Hydroxychloroquine Still Doesn’t Do Anything, New Data Shows

a reply to: Southern Guardian

Lovely end there with the name 'chinese virus'.

Thank you. I thought I would be kind enough to not call it the Kung Flu or WuFlu.

Now please excuse me; we have a discussion here that doesn't involve your rhetoric. I'll make time to listen to you babble later.

TheRedneck

a reply to: Serdgiam

Much information; thank you.

To really dig into that will require me to spend some time reading. I want any response to do justice to your post. Will probably be tomorrow before I reply, as my little laptop doesn't like too many tabs open at once.

TheRedneck

A few things here I wasn't aware of. I was of the mind that the role of iron in red blood cells was solely to transport oxygen. I have never heard it also plays an immunological role as well. Can you expand on that mechanism?

I also wasn't aware that zinc acted to absorb (or at least neutralize) iron, or that iron could be deemed "toxic." Can you expand on that?

a reply to: TheRedneck


I wasn't aware myself that Iron played a role in Immune response until I read the paper so no lol I cant expand on that, but an excess of Iron can most certainly be toxic yes. Males in particular have a tendency to have an excess iron while females commonly have to little iron which has something to do with there monthly cycle I'm sure.

Going off the fact that zinc is a known antiviral and is an essential mineral for immunity, and based on the reading I have done that describes hydroxychloroquine as a zinc ionophore, I assumed the zinc role was primarily in boosting natural immunity. Are you saying it performs a dual role, or is the zinc regulation simply a side effect in the treatment of this virus?

I am also interested in the antibacterial. I am assuming that is a major issue with advanced cases, correct? So you are effectively fighting both a viral infection and a bacterial one simultaneously? Is there a known link as to whether the bacterial infection worsens the viral infection or does the viral infection allow for a common bacterial infection?

Thanks in advance. I am trying to learn as much as I can about this thing and apply system analysis. The more I know of the normal and infected operations, the more accurate any analysis will be.

You assume correctly about zinc as it's often found in the OTC cold remedies for it's anti-viral properties , and yes zinc also absorbs Iron but Iron also absorbs zinc so essentially they neutralize each other . So yes logic would dictate there is a dual role here.

The Viral Infection that's any viral infection from the common cold to AIDS drastically weakens the bodies immune response , making the body extremely vulnerable to bacterial infections . That is the danger with AIDS patients its not the Virus that kills them , its usually an infection they catch that there body is just incapable of fighting off . It's the same with Covid-19 , the virus attacks the body in particular the pulmonary system , in turn allowing for bronchial infections.

With the common cold for example , you get a runny nose with green mucus right. It's not the virus that causes the green mucus , your body carries all kinds of bacterias constantly and it has no problem killing these bacteria's but when the Cold virus attacks all of the sudden these bacterias your immune system is used to fighting off can no longer fight them off so they infect you causing the common cold symptoms . A doctor writes you anti-biotics not to kill the Virus , but to kill the bacterial infection the Virus stays untill your body fights it off naturally . He could write anti-virals but thats ridiculous over kill for the common cold and very expensive.

a reply to: TheRedneck

Thank you. I thought I would be kind enough to not call it the Kung Flu or WuFlu.

What's the difference? You're parroting POTUS regardless.

Still nothing of substance that HCQ is an effective treatment against COVID19? Alright, you're excused now.

a reply to: puzzled2

Hydroxychloroquine Still Doesn’t Do Anything, New Data Shows

Yes Puzzled, it's called the title. There's also the body of the OP.

Again, come back us with substance k? Not your own 'expert' analysis.

a reply to: Southern Guardian

Haven't given expert analyst - gave expert's views of studies, link to studies from both sides showing the bias.

Tried to find the study in your news articles and still waiting for the body of evidence for this thread from you.

Is there a Gold standard randomized trials stating HCQ does not improve symptoms of coronavirus over standard care we can trust?

Do we assume as there is none,
that HCQ works or
they haven't done the right trial or
the scientist are distracted looking for Unicorns, for you and your buddy?

So much conflicting information - saw a quote - Ask 10 doctors for an opinion and you'll get 11 answers.

Unfortunately none from you. So unless your reply contains new data the snark will go unanswered.
Enjoy the squawking. Polly.

a reply to: Southern Guardian

Excuse me? Parroting Trump? I saw WuFlu and Kung Flu used on ATS... never heard Trump say say WuFlu, and when I did hear him say Kung Flu it was long after I first heard it here.

What do you want me to call it? Do you have a problem with the fact IT STARTED IN CHINA?

TheRedneck

originally posted by: Southern Guardian
a reply to: puzzled2

The thread is Hydroxychloroquine Still Doesn’t Do Anything, New Data Shows.
it seems to be a complete absence of any "New Data" to support the comment

Argument from Ignorance

Description: The assumption of a conclusion or fact based primarily on lack of evidence to the contrary. Usually best described by, “absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.”

Where are these studies that prove HCQ as an effective treatment against COVID-19?

Despite the suspicion that you'll just dismiss it for being non-randomized or not 'gold standard' or some other proposed justification for dismissing the numbers, the cold hard facts that are unambiguous regarding the question of whether or not HCQ helps in viral reduction, here's the study that matters most:

Hydroxychloroquine and azithromycin as a treatment of COVID-19: results of an open-label non-randomized clinical trial (the French study where D. Raoult was involved)

That study already shows enough. Mind you, regarding the part that is non-randomized, the treated patients were actually more sick than those untreated that were used for comparison. So pointing out that it's non-randomized, is not helping as an argument that somehow these results are giving the wrong picture because it's non-randomized, or are of lesser value, or some other reason to downplay them. If it was randomized, it would show an even greater benefit for HCQ and HCQ + Azithromycin; that's what these results demonstrate (in particular the detail about the treated patients being more sick).

a reply to: puzzled2

Haven't given expert analyst

You've insisted upon your own intepretations of studies above those of Birx and others, hence, for example, you insistance upon the effectiveness of Zinc as an addition. Pretty clear cut.

gave expert's views of studies

Like Simone Gold? Who has clear history of partisanship to the right, has yet to actually demonstrate any findings, and a participant of the Frontline doctors presentation alongside Demon seed lady?

These aren't experts. These are voluntary fronts pushing an agenda you support.

Is there a Gold standard randomized trials stating HCQ does not improve symptoms of coronavirus

The clear onus is on those touting HCQ as an effective COVID-19 treatment to demonstrate this. You continue to repeat this fallacy, and I'll continue to throw it right back.

Fallacy: Shifting the burden of truth

The source of the fallacy is the assumption that something is true unless proven otherwise. The person making a negative claim cannot logically prove nonexistence. And here's why: to know that a X does not exist would require a perfect knowledge of all things (omniscience).

So again, and I will repeat this back to you, where's your study demonstrating HCQ's effectiven treatment against COVID-19?

'Gold Standard' Clinical Trial Finds Hydroxychloroquine Won't Prevent COVID-1

Unlike some prior studies, this new trial was a "gold standard" prospective, randomized clinical trial. It found that hydroxychloroquine could not prevent COVID-19 any better than a sugar pill.

Worse, 40% of those taking hydroxychloroquine developed side effects including nausea, upset stomach or diarrhea. Fortunately, no serious side effects or heart problems occurred in the study

a reply to: TheRedneck

never heard Trump say say WuFlu

Yet you seem to be parroting him verbatim?

a reply to: whereislogic

]Despite the suspicion that you'll just dismiss it for being non-randomized or not 'gold standard' or some other proposed justification for dismissing the numbers, the cold hard facts

The cold hard fact is that they mean nothing in way of the proper, randomized, Gold Standard studies out there.

You don't set the rules here.

Cold hard facts.

a reply to: Southern Guardian

These aren't experts. These are voluntary fronts pushing an agenda you support.

So you are expert enough to decide who is and is not an expert?

Sounds like you're elevating yourself above the experts. Based on politics, no less.

TheRedneck

a reply to: Southern Guardian

You don't set the rules here.

Neither do you.

TheRedneck

a reply to: Serdgiam

Whoa! This may be a multi-part response...

Soulreaper has apparently done his homework. His explanations of the actual metabolics involved in iron regulation shed much light on my limited understanding of the process. He mentions hepcidin, which I have seen reports can be mimicked by a protein produced by the Chinese virus during replication. So the effect he mentions may be exaggerated in patients with severe symptoms.

What I find quite interesting is that malaria tends to attack the hemoglobin as well. I am unfamiliar with malaria in general, except that it is a serious disease borne by 'skeeters. Apparently the parasites in malaria feed off the iron in hemoglobin. In the reports I linked to asabuvsobelow, it is the disassociation of iron from hemoglobin that causes many of the more serious complications. This would explain why hydroxycloroquine, which is a malaria medication, has had some success in treating patients. The pathway used by both malaria and the Chinese virus merge at the hemoglobin level.

Of course, that brings up an interesting thought: assuming that what we know so far is accurate and the pathway employed by hydroxycloroquine operates to regulate iron disassociation form hemoglobin, then hydroxychloroquine may not be the optimal medication. There seem to be many pathways this virus uses to inflict cellular damage, with hydroxychloroquine addressing one. It also explains why the combination of hydroxychloroquine-zinc-azithromycin has such a more profound effect than any one of these alone.

Asabuvsobelow mentions this in the explanations given as well. The treatment is multi-faceted: hydroxychloroquine serves a dual purpose: regulation of zinc in the immune system for an antiviral response to target the virus itself, and regulation of iron. The zinc of course is an antiviral. The azithromycin is an anti-bacterial, which asabuvsobelow explains well to combat any complications before they arise from extant bacteria.

This multi-faceted attack seems to be the leading cause of the confusion surrounding the Chinese virus. I have long been of the opinion that intubation and ventilation must be introduced with extreme care, as too much pressure can force the hemoglobin-destroying proteins created during replication in lung cells into the bloodstream. Under normal operation, the lungs operate on a combination of positive and negative pressure... to breath in, we use negative pressure as our lungs expand, and to breathe out we use positive pressure. Both pressures are minimal. With a ventilator, especially set to an aggressive setting, the lungs begin operating under primarily positive pressure as forced air is used to inflate the lungs. This makes oxygenation easier, but it also can force materials through damaged alveoli. In the case of the Chinese virus... excuse me, that offends Southern Guardian, so make that the Kung Flu... part of that material forced into the bloodstream can contain the protein responsible for iron disassociation.

In essence, the ventilators are responsible for the final death of most intubated patients. They provide a method for getting oxygen into the bloodstream, but with this virus in doing so they also damage the bloodstream itself.

I find it interesting as well that he postulates that use of hydroxychoroquine or chloroquine could be responsible for a low production of antibodies and thus could subject the patient to later infections. That is a hypothesis that seems worthy of further study, although for now I know of no other treatment that has demonstrated any significant benefit other than the hydroxychloroquine-zinc-antibacterial treatment. That puts us in a precarious position and further demands more study be done as quickly as possible with no interference from government red tape. After reading Soulreaper's reports, I am coming to believe that hydroxychloroquine, despite its effectiveness, may not be optimal. Study of its effects and how they pertain to this particular virus, however, may present possibilities to duplicate the positive benefits and minimize the negatives.

OK, I got that part in one post... I need to read this material over a few times, though, to try and get a fuller grasp on the mechanisms described.

TheRedneck

originally posted by: Southern Guardian
a reply to: puzzled2

'Gold Standard' Clinical Trial Finds Hydroxychloroquine Won't Prevent COVID-1

Unlike some prior studies, this new trial was a "gold standard" prospective, randomized clinical trial. It found that hydroxychloroquine could not prevent COVID-19 any better than a sugar pill.

Worse, 40% of those taking hydroxychloroquine developed side effects including nausea, upset stomach or diarrhea. Fortunately, no serious side effects or heart problems occurred in the study

So your gold study on benefits of HCQ randomly sent out 821 pills to randomly volunteered people in randomly pre-exposed situations to see if it prevented them getting the virus. --
Conducted phone interviews and allowed people to self-diagnose. With no verification if they previously or currently had it, if they really were exposed to the virus or if any reported symptom was real.

Great study - Gold Standard here's a review with more insight than You or I could apply COVID-19 Treatment Analysis
Boulware et al. Comments

Only 75% of people reported taking the medication as directed. Actual compliance could be lower. In the OFID podcast, Dr. Boulware notes there were fake submissions with 555 numbers that were removed, there may be more fake submissions that were not identified.

Note that author's comments also differ from the published conclusion -
for example in the OFID podcast
Dr. Boulware has said: "There’s probably two reasons – one is either it just doesn’t work, or the other option is we just didn’t get it to them quick enough.
So if you read the tea leaves and look at the subgroup analyses, the people that got enrolled within one or two days of exposure did better than the people that did three or four days later."

Please help with my understanding of the superior merits of this mail-out, phone interviews, self-diagnosing subjects who had been known to have been pre-exposed to the virus, unknown compliance level study.

Perhaps Phage would like to discuss the merits of the study with us.

a reply to: TheRedneck

First.. As a suspicious tangent, the Gates Foundation has funded Oxitec (the company releasing genetically modified mosquitos) to the tune of $5.8m+

So, the treatment protocol I came up with a while back was:

Early: RdRPs inhibitors

Lots of options here, from zinc ionophores + zinc to Remdesivir (which, for whatever reason, is being used for later stages)

Intermediate: Anything that tackles oxidative stress, excess iron, cardio/epithelial health, etc. This can be Vit C, NAC, Lumbrokinase, NOACs, hydrogen rich water/atmosphere, melatonin, Vit D, tocotrienols, even artemisinin, etc.

Severe/Late: Corticosteroids to suppress immune response.

There can be plenty of overlap there too, particularly with the "benign" stuff. Season with antibiotics for taste

So, patient comes in.. First test should be 25-hydroxy levels. If not 45-60ng/ml, administer Vit D. Then, go for patient appropriate antiviral (EGCg + Zinc might be the best tolerated, and compares to HCQ in many ways). Typical vitamins/minerals can be started at any time, depending on patient and their levels. Lumbrokinase can as well. If the immune response starts to cascade, hit it with a strong immunosuppresant like corticosteroids. Handling oxygen intake/oxidative stress can be done throughout.

I would add that there are also environmental factors that can assist in all this. Everything from live plants in the patients space (or house, of course) at a spacing of roughly 1 plant per 100 sqft, to the reduction or elimination of specific EMF ranges. Reducing mental & emotional stress, while frequently overlooked, can play a huge role as well. Not only does ventilation not really address the issue (when programmed for pressure), it can stress the patients body to an extreme degree even if sedated/unconscious (exacerbating the cytokine storm).

Im not sure HCQ is optimal either, honestly. However, it has the.. Lets call it "social weight," to really bring a lot of this stuff to light. From what I can tell, this treatment protocol would be effective for a massive, massive amount of viral infections. Particularly those that result in cytokine storms (which is more frequent than many realize).

The long term damage associated with covid also tends to be present in other viral infections. I suspect that these could be greatly alleviated by using proper, stage-targeted treatments. But, thats a whole 'nother level to all this.

If a protocol like I describe here would be effective for viruses in general, and would ameliorate the long term issues associated with viral infections.. That would be extraordinarily damaging to profit and the medical apparatus as a whole. It would also, imo, suggest that a lot of people have a lot to answer for, both for SARS-CoV-2 as well as many others. Some can readily be explained by getting mired in the complexity of our exploration (we both probably know this risk very well), but certainly not all..

I dont think the fight is over HCQ, I think its to prevent a paradigm shift in our understanding and approach to viruses in general. A shift that would not only harm profits of massive industries, but could reduce fear and even shatter the long-term Narrative/marketing surrounding corporate vaccines.

They are literally pulling out all the stops on this, while carefully shaping the Narrative solely around HCQ, either for or against. That suggest to me there is a helluva lot more going on here, and if my research this year is anything to go by.. Its Big Stuff.

a reply to: Serdgiam



Nothing to do with HCQ before we get jumped on for thread drift just posting for confirmation of your future virus treatments.

a reply to: Serdgiam

I haven't found anything that shows ECGC as a zinc ionophore. My info is that it is an anti-oxidant. That would be quite useful since Soulreaper theorizes that the virus uses metabolic pathways that can be countered through anti-oxidants, but I'm not sure if it would provide the benefits of hydroxychloroquine.

I do agree with the rest of your proposal. Vitamin D, for instance, has been shown to be helpful. If D does serve as an aid against viral infections in general, that easily explains why viruses generally tend to become less infectious during the summer.

I think we need more research into the effect hydroxychloroquine has on iron dissolution. If we can discover what pathways are being used to accomplish this, we should be able to design a molecule that duplicates that particular aspect, thereby bypassing any negative effects.

I dont think the fight is over HCQ, I think its to prevent a paradigm shift in our understanding and approach to viruses in general. A shift that would not only harm profits of massive industries, but could reduce fear and even shatter the long-term Narrative/marketing surrounding corporate vaccines.

I tend to agree with that analysis. Remdesivir, for instance, hydroxychloroquine's major "competition" in the present search for a treatment, has been around for several years. It had not been approved for use against any diseases before receiving emergency approval for treating the WuFlu. It seems obvious to me that Gilead has a serious financial stake in finding a use for a medication they have invested a small fortune in with no return to date. Suddenly it now a major player to combat this virus... why wouldn't Gilead work diligently to eliminate their major competition, hydroxychloroquine?

We as a society have allowed profit to override medical science. That is no different than placing money ahead of lives. Yes, a lot of people have a lot to answer for.

TheRedneck

a reply to: TheRedneck

Ill reply a bit more in depth later, but Here is a pretty interesting study regarding EGCg.

Here(PDF) is the paper, if one doesnt have full access.

Oh! And great, fast info about Green Tea in general

originally posted by: Southern Guardian
a reply to: whereislogic

]Despite the suspicion that you'll just dismiss it for being non-randomized or not 'gold standard' or some other proposed justification for dismissing the numbers, the cold hard facts

The cold hard fact is that they mean nothing in way of the proper, randomized, Gold Standard studies out there.

You don't set the rules here.

Cold hard facts.

That's not a fact, it's an opinion, and a pretty poor one at that. And if you wanna exchange opinions now anyway (even though you might not be interested in mine, if you're indulging...), so-called 'gold standard' clinical trials are quite dubious if performed by those with a clear motive to paint the picture that "Hydroxychloroquine Still Doesn’t Do Anything", as per the thread title. In that scenario (which is the scenario we're looking at now), honest non-randomized clinical trials by those with no clear motive to paint a misleading picture on the subject, trump so-marketed 'gold standard' clinical trials that are more akin to marketing/sales-pitches against HCQ. Even case studies trump so-perceived 'gold standard' clinical trials that are biased like that.

There's nothing 'gold standard' about biased manipulated reports and 'studies' anyway, no matter how well you dress up your sales pitch and make it look like it's a very well done study without already having an agenda ahead of time what you are going to say about HCQ. Even occasionally (or quite often even perhaps) intentionally setting it up to make HCQ look like it doesn't help (5 days max. treatment, early intubation, late inpatient treatment, no additional relevant care tailored to the patient such as corticosteroids at the right time when warranted or needed or the right combination of vitamins and minerals, no close patient observation and assessment, screwing up the treatment of HCQ patients while giving better care to your control group by holding off on intubation while being quick to put the HCQ patients on intubation, or worse, the "horrible care" described in this video, etc.).

But way to be predictable and do exactly what I said I suspected you would do. Typical. Reminds me of the way you use links to a news article about the retracted Lancet 'study' that still tries to use that publication as an argument against the use of HCQ in Covid-19, a.k.a. SARS-CoV-2 (official designation*).

*: for example:

Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 - Wikipedia

... (SARS-CoV-2) ...

There seemed to be some confusion about that topic before in this thread (when some of you guys were talking about SARS-CoV-1).

"double standard: a rule or principle which is unfairly applied in different ways to different people or groups." (Source: Google's English dictionary)