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

Photo
* * * * - 1 votes

(hydroxy) chloroquine

coronavirus hdq chloroquine

  • Please log in to reply
84 replies to this topic

#61 geo12the

  • Guest
  • 667 posts
  • -177

Posted 06 August 2020 - 04:31 PM

There are many studies still underway and we need to wait until they are published to come to a final conclusion. But It's clear to me from the prevailing data so far that the hypothesis that HCQ is a miracle drug for COVID is inaccurate. The TWIV summary was blunt but also laid it all out in a no-BS manner. Scientists and non-scientists can become overly wedded to their favorite hypothesis and we are seeing that with HCQ only now there is also tribal identity politics thrown into the mix. We need to follow the science not politics or emotions. At the end of the day I put my trust in TWIV more than anecdotal reports from sporadic doctors like the demon sperm lady. We will see what the future studies say. As I understand the FDA did not "Ban" HCQ but revoked emergency use and cautioned against it. But people can still get it from their doctors. 


  • Ill informed x 2
  • Well Written x 1
  • Unfriendly x 1
  • dislike x 1
  • Disagree x 1

#62 Dorian Grey

  • Guest
  • 1,811 posts
  • 785
  • Location:kalifornia

Posted 06 August 2020 - 08:43 PM

Don't know that many consider HCQ a "miracle cure" for COVID.  It's a therapeutic, just like remdesivir or Tamiflu (for influenza).  May help lessen symptoms and/or duration, and possibly reduce morbidity when used properly.  Some side effects (like most meds), but a remarkable history of safety, particularly with short term use.  The best thing about HCQ is that ideally it should be used as an outpatient med, keeping patients out of acute care in the hospital.  Ignoring this med leaves us with a big fat NOTHING for outpatient use.  Take your Tylenol, & call 911 if you start turning blue.  

 

Double blind placebo controlled studies are the gold standard for approval of new meds, but off label prescribing of existing meds generally has looser standards.  

 

https://en.wikipedia...i/Off-label_use

 

"Off-label use is very common. Generic drugs generally have no sponsor as their indications and use expands, and incentives are limited to initiate new clinical trials to generate additional data for approval agencies to expand indications of proprietary drugs.[1] Up to one-fifth of all drugs are prescribed off-label and amongst psychiatric drugs, off-label use rises to 31%"

 

I posted earlier in this thread about my experience asking my doc if he would prescribe HCQ if I got sick.  He said he was bound by the formulary of his group, and that they required their doc's to stick to FDA guidelines.  NO HCQ for YOU!  I'm recently retired and on my girlfriend's (domestic partner) insurance.  It's an HMO, so I can't really doctor shop, but even if I went outside of plan and found a doc who would write me a scrip, the pharmacy may still refuse to fill it.  I guess I could book a refundable flight to Africa.  HCQ malaria prophylaxis is standard of care.  My sis said her doc zipped off a scrip for her when she went, no EKG needed.  Here ya go, bon voyage!  

 

Oh well...  At least I grew up during a time where freedom was cherished.  Feel sorry for the kids entering the brave new world.  It will be interesting to see if we can stay locked-down for the rest of the year and whether or not the vaccines work.  There's going to be a lot of homeless to deal with though.  


Edited by Dorian Grey, 06 August 2020 - 09:17 PM.

  • Good Point x 3
  • Well Written x 1
  • Agree x 1

#63 Dorian Grey

  • Guest
  • 1,811 posts
  • 785
  • Location:kalifornia

Posted 07 August 2020 - 03:27 PM

Del Bigtree dropped a bomb on his HighWire show yesterday regarding the suppression of HCQ:

 

https://www.bitchute...o/GysupvP1dHOU/

 

Skip to 1:26 (one hour 26 minutes) in the show, where he explains because vaccines will be introduced before long term safety studies are complete (2 years for phase 3 of Moderna COVID vaccine), these vaccines may have to be issued under Emergency Use Authorization. 

 

He actually obtained a clip from the July 31st ACIP (Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices) where they discuss the EUA as a likely requirement for Warp Speed authorization.  

 

Under FDA EUA guidelines, there must be "No adequate, approved, and available alternative" in order to qualify for EUA use.  

 

https://www.fda.gov/...e-authorization

 

The lack of alternatives is defined here:

 

https://www.fda.gov/...ted-authorities

 

d. No Alternatives

For FDA to issue an EUA, there must be no adequate, approved, and available alternative to the candidate product for diagnosing, preventing, or treating the disease or condition.  A potential alternative product may be considered “unavailable” if there are insufficient supplies of the approved alternative to fully meet the emergency need.  A potential alternative product may be considered "inadequate" if, for example, there are contraindicating data for special circumstances or populations (e.g., children, immunocompromised individuals, or individuals with a drug allergy), if a dosage form of an approved product is inappropriate for use in a special population (e.g., a tablet for individuals who cannot swallow pills), or if the agent is or may be resistant to approved and available alternative products.

----------------------

So there you have it.  In order for Operation Warp Speed to fly, any and ALL alternative therapies must be suppressed, as any other option would exclude EUA authorization for vaccines that have not yet completed full safety evaluation studies.  

We live in interesting times!  


Edited by Dorian Grey, 07 August 2020 - 03:40 PM.

  • Good Point x 2
  • Informative x 2
  • Disagree x 1

#64 geo12the

  • Guest
  • 667 posts
  • -177

Posted 08 August 2020 - 12:33 AM

 

 

 

So there you have it.  In order for Operation Warp Speed to fly, any and ALL alternative therapies must be suppressed, as any other option would exclude EUA authorization for vaccines that have not yet completed full safety evaluation studies.  

We live in interesting times!  

 

Hypothesis 1: proposed by an anti-vaxxer: There is vast conspiracy among multiple researchers in multiple institutions and multiple countries to suppress or doctor evidence that HCQ is an effective therapy for COVID. It's a conspiracy to force vaccines on people

 

Hypothesis 2: HCQ is just not that good a therapy for COVID 

 

I believe Hypothesis 2. I don't believe the anti-vaxxer quacks and demon sperm witch doctors. 


Edited by geo12the, 08 August 2020 - 12:35 AM.

  • Ill informed x 3
  • Pointless, Timewasting x 1
  • Unfriendly x 1
  • dislike x 1
  • like x 1

#65 Dorian Grey

  • Guest
  • 1,811 posts
  • 785
  • Location:kalifornia

Posted 09 August 2020 - 03:32 PM

Hit the motherload of HCQ data.  Quite an up to date compilation of studies & some interesting graphics. 

 

https://c19study.com/

 

Here's a small sample: These are "Demographic Adjusted Deaths per Million" not Case Fatality Rates which have been criticized due to various levels of testing done. 

 

Attached Files


Edited by Dorian Grey, 09 August 2020 - 03:40 PM.

  • Informative x 2
  • WellResearched x 1

#66 Florin

  • Guest
  • 741 posts
  • 33
  • Location:Cannot be left blank

Posted 02 October 2020 - 08:20 PM

Clearing the fog: Is HCQ effective in reducing COVID-19 progression: A randomized controlled trial
https://doi.org/10.1....07.30.20165365

 

HCQ+C+D+Z = C+D+Z

 


  • like x 1

#67 Dorian Grey

  • Guest
  • 1,811 posts
  • 785
  • Location:kalifornia

Posted 02 October 2020 - 09:35 PM

Clearing the fog: Is HCQ effective in reducing COVID-19 progression: A randomized controlled trial
https://doi.org/10.1....07.30.20165365

 

HCQ+C+D+Z = C+D+Z

 

Meh...  Young patients; not quite clear what their markers for progression were; no one died, all recovered in a timely manner?  Dr Zelenko says he doesn't even use HCQ on low risk patients, but only to keep high risk patients from going critical & dying.  

 

I'm starting to think perhaps it's the immune modulation rather than viral replication inhibition that is the main mode of action for HCQ.  Correct me if I'm wrong, but I heard one doc say the remarkable thing about HCQ is that it's the only immune modulator that reduces inflammation without predisposing or potentiating infection.  Never really explored this claim, but it stuck in my head.  I've seen the ads for the newer RA meds warning their drug may predispose infections and should not be used when chronic infections are present.  Reckon this is why HCQ is still used so widely for lupus, RA etc?  

 

Never ceases to amaze me how so many who study HCQ (lately) can't seem to find benefit, but those who prescribe & use it report good results; and the stats on COVID deaths in the https://c19study.com/ site seem to back this up.  The trial SNAFU's are truly legendary.  Initiation of treatment delayed until cytokine storm well underway?  Even the big guns steroids don't work well if you fail to time them just right.  Massive overdoses of a med that can be cardiotoxic only when given in excessively high doses?  Trials in low risk (young) patients where any benefit would be difficult to discern from normal recovery?  

 

I have no probs with those who don't wish to take it, or even doc's who don't want to prescribe it.  Don't like it when folks call it poison when its not, or ban it for outpatient use, when this is the only time it might be helpful.  No reason for this except politics, which is a bad mix with medicine.  


Edited by Dorian Grey, 02 October 2020 - 10:08 PM.

  • Good Point x 2
  • Pointless, Timewasting x 1
  • Agree x 1

#68 geo12the

  • Guest
  • 667 posts
  • -177

Posted 11 October 2021 - 01:52 AM

 

https://www.ncbi.nlm...les/PMC1232869/

 

Chloroquine is a potent inhibitor of SARS coronavirus infection and spread

 

Published online 2005 

 

We report, however, that chloroquine has strong antiviral effects on SARS-CoV infection of primate cells. These inhibitory effects are observed when the cells are treated with the drug either before or after exposure to the virus, suggesting both prophylactic and therapeutic advantage. In addition to the well-known functions of chloroquine such as elevations of endosomal pH, the drug appears to interfere with terminal glycosylation of the cellular receptor, angiotensin-converting enzyme 2. This may negatively influence the virus-receptor binding and abrogate the infection, with further ramifications by the elevation of vesicular pH, resulting in the inhibition of infection and spread of SARS CoV at clinically admissible concentrations.

Conclusion

Chloroquine is effective in preventing the spread of SARS CoV in cell culture. Favorable inhibition of virus spread was observed when the cells were either treated with chloroquine prior to or after SARS CoV infection. In addition, the indirect immunofluorescence assay described herein represents a simple and rapid method for screening SARS-CoV antiviral compounds.

 

 

They talked about this on TWIV. I will summarize what I remember they said: Basically the cell culture cells used in these assays are different than the lung cells that are infected. The mechanism by which it works in the cell lines is not present in lung cells and there are specific proteases involved in infection in lung cells that interfere with it's ability to work. They discuss it here:

 

https://www.nature.c...1586-020-2575-3

https://theconversat...ng-cells-143234

https://journals.plo...al.ppat.1009212


  • Pointless, Timewasting x 2
  • Good Point x 1

#69 Dorian Grey

  • Guest
  • 1,811 posts
  • 785
  • Location:kalifornia

Posted 11 October 2021 - 02:34 AM

Drugs often accumulate at different levels in different tissues, so serum concentrations may mislead.  

 

There are also multiple aspects through which a drug may be therapeutic. Alkalinization of organelles (endosomal ph), zinc ionophore, receptor glycosylation inhibition, etc, and these may occur at different serum concentrations.

 

Proof is always in the pudding though, and the volume of research showing positive results is piling to the sky. If the alternative is to wait till my lips turn blue, & get ambulanced off for some remdesivir, I'll be proactive every time.  


  • Good Point x 2
  • Pointless, Timewasting x 1

#70 Dorian Grey

  • Guest
  • 1,811 posts
  • 785
  • Location:kalifornia

Posted 11 October 2021 - 02:56 AM

Found a list of possible mechanisms of action for HCQ

 

The possible mechanisms of action of 4-aminoquinolines (chloroquine/ hydroxychloroquine) against Sars-Cov-2 infection (COVID-19):

 

Main biological activities of chloroquine (CQ) and hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) as anti-viral drugs.
Biological activity References
Inhibition of viral attachment and entry in the host cell
Inhibition of the biosynthesis of sialic acids
• inhibition of the N-glycosylation of the cell surface viral
receptor ACE2
• inhibition of the N-glycosylation of the viral spike (S) proteins
• inhibition of the synthesis of cell membrane sialic acids
 
Inhibition of PICALM expression and CME [15,16]
Endosomal alkalinization and inhibition of cellular endosomal
protease (cathepsin and/or TMPRSS2)
 
Inhibition of new viral particle maturation and spread
Endosomal alkalinization and inhibition of endosome-lysosome
membrane fusion
 
ERGIC and TGN vesicle alkalinization and inhibition of post-
translational modifications of viral proteins
 
ERGIC vesicle alkalinization and inhibition of viral budding [21]
Inhibition of p38 MAPK activation [23,24]
Inhibition of phospholipase A2 and membranous structures essential for replication and transcription

  • Informative x 2
  • Pointless, Timewasting x 1
  • Good Point x 1

#71 geo12the

  • Guest
  • 667 posts
  • -177

Posted 11 October 2021 - 03:12 AM

Drugs often accumulate at different levels in different tissues, so serum concentrations may mislead.  

 

There are also multiple aspects through which a drug may be therapeutic. Alkalinization of organelles (endosomal ph), zinc ionophore, receptor glycosylation inhibition, etc, and these may occur at different serum concentrations.

 

Proof is always in the pudding though, and the volume of research showing positive results is piling to the sky. If the alternative is to wait till my lips turn blue, & get ambulanced off for some remdesivir, I'll be proactive every time.  

 

Proof is in the pudding.  Sketchy websites aside, most of the scientifically sound studies (Randomized controlled trials. Not from Nigeria or Saudi Arabia or Bangladesh)  show no effect. You are beating a dead horse. 

 

https://www.cochrane...nting-infection

https://www.nature.c...467-021-22446-z

 

Mortality outcomes with hydroxychloroquine and chloroquine in COVID-19 from an international collaborative meta-analysis of randomized trials

Nature Communications volume 12, Article number: 2349 (2021Cite this article

An Author Correction to this article was published on 14 May 2021

This article has been updated

Abstract

Substantial COVID-19 research investment has been allocated to randomized clinical trials (RCTs) on hydroxychloroquine/chloroquine, which currently face recruitment challenges or early discontinuation. We aim to estimate the effects of hydroxychloroquine and chloroquine on survival in COVID-19 from all currently available RCT evidence, published and unpublished. We present a rapid meta-analysis of ongoing, completed, or discontinued RCTs on hydroxychloroquine or chloroquine treatment for any COVID-19 patients (protocol: https://osf.io/QESV4/). We systematically identified unpublished RCTs (ClinicalTrials.gov, WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, Cochrane COVID-registry up to June 11, 2020), and published RCTs (PubMed, medRxiv and bioRxiv up to October 16, 2020). All-cause mortality has been extracted (publications/preprints) or requested from investigators and combined in random-effects meta-analyses, calculating odds ratios (ORs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs), separately for hydroxychloroquine and chloroquine. Prespecified subgroup analyses include patient setting, diagnostic confirmation, control type, and publication status. Sixty-three trials were potentially eligible. We included 14 unpublished trials (1308 patients) and 14 publications/preprints (9011 patients). Results for hydroxychloroquine are dominated by RECOVERY and WHO SOLIDARITY, two highly pragmatic trials, which employed relatively high doses and included 4716 and 1853 patients, respectively (67% of the total sample size). The combined OR on all-cause mortality for hydroxychloroquine is 1.11 (95% CI: 1.02, 1.20; I² = 0%; 26 trials; 10,012 patients) and for chloroquine 1.77 (95%CI: 0.15, 21.13, I² = 0%; 4 trials; 307 patients). We identified no subgroup effects. We found that treatment with hydroxychloroquine is associated with increased mortality in COVID-19 patients, and there is no benefit of chloroquine. Findings have unclear generalizability to outpatients, children, pregnant women, and people with comorbidities.

 


Edited by geo12the, 11 October 2021 - 03:14 AM.

  • Ill informed x 3
  • WellResearched x 1

#72 Dorian Grey

  • Guest
  • 1,811 posts
  • 785
  • Location:kalifornia

Posted 11 October 2021 - 03:38 AM

RECOVERY and WHO SOLIDARITY both gave over 2 grams of HCQ on day one, to critically ill hospitalized patients.  The British National Formulary recommends no more than 600mg/day as their maximum recommended daily dose.  

 

I'll agree, massive overdoses in critically ill patients are indeed unwise.  Now, what is the fatality rate for normal doses given to mild to moderately ill COVID outpatients?  


  • Good Point x 2
  • like x 1

#73 Hip

  • Guest
  • 1,523 posts
  • -57
  • Location:UK

Posted 11 October 2021 - 03:57 AM

Drugs often accumulate at different levels in different tissues, so serum concentrations may mislead.  

 

That is true, but typically the level of tissue accumulation of drugs might be around 2 or 3 times the level found in the blood. Sometimes it can be a lot higher, but typically it is on a factor of a few times higher than the blood concentration. That will not make up for the fact that a 200 mg dose of hydroxychloroquine results in blood levels which are around 40 times too low (by the calculation performed in my earlier post) to have any significant antiviral effect in vivo.

 

Now if you can find me a study which shows hydroxychloroquine accumulates in the lungs at level at least 40 times higher than blood levels, then we might be able to conclude that HCQ will have some useful antiviral effects in the lungs in COVID patients. 

 

 

But when we look at tissue accumulation, protein binding must also be taken into consideration: it is usually only the free portion of a drug which has active effects; the portion of the drug which becomes bound to plasma proteins or tissue proteins becomes metabolically inactive. This is known as the free drug principle. So if a drug accumulates in the tissues, but is largely bound to proteins in those tissues, then that is of no use, since the bound drug will not be active. The drug needs to be free in order to be active. 

 

Protein binding is the bane of pharmaceutical companies. Many drugs under development work well in vitro, but then it is discovered that in vivo, 99% of the drug gets bound to plasma proteins, and thus becomes pharmacologically inactive. So a drug which has powerful effects in vitro can turn out to be very weak in vivo, because of the drug's high protein binding.


Edited by Hip, 11 October 2021 - 03:59 AM.

  • Needs references x 1
  • Pointless, Timewasting x 1
  • Good Point x 1
  • dislike x 1

#74 Dorian Grey

  • Guest
  • 1,811 posts
  • 785
  • Location:kalifornia

Posted 11 October 2021 - 04:26 AM

 

Found a list of possible mechanisms of action for HCQ

 

The possible mechanisms of action of 4-aminoquinolines (chloroquine/ hydroxychloroquine) against Sars-Cov-2 infection (COVID-19):

 

Main biological activities of chloroquine (CQ) and hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) as anti-viral drugs.
Biological activity References
Inhibition of viral attachment and entry in the host cell
Inhibition of the biosynthesis of sialic acids
• inhibition of the N-glycosylation of the cell surface viral
receptor ACE2
• inhibition of the N-glycosylation of the viral spike (S) proteins
• inhibition of the synthesis of cell membrane sialic acids
 
Inhibition of PICALM expression and CME [15,16]
Endosomal alkalinization and inhibition of cellular endosomal
protease (cathepsin and/or TMPRSS2)
 
Inhibition of new viral particle maturation and spread
Endosomal alkalinization and inhibition of endosome-lysosome
membrane fusion
 
ERGIC and TGN vesicle alkalinization and inhibition of post-
translational modifications of viral proteins
 
ERGIC vesicle alkalinization and inhibition of viral budding [21]
Inhibition of p38 MAPK activation [23,24]
Inhibition of phospholipase A2 and membranous structures essential for replication and transcription

 

 

Which of these potential therapeutic effects are you saying requires a 40X accumulation in the lungs?  


  • Good Point x 2
  • like x 1

#75 Hip

  • Guest
  • 1,523 posts
  • -57
  • Location:UK

Posted 11 October 2021 - 04:28 AM

Which of these potential therapeutic effects are you saying requires a 40X accumulation in the lungs?  

 

The antiviral effects, whatever mechanism or mechanisms they work by. We know hydroxychloroquine works as an antiviral in vitro, when you use high enough concentrations. But the pharmacokinetic data I presented earlier indicate those high concentrations are not obtainable in vivo.

 

That's the way the cookie crumbles. 


  • Ill informed x 4

#76 Dorian Grey

  • Guest
  • 1,811 posts
  • 785
  • Location:kalifornia

Posted 11 October 2021 - 04:52 AM

The antiviral effects, whatever mechanism or mechanisms they work by. We know hydroxychloroquine works as an antiviral in vitro, when you use high enough concentrations. But the pharmacokinetic data I presented earlier indicate those high concentrations are not obtainable in vivo.

 

That's the way the cookie crumbles. 

 

There are apparently multiple antiviral effects, all of which probably require different serum & tissue levels to work.  Throw me a bone here and tell me which one you are referring to.  


  • Good Point x 2

#77 Hip

  • Guest
  • 1,523 posts
  • -57
  • Location:UK

Posted 11 October 2021 - 05:00 AM

There are apparently multiple antiviral effects, all of which probably require different serum & tissue levels to work.  Throw me a bone here and tell me which one you are referring to.  

 

The in vitro study is a measure of the sum total of those antiviral effects. Antiviral actions do not require different tissue levels to work. Antiviral effects are typically roughly proportional to the blood or tissue concentration of the substance. So if you double the concentration, you double the antiviral effect. 

 

The only think in vitro antiviral studies cannot measure is any immune boosting effect that a substance might have which helps combat the viral infection. You cannot measure immune effects in vitro, since it requires a fully-working immune system. So to measure how immune boosting effects might combat infection, you need in vivo animal or human studies. 

 

However, there is nothing in your list which is an immune boosting effect; everything in the list is an antiviral mechanism. Thus these effects in your list would have been measured in the in vitro antiviral study. 


  • Ill informed x 3
  • Needs references x 1

#78 Dorian Grey

  • Guest
  • 1,811 posts
  • 785
  • Location:kalifornia

Posted 11 October 2021 - 05:11 AM

You don't necessarily have to kill the virus (antiviral effect).  Simply inhibiting reproduction can make all the difference in the world.  Similarly, you wouldn't need an immune boosting effect, if you could slow viral replication to a point where the immune system has time to mount its response before an overwhelming viral load occurs.  

 

You're spinnin' your wheels mate.  Time to give it a rest.  The mods are going to delete this back from where we went off topic anyway.  

 

I enjoy a good debate though, so thanks for your time.  


  • Good Point x 2
  • Cheerful x 1

#79 Gal220

  • Guest
  • 855 posts
  • 447
  • Location:United States

Posted 11 October 2021 - 06:13 AM

You don't necessarily have to kill the virus (antiviral effect).  Simply inhibiting reproduction can make all the difference in the world.  Similarly, you wouldn't need an immune boosting effect, if you could slow viral replication to a point where the immune system has time to mount its response before an overwhelming viral load occurs.  

 

You're spinnin' your wheels mate.  Time to give it a rest.  The mods are going to delete this back from where we went off topic anyway.  

 

I enjoy a good debate though, so thanks for your time.  

 

I do wonder if those who dont have success use the right zinc.  Need to use a zinc salt that is ionic, Zalenko uses sulfate.

 

Im not sure its the zinc that wins the day, but from this paper .

" Except for zinc acetate, the others failed to produce any antiviral effects in the cell culture experiments"  - They didnt test sulfate, but both are zinc salts and ionic.

 

 

Lt Gov Allen recently contracted covid and didnt feel HCQ or IVM did the trick, hes promoting the mono antibodies now.  Hard to tell from the timeline if there was some impatience or did he even use the right dose.


Edited by Gal220, 11 October 2021 - 06:16 AM.

  • Good Point x 1
  • Informative x 1

#80 Hip

  • Guest
  • 1,523 posts
  • -57
  • Location:UK

Posted 11 October 2021 - 02:21 PM

You don't necessarily have to kill the virus (antiviral effect).  Simply inhibiting reproduction can make all the difference in the world.  Similarly, you wouldn't need an immune boosting effect, if you could slow viral replication to a point where the immune system has time to mount its response before an overwhelming viral load occurs.  
 
You're spinnin' your wheels mate.  Time to give it a rest.  The mods are going to delete this back from where we went off topic anyway.

 
It's been demonstrated above that hydroxychloroquine will not work in vivo as an antiviral. 

 

But I understand that in this pandemic, people's beliefs in what works or what doesn't have become quasi-religious, and it is hard to argue on scientific grounds when people have religious beliefs.

 

In previous generations, people believed in the power of holy water to fight disease, and if you tried to convince them otherwise, they would not listen. Not much has changed.



 

The mods are going to delete this back from where we went off topic anyway.


Why not move my above hydroxychloroquine pharmacokinetic calculation (which took me some time to perform, for your benefit) to another new thread? It demonstrates hydroxychloroquine will not work. 

 

You can call it the definitive hydroxychloroquine thread.

 

 


  • Unfriendly x 2
  • Pointless, Timewasting x 1
  • Ill informed x 1
  • Cheerful x 1

#81 geo12the

  • Guest
  • 667 posts
  • -177

Posted 11 October 2021 - 04:01 PM

You don't necessarily have to kill the virus (antiviral effect).  Simply inhibiting reproduction can make all the difference in the world.  Similarly, you wouldn't need an immune boosting effect, if you could slow viral replication to a point where the immune system has time to mount its response before an overwhelming viral load occurs.  

 

You're spinnin' your wheels mate.  Time to give it a rest.  The mods are going to delete this back from where we went off topic anyway.  

 

I enjoy a good debate though, so thanks for your time.  

 

So is this Meta analysis, published in a prestigious journal, all BS? The problem is YOU ONLY BELEIVE SCIENCE WHEN IT REIFORCES YOUR VIEWS. That is NOT how science works. That's the problem. You have armchair scientists riled  up by Tucker Carlsons and quack webistes who think they are virology experts. You are not. 

Mortality outcomes with hydroxychloroquine and chloroquine in COVID-19 from an international collaborative meta-analysis of randomized trials

Nature Communications volume 12, Article number: 2349 (2021) Cite this article

An Author Correction to this article was published on 14 May 2021

This article has been updated

Abstract

Substantial COVID-19 research investment has been allocated to randomized clinical trials (RCTs) on hydroxychloroquine/chloroquine, which currently face recruitment challenges or early discontinuation. We aim to estimate the effects of hydroxychloroquine and chloroquine on survival in COVID-19 from all currently available RCT evidence, published and unpublished. We present a rapid meta-analysis of ongoing, completed, or discontinued RCTs on hydroxychloroquine or chloroquine treatment for any COVID-19 patients (protocol: https://osf.io/QESV4/). We systematically identified unpublished RCTs (ClinicalTrials.gov, WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, Cochrane COVID-registry up to June 11, 2020), and published RCTs (PubMed, medRxiv and bioRxiv up to October 16, 2020). All-cause mortality has been extracted (publications/preprints) or requested from investigators and combined in random-effects meta-analyses, calculating odds ratios (ORs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs), separately for hydroxychloroquine and chloroquine. Prespecified subgroup analyses include patient setting, diagnostic confirmation, control type, and publication status. Sixty-three trials were potentially eligible. We included 14 unpublished trials (1308 patients) and 14 publications/preprints (9011 patients). Results for hydroxychloroquine are dominated by RECOVERY and WHO SOLIDARITY, two highly pragmatic trials, which employed relatively high doses and included 4716 and 1853 patients, respectively (67% of the total sample size). The combined OR on all-cause mortality for hydroxychloroquine is 1.11 (95% CI: 1.02, 1.20; I² = 0%; 26 trials; 10,012 patients) and for chloroquine 1.77 (95%CI: 0.15, 21.13, I² = 0%; 4 trials; 307 patients). We identified no subgroup effects. We found that treatment with hydroxychloroquine is associated with increased mortality in COVID-19 patients, and there is no benefit of chloroquine. Findings have unclear generalizability to outpatients, children, pregnant women, and people with comorbidities.


  • Pointless, Timewasting x 2
  • Dangerous, Irresponsible x 1
  • like x 1

#82 Dorian Grey

  • Guest
  • 1,811 posts
  • 785
  • Location:kalifornia

Posted 11 October 2021 - 08:34 PM

Oh Geo, read their bottom line: "Findings have unclear generalizability to outpatients, children, pregnant women, and people with comorbidities."

 

Are these not the target populations most in need of an oral therapeutic?  


  • Good Point x 3

#83 Dorian Grey

  • Guest
  • 1,811 posts
  • 785
  • Location:kalifornia

Posted 11 October 2021 - 10:19 PM

Let's see if you believe "the science" from the CDC on HCQ safety.  

 

https://www.cdc.gov/...chloroquine.pdf

 

Medicines for the Prevention of Malaria While Traveling Hydroxychloroquine (Plaquenil™)

 

"Who can take hydroxychloroquine?"

 

"Hydroxychloroquine can be prescribed to adults and children of all ages. It can also be safely taken by pregnant women and nursing mothers."

 

"Who should not take hydroxychloroquine?"

 

"People with psoriasis should not take hydroxychloroquine."


  • Informative x 3

#84 Dorian Grey

  • Guest
  • 1,811 posts
  • 785
  • Location:kalifornia

Posted 20 September 2022 - 10:56 PM

Like a Phoenix rising from the ashes, a new HCQ study, hot off the press:

 

Hydroxychloroquine blocks SARS-CoV-2 entry into the endocytic pathway in mammalian cell culture  

 

https://www.nature.c...003-022-03841-8

 

In vitro so a target on its back, but Dr Been was particularly intrigued (almost giddy). 

 

A new mechanism of inhibition is described, which implies HCQ may have a unique application for Omicron, which has developed a proclivity for endocytic entry into cells.  There is also indication it may be particularly helpful in obese / high cholesterol patients, which are susceptible to severe disease and sequelae.  

 

This might also explain why FLCCC has reduced advocating IVM in favor of HCQ, which they now state is "preferred for omicron". 

 

Life travels in circles, and we're back to the original SARS Coronavirus tonic first described way back in 2005: "Chloroquine is a potent inhibitor of SARS coronavirus infection and spread" (PMID: 16115318).  Accept no substitutions!  

 

 

Cheers!  


Edited by Dorian Grey, 20 September 2022 - 11:22 PM.

  • Informative x 3

#85 pamojja

  • Guest
  • 2,638 posts
  • 630
  • Location:Austria

Posted 21 September 2022 - 12:00 PM

"People with psoriasis should not take hydroxychloroquine."

 

Interesting to my story. Had 4 malaria falciparum in Africa, 3 further malaria vivax in India. All together within 5 years (<1998). The 3 later treated with HCQ. Right after came down with planto-pustolar psoriasis, blistering and festering on both feet-soles except the heels, for eight month!

 

https://pubmed.ncbi....h.gov/32442699/ 50% (n = 9) of the patients did not have a history of psoriasis before taking HCQ.

 

Accept no substitutions!

 

I only had once a CT-threshold of 37 without symptoms or vaccine. Despite comorbities, against which I do take 'substitutions' since 14 years (life-style changes and comprehensive supplementation, partly in mega-doses for remission of PAD, COPD and ME/CFS symptoms).

 


Edited by pamojja, 21 September 2022 - 12:02 PM.






Also tagged with one or more of these keywords: coronavirus, hdq, chloroquine

1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users