3083 replies to this topic

[pamojja]

No, ascorbic acid doesn't leach essentials minerals from the body. Though really nobody studied high-dose intake, not to talk about long term. We really only have the clinical eperience of such physicians like Klenner and Cathart, which didn't find such averse effects treating many thousands of patients for many years. I personally monitored most minerals in serum, whole blood and hair during my now more than 11 years of having taken in average 24g AA per day.

 

Titrating to bowel-tolerance is done for short periods only anyway. But either way, many do already suffer from essential mineral deficiencies. Since those are often not explainable by actually sufficient intake, I would recommend even without covid or high vitamin intake - to monitor blood levels of essential minerals and vitamins.

 

Usually ascorbic acid gives higest plasma peaks when taken just before a meal. But during titrating to bowel-tolerance, having to take a high dose every 20 minutes, that consideration becomes kind of moot.

Edited by pamojja, 22 April 2020 - 12:34 PM.

[Daniel Cooper]

I agree on all counts, including the 1918 anomaly (which was supposedly due to milder patients remaining in trenches, while serious ones spread it around on the trains back to the hospital).

 

But the vaccine problem is still vexing. The SARS vaccine never entered human trials because, if I understand correctly, animals would exhibit cytokine storms in response to immune challenge. (Funding dried up once it was eradicated from circulation.) HIV vaccine has never worked, save for a few fleeting cases of modestly enhanced immunity, due in large part to problems with antibodies targetting GP120. COVID19 is the only other virus, so far as I can see, with some form of GP120. That has negative ramifications for vaccine development, especially if the Spike "forest" is dense enough to block antibody access to other antigens on the "golfball" surface of the virus.

 

The other problem is 270X dynamic range of viral load vs. time. That means different mutants behave in a radically different manner; not all mutations are of a trivial nature. On the plus side, that helps us focus our vaccine targetting (but all of them currently in trials were designed in the absence of such information -- oops) but it also means that surviving disease and forming antibodies might not protect against the violent forms. I guess we already knew that, but the differences in behavior are stark, and may well explain why we see such a diversity of patients.
 

 

The SARS vaccine never entered human trials for really two reasons:

 

1.) It never offered perfect immunity.  Vaccinated subjects would still display some symptoms of SARS, albeit in significantly attenuated form.

 

2.) The need went away.  I think the total number of persons infected with SARS was in the 8,000(ish) range. The virus was contained through normal containment measures and therefore the (immediate) need for a SARS vaccine vanished.  There have been no SARS outbreaks since 2002/2003.

 

The original SARS virus had the advantage (ironically) that it was both more deadly (CFR = ~10%) and I suspect less communicable.  If you look up the R0 for SARS and covid-19 the official estimates are in the same range (SARS = 2 ~ 5, covid-19 = 1.4 ~ 5.7), but my strong suspicion is that SARS was on the lower end of that range and covid-19 more towards the upper.  There is a tendency for an inverse relationship between CFR and R0.  More deadly diseases tend to take people out of circulation for passing on the infection either through death, or by having such severe symptoms that they effectively self isolate.  SARS was certainly more readily contained to less that 10k infected people total, compared with 2.5M known covid cases as of today and rising.
 

The tragedy is that most SARS research was put on the back burner once the immediate crisis had passed.  It should have instead have been a wake up call.  The world had a great deal of familiarity with deadly influenza viruses, but really hadn't seen a significantly deadly coronavirus in modern history.  SARS should have given us enough time to prepare for covid.  And it did help.  Without the research that was done on SARS back in 2003 we'd be in a significantly worse pickle today.

[lancebr]

Just a small but important correction. If it really is a viral pneumonia, bowel-tolerance could go up to 150 over 200 g a day, meaning with anything less a dose, one never comes even close to it. With 2g during 16 waking hours each amounts to a meager 32g per day. That could never even make a dent. As example, my usual bowel-tolerance due to rhinitis is already 50 g per day.
 

200g per day / 16 waking hours would need 12.5 per hour. If possible, even more frequent, like every 20 min. ~4g, which amounts to an even teaspoon each. The next thing to consider is 3 times 16 hours = 48 doses. Since ascorbic acid usually is disolved in a glass of water, even if one only took 100ml each dose, that would still amount to 4.8 liters of water!

 

If one is determined enough, one of course can just take the teaspoon of AA on one's tongue, and gulp it down with 1-2 sips of water, to avoid becoming hyperhydrated.

 

If one can't tolerate the acididy of pure ascorbic acid, it can easily be turned pH neutral by adding up to half AA's weight as sodium bicarbonate well mixed in water.

 

If you can afford liposomal, use it additionally. Dr. Levy claims for infections it might be 10 times more effective. However, a study done by him found that plasma and intercellular resulted in equal levels with equal doses of liposomal or sodium ascorbate. Only area under the courve intercellular was 50% greater with liposomal. However, even if for an other reason liposomal would still be alledgedly 10 times more effective in infections (Levy speculates because of no energy need for liposomals to enter cells), to get the equivalent of ~200g AA per day would still take 20g liposomal vitamin C per day.

 

However, reaching bowel-tolerance is the sign for both to reduce the next dose by a fifth, and condinue at that level the next days.

 

I noticed that you mentioned sodium ascorbate as having equal results as liposomal. 

 

Would that also be the same for calcium ascorbate?

 

 

[Dorian Grey]

A new angle on HCQ?  

 

https://www.yahoo.co...-120032236.html

 

Blood sugar levels may influence vulnerability to coronavirus, and controlling them through conventional means might be protective

 

"The new coronavirus infects cells by attaching to the surface through a receptor called the angiotensin converting enzyme 2, or ACE2. Both the ACE2 and the virus need sugar molecules bound to their protein for this to work properly."

 

"People with SARS - which is related to the new coronavirus – seem to get high blood sugar temporarily when they get infected as well"

 

"High blood sugar increases the number of sugar-coated ACE2 receptors in the lungs of diabetic mice. So not only are the number of receptors greater, but also there are more sugars attached to them. This makes it easier for the virus to infect cells"

 

"Hydroxychloroquine may work by blocking processes in the cell that add sugars to proteins. This the opposite of what high blood sugar seems to do. This would theoretically impede the virus from interacting with its receptor and modulate the inflammatory response to the virus."

[lancebr]

They now think that this virus might have been going around as early a December in the U.S.

 

"Dr. Jeff Smith, a physician who is the chief executive of Santa Clara County government, said earlier

this month that data suggest it was “a lot longer than we first believed” — most likely since “back in December.”

 

https://www.latimes....-early-february

 

If that is true then what is the real number of people who have had it.

 

I know of two family members who we thought had a bad flu attack back around the end of January so

now just wonder if it was Covid 19. One of the family members is still having coughing attacks that they

never had before getting whatever it was they had in January.

[lancebr]

A new angle on HCQ?  

 

https://www.yahoo.co...-120032236.html

 

Blood sugar levels may influence vulnerability to coronavirus, and controlling them through conventional means might be protective

 

"The new coronavirus infects cells by attaching to the surface through a receptor called the angiotensin converting enzyme 2, or ACE2. Both the ACE2 and the virus need sugar molecules bound to their protein for this to work properly."

 

"People with SARS - which is related to the new coronavirus – seem to get high blood sugar temporarily when they get infected as well"

 

"High blood sugar increases the number of sugar-coated ACE2 receptors in the lungs of diabetic mice. So not only are the number of receptors greater, but also there are more sugars attached to them. This makes it easier for the virus to infect cells"

 

"Hydroxychloroquine may work by blocking processes in the cell that add sugars to proteins. This the opposite of what high blood sugar seems to do. This would theoretically impede the virus from interacting with its receptor and modulate the inflammatory response to the virus."

 

So are there any supplements/herbs that would provide similar benefit of blocking sugar to proteins in the cell as HCQ.

 

I know they say that cinnamon is good for blood sugar control...but would it have the same result as HCQ

 

 

Edited by lancebr, 22 April 2020 - 03:39 PM.

[Daniel Cooper]

They now think that this virus might have been going around as early a December in the U.S.

 

"Dr. Jeff Smith, a physician who is the chief executive of Santa Clara County government, said earlier

this month that data suggest it was “a lot longer than we first believed” — most likely since “back in December.”

 

https://www.latimes....-early-february

 

If that is true then what is the real number of people who have had it.

 

I know of two family members who we thought had a bad flu attack back around the end of January so

now just wonder if it was Covid 19. One of the family members is still having coughing attacks that they

never had before getting whatever it was they had in January.

 

I've been saying the whole time that covid was here before the end of 2019.  I wouldn't be surprised if the first US infection date gets pushed back further.

 

The Chinese timeline has never really made sense.

 

10 Dec - Patient Zero first feels ill in Wuhan

 

16 Dec - Patient Zero shows up in Wuhan Hospital

 

31 Dec - China informs the WHO that they have identified a new and potentially dangerous coronavirus.

 

If you think about that time line, it's two weeks from when their patient first enters their health care system till when the WHO is notified.  I figured that the Chinese political leadership is going to take at least a week to gather information and decide if this is something that can be contained locally and kept quiet or if this is something that is likely to escape and their best interest is in notifying the WHO.  So we have a week to work up the patient, identify it as a novel virus, and to completely sequence it (supposedly China provided the sequence to the WHO upon notification).  That is blazingly fast.  It just seems highly unlikely.  That leaves two likely scenarios:

 

1.) China identified Patient Zero much earlier.  Say early November or even late October.

 

2.) If you're inclined to believe the "virus under study at Wuhan lab escaped theory" then some researcher was exposed to a bat virus they had under study, became ill, and it was nearly immediately understood that she was infected by a virus they were studying which they already had naturally identified and sequenced.

 

I have always tended to believe the former - that China was simply lying about when they first identified they had a novel coronavirus on the loose and did not want to be criticized on dragging their feet in notifying the world.  But, there is some evidence suggestive of the latter.

 

If the virus was on the loose in Wuhan much earlier than admitted, that would give plenty of time for the US to see her first patient sometime in December.   

[Dorian Grey]

So are there any supplements/herbs that would provide similar benefit of blocking sugar to proteins in the cell as HCQ.

 

I know they say that cinnamon is good for blood sugar control...but would it have the same result as HCQ

 

I assume the sugar protein linking refers to glycation.  

 

https://www.lifeexte...-sugar-toxicity

 

Looks like we have quite a few options to choose from.  

[BlueCloud]

I've been saying the whole time that covid was here before the end of 2019.  I wouldn't be surprised if the first US infection date gets pushed back further.

 

The Chinese timeline has never really made sense.

 

 

 

There is also suspicion that It may even have been circulating already in Italy as early as October..

 

 

MILAN (Reuters) - Italian researchers are looking at whether a higher than usual number of cases of severe pneumonia and flu in Lombardy in the last quarter of 2019 may be a signal that the new coronavirus might have spread beyond China earlier than previously thought. 

Adriano Decarli, an epidemiologist and medical statistics professor at the University of Milan, said there had been a “significant” increase in the number of people hospitalized for pneumonia and flu in the areas of Milan and Lodi between October and December last year. 

He told Reuters he could not give exact figures but “hundreds” more people than usual had been taken to hospital in the last three months of 2019 in those areas - two of Lombardy’s worst hit cities - with pneumonia and flu-like symptoms, and some of those had died.

 

https://www.reuters....s-idUSKBN21D2IG

[pamojja]

I noticed that you mentioned sodium ascorbate as having equal results as liposomal. 

 

Would that also be the same for calcium ascorbate?

 

Commercial liposomal products do contain sodium ascorbate, which in the study mentioned was sadly only compared to plain sodium ascorbate. I say sadly, because I know from experience that ascorbic acid has much more immetiate effects. For exemple with a sneezing fit, ascorbic acid stops it on the spot. Sodium ascorbate doesn't. Therefore compared with real ascorbic acid, liposomal could have fared even worse.

 

Also one preliminary study showed, that high dose oral AA raises plasma levels to a very high peak, while sodium ascorbate acts more like a slow release. Never reaching such high peaks in plasma as ascorbic acid itself.

 

Calcium ascorbate is absolutely disadvised beyond a few grams. With titrating to bowel-tolerance one would seriously risk calcium overdoses.

 

About glycation control: http://www.longecity...156#entry797721
 

[Kalliste]

It seem that the MSM is playing up this latest study from the VA concerning hydroxychloroquine in which they say there

appears to be no benefit from Hydroxychloroquine and possible harm caused by it:

 

https://apnews.com/a...dc23423c0bbe2b2

 

https://www.reuters....n-idUSKCN2233AN

 

Some of the basic points are:

 

"28% who were given hydroxychloroquine plus usual care died, versus 11% of those getting routine care alone"

 

"Hydroxychloroquine made no difference in the need for a breathing machine"

 

"Researchers did not track side effects, but noted a hint that hydroxychloroquine might have damaged other organs."

 

They are also reporting that Trump may be backing away from touting it anymore.

 

Some issues

Researchers were associated with Gilead and other big pharmas who have their own $1000 per pill drug in the pipeline.

As usual by now, they are treating tubed up patients in the ICU (they have been doing the same thing to no avail with alzheimers for 35 years, theres no saving a city already hit by a nuclear bomb).

No keeping track on pharmacogenetics of patients, things like cytochrome enzymes  are highly polymorphic at inter-ethnic level.

 

I want to see a study where they snatch people at first sign of disease, make sure they have genetic metabolome for the drugs, are given Zinc/Azithro/HCQ (preferably some other things we mention in this thread such as IV-C). If they do a nice study like that and it does not work then I am fine with that.

 

As it stands I believe Trump hatred plus the urge to make a new Viagra blockbuster is more than enough to allow for some foul play.

Besides even if there is no foul play these "One tested substance at a time to not anger the FDA" researchers are still out there trying single factorial treatments vs cancer and alzheimers even though everything suggests it should be treated with a Multi-targeted approach.

 

[Dorian Grey]

More evidence anticoagulation therapy is imperative.

 

https://www.yahoo.co...-133547956.html

 

This discusses a few: https://www.ncbi.nlm...les/PMC4777343/

 

echinacea, ephedra, garlic, ginger, ginkgo, ginseng, green tea, kava, saw palmetto, St John’s wort, and valerian and four other dietary supplements (coenzyme Q10, glucosamine and chondroitin sulfate, fish oil, and vitamins

 

Vitamin-E has an added benefit if inhibition of scar formation (COVID related pulmonary fibrosis)  

 

We need to work on this a bit more to determine the best anticoagulation protocol. 

[Kalliste]

So are there any supplements/herbs that would provide similar benefit of blocking sugar to proteins in the cell as HCQ.

 

I know they say that cinnamon is good for blood sugar control...but would it have the same result as HCQ

 

I noticed they were using blood thinners in the hospitals. Made me wonder about Ceylon cinnamon, turmeric. Glucosamine was mentioned in a paper I posted earlier.

Myo inositol also in part works by those receptors if memory serves me right. Diets that make your blood thinner are also tree nuts and quality sourced omega 3.

 

I heard a doctor say once that they could literally see the white fat from things like tree-nuts in the blood of people who arrived in the trauma ward shortly after they had had big meal of nuts. I'm not actually sure if that is a true memory or if I dreamed it later...

[Mr Spock]

So are there any supplements/herbs that would provide similar benefit of blocking sugar to proteins in the cell as HCQ.

 

I know they say that cinnamon is good for blood sugar control...but would it have the same result as HCQ

There's lots of supps including chromium, easily available and inexpensive- but what about low carb high fat diet? 

[DanCG]

I assume the sugar protein linking refers to glycation.  

 

https://www.lifeexte...-sugar-toxicity

 

Looks like we have quite a few options to choose from.  

 

Actually, no. He is referring to enzymatic glycosylation, not glycation. In the paper cited in the link, the author states this to support his rationale:

 

"Chloroquine, a related compound, inhibits SARS-CoV replication and spread in cell culture, possibly through reducing glycosylation of the ACE2 receptor³⁶ Interestingly, computer simulations suggest that hydroxychloroquine and chloroquine are predicted to bind to the active site of the enzyme UDP- N-acetylglucosamine 2-epimerase, which catalyzes the rate determining step in the sialic acid biosynthesis pathway and thus there is a rational basis to assume hydroxychloroquine can interfere in terminal glycosylation of proteins in the Golgi apparatus."

 

Glycation would have made more sense to me in relation to diabetes. Is he saying that the abundance of sugar leads to more glycosylation?

[Hebbeh]

Well, if your conspiracy theory is correct, then Trump's people themselves are in on it....

https://news.bloombe...cked-drug-combo

Some issues
Researchers were associated with Gilead and other big pharmas who have their own $1000 per pill drug in the pipeline.
As usual by now, they are treating tubed up patients in the ICU (they have been doing the same thing to no avail with alzheimers for 35 years, theres no saving a city already hit by a nuclear bomb).
No keeping track on pharmacogenetics of patients, things like cytochrome enzymes are highly polymorphic at inter-ethnic level.

I want to see a study where they snatch people at first sign of disease, make sure they have genetic metabolome for the drugs, are given Zinc/Azithro/HCQ (preferably some other things we mention in this thread such as IV-C). If they do a nice study like that and it does not work then I am fine with that.

As it stands I believe Trump hatred plus the urge to make a new Viagra blockbuster is more than enough to allow for some foul play.
Besides even if there is no foul play these "One tested substance at a time to not anger the FDA" researchers are still out there trying single factorial treatments vs cancer and alzheimers even though everything suggests it should be treated with a Multi-targeted approach.

[Daniel Cooper]

Well, if your conspiracy theory is correct, then Trump's people themselves are in on it....

https://news.bloombe...cked-drug-combo
 

 

 

I have no position on Trump or hydroxychloroquine, but those guidelines are coming out of the NIH bureaucracy, which are hardly "Trump's people".  If anything the FDA/NIH/CDC do tend to align significantly with big Pharma, as there are people making careers shuffling in and out of the regulatory bureaucracy and the private sector.

 

 

 

Edited by Daniel Cooper, 22 April 2020 - 08:00 PM.

[Hebbeh]

I have no position on Trump or hydroxychloroquine, but those guidelines are coming out of the NIH bureaucracy, which are hardly "Trump's people". If anything the FDA/NIH/CDC do tend to align significantly with big Pharma, as there are people making careers shuffling in and out of the regulatory bureaucracy and the private sector.

Honestly, who is Trump taking his advice from if not not these people?

The NIH panel, made up of 50 doctors, pharmacy experts and government researchers and officials, specifically recommended against the use of the anti-malaria drug hydroxychloroquine in combination with the antibiotic azithromycin.

[bladedmind]

This thread has been invaluable to me in preparing for the pandemic. 

 

First, let me say that I’m immensely grateful to modern science and medicine for their many accomplishments that have improved the lives of billions of people, including me.  Thank you! 

 

My beef is with the idea that in a crisis one should act only on the basis of strongest knowledge.  Even in normal times, although that standard is appropriate for pursuit of scientific knowledge, it is not appropriate for public policy when lives are at stake and action must be taken with less than ideal knowledge (see philosopher Nancy Cartwright, Evidence-Based Policy).  If I’m thrown from a boat in the ocean and face the choice of a log or a 24” foam board, I’m going to act from theory and cling to the log rather than conduct a RCT to be more confidently sure that it would work better. 

 

I’m in a large city with four big health systems.  Unfortunately, I’m now stuck in an otherwise excellent university health system.  According to one of the local papers, three of the four systems are willing to act on less than ideal knowledge in order to save lives in crisis circumstances.  Mine isn’t, it “doesn’t use any drug in a way that isn't scientifically proven to be safe and effective.”  And, CDC:  “No FDA-approved drugs have demonstrated safety and efficacy in randomized controlled trials for patients with COVID-19.” This is a little silly.  Is it scientifically proven that hospital admission is safe and effective for Covid-19?  Aspirin?  Ibuprofen?  Ventilation?  Lying prone for respiratory distress?   Low-fat, high-carb hospital food?  Where are the trials!

 

They offer the ordinary standard of care.  Which means only “supportive management.”   You can get remdisivir if you are eligible and if you agree to sign up to the clinical trial.  Which means you have a 50% chance of getting something that might work, rather than a 100% chance of getting something that might work.  Isn’t this the ultimate in data snobbery?  In a crisis, to kill people for great data and more reputed publications?   I thought the AIDS activists brought therapeutic duty back to the fore.  Apparently not in my health system.  Some perspectives on science vs. health care here:  https://www.ncbi.nlm...les/PMC4560875/

 

I’m 70, with longevity genes, and two managed comorbidities. Ex ante chance of survival if CV19ed:  about 90%.  I’ve known from the beginning what to expect from my health system.  That is why I come here for ideas, because if I were to become seriously ill, I would be cut off from any personal remedies and only be passively “supported” while my body recovered on its own or as I descended into death.    

 

Thanks to all for so many great suggestions here.  I have masks, goggles, gloves, infrared sauna,  oximeter, oxygen concentrator, moist heat pad, humidifier, quercetin, egcg, zinc, a number of the other supplements mentioned here, and some of the pharmaceuticals (two pirated and two others previously stashed), and lots and lots of knowledge and citations.  I’ve also revised my views several times.  For example, initially was about to abandon my ARB but because of arguments here and follow up research concluded that the greater weight of theory leans towards continuation. 

[Mind]

A new angle on HCQ?  

 

https://www.yahoo.co...-120032236.html

 

Blood sugar levels may influence vulnerability to coronavirus, and controlling them through conventional means might be protective

 

"The new coronavirus infects cells by attaching to the surface through a receptor called the angiotensin converting enzyme 2, or ACE2. Both the ACE2 and the virus need sugar molecules bound to their protein for this to work properly."

 

"People with SARS - which is related to the new coronavirus – seem to get high blood sugar temporarily when they get infected as well"

 

"High blood sugar increases the number of sugar-coated ACE2 receptors in the lungs of diabetic mice. So not only are the number of receptors greater, but also there are more sugars attached to them. This makes it easier for the virus to infect cells"

 

"Hydroxychloroquine may work by blocking processes in the cell that add sugars to proteins. This the opposite of what high blood sugar seems to do. This would theoretically impede the virus from interacting with its receptor and modulate the inflammatory response to the virus."

 

This certainly fits with the data on obese individuals suffering worse from COVID-19 and making up the vast majority of the non-elderly severe cases.

[Daniel Cooper]

I think Trump is maybe listening to some extent to Fauci and probably very little to the NIH bureaucracy.  Mostly he says whatever the hell pops into his head or what he's read in other places.  

 

But let's not pretend that he made up hydroxychloroquine out of whole cloth.  Someone obviously clued him into the fact that the Chinese had some preliminary positive results from some research they did after the initial SARS outbreak in 2002/2003.  I was reading up on chloroquine in early February once covid started being talked about via those Chinese research papers weeks before Trump ever uttered the word. 

 

And don't throw me a list of credentials - "50 doctors, pharmacy experts and government researchers and officials". Color me unimpressed.  Some of those same credentialed people were predicting millions of dead in the U.S. mere weeks ago.  

 

Suggesting that hydroxychloroquine be tried wasn't an unreasonable position.  The risks are not zero but relatively low.  There was preliminary science to back it up, and the FDA's usual "let us study this for a few years" stance was ridiculous.  The FDA does far too much naval gazing even under normal circumstances.  I think it's debatable whether in 2020 if the FDA saves more lives by keeping bad drugs off the market than they kill by keeping good drugs off the market.  Mostly the FDA is an agent of the status quo, which vastly favors incumbent pharmaceutical companies.  For the most part, big Pharma has the drug approval process they desire.  You may be tempted to say "but surely the pharmaceutical companies don't want to pay billions of dollars to go through a long drawn out drug approval process".  And if you said that you would be quite wrong.  A 1 ~ 3 billion dollar and average 10 year drug approval process does two things:

 

1.) It establishes a tremendously high entry barrier to small innovative companies which can be so disruptive to large, slow, incumbent players.

 

2.) The long process ensures that no new innovative approach is likely to enter the market before the patent expires on their current cash cow drugs.  

 

So, yes if the NIH has a bias, it is in favor of the wishes of the big incumbent pharmaceuticals, and none of them are interested in a drug that has been off patent for 30 years being declared the mainline treatment for a global pandemic.

 

Now none of this has anything to do with whether hydroxychloroquine is or is not a useful treatment for covid.  But it is a statement of the biases currently built into our system.

[Hebbeh]

I think Trump is maybe listening to some extent to Fauci and probably very little to the NIH bureaucracy.  Mostly he says whatever the hell pops into his head or what he's read in other places.  

 

You think Fauci isn't aligned and in agreement with the NIH and CDC?

 

But you probably nailed it with the "Mostly he says whatever the hell pops into his head".

 

Some of those same credentialed people were predicting millions of dead in the U.S. mere weeks ago.

 

You might need some references for that statement.  For the most part, the predictions as this has unfolded have and are continuing to play out.  Certainly the end result would be much worse had we done nothing and let nature take its course and that would of been worse case scenario.

 

There was preliminary science to back it up, and the FDA's usual "let us study this for a few years" stance was ridiculous.

 

 

 If this had been the FDA's position, then why have there been numerous trials and even more doctors experimenting with this treatment?

 

No offense intended but quite honestly the rest of your post appears to be another conspiracy theory rant.

[Daniel Cooper]

You might need some references for that statement.  For the most part, the predictions as this has unfolded have and are continuing to play out.  Certainly the end result would be much worse had we done nothing and let nature take its course and that would of been worse case scenario.

 

Sorry, but I fee disinclined to source a reference for something that happened and was widely reported in the media less that a month ago.  I refer you to google.  Perhaps search on "2.2 million covid deaths". 

 

The range of those estimates were 1.5 million to 2.2 million btw.

 

And indeed, there is no doubt that shutting down a significant part of the US economy has certainly reduced the number of covid deaths.  But "1.5 to 2.2 million deaths" were never in the cards.  People would have effectively self isolated without prompting by the government long before those numbers were reached.  What someone did, is they took the current US death total, saw that it was doubling every two or three days and did some elementary math and said "by god, in X number of days we'll have 2 million dead".  Which is idiotic because that simple model lacks any form of feedback.  As if when the first couple of hundred thousand people had died no one would notice and would simply continue about their business as if nothing was going on.

 

But, back to the shut down.  Yes, it undoubtedly has saved at least tens of thousands of lives. Had nothing changed we could well be at double the current death rate. 

 

But do not image that this has been cost free.  And I'm not talking solely about dollars here.  When people are put out of work, all sorts of social pathologies arise.  Suicides go up.  Deaths due to drug overdose go up.  Domestic violence goes up. etc. etc.  I don't know which way the balance sheet will tally up in the end, but there will be numbers on both sides of the ledger.  We don't call people's jobs their "livelihood" for no reason.  It's not "just money" in the end.

 

This is the point at which someone in the "but if it saves one life it's worth it" camp usually shows up.  But no one believes in taking any arbitrary measure "if it saves one life", otherwise we'd have a national speed limit of 35 mph and require the wearing of pads and bicycle helmets full time.  Life is all about the trade offs.

 

 

 

 

[lancebr]

Interesting story about how Chris Cuomo was taking 45 different pills a day to combat the virus.

 

They included some of the following:

 

• 2 AntiViril-3x daily (vegetable capsules with andrographis [above-ground parts], taraxcum [whole plant], lonerica japonica [flower bud])

• 1 OKO-3x daily (stabilized oxygen, potentized quinine 3x homeopathic dilution prepared in Sac Lac base)

• 3 KappArest-3x daily

• Respiratory Response-1 dropperful 3x a day (derived from andrographis, olive leaf, passion flower and others)

• AlkaC-3x daily, in water, AM + PM 6000 mlg

• Belladonna (fever)-2 pellets 3-4x daily

• Tylenol (taken as needed)

• Allegra D-1x daily

• Glutathione powder-1 scoop daily, in water

• Vitamin D-6000 mg daily

• Rhus Tox (aches)-2 pellets 3-4x daily

• Gelsemium (chills)-2 pellets 3-4x daily

• Camphora (chest)-2 pellets 2x daily (do not take at the same time as any other remedies)

• Echinacea/OSHA compound-1 dropper full 3x daily

• CoQ (antioxidant that supports nervous system)-1x daily
• CBD Oil

 

 

I find it ironic that he was one of the main people on MSM that was always complaining about Trump pushing hydroxychloroquine

and zinc because there was no scientific studies to back up their use for Covid 19, but he was taking quinine and all these

supplements and herbs that also have no studies to back up their use for Covid 19.

 

https://www.thesun.c...ills-sauna-cbd/

 

I remember on one of his shows when he was stuck in his basement he said many people had asked him if he was taking

hydroxychloroquine and he said no and made it sound like it was due to not being recommended by doctors since there

were no studies to back it up,,,,but he failed to mention that he was taking quinine (which hydroxychloroquine is the

synthetic derivative of quinine).

 

 

Edited by lancebr, 23 April 2020 - 01:04 AM.

[bladedmind]

Interesting story about how Chris Cuomo was taking 45 different pills a day to combat the virus.

 

 

Dissed HCQ, but on the advice of an "energy medicine physician" was popping homoepathics and "oxygenated herbs"!!!!! The "physician" is a PhD at an outfit called Light Harmonics.  "Her training is in Ayurveda, medical radiesthesia, radionics, energy healing, nutrition, herbal medicine and detoxification methods."  Hoo boy.  

 

https://thepuristonl...orona-protocol/

Includes a helpful link to the Light Harmonics enterprise clinic.

 

"Needs references."

Edited by bladedmind, 23 April 2020 - 01:28 AM.

[FSL]

Read "COVID toes" today as one of the early symptoms for kids:

 

https://www.silive.c...?outputType=amp

 

It looks more like secondary perniosis to me according to the following:

 

https://skin-disease...s.php?aid=19437

 

The above also stated: "Secondary perniosis is treated significantly more often with hydroxychloroquine and calcium channel blockers than primary perniosis."

 

The following mentioned "mimicry of vasculitis" in some severe patients (perniosis is a form of vasculitis).  It also discussed the use of chloroquine and hydroxychloroquine in some tests:

 

https://www.ncbi.nlm...les/PMC7102614/

 

Edited by FSL, 23 April 2020 - 01:56 AM.

[Florin]

We'll soon find out if HCQ can prevent COVID-19.

 

Proflaxis Using Hydroxychloroquine Plus Vitamins-Zinc During COVID-19 Pandemia
https://clinicaltria...how/NCT04326725

 

PCORI Funds Registry and Large-Scale Study of Effectiveness of Hydroxychloroquine to Prevent COVID-19 Infection in U.S. Healthcare Workers
https://www.pcori.or...lthcare-workers

[Dorian Grey]

Yet another angle on the smoking paradox:  

 

https://www.dailymai...ne-workers.html

 

"A group of researchers in Paris are planning to examine whether nicotine patches will help prevent - or lessen the effects of - the novel coronavirus. 

It comes after a French study found that few people hospitalized, or at home, with coronavirus were regular smokers compared to the general population.

 

Results showed that of the patients hospitalized, with a median age of 65, only 4.4 percent were regular smokers. But among those at home, with a median age of 44, 5.3 percent smoked.  By comparison, among the general population, 40 percent of those between ages 44 and 53 smoke, and around 11 percent of those aged 65 to 75 smoke.

The researchers determined that far fewer smokers appear to have contracted the virus or, if they have, their symptoms are less serious."

--------------

Tis a puzzlement!  

[joelcairo]

Raoult's study of 1061 patients treated with hydroxychloroquine+azithromycin has been published. As has been previously announced, the death rate among patients was 0.75%.

 

I haven't read all of the study in depth, but I think this is important: Instead of selecting patients the way they are typically found, by COVID-19 testing after they seek medical attention with serious symptoms, this group found patients using contact tracing. Many of the subjects were tested for infection on the basis of having come into contact with a known patient, some having only mild symptoms and some having no reported symptoms at all.

 

I mentioned earlier in this thread that it would be necessary to have a control group or at the very least an apples-to-apples comparison to a known group of patients. This study unfortunately doesn't seem to have either.

 

Many have suggested that the true overall death rate from the virus is under 1%, so if my reading of the how the study was set up is correct, this doesn't provide much in the way of evidence that there is any benefit from HCQ at all.

 

https://www.mediterr...rseille-france/

 

 

Edited by joelcairo, 23 April 2020 - 06:43 AM.

[lancebr]

Yet another angle on the smoking paradox:  

 

https://www.dailymai...ne-workers.html

 

"A group of researchers in Paris are planning to examine whether nicotine patches will help prevent - or lessen the effects of - the novel coronavirus. 

It comes after a French study found that few people hospitalized, or at home, with coronavirus were regular smokers compared to the general population.

 

Results showed that of the patients hospitalized, with a median age of 65, only 4.4 percent were regular smokers. But among those at home, with a median age of 44, 5.3 percent smoked.  By comparison, among the general population, 40 percent of those between ages 44 and 53 smoke, and around 11 percent of those aged 65 to 75 smoke.

The researchers determined that far fewer smokers appear to have contracted the virus or, if they have, their symptoms are less serious."

--------------

Tis a puzzlement!  

 

If nicotine is shown to have some benefit...I wonder if nicotine gum would work or if it would have to be the patch?