• Log in with Facebook Log in with Twitter Log In with Google      Sign In    
  • Create Account
  LongeCity
              Advocacy & Research for Unlimited Lifespans

Photo
* * * * * 2 votes

Protecting from Coronavirus - Supplements & Therapies

coronavirus flu disease epidemics viruses immunity covid-19

  • Please log in to reply
2739 replies to this topic

#2731 DanCG

  • Guest
  • 84 posts
  • 46
  • Location:USA

Posted 16 June 2021 - 04:33 PM

via https://www.fightaging.org/

 

 

 

Senolytics reduce coronavirus-related mortality in old mice 

 

https://science.scie...science.abe4832

 

Fisetin


  • Informative x 1

#2732 geo12the

  • Guest
  • 382 posts
  • -1

Posted 16 June 2021 - 05:43 PM

From Nature news:

 

NEWS
16 June 2020
Update 23 June 2020
Coronavirus breakthrough: dexamethasone is first drug shown to save lives
 
In a large trial, a cheap and widely available steroid cut deaths by one-third among patients critically ill with COVID-19.
 

https://www.nature.c...586-020-01824-5


  • Informative x 1

#2733 Advocatus Diaboli

  • Guest
  • 270 posts
  • 244
  • Location:Chronosynclastic Infundibulum ( floor Z/p^nZ )
  • NO

Posted 16 June 2021 - 07:02 PM

geo12the, the article you link to in post #2732 is superannuated. Since its publication in June 2020 numerous studies have demonstrated the efficacy of both HCQ and Ivermectin, either alone or in protocols with other agents. Perhaps in June 2020 dexamethasone had some singular relevance, "first drug shown to save lives", but one wonders how many positive articles on HCQ and Ivermectin were suppressed at that time.


  • Agree x 1

#2734 Gal220

  • Guest
  • 519 posts
  • 191
  • Location:United States

Posted 16 June 2021 - 07:18 PM

geo12the, the article you link to in post #2732 is superannuated. Since its publication in June 2020 numerous studies have demonstrated the efficacy of both HCQ and Ivermectin, either alone or in protocols with other agents. Perhaps in June 2020 dexamethasone had some singular relevance, "first drug shown to save lives", but one wonders how many positive articles on HCQ and Ivermectin were suppressed at that time.

 

This trial from December included it as part of their protocol - LINK

 

"Using a protocol of zinc, hydroxychloroquine or ivermectin and one antibiotic (azithromycin, doxycycline, ceftriaxone) in combination with inhaled budesonide and/or intramuscular dexamethasone"



#2735 geo12the

  • Guest
  • 382 posts
  • -1

Posted 16 June 2021 - 07:42 PM

geo12the, the article you link to in post #2732 is superannuated. Since its publication in June 2020 numerous studies have demonstrated the efficacy of both HCQ and Ivermectin, either alone or in protocols with other agents. Perhaps in June 2020 dexamethasone had some singular relevance, "first drug shown to save lives", but one wonders how many positive articles on HCQ and Ivermectin were suppressed at that time.

 

 

Pretty much every recent study on HCQ has not shown much benefit. Why are people here so married to this compound? Is it because Orange God King likes it? 

 

Here are recent reviews:

 

1) https://pubmed.ncbi....h.gov/34128772/

 

20% mortality reduction in some observational studies. No benefit in RCT

 

Pathog Glob Health
2021 Jun 15;1-11. doi: 10.1080/20477724.2021.1936818. Online ahead of print.
Hydroxychloroquine and mortality in COVID-19 patients: a systematic review and a meta-analysis of observational studies and randomized controlled trials
Augusto Di Castelnuovo 1, Simona Costanzo 2, Antonio Cassone 3, Roberto Cauda 4, Giovanni De Gaetano 2, Licia Iacoviello 2 5
Affiliations expand
PMID: 34128772 DOI: 10.1080/20477724.2021.1936818
 
Abstract
Background: Hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) was proposed as potential treatment for COVID-19, but its association with mortality is unclear. We reviewed published literature for evidence of an association between HCQ (with or without azithromycin (AZM)) and total mortality in COVID-19 patients.Methods: Articles were retrieved until April 29th, 2021 by searching in seven databases. Data were combined using the general-variance-based method.Results: A total of 25 cohort studies (N=41,339 patients) and 11 randomized clinical trials (RCTs; N=8,709) were found. The use of HCQ was not associated with mortality in meta-analysis of RCTs (pooled risk ratio (PRR): 1.08, 95%CI: 0.97-1.20; I2=0%), but it was associated with 20% lower mortality risk (PRR=0.80, 95%CI: 0.69-0.93; I2=80%) in pooling of cohort studies. The negative association with mortality was mainly apparent by pooling cohort studies that used lower doses of HCQ (≤400 mg/day; PRR=0.69, 95%CI: 0.57-0.87). Use of HCQ+AZM (11 studies) was associated with 25% non-statistically significant lower mortality risk (PPR=0.75; 0.51-1.10; P=0.15). Use of HCQ was not associated with severe adverse events (PRR=1.12, 95%CI: 0.88-1.44; I2=0%).Conclusions: HCQ use was not associated with mortality in COVID-19 patients in pooling results from RCTs (high level of certainty of evidence), but it was associated with 20% mortality reduction when findings from observational studies were combined (low level of certainty of evidence). The reduction of mortality was mainly apparent in observational studies where lower doses of HCQ were used. These findings might help disentangling the debate on HCQ use in COVID-19.
 
 
No benefit HCQ + azithromycin
 
PLoS One
. 2021 Jun 9;16(6):e0252388. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0252388. eCollection 2021.
Lack of efficacy of hydroxychloroquine and azithromycin in patients hospitalized for COVID-19 pneumonia: A retrospective study
Anis Saib 1, Walid Amara 1, Pascal Wang 2, Simon Cattan 1, Azeddine Dellal 3, Kais Regaieg 4, Stephane Nahon 5, Olivier Nallet 1, Lee S Nguyen 6
Affiliations expand
PMID: 34106964 PMCID: PMC8189518 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0252388
Free PMC article
Abstract
Background: Hydroxychloroquine combined with azithromycin (HCQ/AZI) has initially been used against coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19). In this retrospective study, we assessed the clinical effects of HCQ/AZI, with a 28-days follow-up.
 
Methods: In a registry-study which included patients hospitalized for COVID-19 between March 15 and April 2, 2020, we compared patients who received HCQ/AZI to those who did not, regarding a composite outcome of mortality and mechanical ventilation with a 28-days follow-up. QT was monitored for patients treated with HCQ/AZI. Were excluded patients in intensive care units, palliative care and ventilated within 24 hours of admission. Three analyses were performed to adjust for selection bias: propensity score matching, multivariable survival, and inverse probability score weighting (IPSW) analyses.
 
Results: Overall, 203 patients were included: 60 patients treated by HCQ/AZI and 143 control patients. During the 28-days follow-up, 32 (16.3%) patients presented the primary outcome and 23 (12.3%) patients died. Propensity-score matching identified 52 unique pairs of patients with similar characteristics. In the matched cohort (n = 104), HCQ/AZI was not associated with the primary composite outcome (log-rank p-value = 0.16). In the overall cohort (n = 203), survival and IPSW analyses also found no benefit from HCQ/AZI. In the HCQ/AZI group, 11 (18.3%) patients prolonged QT interval duration, requiring treatment cessation.
 
Conclusions: HCQ/AZI combination therapy was not associated with lower in-hospital mortality and mechanical ventilation rate, with a 28-days follow-up. In the HCQ/AZI group, 18.3% of patients presented a prolonged QT interval requiring treatment cessation, however, control group was not monitored for this adverse event, making comparison impossible.
 
 
no benefit of HCQ
 
Sci Rep
2021 Jun 7;11(1):11974. doi: 10.1038/s41598-021-91089-3.
Hydroxychloroquine plus standard of care compared with standard of care alone in COVID-19: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials
Bahman Amani 1, Ahmad Khanijahani 2, Behnam Amani 3
Affiliations expand
PMID: 34099745 PMCID: PMC8184930 DOI: 10.1038/s41598-021-91089-3
Free PMC article
Abstract
The efficacy and safety of Hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) in treating coronavirus disease (COVID-19) is disputed. This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to examine the efficacy and safety of HCQ in addition to standard of care (SOC) in COVID-19. PubMed, the Cochrane Library, Embase, Web of sciences, and medRxiv were searched up to March 15, 2021. Clinical studies registry databases were also searched for identifying potential clinical trials. The references list of the key studies was reviewed to identify additional relevant resources. The quality of the included studies was evaluated using the Cochrane Collaboration tool and Jadad checklist. Meta-analysis was performed using RevMan software (version 5.3). Eleven randomized controlled trials with a total number of 8161 patients were identified as eligible for meta-analysis. No significant differences were observed between the two treatment groups in terms of negative rate of polymerase chain reaction (PCR) (Risk ratio [RR]: 0.99, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.90, 1.08; P = 0.76), PCR negative conversion time (Mean difference [MD]: - 1.06, 95% CI - 3.10, 0.97; P = 0.30), all-cause mortality (RR: 1.09, 95% CI 1.00, 1.20; P = 0.06), body temperature recovery time (MD: - 0.64, 95% CI - 1.37, 0.10; P = 0.09), length of hospital stay (MD: - 0.17, 95% CI - 0.80, 0.46; P = 0.59), use of mechanical ventilation (RR: 1.12, 95% CI 0.95, 1.32; P = 0.19), and disease progression (RR = 0.82, 95% CI 0.37, 1.85; P = 0.64). However, there was a significant difference between two groups regarding adverse events (RR: 1.81, 95% CI 1.36, 2.42; P < 0.05). The findings suggest that the addition of HCQ to SOC has no benefit in the treatment of hospitalized patients with COVID-19. Additionally, it is associated with more adverse events.

  • Ill informed x 2
  • Pointless, Timewasting x 1
  • Dangerous, Irresponsible x 1
  • WellResearched x 1
  • Informative x 1

#2736 Advocatus Diaboli

  • Guest
  • 270 posts
  • 244
  • Location:Chronosynclastic Infundibulum ( floor Z/p^nZ )
  • NO

Posted 16 June 2021 - 07:45 PM

Gal220, Thanks for the link. As I wrote in post #2733: 

 

"...HCQ and Ivermectin, either alone or in protocols with other agents." (my emphasis). 

 

 

 

 

Citing an article from a year ago (as geo12the did in post #2732) with the sensational article title "Coronavirus breakthrough: dexamethasone is first drug shown to save lives" is misleading because this is a year later and a lot has changed since June 2020.

 

  • Good Point x 1

#2737 Gal220

  • Guest
  • 519 posts
  • 191
  • Location:United States

Posted 16 June 2021 - 08:28 PM

 

Pretty much every recent study on HCQ has not shown much benefit. Why are people here so married to this compound? Is it because Orange God King likes it? 

 

Ivermectin should be preferred IMO, HCQ is only effective early on.  McCullough stresses a multi drug approach(above) like cancer treatment and other diseases, rarely are you able to treat with a single drug.

 

Orange man loves vaccines and personally I will stick to the other therapeutics instead of risking a life changing blood clot.  But I have noticed the fanaticism you mention in relation to treatments or vaccines, and I cant relate...its only our health we are talking about.


  • Good Point x 1
  • Agree x 1

#2738 Dorian Grey

  • Guest
  • 1,609 posts
  • 588
  • Location:kalifornia

Posted 16 June 2021 - 08:41 PM

Regarding the HCQ, I believe most all of the RCT's were done on hospitalized patients.  Anyone familiar with the Tamiflu model of proper treatment of fast moving respiratory virus should know, waiting till these patients start turning blue is not going to produce good results, even if the therapeutic being trialed is effective when properly used.  

 

Dr Paul Marik pointed out one of the problems with HCQ, is that red blood cells have a powerful affinity for this med, & suck up most all that is taken over the first couple of days, so you really don't reach therapeutic antiviral and/or immune modulation levels in tissues till you're on it for 3-5 days or so.  Get started on this (HCQ) within 48 hours of symptom onset (Tamiflu model) and you should get immune modulation before the hyper-immune storm occurs, which is typically around day 8.  

 

Very few patients even get their test results back in this 48 hour window, & this is the problem.  I recall Dr Zelenko said he would start his high risk patients on HCQ the day he saw them, before they even had their test, & this was the secret to his success.  Very few of us have access to this type of doctor, so perhaps HCQ is worthless to the masses who must be diagnosed before any prescriptions are written or filled.  

 

I've got some HCQ in my medicine chest, & if I had fallen sick back in the bad old days of Winter, I would have started on this pronto.  Follow the Tamiflu model with HCQ and it will help keep you out of the hospital (if this is your goal).  Avoiding hospitalization has always been my prime directive with this plague.  I worked in hospitals for 35 years, & didn't like a lot of what I saw.  


  • Agree x 2
  • Needs references x 1
  • Good Point x 1
  • Well Written x 1

#2739 Advocatus Diaboli

  • Guest
  • 270 posts
  • 244
  • Location:Chronosynclastic Infundibulum ( floor Z/p^nZ )
  • NO

Posted 16 June 2021 - 10:26 PM

geo12the, for your second linked study you present its Conclusions (see post #2735), part of which reads:

 

"In the HCQ/AZI group, 18.3% of patients presented a prolonged QT interval requiring treatment cessation, however, control group was not monitored for this adverse event, making comparison impossible.

 

I find it absolutely astounding that the study got through peer review when the authors openly admit that In the HCQ/AZI group, 18.3% of patients presented with prolonged QT interval and therefore had treatment stopped. And, that the "control group was not monitored for this adverse event".

 

Leads one to wonder: Suppose an equal number of the control results were tossed out because they had some condition that wasn't tested for in the HCQ/AZI group. How would that have affected the overall results? We don't know. So how can any relevant conclusions be drawn from the study? One doesn't start a study and then use different metrics among the study participants--in this case measuring QT interval for some but not others and then stopping HCQ/AZI treatment on the basis of the QT measurements results.

 

A properly executed study would have measured QT intervals of both controls and treated groups before treatment. Those with prolonged QT would be excluded from starting the study in the first place. Development of prolonged QT interval during the study would have necessitated the removal of subjects from both groups in order to maintain study integrity

 

In simple terms, the study was highly flawed and therefore was not a good example to further your case.

 


  • Good Point x 5
  • Enjoying the show x 1
  • Ill informed x 1
  • Pointless, Timewasting x 1

#2740 Gal220

  • Guest
  • 519 posts
  • 191
  • Location:United States

Posted 17 June 2021 - 01:16 PM

NAC being pulled from Amazon, FDA warning letters.  Still being sold elsewhere for now - LINK

 

Mercola thinks its b/c its competing with vaccines, hard to say.  But if I did get covid, it would be one of the things I would take.


  • Informative x 2
  • Agree x 1





Also tagged with one or more of these keywords: coronavirus, flu, disease epidemics, viruses, immunity, covid-19

5 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 5 guests, 0 anonymous users