OT: March 2020 hydroxychloroquine study

[Ricky C]

On Monday, April 6, 2020 at 2:11:32 AM UTC-4, Flyguy wrote:

On Saturday, April 4, 2020 at 2:21:02 PM UTC-7, boB wrote:

So, Some good news

https://thetexan.news/front-line-er-physician-in-dallas-sees-coronavirus-treatment-success/



And also...

Hydroxychloroquine and azithromycin as a treatment of COVID-19:
results of an open-label non-randomized clinical trial

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0924857920300996?via%3Dihub


Conclusion
Despite its small sample size our survey shows that hydroxychloroquine
treatment is significantly associated with viral load
reduction/disappearance in COVID-19 patients and its effect is
reinforced by azithromycin.

Yet even today I read a "news" article that declared that there was no evidence of the effectiveness of hydroxychloroquine.

I bet that's not what it said... well, if was quoting an authority. If it was just a reporter misquoting someone, that means nothing.

So who was this? Do you have a link?

--

Ricky C.

-+ Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging
-+ Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209

 

Ricky C <gnuarm.deletethisbit@gmail.com> wrote in
news:30367342-befb-49ed-b3a5-21e54a60de79@googlegroups.com:

On Monday, April 6, 2020 at 2:11:32 AM UTC-4, Flyguy wrote:
On Saturday, April 4, 2020 at 2:21:02 PM UTC-7, boB wrote:

So, Some good news

https://thetexan.news/front-line-er-physician-in-dallas-sees-cor
onavirus-treatment-success/



And also...

Hydroxychloroquine and azithromycin as a treatment of COVID-19:
results of an open-label non-randomized clinical trial

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0924857920300
996?via%3Dihub


Conclusion
Despite its small sample size our survey shows that
hydroxychloroquine treatment is significantly associated with
viral load reduction/disappearance in COVID-19 patients and its
effect is reinforced by azithromycin.

Yet even today I read a "news" article that declared that there
was no evidence of the effectiveness of hydroxychloroquine.

I bet that's not what it said... well, if was quoting an
authority. If it was just a reporter misquoting someone, that
means nothing.

So who was this? Do you have a link?

He probably has no clue what 'viral load' is.

 

[Jasen Betts]

On 2020-04-06, Flyguy <soar2morrow@yahoo.com> wrote:

> https://thetexan.news/front-line-er-physician-in-dallas-sees-coronavirus-treatment-success/

someone lived is that a miracle?

And also...

Hydroxychloroquine and azithromycin as a treatment of COVID-19:
results of an open-label non-randomized clinical trial

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0924857920300996?via%3Dihub

Conclusion
Despite its small sample size our survey shows that hydroxychloroquine
treatment is significantly associated with viral load
reduction/disappearance in COVID-19 patients and its effect is
reinforced by azithromycin.

or it could be the placebo effect.

Yet even today I read a "news" article that declared that there was
no evidence of the effectiveness of hydroxychloroquine.

It seems unlikely that a synthetic quinine and a antibiotic are going
to be effective against a virus.

Some Aussies think ivermectin might help, that's a lice and worm treatment
used on humans and cattle it can't be as bad as quinnine.

--
Jasen.

 

[Ricky C]

On Monday, April 6, 2020 at 7:32:51 AM UTC-4, Jasen Betts wrote:

On 2020-04-06, Flyguy <soar2morrow@yahoo.com> wrote:

https://thetexan.news/front-line-er-physician-in-dallas-sees-coronavirus-treatment-success/

someone lived is that a miracle?
And also...

Hydroxychloroquine and azithromycin as a treatment of COVID-19:
results of an open-label non-randomized clinical trial

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0924857920300996?via%3Dihub

Conclusion
Despite its small sample size our survey shows that hydroxychloroquine
treatment is significantly associated with viral load
reduction/disappearance in COVID-19 patients and its effect is
reinforced by azithromycin.

or it could be the placebo effect.

You don't even need the placebo effect for this one. The reports so far (I won't call them studies as they aren't at that level, they are just reporting what they've done in the field) have been for small groups with no random selection (mostly) so that there is no way to determine an expected outcome. That is the purpose of a control group, to determine what you expect without the treatment being evaluated.

Instead of people trying to play doctor, why not let the medical and research communities do what they know how to do? Why does everyone think they know better than the experts? Yes, Trump, I'm talking to you!

I know why Trump wants to do it. If there are 10 people who live after treatment with the drug he will claim he saved their lives. He won't bother about the hundreds that die with treatment... that's outside his domain.

Yet even today I read a "news" article that declared that there was
no evidence of the effectiveness of hydroxychloroquine.

It seems unlikely that a synthetic quinine and a antibiotic are going
to be effective against a virus.

Yeah I don't get the antibiotic, but it seems they want to fight secondary infections in the lungs.

Some Aussies think ivermectin might help, that's a lice and worm treatment
used on humans and cattle it can't be as bad as quinnine.

It is if you are a louse. I bet Trump keeps his distance.

--

Rick C.

+- Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging
+- Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209

 

[David Brown]

On 06/04/2020 20:22, Ricky C wrote:

On Monday, April 6, 2020 at 7:32:51 AM UTC-4, Jasen Betts wrote:
On 2020-04-06, Flyguy <soar2morrow@yahoo.com> wrote:

https://thetexan.news/front-line-er-physician-in-dallas-sees-coronavirus-treatment-success/



someone lived is that a miracle?
And also...

Hydroxychloroquine and azithromycin as a treatment of
COVID-19: results of an open-label non-randomized clinical
trial

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0924857920300996?via%3Dihub


Conclusion
Despite its small sample size our survey shows that
hydroxychloroquine treatment is significantly associated with
viral load reduction/disappearance in COVID-19 patients and its
effect is reinforced by azithromycin.

or it could be the placebo effect.

You don't even need the placebo effect for this one. The reports so
far (I won't call them studies as they aren't at that level, they are
just reporting what they've done in the field) have been for small
groups with no random selection (mostly) so that there is no way to
determine an expected outcome. That is the purpose of a control
group, to determine what you expect without the treatment being
evaluated.

Instead of people trying to play doctor, why not let the medical and
research communities do what they know how to do? Why does everyone
think they know better than the experts? Yes, Trump, I'm talking to
you!

There /are/ proper studies going on. But they haven't published data
because they are still in progress. I don't know whether there are any
being done in the USA - Trump's interference combined with the way
medical treatment works there make it very difficult now. (As Trump has
declared hydroxychloroquine to be "possibly great, at worst harmless,
and therefore always worth trying", then anyone trying to give patients
a placebo is going to get sued if the patient dies.) It is also
difficult to do scientific studies in a state of chaos and supply shortages.

There are other countries - like Norway - where Trump's blitherings are
considered light entertainment, and our own politicians know that their
job here is to do what they can to support the medical community. So
here (and in cooperation with other countries - a trick the USA could
learn from) we are doing research into a number of possible drugs and
combinations of drugs for treatment of Corona.

I know why Trump wants to do it. If there are 10 people who live
after treatment with the drug he will claim he saved their lives. He
won't bother about the hundreds that die with treatment... that's
outside his domain.

Exactly.

Yet even today I read a "news" article that declared that there
was no evidence of the effectiveness of hydroxychloroquine.

It seems unlikely that a synthetic quinine and a antibiotic are
going to be effective against a virus.

Yeah I don't get the antibiotic, but it seems they want to fight
secondary infections in the lungs.

No, I don't think that is the case here. Secondary bacterial infections
/are/ a big risk, and a common feature of pneumonia, so antibiotics are
probably part of the standard procedure for ARDS. (There is a theory
that the high death rate in Italy is due to secondary infections of
antibiotic resistant bacteria.)

However, from what I have heard so far the benefits of the antibiotic
mixed with the quinine are due to a side-effect of the particular
antibiotic, rather than its normal antibiotic nature.

Time will tell. And /only/ time will tell. You don't get drug trial
results faster just because Donald "King Canut" Trump demands them faster.

Some Aussies think ivermectin might help, that's a lice and worm
treatment used on humans and cattle it can't be as bad as
quinnine.

It is if you are a louse. I bet Trump keeps his distance.

 

[Ricky C]

On Monday, April 6, 2020 at 4:34:05 PM UTC-4, bloggs.fre...@gmail.com wrote:

Forget the studies, it has now become standard clinical protocol in the U..S. for extremely sick individuals who have progressed to the ventilator with ARDS. They're using the chloroquine-azithromycin combo, remdesivir, a bunch of HIV antivirals, maybe even some monoclonal antibody therapy, survivor serum transfusion, and anything else they can get their hands on. This is what's called a cocktail and it seems to be working to bring people back from the brink. There's no time for proper studies, which may not even be possible. No one drug or therapy is going to save the day, it has to be a complex combination of treatment.

Why can't there be a drug that knocks this disease on its ass? Is it something fundamental in physics?

Where did you read about this "cocktail"?

--

Rick C.

++ Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging
++ Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209

 

On Monday, April 6, 2020 at 2:47:51 PM UTC-4, David Brown wrote:

On 06/04/2020 20:22, Ricky C wrote:
On Monday, April 6, 2020 at 7:32:51 AM UTC-4, Jasen Betts wrote:
On 2020-04-06, Flyguy <soar2morrow@yahoo.com> wrote:

https://thetexan.news/front-line-er-physician-in-dallas-sees-coronavirus-treatment-success/



someone lived is that a miracle?
And also...

Hydroxychloroquine and azithromycin as a treatment of
COVID-19: results of an open-label non-randomized clinical
trial

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0924857920300996?via%3Dihub


Conclusion
Despite its small sample size our survey shows that
hydroxychloroquine treatment is significantly associated with
viral load reduction/disappearance in COVID-19 patients and its
effect is reinforced by azithromycin.

or it could be the placebo effect.

You don't even need the placebo effect for this one. The reports so
far (I won't call them studies as they aren't at that level, they are
just reporting what they've done in the field) have been for small
groups with no random selection (mostly) so that there is no way to
determine an expected outcome. That is the purpose of a control
group, to determine what you expect without the treatment being
evaluated.

Instead of people trying to play doctor, why not let the medical and
research communities do what they know how to do? Why does everyone
think they know better than the experts? Yes, Trump, I'm talking to
you!


There /are/ proper studies going on. But they haven't published data
because they are still in progress. I don't know whether there are any
being done in the USA - Trump's interference combined with the way
medical treatment works there make it very difficult now. (As Trump has
declared hydroxychloroquine to be "possibly great, at worst harmless,
and therefore always worth trying", then anyone trying to give patients
a placebo is going to get sued if the patient dies.) It is also
difficult to do scientific studies in a state of chaos and supply shortages.

There are other countries - like Norway - where Trump's blitherings are
considered light entertainment, and our own politicians know that their
job here is to do what they can to support the medical community. So
here (and in cooperation with other countries - a trick the USA could
learn from) we are doing research into a number of possible drugs and
combinations of drugs for treatment of Corona.


I know why Trump wants to do it. If there are 10 people who live
after treatment with the drug he will claim he saved their lives. He
won't bother about the hundreds that die with treatment... that's
outside his domain.

Exactly.



Yet even today I read a "news" article that declared that there
was no evidence of the effectiveness of hydroxychloroquine.

It seems unlikely that a synthetic quinine and a antibiotic are
going to be effective against a virus.

Yeah I don't get the antibiotic, but it seems they want to fight
secondary infections in the lungs.


No, I don't think that is the case here. Secondary bacterial infections
/are/ a big risk, and a common feature of pneumonia, so antibiotics are
probably part of the standard procedure for ARDS. (There is a theory
that the high death rate in Italy is due to secondary infections of
antibiotic resistant bacteria.)

However, from what I have heard so far the benefits of the antibiotic
mixed with the quinine are due to a side-effect of the particular
antibiotic, rather than its normal antibiotic nature.

Time will tell. And /only/ time will tell. You don't get drug trial
results faster just because Donald "King Canut" Trump demands them faster..


Some Aussies think ivermectin might help, that's a lice and worm
treatment used on humans and cattle it can't be as bad as
quinnine.

It is if you are a louse. I bet Trump keeps his distance.

Forget the studies, it has now become standard clinical protocol in the U.S.. for extremely sick individuals who have progressed to the ventilator with ARDS. They're using the chloroquine-azithromycin combo, remdesivir, a bunch of HIV antivirals, maybe even some monoclonal antibody therapy, survivor serum transfusion, and anything else they can get their hands on. This is what's called a cocktail and it seems to be working to bring people back from the brink. There's no time for proper studies, which may not even be possible. No one drug or therapy is going to save the day, it has to be a complex combination of treatment.

 

[mpm]

Unlike some here, I don't pretend to be a virologist or know every fucking there is to know about Coronavirus. So with that in mind...

I had Hannity on the radio on my drive home today. He was interviewing Dr. Oz. Oz said several things I thought were very interesting: I'll paraphrase.

1) Virologists don't do double-blind clinical trials in the middle of an epidemic. It's not ethical to withhold potentially life-saving meds when a patient is truly in dire straits.

2) Chloroquine is ROUTINELY prescribed for lupus patients. So far, (after vigorous searching the world over - which means 1% of total records if I understood it correctly - but still many, many thousands of cases) they have only found ONE lupus patient who has Covid-19 (and that patient wasn't regularly taking their meds).

3) They haven't found any Covid-19 sufferers with lupus, either.

4) Chloroquine is ROUTINELY prescribed for rheumatoid arthritis, often over the course of years, even decades. No ill effects. Dr. Oz. did say that in high, chronic doses, you could develop eye trouble, which is why doctors who prescribe it monitor for those side effects. (but again, overall, rare.)

5) Of some 7,000 doctors worldwide who prescribe Chloroquine, few (if any) of them believe it is contraindicated (per Dr. Oz.)

6) A world-renowned French virologist (didn't catch his name) is now on Chloroquine study #2. The first study was under 100 patients. This #2 study is nearly 1,000. Both studies show Chloroquine has significant promise, and no unmanageable side-effects.

Finally, Dr. Oz's show tomorrow is supposed to highlight much of what I've paraphrased (hopefully, not mangled). So, if you're interested - watch it.

I thought the lupus thing was interesting, which I why I didn't immediately ask Alexa to read my Kindle book on the drive home. (In case you were wondering..)

 

[Dave Platt]

In article <7b62ba18-b524-414d-b859-ccd3e082f027@googlegroups.com>,
Ricky C <gnuarm.deletethisbit@gmail.com> wrote:

You don't even need the placebo effect for this one. The reports so far (I won't call them studies as they aren't
at that level, they are just reporting what they've done in the field) have been for small groups with no random
selection (mostly) so that there is no way to determine an expected outcome. That is the purpose of a control
group, to determine what you expect without the treatment being evaluated.

One comment I read recently amounted to "If you look at the history of
mass illness in the past, you'll find a large number of treatments
that were tried, believed to work, and used extensively... but only
later, when properly randomized and controlled tests were run, the
tests showed that these treatments were not actually effective."

That might be the case with the [hydroxy]chloroquine treatment. Or,
it might not be, and this drug and combination might turn out to be
somewhat (or very) effective in practice. We simply don't know.
It's going to take better-controlled/randomized studies to learn
that, with any real degree of reliability.

As to certain people saying "It won't kill you" or "What do you have
to lose?" - these medications _can_ harm or kill - they are not
without side effects, and some of those side effects can be lethal
(and may be extra-dangerous to coronavirus sufferers whose
cardiovascular systems are already under severe stress). It's not
a slam-dunk issue by any means. And, to the extent that using these
drugs to treat patients that they _may_ help, at the cost of people
suffering from other illnesses that these drugs _do_help, it's
ethically dicey.

 

[Lasse Langwadt Christense]

mandag den 6. april 2020 kl. 22.37.31 UTC+2 skrev Ricky C:

On Monday, April 6, 2020 at 4:34:05 PM UTC-4, bloggs.fre...@gmail.com wrote:

Forget the studies, it has now become standard clinical protocol in the U.S. for extremely sick individuals who have progressed to the ventilator with ARDS. They're using the chloroquine-azithromycin combo, remdesivir, a bunch of HIV antivirals, maybe even some monoclonal antibody therapy, survivor serum transfusion, and anything else they can get their hands on. This is what's called a cocktail and it seems to be working to bring people back from the brink. There's no time for proper studies, which may not even be possible. No one drug or therapy is going to save the day, it has to be a complex combination of treatment.

Why can't there be a drug that knocks this disease on its ass? Is it something fundamental in physics?

Where did you read about this "cocktail"?

here a translate of a list of possible drugs from the Danish health ministry

https://translate.google.com/translate?hl=&sl=da&tl=en&u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.sst.dk%2Fda%2FUdgivelser%2F2020%2FRationel-Farmakoterapi-4-2020%2FInformation-til-l%C3%A6ger-om-mulig-forebyggelse-og-behandling-af-SARS-cov-og-COVID-19

 

[Ricky C]

On Monday, April 6, 2020 at 4:46:09 PM UTC-4, bloggs.fre...@gmail.com wrote:

On Monday, April 6, 2020 at 4:37:31 PM UTC-4, Ricky C wrote:
On Monday, April 6, 2020 at 4:34:05 PM UTC-4, bloggs.fre...@gmail.com wrote:

Forget the studies, it has now become standard clinical protocol in the U.S. for extremely sick individuals who have progressed to the ventilator with ARDS. They're using the chloroquine-azithromycin combo, remdesivir, a bunch of HIV antivirals, maybe even some monoclonal antibody therapy, survivor serum transfusion, and anything else they can get their hands on. This is what's called a cocktail and it seems to be working to bring people back from the brink. There's no time for proper studies, which may not even be possible. No one drug or therapy is going to save the day, it has to be a complex combination of treatment.

Why can't there be a drug that knocks this disease on its ass? Is it something fundamental in physics?

Where did you read about this "cocktail"?

Just about everywhere when they detail the survivors' treatment regimen.

They have to balance killing the virus without killing the patient too, a lot of this stuff is toxic, especially when they push the dosing to the limit.

So nowhere you can provide a link to? Ok, got it.

--

Rick C.

--- Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging
--- Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209

 

On Monday, April 6, 2020 at 4:37:31 PM UTC-4, Ricky C wrote:

On Monday, April 6, 2020 at 4:34:05 PM UTC-4, bloggs.fre...@gmail.com wrote:

Forget the studies, it has now become standard clinical protocol in the U.S. for extremely sick individuals who have progressed to the ventilator with ARDS. They're using the chloroquine-azithromycin combo, remdesivir, a bunch of HIV antivirals, maybe even some monoclonal antibody therapy, survivor serum transfusion, and anything else they can get their hands on. This is what's called a cocktail and it seems to be working to bring people back from the brink. There's no time for proper studies, which may not even be possible. No one drug or therapy is going to save the day, it has to be a complex combination of treatment.

Why can't there be a drug that knocks this disease on its ass? Is it something fundamental in physics?

Where did you read about this "cocktail"?

Just about everywhere when they detail the survivors' treatment regimen.

They have to balance killing the virus without killing the patient too, a lot of this stuff is toxic, especially when they push the dosing to the limit.

--

Rick C.

++ Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging
++ Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209

 

On Monday, April 6, 2020 at 4:57:29 PM UTC-4, Ricky C wrote:

On Monday, April 6, 2020 at 4:46:09 PM UTC-4, bloggs.fre...@gmail.com wrote:
On Monday, April 6, 2020 at 4:37:31 PM UTC-4, Ricky C wrote:
On Monday, April 6, 2020 at 4:34:05 PM UTC-4, bloggs.fre...@gmail.com wrote:

Forget the studies, it has now become standard clinical protocol in the U.S. for extremely sick individuals who have progressed to the ventilator with ARDS. They're using the chloroquine-azithromycin combo, remdesivir, a bunch of HIV antivirals, maybe even some monoclonal antibody therapy, survivor serum transfusion, and anything else they can get their hands on. This is what's called a cocktail and it seems to be working to bring people back from the brink. There's no time for proper studies, which may not even be possible. No one drug or therapy is going to save the day, it has to be a complex combination of treatment.

Why can't there be a drug that knocks this disease on its ass? Is it something fundamental in physics?

Where did you read about this "cocktail"?

Just about everywhere when they detail the survivors' treatment regimen..

They have to balance killing the virus without killing the patient too, a lot of this stuff is toxic, especially when they push the dosing to the limit.

So nowhere you can provide a link to? Ok, got it.

Feds are distributing tens of millions of doses to the states. What do you think they're doing with it? The hospitals are going through it pretty fast..

https://www.biopharmadive.com/news/coronavirus-fda-chloroquine-emergency-use/575097/

--

Rick C.

--- Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging
--- Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209

 

[Ricky C]

On Monday, April 6, 2020 at 5:29:20 PM UTC-4, mpm wrote:

Unlike some here, I don't pretend to be a virologist or know every fucking there is to know about Coronavirus. So with that in mind...

I had Hannity on the radio on my drive home today. He was interviewing Dr. Oz. Oz said several things I thought were very interesting: I'll paraphrase.

1) Virologists don't do double-blind clinical trials in the middle of an epidemic. It's not ethical to withhold potentially life-saving meds when a patient is truly in dire straits.

It's not ethical to withhold a drug that has been shown to be effective in some way. Chloroquine has not. They are withholding it from the VAST majority of CV19 patients and no one will be charged with ethics violations. So of course they can not provide it to a control group.


> 2) Chloroquine is ROUTINELY prescribed for lupus patients. So far, (after vigorous searching the world over - which means 1% of total records if I understood it correctly - but still many, many thousands of cases) they have only found ONE lupus patient who has Covid-19 (and that patient wasn't regularly taking their meds).

Literally none of this is relevant in any way.


> 3) They haven't found any Covid-19 sufferers with lupus, either.

Has anyone been looking?


> 4) Chloroquine is ROUTINELY prescribed for rheumatoid arthritis, often over the course of years, even decades. No ill effects. Dr. Oz. did say that in high, chronic doses, you could develop eye trouble, which is why doctors who prescribe it monitor for those side effects. (but again, overall, rare.)

I haven't researched the records, but there are plenty of anecdotal reports (a level of research matching Dr. Oz) of harm from this drug including death.


> 5) Of some 7,000 doctors worldwide who prescribe Chloroquine, few (if any) of them believe it is contraindicated (per Dr. Oz.)

Contraindicated for what? What poll was taken? Where is the report?


> 6) A world-renowned French virologist (didn't catch his name) is now on Chloroquine study #2. The first study was under 100 patients. This #2 study is nearly 1,000. Both studies show Chloroquine has significant promise, and no unmanageable side-effects.

Yep, the guy who's first study was widely panned for being poorly done. It was a report of their results which would not qualify as a suitable study in any journal. The second study is not complete but likely has many of the same flaws.

Finally, Dr. Oz's show tomorrow is supposed to highlight much of what I've paraphrased (hopefully, not mangled). So, if you're interested - watch it.

I thought the lupus thing was interesting, which I why I didn't immediately ask Alexa to read my Kindle book on the drive home. (In case you were wondering..)

Dr. Oz is a celebrity who happens to be a doctor. He promotes all manner of quack supplements and makes lots of money from it. No one should ever mistake Dr. Oz as a medical authority. Everything he says and does is calculated for maximum exposure and profit.

There are many people doing studies on many drugs against this disease. Why not wait for the studies to be completed so we can take actions knowing what we are doing instead of creating another thalidomide experiment? Why would you want to experiment widely with this one drug when there may be other drugs which actually work?

--

Rick C.

--+ Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging
--+ Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209

 

[Ricky C]

On Monday, April 6, 2020 at 7:04:34 PM UTC-4, bloggs.fre...@gmail.com wrote:

On Monday, April 6, 2020 at 4:57:29 PM UTC-4, Ricky C wrote:
On Monday, April 6, 2020 at 4:46:09 PM UTC-4, bloggs.fre...@gmail.com wrote:
On Monday, April 6, 2020 at 4:37:31 PM UTC-4, Ricky C wrote:
On Monday, April 6, 2020 at 4:34:05 PM UTC-4, bloggs.fre...@gmail.com wrote:

Forget the studies, it has now become standard clinical protocol in the U.S. for extremely sick individuals who have progressed to the ventilator with ARDS. They're using the chloroquine-azithromycin combo, remdesivir, a bunch of HIV antivirals, maybe even some monoclonal antibody therapy, survivor serum transfusion, and anything else they can get their hands on. This is what's called a cocktail and it seems to be working to bring people back from the brink. There's no time for proper studies, which may not even be possible. No one drug or therapy is going to save the day, it has to be a complex combination of treatment.

Why can't there be a drug that knocks this disease on its ass? Is it something fundamental in physics?

Where did you read about this "cocktail"?

Just about everywhere when they detail the survivors' treatment regimen.

They have to balance killing the virus without killing the patient too, a lot of this stuff is toxic, especially when they push the dosing to the limit.

So nowhere you can provide a link to? Ok, got it.

Feds are distributing tens of millions of doses to the states. What do you think they're doing with it? The hospitals are going through it pretty fast.

https://www.biopharmadive.com/news/coronavirus-fda-chloroquine-emergency-use/575097/

Do you even read the articles you link to?

"Doctors who prescribe the drug for lupus and arthritis have said they're encountering shortages"

That says to me they are treating the conditions the drug is intended for.

"On Sunday, HHS accepted donations from Novartis and Bayer of, respectively, 30 million doses of hydroxychloroquine sulfate and 1 million doses of chloroquine phosphate"

So the feds are distributing drugs before they've received them???

None of this has to do with the imaginary "cocktail" you talked about.

--

Rick C.

-+- Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging
-+- Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209

 

[mpm]

On Monday, April 6, 2020 at 8:10:56 PM UTC-4, Ricky C wrote:

On Monday, April 6, 2020 at 5:29:20 PM UTC-4, mpm wrote:
Unlike some here, I don't pretend to be a virologist or know every fucking there is to know about Coronavirus. So with that in mind...

I had Hannity on the radio on my drive home today. He was interviewing Dr. Oz. Oz said several things I thought were very interesting: I'll paraphrase.

1) Virologists don't do double-blind clinical trials in the middle of an epidemic. It's not ethical to withhold potentially life-saving meds when a patient is truly in dire straits.

It's not ethical to withhold a drug that has been shown to be effective in some way. Chloroquine has not. They are withholding it from the VAST majority of CV19 patients and no one will be charged with ethics violations. So of course they can not provide it to a control group.


2) Chloroquine is ROUTINELY prescribed for lupus patients. So far, (after vigorous searching the world over - which means 1% of total records if I understood it correctly - but still many, many thousands of cases) they have only found ONE lupus patient who has Covid-19 (and that patient wasn't regularly taking their meds).

Literally none of this is relevant in any way.

I never said that it was relevant (and how would I even know since I am not a competent virologist -- although you seem to have no trouble whatsoever saying that is it NOT relevant when perhaps it is. That's an assumption on your part, and one that I'm not willing to share.

All I said was that the Lupus/Covid-19 apparent mutual exclusivity was interesting (to me).

3) They haven't found any Covid-19 sufferers with lupus, either.

Has anyone been looking?

According to what I heard on the Hannity show... "Yes"!
And, they asked over the air for any lupus sufferers who might have (or might have had) Covid-19 to contact them. I assume others are working on this angle as well, though there was no mention of that.

4) Chloroquine is ROUTINELY prescribed for rheumatoid arthritis, often over the course of years, even decades. No ill effects. Dr. Oz. did say that in high, chronic doses, you could develop eye trouble, which is why doctors who prescribe it monitor for those side effects. (but again, overall, rare.)

I haven't researched the records, but there are plenty of anecdotal reports (a level of research matching Dr. Oz) of harm from this drug including death.

I haven't researched the records either (as if that were even possible). And look, I'm not a Dr. Oz fanboy either. I barely know of him, and I don't watch his TV shows. BUT, the man is a cardiothoracic surgeon, and a professor at the department fo Surgery at Columbia University. That's got to count for something..? But I'm not here as a Dr. Oz booster-boy, so try not to shoot the messenger. I'm just relaying what I heard on the radio this afternoon. I didn't say I subscribed to any of it, hook, line and sinker.

5) Of some 7,000 doctors worldwide who prescribe Chloroquine, few (if any) of them believe it is contraindicated (per Dr. Oz.)

Contraindicated for what? What poll was taken? Where is the report?

Remember when I said "paraphrase" before. Guess you forgot?
The Hannity show wasn't clear, but the impression I got was a whole whopping bunch of non-US doctors think the Chloroquine safety discussion is pointless. "The drug is safe." Period.

6) A world-renowned French virologist (didn't catch his name) is now on Chloroquine study #2. The first study was under 100 patients. This #2 study is nearly 1,000. Both studies show Chloroquine has significant promise, and no unmanageable side-effects.

Yep, the guy who's first study was widely panned for being poorly done. It was a report of their results which would not qualify as a suitable study in any journal. The second study is not complete but likely has many of the same flaws.

Could be, I really don't know.
I won't have time tomorrow to watch Dr. Oz, but maybe I can record it.
But I'm honestly not that vested in it. You're probably right about Oz being a pseudo-quack, but he's still more qualified than I am.

That said, I do "believe", without solid EVIDENCE, that early studies like these probably have all sorts of problems, and not just in the statistics end of it. But like I said before, and will repeat here for your education and benefit, I AM NOT A VIROLOGIST and therefore can't really speak to what's flaws either study may or may not have. Plus, AGAIN, I'm just relating what I heard on the radio, not campaigning on the success or failure of any clinical trial outcomes.

Finally, Dr. Oz's show tomorrow is supposed to highlight much of what I've paraphrased (hopefully, not mangled). So, if you're interested - watch it.

I thought the lupus thing was interesting, which I why I didn't immediately ask Alexa to read my Kindle book on the drive home. (In case you were wondering..)

Dr. Oz is a celebrity who happens to be a doctor. He promotes all manner of quack supplements and makes lots of money from it. No one should ever mistake Dr. Oz as a medical authority. Everything he says and does is calculated for maximum exposure and profit.

I (in fact) did not (and probably would not) claim that Dr. Oz was a "medical authority". HOWEVER, unless you have a medical license (and I know I do not), there isn't a Court in this land that would consider either one of us a "medical authority", let alone a better one that Dr. Oz. And on that basis alone, I'm personally not prepared to question the legitimacy of Dr. Oz's career as a surgeon or his medical license, etc.. . Perhaps you are. I did read (just now) on Google/web, etc.. that Dr. Oz takes a lot of heat in the lay press for being somewhat of a quack, but A) I don't believe everything I read online, B) he may indeed be a quack; and I wouldn't know as I'm fairly unfamiliar with him and have never met him, and C) see above: I'm just relating what I heard on the radio. Lighten up. Stop jumping to conclusions - you are going to hurt yourself!

There are many people doing studies on many drugs against this disease. Why not wait for the studies to be completed so we can take actions knowing what we are doing instead of creating another thalidomide experiment? Why would you want to experiment widely with this one drug when there may be other drugs which actually work?

Why would you presume to know what I want?
That's pretty arrogant, don't you think?

Frankly, I don't even care whether particular doctors want to laser-beam focus all their efforts on "one drug". And, the stakes being what they are, I HIGHLY DOUBT doctors and virologist around the globe aren't already looking under every rock for a cure, or a vaccine, or whatever.

And as for your comment re: "creating another thalidomide experiment", I would just point out that Chloroquine has been used to treat Malaria since at least the 1940's (and as far back as 1633 if you care to consider the extracted bark of the Cinchona tree introduced to Europe, also used to fight Malaria), but I digress. Whereas Thalidomide was introduced in 1957, but was already in serious jeopardy by 1961. A whopping 4-year shelf-life.

In other words, your premise is wrong: on at least two counts.

First, a drug that's been successfully used to treat Malaria for 50 years is hardly an analog for experimentation. We KNOW, via tens of thousands of prescriptions, what that drug does, and what side-effects it has (unlike, at the time, say a drug like Thalidomide).

And second, you assume that Chloroquine doesn't work, and as mentioned above, I'm not prepared to make such a baseless assumption like that. For one, I'm not qualified - but apparently YOU are? (I suppose since I know you about as well as I know Dr. Oz, I could always defer to your medical expertise instead?)

And of course, I'll re-state that I never said anything about focusing solely on Chloroquine, or that the medical society as a whole was doing so. (That's a fiction in your head.)

Furthermore, a sole-focus on Chloroquine was not mentioned on the Hannity show, nor was it implied simply because other potential drugs were not mentioned in the same limited-time broadcast radio segment.

You have made several MAJOR leaps in logic here, most of which are wholly unsupported. In my opinion. Your opinion will no doubt differ, as I'm sure I pressed some of your buttons.
>

 

[Ricky C]

On Monday, April 6, 2020 at 9:55:02 PM UTC-4, mpm wrote:

On Monday, April 6, 2020 at 8:10:56 PM UTC-4, Ricky C wrote:
On Monday, April 6, 2020 at 5:29:20 PM UTC-4, mpm wrote:
Unlike some here, I don't pretend to be a virologist or know every fucking there is to know about Coronavirus. So with that in mind...

I had Hannity on the radio on my drive home today. He was interviewing Dr. Oz. Oz said several things I thought were very interesting: I'll paraphrase.

1) Virologists don't do double-blind clinical trials in the middle of an epidemic. It's not ethical to withhold potentially life-saving meds when a patient is truly in dire straits.

It's not ethical to withhold a drug that has been shown to be effective in some way. Chloroquine has not. They are withholding it from the VAST majority of CV19 patients and no one will be charged with ethics violations.. So of course they can not provide it to a control group.


2) Chloroquine is ROUTINELY prescribed for lupus patients. So far, (after vigorous searching the world over - which means 1% of total records if I understood it correctly - but still many, many thousands of cases) they have only found ONE lupus patient who has Covid-19 (and that patient wasn't regularly taking their meds).

Literally none of this is relevant in any way.

I never said that it was relevant (and how would I even know since I am not a competent virologist -- although you seem to have no trouble whatsoever saying that is it NOT relevant when perhaps it is. That's an assumption on your part, and one that I'm not willing to share.

All I said was that the Lupus/Covid-19 apparent mutual exclusivity was interesting (to me).

Yup, it's interesting to you. Got it. The key word there is "apparent". What you said is not even enough to have someone dig into it further. if someone did a study to actually correlate the use of the drug with an absence of disease and considered the exposure, etc. as well as having some numbers, then it might be worth taking a look at.

I'm surprised that after the clear misrepresentation by Dr Oz on the first point anyone would give any credence to anything else he says.

3) They haven't found any Covid-19 sufferers with lupus, either.

Has anyone been looking?

According to what I heard on the Hannity show... "Yes"!
And, they asked over the air for any lupus sufferers who might have (or might have had) Covid-19 to contact them. I assume others are working on this angle as well, though there was no mention of that.

There you go. Someone on a TV show said there was someone looking at a coorelation of lupus and COVID-19, not that this actually means anything. In fact, if true it would tend to mean lupus itself had something to do with the correlation rather than the treatment since there are any number of lupus sufferers who are NOT treated with this drug or not on a regular basis. Why have they not gotten sick with COVID-19? So this data is self contradictory and unless lupus prevents COVID-19 it is likely to be fake.


> > > 4) Chloroquine is ROUTINELY prescribed for rheumatoid arthritis, often over the course of years, even decades. No ill effects. Dr. Oz. did say that in high, chronic doses, you could develop eye trouble, which is why doctors who prescribe it monitor for those side effects. (but again, overall, rare.)

Again, citing Dr. Oz is not a reliable source. The eye trouble is exacerbated with longer use or higher doses. Oz didn't give a time and he didn't say you wouldn't lose vision with a week or two of the medicine. I read one of the treatment reports where a patient did lose peripheral vision. Better than wet macular degeneration perhaps, but that's not much of a recommendation.

I also see where "This medicine may cause heart problems and changes in your heart rhythm". Not a simple matter.

Of course we need read information, like number of frequency for these issues to make an informed decision.

I haven't researched the records, but there are plenty of anecdotal reports (a level of research matching Dr. Oz) of harm from this drug including death.

I haven't researched the records either (as if that were even possible). And look, I'm not a Dr. Oz fanboy either. I barely know of him, and I don't watch his TV shows. BUT, the man is a cardiothoracic surgeon, and a professor at the department fo Surgery at Columbia University. That's got to count for something..? But I'm not here as a Dr. Oz booster-boy, so try not to shoot the messenger. I'm just relaying what I heard on the radio this afternoon. I didn't say I subscribed to any of it, hook, line and sinker.

No, the man is a celebrity. When was the last time he was in an operating room? He has been sued for false diet claims and even called before Senate panels to answer for his crap. He sells his name to any number of fake "nutrition" companies.

No, I don't listen to a damn thing the man says. You should learn to be a little more discerning in what you believe. My dad used to say, "Don't believe anything you hear and only half of what you see." I take that seriously and am mostly proven right.

5) Of some 7,000 doctors worldwide who prescribe Chloroquine, few (if any) of them believe it is contraindicated (per Dr. Oz.)

Contraindicated for what? What poll was taken? Where is the report?

Remember when I said "paraphrase" before. Guess you forgot?
The Hannity show wasn't clear, but the impression I got was a whole whopping bunch of non-US doctors think the Chloroquine safety discussion is pointless. "The drug is safe." Period.

Please be my guest to take it at will. Your Darwin award is coming soon.

If the bleeding Hannity show isn't clear on a highly technical matter, how can you have any idea what the truth is? How can you believe Dr. Oz over Dr. Fauci???

https://www.hcs.harvard.edu/~policylab/2013/06/14/pulling-back-the-curtain-on-dr-oz/

Harvard is his alma mater and this is what they say about him.

6) A world-renowned French virologist (didn't catch his name) is now on Chloroquine study #2. The first study was under 100 patients. This #2 study is nearly 1,000. Both studies show Chloroquine has significant promise, and no unmanageable side-effects.

Yep, the guy who's first study was widely panned for being poorly done. It was a report of their results which would not qualify as a suitable study in any journal. The second study is not complete but likely has many of the same flaws.


Could be, I really don't know.
I won't have time tomorrow to watch Dr. Oz, but maybe I can record it.
But I'm honestly not that vested in it. You're probably right about Oz being a pseudo-quack, but he's still more qualified than I am.

Feel free to watch Dr. Quack all you want. I don't be discussing anything he says any further. If you continue to believe his fake crap that's on you.


> That said, I do "believe", without solid EVIDENCE, that early studies like these probably have all sorts of problems, and not just in the statistics end of it. But like I said before, and will repeat here for your education and benefit, I AM NOT A VIROLOGIST and therefore can't really speak to what's flaws either study may or may not have. Plus, AGAIN, I'm just relating what I heard on the radio, not campaigning on the success or failure of any clinical trial outcomes.

Why do I care what your credentials are??? You aren't the source of the information. You are the vector spreading the fake info like a mosquito spreading malaria. Maybe we need to dose you with some chloroquine and solve the problem that way.

Finally, Dr. Oz's show tomorrow is supposed to highlight much of what I've paraphrased (hopefully, not mangled). So, if you're interested - watch it.

I thought the lupus thing was interesting, which I why I didn't immediately ask Alexa to read my Kindle book on the drive home. (In case you were wondering..)

Dr. Oz is a celebrity who happens to be a doctor. He promotes all manner of quack supplements and makes lots of money from it. No one should ever mistake Dr. Oz as a medical authority. Everything he says and does is calculated for maximum exposure and profit.

I (in fact) did not (and probably would not) claim that Dr. Oz was a "medical authority". HOWEVER, unless you have a medical license (and I know I do not), there isn't a Court in this land that would consider either one of us a "medical authority", let alone a better one that Dr. Oz. And on that basis alone, I'm personally not prepared to question the legitimacy of Dr. Oz's career as a surgeon or his medical license, etc.. . Perhaps you are. I did read (just now) on Google/web, etc.. that Dr. Oz takes a lot of heat in the lay press for being somewhat of a quack, but A) I don't believe everything I read online, B) he may indeed be a quack; and I wouldn't know as I'm fairly unfamiliar with him and have never met him, and C) see above: I'm just relating what I heard on the radio. Lighten up. Stop jumping to conclusions - you are going to hurt yourself!

I don't need to question his credentials, others do that for me. Look him up. He is more often referred to as a celebrity than as a doctor. Do something other than listing to Hannity. Show the world you have a brain and know how to use it!

There are many people doing studies on many drugs against this disease. Why not wait for the studies to be completed so we can take actions knowing what we are doing instead of creating another thalidomide experiment? Why would you want to experiment widely with this one drug when there may be other drugs which actually work?

Why would you presume to know what I want?
That's pretty arrogant, don't you think?

I'm just going by what you've said and I didn't "say" anything. I'm asking you questions. Answer or not. I'm done discussing this with you until you start acting like you can use your own brain rather than letting other people tell you what to think.

Frankly, I don't even care whether particular doctors want to laser-beam focus all their efforts on "one drug". And, the stakes being what they are, I HIGHLY DOUBT doctors and virologist around the globe aren't already looking under every rock for a cure, or a vaccine, or whatever.

And as for your comment re: "creating another thalidomide experiment", I would just point out that Chloroquine has been used to treat Malaria since at least the 1940's (and as far back as 1633 if you care to consider the extracted bark of the Cinchona tree introduced to Europe, also used to fight Malaria), but I digress. Whereas Thalidomide was introduced in 1957, but was already in serious jeopardy by 1961. A whopping 4-year shelf-life.

In other words, your premise is wrong: on at least two counts.

It's not a premise, it is an analogy. Thalidomide was not researched well enough and caused a lot of heartache. Pushing this drug without at least some sort of evidence that it works and safe dosages FOR THIS PURPOSE has potential of causing a similar problem for thousands of people.


> First, a drug that's been successfully used to treat Malaria for 50 years is hardly an analog for experimentation. We KNOW, via tens of thousands of prescriptions, what that drug does, and what side-effects it has (unlike, at the time, say a drug like Thalidomide).

I thought you were not a virologist? Did you just finish your degree? You don't know diddly squat about what this drug will do to a patient on a respirator because of this disease.


> And second, you assume that Chloroquine doesn't work, and as mentioned above, I'm not prepared to make such a baseless assumption like that. For one, I'm not qualified - but apparently YOU are? (I suppose since I know you about as well as I know Dr. Oz, I could always defer to your medical expertise instead?)

I'm not assuming it doesn't work. I'm assuming it is a bad idea to use it in any quantity before it is shown to be safe and effective FOR THIS PURPOSE.


> And of course, I'll re-state that I never said anything about focusing solely on Chloroquine, or that the medical society as a whole was doing so. (That's a fiction in your head.)

I never said anything about "solely". That's your fiction. But I will say you can't emphasize one thing without loosing focus on another. I know that Trump, the idiot President, has been touting this one drug enough that no one else needs to mention it again. It has tons of exposure. That's why Oz is in the discussion. It will help him sell his books.


> Furthermore, a sole-focus on Chloroquine was not mentioned on the Hannity show, nor was it implied simply because other potential drugs were not mentioned in the same limited-time broadcast radio segment.

Why do you keep using that word, "sole"??? You seem to protest too much!


> You have made several MAJOR leaps in logic here, most of which are wholly unsupported. In my opinion. Your opinion will no doubt differ, as I'm sure I pressed some of your buttons.

Sir, you need to learn how to be critical of the huge volumes of crap dispensed on TV and the Internet... oh, and from our President. Until then there is nothing I can do for you.

Over and out.

--

Rick C.

-++ Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging
-++ Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209

 

On Tuesday, April 7, 2020 at 12:01:36 AM UTC-4, Ricky C wrote:

> Your Darwin award is coming soon.

Actually, it isn't.
You see, the factory is already hopelessly backlogged trying to produce all of your Darwin awards.

Your Darwin comment wasn't really necessary.
And, you feeling the need to say it, is why I'm not even going to bother to read the rest of what you posted.

 

On Monday, April 6, 2020 at 5:29:20 PM UTC-4, mpm wrote:
> Unlike some here, I don't pretend to be a virologist or know every fucking there is to know about Coronavirus. So with that in mind...

Maybe not, but you do pretend to be able to read and comprehend information directed at much more learned adults of an intelligence level you don't possess.

For instance you fail to note that this "doctor" Oz character has been labeled as a quack and charlatan by some pretty heavy hitters in the medical field, namely researchers at the Mayo clinic, and many physicians ( a group of 15 iirc) at Columbia University, of which he is some kind of staff member, who tried to get him booted.

Enuf said. Go away.

 

[mpm]

On Tuesday, April 7, 2020 at 12:17:42 PM UTC-4, bloggs.fre...@gmail.com wrote:

On Monday, April 6, 2020 at 5:29:20 PM UTC-4, mpm wrote:
Unlike some here, I don't pretend to be a virologist or know every fucking there is to know about Coronavirus. So with that in mind...

Maybe not, but you do pretend to be able to read and comprehend information directed at much more learned adults of an intelligence level you don't possess.

I guarantee you my IQ is higher than yours.
Next...

For instance you fail to note that this "doctor" Oz character has been labeled as a quack and charlatan by some pretty heavy hitters in the medical field, namely researchers at the Mayo clinic, and many physicians ( a group of 15 iirc) at Columbia University, of which he is some kind of staff member, who tried to get him booted.

Enuf said. Go away.

I'm NOT defending Dr. Oz.
Why is that so hard to understand???

All I said (and I know this may prove difficult for some folks of limited intelligence) is that I thought it was very interesting that people with Lupus don't seem to contract Covid-19. And vice-versa.

Now, at the end of the day, is there anything to it?
I don't know.

But if it is true, then perhaps a little more investigation might lead to something useful. If it's true, what is it about Lupus, or the Chloroquine prescription that these Lupus sufferers are on, prevents a Covid-19 infection?

It may well turn out that if you want to be "Covid-19 immune" then you have to acquire Lupus. No thanks, obviously. That's a case of the cure being worse than the disease. (?)

Tell me: You don't find the connection (or possible lack thereof) at least interesting???