Dr Raoult Roars — new articles on findings and issues about HCQ + Cocktails for Covid-19

F/N: Let me also transfer a clip from a White Paper that was being challenged but has a solid core argument, with my lead-up: _____________ Let’s start from facts. It is now pretty well shown that HCQ etc are established drugs, i.e. their in vitro chemical activity is credibly going to carry over into the body. And, they are safe enough for side effects etc to be manageable. In fact until recently HCQ was an OTC in many parts of the world. Next, since 2005, HCQ has shown relevant in vitro antiviral effects as well as longstanding anti-inflammatory effects as are qhy it has been used for arthritis etc. In that context, it was recently specifically shown that it is active against SARS2 virus in plausible-for-body concentrations. Two plausible mechanisms, as MedCram discusses, are that it alters pH and shifts shape of receptors for the spike proteins and props open ionophores that enable Zn ions to get into cells in enhanced concentration; which inhibits viral replication. Azithro acts against secondary infection and also has some antiviral effects. Zn is well known for antiviral effects. So, we should not be surprised to find that there is significant experience showing that if administered early in the U/L trajectory of the disease, for people with significant risk . . . low risk people are not going to have much of a difference to make either way . . . it makes a good difference in outcomes. And it does so fast, viral loads drop sharply within a few days. This summary is from multiple sources over the past several months. That is what is being buried under an avalanche of irrelevant cases, built to fail studies [wrong age groups, too late in the disease process, not studying the cocktail etc are typical] and demands that unless an ethically and epistemologically challenged gold standard . . . please see the Tuskegee syphilis study . . . is applied results are worthless. Then there was the scare mongering about heart disorders, and yes, the risk — per people who were managing real cases and relevant cardiologists — was grossly exaggerated. It is such criticisms that are worse than worthless, they have fostered a climate of fear, misunderstanding and polarisation that has likely needlessly cost arguably hundreds of thousands their lives. Those who enabled that sort of disaster will never acknowledge the failure. Now, we see an attempt to snip-snipe against a summary paper. This is what the white paper they are trying to trash says, first:

[ White Paper on Hydroxychloroquine Dr. Simone Gold, MD, JD ] https://bit.ly/3eSfKiS . . . There is obviously a tremendous disinformation campaign going on in the United States of America claiming that HCQ is neither safe nor effective. This is quite remarkable for a medication that has been FDA approved for 65 years and having already been dispensed billions of times all across the world with only 57 serious adverse events (heart) noted by the FDA in their own database over the past fifty years. In many countries it is available over the counter, like aspirin and Tylenol. Nonetheless, with the negative pressure being applied, state Governors have ordered, through their state licensing boards that physicians stop using it, and pharmacists stop dispensing it. Their wording is often more cautious, but doctors are told that they could be charged with “unprofessional conduct” (a threat to their license) or be “sanctioned” if they prescribe. First we need to understand how prescriptions have been done for decades. Once approved by the FDA, any physician can prescribe any prescription medication in the USA, for any reason. 55 This is significant in that a drug is not approved for a specific diagnosis; a drug either makes it through the years-long approval process or it does not. That means a medication can be used “on-label” (the reason it was approved) or “off- label” (other reasons that have never received FDA approval.) It costs a lot of money for the pharmaceutical company to gain another “on-label” use, so once a drug is approved for any use, it is typically used for many reasons. Those additional reasons are called “off- label.” As a practical matter “off-label” use accounts for about 20% of prescriptions . . . . Exploiting the public’s understandable lack of focus on the non-distinction between off- label and on-label has contributed to the public’s confusion regarding HCQ for Covid-19. From the physician’s perspective if a drug is FDA approved and safe it is within the physician’s armamentarium. And from the physician’s perspective, is highly suspect that that rule should change in the middle of a pandemic and without any legislative discussion or regulation whatsoever, let alone sound science to support the same. It has never happened that a state has threatened a doctor for prescribing a universally accepted safe generic cheap drug off-label . . . . Hydroxychloroquine is safe as a matter of fact, as demonstrated above. It is also considered “legally” safe as a matter of law as it is FDA approved for 65 years and doctors have been freely prescribing it in all that time until Covid-19. Contradicting its own policy, we believe for the first time in its history, the FDA has made statements that have caused states to restrict its use. While the right to prescribe is granted by each state, the states are informed by the FDA, and in reliance on the FDA, here are examples of over- reaching by many states. [cases given] . . . . It bears repeating that to be FDA approved, a drug has to go through years of testing. To be FDA approved for 65 years is an overwhelming testimonial to a drug’s safety and efficacy. There is no need for additional government intrusion . . . . If the disinformation campaign regarding HCQ weren’t so complete, from the scientific journals, to the media, to the state medical boards to the FDA, this would not really matter. Individual physicians who are innovators and early adopters would have moved first, prescribing HCQ off-label, just as physicians already do 20% of the time, and it would have caught on rapidly. However, the disinformation campaign blocked off-label use, and now we are in a pandemic with a safe and effective drug that doctors inclined to prescribe and patients inclined to take, cannot access. As a result, not only are patients not being treated promptly, effectively, and safely, some patients die. And as the fear of the pandemic has overtaken the virus itself and it is impossible to change public and physician opinion quickly enough to save lives, we must make the medication available to the public directly . . . . Country by country data is also available and access to HCQ is strongly linked to lower mortality. 73 We can see that even very poor countries have much lower case fatality rates than wealthy countries, which of course, is typically the opposite of what we would expect of a respiratory disease that could end up in an ICU admission. Kazakhstan, Bangladesh, Senegal, Pakistan, Serbia, Nigeria, Turkey, Ukraine, Honduras … the list goes on. Wealthier democracies or countries with especially abusive HCQ protocols such as are doing terribly: Ireland, Canada, Spain, The Netherlands, UK, Belgium, France … Of note, Italy and Spain switched mid-stream and now HCQ is easily available . . . . The limitation or outright ban on HCQ worldwide has begun to crack. It will soon collapse because the evidence of its safety and efficacy is so overwhelming. The countries that have less flexibility to tolerate fatal policies have already reversed themselves. South of us, Honduras, Panama, Costa Rica have, or earlier had, made HCQ available. Brazil is trying but faces many of the same political problems as the USA. Some countries have started going door to door to facilitate its availability. 74 In Honduras their national policy now is: “The patient that presents for the first time to a First Level of Care facility, if so, treatment should be started with: Acetaminophen, Hydroxychloroquine 400 every 12 hours, Ivermectin, Azithromycin, Zinc …” 75 . . . . Panama reversed course regarding HCQ and many countries in South and Central America are following suit: 76 Evaluating new evidence around the therapeutic options for COVID-19, specifically the use of HCQ and the Lancet journal withdrawing its publication on this topic. The Ministry of Health communicates that Circular No. 118-DGSP is null and void, establishing directives for immediate compliance regarding the use of HCQ and / or azithromycin. Leaving the therapeutic option for prescription according to medical criteria. Soon we will be sending a treatment guide for Covid-19 patients . . . . In France, bewilderingly, the drug was banned outright. However esteemed virologist Professor Raoult continued his clinical trials and in his hospitals the mortality rate was 0.52% compared to the rest of France 19.12%. Assemblee of France (equivalent to Congress) called Dr. Raoult in for an “inquiry” because he has been such an outspoken advocate for HCQ. It turns out that his statistics were so devastating to the official French anti-HCQ political leadership, that the inquiry resulted in the French Minister of Health being forced to resign and now he being investigated, in large part due to his obstructing HCQ, which caused/led/contributed to the deaths of so many French citizens. 77 [--> note, her interpretation is overlaid on bare facts of resignation] Former French Prime Minister, health ministers to be investigated for pandemic response” A French court will investigate former French Prime Minister Edouard Philippe and two health ministers following complaints about the government’s handling of the coronavirus pandemic, Prosecutor General François Molins said today. Philippe, former Health Minister Agnès Buzyn and outgoing Health Minister Olivier Véran will have to respond to accusations of abstaining from fighting a disaster.

That’s what you would not learn from the avalanche of ill-founded critiques for months here at UD, and of course in our oh so wonderful major media. When this is over, there is going to be a terrible reckoning as part of the playout over the next 6 – 18 months. ______ KFkairosfocus

July 24, 2020

July

07

Jul

24

24

2020

04:37 AM

4

04

37

AM

PDT

Copy Comment Link

What would the Hong Kong flu's numbers of 1968-69 look like with today's population? I ask because I don't remember any panic and closings back then. And it seems very close in numbers. If we take away the moronic killings @ the nursing and veterans homes, that flu was more deadly.ET

July 23, 2020

July

07

Jul

23

23

2020

05:37 PM

5

05

37

PM

PDT

Copy Comment Link

F/N: Let me cite a current report, clipping from another thread, here by a prof of epidemiology at Yale . . . thanks Blastus: ______ https://www.newsweek.com/key-defeating-covid-19-already-exists-we-need-start-using-it-opinion-1519535 >>The Key to Defeating COVID-19 Already Exists. We Need to Start Using It | Opinion Harvey A. Risch, MD, PhD , Professor of Epidemiology, Yale School of Public Health On 7/23/20 at 7:00 AM EDT As professor of epidemiology at Yale School of Public Health, I have authored over 300 peer-reviewed publications and currently hold senior positions on the editorial boards of several leading journals. I am usually accustomed to advocating for positions within the mainstream of medicine, so have been flummoxed to find that, in the midst of a crisis, I am fighting for a treatment that the data fully support but which, for reasons having nothing to do with a correct understanding of the science, has been pushed to the sidelines. As a result, tens of thousands of patients with COVID-19 are dying unnecessarily. Fortunately, the situation can be reversed easily and quickly. I am referring, of course, to the medication hydroxychloroquine. When this inexpensive oral medication is given very early in the course of illness, before the virus has had time to multiply beyond control, it has shown to be highly effective, especially when given in combination with the antibiotics azithromycin or doxycycline and the nutritional supplement zinc. On May 27, I published an article in the American Journal of Epidemiology (AJE) entitled, “Early Outpatient Treatment of Symptomatic, High-Risk COVID-19 Patients that Should be Ramped-Up Immediately as Key to the Pandemic Crisis.” That article, published in the world’s leading epidemiology journal, analyzed five studies, demonstrating clear-cut and significant benefits to treated patients, plus other very large studies that showed the medication safety. Physicians who have been using these medications in the face of widespread skepticism have been truly heroic. They have done what the science shows is best for their patients, often at great personal risk. I myself know of two doctors who have saved the lives of hundreds of patients with these medications, but are now fighting state medical boards to save their licenses and reputations. The cases against them are completely without scientific merit. Since publication of my May 27 article, seven more studies have demonstrated similar benefit. In a lengthy follow-up letter, also published by AJE, I discuss these seven studies and renew my call for the immediate early use of hydroxychloroquine in high-risk patients. These seven studies include: an additional 400 high-risk patients treated by Dr. Vladimir Zelenko, with zero deaths; four studies totaling almost 500 high-risk patients treated in nursing homes and clinics across the U.S., with no deaths; a controlled trial of more than 700 high-risk patients in Brazil, with significantly reduced risk of hospitalization and two deaths among 334 patients treated with hydroxychloroquine; and another study of 398 matched patients in France, also with significantly reduced hospitalization risk. Since my letter was published, even more doctors have reported to me their completely successful use . . . . Beyond these studies of individual patients, we have seen what happens in large populations when these drugs are used. These have been “natural experiments.” In the northern Brazil state of Pará, COVID-19 deaths were increasing exponentially. On April 6, the public hospital network purchased 75,000 doses of azithromycin and 90,000 doses of hydroxychloroquine. Over the next few weeks, authorities began distributing these medications to infected individuals. Even though new cases continued to occur, on May 22 the death rate started to plummet and is now about one-eighth what it was at the peak. A reverse natural experiment happened in Switzerland. On May 27, the Swiss national government banned outpatient use of hydroxychloroquine for COVID-19. Around June 10, COVID-19 deaths increased four-fold and remained elevated. On June 11, the Swiss government revoked the ban, and on June 23 the death rate reverted to what it had been beforehand. People who die from COVID-19 live about three to five weeks from the start of symptoms, which makes the evidence of a causal relation in these experiments strong. Both episodes suggest that a combination of hydroxychloroquine and its companion medications reduces mortality and should be immediately adopted as the new standard of care in high-risk patients .>> And, Prof Risch continues: >>Why has hydroxychloroquine been disregarded? First, as all know, the medication has become highly politicized. For many, it is viewed as a marker of political identity, on both sides of the political spectrum. Nobody needs me to remind them that this is not how medicine should proceed. We must judge this medication strictly on the science. When doctors graduate from medical school, they formally promise to make the health and life of the patient their first consideration, without biases of race, religion, nationality, social standing—or political affiliation. Lives must come first. Second, the drug has not been used properly in many studies. Hydroxychloroquine has shown major success when used early in high-risk people but, as one would expect for an antiviral, much less success when used late in the disease course. Even so, it has demonstrated significant benefit in large hospital studies in Michigan and New York City when started within the first 24 to 48 hours after admission. In fact, as inexpensive, oral and widely available medications, and a nutritional supplement, the combination of hydroxychloroquine, azithromycin or doxycycline, and zinc are well-suited for early treatment in the outpatient setting. The combination should be prescribed in high-risk patients immediately upon clinical suspicion of COVID-19 disease, without waiting for results of testing. Delays in waiting before starting the medications can reduce their efficacy. Third, concerns have been raised by the FDA and others about risks of cardiac arrhythmia, especially when hydroxychloroquine is given in combination with azithromycin. The FDA based its comments on data in its FDA Adverse Event Reporting System. This reporting system captured up to a thousand cases of arrhythmias attributed to hydroxychloroquine use. In fact, the number is likely higher than that, since the reporting system, which requires physicians or patients to initiate contact with the FDA, appreciably undercounts drug side effects. But what the FDA did not announce is that these adverse events were generated from tens of millions of patient uses of hydroxychloroquine for long periods of time, often for the chronic treatment of lupus or rheumatoid arthritis. Even if the true rates of arrhythmia are ten-fold higher than those reported, the harms would be minuscule compared to the mortality occurring right now in inadequately treated high-risk COVID-19 patients. This fact is proven by an Oxford University study of more than 320,000 older patients taking both hydroxychloroquine and azithromycin, who had arrhythmia excess death rates of less than 9/100,000 users, as I discuss in my May 27 paper cited above. A new paper in the American Journal of Medicine by established cardiologists around the world fully agrees with this. In the future, I believe this misbegotten episode regarding hydroxychloroquine will be studied by sociologists of medicine as a classic example of how extra-scientific factors overrode clear-cut medical evidence. But for now, reality demands a clear, scientific eye on the evidence and where it points . . . >> I think there are a few questions to be asked and answered. KFkairosfocus

July 23, 2020

July

07

Jul

23

23

2020

05:29 PM

5

05

29

PM

PDT

Copy Comment Link

MMT, as soon as we see hospitalisation, we are too far down the U/L trajectory. This is yet another misconceived study and report. CV19 is fast moving and already as symptoms emerge significant lung damage has occurred. There is urgent need at that time -- outpatient stage -- for hampering growth of viral load and associated damage leading to the more destructive stages. Especially, emergence of a cytokine storm, which takes the immune system out of its proper limits and is potentially fatal. BTW, as synergy is a well known phenomenon, I would expect to see a full cocktail including Zn; absence tells us this was a hostile study set up under adverse conditions. Ivermectin, nevertheless, may help in hospitalisation, further down the U. That, too, is absent showing that this is not in close touch with the actual emerging developments. KF NB: On U/L trajectory, I suggest, fairly fast descent to a crisis; of course, early successful intervention may stop the descent and lead to early recovery from higher on the descending arm. If failed, flatline. The L modifies the simpler U I used before, to explicitly show this. Recovery on the ascending arm takes longer. Given evidence of significant, early lung damage, recovery may not restore former vitality. Other damage later in the course of this destructive disease may worsen that. That means, long term debilitation and vulnerability may be an onward result.kairosfocus

July 23, 2020

July

07

Jul

23

23

2020

05:26 PM

5

05

26

PM

PDT

Copy Comment Link

Among patients hospitalized with mild-to-moderate Covid-19, the use of hydroxychloroquine, alone or with azithromycin, did not improve clinical status at 15 days as compared with standard care.

https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa2019014?query=RPMac McTavish

July 23, 2020

July

07

Jul

23

23

2020

04:56 PM

4

04

56

PM

PDT

Copy Comment Link

Yale epidemiology professor speaks out: https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.foxnews.com/media/hydroxychloroquine-could-save-lives-ingraham-yale-professor.ampBlastus

July 23, 2020

July

07

Jul

23

23

2020

02:58 PM

2

02

58

PM

PDT

Copy Comment Link

PS: I again highlight the infamous Tuskegee Syphilis study as a case illustrating ethics-epistemology concerns:

The Tuskegee Study of Untreated Syphilis in the African American Male was a clinical study conducted between 1932 and 1972 by the United States Public Health Service.[1][2] The purpose of this study was to observe the natural history of untreated syphilis; the African-American men in the study were only told they were receiving free health care from the Federal government of the United States.[3] The Public Health Service started the study in 1932 in collaboration with Tuskegee University (then the Tuskegee Institute), a historically black college in Alabama. Investigators enrolled in the study a total of 600 impoverished, African-American sharecroppers from Macon County, Alabama.[3] Of these men, 399 had latent syphilis, with a control group of 201 men who were not infected.[2] As an incentive for participation in the study, the men were promised free medical care, but were deceived by the PHS, who disguised placebos, ineffective methods, and diagnostic procedures as treatment.[4] The men who had syphilis were never informed of their diagnosis, despite the risk of infecting others, and the fact that the disease could lead to blindness, deafness, mental illness, heart disease, bone deterioration, collapse of the central nervous system, and death.[5][6][7][8]. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the men were told that they were being treated for "bad blood,” a colloquialism that described various conditions such as syphilis, anemia and fatigue. "Bad blood"—specifically the collection of illnesses the term included—was a leading cause of death within the southern African-American community.[2] The men were initially told that the study was only going to last six months, but it was extended to 40 years.[2] After funding for treatment was lost, the study was continued without informing the men that they would never be treated. None of the infected men were treated with penicillin despite the fact that by 1947, the antibiotic had become the standard treatment for syphilis.[9] Study clinicians could have chosen to treat all syphilitic subjects and close the study, or split off a control group for testing with penicillin. [--> see the gold standard fallacy, in the teeth of cumulative evidence otherwise?] Instead, they continued the study without treating any participants; they withheld treatment and information about it from the subjects. In addition, scientists prevented participants from accessing syphilis treatment programs available to other residents in the area.[10] The study continued, under numerous Public Health Service supervisors, until 1972, when a leak to the press resulted in its termination on November 16 of that year.[11] The victims of the study, all African-American, included numerous men who died of syphilis, 40 wives who contracted the disease and 19 children born with congenital syphilis.[12] The 40-year Tuskegee Study of Untreated Syphilis in the African American Male study was a major violation of ethical standards. Researchers knowingly failed to treat participants appropriately after penicillin was proven to be an effective treatment for syphilis and became widely available.[9] Moreover, participants remained ignorant of the study clinicians’ true purpose, which was to observe the natural course of untreated syphilis.[3] The revelation in 1972 of study failures by a whistleblower, Peter Buxtun, led to major changes in U.S. law and regulation concerning the protection of participants in clinical studies. Now studies require informed consent,[13] communication of diagnosis and accurate reporting of test results.[14] [--> I still have serious concerns here, given what we are seeing with CV19] The Tuskegee Syphilis Study, [is] cited as "arguably the most infamous biomedical research study in U.S. history,"[15]

kairosfocus

July 19, 2020

July

07

Jul

19

19

2020

02:56 AM

2

02

56

AM

PDT

Copy Comment Link

JVL, I am not "condemn[ing]" a person, kindly respect the right of innocent reputation. For cause, I did take a disciplinary action, after refusal to respect the different focus of a thread dealing with a very different and at least as vital issue: over the next 6 - 18 months, our Civilisation faces an existential crisis.. Threadjacking and resulting diversion are seriously out of order. (Where, kindly note, in 15 minutes one can launch one's own blog and post to one's heart's content. There is nothing to block even a PS that links what one has to say. That shifts the balance on using someone else's forum as your soapbox) On the topic here, for cause I insist on due respect for the cumulative evidence that conclusively shows that once administered early enough in the U/L trajectory of CV19, HCQ-based cocktails and related drugs show significant positive impact that often buys time for immune response to kick in. Where, Medcram and other sources give a cluster of plausible mechanisms for that; the conclusion is not one of blind statistics of correlation, reasonable causal mechanisms are on the table. I do take exception to studious unresponsiveness to such a body of evidence, to dragging out of needless controversy and to resort to drowning out tactics; especially, given what is at stake -- life. Further, as one trained in and regularly using decision theory in a sustainability context, I find that there is a gold standard fallacy that violates basic principles of evidence and inductive reasoning, leading to an unacknowledged ethics-epistemology crisis in medicine, science, statistics and policy-making. This, BTW, is directly relevant to the way ID has been mistreated and marginalised for decades in the teeth of evidence such as finding alphanumeric, algorithmic code in the heart of the living cell. These onward issues, DV, I will address in due course. KFkairosfocus

July 19, 2020

July

07

Jul

19

19

2020

02:40 AM

2

02

40

AM

PDT

Copy Comment Link

Kairosfocus: If you refuse to read what is buried in the torrent of distractive comments above then please go to Medcram. I'm not saying I agree with you or disagree with you! I'm saying don't condemn someone just because they post new stories which discuss a research study you disagree with. It is not the fault of the reporter. And BTW the Lancet study turned on a mountain of data and shaped international policy and media, until it collapsed. I'm not disputing that. I merely want to RHampton7 and myself to be able to post stories we think are pertinent without being condemned.JVL

July 18, 2020

July

07

Jul

18

18

2020

09:47 AM

9

09

47

AM

PDT

Copy Comment Link

JVL, If you refuse to read what is buried in the torrent of distractive comments above then please go to Medcram. And BTW the Lancet study turned on a mountain of data and shaped international policy and media, until it collapsed. KFkairosfocus

July 18, 2020

July

07

Jul

18

18

2020

09:33 AM

9

09

33

AM

PDT

Copy Comment Link

Jerry: RHampton has never reported or shared a pertinent study that was negative on HCQ. So he is sharing fake news stories. They address the efficacy of MCQ at some stage! You think they got the stage wrong. The studies discussed uphold your view! They are not fake! He doesn’t seem to understand the time course of the infection nor the group that are most affected. None of his reviews are of studies that are with the appropriate group at the appropriate time. It's not RHampton7 you are criticising, it's the researchers. They did some research, they got a negative result. You think they should have tried at a different stage. Fair enough. But no one is lying or presenting fake information. My guess is that neither you nor RHampton have ever watched any of the umpteen Zelenko videos. Otherwise you would not be defending RHampton’s comments. All I'm saying is that the information presented is not 'fake'. It's real. Your point isn't really that it's fake, it's that the researchers picked the wrong window. My experience with the reading of anyone who is negative on HCQ (on this site and elsewhere) is that they have little understanding of the issues involved or how HCQ is supposed to work. Don't shoot the messengers. I don't have a problem with the issues. I'm not saying you are wrong. I'm saying that you should not attack the people who are just reporting on research. If you have a problem with the research then discuss that and not the person bringing it to your attention. Since you have demonstrated little understanding of how the virus works and what would prevent it from spreading in the body, I would suggest you refrain from commenting on the pluses and minuses of something and just ask questions to try to understand what is going on. I don't recall saying much at all about how the virus works or what would prevent it spreading in the body. All I have said, and it was a long time ago, is that for me, personally, I put my faith in double-blind clinical studies. I am NOT commenting on the pluses and minuses; I'm just saying: it's all data. AND, if you're right, then the studies presented by RHampton7 support your view. I did ask how you would have chosen to conduct those studies different because, I thought, they had followed your ideas. I did not attack your view or say it was wrong. In fact, I asked you to specifically critique the studies, to point out the specific mistakes. Why can't we discuss the issues instead of accusing anyone who isn't clearly in agreement as an opponent?JVL

July 18, 2020

July

07

Jul

18

18

2020

09:00 AM

9

09

00

AM

PDT

Copy Comment Link

RHampton7 is just reposting stories about pertinent studies

RHampton has never reported or shared a pertinent study that was negative on HCQ. So he is sharing fake news stories. He doesn't seem to understand the time course of the infection nor the group that are most affected. None of his reviews are of studies that are with the appropriate group at the appropriate time. My guess is that neither you nor RHampton have ever watched any of the umpteen Zelenko videos. Otherwise you would not be defending RHampton's comments. My experience with the reading of anyone who is negative on HCQ (on this site and elsewhere) is that they have little understanding of the issues involved or how HCQ is supposed to work. You might want to read my long comment earlier this morning on various aspects of the virus as a starter to understand the issues. https://uncommondescent.com/philosophy/covid-19-and-the-need-for-skeptics-in-science/#comment-707417 Since you have demonstrated little understanding of how the virus works and what would prevent it from spreading in the body, I would suggest you refrain from commenting on the pluses and minuses of something and just ask questions to try to understand what is going on. I suggest you start with the MedCram videos. There are 97 as of today.jerry

July 18, 2020

July

07

Jul

18

18

2020

08:41 AM

8

08

41

AM

PDT

Copy Comment Link

Democratic congress woman says HCQ saved her life Now what?ET

July 18, 2020

July

07

Jul

18

18

2020

08:28 AM

8

08

28

AM

PDT

Copy Comment Link

All the people saved by HCQ weren't actually saved by HCQ? Really? Deal with the science? You guys don't seem to grasp the science. Please find a mistake in the MedCram video update #34ET

July 18, 2020

July

07

Jul

18

18

2020

08:24 AM

8

08

24

AM

PDT

Copy Comment Link

ET: If HCQ and zinc are ineffective, then someone should watch the video, read the science and point out their mistake: Science says HCQ and zinc are effective ET is just addressing the science. He's not attacking the person bringing issues to the forum.JVL

July 18, 2020

July

07

Jul

18

18

2020

08:22 AM

8

08

22

AM

PDT

Copy Comment Link

Kairosfocus:J ust because something in this day of agit prop is the dominant message does not mean it is anywhere near the truth; even when duly dressed up in the lab coat and published in say the Lancet. We're not saying it is true but it is data! You seem to want to attack the act of just sharing the results of studies! Why is that? If you think the studies were badly done or lies then address those issues. RHampton7 is not making things up. He did not carry out those studies. If you take issue with the studies then talk about the science and not the messenger! In fact, that dominance and the mouths it comes from may be a sign that it is most likely at best spin at worst outright gaslighting like the 1619 narrative driving a good slice of the red guards. BTW, that is a big clue, oh on pain of blame for spreading plague, lock down. Bang, riots pushing the marxist agenda and the you must lock down with police backing it is turned off like a switch. Which, materially contributed to a secondary wave. Then again so soon as others want to come out to work or pray or rally, lock down again. The cynical inconsistency is a key tell. That's crazy. RHampton7 is just reposting stories about pertinent studies. Instead of sling accusations of civilisation damaging attitudes maybe you should just deal with the science. Please.JVL

July 18, 2020

July

07

Jul

18

18

2020

08:21 AM

8

08

21

AM

PDT

Copy Comment Link

If HCQ and zinc are ineffective, then someone should watch the video, read the science and point out their mistake: Science says HCQ and zinc are effectiveET

July 18, 2020

July

07

Jul

18

18

2020

08:21 AM

8

08

21

AM

PDT

Copy Comment Link

Jerry: The stuff RHampton reported on was fake news. Fake studIes in some cases and fake analysis in other cases. Why are they fake. They are done at wrong time and on wrong group of patients. That's not 'fake', you're just saying that it's the way you'd test the efficacy of HCQ. IN FACT, instead of saying it's fake you should be saying: they didn't follow the protocol I think works so no surprise they got poor results. There is no such thing as negative data; if anything, the studies sited support your view. But, they did say they instituted treatment a few days after symptoms were detected . . . when should they have instituted treatment? Present some if you know of any. No one has, certainly not RHampton Who has trouble with English. He seems not to understand the things he publishes or questions put to him. That's not fair at all! He's just finding pertinent stories and posting them. Don't shoot the messenger. You can critique the studies, you can post the results of studies that you think are pertinent but the stories are NOT 'fake' news nor is RHampton7 taking responsibility for the studies or their outcomes.JVL

July 18, 2020

July

07

Jul

18

18

2020

08:17 AM

8

08

17

AM

PDT

Copy Comment Link

JVL & MMT, scroll up, it is all there above. Jerry is right. Just because something in this day of agit prop is the dominant message does not mean it is anywhere near the truth; even when duly dressed up in the lab coat and published in say the Lancet. In fact, that dominance and the mouths it comes from may be a sign that it is most likely at best spin at worst outright gaslighting like the 1619 narrative driving a good slice of the red guards. BTW, that is a big clue, oh on pain of blame for spreading plague, lock down. Bang, riots pushing the marxist agenda and the you must lock down with police backing it is turned off like a switch. Which, materially contributed to a secondary wave. Then again so soon as others want to come out to work or pray or rally, lock down again. The cynical inconsistency is a key tell. KFkairosfocus

July 18, 2020

July

07

Jul

18

18

2020

07:43 AM

7

07

43

AM

PDT

Copy Comment Link

KF, I’m afraid that I have to agree with R7 and JVL on this. There may be a HCQ treatment that has some effect, and I certainly hope there is, but there have been numerous well designed studies that have shown that it is not effective as a prophylactic, that it is not effective at early stages of infection, and that it is not effective at late stages of infection. I’m afraid that your refusal to seriously acknowledge or address this data does not paint you in a good light. I’m sure this is not your intent and o look forward to you addressing the weaknesses of these studies.Mac McTavish

July 18, 2020

July

07

Jul

18

18

2020

07:25 AM

7

07

25

AM

PDT

Copy Comment Link

It’s all data. Data has to be interpreted of course but I think it should all be considered

The stuff RHampton reported on was fake news. Fake studIes in some cases and fake analysis in other cases. Why are they fake. They are done at wrong time and on wrong group of patients. There is no data that indicates that HCQ is not effective especially when combined with zinc when applied to high risk patients early in process. There is lots of data indicating it is effective. Present some if you know of any. No one has, certainly not RHampton Who has trouble with English. He seems not to understand the things he publishes or questions put to him.jerry

July 18, 2020

July

07

Jul

18

18

2020

05:05 AM

5

05

05

AM

PDT

Copy Comment Link

Kairosfocus: You and others have also been repeatedly corrected on the problem of taking data from too far down the U/L trajectory of the disease and posing that as though it discredits the evidence of effectiveness. Well, the two studies RH7 pointed out were based on interventions given a few days after the onset of symptoms which is what I thought HCQ supporters recommended! I'm interested in considering all information and data so that we know as much as possible. s at now, this matter is effectively conclusive, unwarranted controversy compounded by an ethics-epistemology fallacy, has needlessly damaged the credibility of medical research, administration and medicine in general. What? Even if the studies don't follow the protocol you think is correct it's still data! I suggest, the US is a continent scale country with the third largest population in the world, its statistics need to be compared with aggregate European statistics and even that is not a perfect analogue as the US depends on a much more intensive far-flung communications network. Fine, it is a special case. And there are sites where you can look up the US case rate and death rate per 1000000 population. US results are also affected by appalling decisions by local officials, esp in the general vicinity of the mouth of the Hudson. Bowling and batting results have to be judged by the state of the particular wicket and the weather Sure. It is much bigger than European countries. There are sites that break the US data down by states. Last, I am skeptical of rate statistics on a per capita basis as the dynamics tie growth rate to the mass of cases and networks into the pool of uninfected; i.e. absolutes. It's all data. Data has to be interpreted of course but I think it should all be considered.JVL

July 18, 2020

July

07

Jul

18

18

2020

05:01 AM

5

05

01

AM

PDT

Copy Comment Link

JVL, simply scroll up, the results are there with links, just buried in an avalanche of distractive comments. You and others have also been repeatedly corrected on the problem of taking data from too far down the U/L trajectory of the disease and posing that as though it discredits the evidence of effectiveness. As at now, this matter is effectively conclusive, unwarranted controversy compounded by an ethics-epistemology fallacy, has needlessly damaged the credibility of medical research, administration and medicine in general. I also note that the patently false Chinese information utterly warps global statistics. I suggest, the US is a continent scale country with the third largest population in the world, its statistics need to be compared with aggregate European statistics and even that is not a perfect analogue as the US depends on a much more intensive far-flung communications network. US results are also affected by appalling decisions by local officials, esp in the general vicinity of the mouth of the Hudson. Bowling and batting results have to be judged by the state of the particular wicket and the weather. Last, I am skeptical of rate statistics on a per capita basis as the dynamics tie growth rate to the mass of cases and networks into the pool of uninfected; i.e. absolutes. KFkairosfocus

July 18, 2020

July

07

Jul

18

18

2020

04:26 AM

4

04

26

AM

PDT

Copy Comment Link

On July 16, the coronavirus pandemic smashed its record for daily cases in the U.S. with more than 75,000 new incidents reported. The latest surge has been in effect since mid-June, and the national total surpassed 50,000 cases per day just before Independence Day. Less than a week later, on July 8, the U.S. tally for total cases crossed three million. The nation’s outbreak had grown exponentially during March, until settling into a plateau of 20,000 to 30,000 new cases per day by the beginning of April. Though the lockdowns issued by many states and territories began easing in mid-April, it took weeks for new surges to appear. Death rates, which lag at least a month behind case counts, are also beginning to rise in approximately 30 states and territories.

https://www.nationalgeographic.com/science/2020/05/graphic-tracking-coronavirus-infections-us/JVL

July 18, 2020

July

07

Jul

18

18

2020

02:00 AM

2

02

00

AM

PDT

Copy Comment Link

Kairosfocus: And that is driven by obsession with overturning actually solid cumulative evidence that HCQ+ cocktails work as effective treatments for CV19. Shouldn't we be considering all the data? Why throw out studies that disagree with your opinion if they were run properly? Namely, that there is good reason to accept that HCQ+ cocktails are effective treatments of CV19. There is also good data that HCQ is NOT an effective treatment for COVID-19. Shouldn't that be considered? All of which seem to be part of the polarisation of our civilisation. Not every controversy is an indication of the eschaton. Sometimes scientific and especially medical situations are complicated and take a long time to settle. You've made a call very early, before many, many trials had been even started. You may turn out to be right but that's no excuse for being openly hostile towards contrary evidence. You ask us to have respect for the truth; aren't you attempting to dictate what is true and what isn't instead of staying open minded and accounting for new data?JVL

July 18, 2020

July

07

Jul

18

18

2020

01:48 AM

1

01

48

AM

PDT

Copy Comment Link

F/N: I now transfer here, RH7's threadjacking series of thread spamming comments on another thread for whoever is interested in pursuing such: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 4 rhampton7 July 17, 2020 at 2:21 pm (Edit) Unfortunately, the science behind HCQ/CQ is taking a back seat to politics, and being in the middle of a political debate today is difficult. However, that is exactly where Dr. White found himself when he tried to weigh the evidence for clinicians in a review in the Annals of Internal Medicine (2020 May 27. [Epub ahead of print]). The Annals review, a living document—which will be updated periodically as more data become available—assessed published studies about the use of the two antimalarial drugs for COVID-19, looking at the overall strength of the evidence by determining their risk for bias and comparing different end points. The reviewers found that evidence in support of their use for COVID-19 was weak, and there was insufficient evidence to recommend for or against these medications. In a commentary, Dr. White contrasted how his research group evaluated the various studies using recommendations of the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality and the Cochrane Collaborative versus how the AAPS evaluated the studies (J Clin Pharmacol 2020 Jun 12. [Epub ahead of print]). Mostly, the AAPS cited anecdotal experiences, considering only the people who took HCQ. Rather than perform a statistical analysis, the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons (AAPS) did a straight math problem to determine the medication’s success, dividing the number of people who were alive by the number who were treated. In one instance, a physician treated 399 patients with HCQ and two died; therefore, the medication was said to be 99.5% successful. However, Dr. White pointed out that without a control group, there is no way to know how many would have survived without taking HCQ or whether the two who died would have survived if they just received usual care. Agreeing that controlled studies are not the only approach, Dr. White explained that anecdotal evidence is among the weakest forms of evidence because it is “inherently biased “ and “extremely weak in terms of proving any kind of association.” He gave this example: Most heart attacks occur in the morning between 5 and 11 a.m., and coffee is a popular morning beverage. “You might believe that coffee is causing everyone to have heart attacks, but the truth is that is not what’s causing the heart attack. It’s just a cofounder that got thrown into the mix,” he explained. “The reality is that, in addition to the anecdotal experiences that they put together, we do have data from published studies that tell a very different story about hydroxychloroquine,” Dr. White said. https://www.idse.net/Covid-19/Article/07-20/Hydroxychloroquine-for-COVID-19-Yes-No-I-Don-t-Know-/59078 >>>>>>>>>>> 5 rhampton7 July 17, 2020 at 2:23 pm (Edit) We aimed to analyze the interactions of both hydroxychloroquine and chloroquine with SARS-CoV-2 and identify their possible role for the prevention/treatment of COVID-19 by molecular docking studies. Protein crystal structures of SARS-CoV-2 and ACE2, the compounds hydroxychloroquine and chloroquine, and other ligand structures were minimized by OPLS3 force field. Glide Standard Precision and Extra Precision docking are performed and MM-GBSA values ??are calculated. Molecular docking studies showed that hydroxychloroquine and chloroquine do not interact with SARS-CoV-2 proteins, but bind to the amino acids ASP350, ASP382, ALA348, PHE40 and PHE390 on the ACE2 allosteric site rather than the ACE2 active site. Our results showed that neither hydroxychloroquine and chloroquine bind to the active site of ACE2. However, both molecules prevent the binding of SARS-CoV-2 spike protein to ACE2 by interacting with the allosteric site. This result can help ACE2 inhibitor drug development studies to prevent viruses entering the cell by attaching spike protein to ACE2. https://www.docwirenews.com/abstracts/approach-to-the-mechanism-of-action-of-hydroxychloroquine-on-bsars-b-bcov-b-b2-b-a-molecular-docking-study/ >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 6 kairosfocus July 17, 2020 at 2:40 pm (Edit) RH7, this is not a thread about HCQ debates, please do not use it for further one sided newsclips. KF 7 jerry July 17, 2020 at 2:59 pm (Edit) Kf, You as an author should have the ability to remove comments. You could then post them on another thread so they do not get lost. 8 rhampton7 July 17, 2020 at 3:38 pm (Edit) KF, You said, “ In particular, in reaction to the evidence that Hydroxychloroquine-based cocktails, if administered early enough, can be an effective treatment?” And I responded by posting a critical review of HCQ **without** political bias. The author explains how their analysis is strictly scientific. Furthermore, the author reminds us of a well known truth, that anecdotal evidence is weak (not necessarily false, but not definitive by itself). 9 kairosfocus July 17, 2020 at 3:58 pm (Edit) RH7, the effect was distractive especially as there is a clear balance of evidence of significant effectiveness. So, you are actually admitting to trying to dismiss a correct point with misleading unbalanced critiques. Given the sobering cost of our failures to address associated ethics, epistemology and decision theory, lives needlessly lost, I suggest you will be well advised to reconsider what you have done. This thread in the main is about a much bigger challenge, the ongoing down-spiral of our civilisation’s politics into the abyss, and the considerations that even at this late stage might help us recover before it is too late. KF 10 rhampton7 July 17, 2020 at 10:24 pm (Edit) KF, you appear part of that downward spiral since you can not differentiate between political partisanship and good scientific research. What did you make of these two new studies? 1. In a study published yesterday in the Annals of Internal Medicine, researchers from the University of Minnesota, the University of Manitoba, and McGill University randomized 491 patients with laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 or probable COVID-19 and high-risk exposure to receive 5 days of oral hydroxychloroquine or placebo within 4 days of symptom onset. The aim of the study was to see whether starting hydroxychloroquine therapy within the first few days of symptoms could reduce symptom severity or duration and prevent hospitalization. “Hydroxychloroquine did not substantially reduce symptom severity or prevalence over time in nonhospitalized persons with COVID-19,” the authors of the study wrote. 2. In the other study, a multicenter trial conducted in Spain, 293 non-hospitalized patients with confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infections were randomized to receive either hydroxychloroquine (the intervention arm) within 5 days of symptom onset or no antiviral treatment (the control arm). The primary outcomes were reduction of viral RNA load in nasopharyngeal swabs up to 7 days after treatment, patient disease progression, and time to complete resolution of symptoms. The results of the trial showed no difference in the mean viral reduction load at day 7 ( –3.37 and –3.44 Log10 copies per milliliter in the control and intervention arm, respectively; difference, –0.07; 95% CI, –0.44 to 0.29). In addition, treatment with hydroxychloroquine did not significantly reduce the risk of hospitalization (7.1% for the control arm vs 5.9% for the intervention arm; risk ratio, 0.75; 95% CI, 0.32 to 1.77) or shorten the time to complete resolution of symptoms (12 days for the control arm vs 10 days for the intervention arm; P = 0.38). “The results of this randomized controlled trial convincingly rule out any meaningful virological or clinical benefit of [hydroxychloroquine] in outpatients with mild COVID-19,” the authors wrote in Clinical Infectious Diseases. https://www.cidrap.umn.edu/news-perspective/2020/07/trial-data-support-dexamethasone-not-hydroxychloroquine-covid-19 11 kairosfocus July 18, 2020 at 1:09 am (Edit) RH7, you seem to be insistent on threadjacking. And that is driven by obsession with overturning actually solid cumulative evidence that HCQ+ cocktails work as effective treatments for CV19. This threadjacking on a pivotal thread in the teeth of warnings to the contrary calls for strong action. This rides on top of by now dozens upon dozens of spamming posts by you across many threads that try to do the same, constituting enabling behaviour for suppressing evidence that shows what you refuse to believe. Namely, that there is good reason to accept that HCQ+ cocktails are effective treatments of CV19. The needless controversy on this matter has likely cost too many their lives, through frustrating access to timely, cost effective treatment and painting a false picture of failure. All of which seem to be part of the polarisation of our civilisation. Accordingly, I will now strip the comments above and transfer them to another thread, where those who are interested in such futile onward debates may pursue them to their hearts’ content. KF >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Further spamming will lead to more drastic action. KFkairosfocus

July 18, 2020

July

07

Jul

18

18

2020

12:13 AM

12

12

13

AM

PDT

Copy Comment Link

Australia's second-largest city, Melbourne, went back into lockdown at midnight on Wednesday, forcing five million Australians to stay home for all but essential business for the next six weeks to contain a flare-up of coronavirus cases. State police were patrolling the city and setting up checkpoints on major roads to stop people heading out to regional areas and spreading the virus from what is now Australia's pandemic epicentre, with 860 active cases. "The window for police discretion is very small and is closing as the threat to public health and safety created by those breaching the Chief Health Officer's directions is too great," Victoria police said in a statement. Cafes, bars, restaurants and gyms which only recently reopened had to shut again. Police had no comment on whether anyone has been stopped or fined since midnight. "The rest of the country knows that the sacrifice that you're going through right now is not just for you and your own family, but it's for the broader Australian community," Prime Minister Scott Morrison said. https://www.ndtv.com/world-news/millions-of-australians-back-in-lockdown-amid-melbourne-virus-outbreak-2260840rhampton7

July 10, 2020

July

07

Jul

10

10

2020

09:09 PM

9

09

09

PM

PDT

Copy Comment Link

Arkansas Gov. Asa Hutchinson said Arkansas is "fighting a trend that we see across the South and the Southwest." "We see our cases elevated in Arkansas and the simple lesson is ... this virus does not give up," Hutchinson said, speaking at a news conference in De Queen. "We have to continue to be very diligent. We have to be disciplined in this and continue with our strategy. If we let up for one second, it will come back and it will accelerate once again." Hutchinson has called on President Donald Trump to invoke the Defense Production Act to avoid a national shortage of test kits. Trump invoked the act earlier this year, but used it to order the manufacturing of ventilators. "We're not going to be through this until we get the vaccine," Hutchinson said. https://katv.com/news/local/this-virus-does-not-give-up-arkansas-governor-urges-caution-as-state-logs-751-new-casesrhampton7

July 10, 2020

July

07

Jul

10

10

2020

09:06 PM

9

09

06

PM

PDT

Copy Comment Link

Arizona reported more than 4,000 newly confirmed coronavirus cases on Friday — still the highest rate of infection per capita in the nation. Hospitals in the state are nearing capacity, with 88% of the licensed beds occupied and 89% of the intensive care beds filled. There are about 7,900 licensed beds in Arizona, and hospitals are prepared to increase that number by up to 50% if needed under orders from the state. Health Services Director Dr. Cara Christ said at a news briefing Thursday that the state is taking a number of steps to free up hospital space for new COVID 19 patients. They include providing cash for increased nursing home staffing and personal protective equipment, setting up a system where hospitals can connect with nursing homes and other facilities that have space and providing cash to boost that capacity. The state also has an entire hospital ready to reopen if needed to care for patients, and has identified three large sites that could quickly be turned into so-called “step-down” facilities that can care for patients that don't need acute-level hospital care. https://apnews.com/d2817bbc3f1dc812268501b8e07006f2rhampton7

July 10, 2020

July

07

Jul

10

10

2020

09:00 PM

9

09

00

PM

PDT

Copy Comment Link

The stepson of Kentucky Lt. Gov. Jacqueline Coleman tested positive for COVID-19. Coleman issued a statement Friday on her family member's diagnosis, the same day a mask mandate went into effect across the state. The mandate comes after two of the highest days of daily COVID-19 cases the state has recorded since March. Kentucky announced 333 newly reported cases and four deaths on Thursday. Essentially, masks should be worn in all indoor public places. They must also be worn outside if you can't maintain safe social distance of 6 feet. https://www.wlky.com/article/ky-lieutenant-governors-stepson-tests-positive-for-covid-19-no-one-is-immune/33280792rhampton7

July 10, 2020

July

07

Jul

10

10

2020

08:55 PM

8

08

55

PM

PDT

Copy Comment Link