Remdesivir ain't gonna work unfortunately

originally posted by: Serdgiam
a reply to: PhyllidaDavenport

The antiviral aspects and ionophore activity will definitely have their biggest impact if given early on. This will stand true for pretty much any antiviral in any application, due to their nature.

Whether the ionophore activity, specifically, has benefits in later progressions is still up in the air a bit.

However, a medication like HCQ also has immunosuppresant/modulating effects which can be extremely helpful in many presentations. I suspect there are other factors that come into play when cytokines start running rampant, but HCQ could help control it regardless. There are other medications that would likely be more effective in this role, but many dont have the benefits that come from the early treatment of HCQ either.

Care to expound on the wisdom to using an immunosuppressant/modulating approach that stops your body from trying to remediate the catalyst as opposed to Immunosupportive approach that remediates the catalyst so the body may heal itself.

While you are at it why not tell me about the "cytokine Storms".....lol...just begin with the cytokines themselves please....LMAO.

a reply to: one4all

Im not convinced you are asking in good faith, but here ya go all the same.

We dont even necessarily disagree, but you are clearly on a Crusade. I wish you the best in it.

a reply to: 727Sky

Good thing they didn't give them hydroxychloroquine at first sign of illness. They may have actually saved lives.

originally posted by: Serdgiam
a reply to: one4all



Im not convinced you are asking in good faith, but here ya go all the same.

We dont even necessarily disagree, but you are clearly on a Crusade. I wish you the best in it.

I already had an idea of what the word cytokine will mean because of contextual application verbally by you and a Visual Thinkers data reception action by me.

Paracrine signalling is a method of Pleomorphic bacterial communication … it is how a renegade Pleomorphic Bacteria masquerading in viral size can after they enter your body send a Party Invitation to all of your Insitu gut bacteria (their relatives)to encourage everyone shrink to viral size and to cascade from the belly to the bloodstream where the party can really get started.

However the source or catalyst of the Paracrine signalling has a traditional name we are all familiar with....forget what it can do lets discuss what it is.

I am trying to show you you do not require the BASTARDISED Medical Science we are all force-fed.....who the hell came up with the BS word cytokine?....there was already a perfectly good word for that.....cytokine is a weaponised manufactured word...made up.

I am a Polymath..so the last thing I rely on is the verbiage....the technicality of the words or the names of things....I work with concepts...not precepts.....I will create names as they are required.....they are the last thing that matters.....I am not on a Crusade...its just my own personalized perspective of common sense.

To understand the 5-Ws concerning this medicine or any other medicine....you have to understand what we are dealing with....a Pleomorphic Bacteria ….it all begins and ends there...and once you open Pandoras Box and accept its a Pleomorphic Bacteria then all of the bastardised data will self-launder will begin to come together autonomously.




en.m.wikipedia.org...

originally posted by: ManFromEurope
NO at Hydroxycholorquine, and you can't get a better study:

Um that's a registry analysis, it's actually an extremely weak study method. If you only give hydroxychloroquine to the sickest of patients who are closer to death then you are naturally going to have a much higher mortality rate in that group. It's actually pretty crazy they could put that 'research' out with all the holes and weaknesses. It's complete and utter garbage. This is from different countries, different hospitals, different protocols, the more I read it the more shocked I am they published it.

a reply to: gortex

What protocols did these hospitals use to decide who got what treatment?

Here's a similar stupid study.

2% of people hospitalized every year die.
0.86% of the general population dies

Clearly hospitals offer no benefit and actually increase your likelihood of dying, stay away!!!!

a reply to: OccamsRazor04

Obviously by that reasoning the clinicians who carried out the study are wrong , guy on the internet wins the day and saves humanity.

originally posted by: gortex
a reply to: OccamsRazor04

Obviously by that reasoning the clinicians who carried out the study are wrong , guy on the internet wins the day and saves humanity.

There were no clinicians in that study. All they did was gather data. Imagine if for the Remdesivir trial they gave 700 hospitals a bunch of drugs, said do whatever you want with them and tell us how many people die. Would you find a study designed like that reliable?

a reply to: one4all

As bad as a wrap wormwood has recieved since ancient times, I actually like it.

Not that bad. Never understood the whole hallucinating thing though.

originally posted by: AutomateThis1
a reply to: one4all

As bad as a wrap wormwood has recieved since ancient times, I actually like it.

Not that bad. Never understood the whole hallucinating thing though.

Wormwood was and is a medicinal....and it as in many cases of remedial products which have pleasurable side effects abused intentionally...with semi-controlled overdoses we call imbibing.

Ever drink Tequila?....or Lemon Gin?.....or Hooch?....ever drink to much......lol....lol....?...….all alcohols are single spectrum anti-parasitic/bacterial agents....and if you take to much you will hallucinate alright all the way to the Local Jailhouse if you aren't carefull.....lol....lol....adding extra chemicals and creating an admixture is simply advanced warfare.The alcohol becomes a delivery vehicle for a MOAB instead of SIMPLY BEING a Standalone weapon.


We are learning about all of these different medicines as we go I guess...…www.abovetopsecret.com...

I think most people who are raving so hard against hydroxychloroquine are forgetting one little thing: hydroxychloroquine is a prescription medication. No one can simply go out and buy it. It must be prescribed by a licensed physician.

So far, from what I can gather, it seems to be effective in allowing cells to absorb zinc. Zinc is known to be effective against coronavirii if it can enter the cells in sufficient quantity. Therefore, conducting any trials using only hydroxychloroquine without zinc is like lighting a fuse on an empty bottle rocket... no go boom. It also has been claimed to be most effective in the early stages of the disease, not the final stages.

The attempts at analyzing the effects of hydroxychloroquine thus far remind me of an old Auburn joke. You see, there once was this zoology major at Auburn who wanted to study a frog's ability to jump. He found himself a frog and put it down on the floor. He then yelled, "Jump frog! Jump!" The frog jumped and landed four feet away, so he wrote down in his notepad, "Frog with 4 legs jumps four feet."

Then he cut off one of the frog's front legs. He set the frog down again and again yelled, "Jump frog! Jump!" The frog jumped, but it wasn't straight like before and it landed three feet away. So he wrote down, "Frog with three legs can jump three feet."

Then he cut off the frog's other front leg. Again he set the frog on the floor and yelled, "Jump frog! Jump!" The frog jumped, but landed on its head two feet away. He wrote down in his notebook, "Frog with two legs can jump two feet."

He cut off one of the frog's hind legs and repeated his experiment. This time, the frog twitched and managed to half-jump, half-slide a foot away. He wrote down in his notebook, "Frog with one leg can jump one foot."

Finally he cut off the frog's remaining leg. He set the frog down and yelled, "Jump frog! Jump!" The frog didn't move. He yelled again, "Jump frog, jump!" Still the frog didn't move. So again he yelled at the top of his lungs, "JUMP FROG! JUMP!" The frog still didn't move.

So he wrote down in his notebook, "Frog with no legs can't hear."

TheRedneck

a reply to: gusamaso

Great work! Read in the context of this potentially bias personnel the Lancet study needs a large pinch of salt.

It's also known that HCQ is zinc ionophore, so zinc can interrupt RNA replication and transcription when present within a cell but it very hard for it to get into and between cells without an ionophore to facilitate the transfer, which in this case is the forementioned HCQ (also quinine).

I’m assuming that RNA replication is what the cell is supposed to be doing, but the virus hijacks that process, tricking the cell into replicating the virus instead. So my question is:

Does Zinc only halt the replication of the virus, or does it halt replication period?

If it halts all replication, then is there a biological price for taking prophylactic zinc with an ionophore for an extended period? If the zinc is stopping all cell replication does this have a detrimental side effect?

Finally, I’ve been taking 10mg Of zinc with 500mg of Quercetin as the ionophore daily for a couple months hoping it has some prophylactic benefit. Are you familiar with quercetin and do you have any thoughts on this?

Cheers

originally posted by: carewemust
a reply to: 727Sky

So far, it looks like only Hydroxychloroquine-based treatments continue to show promise.

It's OK, to describe it more emphatically than merely as 'showing promise'.

How about this description:

Attached and posted here (cqhcqresearch) is a summary of peer-reviewed evidence, indexed in PubMed, concerning the use of CQ and HCQ against coronavirus. We believe that there is clear and convincing evidence of benefit both pre-exposure and post-exposure.

Source: AAPS Letter Asking Gov. Ducey to Rescind Executive Order concerning hydroxychloroquine in COVID-19 (Association of American Physicians and Surgeons)

I would go as far as saying that it's been proven "absolutely effective" in the period March 9 - 17 ( a terminology once used in an OAN News report quoting what seemed to be a letter from the AAPS, but may have actually been from a 64-page lawsuit on the topic; the news report video was removed, as per usual when anyone says something actually significant and honest in this crisis that exposes the flaws in the system concerning subjects such as the philosophy of vagueness, "horrible care", murder and involuntary manslaughter, and convenient selective denial of inconvenient facts/certainties/truths/realities to cover one's asses, and make them appear less clear and crystal for that motive; cast a shadow of doubt on this subject, and you cast a shadow of doubt on your responsibility in the matter). It's been clear and crystal for 2 months now. Still dodging, delaying and botching (clinical trials and studies on purpose).

Dr. Ban is still the only one I know of that is using HCQ in the right way at the right time, that doesn't even count for Dr. Raoult and Dr. Zelenko. His statistics, up till the point where he loses control of his patients (such as when other doctors interfere and take the patient of HCQ, or when they have to go to the hospital), are the only truly reliable numbers on the subject of HCQ. The others are merely indications of its potential, or some marketing/sales-pitch reports that try to downplay the clear positive results and further potential already shining through from HCQ + "horrible care" (which includes things like not using Azithromycin or Doxycycline patient specific, zinc+copper, Vitamin C and D3 in the right amounts, patient specific, no constant monitoring; and not adding additional treatment options concerning the cytokine storm once that is appropiate. It also includes things like not prescibing HCQ in the right amounts for the right amount of time, patient specific, but for example only the 5 days proposed by the FDA guidelines or advised protocol, or stopping because you're unnecessarily worried about QT prolongation, just like some physicians in hospitals don't want to risk a bit of "permissive hypoxia" and go straight to invasive intubation or even more harmful mechanical ventilation, as the Eastern Virginia Medical School explains, see other thread for details; and administering HCQ too late, or almost too late, or anywhere in the too late category, even a little bit too late is already less than the highest quality care possible, but only administering it in hospitals, is way, way, way too late, even though it still has benefits at that point in most cases, if used right again).

Here are Dr. Ban's podcasts:

Videos & Tutorials

its truely amazing that so many in this thread - are ignoring the fact that the denouncement of this drugs effectiveness - is coming from the alledged " big pharma " they claim to distrust

a reply to: ignorant_ape
Which is why it's saying nothing about it being way more toxic and harmful than HCQ. Nor those little details where did they did everything they could to give the best quality care to Remdesivir patients while "horrible care" was given to the placebo group, and still they couldn't skewer the numbers in favor of Remdesivir enough to give a positive spin to this utterly useless highly toxic snake-oil that has nicely delayed everyone from realising that HCQ + Azithromycin (or Doxycycline, tailored to the patient's specific needs with good follow-up) + zinc (and relative amount of copper) + Vitamin C + Vitamin D3 + quality care all the way through from beginning of the disease till the end, started at the earliest signs of trouble (before a positive testresult), works great. And could have prevented thousands of lives if it weren't for people like you and other even worse types that know better, and have known better since late March, some even before that period.

But keep on looking the other way as health care workers make the problem worse by poisoning their patients with Remdesivir, causing ARDS by "treating these patients with early intubation and the ARDNSnet treatment protocol" and damaging their lungs by putting them straight on mechinical ventilation, skipping either the less invasive and less damaging HFNC or CPAP/BiPAP, or all; while withholding them a well-proven and well-established treatment that works, and when optimized and enhanced by substances to help 'dampen the cytokine storm', not just a little bit either, a 100% succes rate concerning death may not be unfeasible. It's not the virus that is killing so many people, it's "horrible care":

...
It is important to recognize that “COVID-19 pneumonia” does not cause ARDS. The initial phase of “oxygenation failure” is characterized by normal lung compliance, with poor recruitability and near normal lung water (as measured by transpulmonary thermodilution). This is the “L phenotype” as reported by Gattonini and colleagues. [57-60] Treating these patients with early intubation and the ARDNSnet treatment protocol will cause the disease you are trying to prevent i.e. ARDS. These patients tolerate hypoxia remarkable well, without an increase in blood lactate concentration nor a fall in central venous oxygen saturation. We therefore suggest the liberal us of HFNC, with frequent patient repositioning (proning) and the acceptance of “permissive hypoxemia”. However, this approach entails close patient observation.

Going back a little (between brackets is mine):

Three core pathologic processes lead to multi-organ failure and death in COVID-19:

1)Hyper-inflammation (“Cytokine storm”) ...
2)Hyper-coagulability (increased clotting) ...
3)Severe Hypoxemia(low blood oxygen levels) ...

The above pathologies are not novel, although the combined severity in COVID-19 disease is considerable. Our long-standing and more recent experiences show consistently successful treatment if traditional therapeutic principles of early and aggressive intervention is achieved, before the onset of advanced organ failure. It is our collective opinion that the historically high levels of morbidity and mortality from COVID-19 is due to a single factor: the widespread and inappropriate reluctance amongst intensivists to employ anti-inflammatory and anticoagulant treatments, including corticosteroid therapy early in the course of a patient’s hospitalization [ and proper antiviral treatment in the form of HCQ + quality care as early as possible, before hospitalization when it's already too late or almost too late]. It is essential to recognize that it is not the virus that is killing the patient, rather it is the patient’s overactive immune system [or the health care system depending on how you look at it or what interests you more, or health care workers blindly following horrible protocols, as they already more or less admitted to in this section, but OK, they're focussing on this detail now]. The flames of the “cytokine fire” are out of control and need to be extinguished. Providing supportive care (with ventilators that themselves stoke the fire) and waiting for the cytokine fire to burn itself out simply does not work... this approach has FAILED and has led to the death of tens of thousands of patients. [indeed, and that's not the only protocol, policy, guideline or behaviour that has caused more deaths than needed if you do things right, and don't hide behind a false screen of feigning incompetence as an excuse, or some supposed inability to know all this stuff ahead of time, before causing more deaths. This would bring us to the subject of misplaced trust in authoritive figures in the sciences including bureaucrats and bureaucrat scientists such as the careerjunkies at the WHO, FDA, CDC and associated government-funded research centers and publishers, the swamp in the sciences; they're all coming out of the woodwork with their lack of scientific integriry and love of the philosophy of vagueness now btw, NEJM, the Lancet, PubMed, etc.]

The systematic failure of critical care systems to adopt corticosteroid therapy resulted from the published recommendations against corticosteroids use by the World Health Organization (WHO), the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), and the American Thoracic Society (ATS) amongst others. A very recent publication by the Society of Critical Care Medicine and authored one of the members of the Front Line COVID-19 Critical Care (FLCCC) group (UM), identified the errors made by these organizations in their analyses of corticosteroid studies based on the findings of the SARS and H1N1 pandemics. Their erroneous recommendation to avoid corticosteroids in the treatment of COVID-19 has led to the development of myriad organ failures which have overwhelmed critical care systems across the world.

Our treatment protocol targeting these key pathologies has achieved near uniform success, if begun within 6 hours of a COVID19 patient presenting with shortness of breath or needing ≥4L/min of oxygen. If such early initiation of treatment could be systematically achieved, the need for mechanical ventilators and ICU beds will decrease dramatically.
...
Finally, it is important to acknowledge that there is no known therapeutic intervention that has unequivocally been proven to improve the outcome of COVID-19. [not really true, but whatever, the crucial point comes now, it's still no excuse to opt for "supportive care"] This, however, does not mean we should adopt a nihilist approach and limit treatment to “supportive care”. [more accurately described as "horrible care" or "murderous care"] Furthermore, it is likely that there will not be a single “magic bullet” to cure COVID-19. Rather, we should be using multiple drugs/interventions that have synergistic and overlapping biological effects that are safe, cheap and “readily” available. The impact of COVID-19 on middle- and low-income countries will be enormous; these countries will not be able to afford expensive designer molecules.

Figure 7. The consequences of “steroid” avoidance” [and ultimately HCQ+quality care-avoidance at an early stage of the disease before hospitalization]. CT scan after 23 days of “supportive care” demonstrating the late fibroproliferative (irreversible) phase of COVID-19 lung disease (Image kindly provide by Dr. Pierre Kory, from NYC).

Source: EVMS_Critical_Care_COVID-19_Protoco l.pdf (Eastern Virginia Medical School)

Once TPTB are buying shares in big pharma, can you really trust anything Pharma say or do? I am not saying they cannot own shares in big pharma, but there lies the problem, when pretty much every politico is bent, greedy and selfish, I wouldn't trust a thing these trials prove until they are independently proven by a private lab(s).

Does the FBI have a department monitoring the politicos like they do the narco's?

originally posted by: carewemust
a reply to: 727Sky

So far, it looks like only Hydroxychloroquine-based treatments continue to show promise.

-sigh-

Hydroxy plus Zinc.

Please stop cooperating with those who are ignoring what actually makes the hydroxy truly effective.

originally posted by: ManFromEurope
This was very much like the VA study - it was a look back study of hospitalized patients. You don't know if the very sick patients may have received this drug as a hail Mary type try.

Observational studies can never, ever prove anything.

And this one did not include the use of Zinc.

So, less than totally worthless, expect as intended - pure unadullterated propaganda BS mid/dis-information.

None of my family have had Covid-19 because we are The Griswolds, therefore, if you are called Griswold you cannot catch Covid-19.

Clark W Griswold.

a reply to: ignorant_ape

Remember that when I use an expression as "HCQ + quality care", I'm referring also to the proper usage of HCQ with the earlier substances mentioned to enhance its benefits, as well as prepare for a possible cytokine storm; followed up by the appropiate treatment to dampen the cytokine storm, which if you want the highest possible quality care, someone should find another substance for than immuno-suppressors like corticosteroids, for now, if I have to believe the EVMS' expression "near uniform success", it'll do, cause it's working, but we might be able to do even better, something that mimics the function of these corticosteroids, Methylprednisolone in their case, but suppresses the immune system a little bit less, allowing it to ward off those nasty bacteria in hospitals; or perhaps people can use this at home as part of an even earlier cytokine storm treatment, they did say "early and aggressive intervention"; but i doubt it'll be necessary if you do everything right in the outpatient setting: HCQ + Azithromycin/Doxycycline + zinc and relative amount of copper (10:1 ratio preferrable) + Vitamin C + Vitamin D3 + Melatonin + perhaps some other substances tailored to the specific needs of the patient and where they are in the disease. The term "HCQ + quality care" also includes giving HCQ as early as possible (the earlier the higher quality of care it is) and for the appropiate duration and in the appropiate amounts, patient specific (including a close assessment of the state of the disease and the state of the patient and their needs).

You know what I'd like which should be very easily done? An in vitro test using the following substances against the corona virus:

HCQ + Azithromycin or Doxycycline (2 seperate tests) + Quercetin + zinc + vitamin C + D3 + melatonin.

That can already tell you a lot. I also needed a way to mention Quercetin which I forgot before.

You can even test it in mice after infecting them with Covid-19. Which may sound a bit harsh to the mice, but it's worth it, and since it's already been proven to be effective against Covid-19, the mice will be fine. That's already more consideration given to these mice than all the mice that died in the development of the highly toxic snake-oil Remdesivir, or killed in other research by Big Pharma; who come to think of it, have a tendency to treat men even worse than mice*, since mice don't have any money to suck and wring from their veins (in some cases quite literally concerning the topic of the blood banking industry). What are we, men or mice?

*: as influential elements within the health care sector, the sciences, business, the media, politics and bureaucrats back their play

Just a quick edit: earlier in my commentary I used the term "permissive hypoxia" where I meant "permissive hypoxemia" as quoted in the comment thereafter from the EVMS.