• Log in with Facebook Log in with Twitter Log In with Google      Sign In    
  • Create Account
  LongeCity
              Advocacy & Research for Unlimited Lifespans

Photo
* * * * * 2 votes

Protecting from Coronavirus - Supplements & Therapies

coronavirus flu disease epidemics viruses immunity covid-19

  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
3083 replies to this topic

#1021 resveratrol_guy

  • Guest
  • 1,315 posts
  • 290

Posted 18 April 2020 - 04:21 PM

 

Anything else?  How 'bout Vitamin-E.  We've seen doctors are considering anticoagulation therapy to help avoid capillary micro-clotting and the resulting disaster.  Vitamin-E is one of many supplements know to "thin" the blood, but it also has an additional benefit.  

 

https://medlineplus....icle/002406.htm

 

"Vitamin E is also important in the formation of red blood cells. (edit) It also helps widen blood vessels and keep blood from clotting inside them"

Thanks for the brownie point, Dorian :-)

 

I just thought I should mention that vitamin E supplementation resulted in greater morbidity for seniors in a massive study. It might have been the famous Framingham Heart Study. Unfortunately I don't have time to dig into this at the moment, but I've mentioned it in years past. This is not to say that one should avoid foods containing vitamin E. I suspect the supplements were the alpha tocopherol form, as opposed to the gamma variety found in nuts and avocados, for instance.

 

It's possible that the supplements made already aged blood vessels leak, or (less likely) inhibited hormesis too severely. But I really don't know.



#1022 Dorian Grey

  • Guest
  • 2,211 posts
  • 987
  • Location:kalifornia

Posted 18 April 2020 - 04:31 PM

Oh yes, the "increased all cause mortality" with E study.  If I remember correctly, these folks were taking a relatively high dose of synthetic form dl-alphatocopherol in a study to prevent heart disease.  While I will not dispute this might be generally unwise (natural form mixed tocopherols are best), when it comes to surviving COVID there may be a time when considering risk vs potential reward might be wise.  

 

Pathologists are saying they are seeing micro-clotting which is obstructing blood flow in the lung tissue of those who've died from advanced COVID.  Some are advocating anticoagulation therapy.  Many are opining NSAIDs like aspirin may be unwise to take with COVID, so unless you've got access to a prescription blood thinner, Vitamin-E or one of the other blood thinning supplements might be our best treat at home option.  

 

Once capillary alveoi circulation is shut off by micro-clotting, it's likely game over.  Risk vs Reward.  


Edited by Dorian Grey, 18 April 2020 - 05:24 PM.

  • Good Point x 1

#1023 Dorian Grey

  • Guest
  • 2,211 posts
  • 987
  • Location:kalifornia

Posted 18 April 2020 - 04:54 PM

So what is the consensus now on Hydroxychloroquine?

 

Just saw a doctor on MSM saying that based on the recent studies it can now be determined that hydroxy

is useless against this virus and has been a waste of time.  His words not mine.

 

Del Bigtree pointed out in his latest youtube, a study way back in 2005 showing in vitro suppression of the original SARS-CoV virus.  

 

https://www.ncbi.nlm...pubmed/16115318

 

Chloroquine is a potent inhibitor of SARS coronavirus infection and spread.

 

Conclusion: "Chloroquine is effective in preventing the spread of SARS CoV in cell culture. Favorable inhibition of virus spread was observed when the cells were either treated with chloroquine prior to or after SARS CoV infection"

 

What caught my eye was the "prior to or after" and the potential for prophylaxis.  The dosage for prophylaxis for malaria is much lower than the dosage for treating active/acute malaria.  Might low dose prophylaxis of chloroquine meds or perhaps even quinine help with SARS-CoV-2?  

 

Most of the hydroxychloroquine studies now being done are occurring only in inpatient hospitalized settings, where viral load is already very high.  

 

I'm thinking that preventing massive early viral replication through prophylaxis or immediate initiation of therapy upon first signs/symptoms might be our Holy Grail.  If chloroquine or quinine might have ANY effect on viral replication early in the disease process, buying time for the immune response, this may make all the difference in progression to end stage disease.  

 

A study of one going on with quinine in my body right now.  I'll let you know how this turns out.  


Edited by Dorian Grey, 18 April 2020 - 05:14 PM.

  • Agree x 1

#1024 lancebr

  • Guest
  • 440 posts
  • 196
  • Location:USA

Posted 18 April 2020 - 09:48 PM

Del Bigtree pointed out in his latest youtube, a study way back in 2005 showing in vitro suppression of the original SARS-CoV virus.  

 

https://www.ncbi.nlm...pubmed/16115318

 

Chloroquine is a potent inhibitor of SARS coronavirus infection and spread.

 

Conclusion: "Chloroquine is effective in preventing the spread of SARS CoV in cell culture. Favorable inhibition of virus spread was observed when the cells were either treated with chloroquine prior to or after SARS CoV infection"

 

What caught my eye was the "prior to or after" and the potential for prophylaxis.  The dosage for prophylaxis for malaria is much lower than the dosage for treating active/acute malaria.  Might low dose prophylaxis of chloroquine meds or perhaps even quinine help with SARS-CoV-2?  

 

Most of the hydroxychloroquine studies now being done are occurring only in inpatient hospitalized settings, where viral load is already very high.  

 

I'm thinking that preventing massive early viral replication through prophylaxis or immediate initiation of therapy upon first signs/symptoms might be our Holy Grail.  If chloroquine or quinine might have ANY effect on viral replication early in the disease process, buying time for the immune response, this may make all the difference in progression to end stage disease.  

 

A study of one going on with quinine in my body right now.  I'll let you know how this turns out.  

 

So in your opinion do you think chrloroquine or hydroxchloroquine are of any use against this virus?

 

 

I noticed that Masterjohn has said "it looks more and more like the drug does very little if anything."

 

https://chrismasterj...-grows-stronger

 



#1025 lancebr

  • Guest
  • 440 posts
  • 196
  • Location:USA

Posted 18 April 2020 - 09:54 PM

 

Smoking May Protect Against Coronavirus 

 

Does smoking PROTECT against coronavirus? That was the amazing claim from David Hockney but multiple scientific studies now suggest he might be on to something 

 

"A leading infectious disease expert at University College London, Professor Francois Balloux, said there is 'bizarrely strong' evidence it could be true.
 
And data from multiple Chinese studies shows that COVID-19 hospital patients contained a smaller proportion of smokers than the general population (6.5 per cent compared to 26.6 per cent), suggesting they were less likely to end up in hospital. 
 
Another study, by America's Centers for Disease Control of over 7,000 people who tested positive for coronavirus, found that just 1.3 per cent of them were smokers - against the 14 per cent of all Americans that the CDC says smoke."

 

 

So what is the opinion on this view about smokers:

 

https://chrismasterj...smoking-paradox

 

Basically saying that smoking increased ACE2 and because of the increase of ACE2 by smoking it "got them infected; it killed them faster"

 

 

 


Edited by lancebr, 18 April 2020 - 10:29 PM.


#1026 bladedmind

  • Guest
  • 286 posts
  • 221
  • Location:United States
  • NO

Posted 18 April 2020 - 10:36 PM

Report on Self-Administration of Chloroquine Phosphate, 500 mg

 

Four weeks ago, I took my first dose.   Sinus headache, level 1 out of 10 (10 highest).  Mild crappy feeling for about 18 hours, then back to normal. Four days later awoke with atypical surge of well-being.

 

Second dose.  Exactly the same.

 

Third dose.  The same, but no well-being surge.

 

Now, I am skipping this week’s dose.  It has a long life and does accumulate.  I notice its presence.  According to one report I posted earlier on this thread, dosage every two or three weeks may be sufficient to deter lung invasion.  I will now try it every two weeks.  Meanwhile I am comfortable with daily dosing of quercetin, egcg, zinc, and rotations of other substances commonly mentioned here.

 

Recently sent some tabs to a close relative in the Bay Area.  He and spouse had most CV19 symptoms except fever in February, including weeks of lingering fatigue.  Last week, each felt the onset of bad CV19 symptoms again.   Within three hours, each took a chloroquine tab, 30 mg zinc, 2 mg copper.  Felt mild headache and crappiness from chloroquine.  24 hours later, symptom-free and feeling good; stable to date. 

 

Not meant to imply anything beyond these few experiences.


Edited by bladedmind, 18 April 2020 - 10:42 PM.

  • Informative x 2

#1027 bladedmind

  • Guest
  • 286 posts
  • 221
  • Location:United States
  • NO

Posted 18 April 2020 - 11:07 PM

Was sent to this site by a previous post in this thread.

https://www.drkarafitzgerald.com/category/covid-19/

 

https://www.drkarafitzgerald.com/2020/04/17/8-potential-natural-anti-avoid-compounds/

Reference to specific single compounds in citrus, tea, Chinese skullcap, Andrographis, turmeric, quercetin, luteolin, rosemary; proposed mechanisms of action of each against CV19; and cites to studies.

 

https://www.drkarafitzgerald.com/2020/03/25/a-few-additional-treatment-possibilities-in-covid19-sars-cov-2-addressing-furin-like-cleavage-and-pyroptosis-caspacin-1-activation-of-inflammasome-nlrp3/

Also, these three items, not yet mentioned on this longecity thread:

 

     the ketone, beta hydroxybutyrate

   

     Fish oil, or specialized pro-resolving lipid mediators (Metagenics SPM)

   

     Palmitoylethanolamide (PEA)

 

 

I’ve used the SPM and PEA in past attempts to reduce inflammation.  No subjective results observed. 

 

Would like to hear others’ ideas about the relevance of ketones, fish oil, and PEA to CV19.

 

 

Also has a full page on TCM remedies.

 

 

 

 

 

 


Edited by bladedmind, 18 April 2020 - 11:11 PM.

  • unsure x 1
  • Informative x 1

#1028 Dorian Grey

  • Guest
  • 2,211 posts
  • 987
  • Location:kalifornia

Posted 18 April 2020 - 11:57 PM

So in your opinion do you think chrloroquine or hydroxchloroquine are of any use against this virus?

 

 

I noticed that Masterjohn has said "it looks more and more like the drug does very little if anything."

 

https://chrismasterj...-grows-stronger

 

 

The clinical trials of hydroxychloroquine in the US invariably fail to start treatment until viral replication is already widespread and patients are sick enough to require hospitalization.  As far as I know ALL HCQ trials in the US are done only on hospitalized patients, and only after their test comes back positive.  At this point in the disease process all of the chloroquine meds may indeed be of little use, as their primary function is to inhibit viral replication and prevent rapid widespread infection until the immune system kicks in and joins the fight.  

 

Clinical trials also rarely allow for combination therapies (HCQ+Zinc), as they wish to test the single agent only and adding a second agent would invalidate the results on the particular agent you were attempting to evaluate.  

 

Independent doctors like Zelenko in New York start HCQ therapy immediately on seeing symptomatic patients, often before testing has even come back positive, and are reporting very good results.  Zelenko also uses a combination therapy of HCQ, Zinc & azithromycin, which bureaucrats like to point out is not a proper study of HCQ therapy as he's using multiple agents and no placebo group.  He's just healing his patients.  

 

I'm not too prone to conspiracy theories, but it's almost as if the HCQ trials were designed to fail due to the universal delayed initiation of therapy.  Gilead has a much more expensive All American product, that I'm sure a lot of folks would rather see save the world.  Remdesivir actually appears it might be promising with later stage disease, which apparently is what American doctors like to see before they start any therapeutics.  

 

Personally, I'd still wish to try HCQ if I could get it early enough.  


Edited by Dorian Grey, 19 April 2020 - 12:00 AM.

  • Good Point x 3
  • Agree x 1

#1029 joelcairo

  • Guest
  • 586 posts
  • 156
  • Location:Calgary, Alberta, Canada
  • NO

Posted 19 April 2020 - 12:00 AM

Bombshell news out of Stanford University: Santa Clara County (effectively, Silicon Valley) has tens of times the number of infections as reported in its official case count. This result, while quite rough due to test inaccuracies, has potentially radical implications for the true case fatality rate and the lockdown debate. It sounds like more accurate and less biased surveys are in the pipeline, as well. Don't forget, though, that deaths lag cases, so the death rate is sure to be higher than implied by this first survey. All considered, this team clearly demonstrated the value of the exercise, which is cheap and easy to reproduce.

https://www.mercuryn...nford-estimates

 

This was not a random sampling, so extrapolations from this data are dangerous. Also if I am reading correctly, only 1.5% of antibody tests were positive. I wonder what the rate of false positives is for this test? If it's more than a fraction of a percent then it will be an important source of error.

 

Nonetheless it's clear that the true number of people infected must be much higher than the number successfully tested and reported. From the few studies I have seen, I keep coming back to a ballpark figure of about 10X higher, but of course I can't justify that with hard evidence.


  • Agree x 1

#1030 Dorian Grey

  • Guest
  • 2,211 posts
  • 987
  • Location:kalifornia

Posted 19 April 2020 - 12:09 AM

So what is the opinion on this view about smokers:

 

https://chrismasterj...smoking-paradox

 

Basically saying that smoking increased ACE2 and because of the increase of ACE2 by smoking it "got them infected; it killed them faster"

 

Dr Masterjohn's theory is certainly sound, but doctors actually treating COVID in the field are reporting the opposite all around the world.  An astonishingly low rate of smokers showing up with advanced symptoms or in the ICU's with advanced disease.  Don't know what to make of this, but I tend to believe eye witness MD's over theoretical hypothesis.  If you don't smoke, I wouldn't advocate starting as a COVID prophylactic; but If you do smoke, don't knock yourself out during this stressful time trying to quit.  



#1031 ta5

  • Guest
  • 954 posts
  • 325
  • Location: 

Posted 19 April 2020 - 01:58 AM

Dermatol Ther. 2020 Apr 1:e13365. 

Goren A1, Mc Coy J1, Wambier CG2, Vano-Galvan S3, Shapiro J4, Dhurat R5, Washenik K6,7, Lotti T8.
PMID: 32237190

 

Here's another article about male pattern hair loss:

 

J Cosmet Dermatol. 2020 Apr 16.

Goren A1, Vano-Galvan S2, Wambier CG3, McCoy J1, et al.
A preliminary observation of high frequency of male pattern hair loss among admitted COVID-19 patients, and suggest that androgen expression might be a clue to COVID-19 severity.
PMID: 32301221

In total, 41 Caucasian males admitted to the hospitals with a diagnosis of bilateral SARSCoV-2 pneumonia were analyzed. The mean age of patients was 58 years (range 23-79). Among them, 29 (71%) were diagnosed with clinically significant AGA (Hamilton–Norwood scale higher than 2) and 12 (29%) had clinically irrelevant relevant signs of AGA (HamiltonNorwood scale 1 or 2). 16 (39%), were classified as severe AGA (Hamilton–Norwood scale 4 to 7).
 
The precise prevalence of AGA among otherwise healthy Spanish Caucasian males is unknown; however, based on published literature, 13, 14 the expected prevalence of a similar age-matched Caucasian population is approximately 31-53%. Due to the burden exerted on the emergency departments participating in this study, the study was limited to visual diagnosis only; therefore, no information was available as to the use of anti-androgens, prostate cancer or benign prostatic hyperplasia; thus if a later study demonstrates that a significant portion of this population was already treated with androgen modulators it would alter the conclusion of this communication. Following this preliminary observation, we plan to conduct a controlled study to determine whether a correlation between androgens and COVID-19 disease severity exists.
 
If AGA is confirmed as a risk factor for increased severity of COVID-19 infection, then we could hypothesize that anti-androgen therapy may reduce the risk of developing severe symptoms following COVID-19 infection. While no anti-androgen therapy for COVID-19 has been studied to-date, recent attention to the anti-malarial drug hydroxychloroquine is of interest. Chloroquine phosphate, an analogue of hydroxychloroquine, has been demonstrated to reduce testosterone in rodents. 15 Further, a combination of hydroxychloroquine and Itraconazole is being studied for the treatment of prostate cancer (NCT03513211). Although the data supporting the use of hydroxychloroquine for treatment of COVID-19 is limited and the potential negative side effects in COVID-19 patients are unknown, the connection to androgens may prove important. Finally, the US FDA has recently granted expanded emergency use access for nitric oxide as a treatment for COVID19. The use of nitric oxide was demonstrated to inhibit androgen receptor activity in prostate cancer. 17 If our theory proves correct, anti-androgen drugs could be employed, such as finasteride, dutasteride, spironolactone, enzalutamide, 19 and possibly cannabidiol.

  • Informative x 1

#1032 Hebbeh

  • Guest
  • 1,661 posts
  • 571
  • Location:x

Posted 19 April 2020 - 02:29 AM

https://www.latimes....-to-coronavirus

 

Do testicles make men more vulnerable to the coronavirus?

 

Men contending with coronavirus infection may have a pair of vulnerabilities that could increase their risk of longer, more severe illness: their testicles.

 

A pilot study that tracked the clearance of the virus from patients in Mumbai, India, offered further evidence that men are indeed harder hit by the pathogen. And it offered a theoretical explanation for that gender disparity that focuses on the cells that the coronavirus is most drawn to.

 

Those cells serve as the front door for the coronavirus because they express a protein called angiotensin converting enzyme 2, which the virus just happens to bind with.

 

In both men and women, these ACE2 proteins, or receptors, are plentiful in the lungs, the gastrointestinal tract and the heart. Not surprisingly, all of those tissues are vulnerable to attack from the virus that causes COVID-19.

 

Testicular tissue also pumps out ACE2 receptors at a high rate. Ovarian tissue does not.

 

A group of researchers led by an oncologist in New York and her mother, a microbiologist in Mumbai, has put forth a hypothesis it acknowledges is highly preliminary: that the testes may harbor the SARS-CoV-2 virus in men, providing it sanctuary from the immune system.

 

While women offer the coronavirus plenty of opportunities to enter their cells, men’s testes may give the virus an extra point of entry. And since the testicles are walled off from the immune system, they may be among the last hiding places from which the virus is driven out.

 

The hypothesis was presented in a preliminary report posted on MedRxiv, a website on which researchers share their unpublished work. Unlike studies published in medical journals, it has not yet been subjected to scrutiny by other researchers.

 

Still, the hypothesis has three important things going for it.

 

First, there are many precedents for a pathogen taking up residence in a quiet corner to elude the body’s immune defenses. The Ebola virus was found to hide in the pigment cells of the human retina, leaving even recovered patients with lingering virus.

 

Second, it is a biologically plausible explanation for an observed gender disparity in COVID-19 infections. The coronavirus is known to bind to ACE2 receptors, which are plentiful in just a handful of tissues, including those of the testicles.

 

Third, it may help explain a clear pattern emerging from the COVID-19 epidemic. While rates of confirmed cases are running close to even by gender, men have died of COVID-19 at notably higher rates than women in China, South Korea, Italy and the United States. In New York City, 68% of deaths attributed to COVID-19 have been in men, and 32% in women.

 

It’s a trend that Dr. Deborah Birx, the White House coronavirus coordinator, has called “concerning.”

 

What the hypothesis does not yet have is clear evidence to support the link between testicles and COVID-19.

 

That, said Dr. Aditi Shastri, an oncologist at Montefiore Medical Center, should be explored by researchers working with cell cultures, animals and the growing number of recovered COVID-19 patients.

 

Shastri led a team based in New York while her mom, Dr. Jayanthi Shastri of Topiwala National Medical College, led a team in Mumbai. The researchers in India tested hospitalized patients and their infected family members every two days to gauge how speedily they cleared the coronavirus once infected.

 

In the 20 female patients, the median time to viral clearance was four days. In the 48 males, the median was 50% longer, at six days.

 

A similar pattern emerged in three extended families of COVID-19 sufferers, whose members had viral samples taken every two days to track the speed at which they threw off the virus.

 

There are a handful of factors that may contribute to that gender mismatch. Men are more likely than women to smoke cigarettes, have high blood pressure and suffer coronary artery disease. All of those conditions seem to predispose people to become more seriously ill from the coronavirus.

 

The younger Shastri said that if the coronavirus is found hiding in the testes, that might mean the virus can be sexually transmitted.

 

“I would definitely consider that virus could be secreted into seminal fluid,” she said.

 

Dr. Kathryn Sandberg of Georgetown University, who studies gender differences in immune response, said women are known to clear many viruses more quickly in men, partly because their immune systems’ opening response to invasion is stronger.

 

Sandberg said the idea that coronavirus could be finding sanctuary in the testes is “speculative.” But she said “it’s worth pointing out to people who have forgotten that ACE2 is in the testes, and could be a player.”

 

She added that she’s been frustrated by the dearth of statistics that carefully record cases, symptoms, hospitalizations, severe illnesses and deaths by gender. Without such careful tracking, potentially important insights could be lost.

 

“The message is, we really have to disaggregate the data we’re collecting by sex,” Sandberg said. “And we have to look at the mechanisms by which this virus works, not just males.”


  • Informative x 2
  • Needs references x 1
  • like x 1

#1033 resveratrol_guy

  • Guest
  • 1,315 posts
  • 290

Posted 19 April 2020 - 03:42 AM

This was not a random sampling, so extrapolations from this data are dangerous. Also if I am reading correctly, only 1.5% of antibody tests were positive. I wonder what the rate of false positives is for this test? If it's more than a fraction of a percent then it will be an important source of error.

 

Nonetheless it's clear that the true number of people infected must be much higher than the number successfully tested and reported. From the few studies I have seen, I keep coming back to a ballpark figure of about 10X higher, but of course I can't justify that with hard evidence.

 

1.5%? "The study estimated 2.5% to 4.2% of residents here carry antibodies to the pathogen". Admittedly, one problem is that they used the previous generation antibody test, which captures exposure to the common cold in some cases, so perhaps you were attempting to account for that. But based on the feedback from UC San Francisco epidemiologist Dr. George Rutherford, the numbers are "a little too high". It's hard to interpret what that means, but doesn't sound like it's 5X overstated, which even so would mean that asymptomatics are, as you suggested, 10X as many as symptomatics.

 

I think we need more data to pin down the ratio, but I also think there's good reason to believe that your 10X estimate is in the ballpark. Whether it's actually 5X or 20X, it's increasingly clear that we're dealing with a fatality rate which is comparable to the flu. Unfortunately, it's much more virulent, meaning that total deaths are surely going to end up much higher.

 

But now the tradeoff between those deaths, and those due to suicide, lack of exercise, etc., due to prolonged isolation is much less clear. It frankly seems like we would fare better if healthy people just put on masks and got back to work. In any case, we need to start testing for antibodies (levels and types, not just status), while use machine learning to estimate reinfection probability on a case-by-case basis. This is a pretty textbook Tensorflow project, and we have the testing equipment. It's mostly just a logistical, manpower, and followup issue at this point. Unfortunately, the lockdowns are literally taxing us to death, day by day.
 

There's now another study, published in the New England Journal of Medicine, which showed positive pregnant women to be 87% asymptomatic vs. 13% symptomatic. Granted, that study is even more biased, and I don't know which antibody test was used.

 

https://www.youtube....h?v=38cb7_nmPh8


Edited by resveratrol_guy, 19 April 2020 - 03:45 AM.


#1034 joelcairo

  • Guest
  • 586 posts
  • 156
  • Location:Calgary, Alberta, Canada
  • NO

Posted 19 April 2020 - 03:55 AM

If you read the study (which is linked from the article you posted), the raw number of positive tests they are working from is 1.5%, then they made age-sex-ethnicity adjustments to come up with the estimate you quote.

 

https://www.medrxiv....4.14.20062463v1

 


Edited by joelcairo, 19 April 2020 - 03:59 AM.

  • Good Point x 1

#1035 Dorian Grey

  • Guest
  • 2,211 posts
  • 987
  • Location:kalifornia

Posted 19 April 2020 - 04:10 AM

Uh-oh!  The oral cavity also rich in ACE2 receptors: 

 

https://www.nature.c...1368-020-0074-x

 

"the oral cavity is a potentially high risk for 2019-nCoV infectious susceptibility"

 

I expect this means oral to (male) genital contact might be very unwise due to the danger of acquiring a potentially persistent testicular infection from an asymptomatic carrier.  (Hebbeh's post above: testes may harbor the SARS-CoV-2 virus in men, providing it sanctuary from the immune system)

 

I actually got a bacterial prostatitis infection a few years back from this type of contact.  A semen culture showed haemophilus influenzae, a typically oral pathogen which I learned was most commonly found in children.  My girlfriend had been babysitting her 2 year old granddaughter at the time which was a likely source; so yep, got an STD from a 2 year old with my gal as the vector.  

 

Well this is certainly depressing!  Trapped at home all day together & no hanky-panky?  


Edited by Dorian Grey, 19 April 2020 - 04:18 AM.


#1036 bladedmind

  • Guest
  • 286 posts
  • 221
  • Location:United States
  • NO

Posted 19 April 2020 - 04:20 AM

One more thing from the functional medicine website:

 

https://www.ifm.org/...tanical-agents/

 

Clinical Recommendations and Mechanisms of Action

 

Quercetin

Curcumin

EGCG

NAC

Resveratrol

Vit D

Melatonin

Vit A

Elderberry

PEA

Vit C

Zinc

 

Rationale, dosages, strength of evidence, risk of harm

 


Edited by bladedmind, 19 April 2020 - 04:21 AM.

  • Informative x 1
  • like x 1
  • Agree x 1

#1037 Hip

  • Guest
  • 2,402 posts
  • -449
  • Location:UK

Posted 19 April 2020 - 04:32 AM

So what is the opinion on this view about smokers:
 
https://chrismasterj...smoking-paradox
 
Basically saying that smoking increased ACE2 and because of the increase of ACE2 by smoking it "got them infected; it killed them faster"

 
Hard to reconcile the contradictory views. But the new paper referred to in your link says something interesting:
 

We identified 12 papers with a total of 9,025 COVID-19 patients. ... The meta-analysis showed a significant association between smoking and progression of COVID-19.

All 12 studies were of patients who had already developed COVID-19, so the risk estimate we report does not represent the effect of smoking on the risk of contracting COVID-19 in the general population.

 
So we might speculate that possibly, smoking might reduce your risk of catching SARS-CoV-2, which could then explain why fewer smokers are found in hospitals treating COVID-19. But once you have caught the virus, perhaps smoking worsens the illness.

Edited by Hip, 19 April 2020 - 04:33 AM.


#1038 ta5

  • Guest
  • 954 posts
  • 325
  • Location: 

Posted 19 April 2020 - 04:37 AM

I would always recommend anti-agingfirewalls.com, but readers of this thread should be especially interested in the latest post, in which 90 year old Vincent Guiliano addresses the question, “Did I have a Covid-19 infection?” [...]

 

 

As it turns out, he has been taking hydroxychloroquinine, 200 mg every other day for years. He did not say why. He has never mentioned that on his blog before, to my knowledge.

 

I was amazed, and curious why, he was taking HCQ for years. I see it's potentially good for a variety of things: Rheumatoid Arthritis, Lupus, improves insuin secretion, insulin sensitivity, lipid profile, and lowers A1c.


  • Agree x 1

#1039 lancebr

  • Guest
  • 440 posts
  • 196
  • Location:USA

Posted 19 April 2020 - 04:39 AM

 
Hard to reconcile the contradictory views. But the new paper referred to in your link says something interesting:
 
 
So we might speculate that possibly, smoking might reduce your risk of catching SARS-CoV-2, which could then explain why fewer smokers are found in hospitals treating COVID-19. But once you have caught the virus, perhaps smoking worsens the illness.

 

So with all this information about smoking and ACE2 increase and smokers might do better or worse

with Covid....then what is the answer to the debate of should we increase or decrease ACE2?

 

I know some people believe ACE2 should be increased but then there are the people who believe it

should be decreased.  Are we any closer to know which theory is correct?
 


  • Enjoying the show x 1

#1040 Dorian Grey

  • Guest
  • 2,211 posts
  • 987
  • Location:kalifornia

Posted 19 April 2020 - 05:52 AM

So with all this information about smoking and ACE2 increase and smokers might do better or worse

with Covid....then what is the answer to the debate of should we increase or decrease ACE2?

 

I know some people believe ACE2 should be increased but then there are the people who believe it

should be decreased.  Are we any closer to know which theory is correct?
 

 

I'm still totally confused about ACE2, but the thought occurred to me there are plenty of ACE2 receptors in various parts of the body in everyone.  Perhaps more than enough for the virus to work with.  

 

My current thought on the matter is, the size of the initial inoculum (initial viral load of transmission) is probably more important than whether you've got 20% more or less ACE2 receptors in lungs.  Is a small initial inoculum in someone with more ACE2 better than a large initial inoculum in someone with fewer ACE2?  I believe it is!  

 

If you're living with someone who becomes infected, you'll likely receive a tremendous load of virus before either of you know what's happening, and ACE2 receptor status probably won't make much difference.  A minor, yet infective exposure while out in public will take much longer to replicate into a massive viral load regardless of ACE2 status, and your immune system may be activated by the time the virus starts to become widespread in your tissues.  

 

Initial inoculum size and immune response are more important than ACE2 status...  In my humble opinion!  


  • Agree x 1

#1041 Kalliste

  • Guest
  • 1,148 posts
  • 159

Posted 19 April 2020 - 06:15 AM

I'm still totally confused about ACE2, but the thought occurred to me there are plenty of ACE2 receptors in various parts of the body in everyone.  Perhaps more than enough for the virus to work with.  

 

My current thought on the matter is, the size of the initial inoculum (initial viral load of transmission) is probably more important than whether you've got 20% more or less ACE2 receptors in lungs.  Is a small initial inoculum in someone with more ACE2 better than a large initial inoculum in someone with fewer ACE2?  I believe it is!  

 

If you're living with someone who becomes infected, you'll likely receive a tremendous load of virus before either of you know what's happening, and ACE2 receptor status probably won't make much difference.  A minor, yet infective exposure while out in public will take much longer to replicate into a massive viral load regardless of ACE2 status, and your immune system may be activated by the time the virus starts to become widespread in your tissues.  

 

Initial inoculum size and immune response are more important than ACE2 status...  In my humble opinion!  

 

You are not the only one confused. This is an op-ed by Swe ICU doctors who are struggling to make sense of the same thing. They are itching to make COVID patients inhale Recombinant humant ACE-2 (rhACE-2).

Both low and high ACE2 values seemed to be a bad indicator, it might be about finding some dynamic balance.

(The doc jokingly mentions "This ACE2 thing which nobody even knew about when I went to school")

https://lakartidning...ns-och-dynamik/


Edited by Kalliste, 19 April 2020 - 06:18 AM.

  • Cheerful x 1

#1042 resveratrol_guy

  • Guest
  • 1,315 posts
  • 290

Posted 19 April 2020 - 06:38 AM

If you read the study (which is linked from the article you posted), the raw number of positive tests they are working from is 1.5%, then they made age-sex-ethnicity adjustments to come up with the estimate you quote.

 

https://www.medrxiv....4.14.20062463v1

 

I didn't read the study, but I did notice from the article that they had tried to adjust away the biases in their sampling, in particular the disproportionate representation of white females. So if those adjustments are reasonable, then the positive rate in the community (as opposed to the positive test rate) would be 2.5 to 4.2%. Anyway it's an important distinction, so I'm glad you pointed it out.
 


Edited by resveratrol_guy, 19 April 2020 - 06:39 AM.


#1043 Dorian Grey

  • Guest
  • 2,211 posts
  • 987
  • Location:kalifornia

Posted 19 April 2020 - 06:38 AM

Three different ways chloroquine, HCQ (and perhaps quinine?)  inhibit SARS-CoV-2

 

 

I'm there dudes!  



#1044 resveratrol_guy

  • Guest
  • 1,315 posts
  • 290

Posted 19 April 2020 - 07:02 AM

 

Clinical trials also rarely allow for combination therapies (HCQ+Zinc), as they wish to test the single agent only and adding a second agent would invalidate the results on the particular agent you were attempting to evaluate. 

 

I don't think even the FDA would be opposed to combination therapies, given the level of desperation (and indeed you can find links to zinc combo trials earlier in the thread). Of course this might not matter much if it's mostly over by the time we have any such results.

 

I'm not too prone to conspiracy theories, but it's almost as if the HCQ trials were designed to fail due to the universal delayed initiation of therapy.  Gilead has a much more expensive All American product, that I'm sure a lot of folks would rather see save the world.  Remdesivir actually appears it might be promising with later stage disease, which apparently is what American doctors like to see before they start any therapeutics.

 

Conspiracies do happen, but I think the HCQ trials were simply designed way too long ago (like in February) when the importance of early treatment with zinc wasn't the zeitgeist. (I do lament the continued waste of resources, but that's not going to change.)

 

As I mentioned in a previous post, Remdesivir seemed to improve survival odds from 61% to 68%. Now I'm not so sure. 111 of 113 severe patients (meaning those not initially on ventilators, but nevertheless requiring passive oxygen) have survived after taking a course of the drug, as of last Friday. But I see no mention of how many of the 111 are still in hospital. If all of them have since gone home, then I think we have a winner, but I've been unable to obtain the count despite the wide array of discussion and interviews that this has generated.

 

What I have gathered is that there is a moderate arm (hospitalized with no need for oxygen) and a severe arm. Gilead has recently added a critical arm (starting on a ventilator) and upped the study population from 4000 to 6000. There remains no treatment arm for mild cases, which is where Zelenko hopefully comes in.

 

https://chicago.sunt...dicine-covid-19


Edited by resveratrol_guy, 19 April 2020 - 07:07 AM.


#1045 lancebr

  • Guest
  • 440 posts
  • 196
  • Location:USA

Posted 19 April 2020 - 07:33 AM

Bill and Melinda Gates gives $19 million dollars to fund clinical trial of Ivermectin.

 

https://www.thailand...vid-19-underway

 

https://www.trialsit...eting-covid-19/

 

I wonder if they know something about Ivermectin that we do not know.

 

I noticed that Masterjohn did an article about Ivermection saying that you would have to have an extremely high dangerous dose

to have the same effect of killing the virus like it did in the petri dish, but he fails to understand that some doctors believe that you

can use a much lower safe dose of Ivermection, not to kill the virus, but to slow its replication down to give the body time to fight it

and not have your immunity be overtaken by the virus.

 

And on the plus side it seems to be a much safer drug in lower doses, than chloroquine, when it comes to side effects.


Edited by lancebr, 19 April 2020 - 08:13 AM.

  • Informative x 1
  • Agree x 1

#1046 smithx

  • Guest
  • 1,446 posts
  • 458

Posted 19 April 2020 - 07:57 AM

Be VERY CAREFUL with chloroquine. The fatal dose of chloroquine is as low as 30mg/kg (https://accessmedici...tionid=42069865).

 

The highest dose for acute malaria is as follows:

 

Acute attack
1 g (600-mg base) PO, THEN
500 mg (300 mg-base) PO after 6-8 hr THEN
500 mg (300 mg-base) PO at 24 hr and 48 hr after initial dose
Total dose of 2500 mg (1500 mg-base) in 3 days

https://reference.me...oroquine-342687

 

The half-life (the amount of time until 1/2 of the drug is out of the body) is 1 to 2 MONTHS, so you can get to a fatal dosage very easily by taking 500mg/d for a week or so.

 

This is all in addition to potentially fatal side effects as well as very serious ones such as maculopathy and macular degeneration which may be irreversible.

 

https://www.drugs.co...de-effects.html

 

This is a dangerous drug. Do not treat it lightly!

 

 

Report on Self-Administration of Chloroquine Phosphate, 500 mg

 

Four weeks ago, I took my first dose.   Sinus headache, level 1 out of 10 (10 highest).  Mild crappy feeling for about 18 hours, then back to normal. Four days later awoke with atypical surge of well-being.

 

Second dose.  Exactly the same.

 

Third dose.  The same, but no well-being surge.

 

Now, I am skipping this week’s dose.  It has a long life and does accumulate.  I notice its presence.  According to one report I posted earlier on this thread, dosage every two or three weeks may be sufficient to deter lung invasion.  I will now try it every two weeks.  Meanwhile I am comfortable with daily dosing of quercetin, egcg, zinc, and rotations of other substances commonly mentioned here.

 

Recently sent some tabs to a close relative in the Bay Area.  He and spouse had most CV19 symptoms except fever in February, including weeks of lingering fatigue.  Last week, each felt the onset of bad CV19 symptoms again.   Within three hours, each took a chloroquine tab, 30 mg zinc, 2 mg copper.  Felt mild headache and crappiness from chloroquine.  24 hours later, symptom-free and feeling good; stable to date. 

 

Not meant to imply anything beyond these few experiences.

 


  • Agree x 2
  • Informative x 1

#1047 sciack

  • Guest
  • 29 posts
  • 6
  • Location:New York

Posted 19 April 2020 - 09:19 AM

Be VERY CAREFUL with chloroquine. The fatal dose of chloroquine is as low as 30mg/kg (https://accessmedici...tionid=42069865).

 

The highest dose for acute malaria is as follows:

 

Acute attack
1 g (600-mg base) PO, THEN
500 mg (300 mg-base) PO after 6-8 hr THEN
500 mg (300 mg-base) PO at 24 hr and 48 hr after initial dose
Total dose of 2500 mg (1500 mg-base) in 3 days

https://reference.me...oroquine-342687

 

The half-life (the amount of time until 1/2 of the drug is out of the body) is 1 to 2 MONTHS, so you can get to a fatal dosage very easily by taking 500mg/d for a week or so.

 

This is all in addition to potentially fatal side effects as well as very serious ones such as maculopathy and macular degeneration which may be irreversible.

 

https://www.drugs.co...de-effects.html

 

This is a dangerous drug. Do not treat it lightly!

it is not dangerous at all there are thousands of people if not more taking it EVERYDAY for lupus or Rheumatoid Arthritis At dosage 200-400 mg. It is only risky if you take it more than 600 mg a day because it can damage your retina. I am talking about hydroxychloroquine not chloroquine phosphate 

and for covid-19 we just need to take it for 5 days or a little longer. It is not the end of the world 

 

https://www.rxlist.c...drug.htm#dosage

 

 


Edited by sciack, 19 April 2020 - 09:22 AM.

  • Dangerous, Irresponsible x 1
  • Ill informed x 1
  • Good Point x 1

#1048 pamojja

  • Guest
  • 2,921 posts
  • 729
  • Location:Austria

Posted 19 April 2020 - 12:05 PM

I'm still totally confused about ACE2, but the thought occurred to me there are plenty of ACE2 receptors in various parts of the body in everyone.  Perhaps more than enough for the virus to work with. 


  • like x 2

#1049 Hip

  • Guest
  • 2,402 posts
  • -449
  • Location:UK

Posted 19 April 2020 - 01:31 PM

So with all this information about smoking and ACE2 increase and smokers might do better or worse

with Covid....then what is the answer to the debate of should we increase or decrease ACE2?

 

I know some people believe ACE2 should be increased but then there are the people who believe it

should be decreased.  Are we any closer to know which theory is correct?
 

 

Perhaps the effects of nicotine / smoking on SARS-CoV-2, good or bad, are little to do with the number of ACE2 molecules expressed on the cell surface. Nicotine will have hundreds if not thousands of different physiological effects in the body, and any one of those could contribute to its effects.

 

For example, with a quick bit of Googling, I found that cigarette smoke (but not nicotine itself) reduces the antiviral interferon response, which might make people more susceptible to the virus. 

 

On the other hand, nicotine seems to reduce the cytokine IL-6, which has been associated with lung damage in COVID-19; so we can speculate that smoking while you have a raging SARS-CoV-2 infection in your lungs could actually be protective, by toning down the fierce immune response in the lungs.


  • Good Point x 1

#1050 Dorian Grey

  • Guest
  • 2,211 posts
  • 987
  • Location:kalifornia

Posted 19 April 2020 - 03:41 PM

 

WOW!  Fantastic find pamojja.  Brownie point awarded.  Post of the day!  

 

This clears up a lot of things.  It appears higher ACE2 is desirable, despite it's ominous association with it being the viral entry point. 

 

Women typically have higher ACE2 than men, and...  Typically are better at both avoiding and surviving COVID.  

 

Blacks & the obese typically are Vitamin-D deficient & low in ACE2, and...  Are dreadfully predisposed to both COVID & advanced disease.

 

Smokers have higher ACE2, and often some pre-existing pulmonary damage, but...  Seem paradoxically resistant advanced COVID

 

The pulmonary damage aspect is particularly important to me.  I'm actually not all that afraid of COVID or dying, but I really don't want to spend the last decade or so of my life walking around with chronic pulmonary fibrosis.  


  • like x 1





Also tagged with one or more of these keywords: coronavirus, flu, disease epidemics, viruses, immunity, covid-19

13 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 12 guests, 0 anonymous users


    Bing (1)