980 replies to this topic

[Daniel Cooper]

 

So you can be sure that if a successful strategy were available (such as early hydroxychloroquine to reduce death) to these nation states to prevent those economic loses, they would have ruthlessly followed that strategy. And they would have dominated over any pharmaceutical company, as nation states are far more powerful stakeholders than any individual pharma corporation.

 

You make the mistake of thinking that something that is soft and squishy and inherently not quantifiable can be easily shoved into some sort of equation and be analyzed. Let me assure you, it can not.

 

You also don't seem to understand that the stated goals of various stakeholders and their actual goals frequently differ. Indeed, sometimes the stakeholders themselves are not actually cognization of what their actual goals are. The goals are built into the organization and by in large ... unstated.  Also as frequently, many stakeholders will have multiple goals - some of them at cross purposes or even sometimes mutually exclusive.

 

You asked previously who the nefarious forces where who got together to sabotage HCQ trails.  Of course your stakeholder analysis assertion prompts the same question: "When did the major stakeholders in the covid pandemic get together to hash out their stakeholder analysis"? The answer is of course never.

 

You seem to have the belief that your stakeholder analysis would rationally lead to an optimal solution. But this is the real world. Often times, the most powerful stakeholders are decidedly not interested in what is at the broad level the most optimal solution. 

 

So what are the major stakeholders interested in wrt to covid-19?

 

Does anyone dispute that the pharmaceutical companies want to maximize profits? I suspect the answer to that is no.

 

What about the governments? What is their main interest? I think that you would assert that the governments are most interested in saving the most lives at the lowest cost. But anyone familiar with history would understand that government are most frequently interested in expanding their power. Sure, I don't think most Western government actually wants to see more people die. I think they would at some level like to minimize deaths. But, mixed in with that goal I think it's pretty obvious that increasing the scope and reach of the government is also a goal. 

 

If in fact your stakeholder analysis worked as well as you assert - governments would be universally acknowledged to most frequently produce the most optimal solutions at the lowest cost.  Let me suggest that this is not the case not just in the US, but worldwide. 

 

You've latched onto a theoretical construct that just doesn't bear much relationship to the real world. A pretty common occurrence when people try to apply analytical techniques which were designed for quantifiable things to things that are just inherently not quantifiable. Which is why the words "the social sciences" are so frequently sniggered at in the halls where the STEM guys hang out.

[Hip]

You've latched onto a theoretical construct that just doesn't bear much relationship to the real world.

 
I can't really see the point of your post. It just seems to fall into line with the general style on these COVID threads, which is to criticise everything just for the sake of criticism, and never say anything positive or constructive. 
 
Stakeholder analysis is not a theoretical construct, it is practical tool routinely used in major corporations. Rather than have to explain it myself, I will use an AI chatbot to provide you with more information on stakeholder analysis as it is used in the corporate world:
 

Corporations use stakeholder analysis to identify and understand the various groups that have a stake in their activities. It helps them manage relationships with these stakeholders in a way that achieves their business objectives. Here are some reasons why corporations use stakeholder analysis:

➤ Identify key stakeholders - Stakeholder analysis helps corporations identify all the key individuals and groups that can impact or are impacted by the corporation's activities. This includes shareholders, employees, customers, suppliers, communities, government regulators, etc.
 

​➤ Understand stakeholder needs and interests - By analyzing each stakeholder group, corporations can gain insight into their specific needs, interests, concerns and goals. This helps the corporation tailor strategies and actions to satisfy different stakeholders.

 

➤ Manage stakeholders effectively - Armed with a better understanding of stakeholders, corporations can develop strategies to engage and manage relationships with each group in a way that supports the corporation's objectives while also addressing stakeholder concerns.

 

➤ Reduce risk - By proactively managing stakeholders, corporations can reduce risks from adverse actions by dissatisfied stakeholders. Ignoring stakeholders can lead to problems like legal action, boycotts, negative publicity, etc.

 

➤ Improve reputation - By showing stakeholders that their interests and concerns are understood and addressed appropriately, corporations can improve their reputation, trust and credibility among those stakeholders.

 
So in summary, stakeholder analysis helps corporations gain insight into the various groups that matter to their success, so they can manage relationships in a way that minimizes risks and improves business outcomes. It's an important strategic planning and management tool.

Edited by Hip, 29 July 2023 - 12:25 AM.

[Mind]

More evidence of unconstitutional censorship of COVID vaccine information. The Biden administration was even going after jokes about the injections.

 

Again, I am unsure most people are aware of how manipulated they were during the COVID panic. All information in the US/UK was heavily biased, censored, etc... in order to construct a narrative that;

 

1. COVID was the worst disease ever!!! (it wasn't, quality IFR estimates reveal it was like a bad flu)

2. Masks work as a pandemic control measure (they don't)

3. Lockdowns would stop the transmission (they didn't)

4. Sterilizing everything would stop transmission (it didn't)

5. Social distancing would slow the transmission (it didn't)

6. Plexiglass barriers would help (they didn't)

7. The vaccine is 100% safe and effective (it isn't)

8. The vaccine would stop transmission (it doesn't)

9. The vaccine is better than natural immunity (it isn't)

 

In order to get people to believe a bunch of things that were not even remotely true, the US/UK health bureaucracies, the WHO, etc... spent billions on marketing campaigns in TV, social media, government PSAs, etc... Fake studies were floated to trash alternative treatments. The CDC and FDA lied and hid data. The US/UK heavily censored true information. According to FOIA releases, health bureaucrats were making politically biased, unscientific decisions in order to get rid of President Trump. Fake doctor and nurse accounts were on social media spreading unnecessary fear. And much more.

 

Very little of what you think you know or remember about the COVID panic is true.

 

The people who led the COVID panic need to be fired, investigated, and criminally prosecuted if possible,

[Hip]

1. COVID was the worst disease ever!!! (it wasn't, quality IFR estimates reveal it was like a bad flu)

2. Masks work as a pandemic control measure (they don't)

3. Lockdowns would stop the transmission (they didn't)

4. Sterilizing everything would stop transmission (it didn't)

5. Social distancing would slow the transmission (it didn't)

6. Plexiglass barriers would help (they didn't)

7. The vaccine is 100% safe and effective (it isn't)

8. The vaccine would stop transmission (it doesn't)

9. The vaccine is better than natural immunity (it isn't)

 

Seems that we have departed from scientific dialog and scientific evidence, and are now posting religious assertions. 

 

If we are going to have a faith-based discussion, I'll continue in this religious vain, by posting some of Jesus's miracles (all totally true and scientifically proven of course, at least in the Midwest):

1. Changing water into wine at Cana 
2. Healing the royal official's son in Capernaum 
3. Healing the paralytic at Bethesda 
4. Feeding the 5000  
5. Jesus walking on water  
6. Healing the man blind from birth  
7. The raising of Lazarus  

Edited by Hip, 29 July 2023 - 03:19 PM.

[Dorian Grey]

A bit naive to think governments and even government scientists don't use propaganda, and in times of crisis, heapin' helpings of propaganda.  

 

Obviously, no one knew what the heck was going on during the first half of 2020, when the foundations of the pandemic response was laid down.  

 

One thing seemed obvious from the start, & that was, we didn't want anyone fooling around with old drugs, so policy & propaganda was devoted to buying time for new drugs & vaccines to be developed.  The virus was most lethal early on, but treatment didn't arrive until the virus had mutated into a more benign pathogen.  We got the basics of pandemic management completely backwards.  

 

Difficult for anyone to admit they were wrong, so we all stand by our guns and shoot first those who might ask questions. 

 

Once you've seen a naked emperor parading in public, it can be hard not to see through his propaganda.  

 

For those who cover their eyes, ignorance is bliss!  

[Hip]

One thing seemed obvious from the start, & that was, we didn't want anyone fooling around with old drugs, so policy & propaganda was devoted to buying time for new drugs & vaccines to be developed.

 

This is another religious dogma or article of faith that gets promoted on Longecity, but for which there is no evidence. 

 

If you look at all the COVID studies, scientists investigated a vast range of existing drugs and supplements to see if any might help. There were far more studies on existing drugs than there were studies new ones.

 

And the mainstay of COVID treatment in hospitals is cheap corticosteroids like dexamethasone, which have been around since the 1950s.

 

Sorry to debunk your religious beliefs with scientific skepticism.

Edited by Hip, 29 July 2023 - 04:50 PM.

[Dorian Grey]

This is another religious dogma or article of faith that gets promoted on Longecity, but for which there is no evidence. 

 

If you look at all the COVID studies, scientists investigated a vast range of existing drugs and supplements to see if any might help. There were far more studies on existing drugs than there were studies new ones.

 

And the mainstay of COVID treatment in hospitals is cheap corticosteroids like dexamethasone, which have been around since the 1950s.

 

Sorry to debunk your religious beliefs with scientific skepticism.

 

Observational and retrospective studies done by front line doctors who treated early showed benefit, but these were dismissed as not "gold standard" RCTs.

 

The "gold standard" RCTs required positive PCR tests, referrals, and enrollments before anyone got started on their med, or were limited to hospitalized patients at or near critical condition.  

 

What did we learn from Paxlovid about how big the window of opportunity is to initiate effective treatment?  How many of the gold standard RCTs met this requirement (Paxlovid 3-5 day window)?

 

What do you think of those who do not retract their papers, when it is shown they did not initiate treatment within the minimum  window?  

[Hip]

What do you think of those who do not retract their papers, when it is shown they did not initiate treatment within the minimum  window?  

 

Most of the papers searching for antiviral substances for SARS-CoV-2 were performed in vitro, in a cell line. In vitro testing is the fastest way to check out thousands of substances for a possible antiviral effect. 

 

Usually only when an antiviral effect is observed in vitro, in the virally-infected cells in a petri dish, do you then get animal or human in vivo studies, where appropriate. 

 

 

Ivermectin was first identified as a SARS-CoV-2 antiviral by in vitro testing. That's how all the fuss about ivermectin first began. 

 

Unfortunately it turned out that the in vitro concentration (in terms of μg/ml) needed to obtain a reasonable antiviral effect in vitro was about 1000 times higher than the maximum concentration that could be achieved in vivo, in the human body, when the drug was given to patients. This often happens with in vitro studies: the concentration needed to have an antiviral effect turns out to be far higher than that which can be achieved in vivo.

 

Thus further testing of ivermectin was not warranted or appropriate with respect to its in vitro antiviral effects. Because from the start, it was clear (to anyone with an understanding of drug pharmacokinetics) that ivermectin could not work as an antiviral when actually used in vivo.

 

The fact that some in vivo human studies indicated a benefit from ivermectin thus implies ivermectin may have some other positive effects other than its antiviral action. We now know that ivermectin kills off co-infections of Strongyloides that can occur in COVID patients in countries where Strongyloides is often found in the intestines of humans. Ivermectin also has anti-inflammatory effects which may be of benefit in severe COVID.

Edited by Hip, 29 July 2023 - 05:21 PM.

[Dorian Grey]

Was ivermectin the only thing they trialed?  Were there any trials on actual patients?  Were the trials on patients started within the required time window?  

Edited by Dorian Grey, 29 July 2023 - 05:20 PM.

[Hip]

Was ivermectin the only thing they trialed?  Were there any trials on actual patients?  Were the trials on patients started within the required time window?  

 

As explained, in vivo trials of ivermectin in humans were conducted by mistake, because they were not appropriate at all.

 

Some researchers who did not sufficiently understand pharmacokinetics erroneously believed ivermectin would be antiviral in vivo, so they started some human trials. But anyone who understands pharmacokinetics will tell you ivermectin cannot work as an antiviral in vivo, even though it is antiviral for SARS-CoV-2  in vitro. 

 

Just by chance, it turned out that ivermectin may have some other properties that may make it useful for COVID. 

 

But the much-promoted idea that ivermectin acts as a COVID antiviral in the body is completely wrong. So it does not matter when you start the treatment, as it is not antiviral at all. 

Edited by Hip, 29 July 2023 - 06:19 PM.

[Dorian Grey]

Was ivermectin the only repurposed drug ever trialed?  I seem to recall we were discussing another one.  

 

Didn't WHO Recovery / Solidarity do some trials on repurposed meds on humans?  

Edited by Dorian Grey, 29 July 2023 - 05:53 PM.

[Hip]

Was ivermectin the only repurposed drug ever trialed?  I seem to recall we were discussing another one.  

 

At the beginning of the pandemic, thousands of drugs, substances, herbs and supplements were screened for their potential antiviral effects against SARS-CoV-2.

 

For example, this study screened 1700 substances:

 

We screened approximately 1,700 US FDA-approved compounds to test their ability to inhibit SARS-CoV-2 replication. ... We report 20 compounds that are highly effective in inhibiting SARS-CoV-2 replication.

 

 

This study looked at over 5000 compounds:

 

Here we report a BSL-2 compatible SARS-CoV-2 PP assay that has been characterized and validated in a drug repurposing screen of over 5,000 compounds.

 

 

If you Google search for SARS-CoV-2 virus screening assay, you will find more such studies which searched through thousands of substances or off-label drugs to try to find any that might be antiviral.

 

 

Some screening studies were in vitro (in petri dishes), a few studies were in silico (using computer molecular modelling to predict which substances will have an antiviral effect on SARS-CoV-2 ).

Edited by Hip, 29 July 2023 - 06:21 PM.

[joesixpack]

I was thinking some more about failure to treat, & it occurred to me how much more important treatment was in 2020 compared to 2022 when Paxlovid showed up.  

 

The original SARS-CoV-2 virus was quite a brutal bug when it first escaped from the lab, but over many months and mutations mellowed out quite nicely.  I actually caught omicron in January 2022, and (with the help of a little HCQ) it was a walk in the park.  

 

I still remember reading the first hand accounts of how sick patients were getting in 2020, & how the government was insisting nothing would help.  Don't take the deadly HCQ...  Don't take aspirin to try to prevent blood clots...  Don't fool around with Vitamin-D or Zinc, as they haven't been proven to help.  Just isolate for a couple of years & be patient while we do our trials and develop vaccines and new pharmaceuticals.  

 

Vaccines came out in early 2021, & I guess they may have saved quite a few people from death & disease, but what struck me as ironic was Paxlovid getting its EUA almost precisely when omicron arrived on the scene and swiftly circled the globe.  Big Pharma's billion dollar baby that was supposed to save the world arrived when it really wasn't needed by most of humanity, though I guess it benefits some badly co-morbid patients from the kinder gentler omicron.  

 

Bottom line...  I think one of the most important lessons coming out of this pandemic, was the importance of aggressive efforts for early treatment, early on, when the pathogen is most lethal.  You've got to let front line doctors try a few things and have a system where they can report what they see working.  If you wait patiently for clinical trials and new pharmaceuticals while hundreds of thousands die, your results are likely to arrive just as the virus mutates into a relatively benign form, and your new potions are far less valuable.  

 

Make a bold and aggressive effort early on, & you may or may not get lucky.  You may even cause some harm, so informed consent from the patients would be essential; though I reckon you would have had a lot of willing volunteers back in the bad old days of 2020.  

There is a study from June, 2021 which involved ambulatory Covid 19 patients being given Combined Metabolic Activators, which included NR, NAC, and L Carnitine. The study also included HCQ, which is referred to as a "standard therapy (for Turkey)". The authors seem to be multi- national, Sweden, Turkey, China. The conclusion was that CMA treated patients had a faster, symptom free recovery than patients that were not treated with CMA's.

 

When I described my recent brush with Covid 19, the only symptoms I had, occurred prior to taking the FLCCC protocol. I neglected to mention my normal supplements, which are close to what this study dealt with. I take NR, NAC, Quercetin, Bromelaine, Vitamin D, Vitamin C, a Multi- Vitamin.

 

https://onlinelibrar...ratory problems

 

Here are results from the study.

 

 

2 Results CMA Accelerates Recovery of COVID-19 Patients in Open-Label Phase-2 Clinical Trial

In the phase-2 study, we recruited 100 adults with a confirmed positive PCR test for COVID-19. Five patients dropped out for personal reasons, and two were hospitalized before administrating the CMA. Of the 93 remaining patients, all of whom completed the study, 71 were randomly assigned to the CMA group and 22 to the placebo group (Figure 1A, Dataset S1A, Supporting Information); all patients also received standard of care therapy (for Turkey) with hydroxychloroquine (HQ) for five d. On Days 0 and 14, we assessed the clinical variables and analyzed the differences between Day 0 and Day 14 in the CMA and placebo groups (Dataset S2A, Supporting Information).

 

Edited by joesixpack, 29 July 2023 - 06:18 PM.

[Dorian Grey]

At the beginning of the pandemic, thousands of drugs, substances, herbs and supplements were screened for their potential antiviral effects against SARS-CoV-2.

 

For example, this study screened 1700 substances:

 

 

 

This study looked at over 5000 compounds:

 

 

 

If you Google search for SARS-CoV-2 virus screening assay, you will find more such studies which searched through thousands of substances or off-label drugs to try to find any that might be antiviral.

 

 

Some screening studies were in vitro (in petri dishes), a few studies were in silico (using computer molecular modelling to predict which substances will have an antiviral effect on SARS-CoV-2 ) 

 

Any research from before the pandemic done with SARS Coronavirus that generated excitement early on? (hint: PMID: 16115318)

 

Did this discovery pan out in human trials with the new SARS-CoV-2?  (hint: PMC7587171)

 

Were early retrospective trials confirmed through gold standard RCT, within the strict early treatment model that generated success in the retrospective trial (Tamiflu/Paxlovid model 2-5 days)?

 

Once necessity for early treatment, and parameters were established during Paxlovid trials, were older trials of repurposed meds that failed to treat in a timely manner retracted due to the now known timeline flaw?  

[Hip]

Were early retrospective trials confirmed through gold standard RCT, within the strict early treatment model that generated success in the retrospective trial (Tamiflu/Paxlovid model 2-5 days)?

 

The fly in the ointment with your claim that early treatment of COVID with HCQ saves lives is the fact that patients regularly taking HCQ for their lupus or rheumatoid arthritis showed no decrease in mortality when they caught COVID, even though they were taking HCQ all the time:

 

In this national, population-based study of hydroxychloroquine users, we found no evidence that pre-exposure use of hydroxychloroquine was associated with either a beneficial or harmful effect on COVID-19 mortality.

[Dorian Grey]

The fly in the ointment with your claim that early treatment of COVID with HCQ saves lives is the fact that patients regularly taking HCQ for their lupus or rheumatoid arthritis showed no decrease in mortality when they caught COVID, even though they were taking HCQ all the time:

 

Good Point Hip!  The only thing I noticed was: "We included all adults aged 18 years and older".  

 

From the beginning, COVID fatalities have been well known to occur primarily in senior populations, and a cohort of everyone over 18 waters down any signal of benefit rather profoundly.  

 

I also saw: "After accounting for age, sex, ethnicity, use of other immunosuppressive drugs, and geographical region, no association with COVID-19 mortality was observed"

 

"We found no evidence of interactions with age or other immunosuppressive drugs"

 

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

 

I confess, I really don't understand exactly the nuts & bolts of how the age issues were weighted, but if there was a risk stratified senior cohort that showed no benefit, this would be a serious blow to the HCQ hypothesis.  I'm going to see if I can read into the study and see what was going on.  Would appreciate any further input from you on this too.  

 

Thanks for bringing this into the scrum!  

[Hip]

  Would appreciate any further input from you on this too.  

 

I have not looked at the study in detail, but the authors did say that with the degree of statistical power their study possesses, they are able to rule out any substantial benefit (or substantial harm) from HCQ, but they cannot rule out a modest benefit or harm. 

 

The CIs around the relative risk suggest that we could exclude substantial benefit, though a modest benefit or harm on a relative scale could not be ruled out.

 

 

 

Of course, Zelenko used HCQ with zinc, and HCQ is a known zinc ionophore, ie, a substance that can transport zinc into cells. Plus he was using azithromycin simultaneously. So his protocol was not just HCQ on its own.  

[Dorian Grey]

Thanks for meeting me half way on this Hip.  I'm actually very intrigued.  Skimmed through the whole thing & didn't see a specific geriatric group within their cohort.  In a couple of places they mention "adjusting for age", without explaining how this worked.  They also state the study was based on patients prescribed HCQ at least twice in recent months, and assumed this meant they were taking it, though this wasn't confirmed.  

 

We included all adults aged 18 years and older

 

we identified people with one or more Read diagnostic codes

17

 for rheumatoid arthritis or systemic lupus erythematosus 6 months or more before the index date and who therefore had an indication for hydroxychloroquine use

 

The primary outcome was COVID-19 mortality

 

We sequentially adjusted for sex and age using restricted cubic splines; for the minimal adjustment set informed by the DAG; and finally extended for all extracted covariates.

 

We evaluated prespecified interactions to establish whether the association between regular hydroxychloroquine use and COVID-19 mortality varied by age, exposure to other conventional synthetic DMARDs, oral corticosteroids, and NSAIDs.

 

Hydroxychloroquine users were younger (median age 63 years

 

In unadjusted analyses, regular users of hydroxychloroquine had a decreased risk of COVID-19 mortality (HR 0·78, 95% CI 0·60–1·00, figure 4). After adjusting for age and sex, there was no longer any evidence of association (HR 1·08, 0·84–1·40)

 

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

 

I'm corn-fused...  Can't figure out what their adjustment was.  Don't see any specific geriatric branch of the cohort.  

[Hip]

Skimmed through the whole thing & didn't see a specific geriatric group within their cohort.  

 

I don't think they focused on elderly, they just looked at almost 200,000 people taking HCQ on a regular basis to manage their illnesses, and noted the number of deaths in that group, and compared to the sex and age matched general population.

 

If you look across the many studies of HCQ, there were never any spectacular results: at best there were modest benefits. And this study I mentioned is another which at best might allow for modest benefits. So i don't think HCG is the magic pill that everyone had touted.

 

 

As an aside, a newly discovered type of interferon, called interferon lambda, showed some good results last year, with just one single shot of this interferon, when given with 7 days of a COVID infection's first symptoms appearing, cut the hospitalisation rate in half. But I've seen nothing further about this. The more usual type of interferon, interferon alpha, did not show benefits for COVID.

Edited by Hip, 30 July 2023 - 01:28 AM.

[Dorian Grey]

OK, I'm biased, so help me find a way around this.  They say flat out: 

 

 

In unadjusted analyses, regular users of hydroxychloroquine had a decreased risk of COVID-19 mortality

 

Then they add: 

 

After adjusting for age and sex, there was no longer any evidence of association

 

To Conclude: We found no evidence of benefit after adjusting for important differences in those who had received hydroxychloroquine compared with those who were not prescribed hydroxychloroquine.  

 

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

 

Am I high here, or was the COVID crisis primarily oldsters falling like flies, while the healthy/young fared relatively well.  

 

Here we have a study stating flat out regular use of HCQ reduced COVID mortality, but if you fiddled with (or "adjusted") the data FOR AGE, this benefit disappeared.  I really can't think of any other possibility than that of a benefit for seniors (who really needed benefit) that disappeared when you averaged in mortality of the younger / healthier members of the cohort.  

 

If this is true, this would be very disingenuous deception.  Data that showed HCQ was helping precisely who needed it most (seniors), watered down to show a headline of No Benefit (overall).  

 

I hope I'm wrong, but my assumption is true, this would be the worst of evil science in action.  Telling frightened seniors: go away, nothing to see here, when apparently: users of hydroxychloroquine had a decreased risk of COVID-19 mortality

Edited by Dorian Grey, 30 July 2023 - 02:01 AM.

[joesixpack]

I have a few more issues with this study. The study took place from September of 2019 to July of 2020.

 

"Between Sept 1, 2019, and March 1, 2020, of 194 637 people with rheumatoid arthritis or systemic lupus erythematosus, 30 569 (15·7%) received two or more prescriptions of hydroxychloroquine. Between March 1 and July 13, 2020, there were 547 COVID-19 deaths, 70 among hydroxychloroquine users. Estimated standardised cumulative COVID-19 mortality was 0·23% (95% CI 0·18 to 0·29) among users and 0·22% (0·20 to 0·25) among non-users; an absolute difference of 0·008% (−0·051 to 0·066)".

 

So, the people had 2 or more prescriptions from September to March, there is no indication that there were any more prescriptions received, and no indication of the daily dosage the people were taking.

 

The time period in question concerned the Delta variant, and the FLCCC determined that Ivermectin was more useful against Delta and recommended its use. Later, they changed their recommendation to HCQ against the Omicron variant. Never the less, the recommended daily dosage of HCQ to fight Covid 19 is 200 Mg twice a day. The study has no mention of what was actually taken.

 

Also, in order for the HCQ to be effective, 70 mg of zinc has to be taken each day. HCQ is an ionophore for Zinc, helps it enter the cell. As far as preventing Covid, I don't know if either HCQ or Ivermectin alone will prevent it. Here is the current FLCCC prevention protocol, currently recommending Ivermectin and Zinc. As you can see, it is very specific and a little complicated. I have never tried it. https://covid19criti...-covid-flu-rsv/

 

Obviously, whatever the dose was, that the test subjects were taking was probably not 400 mg a day, and it was not given with Zinc. So there was no effect on mortality. Here is the current early treatment protocol, recommending HCQ. https://covid19criti...ovid-treatment/

 

This study had no chance of successfully showing a difference in mortality through the use of HCQ. I don't understand the lack of information on dosing, which is critical if trying to determine how to administer HCQ as a preventive protocol.  I don't think it was designed to fail. I think that at that early point in the pandemic, not enough was known about the use of HCQ, Zinc and Ivermectin as therapeutics.

 

As for the reference that use of HCQ reduced mortality, until adjusted for by age, I don't get it, unless they were searching for an answer, and that is how they got the one they wanted. It fits in with the total lack of information on dosage, which could just be bad process and protocol.

Edited by joesixpack, 30 July 2023 - 03:17 AM.

[Dorian Grey]

Thanks for the input Joesixpack.  I appreciate legitimate research, & this really looked like it met the early treatment standard.  I actually wish I might be wrong in interpreting the confusing writing.  HCQ had reduced mortality, but we figured out a way to fiddle the data to show it didn't?  

[Hip]

the recommended daily dosage of HCQ to fight Covid 19 is 200 Mg twice a day. The study has no mention of what was actually taken.

 

The dose taken by these 200,000 lupus and arthritis patients may not have been accessible on their electronic medical records; nevertheless, if you check the standard recommended dosing for these illnesses, it is 200 to 400 mg daily.

 

These 200,000 patients are thus people who had HCQ flowing through their veins even before the first COVID viral particle landed on their nasal or oral mucous membranes. HCQ was constantly in their body right from the very beginning of the infection, thus beating Zelenko's protocol, which only starts giving HCQ once symptoms begin.  

 

With the incubation period of COVID being about 5 days (the incubation period is the time between catching the virus and the appearance of the first symptoms), that means Zelenko's patients were not give HCQ until at least 5 days or more after they caught COVID; whereas in this study, they were given HCQ right from the very start of the infection, and indeed before that, because they were taking HCQ daily for their illnesses.

Edited by Hip, 30 July 2023 - 04:09 AM.

[Hip]

I hope I'm wrong, but my assumption is true, this would be the worst of evil science in action. 

 

It is normal to age and sex match in studies, otherwise you will skew your results.  

 

If you genuinely believe evil is everywhere, be aware that there is a condition called dysphoria, where sufferers have a deeply bleak philosophical outlook on the world, and they view the world as the worst of all possibilities. Dysphoria is similar to depression, except that in the former, there is no loss of self esteem, whereas there often is in the latter.

Edited by Hip, 30 July 2023 - 03:54 AM.

[Advocatus Diaboli]

Hip wrote in post #593:

 

"These patients are thus people who had HCQ flowing through their veins even before the first COVID viral particle landed on their nasal or oral mucous membranes. HCQ was constantly in their body right from the very beginning of the infection, thus beating Zelenko's protocol, which only starts giving HCQ once symptoms begin."

 

As someone pointed out in post #587, there are additional elements to the Zelenko (or similar) protocol besides HCQ. Did the Lupus and Arthritic patients also have:

• Elemental Zinc 50-100mg once a day for 7 days
• Vitamin C 1000mg 1 time a day for 7 days
• Vitamin D3 10000iu once a day for 7 days or 50000iu once a day for 1-2 days
• Azithromycin 500mg 1 time a day for 5 days or
• Doxycycline 100mg 2 times a day for 7 days
• Hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) 200mg 2 times a day for 5-7 days and/or
• Ivermectin 0.4-0.5mg/kg/day for 5-7 days Either or both HCQ and IVM can be used, and if one only, the second agent may be added after about 2 days of treatment if obvious recovery has not yet been observed etc. 

I agree with joesixpack, the study probably wasn't designed to fail (DTF), it is merely a good example of a YAGS (yet another garbage study).

 

 

I'm editing because something set off my straw man detector: "If you genuinely believe evil is everywhere..."

 

 

 

 

Edited by Advocatus Diaboli, 30 July 2023 - 04:15 AM.

[Hip]

Did the Lupus and Arthritic patients also have:

• Elemental Zinc 50-100mg once a day for 7 days
• Vitamin C 1000mg 1 time a day for 7 days
• Vitamin D3 10000iu once a day for 7 days or 50000iu once a day for 1-2 days
• Azithromycin 500mg 1 time a day for 5 days or
• Doxycycline 100mg 2 times a day for 7 days
• Hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) 200mg 2 times a day for 5-7 days and/or
• Ivermectin 0.4-0.5mg/kg/day for 5-7 days Either or both HCQ and IVM can be used, and if one only, the second agent may be added after about 2 days of treatment if obvious recovery has not yet been observed etc.

 

Zelenko's patients only had hydroxychloroquine, zinc and azithromycin, nothing more, in his published study on his protocol.

 

 

 

And by the way, I just came across this paper which says that hydroxychloroquine turns out not to be a zinc ionophore, in spite of earlier papers saying that the closely related chloroquine is a zinc ionophore.

 

This means that the assumed synergism between HCQ and zinc may not actually be taking place, and thus the zinc added to Zelenko's protocol may in fact be doing nothing. 

 

Zelenko added zinc to his protocol on the belief that HCQ was probably a zinc ionophore; this is what Zelenko says in his paper:

 

The antiviral effects of HCQ are well documented [19]. It is also known that chloroquine, and probably HCQ, have zinc ionophore characteristics, increasing intracellular zinc concentrations [20]. Zinc itself is able to inhibit coronavirus RNA-dependent RNA polymerase (RdRp) activity [21].

 

But we now know that HCQ is not a zinc ionophore, so HCQ would not have transported zinc ions into the cell, as Zelenko assumed it might.   

 

 

 

If you want to obtain the known antiviral benefits of intracellular zinc ions against COVID, you will need to pair zinc with a viable zinc ionophore drug or supplement.

Edited by Hip, 30 July 2023 - 04:35 AM.

[Advocatus Diaboli]

Re: post #597

 

"Zelenko's patients only had hydroxychloroquine, zinc and azithromycin, nothing more, in his published study on his protocol."

 

Er, um. Zelenko being a co-author on a study, doesn't equate to the Zelenko protocol, which i linked to in #595.

 

You appear to have a problem with conflating mixed and mal-equated attribution with reality. 

[Hip]

Zelenko being a co-author on a study, doesn't equate to the Zelenko protocol

 

Yes it does: the study I linked to is the one which disseminated the Zelenko protocol to the rest of scientific community. All the articles about the Zelenko protocol refer to that paper.

 

Maybe his protocol expanded over time, but the paper only refers to three agents: HCQ, zinc and azithromycin.

Edited by Hip, 30 July 2023 - 04:36 AM.

[Dorian Grey]

Zelenko's patients only had hydroxychloroquine, zinc and azithromycin, nothing more, in his published study on his protocol.

 

 

 

And by the way, I just came across this paper which says that hydroxychloroquine turns out not to be a zinc ionophore, in spite of earlier papers claiming that it was.

 

This means that the assumed synergism between HCQ and zinc may not actually be taking place, and thus the zinc added to Zelenko's protocol may in fact be doing nothing. 

 

I touched on the HCQ / Zinc ionophore issue here: https://www.longecit...inc-ionophores/

 

From the paper: The above report does allude to HCQ possibly getting zinc into the cytoplasm through an alternate mechanism:

 

 

"In vitro complexation studies and liposomal transport assays are correlated with cellular zinc assays in A549 lung epithelial cells to confirm the indirect mechanism of hydroxychloroquine-mediated elevation in intracellular zinc without ionophorism."

 

"Molecular simulations show hydroxychloroquine-triggered helix perturbation in zinc-finger protein without zinc chelation, a potential alternative non-ionophoric mechanism."

 

Joesixpack sent me a link on zinc ionophores on the page I linked to above.  Apparently there are "channel ionophores" which take zinc directly into cytoplasm, and "carrier ionophores" which transport zinc through the cell wall, but may contain it within lysosomes.  I recall Chris Masterjohn commenting on zinc being "carried" into the cell, but being trapped in the lysosomes where it wouldn't inhibit viral reproduction which occurs in cytoplasm.  

 

We do know Chloroquine is a channel ionophore...  Chloroquine is a zinc ionophore (PMID: 25271834) & this got me thinking old school quinine which is organic form chloroquine might be a better COVID combo with zinc.

 

I got some quinine (300mg/tab) from overseas pharmacy, and now take this with zinc if I ever get suspicious symptoms. This may be a superior ionophore, & the half life is much shorter than HCQ or old school chloroquine. If there is ever a surge of new & deadly variant, I'll be back on my HCQ though, as effectiveness has been fairly well documented when this is taken properly with the proper co-factor... ZINC!

Edited by Dorian Grey, 30 July 2023 - 05:12 AM.

[Advocatus Diaboli]

Hip, let me correct a sentence in your post # 596:

 

"And by the way, I just came across this paper which says that hydroxychloroquine turns out not to be a zinc ionophore, in spite of earlier papers saying that the closely related chloroquine is a zinc ionophore."

 

Should read:

 

"And by the way, I just came across this paper which says that hydroxychloroquine turns out not to be a zinc ionophore in mammalian lung cell line A549, in spite of earlier papers saying that the closely related chloroquine is a zinc ionophore.''

 

You do realize that not all human cells are mammalian lung cell line A549 cells, right?

 

And in your post #598:

 

"Maybe his protocol expanded over time, but the paper only refers to three agents: HCQ, zinc and azithromycin."

 

Show me where in my posts I have mentioned his paper rather than his protocol in context. 

 

 

Edited by Advocatus Diaboli, 30 July 2023 - 05:23 AM.