• 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
87 replies to this topic

#1 Engadin

  • Guest
  • 198 posts
  • 580
  • Location:Madrid
  • NO

Posted 19 June 2020 - 10:53 AM


.

 

S O U R C E :    Josh Mitteldorf's blog 'Aging Matters'

 

It’s hardly newsworthy that medical science is distorted by money. But last week, a case arose that is so blatant, so extreme, and so suspiciously criminal that it should become a rallying point for all of us interested in reform. It involves the two best-respected medical journals in the world, and a finding that immediately affected the lives of thousands of patients around the globe. Two papers purported to be derived from a large, worldwide database, but they were quietly withdrawn when the data was requested by outside reviewers, and none could be produced. Where is the outrage? Where is the passion for reform?
 
Hydroxychloroquine is a cheap, out-of-patent drug that literally millions of travelers have been using for 65 years for prevention of malaria. It is also taken on a daily basis by hundreds of thousands of lupus patients. Its safety profile and side-effects are well established. Front-line doctors in Wuhan told us early that, in combination with zinc, it was the most effective COVID treatment they knew. It had previously been used with success during the SARS epidemic of 2003. European doctors reported anecdotal success with chloroquine/zinc, and it became standard treatment in France, the Netherlands, and elsewhere [review]. There were about 70 ongoing clinical trials before the two articles appeared.
 
HCQ has been discouraged by Anthony Fauci and segments of the American medical establishment, and I have wondered if they were compromised by their investments. Fauci is associated, ideologically and financially, with vaccines. The primary competitor for HCQ is Remdesivir, belonging to Gilead Sciences, and selling for $1,000 per dose. Billions of dollars have already been invested in developing a COVID vaccine. That COVID seems to be treatable and that the pandemic is fading with the spring weather is welcome news for world health, but it is devastating for investors in Gilead, Moderna, AstraZeneca, and 20 other companies that are racing to produce a COVID vaccine.
 
 
 
Covid-deaths-US-June.png
 
 
Last month, the two most prestigious medical journals in the world reported large studies by prominent researchers, based on a large COVID data set from Asia, Europe, and America. The lead author is from Harvard’s Brigham and Women’s teaching hospital. Here is the Lancet article, claiming that hydroxychloroquine is worse than useless. The data appear to show that people treated with HCQ are dying at 3 times the rate of other, similar patients. Here is the New England Journal article, which analyzes comorbidities but does not mention HCQ.
 
The Lancet paper had been duly peer-reviewed and rushed into print by editors. But seasoned researchers in the field immediately smelled that something must be wrong. How could this huge database of patients exist, crossing four continents and going back to the earliest days of the virus, when no one thought the records would be valuable? How could comparable conditions be established in hospitals from Capetown to Beijing to New York? And how could a drug in use for 65 years have such powerful lethal side-effects that no one had previously identified?
 
Questioned and challenged to produce the data behind the study, the authors quickly retracted the paper and refused further comment.
 
 
retracted-768x482.png
 
 
“Dr. Desai declined a request from The Times to be put in contact with a hospital or health care facility that provided its data to Surgisphere. He did not respond to inquiries after the retractions.” NYTimes.
 
 
 
 
Nirav Desai is a physician and researcher from Surgisphere, a small Chicago company that claimed to have compiled the impressive database. Both retracted studies were led by Mandeep R. Mehra, a widely published and highly regarded professor of medicine at Harvard, who may end up being the fall guy for this scandal.
 
But no one is investigating Surgisphere as the source of a criminal fraud. No one is holding the Lancet journal or its editors or reviewers to account. Certainly no one is questioning the broad system funding and publishing the medical research on which the practice of Western medicine is based. To their credit, Science Magazine published this article, hinting at a scandal and beginning to ask the right questions.
 
This is happening at a time when the medical establishment is making the largest demands ever on our beliefs and our behaviors. We are locked down based on the computer simulation of a compromised researcher, who also did not document the basis of his computation, and whose predictions have proved spectacularly inflated. Why did we trust him, when he had cried wolf twice previously (Ebola, Avian flu)? The liberal-intellectual press and the science journals speak with a unified voice. denouncing anyone who questions vaccines as ‘anti-science’. Every article in Wikipedia and every Google search is plastered with a message that tells us to trust the CDC. The head of Youtube goes on the air to explain why anyone who disagrees with the WHO must have their videos removed.
 
The largest of the studies evaluating HCQ were discontinued after the Lancet article raised the probability that the studies might be putting lives of experimental subjects at risk. Now they are being re-started, but a fresh scandal has arisen. Dr Meryl Nass has investigated details of the “Soldarity” and “Recovery” trials. She reports that these trials plan to use dosages that are at least 4 times larger than necessary, dosages that have been found to be unsafe in the past, in fact fatal to a few percent of sensitive patients. She does not mention that the trials are leaving out zinc supplementation, which doctors everywhere report to be an essential part of the treatment protocol. The studies have indirect ties to vaccine manufacturers, through the WHO and through the Gates Foundation.
 
It appears on its face that these trials are designed to fail, and will kill experimental subjects on the way to “proving” that HCQ is an ineffective treatment. These suspicions can only be amplified by an announcement today from FDA that chloroquine cannot be used for COVID cases. This intrusion into physician autonomy is unprecedented. For as long as FDA has existed, its policy has been to permit physicians to freely prescribe drugs off-label for any condition where the individual physician feels it might be useful.
 
The institutions in which Americans and Europeans have entrusted their health have betrayed our trust. There are narrow implications for the future of HCQ and treatment of COVID, and then there are broader implications about the need for overhauling the profit incentives in medical research.
 
 
Narrow perspective
 
For those of who dare to look beyond our own noses, a concerted campaign to discredit a good, cheap treatment for COVID is a hint that might help us make sense of the bizarre global events of the last five months. This is a real virus, a real pandemic, but it is being exploited for a political agenda far larger than the effects of the disease itself.

 

  • Why have death rates been consistently overestimated in public reports?
  • Why have hospitals been incentivized to over-report COVID deaths, and to treat patients with ventilators that don’t seem to be helping?
  • Why has CDC failed to recommend simple, inexpensive prevention measures (vitamin D, zinc, immune-enhancing herbs, special measures for nursing homes)?
  • Why have our government agencies encouraged shortcutting of safety tests in “warp-speed” vaccine development, while discrediting simple, cheap treatments (intravenous vitamin C, chloroquine/zinc, Artemisia) that work in other countries?
  • Why has COVID become cause for bailouts of the financial sector that have little to do with the disease, while working families and small businesses have been forced into bankruptcy?
 
 
 
 
 

Edited by caliban, 28 July 2020 - 08:52 PM.
title

  • WellResearched x 5
  • Informative x 2
  • Pointless, Timewasting x 1
  • Good Point x 1

#2 gamesguru

  • Guest
  • 3,465 posts
  • 428
  • Location:coffeelake.intel.int

Posted 19 June 2020 - 02:55 PM

I wouldn't call it "lethal" but it definitely has side effects.  And most of the evidence is as a prophylactic, it needs to be taken continuously which is when the more serious side effects start to crop up.

 

Definitely suspicious of big biz involvement with Fauci lately, it seems Dexamethasone could be a generic therapeutic as well, generic medicines are hard to profit from.


  • Ill informed x 4
  • Good Point x 2
  • Dangerous, Irresponsible x 1
  • Agree x 1

#3 Dorian Grey

  • Guest
  • 2,152 posts
  • 968
  • Location:kalifornia

Posted 19 June 2020 - 03:31 PM

An interesting thread here: https://threadreader...4868626432.html

 

on Case Fatality Rates in countries where HCQ has been used properly (EARLY) to treat coronavirus.  Incredible graphs.  

 

Interesting case in Brazil, where they are having a massive spike in cases.  They decided to try early treatment with HCQ in mid May & Trump sent them 20 million doses.  Brazil's Case Fatality Rate had been substantially higher than the USA throughout the past few months, but dropped suddenly below America's CFR in early June.  

 

Great site to compare Case Fatality Rates here: https://ourworldindata.org/

 

Type "Case Fatality Rate Brazil" in the search & then add country United States.  

 

 


  • Informative x 6
  • Pointless, Timewasting x 2
  • Disagree x 2
  • Agree x 1

#4 Daniel Cooper

  • Member, Moderator
  • 2,634 posts
  • 631
  • Location:USA

Posted 19 June 2020 - 03:32 PM

I wouldn't call it "lethal" but it definitely has side effects.  And most of the evidence is as a prophylactic, it needs to be taken continuously which is when the more serious side effects start to crop up.

 

Definitely suspicious of big biz involvement with Fauci lately, it seems Dexamethasone could be a generic therapeutic as well, generic medicines are hard to profit from.

 

Negative Ghost Rider.  The half life of hydroxychloroquine is 22 days.  So, you could do a 5 day course about every 4 to 6 weeks if you want to maintain continuous prophylactic coverage.


Edited by Daniel Cooper, 19 June 2020 - 03:34 PM.

  • Good Point x 3
  • Disagree x 2
  • Needs references x 1
  • Ill informed x 1
  • Informative x 1

#5 Dorian Grey

  • Guest
  • 2,152 posts
  • 968
  • Location:kalifornia

Posted 19 June 2020 - 03:58 PM

Del Bigtree had a expose on the massive overdoses of HCQ being used in the Solidarity (WHO) & Recovery (Oxford) trials, dosing at near/known lethal levels in order to produce the cardiac & fatality rates needed to torpedo HCQ.  Look here (starting at 11:15)

 

https://youtu.be/FBI_pobBfck?t=674

 

Dosing patients already critically ill (well past the point of potential benefit) with twice the typical amount, all but guaranteed to result in failure & death. This couldn't have been an accident. 


  • Good Point x 4
  • Informative x 3
  • Pointless, Timewasting x 2
  • Disagree x 2
  • Agree x 2

#6 rodentman

  • Guest
  • 208 posts
  • 44

Posted 19 June 2020 - 06:42 PM

A well written article, as always, by the great Josh Mitteldorf.  The timing and blind acceptance of both the Lancet article, and the Imperial College studies are pretty disturbing to say the least.


  • Good Point x 5
  • Agree x 2
  • Pointless, Timewasting x 1

#7 Engadin

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest
  • 198 posts
  • 580
  • Location:Madrid
  • NO

Posted 20 June 2020 - 11:19 AM

.

 

 

 

 

Now, Surgisphere Sows Confusion About Another Unproven COVID-19 Drug

 

 

The company behind a now-discredited study on hydroxychloroquine also posted a report that has been cited by Latin American governments recommending ivermectin as a possible coronavirus treatment. Clinicians there say the effects have been extremely damaging.

 

Medical experts in Latin America are reacting with alarm as health officials promote ivermectin, an antiparasitic drug commonly used in tropical medicine, as a coronavirus treatment despite a lack of evidence that it’s effective.

 
Just a handful of in vitro and observational studies—including a now-withdrawn preprint from scandal-hit US company Surgisphere Corporation—have examined whether ivermectin could be beneficial against infections by SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID-19. Yet in the last few weeks, government officials in Peru and several other Latin American countries have publicly endorsed the drug as a treatment for COVID-19, fueling a public rush on supplies and a surge in dangerous practices such as self-administration and the use of veterinary formulations.
 
“Here in Peru, I was completely shocked when I heard that the ministry of health was releasing this guidance putting ivermectin as a medication,” says Patricia García, a global health researcher at Cayetano Heredia University in Lima and the country’s former health minister. People ran to pharmacies to look for the drug, she says, and when supplies ran out, they turned to the black market and veterinary versions. “It has been a nightmare.”

 


  • Informative x 3

#8 gamesguru

  • Guest
  • 3,465 posts
  • 428
  • Location:coffeelake.intel.int

Posted 20 June 2020 - 02:16 PM

Negative Ghost Rider.  The half life of hydroxychloroquine is 22 days.  So, you could do a 5 day course about every 4 to 6 weeks if you want to maintain continuous prophylactic

 

Again jumping to early conclusions? The only studies we have suggest it needs to be taken consistently leading up to the disease to have any effect.

 

Just look at Brazil, what a mess since May they practically cut their positivity rate in quarter but the CFR has barely halved.. obviously it's backfired horribly on them.  Nothing like the decreases seen in New York with expanded testing :sleep:


  • Ill informed x 3
  • Disagree x 3
  • Agree x 3
  • Good Point x 1

#9 Daniel Cooper

  • Member, Moderator
  • 2,634 posts
  • 631
  • Location:USA

Posted 22 June 2020 - 01:37 PM

Again jumping to early conclusions? The only studies we have suggest it needs to be taken consistently leading up to the disease to have any effect.

 

Just look at Brazil, what a mess since May they practically cut their positivity rate in quarter but the CFR has barely halved.. obviously it's backfired horribly on them.  Nothing like the decreases seen in New York with expanded testing :sleep:

  

Could you post those studies of prophylactic use of hydroxychloroquine? 


  • Good Point x 1

#10 hotbit

  • Guest
  • 129 posts
  • 43
  • Location:UK
  • NO

Posted 02 July 2020 - 09:25 PM

I'm not sure what's so great about hydroxychloroquine. Only 2 in 100 dead in the first half of 2020 had coronavirus. And we know most people dying 'with coronavirus' had serious 'co-morbidities'. Thus there is at least 50:1 chance to die (for me or for you) from something else without being infected with Sars-Cov-2 than from probably something else with also being infected with Sars-Cov-2, and quite low due to Sars-Cov-2 itself.

 

It feels as we are pretending that we are not mortal, and that so much deaths can be prevented, which of course is not true. On the other hand, OBESITY,  HIGH PRESSURE and similar problems that help covid to kill are avoidable. We don't make so much fuss trying to prevent deaths of smokers (like myself) and other misbehaving individuals, so why to protect lazy overeaters?  Next, some, even though rarely, fairly young doctors and nurses that fell victims to virus, maybe they fell victims to happy lazy overeaters, polluting planet and too lazy to do any workout?

There are other drugs out of the vision of the mainstream media. like artemisinin and Artemisia Annua plant, that might be more effective against covid than hydroxychloroquine. And even more importantly, balanced diet, exercising, breathing (hyperventilation) can most likely be best tools to prevent illness.

My rumbling above doesn't change the fact that serious misinformation is taking place not only in the popular media, but unfortunately also in some main stream scientific journals.


Edited by hotbit, 02 July 2020 - 09:30 PM.


#11 Dorian Grey

  • Guest
  • 2,152 posts
  • 968
  • Location:kalifornia

Posted 02 July 2020 - 11:43 PM

"I'm not sure what's so great about hydroxychloroquine"

 

What I liked about HCQ was it has the best potential to keep you out of the hospital.  Remdesivir is an IN-patient salvage med, while HCQ helps keep you from crumping in the first place.  Another fairly large new retrospective signed by over a dozen authors on HCQ here: 

 

https://www.scienced...477893920302817

 

"Treatment with HCQ-AZ was associated with a decreased risk of transfer to ICU or death (Hazard ratio (HR) 0.18 0.11–0.27), decreased risk of hospitalization ≥10 days (odds ratios 95% CI 0.38 0.27–0.54) and shorter duration of viral shedding (time to negative PCR: HR 1.29 1.17–1.42)."

 

"Lopinavir-ritonavir and remdesivir have not clearly demonstrated efficacy but are associated with many adverse events" "the choice of the best treatment should be made according to its safety profile, which is much better for HCQ-AZ than for remdesivir (adverse events leading to cessation of treatment in 0.3% in our study vs. 12% for remdesivir"

 

Looks like the USA has bought all the remdesivir on the planet, so this is our fate if we don't recover spontaneously on our own.


Edited by Dorian Grey, 03 July 2020 - 12:30 AM.

  • WellResearched x 3
  • unsure x 1
  • Ill informed x 1
  • Informative x 1
  • Disagree x 1

#12 gamesguru

  • Guest
  • 3,465 posts
  • 428
  • Location:coffeelake.intel.int

Posted 03 July 2020 - 01:12 AM

Lol HCQ is garbage no matter how hard the Dorian guy & crew try to push it.  Never forget these are the same guys who pushed megadoses of synthetic vitamin K while gawking at the idea of quercetin and shiitake extract 7103-24x24x32.png

 

Hydroxychloroquine ineffective as post-exposure prophylaxis for Covid-19
 

1. Hydroxychloroquine use as post-exposure prophylaxis within 4 days of a moderate or high-risk exposure did not prevent illness compatible with Covid-19 when compared to placebo.

2. Approximately 40% of individuals taking hydroxychloroquine reported side effects, all of which were noted to be mild and GI-related. There were no serious drug-related side effects observed.

Evidence Rating Level: 1 (Excellent)

 

Study Rundown: The breadth of the morbidity and mortality worldwide from coronavirus disease 2019 (Covid-19) has led to an intensification of efforts to develop novel therapeutics aimed to reduce disease transmission and severity. Hydroxychloroquine has been closely studied within this context. This study employed a randomized, double blinded design to examine hydroxychloroquine use in post-exposure prophylaxis for Covid-19. Hydroxychloroquine use showed no significant reduction in the incidence of a Covid-19 illness in adults when taken within 4 days of a moderate or high-risk exposure. The study’s findings added to a growing body of literature which has yet to establish the efficacy of hydroxychloroquine within Covid-19. Limitations of this study included its reliance on a symptom driven Covid-19 identification as opposed to molecular testing and dependence on participants self-reporting all symptoms, medication adherence, and testing results. Lastly, its largely online based recruitment and survey distribution strategy likely pre-selected a healthier participant pool and may limit its generalizability. Of note, the study provided evidence for the relative safety of hydroxychloroquine. Side effects, while reported in over 40% of subjects taking the medication, were largely mild in nature and there were no reported arrythmias or deaths associated with its use. Such a finding is relevant in light of multiple recently retracted studies demonstrating potential harm associated with hydroxychloroquine use in Covid-19.

Clear here to read the study in the NEJM.

 

In-Depth [randomized controlled trial]: The purpose of this study was to investigate if hydroxychloroquine used as postexposure prophylaxis could reduce symptomatic infections following covid-19 exposure.  Asymptomatic adults were recruited, predominantly online, based on self-reported exposure to Covid-19 within 4 days. An exposure was defined as contact with a person with confirmed Covid-19 for at least 10 minutes either without a face mask or eye shield, termed a high risk exposure, or a face mask but no eye shield, termed as a moderate risk exposure.  A total of 821 participants were enrolled, 66.4% of whom were healthcare workers. The hydroxychloroquine regimen was an initial dose of 800mg, followed by 600mg 6-8 hours later, and then 600mg daily for 4 days. The primary outcome was the development of a symptomatic illness via formal polymerase chain reaction (PCR) testing or the development of symptoms consistent with a Covid-like illness, after independent review of symptoms by four infectious disease specialists. The incidence of Covid-19 did not differ significantly between those receiving hydroxychloroquine (11.8%) or placebo (14.3%) (p =0.35) and the difference between groups was -2.4% (95% CI -7.0 to 2.2). Of participants taking hydroxychloroquine, 75.4% endorsed total compliance with the prescribed regimen and 40.1% reported a side effect at day 5, compared to 82.8% and 16.8%, respectively, in those taking the placebo.  The most common symptoms reported from those taking hydroxychloroquine were nausea, loose stools, and abdominal discomfort. There were no reported serious drug-related reactions including arrythmias or death.

 


  • Ill informed x 4
  • Informative x 3
  • Disagree x 1
  • Unfriendly x 1

#13 Dorian Grey

  • Guest
  • 2,152 posts
  • 968
  • Location:kalifornia

Posted 03 July 2020 - 03:22 AM

The post exposure study was interesting to say the least...  

 

Subjects recruited through social media.  Participants self-reported their exposure?  Doctors "guessed" whether or not patients came down with COVID without even seeing them by symptoms reported remotely by email? 

 

"access to testing was limited throughout the trial period"  No actual testing done & verified?  

 

Symptoms by email that triggered a COVID diagnosis: (the presence of cough, shortness of breath, or difficulty breathing, or the presence of two or more symptoms of fever, chills, rigors, myalgia, headache, sore throat, and new olfactory and taste disorders), and possible cases (the presence of one or more compatible symptoms, which could include diarrhea).  

 

"Four infectious disease physicians who were unaware of the trial-group assignments reviewed symptomatic participants to generate a consensus with respect to whether their condition met the case definition".  "Outcome data including PCR testing results, possible Covid-19–related symptoms, adherence to the trial intervention, side effects, and hospitalizations were all collected through participant report"

 

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

 

Didn't see any participants claims verified, confirmed disease or lab results, or whether anyone was ever seen by a doctor at any time.  Did I miss something?   Not exactly state of the art science (my humble opinion).  What did you think of the Marseille study I linked to?  


Edited by Dorian Grey, 03 July 2020 - 03:31 AM.

  • Good Point x 3

#14 Dorian Grey

  • Guest
  • 2,152 posts
  • 968
  • Location:kalifornia

Posted 03 July 2020 - 05:12 AM

News Flash: Treatment with Hydroxychloroquine Cut Death Rate in Half in COVID-19 Patients, Henry Ford Health System Study Shows

 

July 02, 2020
marcus-zervos-md.jpg?h=343&la=en&w=245&h

DETROIT – Treatment with hydroxychloroquine cut the death rate significantly in sick patients hospitalized with COVID-19 – and without heart-related side-effects, according to a new study published by Henry Ford Health System.

 

In a large-scale retrospective analysis of 2,541 patients hospitalized between March 10 and May 2, 2020 across the system’s six hospitals, the study found 13% of those treated with hydroxychloroquine alone died compared to 26.4% not treated with hydroxychloroquine. None of the patients had documented serious heart abnormalities

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

Haven't looked at the details yet, but perhaps they weren't using near fatal doses like Solidarity (WHO) & Recovery (Oxford) trials.  Truth will out in the end!  

 


Edited by Dorian Grey, 03 July 2020 - 05:21 AM.

  • Informative x 6
  • Ill informed x 2
  • unsure x 1
  • Agree x 1
  • like x 1

#15 Engadin

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest
  • 198 posts
  • 580
  • Location:Madrid
  • NO

Posted 03 July 2020 - 08:34 AM

...

 

Looks like the USA has bought all the remdesivir on the planet, so this is our fate if we don't recover spontaneously on our own.

 

 

Don't want to offend anybody, please, nor to enter the politics arena at all, but let me tell you how this move from the United States of America's present Government is looked at from many of the rest of countries in the world.

 

From Europe at least, it looks offensive that a supposed occidental ally "takes away all the ammo available to just protect only himself before entering combat at a global level, leaving the rest of us, his allies or not, totally helpless and truly astonished".

 

BTW I have Mexican family and it was a shame to learn that in March there was no HCQ left there as the United States of America Health Authorities had hoarded it all, I mean IT ALL, the HCQ stock available at mexican pharma lab depots. Fortunately some mexican hospitals had some small remainders left to treat my covid infected brother in law.

 

For an increasing population in Europe, and I guess in the rest of the world too because we are in the same struggle for survive after all, it is undeniable that the "America First" motto is regrettably turning into an "America First and Fuck the Rest" with the present Administration, health care wise at least. And at this point I can certainly recall other truly hard and sad aggresion in the United States of America's recent history that moved some of your compatriots to ask themselves a very honest and painful to answer question:

 

"Why don't they love us?". 

 

 

.....

 

 

 

 

.


Edited by Engadin, 03 July 2020 - 08:42 AM.

  • Agree x 2
  • Ill informed x 2
  • Informative x 1
  • Good Point x 1

#16 Dorian Grey

  • Guest
  • 2,152 posts
  • 968
  • Location:kalifornia

Posted 03 July 2020 - 01:15 PM

Yep, we grabbed all the HCQ & now remdesivir, but our generous nature is allowing human guinea pigs in Africa to test our vaccines for us. 

 

https://www.bbc.com/...africa-52678741

 

"So far one vaccine trial has begun in South Africa - and one is one waiting approval in Kenya"

 

Good luck guys!  If you run into any trouble, we'll be over here on the other side of the planet.  


  • Good Point x 3
  • Pointless, Timewasting x 1

#17 gamesguru

  • Guest
  • 3,465 posts
  • 428
  • Location:coffeelake.intel.int

Posted 03 July 2020 - 03:25 PM

Arguments from the opposing side.  All studies posted within the last week.  Edit: actually open label one is from May.

 

Still the high death rate with cardiac implications in Brazil is alarming.

 

The case of a sarcoidosis patient becoming infected and sick proves HCQ isn't universally effective (as if many of us on the Left needed proving of this, aha).

 

And really just more studies from June and July casting doubt on its effectiveness, and highlighting the risks when used over an extended period by ones with existing cardiac disease.  And that's basically the insane recommendation of this thread: everyone at risk, go on prophylactic HCQ treatment.  Well, never mind the fact that over 5-10% of you have bum tickers and this drug could be as risky for you as the infection itself, no never mind that get your right-wing rheoretic here folks.  Keep yourself informed for the low low price of your own self-critical faculties while you gawk in the face of anyone promoting naturalistic solutions as a quack :-D

 

Chronic heart diseases as the most prevalent comorbidities among deaths by COVID-19 in Brazil.

Jul 2, 2020

Age, sex and presence of comorbidities are risk factors associated with COVID-19. Hypertension, diabetes and heart disease are the most common comorbidities in patients with COVID-19. The objective of this study was to estimate the prevalence of patients with comorbidities who died of COVID-19 in Brazil. Searches of data were carried out on the official pages of the 26 State health departments and the federal district. The random-effect method was used to calculate the prevalence of patients with comorbidities who died. From the beginning of the pandemic in Brazil until May 20, 2020, 276,703 cases of COVID-19 were notified in Brazil, 6.4% died, 58.6% of whom were male. The prevalence of comorbidities among deaths was 83% (95% CI: 79 - 87), with heart disease and diabetes being the most prevalent. To our knowledge, this study represents the first large analysis of cases of patients with confirmed COVID-19 in Brazil. There is a high prevalence of comorbidities (83%) among patients who died from COVID-19 in Brazil, with heart disease being the most prevalent. This is important considering the possible secondary effects produced by drugs such as hydroxychloroquine.


COVID-19 in Patient with Sarcoidosis Receiving Long-Term Hydroxychloroquine Treatment, France, 2020.

Jul 2, 2020

Because of in vitro studies, hydroxychloroquine is under evaluation as a preexposure or postexposure prophylaxis for coronavirus disease (COVID-19) and as a possible COVID-19 curative treatment. We report a case of COVID-19 in a patient with sarcoidosis who was receiving long-term hydroxychloroquine treatment, despite adequate plasma concentrations.


Hydroxychloroquine in patients with mainly mild to moderate coronavirus disease 2019: open label, randomised controlled trial.

May 16, 2020

OBJECTIVE: To assess the efficacy and safety of hydroxychloroquine plus standard of care compared with standard of care alone in adults with coronavirus disease 2019 (covid-19).
DESIGN: Multicentre, open label, randomised controlled trial.
SETTING: 16 government designated covid-19 treatment centres in China, 11 to 29 February 2020.
PARTICIPANTS: 150 patients admitted to hospital with laboratory confirmed covid-19 were included in the intention to treat analysis (75 patients assigned to hydroxychloroquine plus standard of care, 75 to standard of care alone).
INTERVENTIONS: Hydroxychloroquine administrated at a loading dose of 1200 mg daily for three days followed by a maintenance dose of 800 mg daily (total treatment duration: two or three weeks for patients with mild to moderate or severe disease, respectively).
MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: Negative conversion of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 by 28 days, analysed according to the intention to treat principle. Adverse events were analysed in the safety population in which hydroxychloroquine recipients were participants who received at least one dose of hydroxychloroquine and hydroxychloroquine non-recipients were those managed with standard of care alone.
RESULTS: Of 150 patients, 148 had mild to moderate disease and two had severe disease. The mean duration from symptom onset to randomisation was 16.6 (SD 10.5; range 3-41) days. A total of 109 (73%) patients (56 standard of care; 53 standard of care plus hydroxychloroquine) had negative conversion well before 28 days, and the remaining 41 (27%) patients (19 standard of care; 22 standard of care plus hydroxychloroquine) were censored as they did not reach negative conversion of virus. The probability of negative conversion by 28 days in the standard of care plus hydroxychloroquine group was 85.4% (95% confidence interval 73.8% to 93.8%), similar to that in the standard of care group (81.3%, 71.2% to 89.6%). The difference between groups was 4.1% (95% confidence interval -10.3% to 18.5%). In the safety population, adverse events were recorded in 7/80 (9%) hydroxychloroquine non-recipients and in 21/70 (30%) hydroxychloroquine recipients. The most common adverse event in the hydroxychloroquine recipients was diarrhoea, reported in 7/70 (10%) patients. Two hydroxychloroquine recipients reported serious adverse events.
CONCLUSIONS: Administration of hydroxychloroquine did not result in a significantly higher probability of negative conversion than standard of care alone in patients admitted to hospital with mainly persistent mild to moderate covid-19. Adverse events were higher in hydroxychloroquine recipients than in non-recipients.


Effects of Hydroxychloroquine Treatment on QT Interval.
Jul 2, 2020

BACKGROUND: Hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) has been promoted as a potential treatment for COVID-19 but there are safety concerns.
OBJECTIVES: To determine the effect of HCQ treatment on QT interval METHODS: We retrospectively studied the electrocardiograms of 819 patients treated with HCQ for rheumatologic diseases from 2000 to 2020. The primary outcome was corrected QT (QTc) interval, by Bazett formula, during HCQ therapy.
RESULTS: The patients were 64.0 (+/-10.9) years in age and 734 (90%) were men. The median dosage and duration of HCQ were 400mg daily and 1006 (471-2075) days, respectively. The mean on-treatment QTc was 430.9 (+/-31.8) msec. In total, 55 (7%) patients had QTc 470-500 msec and 12 (1.5%) had QTc >500msec. Chronic kidney disease (CKD), history of atrial fibrillation (AF) and heart failure were independent risk factors for prolonged QTc. In a subset of 591 patients who also had a pre-treatment ECG, the mean QTc increased from 424.4 (+/-29.7) msec. to 432.0 (+/-32.3) msec (p<0.0001) during HCQ treatment. Of these, 23 (3.9%) patients had either prolongation of QTc >15% or an on-treatment QTc >500 msec. Over 5.97 (3.33-10.11) years of follow-up, 269 (33%) patients died. QTc >470 msec during HCQ treatment was associated with a greater mortality risk of (hazard ratio 1.78, 95% confidence interval 1.16-2.71; p=0.008) in univariable but not in multivariable analysis.
CONCLUSION: Hydroxychloroquine is associated with QT prolongation in a significant fraction of patients. The risk of QT prolongation is higher among patients with CKD, AF and heart failure, who may benefit from greater scrutiny.



Psychiatric Adverse Events With Hydroxychloroquine During COVID-19 Pandemic
Jul 1, 2020
HCQ, well known in rheumatology, dermatology and tropical medicine is now considered in the treatment and prophylaxy for the SARS-CoVid19.

Mental and neurological manifestations should be assessed following the use of hydrochloroquine particularly following prophylactic use.

For acute malaria studies, HCQ was associated with high prevalence of mental neurological manifestations amongst anti-malaria drugs.

Recommendations of using HCQ in COVID are variable and sometimes contradictory depending on agencies and countries.


  • Good Point x 4
  • Unfriendly x 2
  • Ill informed x 1

#18 Dorian Grey

  • Guest
  • 2,152 posts
  • 968
  • Location:kalifornia

Posted 03 July 2020 - 04:40 PM

Ahh those pesky side effects.  Don't want to shock anyone, but a lot of pharmaceuticals have them.  Japan even banned Tamiflu for pediatric use for a decade over psych issues.  Something about kids jumping out of windows? https://mainichi.jp/...00m/0na/012000c

 

Fortunately, the cardiac issues with HCQ have been a red herring.  The WHO's own 2017 monograph on "the cardiotoxicity of antimalarials" opined: 

“Despite hundreds of millions of doses administered in the treatment of malaria, there have been no reports of sudden unexplained death associated with quinine, chloroquine or amodiaquine, although each drug causes QT/QTc interval prolongation.”

 

Del Bigtree documented why so many HCQ studies for COVID are reporting cardiac issues in my video link earlier in this thread.  They were OVERDOSING critically ill patients with twice the normal amount of HCQ.  Dell interviewed Dr Zelenko yesterday, where they went over all the SNAFU's: 

Enjoy! 


  • Good Point x 4
  • Pointless, Timewasting x 2
  • like x 1

#19 gamesguru

  • Guest
  • 3,465 posts
  • 428
  • Location:coffeelake.intel.int

Posted 03 July 2020 - 07:43 PM

Ahh those pesky side effects.  Don't want to shock anyone, but a lot of pharmaceuticals have them.

 

Probably why you're better off sticking to things that agree with your body, have a mild effect, and have often been tried and tested through the decades.

 

Any time you jump on some potent or new drug and INSIST it's fine for you, you risk a massive side effect profile.  Of all my uncles and aunts, the ones who have aged most favorably have been the ones without the need for blood pressure or antidepressant medicines.  The ones pumping themselves full of a high-powered, novel cocktail to stay alive have always fared less favorably.


  • Good Point x 1

#20 Dorian Grey

  • Guest
  • 2,152 posts
  • 968
  • Location:kalifornia

Posted 03 July 2020 - 08:22 PM

"The Dose Makes the Poison" Paracelsus (Father of Toxicology).  

 

Doctors successfully using HCQ for coronavirus typically dose at 400mg + 200 more 8 hour later first day loading dose, followed by 200mg twice/day for 4 more days.  As Dr Z stated in the video above, if you add zinc, these lower doses not only work well but are quite well tolerated & safe.  

 

Brazil's high dose patients and the VA were dosing critically ill patients up to 1.2g/day (with no zinc).  Guaranteed to produce dramatic side effects and quite near the fatal LD-50 long established for HCQ pharmacology.  

 

Hope this helps.  


Edited by Dorian Grey, 03 July 2020 - 08:24 PM.

  • Good Point x 6
  • Needs references x 1
  • Dangerous, Irresponsible x 1

#21 gamesguru

  • Guest
  • 3,465 posts
  • 428
  • Location:coffeelake.intel.int

Posted 03 July 2020 - 10:12 PM

Doctors successfully using HCQ for coronavirus typically dose at 400mg + 200 more 8 hour later first day loading dose, followed by 200mg twice/day for 4 more days.  As Dr Z stated in the video above, if you add zinc, these lower doses not only work well but are quite well tolerated & safe. 

 

Source please?  Afaik, it's only effective as a prophylactic so the idea it could be used so casually and briefly needs supporting.  I'm seeing it as mere merry horseseed living on a whim.

 

I also believe this same doctor—whose opinions are coincidentally not backed up by any sort of esteemed research—is the very same one pedaling megadoses of zinc parrot.gif


  • Good Point x 3
  • Ill informed x 2
  • Disagree x 2

#22 Engadin

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest
  • 198 posts
  • 580
  • Location:Madrid
  • NO

Posted 04 July 2020 - 07:34 PM

.Study Indicates Early Treatment With Hydroxychloroquine Halved Deaths from COVID-19.

 

 

Early treatment with hydroxychloroquine cut the death rate significantly in sick patients hospitalized with COVID-19 – and without heart-related side-effects, according to a new study published by Henry Ford Health System.


Edited by Engadin, 04 July 2020 - 07:34 PM.

  • Agree x 3
  • Dangerous, Irresponsible x 1
  • Cheerful x 1
  • Good Point x 1

#23 Dorian Grey

  • Guest
  • 2,152 posts
  • 968
  • Location:kalifornia

Posted 04 July 2020 - 10:15 PM

Here's a breakdown of the overdoses used in the Oxford/Recovery & WHO Solidarity HCQ trials, sourced from Age of Autism Dr Meryl Nass.  I didn't dig through the details of all the trials to verify the good doctor's claims, but inquiring minds are free to do so if they wish. 

 

https://www.ageofaut...atal-doses.html

 

WHO "Solidarity" and UK "Recovery" Clinical Trials of Hydroxychloroquine using Potentially Fatal Doses

 

The initial WHO dosing recommendations appear to be thus: 

 

The chloroquine or hydroxychloroquine schedule selected for the trial includes two oral loading doses (250 mg per tablet CQ or 200 mg per tablet HCQ), then oral twice-daily maintenance doses for ten days. This meeting convened to discuss the appropriateness of the selected doses for the trial."

 

What happened next is a puzzlement, but apparently the dosage was modified. 

 

The Recovery trial Study Protocol notes it is funded in part by the Wellcome Trust and the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, and by UK government agencies.  The Protocol provides the doses of hydroxychloroquine used, on page 22.  Twitter users began to notice a dosing problem, with hashtag #Recoverygate. 

 

The HCQ dosing regimen used in the Recovery trial was 12 tablets during the first 24 hours (800mg initial dose, 800 mg six hours later, 400 mg 6 hrs later, 400 mg 6 hours later), then 400 mg every 12 hours for 9 more days.  This is 2.4 grams during the first 24 hours, and a cumulative dose of 9.2 grams over 10 days.

 

The registration of the Canadian portion of the Solidarity trial informs us of its HCQ dose: ten 200 mg tablets during the first 24 hours (800 mg initial dose, 800 mg 12 hours later then 400 mg every 12 hours for 9 more days).  This is 2.0 grams during the first 24 hours, and a cumulative dose of 8.8 grams over 10 days, or only 0.4 grams less than what Recovery used. The Norwegian Solidarity trial uses dosing identical to Canada.

 

We know that in Brazil, both a high HCQ dose and a low HCQ dose were trialed, and by April 17 the high dose arm was stopped prematurely due to an excess of deaths.  The high dose arm used 600 mg HCQ twice daily for ten days, with cumulative dose of 12 grams. EKG changes typical of toxicity were seen in 25% of high dose subjects. The low dose trial continues in Brazil.

 

The WHO hired a consultant to explore the toxicity of hydroxychloroquine in 1979. The consultant, H. Weniger, looked at 335 episodes of adult poisoning by chloroquine drugs.  Weniger on page 5 notes that a single dose of 1.5-2 grams of hydroxychloroquine base "may be fatal.

 

The Recovery trial used 1.86 grams hydroxychloroquine base (equal to 2400 mg of hydroxychloroquine) in the first 24 hours for treatment of already very ill, hospitalized Covid-19 patients, a potentially lethal dose.  The Canadian and Norwegian trials used 2,000 mg of HCQ, or 1.55 grams of HCQ base in the first 24 hours. Each trial gave patients a cumulative dose during the first 24 hours that, when given as a single dose, has been documented to be lethal. (The drug's half-life is about a month, so the cumulative amount is important.)  

 

To sum up:

  1. In the UK Recovery trial, and in WHO Solidarity trials, HCQ is used in a non-therapeutic, toxic and potentially lethal dose.
  2. HCQ is furthermore being given, in clinical trials, too late in the disease course to determine its value against SARS-CoV-2.
  3. Collection of limited safety data in the Solidarity trials serves to protect trial investigators and sponsors from disclosures of expected adverse drug effects, including death.
  4. It appears that WHO has tried to hide information on the hydroxychloroquine doses used in its Solidarity trial.  Fortunately, the information is discoverable from registries of its national trials.
  5. The conclusions to be drawn are frightening:

  6.  a)  WHO and other national health agencies, universities and charities have conducted large clinical trials that were designed so hydroxychloroquine would fail to show benefit in the treatment of Covid-19, perhaps to advantage much more expensive competitors and vaccines in development.

  7.  b)  In so doing, these agencies and charities have de facto conspired to increase the number of deaths in these trials.

  8.  c)   In so doing, they have conspired to deprive billions of people from potentially benefiting from a safe and inexpensive drug, when used properly, during a major pandemic.  This might contribute to prolongation of the pandemic, massive economic losses and many increased cases and deaths. 

  • Informative x 3
  • WellResearched x 2
  • Agree x 2

#24 hotbit

  • Guest
  • 129 posts
  • 43
  • Location:UK
  • NO

Posted 05 July 2020 - 11:49 AM


Enjoy! 

 

Video deleted due to violation of youtube terms...
Interestingly, WHO and some other institutions ARE ALWAYS RIGHT per se. Also interestingly, people flock to centralised systems like facebook and youtube even though partial alternatives, more resilient to censorship, exist.
 
 


  • Cheerful x 1
  • Agree x 1

#25 hotbit

  • Guest
  • 129 posts
  • 43
  • Location:UK
  • NO

Posted 05 July 2020 - 12:10 PM

The protocol at
https://www.recovery...-2020-03-23.pdf
has been removed, at least it's not there today anymore.

I don't see an option to directly attach a pdf file here, but there is a wayback machine ;)
https://web.archive....-2020-03-23.pdf

EDIT. But can paste an excerpt from the document:

Hydroxychloroquine is ve
ry similar to chloroquine. It is used mainly to treat rheumatoid arthritis and other related conditions. The adult dose is usually 400-600mg/ day (equivalent to 310 to 465 mg base). Sometimes 800mg/day is given.

The dose in RECOVERY is Hydroyxchloroquine (155mg base per 200 mg tablet):

Initial dose: 4tablets 6hours later: 4 tablets 12 hours: 2 tablets 24 hours: 2 tablets
Thereafter
:2 tablets every 12 hours for a total of 10 days
12x155mg = 1860mg base = in first 24 hours

So the loading dose in RECOVERY is twice the normal dose for treating malaria. However, this dose has been selected based on the available data of the IC50for SARS-CoV-2.The objective is to reach plasma concentrations that are inhibitory to the virus as soon as safely possible. The plasma concentrations that will result are at the higher end of those encountered during steady state treatment of rheumatoid arthritis. Given the significant mortality in patientshospitalisedwith COVID-19, this dose is felt to be justified.This is the schedule that is likely to be adopted by the World Health Organisation. No dose adjustment is required for weight based on the doses defined in this protocol.


Edited by hotbit, 05 July 2020 - 12:16 PM.

  • Informative x 2
  • WellResearched x 1

#26 Dorian Grey

  • Guest
  • 2,152 posts
  • 968
  • Location:kalifornia

Posted 05 July 2020 - 03:08 PM

Thanks for this hotbit.  Got to love the wayback machine!  

 

So it appears they knew that HCQ was supposed to work by inhibiting viral replication, much like Tamiflu; but rather than trialing it like Tamiflu (early/outpatient) they decided to wait till after viral load rapidly peaked, unhindered by therapy, and lungs were already clotted-off badly enough to land patients in the hospital.  Then they hoped doubling the dose might make up for the delay in treatment? 

 

Oh my, we do live in interesting times!  All these patients had already hit the iceberg before they got their first dose.  By limiting trials only to hospitalized patients, the FDA all but insured every trial would fail.  Can't believe no one involved cottoned-on to the fatal flaws.  Some had to know this was an exercise in futility.  

 

Current global deaths at 528K.  Remdesivir GO at throttle-up!  


Edited by Dorian Grey, 05 July 2020 - 03:13 PM.

  • Good Point x 5
  • Ill informed x 1

#27 pamojja

  • Guest
  • 2,837 posts
  • 720
  • Location:Austria

Posted 06 July 2020 - 04:55 PM

From Dr. Malcolm Kendrick on the topic:
 

Distorting science in the COVID pandemic
149 Replies

5th July 2020
 
This blog has been published in RT.com https://www.rt.com/s...alcolm kendrick
 
I’ve lost all trust in medical research – the financial muscle of Big Pharma has been busy distorting science during the pandemic
 
Evidence that a cheap, over-the-counter anti-malarial drug costing £7 combats COVID-19 gets trashed. Why? Because the pharmaceutical giants want to sell you a treatment costing nearly £2,000.
 
It’s criminal.
 
A few years ago, I wrote a book called Doctoring Data. This was an attempt to help people understand the background to the tidal wave of medical information that crashes over us each and every day. Information that is often completely contradictory ‘Coffee is good for you… no, wait it’s bad for you… no, wait, it’s good for you again,’ rpt. ad nauseam.
 
I also pointed out some of the tricks, games and manipulations that are used to make medications seem far more effective than they truly are, or vice-versa. This, I have to say, can be a very dispiriting world to enter. When I give talks on this subject, I often start with a few quotes.
 
For example, here is Dr Marcia Angell, who edited the New England Journal of Medicine for over twenty years, writing in 2009:
 
“It is simply no longer possible to believe much of the clinical research that is published, or to rely on the judgement of trusted physicians or authoritative medical guidelines. I take no pleasure in this conclusion, which I reached slowly and reluctantly over my two decades as editor of the New England Journal of Medicine.”
 
Have things got better? No, I believe that they have got worse – if that were, indeed, possible. I was sent the following e-mail recently, about a closed door, no recording discussion, under no-disclosure Chatham House rules, in May of this year:
 
“A secretly recorded meeting between the editors-in-chief of The Lancet and the New England Journal of Medicine reveal both men bemoaning the ‘criminal’ influence big pharma has on scientific research.
 
“According to Philippe Douste-Blazy, France’s former Health Minister and 2017 candidate for WHO Director, the leaked 2020 Chatham House closed-door discussion between the [editor-in-chiefs] – whose publications both retracted papers favorable to big pharma over fraudulent data.
 
“Now we are not going to be able to, basically, if this continues, publish any more clinical research data because the pharmaceutical companies are so financially powerful today, and are able to use such methodologies, as to have us accept papers which are apparently methodologically perfect, but which, in reality, manage to conclude what they want them to conclude,” said Lancet [editor-in-chief] Richard Horton.
 
A YouTube video where this issue is discussed can be found here. It is in French, but there are English subtitles.
 
The New England Journal of Medicine, and the Lancet are the two most influential, most highly resourced journals in the world. If they no longer have the ability to detect what is essentially fraudulent research, then… Then what? Then what indeed?
 
In fact, things have generally taken a sharp turn for the worse since the COVID pandemic struck. New studies, new data, new information is arriving at breakneck speed, often with little or no effective review. What can you believe, who can you believe? Almost nothing would be the safest course of action.
 
One issue that has played out over the last few months, has stripped away any remaining vestiges of my trust in medical research. It concerns the anti-malarial drug hydroxychloroquine. You may well be aware that Donald Trump endorsed it – which presents a whole series of problems for many people.
 
However, before the pandemic hit, I was recommending to my local NHS trust that we should look to stock up on hydroxychloroquine. There had been a great deal of research over the years, strongly suggesting it could inhibit the entry of viruses into cells, and that it also interfered with viral replication once inside the cell.
 
This mechanism of action explains why it can help stop the malaria parasite from gaining entry into red blood cells. The science is complex, but many researchers felt there was good reason for thinking hydroxychloroquine may have some real, if not earth-shattering benefits, in COVID-19.
 
This idea was further reinforced by the knowledge that it has some effects on reducing the “cytokine storm” that is considered deadly with COVID. It is prescribed in rheumatoid arthritis to reduce the immune attack on joints.
 
The other reason for recommending hydroxychloroquine is that it is extremely safe. It is, for example, the most widely prescribed drug in India. Billions upon billions of doses have been prescribed. It is available over the counter in most countries. So I felt pretty comfortable in recommending that it could be tried. At worst, no harm would be done.
 
Then hydroxychloroquine became the centre of a worldwide storm. On one side, wearing the white hats, were the researchers who had used it early on, where it seemed to show some significant benefits. For example, Professor Didier Raoult in France:
 
“A renowned research professor in France has reported successful results from a new treatment for COVID-19, with early tests suggesting it can stop the virus from being contagious in just six days.”
Then research from Morocco:
 
“Jaouad Zemmouri, a Moroccan scientist, believes that 78% of Europe’s COVID-19 deaths could have been prevented if Europe had used hydroxychloroquine… “Morocco, with a population of 36 million, [roughly one-tenth that of the U.S.] has only 10,079 confirmed cases of Covid-19 and only 214 deaths.
 
“Professor Zemmourit believes that Morocco’s use of hydroxychloroquine has resulted in an 82.5% recovery rate from COVID-19 and only a 2.1% fatality rate – in those admitted to hospital.”
 
Just prior to this, a study was published in the Lancet, on May 22nd stating that hydroxychloroquine actually increased deaths. It then turned out that the data used could not be verified and was most likely made up. The authors had major conflicts of interest with pharmaceutical companies making anti-viral drugs. In early
 
June, the entire article was retracted by Richard Horton, the Editor.
 
Then a UK study came out suggesting that hydroxychloroquine did not work at all. Discussing the results, Professor Martin Landray stated:
 
“This is not a treatment for COVID-19. It doesn’t work,” Martin Landray, an Oxford University professor who is co-leading the RECOVERY trial, told reporters. “This result should change medical practice worldwide. We can now stop using a drug that is useless.”
 
This study has since been heavily criticised by other researchers who state that the dose of hydroxychloroquine used was, potentially, toxic. It was also given far too late to have any positive effect.
 
Many of the patients were already on ventilators.
 
Then, yesterday, I was sent a pre-proof copy of an article about to be published in the International Journal of Infectious Diseases which has found that hydroxychloroquine…
 
..“significantly” decreased the death rate of patients involved in the analysis. The study analyzed 2,541 patients hospitalized among the system’s six hospitals between March 10 and May 2 and found

  • 13% of those treated with hydroxychloroquine died while
  • 26% of those who did not receive the drug died.(ref)
When things get this messed up, I tend to look for the potential conflicts of interest. By which I mean, who stands to make money from slamming the use of hydroxychloroquine (which is a generic drug that has been around since 1934 and costs about £7 for a bottle of 60 tablets)?

In this case it is those companies who make the hugely expensive antiviral drugs such as Gilead Sciences’ Remdesvir – which costs $2,340 (£1877) for a typical five-day course in the US. Second, the companies that are striving to get a vaccine to market. There are billions and billions of dollars at stake here.

In this world, cheap drugs e.g., hydroxychloroquine, don’t stand much chance. Neither do cheap vitamins, such as vitamin C and vitamin D. Do they have benefits for COVID-19 sufferers? I am sure that they do. Will such benefits be dismissed in studies that have been carefully manipulated to ensure that they do not work?

Of course. Remember these words:

‘…pharmaceutical companies are so financially powerful today, and are able to use such methodologies, as to have us accept papers which are apparently methodologically perfect, but which, in reality, manage to conclude what they want them to conclude,” said Lancet [editor-in-chief] Richard Horton.


Unless and until governments and medical bodies act decisively to permanently sever the financial ties between researchers and Big Pharma, these distortions and manipulation in the pursuit of Big Profit will continue.

Just please don’t hold your breath in anticipation.

(ref) https://edition.cnn....m_medium=social

 


  • WellResearched x 1

#28 gamesguru

  • Guest
  • 3,465 posts
  • 428
  • Location:coffeelake.intel.int

Posted 06 July 2020 - 05:09 PM

Another nail in the coffin for this staggering misadventure :sleep:  You truly have to take it before the disease even starts.  COVID has an ability, much less so than HIV, to sneak under the radar of the immune system.. it's at this early stage of the disease where much of the damage is seeded, as the disease spreads in the lungs more viciously than any flu, after that the actual "disease" is up to individual immune response, with compromised patients often staging an exaggerated or compensatory innate immune response, thus resulting in a larger storm of non-specific antibodies and fatal systemic inflammation.

 

Medical report: Immunocompromised 17-year-old died after attending Florida church's "COVID Party" | Her mother, a right-wing QAnon believer and anti-vaxxer, did not take her to the hospital but gave her hydroxychloroquine instead.

 

The Friendly Atheist references Raw Story, which references Rebekah Jones where the original story is available. This mother should be charged with neglect


  • Ill informed x 6
  • Informative x 2
  • dislike x 1

#29 Dorian Grey

  • Guest
  • 2,152 posts
  • 968
  • Location:kalifornia

Posted 06 July 2020 - 09:50 PM

The "Malaria Model" may have some merit.  When my sister went to Africa her doctor started her on chloroquine before she ever left home.  He said "Everyone going to malaria country does this".  The minor side effects of prophylactic doses outweighed the potential hassle of undergoing big guns therapy if you came down with the big M.  This may be why Trump bought up so much HCQ early on.  If it worked for prophylaxis, entire populations of hot-spots might have had to take this while the wave crested in their area.  Lupus patients take high dose HCQ for decades on end.  Would a 30 day hot-spot / knock-down prophylaxis really be all that bizarre?  

 

As to whether or not HCQ might only be effective at prophylaxis, the jury is still out.  Almost no outpatient trials for early stage disease.  I did read of one advertised as an early stage outpatient trial.  It said patients were started on HCQ within 48 hour of a positive test result.  I expect it took at least a day after symptoms started before these patients could get tested, and I've heard a PCR test can take 2-4 days before results come back.  Add another 48 hours to get the med to the patient, & they were already a week into symptomatic illness before their "early" treatment started.  

 

Read a story about a photographer who got sick in Costa Rica.  They gave her HCQ the day she went in for her test and told her to start on this immediately.  Her test came back negative, but she was impressed at how efficient they were at getting her started on therapy.  Would swift action like this with HCQ reduce Case Fatality Rates?  Well Costa Rica's current CFR is 0.38.  Not too shabby!  The rest of the world is down to 4.68 from a high of over 7%.  

 

If you consider the void of outpatient therapy options left (NOTHING) if we ignore HCQ, I'd hope we might at least consider the Costa Rica model and perhaps even the Malaria Model.  The alternative is to crash hot-spot economies with lock-downs & send sick patients home to isolate & take Tylenol, & tell them to call 911 if they start turning blue.  Not my idea of an ideal protocol for effective plague management.  


Edited by Dorian Grey, 06 July 2020 - 10:20 PM.

  • Informative x 2
  • Ill informed x 1
  • Good Point x 1
  • like x 1

#30 Daniel Cooper

  • Member, Moderator
  • 2,634 posts
  • 631
  • Location:USA

Posted 07 July 2020 - 05:48 PM

Another nail in the coffin for this staggering misadventure :sleep:  You truly have to take it before the disease even starts.  COVID has an ability, much less so than HIV, to sneak under the radar of the immune system.. it's at this early stage of the disease where much of the damage is seeded, as the disease spreads in the lungs more viciously than any flu, after that the actual "disease" is up to individual immune response, with compromised patients often staging an exaggerated or compensatory innate immune response, thus resulting in a larger storm of non-specific antibodies and fatal systemic inflammation.

 

 

The Friendly Atheist references Raw Story, which references Rebekah Jones where the original story is available. This mother should be charged with neglect

 

Are you suggesting this little episode is proof that HCQ isn't useful? 


  • Pointless, Timewasting x 2
  • Good Point x 2
  • Enjoying the show x 1
  • like x 1





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