Drug combo working. Covid. Dr Zelenko NYC hospital.

https://youtu.be/9WJONReaIo0

Dr Zelenko has treated 700 covid patients, zero deaths, only 4 hospitalizations, and they will be fine according to Zelenko.

This is a 3 drug combo, using the malaria drug, a common antibiotic, and a third.

Several hospitals were allotted this drug for testing.

Despite what you hear from the panicked, this drug is SAFE, has been used for ages, and is prescribed to children. Used to treat malaria, arthritis, and lupus.

This is good news. Teva Pharma has donated 6 million tablets to the USA and are making 10 million more.

He posted this on Twitter.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=4ulqf5NXhms&feature=youtu.be

We have hope.

The malaria drug is an ACE2 inhibitor. Think of your cell as a door, and on that door is a lock--the ACE2 lock. If you pour concrete in the lock, then the key, the virus, can't enter the lock and unlock it, or enter the cell and replicate. The antibiotic kills the infection, but I'm not sure what the zinc does.

Hope indeed.

Zinc helps out the immune system fight the infection.

They must be seeing some significant enough results with this drug combo because the HHS has received 30 million pills donation from Novartis alone. Bayer and others are ramping up production.

This is certainly good news. It's great to hear.

New results as more doctors are using the drug combo.

Dr. Stephen Smith infectious disease expert in NJ says this is the end of corona.

https://youtu.be/k4VPnjIXAb8

Certainly looks promising but I'll wait for more of his peers to join in and confirm the findings.


We don't want to get ahead of ourselves here with any false hopes.

Conference call between several doctors. Well worth listening.

Couple points: Penicillin was also a wartime drug that had no clinical trials.

And this drug combo needs to start early for the at risk patients. Some doctors are still waiting till the patient gets much worse. So protocol still needs established.

https://youtu.be/-Oq6IOP1sd8

Good to know. I eat high-zinc foods daily and also take a Men's One-A-Day (Zinc 15mg 100%). Also trying to beef up my cardio as quickly as possible (had already started with half-assed efforts for a couple of recent 5k's).

I keep this up until Coronas passes, I should be in the best shape of my life.

snopes.com seems sceptical of the idea.

Snopes isn't even relevant here.

Listen to the doctors.

I believe what's not relevant here are claims that aren't appropriatly verified trough detailed studies. No reputable news channel is carrying this story.

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/zelenko-669-coronavirus-patients/

Youre reading old news.

This story is changing daily, even hourly, and the updated information is readily available. Doctors that are on the front line battling this virus firsthand.

Listen to the recently uploaded conference call between several doctors I posted. And it sounds like protocol is as important as the drugs used. Treat early and with zinc in the mix.

This treatment is not new at all. Zelenko keeps working on what has been tested in China and France (and probably other countries) in late February/early March.

A Youtube Channel with less than 200 subscripers as a primary source of information?

Sorry, but you're acting like any generic Conspiracy Theorist here. This crisis is full of fake rumours, and everyone of us should keep a cool head and only share reliable news.

If a treatment would be showing promise, you'd be hearing about it from credible major sources of information, either government or media.

1. Credible Media is very hard to find these days

2. Government sources of information normally require so many levels of approval it could take days/weeks for "approved" information to get out.

Am I gonna rush out and try to get this or its equivalent? Nope.

If I am in a ICU on a ventilator and the Doc want's try something "not approved am I gonna say yes?

I have to agree with RSColonel here.


Also keep in mind that this is the kind of stuff the mainstream news media loves to do. They love to jump to conclusions and give air time to any person or group which makes a stunning claim so they can get higher viewer ratings.


The amount of sensationalism in current day news reporting is ridiculous.

I can't post everything I've read. There are several studies from 2005 that indicate hydroxychloroquine was effective against SARS Cov I, which closely resembles Covid 19. So there are those studies to look at.

Time isn't really a luxury here, as any of these doctors will tell you. We can do both, use what may be working, and do clinical trials as well for this and other drugs.

I've seen the stories about the malaria drug and SARS, and I believe it's a useful path for research. Discussing the potential of this drug isn't an issue with me, we had a previous thread here about it too.

Yet your statements like "Drug Combo works - this is the end of Corona" are just grossly missleading until there are credible sources that back such things up.

Doesn't mean it shouldn't be used in cases where it might help.
Doesn't mean it shouldn't be researched.

But spreading false hope is as bad as spreading false panic.

The media does not want this treatment to work because it does not fit their narrative.

Still, there's sound science behind this drug combo as to why it should work. And they love to tout science. The love the stuff. Except when it does not fit their narrative.

Snopes has been proven and fact-checked as a biased website that often posts only articles that fit their founder narratives. I would be very wary of believing anything there.

I think if the FDA had not approved this for emergency use, then I'd refrain from being a bit optimistic. But they have apparently looked at the anectodal evidence and is coming to a similar conclusion.

It doesn't have to work 100% of the time.

They keep down playing it, but it's been pretty well known that this anti-viral works in similar cases. Here is a study from 2005:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1232869/

This is mostly the media downplaying it. I was forwarded that study by my ex who is an IM and in a working group with this being the main focus now.

https://www.thelancet.com/journals/laninf/article/PIIS1473-3099(03)00806-5/fulltext

This is another from 2003 for it's potential against viral infections.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/science...ACCINE-approved-human-trials-months.html

And all the Talking heads all over the place...

They are so eager to throw wild, and some just insane figures uneducated guesses about death and destruction.

The media seems hell bent on destroying Americans hope. Even a glimmer of hope about a treatment that has worked for some is great.

We need more hope.

Just this week in school, I had a great example of this ignorance and/or maliciousness in an online discussion class.

The assignment was simple. Use two mainstream or scholarly sources to back up your example of a unethical business leader.

Two anti-trumpers right off the bat going after the President, not for his business practices, but as President!

After doing my required reply to a correctly done post, I went after the most rabid, ridiculous one.

Never mentioned her name, or the drivel she wrote..I just attacked her "mainstream or scholarly" sources.

1. First one is CTGN

CTGN is described by that bastion of liberalism, The New York Times, as “It broadcasts forced confessions to American audiences”

“China Global Television Network America, which reaches 30 million households in the United States, is an arm of China’s propaganda machine. It is controlled by the Communist Party “

2. Her second source is a click bait crap hole ludicrously named “Bipartisan Report”. It is described by the Seattle Times as "Seattle's own 'click-bait' news site serves up red meat for liberals".

I gave a couple more examples of how just plain horrible her sources are are and just totally destroyed her whole rant as complete BS. Which also had zero to do with the assignment.

I guess my point is she believes all that crap being spoon fed to her. The media is feeding us China is good and we are doomed crap all day.

I just do my best to avoid that crap.

The great part here Nixer is you're old enough to not have to give two #%&*$# whether your teacher flunks you for lashing out at the liberals. Nice spot to be in.


I once flunked a course when I was a young kid in school because I stood up against our oppressive teacher and his ideals. Was worth it, regardless.

Thing is, I thought it out quite well. I attacked nothing but her sources. I know... totally out of character right

I destroyed her with her own garbage.

I do good enough work in school that any ideological attack on my academics will have serious repercussions. I have a 3.45 GPA in my major. 3.1 overall.

I made her post and my reply into a .pdf to send to a couple of friends. If anybody wants to have a look PM me an e-mail, unless there is a way to attach it to a PM.

I ALMOST felt bad picking on a girl. I hope she learned something.

Now the New York Times is admitting this drug combination might work, based on the results of some studies:

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/04/01/health/hydroxychloroquine-coronavirus-malaria.html

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41422-020-0282-0


Pour concrete in a door lock and a key can no longer enter to turn the tumblers.

Well that remains to be seen.
in what form
Just hope people don't try treating themselves. You need a Doctor and a Chemist to know what drugs in what form actually work or can kill you.

There was a guy who took a chloroquine - but in the wrong form - used for a fish tank sterilizer or something and died.

I do find it intriguing that the media will scour the planet to find that one guy who dies from something, while ignoring the 99.9% who don't. I don't have a theory on why it happens this way, other than creating a headline that will turn heads. Imagine for a moment if someone died from drinking too much beer.... Oh wait.

We have 70 years of safety on this drug. People with lupos and arthritis have been on it for decades.

It's not rocket science. Any ad-based news source will sensationalize because as you said it will "turn heads" and will increase viewers, readers, mouse-clicks, etc.

I guess I am thinking why "during this time of crisis" any media source would sensationalize. Our entire world economy, and civility is on the threshold of collapse. Hope is the one thing more powerful than a drug. It's the lack of hope and infestation of fear that is causing people to rush to the hospital at the first sign of any symptom.

If not for this panic and fear, our hospitals would be in far better condition to deal with those who are actually in need of help.

Increased ratings = more you can charge advertisers. In short, money.

My problem with the national news media is just how overly political they've become, and they don't even try to disguise it. I guess the last time I was so glued to the news was 9/11 (and before that the Gulf War), but I don't remember it being like this. I'm backing off the big news stations a bit for my own sanity, catching more local news and statistical non-political websites.

All of the mainstream news media both on cable and network tv have become echo chambers for their respective target audiences. Local news may be ok in your area of Louisiana but local news in South Florida is moronic with the same sensationalist tactics done by the national news media.

Do what I do and stop watching televised news altogether. I read the news. This way a paragraph in I can usually tell where the article is, skip the rest and then maybe read the concluding paragraph. Cuts out the bias and gets to the facts, mostly.

Officials are realizing that telling people not to wear masks was a big mistake. You don't need the anti-viral rated masks worn by health care workers to offer yourself some protection. You simply need any mask or cloth to cover your mouth for starters. When people speak to others tiny droplets (most too small to see) are often released from their mouths and this is one of the main ways this virus spreads. If you don't have a dust mask then use cloth or other fabric. If you can, use glasses instead of contact lenses for your eyes and of course keep that 6 foot distance.

Also:
Viability of SARS-2 coronavirus in climates with higher temperatures & humidity:
"In this study, we showed that high temperature at high relative humidity has a synergistic effect on inactivation of SARS CoV viability while lower temperatures and low humidity support prolonged survival of virus on contaminated surfaces. The environmental conditions of countries such as Malaysia, Indonesia, and Thailand are thus not conducive to the prolonged survival of the virus. In countries such as Singapore and Hong Kong where there is a intensive use of air-conditioning, transmission largely occurred in well-air-conditioned environments such as hospitals or hotels. Further, a separate study has shown that during the epidemic, the risk of increased daily incidence of SARS was 18.18-fold higher in days with a lower air temperature than in days with a higher temperature in Hong Kong [24] and other regions [15–17]. Taken together, these observations may explain why some Asian countries in tropical area (with high temperature at high relative humidity) such as Malaysia, Indonesia, and Thailand did not have nosocomial outbreaks of SARS (Tables 1 and 2(a)–2(c)). It may also explain why Singapore, which is also in tropical area (Table 2(d)), had most of its SARS outbreaks in hospitals (air-conditioned environment). Interestingly, during the outbreak of SARS in Guangzhou, clinicians kept the windows of patient rooms open and well ventilated and these may well have reduced virus survival and this reduced nosocomial transmission. SARS CoV can retain its infectivity up to 2 weeks at low temperature and low humidity environment, which might facilitate the virus transmission in community as in Hong Kong which locates in subtropical area"

I don't think that's what happened in this case though. The guy saw the drug in news headlines, and then tried to ingest fish tank cleaner because it contained the same chemical. The media didn't highlight this to bring the effectiveness of the drug into question, but more likely so that other people didn't make the same mistake and try to self medicate with a product not intended for use in humans.

Doctors are not well informed of virus or drug mechanics like scientists. For new inflections I don't trust any doctor to determine what drug works unless they were former scientists or research oriented pharmacists.

Doctors are good at regurgitating known treatments for known diseases.

Ayup. "If it bleeds, it leads!"

"Pharmaceutical school."

It is rare I met a doctor that I considered intelligent. Most are slightly above average at best.

I am not entirely sure that is true. The medical and scientific bureaucracy, at least in the US, is used to working on timelines of years to approve new treatments, and I hear that business-as-usual attitude (we need large, long term studies to approve treatments, etc.) expressed by Dr Fauci and others. The problem is, of course, (and I am not sure that medical or even some political leaders understand) we do not have years but weeks to figure out something better than economic shutdown and social distancing, or we will face a situation where the present policies do long term harm so severe it outweighs whatever near term benefits they may have gained us.

Moreover, as national medical leadership have stated they believe the best (or only) way of combating the virus is prolonged economic shutdown and suspension of civil liberties, it may be they believe that expressing support for treatments that (in their view) would encourage local leaders to prematurely end shelter at home policies would be counter to the best interest of their policy recommendations and the nation. We already know the "credible major sources" were not entirely truthful about about the use of face masks when it came to telling people they were not a net benefit for the general public (not true) when the real policy goal was to ensure hospitals had a sufficient supply (due to China hording the world's production).

Agree. As I have said before, the majority of folks are affected very little....a fever and some cough maybe and that's about it for most cases. Clear direction should be given to those at high risk and the rest of the population returns to normal activity. Dealing with the high risk population to keep them from getting infected is really what it should be all about. I'm sure there are people who are smart enough to figure out how this can be accomplished without ruining the world economy.

On a similar note, there are probably other events that kill way more people (flu, accidents, etc...), but they don't have the short term impact of overwhelming healthcare systems like this current disease.

True about the Dr Fauci types. I've yet to hear him say something like this, "we want... No we need to find a stopgap cure right now, to the best of our ability,.and we are kicking in high gear to find a temporary solution to combat covid using existing drugs and or new drug therapies. We need to do this and are doing this until a vaccine is available."

This kind of attitude is what's missing from Fauci. And it leaves me a.bit suspicous to his motives.

We can do both.

Physician here.
I don't appreciate those remarks Mr_Blastman. Blanket statements like that do not reflect well on those posting them.

I'm pretty busy at the moment as you can imagine. Reliable data on all of this is scarce. The media and politicians are touting any possible cure to a desperate public no matter how scant or questionable the evidence.
It's simply the truth that in situations like this many of the early anecdotal reports will be found to lack scientific credibility when more rigorous studies are performed.
The original French study regarding hydrochlorquine that has been widely touted and mentioned by President Trump was a joke in terms of its methodology, if not outright fraudulent. Several grievous flaws that totally invalidate its conclusions have been pointed out. The main researcher, Dr. Didier Raould, was banned from publishing in the journal of the American Society for Microbiology for falsifying results. Other researchers have discovered that his lab Photoshopped electrophoresis gels to get the results he desired in studies.

https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/ar...cin-an-effective-treatment-for-covid-19/
https://forbetterscience.com/2020/0...-raoult-to-save-the-world-from-covid-19/


This does NOT invalidate the studies being done by other labs, including the studies ongoing in China. I do hope that hydroxychloroquine and chloroquine are proven to be effective treatments as much as anybody else does. Believe me, all of my colleagues here on the front lines do. But in my decades in practice I have seen many touted miracle cures for many conditions that never panned out or made it out of the laboratory. There is no Big Pharma conspiracy against it. And in desperate times when people are dying I would not fault anyone for trying these meds- in the lack of any other option I would use them on my patients as well, if need be. And in time, which we are currently in short supply of, more rigorous studies will give a better idea of whether these treatments are truly effective. Let us pray that they are. Just remember that hydroxychloroquine was shown to have effective antiviral properties in vitro in the past, but this did NOT translate to effective in vivo properties. When tested against the influenza virus, Ebola, and Dengue fever it was NOT effective at all.

So, I can not state with any authoritative evidence that it works better against SARS-CoV-2 than it does against those viruses. At this time it is all we have, for whatever that is worth. Azithromycin, an antibiotic, may also have antiviral properties as it prevents acidification of the lysosomes that act like an intracellular digestive system and are crucial to viral replication. However, anyone who authoritatively declares the effectiveness of these treatments may eventually be shown to be right, but they currently lack the evidence to back up such definitive statements. I don't want us barking up the wrong tree and flocking to a treatment that ends up not being effective at the expense of ones that are.

Why are you suspicious of his motives?
Do you have any basis for calling into question his integrity?
Frankly, as a physician, that kind of statement pisses me off.
What makes you think they are proceeding on a purely business as usual basis and not speeding things up as fast as they can without totally undermining the validity of the results of such trials?

Thanks for the info Docj.

Everybody is a little extra stressed right now. Being out of work doesn't help many much either.

Nor does, in your case, being overworked in a life and death environment.

Thanks for you efforts and stay as safe as you can sir.

Is there any evidence from Dr Fauci that indicates he trying to speed things up? So far he's spending quite a.bit of time trying to convince people that a certain drug doesnt do what several doctors are saying it does.

I find that behaviour very odd.

The public interviews and statements I have watched and read from Dr Fauci and other members of CDC and NIH.

He's saying what I would say which is that the medical profession can't say a drug is effective without adequate proof. The entire system is based on making sure we can have faith in what the medical profession is giving out to people and even then it's not always successful.
Fauci is not in charge of the FDA which is in the process of approving sped up trials of different agents.

But you have no basis whatsoever to impugn the guy's integrity. You are implying, no basically stating, that he is corrupt in some way.

Don't worry Docj, most of us don't have such ill conceived notions about physicians.

As to that Fox News interview about a cure it belongs in this scene

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eUh5IShNwXo

I am not sure if that was directed at me, and I cannot speak for others, but it is not my suggestion that Fauci or other leaders at CDC or NIH (or FDA) are corrupt (at least in reference to the current crisis). I believe they are advocating what they honestly think are the best solutions to the problem; I am however concerned the medical and scientific establishment, like most experts, are narrowly focused on the aspect of the problem set they best understand (slowing the spread of the China virus), and do not fully comprehend the grave and dangerous probable long (or even short) term consequences of the policies they are advising.

All perform different roles, there is some overlap, but generally....

NIH/universities = research ... show proof that something works in the lab

FDA = need proof it works in people before approval

CDC/HHS = guidelines +/- policies ... based on proof that it works in people.

Physicians = don't need proof that it works, but don't set the policies or guidelines.

New study, kills covid-19 in 48 hrs. I'd imagine there's many existent drugs that will be effective.


https://7news.com.au/lifestyle/health-wellbeing/anti-parasitic-drug-kills-covid-19-in-lab-c-955457

More good news there.

Viruses are not alive. You cannot kill them... only denature their protein. Soap and water is sufficient for that, and it does it in far less than 48 hours.

There is an element of error, or #%&*$# in any account of a drug which 'in the lab' kills a virus. Quite apart from the difference between action in laboratory and in a human you want to keep alive... There are a great many things which can kill bacteria or denature proteins in viruses which are not good for people (or indeed which can also kill them).

Not that looking isn't good. The hope is that something will come of the search for a solution... but there is a reason for the caution of medical professionals in signing off on a 'cure' before there is scrutiny of the methods, outcomes and risks.

No, my statement was not aimed at you. Your comments have been very reasonable and the concerns you have expressed totally valid.
There are countless examples of drugs that were effective in vitro but totally failed when used in vivo; that worked in cell cultures or in specially bred mouse lineages but that failed to work in clinical trials on human beings.
Again, there are many many possible candidates for effective antiviral therapies out there. The trials need to be done as quickly and as reliably as they can so that they may still provide us with accurate data or additional vital time will be lost.

This pandemic frankly has me scared for myself, for my family, and of course for our nation and the world in general. In addition to the many lives lost among all age groups, there may be long lasting serious health effects among survivors as well. And we may get through this period only to find ourselves in a devastating economic depression with millions jobless and impoverished. The effects of this pandemic are likely to be profound and long lasting.
The sooner we get effective treatments and a vaccine the better. The trick is how to balance the need for haste with the need to get accurate results. Numerous small scale trials will be necessary. Smaller trials are less likely to generate valid results, but I do believe they can be used to point the way to larger scale trials on a graduated basis.

But also beware of people loudly touting miracle cures. Past experience has taught me to take these claims with a healthy grain of salt no matter how much I want to believe them.

I'd avoid too much salt. It is linked to hypertension which has a co-morbidity with SARS-Cov-2

This is why I don't trust Fauci. Back in 2013 he was all for an existing, yet unproven drug combo for MERS. A far deadlier coronavirus. Read his comments about the drug in this USA Today article.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news...eatment-for-new-sars-like-virus/2091443/

Couple of quotes:


"We don't have to start designing new drugs," a process that takes years, Fauci says. "The next time someone comes into an emergency room in Qatar or Saudi Arabia, you would have drugs that are readily available. And at least you would have some data."

Even though the treatment hasn't gone through definitive trials, Fauci says, "if I were a physician in a hospital and someone were dying, rather than do nothing, you can see if these work."



So I still wonder, what motive does he have to be less emphatic about the hydroxy combo today?

I don't know all the details of this offhand. I know that the mortality rate for MERS was approximately 34% of all affected which is extraordinarily high and the two drugs mentioned in your article were proven antivirals with known activity against Hepatitis C. Hydroxychloroquine has been shown to reduce viral loads in cell cultures but results in human trials against influenza, Ebola, and Dengue fever have not been impressive, if not outright failures. Also, the recent preliminary French study regarding use of hydroxychloroquine against SARS-CoV-2 had such severe methodological flaws as to be basically worthless and I would not use it as a basis to recommend that medication. Let's hope better run rapid trials show hydroxychloroquine to be effective. That would be a game changer and a godsend.

You realize you're debating against politics, religion, and ideology here and not actual science?

because you can go BLIND, also a few percentage of people reacted to it

But Fauci continues to suggest he can't recommend Hydroxy because the data is anecdotal.

Every day there are loads of new anecdotal evidence pouring in from around the world that hydroxy is working.
Stories like this one are flooding social media:

https://abc7.com/health/la-doctor-seeing-success-with-hydroxychloroquine-to-treat-covid-19/6079864/

We can pass this off as farce and whatnot, but at some point one has to wonder why all these doctors would be making stuff up. Don't we trust our doctors as the gentleman stated we should?

I trust first hand accounts from doctors on the front line.

https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2020/03/didier-raoult-hydroxychloroquine-plaquenil.html

We have here in France the same controversy...anddon't be fooled by his look of druid or wizard, he speaks with reason and care and he is one of the best communicable diseases expert in the world and works with a high experienced team of university searchers and physicians ...people in Marseilles are medically treated his way with much better results than anywhere else in France.

Some people die from penicillin, I had my childhood baby sitter die when she was injected with her first chemo treatment, literally dead within 5 minutes. I went to college with a girl who had routine surgery and died on the operating table from the anesthesia.

The military gives that stuff out like candy, I have my pills still and I plan on giving them to my parents if they get sick.

You have yet to address why the overwhelming majority of doctors worldwide swear by it.

At some point, the suicides from economic collapse and other costs will outweigh the cost of a disease that kills less than the flu.

Gov.Cuomo has now stated that Hydroxy appears to be having positive results. And I'm sure he's hearing that information from doctors on the front lines.

https://thehill.com/homenews/state-...l-drug-in-new-york-hospitals-anecdotally


I wish politics did not make its way into this, but it did, and it was disgusting.

This article brings up an interesting point as to why ventilators aren't working well:

https://archive.is/ONUmi

As for the validity--I question the author as they are self-described as not an MD. They also mention chloroquine "binding with DNA" when covid has RNA, so I question the last portion the most. The first half is interesting, though.


As a counterpoint, this is far more credible:

https://www.asbmb.org/asbmb-today/science/032820/why-scientists-are-studying-if-chloroquine-could-t


And supports the ACE2 pathway theory as to how it prevents Covid from hijacking cells. My initial thoughts when I first learned of chloroquine and how it should work is supported by this second article.

The first I remain suspect of and supplied a link only for those looking for further theory.

It's an election year so thus anything and everything that can be used to gain an advantage over the opposing side will be exploited to the fullest. It's human nature.

Are you guys serious? Politics? Turn on world news outside the US and tell me that it's an election year for the other 100+ countries affected by this virus. UK prime minister went into ICU yesterday... politics? Amazing?

Did you fail basic reading comprehension class in school? I was responding to Terrible Two's comments about what is happening with Cuomo and NY. Foreign countries do not enter the equation in this case.

Nope. Global problem. Not politics was my point.

Yeah I don't know what's happening polically across the globe.

But here in the US, politics have played a huge factor in the expediency of getting a possible treatment for covid to the front lines.

In a republic, things get done via politics. It is often ugly, but nonetheless a feature rather than a bug.

From a recent Schlicter opinion piece I linked down in PWEC:



Do not take the above as me aiming it at anybody in here. My intent in posting it was just to emphasize that while we may not like watching the sausage getting made, the end product sausage is useful, and the ugly production process is how we get it.

As distasteful as I find some of the political discourse these days, I remain thankful to live in a country that has competing ideas and solutions. Ultimately, the people have their say.

Something that hasn't been discussed here yet, I don't believe...

These deaths aren't like humanely putting your pet down, and even surviving can be hell. I've read some accounts by survivors younger than me who had a brutal reaction to Coronavirus.

Your joints and body ache like you're being stabbed, you get a miserable high fever and a cough that doesn't give relief as you begin drowning in your own fluids. You'll probably make it but with possible lung damage. And if you're obese with no cardio fitness, it's even worse as the excess fat presses down on your weak lungs. Hope you don't smoke.

This can happen to any one of us, although the odds for having such a bad reaction is low. Personally, I'd rather wait it out as long as possible (and luckily I can), although no one knows a timeline yet to business as usual.

This thread was about the drug combo or other curatives, not politics.

Can we please keep it that way? There are plenty of other threads on here with folks touting their political opinions.

This thread could be a valuable resource if a member gets sick.

+1

Great post

Speaking of smokers, they are now health hazard to everyone and as many countries have a self defense clause that can dilute into manslaughter . maybe its time to enact GTA's smoke that smoker bill ? On a serious note, its really is a problem i dont see anyone talking about....if the virus is aerosol and now they say even speaking can transmit it, them smokers are the greatest safety hazard to society.
Also are you guys cleaning goods after you bought them in the market ? not just fruits.veggies, i mean the packages.

I am wiping down everything I buy with 70% alcohol. I was laughed at last week by two women walking by my house when I was doing this.

My cynical mind makes me think that maybe the reason why cigarettes haven't been outright banned in most countries is because national governments don't want to miss out on those big tax revenues from their sale?

I don't want that to stop either. If the tobacco tax stops, why they'll probably start expecting ME and/or YOU to pay up more on something else. Be nice to smokers, they pay taxes so you don't have to. That's my pro smoker campaign and I'm running with it.

Seen some reports here that one of Trump's companies is a major manufacturer of one of the drugs mentioned here.

I'll go back and find the link to the story in the morning, too late and enjoying your national beer day at the moment, Santé!

PLEASE don't post it if it is an obvious unsubstantiated claim.

And it probably doesn’t belong here anyway.

That was an on-air musing of a [sarcasm] totally unbiased mainstream news reporter [/sarcasm] with zero evidence.

It was in a couple of newspapers, The one I read I cannot find again, it was also in the UK's Metro quoting an article in the NY Times.

Nice try European news media but no cigar.

Just a cheap shot.

Other media picked up on a no evidence on air musing and reported it as fact? No, that never happens.

It's what they do.

Cheap shots and sucker punches.

The NY Times ain't what it used to be, that's for sure. I don't know who said it on the air...no doubt one of the usual irresponsibles trying to grind their favorite ax, down to a pocket knife. Irresponsibles ...hmmm...I like it.

Let’s let it go at that. No need to keep it going.

Whoops...Okey Dokey.

Back to National Beer Day.

On Zinc - let's clear something up.

One needs to take a LOT of Zinc to gain a real benefit from it, and it's not something one should do for an extended period of time. The good doctor is pumping huge doses in there.

Most over the counter Zinc supplements contain so little Zinc that it's pissing into the ocean - but they don't do any harm, and if, as it was pointed out, combined with a diet of high Zinc foods can be beneficial in maintaining already good health.

An example of this is iron. I have a relative that had severe anemia, and so the doctors hooked her up to a bag of iron (liquid rust, basically) to get her levels back. This was great for her. It would also be very, very, very bad if they hooked up that same bag to me, as I am not anemic.

And as stated, when one is at death's door and the doctor says "Whelp, nothing is working here, but I have a sort of long shot idea that's not tested or approved..." the answer is "why the f*ck not, let's do it."

No, it is substantiated. A few Trump family trusts have an investment, totaling somewhere between $90 and $1500, in mutual funds that invest in a company that used to, but no longer, distributes the name brand version of hydroxychloroquine in the US. So, if the drug proves effective, and if the company were again to start making/distributing it for the US market, President Trump, a billionaire, might stand to make a profit in the ballpark of $300.

Some British hospitals are trialling hydroxychloroquine.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/20...anti-malaria-drug-endorsed-donald-trump/

Text below if you can't see the site.

Coronavirus patients in NHS hospitals have begun receiving a controversial anti-malarial drug, as leaks reveal fear among staff that global stocks will run out.

Barts in London and the Royal Devon and Exeter are among trusts now handing out hydroxychloroquine, described by Donald Trump as a “gamechanger”, in a bid to keep seriously ill Covid-19 patients alive.

The medication has been incorporated into the Chinese guidance for the management of the virus. However, the NHS has so far “strongly discouraged” use of the drug other than in the hospital trials because evidence of usefulness is so limited. It comes amid a furious row in the US, provoked by the President’s enthusiastic backing of the off-licensed drug.

Meanwhile, a rupture in the French medical community emerged in recent days as a leading cardiologist accused Hydroxychloroquine of damaging the hearts of 54 coronavirus patients, four of whom died, while Emmanuel Macron appeared to endorse a virologist who claimed a related medication, chloroquine, was a breakthrough.

Hydroxychloroquine is a synthetic compound created 75 years ago to replace quinine, derived from a chichona tree, as a malaria treatment. Medics have subsequently used it against chronic inflammatory diseases such as lupus and rheumatoid arthritis.

Chinese doctors are believed to have turned to it on the basis that it showed some promising results in animals infected with SARS and MERS, two other coronaviruses. Although they have now recommended it, the Chinese medical establishment has not released the supporting data.

WhatsApp messages from doctors involved in administering the drug at Bart’s, seen by The Telegraph, indicate that Covid-19 patients will be given the drug for five days at a time.

They also reveal fears about its long term availability. “This shouldn’t have too much of an impact on availability in the short term. However over the next 2-3 months it might cause some issues particularly if similar approaches are adopted by other trusts/countries around Europe,” one message read.

Earlier this month, India announced a ban on the export of the anti-malarial drug, but then reversed its decision following threats of retaliation by the White House. Mr Trump has been criticised publicly endorsing the drug for coronavirus patients in the absence of systematic evidence.

“What have you got to lose? Take it,” he urged last weekend, while boasting that the US had access to 29 million doses. Having been accused of irresponsibility by many political opponents, Mr Trump was then thanked by a Democratic state lawmaker, who credited his recovery from coronavirus to Hydroxychloroquine.

A trial of Hydroxychloroquine began in the US on Thursday, overseen by the National Institutes of Health.

The Telegraph can also reveal that Barts Health NHS Trust has decided to use the rheumatoid arthritis drug Tocilizumab for some severe Covid-19 patients.

Its ability to stabilise rapidly deteriorating patients has been the subject of wide speculation among doctors in the NHS, many of whom have used WhatsApp to share an advice memo derived from an intensive care specialist in Lombardy which recommends its use.

A spokesman for Barts said: “Barts Health NHS Trust has convened an expert clinical group to consider novel medications in the treatment of Covid-19.

“The evidence base is limited for all such drugs and we are actively recruiting patients to major clinical trials that have been prioritised by the Dept of Health and Social Care.

“These include hydroxychloroquine, kaletra, steroids and Remdesivir." He added: “For a small number of carefully selected patients, we have recommended some novel therapies for immediate use, including immunomodulatory drugs such as Tocilizumab.”

A spokesman for the Royal Devon and Exeter NHS Foundation Trust said patients would be selected at random by computer for participation in the Hydroxychloroquine trial.

So tired of hearing about the side effects of Hydroxy.

Arthritis and lupos are a common ailment and Hydroxy has been widely used for those diseases for decades. Never once have I ever seen a headline about this drug's side effects and it's 'heart attacking" nature till now.

Here's a Google news search for hydroxychloroquine and heart attack from 2000 to 2018. Amazing how there's little news about Hydroxy killing people...

hydroxychloroquine search


Had Xanax been the game changer, the media would have sensationalized its side effects including death.

And here's proof.

Ibuprofen increases risk for heart attack.

"Fatal heart fears over use of common painkillers: Drugs including ibuprofen found to raise the risk of cardiac arrest by up to 50%"

https://www.mediterranee-infection.com/covid-19/

Update from the the virology institute in Marseille that began it all (where Dr. Didier Raoult works) has a running counter of how many patients they have treated with HCQ+Azithromycin and how many of those patients have died.

2494 treated, only 10 deaths, all over age 75.

That's 99.6% survival rate.

I think you could safely say that is significant.

The data is useless unless it's compared against same number/type of patients who were either (a) left untreated and/or (b) given a placebo and/or (c) given another combo drug therapy. That's why clinical trials take years to complete because it's scientific data that needs to be compared and analyzed.

I get the uselessness of the data, but that’s for another time and another debate.


I think a better question would be, are there any doctors that have treated 2000 patients, with the typical ventilator and typical drugs, that has achieved a 99.4% survival rate? Where are the doctors, and where is the data? If there are any, that would be quite significant.

But so far, we’ve had numerous examples of doctors using HCQ early and getting much better survival rates.

And taking it now, if I had it, is a much better option than waiting for FDA approval.

Just my .02

Also, good news, even if unscientific, is good news. Not much of that going around lately.

The media won't touch cause you know who said it was good.

On another note, have firing squads ever been FDA approved?

Survival rate data is typically used and measured in years (e.g. 5 year or 10 year survival rates) to give a prognosis.

The problem is comparing the same population of patients. Because you need to rule out a lot of other complications like the extremely sick, or underlying co-morbities (hypertension, diabetes, obesity, lung diseases, etc..) which can affect survival rate.

If he were to publish data from other hospitals in different areas of the country using the same treatment, that could show better proof that it works on different populations. But that's just my guess and not necessarily a fact.

The FDA rejects way more medicines that it passes. Only about 30% or less get through the FDA approval process. On top of that, there could be recalls on approved drugs. I agree to treat if the patient is in a life and death situation where it's either treatment and maybe survive or no treatment and definitely die. Otherwise, I'll pass.

The FDA, unfortunately, is compromised by Big Money.

I've been involved in the stock market for quite a while. I read SEC forms and watch clinical trials, and stay abreast on events in the biotech world. So it seems from my POV that promising drugs and therapies from smaller labs and companies are often given the critical eye, moreso than the big drug makers.

So I don't fully trust the FDA because I've seen some shady clinical outcomes. Yes they approve safe drugs, but will often overlook a promising drug from a smaller comp. However, it seems that Trump does have quite a pull using his position to take a cheap, well established drug, into the limelight. I guess I see the perspective from the other side here - which is the "if it works then use it" crowd.

And I am "prejudiced" by my age (69) and also having pretty bad COPD, overweight...

If I get it, I'd pretty much try anything with over a 25% chance of success.

Useless is too strong a term. I understand the necessity of blind, randomized tests, etc. but at the same time, a hospital that is experiencing a 0.4% reported mortality rate when administering a course of treatment, in a nation that is overall experiencing a 10.8% reported mortality, rate is statistically significant. Maybe you can cite some examples where this did happen (and I am eager to hear if that is so), but I admit as medical layman, I find that idea that placebo effect can explain all or most of the difference between 10 deaths actually experienced and the 250 deaths they "should" have experienced improbable.

The idea of giving a placebo to a possibly terminally ill patient just irks the heck out of me.

Barbaric?

Yeah this is a sensitive issue I guess. But Hydroxy has to be given early, before someone is dying from covid. So the test subject would have a say in it.

And the stories just keep mounting since I first started this thread. It is too bad doctors didn't follow Zelenkos protocol earlier. Treat early at the first sign of symptoms. Too many of these failed "studies" treat the patients too late, or use Chloroquine (as in Brazil, more severe symtoms) instead of hydroxychloroquine.

Straight from the head of Oncology department at a province in Italy:

https://time.com/5816874/italy-coronavirus-patients-treating-home/

Over 300 patients, no deaths

I guess I'll just use this thread as a means to stay abreast on the latest significant drug news

Remdesivir, an HIV drug from Giliead Sciences, is showing some excellent results.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.cn.../coronavirus-remdesivir-trial/index.html

From the Doc who inspired this thread. Latest update.

https://twitter.com/zev_dr/status/1252180245760937996?s=20

As a side note NYC just sent their Hydroxy results from 40 hospitals to the FDA and CDC.

Results should be coming soon.

https://apnews.com/a5077c7227b8eb8b0dc23423c0bbe2b2

The VA didn't use Zinc?

I think the key folks are missing with the Dr. Zelenko results are he gave the combo early in their infection. Not later.

All patients here were treated after hospitalization. Not the candidate for Hydroxy.

Hydroxy proponents continuously stress the importance of Hydroxy treatment at the first signs of symptoms for at risk patients. Every study I've seen that shows no help from Hydroxy, are from patients being treated late.

I've used this analogy before, but Hydroxy seems to be a red light for the virus. You have to stop it before it's too late, Hydroxy doesn't clear the virus and it doesn't repair damage done.

And in reference to this flawed VA study:

https://www.theepochtimes.com/va-ch...orking-against-covid-19_3322683.html/amp


And in more technical terms;



I'm gradually becoming suspicous of these crap "studies" disparaging Hydroxy. Hydroxy is preventative, as other proponents have stated, and just like any anti-viral medication (Tamiflu), meaning it needs to be given early. Every one of these crap studies have started Hydroxy too late, after patients were too sick.

From now on, every time you see a failed Hydroxy study, check to see how late they started treatment.

Watching South Dakota, the only state (I think) that is conducting a statewide hydroxy trial. They also have no lockdowns in place. And as a cherry on top, one of the prettiest governors around.

As of right now, they have the lowest death rate at only 11, with
2212 cases. They also have a high recovered rate at 1223.

This is in line with what Dr. Zelenko is getting.


Even surrounding states like North Dakota, Montana, and Nebraska are much higher.

I'll only assume Hydroxy is playing a part. No evidence yet.


Also, the SD trial is treating people early. The NIH trial as a comparison, is treating patients who are already hospitalized. The NIH trial will fail... By design? I dunno.


However, the NIH trial is focused on people who are already hospitalized with the disease, while the South Dakota study will initially test the possible preventive use of the drug.

Of course if you treat 300 patients "before" they get seriously ill you will see a higher average survival rate than if you wait for the 30 who will become serious or critical to present and only treat them. There is no mystery there....

Whether the survival rate is anything other than a wash isn't known though as the way of counting/treating is completely different. Are any of the patients in the test from the group who would have died without this treatment? Most people don't need or receive ICU treatment, most don't even present to hospital for treatment...

The hospital CFR of 10% is the death rate/clearing rate of cases presenting at the hospital... in many regions only serious/critical cases are seen This is not the actual HFR, as it conflates current deaths with current cases, while the real cohort of the dying group is those infected 2-3 weeks prior (a much smaller cohort than current infection).
The overall CFR will not be known until the antibody testing is complete, *and* all the cases resolve to death or recovery. (Korea saw 3/4 to 4/5 of it's deaths after the 'turn' of their new case rate).

What we *know* is that there are many cases in the wild which don't get detected ~ New York data was suggesting around 10-13% infection rate overall (or roughly 10X that detected by antigen testing, in the most heavily tested group)... but that the current death total is *far* from the final figure.

It still seems reasonable that an overall CFR of 0.5% to 1% at might be seen at the end, but with far larger numbers of cases than most expect, and a correspondingly high death toll - as well as weakened health in many of those who recover.


"A treatment protocol" does mean that you can re-test patients and make a declaration that they are recovered (whether that is prone to false negatives/false positives or not)... while other regions may not report presumed recovery as this is a relative unknown in the absence of re-testing.

11 in 1213 is close to 1% CFR - right in line with a high detection rate and infection spread control at the predicted CFR. Uncontrolled spread, undetected cases are a far worse issue (see NY again where over half of novel tests record a new case - because they lost control of spread and are testing the 'core' of each new hotspot... rather than testing the fringes of a very few, and having containment of a sort.

Anti-virals have to be used early, Tamiflu is another example.

Therefore, I don't understand the point of using Hydroxy late in treatment, like the NIH has decided to do. They know this, and this makes me wonder why. They are set up for failure already.

New research out of Italy on people who take Hydroxy for chronic arthritis and lupos, studying whether it can used as a prophylactic.


https://www.iltempo.it/salute/2020/...pia-idrossiclorochina-sars-cov2-1321227/



Finally, further confirmation of this hypothesis is the data collected in the register of the SIR (Italian rheumatology society). To assess the possible correlations between chronic patients and Covid19, SIR interrogated 1,200 rheumatologists throughout Italy to collect statistics on infections. Out of an audience of 65,000 chronic patients (Lupus and Rheumatoid Arthritis), who systematically take Plaquenil / hydroxychloroquine, only 20 patients tested positive for the virus. Nobody died, nobody is in intensive care, according to the data collected so far.

Not only that, but they were late stage trials. If you don't take Tamaflu in the first day or two, you might as well not. The goal is to give the anti-viral as the virus is starting to replicate to then suppress it. If you use it after it already has, it isn't giving the time for the body to build anti-bodies, the infection is already well established.

It was a horribly politicized study.

Some South Korean numbers with Hydroxy.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S092485792030145X

In a Korean nursing home, 189 residents (Avg. 82 yrs) were exposed to Covid-19. They were promptly treated with hydroxychloroquine. None of the residents there died. Massachusetts Nursing Home, 70 Covid patients treated with Hydroxy, none died.

Somewhat of a breakthrough discovery on how Covid works, if correct. Explains the illnesses, and why men are more affected.

Hydroxy is the key.

https://www.jpost.com/health-scienc...ed-main-mechanism-behind-covid-19-626737

I'm confused by this article.
Is she a lab researcher, or a pharmacist advancing her own theories?


Published by leading newspapers in Italy? That holds absolutely no water with me.

The virus "needs porphyrins for its survival – and probably for its replication. "
How does she know this? Is this some new viral mechanism of replication?
"...so it attacks hemoglobin."
Has she done research showing this?
Again, interesting theory that I have not heard elsewhere. I'm not sure biochemically how this makes any sense, but maybe there's an explanation behind it I have not heard of.

All interesting theories but no more than that. The same article casts doubt on this theory later on.

I absolutely want hydroxychloroquine to be an effective treatment (though it is far from "harmless" as some have described it) but I'm just not seeing anything beyond anecdotal evidence supporting it anywhere.
Right now we are grasping for anything that will help our patients.

The same mechanisms that supposedly make it effective against this particular coronavirus strain should also make it effective against other viruses, but no big difference was seen in the past when it was tested against Ebola virus, influenza virus, and Dengue fever virus.
As for now, many New York hospitals that are now the most experienced in the world at treating COVID-19 patients, are turning to other methods of treatment:



https://www.ny1.com/nyc/all-borough...xychloroquine-treatment-touted-by-trump-

In time, more rigorous studies will tell the story. We will know if hydroxychloroquine, chloroquine, or azithromycin (Zithromax), are of any utility in treating COVID-19. I think the evidence is pretty clear it is not helpful for very sick patients, so right away its potential usefulness for clinicians is limited where we need it most. I do personally know a researcher at Pfizer who is studying azithromycin as a treatment for SARS-CoV-2.

I am confident we will find an effective treatment. One of the silver linings of the AIDS epidemic is that it vastly increased funding for research into antivirals and our knowledge base for treatment of viral illnesses which is now invaluable in responding to this epidemic.
But I am extremely skeptical of anyone who declares with no reservation and less evidence that they have found "the answer."

Most healthcare workers think in terms of treating individuals, while epidemiologists think in terms of treatment of a community.

Unfortunately, the COVID virus needs to go the way of chicken pox and get eradicated from the world via widespread vaccination and herd immunity. Drug treatments are quicker to get approved by the FDA since most are already marketed drugs, you're just applying to the FDA for a new indication. If drug treatments work, they can reduce the viral load and help patients recover faster and/or slow down the damage. But developing immunity via vaccination is like wearing a bullet proof vest against COVID. It quickly disrupts the ‘Disease triangle’ of the COVID infection.

In the long run, vaccination is more cost-effective than treatment. One source that verifies this :Cost-Effectiveness of Vaccination versus Treatment of Influenza in Healthy Adolescents and Adults, by Peter A. Muennig, Kamran Khan. Also, Vaccination versus treatment of influenza in working adults: a cost-effectiveness analysis, by Rothberg MB1, Rose DN.

As a clinician, it's very frustrating to see how much misinformation is being spread so rapidly. That 65,000 number being quoted is, unfortunately, totally bogus.



https://blogs.sciencemag.org/pipeline/archives/2020/05/04/hydroxychloroquine-update-may-4

Again, I would love it for hydroxychloroquine to be an effective treatment against SARS-CoV-2. I'm a physician. My wife is a nurse. We have two young kids. We have friends working in the ICU caring for COVID-19 patients right now.
But whenever the media and fanatical public advocates get involved in medicine, science goes out the window and the loudest voices get the most coverage.
I've seen this time and again.
Documentaries like "Plandemic" get widespread coverage despite their despicable abhorrence for the truth and outright slandering of anyone who disagrees with their agenda. There is little room for rational debate.
And again, if hydroxychloroquine is an effective treatment we will learn this in time. Any researcher would love to be the one in the news showing they have proven that this treatment can change the course of this pandemic. There is NOT a widespread Big Pharma conspiracy to silence researchers.
And again, early on I would have treated my patients with hydroxychloroquine in lieu of any other therapy while knowing that we don't know if it really works.
We will find a treatment. The scientific methods we have work and are why medicine has advanced so far. Keep an open mind while the evidence is collated in the meantime.

First study to show the addition of zinc to the Hydroxy protocol shows a statistically significant result in mortality.

https://www.researchgate.net/public...tcomes_in_hospitalized_COVID-19_patients

I've downloaded the pdf and looked at this study.
Now this seems like a well constructed study. This work is promising and does not appear to have some of the glaring flaws of the original French study.
As a retrospective observational study it does not have the power of a double blind, placebo controlled prospective study, but that is to be expected at this stage when we need preliminary data as soon as possible.
I'm struck by how normal the lab tests were upon admission for these patients, some of whom later went on to the ICU and mechanical ventilation.
THIS is the kind of study we have needed to give evidentiary support to the hydroxychloroquine treatment. This hopefully moves things beyond the merely anecdotal. Again, it is promising and although it does not have the power of studies that will come later, gives some hope that this regimen may be useful.