87 replies to this topic

[geo12the]

There are many studies still underway and we need to wait until they are published to come to a final conclusion. But It's clear to me from the prevailing data so far that the hypothesis that HCQ is a miracle drug for COVID is inaccurate. The TWIV summary was blunt but also laid it all out in a no-BS manner. Scientists and non-scientists can become overly wedded to their favorite hypothesis and we are seeing that with HCQ only now there is also tribal identity politics thrown into the mix. We need to follow the science not politics or emotions. At the end of the day I put my trust in TWIV more than anecdotal reports from sporadic doctors like the demon sperm lady. We will see what the future studies say. As I understand the FDA did not "Ban" HCQ but revoked emergency use and cautioned against it. But people can still get it from their doctors. 

[Dorian Grey]

Don't know that many consider HCQ a "miracle cure" for COVID.  It's a therapeutic, just like remdesivir or Tamiflu (for influenza).  May help lessen symptoms and/or duration, and possibly reduce morbidity when used properly.  Some side effects (like most meds), but a remarkable history of safety, particularly with short term use.  The best thing about HCQ is that ideally it should be used as an outpatient med, keeping patients out of acute care in the hospital.  Ignoring this med leaves us with a big fat NOTHING for outpatient use.  Take your Tylenol, & call 911 if you start turning blue.  

 

Double blind placebo controlled studies are the gold standard for approval of new meds, but off label prescribing of existing meds generally has looser standards.  

 

https://en.wikipedia...i/Off-label_use

 

"Off-label use is very common. Generic drugs generally have no sponsor as their indications and use expands, and incentives are limited to initiate new clinical trials to generate additional data for approval agencies to expand indications of proprietary drugs.^[1] Up to one-fifth of all drugs are prescribed off-label and amongst psychiatric drugs, off-label use rises to 31%"

 

I posted earlier in this thread about my experience asking my doc if he would prescribe HCQ if I got sick.  He said he was bound by the formulary of his group, and that they required their doc's to stick to FDA guidelines.  NO HCQ for YOU!  I'm recently retired and on my girlfriend's (domestic partner) insurance.  It's an HMO, so I can't really doctor shop, but even if I went outside of plan and found a doc who would write me a scrip, the pharmacy may still refuse to fill it.  I guess I could book a refundable flight to Africa.  HCQ malaria prophylaxis is standard of care.  My sis said her doc zipped off a scrip for her when she went, no EKG needed.  Here ya go, bon voyage!  

 

Oh well...  At least I grew up during a time where freedom was cherished.  Feel sorry for the kids entering the brave new world.  It will be interesting to see if we can stay locked-down for the rest of the year and whether or not the vaccines work.  There's going to be a lot of homeless to deal with though.  

Edited by Dorian Grey, 06 August 2020 - 09:17 PM.

[Dorian Grey]

Del Bigtree dropped a bomb on his HighWire show yesterday regarding the suppression of HCQ:

 

https://www.bitchute...o/GysupvP1dHOU/

 

Skip to 1:26 (one hour 26 minutes) in the show, where he explains because vaccines will be introduced before long term safety studies are complete (2 years for phase 3 of Moderna COVID vaccine), these vaccines may have to be issued under Emergency Use Authorization. 

 

He actually obtained a clip from the July 31st ACIP (Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices) where they discuss the EUA as a likely requirement for Warp Speed authorization.  

 

Under FDA EUA guidelines, there must be "No adequate, approved, and available alternative" in order to qualify for EUA use.  

 

https://www.fda.gov/...e-authorization

 

The lack of alternatives is defined here:

 

https://www.fda.gov/...ted-authorities

 

d. No Alternatives

For FDA to issue an EUA, there must be no adequate, approved, and available alternative to the candidate product for diagnosing, preventing, or treating the disease or condition.  A potential alternative product may be considered “unavailable” if there are insufficient supplies of the approved alternative to fully meet the emergency need.  A potential alternative product may be considered "inadequate" if, for example, there are contraindicating data for special circumstances or populations (e.g., children, immunocompromised individuals, or individuals with a drug allergy), if a dosage form of an approved product is inappropriate for use in a special population (e.g., a tablet for individuals who cannot swallow pills), or if the agent is or may be resistant to approved and available alternative products.

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

So there you have it.  In order for Operation Warp Speed to fly, any and ALL alternative therapies must be suppressed, as any other option would exclude EUA authorization for vaccines that have not yet completed full safety evaluation studies.  

We live in interesting times!  

Edited by Dorian Grey, 07 August 2020 - 03:40 PM.

[geo12the]

 

 

 

So there you have it.  In order for Operation Warp Speed to fly, any and ALL alternative therapies must be suppressed, as any other option would exclude EUA authorization for vaccines that have not yet completed full safety evaluation studies.  

We live in interesting times!  

 

Hypothesis 1: proposed by an anti-vaxxer: There is vast conspiracy among multiple researchers in multiple institutions and multiple countries to suppress or doctor evidence that HCQ is an effective therapy for COVID. It's a conspiracy to force vaccines on people

 

Hypothesis 2: HCQ is just not that good a therapy for COVID 

 

I believe Hypothesis 2. I don't believe the anti-vaxxer quacks and demon sperm witch doctors. 

Edited by geo12the, 08 August 2020 - 12:35 AM.

[Dorian Grey]

Hit the motherload of HCQ data.  Quite an up to date compilation of studies & some interesting graphics. 

 

https://c19study.com/

 

Here's a small sample: These are "Demographic Adjusted Deaths per Million" not Case Fatality Rates which have been criticized due to various levels of testing done. 

 

Attached Files

•  EarlyHCQNew.jpg   32.16KB   0 downloads
•  plot1ax.png   445.69KB   0 downloads

Edited by Dorian Grey, 09 August 2020 - 03:40 PM.

[Florin]

Clearing the fog: Is HCQ effective in reducing COVID-19 progression: A randomized controlled trial
https://doi.org/10.1....07.30.20165365

 

HCQ+C+D+Z = C+D+Z

 

[Dorian Grey]

Clearing the fog: Is HCQ effective in reducing COVID-19 progression: A randomized controlled trial
https://doi.org/10.1....07.30.20165365

 

HCQ+C+D+Z = C+D+Z

 

Meh...  Young patients; not quite clear what their markers for progression were; no one died, all recovered in a timely manner?  Dr Zelenko says he doesn't even use HCQ on low risk patients, but only to keep high risk patients from going critical & dying.  

 

I'm starting to think perhaps it's the immune modulation rather than viral replication inhibition that is the main mode of action for HCQ.  Correct me if I'm wrong, but I heard one doc say the remarkable thing about HCQ is that it's the only immune modulator that reduces inflammation without predisposing or potentiating infection.  Never really explored this claim, but it stuck in my head.  I've seen the ads for the newer RA meds warning their drug may predispose infections and should not be used when chronic infections are present.  Reckon this is why HCQ is still used so widely for lupus, RA etc?  

 

Never ceases to amaze me how so many who study HCQ (lately) can't seem to find benefit, but those who prescribe & use it report good results; and the stats on COVID deaths in the https://c19study.com/ site seem to back this up.  The trial SNAFU's are truly legendary.  Initiation of treatment delayed until cytokine storm well underway?  Even the big guns steroids don't work well if you fail to time them just right.  Massive overdoses of a med that can be cardiotoxic only when given in excessively high doses?  Trials in low risk (young) patients where any benefit would be difficult to discern from normal recovery?  

 

I have no probs with those who don't wish to take it, or even doc's who don't want to prescribe it.  Don't like it when folks call it poison when its not, or ban it for outpatient use, when this is the only time it might be helpful.  No reason for this except politics, which is a bad mix with medicine.  

Edited by Dorian Grey, 02 October 2020 - 10:08 PM.

[geo12the]

 

https://www.ncbi.nlm...les/PMC1232869/

 

Chloroquine is a potent inhibitor of SARS coronavirus infection and spread

 

Published online 2005 

 

We report, however, that chloroquine has strong antiviral effects on SARS-CoV infection of primate cells. These inhibitory effects are observed when the cells are treated with the drug either before or after exposure to the virus, suggesting both prophylactic and therapeutic advantage. In addition to the well-known functions of chloroquine such as elevations of endosomal pH, the drug appears to interfere with terminal glycosylation of the cellular receptor, angiotensin-converting enzyme 2. This may negatively influence the virus-receptor binding and abrogate the infection, with further ramifications by the elevation of vesicular pH, resulting in the inhibition of infection and spread of SARS CoV at clinically admissible concentrations.

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. In addition, the indirect immunofluorescence assay described herein represents a simple and rapid method for screening SARS-CoV antiviral compounds.

 

 

They talked about this on TWIV. I will summarize what I remember they said: Basically the cell culture cells used in these assays are different than the lung cells that are infected. The mechanism by which it works in the cell lines is not present in lung cells and there are specific proteases involved in infection in lung cells that interfere with it's ability to work. They discuss it here:

 

https://www.nature.c...1586-020-2575-3

https://theconversat...ng-cells-143234

https://journals.plo...al.ppat.1009212

[Dorian Grey]

Drugs often accumulate at different levels in different tissues, so serum concentrations may mislead.  

 

There are also multiple aspects through which a drug may be therapeutic. Alkalinization of organelles (endosomal ph), zinc ionophore, receptor glycosylation inhibition, etc, and these may occur at different serum concentrations.

 

Proof is always in the pudding though, and the volume of research showing positive results is piling to the sky. If the alternative is to wait till my lips turn blue, & get ambulanced off for some remdesivir, I'll be proactive every time.  

[Dorian Grey]

Found a list of possible mechanisms of action for HCQ

 

The possible mechanisms of action of 4-aminoquinolines (chloroquine/ hydroxychloroquine) against Sars-Cov-2 infection (COVID-19):

 

Main biological activities of chloroquine (CQ) and hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) as anti-viral drugs.

Biological activity References

Inhibition of viral attachment and entry in the host cell

Inhibition of the biosynthesis of sialic acids

• inhibition of the N-glycosylation of the cell surface viral

receptor ACE2

• inhibition of the N-glycosylation of the viral spike (S) proteins

• inhibition of the synthesis of cell membrane sialic acids

 

Inhibition of PICALM expression and CME [15,16]

Endosomal alkalinization and inhibition of cellular endosomal

protease (cathepsin and/or TMPRSS2)

 

Inhibition of new viral particle maturation and spread

Endosomal alkalinization and inhibition of endosome-lysosome

membrane fusion

 

ERGIC and TGN vesicle alkalinization and inhibition of post-

translational modifications of viral proteins

 

ERGIC vesicle alkalinization and inhibition of viral budding [21]

Inhibition of p38 MAPK activation [23,24]

Inhibition of phospholipase A2 and membranous structures essential for replication and transcription

[geo12the]

Drugs often accumulate at different levels in different tissues, so serum concentrations may mislead.  

 

There are also multiple aspects through which a drug may be therapeutic. Alkalinization of organelles (endosomal ph), zinc ionophore, receptor glycosylation inhibition, etc, and these may occur at different serum concentrations.

 

Proof is always in the pudding though, and the volume of research showing positive results is piling to the sky. If the alternative is to wait till my lips turn blue, & get ambulanced off for some remdesivir, I'll be proactive every time.  

 

Proof is in the pudding.  Sketchy websites aside, most of the scientifically sound studies (Randomized controlled trials. Not from Nigeria or Saudi Arabia or Bangladesh)  show no effect. You are beating a dead horse. 

 

https://www.cochrane...nting-infection

https://www.nature.c...467-021-22446-z

 

• Article
• Open Access
• Published:  15 April 2021

Mortality outcomes with hydroxychloroquine and chloroquine in COVID-19 from an international collaborative meta-analysis of randomized trials

• Cathrine Axfors, 
• Andreas M. Schmitt, 
• […]
• Lars G. Hemkens

Nature Communications volume 12, Article number: 2349 (2021) Cite this article

• 171k Accesses

• 13 Citations

• 6373 Altmetric

• Metricsdetails

An Author Correction to this article was published on 14 May 2021

This article has been updated

Abstract

Substantial COVID-19 research investment has been allocated to randomized clinical trials (RCTs) on hydroxychloroquine/chloroquine, which currently face recruitment challenges or early discontinuation. We aim to estimate the effects of hydroxychloroquine and chloroquine on survival in COVID-19 from all currently available RCT evidence, published and unpublished. We present a rapid meta-analysis of ongoing, completed, or discontinued RCTs on hydroxychloroquine or chloroquine treatment for any COVID-19 patients (protocol: https://osf.io/QESV4/). We systematically identified unpublished RCTs (ClinicalTrials.gov, WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, Cochrane COVID-registry up to June 11, 2020), and published RCTs (PubMed, medRxiv and bioRxiv up to October 16, 2020). All-cause mortality has been extracted (publications/preprints) or requested from investigators and combined in random-effects meta-analyses, calculating odds ratios (ORs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs), separately for hydroxychloroquine and chloroquine. Prespecified subgroup analyses include patient setting, diagnostic confirmation, control type, and publication status. Sixty-three trials were potentially eligible. We included 14 unpublished trials (1308 patients) and 14 publications/preprints (9011 patients). Results for hydroxychloroquine are dominated by RECOVERY and WHO SOLIDARITY, two highly pragmatic trials, which employed relatively high doses and included 4716 and 1853 patients, respectively (67% of the total sample size). The combined OR on all-cause mortality for hydroxychloroquine is 1.11 (95% CI: 1.02, 1.20; I² = 0%; 26 trials; 10,012 patients) and for chloroquine 1.77 (95%CI: 0.15, 21.13, I² = 0%; 4 trials; 307 patients). We identified no subgroup effects. We found that treatment with hydroxychloroquine is associated with increased mortality in COVID-19 patients, and there is no benefit of chloroquine. Findings have unclear generalizability to outpatients, children, pregnant women, and people with comorbidities.

 

Edited by geo12the, 11 October 2021 - 03:14 AM.

[Dorian Grey]

RECOVERY and WHO SOLIDARITY both gave over 2 grams of HCQ on day one, to critically ill hospitalized patients.  The British National Formulary recommends no more than 600mg/day as their maximum recommended daily dose.  

 

I'll agree, massive overdoses in critically ill patients are indeed unwise.  Now, what is the fatality rate for normal doses given to mild to moderately ill COVID outpatients?  

[Hip]

Drugs often accumulate at different levels in different tissues, so serum concentrations may mislead.  

 

That is true, but typically the level of tissue accumulation of drugs might be around 2 or 3 times the level found in the blood. Sometimes it can be a lot higher, but typically it is on a factor of a few times higher than the blood concentration. That will not make up for the fact that a 200 mg dose of hydroxychloroquine results in blood levels which are around 40 times too low (by the calculation performed in my earlier post) to have any significant antiviral effect in vivo.

 

Now if you can find me a study which shows hydroxychloroquine accumulates in the lungs at level at least 40 times higher than blood levels, then we might be able to conclude that HCQ will have some useful antiviral effects in the lungs in COVID patients. 

 

 

But when we look at tissue accumulation, protein binding must also be taken into consideration: it is usually only the free portion of a drug which has active effects; the portion of the drug which becomes bound to plasma proteins or tissue proteins becomes metabolically inactive. This is known as the free drug principle. So if a drug accumulates in the tissues, but is largely bound to proteins in those tissues, then that is of no use, since the bound drug will not be active. The drug needs to be free in order to be active. 

 

Protein binding is the bane of pharmaceutical companies. Many drugs under development work well in vitro, but then it is discovered that in vivo, 99% of the drug gets bound to plasma proteins, and thus becomes pharmacologically inactive. So a drug which has powerful effects in vitro can turn out to be very weak in vivo, because of the drug's high protein binding.

Edited by Hip, 11 October 2021 - 03:59 AM.

[Dorian Grey]

 

Found a list of possible mechanisms of action for HCQ

 

The possible mechanisms of action of 4-aminoquinolines (chloroquine/ hydroxychloroquine) against Sars-Cov-2 infection (COVID-19):

 

Main biological activities of chloroquine (CQ) and hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) as anti-viral drugs.

Biological activity References

Inhibition of viral attachment and entry in the host cell

Inhibition of the biosynthesis of sialic acids

• inhibition of the N-glycosylation of the cell surface viral

receptor ACE2

• inhibition of the N-glycosylation of the viral spike (S) proteins

• inhibition of the synthesis of cell membrane sialic acids

 

Inhibition of PICALM expression and CME [15,16]

Endosomal alkalinization and inhibition of cellular endosomal

protease (cathepsin and/or TMPRSS2)

 

Inhibition of new viral particle maturation and spread

Endosomal alkalinization and inhibition of endosome-lysosome

membrane fusion

 

ERGIC and TGN vesicle alkalinization and inhibition of post-

translational modifications of viral proteins

 

ERGIC vesicle alkalinization and inhibition of viral budding [21]

Inhibition of p38 MAPK activation [23,24]

Inhibition of phospholipase A2 and membranous structures essential for replication and transcription

 

 

Which of these potential therapeutic effects are you saying requires a 40X accumulation in the lungs?  

[Hip]

Which of these potential therapeutic effects are you saying requires a 40X accumulation in the lungs?  

 

The antiviral effects, whatever mechanism or mechanisms they work by. We know hydroxychloroquine works as an antiviral in vitro, when you use high enough concentrations. But the pharmacokinetic data I presented earlier indicate those high concentrations are not obtainable in vivo.

 

That's the way the cookie crumbles. 

[Dorian Grey]

The antiviral effects, whatever mechanism or mechanisms they work by. We know hydroxychloroquine works as an antiviral in vitro, when you use high enough concentrations. But the pharmacokinetic data I presented earlier indicate those high concentrations are not obtainable in vivo.

 

That's the way the cookie crumbles. 

 

There are apparently multiple antiviral effects, all of which probably require different serum & tissue levels to work.  Throw me a bone here and tell me which one you are referring to.  

[Hip]

There are apparently multiple antiviral effects, all of which probably require different serum & tissue levels to work.  Throw me a bone here and tell me which one you are referring to.  

 

The in vitro study is a measure of the sum total of those antiviral effects. Antiviral actions do not require different tissue levels to work. Antiviral effects are typically roughly proportional to the blood or tissue concentration of the substance. So if you double the concentration, you double the antiviral effect. 

 

The only think in vitro antiviral studies cannot measure is any immune boosting effect that a substance might have which helps combat the viral infection. You cannot measure immune effects in vitro, since it requires a fully-working immune system. So to measure how immune boosting effects might combat infection, you need in vivo animal or human studies. 

 

However, there is nothing in your list which is an immune boosting effect; everything in the list is an antiviral mechanism. Thus these effects in your list would have been measured in the in vitro antiviral study. 

[Dorian Grey]

You don't necessarily have to kill the virus (antiviral effect).  Simply inhibiting reproduction can make all the difference in the world.  Similarly, you wouldn't need an immune boosting effect, if you could slow viral replication to a point where the immune system has time to mount its response before an overwhelming viral load occurs.  

 

You're spinnin' your wheels mate.  Time to give it a rest.  The mods are going to delete this back from where we went off topic anyway.  

 

I enjoy a good debate though, so thanks for your time.  

[Gal220]

You don't necessarily have to kill the virus (antiviral effect).  Simply inhibiting reproduction can make all the difference in the world.  Similarly, you wouldn't need an immune boosting effect, if you could slow viral replication to a point where the immune system has time to mount its response before an overwhelming viral load occurs.  

 

You're spinnin' your wheels mate.  Time to give it a rest.  The mods are going to delete this back from where we went off topic anyway.  

 

I enjoy a good debate though, so thanks for your time.  

 

I do wonder if those who dont have success use the right zinc.  Need to use a zinc salt that is ionic, Zalenko uses sulfate.

 

Im not sure its the zinc that wins the day, but from this paper .

" Except for zinc acetate, the others failed to produce any antiviral effects in the cell culture experiments"  - They didnt test sulfate, but both are zinc salts and ionic.

 

 

Lt Gov Allen recently contracted covid and didnt feel HCQ or IVM did the trick, hes promoting the mono antibodies now.  Hard to tell from the timeline if there was some impatience or did he even use the right dose.

Edited by Gal220, 11 October 2021 - 06:16 AM.

[Hip]

You don't necessarily have to kill the virus (antiviral effect).  Simply inhibiting reproduction can make all the difference in the world.  Similarly, you wouldn't need an immune boosting effect, if you could slow viral replication to a point where the immune system has time to mount its response before an overwhelming viral load occurs.  
 
You're spinnin' your wheels mate.  Time to give it a rest.  The mods are going to delete this back from where we went off topic anyway.

 
It's been demonstrated above that hydroxychloroquine will not work in vivo as an antiviral. 

 

But I understand that in this pandemic, people's beliefs in what works or what doesn't have become quasi-religious, and it is hard to argue on scientific grounds when people have religious beliefs.

 

In previous generations, people believed in the power of holy water to fight disease, and if you tried to convince them otherwise, they would not listen. Not much has changed.



 

The mods are going to delete this back from where we went off topic anyway.

Why not move my above hydroxychloroquine pharmacokinetic calculation (which took me some time to perform, for your benefit) to another new thread? It demonstrates hydroxychloroquine will not work. 

 

You can call it the definitive hydroxychloroquine thread.

 

 

[geo12the]

You don't necessarily have to kill the virus (antiviral effect).  Simply inhibiting reproduction can make all the difference in the world.  Similarly, you wouldn't need an immune boosting effect, if you could slow viral replication to a point where the immune system has time to mount its response before an overwhelming viral load occurs.  

 

You're spinnin' your wheels mate.  Time to give it a rest.  The mods are going to delete this back from where we went off topic anyway.  

 

I enjoy a good debate though, so thanks for your time.  

 

So is this Meta analysis, published in a prestigious journal, all BS? The problem is YOU ONLY BELEIVE SCIENCE WHEN IT REIFORCES YOUR VIEWS. That is NOT how science works. That's the problem. You have armchair scientists riled  up by Tucker Carlsons and quack webistes who think they are virology experts. You are not. 

• Open Access
• Published:  15 April 2021

Mortality outcomes with hydroxychloroquine and chloroquine in COVID-19 from an international collaborative meta-analysis of randomized trials

• Cathrine Axfors, 
• Andreas M. Schmitt, 
• […]
• Lars G. Hemkens

Nature Communications volume 12, Article number: 2349 (2021) Cite this article

• 171k Accesses

• 13 Citations

• 6373 Altmetric

• Metricsdetails

An Author Correction to this article was published on 14 May 2021

This article has been updated

Abstract

Substantial COVID-19 research investment has been allocated to randomized clinical trials (RCTs) on hydroxychloroquine/chloroquine, which currently face recruitment challenges or early discontinuation. We aim to estimate the effects of hydroxychloroquine and chloroquine on survival in COVID-19 from all currently available RCT evidence, published and unpublished. We present a rapid meta-analysis of ongoing, completed, or discontinued RCTs on hydroxychloroquine or chloroquine treatment for any COVID-19 patients (protocol: https://osf.io/QESV4/). We systematically identified unpublished RCTs (ClinicalTrials.gov, WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, Cochrane COVID-registry up to June 11, 2020), and published RCTs (PubMed, medRxiv and bioRxiv up to October 16, 2020). All-cause mortality has been extracted (publications/preprints) or requested from investigators and combined in random-effects meta-analyses, calculating odds ratios (ORs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs), separately for hydroxychloroquine and chloroquine. Prespecified subgroup analyses include patient setting, diagnostic confirmation, control type, and publication status. Sixty-three trials were potentially eligible. We included 14 unpublished trials (1308 patients) and 14 publications/preprints (9011 patients). Results for hydroxychloroquine are dominated by RECOVERY and WHO SOLIDARITY, two highly pragmatic trials, which employed relatively high doses and included 4716 and 1853 patients, respectively (67% of the total sample size). The combined OR on all-cause mortality for hydroxychloroquine is 1.11 (95% CI: 1.02, 1.20; I² = 0%; 26 trials; 10,012 patients) and for chloroquine 1.77 (95%CI: 0.15, 21.13, I² = 0%; 4 trials; 307 patients). We identified no subgroup effects. We found that treatment with hydroxychloroquine is associated with increased mortality in COVID-19 patients, and there is no benefit of chloroquine. Findings have unclear generalizability to outpatients, children, pregnant women, and people with comorbidities.

[Dorian Grey]

Oh Geo, read their bottom line: "Findings have unclear generalizability to outpatients, children, pregnant women, and people with comorbidities."

 

Are these not the target populations most in need of an oral therapeutic?  

[Dorian Grey]

Let's see if you believe "the science" from the CDC on HCQ safety.  

 

https://www.cdc.gov/...chloroquine.pdf

 

Medicines for the Prevention of Malaria While Traveling Hydroxychloroquine (Plaquenil™)

 

"Who can take hydroxychloroquine?"

 

"Hydroxychloroquine can be prescribed to adults and children of all ages. It can also be safely taken by pregnant women and nursing mothers."

 

"Who should not take hydroxychloroquine?"

 

"People with psoriasis should not take hydroxychloroquine."

[Dorian Grey]

Like a Phoenix rising from the ashes, a new HCQ study, hot off the press:

 

Hydroxychloroquine blocks SARS-CoV-2 entry into the endocytic pathway in mammalian cell culture  

 

https://www.nature.c...003-022-03841-8

 

In vitro so a target on its back, but Dr Been was particularly intrigued (almost giddy). 

 

A new mechanism of inhibition is described, which implies HCQ may have a unique application for Omicron, which has developed a proclivity for endocytic entry into cells.  There is also indication it may be particularly helpful in obese / high cholesterol patients, which are susceptible to severe disease and sequelae.  

 

This might also explain why FLCCC has reduced advocating IVM in favor of HCQ, which they now state is "preferred for omicron". 

 

Life travels in circles, and we're back to the original SARS Coronavirus tonic first described way back in 2005: "Chloroquine is a potent inhibitor of SARS coronavirus infection and spread" (PMID: 16115318).  Accept no substitutions!  

 

 

Cheers!  

Edited by Dorian Grey, 20 September 2022 - 11:22 PM.

[pamojja]

"People with psoriasis should not take hydroxychloroquine."

 

Interesting to my story. Had 4 malaria falciparum in Africa, 3 further malaria vivax in India. All together within 5 years (<1998). The 3 later treated with HCQ. Right after came down with planto-pustolar psoriasis, blistering and festering on both feet-soles except the heels, for eight month!

 

https://pubmed.ncbi....h.gov/32442699/ 50% (n = 9) of the patients did not have a history of psoriasis before taking HCQ.

 

Accept no substitutions!

 

I only had once a CT-threshold of 37 without symptoms or vaccine. Despite comorbities, against which I do take 'substitutions' since 14 years (life-style changes and comprehensive supplementation, partly in mega-doses for remission of PAD, COPD and ME/CFS symptoms).

 

Edited by pamojja, 21 September 2022 - 12:02 PM.

[Dorian Grey]

I recently had the pleasure of a HCQ go 'round with a couple of doctors on the MedScape forum (see thread started by a Dr H Robert Silverstein): 

 

https://www.medscape...warticle/997638

 

COVID Coronary Plaque Infection Confirms CV Risk

 

I was jousting with one of my regular nemesis there on the validity of the Together Trial HCQ/RCT, when a dr Flegg (infectious disease specialist) hit a wall when I asked: 

 

"How do you think Paxlovid might have fared in a trial enrolling patients that were symptomatic up to 7 or 8 days?  Why is Paxlovid restricted to 5 days, while trials of other meds can wait a week or more, or even delayed till patients are hospitalized?"

 

I suddenly realized, there were in fact NO published HCQ/RCTs where Paxlovid would have shown any benefit regarding hospitalization & death, had it been substituted for the HCQ.  The only published HCQ trials where patients were started on their HCQ earlier than a week or more were the retrospectives by Zelenko and others.  

 

Interestingly, the original Paxlovid trial with 5 day treatment window showed risk of covid related hospital admission or death from any cause was 89% lower in the paxlovid group than the placebo group. Dr Zelenko stated in his peer reviewed & published trial his average patient started treatment on day 4 of symptoms, and his result? "Therefore, the odds of hospitalization of treated patients were 84% less than in the untreated group"

 

The results are almost identical when Paxlovid & HCQ+Zinc are restricted to a 5 day treatment window. Only difference is, the Zelenko protocol only costs around $20, and is something one can easily keep a stash of at home to facilitate immediate treatment when one notices symptoms. My recent experience trying to get Paxlovid was, you'll be lucky to get started by day 3 or 4 of symptoms.

 

My 2 COVID experiences have me thinking getting started on treatment as early as possible (day 1 or 2) really may make all the difference in the world regarding duration of symptoms and risk for long COVID. My first go 'round with COVID, my wife caught it first, so I was already started on HCQ+Zinc, and my COVID was a walk in the park. My second case of COVID, I didn't start treatment till day 2, and had 2 days fever.

 

Early initiation of treatment really can make all the difference in the world!

[Mind]

Hydroxychloroquine and azithromycin treatment is beneficial for COVID treatment. This large study finds the combo works quite well.

 

It is so sad to me that so many people were denied this beneficial treatment back in 2020 and 2021. Anyone who mentioned HCQ was threatened, harassed, a subject to all kinds of vitriolic slurs. Even I was threatened with termination from my job if I spoke publicly about HCQ.

 

So many people had to die needlessly, and for what reason? It appears mostly political. The minute President Trump suggested it might be a "game changer", the knives came out. Not only were doctors threatened and HCQ maligned as dangerous, we were served-up completely made up "studies" in the Lancet that claimed HCQ did not work. What an awful ugly episode in US/UK history.

[Dorian Grey]

Hydroxychloroquine and azithromycin treatment is beneficial for COVID treatment. This large study finds the combo works quite well.

 

It is so sad to me that so many people were denied this beneficial treatment back in 2020 and 2021. Anyone who mentioned HCQ was threatened, harassed, a subject to all kinds of vitriolic slurs. Even I was threatened with termination from my job if I spoke publicly about HCQ.

 

So many people had to die needlessly, and for what reason? It appears mostly political. The minute President Trump suggested it might be a "game changer", the knives came out. Not only were doctors threatened and HCQ maligned as dangerous, we were served-up completely made up "studies" in the Lancet that claimed HCQ did not work. What an awful ugly episode in US/UK history.

 

Noticed authors include: Mccullough & Raoult. So glad they're still working on this.

 

Love how they point out: "Most retrospective observational studies demonstrate a benefit of using HCQ on mortality, but not most randomized clinical trials."

 

Yea, the retrospective patients probably got prompt treatment when presenting with symptoms, while the RCTs required positive conformation by PCR test, with the 3 day PCR turn-around prior to enrollment.  Patients were probably symptomatic for a couple of days before they even got seen.  Funny how when they trialed Paxlovid, they had no trouble at all with a robust 3 day cohort in addition to their 5 day group.  

 

Money Talks!