OT: March 2020 hydroxychloroquine study

[Ricky C]

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.

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.

We can only wish. He is very good at forming opinions that are in line with his general world view and make him feel happy, regardless of the facts.

Just the idea that he hears something on Hannity, decides Dr. Oz is someone to believe and without doing a lick of research decides hydroxychloroquine is the "right stuff" shows his limited abilities to think for himself.

He probably believes Peter Navarro is more of an expert on hydroxychloroquine than Dr. Fauci is, again without any facts to support him.

He isn't going away.

--

Rick C.

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

 

On Tuesday, April 7, 2020 at 1:46:09 PM UTC-4, mpm wrote:

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...

Of course... you listen to Hannity and "Doctor" Oz- who could deny your brilliance.

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???

There is no such association as claimed by that criminal quack. These people should know. If you have lupus to the extent of requiring treatment, you can be in really big trouble:

"There is no evidence that taking hydroxychloroquine (Plaquenil) is effective in preventing a person from contracting the coronavirus (COVID-19). People with lupus should follow the guidance of their doctor and the safety guidelines being issued by the CDC."

https://www.lupus.org/blog/are-people-with-lupus-protected-against-covid19#


"If you have lupus, you’re at higher risk for infections like the coronavirus, also known as COVID-19. Some people with lupus may also be at risk for more serious complications from catching the coronavirus."

https://www.lupus.org/resources/coronavirus-and-lupus

"Lupus raises your chances of catching any kind of infection. So if you have lupus, you may be more likely than other people to get COVID-19. And if you do, your symptoms are more likely to be serious. That’s both because of your condition itself and certain types of medicines you may take for it."

https://www.webmd.com/lung/covid-19-lupus#1

The infamous cytokine storm which is immune system lymphocytes attacking healthy uninfected lung tissue, is an autoimmune response.

Chloroquine has NEVER panned out as an antiviral:

https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanrhe/article/PIIS2665-9913(20)30089-8/fulltext

 

[mpm]

On Tuesday, April 7, 2020 at 3:52:44 PM UTC-4, Ricky C wrote:

We can only wish. He is very good at forming opinions that are in line with his general world view and make him feel happy, regardless of the facts.

Just the idea that he hears something on Hannity, decides Dr. Oz is someone to believe and without doing a lick of research decides hydroxychloroquine is the "right stuff" shows his limited abilities to think for himself.

He probably believes Peter Navarro is more of an expert on hydroxychloroquine than Dr. Fauci is, again without any facts to support him.

He isn't going away.

Of course I'm not going away. How silly.
I've been posting on SED for 20 years.

Back to the point:
You guys must have a reading comprehension issue.
Either that, or you are so bored under Covid-19 quarantine, that you literally have nothing better to do than to try to pick arguments over NOTHING.

I'm starting to think Dr. Oz is smarter than all of you put together.
Nearly every time you post, that possibility is more and more reinforced.

 

[Ricky C]

On Tuesday, April 7, 2020 at 6:04:20 PM UTC-4, mpm wrote:

I'm done beating this horse.

Ok, that works for me.

--

Rick C.

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

 

[mpm]

On Tuesday, April 7, 2020 at 3:52:44 PM UTC-4, Ricky C wrote:

Here's what Dr. Fauci said in the April 4 White House briefing:
Not Dr. Oz. - Dr. Fauci. (As I realize some of you have a reading comprehension issue and truly need it spelled out for you.)

Here's the link, so you don't bitch about snipping.
https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefings-statements/remarks-president-trump-vice-president-pence-members-coronavirus-task-force-press-briefing-19/

Q: And can I ask one for Dr. Fauci? I was wondering about what you’re seeing as far as lupus patients, in regards to coronavirus. I know the President mentioned this earlier, but what does the medicine say?

DR. FAUCI: What is the question? Is that, “What is the incidence of coronavirus?”

Q Yeah, I mean, if you lupus, do you have —

DR. FAUCI: Yeah. Yeah.

Q — a greater chance of getting coronavirus or —

DR. FAUCI: There is — right now, this is being looked at in a natural history study. We don’t have any definitive information to be able to make any comment that that — it’s an obvious good question, because it might be a way for us to get some interesting and potentially important data as to the role of those medications. But that’s something that is now being looked at, but we don’t have any data to be able to say anything definitively.

I wish there were a way in SED to go back and highlight those last two sentences BOLD. (So, here's a helpful hint for you as a workaround: Just go back and count the last two periods because each of the sentences in question end with a period.)

And then note, importantly, that THAT IS EXACTLY what I was saying when I just posted what I heard on the radio, without giving it any credence whatsoever. Or to Dr. Oz, for that matter. I just said I found it an interesting connection between Lupus, Chloroquine and Covid-19. Dr. Facui even used the exact same word: "interesting". So the logicial conclusion is it must be OK if Dr. Fauci says it, but it's not OK if I say it. OK, sure.... Check please.

You gentlemen must be truly stupid if you can't understand the plain language of that. I'm done beating this horse.

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Wednesday, April 8, 2020 at 3:46:09 AM UTC+10, mpm wrote:

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...

Which does illustrate that it isn't very high.

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???

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lupus_erythematosus

It's a "disease in which the human immune system becomes hyperactive". If it is hyperactive against Covid19 virus particles, that would be a useful side-effect, but nobody would try to get lupus (even if they could) as a anti-Covid-19 defense.

There's a fairly obvious connection there. but not one that is remotely interesting, unless you are talking head with airtime to fill.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Wednesday, April 8, 2020 at 7:54:54 AM UTC+10, mpm wrote:

On Tuesday, April 7, 2020 at 3:52:44 PM UTC-4, Ricky C wrote:

We can only wish. He is very good at forming opinions that are in line with his general world view and make him feel happy, regardless of the facts.

Just the idea that he hears something on Hannity, decides Dr. Oz is someone to believe and without doing a lick of research decides hydroxychloroquine is the "right stuff" shows his limited abilities to think for himself.

He probably believes Peter Navarro is more of an expert on hydroxychloroquine than Dr. Fauci is, again without any facts to support him.

He isn't going away.

Of course I'm not going away. How silly.

None of our resident trolls show any sign of going away.

> I've been posting on SED for 20 years.

So have I.

Back to the point:
You guys must have a reading comprehension issue.
Either that, or you are so bored under Covid-19 quarantine, that you literally have nothing better to do than to try to pick arguments over NOTHING.

I'm starting to think Dr. Oz is smarter than all of you put together.
Nearly every time you post, that possibility is more and more reinforced.

So much for mpm's "guarantee" that he has a higher IQ than Fred Bloggs.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

[mpm]

On Tuesday, April 7, 2020 at 11:56:59 PM UTC-4, Bill Sloman wrote:

So much for mpm's "guarantee" that he has a higher IQ than Fred Bloggs.

So you're in agreement, then?

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Wednesday, April 8, 2020 at 2:13:51 PM UTC+10, mpm wrote:

On Tuesday, April 7, 2020 at 11:56:59 PM UTC-4, Bill Sloman wrote:

So much for mpm's "guarantee" that he has a higher IQ than Fred Bloggs.

So you're in agreement, then?

You can't guarantee that your IQ is higher than Fred Blogg's until you have had your own IQ measured and have access to Fred Bloggs score on a similar IQ test.

Your IQ seems to be a bit too low to let you have a secure grasp of what IQ means, and my guess is that you are lot dumber than Fred Bloggs used to be.

IQ is a rather narrow measure of what is meant by intelligence in non-technical discussions, and the people who take IQ test results seriously aren't very bright. Some of them are dumb enough to join Mensa.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

[mpm]

On Wednesday, April 8, 2020 at 1:28:41 AM UTC-4, Bill Sloman wrote:

On Wednesday, April 8, 2020 at 2:13:51 PM UTC+10, mpm wrote:
On Tuesday, April 7, 2020 at 11:56:59 PM UTC-4, Bill Sloman wrote:

So much for mpm's "guarantee" that he has a higher IQ than Fred Bloggs.

So you're in agreement, then?

You can't guarantee that your IQ is higher than Fred Blogg's until you have had your own IQ measured and have access to Fred Bloggs score on a similar IQ test.

Your IQ seems to be a bit too low to let you have a secure grasp of what IQ means, and my guess is that you are lot dumber than Fred Bloggs used to be.

IQ is a rather narrow measure of what is meant by intelligence in non-technical discussions, and the people who take IQ test results seriously aren't very bright. Some of them are dumb enough to join Mensa.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

Maybe you are just sour that Mensa rejected your test scores.

 

[mpm]

I withdraw my earlier post that may have been improperly construed as an endorsement for Dr. Oz. (The Quack-factor is indeed high in this one.)

Link: https://trendinghealthnews.life/bloodboostoz

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Wednesday, April 8, 2020 at 9:31:52 PM UTC+10, mpm wrote:

On Wednesday, April 8, 2020 at 1:28:41 AM UTC-4, Bill Sloman wrote:
On Wednesday, April 8, 2020 at 2:13:51 PM UTC+10, mpm wrote:
On Tuesday, April 7, 2020 at 11:56:59 PM UTC-4, Bill Sloman wrote:

So much for mpm's "guarantee" that he has a higher IQ than Fred Bloggs.

So you're in agreement, then?

You can't guarantee that your IQ is higher than Fred Blogg's until you have had your own IQ measured and have access to Fred Bloggs score on a similar IQ test.

Your IQ seems to be a bit too low to let you have a secure grasp of what IQ means, and my guess is that you are lot dumber than Fred Bloggs used to be.

IQ is a rather narrow measure of what is meant by intelligence in non-technical discussions, and the people who take IQ test results seriously aren't very bright. Some of them are dumb enough to join Mensa.

Maybe you are just sour that Mensa rejected your test scores.

It's a very long time since I even thought about taking their test - more than fifty years - there didn't seem to be any point to them then either. Nothing I've learned since then (and I've learned quite a bit) has changed that opinion.

I did read Eysenck's "Know your own IQ when" it was first published in 1962, and I scored fairly high on the tests it contained, but wasn't exactly convinced that it meant much. A little later I went out with a few female psychologists, and started taking Eysenck even less seriously.

Apparently Jerry Pournelle did his Ph.D. in that area, which put the final nail in that coffin.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

[amdx]

On 4/2/2020 5:02 PM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:

On Thu, 2 Apr 2020 17:14:45 -0400, bitrex <user@example.net> wrote:

No significant effect vs. control group:
http://subject.med.wanfangdata.com.cn/UpLoad/Files/202003/43f8625d4dc74e42bbcf24795de1c77c.pdf

Mar 20, 2020
"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
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.


Mar 31, 2020
"Comparing HydroxyChloroquine Trials"
https://blogs.sciencemag.org/pipeline/archives/2020/03/31/comparing-chloroquine-trials
So you can see that these two came out rather
differently, with the Zhejiang study showing no
detectable difference on treatment and the Wuhan
one showing what looks like a real effect, especially
on radiological progression of pneumonia ...

Mar 31, 2020
"Efficacy of hydroxychloroquine in patients with COVID-19: results of
a randomized clinical trial"
https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.03.22.20040758v2
Among patients with COVID-19, the use of HCQ could
significantly shorten TTCR and promote the
absorption of pneumonia.

Mar 31, 2020
"What's Working for COVID-19 Patients"
https://journals.lww.com/em-news/blog/BreakingNews/pages/post.aspx
Lots of detail what's being done to treat COVID-19 in Queens, NY.

At one point Bill de Blasio (NY Mayor) said only 20% of those put on a
Ventilator survive. If that is true, this is a possible help.

> https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/2504796

It says they compared a normally gastric fed patient with one fed a
high fat, low carb diet, this reduced time on a ventilator by 62hrs.

I don't know what the time on a ventilator was for patients fed a
normal diet. So, I don't know if that was a 25%, 50% or 100% reduction
in time. I can't seem to read the whole article.

But, interesting as most Keto diet studies.


"The objective of this study was to compare the effect of a high fat,
low carbohydrate enteral feed with a standard isocaloric,
isonitrogenous enteral feed on PaCO2 and ventilation time in patients
with acute respiratory failure requiring artificial ventilation."


"The high fat group spent a mean of 62 hours less time on the ventilator
(p = 0.006). A high fat,
low carbohydrate enteral feed appears to be beneficial in patients
undergoing artificial ventilation.

 

[amdx]

On 4/6/2020 4:18 AM, DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno@decadence.org wrote:

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.

I had some impression that Hydroxychloroqine had immunosuppressive or
anti-inflammatory effects. Which is where part of the breathing problems
arise, from an overreaction, congesting the lungs.
I found several articles saying it is an immune suppressor, so maybe
it works on two fronts.

> https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28302011

"it has been found that Hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) possesses various
immunomodulatory and anti-inflammatory activities."

Mikek

 

[Michael Terrell]

On Wednesday, April 8, 2020 at 7:31:52 AM UTC-4, mpm wrote:

Maybe you are just sour that Mensa rejected your test scores.

I doubt that Mensa had ever seen negative numbers on an application, before he applied.

 

[mpm]

On Wednesday, April 8, 2020 at 10:47:13 AM UTC-4, Bill Sloman wrote:

On Wednesday, April 8, 2020 at 9:31:52 PM UTC+10, mpm wrote:
On Wednesday, April 8, 2020 at 1:28:41 AM UTC-4, Bill Sloman wrote:
On Wednesday, April 8, 2020 at 2:13:51 PM UTC+10, mpm wrote:
On Tuesday, April 7, 2020 at 11:56:59 PM UTC-4, Bill Sloman wrote:

So much for mpm's "guarantee" that he has a higher IQ than Fred Bloggs.

So you're in agreement, then?

You can't guarantee that your IQ is higher than Fred Blogg's until you have had your own IQ measured and have access to Fred Bloggs score on a similar IQ test.

Your IQ seems to be a bit too low to let you have a secure grasp of what IQ means, and my guess is that you are lot dumber than Fred Bloggs used to be.

IQ is a rather narrow measure of what is meant by intelligence in non-technical discussions, and the people who take IQ test results seriously aren't very bright. Some of them are dumb enough to join Mensa.

Maybe you are just sour that Mensa rejected your test scores.

It's a very long time since I even thought about taking their test - more than fifty years - there didn't seem to be any point to them then either. Nothing I've learned since then (and I've learned quite a bit) has changed that opinion.

I did read Eysenck's "Know your own IQ when" it was first published in 1962, and I scored fairly high on the tests it contained, but wasn't exactly convinced that it meant much. A little later I went out with a few female psychologists, and started taking Eysenck even less seriously.

Apparently Jerry Pournelle did his Ph.D. in that area, which put the final nail in that coffin.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

I also agree it doesn't really mean that much.
It this day and age though, if you have two neurons to rub together to form anything that can even remotely pass as a coherent thought, you're way ahead of the herd.

I took the qualification test back in high school (OMNI Magazine, as I recall?) as several of my friends were "into" that sort of stuff. You know, Chess Club, A/V, Math team: all the nerdy activities that keep you from getting the prettier girls.

I scored high enough that I took the actual test, and was a member for a while.

 

[mpm]

On Wednesday, April 8, 2020 at 11:04:37 AM UTC-4, amdx wrote:

At one point Bill de Blasio (NY Mayor) said only 20% of those put on a
Ventilator survive. If that is true, this is a possible help.

In other news:
"Only 20% of NYC ventilators found to be operational"

Nah, I'm just making that up.

 

[Jeff Liebermann]

On Wed, 8 Apr 2020 10:04:34 -0500, amdx <nojunk@knology.net> wrote:

On 4/2/2020 5:02 PM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
Mar 31, 2020
"What's Working for COVID-19 Patients"
https://journals.lww.com/em-news/blog/BreakingNews/pages/post.aspx
Lots of detail what's being done to treat COVID-19 in Queens, NY.

At one point Bill de Blasio (NY Mayor) said only 20% of those put on a
Ventilator survive. If that is true, this is a possible help.

I've read that ventilator mortality rates vary from 50% to 97% in
various articles. For example:
<https://journals.lww.com/em-news/blog/BreakingNews/pages/post.aspx?PostID=508>
...and the likely mortality is 50 to 80 percent for patients
needing intubation, especially those with pre-existing lung
or cardiac comorbidities.

It's really difficult to estable a proper number, especially when some
patients die after leaving the hospital.

There's also the problem of survivors developing pulmonary fibrosis
(scaring of the lung). At some point, we need to ask ourselves is
using a ventilator considered heroics and unworthy of the expense if
most patients die anyway. I don't have an answer to that question.

My comments, borrowed from another thread in S.E.D.

"12 Facts About Pulmonary Fibrosis Prognosis and Life Expectancy"
<https://pulmonaryfibrosisnews.com/2019/08/16/twelve-facts-about-pulmonary-fibrosis-prognosis-and-life-expectancy/>
The average life expectancy of patients with pulmonary
fibrosis is three to five years after diagnosis.

The problem is that COVID-19 survivors lose some percentage of their
lung capacity. Any remaining avioli, that continue to function,
attempt to take up the slack, but are easily overloaded. The result
is:
Each year as the disease progresses, pulmonary fibrosis
patients will lose an average of between 150 mL and 200 mL
of lung capacity...
Lung tidal volume is about 500 mL:
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tidal_volume>

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/2504796

It says they compared a normally gastric fed patient with one fed a
high fat, low carb diet, this reduced time on a ventilator by 62hrs.

I don't know what the time on a ventilator was for patients fed a
normal diet. So, I don't know if that was a 25%, 50% or 100% reduction
in time. I can't seem to read the whole article.

But, interesting as most Keto diet studies.

"The objective of this study was to compare the effect of a high fat,
low carbohydrate enteral feed with a standard isocaloric,
isonitrogenous enteral feed on PaCO2 and ventilation time in patients
with acute respiratory failure requiring artificial ventilation."


"The high fat group spent a mean of 62 hours less time on the ventilator
(p = 0.006). A high fat,
low carbohydrate enteral feed appears to be beneficial in patients
undergoing artificial ventilation.

I can't comment on the proper diet for COVID-19 recovery. However, I
can mention that I've lost 7 lbs since I started doing shelter in
place, mostly due to an aversion to eating my own cooking.

Sorry about posting a broken link, but I think you'll find this
article of interest:
"What's Working for COVID-19 Patients"
<https://journals.lww.com/em-news/blog/BreakingNews/pages/post.aspx?PostID=508>
See the Treatment:fluids section:
Patients with COVID-19 appear to be very sensitive to
fluid overload. We have found success at preventing the
need for intubation by keeping patients net negative
despite tachycardia and acute kidney injury.
Lots more on hydroxychloroquine, vitamin C, and other drugs.


--
Jeff Liebermann jeffl@cruzio.com
150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558

 

[Martin Brown]

On 08/04/2020 18:26, Jeff Liebermann wrote:

On Wed, 8 Apr 2020 10:04:34 -0500, amdx <nojunk@knology.net> wrote:

On 4/2/2020 5:02 PM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
Mar 31, 2020
"What's Working for COVID-19 Patients"
https://journals.lww.com/em-news/blog/BreakingNews/pages/post.aspx
Lots of detail what's being done to treat COVID-19 in Queens, NY.

At one point Bill de Blasio (NY Mayor) said only 20% of those put on a
Ventilator survive. If that is true, this is a possible help.

I've read that ventilator mortality rates vary from 50% to 97% in
various articles. For example:
https://journals.lww.com/em-news/blog/BreakingNews/pages/post.aspx?PostID=508
...and the likely mortality is 50 to 80 percent for patients
needing intubation, especially those with pre-existing lung
or cardiac comorbidities.

It's really difficult to estable a proper number, especially when some
patients die after leaving the hospital.

The UK figure at the moment is that only 50% of the people with Covid-19
that they put on a ventilator get to walk out of the hospital again.

Germany seems to be doing rather better than this but no-one knows why.

There's also the problem of survivors developing pulmonary fibrosis
(scaring of the lung). At some point, we need to ask ourselves is
using a ventilator considered heroics and unworthy of the expense if
most patients die anyway. I don't have an answer to that question.

And some of those that do survive suffer permanent scarring of the lungs
but it is too soon to tell how or if that will improve over time.

--
Regards,
Martin Brown

 

[Ricky C]

On Wednesday, April 8, 2020 at 11:23:35 AM UTC-4, amdx wrote:

I had some impression that Hydroxychloroqine had immunosuppressive or
anti-inflammatory effects. Which is where part of the breathing problems
arise, from an overreaction, congesting the lungs.
I found several articles saying it is an immune suppressor, so maybe
it works on two fronts.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28302011

"it has been found that Hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) possesses various
immunomodulatory and anti-inflammatory activities."

We already have many, many immune suppressors available for use. There are drugs specifically used for cytokine storm conditions. Why would we use another unrelated compound with poorly established activity in this mode?

Besides, the last thing you want to do when treating an infection is to broadly suppress the immune response. That's a great way to kill a patient.

--

Rick C.

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