118 Replies to “Dr Zelenko strikes yet again (at 911 patients and counting . . . )

  1. 1
    kairosfocus says:

    Dr Zelenko strikes yet again (at 911 patients and counting . . . )

  2. 2
    jerry says:

    Believe this contains link to same video. This is an article from today. The video is at bottom.

    https://techstartups.com/2020/04/03/updates-from-dr-vladimir-zelenko-now-treated-700-coronavirus-patients-with-99-9-success-rate-using-hydroxychloroquine-zinc-sulfate-and-z-pak-1-outpatient-died-after-not-following-protocol-exclusi/

    Here is a piece by NY Times that gets some things wrong and is not too positive about this being a solution. They seem to have a stake in discrediting Zelenko. Notice part of the headline “Simple Country Doctor Becomes a Right Wing Star” The New York Times says saving lives is a right wing characteristic. God Bless Them. Though I don’t really know what “right wing” is supposed to mean.

    https://www.nytimes.com/2020/04/02/technology/doctor-zelenko-coronavirus-drugs.html

  3. 3
    kairosfocus says:

    Jerry, I linked YouTube. KF

  4. 4
    jerry says:

    KF
    A comment I made to some friends today

    Now suppose that the guy in the article above is right. Who has blood on their hands?

    Another link to a medical site and zinc.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BIymfznD7YA

  5. 5
  6. 6
    jerry says:

    Kf,

    Someone said that in the first three Democratic debates the moderators failed to ask a. question on the virus. The one on February 25 only had Bernie Sanders criticizing Trump on it. No one else commented.

    I believe there is a logical fallacy going on about this behavior then and now.

  7. 7
    kairosfocus says:

    Jerry, American media and politics sadly reflects an ongoing low end 4th generation unacknowledged civil war. The want of responsibility, hostility, closed mindedness, warped thinking and outright deceit are typical of a generation that has lost its way. In my view the central distorting evil is the enabling of the ongoing holocaust of living posterity in the womb, now at what, 400k per year is it, so that the grand fuss being made over SARS-2 victims has a second yardstick, not only the annual flu toll [which is hardly noticed] but the annual or even monthly or weekly abortion toll. From my experience of a somewhat similar breakdown in my native land ending in then unacknowledged low grade civil war and chaotic violence ever since, blood guilt is an even more corrosive and corrupting influence than money-lust. Truth, notoriously, is casualty zero in any war. And if that undermines sound governance, that should not be a surprise. Here, willingness to acknowledge emergence of an increasingly credible treatment. Shortly, DV, I will blog on what seems to be the global verdict of physicians. KF

  8. 8
    Bob O'H says:

    Now suppose that the guy in the article above is right. Who has blood on their hands?

    OTOH, suppose he’s wrong. We know HCQ has side effects, so if it’s not an effective treatment, people promoting its use will also have blood on their hands.

    At the moment we don’t know who is right, which is why we need high quality evidence. Until then, we should do what we know works – physical distancing etc.

  9. 9
    kairosfocus says:

    BO’H, notice what the emerging consensus and action of the world’s physicians is https://uncommondescent.com/medicine/the-worlds-physicians-weigh-in-they-want-hydroxychloroquine-and-azithromycin/ That is, they agree in essential substance with Dr Zelenko and with Dr Didier Raoult. KF

    PS: As I keep noting, the old pharmaco prof in my uni started his course with a dictum: pharmacology is the study of poisons in small doses. So, damaging effects at high enough or long term enough doses are to be expected. The effectiveness of HCQ with cocktail taken for short courses in reasonable doses [as tested already] can now be taken as credible. In the face of a highly contagious disease where in 1 1/2 weeks, vulnerable victims to the tune of some 10% are heading for fatal complications, early intervention will even more credibly, be likely to save lives. We are talking of treatments that work in 5+ days. Arguably, frontline workers in reasonable health should consider prophylaxis, too. That’s like accepting the hazards of a related drug, Atabrine, in WW2.

  10. 10
    kairosfocus says:

    PPS: BTW, see the difference between a skepticism is a virtue, business as usual approach to warrant and a prudence based approach?

  11. 11
    jerry says:

    OTOH, suppose he’s wrong

    Only relevant if he is lying. His results are almost 100%. The one exception is someone who didn’t follow the protocol.

    We know HCQ has side effects, so if it’s not an effective treatment, people promoting its use will also have blood on their hands.

    Have you watched the original video? He discusses the side effects and why he only uses it on the high risk population. I believe he said over 60 or younger people who have comorbidity issues.

    which is why we need high quality evidence

    Is 100% success high quality enough for you?

    I have provided videos from two US educational medical sites that discuss the success of using zinc and an ionophore. Also the South Koreans used this protocol with success. Hydroxychloroquine is an ionophore and is apparently how it works.

    If you have contrary information, I am sure people would love to hear it.

  12. 12
    kairosfocus says:

    Jerry, It is highly unlikely that Mr Raoult is lying and his results are quite similar for a test on 80 people. The two results mutually reinforce and combine with Raoult’s earlier results and other results from around the world to make a serious cumulative case. Such could abstractly be wrong as really weird things happen but such is nowhere near a best explanation. The explanation to beat, now, is that HCQ, especially in a cocktail, works. So, we see the failure of the ideologically coloured selective hyperskepticism model vs the principle of prudence. This wider result speaks volumes to an underlying epistemological failure in our civilisation, which is of course also relevant to the debates over ID. KF

  13. 13
    jerry says:

    Kf

    I was referring to Dr. Zelenko. The NY Times did a hit piece on him but did not impugn his results.

    By the way, I maintain Bob OH is one of the biggest ID supporters on the site.

  14. 14
    kairosfocus says:

    Jerry, I see. I pointed to Dr Raoult as that is corroboration. Provided by one who seems to be the leading researcher in this area in France. KF

  15. 15
    Bob O'H says:

    kf @ 9 – yes, a huge majority (two thirds) aren’t using an unproven therapy, even when we don’t know of an effective therapy. But more importantly, nature doesn’t operate according to opinion polls. Even if some doctors are using a treatment, it doesn’t mean it’s effective.

  16. 16
    Bob O'H says:

    Jerry @ 11 –
    Only relevant if he is lying. His results are almost 100%. The one exception is someone who didn’t follow the protocol.
    He may not be lying, he may indeed think his treatment works. But some of the statements in this article suggest his claims need to be looked at more seriously. In particular:

    He said he had been administering the cocktail to patients with shortness of breath of any age, and those over 60 years old or who are immunocompromised and exhibiting milder symptoms.

    and

    He said he has largely not had his patients tested for coronavirus, because he worried that waiting for test results to begin treatment would compromise the treatment’s effectiveness.

    So basically we don’t know how many of his patients actually have the corona virus. It could be that his 100% success rate is because 100% of his patients don’t have the corona virus.

  17. 17
    jerry says:

    So basically we don’t know how many of his patients actually have the corona virus

    Yes, we do. Apparently you have not watched any of the videos. The doctor tests all the patients for COVID19 but it wast taking 3-4 days to get the results back. So he would clinically diagnose them and then verify with the actual test. About 60% had COVID 19. 100% success except for the one patient who did not take the medicine.

    The current FDA commissioner in the US said it would take months to do a traditional test on hydroxychloroquine before the drug could be recommended. No mention of zinc which is what kills the virus. This is the mindset of bureaucrats and it has killed thousands unnecessarily so far. Yes, bureaucrats can be doctors and have Ph.Ds. The mentality of the CDC and FDA in the US is slow and by the book even if you are supposedly smart.

    This is the procedure that South Korea used to stem its problem.

    I suggest you take the time to watch the latest video on Dr. Zelenko. He is one of about 5-6 people discussing his results and others. It is actually a podcast on youtube but in it some high level medical people are getting behind him.

    Interesting that the podcast was made in the town next to where I used to live in New York and where I first bought a house several years ago. It is in suburban New York City. I now live in New Hampshire.

  18. 18
    Bob O'H says:

    The doctor tests all the patients for COVID19 but it wast taking 3-4 days to get the results back. So he would clinically diagnose them and then verify with the actual test. About 60% had COVID 19.

    OK, so he both does and does not test his patients. Helpful. Even by your description, he’s giving 40% of his patients an unnecessary treatment that is known to have side effects, and is not accepted as being effective.

    There’s a reason for insisting on clinical trials – we know doctors find it easy to fool themselves that their treatments work, even when they don’t(1). Zelenko isn’t getting us closer to finding out if his treatment works, basically because we have no idea what would have happened if he hadn’t given his patients his treatment.

    (1) of course, this problem is not limited to doctors.

  19. 19
    Truthfreedom says:

    @18 Bob O’H

    …we know doctors find it easy to fool themselves

    For a moment I thought you were about to write philosophical naturalists.

  20. 20
    jerry says:

    he’s giving 40% of his patients an unnecessary treatment that is known to have side effects, and is not accepted as being effective.

    Again you indicate that you have not watched or listened to these links. The people who have been given the medicine are over 60 or have other threatening issues. All you objections are specious and would not have been made if you listened to the podcasts/videos. If you did listen, then your comments may be indicative of something else.

          What you are advocating is sentencing people to death and overwhelming the hospital system

    The drugs used in the treatment have a long history of treatment with little or no side effects. The doctor examined all his patients given the treatment for side effects and none appeared. So is a sample of 900 people with flu like or corona like symptoms with 100% success not enough for you?. Especially when a whole country had success with this approach.

  21. 21
    Bob O'H says:

    What you are advocating is sentencing people to death and overwhelming the hospital system

    I’m sorry, but I’m not God, so I don’t know if these treatments actually work. And, unless you’re God, neither do you.

    The drugs used in the treatment have a long history of treatment with little or no side effects.

    This is simply false.
    https://www.drugs.com/sfx/hydroxychloroquine-side-effects.html
    https://www.drugs.com/sfx/azithromycin-side-effects.html
    https://www.drugs.com/sfx/zinc-sulfate-side-effects.html

    The doctor examined all his patients given the treatment for side effects and none appeared.

    He’s lucky, then.

  22. 22
    jerry says:

    I’m sorry, but I’m not God, so I don’t know if these treatments actually work.

    So 900 for 900 is a statistical aberrance? But thanks for letting us know that you did not watch/listen to the interviews/lectures.

    Also thanks for letting us know that you believe in God.

  23. 23
    Truthfreedom says:

    @21 Bob O’H

    I’m sorry, but I’m not God, so I don’t know if these treatments actually work.

    We are not God yet, but according to materialism, one day we will be. 🙂
    Kinda pathetic. Look at our current state. Human knowledge i. e. has helped build the planes that have spread COVID-19 like wildfires.

  24. 24
    Truthfreedom says:

    And the trains, and the cruises and the associated travelling industry.

  25. 25
    jerry says:

    This is simply false.

    Thanks for agreeing with me!

    Your links indicate that your statement is simply false. Yes, hydrochloroquine has a long list of some time side effects that have to be considered but the other two drugs do not have anything serious especially when the alternative is death or permanent lung damage for life. Hydrochloroquine has been widely prescribed since the 1950’s. It is on the World Health Organization’s List of Essential Medicines, the safest and most effective medicines needed in a health system. Of course The Who is under attack these days.

    Also Dr. Zelenko received positive support from Dr. Robert Suskind who wants to promote his good work. He is currently dean emeritus of the California University of Science and Medicine. Here is a link to an article about him.

    https://www.sbsun.com/2015/05/10/cal-med-names-seasoned-educator-as-its-first-dean/

    A friend who has a son who is a doctor thinks the resistance is coming from drug companies. If the solution only cost $20, there is nothing in it for them. Yes, a 20 dollar bill will get you out of this horrible mess.

  26. 26
    Bob O'H says:

    Yes, hydrochloroquine has a long list of some time side effects that have to be considered but the other two drugs do not have anything serious especially when the alternative is death or permanent lung damage for life.

    OK, so when you wrote “The drugs used in the treatment have a long history of treatment with little or no side effects.” what you actually meant was “Only one of the drugs used in the treatment doesn’t have a long history of treatment with little or no side effects.”

  27. 27
    kairosfocus says:

    BO’H: Why are you so consistently leaving out of the reckoning Dr Raoult’s two tests and the earlier tests in China and elsewhere? They provide further support and indeed, a full week ago now, in aftermath of Dr Rault’s second studies France approved the drug. What is it? Is it that the irresponsible media are still singing the now broken party-line? Is it that you have not taken time to read the documentation provided here at UD? KF

  28. 28
    kairosfocus says:

    BO’H: Did you take time to observe that the side effects of CQ reportedly generally come from long term use? Did you note the shift to HCQ, decades ago as it had lower basic toxicity? Where, as I have repeatedly noted, the pharmaco prof in my old Uni noted a general dictum, pharmacology is the study of poisons in small doses. Essentially any drug is toxic, including ethyl alcohol, where drunkennes is an early toxic effect. As a statistician, surely you understand tradeoffs in a context where effective regimen seems to be less than a week at dosages commonly used for decades? We are up against a highly contagious disease that for vulnerable groups can kill up to about 10%, especially when age and preconditions are relevant. Risk-return tradeoff here is clearly decisively in favour of HCQ and Z-Pac with Zn Supplements, 5 – 7 days, about US$ 20 per treatment. And, to top off, that can help to avert side effects of a prolonged disruption of the global economy. KF

  29. 29
    jerry says:

    Only one of the drugs used in the treatment doesn’t have a long history of treatment with little or no side effects.”

    And guess which drug that is. To which I wrote

    It is on the World Health Organization’s List of Essential Medicines, the safest and most effective medicines needed in a health system.

    Again I suggest you listen to and watch the relevant videos. You might then be able to make a relevant comment. So far the cure is batting 100% and you are batting 0%, US baseball terms. Again a $20 bill will cure you of the virus.

  30. 30
    Bob O'H says:

    kf @ 27 – Raoult’s trials are almost useless: the first was a small unrandomised study, so at est says that it’s worth following up. The second study didn’t have a control group, so is useless to judge efficacy. The Chinese studies are also small – one with ~60 patients suggests an effect in patients with mild symptoms (as well as “2 patients with mild adverse reactions in the HCQ treatment group”, so there are observable side effects even in the short term). There’s also this study with 30 patients that doesn’t show an effect. And for completeness there’s this French paper that also doesn’t show any effect, but with only 11 patients it can probably be ignored.

    Overall, the evidence for effectiveness is mixed and not of high quality (small sample sizes etc.). It’s certainly not a miracle cure, but it’s probably worth testing in a full trial.

  31. 31
    Bob O'H says:

    So far the cure is batting 100% and you are batting 0%, US baseball terms.

    Yes, if you ignore all those times the cure swung and missed (see my previous comment for links).

  32. 32
    kairosfocus says:

    BO’H: Sorry, it is instead manifestly unethical to ignore demonstration of effectiveness on significant numbers of patients in a context where playing at control group studies puts up to ~ 10% of vulnerable patient groups at death’s door: knowingly treating a good fraction of people at death’s door with sugar pills in teeth of considerable evidence that a cost-effective cocktail of drugs will stop the viral and complications cascade within a week. Where, the further indication is, hit it as early as possible, to avert the fatal cascade on average at days 9 – 11. We are not facing peacetime, normal world medicine but a global plague that literally can kill millions in a few months. With significant risk of overwhelming facilities leading to huge spikes in numbers dying, as Italy, China etc show. Yes, in the aftermath of SARS1, we should have followed up and certified HCQ etc as broad spectrum antivirals. We didn’t, that is a lesson to be fully drawn later. For now, we must use prudence and duly weigh the balance of strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats. With urgency we must build on strength, address threats, exploit opportunities, compensate for then as possible correct weaknesses. That means here, yes we explore onward but we go with what is in our hands now. Which is precisely what is actually happening once France took the decision to approve HCQ on precisely the studies you dismiss, studies that showed startling effectiveness in 78 of 80 cases and that the drug has relevant action on plausible concentrations in the body achievable on reasonable doses. KF

    PS: Remember, too, that the evidence is that synergy is key. What is needed is a cocktail, with Z-pac or the like and Zn supplements.

  33. 33
    kairosfocus says:

    PPS: Did you really read that first abstract? Before the reference to side effects you highlighted, this was said:

    for TTCR, the body temperature recovery time and the cough remission time were significantly shortened in the HCQ treatment group. Besides, a larger proportion of patients with improved pneumonia in the HCQ treatment group (80.6%, 25 of 32) compared with the control group (54.8%, 17 of 32). Notably, all 4 patients progressed to severe illness that occurred in the control group. However, there were 2 patients with mild adverse reactions in the HCQ treatment group. Significance: Among patients with COVID-19, the use of HCQ could significantly shorten TTCR and promote the absorption of pneumonia.

  34. 34
    kairosfocus says:

    PPPS: The culture of ambulance-chasing litigation also has to be addressed.

  35. 35
    jerry says:

    I find it interesting that Bob O’H has not listened to the podcast which this OP is about. If he has watched it, he has never commented on its substance. It is mainly audio but the screen changes periodically through the podcast to present additional information.

  36. 36
    Bob O'H says:

    kf – seriously, there are no good high quality studies showing that HCQ is effective as a treatment for Corvid-19. It’s not as if we don’t know how to conduct them, and indeed they are being conducted. You don’t think it might just be possible that doctors and health care professionals like Dr. Fauci actually know a lot more about this than you do? That they might actually be aware of both the risks and benefits of giving out unproven medicines?

    Of those 78 of 80 cases from France, how many would have recovered without HCQ treatment?

  37. 37
    Truthfreedom says:

    @36 Bob O’H

    Of those 78 of 80 cases from France, how many would have recovered without HCQ treatment?

    This a very weird question. How could Kairosfocus (or any person by the way) know it?

  38. 38
    Truthfreedom says:

    @34 Kairosfocus:

    The culture of ambulance-chasing litigation also has to be addressed.

    Another sign of how pathetic our society has become.

  39. 39
    kairosfocus says:

    BO’H: Again, we know the progress of cases. The consistent wipeout of the virus in about five days (well beyond the classic Placebo 38%) is significant and shows something that supports the parallel in vivo study (and similar studies going back to 15 years ago. Namely that once HCQ is present in tissue in a dosage-plausible quantity, it has broad base antiviral effects. The taking the dosage and seeing the results exist in an established context of known antiviral effects. That is not a proof on self evident axioms, but no inductive case can rise to that certainty; we have a best explanation consistent with the principle of lawlike regularity tied to core characteristics of entities in the world; including a cluster of plausible mechanisms, several of which may well be working in parallel . . . an advantage. It is warrant to a degree that justifies action in a context where this is essentially the best we are going to get in an urgent situation, with a lot of lives and potential global chaos on the line. We are looking at least worst options in the face of the full equivalent of a world war. Yes, continue investigations, but it is clearly warranted for the FDA to have stepped up the degree of approval after the cumulative impact of the various studies. The time for imagining that skepticism is a virtue has long passed, we need balanced prudence in the face of serious threats. And this is clearly a prescription drug, where I again repeat, pharmacology is the study of poisons in small doses. KF

  40. 40
    jerry says:

    The culture of ambulance-chasing litigation also has to be addressed.

    This is an issue in the United States. We sell a device that would be important in emergency room medicine or in the ICU and we have had hundreds of requests for it. But we have to refuse because it would require about a million dollars to run a study to have the FDA clear it.

    The first false negative and the lawyers would be lined up for the chance to sue without this clearance. The same device had no trouble getting a CE approval and thus acceptance in about any country outside of the US and Canada.

  41. 41
    vividbleau says:

    Interesting report, I am not endorsing the accuracy of this report but IF true some may find it of interest

    This is was retweeted by Brit Hume

    The IHME model as of April 5th predicts that NY State will need 69k beds with only 16.5 k actually needed so far. The projection is for 12.3 k ICU beds actual 4.3k, overall bed count rose less than 600 statewide, less than 4%. It should be noted that my understanding the model has been tracking well as to the death count.

    For Alabama they have 34 deaths but are predicted to have 300 deaths this week,. In Alabama 231 hospitalized but model says they are going to need almost 30 k.

    Vivid

  42. 42
    Bob O'H says:

    Truthfreedon @ 37 – precisely. We don’t know. So we can’t know how effecting the treatment is, can we? This is basic science – how to design an experiment to test a hypothesis. It’s a shame not everyone understands it.

  43. 43
    vividbleau says:

    Bob
    “It’s a shame not everyone understands it.”

    Bob I know your coming from a good place and you are right that we have no scientific evidence as of yet whether HQ is effective or not until we have controlled studies. My take is that you are involved in scientific endeavors and you recognize the dangers in methods that have not gone through the necessary trials so your coming from a good place. You would like nothing more than a treatment to be proved efficacious but until it is, as a scientist , we must wait. Got it.
    We all come from different places and different experiences,in my business I have learned not to trust experts just because they are experts, sometimes basic common sense just doesn’t add up and I have learned if it doesn’t pass my common sense then I go my own way.

    Case in point a few weeks ago we were told by the experts not to wear masks and upon hearing this I turned to my wife and said that makes no sense. Why? Because how can a mask not give more protection than a non mask if we followed basic hygienic protocols. Now the experts are telling us to wear masks,.

    Fauci is an expert and I respect and listen to what he has to say but experts can be wrong, after all he was telling us that we did not have to worry about the virus, now with more information he wants to lock down the country. This is not a knock on Fauci or any medical experts at the time he said don’t worry he did not have the information and no one should be criticized for acting upon the information at hand, When more information came in he changed his mind which is what good scientists do.

    My common sense tells me that we do not have verification through clinical trials that HQ is effective, we do have anecdotal evidence that it might be. Now as a scientist you despise anecdotal evidence which as a scientist you should. But anecdotal evidence is evidence, non scientific evidence non the less. What does not pass my common sense test is that if my personal Doctor, who knows my health risk, and I don’t have any health risk in taking HQ and prescribes it why not give it a try? I just don’t see what the fuss is all about.

    Vivid

  44. 44
    Barry Arrington says:

    Vivid

    I just don’t see what the fuss is all about.

    Oh that’s easy. The fuss is grounded in Trump Derangement Syndrome. Of one thing we can be practically certain. If Obama were president and said we should give HQ a go, all of the progressives putting up a fuss would instead be falling all over themselves spreading the word about the efficacy of HQ.

  45. 45
    vividbleau says:

    Barry

    Whatever happened to “ the right to choose” mantra, does that only apply if you want to kill a baby?

    Vivid

  46. 46
    Seversky says:

    As a further cautionary note, there is this recent study in mice which found that chloroquine in combination with the diabetes drug, metformin was fatally toxic in 30-40% of cases.

  47. 47
    Truthfreedom says:

    @46 Seversky

    As a further cautionary note, there is this recent study in mice which found that chloroquine in combination with the diabetes drug, metformin was fatally toxic in 30-40% of cases.

    This is a pre-print (not peer-reviewed) and done in mice.

    While our observations in mice may not translate to toxicity in humans,

    Readers should therefore be aware that articles on bioRxiv have not been finalized by authors, might contain errors, and report information that has not yet been accepted or endorsed in any way by the scientific or medical community.

  48. 48
    Truthfreedom says:

    @42 Bob O’H

    precisely. We don’t know. So we can’t know how effecting the treatment is, can we? This is basic science – how to design an experiment to test a hypothesis. It’s a shame not everyone understands it.

    There would be no science without logic.
    And what I do not understand is that you are dismissing the studies but then saying that clinical trials are ‘worth a shot’. You do not trust the data collected but think CQ and HCQ may be helpful?

  49. 49
    Bob O'H says:

    Vividbleau –

    Fauci is an expert and I respect and listen to what he has to say but experts can be wrong, after all he was telling us that we did not have to worry about the virus, now with more information he wants to lock down the country.

    When did Fauci say the virus was nothing to worry about?

  50. 50
    vividbleau says:

    Bob
    I think it was sometime in January watched him on TV .

    Vivid

  51. 51
    vividbleau says:

    Bob,
    In fact is was Jan 21 “not a major threat to the US not something the citizens of US should be worried about” A few days later after Wuhan lockdown he said that although you may want to reconsider going to Wuhan going to the Super Bowl was fine, Feb 17 ,people ought to worry more about the clear and present danger to this years annual flue the danger to this country to the Corona Virus was minuscule.

    Vivid

  52. 52
    Bob O'H says:

    Vividbleau –

    My common sense tells me that we do not have verification through clinical trials that HQ is effective, we do have anecdotal evidence that it might be. Now as a scientist you despise anecdotal evidence which as a scientist you should.

    Why are people around here so quick to tell me what I think? No, I don’t despise anecdotal evidence. In fact, a lot of my work at the moment is directed towards trying to use anecdotal evidence effectively (but in a very different context).

    But anecdotal evidence is evidence, non scientific evidence non the less. What does not pass my common sense test is that if my personal Doctor, who knows my health risk, and I don’t have any health risk in taking HQ and prescribes it why not give it a try?

    If you, as an individual, want to take HCQ, then I’m not going to try to stop you, as long as you know what the evidence is – there are side effects, and any evidence for it working is poor (although the evidence for it not working is also not strong). I’d also hope you’d make sure you weren’t taking the medicine away from someone who needs it, and for whom it is effective.

  53. 53
    Bob O'H says:

    Truthfreedom @ 48 – I’m dismissing the evidence as weak. Raoult’s first study was suggestive, but problematic. There’s a small Chinese study that suggests it helps in mild cases. There are also negative studies, but again they are small. Taken as a whole, these studies don’t say anything definitive: they provide some evidence, but it is weak. Hence we need stronger evidence.

  54. 54
    ET says:

    The science says that chloroquine, an ionophore, coupled with zinc, will stop the virus from replicating.

    But I understand why evos wouldn’t grasp that science.

  55. 55
    jerry says:

    But I understand why evos wouldn’t grasp that science.

    Bob O’H is a strong supporter of ID. He is also a strong supporter of Hydroxychloroquine and zinc. By only making specious nitpicking objections he is actually supporting both propositions. If he was against both, he would be making substantive objections with alternatives. But he doesn’t. Bob is like the dog barking in the night. He never barks.

    So be glad that Bob comments here. He validates most of the positions.

  56. 56
    Seversky says:

    My understanding is that zinc is an essential nutrient in cells and that there are already efficient inbuilt transport mechanisms to supply it.

    There is also good experimental evidence that taking zinc supplements can reduce the severity of cold symptoms.

    There is also evidence that too much zinc can be detrimental to health.

    As for Dr Zelenko’s claims, I would hope they are right but as Snopes says:

    A more detailed explainer of the potential role of anti-malarial drugs like hydroxychloroquine against the COVID-19 coronavirus disease, with or without antibiotics, can be found here. Zelenko’s claims, however, rest solely on taking him at his word: He has published no data, described no study design, and reported no analysis.

    As has been noted elsewhere, combining hydroxychloroquine and azithromycin can cause serious problems for people with certain heart conditions. Though zinc appears to be an important factor in several immune functions, a potential mechanism for how it might work against viral infections is not well-understood.

    If people want to take hydrochloroquine and azithromycin and/or zinc supplements at their own risk, I would not stop them. But they should understand that the evidence for the efficacy of such a treatment regime is weak at this time. Moreover, I would argue that public health authorities have a responsibility to ensure that adequate supplies of chloroquine are available for those suffering from disorders against which it has been shown to be effective.

  57. 57
    vividbleau says:

    Bob,
    “Why are people around here so quick to tell me what I think? No, I don’t despise anecdotal evidence. In fact, a lot of my work at the moment is directed towards trying to use anecdotal evidence effectively (but in a very different context).”

    Bob I apologize that was not my intention, nor was I in anyway trying to tell you what you think.

    Vivid

  58. 58
    Truthfreedom says:

    @57 Bob O’H

    Why are people around here so quick to tell me what I think?

    It’s an evolutive mechanism, Bob O’H. Always an evolutive mechanism. Evolution explains everything and anything. 🙂

  59. 59
    jerry says:

    My understanding is that zinc is an essential nutrient in cells and that there are already efficient inbuilt transport mechanisms to supply it.

    Apparently you have not been reading the links provided. The addition to zinc to Hydroxychloroquine kills the virus. Hydroxychloroquine acts an ionophore allowing zinc into the cell. Here is a major medical site in the US discussing it.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U7F1cnWup9M&list=PLQ_IRFkDInv-NvRRUN0aqe51sMs188k8z&index=18

    Another link

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BIymfznD7YA

    Both point to South Korea as the example of using this to cure individuals with the virus.

  60. 60
    Seversky says:

    The question is, if there are already zinc transport mechanisms routing as much zinc as is needed into the cells, why the need for the additional capacity?

  61. 61
    Truthfreedom says:

    @60 Seversky

    The question is, if there are already zinc transport mechanisms routing as much zinc as is needed into the cells,

    Needed for what?

  62. 62
    Bob O'H says:

    TruthFreedom – this might help.

  63. 63
    Truthfreedom says:

    Ok@62 Bob O’H
    Are you reading Seversky’s thoughts? I do not think so. 🙂
    Do cells routinely fight SARS-Cov-2? Well Bob O’H, you are a statistician, not a biologist.
    I am wrong?

  64. 64
    Bob O'H says:

    Truthfreedom – I’m both statistician and biologist. My first degree was in genetics and statistics, my PhD is in plant epidemiology. I have a Finnish docentship in quantitative ecology, and I’m now a professor of statistics.

    I can also call on the services of my wife who’s definitely a biologist, and that includes working in medical labs.

  65. 65
    Truthfreedom says:

    @64 Bob O’H
    Then you should know that zinc requirements for healthy, normal cells, and for cells undergoing pathological states are not the same.
    So your snarky response was a fail.

  66. 66
    Truthfreedom says:

    Bob O’H
    And plant epidemiology and human (‘animal’) epidemiology are NOT the same.
    Biology is an immense, complicated field.

  67. 67
    Jim Thibodeau says:

    Happy Paul Nelson Day!

  68. 68
    jerry says:

    why the need for the additional capacity?

    Can you read or better question is will you read? In this case it is watch. The links I sent explain it all. Hydroxychloroquine increases the zinc transport several fold. As the concentration of zinc goes up, the presence of the virus gets less and less and eventually disappears.

    By the way as I was writing this, the Amazon driver delivered my zinc sulfate. So I have enough now for about 20 people if they should come down with the virus.

    My guess is that all of the nay sayers or nitpickers here who constantly find small things to complain about would use this treatment in a millisecond if it applied to them or their family.

  69. 69
    Truthfreedom says:

    @68 jerry

    Can you read or better question is will you read?

    Naturalists rely on infused science. Hard work was not meant for them.

  70. 70
    vividbleau says:

    Posted this yesterday

    “The IHME model as of April 5th predicts that NY State will need 69k beds with only 16.5 k actually needed so far. The projection is for 12.3 k ICU beds actual 4.3k”

    It is reported that Cuomo is saying they don’t need any hospital beds or ventilators. Will have to check and verify that out for myself. I wonder what the rest of the state needs are.

    Vivid

  71. 71
    jerry says:

    Meanwhile the cure cost 7 cents a day. That’s an exaggeration since it’s only the cost of the zinc. The cocktail of three drugs cost $4 a day for 5 days.

    And for that the world has gone upside down.

    Of course the doctor vist will cost $100+

  72. 72
    kairosfocus says:

    Jerry, ah, the sting in the tail. KF

  73. 73
    kairosfocus says:

    PS, notice how digitalisation is moving mainstream? KF

  74. 74
    kairosfocus says:

    F/N: Dr Mehmet Oz on with Lou Dobbs: Didier Raoult has initial results on his first 1,000 patients, 7 deaths, 20 to ICU, observes “a case series of 1,000 patients is not anecdotal.” He notes that NY Gov Cuomo’s ruling locked down his outpatient study, parallel to Raoult. A transcript of a key part:

    Dr. Oz: Well the trial that I was helping with at my institution was shut down when the governor banned the use of hydroxychloroquine for prescription use for outpatients. And I was trying to see if it could prevent, well there was a prevention trial that was approved, but I was trying to see if it could actually treat early disease and replicate what has been done in China and in France. Unfortunately, those trials have been held back. I don’t know of a trial in New York State. I have been searching for the one that has been spoken about… I spoke this morning to the famous French Infectious Disease specialist Didier Raoult, he’s the one who’s actually been pioneering the hydroxychloroquine with azithromycin, it’s not published yet, but he shared the results of his first thousand patients who have been on that protocol. Seven people died. They were all older and frail individuals. That is lower than what you would expect from people who have been admitted to the hospital. And he’s had 20 got to the ICU, again lower than I would expect… Well, I’m upset because I wanted to do the trial. Also I wanted it to be legal in my state for a doctor to talk to a patient about the COVID-19 and treat them as they saw appropriate.

    Something very wrong is going on at governance and policymaking level.

    He is also calling for someone with Lupus on HCQ with CV19 to come forward, in concert with a support group. So far, he has not had anyone.

    He also reports the colleague who heads the Lupus Society and others in that world of practice see fears over side effects as punched up, i/l/o their collective experience. This holds for heart effects and he says eye effects show up after five years of chronic use.

    Another straw in the wind.

    KF

  75. 75
    vividbleau says:

    Wow just heard Dr Mark Siegel on Tucker Carlson. He tells the story of this 96 year old Florida man who said one night to him “ I’m not going to make it, I’m feeling weak, I am short of breath I am coughing I can’t get off the couch. I’m not going to make it” The next day he was prescribed HQ with antibiotics per his cardiologist, he got up the next day and he was fine.

    Here is the kicker, the man was his father!

    Vivid

  76. 76
    bornagain77 says:

    It is just crazy that so many people are fighting against this.

    In a war you use whatever gets the job done!

  77. 77
    vividbleau says:

    “In a war you use whatever gets the job done!”

    Yeh like that Tennessee hillbilly in WWll who came up with the idea to put a sawtooth device on tanks to get through the hedgerows, that the tank was not designed with that in mind didn’t matter.

    I am convinced that HQ is safe whether it is efficacious we need to wait for the tests. We have to keep in mind that statistical coincidences happen all the time.

    Vivid

  78. 78
    Bob O'H says:

    Dr Mehmet Oz on with Lou Dobbs: Didier Raoult has initial results on his first 1,000 patients, 7 deaths, 20 to ICU, observes “a case series of 1,000 patients is not anecdotal.”

    How many were in the control group?

  79. 79
    kairosfocus says:

    BO’H:

    cumulative impact in itself has a logical force all of its own that transcends mere isolated story-telling: the logic of observational as opposed to experimental studies. It would be nice to have done large scale studies [maybe on colds and flu etc] a decade ago post SARS, to get HCQ characterised as a broadly acting antiviral, and also several other candidates. After all, in vitro studies (another key aspect of warrant) were showing potential. But for one reason or another . . . I suspect, regulatory-system influenced market failure esp for HCQ . . . it was not done.

    It can be done but is going to take considerable time and effort we don’t have now.

    Dr Oz is rightfully complaining that his outpatient study (similar to Raoult’s) was terminated by regulatory decision. That means, politics is locking off responsible investigation, right there in NY.

    And indeed, there are serious ethical constraints on treating patients with a fast-acting, life threatening contagious disease with sugar pills. Especially, where lockdown measures cannot be long sustained. (Mind you, the local one seems to have done wonders for my blood pressure, per clinic results that had be doubting the machines at first, then the second test was even better and consistent with relaxation! [That effect, too, should be studied!)

    Frankly, I would be more comfortable in doing treatment by blocks and plots with various credible alternatives then looking at cross-tabulated statistical performances looking for the pattern of variation turned into variances, on the premise, variances add. In that context, observing people getting plausible but varied treatments with consent, whether organised before the fact or noted after the fact could be telling us things.

    Here, we have persistent indications that HCQ-involved cocktails, esp with whatever antibiotic hits secondary infection and Zn supplements is having dramatic impact in various countries and runs of cases, above and beyond conventional treatment approaches [there’s your de facto baseline “control”]. The odds that such results in the high 95+% success range are happening by chance are vanishingly low.

    In an urgent, battlefield-like situation, that looks like warranting acting on what is plausibly a best current explanation, even on balance of evidence that does not reach moral certainty. Which, recall per pessimistic induction, is not in the gift of science when it comes to explanatory frameworks. Observational facts are another thing entirely.

    KF

    PS: Say, the odds are that in a given case, HCQ has no effect and cure vs non cure is 90:10, which is like vulnerable cases. Now, inject treatment H, in a string of 1,000 cases. What is the likelihood that we are on a prong of that tree of possibilities such that 98% or better of these cases are in the cured column on a drug with no impact? Especially, given in vitro evidence of antiviral impact at plausible in-tissue concentrations? Especially where the 90:10 ratio is from the pool of 100’s of k cases given conventional treatments? We here have a natural contrast factor and a noticeable, rapidly acting shift in outcomes, frequently with noticeable improvement in a day and elimination of viri on a progressive trend to zero in about 5 days once treatment starts. Alternatives don’t show that trend or that steep of a trend. Case after case after case. Now, you tell me how we are to prefer the explanation, little or no impact, outcome by chance.

  80. 80
    kairosfocus says:

    PPS: Let’s note Wiki remarking on what the dismissive term, anecdotal, typically means — for clarity:

    Anecdotal evidence is evidence from anecdotes: evidence collected in a casual or informal manner and relying heavily or entirely on personal testimony.

    The term is sometimes used in a legal context to describe certain kinds of testimony which are uncorroborated by objective, independent evidence such as notarized documentation, photographs, audio-visual recordings, etc.

    When used in advertising or promotion of a product, service, or idea, anecdotal reports are often called a testimonial, which are highly regulated[1] or banned in some[which?] jurisdictions.

    When compared to other types of evidence, anecdotal evidence is generally regarded as limited in value due to a number of potential weaknesses, but may be considered within the scope of scientific method as some anecdotal evidence can be both empirical and verifiable, e.g. in the use of case studies in medicine. Other anecdotal evidence, however, does not qualify as scientific evidence, because its nature prevents it from being investigated by the scientific method. Where only one or a few anecdotes are presented, there is a larger chance that they may be unreliable due to cherry-picked or otherwise non-representative samples of typical cases.[2][3] Similarly, psychologists have found that due to cognitive bias people are more likely to remember notable or unusual examples rather than typical examples.[4] Thus, even when accurate, anecdotal evidence is not necessarily representative of a typical experience. Accurate determination of whether an anecdote is typical requires statistical evidence.[5] Misuse of anecdotal evidence is an informal fallacy[6] and is sometimes referred to as the “person who” fallacy (“I know a person who…”; “I know of a case where…” etc.) which places undue weight on experiences of close peers which may not be typical.

    In all forms of anecdotal evidence its reliability by objective independent assessment may be in doubt. This is a consequence of the informal way the information is gathered, documented, presented, or any combination of the three. The term is often used to describe evidence for which there is an absence of documentation, leaving verification dependent on the credibility of the party presenting the evidence.

    Didier Raoult is the leading researcher on this sort of disease in France, comparable in renown to Dr Fauci. He is a legitimate expert. The notion that his cases will be informal, with unstructured observations is nonsensical. The notion that he is cherry-picking from a wider cluster of outcomes that are not favourable on balance [like dishonest ad testimonials] or otherwise represents a sloppy choice that becomes grossly unrepresentative is even more nonsensical.

    Unless objectors can put up specific reason to reject his credibility, Dr Fauci is a credible, expert witness. In short, the burden of warrant on credibility shifts to the objector here.

    Further to this, the case study method — common in managerial and operations contexts — works, not by blind comparison but by close examination of material facts suggestive of dynamics at work. Here, there are in vitro studies and day by day plots on trends with virus loads, leading to the day five zero point he has presented. These are obviously based on clinical case files.

    The only reasonable objection I can see, on the known in vitro result, is good evidence that the in vivo pattern is diverse because the drug does not get to where it is needed or that considerations of toxicity overwhelm the potential success. 65 years of use in other context and the sort of actual collective experience Dr Oz summarises, makes such further implausible. Toxicity is acceptable and the drug is known to get into the bloodstream and tissue in active concentrations, on reasonable dosages.

    In that context, it is observed in literally hundreds of cases, to be acting as is reasonable to expect. Comparatives to see what else is cost-effective can be done but that will be already weighted by the low cost of this drug and its manageable side effects profile.

    As for “THE big-S Scientific, big-M Method” there ‘ent no such beast.

    There is no generic, one size fits all and only Sciences as conventionally labelled surefire method of empirical investigation. The method we are taught in school is valid as a general approach to inductive, empirically based investigations i/l/o inference to best current explanation per collective judgement of peer experts, but it is by no means confined to the sciences as conventionally labelled and is sufficiently broad that degree of warrant varies, field by field, case by case. Where, while it is highly desirable to use structured experiments and statistical techniques, in many cases such is not feasible or is unethical, and we are forced to infer and test dynamics on cases and comparative cases. For example, in the midst of the gold standard science, Physics, there is a sub-discipline, Astronomy and Astrophysics.

    So, the point is, careful, observation based inference to best current [thus, revise-able] explanation driven investigations come in a spectrum and extend far beyond the conventional sciences into things like medical practice, engineering and management.

    That’s what we are up against, on the battlefield. In a world war, with the clock ticking on triggering a massively destructive depression that would cost a lot of lives through that impact.

    Decisions have to be made in the face of uncertainty: unknown unknowns likely lurk like irritable sleeping dragons whose tails we are tickling.

  81. 81
    jerry says:

    How many were in the control group

    Tens of thousands. I believe they’re all dead.

    Now I am waiting for the nitpicking of my extremely sarcastic comment. Probably a more accurate comment is that the control group contains all the dead.

    In Zelenko’s group there was one dead out of a thousand. He didn’t take the medicine. So was he really an example of his small control group.

    Who would ever volunteer to be in the control group. What are the ethics of establishing a control group knowing a large number will die?

  82. 82
    bornagain77 says:

    ^^^^^^^^^^
    BINGO Jerry!

    I wonder if, God forbid, Bob had this horrid disease whether or not he would want to be in a ‘control group?’ Or whether he would want to make damn sure he was getting real medicine?

    Shoot, I wonder if Bob can even answer that question honestly? Guess, for the sake of science, we just have to give Bob the disease and see how Bob responds!

    I hope you know I’m kidding Bob.

  83. 83
    Truthfreedom says:

    @81 Jerry

    What are the ethics of establishing a control group knowing a large number will die?

    Jerry, please, ethics are illusory. Darwin and his followers have liberated us from such sentimentalist non-sense.

  84. 84
    JVL says:

    Jerry: Who would ever volunteer to be in the control group. What are the ethics of establishing a control group knowing a large number will die?

    What happens mostly is that people volunteer to be in a study and they are aware that they may be given a placebo. The gold standard study is one that is double blinded: i.e. the patients and the people monitoring their condition do not know who has had the ‘drug’ being tested and who hasn’t. Such practices are tightly controlled and help make sure that any effect detected has to be purely down to the intervention having an actual effect.

    When you are unsure if a medication has an effect then you are NOT consigning people to death. You DON’T KNOW if the medication has a positive effect and you want to make sure you are right to say it definitely does have a positive effect before you administer it to other sufferers. There is also the matter of figuring out what is the appropriate dosage. Since many drugs, especially aggressive ones can have nasty side-effects (more and more severe with larger doses) another aspect of a study will be to attempt to find the minimal dosage that still conveys a positive effect.

  85. 85
    Jim Thibodeau says:

    “Who would ever volunteer to be in the control group.”

    If they know what group they’re in that’s not even single blinded. Heavens.

  86. 86
    jerry says:

    What happens mostly is that people volunteer to be in a study and they are aware that they may be given a placebo

    I’m well aware of how research studies are designed as I helped design a couple in my past life. But none were such that being in the placebo group had a much high risk of death.

    The side effects of the drugs being proffered are not that serious so that is not an issue. When you have a protocol with near 100% effectiveness running a double blind test is equivalent to sentencing some people to death.

    Do you defend that?

    You should listen to Zelenko. He discusses all the aspects of this.

  87. 87
    jerry says:

    If they know what group they’re in that’s not even single blinded. Heavens.

    Change my comment to

    Who would ever volunteer to possibly be in the control group

    Does that make you happy?

  88. 88
    Bob O'H says:

    kf @ 79 –

    It would be nice to have done large scale studies [maybe on colds and flu etc] a decade ago post SARS, to get HCQ characterised as a broadly acting antiviral,

    It was done. The results were negative.
    Paton NI, Lee L, Xu Y, et al. Chloroquine for influenza prevention: a randomised, double-blind, placebo controlled trial. Lancet Infect Dis. 2011;11:677-683. [PMID: 21550310] doi:10.1016/S1473-3099(11)70065-2

    Dr Oz is rightfully complaining that his outpatient study (similar to Raoult’s) was terminated by regulatory decision. That means, politics is locking off responsible investigation, right there in NY.

    If it was similar to Raults’ then it should have been stopped for ethical considerations. There already are trials running, and it’s surely unethical to allow another one to go ahead that will be useless, but where we know some of the patients will suffer.

    Where, while it is highly desirable to use structured experiments and statistical techniques, in many cases such is not feasible or is unethical, and we are forced to infer and test dynamics on cases and comparative cases.

    This is a large part of what I do (albeit not in a medical context). Seriously, it means you need a larger sample size, which means the trial takes longer to run. In this context, that means more deaths. We know how to do these trials – there is a framework in place to run them efficiently, so why waste time, money and lives on studies that are close to useless?

  89. 89
    Bob O'H says:

    Jerry @ 81 –

    Now I am waiting for the nitpicking of my extremely sarcastic comment. Probably a more accurate comment is that the control group contains all the dead.

    Actually, no. In Raoult’s original study there was one death. And it wasn’t in the control group. Two also had to stop treatmentbecause they were too ill. They were also not in the control group. And a fourth person dropped out because of side effects.

  90. 90
    Bob O'H says:

    ba77 –

    I wonder if, God forbid, Bob had this horrid disease whether or not he would want to be in a ‘control group?’ Or whether he would want to make damn sure he was getting real medicine?

    As has been pointed out, this is an ignorant comment. FWIW, I was once in a trial (for zit treatment, and I suspect I was in the control group).

    Given how many medicines don’t make it through clinical trials because they don’t work, I wouldn’t be over bothered if I was in the control group. It wouldn’t be any worse than not being in the trial.

  91. 91
    kairosfocus says:

    Jerry, you are pointing to the basic ethical dilemma at stake. We already have considerable, accumulating evidence of effectiveness from chemical studies and clinical ones. That is material background whether or not it is desired. We are also dealing with a rapidly acting plague, so there is not a length of time to judge good vs bad trend so we can always stop and shift placebos if there is effectiveness; as has happened in some cases. We are not in the ethical condition of indifference, and we face the issue that people may deteriorate rapidly and die or suffer irreversible loss of lung function. We need to acknowledge evidence in hand and understand direct and indirect costs of further investigation vs acting on what is in hand; including our inevitably bounded rationality. This is where what is now clearly the fallacy of substituting hyperskepticism for prudence is showing how damaging it is. And worse, we have seen political interference that has cut off studies similar to Raoult’s. It is clear to me that research methodologies need some serious revisiting, as well as linked policy. KF

  92. 92
    kairosfocus says:

    BO’H: We are not dealing with relatively minor consequences, nor do we have no relevant evidence in hand. KF

    PS: We are now up to 1,000 in his study and there are several others out there.

  93. 93
    jerry says:

    Actually, no. In Raoult’s original study there was one death

    Thank you very much for confirming what I said. You just endorsed the treatment. Zelenko has not had that consequence yet so his results on top of the French studies seems to seal the deal. Then there is the doctor in Los Angeles with incredibly good results.

  94. 94
    jerry says:

    Given how many medicines don’t make it through clinical trials because they don’t work, I wouldn’t be over bothered if I was in the control group

    HCQ has been prescribed since 1950’s. My guess is that your statement does not reflect your true feelings about this protocol.

  95. 95
    jerry says:

    Chloroquine for influenza prevention

    Apparently this is not how the drug works. BA77 published a comment yesterday to an article that says the conventional wisdom on how this virus kills is wrong and has to do with its hijacking oxygen delivery to the body and that HCQ somehow prevents that. It is also how it apparently works with malaria. The current conventional wisdom is that it leads to ARDS and that is how people die. Maybe both are true. But in the meantime prescribe the drug since there are no major risks especially if you get to a ventilator there is a 50/50 chance.

    The other aspect of HCQ is that it is an ionophore for zinc. So two separate ways it is working. So take zinc with HCQ and get a twofer.

  96. 96
    Truthfreedom says:

    @88 Bob O’H

    It was done. The results were negative.
    Paton NI, Lee L, Xu Y, et al. Chloroquine for influenza prevention:

    And? That was one study. Related to one illness.
    -HCQ and CQ are different molecules, with different applications (Kairosfocus was mentioning HCQ)
    https://www.drugs.com/compare/chloroquine-vs-hydroxychloroquine
    How can you know (or any other person) that i. e. HCQ would not be useful against certain colds ? Have studies been carried out? Have you knowledge of chemistry, biochemistry, microbiology and/ or pharmacology?

  97. 97
    Ed George says:

    Jerry

    Who would ever volunteer to be in the control group.

    Nobody volunteers to be in the control group. What they volunteer for is to be in a trial in which they may only receive a placebo.

  98. 98
    jerry says:

    How can you know (or any other person) that i. e. H CQ would not be useful against certain colds ?

    Not if the way it works is to prevent the hijacking of oxygen. Then by itself it would not affect a virus only what this particular virus does. Zinc may be an answer to the common cold if it could only get into the cell.

  99. 99
    jerry says:

    Nobody volunteers to be in the control group. What they volunteer for is to be in a trial in which they may only receive a placebo.

    I think you should read more. I rephrased my comment which was meant as sarcasm after someone who couldn’t see that said exactly the same as you did. See above. Who would volunteer to have the opportunity to die? Not many. Instructions for the study should get consent to a statement that says if you do not receive the treatment you may die.

    By the way there was an ad by Shackleton that said if you volunteer for this mission there was a good chance you may die. People were lined up for blocks to volunteer. But that was something different. But people dispute the ad ever ran since no one has ever seen a copy of it.

  100. 100
    jerry says:

    Changes a lot about the long term treatment of serious patients.

    Here are three links about what this disease is all about. The top doctors have never seen anything like it before. The first link is to a short Youtube video with a NY doctor who regularly treats patients with lung disease. The second link is to a long print interview with this doctor. There is also a video for this interview. The third link is to a Chinese study on what is happening. Don’t claim to understand the Chinese study.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g3ka8lo_fZ8&feature=emb_logo

    https://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/928156

    At the top of this page from medscape is actually a video and the transcript is then on three pages.

    https://chemrxiv.org/articles/COVID-19_Disease_ORF8_and_Surface_Glycoprotein_Inhibit_Heme_Metabolism_by_Binding_to_Porphyrin/11938173

  101. 101
    bornagain77 says:

    Some people on facebook had questions concerning the validity of a covid-19 article on oxygen deprivation that I posted yesterday. i.e. “Covid-19 had us all fooled”

    To dispel any questions that may arise regarding that article. Here is the research paper that that article was based upon:

    COVID-19: Attacks the 1-Beta Chain of Hemoglobin and Captures the Porphyrin to Inhibit Human Heme Metabolism
    – 27.03.2020
    https://chemrxiv.org/articles/COVID-19_Disease_ORF8_and_Surface_Glycoprotein_Inhibit_Heme_Metabolism_by_Binding_to_Porphyrin/11938173/5

    Bottom line, the research on oxygen deprivation due to the virus is legit.

    Here is the article again

    Covid-19 had us all fooled, but now we might have finally found its secret.
    http://web.archive.org/web/202.....182386efcb

  102. 102
    bornagain77 says:

    Bob O’H

    ba77 – “I wonder if, God forbid, Bob had this horrid disease whether or not he would want to be in a ‘control group?’ Or whether he would want to make damn sure he was getting real medicine?”

    Bob O’H: As has been pointed out, this is an ignorant comment. FWIW, I was once in a trial (for zit treatment, and I suspect I was in the control group).

    As should be needless to say, comparing your “zit treatment” to the life and death situation that Covid-19 presents to people is what is truly ignorant.

    Like I said before. “I wonder if Bob can even answer that question honestly? Guess, for the sake of science, we just have to give Bob the disease and see how Bob responds (when faced with the reality of his own impending mortality)!

    Bet Bob sings a very different tune then! But we won’t know until we run the test on Bob himself!

    If Bob fails the test, we can call Bob’s mental affliction the ‘ivory tower syndrome’.

    Cruel Logic
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=83BdmoimH0M

  103. 103
    jerry says:

    Of the. three links I posted above I would go to the second and then click the video at the top of the page rather than read the transcript. One of the more compelling interviews I have ever seen. Here is a doctor who admits they do not know what to do.

    The third link I posted is to an abstract of the Chinese study that BA77 linked to.

    Now this has to be distinguished from all that Dr. Zelenko has discussed and is doing. Zelenko is focusing on never getting to the need for any oxygen therapy or ventilation. He is pursuing killing the virus before it does any damage. For most people their immune system will do that. But for elderly and those who have impaired immune systems, they have a high chance of progressing to the end stage where they do not know what to do.

    The doctor in the interview says they have never seen anything like this before and they operate on protocols and there is none for this disease. Trying to get the medical system to invent new protocols is extremely difficult especially when there is so much pressure from patient load.

  104. 104
    Bob O'H says:

    Jerry @ 94 –

    HCQ has been prescribed since 1950’s.

    As an anti-viral to corona viruses? No, for very different diseases.

  105. 105
    Bob O'H says:

    ba77 @ 102 – try reading my whole comment @90. I did actually answer your question. I appreciate that answering your question means that you can’t use snark around me not answering your question, but I’m not sure you’re helping yourself by demonstrating what seems to be an inability to read beyond a single paragraph.

  106. 106
    bornagain77 says:

    Bob O’H

    I did actually answer your question.

    I don’t believe your answer and hold that we must give you the life and death disease so that we will know for sure exactly what your decision on taking the drug will be in real life once you are confronted with the reality of your own mortality,,, Until that test it is all merely hypothesis. i.e. “Will he or won’t he take the potentially life saving drug?”

    Cruel Logic
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=83BdmoimH0M

  107. 107
    kairosfocus says:

    BO’H:

    HCQ and CQ have been prescribed for 65 years, so their toxicity is well understood and known to be manageable. Where, pharmacology, in general, is the study of poisons in small doses . . . i.e. management of toxicity is a general problem; which is why there are such things as legally and ethically managed prescriptions as a longstanding standard. Also, across that time, it has been recognised that this drug family is broadly acting, including that by 2005 it was in the literature that it had significant potential as an antiviral.

    The policy blunder in the post-SARS1 world, was that (likely due to regulatory cumbersomeness and linked market failure . . . err, frustration) it was not seriously followed up and certified; and no, the evidence is, cocktails demonstrably work and work best from early . . . the it was done and failed is itself facing further studies that show limitations on methods in use; the matter is obviously not simple. A thousand cases speak. We clearly missed the signs from SARS1, H1N1, MERS, EBOLA, Chikungunya, Ziko etc that we have moved into a threshold of pandemics age and need not only a new generation of antibiotics but broadly acting cost effective antivirals.

    Our challenge now is to enable responsible use and study in the face of a pandemic, reflecting a broader understanding of adequacy of warrant in face of an urgent situation than will fit the procrustean bed of certain dominant statistical approaches tied to placebo-based controls. In addition, we have to address the fallacy of turning hyperskepticism into a perceived intellectual virtue, standing in the place of prudence; a worldviews level challenge.

    Where BTW, you dismissively begged questions on Raoult vs Oz et al above. You built in it doesn’t work to dismiss Oz, ignoring Raoult and other studies that show a very different pattern. CV19 does not typically, spontaneously clear up rapidly over five days in absence of cocktails such as are being tested. And, I am not sure that a 1500 patient study on whether CQ stops HEALTHY people from catching the ordinary flu in a given season is relevant to whether it stops serious development towards complications that may readily be fatal in vulnerable groups. I didn’t see a comparison on how many went to complications or died in the report on the Singapore Study’s Abstract. Where, we generally have broad resistance to flu if we are healthy, CV19 by contrast is something new so immune systems are in a much less advantaged position and those with preconditions are even more vulnerable. That study looks like it is tangential at best.

    Such will be complex and contentious in an age where we have foolishly squandered social capital through irresponsible polarisation, agit-prop, media manipulation [to the point where credibility is largely gone], lawfare [including ambulance-chasing] etc.

    However, to give some due credit, in the USA, two tiers of compassionate and emergency off label use authorisation have been issued as evidence of utility has mounted up. In France, right after Raoult’s 80-patient stage of study (since, he has gone to 1,000 it seems), approval was issued. Zelenko and others are advocating cocktails with antibiotics and rapid action is being reported. It should be noted that responsiveness to flow constrictions, classically, is a fourth power law so small increments of relief will be quite noticeable.

    The point noted by Dr Oz, that political decisions forced closing down of studies in progress shows that if you demand studies but lock them down politically, something very perverse is happening with the decision making system. You cannot reasonably demand studies then proceed to lock them down.

    KF

  108. 108
    ET says:

    Less than 90,000 covid-19 deaths worldwide, according to JH.

  109. 109
    daveS says:

    I guess pangolins are back on the menu, boys! 😛

  110. 110
    Jim Thibodeau says:

    Half a dozen comments just seem to have disappeared from the recent comments side bar. Weird.

  111. 111
    Seversky says:

    I heard pangolins go down well with fava beans and a nice chianti

  112. 112
  113. 113
    kairosfocus says:

    JT, that sidebar has been sick for a long time. Already, they killed the hit counter as it gave trouble.WP keeps updating, the rule on bugs for complex software is more or less, one out, one in. KF

  114. 114
    Nimai says:

    How is Azithromycin being taken i.e. how is it being implemented in order to overcoming or lessen antibiotic resistance – in what dosages? – and at what frequency?

  115. 115
    kairosfocus says:

    Nimai, I am not a doctor but the presumption would be, in typical doses. Some are substituting other antibiotics. KF

  116. 116
    DLH says:

    Immediate Treatment for Early Stage SARS-CoV-2 Infections Recommended To Be Implemented Nationally Starting Now: Doctors advocated by 48 doctors.
    https://coda.io/@covid-19-initiative/immediate-treatment-early-stage-sars-cov-2
    This is the best detailed medical review of Hydrochloroquine + Azithromycin + Zinc Sulfate with 109 refs
    Correspondence from Dr. Vladimir Zelenko https://docs.google.com/document/d/1SesxgaPnpT6OfCYuaFSwXzDK4cDKMbivoALprcVFj48/edit
    Latest Results, Dr. Vladimir Zelenko
    https://docs.google.com/document/d/1SesxgaPnpT6OfCYuaFSwXzDK4cDKMbivoALprcVFj48/edit
    97% successfully treated (339/349) & kept out of ICU/Hospital.
    “929 total patients seen with corona – diagnosed with test or clinically.”
    “349 high risk patients were treated with three drug regimen:
    1. Hydroxychloroquine 200mg twice a day for 5 days
    2. Azithromycin 500mg once a day for 5 days
    3. Zinc sulfate 220mg once a day for 5 days”
    “The remainder of low risk patients
    were only treated with supportive care.
    Outcomes:
    1 dead unfortunately- patient had been suffering from leukemia
    4 intubated – 1 is extubated already
    5 admitted for iv antibiotics for pneumonia”

  117. 117
    jerry says:

    No comments. Interesting!

    Has this movement gotten any traction? It seems many commenters here are only interested in nitpicking.

    I will make one. Have politician gotten interested in having deaths attributed to C19 increase? Is there a financial transaction that take place for each death reported?

    I hope not but have heard this reported.

  118. 118
    kairosfocus says:

    DLH & Jerry, I missed that one. Great stuff! Thanks. KF

Leave a Reply