HCQ link. This "systematic review", unlike the ones published to low but slightly moderated standards on the preprint site, has not control over test quality. Specifically it includes observational data from outpatient treatment where, because of the setting, it is impossible to evaluate success of a treatment - the patients will get well anyway. A classic case of this is Zelencko, who in his write-up does not mention the very exceptionally favourable demographics of his patients (median age 13.7 years from an Orthodox Jewish community).

INTROUCTION Hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) has shown efficacy against COVID-19 in some but not all studies. We hypothesized that systematic review would show HCQ to be: effective against COVID-19, more effective used earlier, not associated with worsening, and safe. METHODS We searched PubMed, Cochrane, EmBase, Google Scholar, and Google for all reports on hydroxychloroquine as a treatment for COVID-19 patients. This included pre-prints and preliminary reports on larger COVID-19 studies. We examined the studies for efficacy, time of administration and safety. RESULTS HCQ was found consistently effective against COVID-19 when used early, in the outpatient setting. It was found overall effective. No credible study found worse outcomes with HCQ use. No mortality or other serious safety issue was found CONCLUSIONS HCQ is consistently effective against COVID-19 when used early in the outpatient setting, it is overall effective against COVID-19, it has not produced worsening, it is safe.

The conclusion then is unsurprising: these uncontrolled early studies show better results than the ones that can more easily be compared with others. Difficult to separate the effect of poorer evaluation from any real effect here. And this researchgate publication does seem badly written: for example the hypothesis is very vague, what does "not associated with worsening" mean? Perhaps a lack of rigor is not surprising given the intended methodology, which is unrigorous and at first glance can easily deliver false positive, uninformative, results.

Perhaps, Lou, you could find a more interesting study pointing the same way? there are a lot of meta-reviews around...

Quote from RobertBryant

I suggested he contact Professor Moussa Seydi

Professor Moussa Seydi, head of the infectious diseases department at Fann hospital in Dakar,

confirmed that the use of hydroxychloroquine with the antibiotic azithromycin is effective for early stage cases.

However, this treatment works less well for severe cases.

A new scientific study has therefore been underway since August 14 to assess the effectiveness of an anticoagulant and anti-inflammatory drug, which gives much hope in the improvement of severe forms.

i study on vitamin D from 2008. I'm afraid the medical community has ignored this and other older studies linkinking vitamin D and the immune system

https://www.sciencedirect.com/…abs/pii/S0098299708000587

Abstract

Vitamin D, the sunshine vitamin, is important for childhood bone health. Over the past two decades, it is now recognized that vitamin D not only is important for calcium metabolism and maintenance of bone health throughout life, but also plays an important role in reducing risk of many chronic diseases including type I diabetes, multiple sclerosis, rheumatoid arthritis, deadly cancers, heart disease and infectious diseases. How vitamin D is able to play such an important role in health is based on observation that all tissues and cells in the body have a vitamin D receptor, and, thus, respond to its active form 1,25-dihydroxyvitamin D. However, this did not explain how living at higher latitudes and being at risk of vitamin D deficiency increased risk of these deadly diseases since it was also known that the 1,25-dihydroxyvitamin D levels are normal or even elevated when a person is vitamin D insufficient. Moreover, increased intake of vitamin D or exposure to more sunlight will not induce the kidneys to produce more 1,25-dihydroxyvitamin D. The revelation that the colon, breast, prostate, macrophages and skin among other organs have the enzymatic machinery to produce 1,25-dihydroxyvitamin D provides further insight as to how vitamin D plays such an essential role for overall health and well being. This review will put into perspective many of the new biologic actions of vitamin D and on how 1,25-dihydroxyvitamin D is able to regulate directly or indirectly more than 200 different genes that are responsible for a wide variety of biologic processes.

When is the last time your doctor checked your vitamin levels Im betting never unless you asked for it!

https://www.google.com/url?sa=…nhkmh&cshid=1599825035824

There is historic evidence that influenza pandemics are associated with solar activity cycles (the

Schwabe-cycle of about 11-years periodicity). The hypothesis is presented and developed that influenza

pandemics are associated with solar control of vitamin D levels in humans which waxes and wanes in

concert with solar cycle dependent ultraviolet radiation. It is proposed that this solar cycle dependence

arises both directly from cyclic control of the amount of ultraviolet radiation as well as indirectly through

cyclic control of atmospheric circulation and dynamics.

If you connect the dots it's beginning to look like the medical community worldwide has missed very important connections. Solar cycles influence vitamin D levels solar minimums and pandemics, 1918, 1957, 1968 2020 and pretty much all bad flu years all can be found on a simple google search. The outcomes and research have pointed to a vitamin D deficenccy after each pandemic. When will we learn. The evidence is out there for anyone to read connect the dots and use common sense. Protect yourself. Don't ignore the research.

-

2009 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Quote from RobertBryant

Professor Moussa Seydi, head of the infectious diseases department at Fann hospital in Dakar,

confirmed that the use of hydroxychloroquine with the antibiotic azithromycin is effective for early stage cases.

However, this treatment works less well for severe cases.

A new scientific study has therefore been underway since August 14 to assess the effectiveness of an anticoagulant and anti-inflammatory drug, which gives much hope in the improvement of severe forms.

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'm not willing to view youtube which takes time and is low in facts.

What is the evidence he provides for effectiveness? Preferably in written form.